PBS News Hour - Full Show - November 20, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: November 21, 2025

Thursday on the News Hour, the jobs report shows strong hiring but higher unemployment as the Fed comes under more pressure from the president. The Trump administration comes up with plans to end the war in Ukraine, which require significant concessions that Ukraine has previously rejected. Plus, the Trump family’s promotion of cryptocurrency raises questions about profiting from the presidency. 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 Nawaz on the news hour tonight. The jobs report delayed by the federal shutdown shows better than expected hiring, but there are still big questions for the Federal Reserve and more pressure from the president. The Trump administration comes up with plans to end the war in Ukraine, which requires significant concessions Ukraine has previously rejected. And the Trump family's promotion of cryptocurrency raises questions of, influence and profiting from the presidency.

People who are based in foreign countries and are banned from donating to the political process in the U.S. have this new route for directing money toward the president. Welcome to the news hour. Job growth was better than expected in the September with 119,000 new jobs added. Those were the best job gains since April. The unemployment rate rose to 4.4 percent, its highest level in four years, as about half a million people re-entered the labor force. The official report comes seven weeks late after the government shutdown, making it the first federal snapshot of the labor market since agencies reopened. But key economic data is still missing, and questions remain about the true

strength of the economy. The uncertainty now lands squarely on the Federal Reserve as it prepares to consider another rate cut. Austin Goolsby, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, is one of the officials weighing that decision. I spoke with him earlier today. Austin Goolsby, welcome back to the News Hour. Yeah, thank you for having me, Jeff. And let's start with your reaction to the September jobs report, looking at the numbers, slightly better than expected, solid hiring, but the unemployment rate creeped up a bit. What's your read on what this report is actually saying about the direction of the economy? Well, better late than never.

You know, we're not getting this number until well after when we normally would have gotten it. So a little bit, it's a misleading indicator of where things are headed because it's out of date. But I think mostly the numbers show that job markets remained steady in an unusual low, high. low-firing kind of environment. So normally, if you have low hiring, you have high-firing and high layoffs or the reverse. But here, whether because there's a lot of uncertainty or for other reasons, we're in a moment where the unemployment rate remains fairly low by historical standards is gradually cooling, but overall pretty steady, I think.

You mentioned the delay in getting the September jobs report. Of course, during the shutdown, there was a blackout of official government economic data. How much does that complicate the Fed's ability to accurately assess the economy right now? A lot. And it complicates it a lot. And the same people who are collecting the job numbers also collect inflation numbers. And whereas on the job side, we at least have some pretty decent income. indicators, even when the official jobs numbers are delayed or not coming out. We have some private sector sources at the state level.

The new unemployment claims give us some reading. The Chicago Fed itself puts out its labor market indicators. On the inflation side, it's even more problematic because there aren't nearly as many private sector sources to tell us about what's happening with inflation. So it definitely complicates the job of a central bank if you're not getting the information you need. There's been some anxiety in the market this past week over whether the surge in AI investment was turning into something of a bubble. Where do you stand on that? Is too much of the economy leaning on that sector? It might be. Look, it's always hard to figure out if you're in a bubble.

It's certainly got very high valuations in the stock market. If you're old enough, you'll remember the late 90s and going into 2000, and it does have some things that feel in that nature. That said, it's been a major determinant, powering business investment in the country. Normally, business investment is quite cyclical. Even if you knew it were a bubble, can a central bank pop a bubble? Is that appropriate? I don't know. I do think very low interest rates in the face of a bubble threatened to fuel it.

So it's something that I'm monitoring, and the Chicago Fed, we're monitoring quite a lot for financial stability reasons if you could have a popping bubble. That has caused recessions in the recent past in the United States. So what's all that mean for the potential for another rate cut in December? I don't like, I never like, as you know, tie in our hands before we go into the meeting when we're still going to get some information, and especially at moments like this where we're trying to figure out, is this a transitional moment? I do want to hear from my colleagues because they have some interesting worldviews different from mine. That said, I'm no

Hawke looking at rates over the medium run, I still think with stable employment, if we can get back on a path to 2% inflation and get past this uptick that we've been seeing, I think rates can go down a fair amount from where they are now. But I'm a little uneasy front-loading too many rate cuts and just assuming that the inflation we've seen is going to be transitory. That makes me uneasy with too much front-loading. And even as the Fed has eased rates over this past year, the pressure from President Trump, as you well know, has not let up.

Just yesterday, he went after Fed chair, Jerome Powell, again, encouraged the Treasury Secretary to pressure Powell as well. Take a listen. Mortgage rates are down despite the Fed. I mean, Scott, you've got to work in this guy. He's got some real mental problems. And now, he's something wrong with him. It's just, sweet, I, I,

I'd be honest, I'd love to fire his ass. He should be fine. Guy's grossly incompetent. What's this all mean for the Fed's independence? And beyond that, perceptions of the Fed's independence. I've been in the Fed coming on three years. I was a research economist 30 years before that. Economists are close to unanimous that a central bank must be independent of political interference

when setting the interest rate. If there isn't independence of the central bank, inflation comes roaring back. Growth is worse. Unemployment is worse because somebody's got to be taking a broader view, and that Fed independence is crucially important. So it pains me if we're having public discussions about whether the Fed should be independent. It should be independent.

Now, if the president has a view about where we are in the economy, there are many people who have views on the economy, and I try to keep track of those views and take seriously what the arguments are. At the end of the day, the FOMC, my observation is everybody takes the job very seriously. and you can look at the minutes, you can look at the transcripts for yourself. It's not about anything other than the economic outlook and the data, and that's what it should be. So outside opinions are important, and everybody has one, but the decisions have got to be made on the data, and that takes place inside the room of the FOMC meeting.

Austin Gouldsby, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Always great to speak with you. Yeah, wonderful to see you again. PBS NewsHour has obtained the 28-point plan drafted by the Trump administration to try to end the war in Ukraine. The document is at the center of a pivotal, ongoing diplomatic visit to Kyiv by U.S. Army Secretary. Dan Driscoll. It references Ukrainian security guarantees, but also demands Ukraine give up territory, cap the size of its military, and blocks NATO from sending troops to Ukraine. U.S. officials emphasize it is a working document. Here's Nick Schiffin with more.

Today in Ukraine, grief. Residents of the western city of Ternopo honored children killed yesterday by a Russian missile that cut this apartment building in half. It's the kind of attack that has pushed Ukraine to demand punishment. But the Trump administration says it's pushing for peace. Secretary of the U.S. Army, Dan Driscoll, the Army's civilian leader, is in Kiev on an unusual diplomatic mission. And today gave Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a new American framework. It would include security guarantees that Ukraine has been demanding.

But the Trump administration has made clear both sides will need to make compromises. A full 28-point plan, received and provided to PBS NewsHour by a senior European official, not only includes security guarantees for Ukraine, but also long-standing Russian demands. Ukraine would have to limit the size of its military. NATO would not be allowed to send any troops into Ukraine. And Ukraine would have to give up the portion of the Donetsk region that it still controls, that Russia has failed to capture despite 11 years of war. That territory would be internationally recognized as Russian, but demilitarized.

That would give Russia control over the entire Donbass. The U.S. would then recognize the Donbass occupied Crimea and the occupied portions of Zaporizia and Kherson as de facto Russian. In addition, NATO would change its language to not admit Ukraine in the future. The U.S. would lift sanctions on Russia in stages and on a case-by-case basis. All parties would receive, quote, full amnesty for their actions. And $100 billion of frozen Russian assets would be earmarked for Ukrainian reconstruction. Tonight, Zelensky said he would negotiate off the text presented by Driscoll constructively.

We agreed that our teams will work on these proposals to ensure it's all genuine. We will not make any sharp statements, and we're geared up for clear and honest work. Good afternoon, everybody. At the White House, spokesperson Caroline Levitt said the 28-point plan had been quietly developed over the last month by Special Envoy Steve Whitkoff and Secretary of State Marker Rubio. They've been engaging with both sides, Russia and Ukraine, equally, to understand what these countries would commit to in order to see a lasting and durable peace. The president supports this plan. It's a good plan for both Russia and Ukraine, and we believe that it should be acceptable to both sides. On a rare trip to the front line, Russian President Vladimir Putin maintained his version of what's acceptable, once again describing Ukraine's government as illegitimate.

of individuals, this criminal group, an organized criminal community that has usurped power, and under the pretext of the need to continue the war with Russia is holding power in Ukraine for personal enrichment. But we all have our own goals. The main one, of course, is achieving the goals of the special military operation. But for the European countries that have collectively provided as many weapons to Ukraine as the U.S., the U.S.'s. 28-point plan missed the main point. EU foreign policy chief Kayakhalas. The pressure must be on the aggressor, not on the victim. Rewarding aggression will only invite more of it. The EU has a very clear two-point plan. First, weak in Russia,

second, support Ukraine. French foreign minister, Jean-Nuel Barol. Peace cannot mean capitulation. We do not want Ukraine to surrender, as you can imagine the Ukrainians who have heroically resisted Russia's uninhibited aggression for more than three years will never accept any form of capitulation. And tonight, White House spokeswoman Caroline Levitt released a statement that concludes, quote, this plan was crafted to reflect the realities of the situation after five years of devastating war to find the best win-win scenario, where both parties gain more than they must give.

Amna? Negata, you've been talking to officials and analysts to get their take on this plan. And what are they telling? A senior European official who hopes to help Ukraine resist Russia believes that Europe can help edit these points so that they are more pro-Ukrainian. An analysts who are along those same lines fear that there's too many poison pills in this plan. Number one, it limits the size of the Ukrainian military while not putting any limits on the size of the Russian military. And the language on non-aggression is really non-enforceable, as one person put it, meaning Ukraine will not be self-reliant in the future.

Number two, no punishment of Russia for widespread war crimes, despite language in there that we reported about $100 billion of currently frozen assets going for reconstruction and changes NATO's constitution. Very difficult analysts who want this to work. Tell me, look, there needs to be a concrete framework for Ukrainian security guarantees if this is ever going to work. Nick Schiffin, great reporting as always. Thank you. Thank you. We start the day's other headlines at Washington, D.C.,'s National Cathedral. A funeral service for former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney brought together a bipartisan gathering of family and former leaders. The front pews were filled with former presidents George W. Bush and Joe Biden, plus four former vice presidents from both parties. In their eulogies, President Bush and Cheney's daughter Liz honored his sense of duty and commitment to his country.

His time produced an old breed of public servant, defined by their substance and character. This was the vice president totally devoted to protecting the United States and its interests. There was never any agenda or angle beyond that. But he knew that bonds of party must always yield. to the single bond we share as Americans. For him, a choice between defense of the Constitution and defense of your political party was no choice at all. President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance were not in attendance today,

as they were not invited. Cheney rather famously voted for Vice President Kamala Harris, a Democrat in the 2024 election, as he put it, quote, to put country above partisanship. The Trump administration today, announced one of its most ambitious plans yet to drill for oil off the nation's coasts. The proposal would open up nearly 1.3 billion acres of coastal waters to oil and gas drilling. That includes leases for new drilling off the coasts of California and Florida for the first time in decades,

as well as a remote region off Alaska called the High Arctic, where such drilling has never taken place. Critics have slammed the plan, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, who's called it, quote, dead on arrival. Federal investigators say there was evidence of cracks in the engine mount of the UPS cargo plane that crashed two weeks ago in Kentucky, killing 14 people. A series of photos released today show the engine on the plane's left wing starting to detach during takeoff. Officials say the plane only managed to get 30 feet off the ground. The NTSB said the plane was last examined in 2021 and that it wasn't due for any detailed inspections of the parts in question. The Justice Department now has 30.

days to release files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after President Trump signed the bill last night calling for them to be made public. This includes an estimated 100,000 pages from multiple DOJ investigations into Epstein and his convicted co-conspirator Galane Maxwell. But the bill does allow for redactions to protect the victim's identities and ongoing investigations, among others. The meantime, former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers says he will take a leave of absence from teaching at Harvard. After recently released emails show Summers kept a friendly relationship with Epstein well after Epstein's 2008 conviction. In Gaza, hospital officials say Israeli strikes killed at least 33 people overnight, including

children. The attacks are some of the deadliest since the U.S. brokered ceasefire last month. Israel says they responded to soldiers coming under fire in the southern city of Khan Yunus yesterday. Khamas has denied firing at Israeli troops. Two of Ezeldin Khashko's children were killed in the strike. He spoke with our Gaza producer, Shamsodei. They were killed in a shelter that hosted people who were displaced, who have lost their homes. These are children and women who have nothing to do with this.

Honest people living amongst the community. The unjust criminal occupation murdered them, without empathy or mercy. Also today, a report from Human Rights Watch says that Israel may have committed war crimes forcibly expelling 32,000 Palestinians from three West Bank refugee camps earlier this year. Israel has said the raids were necessary to prevent militant activity. The Associated Press, meanwhile, reports that Israel's civil administration is planning to seize parts of Sebastian, a major West Bank historic site. An anti-settlement group claims this would be one of Israel's largest seizures of archivalists.

biological important land yet. Back in this country, Verizon is cutting more than 13,000 jobs as part of an effort to, in its words, reorient the company. The wireless carrier is looking to shrink costs and restructure its operations as it faces rising competition and a shrinking pool of new customers. Its stock ended 1% lower after the news. Elsewhere on Wall Street today, stocks gave up early gains to close sharply lower. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 400 points. The NASDAQ dropped almost 500 points. The S&P 500 also ended the day firmly in the red. Still to come, on the news hour, President Trump calls for Democrats to be arrested for urging the military to refuse unlawful orders. The debate over a spike in health care premiums

under the Affordable Care Act. And the Trump administration considers suing states who regulate artificial intelligence. This is the PBS NewsHour from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington and in the west from the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. Half a dozen Democrats in Congress with military and intelligence backgrounds are urging current service members to ignore the chain of command if they're given unlawful orders. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just, coming from abroad, but from right here at home.

Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. Now, they didn't specify which orders they consider unlawful, but President Trump has fired back. Writing on social media, these members of Congress should be, quote, arrested and put on trial, saying their actions are seditious behavior from traitors, that is, quote, punishable by death. Congressman Jason Crowe of Colorado is a retired Army Ranger, and one of the Democrats

you just heard from in that video, he joins me now. Congressman, welcome to the show. Thanks for joining us. Hi, Amna. So Caroline Levitt, the White House press secretary, was asked about all this in the briefing today. I just want to play for you her response. Just to be clear, does the president want to execute members of Congress? No. Let's be clear about what the president is responding to. You have sitting members of the United States Congress who conspired together to orchestrate a video message to members of the United States military to active duty service members to members of the national security apparatus, encouraging them to defy the president's lawful orders. Congressman, I just want to get your response to the latest from the White House on

this. Well, first off, Caroline Levitt is just lying. We specifically said to unlawful orders, that they don't have to obey unlawful orders, which actually is what the Constitution says, with uniform code of military justices, and what we were trained on when we were in uniform as well. This administration wants people to think that simply reminding people of their oath and what the law requires is somehow criminal and should result in treason and hanging. Because secondly, that is what the president said this morning. He called for a treason trial. He called for our arrest. And he called specifically for our execution by hanging. So to be specific here than Congressman,

which unlawful orders are you asking military members to refuse? What did you see that prompted you and others to make this video? The point of this video was not to point to specific orders. It's to prepare our service members, our young men and women, who are going to be put in very difficult positions in the years ahead to understand their oath and their obligation. And there's plenty of reason to be concerned. Donald Trump actually asked whether he could shoot protesters in the leg during the protest of Lafayette Square. Donald Trump has said he's going to go to war with Chicago and send troops into our cities, several of which have already been declared illegal by federal courts. So there's plenty of reason to be concerned. And we want to start a public

conversation about what the obligation of our troops really is in the very same way, I will say, that I did before I deployed my paratrooper platoon to Iraq in 2000 tree. Because once you get to the point where they are faced with an instant decision, it's too much. late if you haven't already had that conversation with them. Congressman, for military members who are trying to navigate this now, I want to put to you what I heard from the Director of the Orders Project, which is a nonprofit that offers legal advice to military service members who are unclear about their orders, are worried about them, and they have been seeing an uptick in calls recently.

But this person also said that any service member who disobeys an order on the basis that it's unlawful does run the risk that a military judge will disagree, and then they have to face the consequences. Are you saying to military members, they should take on that? risk? Well, listen, every military member takes on that risk. Service is hard. Being in the military is very hard. So what we want to do is send a message that, you know, members of Congress, they're fellow veterans, we stand by them, we see them, and we are reminding them of their oath. Congressman, you know, you have served honorably. We thank you for your service. So did most

in that video, but so did retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey. And he had this to say in response to your video. He said, this action by Democrats is unwarranted and dangerous. focus on your own responsibilities in Congress to oppose military actions you believe are wrong or illegal, support the judicial system to push back, don't call on the military to stop Trump. What do you say to that? Well, we're not calling on the military to stop Trump. We're calling on the military to fulfill oaths. And unfortunately, I think General McCaffrey doesn't understand the moment that we're in.

The challenges of this administration is presenting to the troops. And I think he doesn't understand the time and the challenges that leaders face right now. not trust that the courts will continue to push back or slow or stop Trump policies as they've been doing? They may. They may not. And even when courts issue orders, you know, over a third of the time this administration disregards lawful orders of the courts, right? They simply disregard court orders time and time again. So, you know, my job as a member of Congress is to do everything possible to uphold the Constitution and to defend this country. I don't rely on anybody to help me fulfill my duties, right? This is a project that the entire country needs to undertake. Courts have an

obligation, citizens have an obligation, the military has an obligation, law enforcement has an obligation, and I have mine. We saw Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer say today he's asked for special protections for Senator Slotkin and Kelly, who appeared with you in that video after President's posts about seditions. Are you worried about your own safety? Have you seen any increase in threats since the President's posts? Yeah, we've received threats. we take those very seriously. I mean, this is actually making the point that the president continues to incite violence in vitriolic rhetoric and partisanship over and over again. And it's very serious stuff. People sometimes act on what Donald Trump and others say.

They certainly did on January 6th. So I understand the threats that we face right now. I take those seriously, but I will not be intimidated. But what Donald Trump wants is he wants to use fear and intimidation to silence dissent, to silence opposition, and to silence speech. And I am not allowed, I'm not going to allow that to happen, right? Because the moment we allow that to happen is the moment we lose our democracy. And I will not allow it to happen. You know, fear is contagious, but so is courage. And I intend to lead. Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado, thank you for making the time to speak with us. We appreciate it. Thank you. We are just weeks away from some 20 million Americans seeing a major spike in their health care premiums.

That's unless Congress works to extend the subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Lawmakers expanded and boosted those tax credits during the pandemic, making coverage more affordable for millions of families. But if the subsidies expire at the end of the year, premiums would double for the average enrollee, and some people could see their monthly costs rise by more than $1,000. William Brangham joins us now with more, William. Jeff, that's right. This battle over extending subsidies was at the very heart of the recent government shutdown, but Democrats were not successful in securing any deal,

and now both parties remain deadlocked over this issue. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than 2 million will not be able to pay these higher premiums or other costs, and thus will drop their insurance. Here's what we heard from some people who are afraid of just that. My name is Crystal Acres, and I live in Bowling Green, Kentucky. I got to notice October 1st that my premium as of November 1st would be going up over $500. My name is Rashonda Young, and I live in Waterloo, Iowa.

My premiums with the premium tax credit are $94 per month, and with, Without that credit, they go to $592 a month. My name is Tanika Mason, and I live in Dayton, Tennessee. My husband logged on to the marketplace the first day it was available and saw that our premiums are going to increase by $1,100, and that is actually devastating to us. The increase is about 225% from what we were paying previously. I am Melissa Ruff. I'm in Jacksonville, Florida.

if nothing happens with the subsidies being extended by December 31st, my premiums will go from $238 a month to $1,308 a month for my insurance, which is not even top of the line insurance. The subsidies through the marketplace since the ACA went into effect have allowed me to have insurance as a single parent. Without that, it's, it's, it's, unmanageable for my budget. I had gotten a breast cancer diagnosis a little over a year ago. And so, you know, having a good, reliable plan was incredibly helpful because even with a plan, you know, you've got to pay your deductible. So I still had to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket, but at least my monthly premiums were affordable. Our daughter is a brain cancer survivor, and we have

to go with the insurer that covers the specialist that she needs. My husband and myself also have health issues that require multiple visits with specialists throughout the year. So not having insurance is not an option for us. It would ruin us financially. I found out in 2022 that I had heart disease. So it allowed me to have a cardiac calf at very minimal cost. and stress testing and echocardiograms and mammograms and GYN and everything else and all of my

medications. So now without it, without any health insurance, that's what I'm facing. I think the ACA was a step in the right direction. My biggest problem with it is how unstable it's gotten. So it becomes impossible, I think, for the middle class to get ahead. I would not have been able to get health care back prior to the ACA because of pre-existing conditions. So now the pre-existing condition thing with Obamacare, is that going to be cut to? The frustrating thing for me is that you have members of Congress who have an incredible health insurance plan. They don't understand what it's like to have to decide between, you know, health insurance and decreasing my food budget for the month.

I'm still in the process of figuring out what I'm going to do next. As far as I'm concerned right now, I don't have insurance. I turned off my payment for November, and I've just got to figure out my options. I have chosen to go without insurance in 2026. I'm not going to be able to afford it. It was such a surprise for me to get a cancer diet. And so just knowing that life happens and not having it is also not an option. So extending these subsidies would cost an estimated $350 billion over the next decade.

The president and a number of Republicans have suggested they would rather give that money to people directly rather than to insurance companies. So for a deeper dive on what we do now, we get two different views. Jonathan Cohn is senior writer at the bulwark and author of The Ten-Year War, Obamacare and the Unfinished Crusade for Universal Coverage. And Brian Blaze is president of Paragon Health Institute. He served on the National Economic Council during the First Trump administration. He testified in front of Congress yesterday on rising health care costs. Gentlemen, welcome to you both.

Jonathan Cohn, to you first, we just heard from several of people who are a lot of people. alarmed at the prospect of what might happen to their insurance if these subsidies are not extended. Given the deadline that we are up against, what do you think is the best course of action? What should we be doing now? Well, if you're just talking short term, I think there's a pretty easy answer to that. Extend the subsidies for one year or for two years. There's a broader conversation to be had about how to fix the health care system, how to either improve or change the Affordable Care Act. This is a debate we've been having for 10 years. Democrats put forward legislation at the beginning of this year to talk about that. People like us have been talking

about this for months. The time to sort of do a bigger conversation was six months ago because it takes time to work these things out. Brian, Blase, you testified before Congress yesterday, arguing that the ACA and somehow the way these subsidies are structured is a principal driver of rising costs. The president, as I mentioned, is suggested funneling that money directly to individuals instead. What do you make of that idea? What do you think we ought to be doing now? Yeah, and thanks for having me on. So there was bipartisan agreement at the hearing yesterday that the Affordable Care Act has failed to make health insurance affordable. It's led to coverage with significantly higher premiums, deductibles, and narrow networks. And one of the areas

of confusion here is that the subsidies remain in place. For 94% of enrollees, they will maintain significant taxpayer assistance for coverage. That is not going away. What is at issue is a COVID-era policy that increase these subsidies that go directly to health insurance companies. And there are key structural problems with the ACA, and these subsidies that go directly to health insurance companies go to many enrollees that don't use health care services at all. So 35% of all enrollees in 24 didn't use their plan a single time. Part of the problem is a surge of fraud that has entered the program with these enhanced subsidies. And so what is happening is taxpayers are sending a of money to insurers on behalf of people that don't get any medical care.

And I think we need to address the core structural problems at the root of the ACA that have led to a deterioration in the quality of health insurance. And continuing these inefficient subsidies will mean that we don't improve the quality of coverage in that program. Jonathan Cohn, how do you respond to that? That's something that the way these subsidies are structured, they're going to people who may not necessarily seem to need them immediately. They're incredibly costly, and that perpetuating them only kicks the can down the road. Okay, so, well, there's a lot to unpack there. Let's focus on this

one question of the people who are getting subsidies and not using them for claims, because this has come up a lot. It is true. There's data from the government that, you know, 30 percent or I think it's actually even a little higher now of enrollees at the ACA. Don't, you know, don't file. a claim during the year. And this is supposed to be evidence that you have people who are sort of misenrolled, fraudulently enrolled. You know, something to remember. I mean, the fact that you don't use insurance in a year doesn't mean it's wasted, especially younger, healthier people are going to go and have periods when they're not, you know, when I was 27, I don't think I went to the doctor for like three years at one point. Then the fraud issue is real. There has

been an uptick in fraud. But if you look at where the fraud is, and actually, there's some really good research on this from Brian's research organization, Paragon. What they note is really concentrated in the states where they use the federal website, healthcare.gov. And there were a number of changes made to healthcare.gov that made it easier for brokers to enroll people directly. And everything we, you know, you look at what's going on, a lot of this is brokers behaving badly. That's terrible. We should do something about that. But, you know, you can do something about that without taking away financial assistance from people. And the proof of this, is that the states that didn't make those broker changes didn't see nearly the kind of broker fraud.

Brian, back to this issue of the deadline that we have approaching here. There is, both from a political perspective, with midterms looming, Republicans don't want to be blamed for this sudden spike in premiums. Do you think that what the president and some Republicans have floated as far as, rather than extending the subsidies, but funneling the money to individuals, Do you think that is workable? And do you think it is workable in the time frame allotted? So let me clarify again that the subsidies remain in place and 94% of the enrollees will receive subsidies still.

It means the government is paying a substantial share of their premium. So for the typical enrolling next year, the federal government is going to pay more than 80% of the subsidy. I think that there are proposals out there that can redirect. the portion of the subsidies from the insurer to the patient. There's actually a policy that was put in the House Pass version of the reconciliation bill. It would have lowered premiums by 12%. And what you could do is you could allow individuals to take a portion of that subsidy that currently goes to insurers to reduce plan deductibles and out-of-pocket limits. And you can give it to enrollees has an HSA contribution so that the enrollee controls the spending.

I think fundamentally, the way that we reform our health care system and make it more affordable is to give more power to the patient and stop sending so much federal government directly to health insurance companies. That is not the way to make a system more efficient. It's the way to keep premiums and prices rising because it gives insurers very bad incentives where their incentives are just to continue to inflate premiums and the prices that they pay for health care services. Jonathan, the last question to you, what about that idea?

And will it get done in time, do you think, by the end of this year? And what might this do to the marketplace itself? Yeah. So, I mean, I think trying to put in place something like this the next six weeks, I mean, we're three weeks into open enrollment. The next plan year begins in less than two months is ridiculous. trying to set something up like this on short notice is not going to work. There are lots of reasons to be skeptical.

I mean, there are versions of accounts that would work perfectly fine, and, you know, I think we're just getting the legislative details now, and some of that would work out quite well for some people, but there's lots of reason to think it's not a magic bullet. People, we've got data on this. People are terrible at shopping for health care. And lots of reasons to fear that this will shift the burden of health care spending onto people with big medical expenses. And I think that gets to the basic divide here. Is your top priority to spend less money, believing maybe that will make the health care system more efficient

unless government is better? That's a respectful point of view. Or is your top priority to make sure people get as much help as possible because health care is so expensive, even if that means spending more money, even if that means bigger government. And I think that's the choice we face here. All righty, my top priority is a more affordable, accountable health system that improves Americans health over time. And I think Obamacare has fundamental problems in it, and we can't just keep doing more of the same and sending more money to health insurance companies. That's just going to lead to worse health care and worse health outcomes. All right, Brian Blaze, Jonathan Cohn, very important debate we are having here. Thank you so much, both of you for being here.

Thank you. The Trump White House is reportedly drafting an executive order that would override state regulations on artificial intelligence. The order would establish a task force inside the Justice Department to sue and potentially withhold federal funding from states that pass their own AI laws. In a social media post earlier this week, the president wrote, quote, We must have one federal standard instead of a patchwork of 50 state regulatory regimes. If we don't, then China will easily catch us in the AI race. Joining us now to break it all down is veteran tech journalist Jacob Ward, founder of the Rip Current. Jake, it's always good to see you.

Jeff, thanks so much for having me. I really appreciate it. Sure. So as first reported by The Washington Post, this draft executive order specifically targets new AI laws in Colorado and California. What do these laws actually do? What argument did the states make that they are even necessary? Well, I think the first argument here, Jeff, is that these are absolutely the only laws we have. There are no federal regulations around AI at the moment, and so the states have stepped in, right? There's that famous saying that the states are the laboratory of law, and that is absolutely what's been happening here. So, you know, in a place like, let's say, Colorado, nearly six million people there are protected against discrimination that might come through AI when it comes to employment or housing or job applications, you know, health insurance, all of that stuff. In California, we have a very robust law here that's just been signed by the governor that essentially says that we get to look inside the security and safety protocols of these companies, and big protections are extended to whistleblowers.

These are the kinds of things that you would imagine that would be a federal law, but in the absence of that, the states have had to get involved here. And, you know, for some reason, suddenly now we're in a position where the federal government, without really proposing any kind of replacement for these laws, is saying that these laws can't. stand, Jeff. Well, let's talk more about the why, because we have seen a number of top tech executives from Nvidia, from Google, and Apple, have regular access to the White House. Based on your reporting, is this reflective of their wishes? I mean, how much influence did these companies have in shaping AI policy? Well, I think there's no doubt here that these companies forever have wanted there to be a federal standard so that they don't have to deal with a patchwork of state laws. We also can draw some sort of connective tissue here between, you know, these being the companies that, you know, whose heads

have attended the inauguration have been at a state dinner with Mohammed bin Salman recently and who have contributed money to the renovation of the White House ballroom. Certainly what no one is responding to here is public sentiment. Not only did the last effort to put this kind of moratorium into a bill in front of Congress go down in flames, 99 to 1, but Americans don't feel this way. A Gallup poll that came out in September found that 80% of U.S. adults believe the government should maintain rules for AI safety and data security, even if it means developing AI capabilities more slowly, which flies right in the face of what President Trump is arguing here in this leaked memo obtained by all of these outlets that somehow will fall behind China and it's as a result worth doing away with the laws that we have here, Jeff. What President Trump is arguing and what Elon Musk is predicting, Elon Musk said something, as you well know this week, that raised a lot of eyebrose. He predicted that with AI advances, work will eventually become optional.

For a lot of people, that's not exciting. That's terrifying, that the average American could be replaced by any number of robots. And the corporations are all just focused on the productivity. Yeah, the rhetoric that you hear from the leaders of these companies really is quite ideological. They really seem to have this kind of faith-based idea that on the far side of a huge amount of disruption is going to come this utopia in which we are all suddenly doing watercolors in our gardens. What I think we've seen over the course of American history is that we don't tend to like to pay people to make watercolors in their gardens. We tend to like to pay people for work.

And one way to, you know, look at what Musk is saying here is the idea that, you know, we won't have to work. But the practical effect, as we've heard from the heads of these companies, could truly be widespread displacement in jobs. Dario Amadai, the head of Anthropic, has said in the same sentence that we might cure cancer, we might balance the budget, but we also might have 20 percent. unemployment. That's the kind of thing that could be happening here. And so if you believe, as these heads of the company seem to, that there's a utopia on the far side of this that's going to make it all worth it, then okay. But I think economists and historians would tell you that this is going in a different direction, Jeff. 20% unemployment possibly. All right. Jacob Ward, always great to see you with the rip current. Appreciate it. Thanks.

As President Trump's administration has loosened regulations on cryptocurrency and pledged to make the U.S. the crypto capital of the world, his family's ties to the industry are raising ethical concerns and blurring the lines between business and government. Our White House correspondent Liz Landers takes a closer look. For more than a year, President Trump's two oldest sons, Eric and Don Jr., have been on something of a globe-trodding roadshow, preaching the virtue. of cryptocurrency. I think it's going to change our modern financial system forever. And promoting a crypto company backed by the Trump family called World Liberty Financial. We call it because of the liberty aspect of it, but also because of the world aspect of it, right?

This isn't just about America. Launched in September 2024, World Liberty Financial bills itself as a, quote, decentralized finance company. Big news, the World Liberty Financial token sale is now live. Crypto is the future. future. Let's embrace this incredible technology and lead the world in digital economy. Go to World Liberty Financial.com. Its website features President Trump labeled as a co-founder emeritus and lists his three sons, Eric, Don Jr. and Baron Trump, as co-founders. Also listed, co-founder emeritus Steve Whitkoff, now President Trump's diplomatic special envoy, and Whitkoff's two sons,

Zach and Alex, both co-founders. A footnote on the website notes that both President Trump and Steve Whitkoff were both, quote, removed upon taking office. Last month, President Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao, the billionaire founder of Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange. In 2023, the company admitted to evading U.S. sanction laws, and Zhao, known as CZ, pleaded guilty to violating anti-money laundering laws. President Trump told 60 minutes, after issuing the pardon, that he doesn't know ZZ, pleaded guilty, I don't know who he is. I know he got a four-month sentence or something like that, and I heard it was a Biden witch hunt. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt. He means he does not have a personal relationship with this individual. And when it comes to pardons, the White House takes them with the utmost seriousness.

There's a whole team of qualified lawyers who look at every single pardon request that ultimately make their way up to the President of the United States. We are excited to announce today. Earlier this year, when a state-owned investment firm in the United Arab Emirates sought to invest in Binance, Zau's company gave a high-profileile boost to World Liberty Financial's credibility, reportedly pushing for the $2 billion deal to be paid using World Liberty Financial's new stable coin, USD1, a type of cryptocurrency that maintains a constant price, and in the case of USD1, is tied to the U.S. dollar. Binance CEO Richard Tang denied reports his company,

to use USD-1. We didn't partake in that position. USD-1 was listed on other exchanges before you were listed on finance, right? So a lot of these reports just mis-categorized. They are totally false. It was one of World Liberty Financial's first major deals and a potential windfall for the Trump family. You can kind of think of this like

finance putting a $2 billion deposit at the bank of the Trump's. And so that $2 billion million dollars has been parked their sense as far as we know. And the World Liberty is earning interest on it. Zeke Fox is an investigative reporter for Bloomberg and author of Number Go Up Inside Crypto's Wild Rise and Staggering Fall. Do we know how much the Trump family has made off of World Liberty financial at this point? On World Liberty, I estimate $400,500 million. And that That's just one of their many crypto businesses. The Trumps have likely made more than a billion

dollars off crypto while just in the year that Donald Trump's been in office. That total dwarfs what the Trump family earned from its other businesses in the first half of this year, $33 million from golf clubs and resorts, and $23 million from licensing the Trump name, according to a recent investigation by Reuters. My sons are into it. I'm glad they are because it's probably a great industry, crypto. I think it's good. You know, they're running a business. They're not in government. And so this whole notion of democratizing finance, that's not going to be done in the traditional banking way. That's going to be done in crypto.

In early August, a NASDAQ company called Alt 5 Sigma purchased $750 million worth of another World Liberty product, digital tokens, called W.L. Phi. What we are going to do with this company is absolutely amazing, and I could not be more proud. A Trump family company receives up to 75 percent of revenue from sales of the World Liberty Financial token after expenses. This coin has created a new way for people to channel money to the president. David Jaffe Bellany covers the crypto industry for the New York Times. He says the Trump crypto ventures offer a new way to get around campaign finance laws. With crypto, none of those rules exist. And so people who are based in foreign countries and are banned from donating

to the political process in the U.S. have this new route for directing money toward the president. When asked about the potential for foreign governments to invest in the company to curry favor with the president, a spokesman said, quote, World Liberty Financial is a private financial technology company and not in any way a political entity. Separate from World Liberty, another crypto vehicle, Trump meme coins. There's one called Trump and another one named after Melania. The Trump family and its partners have made more than $300 million in fees from sales of the coins, according to several analyses. But for investors, it's a different story. The Trump coin's value has fallen about 90% from its all-time high shortly after debuting in January.

The Melania coin has dropped 99%. Creating a meme coin really doesn't take much. You're selling, a made-up token that doesn't do anything for real money. So it's pretty much pure profit. In May, President Trump held a crypto dinner at his Virginia country club with some of the largest investors in his Trump meme coin. Among the guests, Justin's son, a Chinese-born crypto billionaire who had been facing SEC charges for securities fraud. Sun has also invested more than $75 million in the Trump-backed World Liberty Financial. A few weeks after the purchases, the SEC paused the case against him. Is this a way for foreign investors or foreign companies or foreign individuals to try to gain influence with the president?

It's a complicated question. There's absolutely no doubt that some of the people who have bought this coin, used the coin, want to have influence with the president and see this as a means of getting it. My colleagues and I have spoken to some of them, and they've been very upfront about what their motivations are. In a statement, White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said, in part, quote, the media's continued attempts to fabricate conflicts of interest are irresponsible and reinforce the public's distrust in what they read. Neither the president nor his family have ever engaged or will ever engage in conflicts of interest. The administration is fulfilling the president's promise to make the United States the crypto capital of the world

by driving innovation and economic opportunity for all Americans. In just the last year, the president's estimate net worth jumped $3 billion, according to Forbes. The primary source of that wealth, cryptocurrency. For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Liz Landers. Well, finally tonight, a special birthday wish to a very special someone. Our own Judy Woodruff. Judy, from all of us here to you, happy, happy birthday. And that is the News Hour for tonight.

I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Amna Vaz. On behalf of the entire News Hour team, thank you for joining us. Thank you.