PBS News Hour - Full Show - October 2, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: October 2, 2025

Thursday on the News Hour, the threat of mass firings looms after a second day of the government shutdown. Millions of senior citizens lose access to telehealth services in the wake of the shutdown. Plus, in our ongoing look at those caught up in the president's immigration crackdown, a Laotian man living in the U.S. since childhood describes being detained during a routine check-in. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening, I'm Omnavaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett on the news hour tonight. The threat of mass firings loom on this second day of the government shutdown with no signs of a potential deal. Millions of senior citizens lose access to telehealth services in the wake of that shutdown. And our ongoing look at those caught up in the president's immigration crackdown. A refugee living in the U.S. since childhood describes being detained. during a routine check-in.

Just in the blink of night, I lost everything, just not knowing what's going to happen next, not knowing what's going to happen to my life, my family, my kids. Welcome to the News Hour. There were no signs of progress among lawmakers today. in Washington, and that ensures the government will stay shut down for another day as Democrats dig in on protections to health care. President Trump is also digging in and warning of far-reaching consequences, firing federal workers and targeting Democratic states with a wave of cuts to federal projects. He even invoked the name of a policy blueprint he once distanced himself from on the campaign

trail. That's Project 2025. White House correspondent Liz Landers begins our coverage. of the government shutdown and the White House is turning up the temperature on its threats to permanently lay off workers. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt alluded to unprecedented mass layoffs that are, quote, likely going to be in the thousands. Plus, drastic cuts to so-called Democrat agencies, but gave no indication of which those might be. Look, we're going to look at agencies that don't align with the administration's values that we feel are a waste of the taxpayer dollar. And look, Unfortunately, these conversations are happening because we don't have any money coming into the federal government right now. President Trump today sitting down with his budget director, Russ, vote to lay out options.

Mr. Trump on social media, notably no longer disavowing votes ties to Project 2025, which has long advocated for wide-scale government cuts. Instead, the president leaning in, writing, quote, I can't believe the radical left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity. Trump talked up those threats, speaking to conservative-leaning Network One American News. Well, there could be firings, and that's their fault, and it could also be other things. I mean, we could cut projects that they wanted, favorite projects, and they'd be permanently cut. So you could say, a lot of people are saying Trump wanted this, that I wanted this closing, and I didn't want it. But a lot of people are saying it because I'm allowed to cut things that should have never been approved in the first place. Russ Votes says he's already begun that work, canceling $8 billion in green energy projects in 16 states, where voters backed Kamala Harris over Trump in the 2024 election.

One of the Democratic governors of those states, former Harris running mate Tim Walz, called that an egregious abuse of power. This idea that you've got to go and kiss the ring or you've got to go and give some type of award to get basic services that he swore an oath to defend, that is outrageous. Meanwhile, down Pennsylvania Avenue, the stalemate between lawmakers drags on with no end in sight. Democrats digging in on their core demand, refusing to back a bill that doesn't reverse Medicaid cuts and extend Obamacare subsidies. People are going to face medical bankruptcy, millions of American citizens, and Republicans don't want to do anything about it. Democrats are in this fight until we win this fight. Don't ask the Republicans what we should be doing or what we should be negotiating. I don't have anything to negotiate. Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leadership said those discussions on health care can wait until their deadline at the end of the year.

We have three months to do that. That is not an issue for today. The day, the only issue is whether they're going to vote to keep the government operating for the people, clear, plain and simple. Outside the Capitol, both federal workers and visitors ran into small reminders of the closure around town. We didn't come to Washington to have the things shut down. But they say they haven't seen the shutdown's effects ripple. out of control yet. It will affect, like, say, of the next paycheck if we don't get the check. But if they settle it by the 15th, then it'll be okay. It's stressful because you just have all this uncertainty.

So I wish they would just get their act together so that we can all do what we do the best at work, which is work and work for the American people because they do work for the government. The Senate will take another vote on a government funding bill tomorrow. But if that fails, it is unlikely that they will stay in town. this weekend, which means Omna that this shutdown may extend into next week. So, Liz, just bring us up to speed on the latest. What's the state of play? Are there any negotiations or discussions to end this?

We're pretty much at a stalemate right now. The president has not had any public events yesterday or today. We do know that he was supposed to have that meeting today with his OMB director, Russ, vote. We did not get a readout of that meeting yet. This afternoon, Speaker Johnson was seen arriving to the White House to the West Wing. So presumably he's talking with the president about this. But we heard Democratic leader Jeffrey's saying that he's open to having more negotiations, but those are not happening right now. And as you reported there, the administration now seems to be taking deliberate steps to target Democratic states, Democratic priorities in their shutdown decisions.

What should we know about that? It's not unusual for the political parties to play the blame game here. But the White House is being very political, especially not just in their words, but also in their action. So we saw on our report that the OMB director is slashing some of these programs, these energy programs in 16 states that all voted Democrat in the last election. And then also we've seen a lot of online presence, political presence from this administration blaming the shutdown on Democrats. Several of the major federal websites for agencies have messages like this one that the agriculture website says. due to the radical left Democrat shutdown, this government website will not be updated.

There is a lot of that right now. All right, it's our White House correspondent, Liz, Landers, reporting tonight. Liz, thank you. Well, meanwhile, as Liz reported, Congress is not meeting today. It's in part to the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. But when the Senate returns tomorrow, the question is, will anything change? What is the way out of this shutdown?

Our congressional correspondent, Lisa Desjardam, has more. Party leaders, are not budging. President Trump is increasingly threatening Democrats and acting against Democratic states. But there are some in the Senate trying to talk across the aisle and find a way forward. One of those is Republican Mike Rounds of South Dakota, who joins me now. Senator, you were center stage yesterday on the Senate floor during one of the votes. You had an exchange of ideas with Democrats. Obviously, there's no deal, but other than Democrats suddenly agreeing to your funding bill. What are the possible ways forward here?

There really is no other way to start than starting government and opening it up again. And that's part of the message that we're trying to share is there's lots of ways using regular order, the traditional way in which we do appropriations and everything, to accomplish a lot of really good things in the Senate. But nothing will happen until we get government opened up again. And the best way to do that is with the continuing resolution that we've all offered that would end on November 21st. There's just simply the best way to approach it, while we've still got time,

is to open government back up. And that's the message we're trying to share with our Democrat colleagues. Now, you and I talked about this. I know that you told Democrats you understand their health care concerns. But talking to one of the key senators involved, Gary Peters, who I know you're working with,

he says trust is really an issue here. And he points out that President Trump has pulled back funding that Congress appropriated, he's done that on his own, he's frozen programs that Congress has approved. Why should Democrats trust you that there will be a real health care way forward later? Let's just say that they don't trust us, and let's just say they keep government shut down. Then everything that they're working for is gone. The best approach is to open government back up and allow the appropriations process, which

which was working correctly to actually proceed. We don't see another alternative to that. But you understand their concern, right? Is there no mechanism where you can offer an incentive? There's not going to be any negotiations with them until they get the shutdown completed. Once that happens, then under regular order, there's lots of negotiations that can go on. But it's really difficult to do negotiations when you've got a government shutdown going on. And I think a lot of our colleagues have said, look, until we have to do negotiations,

get that, it just means we'll have one more demand after another demand, after another demand, we won't get any place. And in the meantime, as I've shared with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you are running out of time as well because one of the things that they do care about, and like a lot of us, is how do you address this thing for people that have been stuck with Obamacare and who, because of the expenses on it, are definitely going to want to have some assistance on it. But the negotiations on that won't be worth much value, come about the end of October. So for those of us here, we're trying to tell them you're running out of time.

Get past this shutdown, and let's get back to regular orders so we can really talk about the stuff. Right. Democrats say the time is urgent because while the subsidies for the Affordable Care Act run out at the end of December, open enrollments just a month away. And insurers are already announcing those prices, those price increases. What about that? How do you respond to that concern that you all really need to act now? We agree with them, and the sooner they get past the shutdown and get back to regular order, we can get into the middle of it.

It's going to take work on the part of the finance committee, on the part of the help committee to actually craft a way to get rid of some of the fraud and abuse that has been occurring that's been acknowledged and there's been criminal charges already filed because of some of it. But in order to move forward, we have to get past the shutdown. And every day that they keep the government in a shutdown is one last day that they're they have to actually work through regular order on appropriations in order to get anything done.

The president, in his own words, is targeting democratic states, freezing funding for some, and also saying he wants to target what he calls democratic agencies. That's really unprecedented in modern times. Do you feel like that's appropriate? What I've told people is, look, I can't influence the president on the approach that he wants to take. He's going to try to do everything he can to put pressure on our Democrat. colleagues. What he does is something that he'll have to make the decisions on. It's not something

that we can go in and stop him from doing. But what we can do is to get rid of the government shutdown. And if we get rid of the shutdown, there's no reason for him to be doing that. And so once again, look, we're within days of having enough time to actually work our way through everything else. So my message, once again, get rid of the shutdown. I know we're going back in. We're talking about this on a Thursday evening, on a Friday. We're going to have everybody come back in, we're going to vote again. We're hoping to be able to have our Democrat colleagues take a look at just the evidence of what we've had already with regard to appropriations this year, how far we've come already, and the good well that that's already developed. And if we can

get them back to regular order, we're convinced that lots of good things can happen. And there's no limitation on the amendments and so forth that can be considered, a moved and so forth on those bills. So, but we're not going to negotiate until we get government shut down out of the way. Senator, I know you say that the president's choices are his own, but you yourself are an important lawmaker, and I know you're someone who cares about a nonpartisan civil service. Are you concerned about this idea that the civil service is being used in a partisan way and that money is being cut off for Americans because of the way their state is perceived by the president? Look, right now we're in the middle of a shutdown, and in the middle of the shutdown,

you've got a lot of the services being stopped and for no reason. And so, look, some people will say, well, the president should do it different. The president is saying, don't do a shutdown. Number one, don't do a shutdown. If you're going to do a shutdown, then the executive branch has the ability then to respond accordingly. And he's going to put pressure on them during this shutdown time period. I used to tell people, I worked as governor in South Dakota for a period of eight years. And during that time, one of my messages to my legislative colleagues at that time was,

you make the rules, you write the laws, but I play the game. And that's something that I think our Democrat colleagues have got to remember. The president will follow the law. But at this stage, he has broad latitude about what he can do in the executive branch of government. This goes moot if they will simply open government back up. Open government back up. Let's get back to what we were doing, which for the first time in years was the appropriations process. Let's get back to that as soon as possible, while they still have time to actually

propose and to work on the modifications and additional things they want to do. And they've got a time frame that they've got to get things done in as well that they feel strongly about. I understand that. Let's get this government shutdown behind us and let's go to work. Mass layoffs.

The president is threatening them. Are those required in a shutdown or is that a policy choice? I think it'll be a policy choice. But remember, as the chief executive officer, as the president of the United States, he has very broad authority. What our Democrat colleagues have got to remember is, is if they make it easier for him to do those things, he has the decision-making process available to him. They can stop that right now by simply not having a government shutdown.

All right, Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. And for a Democratic perspective on the shutdown, we're joined now by Shalanda Young, former director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Biden. now a distinguished scholar at NYU law. Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me, Jeff. So President Trump and Russ Vote, his budget director,

they are warning of permanent layoffs, mass firings connected to this shutdown, a dramatic break from past practice. What do you make of the way Republicans are rewriting the rules here? Jeff, this has nothing to do with the shutdown. This is in line with everything we've seen from this administration. Who's to say those mass layoffs wouldn't happen

if the government were open. Who's to say that wouldn't happen October 15 if a deal is reached to reopen the government? You don't get extra authority to fire people because the government ran out of money. As the senator just said, this is a policy choice. They're making a policy to use the shutdown as an excuse, frankly,

to undertake these mass firings, a continuation for what we've seen since January 21st. Obviously, they want the shutdown, about this announcement. But I can tell you one thing. I'm not sure whether the government was open or not if we would see anything different. So the shutdown gives them no extra authority.

Would the firings, mass firings, even be legal? So this is a great question. When you have a lapse in funding, which is what this is, Congress didn't do his job on time. You usually furlough most staff, and you only keep the staff who are essential. I mean essential to the work of the work. of government. We call them accepted staff. So our military around the world doing critical work.

That should be a very limited number of people. So what this tells me, if they made a decision that they're going to bring in HR officials to undertake these firings, we're obviously bringing in IT people during a shutdown to volunteer to put mass firing warnings on government websites. So there is a legality question about whether they are using volunteer services and bringing in people not paid to do these things that obviously are not critical to the mission of government. President Trump today said that he views this shutdown as an unprecedented opportunity to slash more government agencies to cut more democratic priorities. Russ vote, as we said earlier in this broadcast, one of the architects of Project 2025. He has openly argued for concentrating power in the hands of Trump loyalists and dismantling traditional checks and balances.

What I hear you say is that this budgeting piece is in many ways a pretext for a power graph. That's exactly what I'm saying. It is, this is a continuation of the same-old, same-all since January 21st. Doge, Elon Musk, seems a long pass away, but it's not, where we saw emails. Tell me what you did yesterday. or the day before, or you'll be fired, or I'll fire someone this day and maybe bring them back if I made a mistake the next. What's different now? Shutdown as being used as a pretext to do what they wanted to do with government. As a matter of fact, they told us this in Project

2025. This was laid out for people. Now, we were told this administration wouldn't follow Project 2025, but here we go. We can check a box throughout that document. This is exactly following that playbook and shutdown is being used in facade. Look at the New York project, an infrastructure project, the bridge is falling apart in New Jersey and New York. They didn't say for shutdown they were pulling that money. They said it was DEI related. So we see DEI being used as a pretext.

We see shutdown being used. They want to do these things and they will find a way to do them. On the other hand, what lessons can Democrats learn from the way Republicans are playing hardball here? So I get this question all the time. How can Democrats win? I think if you start that way, it's a pretty cynical way of looking at government. I don't think there's anyone that questions that Democrats believe government in its best form can work for the American people.

That in its best form, it helps working class people enter into paths to the middle class. That it helps the middle class help their kids do better than that. them. No one questions the Democratic Party's commitment to making government work. So this is a difficult place for someone like me who did not preside over a shutdown in four years. That was not by accident. It's because we believed with Joe Biden as president, myself at OMB, the right thing to do for the American people is have an open government that worked for both parties. We sat down with Republicans every time. How should Democrats then attempt to push back against what looks like this effort to

dismantle government by attrition? They have to tell the truth. They have, you know, this idea, the news cycle, things coming at people, it's hard for people are trying to pay bills. It's hard. I'm a mom of a three-year-old. People are not paying attention to this day in, day out. But Democrats have to keep up the drumbeat.

This is what's happening. It's not okay. And this idea that the government needs to reopen, let's press on that. The government is operating in ways it never has. Parts of the government are shut down now, even when the government was open. We see a collapse of norms in the government. I would proffer that the government isn't operating the way it should in the first place. So this wave of magic wand, Democrats collapse, the government reopens.

to what? Are you okay with status quo? A lot of Democrats are saying, no, they're not. If Russ vote wants to prevent agencies from receiving money that's already been appropriated, what can, what should Congress do? So the judiciary is obviously involved. You see lawsuit after lawsuit. You see lower court saying this is unconstitutional or against the statute. Presidents cannot impound. The Constitution has endowed the Congress with the right and the authority to spend money. That is a congressional right in the Constitution. We get to the Supreme Court, and that's where it all falls apart. So who is it left to? It's left to the body that the founder said

be a check on the presidency. Make no mistake, this is more than this vote. This is a power grab by a presidency, by the executive branch, and Congress gave away the keys months ago. I'm an optimists, they can get it back, but Republicans have to work with Democrats. They don't work for the president. They work for their constituents. When you have conversations with your former Biden administration colleagues, what do you make of all this? You know, elections have consequences. I've been around long enough not to cry in my milk because I see a policy that I disagree with. Obviously, I've worked to promote democratic values and work. And work, you know, on policies popular with the Democratic Party

for 20-something years. I've been in the majority, in the minority when I worked on Capitol Hill. So I'm over-crying about things I don't like. Elections have consequences. This feels different to someone who's done this a long time. This feels like a government that has chosen, the very

wealthy, overworking class and middle class. You look at this big, beautiful bill, not my name, theirs over the summer. You see over 16 million people who will lose their health care. You see the effort to pass tax breaks for millionaires over extending help for those whose premium is about to go up. That's what Democrats are fighting for.

They did it alone in the summer, and now they want Democrats to acquiesce after health care has been obliterated. And Democrats are saying, no, thank you. Shalanda Young, thank you for being here. We appreciate it. Thank you for having me. The day's other headlines begin with a deadly attack at a British synagogue on Yom Kippur, the most solemn day in the Jewish calendar. Police there are calling it a terrorist attack.

Two people were killed and four others were seriously wounded. The attacker, who officials say was a 35-year-old British citizen of Syrian descent, was shot dead. Paul Brand of Independent Television News brings us this report from the scene in Manchester. On the most holy day of the year for those of Jewish faith. If you're not involved, move back, go away, somebody has a bomb, go away. He's got a bomb on. He's already driven a car at people outside the synagogue in Crumpsoll and attacked others with a knife.

Now police take no chances given his third potential weapon, the suspected bomb around his waist. The gunshots proved fatal, but so did his attack. For all the attacker's efforts to take more lives, security staff likely saved them by stopping him from getting inside the synagogue, as others nearby were taken to safety. As they evacuated us, I walked past the rabbi, Rabbi Daniel Walker. Now they were pushing us forward, but I did see now on this day it's a day of prayer. and on the stage we pray was a long white robe on the stage and I saw at the bottom of the road there were specks of blood

it was hours before police could get near the suspect to identify him first bomb disposal teams had to be called in before what sounded like a controlled explosion in this picture you can see a knife lying near the attacker's head with the suspected bomb to his right Just one clue as to his motive. This attack has been officially declared as a terrorist incident and the investigation is now being led by counter-terrorist police.

As has been confirmed by CT policing, we believe that the identity of the offender has been established but until we are certain of this fact it is premature to set out this detail at this juncture. This part of Manchester is home to Britain's second largest Jewish population, but it's home to other communities too. As in many cities, the relations, the potential tensions between them, have been a cause of acute concern in recent years,

the fear that global events could make people local targets of hatred. This afternoon, the Prime Minister flew home from a European summit in Denmark to chair an emergency meeting and reassure the Jewish community. Earlier today, a vile individual committed a terrorist attack that attacked Jews because they are Jews. And so I promise you that I will do everything in my power to guarantee you the security that you deserve, starting with a more visible police presence,

protecting your community. Yom Kippur is a time of repentance for Jewish people, of confessing sins, but as they worship in crumsel tonight, who will atone for the violence committed against them? Paul Brand, ITV News, Manchester. Also today, President Trump says the U.S. is now in armed conflict with drug cartels operating in the Caribbean.

That's according to a memo that was sent to Congress and obtained by multiple media outlets. The document reportedly refers to cartel members as, quote, unlawful combatants and states that the U.S. must use force in self-defense and defense of others against the ongoing attacks by these designated terrorist organizations. News of the memo first reported by the New York Times comes after President Trump posted videos like this of strikes on boats that he claimed were bringing drugs to the U.S.

Human rights groups and several U.S. senators have questioned the legality of those strikes. The White House is asking nine major universities to align themselves with President Trump's political priorities in exchange for federal funding. Schools would have to agree to a certain term, related to women's sports, free speech on campus, and student discipline, among others. And international enrollment would be capped at 15% of the undergraduate student body. In exchange, schools would get priority access to some federal grants. The nine institutions include the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, the University of Texas at Austin, and MIT. It was not immediately clear how those schools were chosen or whether others may follow.

Officials in Memphis are preparing for the arrival of additional federal authorities as part of a broader Trump administration push into the nation's cities. Senior administration officials visited Memphis yesterday, with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller telling officers they're being unleashed to tackle crime there. Democratic Congressman Steve Cohen, who represents Memphis, is pushing back, writing that we are not a training ground or target practice. While in Oregon, a judge is set to hear a legal challenge to,

against the deployment of National Guard troops there. All that as some immigrant communities in Chicago are on edge after federal authorities carried out a late-night raid this past week arresting at least 37 people. In Gaza, Israeli attacks killed dozens of Palestinians overnight as the world waits for an official response from Hamas to President Trump's proposal on ending the war. According to hospitals in the region, at least 41 people were killed across the strip by

Israeli airstrikes and ground attacks. Meantime, several boats bound for Gaza began trickling into Israeli ports today after they were intercepted by Israel's military. Hundreds on board were arrested, including European lawmakers and climate activist Greta Toonberg, who recorded this video before being detained. If you are watching this video, I have been abducted and taken against my will by Israeli forces. Our humanitarian mission was nonviolent and abiding by international law. Please tell my government to demand my and the other's immediate release. We be Palestine! We'll be Palestine!

Protests broke out in cities across the world today, condemning Israel's interception of the aid flotilla and its ongoing military campaign in Gaza. Back in this country, authorities are investigating what they call a low-speed collision involving two Delta Airlines regional jets at New York's LaGuardia Airport last night. The cockpit of one plane was damaged in the incident, as was the wing of the other.

This animation shows the path of the two planes on the taxiway. One was preparing to take off to Virginia while the other had just arrived from North Carolina. In a statement, Delta apologized to its customers and said the airline will work with all relevant authorities to review what occurred. One flight attendant was taken to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. The FDA's approval of another generic version of the abortion, abortion pill, Mifapristone has sparked a fierce conservative backlash. Drugmaker Evita Solutions said that officials signed off on its low-cost form of the pill, which is approved to end pregnancies through 10 weeks.

The group, Students for Life Action, called the approval a stain on the Trump presidency and another sign that the deep state at the FDA must go. The criticism comes as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faces growing pressure to restrict abortion access. Miffra Pristone was first approved 25 years ago and has been repeatedly ruled safe and effective by FDA scientists. On Wall Street today, stocks crept higher thanks to gains and technology shares. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added nearly 80 points. The NASDAQ rose almost 90 points.

The S&P 500 ended just a touch higher on the day. Still to come on the news hour, a refugee living in the U.S. expresses fears of being deported to a country he barely knows. And a book on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process gives valuable insight into the current negotiations. This is the PBS News Hour 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. To COVID-era Medicare programs, telehealth benefits, and in-home hospital. care have ended abruptly for millions of Americans as a result of the government shutdown. Authorization for both expired on September 30th, and Congress failed to pass a new budget plan for either.

That means many seniors on Medicare can no longer use telehealth services. The program now reverts to pre-pandemic criteria, meaning Medicare enrollees in rural areas can still use telehealth, but in a designated hospital or clinic. Meanwhile, in-home care recipients will either be discharged or. or go back into inpatient hospital care. For more on this, I'm joined by Kyle Zebelie. He's Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the American Telemedicine Association. Thank you for being here.

That's great to be here. Thanks so much. So let's take each of these programs in turn. When it comes to telehealth or the virtual appointments, we saw a surge of use in the pandemic, some 7 million people using it last year. Who's gonna be most impacted by this shutdown? By our older Americans and most disabled Americans.

They had access to something they went to bed on Tuesday night. They woke up with the government shutdown on Wednesday, and they found out that they no longer have access to these programs and flexibilities that have been in place for more than five years since the beginning of the decade, since right before the real impact of the COVID-19 pandemic came to the United States. And the change is now reverting to these pre-pandemic criteria. Explain that to me. If you're enrolled in Medicare and you live in a rural area, you can still use it, but in a very specific way? That's right. And you said it well at the end.

outset, you have to meet two criteria and you have to meet both. You have to be in a defined rural area and you have to be within the four walls of a Medicare provider's office. It's head spinning to go back to these restrictions. They were put in place in law in 1997. That may have been advanced at that time. The technology had moved forward, leaps and bounds by the beginning of the decade before the COVID-19 pandemic. We had been clamoring to get these flexibilities put in place and it took the COVID-19 pandemic to do it. Now, unfortunately, all that progress goes away and has been now two days into this shutdown. So potentially we're talking about millions of people having their health care, access to health care impacted.

What does that mean, big picture? Well, it means, most importantly, that patients are worse off today. They have less access than they did two days ago. It means that for patients receiving cancer care, mental health areas of treatment, primary care treatments and visits, they no longer have access to this care that's clinically appropriate. appropriate care that meets them where they are, that is far more flexible than, of course, going into in-person settings. It drags us backwards, not only to the beginning of the decade, really, again, in effect, to 1997 when these provisions were previously put into place in law.

And hospital systems, health care providers have a choice to make here, I assume. Could they continue to provide this care and hope they get reimbursed, or any doing that? So many are making really tough decisions. They are either making the determination that they don't have the financial wherewithal to potentially eat these costs. And therefore, unfortunately, they're alerting patients now every day, every hour, practically speaking, across the country that they're no longer going to get those telehealth services that have come to rely on that's expanded access to care. There are other health care systems and Medicare providers and provider groups that are saying, we're going to weather the storm, at least for a little while. We're going to continue

to offer these services because we want to continue to offer care to these patients we care so much about. And hopefully, the federal government and Congress will come together, bring these programs back, and retroactively pay for the services that were rendered during this lapse. That's certainly what we're asking for. And we hope our bipartisan telehealth champions will get it done when cooler heads prevail and the shutdown ends. There's also this other program, the in-home hospital services program that's been paused. So patients, my understanding, are basically monitored virtually and they get daily provider visits. So what happens to those patients now? This is really clear cut. If there's any ambiguity or flexibility that is present for the Medicare telehealth flexibilities, that's not present here.

The Office of Management and Budget and the administration has made very clear that that program has ended effective October 1 yesterday, and they had instructed anybody that was participating in that program, they need to be, either, as you said, sent home or they need to go back into a hospital setting. They were comfortable at their home. They were getting clinically appropriate care. They were getting care that they wanted to receive in this manner to convalescent home. It also opened up capacity in the hospitals. That capacity increase has now, of course, gone away. And it's really stressing our overburdened health care system to force this to go back into place. Even just in the last 2448 hours, are you seeing the impact of that?

Our facility is becoming more crowded? Oh, it's a devastating impact. It set us back again significantly from bipartisan, hard. one progress that we have made since the beginning of the pandemic. What's a real tragedy about this is, yes, Americans are losing out. They're losing out every day, increasingly so, the longer that these flexibilities have lapsed. And it's a real shame because these are popular bipartisan programs put in place by President Trump, kept in place on a bipartisan basis in Congress, really with no stated opposition throughout the Biden-Harris administration. President Trump's been on the record

in support. He already signed an extension of these flexibilities earlier this year. We really want to get out of the short-term thinking, get out of this discussion of having endless short-term extensions, these programs should be made permanent. And if things were functioning, as I think they should, we would have been made permanent long ago. But here we are, despite all that broad-based popularity, caught up as a victim of circumstance because of the shutdown. Well, until that shutdown ends, for anyone watching this at home who may be impacted by either one of these changes, what's your best advice to them? What are their options? Well, there are options are to hope that their providers and their health care systems that they're working with

have the ability to continue to deliver that care even though they might not be covered and reimbursed. But most importantly, and ideally, they pick up the phone, they call their member of Congress, and they say, please end this shutdown of the Medicare telehealth flexibilities and acute hospital care at home. You don't want to sit on the sidelines if you care about this. If your loved ones are depending on it, if you yourself are depending on it, you need to have that agency to try to make sure Congress gets the message that it's unacceptable to have these popular bipartisan programs lapse

and we shouldn't be a victim of this other dynamic that has nothing to do with our community and the people that rely on telehealth. Kyle Zubbley with the American Telemedicine Association. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you. His sweeping crackdown on immigration, more longtime residents, people who have lived in this country for years, are being caught up in the effort. Stephanie Sy has more.

We've seen over and over again this year the detention of U.S. residents who were previously not at risk of deportation. This has included Laoshen refugees displaced after the Vietnam War. Students of history might recall that Laos was bombed relentlessly by the U.S. in the 1960s and 70s. In the tumultuous years that followed the end of the war, thousands of Lausian families were resettled in the U.S. as refugees. Now, a criminal conviction can threaten a refugee's legal status, but for decades, Lausians in that situation were allowed to remain here because there is no repatriation agreement between the U.S. and Laos. That has changed. In recent months, deportation flights to Laos have resumed for the first time in years. One of those affected is Alan Fet Sattacan. He arrived in the United States as a toddler, and today he faces the threat of deportation. Alan, thank you for being with us.

Thank you for having me. I want to go back to what happened over the summer when you were detained. It's July. You go in for an annual appointment with immigration officials that I understand you've gone to without incident for years, but you end up being detained for nearly two months. Alan, what was your immediate reaction when you were arrested? What were you told about why this was happening to you? First of all, I was shocked, scared, worried. I was just speechless and I couldn't think of anything else. Everything was taken away for me.

Just in the blink of an eye, I lost everything, just not knowing what's going to happen next. not known what's going to happen to my wife, my family, my kids, just all the loved ones, not knowing what's going to happen to myself. The ICE agent had mentioned to me that my supervision had been revoked, and that was all I was told. Okay, and so then you're in this facility in Tacoma for two months. What were conditions like? How were you housed, and were you able to see your children? your family. Yes, I was fortunate enough to see my family, my life, my kids, just because

I'm local here in Seattle. The housing unit I was in, they housed around 70 to 80 detainees at any given time. It's an open unit. The light stays on 24 hours a day. You know, You just have four walls, no windows, limited time to be in the outdoor yard. It's frustrating. It leaves you hopeless, stressed. I want to talk a little bit more about your distant past, because when you were detained back in July, you were already under a deportation order that dated back to 1998, and that was because you had been convicted on bank fraud. Alan, what do you want people to understand and know about that old conviction and that time in your life?

Because you were only 18 at that time. And from what I've read, you had had a really tough childhood. Correct. I had a tough childhood growing up, losing my brother from committing suicide, losing my grandma that raised me, not having a stable household. It was just tough growing up, having a baby newborn one. I was 17. I made a mistake. And moving forward, I'm an adult now and responsible adult with a loving family. I built my whole entire life here with my family. So you were released, Alan, by a federal judge of a few weeks ago last month. Your lawyers, from what I understand,

are working on getting that old case vacated in federal court. How much time do they have? Do you know how much time you have before you may wake up and have to get on a plane and be deported? I have no idea. You know, this is one of the uncertainty that I feel as if I'm a lost soul. And I don't know what's going to happen to me tomorrow or two months from now or a year from now. I don't know. And it puts my life on hold and my family's life and everybody that's close to me. it's stressful. And even though however I'm released, I'm thankful, but the stress and the uncertainty

is it's never going away. And your wife and your kids, they are U.S. citizens, right? How are they coping with all of this? And is there sort of a worst case scenario that you can prepare for? We haven't prepared, just we never thought that this day would come. You know, after 25 years, 30 years, we just never thought back of it. We've never prepared for this. You know, kind of talked more about it this year because of what we see on the news of what's going on. It never got out of our site since this year. Alan, what worst case scenario might you be preparing for at this point? Could you start over in Laos? Have you thought about that? I have not thought about starting over in Laos as I don't know where to start and where to begin I don't have any

family as you know if I got sent back to Laos I would just be on my own I wouldn't know where to begin it'll be a brand new country a brand new life at such a as such an old age so I don't know where to begin I don't know where to start everything I've known that's that's here I understand you've been getting a lot of support from people who have heard your story, including those who have raised money for your family on GoFundMe. Can you talk about what that support has meant to you and your family? And what else you feel you really need right now?

You know, that support has been tremendous. It's been everything. It's been a reflection of me just being a good person moving on from my. past, building a community, you know, having my family around. What I need now is just the support and the fight to prevail from this, from this immigration madness. Alan, thank you so much for agreeing to share your story with us. We wish you the best of luck. Thank you, Stephanie. And late today, the NewsHour received a response from the Department of Homeland Security about this

case, saying he has four convictions for larceny and fraud going on to say, quote, thanks to an activist judge, this criminal is now loose on America's streets. to. Khamas is still weighing the deal, but reportedly considers some parts of it unacceptable. It's a crucial moment, and it's a continuation of past American efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nick Schifrin has more on the historical context. For decades, the U.S. has tried to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those efforts, despite deep passion among the mediators, and endless work with both sides, failed. Why? And is there a direct line from the success of the Oslo Accords in 19?

1993 to the horrific violence of the October 7 terrorist attacks and subsequent Israeli war in Gaza. Those are the questions being asked by Robert Malley, who 25 years ago participated in peace talks at Camp David. He later worked with the Obama administration on Mideast peace, as well as negotiating with Iran, a role he resumed during the beginning of the Biden administration. And now Mali has written a new book, co-authored with longtime Palestinian negotiator Hussein Agha, called Tomorrow is Yesterday, Life, Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel, Power. Rob Malley, thanks very much. Welcome back to the NewsHour. The title is tomorrow is yesterday, and you write this in the prologue. Israelis and Palestinians are back where they were decades ago. But from the outside, things look in many ways worse than ever. So why that title? That's a good way to start. Let's look at where we are today, which is what propelled us to write this book. Palestinians being forced to flee and then flee from the area that they just flew. And then being bombed in the place that they were told to take refuge from the first bomb, being deprived of food, of water, of everything. thing. Israel is on October 7th being the victim of a massacre.

What you, what give? Palestinians resorting to individual acts of violence doing what they can because vengeance is their only horizon. So we are where we were in the past and the real question is how come after, you know, from 92 to now, look at where we are and the explanation to really sum it up in one word is that this American-led peace process was meaningless, it was fleeting, it didn't have any real roots on the ground with Israelis and Palestinians, it ended up being a lot of Hareda.

So let's go back to where we define the modern priest process, 19903, the Oslo Accords, and you write this, quote, Israeli and Palestinian leaders for a while invested in diplomacy, but each diplomatic venture ended in failure. In the end, what mattered was the balance of power and brute force, those who mattered most knew it best. How so?

Let's look again at what happened in Oslo. Each side thought they were getting something that, in fact, they really didn't achieve. The Palestinians thought we've made this big concession by accepting the fact that they'd be an Israeli state, the state of Israel on the borders of 1967, and they thought that in exchange they were going to get sovereignty, they were going to get justice, they were going to get their state. The Israelis thought, we're going to recognize the Palestinian Liberation Organization

as a representative of the Palestinian people, and we're going to give them some ability to govern themselves. And in exchange, we're going to get full security. Neither side was prepared to do what the other side expected of them. There was never any congruence between what the Israelis wanted and what the Palestinians wanted. So what were the foundations of this peace process? Not much. And what turns out, the Israelis quickly realized what's going to matter are facts on the ground,

settlement construction, making sure that they could repress any sign of Palestinian activism. And on the Palestinian side, they never really gave up violence because that was the one language that they felt the Israelis would understand. And in the middle of that were the Americans. And this is what you write about American participation in this process. The American objective was to get Israelis and Palestinians to speak the right words, sign the right piece of paper, overcome textual gaps. The Israeli and Palestinian objectives were to get the Americans off their backs. We were so focused on, can we get them to agree on what it would mean if there was a Palestinian state?

Just words on a piece of paper without coming to terms with the nature of this conflict, the nature of this beast, which was a historical clash of narratives. From the Israeli perspective, they won in 1948. They won in 1967. And each time they keep winning and the Palestinians keep asking for more. And the Palestinians believe that they were victims of a historic injustice in 1948. 700,000 Palestinians expelled, loss of their land. And so for us Americans to come in and say, well, you know, let's just paper over these differences, forget about the right of return, forget about Israeli historic grievances and Palestinian historic grievances, put a bow around it and called this peace, that was never going to fly with the parties.

It can't but conclude the fact from what's happened between the 1990s to today. There has to be a connection between what happened then and what happened on October 7th and afterwards. It's not like these are two completely disconnected events. What do you see that connection as? The connection is that, again, the failures of these efforts to reach this two-state solution. On the ground, everything was moving in the direction that was inconsistent with the two-state solution. and Americans and Europeans and others were repeating the mantra, were moving toward a two-state solution,

an irreversible path to two-state solution. And yet you and Hussein do write this. There were moments when a different outcome might have been possible, but history would have needed a mediator with vision, nuanced understanding of the politics and psychology of the two sides, and a willingness to exert power equally on and against both. Sure, I think there was an evident thinking at times that we were close to deal when nothing had been achieved.

and I think just strategic misunderstanding of the conflict. The origins of this idea of a two-state solution, they didn't start with Israelis or Palestinians. They started from the outside. This notion of partition was alien, and Israelis and Palestinians never were enthusiastic about it. It was never their natural landing place. And today, with everything having moved in the opposite direction,

with each side convinced that the other side wants its destruction, its eradication, how could there be support for two-state solution, other than in the hallways of diplomatic corridors. In the end, you write this, this emotional and existential clash will be truly settled not through a droid verbal gymnastics, but through a more painful and honest reckoning. What is that reckoning?

It's a reckoning with the fact that both sides have these yearnings, this historic attachment to the land. Israeli Jews feel very differently about, many of them, about what the land means to them. Palestinians have this whole conception of history, and again, the right of return for refugees. So let's not aim for the sky and say we need immediate peace.

At a minimum, they need to coexist, coexist as equals on the land that they both share. Let's talk about Iran briefly. During the Biden administration, you were the special envoy for negotiating with Iran, but you were suspended for that job. Can you tell us why? I was told that the investigation had to do with alleged mish handling of classified information.

I was not told then what they were looking at. I still don't know what they were looking at, and I may well go to my grave without knowing what they were looking at. What I do know is that after two years, of investigation, the Department of Justice told my lawyers that the investigation has been closed. So it's a bit odd, it's a bit Kafka's, but it is what it is. Rob Maui, the book is, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Life, Death, and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel, Palestine.

Thanks very much. Thank you. And that is The News Hour for tonight. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.