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

Episode Date: October 20, 2025

Monday on the News Hour, Ukraine turns to European leaders for military support after President Trump urges Kyiv to cede territory to Russia. Trump spars with the president of Colombia over U.S. strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean. Plus, how Republican efforts to redraw congressional districts and further dismantle the Voting Rights Act may disenfranchise Black voters. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the news hour tonight, Ukraine turns to European leaders from military support after President Trump urges Keev to cede territory to Russia. President Trump spars with the president of Colombia over U.S. strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean. And how Republican efforts to redraw congressional districts and further dismantle the Voting Rights Act may disenfranchise. franchise black voters nationwide. This type of discrimination is sadly still current, still rampant, and still contaminating our democracy and our electoral processes. Welcome to the News Hour.

President Trump today expressed doubt that Ukraine. could defeat Russia and win back all the land Moscow has seized since it first invaded in 2014. The president's renewed skepticism comes after his Friday meeting with Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky in which Mr. Trump declined Ukraine's request for long-range missiles. Nick Schifrin has the details. On Ukraine's front lines this weekend, a woman lay badly wounded, a few feet from the victim of a Russian gunshot. They and many Ukrainians tonight fear they must fend. for themselves amid fallout from Friday's cabinet room meeting with President Trump. Would much rather have them not need tomahawks.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived hoping for American Tomahawk cruise missiles, whose range can reach well beyond Moscow. But President Trump said no for now. They're a very dangerous weapon, and it could mean big escalation. It could mean a lot of bad things going to happen. Tomahawks are a big deal. But one thing I have to say, we want Tomahawks also. The rest of the meeting did not go better. Two European and one U.S. official tell PBS NewsHour it was difficult, with President Trump refusing to provide new weapons capabilities, and once again raising Vladimir Putin's demand for land swaps, a throwback to their Oval Office map discussion

from earlier this year. Moscow is demanding that Ukraine unilaterally give up. the portion of Donetskidstil controls and that Russia has failed to capture despite 11 years of war. Russia would return slivers of Ukrainian territory that it captured in Kharkiv and Sumi regions. President Trump's vision is to end the war on the current lines, no matter what Ukraine loses, as he told reporters last night. They should stop right now, the battle lines go home, stop killing people and be done. What do you think should not be with the Donbos region? Let it be cut the way it is. It's cut up right now. I think 78 percent of the land is already

taken by Russia. You leave it the way it is. Would you like to say how you are doing when the battlefield? Yeah. Just four weeks ago, President Trump said Ukraine could, quote, win back all occupied territories. Today, he walked that back. They could still win it. I don't think they will, but they could still win it. I never said they would win it. Of course, Ukraine can't and won't wait. Once again this weekend, it targeted Russian energy facilities, using its own long-range drones. But Ukraine needs more air defense, including Patriot missiles, and Zelensky said today he hopes to purchase 25 Patriot systems.

We are working with America in a very specific way, so Ukraine can still receive the necessary number of Patriot systems. This is not an easy task, but it is one of the security guarantees for Ukraine and will work long term. Zelensky also said that he met the companies that manufacture the Patriots during his visit to Washington and received their reassurance the U.S. would try to provide the air defense systems to Kiev. But the reality is there are long delays in deliveries. Zelensky also said Europe would support Ukraine on those purchases and on pressuring Russia that, in a way, AMA so far, President Trump has been unwilling to do. So let's start in Europe then. What have we been hearing from European officials in response to that

Trump Zelensky meeting. They've really rushed to help support Ukraine. I spoke to half a dozen European officials about this meeting, and they expressed disappointment in the meeting, but frankly not surprised. They are used to President Trump waxing and waning, and in this case, moving toward the Russian side and away from the Ukrainian side, and they just realize that they have to deal with it. So how do they deal with it?

First steps are diplomatic. Many Europeans spoke to Zelensky on Friday night after he met with President Trump, today express public solidarity with Ukraine. Number two, pressure on Russia. European leaders will meet on Thursday later this week to pass a new sanctions package on Russia that will sanction Russian LNG. It will also for the first time punish Indian and Chinese companies for buying Russian energy. That, of course, is a demand that President Trump said needed to happen before he would impose

any sanctions on Russia. And the third is European military support. European countries continue to buy American weapons to send Ukraine and ramp up their own production. But European officials know they can't arm Ukraine by themselves or even present a credible deterrent by themselves to Russia, which is why they still need U.S. support and why they will try the best to encourage President Trump to consider things from their perspective, or Ukraine's perspective, before he has that meeting with Vladimir Putin. What about Ukraine's perspective? What have we been hearing from President Zelensky after that?

meeting? He puts a positive spin on the meeting. Today, he emphasized that it's good that President Trump supports a ceasefire on the current front lines, skipping over the fact, of course, that President Trump said the war should end on the front lines. But he's also focused on air defense, as I mentioned earlier, and he is clear there will be no land swap at all. Basically, he will not give into what Russia is demanding. As he put it last night, we will grant the aggressor no gifts and forget nothing. So a rejection once again of Putin's demands. Here's how a U.S. official puts it to me. The President of the United States wants to end the war no matter what. Ukraine wants to try

and end the war on their terms, but they need President Trump to put pressure on Russia in order to do that, and so far that's not what they're seen. All right. Nick Schifrin, thank you very much. Thank you. We start the day's other headlines in Paris. The Louvre remained closed today as investigators hunt for those responsible for yesterday's daylight heist of some of that nation's most precious jewels. Officials say the daring break-in lasted less than eight minutes, and in the hours since,

the museum has faced sharp criticism over its security. Sam Holder of Independent Television News reports from the scene in Paris. It's the world's most visible. visited museum, but for now the crowds are outside the Louvre. The star attraction, a boarded-up window, the heart of a heist so audacious it could be from a blockbuster. On Sunday morning, when the museum was open and filled with visitors, the calls began to evacuate. Most unaware that a heist of historic proportions was underway, thieves smashing through

two display cabinets to snatch priceless royal jewels. Amongst the stolen hall, this emerald necklace worn by Napoleon Bonaparte's wife, this tiara resplendent with pearls and this brooch dripping in diamonds. In total, eight items are missing. Well, it's like the stealing of the crown jewels. It's the kings, the queens of France wore these things. Paris is a bit in shock. The robbery began at 9.30 a.m.

The target, the gallery of Apollo. The four thieves used a van with a mechanical ladder to reach the window. Two cut through the glass with a disc cutter and entered. The theft unfolded just 250 meters from the Mona Lisa. They'd have done a reconnaissance, they'd have known the height, the distance, they'd have rehearsed using that equipment somewhere else. That may well give a lead to the police. The apparent security failings have led to a furious response in France. I know that it's impossible to completely secure all locations, but what is certain is that we have failed, since it is possible to set up a hoist in the middle of a parish street, lift people

up in a matter of minutes to steal priceless jewellery and give France a terrible image. Only one piece has been found. The thieves dropped this crown during their escape, which alone features more than a thousand diamonds. The pieces may be priceless, but the stones can fetch millions. The most likely scenario now is the group that broke in through that window will seek to break apart these items of national treasure. So it is a race against time to find and save them,

with the odds stacked against the authorities. There are some clues, including items left at the scene. But finding those responsible is one thing. Finding the jewellery intact is far harder. Sam Holder, ITV News, Paris. Also today, Amazon's cloud computing service says a problem with its domain name system is responsible for a global outage over.

overnight that disrupted websites, apps, and services for millions of users. Amazon Web Services has been working to fix the problem, saying it's seen significant signs of recovery. The outage affected some of the technologies we use every day, including Facebook and Snapchat, banking app Venmo, messaging platforms like WhatsApp, and even the online ordering app for McDonald's. Experts say the disruption highlights how much we rely on just a few major cloud providers to power the Internet. President Trump hosted Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the White House today, where the two leaders signed an agreement on rare earth and critical minerals. Mr. Albanese described the arrangement as an $8.5 billion pipeline for processing the materials.

The U.S. is aiming to rely less on China for the elements needed to make products from electric vehicles to aircraft engines. The meeting was largely cordial except for one moment when a reporter asked Mr. Trump about the Australian ambassador, Kevin Rudd, passed criticisms of the U.S. leader. Did an ambassador say something bad about it? Don't tell me. I don't tell me. I don't. Where is he? Is he still working for you? Yeah, yeah. Do you said bad? Before I took this position, Mr. President. I don't like you either. I don't. And I probably never will. Back in 2020, Rudd was critical of Mr. Trump on social media,

describing him as the most destructive president in history. He has since deleted those posts. The U.S. Supreme Court said today it'll hear a Second Amendment challenge involving a law that bans regular drug users from having a gun. It's the same law that was used to convict President Biden's son Hunter last year. An appeals court found it to be mostly unconstitutional, except when someone with a firearm is presently impaired. The Trump administration once the law upheld, arguing that habitual drug users present unique dangers to society when armed.

Oral arguments are likely to take place early next year with a decision due by early summer. A federal appeals court says the Trump administration can move forward with deploying National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon for now. By a two-to-one vote, the judges lifted an earlier court ruling that had stopped the deployment while a legal challenge plays out. State and city officials had sued over President Trump's plans to deploy 200 National Guard members to protect what he called a war-ravaged city. Today's decision would allow the deployment of troops to guard an ICE facility in South Portland, which has been the scene of frequent protests, though further legal challenges are expected. A change in guidance on giving peanuts to babies as young as four months old has helped roughly 60,000 children avoid potentially serious allergies.

That's according to a new report out today in the medical journal Pediatrics. Researchers found that allergies and children aged zero to three fell by more than 27% after a shift in advice a decade ago. That number jumped to more than 40% when the guidance was expanded two years later. The change in guidance upended longstanding recommendations that children not be fed peanuts and other such products until age three. On Wall Street today, stocks surged out of the gate to start the week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped more than 500 points on the day.

The NASDAQ added more than 300 points. The S&P 500 also ended firmly in positive territory. Still to come on the news hour, rapidly thawing permafrost wrought by climate change threatens remote villages in Alaska. Tamara Keith and Amy Walter break down the latest political headlines and the ongoing government checkdown. And artist, I Way, discusses a new installation examining Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms.

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. Colombia recalled its ambassador to the United States today amid rising tensions between the two countries. After U.S. military strikes took out what the Trump administration claimed were drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean. But over the weekend, a very public spat broke out between the country's leaders, with Gustavo Petro of Colombia, accusing President Trump of murdering a Colombian fisherman in one of those strikes, and Trump calling Petro an illegal drug dealer. Ivan Duque was the president of Colombia from 2018 to 2022, and he joins us tonight from Bogota, Colombia. President Duque,

welcome to the News Hour. Thank you for joining us. Amna, thank you so much. It's a pleasure to be here with you. So your successor, President Petro, has now accused U.S. President Trump of murder. He also says the U.S. is violating Colombian sovereignty with those strikes. Do you agree with those accusations? Well, I think what Petro wants to do right now is try to use this tension in order to influence the election that we have in 2026, that's for sure. And also, he has done everything that he has been possible or capable of doing

in order to dismantle and to make fragile a bilateral relationship that has lasted for more than 200 years and actually being Colombia recognized just a few years ago as a major strategic ally of the United States, not permanent member of NATO, which is the highest standard that any Latin American country has ever enjoyed with the United States. So I think it's reckless what Petro has been doing. And I think the fact is also that Colombia has been working with the United States in the Caribbean against narcotrafficking for many years with the Orion campaign. So I believe what the United States is doing against narcotrafficking, it's well done. It's based on legal legitimacy.

And I think Petro is just trying to find an excuse in order to break a relationship that has been bipartisan, bicameral, and historical. To be clear, the U.S. now has some 10,000 troops in the Caribbean. They have dozens of military aircrafts and ships. President Petro is accusing President Trump of killing a Colombian. national and without showing any evidence that this person was involved in any kind of illegal activity. Have you seen evidence of that? Well, I don't think there's evidence that proves that right now, I'm not, but I think also what it's interesting to express is that in the last

decade, Colombia and the U.S. have worked jointly in interdiction, aerial interdiction and maritime interdiction. And in those interdiction exercises, there have been usage of weapons if the vessels or the planes do not follow orders and do not proceed to be put

under the custody of the judicial system or the military intervention. So the bombardments that we have seen are all based in the fight against narcotics in the Caribbean. So I think what Petro is trying to do is to

exaggerate the situation, trying to make this a patriotic, quote-unquote, stand while trying to use this as an instrument in order to polarize the 2026 election. But when you look at the facts, Colombia and the United States have done this kind of exercises for a long time. So I think this is just an excuse that Petro is trying to find in order to break the relationship with the United States, which is just reckless. Well, as you say now, the relationship between the two countries is very different, given even though they've had this shared history of counter-narcotics in the past. These two leaders have been clashing four months. We saw President Trump threatened tariffs in January after Petro tried to block his use of military planes to deport Colombians back to Colombia.

You now see President Trump threatening to further cut aid, aid that was already slashed when he first came into office. What would be the impact of that cut on Colombia? Let me begin by saying something, Adamna. When you look at what happened, for example, last year in 2024, Colombia received more than 14,000 deportations, which means that this was an exercise that was based on a certain criteria and was also based on certain protocols. There's nothing that has been changed.

So Petro used this as the first opportunity to have a clash with President Trump early in his second administration. Then, as you have seen, he has even gone to the streets of New York and asked the troops of the United States not to follow President Trump's order, which is reckless, and it's something that it's illegal. And that's why there was a very strong message from the United States. Also, Petro has been decertified in the fight against narcotics. And now, with all this escalation of attacks from Petro to the United States, even calling the United States a Nazi administration and trying to promote genocide or law. over the world. What he's trying to do is just break their relationship. With what interest? Petro doesn't care if there are tariffs of 10, 20, 30, 50 percent because he actually wants the private

sector to suffer from this clash, which is also reckless. So my call is for the United States to individualize any sanction and not to create a collective punishment for the economic apparatus that would harm thousands of jobs. And I think Petro wants that, but we have to avoid that, and Petro wants that in order to be instrumentalized for the election in 2026. I think there's a parallel diplomacy for majors, governors, us as former presidents,

the economic agreements that have called for the relationship to be maintained bipartisan, bicameral, and basically honoring the 200 years of a very strong relationship that we have enjoyed and not allow Petro to go his way. So when it comes to these military strikes in the Caribbean, which have been the source of this latest round of tension, I just want to be clear on your take here.

You're saying even if the Trump administration provides no evidence for the basis of their claims that these are narco-traffickers, and we've had legal experts saying that some of the legal justification is highly dubious, there's a lot of questions around how legal these are, you're saying that's a standard that's acceptable to you for the U.S. to continue to carry out these strikes. Is that correct? Well, if you look at the historical background of this, AMNA, even in my administration, we had a multinational campaign called the Orion complaint, where Colombia, the United States, and more than 14 states in the Caribbean, we all worked against narcot trafficking. President Duke, if I may, this is not a multilateral

effort. These are unilateral U.S. strikes being carried out. Yes, which I consider are also based on the fact that the Cartel de Los Soles has been declared a terrorist organization by the United States. And vessels and planes leaving Venezuela with narcotics can be contradicted by the United States. So is the United States doing a lawful action so far under the law of the United States? It seems to be lawful. And also, when you look at the standards that other countries in Latin America, even in Colombia, we have interdiction capabilities in order to be effective against these kinds of threats. That is the former president of Colombia, Ivan Duque,

joining us tonight, President Duque. Thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it. Thank you so much, Abna. with a proposal today to redraw their state's congressional map in a way that would eliminate its only swing district. The mid-decade redistricting is part of a nationwide push by President Trump and his Republican allies

to help the GOP maintain control of Congress in next year's elections, often through maps that have the effect of diluting black political power and diminishing the voting strength of communities of color. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared willing to issue a ruling that could further that effort during arguments

in a Louisiana redistricting case. NAACP Legal Defense Fund President Jenae Nelson argued the case before the court in defense of Louisiana voters, and she joins us now. Thanks for being with us. Thank you, happy to be here. So what was the main argument you presented

before the court in defense of the existing Louisiana map that includes two majority black districts? What did you want the justices to understand about the stakes? Well, I wanted the justices to understand that that map was remedying very flagrant violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and that if for some reason that map was not acceptable to them, that the proper recourse is to send it back to the lower courts so that another map could be drawn that does remedy the racial discrimination that we proved in the case. and that what the court should not do is tinker with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it has been such a formidable protection and tool to advance our democracy. And you just explained the many ways in which black voters are often exploited or their votes are diluted for a variety of reasons, including sometimes partisan aims. And the Voting Rights Act, Section 2 in particular, is the only shield.

from that that we can use with any, with any expectation of real protection. For the unfamiliar, what is Section 2 and what does it do? So Section 2 is part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's a permanent provision of that act. And it basically says that there's no voting practice, procedure, qualification, anything having to do with voting that can abridge the right. to vote. So deny it or dilute it or harm it in any way, minimize it on account of race. And as we mentioned, North Carolina Republicans are moving forward with this plan to effectively

oust one of the state's three black members of Congress by carving up an area of eastern North Carolina in this congressional map. And this district happens to have a large black population. So how does that square with what constitutes racial dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? Well, it's pretty squarely a violation of the act, as far as I can tell. It is using black voters as a means for gaining political power or partisan control. And while the Supreme Court did say in another case, Rucho v. Common Cause, that it will not entertain any partisan gerrymandering claims, racial gerrymandering is still a mothful and it's still justiciable by the court, meaning that those claims are still viable before the court.

And I can't imagine how this map in North Carolina can achieve its partisan goals lawfully in the way that they're trying to do it now without violating the rights of black voters. And that's why we really need Section 2 because Section 2 protects voters from being exploited by politicians or people who simply want to perpetuate discrimination. And is that what you would say to people who say, look, the Voting Rights Act has outlived its purpose, the conditions that existed in 1965 no longer exist today? Absolutely. Well, one of the things that's important to know is that Section 2 is not anchored in any

particular facts from 1965. It is based on current condition. So the exact type of discrimination that we're seeing in places like North Carolina, as we saw in Louisiana, as we saw improved in winning a case in just two years ago in Alabama in a case called Allen versus Milligan, this type of discrimination is sadly still current, still rampant, and still contaminating our democracy and our electoral processes. And it's not just an issue for the voters who are impacted. It's an issue for all Americans because any elected official who is voted on on a discriminatory map and ultimately winds up legislating is legislating from a discriminatory foundation. And ultimately, that harms the legitimacy of our governing bodies. So it's something that all Americans should care

deeply about. There are people who point to the fact that black turnout has actually improved in recent elections. How do those turnout numbers obscure what folks might see as inequities in access and representation when it comes to voting? So those turnout numbers are a very interesting story. One, they are a direct product of the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. So without the Voting Rights Act, we would not see turnout improving in the way that it has. A lot of the progress has been a result of litigation. It's been a result of the deterrent effect of having these statutes in place,

which is precisely why they need to stay in place and why they are continuing to protect our democracy. Junae, I see the late Justice Thurgood Marshall there in a picture over your shoulder. Can I ask you, what did it feel like to follow in his footsteps and argue a major voting rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court?

It felt like a very heavy weight of responsibility and it felt like I had the honor of carrying for a very important legacy of this institution that has argued so many important landmark cases to improve and perfect our nation across our 85 years of existence. And so it was a true honor. And I just hope that I lived up to a fraction of his legacy. Jenae Nelson with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Thanks again for your time. We appreciate it. Thank you.

This podcast is supported in part by the New England Innovation Academy in Marlborough, Massachusetts, where today's students become tomorrow's innovators by discovering their passions and purpose while preparing for what's next. Reimagining education with a future-focused curriculum, entrepreneurial mindset, and real-world application, currently enrolling grade 6 through 12, day and boarding students. Learn more at NEIacademy.org. In the Arctic tundra of Alaska, climate change is forcing an Alaskan native village to relocate. Rising temperatures are melting the ice under the ground called permafrost. The melted ice then mixes with the soil creating unstable land.

The U-PIC people call it Alaskan quicksand. From Alaska, Amalia Huomarchant and a team from the Middilio, School of Journalism Report. The houses, it's sinking. Every year my floor falls six inches, whole around the house. Edna Chase, 60 years old, lives in the Alaskan village of Nunapichuk. She's been in this home for 53 years, but now, due to rising temperatures, the permafrost underground is melting.

Her house is sinking in what they call Alaskan quicksand. There's no more foundation. It's under the ground. I've got three floors, two under water, and the top one can't dry. Sometimes I have to have five fans going. Man, it stinks in here. She has to pump the water from under her house

every 15 minutes to keep it from flooding. Do you see the water? 700 U-PIC natives called Nunapichuk home. Water is a major. threat to village infrastructure, but it's also a part of daily life. The village is divided into three islands by the Johnson River, where kids swim, people fish for subsistence, and the post office delivers packages by boat. The melting permafrost affects every aspect of life here. The only way to get around is

walking on boardwalks, which are in constant need of repair. Most infrastructure is severely damaged. According to village authorities, the town and surrounding area will be uninhabitable within 10 to 15 years. So, residents voted to relocate to higher ground in 2023. We are on the brink now. Morris Alexei is an Unapachuk resident leading the relocation efforts. He took us to the new location by boat.

It's only three miles away, but at least 20 feet higher, above sea level. The village bought this land four years ago, and the more firm, stable land should allow buildings to last for centuries. It would be a relief for this is, as you can see, high and dry over here. To move here, they need the support and financial assistance of the U.S. government, but bureaucratic hurdles have slowed this process.

With this new administration in the federal government, it seems like we were making some steps forward, and then this was like a step. back again. 143 other villages in Alaska are imminently threatened by climate change, according to Permafrost Pathways. It would cost more than $150 million to move Nunapachuk. But experts from Permafrost Pathways and the federal government said that coordination,

not money, is the main stumbling block. At least 15 different federal agencies play a part in the relocation process, with no leading authority to steer the efforts. It's a piecemeal approach, and it isn't working well. Alfredo Gomez is the director of the Natural Resources and Environment Team of the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Our recommendations are that a federal entity, if it's going to be the federal government, needs to sort of be in charge of coordinating and helping the communities make those moves.

C.J. McCormick is a lifelong resident of Bethel, the closest city to Noonopichuk. He represented the 38th District of Alaska in the state legislature for two years. There are solutions to these problems that are being ignored because of bureaucracy or just almost willful ignorance, to be frank. During his term, he says he saw strong political pushback towards climate relocation. I don't think it's a tenable situation to tell someone just to leave. You're telling them essentially to just give up their culture and give up their ancestry and things like that. Relocation is even more urgent because the melting permafrost has created severe health issues for many Nunapichuk residents.

According to Morris Alexi, the banks of the sewage lagoon and the dump site are eroding. Remnants of wastewater are seeping into the river. Our dump sites, our lagoons, they are all upstream of the river. It's not good for our health right here. right here. The damaged homes are also allowing cold winds in, creating a damp, frigid environment that lets severe mold develop. As a result, many residents, including Edna's 15-year-old son, have developed chronic respiratory

diseases. My son started using an inhaler, and his dad, who used to live hair, uses a nebulizer. If there is no federal or international action on climate change, scientists project that village temperatures will rise by nearly 15 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. At that point, there will be no solid ground in Unapachuk. But as you can see, I would probably be really stuck if I was alone in there. Edna Chase says the federal government has no idea of the conditions that she and the village are living in.

Washington, D.C., you guys should come and look at it firsthand with your own eyes. You come and smell each house. You'll smell the stents. You'll see green mold, black mold all over. How could you live with that? For the people of Nunapichuk, including Morris Alexi, moving to the nearest town, Bethel, is not an option. What we want to preserve is... the way of life we have known since time beginning.

But whether the Yupik people in Unapuchuk will manage to relocate before their village sinks will depend on how fast temperatures rise and what assistance they can get from the federal government. For PBS News Hour, I'm Amalia-Yomarchant with the Medell School of Journalism in Unapichuk, Alaska. Millions of people took to the streets throughout the country this weekend to protest President Donald Trump's agenda as the government shutdown enters its third full week with no clear resolution. For more, we're joined by our Politics Monday duo. That's Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. It's always great to see you both.

Hello. So some 7 million people, according to the organizers, They protested, demonstrated across some 2,500 cities. The president dismissed this weekend's massive protests. You see the images there from this past weekend. He dismissed them as a joke saying that the people involved were not representative of the country. Take a listen to what he had to say. I think it's a joke.

I looked at the people. They're not representative of this country. And by the way, I'm not a king. I'm not a king. I work my ass hope to make our country great. That's all. I'm not a king at all. Congratulations. They didn't burn any buildings down. That's a big achievement for the left to have some kind of gathering where they don't have a loot in and riots and burn a building down.

Again, some 7 million people, 2,500 cities. This clearly aggravated him a little bit. Yes, and part of President Trump's power in this second term has come from an air of invincibility, of inevitability, of having power and being able to use it. And what these demonstrators showed, mostly what they showed each other, is that they aren't alone and that there are people who actually do oppose the president. He has, by sort of saying, oh, this isn't a big deal and all of that, he is, and also putting out a video, an AI altered, or not altered, an AI created video of himself flying a fighter jet with a crown on his head. much like a king, dropping what looks like excrement on protesters, he's trying to downplay something that is real and is a part of America. Obviously, it's not all of America, it's not his part of America. He has repeatedly, during the government shutdown, for instance, saying I'm going to defund Democrat things in Democrat states to use, phrasing that he has used,

he is essentially saying he's president for a different America. And Amy, it's not at all surprising that the president would dismiss these protests at the risk of defining them based on what the president had to say about them. I mean, what did they show? What did these demonstrations show? Well, part of the frustration that Democrats have right now is with their own party. When we look at approval ratings of the Democratic Party and why they're so much lower than they've been in the past and lower than opinions about Republicans, is that it's Democrats who say, we're not feeling so great about our party. Part of the reason is that they're not winning

and they feel like we keep losing, he keeps getting everything that he wants. The only way that I think Democrats will feel as if they're winning is to actually win something. And that, we have our first upcoming elections in about two weeks, New Jersey, Virginia, have governor's races, there's a ballot initiative in California, of course, on redistricting.

That's an operational. if Democrats do sweep all three of those for Democrats to feel as if they actually are making some difference in terms of where the voters are. It may not be where the social media is. The other thing to note is that when you look at all the special elections that have taken place up until this point, many of them in very small legislative districts, very low turnout, still Democrats have been outperforming how harassed in those same areas by 15. points. So when it comes to who shows up in vote, it may look very different from who shows up on social media, who shows up at rallies, and those are the numbers that really start to matter when it comes to the impact that it will have on governing and politics. I want to come back to

this issue of redistricting, but Tam, as we said, the shutdown is entering week three. Republican senators are set to meet with President Trump at the White House tomorrow to hold the line, as they say, as the shutdown drags on. Any sign that the Trump strategy here is, shifting, evolving? No, no, there's not. There's no sign that anyone's strategy is evolving. The House of Representatives is not in session this week. Once again, just they haven't been in session all month while this government shutdown is

happening. It is a government shutdown like none I have covered before, and I have covered many of them before. There just isn't any negotiating happening. Nobody's looking for the off-ramp yet, and I think I may have said almost. exactly the same thing last week. It's just stagnant. Well, if the shutdown continues to sort of play out as it is,

and if Americans, more Americans, start to feel the pain, we already talked about this sort of wave of anti-Trump energy, when it comes to redistricting, can the GOP just redraw their way to victory, change these maps and basically lock in victories? So when we look at the Cook Political Report all of the different things that are coming together. And I'm talking specifically about redistricting that's happening today in many of these states. There are simply more states where Republicans

can redistrict than Democrats can. At the end of the day, right now, we're saying somewhere between five and eight seats that we think that Republicans can net from this entire process. So that means in order to win control of Congress, Democrats would need, instead of just winning three seats, they need to win eight to almost a dozen seats. That's important. But I think about redistricting in this way. What Republicans are doing is each one of those districts is like a sandbag that they're building. They're kind of building a little wall here. And in a not so big storm, that may be enough to protect them.

But if the political environment is really bad, like a category three or four storm, even all of those sandbags may not be enough. Because remember, there are a lot of states that aren't redistricting. And that's where many of these competitive seats are that Republicans currently hold, New York, New Jersey, Arizona. And, Tam, as we wrap up our conversation here, let's talk about the demolition work that has started on the East Wing. There were a couple of photos that were published by the Washington Post, and then the New York Post. that really just stopped us in our tracks. Because you see there active demolition work happening on the East Wing. If you were to take a private tour of the White House,

this is where visitors would go. As you can see, it's being torn apart as the work begins on this $250 million ballroom that the president intends to build. He had said before that the demolition work, or rather the renovation work, would not in any way affect the existing White House structure. That was clearly not true.

The president seems to not believe that the East Wing is part of it. the White House. The White House has been emphasizing the president is emphasizing, oh, the East Wing, it's been redone many times before, essentially saying that is not the most historic part of the White House. This is a massive project. This is something that President Trump has been talking about wanting to do since at least as far back as 2010 when he was just a developer out on the outside. It is one of many things that he is doing to try to put an indelible stamp on the physical plant that is the White House.

If you look at the Rose Garden, which is now a patio, that looks a lot like the pool club at Mar-a-Lago, he is making this White House in an image that is very much a Trump, you know, a Trump establishment. And the ballroom, initially, they had said it would seat 650 people. Now they're saying 900. The president is saying 99. So the project seems to have expanded. And certainly it is, the demolition is happening. And and it's real. And much like everything else with President Trump, he can do this unilaterally.

There's no oversight, no public comment period. He just says, we're going to start the demolition on Monday, October 20th. And because it is all being funded by private donors, including many who he celebrated at the White House last week at an event, it does not stop. because the government is shut down because it is private funding. Amy, I see you nodding your head, taking it all in. Yeah, exactly. Okay. Amy Walter, Tamara, Kiether, thanks to you both.

You're welcome. Welcome. A new public art initiative marks the 80th anniversary of the United Nations, inviting artists to examine the state of democracy and social justice. The very first featured artist is renowned Chinese dissident Ai Wei Weiwei, whose powerful blend of art and activism

has long focused on global human rights. Senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown reports for our series Art in Action, exploring the intersection of art and democracy and part of our canvas coverage. To spend time with the artist Ai Wei Weiwei is to experience the playful. I see you from the land streets.

See? Oh, yes. Yeah? The very serious. We always have to defend the fundamental values about who we are. We have to defend humanity, human rights, freedom of speech. And always a sense of purpose in what art can do. Art should be activism, because art is in questioning establishment.

in questioning what has already been as a fixed idea. It looks so nice. On this day, I was getting a first look at his latest public artwork. So beautiful. It's like under the water, right? Yeah. It sees the waves. A large installation titled Camouflage.

The final touch is still being applied at Franklin D. Roosevelt for Freedom State Park. Park. Originally designed by famed architect Louis Kahn, it's a stunning setting. Three and a half acres on Roosevelt Island on New York's East River between Queens and Manhattan, with the United Nations building nearby. The first is freedom of speech and expression. That proximity is purposeful. The park is a monument to FDR and the four freedoms he called for in his January 1941 State of the Union speech. Freedom of speech and worship, freedom from, want and fear.

A vision for the future, even as Nazi Germany had plunged Europe into war and the U.S. debated joining the fight. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle. to gain those rights and keep them. FDR's Four Freedoms would become founding principles of the United Nations Charter, even as war, divisions, and fear remain. Ai Weiwei, in fact, got the idea of camouflage from seeing it in a wartime setting

on a visit he made to the front lines in Ukraine this past summer. I hiding in Ukraine under the same kind of comfort. I says he was interested in the various meanings of camouflage, hiding and protecting something, but also misleading. Look closely, there's that playfulness again. The netting is filled with thousands of images of cats. Partly a nod to Roosevelt Island's history as an animal shelter. There's one just outside the park's gates, partly to the harm done to animals in war, but

also a bit of personal history. I always do work have layers, meaning relating to aesthetics, like art history, and relate to political situation. My personal struggle, I've been living three, four lives. So just like cats, normally we say cats have nine lives. I already spend maybe eight of them. Born in 1957, Ai Wei Wei is the son of a renowned poet who was forced to leave Beijing with his family to be re-educated in a rural village during China's Cultural Revolution.

I came of age as part of a generation of young Chinese artists breaking out of past strictures and lived in the U.S. for 12 years starting in 1981. He first made his name as an art provocateur. One famous work shows him purposely breaking an ancient Han Dynasty urn. He had Chinese government support as a designer of the 2008 Beijing Olympics Bird Ness Stadium. But then drew government anger, leading to imprisonment in a four-year travel ban, after he investigated and documented flimsy construction and corruption following a 2008 earthquake in which thousands died. He's exhibited internationally, including a recent retrospective at the Seattle Art Museum,

titled I. Reble, the art and activism of I. Wayway. And he travels the world, including for his 2017 film Human Flow on International Migration. Always he continues to explore and prod. He was obvious because he's been discussing these issues of democracy and surveillance and human rights for so much of his career. Howard Axel heads the Four Freedoms Park Conservancy, which programs park events and exhibitions. and exhibitions, including this new project titled Art by Freedom, which grew out of a national rethinking of monuments and invites artists to create works to explore issues of social justice and freedom. We can re-look at our monuments and have them look forward and not always back.

And here's a monument to a great American, and you're doing what to it? And we're overlaying today and tomorrow with contemporary artists. We are in a moment where this is a question of democracy and voting and rights and is in the headlines every day. A time of conflict not only directly related to camouflage, but certainly conflict in our public debate. And we wanted to use this space specifically to be part of that public debate. We're not going to tell them how to interpret it, but we are going to try to get people to

who think about it in their own lives. To that end, visitors are invited to write their personal reflections on ribbons and tie them to the netting. The most specific reference to conflict used by Iwewe, a neon sign bearing a Ukrainian proverb. For some people, war is war. For others, war is the dear mother. I says for him, art is about getting people to see their essential humanity and defending essential human values, now more than ever.

Almost 80 years after this fundamental idea raised up by the President Roosevelt, we still say freedom of speech is at a very difficult time. In the United States, I'm not talking about it in China or in North Korea, but right in the United States. So I think as a cum floor, The West always talk about they have humanity, freedom, speech, and democracy. But we have to say everything is at a risk at this moment.

Iwayway's camouflage is on view until November 10th. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Jeffrey Brown at FDR For Freedom's Park in New York City's East River. Tonight marks a milestone for all of us here at the NewsHour. On this day, 50 years ago, PBS NewsHour aired its very first broadcast with a different name, but the same mission, to deliver thoughtful, trustworthy journalism, to help make sense of the world, not just report on it. Half a century later, we're still at it, guided by the same principles and mission. So we want to thank you, our viewers and our supporters, for standing with us through five decades

and trusting us to deliver news and storytelling that matters. You can find more on the NewsHour's 50th anniversary online, including a look at top moments from the past 50 years. That's on our website, pbs.org slash NewsHour, and we'll have more on our broadcast later this week. 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.