PBS News Hour - Full Show - October 24, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: October 24, 2025

Friday on the News Hour, the U.S. escalates regional tensions with another strike on an alleged drug boat off the coast of Venezuela. Experts warn against the dangers of manipulating economic data after President Trump replaced the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Plus, the government shutdown continues, leaving many critical workers unpaid and needing to resort to food banks. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. I'm the Navaz is away. On the news hour tonight, the U.S. escalates regional tensions with another deadly strike on an alleged drugboat off the coast of Venezuela. Experts warn of the dangers of political interference in economic data after the president fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And Congress remains divided as the government shutdown continues, leaving many critical workers unpaid and needing to resort to food banks to survive. There's just tremendous anxiety across our community at this stage. Welcome to the News Hour. The Trump administration launched a major military and diplomatic escalation in its new war on drugs today, sending an aircraft carrier to last

Latin America and sanctioning Colombia's president. Today's announcements come as the U.S. has increasingly targeted political leaders it opposes across the region, and as the military has launched an unprecedented number of deadly strikes in the Caribbean. Here's Nick Schifrin with more. Today in the Caribbean, another boat incinerated by a U.S. missile, the 10th U.S. strike since early September on what the administration calls drug boats, including three strikes this week alone.

later a major military expansion. The Pentagon announced the deployment of the Gerald Ford Carrier Strike Group, with more than 6,000 service members to, quote, disrupt narcotics trafficking and degrade and dismantle transnational criminal organizations. The cartels are the ISIS of the Western Hemisphere. Yesterday, President Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Heggseth compared their efforts against drug cartels to the global war on terror against groups including al-Qaeda and ISIS. If you reframe how you understand the world in our own hemisphere, that's exactly what these foreign terrorist organizations are.

And so we will track them, we will map them, we will network them, and we will hunt them and kill them. Just yesterday, the U.S. flew B-1 bombers off the coast of Venezuela. U.S. officials say they're trying to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and senior military leaders who the U.S. accused of running a narco state by reducing the revenue they receive from drugs. In response, today Venezuela launched a national military deployment, and Maduro vowed his people would fight American invaders.

They would see the parade of millions of men and women with rifles in the fighting forces of the working class, the peasants, the fishermen, and the neighborhoods throughout the country. Diplomatically today, the Trump administration targeted another outspoken Latin head of state, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, accusing him of, quote, allowing cocaine production in Colombia to explode and flood into the U.S. On X, Petro responded, saying he'd spent decades fighting drug trafficking and so-called the sanctions, quote, quite a paradox, but not one step back and never on our knees. I don't think we're going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we're

just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. But President Trump made it clear this week he will not seek Congress's approval to use deadly force, which on the Hill has sparked bipartisan disagreement. We cannot let one man's impulsive decision-making entangle this nation in another conflict. We neither need, nor want. President of the United States doing exactly what he should be doing. He's the commander-in-chief. When he sees an invasion coming against the United States, he takes action.

I support him 100%. As those two arguments indicate, the Trump administration's use of the military to combat drug cartels has sparked a debate over whether it's an appropriate and legal use of force. So we have our own debate now. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Rachel Vandenham had a 20-year career in the Air Force and is now a law professor at Southwestern Law School. And Nicholas Creel is a law professor at Georgia College and State University. Thanks very much. Welcome both of you to the News Hour. Rachel Van Lendingham, let me start with you. You heard from Pete Hagseth in that story. you heard from President Trump in that story comparing drug smugglers to members of ISIS and al-Qaeda,

and that they were going to do the same thing to the drug cartels that they did in the war on terror. What's your response to that? It's criminal and it's ludicrous to compare ISIS, a violent terrorist organization that beheaded people that kidnapped and murdered women and little girls and killed people to criminal drug cartels in which this administration, if they can target them and bomb them and kill them extrajudicially, they can interdict them, detain them, and prosecute them. So the comparison to an actual violent war in which people are dying to this, right, just to exploit the use of the authority to use force to give Secretary Hexsath the ability

to be judged jury and executioner, I think is abominable. Nicholas Creel, is it abominable? Is it ludicrous? I don't see it that way. Unfortunately, our Constitution gives a lot of power and discretion to the executive when it comes to utilizing military force. He's the commander-in-chief, and he has the ability to utilize the military given to him and paid for by Congress in ways that he sees fit. We may look at it and think it's a ludicrous judgment, but at the end of the day, it's his call to make. And as to that, if we're using the standards of things like beheading and kidnapping, That's absolutely a hallmark, a feature, not a bug, of a lot of these cartels,

where they are engaging in extremely violent behavior that's destabilizing to large regions of Latin America, particularly. Rachel Van Lanyham, there are parts of Mexico where these cartels exhibit extraordinary levels of violence. Take on that argument. So those extraordinary levels of violence are not against the United States or United States citizens or United States property. So those are against Mexico. And if Mexico wants to come to us and say, hey, we're not. We need your help. We're engaged in a non-international armed conflict with these drug cartels in our country.

Then we can join them and help them. We can't just unilaterally declare a war, so to speak, against criminals who are not directly attacking and imminent and imposing an imminent threat. Of course, drugs pose a threat to the United States. That's why the United States Navy and Coast Guard have been interdicting drug smugglers and the Department of Justice prosecuting them. And simply because the president can say that he has the authority, does that mean to my colleague here that the president can order the military to start killing

killing alleged drug distributors on the United States streets. Just because the president can say so doesn't make it lawful. So Nicholas Creel, as Rachel and I just said, just because the president says it, doesn't make it legal. Well, there's a difference between what makes it legal and what makes it a smart idea. I do see it as being legal. I would not see it as being particularly smart to go after, particularly in the United States drug smugglers.

But to your point, right, could the United States just simply say we're going to go and interdict these individuals inside Mexico or inside some of these other Latin American countries? Because we deem it so. Yes. And to look back at the last few decades, we've done a great deal of this. The war on terror in particular saw us going into other sovereign countries without permission to act. We've done that in Syria. We've done that in Pakistan. That's where we got Osama bin Laden himself. So we go into a lot of these countries because principally they're unwilling. and unable. And that's part of an emerging doctrine under international law that started under the War on Terror really being put forward because we saw that there were too many instances where the states themselves were these threats were growing, we're not able to really deal with them in a way. So the only way for us to prevent those threats from coming back on us was to go in on our own and deal with them. Rachel Van Leneham, let me bring in another point that we heard in our story that we prepared

before this debate started, that President Trump says he does not need to go to Congress for an authorization of the use of military force. In his words, we can just kill more of these, what they call foreign terrorist organizations and members thereof. What's your response to that argument? Sure, if the president wants to shred the Constitution and completely ignore it,

the Constitution gives Congress, the branch of government most responsive to the people, the authority to declare war. It originally said to make war, but the framers wanted to ensure the president knew that he or she had the duty and responsibility to repel sudden attack. Outside of repelling a sudden attack, which we have no facts of that, Congress is supposed to be the one deciding whether or not to go to war, whether or not we're

going to violate international law and go to war against drug cartels that are not organized armed groups who are engaged in violence against the United States or go to war against anyone else. And why? Because American blood is shed, the blood of our service members is shed, and the blood of innocent civilians winds up being shed. The United States actually engages in It's one of the most, and millions and millions of dollars of United States' treasure and taxpayer money is shed. So if we're going around killing people and exposing service members to death and injury, including physical injury and moral injury, it better be because our elected representatives, where most close to the people, have decided so.

Nicholas Creel, does there need to be a congressional authorization of the use of military force? Absolutely not. The law and precedent makes pretty clear that would be the case. So as she had brought up, the original word that they were going to use instead of declare was make, and they pulled back on that because they even understood then that we cannot wage war by committee. It has to be an empowered executive that makes these calls. And it goes back to that idea, this is one of the biggest reasons why elections matter. They have extreme, awesome power to utilize the forces given to them. And ultimately, this boils down to another problem of our current constitution.

This is the constitution of an 18th century agrarian nation that was lucky to be alive. that never envisioned having large standing armies. Now we are a global superpower with massive standing armies at every corner of the globe. So the old system that we develop for it isn't really good for what we've got now. We need constitutional reform to bring this in. Because under the current framework, as we've seen, time and again, the president just does not get a prior authorization from Congress in the vast majority of instances where he's utilized force. Therefore, President Trump does not need to get congressional authorization.

to utilize force here. Nicholas Creel, Rachel Van Lendingham. Thank you very much, T. Both. Thank you. Thank you, Nick. against U.S. tariffs. But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt every American worker and consumed.

The ad features parts of a 1987 radio address by former President Ronald Reagan, but it leaves out the fact that Reagan was speaking after he himself had imposed tariffs. President Trump fired back writing this morning that Canada cheated and got caught. Today, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada can't control U.S. trade policy, but he hopes negotiations can resume. We stand ready to pick up on that progress and build on that progress when the Americans are ready to have those discussions because it will be for the benefit of workers in the United States, workers in Canada's and families in both of our countries. Before the uproar over the TV ad, Carney had said he aims to double his country's exports to countries other than the U.S. because of President Trump's tariffs. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed confidence today that the tenuous ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas would hold.

But he warned all parties that the deal must work because, as he put it, there is no other alternative. We're all committed to making this plan work. There is no plan B. This is the best plan. It's the only plan. It's one that we think can succeed. It's one that we believe it's on the way to success. Rubio spoke while on a visit to a U.S.-led coordination center near Gaza. just the latest U.S. official to visit the facility this week, following Vice President J.D. Vance and envoys Steve Whitkoff.

Rubio's visit comes as Gaza residents try to return to their lives two weeks after the ceasefire took effect. For those in Gaza City, there's widespread uncertainty over when reconstruction can begin. I couldn't find any place other than here. I'm sitting in front of my house. Where else can I go? In front of the rubble, every day I live. look at my home and feel sorrow for it. But what can I do? Against that backdrop, there are two major issues that remain before the next phase of the Gaza ceasefire can proceed. Hamas has not agreed to disarm, and Israel has not yet agreed to the composition of an international peacekeeping force that would remain inside Gaza.

New York Attorney General Letitia James pleaded not guilty today to federal charges. She committed mortgage fraud. Her supporters cheered as she left a federal courthouse in Virginia this morning. President Trump has pressed the Justice Department to pursue the case against James, who launched a civil fraud case against him back in 2022. Today, she accused the administration of targeting those who, in her words, stood up for the rule of law. This is not about me. This is about all of us.

And about a justice system which has been weaponized. A justice system which has been used as a tool of revenge. James is the third adversary of Mr. Trump's to face federal charges this month alone, following former FBI director James Comey and Trump's former national security advisor, John Bolton. Her trial is scheduled for January of next year. The Pentagon confirmed today that it has accepted a $130 million donation from a private donor to help pay the military during the government. and shut down. The donation is raising both legal and ethical questions over the use of private

funds to pay troops. There are currently 1.3 million active duty service members, so that means the gift, while significant, amounts to about $100 each. During an event yesterday, President Trump said the person offering the funds was a friend of his who wished to remain anonymous. The Labor Department reported this morning that inflation rose 3% in September when compared to the same time last year. That's the highest readings. since January, but not as bad as some economists had feared. And it's likely welcome news for Fed officials who have signaled that they'll cut interest rates at their meeting next week. That inflation report also helped drive stocks higher on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial

average dumped nearly 500 points on the day. The NASDAQ rose around 260 points. The S&P 500 added around 50 points to end the week. Still to come on the news hour, the government shutdown leaves many critical workers unpaid resorting to food banks to survive. David Brooks and Kimberly Atkin's store discussed the ongoing government shutdown and the latest political headlines. And we look back on 50 years of the PBS News Hour. 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.

As we just reported inflation in the U.S. picked up last month. The Labor Department's report was delayed over a week due to the government shutdown. And the White House said today there will likely be no inflation report next month. The shutdown has also halted the release of monthly jobs numbers. But even before the shutdown, experts were sounding the alarm about risks to government data. That's after President Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, angry about the employment numbers. Our William Brangham has this report with lessons from nations where trust in government data was lost.

It's October 2009. The streets of Athens are buzzing after Greece's parliamentary election. The opposition Pasoq Party had won a landslide, a new prime minister took office, and George Papakonstantino became the new Minister of Finance. When you are asked to serve, you serve. But Papakonstantino had little idea of the men. mess he was inheriting. It was clear that Greece was, let's say, living beyond its means. The government thought that rather than dealing with the runaway fiscal deficit, it would be best to not exactly portray the situation as it was and to send to our European

partners' data which showed the deficit significantly lowered. The year before, at the end of 2008, the previous administration had projected its budget deficit would be around 2% of the nation's GDP. After Papua Constantinu's party took office, the government revealed what had been hidden. The deficit was actually 12%, and later revised up to 15, more than five times the limit set by the European Union. Suddenly, you have a big problem, and you have to explain to Greek citizens that you need to deal with this problem. Dealing with a runaway deficit means some degree of austerity, it means reducing expenditures, increasing taxes.

The government implemented sharp spending cuts and needed a massive bailout from the EU. Greeks took to the streets in the thousands. Multiple people died during violent riots and clashes with police. Ultimately, Greece suffered enormously, losing about a quarter of its GDP, while unemployment eclipsed 25. It would take years for the country to recover. Trust is lost almost overnight, and it takes years to bring it back, because you are basically

telling the world that you will manipulate the data for political means. It is the country as a whole that gets a bad name. And very quickly, the shortest joke around European capitals was Greek statistics. Before Greece's crisis, Argentina experienced its own number-fudging scandal. Around 2006, Argentinian policies had resulted in high government spending. The country's economy ran hot, inflation rose, and price controls didn't work. So Argentina's president turned his attention to the National Statistics Agency, eventually firing a key official.

Argentinian-born Alberto Cavallo teaches at the Harvard Business School. At the time, it was not obvious that there was going to be manipulation because the president said, we just don't think the data is being constructed correctly, and we're going to improve the methods. We're going to put people in place who will do this better. At first, the government stopped publishing certain numbers. Then, when numbers did come out, they appeared detached from reality. So Cavallo, who was a PhD student in the U.S. at the time, started doing some digging.

I decided I would try to collect data online from the largest supermarkets in the country. And I pretty soon realized that the numbers I was getting were two or three times higher than the official numbers for inflation. As the real data became clearer, both regular Argentinians and global investors lost trust in the country's economic numbers. It became very hard for the government to finance itself. And they started relying more on printing money, which led to even more inflation. This summer, after President Trump fired the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the BLS, saying he was unhappy with the agency's job reports, Kavalo saw some parallels to Argentina, but also some key differences. There's no evidence yet of any manipulation of the data in the U.S.

So I'm hopeful this will not happen. I honestly think it would be much harder to do here in the U.S. There are a lot more checks and balances. The DLS is considered one of the best statistical agencies in the world. They have a lot of staff, highly qualified staff still, that will probably raise flags. Here's what Kavalo says would be a real warning sign. If the government stops putting out data sets altogether, or if the numbers don't roughly match private sector estimates.

Researchers like Amy O'Hara are watching closely for those signals. O'Hara was a senior official at the U.S. Census Bureau and is now an expert on public data at Georgetown University. Right now, you can think of it as a numbers factory, and the raw materials come in and these indicators come out. The absence of that would be, I fear, one of two things. One, no numbers come out, and that would be devastating because we would lose the signal to understand what's going on in the country. And the other thing I would fear is that you don't have the factory running and you have the equivalent of a writer's room. You have people that just make up the numbers and then tell people that this is what happened. O'Hara acknowledges that the government's data collection and its dissemination can always be improved.

I think that we do have something of an opportunity here to say, okay, well, if we're worried about these numbers, great. Put more money into improving the measures. without scapegoating any individuals. O'Hara, too, hopes the U.S. doesn't follow the paths of Greece or Argentina. But she fears some of the trust in America's statistical agencies, which have collected data for over a century, may already be shaken. For the PBS News Hour, I'm William Brangham. Government shutdown day 24 marks another milestone for federal workers, whether they're furloughed or still on the job, and missed a paycheck.

And that is putting the squeeze on family finances. As Lisa Desjardin reports, many federal workers are now turning to local food banks to help put food on the table. In northern Virginia today, a line of cars that stretched nearly a mile made of federal workers stretched thick. by the government shutdown. The funds that I do have are pretty much depleted by this point. It's the third day the Capital Area Food Bank has specifically served federal employees. This one's dry goods. This time at two different locations.

Unpaid workers and contractors waiting in line said they've had to make cutbacks, like Valley Bennett, a single mother who works for the Department of Homeland Security. I have a kid in college, a senior in high school. senior in high school you know it's a lot of celebration a lot of things that you want to do since it's your last year in high school and we have to slow down all the activities more than a million federal employees today missed their first full paychecks since the shutdown began that includes zellini johnson a mother of three who works for the u.s navy it feels terrible it feels really bad it's definitely not a good feeling to not get one today but then to also know that you don't know when the next one is coming either. That after Senate Republicans and Democrats yesterday blocked each other's bills to pay some or all workers in the shutdown. Many federal employees were feeling or anticipating pain in their pocketbooks before today.

Lines formed earlier this week at the Capital Area Food Bank's first distribution in Prince George's Maryland, and its 300 boxes of goods ran out with people still waiting. And today, with cars lining up starting at 5.30 a.m., there was even more demand, and again, not enough supply. We are likely going to run out of food before you get to the front of the line. So this is our pantry network. Additional places to access food will be back next week. I'm so sorry.

It is a national story, with food banks ramping up around the country. In Phoenix, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul started making extra meals and collecting donations in the first week of the shutdown. And as TSA officers work without pay, airports are stepping up with donation drives, including at Las Vegas International. Las Vegas sees millions of passengers come through our airport. And those federal entities provide vital services for safety and flight safety and airport terminal safety.

And in Salt Lake City, Utah. These are our neighbors, whether you know them or not, these federal employees are Utahans, they are Salt Lakers. The shutdown is compounding already worsening food and hunger issues. Before the shutdown, the Capital Area Food Bank's annual report for the D.C. area, found a notable rise in the most severe food shortage. People considered very food insecure. It is government job-related.

As of May, 41% of households that lost a job connected to the government were food insecure. That's compared to 17% for households that did not experience a job loss. As the last box of food went into the cars today significantly earlier than the Food Bank had planned, a lingering common thought from federal workers. Don't forget them in all of this. Just think about the American people that are out here working really hard just to survive. Just remember that. The Capitol Area Food Bank in Washington is planning its next distribution event tomorrow,

and they only expect demand to grow as this shutdown continues. For more, I'm joined by the organization's CEO, Radha Muthiah. Rada, let me start right off the bat here with we know demand has increased. How much has it increased by? And what do you see as far as the need in weeks ahead? The demand has increased considerably over the course of this year. And what we've seen in particular is food insecurity is higher amongst former federal government workers, those who were laid off over the course of the spring and this summer.

So we have already been doubling our distributions since pre-pandemic and also adding another five to seven million more meals that we're distributing into our community this year as a result of these federal policy ships. Do you have the resources to handle the demand you expect and the demand you're experiencing right now because of the shutdown? The only way in which we're able to increase the amount of food that we distribute into the community is through the generosity of those around us and who are able to support us in the community. These are individuals, companies, foundations, who've really risen to the occasion,

having seen this incredible need across the community. I hear that strategy. I hear that community that you're relying on, but how do you feel about the potential need ahead? This shutdown could go on for weeks more. We are concerned about how long this shutdown is going to go on for. Our hope is that this shutdown will really come to an end pretty quickly. Our worry is that for each additional week that we have the shutdown, we're seeing just an incredible level of demand in the community. To give you an example at the five distributions we had this week, what we had planned for, we had to double. And even then, people left without getting food. So as we look ahead to next week, we're planning for, you know, about 400 families that we can provide food for

at each of these different distributions. Today, when I was speaking with workers, one of them I was in her car, she was told that you may run out of food before she got to the front of the line. And I saw her face immediately start to crumble. She almost started sobbing in front of me. She recovered quickly. But what is this telling you about where federal workers are now and especially what this year has been like for them? How is this different maybe than other shutdowns?

There's just tremendous anxiety across our community at this stage. People are already destabilized as a result of so many of. the federal policy shifts earlier this year. And now they're struggling because they're uncertain whether this is just a temporary loss of income and a cash flow issue or whether they are going to be paid at all for this period of time. And so we've heard from so many, like the woman who you saw today, who are trying to negotiate their utility bills, they're trying to pay for basic things on credit card just to get by. So there's just tremendous anxiety across the community. You've been through other shutdowns. Is this one different in any way?

This shutdown is really different for two reasons. One, it comes on top of the layoffs that have occurred in our community. And so that is significant as well. And number two, people are really concerned about how long this is going to go on for and really whether this is a loss of income and a cash flow issue or whether they will be reimbursed for this period of time. Radha, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much.

This past week saw the demolition of the entire East Wing of the White House and the redistricting battle intensifying across several key states. On that and more, we turn now to Brooks and Atkins Storr. That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Kimberly Atkins Store of the Boston Globe. Jonathan Capehart is away this evening. It's great to see you both. See you. So the remarkable scenes at the White House this week,

As President Trump greenlit the total demolition of the East Wing, you can see it there, to make room for a ballroom. The price for this, the price tag for this, is now grown to some $300 million. On the screen right there, this is the list that the News Hour has obtained of the private and corporate sponsors that have contributed to this project. So, David, the last time we talked about this, you said the idea wasn't necessarily a bad one. Do you still feel that way now that the East Wing has been reduced to rubble and dust? Well, I must say the photos are shocking, because there is something sacred about that building, and it feels like somebody taking a claw into a wedding cake. It just feels wrong. But I have long believed that the White House is just too small.

You know, it's built for John Adams and Abigail Adams, and people have added wings on since, of course. But it's just the rooms, and the West Wing is so sacred, you can't touch that. But, you know, the Obamas used to have their state dinners out in tents. And John Kennedy, they had their state dinners, so they had to spread everybody in different rooms. So the idea of having a room where we could have a state dinner or a big event, that still strikes me as the right thing to do. And I'm hoping future presidents will scrape the gilds off

and make it nice. And Kimberly, you could argue that this ballroom project is in many ways the kind of perfect distillation of how President Trump sees the presidency, something that needs to be remade in his image. Do you see it that way? Well, I don't. And listen, we can have a debate, a discussion about how big the White House is and how old it is.

I've been in that press room. I know that a renovation is called for. But it's the People's House and the idea that it has been corporate, the corporatization is what is in charge of this rebuild in a way that is in no way transactional. I had a lot of people in my mentions today saying, hey, it's saving the taxpayers money. No, but what are taxpayers paying for? The reason that things that happen in the White House ought to be paid by taxpayers is that keeps the White House accountable to them. Now who is the president accountable to? Google, corporate interest, meta, unknown individual donors, that is exactly what the emoluments clause and other constitutional measures are supposed to protect against. Who will the president be beholden to now?

The American people are all the folks who ponied up to help pay for this ballroom. And David, the White House this week, when faced with criticism, they updated this list on the White House website of the major events, they say, to include things like Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, cocaine being found on the premises during the Biden administration, real top-tier trolling. Yeah, no, I agree on the funding part, totally. You know, the big, beautiful bill expanded the deficit, what was it, like $4 trillion, and they can't afford to build a ballroom. So the cost seems like just a ridiculous argument to me and prone to corruption. It's not, I don't think it's as big as a 747 from Qatar or the crypto coins, but it's just, it's a, it's just a leg, you're asking for corruption. And at the same time, Kimberly, the president is asking the Justice Department for $230 million.

He argues that he suffered real harm from the Russia probe and from the Mar-a-Lago search. What do you make of that request? From the claims that I could see, I didn't see a lot of there there, but what's really concerned, is the people who are making this decision on the first blush under the law are his former personal attorneys, people like Todd Blanche or other people who have been in his corner from the beginning, like Pam Bondi, they should not be the ones deciding how much money he may make. Yes, he's saying he will give it away to charity. I will believe that when I actually see the receipts from the charity that gets there. But besides that, again, this is a

using taxpayer money to recompense himself and doing both. both this and the demolition at a time when federal workers are now running out of money, going to soup kitchens, and Americans will see their health care cost skyrocket at the beginning of the month. I can't imagine a worse look. I think even Marie Antoinette with blush at this point. David, what about that? What about the optics of it? Or the underlying substance? I'm here to defend Marie Antoinette. She gets a bad rap. No, it is. I mean, he's a man of luxury. And people like him or Putin, they think big men,

should live in big ways. And he's true to that creed. Yeah. I mentioned in the introduction, the redistricting battle. You've got both parties escalating. Republicans in North Carolina, Democrats in Virginia. Is there any off-ramp in this fight right now? Well, so far, the only outramp that I could see, off-ramp I could see, is if the Republicans finally stop the push. What you've seen from the Democratic leaders in states is that they are reacting to what Republicans are doing. I was heartened by California's move to actually build into their law a sunset that basically says, look, when Texas stops, we will too. But we can't have a redistricting war, race to the bottom.

That is terrible for democracy for everyone. It skews representation, and it makes our government work better for nobody. If there is a Congress, you would think that they could come together and fix this, but they won't. The Supreme Court, I fear, with their... decision on the Voting Rights Act that's going to come later this term that guts will likely gut a bigger hole out of it will only make it worse. I really don't know how we get to the end of this, but I certainly don't think a race to the war bottom is the way to go, but I also think if somebody is advancing bad policy, the other side has no, has every right to try to defend itself.

And there is this dynamic where you have lawmakers choosing their voters as opposed to voters choosing their lawmakers. Yeah, I mean, people died in Valley Forge, or at least got cold there. People died on the beaches of D-Day to preserve American democracy. And what stuns me, frankly, is why the voters in Texas and California and I guess Virginia and North Carolina and all these other states are not like saying, you're disenfranchising. Why bother to vote in a House race in 2026 when the outcome is already predetermined? They're basically trying to eliminate competitive races.

they're going to succeed, apparently. And so I just think it's atrocious that people don't put the democracy in their country above their party. They think as long as it's my party that's doing the rigging, fine. I'm fine with that. I think it's a mistake for the Democrats to join the race to the bottom, both for moral reasons, which I just tried to express, but also for political reasons. I do think the country is going to be in the mood for integrity, for upholding the standards, defending the Constitution. Just the way after Watergate, the country went for Jimmy Carter because they thought they were getting integrity. I think that's the play here.

And in the long run, the Democrats, not only morally, but politically, would be better off by saying, we don't play that game. And the time that remains, I want to shift our focus overseas because several U.S. officials, as we've reported on the program tonight, have visited Israel. They've met with Netanyahu, another top Israeli officials. You see the vice president there. The list also includes the Secretary of State. What's your assessment of where things stand, David, some two weeks in with this C-Swear? I don't say this that often. I think the Trump administration is doing an excellent job.

I think the 20-point plan they did and the way they got that through and pushed that through, that was excellent. But clearly it's fragile. We saw the Knesset vote trying to annex parts of the West Bank. And Trump couldn't have been more clear. You are not getting the West Bank.

You are not annexing the West Bank. That's not our policy. You do that. We're out of here. And Vance and Rubio and all the people are going over there, Jared Kushner. I think this is a deal that needs some babysitting and the Trump administration

is doing an excellent job of babysitting. Kimberlin? I agree with David on this, too. I mean, Donald Trump wants a Nobel Prize for his work on the ceasefire, and he is seeing it being threatened by Netanyahu once again. So I agree, and it makes sense for everyone in the administration, from J.D. Vans to Rubio to Trump himself, to make clear that this will not only threaten the ceasefire, but it will also cause a rift between Israel's biggest ally. Well, this week, the PBS News Hour is marking 50 years on the air. you have been with the program nearly half that time, a mere quarter century with the program.

You think you're reminding me of that. So I just want to invite you to reflect on that span of time. It's just a parade of faces. I think of Robin, I think of Gwen, I think of Ray Suarez, obviously, Jude. I mean, it's a parade, and you are like a worthy air still, a great parade of people. But I'll tell one story I told in one of my books.

When I first started doing this, when I said something stupid or crass, which happened a lot, I would see Jim's eyes when he was hosting uh uh well i would see his mouth turned down with displeasure because i said something stupid and when i said something he liked his eyes would crinkle with pleasure so for 10 years i just tried to avoid the mouth down turn and chase the eye crinkle yeah and jim never told me how to do this how to do this job or doing but with those little gestures he said this is the news hour standard this is how we

do things here and jim's been dead a number of years but that moral ecology because he taught the same less than everybody on the team, that moral ecology still exists. Jim Lairn's moral ecology, this is how we do things here, still exists. And it's a great legacy for anybody to leave behind a moral ecology. Moral ecology, what a phrase. David Brooks, Kimberly Atkins door, my thanks to you both. Thank you. Thank you.

Finally, tonight, we've been marking a milestone this week, the 50th anniversary of the PBS News Hour. Before we go, we have a look back at our beginnings and at how the News Hour has evolved over five decades, while remaining true to the principles that define this program from the start. So I will say good night for now and hand things over to Stephanie Tsai, who brings us the highlights from the past 50 years. Challenger, go at throttle up. At 11.39 a.m. Eastern Time, disaster struck America's manned space program. A minute after launch, the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up. Another day of infamy for the United States of America.

In covering the biggest stories of the last five decades, PBS NewsHour has sought to bring depth, insight, and fairness. Judy, there are protesters. Protestors have now broken into the U.S. Capitol. This continues to be a dangerous situation. Almost everyone is either a vast. evacuated or lost a home in this fire. And around the world. This is the impact site for one of those Iranian ballistic missiles. And if you see the size of this crater, that's about 30 feet deep and maybe 50 feet wide. Russia right now has you outmanned, outgunned, and they believe they can outlast you and Western attention.

Is it time to think about negotiating a settlement? The news hour's origins date back. Back to 1973, when Robert McNeil and Jim Lair were paired to cover more than 250 hours of the Watergate hearings for public television. How high do the scandals reach and was President Nixon himself involved? That led to the first version of the program in 1975, known initially as the Robert McNeil report. And soon thereafter, the McNeil-Lare report. At that time, a half hour dedicated to a single subject. In 2000, Robin McNeil described the approach the show's founders brought to news.

Fundamental fairness and objectivity, and also the idea that the American public is smarter than they're often given credit for on television. How could we add a kind of respect for complexity to the news that was already there? The program became known for its expert analysis and independent. and in-depth interviews. We're going to get off of this in a moment, I promise you, but I've got to pursue one particular, one other, one other. You may go on pursuing.

We'll have lots of questions and my answer won't change. But what about Cuba specifically? In 1983, the program expanded to a full hour, making it the first hour-long national news program. Its ambitions grew as well, and it added correspondence reporting from around the country a wide range of subjects. Probing interviews with world leaders were another hallmark of the program. Mr. Shamir says that the problem is lack of trust. He doesn't trust you, you

don't trust him. Definitely. We are enemies. Now we are enemies. But with whom I am going to make peace? With my friends? With my enemies. Let me tell you where David is wrong in this one instance, and it's the first time tonight. From its earliest days, the show's emphasis on politics was part of its appeal, including the civil tone of its weekly chats, which has continued throughout and even expanded. The show has spanned nine American presidencies and three impeachments. The news of this day is that Kenneth Starr, the Independent Council, is investigating allegations that you suborn perjury.

And the headline was, you know, here we are 20 years. into George Bush's public career, and we're still asking the question, who is he? I haven't been too good about talking about it, Judy, and maybe that's one of my, that's partially my fault, I think. Assad says the U.S. is lying about his possession, if not his possession, his use of chemical weapons. Well, you know, I think that Mr. Assad has been making claims that proved to be untrue for quite some time.

Each night, the News Hour featured substantial reports from the field. Less than a week ago, this was a neighborhood of some of the sturdiest, stateliest oceanfront homes in Biloxi, homes that had withstood hurricanes for well over a century. Including a level of international coverage that went beyond most nightly newscasts in cable. Meanwhile, after Mr. Mandela spoke, it just seemed as if people came out of nowhere. Black South Africans have poured into the streets in the thousands. Over the years, the programs received its share of criticism, accused of being too dry, too serious, and trying to be even handed to a fault. But millions of viewers have remained loyal to the program and its purpose, coming back for thoughtful coverage of a range of issues. Over the years, it's left space for artists and cultural moments that enhance our world. Singers and songwriters, novelists and authors, actors and filmmakers, many of them among the all-time greats.

There's always a debate about whether is that you in the song, is it not you in the song? What's the answer? If you've written really well, people will swear that it happened to you. While the program has always aimed for objective, fact-based journalism, it's had room for the offbeat and for surprising moments too. But I'm afraid that human beings may not be. be capable of protecting themselves from the risks of AI. That dread is profound. The American people are growing extremely unhappy

with establishment politics, with establishment economics. And you know what else? Even with establishment media. No! Yeah! The program also made history of its own in 2013, when Gwen Eiffel and Judy Woodruff became the first all-female anchor team for a network news broadcast.

On this, the first night of the new PBS News Hour, we have a lot of news for you. We also have a new look, but Judy and I will be bringing you the news and analysis you've come to trust. This is PBS NewsHour weekend. That same year, it expanded to the weekends, a half-hour program now produced at NewsHour's headquarters. With support from Democrats eroding by the day, President Biden says he's dropping out of the presidential race. Our core, of course,