PBS News Hour - Full Show - October 9, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: October 9, 2025

Thursday on the News Hour, hopes for a lasting peace as Israel and Hamas work to implement the first phase of the ceasefire deal. As a deal to end the government shutdown remains elusive, we speak with Senate Majority Leader John Thune about the stalemate. Plus, ICE escalates immigration raids in Chicago as the Trump administration moves to deploy the National Guard. 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, hopes for a lasting peace. Israel and Hamas worked to implement the first phase of the ceasefire deal. In the U.S., a deal to end the government shutdown remains elusive. We speak with Senate Majority Leader John Thune about the stalemate. It's going to take Democrats to open up the government. And I've said, give us the votes to open up the government, then we'll have a conversation about some of these issues that you want to discuss.

And ICE escalates immigration raids in Chicago as the Trump administration moves to deploy the National Guard. They knocked down every door and took almost every person in that building, regardless of citizenship status. There were children, there were mothers, all were taken. Welcome to the News Hour. Israel and Hamas have signed the agreement that President Trump proposed to pause their devastating two-year war. Under the terms, Hamas will release all 20 living hostages in the coming days in exchange for Palestinian prisoners,

while the Israeli military will begin pulling back but stay inside Gaza. Tonight, the Pentagon announced that the U.S. is sending 200 troops to help, quote, support and monitor the peace deal. But uncertainty remains about some of the thornier aspects of the plan, such as whether and how Hamas will disarm and who will govern Gaza. Nick Schifrin has that report. In Gaza City today, medics make their way to a central square, but not to rescue. Instead, to celebrate and savor the sweetness of what they hope is no more war. Honestly, these are indescribable feelings. We can't believe it, but thank God the war has ended and we're alive.

45 miles to the north in Tel Aviv, singing and group hugs. Gil Dikman has been leading protests in the city's hostage square. His cousin, Carmel Gat, was killed in Hamas captivity last August. She's not going to come back. It's too late for her, but it's not too late. For 48 hostages are going to come back. 20 of them are going to come back alive. Both sides today portrayed victory.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met his government with U.S. negotiators, Ambassador Steve Whitkoff, and senior advisor Jared Kushner. And Hamas's Gaza head, Khalil Al-Haya, described today's agreement as the U.S. guaranteed end of the war. We have received guarantees from the mediating brothers and from the American administration, all of whom confirmed that the war has ended completely. Over the next 24 hours, the Israeli military will withdraw to this yellow line inside of Gaza, giving them control of 53 percent of the strip.

Within 72 hours after that, Hamas must release all 48 living and deceased hostages, 20 of whom are believed to still be alive. Israel has also agreed to release nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners. The deal was sealed overnight in an Egyptian conference room, with representatives from Egypt, Turkey and Hamas. Today, Whitkoff and Kushner also met Egyptian President Abd al-Sisi and envisioned a broader regional peace.

I really hope that what we were able to accomplish over the last months and particular days doesn't just end this war, but also has the opportunity to continue what we worked on last time to bring the countries of the region closer together. And all Americans should be proud of the role that our country has played in bringing this terrible conflict to an end. At a White House cabinet meeting President Trump called the deal momentous. I've never said anything quite like it. But it's really peace in the Middle East. On Sunday, President Trump will head to Israel, where some are ready to give him a hero's welcome.

I love you, Trump. Israel's been waiting for this for 733 days. And the families of the living hostages hold their breath, desperate for reunions, nervous about disruptions. I got really excited and really anxious as well. 28-year-old Matan Eshet spoke to our producer, Carl Bostic. He's the cousin of Eviatar David, one of the first kidnapped by Hamas on October 7th from the Nova Music Festival.

In August, Hamas released a haunting video of David malnourished. Hamas starved Aviatar deliberately and filmed him. him looking like a skeleton digging his own grave. The only thing I think about is what Eviatas has been going through. There's been days that I couldn't think about what's wrong with me because the only thing I have in my mind is what's every time going through. Does he know which day is it today? Did he got some food today?

Did they beat him today? Like everyone here, Eshet is grateful for U.S. leadership. I can't gather the words to thank President Trump. for helping us making this deal, making the previous deal as well, putting his foot down and saying it's going to happen and hit it. But as he walks through this crowd that's gathered weekly for two years, he's worried the war isn't really over. I'm scared that Hamas will stay in power, and I'm hopeful that the entire international

community will put the foot down and make sure that Hamas will not be in power again. But that's politics. His personal prayers for his friend is that he will be the man he once was. He will start to get a treatment that he needs physically, mentally, and we're hopeful that he will go back to as close to a normal life that he had before. I was kidnapped at 22. He's 24 already. So he's gone through two birthdays.

Two birthdays. And we are close to his third. I'm just joyful that he will have his birthday back home. And tonight, senior U.S. officials said some 200 U.S. troops will be sent to Israel, not Gaza, as part of a, quote, oversight force. They will not work, they will work not only with Israeli forces, but also troops from Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, countries that could end up part of the international security force, Jeff, that is supposed to secure Gaza long term.

And, Nick, how narrow is phase one compared to some of the last? longer-term challenges for peace in Gaza? It's very narrow. You're absolutely right. This is entirely focused on what we just highlighted. The hostage release, the movement of Israeli troops within Gaza and the release of those Palestinian detainees. And as we've discussed, phase two, so-called phase two, has huge challenges. Hamas' demilitarization, which is senior U.S. official tonight actually called decommissioning,

that international security force that I just mentioned. And the creation of new governance in Gaza, none of that's going to happen quickly. The Hamas perspective was included in your report, but what are Israeli officials saying about how they intend to implement this plan? It really depends on who you ask, Jeff. So the foreign minister was on Fox News earlier today, and he said the hostage release should, quote, bring the end to this war. But you spoke to the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Leiter, and we'll hear that soon, and he said that the war would restart if Hamas doesn't disarm. The Israeli government is not unanimous. Even tonight, we're seeing that Bazzal al-Smotrich, the far-right minister, said he would

vote against this deal because of the release of what he called the next generation of terror leadership. That is the release of the Palestinian detainees. He posted that on X. So I think Israel's future actions very much depend not only on phase one, just the next couple days, but also what happens on phase two. And frankly, Jeff, the war still isn't over. There's still not a ceasefire.

You see this video from earlier today. That's tank fire on one of the main roads going from north to south Gaza. And Palestinians tonight reported some airstrikes, including one that hit a residential building. And so very much hope tonight in Gaza that this war is actually over. And the hope is in Israel as well. But it's not quite over yet. Nick Schifrenner, thanks to you for that reporting. Thank you.

And as Nick mentioned, we spoke earlier today with Israel's ambassador to the U.S. or Michael Leiter, and I asked him, why now? What changed politically, militarily, or diplomatically to make this agreement acceptable today when it wasn't previously? The answer is pretty simple. There are a number of vectors that actually came together, and this happens during the course of history where something wasn't workable and suddenly it becomes workable. The first thing is that the president, President Trump decided to really turn to the

Arab countries and Turkey, and tell them, look, you've got Hamas leadership sitting in your countries. You've got to turn the screws on them. And you've got to tell them that either they take this deal and let the hostages out, or I'm going to give full backing to the Israelis to militarily decide the fate of the leadership in both in Gaza and outside of Gaza. So that's the one vector. The other vector, of course, is alongside of that, that our military, the IDF has surrounded Gaza City, the last stronghold of Hamas. Most of their leadership has been eliminated. And we made it very clear that if they don't move to agree to release the hostages, we're going to move militarily into the city and destroy their last stronghold. So these two vectors came together, and ultimately the Arab states, together with Turkey, brought Hamas to its needs.

and to agree, basically, to this agreement, which is a defeat of Hamas, is what we pursued from the very beginning. Taking your explanation of these vectors, as you described them, given the immense human toll over the past two years, how does Israel respond to those who say that this outcome could and should have been achieved much sooner? Well, if it could have been achieved sooner, it would have been achieved sooner. You know, the problem is that certain people, both in the political, world and in the world of media create narratives. And then they pass commentary on the narratives. The only problem is the narrative isn't true. The government of Israel, prime minister of Israel was intent on ending this war. He made the aims very clear. The hostages

have to be released. Hamas has to be disarmed and Gaza has to be demilitarized. Those were the conditions. And the conditions were not met until now, until the president picked up the ball and took it to the states that were mediating. That's Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt. Saudi Arabia, too, deserves some credit, and told them, look, we've got to end this thing, and end it now. You have influence over Hamas,

bring that influence to bear. And the prime minister's parameters for ending the war were met. Until now, it simply wasn't possible. When the hostages are returned, if Hamas stages a public display, if they exploit them in any way as that terrorist group has done in the past, would Israel see that as a violation of the ceasefire terms?

We expect that Hamas will try to violate the terms. We don't know exactly how. But once all the hostages are released, we've got to go into the second phase and the third phase, which is the deradicalization and the disarming of Hamas. And it's going to be a bumpy ride. question about that. But we're going to be as patient as we can and hope that it's going to be implemented as the president has promised. We have to see the creation of this international

body that the president has taken upon himself to lead. And if he's at the head of it, it's quite possible that we're going to see the end of Hamas rule in Gaza and a civilian population rise to a state of affairs where they're living in freedom and pose. never again a threat on the people of Israel. That's really what we want to achieve. We cannot have jihadis living at our border again. And once that's in place, the people of Gaza and the people of Israel

will live side by side in peace. Hamas is demanding the release of Marwan Bargudi, a figure many Palestinians regard as their most legitimate national leader, one that Israel views as a terrorist. And we should explain he was jailed for planning attacks during the second Palestinian intifada, which he denies.

Would Israel ever agree to his release, or is that a red line? Marwan Bargutti is a red line. He can deny anything he wants. He was found guilty in a court of law for at least five murders. Those were the ones that we documented and proved. There are others, many others, that he's responsible for. He was the head of the Tanzim, and the Tanzim was the Fatah hench squad that killed people, many people. So he's responsible indirectly for many murders.

directly for five, for which he's sitting in jail for life. You mentioned earlier you see this deal as leading toward the destruction of Hamas. Tell me more about that, because Hamas has not agreed to disarm. They've not agreed to leave Gaza, as Israel has insisted in the past. The agreement, the 20-point plan, is very clear on the disarming of Hamas. And it's also very clear that if they do not disarm, then we're going to go back into military, confrontation. They have to disarm. Hamas cannot remain standing in Gaza. That's the plan

and that's what has to be implemented. This plan is basically ensconced with the government's directives for completing this war. And that's the disarming of Hamas and the demilitarization of Gaza. If that doesn't happen, then this peace plan is not going anywhere. And if they don't do it willingly, then this international agency that's being created has to do it. And if the international agency doesn't do it, Israel's going to have to do it. May I ask you, as someone who has experienced profound personal loss connected to this war, you lost your son in combat in Gaza in November of 23, how does this moment resonate with you on a personal level? Well, you know, I miss my son more than I can describe. He was my oldest son. He was my best friend. He was so alive and connected

to life. He left me six grandchildren, but he's not coming back. And the only thing that I have is to live what he lived for. And he gave his life for the safety and security of the state of Israel and the Jewish people. And I carry him forward, and I'm going to find some consolation. When the hostages come home and I see the parents embrace their children once again, these children who have been kept in dungeons underground for two years. When I see that embrace, I'm going to feel a sense of consolation. And if I experience soon the end of, really the end of this war and the end of the confrontation with Palestinian extremism, with this...

Islamism that really wants to destroy us. They say openly, just to destroy Israel. So when I see that subside and I see moderation rise to the surface, I see Gaza begin to be rebuilt where people can raise their human development index and live side by side together with us. I'll find consolation in that. Israeli ambassador, Michael Leiter, thanks again for your time. We appreciate it.

Thank you, Jeff. Good to be with you. For a different perspective now, we turn to Moin Rabani. He's a former United Nations official and non-resident senior fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. He's also co-editor of Jadalia, and that's an online publication that focuses on the Middle East. And welcome to the news hour of Moin. I want to begin by asking you just about what we heard from the Israeli ambassador there, saying it was the combination of pressure from Arab countries on Hamas leadership

and the Israeli military pressure on Hamas in Gaza, that that's what guys. Hamas to the table and to sign off on this deal. Do you agree with that? Yeah, it's a fantastic distortion of events. What actually happened is that this is an agreement that Israel and specifically Israeli Prime Minister bin Ladenew did not want. But what happened is that the United States took the decision that this agreement was going to be reached and implemented. And it took no more than a single phone call from Trump to Netanyahu, and the deal was done. Of course, there was military pressure in the Gaza Strip in the form of genocide, and there was pressure from Arab and Muslim leaders on Hamas,

and this led them to make some concessions they rather would not, but Israel has consistently rejected an agreement now for two years, and as we saw already in January and again now, a simple message from the United States to Israel is all it takes to make things happen. Well, from the Hamas perspective here, though, they have previously wanted guarantees that Israel would not renew the war before it returned hostages, right?

That that was a condition for them. They don't have that guarantee here. Yes. And they're still agreeing to return hostages. So what changed for Hamas? Well, the agreement stipulates that there's not only a ceasefire, but an end to the war, and President Trump has announced that on multiple occasions.

That's the most they're going to get in terms of a guarantee. I mean, you know, one can't take any commitment made by President Trump or the Israelis seriously, but in terms of guarantees, that's the best that is available. I mean, concretely, there really isn't more that could have been offered that would have satisfied Hamas or Palestinians in the Gaza Strip who have been subjected to this genocidal military campaign for two, four years now. This does seem to say, if I'm hearing you correctly,

that they're putting some faith and trust in President Trump, in his ability to have some kind of influence over Israel to not restart the war here. What is that faith and trust based on then in President Trump? Well, I think it's misplaced. Ultimately, this agreement will be implemented and this agreement will continue to be implemented if the United States decides it's in its interest to continue doing so. What we saw in January, there was an agreement, and it later emerged that Trump's primary

interest was ensuring that he had a diplomatic achievement on the day of his inauguration. And once that passed, he lost interest. And in February, the U.S. basically authorized Israel to abrogate the agreement and to renew the genocide. That may well happen now because the deadline for this agreement was tomorrow because that's when the Nobel Peace Prize is going to be announced. Now that Trump is actually going to the region and is going to bask in the glory of this agreement, is that going to motivate him to ensure that it continues? or to the contrary, will he allow Israel to, as it has done in the past, to find ways to elude its commitments and to find a way either not to implement things or to resume its full-scale campaign? Those are unanswered questions, and Hamas wasn't going, the Palestinians, for that matter,

weren't going to get better than what's on offer in that respect. Among the other long-term questions, of course, or some of the issues we've heard the Israeli ambassador raise about whether or not Hamas will demilitarize and what that future governance will look like. We should just remind folks, Hamas saw its leader in Gaza. Yahya Sinwar killed during the war. That followed the killing of its exiled political leader, Ismail Khaniyah in Iran earlier that year. What is the Hamas version of their future in Gaza? What does future governance look like to them? Well, I think the key issue is the Palestinian future rather than the Hamas future.

Having said that, the proposal that was announced by Trump and Netanyahu at the White House last week dealt with three sets of issues. The immediate issues, you know, exchange of captives, cease, fire, Israeli withdrawal, and so on. And that has now been negotiated and agreed. A second set of issues regarding particularly governance in the Gaza Strait, and the future of Hamas's weapons has neither been addressed nor negotiated. And then there's a third set of issues which concerns the broader political issues, which was only tangentially addressed in the proposal.

And that's not really on the agenda at all. As far as governance is concerned, Hamas long ago accepted that it would not be part of any governing structure in the Gaza Strip after the end of the genocide. What has happened is that the proposal, without consulting any Palestinians, basically formulated this colonial viceroy, Tony Blair, to rule the Gaza Strip, essentially on behalf of Israel more than on behalf of the Palestinians. That is now dead in the water, because it also makes it extremely complicated for Arab and Muslim states to directly participate in funding reconstruction. and in sending a potential stabilization force. As far as disarmament is concerned, Hamas leaders today made very clear

that decommissioning is something they're prepared to negotiate, but disarmament is not something that they're prepared to do this side of Palestinian freedom. That is Moin Rabanis from the Middle East Council on Global Affairs joining us tonight. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. A federal grand jury has indicted New York Attorney General Letitia James on two fraud-related charges.

The indictment returned in the Eastern District of Virginia accuses James of one count of bank fraud and one count of false statements to a financial institution. James said she will fight the charges. This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of our justice system. He is forcing federal law enforcement agencies to do his bidding, all because I did my job as the New York State Attorney General. The indictment comes two weeks after former FBI director James Comey was charged with lying to Congress. The James case was brought by the same prosecutor as Comey's, former Trump personal attorney, Lindsey Halligan. It marks another escalation in President Trump's use of the Justice Department to target political opponents and figures who previously investigated him. For more, we're joined

now by NPR Justice correspondent Carrie Johnson. So Carrie, what more should we know about these charges? James says she's going to fight them in court. She's due in court on October 24th in Virginia, and she says she's keeping her job. Jeff, this is a result of a month's long, investigation by federal prosecutors in Virginia. Earlier, a Republican career prosecutor had basically been forced out of his job after he concluded there was not enough evidence to indict Tish James on fraud charges related to this property she purchased in Virginia in 2020. Instead, as you noted, he was replaced by one of Trump's former personal lawyers who brought this case before the grand jury herself today. And it's the latest in a string of actions following the president's tweets and

social media posts to use the DOJ to investigate his perceived political enemies. Well, what does this case combined with the Comey case signal about the independence of the Justice Department and the integrity of the federal prosecutorial process under this administration? Historically, presidents since Richard Nixon have tried to keep. the Justice Department at least in arm's length away or vice versa since the Trump immunity decision by the Supreme Court last year, where the Supreme Court majority basically said the president can talk with the Justice Department about anything, including investigations and prosecutions. Trump has taken that line to heart and has basically in public

directed the DOJ to go after people who investigated him in the past. Trump has also said publicly, these won't be the only investigations we see. And we know that the National Security Advisor and others have been under investigation too. In the 20 seconds or so we have left, what's next? What's the timeline for this case? Is this going to move fairly quickly? This is in the rocket docket, the Eastern District of Virginia. I do expect things to move rather quickly here. May not be a trial this year, but possibly early next year. NPR's Carrie Johnson. Carrier, thanks to you. We appreciate it. Thank you.

In the day's other headlines, Colombian President Gustavo Petro is accusing the Trump administration of carrying out military aggression by striking alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. Those comments come a day after Petro said Colombian citizens were killed in the latest U.S. military boat strike, though he did not provide any evidence. The Trump administration called that allegation baseless. During a meeting with European officials in Belgium today, Petro's double down on his criticism of the U.S. The reality is that the United States wants to isolate itself.

I've asked all Caribbean foreign ministers to meet with us because what we're hearing now are missiles and an internal repressive war in North American cities against Latin Americans. As long as the United States refuses to join the world, we can unite. It follows Senate Republicans blocking a war powers resolution yesterday aimed at preventing the U.S. military from carrying out the strikes. Last month, the administration told Congress that the attacks are justified

because the U.S. is an armed conflict with the drug cartels. Russian President Vladimir Putin now says his country's forces were to blame for downing an Azerbaijan airline's jetliner last December. Putin explained during a meeting with Azerbaijan's president today that Russian air defenses had fired missiles toward an incoming Ukrainian drone, but they exploded near the jet as it was preparing to land. Putin also promised to punish them. those responsible. It was his first public admission of responsibility for the crash that killed 38 people and royal relations between the two countries. Hungarian author Loslo Krasna Horkai has won this year's Nobel Prize in Literature. His breakthrough novel, Satan's Tango, as it's known in English,

was released in 1985 and was later turned into a film. The 71-year-old has since written more than 20 books, many of them surreal, dark, and as the Nobel judges put it, quote, characterized by absurdism and grotesque excess. At times, just one sentence will sprawl across multiple pages. The panel in Stockholm today said his work reaffirms the power of art. The award comes with nearly $1.2 million in prize money. The Nobel Peace Prize will be announced tomorrow. A federal judge in New York dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by rapper Drake against his own record label Universal Music Group. At issue was a disc track written by Drake's rival, Kendrick Lamar,

as part of their long-running battle. Lamar's song, Not Like Us, calls Drake a pedophile. He accused the label, which represents both artists of damaging his brand and reputation by releasing the song. The judge said the track's content is merely opinion and that, quote, a war of words, does not violate the law. Lamar himself was not named in the suit. On the Wall Street today, stocks took a breather after recent gains.

the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell nearly 250 points on the day. The NASDAQ gave back 18 points, so a small loss there. The S&P 500 also ended 18 points lower. Still to come on the news hour, Senate Majority Leader John Thune discusses negotiations to end the government shutdown. Tensions, Blair in Chicago, over ramped up immigration rates. In nearly 80 years after her death, the new collection of stories by Virginia Woolf is published.

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. It is day nine of the government shutdown. Formal negotiations are at a standstill, but this afternoon, the Senate's majority leader John Thune offered his Democratic colleagues a potential off-ramp. We spoke about it earlier today. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, we know it's an extraordinarily busy day. Thank you so much for making the time to join us back here on the news hour. Great to be with you. Thanks, Omna. So I want to start by asking you about some news. It was reported earlier. You told Semaphore that you're considering offering Democrats a vote on extending those health care subsidies they've been asking for as a possible off-ramp to this government shutdown.

What can you tell us about that potential offer? And if you have enough Democratic support to move it forward? Well, I think at the end of the day, what's going to have to happen is it's going to take Democrats to open up the government. And I've said, you know, give us the votes to open up the government, then we'll have a conversation about some of these issues that you want to discuss. And I think health care is certainly something that we are anxious to talk about as well. And I think if giving them a potential vote on something in the future is a way for them to be able to go to their, you know, know, their people and say this is something that we got in exchange, then maybe that's what ultimately helps open up the government.

But at the current time, none of this happens absent them voting to reopen the government. We understand, and I've said this all along, happy to have that conversation about some of these other issues, but open up the government first, quit taking it hostage, and let's get the American people and the federal workers. get them back to work. But if guaranteeing them a vote on those health care subsidies is enough to get them on board to reopen the government, are you willing to offer that? Is that what I'm hearing? Well, what I'm saying is show me 10 votes. Actually, all we need is five, really, five Democrats to

vote with us. As you know, it's passed in the House. President will sign it. We've got 55 senators currently, a majority of the United States Senate, who have voted multiple times now to open up the government. We need five more. Ideally, 10. But, you know, bring to me to me. me the number of Democrats who will help us get the government opened up again, and we can have that discussion. You've heard, of course, some of this dissent, even among your own Republican conference, concerns about those health care subsidies expiring and people's premiums going up at the end of the year.

Most notably, we heard from Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, who said that she's, quote, disgusted that health insurance premiums are going to go up as they will. We've also heard some openness and willingness to talking about those subsidies from others in your conference, like Senator Sullivan and Lennox. Lankford and Capito. So have you been hearing more frequently or more vocally some of that concern from among your fellow Republicans to act on this issue? Well, I would tell you, I think we all want to do what we can to lower health care costs to make health care more accessible and more affordable. The issue that's been raised, although

there are many issues, honestly, the proposal, the counterproposal the Democrats put forward had a trillion and a half dollars in new spending in it, in addition to, or I should say, included in the, this was the premium tax credit issue, which is about a $400 billion item. What we've said is, if there's a path forward on that, it has to include reforms. You know, right now there's no income limit. They took that off when they passed the enhanced subsidies a few years ago. And remember, this doesn't affect the base Obamacare program. That stays intact. And so there's just things structurally that make this program inflationary. We want to drive health care costs down, not see them go up. And I think that in order to do

that, you're going to have to come up with some reasonable reforms to that program. But that's something, as I said, we are willing to have that conversation. We just need a half a dozen Democrats to open up the government. We should also just point out here, those credits do expire at the end of the year, right? Healthcare enrollment begins on November 1st. So I hear you saying you're willing to have the conversation, but in order for this to have an impact on people's lives, what is the Republican plan that would need to go into effect relatively soon to keep those subsidies from going away and keep those costs from going up?

Well, I think the sooner we get the government open, the sooner we can start working on that issue. And I think there are Republican ideas out there, reform ideas, and we've got some Republicans who have been having those conversations too. But I think in terms of where the Democrats are, and this is why I've indicated that if it's helpful to them at some point that we would have a vote

on perhaps their proposal or our proposal or both proposals or something like that, we're open to suggestions. But right now, we've got a government that shut down. We've got military people who aren't going to get paid starting early next week, air traffic controllers who aren't getting paid, border patrol agents who aren't getting paid.

And let's start by opening up the government. And then I'm perfectly willing, as I've said, to enter into that discussion and perhaps create an opportunity, a path forward, where there could be some votes on some of these things in the future. Do you see the shutdown extending into next week? Should a lot of these federal workers, military troops, expect to not get that next paycheck? Well, you know, it's up to the Democrats, really.

Again, it all takes is five. We've got 55 senators, the majority of the 100 senators, majority in the House, the president's willing to sign the bill into law, and all it does, all it has to happen is we pick up the bill off the Senate desk. Five Democrats join us, in addition to those who already have, and the government opens up again, and then you don't have that discussion, everybody gets paid again. That's the best way to end this, but I hope, and I hope that happens. So we're going to have another vote tomorrow.

They'll have another opportunity to vote. And if it doesn't get done tomorrow, they'll have another vote on Tuesday. And they'll have another opportunity then to vote to open up the government. But you can't take the federal government hostage. This is something that is routine, at least it has been in the past, when you do a short-term funding extension. And the one that we put together is it's nonpartisan, has no policy riders, no Republican priorities in there.

It has a straightforward funding resolution to keep the government open until such time as we can complete and finish the appropriations process. And by the way, something that when the Democrats had the majority, the last four years, and while Biden was president, they did 13 different times. So this is just a, this is a hijacking of a process that should be very straightforward. And you shouldn't take a hostage like federal workers. You know, if the issue is to have that discussion and all these other issues, then like I said, I've expressed a willingness to do that.

And the Democrat should take yes for an answer. I know you've talked about wanting to take the politics out of this situation, but I want to put to you also what we've seen from the White House, from the administration in this moment, which is to say withholding federal funds, but only from Democrat-led cities and states. The president in the cabinet meeting today said we're only cutting Democrat programs. He said they wanted to do this, so we'll give them a taste of their own medicine. I know you say the Democrats are playing politics, but isn't that exactly what the White House is doing as well? Well, again, it all ends. Open up the government and then none of this happens. I think it's, you know, any administration faced with a government shutdown when they have to move resources around and decide which departments and which agencies are going to stay open and which employees are essential and which ones should get paid, et cetera, obviously it's going to reflect their priorities. Well, Leader Thune, to be clear, this wasn't about funding for essential workers or government programs. This was literally, cutting transit or infrastructure programs in Democrat cities and states.

Is that something you support? If you're going to make decisions about where money goes, and obviously you are a Republican administration, you're probably going to have some priorities that might differ if you had a Democrat administration and be looking at different projects and different places around the country. I don't think the process ought to be politicized, but then I don't think that shutdowns ought to be politicized.

And that's exactly what's happened here. I mean, you had Chuck Schumer yesterday in a sit-down interview, saying, you know, things get better for us by the day. You get people who are going to be without pay, already starting without pay tomorrow, and then when the troops hit next week, and like I said, these are people who are important to the safety and security

of the American people, and they're not getting paid. At the same time, the Democrat leader in the United States Senate is saying, this is getting better for us by the day. And this isn't a political game. These are people's lives, and yes, we need to get the government open, and then all these questions that you're asking

about where the administration prioritizes where they spend the money, becomes a mood issue. At the same time, when you look at how Americans are viewing this, I'm sure you've seen this latest polling from during the shutdown, an economist UGov poll showed that 41 percent of people currently blame President Trump and Republicans in Congress for the shutdown. Only 30 percent say that they blame Democrats. So they see both sides as dug in, but they also see only one party is controlling the House, the Senate, and the White House.

What do you say to that? The House has acted, Senate Republicans have acted, and the President's rate act. Act. The only hold up right now is a handful of Democrats to give us the super majority, the 60 votes that are unnecessary in the Senate to get this done. It's not a function right now. And frankly, it shouldn't be about the blame game or who gets blamed. Government shutdowns hurt everybody, and it doesn't matter who gets blamed. It shouldn't be about politics. It ought to be about, you know, what's in the best interest of the American people, and that's getting the government open again.

But his Senate Majority Leader Thune, Leader Thune, we know it's a very busy time for you. We always appreciate you making the time. Thank you again. Thanks, Amna. Thank you, Amna. Guard have been moved into the Chicago area, and the President argues they should also be in Portland, Oregon. Those plans were the focus of two federal court hearings today, and just this evening, a federal judge in Chicago blocked the Trump administration's request for now to

deploy the Guard, saying there's no danger of a rebellion to justify it. She said the Guard would only, quote, add fuel to the fire. William Brangham reports on those developments. member, deploying tear gas near a public school. And in this stylized video shot and distributed by the Department of Homeland Security, repelling from a helicopter and storming an apartment complex while families inside slept. It's all part of a wave of aggressive actions by federal immigration agents in Chicago in recent weeks. Their behavior definitely feels like it has escalated, where they now have permission

to use excessive force. It feels like, you know, it's shoot first, ask questions later. Lawrence Benito runs the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. His staff were on scene within hours after the helicopter-led raid. They knocked down every door and took almost every person in that building, regardless of citizenship status. There were children. There were mothers.

All were taken. were zip tied with no real communication about what they were there for or no real transparency, whether they had warrants to do what they did or not. DHS Assistant Secretary Trisha McLaughlin rejected those accusations, writing, children were never zip tied. This is a shameful and disgusting lie. In the last month, more than a thousand people have been arrested in and around Chicago since the Trump administration ramped up immigration raids in the city. And today, during a cabinet meeting, DHS Secretary Christy Noem defended the administration's moves and said they'll ramp up the federal presence.

We're purchasing more buildings in Chicago to operate out of. We're going to not back off. In fact, we're doubling down and we're going to be in more parts of Chicago. This week, over the objections of state and local leaders, President Trump mobilized and deployed some 200 members of the Texas National Guard to Chicago. We have cities with this tremendous crime, and Chicago is one of them, and if the governor can't straighten it out, we'll straighten it out. The administration says the guard is needed to protect ICE agents from protests which have erupted at an ice facility outside the city.

Protesters have blocked government vehicles at the entrance to the site, and agents have thrown demonstrators to the ground, deployed tear gas, and fired pepper balls. In one instance last month, a DHS agent appears to shoot a protesting Presbyterian minister in the head with a pepperball. In response, DHS said force was necessary because protesters were impeding operations and they'd been ordered to leave the federal property. And further away from that facility, there have been two separate incidents in the last month underscoring the rising tensions between the community and federal officials.

In one instance, an ICE agent shot and killed Silvario Villegas Gonzalez, a 38-year-old father of two during a traffic stop. DHS alleges Gonzalez resisted arrest and dragged the agent with his car. Agents were not wearing body cameras, and one eyewitness said Gonzalez was driving away, trying to escape. And then over the weekend, protests broke out when a federal agent shot a woman who allegedly rammed his vehicle. Yesterday, hundreds of women. Roberts marched peacefully through downtown Chicago in opposition to the immigration crackdown

and the National Guard's presence. The city and the state are both suing the Trump administration over the move. Donald Trump is using our service members as political props and as pawns in his illegal effort to militarize our nation's cities. Earlier this week, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order declaring certain spaces off limits to federal agents. That means that city property and unwilling private businesses will no longer serve as staging grounds for these raids.

No hate, no fear. I see they welcome here. In Southwest Chicago earlier this week, local officials and community leaders rallied at a shopping plaza, they say, has been used as a meeting point for immigration raids. Every week we see more agents. Alder woman Julia Ramirez represents this area. They aren't knocking on doors anymore, and so we question sort of who they're targeting, and mostly it's just Hispanic, Latino-looking men.

And so we just feel like it's pure harassment just based off of the color of your skin and the neighborhood that you live in. People are afraid to go out and buy groceries for their families. Corina Pedraza is a grassroots organizer. People who work five, six blocks down the street are scrolling through social media, are calling people, are wondering, do I have to cut through the alley? How do I get to my job safely and ensure that I can get back home safely to my children? That someone is not going to drive by and snatch me and push me into a car, and who knows after that?

The president has defended the hardline tactics of federal agents, citing public safety. They don't want to have a safe Chicago, and we can solve the problem very quickly. In some quarters of the city, that approach is welcomed. Chicago have been really violent. You can't even sit on your front porch no more. People just get shot right in front of your face. So I do feel like he's doing the right thing. Deploying military on American cities is unprecedented.

Alderman Byron Sigio Lopez represents a heavily Latino district with a large immigrant population. He says these enforcement actions are up ending his community. What I've seen is people selling flowers in the street being arrested. What we've seen people living in construction sites being arrested is a working people. He dismisses the president's argument that National Guard troops will reduce violence. If this is really about public safety, then the federal government will not be withholding

over $800 million for violence prevention programs, billions of dollars for schools, billions of dollars for food, SNAP programs, for public health, programs that are based, But in the meantime, many Chicago communities remain on edge, awaiting the next steps from the Trump administration. For the PBS NewsHour, I'm William Brangham. Wolf Book has been published this week, a collection of three comic stories written eight years before her first novel. Malcolm Brabant reports from England for our arts and culture series, Canvas. For 80 years, what's being hailed as a literary treasure was buried in the archives of

Longleet, one of Britain's finest stately homes. Longleet contains historic artifacts dating back 1,300 years, and they're under the stewardship of archivist Emma Chalynallinall. It's definitely exciting thing. Maybe not exactly as you'd imagine an Indiana Jones scene. We didn't, for instance, have to dig through a secret tunnel and fight through cobwebs. The volume itself was on a shelf. We knew where it was. We had it cataloged and we knew who was by, for instance, where it had come from. But I suppose it took an intrepid researcher like O'Miller to fully understand the significance of the work. And that really is the great discovery and that's the treasure. Professor O'Mila Seshigiri was the expert who recognized the book's value.

She teaches English and humanities at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. My heart was beating very fast as I walked up that staircase because I had been waiting four years to see this type script. And I was consumed by curiosity and this desire to know whether this was an original work. And when the archivist handed me the document box and I opened it and I saw just from the first page that it was a new work that Wolf had revised it

and had perfected it. I was stunned. So how significant a work is it? It was an early work, which was about 25 when she wrote it. To be sure, the life of Violet adds to our understanding of Wolf as a writer of fiction, as a biographer, as a cultural critic, as a feminist.

But I think the best part is that it shows us that Wolf was very funny and she could write in a broadly comic idiom that was made up of parody and hyperbole and fantasy. This sculpture in the London District of Richmond is a fine representation of Wolfe, who inspired poet and academic Jane Goldman to become an expert on the author.

The Cambridge introduction to Virginia Woolf is one of Goldman's published works. She's been an iconic figure since she first became famous with her novels in the 1920s. She's very iconic as a radical experimental writer, a feminist, a pacifist. While famous for inhabiting unconventional intellectual salons in London, Wolf was equally at home in the countryside of southern England. Her 16th century weather-boarded house now belongs to Britain's National Trust that conserves historic landmarks.

Wolf lived next to this 12th century church in Rodmel, a village with a timeless quality. Virginia Woolf died by suicide in 1941 at the age of 59. She had been bedeviled by mental illness. And in a final note to her husband Leonard, she wrote, I feel certain that I'm going mad again. I feel we can't go through another of those terrible times and I shan't recover this time.

I begin to hear voices and I can't concentrate. So I'm doing what seems the best thing to do. After writing the note, Wolf walked to the nearby, fast-flowing river Ouse. Her body was found three weeks later. During Virginia Woolf's life, and immediately after she died by suicide, the world didn't look particularly kindly upon her. And that's largely as a result of the lack of understanding about mental illness. Do you think that people do understand what she was really like now?

Does this help? Maybe there's a stubborn tendency to inaccurately label her as a suicidal magic. woman, if I may use a very out of date and unkind phrase, and that tendency perhaps pronounced in people who haven't read her writing. But I think that the readers of her work, who are numerous and loyal and scattered around the world, love her writing because it bursts with life and with beauty and it's profoundly affirming. The culture still wants to make her the poster girl of this suicidal woman novelist and writer. So it's important that when you read any work by her,

you soon find her being very earthy and bawdy and funny in a lot of her writing. So to have something at the beginning of her writing career, you know, the very first piece of sustained fiction that she writes is such a joyous thing to read. And Seshagiri believes the new book will strike accord with today's students of literature. Young people who are resistant to having their personas or their thoughts caged in any way are very, very receptive to that liberation, to that freedom of thought of perception that Wolf offers them. So there's now more texture to the wolf time capsule. But as with so many artists, proof that true validation came after,

she was gone. For the PBS NewsHour, I'm Malcolm Brabant in Rodmel, Southern England. And that is the News Hour for tonight. I'm Omna 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.