PBS News Hour - Full Show - September 15, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: September 15, 2025

Monday on the News Hour, Secretary of State Rubio aligns the U.S. with Israel’s vision of a military victory in Gaza, dimming hopes for a diplomatic solution to the war. Calls for firing and singling out critics of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk grow, raising questions about free speech. Plus, what has caused American students' reading scores to drop to their worst point in decades. 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. Jeff Bennett is away. On the news hour tonight, Secretary of State Marco Rubio aligns the United States with Israel's vision of a military victory in Gaza, dimming hopes for a diplomatic solution to the war. Calls for firing and singling out critics of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk grow louder, raising questions about free speech. and what's caused American students' reading scores to drop to their worst point in decades. Reading and math has long-term consequences for students' earnings and educational attainment. Welcome to the News Hour. flying to Doha tonight to meet with Qatar's leaders

following unprecedented Israeli strikes targeting Hamas leaders last week. Earlier today, Rubio met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem, and as Nick Schifrin reports, the two presented a unified front. In Jerusalem, a show of solidarity and support to end the war in Gaza

using the military, not diplomacy. I think we have to be prepared for the fact that savage, you know, terrorists don't normally agree to things like that. But we'll continue to pursue that route. It's the ideal outcome, but it may require, ultimately, a concise military operation to eliminate them. The Israeli military today again targeted Gaza City high-rises that it calls Hamas terrorist infrastructure and confirmed it launched the formal effort to capture Gaza's most populated

city. The new offensive is uprooting hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were already displaced. Yesterday, Basel al-Za-Anin fled Israeli bombings. Today, he's been on the road for 12 hours with his daughter. All night, she screams on my lap because she is terrified. Open the road for us. Let us have our camps. Give us food or water, anything. Empathize for these children who have been thrown to the streets. The only way to avoid an urban battle in Gaza City is a complete Hamas surrender. Prime Minister Netanyahu said today. If they surrender, lay down their arms, then you can do the rest without battle.

And at any point, if you can do something without battle, it's better. But that is highly unlikely, suggesting little chance for a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. Especially after Israel strikes last Tuesday in Qatar, targeting Hamas's chance. chief negotiators in the country that had been the mediators. Today in the capital, Doha, Qatari Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad, hosted Arab and Muslim leaders for his own show of solidarity and criticized Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel claims to be a democracy surrounded by enemies, while in reality it is building an occupation and apartheid system hostile to its surroundings and waging a war of extermination, during

which it has committed crimes that no red lines. This weekend, President Trump expressed concern about Israel's attack. They have to be very, very careful. They have to do something about Hamas. But Qatar has been a great ally to the United States. But today, Netanyahu said he would take the shot again. We sent a message to the terrorists. You can run, but you can't hide.

No, we'll catch you. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Nick Schiff. Also today, President Trump says the U.S. military conducted a second strike in recent weeks on a boat allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela to the U.S. In a social media post, the president warned, quote, if you are transporting drugs that can kill Americans, we are hunting you. In that same post, he included a short video that allegedly shows the strike, which he said killed three, quote, male terrorists.

Prior to Trump's announcement, Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro told reporters, that recent incidents between the U.S. and Venezuela are, quote, aggression. Today I can announce that the communications with the government of the U.S. are thrown away. They are thrown away by them with their threats of bombs, death, and blackmail. That's not how we operate. With threats and coercion, there will never be anything. The Trump administration defended its strike earlier this month, saying it was necessary to stop the flow of drugs into the U.S.

But several Senate Democrats and even some Republicans expressed concerns about the incident and questioned the legality of the action. President Trump today approved the deployment of the National Guard to Memphis, Tennessee, he says, to combat crime. Okay. In the Oval Office today, Trump signed an order that made the move official. He called it a, quote, replica of his efforts in Washington, D.C., where the National Guard was deployed last month. Trump said members from federal agencies like the FBI and ICE would join the troops. That is, despite Memphis police reporting decreases across every major crime category in the first eight months of 2025 compared to recent years.

Turning now to the aftermath of conservative activist Charlie Kirk's assassination last week on a university campus in Utah. FBI director Cash Patel told Fox News today that investigators found DNA evidence on the scene, that matches that of the suspect, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson. The evidence was found on a towel wrapped around a rifle and on a screwdriver, recovered from the rooftop where the fatal shot was fired. Authorities in Utah are preparing to file capital murder charges against Robinson as early as tomorrow.

U.S. officials say they've reached a, quote, framework deal with China over ownership of TikTok. Following two days of talks in Spain, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the plan would involve switching the app to U.S. ownership long a goal for U.S. officials. Bessent said President Trump would speak with China's Xi Jinping on Friday to, quote, complete the deal. TikTok is currently owned by China's bite dance.

Chinese officials would only say a basic framework consensus was reached. President Trump is facing a Wednesday deadline on whether to further extend enforcement of a law that Congress passed last year banning TikTok if it's not separated from its Chinese owner. U.S. trade representative Jameson Greer today stressed the importance of America's security concerns. We were very focused on TikTok and making sure that it was a deal that is fair for the Chinese and completely respects U.S. national security concerns, and that's the deal we reached. And, of course, we want to ensure that the Chinese have a fair investment environment in the United States, but always that U.S. national security comes first.

Also today, Chinese regulators said that U.S. chipmaker and Vidia had violated China's anti-monopoly law, and vowed closer scrutiny of the company. In their preliminary findings, officials found NVIDIA didn't comply with certain conditions when it purchased a network and data transmission company back in 2020. Nvidia says it follows the law, quote, in all respects. The announcement comes after China said this weekend that it's opened an anti-dumping probe into the U.S. chip sector. Back in this country, former federal prosecutor Maureen Comey is suing the Trump administration

over her dismissal. Comey says her firing in July was unconstitutional and came without, quote, legitimate explanation. As attorney, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Maureen Comey prosecuted hundreds of cases, including those of Jeffrey Epstein, his associate, Colleen Maxwell, and Sean Diddy Combs. In her lawsuit, she says her firing was due at least in part to her father being James Comey, the former FBI director who President Trump fired in 2017. James Comey has since written a memoir criticizing the Trump. administration. The White House is redirecting nearly half a billion dollars in federal funds to historically black colleges and universities, as well as tribal schools. The Education Department says the one-time investment amounts to a 48 percent increase in funding for HBCUs. The Department

is also redirecting about $60 million towards charter schools and $137 million to American History and civic grants. But the funds come only after the Department slashed 350,000. million dollars from other grants, mostly involving programs that benefit Hispanic students, among others. On Wall Street today, stocks climbed to new heights ahead of this week's Fed rate decision. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added nearly 50 points on the day. The NASDAQ rose more than 200 points. The S&P 500 climbed to a new all-time high. And the Library of Congress announced Arthur C. as the 25th Poet Laureate of the United States today. See is a celebrated author and translator. He's written 12 poetry collections and received a lifetime achievement award

from the library last year. In a statement, C called it an amazing honor, saying he feels, quote, a great responsibility to promote the ways poetry can impact our daily lives. His appointment comes during a hectic time in the 200-year-old library's history. President Trump fired librarian Carla Hayden in May amid a broader push to reshape Washington's cultural institutions. And CBS says that roughly 7.4 million people tuned in to last night's Emmy Awards. That's the most in four years. And the Emmy goes to The Studio. Seth Rogen's The Studio won 13 Emmys.

That's the most ever for a comedy series. The Pit, which spans one grueling shift at a trauma center, took home the top drama prize. Noah Wiley won his first Emmy, 30 years after starring in another medical drama, E.R. And it was a bittersweet victory lap for Stephen Colbert. My friends, I have never loved my country more desperately. The late show won Best Talk Series for the first time in his 10-year run. It comes just months after CBS announced it's being canceled. Still to come, on the News Hour, the influence of conservative Prager Hughes educational videos

and why critics are alarmed. Tamara Keith and Amy Walter break down the late. latest political headlines. And author Lisa Lawson discusses her new book on the Neuroscience of Adolescence. 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. In the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk's death, President Trump's administration and his allies have promised consequences for people who speak callously about his killing.

Inside and outside of Trump's government, it's led to people being fired, suspended, or reprimanded, and it sparked an open debate about the limits of free speech. Hey, everybody. J.D. Vance here. Five days after he was killed, Charlie Kirk's podcast was back on the air. This time with Vice President J.D. Vance and the host's chair paying tribute to his late friend. Charlie was a visionary. He was a luminary. The 31-year-old conservative activist was shot and killed at a university event in Utah last week, his death sparking a polarized response. During a weekend of vigils, including last night at the Kennedy Center and the nation's capital,

administration officials hailed Kirk's political prowess and his fight for free speech. Charlie lived by the principle that no matter how horrible another person's speech may be, their ideas must be defeated by better ideas, not by resorting to violence. He died? Damn, B. Life comes at you fast. But some, especially online, used their right to free speech to speak out against Kirk and his message. I won't let anybody distort reality and trying to paint this picture that Charlie Kirk was this God-fearing family man who just

wanted to go to college campuses in debate. Comments the vice president and president say should and will have consequences. So when you see someone celebrating Charlie's murder, call them out in hell, call their employer. We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility. You know, they're already under major investigation. A lot of the people that you would traditionally say are on the left. They're already under? Already under investigation.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, vowed to you. use law enforcement to go after Americans who mocked Kirk's death, calling that domestic terrorism. We will not live in fear, but you will live in exile because the power of law enforcement under President Trump's leadership will be used to find you. We'll use to take away your money, take away your power, and if you've broken the law to take away your freedom. Already there have been repercussions. Defense Secretary Pete Hegsett suspended an army colonel for a post-criticizing Kirk after his death and said the Pentagon was, quote, very closely tracking responses celebrating or mocking Kirk's death, adding they, quote, will address immediately.

The number two official at the State Department promised to punish foreigners who mocked the killing, calling them, quote, not welcome visitors to our country. Right-wing conspiracy theorist and Trump ally Laura Lumer said she would try to ruin the professional aspirations of anyone who celebrated Kirk's death. Multiple media professionals both. in news and in sports have already been ousted for comments about Kirk. Conservative pundant and former Bush staffer Matthew Dowd was fired as an MSNBC analyst after these comments. Hateful thoughts lead to hateful words, which then lead to hateful actions.

Washington Post columnist Karen Attia said she was fired for her posts about Charlie Kirk, gun violence, and race. Across the country, numerous professionals from government employees to teachers, and college professors have reportedly lost their jobs for posting comments critical of Kirk as a new battle over free speech unfurls in a fraught political climate. For insight into the rights and limits of Americans' free speech, we turn now to Will Kreeley. He's legal director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy and legal firm, and Jamel Bowie, an opinion columnist with the New York Times,

whose latest piece looks at this very issue. Gentlemen, welcome. And thank you for joining us. I want to say off the bat here for the conversation, there's obviously no justification for violence, certainly not for the killing of another human being, but we need to look more deeply at this issue of free speech. So I just want to start to you both with a question about how you view the very polarized response to the killing of Charlie Kirk. The fact that we have two very different responses here, Will, to you first. Thank you so much for having me. It feels inevitable. You could have seen this one coming down the tracks about a mile away every time we go through some kind of cultural, national tragedy where somebody is killed, whether that's George Floyd, Barbara Bush, Queen Elizabeth, whenever we lose a public figure, there are folks who will say, good, I'm glad they're gone. And this outrage cycle begins, and folks get fired, they get suspended, they get investigated, they get terminated. Right now, my organization, is fielding requests from help from across the country. We're tracking all the firings of suspensions. We're going to be busy. It's lamentable and sad and, again, deeply depressing time.

Jamel, what about you? I agree that you can see these sort of things coming from a mile away. I'll say that part of me wonders what people expect in a free society, right? There's nothing, it's not polite to speak ill of the dead, of course. But we live in a country where people are used to speak to speak. their minds on all sorts of questions and issues and people. And it should only be natural that when a public figure, a controversial public figure at that loses their life, that people are going to have different responses to that.

And some of them are going to be very, very negative about the figure themselves. It seems to me just be part of what living in a free society means. So Jamel, let me pick up where you left off there. What about the response to some of the responses, as you reported from the president, from administration officials saying they're going to go after people who mock or who celebrate even Kirk's death. How do you look at that tension between those who hold up Kirk as a free speech defender and at the same time say, you can't say this about him? I mean, it's a tension, it's hypocrisy, I'd say.

It doesn't make any logical sense at the very least to hold up Kirk or anyone as a defender and advocate of free speech. And then in the next breath, threatened people for not speaking the correct way about the person. Kirk was surely meaningful to many millions of people. But that doesn't necessitate anyone in private or public life to have to respond to him a certain way. And the idea that the state itself has essentially an approved view of the situation and will try to punish people for not heat, not not, not agreeing to that official view, not heeding that official view, is, I'd say, a direct attack on Americans' free speech rights in the most classic sense, right? Like people often say the First Amendment is about what the government can do about your

speech, and this is very much the government threatening to suppress people's speech because they have an opinion that the people in power don't like. Will, what do you make of that response? I'm in strong agreement. The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to allow us to disagree on basic conceptions of what is good and what is true. We don't need it for photos of kittens on Facebook. We need it for moments like this where we have deep divisions and we want to talk about them. I mean, it's not lost on me that Kirk spent his last day talking to folks who disagree with

them. You know, per the reporting from the New York Times, the last questioner was challenging his views on immigration and trans rights. Those kinds of questions continue. And I think, you know, I don't know the man, but I imagine that Kirk would be horrified by a state-approved ideological viewpoint that mandated disagreement with his views. I remember all of this happening after the tragic murder of George Floyd. There was a lot of nervousness about quote-unquote cancel culture or making sure that if you didn't have the right view about Floyd's death, you couldn't hold a position at a public university or a private employer. Now we're seeing calls from the vice president for folks to call their employers if somebody, one of their colleagues,

wrong view. That's antithetical to the First Amendment, and it erodes the culture of free expression that we need more than ever in this country. Will, you say that Kirk might have been horrified by some of this, but we should point out. Kirk himself kept a list of academics that he felt should be fired for what they had to say or the views that they expressed. And there's also, as his critics point out, the fact that some of his messages could have been seen as those that might incite harm against others. He used anti-Semitic language, anti-immigrant language, anti-black language. How do you look at that? To be clear, I'm not I said, he might be horrified if the state was manning the view that he did not hold.

So I want to be clear about that. But we criticized his group's professor watch lists back in 2016. It's protected by the First Amendment. You have a right to create those kind of watch lists. But we criticize it at the time as deeply illiberal. We know in this country we have a dark and very tragic history of blacklists, thinking about the McCarthy era. So we criticized it then and we criticized it now. One does not have to be a supporter of Kirk's views, I should hope, to recognize the real danger of having a state-mandated orthodoxy about what one can say about political opponents. That should trouble all of us. There's no official party line as an American about what we think of Charlie Kirk or anybody else in this country.

That's the beauty of American pluralism. You know, like we used to say, as kids on the playground, it's a free country. And my colleagues and I are going to work hard to make sure it remains that way. So, Jamel, reflect on this moment we are now sitting in. I should point out, actually, a Republican congressman, Tim Burchett told our producer, Kyle Medora, this is what happens in a public forum. Somebody gets shot. There's this expectation that things that you disagree with could be met with violence.

How worried are you about that sentiment and about the fact that public figures, thought leaders, could now self-censor themselves or limit public interaction. When you look throughout American history, what you see are rates of violence against people speaking much higher than they were than they are today, whether that is mobs destroying abolitionist presses in the 1830s, southern states forbidding the publication and dissemination of anti-slavery materials in the 1840s and 1850s, whether that is, as it was mentioned, before, Joseph McCarthy in the blacklist, whether that was the, you know, suppression of speech in the Jim Crow South.

And you can speak to any number of private individuals who have been harmed and killed in the course of speaking their minds in American history. So my conclusion here is that, for me, I come at this with a sense of American history is often quite violent, that the people who engage in public life have always taken on that kind of risk and that that risk is actually lower than it's ever been. That is Jamel Bowie and Will Creeley joining us tonight. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your time. Thank you. dropped to their lowest levels in more than two decades among high school seniors. William Brangham reports on new test scores that have many educators and other experts concerned.

That's right, Omna. These scores come from the latest so-called Nations Report Card, which is put out by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and it shows that student achievement has continued to decline significantly since the pandemic. Among high school seniors, the average reading score last year was the lowest since the the assessment began in 1992. What's worse, nearly a third of seniors did not have the basic reading skills needed to find the details in a given text to understand its meaning. Average math scores also slipped to their lowest levels since 2005. There are many theories

about what is going on here. And so to explore some of that, we are joined by Thomas Kane. He's a professor of education at Harvard's Graduate School of Education. Thomas Kane, thank you so much for being here. Somewhat of a broad question for you, but what is your best assessment as to why these scores are so low and continuing to decline? So, first of all, these latest results are not surprising, unfortunately. Our research center has been tracking trends for individual districts around the country for the last three or four years. What is new is the degree to which these losses are concentrated among the lower achieving students. So the 10th percentile student in the U.S. has lost about two great equivalents since 2015. That's a large loss. And, you know,

it'll be equivalent to about 5 percent of lifetime earning. So this would have impacts on future income inequality if we don't reverse it. So can you run us through what the sort of principal theories are as to why we are in the state we're in? There are three hypotheses to explain what's been happening. Number one is there's been a decline in focus on test-based accountability since the No Child Left Behind Act expired in 2015. But the two other hypotheses are the rise in social media use, which is concentrated among lower achieving students.

By the way, a number of European and Asian countries are seeing the same wide. that we are. And a third possibility is the rise in student absenteeism, which spiked during the pandemic but remains high. I want to pick apart a couple of those. One of them in particular. We spoke earlier with a woman named Adiola Whitney. She's the CEO of a group called Reading Partners. And as the name suggests, she points to that being a very critical skill that's at issue here. Let's hear what she had to say. There's research that shows that in order for kids to be better at reading, they have to practice reading. They need to read more often. But when we look at early grades like K through two, if a child is already struggling to

read, reading more if they're not able to read, is a challenge in and of itself. So is there someone at home who can read to them to help build the vocabulary in their comprehension skills? Do you agree with that assessment that, one, reading is so critical to a student's attainment educationally, but also then how do we address that gap? So I agree, actually, reading and math has long-term consequences for students' earnings and educational attainment and so forth. And I also agree that early grade reading is critical, but what we're seeing in these numbers is that the problem extends well beyond early grades, that there's been a large decline in eighth grade and in 12th grade reading achievement

as well. And so while we work on K to 2, we need approaches to helping the students who are already passed grade 2 to recover. If we don't, they will suffer in the long run. You mentioned this issue of accountability and testing. And there are many educators and experts in the field who believe that that whole era of testing was a failure in and of itself, that it didn't really help students and that it was a diversion from other issues. But you believe that a better testing regimen would help? So I think actually that's misreading the facts of what's happened over the last 30 years. Most people don't realize that between 1990 and 2015, there were substantial improvements in math and reading achievement. And it's clear that test-based accountability is not

sufficient to produce the continued improvements we need. But once states started taking their foot off the pedal in 2015, focusing on test-based outcomes, we see the result of declining achievement, especially at the bottom where a lot of the accountability pressures were being felt. But I think recovering from this is not just about the old debate about test-based accountability. It's about finding effective ways to lower absenteeism, and we've got to learn as quickly as possible what are the effects of the cell phone bans that a number of states and districts have implemented in the last couple of years. If it is social media, then we ought to be seeing positive effects of cell phone bans. If we don't, that'll be important to know too.

But I think the solution now is not just about test-based accountability. It's about states piloting ways to lower absenteeism and, as they've already done, piloting ways to lower social media use. And then us learning from those efforts, what are the impact on student achievement so we can spread what worked. All right. That is Thomas Kane at Harvard's Graduate School of Education. Thank you so much for being here. Thanks, William. The rise of what's known as edutainment, the integration of entertainment with educational content has become a billion-dollar industry. The conservative Prager-U has positioned itself as a major player in this space by producing short educational videos on a range of topics that are now showing up in more classrooms.

Stephanie Sye examines what it could mean for school districts moving forward and why critics are alarmed. Yeah, but what about slavery? Their lessons designed for young learners. Slavery is as old as time and has taken place in every corner of the world. Where historical figures like Christopher Columbus come back to life to defend themselves. Being taken as a slave is better than being killed, no? And with the help of artificial intelligence, introduce themselves to a new generation.

I am John Adams, blunt, stubborn, and the indispensable voice for independence in the Continental Congress. These videos are courtesy of Prager You, a non-profit conservative advocacy group, now partnering with the White House on a new exhibit in Washington. There is no greater calling than to teach young people. Since its founding in 2009, Prager You has built a massive online audience, with more than 3 million YouTube subscribers by creating videos for both kids and adults. The fear that fuels the climate crisis is simply not justified by the data.

Exploring topics ranging from climate change to what its content creators deemed to be similarities between wokeism and radical Islam. Islamists shout Allah Wakbar and death to America. The woke shout, black lives matter and I can't breathe. The first thing to know about pregnant, is that it is not a university. It's a conservative activist organization that was started by Dennis Prager, who was a right-wing radio host. Jonathan Zimmerman is an education historian at the

University of Pennsylvania. What it does is it creates video content that it's hoping is adopted in school systems. Florida was the first state to approve Prager used materials for K-12 classrooms in 2023. Inequality is a fact of life. Any economy will always have people who are much wealthier than others. While no states are requiring teachers to use Prager content, about 10 states are allowing teachers to do so if they choose. And in Oklahoma, Prager's playing another role. We have to make sure that the teachers in our classroom,

as we're recruiting these individuals, aren't a bunch of woke Marxist activist. And Prager, you step right in. The state superintendent will require teachers coming from New York and California to be screened for so-called leftist ideologies using a Prager developed exam. The organization's CEO, Marissa Strite, has said it's needed to undo the damage of gender ideology. Part of what this test is doing is it's actually recalibrating what is happening in the classrooms. It's reminding teachers to focus on what matters. It's reminding teachers to actually look at the world through common sense, a lens of common sense. Prager-U's rise comes at a polarizing time that has turned school board meetings into political flashpoints.

Over the last decade, at least 20 states have passed laws or policies that restrict how history can be taught in schools. We have an education system that teaches our children to be ashamed of themselves in many cases, to hate our country. Just earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order promoting, quote, patriotic education, a phrase usually associated with authoritarian regimes. Americans have always debated what their schools should do and should teach. This isn't new. But at the same time, I think the whole idea of the President of the United States decrying what a school should be teaching or not, that's extremely new. Because in the past, it was almost entirely a state and.

and a local matter. Also relatively new, the ability to quickly reach mass audiences outside of the classroom. Prager You has more than 11 million followers across social media. Martin Luther King Jr. protested discrimination against blacks on city buses by boycotting city buses. And while some of their videos are grounded in facts,

critics say they're often presented with a clear ideological perspective. Am I saying racist cops don't exist? Of course not. But I would say this. Blacks have a lot more to fear from black criminals than from the police. There's been a little bit of misinformation about the Prager videos because a lot of people on the left have reported that they're teaching falsehoods. And I think that's too facile.

Again, there are some falsehoods in the videos. But that's not the problem with the videos. The problem with the videos is they pretend that they're simply fast. That doesn't mean they're false. It means they have a very distinct perspective. This is one often cited. My name is Frederick Douglass. Welcome to 1852.

Featuring one of America's most well-known abolitionists. There was no real movement anywhere in the world to abolish slavery before the American founding. Slavery was part of life all over the world. It was America that began the conversation to end it. While some early Quaker settlers, in Pennsylvania were abolitionists. The animated video ignores the fact that the U.S. was one of the last Western countries

to abolish slavery. So to imagine the United States was somehow a leader in worldwide anti-slavery, that's not a matter of perspective. That's a matter of facts. And on that one, Prager has the facts wrong. How can you come here to the 15th century and judge me by your standards from the 21st century? For those in the future to look back and do this

is, well, In explaining this video featuring Christopher Columbus, Prager You told the NewsHour that historical figures must be understood within the context and standards of their own era. Kids think in very black and white terms often. Kids aren't really prepared to understand the nuance of some of the topics that they're talking about. Sam Cole is a technology journalist and a co-founder of 404 media. She says Prager You appeals to parents' anxieties about what side teachers fall on in the culture wars. Is my kid learning something about gay marriage or something that I don't approve of that's outside of my beliefs while they're at school and I can't watch them? So if they say, oh, well, Pegger U's watching your kids, I think it's very comforting for a lot of the folks who align with that ideology.

Prager You didn't make anyone available for an interview by our deadline, but they provided me. NewsHour this statement, writing in part that, quote, too often history and civics are taught through a narrow politicized lens that highlights America's flaws while ignoring her incredible achievements. Prager You offer something different, educational content that is fact-based, values-driven, and rooted in love of country. There's been a long-term project to create an alternative intellectual infrastructure to replace the liberal institutions, a liberal academia with something else. Charlie Sykes is a former conservative talk show radio host who now hosts his own podcast.

He's also an MSNBC contributor. He says Prager You is part of a larger, more ambitious goal. To come up with a counterpoint to public television, public radio, to the Harvard's and the Yale's of the world. If you can create your own infrastructure, kind of a mirror right-wing infrastructure, that would be certainly one of the goals that people have dreamed about for many years on the right. Was there equal coverage of conservative fears about the 1619 project of Howard Zin's history of the American people? Robert Pondissio of the American Enterprise Institute says the classroom has never been a politically neutral space. And with more than 13,000,

school districts across the nation, teachers still have enormous freedom in designing instruction. The permission structure exists for vested interests of all political stripes to take advantage of what is a captive audience of children in every schoolhouse in this country. This is a crucial time in our nation's history. Now, another crucial time, where debates in the classroom about our nation's past may end. up shaping our future. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Stephanie Sye. Tamara Keith of NPR. Good to see you both. Good to be here. As we've reported, as you have seen, since Kirk's killing, the rhetoric,

the finger-pointing, have only gotten more intense. We saw folks like Utah Governor Spencer Cox calling on people to tone it down, but now we've also seen others, including President Trump, for whom Kirk's death is personal, we should note, who's been overtly blaming radicals on the left, as he calls it. Tam, put President Trump's response to this in the context of past responses I know you've reported on when he comes to political violence. Right. And President Trump has been all over the place in terms of how he responds. You might obviously remember the assassination attempt on him in Butler, Pennsylvania. And after that, a lot of his supporters immediately wanted to blame left-wing rhetoric. And President Trump was more restrained at that time

and didn't really go there. And ultimately, we found out that the shooter didn't really have an ideology. He had President Biden on his potential target list as well. I went back to 2018 and there was a Republican supporter of President Trump who was sending bombs to Democratic lawmakers and also CNN. He was caught. The president praised law enforcement for catching him, but then he immediately turned to criticize the media for trying to say that the actions of one person were somehow, um, should be blamed on either him or the Republican Party. Um, he says, we did not in, he says that doing that, um, blaming a, a mass murder or blaming, um, uh, a crime on an individual, um, or on a party, uh, that would be wrong.

Doing, using that for political gain would be wrong. I'm reading this quote horribly. Um, he says that would have been wrong. Um, but in this case, um, but in this case, um, He is doing the very thing that he criticized the media for doing back in 2018, which is saying that the actions of one person are to be that an entire party, the entire left wing ecosystem is to blame for the actions of one person. We haven't even seen charging papers yet.

It's not clear precisely. And we may never know entirely because he's not cooperating exactly what drove him. Amy, how do you look at this? and which of these responses is resonating more with Republicans? Yeah, well, it seems clear to me that we're now in this different era. There was a time, at least when I was younger, where if something like this occurred, if there were an assassination or assassination attempt,

everybody knew where to go to to get information. Walter Cronkite was going to be there telling you what the facts were. That doesn't work that way. And so everybody immediately went into their echo chambers. And so depending on what you're watching or what you're consuming, you are getting a mix of some of its fact, but a lot of conjecture and a lot of opinion. And so when you say, well, where are the two parties on this? How do they see that? There has been some recent polling. U.Gov has been tracking this issue for some time. And you're not going to be surprised that if you identify as a Democrat overwhelmingly, you think that Republicans are responsible for the rhetoric and that leads to this violence.

And the same if you're a Republican, and you feel that way about Democrats. Meanwhile, in this sort of heated environment, Tam, we saw the president today sign a memo in the Oval Office announcing he's going to be sending the National Guard troops into Memphis, Tennessee. Why now? What signal does this end? I think the why now is largely because he has support from Tennessee's governor who says, come on down. President Trump has been saying that he wants to be invited. He's been invited. And the mayor is less excited about this, to say the least, the mayor is a Democrat. But this is forming a task force. So it's not just the National Guard, which the governor could call up on his own.

But he's also, the president's also bringing in ATF, FBI, that sort of alphabet soup of federal law enforcement. And in fact, the president said that the FBI has been operating in Memphis for some time now leading into this. President Trump has been clear that D.C. was a test case and that he intended to expand it. He is now expanding it. He's also talking about Chicago, potentially St. Louis. This is not the end. This is just the next step at what the president is making it seem would be the early stages of a plan to target many cities in America. Yeah, and it also addresses what many of the critics of the president have said, which is, oh, how come you're only going to blue states?

Well, I'm going to red states, these are, we're going to Missouri, whether it's Missouri or not, but we're going to go to Tennessee, which obviously has a Republican governor and a Democratic mayor. And a Democratic mayor. Absolutely. Absolutely. But it bypasses the challenge that he's had with blue states, like Governor Newsom in California or Governor Pritzker in Illinois. The other issue is, it is very clear that Donald Trump would like to make crime and safety the centerpiece of the conversation that we're having. at the political conversation that we're having, certainly when you look at the midterms. And it makes some sense. It's one of the only issues

in which the president's overall approval ratings are higher than his disapproval ratings. If it's about the economy, that's very deeply underwater. Even immigration is a little bit. People see him more negatively than positively by a smaller percentage, but still more negatively. Meanwhile, as we speak, there's a potential government shutdown looming

in just a matter of weeks, two weeks to be exact. We know Democrats are trying to learn lessons from the last time they have this go around, how to respond this time. Tam, what are they thinking? Do they make a deal or do they fight Trump's agenda and risk a shutdown? Well, at the moment, first, Republicans need to pass it out of the House. And this has been a challenge in the past. But President Trump went on social media today to say failure is not an option. Every single Republican needs to vote for what he's calling a clean, continuing resolution. That is, it would sort of punt the budget from, I don't know, a year and a half ago the last

time one was actually negotiated and sort of punt that forward for some period of time. The thought that some Democrats are having is they don't want to give that away if it gets, assuming it does get to the Senate. And so one of the ideas that they're talking about is saying that funding for Obamacare, Affordable Care Act subsidies. Health care subsidies should be restored. In the one big, beautiful bill, those subsidies went away and are otherwise expiring. And so they are highlighting this as a potential place, and some Republicans might support it.

The real issue here is Democrats, Democratic voters want a fight. Right. They want the fight, but at the same time, you have to know what your end game is and what your message is. And so Democrats getting on the same page saying, this is a fight for health care, this is a fight to do this particular issue, and then being consistent about that, that is going to be another important thing to watch. I have a feeling we'll be talking about this more. I do too. Over the next couple of weeks, Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, always great to see you. Thank you. You're welcome.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation is perhaps best known for its work helping America's youth. Lisa Lawson, its president and CEO, has done extensive research into the development of teenagers, and that is the focus of her book, which she recently discussed with Jeff Bennett, entitled Thrive, how the science of the adolescent brain helps us imagine a better future for all children. Lisa Lawson, welcome to the NewsHour. Thank you for having me. In this book, Thrive, you make the case that adolescence is a period of profound brain growth, not a plateau. What does the latest science tell us about how adolescents develop and what they need the most in terms of support?

Well, adolescence is an amazing period of growth between roughly the ages of 14 to 24. And in that decade-long journey where young people are growing and developing to be adults, they are learning so many important skills. that they'll need at the end of that journey. They are learning cognitive skills, how to become critical thinkers. They're learning judgment skills. They're building their social and emotional skills. So the science tells us that young people are in need of opportunities that help them build those skills in rich ways so that they'll be prepared to be productive

adults. And you write that relationships, opportunities, and support are the three essentials every young person needs. Why are they so foundational from a brain science perspective? Well, they're important because first, relationships are the ways that's the context for young people to grow. Although they are in a period where they are deeply interested in what their peers think about them, they still need the guidance and support of adults. And so that's why relationship is so important, especially when young people make mistakes. They need adults to help them process what happened and figure out how to get back on the right track.

They need opportunities because it's in the context of those opportunities, whether educational or employment opportunities, that's all young people learn how to be resilient, how to be responsible. And if they don't have those opportunities, then they can't build those skills. And then supports because we know that all young people need to have their basic needs met if they are going to achieve their highest potential. And those supports make sure that they have stable housing, that they've got food to eat, that they've got all of their basic needs met. So it really is in the context of relationships through opportunities

and with the supports that young people can thrive. And how can our policy, our public systems, better meet the needs of adolescents in particular? Well, the book talks about the ways that the science of adolescents, can help us serve young people better. Too often, we design programs that work against what we know about the way young people develop instead of with it. We know young people are motivated by rewards, not punishment.

We know that they are keenly interested in what their peers think. We know that they learn by doing. And so if we can design policies and programs that work with the way young people are developing, we can set them up for success. Simple ways to do that might be through apprenticeships. We know that young people have a lot they can learn in classrooms, but they want to work. They want to put that knowledge into practice. And so we work with a group called the Partnership to Advance Youth Apprenticeships.

They're helping 2,400 young people around the country get practical experience. That works with how young people learn, not against it. And what role can parents be, especially when the teenage years can be difficult at home sometimes? Well, parents can be an important guardrail and guide for young people, and it's really important that they practice empathy during these years. Young people are often misunderstood what people sometimes think of as defiance or disrespect is actually just development, that we need to understand this is just a phase of growth

for young people, and the more that their parents can be empathetic with them, and help them particularly when they make a mistake get back on track, they're more likely to be successful in the long run. The thing that I appreciated about this book is that it's focused on solutions. Are there models already working in communities that other communities can emulate? There are so many pilots underway that are using this science of adolescents that are getting amazing results. I talked about apprenticeships and how young people who finish those programs are graduating

and getting 50,000 plus dollar jobs. We are seeing programs that work with young people who've been in the juvenile justice system and rather than just focusing on punishment, give them rewards when they do positive things. They earn points for positive things. And they are seeing 60 plus percent reductions in the young people who are sent back to court

or who are violating their probation. So there are lots of projects underway that suggest if we lean into the brain science, we can get much better outcomes for young people. And you write that we all have a stake in adolescence. What's the message you want people to take away from this book? Well, adolescence is a bridge between childhood and adulthood. And those supports and resources we talked about

are really the cables that hold that bridge up. But I hope all of us see ourselves as bridge builders as the important role that we can play in helping, young people develop and grow. When young people thrive, we all thrive. And we want them to get to the end of adolescents ready to start adulthood with hope and with confidence and with a sense of their own possibility in the world. Be a bridge builder. Be a bridge builder. The book is Thrive, how the science of the adolescent brain helps us imagine a better future for all children. Lisa Lawson, it's great to speak with you. Thank you so much.

For tonight, I'm Amna Nawaz. On behalf of the entire NewsHour team, thank you for joining us.