PBS News Hour - Full Show - September 17, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: September 17, 2025

Wednesday on the News Hour, the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates amid pressure from the president as the U.S. economy faces an uncertain future. The United Kingdom honors President Trump with a lavish state visit amid a tense time for foreign relations. Plus, as violence escalates and a ceasefire remains elusive, a panel commissioned by the UN determines Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Amna Nawaz. On the news hour tonight, the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates amid pressure from the president as the U.S. economy faces an uncertain future. The United Kingdom honors President Trump with a lavish state visit amid a tense time for foreign relations. And a panel commissioned by the United Nations determines Israel is committing genocide in Gaza as violence escalates. and a ceasefire remains elusive. Virtually the entire community of international human rights lawyers, we've never seen a consensus as clear as this one, and now this additional report on top of that.

Welcome to the NewsHour. The Federal Reserve cut its benchmark interest rate today for the first time this year, dropping it by a quarter point to between 4 and 4.25%. And the change could have an impact on many lending rates, including for mortgages, credit cards, and auto loans, with the Fed also suggesting two more cuts by the end of the year. Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Myron,

the Trump appointee confirmed by the Senate just a day before the policy meeting kicked off was the loan dissenter, choosing instead to call for a deeper half-point cut. Today, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell explained why the rest of the committee opted for a smaller cut. There wasn't widespread support at all for a 50 basis point cut today. You know, I think we've done very large rate hikes and very large rate cuts in the last five years,

and you tend to do those at a time when you feel that policy is out of place and needs to move quickly to a new place. That's not at all what I feel certainly now. I feel like our policy has been doing the right thing so far this year. I think we were right to wait and see how tariffs and inflation and the labor market evolved. For Insight, we're joined again tonight by Ron Insana, a contributor to CNBC and publisher of the substack column, The Message of the Markets. Ron, it's always great to see you.

So the Fed cut rates by a quarter point as expected, and Powell hinted at two more rates to come. So what does all of this tell you about what the state of the economy is? Well, I think the Fed chair and the statement from the policy setting committee was pretty clear. The labor market has weakened noticeably, and that appears to be, at least for now, the bigger of the two risks facing the economy, the labor market getting weaker or inflation getting stronger. Now, clearly, inflation is above trend. It's above where the Fed wants it to be. It wants it closer to 2% rather than 3%.

But there have been disruptions in the labor market that push the Fed into cutting interest rates by this quarter point, as you mentioned. And I think in this instance, it is somewhat devoid of political pressure, despite what Mr. Myron wants to do. This was an appropriate move, as Jay Powell suggested. And there may or may not be more cuts down the road. But the economy is strong in some parts, weak and others. And I think the Fed, as Jay Powell also suggested throughout his commentary, this was a risk management rate cut, not the start of something much bigger, like a huge drop in interest rates in the near term. A risk management rate cut. So when will everyday Americans feel the impact of lower borrowing costs and in what ways? Well, not tomorrow. I mean, I think,

you know, when you look at the broad spectrum of interest rates, the 10-year note yield, which is what mortgages are based on, actually went up a little bit to 4.08 percent. Credit card rates aren't really that sensitive to what the Federal Reserve does. Credit card rates are averaging about 20% if they come down a little bit. It'll be surprising, but they may. Mortgage rates have come down a lot in the last couple of weeks. The average 30-year fixed rate mortgage is now about 6.3%. We've seen a surge of refinancing. So that's where we may see the most activity, particularly if that 10-year note yield should start to drift back towards 4% or maybe even a little bit below it. And Powell also flagged immigration as a bigger driver of labor market dynamics,

as opposed to tariffs. How significant is that shift in emphasis? Well, I think it's extraordinarily significant. I mean, as you've seen, you know, raids on various employer operations, in some cases, plants that weren't being finished, but were being worked on by legal those who hold visas, work visas to be here in the United States, South Koreans in particular. I think that's very, it's critical because the size of the labor market is shrinking

as demand for labor also is being reduced. That's something that's kind of confusing to the Federal Reserve, which is accustomed to a different style of labor market, either one that's overheating or growing so fast and we're adding a lot of people or one that's shrinking really quickly and we're losing a lot of folks. The unemployment rate goes up.

That's not what we're seeing right now. There's very much a different dynamic at work at the moment. We've got Stephen Myron now on the board, as we mentioned. There is this ongoing debate and this pressure on Lisa Cook. How should we understand this broader battle over the Fed's composition and credibility? Well, I think this is an important, in fact, maybe the most important long-term question for the economy going forward is the credibility and the independence of the Federal Reserve. If, as the president has voiced his opinion in regard to this, he would like to see the Federal Reserve filled with those who believe, as he does, that interest rates should be substantially lower. or so much so that it would ease the burden of how much we pay in terms of interest on the federal

debt, would stimulate the economy further, which may or may not be necessary because it could produce higher rates of inflation. But packing the Fed, as it were, to use an old expression, is something the president seems bent on doing. And again, calling into question the independence and even in some cases, the competence of certain Federal Reserve officials down the road could make foreign buyers of U.S. treasuries less likely to do so. It could drive up the cost of U.S. debt, and it could make the dollar weaker over time. So in a certain sense, the President's playing with fire here. The Federal Reserve has done over time a very good job, generally maintaining equilibrium in the economy

and meeting its statutory mandates of maximum employment and stable prices for the most part. Trying just to get interest rates down for the sake of getting them down for political reasons, other than economic reasons, is a very dangerous game. Ron Insana, CNBC contributor and publisher of the substack column, The Message of the Markets. Good to see you, friend. You also. Thank you. In the day's other headlines, President Trump enjoyed a warm welcome to Britain's Windsor Castle today, where his royal hosts put on a display of pageantry, pomp, and military parades.

It's an unprecedented second-state visit for Mr. Trump, and it comes with both regal spectacle and real-world diplomacy. That's due to include the signing tomorrow of a civilian nuclear power deal and a massive transatlantic tech agreement. At Windsor Castle, a chopper-side personal welcome from the Prince and Princess of Wales and a gilded entrance fit for a king, a queen, and an American president, as President Trump was greeted with the full royal treatment upon arrival in the United Kingdom. That included 1,300 armed troops and a royal review of guards, all part of the largest military welcome for a state visit in British history. King Charles later escorted President Trump into the oldest castle in the world to view the royal collection.

That's so amazing. Tables adorned with mementos of U.S. British relations, including documents of America's independence nearly 250 years ago. By comparison, today's pomp and circumstance was a stark upgrade from Trump's last state visit in 2019. The president is a bit of a showman. The UK wanted to put on a good show, and they were able to do it with the blessing of the king. So all the stops were pulled out. Soft diplomacy from the royal family. It seemed by all accounts, looking at all the pictures that have come out, that the king and President Trump got on extremely well.

Dickie Arbiter is a royal watcher and former press secretary for Queen Elizabeth II. I suppose it was done because the UK wants to please Trump. The UK wants something out of America. We've got all these tariffs going on. Various countries have got 50%, one or two, got 100%. UK, 25%, they want to get it down. Our economy is not very good at the moment. Our government is not particularly good either.

For the first time ever during a state visit, the military's beating retreat ceremony was performed. Today, complete with soldiers dressed as American revolutionaries and a flyover of British Red Arrow jets. The pageantry was not without protests, including images of President Trump and the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein together projected onto the side of Windsor Castle last night.

Donald Trump, you can't hide. And today, thousands pouring into the streets, of London to show their dissent. All this, as the UK announces tens of billions of dollars worth of technology deals, with American tech giants, Microsoft, NVIDIA and Open AI, to open new data centers in the UK. Tomorrow, a new deal is expected to be unveiled for the US and UK to share American nuclear reactor technology

and lower nuclear regulations. The ocean may still divide us, but in so many other ways, are now the closest of kin. But tonight, the vestivities continue to unfold, as the special relationship between these two nations enters a new era. Also today, FBI director Cash Patel repeatedly told House lawmakers that recent court orders prohibit him from releasing files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

I'm not going to break the law to satisfy your curiosity. In his second day of contentious hearings on Capitol Hill, Patel bipartisan criticism for not releasing all Epstein information in the FBI's possession. Patel also told lawmakers he's never spoken to President Trump about the Epstein files. And he once again said there's no credible information to suggest that Epstein trafficked women to anyone other than himself. Other than Epstein and Jelaine Maxwell, your testimony in the Senate here is that according to the evidence you have, the number of other names, is zero.

That were charged based on credible evidence. Who were the other names? Give me the other names that weren't charged. We are not releasing the names of anyone because the Department of Justice never does that of anyone that didn't have any credible information to attack them. In that same exchange, Patel agreed to look into the sexually suggestive letter that President Trump allegedly sent Epstein as part of a birthday book in 2003.

Trump has denied writing it saying it's fake. Today's hearing in the House comes a day after Patel clashed with Senate Democrats over his handling of the Charlie Kirk investigation and more. Today, authorities in Utah gave more details about the arrest of the suspected shooter. A sheriff involved with taking Tyler Robinson into custody said he feared being shot by police and agreed to surrender peacefully. Prosecutors say they'll seek the death penalty for the 22-year-old. Also today, students at Utah Valley University returned to classes for the first. time since last week's assassination. The site of the shooting area is still blocked off. A large American flag is now draped near where Kirk was speaking when he was shot. In Pittsburgh,

FBI officials say they're treating a car ramming at their local field office as a, quote, act of terror. Authorities say a suspect is in custody after a car crashed into a security gate early this morning. The driver threw an American flag over the gate before fleeing the scene on foot. He was arrested hours later. Officials say the man was familiar to the FBI office and had and made a complaint there in recent weeks. No one was injured and authorities are still trying to determine the motive. Jerry of Ben and Jerry's ice cream is leaving the iconic brand he co-founded nearly five decades ago. In a letter, Jerry Greenfield says the company's long-held commitment to social activism, quote, has been silenced, sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power. Most recently,

the real-life Ben and Jerry have spoken out against Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza. Today's decision comes after years of increasing tensions between the ice cream makers and Unilever, which bought the company 25 years ago. Magnum, Unilever's new spinoff for its ice cream business, said today that it disagrees with Greenfield's perspective, but is committed to the brand's mission. The widow of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny says that new evidence proves her husband was poisoned shortly before his sudden death in an Arctic penal colony last year. In a video posted to social media, his wife and political successor, Yulia Nabilnaya,

points to incident reports and photos suggesting Navalny vomited and convulsed in his final moments. She also says that samples from Navalny's body had been smuggled out of Russia to be tested at two independent labs and that the results prove he was poisoned. I will not be silent. I affirm that Vladimir Putin is guilty of killing my husband, Alexei Navalny. I accused the Russian special services of developing prohibited chemical and biological weapons. Navalnya urged the labs to release their findings. She did not provide direct proof of her claims herself.

Today, a Kremlin spokesperson said he was unaware of Navalnya's statement. Russian authorities say the 47-year-old Navalny fell ill after taking a walk, but have otherwise provided few details on his death. On Wall Street today, stocks ended mixed following that interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 260 points on the day. The NASDAG slipped around 70 points. The S&P 500 fell back slightly from its recent all-time highs. Still to come, on the news hour, the ousted director of the CDC testifies before Congress.

Senate Republicans changed their rules to push through the president's judicial nominees. and a woman wrongfully detained in the Trump administration's immigration crackdown speaks out. 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. Former CDC director Susan Menares gave her first detailed account of her high-profile firing during a Senate hearing today. Menares was ousted less than a month into the job, making her the shortest live director in the agency's history. Two other top officials resigned in protest, including the CDC's then-chief medical officer who testified alongside Menares today. Questions about the

future of vaccine policy were front and center. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardin has our report. A remarkable hearing. I could have kept the office, the title, but I would have lost the one thing that cannot be replaced my integrity. Two recent Trump CDC officials, former director Susan Monares, and former chief medical officer Deborah Howery, raising sharp questions about sitting cabinet secretary and their former boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Secretary Kennedy censored CDC science, politicized its processes, and stripped leaders of independence. I could not, and good conscience, remain under those conditions.

How we resigned after Monares was fired last month, that firing and its relationship to vaccine policy were the key foci today. Monarez told senators that days before her firing, Kennedy gave her orders regarding ASIP, the key vaccine advisory board he had just replaced. He directed me to commit in advance to approving every ACIP recommendation. regardless of the scientific evidence. He also directed me to dismiss career officials responsible for vaccine policy without cause. I told the secretary that if he believed he could not trust me, he could fire me. You had an employee.

A far cry from Secretary Kennedy's account in a hearing earlier this month. I told her that she had to resign because I asked her, are you a trustworthy person? And she said no. So you're saying she's lying? Yes. At stake is an even larger battle about truth. What does science say about vaccines? Secretary Kennedy has long insisted that science has led him to question the current use of some vaccines and that he and President Trump want radical transparency about data. But Monares told senators there's already clear and strong data about vaccines and Kennedy was going to change vaccine. recommendations for kids this month without enough data. We got into an exchange where I had suggested that I would be open to changing

childhood vaccine schedules if the evidence or science were supportive. And he responded that there was no science or evidence associated with the childhood vaccine schedule. And he elaborated that CDC had never collected the science or the data to make it available related to the safety and efforts. To be clear, he said there was not science or data, but that you still expected you to change the schedule. Correct.

Kennedy has repeatedly said HHS did not fund the kinds of studies he thinks are needed. But decades of research, trials, and practice have gone into the current vaccine guidelines. What is the science? One Republican pushed hardest on Monares for her vaccine stance. Kentucky's Rand Paul, who also questioned her word. burden is upon you and the people you wouldn't fire to prove to us that we need to give our six-month-old a COVID vaccine and that we need to give our one-day-old a hepatitis B vaccine. That's what the debate ought to be about, not whether all vaccines are good or whether we live

in Alice in the Wonderland. I actually agree with you. And I was open to the science. I just would not pre-commit to approving all the ACIP recommendations without the science. Untrue. The American Academy of Pediatrics has said adults with hepatitis B, may not be aware they have it. And immunizing newborns is critical to reduce chronic hepatitis B later in life. Democrats raised a host of concerns, including a targeted shooting spree at the CDC

over a month ago that left a police officer dead and the atmosphere for those still there. These are unsung heroes. The witnesses spoke personally. I myself was subject to threats. I have many that won't speak about vaccines now to remove their names off of papers. So you know of personnel who now will not put their name behind good science, that they know, that they know would protect the health and safety of families and children because of their fear of violence? Correct. The CDC's newly formed vaccine advisory committee is set to meet this week to make recommendations, Monarez, and how we warned today about what they fear from any change to key immunization schedules like those for hepatitis B and measles. These diseases have long-term consequences, and we don't need, in the U.S., we have gone so far in reversing this. We don't want our children to die.

Howie said in that hearing that Secretary Kennedy, in her opinion, should resign. I asked Senator Cassidy if he would still vote to confirm Kennedy, if the vote were today. He said he's waiting for and hopes for Senator Kennedy to respond to today's hearing first. Meantime, Cassidy says the vaccine advisory hearing meeting for tomorrow should be postponed. that it will be. So, Lisa, how is Secretary Kennedy responding to all of this? We got this statement from the White House when I asked about the hearing, and they wrote saying that simply no one in the Trump administration is calling to throw out the entire childhood vaccine schedule or block access to life-saving vaccines. But when you think about that statement,

I didn't hear anyone accusing them of that. I think the question is here, what do they want to do with vaccines? What do the changes mean? Are they based on data? And how would they affect availability? Another note about this hearing, Jeff, it's hard to tell from off the hill, but this was extraordinary. I can't remember any time that some senator of the Republican, especially, but any president's party, has had such a critical hearing of a sitting cabinet member from that party. Well, that's right. Republicans control the Senate. They control the committee before which Minarez testified.

So it was Republicans who wanted to hear her perspective. I mean, that's really, that's striking. This was a statement from the chairman, Bill Cassidy. And remember, he is up for reelection. he is facing pressure from the right and the left. This is why he was really carefully navigating his own statements, but the hearing itself was a statement. All right, let's shift our focus a bit because we are facing another potential government shutdown. Here we go again. How is this all unfolding? All right. It seems like we have a lot of time in terms of the way the Congress works, but we don't

because Congress is gone next week. So really, ideally, they should be figuring this all out this week if they want to get funding in place by September 30th. And Republicans do have a proposal. Here's what they plan to vote on in the House later this week. The idea is to extend government funding to November 21st to try and work out appropriations in the meantime. Now, in their bill, there would be $88 million for more security following the assassination of Charlie Kirk for executive, legislative, and judicial branch. It would also restore Washington, D.C.'s spending ability that was frozen. The district lost some $400 million because of that. So now, the issue is here, the votes. Republicans can only lose two votes to get this through the House.

And, oh, we have two Republicans who have problems with it. Imagine that. Thomas Massey there on the left, he is a hard no. But Warren Davidson of Ohio was a no on Monday. Now he's a maybe. This is going to be close. We expect that vote on Friday. If it gets through the House, then the Senate is a whole other question where Senate Democrats,

many of them are hoping to block this. That is what would potentially lead to a shutdown. And the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, is talking tough right now. But back in March, was it? the last time this came about, he moved to avoid a government shutdown. He was on this program and said he thought a shutdown would be worse for the country. So how do Democrats see his result? That's right.

This is a lot on Senator Schumer's soldiers. And I have to tell you that Senate Democrats I've been texting with say he is resolved. And I just have some breaking news about what he plans to ask for. So here's what we want to look at what we've learned. This is what Democrats are going to ask for in order to go along with the funding bill. They want to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, which expire, of the year, repeal the Medicaid cuts that were in the Big Beautiful Bill Act, and interesting, restore some of the rescission funding that was cut, including, I'm told, the funding that was

cut from public broadcasting. Now, this is a Democratic wish list. We already know Republicans are against those first two items. We will see what they think about the rescissions. But what this tells me, bottom line, is that we are probably closer to a shutdown than farther away from one, and time is far shorter than people realize. Real-time break. News reporting, Lisa Desjardin on top of it all, as always. Thanks so much. You're welcome. were killed today in Israeli attacks. Health officials in Gaza announced earlier today

that more than 65,000 Palestinians have now been killed in nearly two years of war. And a coalition of leading aid groups urged the international community to take stronger measures to stop the offensive after a commission of UN experts accused Israel of committing genocide. Here's Nick Schiffen with more.

An independent international commission attached to the UN's Human Rights Council released its report this week. that accuses Israel of an ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. The UN's Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, and cites as examples, killing, injuring, inflicting conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction, preventing births, or transferring children.

The commission accuses Israel of committing at least four of those five acts, and that state made by Israeli authorities are, quote, direct evidence of genocidal intent. Then, defense minister Yuav Galant, here on October 9th, 2023. We are ordering a complete siege on Gaza, no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly. To discuss the report, I first turned to Craig Mokaiber. He's an international human rights lawyer and former senior UN official, and he joins me now from New York. Craig McIber, thanks very much. Welcome to the NewsHour. This charge of genocide has been

made before. How was this report different than previous documents that made this accusations, and why is this significant? Well, this report is the result of two years of internationally mandated investigations, 80 pages of detailed facts and legal analysis, and all conducted by a panel of very highly qualified, highly respected international human rights experts and jurists. And of course, it follows upon earlier findings of genocide by the UN Special Rapporteur, virtually the entire community of international human rights lawyers. We've never seen a consensus as clear as this one. And now this additional report on top of that, a very serious, officially mandated report,

I think is the final piece in the puzzle of accountability that people have been trying to build for two years of genocide. Israel, of course, denies that it's committing genocide. If anything, it claims Hamas on committing genocide, stating, Hamas's charter. And let's talk about intent, which of course is what makes genocide legally unique but also very difficult to prove. Israeli officials have disputed the argument in this report that senior official's statement somehow prove intent. The Israeli argument is that some of those statements were taken out of context and that they are made by politicians, not the executors of the military campaign. And the people who are executing the military campaign are inside the

IDF, and they follow international humanitarian law. What's your response to that argument? Well, that's not a very convincing argument. In fact, it's an unusual argument. Normally, the argument that is made is, well, those people who made those statements are marginal characters. In this case, we're talking about the president, the prime minister, at least seven members of the Israeli cabinet, senior military commanders, commanders on the ground, and all the way down the chain of command. And what the commission has shown and others before them is shown is that these statements are made, they are then repeated down the chain of command, and, in fact, they are perpetrated on the ground with a genocidal fury that is undeniable. They looked at every aspect

of the situation on the ground to align the facts with the statements and to conclude that, indeed, the intent is genocide and the acts are genocide. Intent can also be proven by a pattern of conduct on the ground, and in fact, Israel points at what Hamas is doing inside Gaza, and says the report, does not take into account how Hamas fights using hospitals as bases, which I have personally witnessed in Gaza, and fighting from tunnels underneath civilian infrastructure. Doesn't the circumstance of this war change the assessment of Israel's conduct? It does not. Even if the premise were true, which is often proven not to be true, let's say that a combatant is alleged to be in a hospital or surrounded by civilians and

refugee shelter. That does not relieve the responsibility of Israel to respect international law. They are still bound by the principles of precaution and distinction and proportionality, respect for protected persons. The systematic targeting of virtually every hospital in Gaza, the targeting of schools and churches and mosques and refugee shelters and community facilities of aid warehouses and aid distribution points. There is no way that they can justify this either legally or in fact by simply using the magic word, Hamas, or the magic word terrorist. That does not have that effect in international law. And finally, the commission today accuses Israel of intentionally using starvation as a method of warfare.

But Israel argues it is allowed two million tons of aid into the Gaza Strip, over one ton of aid per person, and that it's Hamas who's actually stealing the aid in order to pay its fighters. If it is true that aid is being allowed in, which is denied by all those responsible for distributing aid, except for the Israelis and their mechanisms themselves, somehow people are still starving to death, and somehow we had last month a declaration of famine in Gaza. There is famine in Gaza. People are starving to death, and that is the result of the intentional policies of the Israeli regime. Krab Mukaiper, thank you very much. Thank you for having me.

And for the other perspective, I spoke earlier today to Dr. Iran. Shemir Borer, Director of the Israel Democracy Institute Center for Security and Democracy and the former head of the Israel Defense Forces International Law Department. He was also a member of Israel's defense team at the International Court of Justice. Iran Shemir Borer, thanks very much. Welcome to the News Hour. As we've been discussing, the Genocide Convention lists a series of acts that must be committed, quote, with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious, The report says that Israel's intent is proven through statements, then defense minister

Yuav Galat saying Israel was, quote, fighting human animals, President Isaac Herzog, saying the entire Palestinian nation was responsible and others. Do those statements not prove the intent to destroy? I think the report is wrong about the law, is wrong about the facts, and also wrong about the methodology. So first and foremost, you know, these statements are, it's like an effort of cherry picking, very selective quotations, completely ignoring the context. or many many other statements by the same individuals. And also they fail to remind, you know, that the IDF is not operating,

is not conducting itself based on statements of this or other politician. But it's a very disciplined military operating, you know, under very clear and written decisions of Israeli War Cabinet, basing its operational decisions on standing operating procedures and rules of engagement. And these are that statements, even though, you know, some of them I think are highly regrettable, some of them, even reprehensible statements, I would say. But that's not the way that militaries

in democracies, including in Israel, operate. It's just not the way that militaries function. Intent can also be established by a pattern of conduct on the ground. And the report argues the IDF has conducted indiscriminate bombing. The UN says 78% of Gaza's structures have been damaged or destroyed. Is that not proof of the intent to destroy? First of all, because we when assessing the legality of the conduct of militaries, you need information about what were the operational justifications for a specific acet or a specific decision to distract, for instance, the specific facility, right?

And the committee, they had no access to this information. They only rely on information released by Hamas itself. And they look into specific incidents. They only rely on very partial data. They never mentioned, you know, what was the target of the strike. For instance, they refer in one of the incidents they mentioned to an attack on the European hospital, as they mentioned. Now, Israel already released extensive information that it wasn't taking the hospital. It was actually attacking the target, was actually military infrastructure underneath the hospital.

Muhammad Sinwar, no less than the head of Hamas, died as a result of this attack. You have the target of the attack. The report simply fails to mention any of this and trying to depict a reality. as if Israel is just purposefully attacking medical facilities. That's totally not the case. You know, you can't assess the legality of Israeli actions without actually also assessing Hamas' conduct. And this is the conduct of the terror organizations

that carried out attack against Israeli civilians, that booby traps its own military facility, its own civilian infrastructure, that shields itself with its own civilians, that and built, you know, dug a very extensive tunnel, tunnels underneath Gaza. And I think that's, you know, it's outrageous. It's unprofessional.

And it's also attest, I think, to the partiality and bias of the committee. The report makes a separate legal argument that Israel has blocked humanitarian aid. There was a time when Israel allowed zero trucks in. Israel this week has announced additional steps to try and let trucks in. But humanitarian officials in the region tell us even today that the number of of trucks getting in is no more than 100. That is one sixth the number that the UN says is necessary to feed Gaza. So has Israel not blocked humanitarian aid from going into Gaza? For a very long time, for over a year and a half, Israel allowed them to facilitate any aid to go

into Gaza. It's true that after the ceasefire, when there was a huge storage, you know, a supply of aid inside Gaza, then Israel halted the aid for a while. But again, the report, report totally ignores the reality in which Hamas simply steals significant portions of this aid, you know, commandeering some of the aid going in, and in this way, actually, sustaining its war effort against Israel. Eran Shemir Borer, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Now to the Trump administration's aggressive approach to immigration enforcement and the case of a U.S. citizen who was caught in the middle.

Andrea Veles says she was wrongfully arrested this past summer in downtown Los Angeles, swept up in an immigration raid on her way to work. Folez says she froze, was knocked to the ground by an ICE officer, and despite declaring her citizenship was detained and led to a car. Fearing she was being kidnapped, she ran toward nearby LAPD officers, when ICE agents caught. caught her and carried her back. She spent two nights in jail before facing a felony charge for obstructing an officer. A charge, the Justice Department dropped two weeks later. I spoke earlier with Andrea Veles and her attorney, Luis Carrillo. Thank you both for being with this. Andrea, we'll start with you. Take us back to that morning. Your mother and sister had just dropped you off for work. What happened next? Suddenly, I saw these cars serving in, and I just remembered

that they got out their cars set abruptly and then they just looked like they were just ready to attack and chase. They never identified themselves as ICE agents. They just started chasing people and I remember watching just people running and one of them I think was a street vendor and that's when I noticed one coming towards my direction and I used my bag as a form of protection to shield myself. Then I remember that. he just got and pushed me and slammed me to the floor, to the ground. He started proceeding to say that I was interfering and that he was going to arrest me. I asked him for his batch number and his identification, and also if he had a warrant,

and he said that I didn't need to know any of that, because all I had to look was at his vests. They were all wearing civilian clothing, sneakers, and gator masks. And when he was trying to arrest me, I noticed that there was people filming. And I started saying my name, I'm a U.S. citizen. And I started saying my mom's name and her number, because I wasn't sure if she was going to know where I was at. I just remember thinking, like, she's probably going to wait for me to come home, and I'm never going to come home. So that's why I started saying my name. And then when he decided to take me inside the car, he took my belongings.

The ice agent took my belongings. They left me in the car by myself, and I remember there was belongings, a backpack. And I remember there was a phone. I remember there was, it just looked like a regular car. And then when they left me alone, I noticed a helicopter swarving in. And I started hearing the LAPD come in. And somehow I managed to open the door, the door unlocked by itself. And that's when I started running to LAPD, thinking that they could help me.

And I knew that they were there, that they were going to protect me because they have uniforms on. And one of them said, it's okay. And he just told me to put my hands behind my back and to face the front out of nowhere. I noticed that one of the ICE agents was coming and he said, she's mine. And then they let them take me. And that's when I felt like, I felt like, like, there's nothing I can do. I wasn't resisting or anything. And the ICE agent decided to make a show out of the whole thing.

And he picked me up from my body. And then he just decided to put me down. And then they took me into the car again. He said, she's mine, physically picked you up off the ground and took you back to the car. Yeah, yes, correct. When you told that ICE agent that you were a U.S. citizen, what was the response? It didn't seem like they cared. I even, at one point in the car, they were talking about how many bodies they got that day.

They then, the driver, he proceeded to say that I was an election. alleged U.S. citizens, so he didn't never bother checking my identification, not until we were already inside there, inside the place. Yeah. Mr. Correa, what is the status of Andrea's case today? They dismiss the criminal charges against her in the federal courts. We have filed a claim, which is the precursor to a lawsuit against the federal. government because they had no basis to arrest her at all. And so what we have seen, we represent nine U.S. citizens who were manhandled, beaten, thrown to the ground. And the ICE agents or Border Patrol agents never acknowledged their pleas when they were saying,

I'm a U.S. citizen, I'm a U.S. citizen. What does justice look like for Ms. Villez and the other people you represent. Justice looks for us, we're making a monetary claim. But the ideal is that they stop ICE and Border Patrol. They stop doing this damage to our people. But they're rounding up everybody that has a brown skin in California. And it's happening in other places. We want that to stop.

Ms. Veles, how long were you? you held and what were the conditions like in the detention center? I was there on Tuesday evening towards Thursday morning. I remember there wasn't a bed for me. The ladies that were in there were nice enough to grab me a bed. They told me that if I wanted to drink water, I had to grab a cup, but the cup I had to pay for. And because I didn't have money on my commissary account, I couldn't get water. One of the nice people there let me borrow their cup

for like just to drink. And then later that day, this lady, she was getting out that day and she was nice enough to give me her cup and her fork, her spork, so I could eat that day. So they had given rice and chicken in the, like, dinner.

So I was able to eat a little bit of that. You've been working remotely because you're afraid to go downtown. Is that right? What has this experience been like for you? How has it changed you? It's been challenging just because you're not safe outside. And now that does, that they are still rounding up people.

It's every day. It's a fear, like, where are they going to be at? You don't know what's going to happen. Yeah. Andrea Veles, Luis Carrillo, we thank you both for your. your time. And thank you for your interest in Andrea's life. which she unveiled during our exclusive interview. Today, Constitution Day, she launched a national bipartisan effort,

part of an alliance of 34 presidential centers and some 100 groups called More Perfect, working to strengthen our democracy. This report is part of our series Art in Action, exploring the intersection of art and democracy and part of our Canvas Arts coverage. At Lincoln's Cottage in Washington, D.C., Colleen Shogan knows history has its eyes on

on her. As the nation prepares to mark 250 years, she's working to steer it back on track with what she calls a civics education moonshot. What is the problem that you see needs fixing right now? I think we have a crisis with civics education in this country. We know some of the statistics are alarming.

About 22% of our nation's eighth graders are proficient in civics education. We also know that 70% of Americans, adults, would be unable to answer the basic questions on a civics or history test. When you say that many Americans can't answer basic questions, what kind of questions are we talking about? Something like how many branches of government are in the United States or which branch of government is responsible for writing the laws, questions like that. Shogin, who's helped to lead nonpartisan groups from the Library of Congress to the White House Historical Association to the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission, is now spearheading a new national project to help fill that civics void. Called In Pursuit, it calls upon former presidents and first ladies like the Clintons, Bushes, and Obamas, historians and thought leaders, including multiple Pulitzer Prize winners and journalists, including our own Judy Woodruff, each contributing an essay about a president or first lady, an idea born from Shogun's time leading the National Archives. I visited all of the presidential libraries when I was the archivist of the United States.

And what I witnessed was that people can access American history through our presidents, through our first families. It's familiar to them. And it's an easy way in which we can tell lessons about American history through that lens. I used to walk into the rotunda on a daily basis where the founding documents are on display. And I got to talk to people from all across the United States. States. No matter what their political affiliation or where they came from geographically in the United States, they're proud of our history, and they understand that it is a mixture of good things that have happened, difficult challenges that have happened, and they want to

learn about it. The project's tagline says it plainly. We call our nation the great American experiment. It's time to act like it. Is it a call to action? It's a call to think about our history and learn the lessons from it so we can inform our present and our future. I mean, history is not a static enterprise. History isn't just frozen in time. We should view history as a continuum. We should be able to look backwards and as the National Archives on the building says the past is prologue.

We're at a time when there are real debates over which parts of our history we remember, how we remember them, what's actually taught in our school system. when it comes to American history, how do you view this effort in light of where we are? I think we have to be accurate in our telling of American history. When we're talking about, you know, the American story and should we talk about our failures as well as our successes, how do you tell the story of American history accurately if you don't tell both? For example, how do you tell the story of a success like an Abraham Lincoln? I think most Americans would view Abraham Lincoln, his leadership, with a degree of admiration.

But how do we really account for that success in Lincoln's leadership if we don't understand the failures that preceded him in order to solve the crisis of slavery in this country? You have to understand both so that we can appreciate the times when we got it right. We have to understand when we got it wrong. That brings us to this moment. We're seeing play out in real time when it comes to this administration and the pressure that's been applied on our Smithsonian system of museums. We know the president says he wants to review the exhibits. That's a moment of real tension we haven't seen before.

How do you look at that? All of these institutions are charged with preserving our nation's history and sharing our nation's history with all Americans. And the only way that these institutions can continue to be successful, in their mission is if they remain independent. You're speaking from some level of experience here. Yes, I am. You know what it is to be caught in that political crossfire.

You'd served as the National Archivist since May of 2023 after the Senate confirmed you and then you were fired by President Trump in February of this year. Were you surprised by that move? Did it catch you off guard? It did catch me off guard. I think that anyone who has ever been in a situation

similar to mine in which you were doing your job and doing what you thought was a good job and you were following in my case the law and then to be dismissed in that way without any explanation or cause given I think that you would have a degree of surprise disappointment and certainly at times anger to this day you haven't been given a reason for why you were dismissed is that correct that's correct there was some understanding that because the president had been upset and publicly, vocally upset with the National Archives while the Justice Department was looking into his mishandling of classified documents at Mara Lago, that it was related to that. We should point out you were not even

in charge of the National Archives when that was going on. But do you believe that may be why you were fired? That would be something you would have to ask the President in the White House, because they've not shared any reason with me. Shogun learned she'd been fired from a post on X. President Trump tapped Secretary of State and acting national security advisor Marco Rubio to step in as acting archivist. The laws that govern our records in the United States that created the National Archives, they were all written under the premise or the guise that the person running the National Archives would be selected because of his or her qualifications, not with regard to partisanship or politics. When you look at what's at stake at the institution, you used to lead, the president's 2026 budget includes deep cuts, nearly 60 million less than the projected 2025 spending levels, over 90 million less than was spent in 2024.

What's the impact of that going to be? I think it's going to be challenging for the National Archives. When I was the archivist of the United States, I spent a lot of time trying to do the reverse, which was to grow the budget of the national archives. archives in a responsible way. The National Archives is going to see a deluge of born digital or born electronic records starting in the next five to ten years. And right now the National Archives does not have the infrastructure to process those records or share those records with the American people. That system needs to

be built. Otherwise there is going to be a situation in which in the future Americans will not have access to those records. Would you say that there is no cuts that need to be made at the archives? There are no cuts that need to be made at the national. In my experience, and I worked there and I led the institution. In Pursuit hopes to reach 10 million Americans, including 5 million students. Shogun, who's previously penned novels about murder and mayhem, is now working on another book, this one about public service.

I'm doing what I really love doing, which is, you know, sharing. our nation's history with as many Americans as possible, talking about the importance of civics education. And what I just figured out was I could do that no matter what role I had. So I'm very excited about this next

opportunity and phase. And join us again. here tomorrow night as we take on the originalism debate and look at competing interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. That is the NewsHour for tonight. I'm Jeff Bennett. And I'm Omna Navaz. On behalf of the entire NewsHour team, thank you for joining us.