PBS News Hour - Full Show - September 18, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: September 18, 2025

Thursday on the News Hour, what the move to pull Jimmy Kimmel off the air says about free speech under the Trump administration. An overhauled vaccine committee at the CDC, one that now includes vaccine skeptics, changes the guidance for what shots children should get. Plus, why paying interest is becoming a bigger problem for the U.S. government. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm William Brangham. I'm the Navaz and Jeff Bennett are away. On the news hour tonight, comedian Jimmy Kimmel is taken off the air indefinitely after his comments about Charlie Kirk's murder, what the move says about free speech under the Trump administration. An overhauled vaccine committee at the CDC, one that now includes vaccine skeptics, changes the guidance for what shots children should get. And why paying interest on the debt is becoming a bigger problem for the U.S. government. When I look at our fiscal situation,

the words that come to my mind are daunting, challenging, difficult. Welcome to the NewsHour. The political fallout from the murder of conservative activist Charlie Cook continues. Last night, Disney suddenly suspended ABC's Jimmy Kimmel Live, following comments Kimmel made about how President Trump supporters were responding to Kirk's murder. That suspension was cheered by the president and his allies, but has also raised concern of censorship and the future of the First Amendment. Today, Democrats on Capitol Hill introduced a bill to protect

free speech. That's censorship. That's state speech control. That's not America. In a fierce rebuke to Kimmel's suspension, Senate Democrats today accused the Trump administration of using Charlie Kirk's murder to silence critics. It began four days ago. ABC's late-night host took jabs at Trump and the right over their weekend messaging about the suspect in Kirk's assassination. We hit some new lows over the weekend with the Maga Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it. That monologue aired after a weekend when Utah's Republican governor had suggested the suspect had leftist ideology, but the day before prosecutors and the suspect's mother echoed that same belief. Then yesterday, some sharp criticism from the child. chairman of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission.

I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Trump appointed Brendan Carr threatened federal action if local ABC affiliates didn't do something about Kimmel. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead. Then a company called Nextar, which operates multiple ABC stations, said it was would start pulling Kimmel off the air. Nextar needs the FCC's approval for a proposed $6.2 billion merger.

Then more dominoes. Conservative Sinclair Broadcasting, the largest owner of ABC affiliates, said they'd do the same. Sinclair said Kimmel must apologize to Kirk's family and, quote, make a meaningful personal donation to the Kirk family and Turning Point USA, which is Kirk's political group. Mr. President, it's a pleasure. While meeting with the British Prime Minister in the UK today, President Trump rejected the idea that free speech was under attack. Well, Jimmy Kimmel was fired because he had bad ratings more than anything else,

and he said a horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk, and Jimmy Kimmel is not a talented person. And they should have fired him a long time ago, so, you know, you can call that free speech or not. This summer, the president celebrated when CBS canceled the show of another of his critics, Stephen Colbert. CBS cited financial reasons for the cancellation, even as its parent company, Paramount, was finishing a deal of its own, which also required FCC approval. But critics say Colbert's and Kimmel's political positions were why they were targeted. This is what authoritarianism looks like right now. In this country, it's happening.

Last night, multiple comedians denounced Kimmel's suspension as censorship, including Wanda Sykes, who was set to be a guest on Kimmel last night. He didn't end the Ukraine war or saw Gaza within his first week, but he did end freedom of speech within his first year. And today, former late night host David Letterman weighed in, talking with our colleague, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. And you can't go around firing somebody because you're fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian

criminal administration in the Oval Office. That's just not how this works. Others celebrated the move to take Kimmel off the air. Those recent vile remarks about Charlie Kirk's assassination, it should come as no surprise, given his lengthy history of mocking, conservative, never-ending Trump bashing, which is why his ratings sucked. And earlier today, FCC chair Barr warned more federal action could be coming. But yeah, I don't think this is the last shoe to drop.

This is a massive shift that's taking place in the media ecosystem, and I think the consequences are going to continue to flow. Sinclair Broadcasting says this Friday, it will replace Kimmel's show with a tribute to Charlie Kirk. For the record, we asked FCC chairman Brendan Carr for an interview and his office did not respond. For more, we turn now to Dylan Byers. He is senior media correspondent at Puck. Dylan Byers, thank you so much. Help us understand what has been the reaction in the media world to Kimmel getting pulled off the air? Well, it's been rather overwhelming. I mean, I think there's a pretty broad consensus here,

and certainly my own reporting and the reporting of others bears this out, that this was a decision that Disney CEO, Bob Eiger, made due to the pressure from the FCC. The remarks that you referenced that Kimmel made came on a Monday night. There was no move to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air by Disney for his show the following. night. But after the chairman car went out and gave an interview and suggested that he would put pressure on ABC, after Next Star decided that it would preempt Kimmel's show on its own and

operated stations, then Disney made the move to preempt Jimmy Kimmel's show. And look, you mentioned it there in your package. There was some precedent for this with Paramount's decision to cancel Colbert, which was justified by the fact that Colbert was losing a significant amount of money. for the network. And so there's some ambiguity around this decision. There doesn't seem to be any of that ambiguity here. This is pretty clearly a decision that Disney came to in light of that FCC pressure, in light of that next star pressure, perhaps also because they need regulatory approval for another deal that Disney is seeking to acquire Fubo. So this, look, the FCC certainly has the power to renew licenses, to revoke licenses.

It does not have the power to censor content. And what we are seeing here is a sort of indirect, albeit pretty brazen attempt to influence the programming on ABC television. Earlier today, we spoke with a constitutional scholar, Ilya Sloman. He's a professor of law at George Mason University and also at the Libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute. Here's what he had to say about Trump and the FCC's actions here. Trump is definitely abusing the power of the FCC. whatever other authority it might legitimate we have, it does not have the power to force stations to take people off the air

merely because they have views the president objects to, and it definitely is a violation of the First Amendment. If there's anything to violate the First Amendment, it's government pressure and coercion to censor political speech. Now, that is something that FCC Chairman Brendan Carr used to believe. There are multiple statements where he is echoing that same idea, that it is not the FCC's job to police speech. How has he responded today as to how he has had this reversal of opinion?

Well, look, I don't want to editorialize here, but I would say if you're looking for intellectual consistency here among many officials in this administration, you'd be hard-pressed to find it. Look, by going out and giving an interview and just suggesting that, you know, you can tell you. do this the easy way or the hard way. At the end of the day, I suppose you can technically say it was Disney's decision.

I didn't do it. But that, you know, that sort of reeks of sort of mafia level tactics of sort of veiled threats and coercion that Disney, by virtue of the position it's in, and by virtue of the FCC's leverage here, that it was willing to, frankly, capitulate to. The Maga world, the president himself and all of his support. have celebrated this move, saying that this was a consequence of his actions, of Kimmel's actions. What else have they been arguing as to why they think this is a great thing that has happened? Well, look, I think there's been a longstanding feeling among the right,

certainly among Trump supporters, that media, generally speaking, what we usually can refer to as mainstream media, has been bias. And that if you believe that, if you believe that, that broadcast networks should be sort of servicing the American people, then that sort of bias is a bad thing. And I think they would view the actions against Colbert or against Kimmel as progress in that regard. I think what I would say, and I think what many folks across the political spectrum have pointed out over the course of the last 24 hours, is that what is happening now to, say, ABC to Jimmy Kimmel, is the kind of power and coercion

that a future Democratic president could try to wield against conservative critics. So this does not set a good precedent. At the end of the day, one thing that I think we can all agree, we all value here, is living in a society where people are able to go out

and make jokes and state political opinions without fear of retribution from their employer because their employer has a deal pending, approval by the federal government. And I would just say that anyone's celebrating this move now would probably going to rethink that in future administrations if future administrations try to wield that power too.

All right. That is Dylan Byers at Puck. Dylan, thank you so much for your time. Thank you. We start the day's other headlines in the U.K., where President Trump closed out his state visit with a series of deals aimed at further cementing ties between Britain and the U.S.

I think it's an unbreakable bond we have, regardless of what we're doing today. I think it's unbreakable. He and Prime Minister Kier-Starmer signed a major technology partnership as well as an agreement on nuclear energy. Afterwards, they said, spoke with reporters where President Trump acknowledged that he disagrees with the U.K.'s

plan to recognize a Palestinian state. On efforts to end the war in Ukraine, President Trump said he's disappointed that Russian President Vladimir Putin is continuing his attacks. The one that I thought would be easiest would be because of my relationship with President Putin, but he's let me down. He's really let me down. He's going to be Russia and Ukraine. But we'll see how that turns out.

President Trump also suggested that the U.S. may reestablish a presence at the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. That facility played a central role in America's chaotic withdrawal from the country in 2021. The president has floated this idea in the past, but has provided few details. The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court for an emergency order to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. In its filing, the Justice Department claims a lower court's refusal to OK her dismissal was, quote, yet another case of improper judicial interference with the president's removal authority. President Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud, which she denies. The request comes a day after, Cook joined a majority of other Fed board members in voting to cut interest rates. Charlie Kirk's political organization, Turning Point USA, announced today that his

his widow, Erica Kirk, will be its next CEO. The entrepreneur and podcaster often appeared with her husband at Turning Point events. In emotional remarks following her husband's assassination last week, she vowed to continue his work. Erica Kirk takes over amid a surge in interest and support for the organization. Charlie Kirk helped build Turning Point into a multi-million dollar operation that was widely credited with helping Republicans win over young voters in last year's. election. In Pennsylvania, prosecutors say that a suspected stalker was hiding at his ex-girlfriend's

house when he opened fire on police who had come to arrest him. Three officers were killed immediately and two others were hospitalized. The suspected gunman was identified as 24-year-old Matthew James Ruth, who was killed by police in the shootout that followed. The fallen officers were identified today as Detective Sergeant Cody Becker, Detective Mark Baker, Detective Mark Baker, and Detective Isaiah Eman Heiser. At a press conference today, law enforcement officials paid tribute to their service. Well, their mission is now complete.

You kept the faith. You ran the race. You fought more than a good fight. Last night, members of the small Southern Pennsylvania community joined police and first responders as they formed a procession to the coroner's office to show their support. It was one of the deadliest days for Pennsylvania's police so far this century. Turning to the Middle East, the Israeli military says four of its soldiers were killed today in southern Gaza.

They're the first troop losses since Israel launched a major offensive in Gaza City this week in the territories north. As explosions dotted the horizon, residents reported that internet and phone lines have been cut off, across the strip. Hundreds of thousands of Gazans have already fled Gaza City in a desperate search for safety in the south, but some refused to leave. I'm not getting out of here. God is one and death is one. Life is one. It's like a thousand deaths. And we're not leaving. We're not getting out. I wish I could leave to save my children, but where do we go? Separately, officials say a Jordanian truck driver shot in killed two people at an Israeli-run border crossing between Jordan and the occupied West Bank.

The Israeli military says it neutralized the gunman but provided no other details. They are referring to the shooting as a militant attack. Back in this country, chipmaker NVIDIA is investing $5 billion in its struggling rival Intel. The two companies also announced today that they'll work together on custom data centers and chips for personal computers. The investment is a lifeline for Intel, which has struggled to adapt as consumers shift to mobile devices. And it comes after the U.S. government took a 10% stake in Intel last month. NVIDIA's investment still needs regulatory approval.

Intel shares surged 22% on the news. And on Wall Street, NVIDIA's investment helped drive the three major indices to new all-time highs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added more than 120 points. on the day, the NASDAQ jumped more than 200 points, the S&P 500 also ended in positive territory. Still to come on the news hour, Senate Republicans pushed through multiple judicial nominees after changing the rules.

Israel's ambassador to the U.S. discusses the ongoing war in Gaza, and we examine a new originalist analysis of the Constitution and its potential impact. 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. The advisory committee on immunization practices began a two-day meeting today to discuss and vote on various recommendations. It's being watched closely because the committee was completely overhauled by,

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., when he fired the previous members and replaced them. On the agenda, big questions about vaccines for hepatitis B and the measles, mumps, Rubella, and varicella. Allie Rogan has more. That's right, William. Today, the committee met and took its first votes towards changing the schedule for childhood vaccines. Just a short time ago, the committee voted to recommend against children under the age of four getting the combined measles, mums, rubella, and varicella vaccine. While many kids don't get the shot that way, it was part of a larger conversation today about limiting access to some vaccines for some children. Joining me now to discuss the meeting is Dr. Tom Frieden, President and CEO of Resolve

to Save Lives and former CDC Director under President Obama. He's also the author of the forthcoming book, The Formula for Better Health, How to Save Millions of Lives, Including Your Own. Dr. Frieden, thank you so much for joining us. reaction to the changes that ASIP was discussing and voted on today? There are a few things that were clear from today's meetings. The first, which was reassuring, was that the CDC staff presentations were extremely high quality. They were what we've seen for year after year where we have some of the best vaccine scientists who dedicate their lives to protecting kids presenting really good information about what works and what doesn't. That was

encouraging. Less encouraging was the kind of questions and discussions from the current members of the committee, some of whom were very clear and very focused and scientific, some of whom seemed to dismiss data and say, you know, it's not about the data, it's about trust, it's about safety, it's about concerns. So the process was concerning. The voting was actually quite confusing, so much so that one of the members abstained because he didn't, it wasn't clear what was being voted for. It's very technical, but what got decided today was basically that there are two ways for young kids to get their first dose of one of the vaccines. You can either get them as one shot or two. Currently, about 85 percent of kids get them as two shots because the one shot has the

advantage that you have one last shot and the disadvantage that it carries a small risk of febrile seizures, which are scary but generally benign. The committee voted not to recommend that that option be given to parents. So it wasn't about recommending a change. It was recommending that this option, which parents had before, not be an option. But it was then voted that even though the ACIP had recommended that, it should be covered by one of the ways

that half of American kids get their vaccines, what's called the Vaccines for Children program, which covers about 36 million kids in this country. So it was a confusing day. I think that the bigger decision will come tomorrow on hepatitis B. That's a much bigger deal. And speaking of hepatitis B, this is very much in the air. There have been conversations today.

The vote will be held tomorrow. But as you mentioned, ASIP is looking at changing the guidelines against all newborns, receiving the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, which is currently the recommendations. Members of this committee argued that not all newborns need it and that the focus can be more on screening pregnant mothers for, the hepatitis B virus prior to giving birth? What's your take on all of this? Yeah, you know, it is said that Yogi Berra said, in theory, theory, and practice are the same.

In practice, they're different. We tried this. It doesn't work. Without a universal recommendation, you miss too many kids. It's a safety net. People say, well, what about a woman who test negative? Well, hepatitis B, unlike HIV, is, quite transmissible. You can get it from a cut. You can get it from a toothbrush. And so even if a woman

who's pregnant tests negative, she may later test positive or the infant may be infected. Now, if everyone in the family is negative and they want to not get a vaccine for some time, there's no negative to getting the vaccine. And it's very effective at protecting. To give you a sense of this, Before this policy, about 20,000 kids a year in this country got infected during or after birth. And that's really bad because a quarter of them will be killed by this infection with liver cancer or liver cirrhosis. With this policy, that number has come down about 90 percent to one or two thousand kids get the infection. So we're talking about a change that could result in hundreds of American kids dying. This would be a mistake.

Speaking about the confusion you mentioned before when it comes to this combined measles-monthsribella vaccine, it actually seemed at the end of the meeting like they might revisit one of the two votes they took on this, the result of which seemed to set up a two-tier system where some children on some insurance plans might have access to this combined vaccine and others who benefit from a fund called vaccines for children, which provides many vaccines, may in fact have access to it. What does this all mean for members of the public who right now are looking to the CDC and ASIP for guidance? Well, it's interesting that the insurer association put out an announcement a couple

days ago that they weren't going to follow what this ACIP does, this advisory committee does, because they really have lost the trust. It's a huge vote of no confidence in this process. And that's unfortunate. I think stepping back, you have to look at what, what this administration, and particularly Secretary Kennedy, is doing rather than what he is saying. He's saying he wants to restore trust. He just destroyed trust of the insurers all of the major medical societies have diverged for the first time, really, from HHS recommendations.

But for the general public, this isn't a big change as of today, but you have to watch what happens next. What happened a few weeks ago was completely without any process. There was a change in the recommendations for the COVID vaccination, which has made it much harder for healthy young adults to get vaccinated. And this is really unfortunate. So again, look at what they're doing, not what they're saying. Secretary Kennedy said he's not going to take away anyone's vaccines, but he made it way harder for millions of Americans who want to get vaccinated against COVID

to get vaccinated. That's former CDC director, Dr. Tom Frieden. Thank you so much. Thank you. One of the largest groups of President Trump's nominees was confirmed in the U.S. Senate today, 48 individuals who will hold significant jobs in the military, national security, and overseas. That is possible only because Republicans changed the rules of the Senate last week. Some on Capitol Hill call it going nuclear to get more nominees through more quickly.

Our congressional correspondent, Lisa Desjardin, is here to explain what this all means. Lisa, as you have taught us, the Senate lives and dies by process. So what exactly changed here and what does this mean for the Trump administration? What Senate Republicans did is they changed the rules so that they could pass nominees in large groups. Until now, they needed the approval of everyone in the change. to be able to do that. Now, that may not sound like a big deal, but it is a very big deal when you have 1,300

positions that need to be filled by the Trump administration, and Senate Democrats have done something unique this time around. They have slow rolled every single one of those nominations. So it has really bogged down the Senate. President Trump has made threats about other ways he would try to get his nominations through. Senator Athune, the lead Republican,

didn't want to go that way, so they decided to change the rules here. change the rules here, which also has its sort of partisan risks with it. Now, this has led to them passing that through last night, and I want to talk about exactly who these first, or sorry, today they passed the nominations. Who was in that group of 48? Let's take a look at what kind of positions we're talking about. There you see Kimberly Gilfoyle and New Kingrich's wife, Kalista, they are ambassadors. They have been approved today. They were waiting for several weeks for that approval. You see a couple of positions for national security,

the director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center. Then you see an assistant secretary for the Air Force and the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. So these are important positions. And what's important about the way Republicans did this is they can apply this group mentality to almost any nominee outside of judges except for cabinet secretary. So take all those 1,300 positions. Technically, they could pass almost all of them except for 20 using this method. I think you've sort of answered this already, but in terms of how our government operates, how big a sea change is this?

It depends on whom you ask. I think it is significant, but of course I'm a creature of the Senate. Some people would say that the Senate is broken, and I think almost everyone would agree that it's broken. The Senate now, outside of the Trump era, has now gotten in a situation where it finds itself spending maybe half of its time on nominations, not doing other business and legislating. But there are others who would say that this change is not what's needed to fix it, that this goes way too far. And indeed, everyone would also agree that this is giving tremendous power to the executive and to the governing party if the president shares the same party as the Senate. We talked to Max Steyer, who studies this with the partnership for public service.

I think it's unquestionable that the Senate confirmation process is broken and it creates a lot of dysfunction across the entire federal government. but it's the equivalent of having, you know, some dandelions in your lawn and tearing up the whole thing. Better to pluck out the dandelions than to lose the lawn entirely. And that's what we're watching right now with the Senate confirmation process. The question is how large of groups of nominees do they have? Because it's harder for us to actually hold accountable and look into these groups of nominees if they're coming in large groups. And what does this mean for the filibuster? Can we draw any conclusions about that?

I don't think not yet. It's still a third rail. And Republicans know that once they're out of office, office, then the Democrats could use it as well, much as you were talking to Dylan Byer about. Lisa Desjardin, thank you so much. You're welcome. This week, Israel has intensified its military campaign in Gaza's largest city, destroying high rises and telling people there to evacuate to the south.

Nick Schifrin speaks with Israel's top diplomat in Washington. To discuss Israel's operation in Gaza City, as well as Israel's long-term plans for Gaza and the West Bank, as well as the recent strike. In Doha, Qatar, I'm joined by Israel's ambassador to the United States, Yehiel Leiter. Ambassador Leiter, thanks very much. Welcome back to the News Hour. Let's start in Gaza City. The IDF announced this week the beginning of the second phase of an operation it describes as designed to take over the city and defeat Hamas. What do you define as victory in this operation? The long-term final day or day after Hamas in Gaza is exactly that, a Gaza that's free of Hamas. We don't have a war with the people of Gaza.

We have a war with Hamas, and we believe that we need to defeat Hamas permanently. And we're actually standing on five points, ultimately. Number one, that Hamas is defeated and disarmed. that Gaza is demilitarized, that are hostages, our hostages, all of them, the dead and the alive are home. And number four, that Israel's security ultimately remains in Israel's hands and nobody else's. And number five, that Gaza be rebuilt by an international consortium of countries that are interested in seeing Gaza be reconstituted as a civil society and not as a terrorist infrastructure. In February 2024, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said about a pending assault

on Rafa, quote, total victory is within reach, not months away, weeks away, once we begin the operation. Yet here we are 19 months later, and the prime minister is once again promising that the Gaza City operation will lead to victory. Don't senior members of the Israeli military who have resisted this operation have a point that the prime minister is chasing a victory here that could be impossible to achieve. No, I don't think so. war is difficult. Nobody wants this war to be over more than the Prime Minister and the people of Israel.

We're the people who have suffered here. We don't want to prosecute a war that's unnecessary. But we do need to achieve a situation where Gaza will no longer pose a threat to our civilians. If we fought this war over two years, we've lost 900 soldiers, and if Gaza is to be reconstituted as a Hamasthan, as a terrorist infrastructure state, what have we achieved? There's no country in world that would allow jihadi terrorists demand their borders, and we're not any different. U.S. officials have told me that Israeli officials have told them that this war, this fight in Gaza City could be over by the end of the year. But Israeli military officials are telling me that it could take months, perhaps longer than that, and extend well into next year.

Are those military officials wrong? We've been right about assessments, and sometimes we're wrong about assessments. I mean, we didn't know that there were 450 miles. of terror tunnels underneath an area with 24 miles long and 8 miles wide. There could be some surprises, but, you know, we have pretty good intel. We have degraded them dramatically. We started this war when they had some 30 battalions. They're now down to four or five battalions.

At the time, the prime minister made those remarks. We were on about 30% of Gaza. We now are in 75% of the Gaza Strip. So what's left is Gaza City and some camps south of Gaza City. That's where our hostages are being held. They refuse to release our hostages. They refuse to step down and surrender. Look, Nick, it could be over tomorrow.

If they release our hostages and lay down their weapons, the war's over. But as you know, senior members of the military have also expressed some concern that this operation will kill the 20 or so hostages who are living. Just today, the mother of Matanzangukur, who was kidnapped during the October 7 terrorist attack, said, quote, how long will they sacrifice our children on the altar of this eternal war? cry out with us enough, end the war. Does this operation not risk Matan and the other living hostages' lives? War unfortunately poses existential dilemmas that leaders have to face. This is not the first time leaders have to face existential dilemmas.

What we know is that of the 255 hostages that were being held, we've achieved the release of 207, 158 alive. And it has not been done without applying military pressure. But most of them were released through ceasefire and negotiations. No, it was because of the military pressure that the ceasefire worked. Would there not be military pressure there never would have been negotiations or a ceasefire? Let's zoom out and talk about Israel's relationship with the world, especially Europe. The European Commission, which of course is led by former defense minister Ursula von der Leyen,

a traditional ally of Israel, has this week proposed downgrading trade ties with Israel. And this week, Prime Minister Netanyahu admitted this. He said, quote, in the coming years at least, we will have to deal with these attempts to isolate us. And he described in Israeli economy that has to become self-sufficient. Is that an admission that the long-term impact of how Israel is fighting in Gaza is going to be negative on Israel? Look, in the meantime, our economic indicators are quite encouraging. We've got economic growth at considerable rate, and we have investment pouring into the country. So will there be a period of time?

where we may have to deal with international isolation. We've been there before, and if we have to, we'll do it again. The important thing is to win this war. Finally, Ambassador, let me turn to plans that France and Saudi Arabia have to chair a conference on Monday at the UN General Assembly declaring Palestine an independent state. The Prime Minister and Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, this week in Jerusalem, suggested that Israel would annex parts of the West Bank in response to that declaration. that's going to happen next week at the U.N.

Is that the step that you are about to take? I think everybody should expect, certainly the president of France, France, with their long history of committing acts of genocide in Africa, if he's going to act unilaterally, Israel's going to act unilaterally, and shouldn't be surprised if that's the case. Look, we want to reach a situation.

We've changed the face of the Middle East. Under Prime Minister Netanyahu's leadership, the Middle East is changing. We've degraded the Iranian proxies. We've degraded Iran. What we want to do now is move in to Abraham Accords 2.0. That's not going to be accomplished by letting Hamas survive or by reducing Israel to a country that's nine miles wide like it was before 1967. So if you're going to unilaterally declare Palestinian state and we're going to have to act unilaterally in the opposite direction.

The Minister for Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermar, has been quoted to me as saying by multiple officials lately that the threat is to annex the Jordan Valley in northern West Bank. Is that the plan? Look, I think that it's high time that Israel establish once and for all its eastern border. And it's necessary for political reasons. It's necessary for military reasons. And I think that's been proven. We can't have any kind of threat to our borders. And I think there's a consensus in Israel that our eastern border, a wide consensus,

a wide consensus, 85 to 90 percent of the population, believes that our eastern border with Jordan should be the Jordan River. And if we now have that opportunity in the context of greater accommodation, in the context of normalization with Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East, there's no reason why the Jordan River should not be established as our eastern border. Ambassador Yehiel Leiter, thank you very much. Thank you, Nick. Since you started watching the news hour tonight, our nation's debt has grown by more than $140 million.

Its total sum is $37 trillion. There is mounting concern in some quarters over how soon that ballooning debt will impact the lives of everyday Americans. As economics correspondent Paul Salman explains, simply paying the interest on that debt is already swallowing a larger portion of the federal budget. Interest on the national debt, paid to investors for lending the U.S. money. In return, they get U.S. government IOUs, treasuries, the interest rate on which tends to rise

as we borrow evermore to cover the growing gap between expenses and revenues. When I look at our fiscal situation, the words that come to my mind are daunting, challenging, difficult. Why daunting? Well, one tasty way to depict the interest. problem, a budget pie. Okay, here's the pie back in 2015. Interest on the debt? A locale 6% slice. But today, 13%, more than double the share just a decade ago. Why? As we issue more and more debt, more and more U.S. Treasuries, then investors are going to demand more for that. For that, and another reason, too. inflation. Which makes the debt worth less. You get paid back in dollars that don't buy as much as when you lent them. The burden of the debt every year is rising and putting a strain on our

finances. Head of the devoutly nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Phil Swagel. And that means there's funds that don't go to anything else. Someone wants more money for national security. Someone wants more money for tax relief or for social benefits. The resources paying the debt are excluded from that. They're not available for those other purposes. But wait a minute. U.S. interest rates are down over the last three months, even as our debt has climbed. Our demographics are putting downward pressure on interest rates, the aging of the U.S. population and the reversal in immigration that we've seen this year puts downward pressure on interest rates. In other words, says Swagel, who doesn't have to worry about the presidential

acts, by the way, since he works for Congress. There are conflicting pressures. Interest rates rise with debt, but only according to the age-old hedge of economics all else equal, which it never is. For instance, say the economy stalls. We have slower income growth, so we have fewer resources with which to pay our debt. That is, fewer tax revenues, which would mean borrowing even more. Plus, lower growth means less demand. from businesses to borrow money for investment, which also tends to lower rates. So maybe that's why rates have subsided recently, a possible recession. And that brings us to an unusual counter to debt threats. I think the word debt is the thing that gets people really

concerned, and I think unnecessarily so. Unorthodox economist Stephanie Kelton thinks government debt is actually no problem at all. They hear $29 trillion or $36 trillion, they say, oh, my God, you know, we're drowning in debt. This is some impossibly large sum that we're going to have to pay back somehow. But she has another way to look at it, known as modern monetary theory, which argues that a government like ours that prints its own currency can't run out of money. There is no finite sum of money that is available for the federal government to work with. The United States has a sovereign currency, has a fiat currency, and there is no hard financial constraint on governments that operate with the kind of currency that we have.

Moreover, says Kelton, there's a benefit to U.S. government debt. These are all of the dollars the government has spent over the entire history of time and not taxed away from us. Those dollars are sitting in what are effectively savings. accounts with the U.S. government? The potential problem would be too many dollars, and thus inflation, often defined as more and more dollars, trying to buy a fixed amount of what our economy can produce. The question I would ask is, is it becoming excessive? Is the government spending so much, not just on health care and education and infrastructure and defense, but also on interest, that it is feeding inflationary pressures?

At the current inflation rate of less than 3 percent, Kelton says no. Look, she says, it's we U.S. citizens who hold almost all of the Treasury's debt. Most of the treasuries that are being held are just being rolled over and people are reinvesting. People like me, I asked CBO head Phil Swagel. At my age, I better have retirement funds. And a lot of them are in money market funds. And the money market funds pay, I don't know, something like 4% a year. and that's mainly government short-term IOUs, right?

So the government owes the money, but it's paying it to me, and thank goodness. What you're pointing to is both a positive and a negative. The positive is that the money, as you said, that we owe on debt, a lot of that goes to Americans. And so higher interest rates might be bad for the government, but they're good for savers. Like me and my wife. Exactly. On the other hand, we also owe a lot of money on debt held by foreigners.

And so the interest that we pay on bonds owned by people in other countries represents resources that are going from the United States out of the country to other people. And that amount is rising as well. And so that's part of the fiscal challenge. Harvard and former IMF economist Ken Rogoff is similarly skeptical of Kelton's argument, as are many economists worrying about more debt spurring higher interest. rates. I suspect we're going to see longer-term interest rates, and those are the ones that affect car loans, mortgages, student loans, et cetera. I think they're going to, on balance, continue to

drift up. Economist Claudia Sam is more sympathetic to Kelton. She does worry a lot about one thing, though, the uneven burden of higher interest rates. The higher interest rates are a bigger problem, a bigger constraint on individuals who need to or choose to borrow, individuals who are lower income that can't afford to go buy the car all in cash. But back to the big picture. What's the worst case scenario? If we have problems, we could have another pandemic. We could have a financial crisis. God forbid, we could have a war of some type. And we will want to borrow a lot. And the fact our debt is starting so high, it's a risk. It gives us less. flexibility for dealing with these things. Not counting such catastrophes, though. What's the CBO's

projected budget pie a decade from now? Interest, 17% of the national budget, and rising. Make of it what you choose. For the PBS News Hour, Paul Salman. 238 years since the signing of the U.S. Constitution at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The language of that document has been debated ever since by lawyers, judges, and scholars. Tonight, we bring you the first of two conversations about that debate. Amna Nawaz recently sat down with John Malcolm. He's the executive editor of The Guide to the Constitution, which is put out by the Conservative Heritage Foundation.

It's part of our On Democracy series about the range of percent. about how our government should function, what led to this moment in history, and where the country goes next. John Malcolm, welcome to the News Hour. Thanks for being here. It's a pleasure to be with you. So there were two earlier editions of this book, 2005 and 2014. You have called this edition dramatically different from those first two. So how so and why this book now? This volume, 900 pages, covers every clause of the Constitution, 213 and essays. There's a preface by Justice Alito and a forward by former Attorney General Ed

Meese. It covers each clause all the way from the experience of what the colonists were experiencing respect to that issue at the hands of the British, and then how that issue was treated in the Articles of Confederation, how it was discussed at the Constitutional Convention, how it was discussed at the ratifying conventions, and then how early administrations, the Washington Adams, Jefferson administration treated that issue. And then finally, how the courts have treated that issue. And it's designed to help originalist scholars and originalist judges do the research that they need

to answer important constitutional questions that they face. And also for the general public to learn a little bit about why these clauses were meaningful and what their meaning still is today. And it makes the case, as you mentioned, for lawyers and judges that they should view the Constitution through that lens of originalism,

which has really come to dominate conservative legal file. over the last generation for the layman. Anyone tuning in now, what does that mean to view it through an originalist lens? Sure. Originalism just means that when you are interpreting the words and phrases of the Constitution, you try to discern what those words and phrases meant at the time that particular provision was ratified. And it's not just a conservative approach to analysis. I mean, of course, the Supreme Court now, they almost all professed to be originalists, including Katanchi Brown Jackson, who said that she is guided by original. which is a constraint on her authority during her confirmation hearing.

Elena Kagan famously said during her confirmation hearing, we're all originalists now. And any lawyer who is arguing a constitutional case who does not begin with the text and try to discern its original meaning is highly likely to lose. Any of those progressive originalist ideas, are they represented in this book, too? Are they all conservative viewpoints? Well, it's not conservative viewpoints. They're originalist viewpoints. So originalism might be contrasted with what progressives referred to, as living constitutionalism, which is basically saying, well, these words and phrases are malleable, so we will adapt them to current times.

An originalist will say, no, this is part of our original compact that we made. There is an article, Article 5 in the Constitution that talks about ways to amend the Constitution. It has been amended 27 times throughout our nation's history, and that if we're going to go back and change the fundamental charter, it should be done that way, and not by an edict from five justices sitting on the Supreme Court. So this idea that the Constitution is a living, breathing document that you've heard from some folks, that it's intentionally written broadly, so it can be interpreted with the times. You disagree with that.

I do. I think it's very much an enduring document, but it's not a living and breathing document. The framers realize that there would be changing circumstances. So, for instance, the First Amendment applies. It applies whether you were talking about writing on parchment or whether you were writing on the internet. Obviously, the framers of the Constitution could not have been. envisioned the internet. So those enduring principles can be applied to modern circumstances,

but you can't just change the meaning of the words because times have marched on. For example, there is a phrase in the Constitution, domestic violence. Domestic violence meant at the time that provision was ratified, an internal rebellion. It did not mean, you know, fighting between spouses. At the same time, I know you've heard this criticism as well. This is a document that was written in the 1780s, right? So critics of this approach also point out it was written when women couldn't vote, when black people were viewed as property under the law. So why revert to the intentions from a time when that was acceptable rather than a time when there was an expansion of rights? What would you say? Well, obviously, there have been an evolution

in terms of people's slots. And we now have an amendment that gives women the right to vote. And we have an equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment that gives rights to minorities. They're entitled to equal protection of law. We obviously, had to fight a civil war in order to give African Americans their freedom and the right to vote. So the Constitution was not a perfect document. It was a compromise among 13 states that were trying to form a unified nation to fight against all of the enemies they had both foreign and domestic. You had the French, the British, the Spanish, Native American tribes. I mean, at the time the Constitution was being drafted, there had never been a document like it before. We didn't have a hereditary king.

And it was an experiment. There was no way of knowing for sure whether our nation would survive. So to some degree, a compromise was cobbled together. But it's really brilliant in terms of its structure. Separation of powers, checks and balances in the system. And the framers had the foresight to come up with a way to actually amend the Constitution if the people chose to do so. At the same time, some of those amendments you referenced there, women getting the right to vote, the abolishing of slavery. those were amendments. In some of these essays, you argue that the amendments were wrongly interpreted, right? What are some examples of those in the book? We don't argue, well, we lay out what we think the history was behind that amendment and what the framers said. And then we talk about how courts have interpreted. We don't put a label in terms of saying, you know, this is right, this is wrong. Is it fair to call it sort of a judicial guide, though, similar to the way Project 2025 was sort of an executive guide for this administration. Is that what you're laying out in the book?

No, I don't think so. So Project 2025, you know, was a bunch of policy prescriptions in a whole host of areas. It was saying how they thought what Congress ought to do, what they thought executive branch officials ought to do. This is providing information to judges about how to do originalism and where they need to look when trying to divine what the original public meaning was. of those words and phrases. It's not telling them how they should rule on any particular issue or in any particular case. We should point out there have been no significant amendments to the Constitution in over 50 years. Why do you think that is? Are we just a country that can sort of no longer agree

on those fundamental kind of changes to those founding documents? No. Well, actually, I would argue that in a number of cases, the Supreme Court under the guise of constitutional interpretation has de facto amended. the Constitution, some in ways I might like, others in ways in which I wouldn't like. Give me an example of that. Where have they done?

Well, you can see that in all manner of things. The same-sex marriage, abortion. They created a right to an abortion. Then they said that that was erroneously decided. So different cases have effectively amended the Constitution without the going through the formal Article 5 process. There is a convention of the state's movement that's out there now that's thinking that there ought to be this alternative path to amend the Constitution, that perhaps it's time to consider that. It's not easy to amend the Constitution. It wasn't meant to be easy to amend the Constitution. It was meant to be something that happened when there was a broad consensus across the political aisle,

across a wide swath of people. That is a virtue and not a bug. It's difficult, but it's not impossible. John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation, an executive editor of the new book, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Thank you for being here. It's been a pleasure. Thank you. And that is the News Hour for tonight.

I'm William Brangham. On behalf of the entire NewsHour team, thank you so much for joining us.