PBS News Hour - Full Show - September 22, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: September 22, 2025

Monday on the News Hour, President Trump and Health Secretary Kennedy claim a link between autism and acetaminophen use in pregnancy, but many health experts remain skeptical. Trump escalates his promises of political retribution against his perceived enemies. Plus, Brazil's president on the controversial conviction of the country's former leader and increasingly tense relations with the U.S. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Jeff Bennett. I'm the Navaz is on assignment. On the news hour tonight, President Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claim a link between autism and Tylenol use in pregnancy. But many health experts remain skeptical. President Trump escalates his promises of political retribution against his perceived enemies. And Brazil's president discusses the controversial conviction of the country's former leader. and increasingly tense relations with the U.S. So the explanation of a tariff of 50%

due to the trial of a former president, this is no explanation for the world's public opinion, and Brazil wants to have a civilized relationship with the U.S. Welcome to the news hour. President Trump today tied the use of the drug acetaminophen during pregnancy to autism and made several other claims about vaccines this evening without strong scientific evidence. The president said the FDA will start advising women that acetaminopin, which is used in Tylenol, can be associated with autism.

During an event at the White House, the president said that that was his opinion and said most pregnant women should cope without it. Taking Tylenol is not good. I'll say it. It's not good. For this reason, they are strongly recommending that women limit Tylenol use during pregnancy unless medically necessary. That's, for instance, in cases of extremely high fever, that you feel you can't tough it out, you can't do it. can't do it. I guess there's that. It's a small number of cases, I think. But if you can't tough it out, if you can't do it, that's what you're going to have to do. You'll take

at Tylenol, but it'll be very sparingly. In addition to those comments, the president and his health team also suggested a cancer drug called lucavoren is a potential treatment for autism. The FDA says it will now make lukevorin tablets available for some autistic patients with a specific neurological condition. We have also identified an exciting therapy that may benefit large numbers of children who suffer from autism. Beer-reviewed literature has documented that up to 60% of folate-deficient children with ASD can have improved verbal communications if given lucavoran. I have instructed NIH, FDA, and CMS. to help doctors to treat children appropriately. William Brangham has more on these claims and concerns about what the president and his team have said.

William? For more on these questions and what we know about autism, I am joined by Alicia Halliday. She's the chief science officer at the Autism Science Foundation and also by Jennifer Nozo. She's an epidemiologist at Brown University's School of Public Health. Thank you both so much for being here. Halliday to you first, I just would love to get your initial response to this with regards to Tylenol. The president made it quite clear that he believes the evidence is crystal clear that taking Tylenol when you're pregnant causes autism in the unborn child. What does the

evidence tell us about that? Thank you for asking that question. The evidence does not say that. The scientific studies that had been conducted so far do not support the idea that Tylenol causes autism. In fact, there were two very, very large studies that were conducted that use what is known as a sibling control, which controls or eliminates any sort of or most of the variability because of genetic background. And they did not see an association. So his warnings for women to tough it out, to prevent autism in their onboard. children are completely unwarranted. Listening to what he cited and what Kennedy and Marty McCarray of the FDA said, did you get

any sense as to what evidence they're looking at that seems to convince them that this is the case? They did mention in the press conference a study called the Boston, a study out of Johns Hopkins that involved children in Boston. that study was very small, and it actually didn't even measure acetaminifin exposure during pregnancy. It only looked at acetaminopin exposure at the time of the birth. So I'm not entirely swayed by that being the source of evidence for which they're claiming that vaccines cause autism. I'm sorry, acetaminopin causes autism.

Jennifer Nuzzo, we know that acetaminopin is prescribed. for pain, but it's also prescribed to bring down fevers. What do we know about the risk of not knocking a fever down when you're pregnant? Well, I mean, I think pediatricians generally, you know, sorry, when you're talking about when pregnant, yeah, I mean, certainly fever can be, you know, detrimental and just simply telling women to avoid it is just not the kind of nuanced, you know, evidence-based advice that pregnant women deserve. You know, I'm really reminded of comments that Secretary Kennedy made at a hearing in May when he said, I don't think people should be taking medical advice for me. And, you know, based on what we heard today, I would very much reiterate

that statement. Nothing that I heard should be, you know, interpreted as medical advice. And certainly pregnant women should be talking to their providers about how to manage fever. But leaving it untreated, you know, might be detrimental. And just blanket statements. about don't use it is just really not based on evidence and also not the kind of nuanced expert advice that pregnant women deserve. But yet it is very hard to overlook the fact that this is the President of the United States and all of his senior health officials coming out and basically endorsing the idea that one of the most commonly used medications in the country, in the world, I believe, is potentially complicit in autism. I mean, as someone who

really focuses on communication in public health. What is your response to seeing that tableau today? Yeah, I mean, this was really irresponsible today. I mean, first of all, you know, pregnancy, autism, these are all very, you know, serious, you know, medical issues that require evidence. And nothing that's been done by this administration has been done to kind of produce the sort of evidence that would be required to answer these questions to a establish these links. You know, we saw an earlier report that came out of HHS in which it was clear that, you know, some AI tool was used to kind of falsely summarize the evidence. And I really fear that that's the level of care and concern that's gone into these conclusions. You know, there have been

larger, more rigorous studies done looking at the relationship between Tylenol exposure during pregnancy and autism. And that study basically said, no, that that was not something that there a strong link between. And so it's just really strange and disheartening that we might be sort of cherry-picking, really low-quality evidence, and, you know, not just looking at it further and doing additional studies to look at it further, but holding a, you know, national presidential press conference. I mean, that is so beyond what, you know, people deserve. And it's just, it's really quite stunning. Alicia Halliday, back to you on this issue of vaccines.

We saw the president again. Lichen the amount of vaccines we give to children equivalent to what we give to a horse. He also made the connection, again, that communities that don't have vaccines or don't take Tylenol have no instances of autism. I feel like we have talked about this so many times debunking the idea that there is a connection between vaccines and autism. But again, can you just remind us of what we know. Is there a linkage? Is there any connection, as was suggested today? Vaccines have actually been the number one most studied environmental factor in the causes of autism.

It has been studied dozens of times across the world in different populations. And there has been no credible evidence to link vaccine administration to autism in different subgroups of people, different timings of. different timings of the vaccine administration. You know, he said something about getting all 80 vaccines at once and wanting to separate them out over the course of four to five years. That's what the vaccine schedule does. It separates out, it spreads out those 80 different antigens over the course of four to five years.

He also talked about a vat of different vaccine blends, which is actually not how vaccines are made. So I'm not entirely sure if people walked away from that feeling clearer about what happens in the childhood vaccination schedule or more confused. Can I just ask you in the 30 seconds or so we have less about this drug, Leukovorin, that was mentioned, as a possible treatment for children who have been diagnosed with autism, what we know about that drug and whether it might be actually useful? we have absolutely no safety data on this drug in children with autism and there have been

conflicting reports about possible side effects so we absolutely how we absolutely need to do the research to get the knowledge to be able to make a suggestion about whether or not lukevoring could be helpful so far it's been shown in a couple of studies that haven't been replicated small studies, which is to a couple of dozen people, that it could be helpful in some situations. Those studies obviously need to be replicated and expanded and probably quadrupled in size before we think about making a blanket recommendation about treating such a complex condition as autism with just one single thing, which we also don't know what the drug interactions are with this, with this drug. We don't know what people shouldn't, other sorts of

interventions they should or shouldn't be doing if there's any restrictions on that. So I think there's a lot of questions to be answered about this drug before anyone recommends that it be rubber stamped or that it be prescribed for children with autism with no qualifiers. All right. That is Alicia Holiday and Jennifer Nozo. Thank you both so much for being here. Thank you. In the day's other headlines, ABC is reinstating Jimmy Kimmel's late-night show. The network had suspended the comedian indefinitely after comments he made following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. In a statement, ABC's parent company, the Walt Disney Company, said, quote,

we have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday. Kimmel's suspension had sparked protests and concerns about free speech in the aftermath of Kirk's killing, with a number of celebrities and Kimmel's fellow late-night comedians among those who rally to his defense. Kimmel has hosted Jimmy Kimmel Live since 2003. His contract is set to expire in May of next year. At a UN summit today, France joined a growing list of countries in recognizing a Palestinian state.

I declare that today France recognizes the state of Palestine. French President Emmanuel Macron's announcement follows similar moves by the UK, Canada, and others over the weekend, and was followed soon after by Belgium. Israel and the U.S. boycotted today's event, with Israel's U.N. ambassador dismissing it as theater. Meantime, Israel is continuing its offensive in Gaza's city, which it considers one of the last strongholds for Hamas. Some Gazans say the recognition of a Palestinian state does little to help the situation on the ground. Where is the state? In the street? Or in the tents? What state is this that they recognize? Are we able to find something to eat or a place to stay? Leave it to God. Even before today's summit, roughly 150 of the UN's 193 member states considered Palestine a sovereign nation,

though in many cases such recognition is largely symbolic. In Egypt, authorities announced a presidential pardon today for activist Allah Abdel Fata. The British Egyptian dual citizen was a leading voice during Egypt's Arab Spring uprising back in 2011. He went on to play an active role in protests against human rights abuse. among other causes. That activism led to multiple arrests and more than a decade behind bars. Both Abdel Fata and his mother have gone on hunger strikes in the past to press for his release. A lawyer tells the Associated Press that he could be released within days. Russia and Ukraine traded deadly drone strikes today as world leaders get ready to discuss the ongoing war at the UN General Assembly.

Local Ukrainian officials say Russian drone strikes killed three people in Zaporizia overnight, while Russia says Ukrainian drones killed three in occupied Crimea. The strikes come as Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, says he's preparing for a very intense week of diplomacy at the U.N. meantime, the U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting today to address Russia's violation of Estonia's airspace last week. Estonia is a NATO member, and in his first appearance, as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Michael Waltz pledged American support for the Security Alliance.

I want to take this first opportunity to repeat and to emphasize the United States and our allies will defend every inch of NATO territory. Russia must urgently stop such dangerous behavior. Russia's defense ministry denied any violation of Estonian airspace by its planes, but the incident has only added to concerns that the fighting could spread beyond Ukraine's borders. Here in the U.S., a 4.3 magnitude earthquake rattled the San Francisco area early this morning with more than 20,000 people saying they felt the quake. It struck around 3 a.m. to the southeast of Berkeley, where some stores reported minor damage. Local media reported the effects could be felt as far south as Salinas, about 100 miles away. City officials say there have been no injuries reported so far. And an update to a story we told you about last week. A federal judge ruled today that a massive offshore Wind Project can move forward after it was abruptly halted by the Trump administration last month.

The $6 billion wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut, known as Revolution Wind, was 80% complete. The Department of the Interior had called the project a national security concern. Today's ruling marks a setback for President Trump, who has long opposed and sought to restrict the wind industry. The Trump administration can still appeal the decision. On Wall Street today, stocks edged higher to start the week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 66 points on the day. The NASDAQ rose more than 150 points. The S&P 500 also ended in positive territory. And NASA announced its newest astronauts today. These 10 men and women are your 24th astronaut candidate class.

The group includes engineers, Earth scientists, military veterans, and more. they were selected from a pool of more than 8,000 applicants, and for the first time ever, women outnumbered the men. Only 370 people have ever been selected to serve as NASA astronauts, making it a very exclusive group, and this class must now complete two years of training before they're eligible for flight missions to the International Space Station, the Moon, or perhaps even Mars.

Still to come on the news hour, Brazil's president discusses increasingly tense relations with the U.S. We speak with the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog about Iran's program. And Tamara Keith and Amy Walter break down the latest political headlines. 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 country is remembering the late conservative activist. Charlie Kirk, after tens of thousands of people attended his memorial on Sunday, President Trump headlined the event, delivering a eulogy for Kirk that was infused with his own political agenda.

Our White House correspondent Liz Landers has this report. A Sunday memorial service in an Arizona arena for slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk included President Trump and much of his senior cabinet who joined Kirk's widow, Erica. That young man, I forgive him. I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did and is what Charlie would do. Erica Kirk, now taking up the mantle of her late husband's political organization Turning Point USA,

offering her forgiveness to the suspect in her husband's assassination, but the president and his administration striking a different tone. That's where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent. And I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry. I am sorry, Erica. But now Erica can talk to me and the whole group, and maybe they can convince me that that's not right, but I can't stand my opponent. Trump broadening the attack on Kirk to an attack on the conservative movement. That bullet was aimed at every one of us. Indeed, Charlie was killed for expressing the very ideas that virtually everyone in this arena and most other places throughout our country deeply believed in. The president

who ran on political retribution in the 2024 election, hello patriots, echoed by his top advisors like Stephen Miller. We will prevail over the forces of wickedness and evil. And to those trying to incite violence against us, those trying to foment hatred against us, what do you have? You have nothing. You are nothing. The memorial service lasted more than five hours and comes as the nation debates the issue of the First Amendment and the limits of free speech. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard nodding to the frequent and sometimes controversial college campus debates that Kirk engaged in, saying that Kirk lived what the founders of the country envisioned. Free speech is the foundation of our Democratic Republic. We must protect it at all

cost because without it, we'll be lost. Charlie knew this. At the White House today, I asked Press Secretary Caroline Levitt about the memorial's tone. We heard from Erica Kirk. She said she forgives the man who shot and killed her husband. And then right after that, we heard from the president who said, I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them. How does that square with bringing down the temperature of political violence in this country? The president is authentically himself. I think that's why millions of Americans across the country love him and support him, including Erica Kirk, who you saw so beautifully, was on stage with the president in an unthinkable moment,

in the midst of an unthinkable tragedy, and was leaning on the president for support during that time. Over the weekend, the president doubling down on the theme of political retribution in a blunt social media post addressed to the Attorney General Pambondi complaining about a lack of prosecution of his opponents, writing in part, quote, nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam Shifty Shift,

Letitia? They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done. Then in another post later that day, the president announcing his appointment of White House aide Lindsay Halligan to serve as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The former top federal prosecutor

for that office was pushed out last week amid pressure from the White House to criminally indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the president's political foes. The Justice Department began investigating James for mortgage fraud months ago, and there's no indication prosecutors have found enough evidence to bring charges. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Liz Landers. And for more now. We're joined by Mary McCord. She's a former acting assistant attorney general for national security and was a longtime prosecutor. She's now executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law.

Thank you so much for being here. My pleasure. So the president publicly calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi to take more aggressive action in prosecuting his political opponents. What does that signal about the extraordinary pressures on the DOJ right now and how should we understand the moment that we're in? Yeah, so, you know, I actually testified on the second day of Pam Bondi's confirmation hearings to make three points.

I didn't know her personally, but the points were your oath is to the Constitution. and not to a person, and that means your decision should be made based on the facts and the law and not based on what Donald Trump is telling you or wants you to do, that you should recuse yourself if there's ever a conflict, and that there needs to be independence between the Department and Justice and the White House, and that's been something that every single president and Attorney General have believed in since Watergate. There have been policies through every single president, including under Mr. Trump the first time around, that says the White House is not going to give directions about criminal and civil enforcement actions to the Attorney General

and not going to reach out and try to tell, you know, prosecutors or U.S. attorneys like Mr. Siebert what to do. And so this is the time for Attorney General Bondi to stand strong and stick with, you know, these principles of independence. That's how we would have confidence as the American public that the department is not being misused for political purposes. And President Trump is nothing, if not transparent. Is it significant that this is happening all out in the open as opposed to behind closed doors?

Does that change the way we should understand the degree to which he's applying pressure here? So that's such an interesting question because in the past, like in the cases that were brought against him, you know, that was one of the points he tried to make. How could I ever be doing anything sort of corruptly when I was doing it so publicly? But that just doesn't really work here. And what we saw with him directing his attorney general to do something, these people are guilty. as, you know, heck, how can he say that, right? We have a presumption of innocence. There's only allegations.

And so, you know, this is not some time where I think he can say, look, I'm being transparent because the transparency shows how much he is, in fact, trying or attempting to use his Department of Justice for strictly political and retaliatory purposes. Let's talk about Lindsay Halligan. This is the Trump White House aide, loyal ally. She's just taken over as the top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor, as we mentioned, was forced out under pressure to indict New York Attorney General Lettisha James. We should say Halligan has no experience as a prosecutor.

What's your reaction to this move, to install her? Well, this looks like somebody, and you can see it from Donald Trump's message to Attorney General Bondi in that, you know, longer piece that the whole thing wasn't read earlier. He's like, Helgin likes you. We're going to put her in there. He clearly thinks she's somebody who is going to do what he wants. And you know what? She doesn't have the experience. Eric Siebert has years of experience.

Other prosecutors who get appointed those positions, first of all, are probably concerned about their ethics, professional responsibility, their careers, their oath to the Constitution, not to a person, but they also know criminal law. And they know what they can prove in court and what they can't. And by all accounts, what's been publicly reported, Mr. Siebert's decision-making here that there was no there there when it came to prosecutions of Letitia James or James Comey was, we don't have a criminal case. We cannot meet every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know that Lindsay Helligan even knows how to weigh those things.

There is so much news to cover, including what MSNBC first reported, that in this undercover operation last year, the FBI recorded Tom Holman, who's now the White House immigration czar, accepting $50,000 in cash. after suggesting he could help these undercover government, undercover agents posing his business executive to secure government contracts in a second Trump administration. The Justice Department shut down the case earlier this year. The White House today said, well, Homan never accepted the cash. How unusual is it for a case like this not to be prosecuted? So with respect to the explanation that he never accepted the cash, I will note that the reporters who reported the story say that they've got, you know, you know, documentation that shows he did accept that cash. So that's a factual issue.

And I think what's unusual here is not so much whether it would be prosecuted, but whether it would be continuing to be investigated. Because, you know, at the time he accepted this money or allegedly accepted this money, he was not yet a public official. So like the bribery statutes, the gratuities statutes, require the person to either be the public official or have been selected to be the official and not yet be the official. Now, I will note, even the White House is saying, you know, the FBI knew he was going to be a public official under the Trump administration.

So question if we aren't at that point of selected but not yet the public official. But so ordinarily, I think what you would see happening here is what I think the FBI was doing, which is, okay, now let's wait and see if when he becomes a public official, he's going to continue this behavior. And that's when it got squashed. There are, you know, there are possible criminal charges that could have been brought even before that, including conspiracy and wire fraud and those kind of things. But I can, you know, if I were in the position of the FBI or the prosecutor working with them in last September, I would have also said, okay, let's see how this plays out. But, of course, we're not going to see how that plays out. Indeed. Mary McCord. Thanks as always. Good to see you. My pleasure. Thank you.

It is the World Cup of Global Diplomacy at the United Nations in New York. Hundreds of dignitaries are gathered this week for the U.N. General Assembly. Tomorrow's first speech to begin the proceedings will come from Brazil's president, Luis Inacio Lula de Silva, known to everyone simply as Lula, the fate of his predecessor, Jaya Bolsonaro, who attempt. a coup against Lula two years ago, has become an explosive issue in U.S.-Brazilian relations. President Trump levied a 50% tariff on many Brazilian goods as a penalty for the prosecution of Bolsonaro. He was convicted earlier this month and sentenced to 27 years in prison. Amunabaz sat down with Brazil's president this morning in New York. President Lula, welcome back to the News Hour. Thank you for joining us.

It's a great pleasure to be here to talk with you again. I'd love to start with the U.S. tariff. on your country right now, which at 50% are among the highest of any level on any country. You've called them misguided and illogical. How much do you believe that President Trump's anger with the trial and conviction of the former President Jail Bolsonaro, how much did that inform the tariff level on your country? Well, first of all, it's unbelievable that President Trump would have this kind of behavior with Brazil due to the judgment of a former president

that tried to attempt a coup d'etat against a democratic rule of law. That networked and plotted my death and the assassination of myself, the vice president, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court. So the explanation of a tariff of 50% due to the trial of a former

president, this is no explanation for the world's public opinion. And Brazil wants to have a similized relationship with the U.S. People ask me, do you like President Trump or not? I've never met President Trump, so it's not an issue of whether I like him or not. He doesn't know me either. What matters is that he's the head of state of the United States, and I'm the head of state in Brazil.

And as two heads of state, we have to respect each other, because we were elected democratically by the people of our countries, and we need to give support to these people, and to govern them the best way possible. This is how I expect to keep our relationship with the U.S. And that's why I think it's absurd. I think this tariff is absurd vis-à-vis Brazil. You've said that you have no relationship with President Trump. Do I take that to mean you've never spoken to the man? Is that correct?

We never talked. We never talked before. We never talked before because he made a choice. In my opinion, that was a mistake. He made a choice of a relationship, building a relationship with Bolsonaro. relationship with Bolsonaro, but not building a friendship with the Brazilian people. A head of state has to have a relationship with another head of the state, regardless of his political positions.

These are two important states, the largest democracies in the Americas, the largest economies in the Americas, and so it's very important for us to have a relationship that would be a civilized relationship. If there's no relationship with the U.S. president, I take that to mean there's no negotiation, over the tariffs. So what will Brazil do? Will you retaliate with your own tariffs? I can assure you something. We are trying to do things with the most tranquility possible. I don't make decisions with rage. And at a moment when the United States wishes to negotiate, we will be ready to negotiate. The people I have ready to negotiate are my Vice President of the

Republic, who is also the Minister of Industry and Commerce, my finance minister, my former affairs minister. They're already to engage. But there's no one on the U.S. side. Every time we try to talk about trade with someone from the U.S., they say, this is not with me. No, this is not a trade issue. This is a political issue. And so the moment the President Trump wishes to talk politics, I can also talk about politics. You've made clear you believe that this is a political issue, not an economic issue. And President Trump has made it clear that he believes Jayao Bolsonaro is being politically persecuted in Brazil. He said publicly he was very unhappy with the conviction. We saw the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, then say that the U.S. government would respond

accordingly. The judge who oversaw the case was sanctioned. Are you concerned that the U.S. will take more steps that you yourself could be sanctioned? First of all, Amna, I doubt that any other country in the world has had a more democratic judicial case that guaranteed to the person that was being charged the presumption of innocence as we did in Brazil. It's an extraordinary process and one that was respected around the world. There's no court in the world

that did not praise the Brazilian judicial system because there's a rightful defense for all those that are being charged. So President Trump cannot put on the table a political issue when we're dealing with heads of state. And I said to President Trump, If he had done what he did in Brazil, what happened on the Capitol Hill, he would also be on trial because the Brazilian law is for all. President Lula, I want to make sure I understand what you said.

Are you saying you believe that President Trump should have been prosecuted after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, after his loss in the 2020 election? I'm not saying that he should have been on judgment because I do not know the judicial system in the U.S. I said if it was in Brazil, if it had happened in Brazil, would have happened in Brazil. in Brazil, what happened in the Capitol, then he would also go on trial in Brazil. We've also seen President Trump go further. He believes that what's happening with Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil will have an impact on your next election. He says that it undermines the ability of Brazil to hold a free and fair election of the presidency in 2026. I'd like to get your reaction to that. And also, if you have decided, if you will run again

in 2026. Brazil has an electoral justice system that is extraordinary, strong and democratic. Brazil has electronic ballot boxes that are the most perfect system in the world, electronic voting systems. If we could do any fraud in an electronic ballot, Lula would never have been elected president three times in Brazil. I would never won the presidential elections because the Brazilian ruling class never wanted me to reach the presidency. I just won the elections because the electronic voting system doesn't allow frauds. frauds. It does not allow for you to steal the election. That's why I was elected President

of the Republic. Now, if I'm going to be president again, I don't know if I'm going to run again. I'm going to be 80 on October the 27th. I'll be 80 and I hope that I have good health that I enjoy today. I wake up every day at 5.30 in the morning and go to the gym and the fitness center for two hours a day because I want to live to 120. If I'm well physically with the same mindset that I have today, I will run for the presidency because I will not allow, and neither will the Brazilian people allow, the fascist far right to return and govern Brazil again. I want to ask you about some very serious concerns that you raised in a recent piece that you wrote for the New York Times about weakening democracy around the world. You said

multilateralism, respect for diversity, nation sovereignty, and as you wrote, and the U.S. having appointed itself as the greatest representative of it, this is now fading. So if the U.S. you believe is not leading on these fronts. Who is? Well, one thing that concerns me, Amna, is that the U.S., for a long time, conveyed the message to humanity that it was the symbol of world democracy.

It was the guardian of democracy. It was a guardian of freedom. He puts himself as the emperor, the owner of the world, and he says, President Trump, he says that to protect the American people, he will tax everybody. But he says this was some untruth. In the Brazilian case,

it's important for you to know that the U.S. has a $410 billion trade surplus in the last 15 years. $410 billion. They don't have any trade deficit with us. Now in the case of the justice system, he has to know in Brazil, our justice system is free. The President of the Republic cannot interfere in judicial cases. It's an autonomous branch of power, the judicial system.

In our democracy, our Constitution, says that we should have the independence and harmony between the three branches of power, and so President Lula cannot interfere in the judgment of the Supreme Court. On Sunday, the Brazilian people went to the streets to demonstrate against amnesty for Bolsonaro, against other inappropriate measures in Congress. The people are paying attention. If the far-right parties want to run for elections, they can do that, of course. They're free to do it. I have run for many elections in the past. I've won elections. I've lost many elections in the past, and that's part of the democratic game. We suffered to get rid of military dictatorship.

We don't want any dictatorships anymore. President Lula, why do you believe President Trump is so invested in Brazilian politics? I think President Trump needs to have the behavior of a head of state, of a statesman of the largest economy in the world, of the biggest military power in the world, the most technological country in the world. So I think a country with such greatness and such might has to have much more responsibility. We want to have relations with everybody under equal term. But what we do not accept is that nobody, nobody, no country in the world, interferes in our democracy and our sovereignty.

The moment that the U.S. government is willing to talk with the Brazilian government, I can reassure you that we are ready to talk. Everything can be resolved at a negotiating table. A negotiating table doesn't cost anything. It doesn't destroy a bridge. It doesn't destroy a boat. It doesn't kill a single person. It takes time, but it's better. It's healthier.

And it's humanly understood by the whole of society. Luis Sainzio Lula da Silva, the President of Brazil. Thank you very much for your time, Mr. President. Thank you very much, Amna, and I hope that after this interview, the U.S. will open its heart to negotiate with all the countries in the world. Also at the U.N. this week is a series of diplomatic meetings over Iran. Iran and the International Atomic Energy Administration, or IAEA, have gone back and forth over whether UN inspectors will be allowed to examine Iran's nuclear sites,

including those Israel and the U.S. attacked back in June. Nick Schifrin spoke earlier today to the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog. On Friday afternoon, the vote was clear. Nine votes against their hands. The Security Council reimposed on Iran sanctions that had been frozen for a decade. Barring any last-minute change, they go into effect this Sunday. sanctions that had been lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal, when Iran agreed to limits on its nuclear program.

I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal. In 2018, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal. In the years since, Iran restarted prohibited enrichment and exceeded the deal's caps on its nuclear fuel stockpile. This summer, Israel launched a 12-day war against Iran, capped by U.S. strikes on Iran's most important nuclear facilities, targeting its uranium enrichment and stockpile, which Iran says is now buried under the rubble. In response, at first, Iran blocked access to UN nuclear inspectors.

Just two weeks ago, Iran's foreign minister and IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi agreed to allow those inspectors back in. But this weekend, Iran said the re-imposition of sanctions had, quote, practically resulted in the suspension of cooperation with the IAEAEA. And now I'm joined by IEA Director General Raphael Grosie. Rafael Grosie, thanks very much. Welcome back to the U.S. Thank you. Great pleasure. This weekend, Iran's Supreme National Security Council said it had suspended cooperation

with the IAEA. What have they actually communicated to you, if anything? Nothing of the sort. But, you know, we are, at this time, there are lots of messages, some of them contradictory. We have a constant. line of communication. We have been in Cairo just a few days ago where we agreed on a new framework for cooperation to resume our inspection work in Iran, which was suspended, of course, after the attacks last June. So as of now, do you know if this is real? Are they actually suspending the deal that they signed with you in Cairo? Well, we haven't heard of any official communication to that effect. And we know that in Iran there are different voices,

sometimes in parliament, sometimes politicians, sometimes indicating that they suspend or that they want to suspend. At the same time there are obligations because they are party to the non-proliferation treaty. So this of course is the basis for our inspection work. So all of all of these needs to be clarified. But for the moment there is no suspension as such. But let me just make sure. The deal that you signed in Cairo would allow inspectors back to quote all facilities and installations and contemplates the required reporting on all the attacked facilities. That's a reference to... On everything, yes. As well as the nuclear material present at those sites. So as of now, you believe that you still have that deal

with Iran. We do. We do and we hope it will be maintained. There is no automaticity, but this is the same for any country. Countries get notifications to be inspected, but the inspections must proceed. This is important. Okay, so let's talk about the three sites the United States attack, Fordo, Latans, Isfahan. Yes. How will it work? Will your inspectors be able to go to these three sites themselves, or will they rely on some kind of Iranian report for the sites? There must be a report, to begin with, where they tell us what the situation is. Then we will evaluated, at the end of that, we will need to visit or inspect those places. And do you have an agreement to visit these three sets?

Yeah, but it's not automatic. And this is where, if you want, a process will occur. There are those in Iran who say nothing has been agreed, you cannot come here. It's of course a political statement. The reality is that when we notify an inspection, an inspection. must proceed. You can understand from the outside these different statements that you call political make it seem like Iran is not cooperating. From your perspective, is Iran cooperating? I think Iran is cooperating, although they have their own interpretation of what cooperation

is. But forgive me, you're in charge of an agency whose technical requirements are pretty specific, are they not? I mean, Iran might feel aggrieved, but the end of the day, are they giving you what you need? We have started. There have been inspections in the nuclear power plant. They have in Bouchier in the south of the country. Now we are in the process of visiting a research reactor. Of course, the crux of the matter, because I don't like to avoid questions, is the nuclear material, right?

So this is the nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium. Do you have any new information to suggest that it was destroyed or was not destroyed? No, there is no information as to the status of the material. We think that most of the material is still there. Meaning buried underground? Yes, yes. And this is the general consensus of many, including in Iran. The material is still there.

So when we receive their report, then we will be able to start this process of interaction and perhaps inspections. As you know, the US and Europe have demanded three very specific things. Working with the IAEA, direct talks with the United States and accounting for all of that nuclear material that we've been talking about. To a certain extent, all of that is happening? Okay, so that's my question. So from your perspective, is Iran doing all those three things? Well, it depends on what kind of metric you put to determine whether that is enough or not. For the Americans, it's yes or not. First of all, well, the Americans are you can ask

them. And I am in very close contact with Special Envoy Abbasar Witkoff, for whom I have great respect. Their position is the position that I must respect. What I do is something different. So by the three parameters that you're mentioning, Iran is working with the agency. Have we gotten everything we want? Not yet. Have we checked on the material? Not yet, but we are working on that. On the contacts with the United States, I think there have been some. Finally, you are under enhanced security because of Iranian threats. Does that security still exist without giving away any specifics, obviously? And will that stop you from doing your job?

It does and no. It does still exist and no. It does still exist and no. And that is, I mean, you have to transcend that. It's not easy to engage in a diplomatic conversation where certain things are said and, you know, threats are made. But, you know, it's part of our obligation to continue. work. We cannot afford to have another crisis in the Middle East at this point. We have to

avert it. We have to move to a durable, sustainable situation that, in my view, only goes through diplomacy. Rafael Grocery, Director General of the IAEA. Thank you very much. Thank you. return to the White House, and the pace of actions coming from his administration continues to accelerate to help sort through a busy few days. We are joined now by our Politics Monday duo. That's Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR. It's always great to see you both. And look, if folks are overwhelmed by the news and recent developments out of Washington, they have good reason to be. Our team put together a list of just

what has transpired since this past weekend. You see it all there. Tam, and this we should say is not the entirety of it, but let's talk about the president being unusually explicit in directing his attorney general to pursue criminal cases against his political opponents, something that past presidents even avoided hinting at. How should we understand the way President Trump is wielding power right now? And I think that we have to remind people that President Trump very early in this term went to the Justice Department and delivered an explicitly political speech at the Department of justice, which is also something that wouldn't normally happen. The president has made no secret of his desire to get retribution against those who he believes wronged him while he was out of office

or even when he was in office last time. And truly some remarkable social media posts over the weekend directed at his attorney general saying, I'm hearing from a lot of people and they're wondering why you haven't yet indicted Adam Schiff or James Comey or Letitia James. It's just not even remotely subtle. And it is one of many ways that President Trump is exerting power. Another way he exerts power, and this, I guess, is part and parcel of that, is through intimidation. What you saw happen with Jimmy Kimmel and the FCC, that wasn't actually using any real levers of power, it was just using the threat of the use of levers of power.

And Amy, we speak so often about the politics of all this. What's the political calculation here? I mean, is he shoring up his MAGA base, or does he risk alienating parts of the broader electorate that voted for him? Right. Well, he made it very clear when he ran for office both in 2016 and 2024. He said, I alone can fix this and I am your retribution. And he is following through on all of that. If you liked that, you said, I believe he can fix it all, or I like the idea that he's our retribution, then he is delivering on his promises. If you didn't take that seriously, or maybe you didn't believe it was true, or you didn't like it, well, this is where we sit right now. Regardless of how you feel about the president, I think there has been

no president in our lifetimes who has been able to wield the executive office in the way he's been able to. Both, as Tam pointed out, with just pure intimidation, he has gotten most institutions to bend to his will. He has gotten Congress. They are completely without any pushback. They give no pushback at all to him. No members of his own party do. And the way in which he has also been able to do all this, even as there are something like 300 cases still in the system. So where this ultimately, lands, Jeff. It's really the fascinating question, right? There's the historical piece of what is the Supreme Court going to do that's going to set precedent for future presidents. But then there's the immediate which is, even as these cases are in court, he's still going along and pushing

the boundaries until potentially those boundaries get set by the Supreme Court. It's a real act first, worry about the legal consequences later. Which is very different than most of how Washington works. And even how he worked in the first term. That's true. Let's talk about the future of the MAGA movement. Tam, you attended, you covered Charlie Kirk's memorial service. What messages did that gathering send, both intentionally and otherwise, about the direction of the MAGA movement? What symbolism struck you as most powerful? Yeah, it was a real combination event, and it was a huge event. It took place in an NFL stadium. As President Trump said, look at this crowd. This isn't an arena. This is a stadium. And it was packed to the wrap. with people wearing red, white, and blue, really just claiming hold on the idea of patriotism. It was part political rally, part memorial service, part evangelical worship service. There were pyrotechnics, and there were a lot of political speeches because Charlie Kirk

was a political figure. And I think that in terms of his organization, his wife has been named the new head, there are real questions about whether anyone can do what Kirk did because he, He was this singular charismatic leader that had all of these relationships in the party and also could speak to young people. But certainly the message that came out of it was that he was a martyr and that his death is going to strengthen the conservative movement rather than weaken it. That is the resolve that everyone from President Trump on down articulated.

Naomi, what does the service and the aftermath of Kirk's killing tell you about the broader trajectory of magapolitics. Yeah, well, it was interesting to see the dichotomy in messages. Kirk's widow saying, I forgive the man who killed my husband because that is what my religion teaches me that we forgive and we go out in love, not in hate. You know, hate just magnifies itself. Donald Trump came out and said, sorry, Erica. But I disagree.

You should really hate your enemy, right? So that dichotomy is really important. I think the real question politically going forward is what Charlie Kirk helped to do politically was to motivate and activate a group of voters who normally hadn't been that engaged in politics, specifically younger men. We know a lot of them voted for Trump in 2024. Will they continue to turn out for Republicans without Trump on the ticket and without Charlie Kirk as somebody who is a voice in their feeds. That's where most people saw him was

on their social media feeds or YouTube or that sort of thing. Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, thanks as always. You're welcome. And that is the News Hour for tonight. I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.