PBS News Hour - Full Show - September 3, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: September 3, 2025

Wednesday on the News Hour, the leaders of Russia, China and North Korea meet in Beijing to strengthen their alliance and showcase military might. Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse speak out as some of the files are released. Plus, how artificial intelligence is redefining the idea of work and the challenges awaiting the next generation of workers. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy

Good evening. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. On the news hour tonight, the leaders of Russia, China, and North Korea meet in Beijing to strengthen their alliance and showcase their military might. Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse speak out as some of the Justice Department files are released. And how artificial intelligence is redefining the very idea of work and the challenges awaiting the next generation of workers. A.I. is going to jumble everything, and the trajectory of AI is almost impossible to foresee. Welcome to the News Hour. An extraordinary display of military might on the streets of central Beijing today as China's president, along with the leaders of Russia and North Korea.

marked the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Imperial Japan. The military parade was the culmination of several days of high-level diplomacy, but without the United States, as China seeks to cement its place as a preeminent global power. Nick Schifrin starts our coverage. In downtown Beijing, A symphony of sycophancy. As Chinese President Xi Jinping encouraged the eager soldiers of the People's Liberation Army. And to a sea of adoring fans, a manifestation of military might,

new hypersonic missiles designed to target American ships, new intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach American shores, new submarine drones, and massive new unmanned aircraft. It was a not so subtle warning today to China's rivals. Eight terrible years of struggle are over at last for China. Time to the 80th anniversary of Imperial Japan's surrender to pre-communist China, after nearly a decade fighting Chinese troops. Today, Xi called the past prologue.

They fought for the survival of the country. Today, humanity again faces a choice between peace and war. The rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is, unstoppable. They were hoping I was watching, and I was watching. In Washington, President Trump praised the parade's pomp and Xi Jinping himself, but accused Beijing of ignoring America's role in defeating World War II Japan. I don't believe that America, that the United States was acknowledged for helping China

to gain its freedom. But the freedom that she envisioned today was from what he calls U.S. hegemony, and for For that, he brought allies. This was the first ever in-person meeting of Xi, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Today, Xi and Putin, both 72 years old, joked as the cameras rolled, that technology could allow them to live to 150 or even, quote, achieve immortality. Last night online, President Trump wrote that the three leaders were conspiring against the U.S. Today, Putin laughed that off.

The U.S. President is not without humor. We all know this well. Everyone expresses hope that the position of President Trump and the position of Russia and other participants in the negotiations will lead to the end of the armed conflict. Armed conflict in Ukraine, where the axis of autocracies has been activated. China provides the vast majority of machine parts to run Russia's weapons production. And North Korea has provided Russia more than 10,000 soldiers to fight Ukraine, as shown recently on North Korean State TV. Today, Kim told Putin, asked for more, and it is given.

If there's any way we can assist Russia, we will certainly do it as a fraternal duty. We will spare no effort in providing help. And she got more help to counter the U.S. earlier this week when he and Putin met Indian Prime Minister Narendramodi. For years across four presidencies, the U.S. has courted Modi as a counter to China. But recently, President Trump's relationship with Modi has soured at the same moment that Modi appears open to a closer relationship to Beijing and the Chinese organization that Xi Jinping says can blunt U.S. leadership. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization can become the guiding light for multilateralism and an inclusive world order. For a perspective on today's parade in Beijing and the gathering of leaders from Russia, North Korea, Iran, and others over the past few days in China, we turned to Kurt Campbell, the former Deputy Secretary of State, who was the chief architect of the Biden administration's policy toward Asia.

Kurt Campbell, thanks very much. Welcome back to the News Hour. Let me start with where we ended our story, which was Prime Minister Modi embracing the Shanghai Coordination Organization, really one of the tools that Xi Jinping is. is using to try and counter US influence around the world. How much of a challenge is it to the US when leaders from all over the world fly to China and embrace that kind of vision? Look, it's a big deal. It's undeniably a major stroke on the part of the Chinese leadership.

And it's not just that India and a couple of other states are there, but a number of key countries in the global south, what we would call the swing states that the 21st century were in a as well. I'm most concerned, though, about India. I think all of us who played a role in building this relationship are in shock and concerned by what we've seen in terms of the substantial degradation in relations in just a couple of weeks. And Modi is sending a very clear message to the United States. I have other options. But there's a lot of history there.

There's a lot of water under the bridge. Of course, do you really believe that, as you just suggested, the Trump-Mody relationship is sour just in the last few weeks. Do you really believe that New Delhi would lean toward Beijing in a strategic way moving forward? I do not. The Indians will be very wary of a full-end, all-end embrace of China. They can't go in that direction, but they will move perceptively towards more economic and commercial engagement. The strategic distrust is still too great. There has, of course, been a full embrace between Beijing and Moscow. When you, when other senior officials in the Biden administration, were planning how to respond

to Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there were a lot of questions about how far Beijing would go to support Moscow's effort. In retrospect, did you guys not see this coming, the extent of strategic partnership between Beijing and Moscow? I think many of us were surprised at the depth of the engagement that China has undertaken with respect to its military and other technological support for Russia in its brutal war with Ukraine. I think the Trump administration comes to power, Nick, with a view that somehow they're going to be able to split this alliance that has emerged between Beijing and Moscow.

I think that is wrong. The best approach is to put pressure on China with respect. to its energy purchases from Russia, but also gather our partners around us. And I think the juxtaposition of this remarkable gathering that she is put together in Beijing is the relative disarray of American partners, all of whom are deeply anxious about the trade negotiations they've experienced with Washington over the course the last couple of months. Southeast Asian officials described to me, surely, as a frustration with the Trump policy when it comes to tariffs. But they see a continuation of regional policy, of the alliance structure especially, that the first Trump administration started, that you accelerated, and that continues with this Trump administration trying to create more alliances to counter Beijing.

Do you see a continuity when it comes to the military efforts, at least, in Asia? I don't. And in fact, I don't see what you describe there, Nick, really very much at all. I think what I see is high-level diplomacy between the United States and our key partners like South Korea, Japan, Australia, and others. Most of those discussions are just filled with friction. And there is no real alignment on, you know, joint efforts to work together beyond just the narrow military realm. Back to the parade today, Kurt Campbell. We saw a lot of new military hardware. We saw new Chinese missiles designed to counter American ships, new ICBMs, and, of course, the slew of both aerial and undersea drones. Does that message of deterrence, is that effective? There's nothing really of surprise in terms of what's been rolled out.

However, the determination in which it is basically taken through Tiananmen Square, the language that President Xi used about extinguishing threats to China. The key here is not just to look at this parade, it is the totality of the events of the last week. China wants to signal that it is a stabilizing, leading player on the global stage that other countries can count on. And they're very clearly trying to juxtapose their role with the role, that they're describing that the United States as playing, dangerous, provocative, unsettling. Kurt Campbell, former Deputy Secretary of State. Thank you very much. Thank you. It's a pleasure.

We start the day's other headlines with the Trump administration's ongoing battle with Harvard University. The federal judge has ruled that officials unlawfully terminated about $2.2 billion in research grants amid claims of anti-Semitism on campus. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs found that the cuts amounted to illegal retaliation for Harvard's refusal to give in to White House demands over how it operates. It's a major victory for Harvard, which has been working to cut a deal with the Trump administration after months of legal wrangling. President Trump has said previously that his administration would appeal any such rulings from Judge Burroughs. Florida is moving to become the first state to eliminate all vaccine mandates, including those for children to attend school.

During a press conference today, state surgeon general Joseph Latipo called such requirements immoral and even compared them to a form of slavery. It's unclear how exactly Florida would eliminate the requirements. Some would require action by state lawmakers. Meantime, the governors of California, Oregon, and Washington are forming an alliance to coordinate their immunization policies. They want to provide guidance based on hard data and guard against what they view as political interference in science. It comes as health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. moves to undercut longstanding federal guidance on vaccines. Republicans in Congress are welcoming Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser's decision to continue collaborating with President Trump's federal forces. Bowser issued an order yesterday to keep an emergency operation center open indefinitely. The move, which the president,

says is aimed at combating crime, allows local officials to coordinate directly with the federal agencies he has ordered into the city. House Republicans told reporters today that other cities should follow suit. Mayor Bowser, who is a Democrat, as you know, sign an executive order just yesterday welcoming federal law enforcement in D.C. indefinitely, okay? I hope my Democrat colleagues here will wake up and realize that crime is not a partisan issue. House Democrats, though, say the intervention goes too far and that President Trump's plans to send federal forces to other cities are a mistake. Whether it's Chicago, whether it's Baltimore, D.C., California, or New York, we're not

going to watch this wannabe king attempt to occupy Democratic cities because he wants to. The National Guard, who is comprised of good, honorable people who are being pulled from their everyday lives, cannot be used as the president's paramilitary force. Today, President Trump floated the idea of sending troops to New Orleans to address crime there. The city is run by a Democratic mayor in an otherwise mostly Trump-supporting state. In Israel, protesters held what they called a day of disruption to voice anger over the call-up of tens of thousands of reservists for the military's offensive in Gaza City. Demonstrators accuse Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of prolonging the war for political reasons rather than seeking a ceasefire with Hamas. Meantime, health officials in Gaza say airstrikes and ground forces killed at least 31 people across the territory.

In a statement today, the Israeli military said it would continue to operate against terrorist organizations to remove any threat posed to Israel. President Trump is defending yesterday's military strike on a boat in the Caribbean, saying it'll prevent further attempts to bring drugs into the country. Last night, he posted video of this boat which was allegedly transporting illegal drugs. Mr. Trump said the U.S. military had identified the crew as members of the Venezuelan gang, Trend de Aragua, and chose to strike the vessel rather than capture it. He said 11 people were killed. At the White House today, before meeting with the president of Poland, Mr. Trump provided few did. details about the strike, but insisted the move will deter future smugglers.

It was massive amounts of drugs coming into our country to kill a lot of people. They were hit, obviously. They won't be doing it again. And I think a lot of other people won't be doing it again. The Pentagon has not released details about the vessel, but defense secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News this morning that military operations against cartels, quote, won't stop with just this strike. And Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that stopping such boats isn't effective, but it does work to blow them up. In Minneapolis, the family of a 10-year-old survivor of last week's school shooting says he underwent surgery today after doctors discovered shrapnel lodged in his neck. Weston Hall's knee was interviewed by TV news crews just minutes

after the attack at Annunciation Catholic School. Millions watched his account of the terror of that day when two school children were killed. But what he initially brushed off is gunpowder scraping his neck turned out to be a bullet fragment dangerously close to his carotid artery. Weston's family said the operation went well, and they expect him to make a full physical recovery. In Northern California, a wave of lightning strike sparked fast-moving wildfires that are burning across mostly rugged terrain. One of the fires burned homes in an historic Gold Rush town. It's roughly 100 residents were evacuated, and a main highway linking San Francisco to Yosemite National Park was temporarily closed. Authorities say at least 22 fires have burned more than 19 square miles across multiple counties.

There have been no reports of injuries so far. On Wall Street today, stocks ended mixed. The Dow Jones Industrial average slipped around 25 points. The NASDAQ rose more than 200 points on the day. The S&P 500 also ended higher. Still to come on the news hour, an appeals court rejects the Trump administration's attempt to use. a wartime law to deport migrants, how Bangladesh is coping with rising sea levels.

And a new exhibit chronicles the many pets that have occupied the White House. 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. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill today faced for new pressure to release more information about the federal investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Women who were sexually abused and trafficked by Epstein spoke publicly, some for the first time demanding that federal authorities make the federal case files public. President Trump also responded to the demands for more documents. While the women

called the push critical, Mr. Trump called it political. But it's really a Democrat hoax because they're trying to get people to talk about something that's totally irrelevant to the success that we've had as a nation since I've been president. Mr. President Donald J. Trump, I am a registered Republican, not that that matters, because this is not political. However, I cordially invite you to the Capitol to meet me in person so you can understand this is not a hoax. We are real human beings. This is real trauma. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardin has been covering all this and joins me now. So Lisa, bring us up to speed. Where did the efforts to release these five?

This was an extraordinary news conference. These survivors, you could see it was meaningful to them to bring their story to the Capitol to lawmakers. They're angry. They want the files released. There are two tracks about the file release. One is the Department of Justice is sending files to a House

Republican committee. They are going through it. It's under subpoena. Those are the 34,000 pages that we got last night. But the thing about that, Omna, is as we first surmise, most of those documents really are not relevant to any new information. Some of them are repeat documents.

So there are skeptics who say, either Department of Justice may slow roll this or they're not going to give us what we need. So that's the second track, which is a bill from representatives Thomas Massey and Rokana. They would force the Department of Justice to release all of the information they have from the Epstein files. That's what these survivors said they want. Now, the trick is there are two more Republicans needed to sign on to that bill in order to force a vote. Speaker Johnson told Republicans this morning that actually the survivors don't want. that bill. Wait a minute, I asked the survivors in person. I said, is that true? Are you worried about your protections? And they said, no, that's not right. We do want this bill. So momentum right now

is, seems to me there could be very well a vote on that bill. We heard a little bit of what the survivors there had to say, but you were there. What else did they have to say that stood out to you? Right. There was some news here. One of the survivors said that she and others are gathering to write up their own list of the high-powered individuals who were part of the abuse. They haven't decided if they will release that list yet or not. But Republican Representative Marjor Taylor Green said if she gets that list and they say it's okay, she will read it on the House floor where some speech is protected. This is something we have to watch closely. We know President Trump has called all of this, the bill that the survivors want, a hostile act. So

there's a lot going on here. Some of it is political. But right now, today, the survivors really were the ones pushing the momentum. We know you're going to continue to cover this story. Lisa Desjardin. Thank you so much. You're welcome. And for more, we're joined now by two women who traveled to Washington to advocate for Epstein survivors. Liz Stein is an Epstein survivor. She's now an advocate and educator working to combat human trafficking nationwide. And Jennifer Freeman is special counsel for the Marsh Law Firm, which represents a number of Epstein survivors.

Thank you both for being here. Good to be with you. And Liz, I'll start with you. As I mentioned, you are among the survivors now speaking out. What do you hope to accomplish by sharing your story publicly? I think that what we accomplished today is something that we haven't been able to accomplish so far. I think that a lot of the survivors have told their stories in different ways. And we've been telling our stories all the way back to 1996 when Maria Farmer first reported what was happening with Epstein.

So we've been telling our stories for years, but we've been telling them individually. And bringing us all together today for the rally and the press conference really gave us a sense of unity and a sense that our collective voices couldn't be ignored. A sense of unity. The Epstein case has fueled conspiracy theories. It's fueled political fights. The president today referred to it as a democratic hoax. What does it feel like as a survivor to see your lived trauma reduced to political fodder? Well, I think it's important for people to understand that this is not a political issue.

This is a crime, and the crime is sex trafficking. And so to have, we had 20 Epstein survivors gathered today. To have so many women coming forward with similar stories, we don't know each other. We've never met each other, most of us. Yet we have this commonality, and it's being ignored and downplayed. The amount of emotional turmoil that you go through in coming out and telling your story, the risk to your safety, your life changes forever when you become public. So no one is doing this for any reason other than to find the truth and to seek justice.

And the fact that this is being downplayed and brushed off as some kind of hoax or some kind of democratic ploy is really just insulting. And it's shifting the narrative to a place where it doesn't belong. Jennifer, Liz mentioned one of your clients, Maria Farmer, who sued the federal government for failing to stop Epstein decades ago. In light of today's advocacy, what concrete actions are you seeking? We are going to press that lawsuit. It's a very important case. It's to hold the government accountable for what they really failed to do. Maria Farmer, the original whistleblower of the Epstein Matter, came forward in 1996, as Liz noted.

And she went to the FBI. She did what every citizen is supposed to do when their crime is being committed, especially against children. And she reported to the FBI. And what did they do? Absolutely nothing. That's unacceptable. That's clear negligence. Congress last night, as you both well know, released thousands of pages of documents related

to the Epstein case. Most of them were already public. There could be more to come. From your perspective, is that enough, or do survivors need something more concrete in order to feel real accountability? We want substantive information released. And what was released last night is a lot of what's already been released, and it's not new information. So I think that what would really impress us would be if we saw some transparency and something more than just a show. Same question. Does it feel like accountability or justice, or is this the beginning of what's really needed? I hope this is the beginning. I hope there is follow-up action. I hope that this is finally going to be taken seriously, beginning with the Epstein Transparency, File Transparency Act,

which is to release the files. And if the files don't get that released that way, we're going to seek in litigation. And I'd always put litigation as the last resort, but the problem has been is that no one has been paying attention. We've done so many different things to try to move this matter forward. I made a FOIA request, several FOIA requests. And in response, what did the government do? They told me they will get back to me no later than November 27. That's unacceptable. Why do you feel like your requests are being met with that level of obstruction? I wish I understood that better, because this, really, as we've noticed, this is not a political issue. This started with Maria Farmer in 1996 under the Clinton administration. There have been five

administrations since then of different stripes. There's no reason why it should be politicized at every turn. Galeen Maxwell, who was convicted of facilitating and participating in Epstein's abuse, is now serving out her sentence in a low-security prison camp. This was after being interviewed by Trump's DOJ. As a survivor of their crime, How does that strike you? First of all, I think it's an unprecedented move for anyone who is convicted of these charges. And it really makes me question what the motive is and what the message that the Justice Department wants to send to us and to send to our nation about people in power.

And it's been really upsetting and concerning to the survivors that Gillian Maxwell is being given any weight whatsoever, and we haven't been spoken to. This is a woman who faced federal perjury charges in her indictment, and the charges were severed because they didn't want the testimony from these charges to unduly influence the jury, and when she was ultimately convicted of the other counts, they were dropped. And so we've never gotten to the bottom of that. And so I think that, you know, looking towards someone who has a vested interest in what they're saying because their freedom hinges on it and someone who has already not been transparent before, I just don't understand why any weight would be given to anything that she said. In the meantime, you have turned your experience into advocacy.

working closely with other survivors, including children who have endured sexual abuse. What message do you want to share with other survivors who might be watching today and wondering how to move forward? Something that I wish I could tell my younger self, there was so much fear in me telling anyone that I never did. And so if I could go back to my younger self, I would say, tell someone. And if they don't listen, tell someone else. And if they don't listen, just keep telling because eventually someone's going to listen.

And standing in your truth is a really powerful thing. So even if all of your cries for help go unanswered, you at least stood in your truth and you spoke it. That is a strength that is, I just don't have words. Liz Stein, Jennifer Freeman. Thank you both. Thank you. Well, Harvard University won a major legal victory today when a federal judge said the government had broken the law by freezing billions of dollars in research funding.

As William Brangham explains, it's one of the latest in a series of court rulings putting the breaks on some administration policies, which are likely headed to the Supreme Court. That's right. Harvard's legal win today was a significant victory for the university, which had sued the administration arguing that its canceling of research grants trampled the school's due process and First Amendment rights. Separately, a Fifth Circuit panel yesterday blocked the administration from using an 18th century law to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.

And then last week, another court ruled that the president overstepped his authority by issuing his sweeping tariffs against other nations. So for some perspective on these legal developments, we are joined again by Georgetown law, Professor Steve Lattuck. Steve, thank you so much for being here. Let's start with the Harvard case first. The administration had argued that Harvard wasn't doing enough to stamp out anti-Semitism, on campus. And so it blocked all of these research grants, billions of dollars. Harvard sued and

one, what did this judge rule that the administration had done wrong? Yeah, I mean, so William, there, I think, are two different problems here. The first is that federal law provides a process for revoking those kinds of grants, for, you know, bringing claims of discrimination against universities like Harvard. They didn't follow it here. And second, there were the obvious First Amendment issues with going after a university based on what really looks like for the most part, constitutionally protected speech. As you mentioned, I mean, it's just a district court. It still has to go up to the federal appeals court in Boston and probably from thence to the Supreme Court. But it's a big win for Harvard and another, as you say, a number of recent losses for this

administration. Okay, separately, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which many people consider one of the most conservative circuits in the country, said that the Trump's administration's use of this 18th century law known as the Alien Enemies Act meant that the administration could not be deporting alleged gang members from Venezuela. Again, what did this panel rule in that case? Yeah, so this is a really important ruling from last night. You know, the panel held that we really just aren't being invaded. And we're not subject to what the Alien Enemies Act refers to as a predatory incursion from Trennearagua, from the Venezuelan government.

You know, William, that's a big deal, not just because of what it means specifically for the president's efforts to use this statute for mass summary removals of Venezuelan migrants. It's a big deal because it suggests that courts, even like the, you know, fairly conservative Fifth Circuit, are starting to view with a fair amount of skepticism. Claims by the president by this administration that were being invaded, that there's an emergency, that, you know, conditions on the ground are different from what, you know, to all appearances they really are. Separately, on that same front, again, a different case. The president faced this another setback on Friday when a federal appeals court ruled that the administration had overstepped its authority when the president issued these sweeping vast tariffs against many of our trading. partners. Again, what did the court say as to why the president did not have that authority?

So this was the full federal circuit here in Washington, and by a seven to four vote, it held that the tariffs that President Trump had imposed, at least many of them, were not authorized by this 1977 statute, the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. William, again, because the court took issue with how the president viewed not just the underlying circumstances, circumstances, but with how the president interpreted the statute, which doesn't seem to contemplate tariffs at all, let alone tariffs like these. You know, that ruling is at least on hold for the time being, at least until October 14th, but also setting up a major test case for the Supreme Court as recently as in its next term. Lastly, Steve, in just the last few seconds, I know you follow

all of these cases quite closely. How do you measure how the courts are standing up to or acquiescing to the Trump administration, which is shown it really wants to exercise executive authority. So I think the short version is the courts are pushing back fairly aggressively. They're pushing back on the merits and not just on procedural grounds. And what this is all really setting up, William, is a series of major test cases for the Supreme Court to confront the Trump administration as early as next spring. Steve Lattuck of Georgetown, always great to talk to you. Thanks.

Thank you. the size of Iowa. In partnership with the Pulitzer Center, Fred de Sam Lazaro traveled to Bangladesh to look at efforts to build resilience in the face of escalating consequences. It is the most crowded space in the most crowded city on earth by some rankings. Tens of thousands who live in this slum settlement of Coral are so-called climate refugees, whose previous homes were on land that no longer exists. Our house was taken. away by the river.

65-year-old Jahanara, she uses only one name, moved here some two decades ago. Her family's home was lost, like tens of thousands of others over the years, to erosion or were on land swallowed by a rising sea. Jahanara scrapes by, earning two to three dollars a day, cleaning houses and selling scrap. I have lived a very difficult life. I have worked hard. I still work hard. With three major rivers and hundreds of tributaries,

most swollen by rising seas and melting Himalayan glaciers, no part of this low-lying country, coastal or inland, is spared. I'm standing on an embankment along the Padma River. It feels nice and solid, but until about four days ago, it stretched out further for another quarter mile or so. All of a sudden, it simply simply... sank into the river, taking with it several homes and a few shops. And the people here say it all happened in about 15 minutes.

I was at my father-in-law's house when I got a phone call. Arif Madbo lost his family home. When I arrived, I saw that many houses had gone under the river. Our house had also been destroyed. Now we are destitute. Parvas Hussein owned a grocery shop here. The first thing we need now is a sustainable embankment so people like us have a livelihood in the future.

For now, sandbags are all that's available to retain what land is left. Many families will likely join informal communities like this one just up the river on a stretch of public land. No one gave us this land. We were helpless. So we found this land and built a house here. Rushia Begum arrived here last year, escaping erosion that has displaced her three times before, she says, most recently sweeping away her land and most of her livestock.

Our lives have been filled with hardship. We cannot even afford sandals. The communities have learned to accept the realities because they don't have the luxury of time. environmental scientist Atik Rahman agrees with estimates that by 2050, Bangladesh will lose 17% of its territory due to rising sea levels, including 30% of its agricultural land. He says Bangladeshis are slowly finding ways to adapt. You can do intellectual adaptation, you can do physical adaptation,

you can do agricultural adaptation, you can do water-based adaptation, all that. I was very fortunate to have a family boat that took me to schools, but not everyone. So you went on a boat to school during the monsoon. Monsoon floods routinely keep children out of school, says architect Mohamed Rezwan. His solution was to bring school to the boat. In 2002, he designed and launched the first flat-bottom boats to serve as primary schools. Today, the fleet has expanded to more than a hundred boats serving across a swath of northwest Bangladesh, not just as schoolrooms, but also as libraries, clinics, playgrounds,

and training centers. We are trying to develop people's skills towards resilience. It has high windows to let light and air in. We train on sustainable, effective and climate-friendly farming techniques, focusing more on traditional knowledge of climate adaptations. We visited this training session, teaching women organic, low-cost methods to protect their crops from pests. I get a good result using this trap to protect my eggplant field.

Flooding actually damages our crops, but the vegetables that we grow around our home, we can actually get good production. Vegetables provide much needed nutrition and Rezwan's non-government group has encouraged people to try new ideas, like fish farms and raising ducks on the river. However, the bedrock of this country's food security is rice. Even though it naturally thrives in water, it too is susceptible to climate change. Floods can wipe out a harvest or a crop may not survive in soil that's become salinized with seawater.

We visited this seed bank run by Brack, the world's largest non-government organization which began in Bangladesh. Scientists here are developing hardier varieties of rice and other seeds. Flood resistance are available. The sums are drought tolerant, saline. Many of these farmers can only grow that kind of rice in parts of the country because the soil has become so soggy with seawater. Correct, correct, soggy, yes.

We have to come up with solutions that are scalable. and then figure out where the funding comes from later on. BRAC CEO Asif Saleh says funding to scale projects has not materialized despite commitments from rich countries primarily responsible for climate change. Local organizations are probably getting about 4 to 6% of the funding that is coming in. They have billions of dollars, but their bureaucratic processes make it impossible. If you record all the promises that have been, been made over the last few years.

Calculate that and look at how much money has gone to the ground. It's laughable. That criticism of hollow promises echoes as well in Bangladesh's largest industry. Textile and garment making in which the country ranks second only to China's in size. So this factory emit almost 40% less carbon emissions. David Hassanat's four factories are among 258. that have earned the global LEED certification for being energy-efficient, using renewables and recycling wherever possible.

But Hazanat says there's no incentive for him or any other factory owners to follow suit. Do your brands, do your customers reward you for being energy efficient, for being environmentally sensitive? Answer is no, definitely. You don't get paid anymore? No. Most fashion brands and retailers may publicly proclaim their e-octuary. eco-consciousness, he says, but share none of the cost of adaptation.

Meanwhile, those most vulnerable must temper their expectations as they try to adapt. The one good thing is we are living on dry land, for now. Down even to what passes for dry land these days, and how long Rushia Begham can remain on it. She'd just been served an eviction notice from the Bangladesh Bridge Authority. The land is needed for a Chinese engineering company, pushing her once again to the edge of despair. If you don't allow me to stay, then I'll have to move. Or, if you want to throw us into the water, you can throw our life into the water.

By 2050, it's estimated that climate change will displace another 20 million people in this country. For the PBS News Hour, I'm Fred Dissam Lazaro in the village of Alam Karkandi, Bangladesh. And Fred's reporting is a partnership with the under-told stories project at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. AI is rapidly reshaping the workplace. More companies are turning to it as a substitute for hiring or retraining workers, and that's raising urgent questions about the future of the job market. For many families, the uncertainty can feel personal. What kinds of jobs will their children or anyone entering the workforce years from now actually have? Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at University of California, Berkeley, and the former labor secretary under President Bill Clinton.

And he wrote about this recently in his substack essay titled, How Your Kids Will Make Money in a World of AI. And he joins us now. Thanks for being here. Delighted. How were you, Jeff? I'm doing well, and I have wanted to speak with you ever since reading your substack because of the really interesting way you categorize work. You say there are three categories of jobs. Making, thinking, and caring. Which of these do you think is most at risk from AI and why? Well, the making jobs really have been automated over the last 30 to 40 years. You go into a manufacturing facility today, and it's mostly computerized machine tools.

The thinking jobs are the ones that are most at risk from artificial intelligence, because artificial intelligence really will be automated many thinking jobs. I'm talking about everything from doctor. to lawyers, accountants, people who are, and called themselves professionals who have got a lot of degrees, but whose particular thinking processes can be replicated and is being replicated by AI. What role do you see for education, university, schools, vocational programs, and adapting to this new AI-shaped economy? Well, there are certainly going to be jobs in improving AI and in installing and servicing AI, there are going to be a lot of jobs,

inevitably important jobs, in critical thinking and assessment. But many professional jobs, the kind of jobs that people have spent a lot of money to get professional degrees for, may not be delivering. Even today, a lot of computer engineering jobs have been essentially automated away by AI. So the job market is going to change. Now, the caring jobs, the third category of jobs, the people who provide personal care, whether it's childcare or elder care, nurses, psychotherapists, people who are in the job of, if you will, empathy, their jobs will not easily be replaced by AI because the essence of caring jobs is humans, human touch, human contact, human caring. AI may pretend and convince some people that there is a human being operating on the other

side of the screen, but ultimately human touch is going to be incredibly important. There was a time, though, when kids who had an aptitude for math or science were encouraged to learn coding. But with AI, to your point, making some of those coding jobs now obsolete, the ground has shifted. So what should parents be prioritizing today to best prepare their kids for the jobs of tomorrow? Well, I think the most important thing is versatility. That is, young people need to be able to learn rapidly, to move from job to job, to not assume that the old career paths are really there any longer. AI is going to jumble everything. And the trajectory of AI is almost impossible to foresee.

So versatility, adaptability is going to be very, very important. What about the here and now? I'm hearing stories of recent college graduates who are talented, smart, and qualified, and yet they can't find work. To what degree is AI displacement responsible for that? And what options do they realistically have in navigating it? Well, AI is undoubtedly replacing some jobs right now. in computer engineering and in computer sciences.

I would not recommend that somebody immediately leap into another graduate degree or a professional degree of becoming a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant or anything else. I think the most important thing is for people to really understand from the inside what it is that customers, clients, people actually need and be able to empathize with individuals. Again, the essence of caring jobs is empathy. And I don't believe that we're ever going to get to a point, at least in our lifetimes, where AI can replicate caring and empathy. Is there a policy prescription for this that would help alleviate some of the job market challenges on the horizon? Inevitably, I think that universal basic income is going to

become more popular because the caring jobs of the future that are going to dominate the future, given AI's tendency to automate so many professional jobs, those caring jobs are not going to be paying all that much. They don't pay that much today. And so the notion of a universal basic income that is gaining ground in many countries and has shown some promise in the United States may actually be a major policy in the future. In your new book coming up short, you argue that the baby boomer generation squandered much of the prosperity it inherited. Given that history, how do you see today's generation navigating the rise and the promise of AI? Is there a risk that they repeat some of the same mistakes and come up short in their own way? How can they best leverage the advances

of this incredible technology? Well, there is obviously risk of them coming up short. as well. But I have enormous faith, Jeff, in the young people today. I have been teaching for 44 years. My most recent students and the generation of students I've taught over the last four or five years, they are more dedicated and committed to a better world. They are more willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary to achieve that better world and are more critically thoughtful. They are not cynical, but they are at least realistic about the future than any generation I've dealt with before. Robert Reich, always a pleasure to speak with you. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Jeff. Library and Museum in Boston tells the story of the pets that called the White House home.

Jared Bowen of GBAH Boston takes us there for our Arts and Culture series, Canvas. The role of the American president has often been described as the loneliest job in the world. No surprise then that nearly all of them have had pets. President Bush had Barney, complete with his own Barney Cam. Reagan had Rex, who would happily be in his doghouse, and Hoover, had Billy, his pet possum. This is an opportunity to see the history of the nation through the eyes of all the pets that have lived in the White House. Boston's John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum has gone to the dogs, cats, and horses that have fetched, purred, and trotted their way into

American history. This new exhibition delivers us all the way back to the founding pets. We find George Washington's beloved horse Nelson and his foxhound sweet lips. Speaking of lips, Thomas Jefferson fed his mockingbird Dick treats from his own. And then there is Abraham Lincoln. Director Alan Price says he changed the course of presidential pet history. Well, Lincoln's dog is named Fido, and Lincoln has a photograph of his dog, and that's the first known photograph of a presidential dog. And I think for so many Americans who then named their dog Fido, So Lincoln is part of that origin story. The story of presidential pets winds through the peculiar.

President Calvin Coolidge and First Lady Grace took their raccoon Rebecca out for evening walks. While some presidents turned the White House lawn over to grazing, Theodore Roosevelt made it a veritable zoo. You'll find the roughriders saddle and crop here, and a taxidermied badger gifted to Roosevelt to remind him of his live one, Josiah. The manasru is extraordinary, the one-legged rooster, a snake, the sons taking Algonquin the pony in the elevator up to their brother who had measles. Where Teddy's pets were Washington fodder for amusement, his distant cousin Franklin saw opportunity for politicking. His Scottish terrier, Falla, was a constant companion.

Consequently, he became a public figure in his own right, a tool for humanizing the leader in turbulent times. and as a broadside to partisan sniping. Well, of course, I don't resent attacks. And my family don't resent attacks. But Fala does resent him. The dog was in photographs with him everywhere. He was in the radio broadcast, and people loved Fala. I think some people would argue the most consequential presidential dog.

If Fala was the most consequential dog, Macaroni was surely the most consequential pony. The Kennedy White House, like the Theodore Roosevelt, one before it, was remarkable for both its young children and the pets that came with them. The president kept dog treats in the resolute desk, fan mail poured in, and press coverage was rampant, especially regarding daughter Caroline and macaroni. Her tack, her riding gear is a gift from the King of Morocco,

whether it was at Camp David or elsewhere, She was famously photographed on it. When Sox was really popular in the Clintons, there was a moment for cats that we had not seen prior. And so the influence is really incredible. Mike Kiley leads animal protection at the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' Angel. As presidential pets go, he says,

so goes the nation. The Clinton's cat's socks, with all his antics and merch, led to increased adoption for black and white cats. The Obama's dog, Bo, resulted in this likeness, made from pipe cleaners gifted to the president, and in an uptick in the adoption of Portuguese water dogs. And Kylie says animals are a softer, gentler way into presidents plagued by divisive politics.

Yeah, I think it just helps us recognize that they are humans. We put them on this pedestal, but they have vulnerabilities and silliness and probably let their children name their pets to their regret. I think it does really connect us in a way that even if we don't agree with each other, We can agree on this and we can find common grounds. After all, even the towering imposing Lyndon Baines Johnson

and attack dog relentless and passing the Civil Rights Act could be reduced to a puddle by his own dog, Yuki, as we hear here. Come on sing for me. A president lets out a whole other side of himself that he doesn't even demonstrate with his kids or his family to just be silly and not think about politics. I think it's wonderful. If not, on key, for the PBS NewsHour, I'm Jared Bowen in Boston.

And that is The News Hour for tonight. I'm Amna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS News Hour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us. Thank you.