PBS News Hour - Full Show - September 30, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: September 30, 2025

Tuesday on the News Hour, with Congressional leaders and the White House unable to reach a deal to fund the government, a federal shutdown is set to take effect within hours. President Trump uses a gathering of top military leaders to promote a crackdown on what he sees as threats from within the United States. Plus, we take a closer look at the factors pushing more mothers out of the workforce. 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. A government shutdown is set to take effect within hours, with congressional leaders and the White House unable to reach a deal to fund the government. President Trump uses a gathering of top military leaders to promote a crackdown on what he sees as threats from within the United States.

This is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That's a war, too. It's a war from where. Good. And we take a closer look at the factors pushing more mothers out of the workforce. What happens is as soon as they have children, you see women's earnings decrease significantly that first year or so, and then she never recovers. Welcome to the News Hour. The Federal Government is, is barreling toward a shutdown at the stroke of midnight as Congress remains in a partisan deadlock. The Senate is voting at this hour on last-minute measures to keep the government running,

but they are all expected to fail. Democrats are demanding a bill that reverses cuts to Medicaid and prevents health insurance premiums from going up at the end of the year. Meanwhile, President Trump has threatened to use a shutdown to reduce the size of the federal workforce permanently. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardin reports. Hours away from our government shutdown, a Democratic show of force today as they stand firm, refusing to pass Republicans' bill to fund the government in opposition to President Trump's actions and looming health care cuts. We're ready to work in a bipartisan way to keep government open, to lower costs, and to save health care. All part of a blitz of House Democratic events today.

While inside, House Republicans are away. The halls on that side empty and the chamber shuddered after they passed their funding bill last week and are daring Senate Democrats to keep rejecting it. With funding set to expire at midnight, Democratic leader Chuck Schumer putting the onus on President Trump. He is using Americans as political pawns. He is admitting that he is doing the firing of people, if God forbid it happens. Good afternoon, everyone. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune drew a hard line, indicating he won't hold talks until Democrats relent.

The negotiation happens when the government's open. So let's keep the government open and then we will have the negotiation. A government shutdown would be the first since 2018 and 2019 during President Trump's first term when his demands for border wall funding led to a record 35-day impasse. President Trump today doubled down on his threat of possible mass. fireings instead of just temporary furloughs. So the last person that wants to shut down is us now. With that being said, we can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible, that are bad for them and irreversible by them,

like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like. Consequences that Republican lawmakers defended. We've never had mass firings during a shutdown before. We've never had Democrats that are so insane as this, because this is going to last a lot. If they shut down to government tonight, my prediction is going for a long, a long time. Mr. Trump and his agencies have taken much of their shutdown fight online.

The main page of the Department of Housing and Urban Development featured a seemingly unprecedented bright red banner pinning a shutdown on radical left Democrats, language that has raised flags as a possible ethics or legal violation. This, after the president posted controversially on social media, with fake AI-generated video that played vulgar words and depicted House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffreys wearing a sombrero. The New York Congressman responded. Mr. President,

the next time you have something to say about me. Don't cop out through a racist and fake AI video. When I'm back in the Oval Office, say it to my face.

A few hundred feet away, we sat with a group of protesting former federal workers fired in the Doge Purge, who all said they want a shutdown. By shutting down the government, it will help at least put in opposition to what this administration is currently doing. We have to get to a place where we're not signing a check on the Republicans doing whatever they want. They want pushback and opposition to Trump, dynamics that are leading to a shutdown.

But as with others at the Capitol, these former federal workers, workers did not know the way out of one. Joining us for more on this are congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardin and White House correspondent Liz Landers. Lisa, over to you first. Now, you've covered a number of these near shutdowns and shutdowns. Give us the latest on where we are now. A week ago, I was saying 80% chance. We're now at 99% chance. We are going to see a shutdown. That 1% act of God, maybe this is a dream. Basically, we are going into a shutdown. Let me show you what's happening right now at this moment. On the Senate floor, they are taking essentially show votes of the Democratic version

of keeping government funding with the Democrats' demands in it about health care and other things. They will also have a vote on the Republican version, which does not have that in it. We expect both of those to fail. What does it look like on the House side right now? We have nothing to show you because they're not in town. The House is out until at least Friday and actually more likely out until next week. So what happens here? Well, the Senate plans to stay in town more or less, have votes probably Saturday. I don't expect anything fundamentally to change, though. Now, so when you think about shutdowns this century, there are two kinds, some that are about one day or three days long. And if you get past that window, which we're going

to, then we get into two-week or three-week-long shutdowns. What is the way out potentially? Already, there are very small voices in the Senate. Maybe some bipartisan groups of senators can get together. But that's not a yet tangible kind of crystallizing force. One senior Democratic source told me right now they are minute by minute, hour by hour. This shutdown could be long. Liz, meanwhile, we've heard from the president and other Republicans. One of their main talking points here is that Democrats are shutting down the government to fund free health care for unauthorized immigrants. What do we need to know about that claim? Well, this is something that we've heard Republicans, both on Capitol Hill and at the White House. We've heard the vice president say this

yesterday to a group of reporters. And then President Trump has said this several times as well. He reiterated this earlier today in the Oval Office. I believe we have some of that video. One of the things they want to do is they want to give incredible Medicare, Cadillac, the Cadillac Medicare to illegal immigrants. And what that does is it keeps them coming into our country and like they do in California. And no country can afford that. No country. Undocumented immigrants are not allowed to be enrolled in federally funded health care coverage in this country. That includes Medicare, Medicaid chips, the child health care program, and even some of those Affordable Care Act subsidies. So this claim that the president is making is already barred under federal law right now.

There are some few exceptions to that. That includes Medicaid reimbursing hospitals for giving emergency services to people. If you show up at a hospital and you are having a heart attack, you're not going to be asked your immigration status before a doctor treats you. So they will reimburse that through the Medicaid system. Also, some states have some of their own policies. California, which is one of the states that the president makes reference to, has allowed 1.6 million immigrants in that state through a program that Governor Gavin Newsom implemented a few years ago to get on Medicaid coverage. But that is funded through the state. and he is also having to change that program.

Now, we reached out earlier today to Senator Patty Murray. She's one of the senior most Democrats. And she said that, look, Republicans are lying about the health care changes that Democrats are fighting for right now. Lisa made mention of this. She said they, the Democrats, are focused on the health care premiums that may double soon. And President Trump, I would add, was asked to clarify this exact point earlier today. He did not directly answer that question. So, Liz, we have Democrats blaming Republicans, Republicans blaming Democrats.

How are the American public looking at this? So PBS had a poll with NPR and Maris that came out just earlier today, and we asked some of these questions about how the American public is viewing this. One of those questions was, what should members of Congress do? And in the poll, it found that it's about 50-50 split, that Americans believe, 50% believe that members of Congress should compromise to avoid a shutdown, while 49% of Americans say that members of Congress should stand on principles. So that may explain why we are inching closer to this shutdown.

Parties are hearing a split from their voters on this. And then another question that was asked was about who is to blame if this shutdown happens. More Americans said that Republicans will be to blame at 38 percentage points, but Democrats will still get about 27% of the blame in the eyes of Americans. And a third of Americans, 31%, say that both parties are to blame. And just a final thought, Omna, one independent voter told NewsHour that while both parties will try to score political points from a shutdown, quote, you all look like idiots. Lisa, over to you. What happens next?

Okay. At midnight is when shutdown procedures begin. Agencies will send out guidance. Most of those agencies will have about half a day to actually get the shutdown in motion. And then furloughs will begin at that point. Now, what's interesting and unusual about this shutdown right now, Omna, is some of those agencies have still, as I speak to you, not posted their plans. That includes the National Park Service. Our producer Kyle Maduro reached out to them, and they got back to us and said, our plan for the shutdown is currently being reviewed and updated and watch for it to be posted.

Well, we don't know exactly with the National Park Service, something obviously many Americans have made their plans for. We're not exactly sure. Usually they close. Some of the former employees are saying, for safety, they should close, but we don't know yet. Now, one other thing, let's talk about the cost of this shutdown, what's ahead for us. Let's take a look. First of all, according to this Congressional Budget Office, new donors out today, they estimate about 750,000 employees will be furloughed on the average day. That's $400 million in salary each day that the government will ultimately pay, but will not get work for.

The last shutdown, $3 billion in economic losses. Again, that was a record long shutdown, but it was more narrow than that. this one. This one involves more agencies. We could be in for a very bumpy ride, a lot of questions ahead. A lot of questions ahead. Lisa Desjardin, Liz Landers. Thank you, as always. We're going to get two perspectives now on all of this. First, from Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivy. Welcome to the News Hour. Thanks for being with us. Thanks for having me. Your Maryland District has one of the highest concentrations of federal workers in the country. What are you hearing from your constituents who will find themselves furlough?

or potentially fired if the OMB director makes good on his threat of mass firings in the event of a shutdown? Well, I've been hearing from my constituents for about eight or nine months now because the Trump administration has been firing them as fast as they possibly can. The only thing that seems to have slowed it down was court cases and injunctions that had been put in place. So I think there's a recognition. I think tens of thousands have been fired already. And so I think they recognize that the apparent promise or offer for Trump to slow that down is probably worth the paper it's written on. So they know that they're going to try and continue with the mass terminations,

no matter the fact that it's hurting the people here in the United States and across the country. So they understand that they really can't rely on what the Trump administration's saying to him. Democrats are making health care a sticking point in the shutdown debate, calling for a permanent extension of the enhanced ACA subsidies that passed under former President Biden back in 2021. Why is that the line that Democrats are drawing right now? Well, in part because the Republicans dug such a deep hole with respect to health care coverage for the American people.

So in H.R. 1 trillion dollars in cuts to Medicaid, I think is going to be devastating to not just people across the country who are like the elderly and the disabled, but to many medical institutions and facilities that may have to shut down because they rely on Medicaid to cover their costs. The other piece, too, that we're focused on is the refusal by the Republicans to extend the credits that make the ACA, the Obamacare coverage affordable for millions of Americans.

So we want to make sure that we do everything we can to help the American people who are going to be targeted and impacted by this. Some of them are going to face premiums jumping, maybe double or triple within the next few months. And that'll make it unaffordable for them. So we want to do everything we can to make sure that they can continue to have the health care coverage that

they need and deserve. Republicans say that Democrats want to give free health care to people who are in the country illegally. Do you? Well, they know that's false. They know that's illegal under current law and has been. They've been making that argument, I guess, because they can't

figure out any other arguments to raise based on the merits. For a while, they were saying, there would be no impacts from what they'd done in H.R. 1 with respect to Medicaid. In fact, some said there were no cuts, but we've already got medical institutions shutting down because of those impacts that have taken place. And we know that people are going to get those notices in the mail that their tax credits aren't helping for their coverage anymore, and they're going to see these big jumps in their health care coverage and the cost of their health care coverage.

So they can talk about that. You know, maybe they'll try transgender next. who knows, but at the end of the day, what people will see is they can't get the health coverage they deserve, and it costs more than they should have to pay. In the meantime, there are Republicans who say, look, this spending bill, it's a clean bill, it's not controversial, Democrats should just vote for it, and any discussion about health care can wait until the regular appropriations process. What do you say to that?

I'm on the Appropriations Committee, and many of the things that we're talking about right now, like extending the credits. We had amendments that we offered during the appropriations markup period that were voted down unanimously by the Republicans during the process. So it's hard for them to argue with a straight face that they voted against it

then, what they're going to consider it now. I'm not sure why we should, you know, assume that's going to be true. And, you know, they're also asking us just to accept the possibility that Trump is going to make a promise that we should rely on when he's backed away from promises and refused to keep them over and over again, including the promises to the American people about making their

lives more affordable. Prices are going up for health care, prices are going up for groceries, prices are going up for rent and mortgage. Everything is going up right now. He said it was going to be the opposite. He hasn't kept that promise. Let's talk more about the politics of all this, because Democratic leadership, they say that Republicans are to blame in the event of a shutdown since Republicans control all of the levers of power in Washington. How do Democrats make and win that argument when previous attempts to blame Donald Trump or to warn the electorate about the threat that Democrats believe that he poses? Those efforts haven't worked.

I think what's going to be interesting about this one is, you know, in the past shutdown, 2010, 2012, whoever's on the wrong side of the health care debate is, lost. And then the other point here, though, is this isn't going to turn into a spend thing. The last shutdown that we had was Trump wanting a wall to go up, and I forget how many billions of dollars he was wanting to spend on that. But I think most folks thought, you know, I don't necessarily need him to build a wall for my life to be okay. This is one where it's going to affect millions of Americans across the country, red states, blue states. Healthcare is going to be unaffordable for them. The hospital that used to be there is going to disappear. The OBGY

clinic is going to be gone, I don't know how you spend your way out of that. So at the end of the day, the American people are, they're smart, they'll be able to see for themselves what the impact of this is. And the first thing they'll want to know is when they see that premium that's tripled, who's responsible for that and who's going to fix it and how fast can they fix it? That's what we're trying to do now. That's not what the Republicans are trying to do. Democratic Congressman Glenn Ivy.

Thanks again for joining us this evening. Thanks for having me. And now for a Republican perspective, we turn to Congressman Mike Lawler from New York. Congressman, welcome back to the News Hour. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. So you have repeatedly pointed out that you repeatedly voted to keep the government funded, to keep the government open, even under President Biden. As you just heard, Democrats are arguing that they're fighting to protect health care.

They say they want to roll back Medicaid cuts. They want to extend the subsidies that expire at the end of the year. keep those costs from going up for millions of people. What's your response to that? Well, I think obviously the Democrats' position here is hypocritical. And so I just impress upon my Democratic colleagues that no matter what political differences there are or policy debates there are to have, shutting the government down is idiotic and does not serve a real purpose in terms of actually solving the problems facing the American people.

We can all agree that health care costs in this country are out of control. And in fact, the Affordable Care Act, 15 years on, has not actually borne fruit in terms of reducing health care costs or health care premiums or increasing access. In fact, in many respects, it has made the cost of health care substantially worse. The subsidies that were put in place during COVID are set to expire at the end of the shift. year. I and a number of my Republican colleagues have signed on to legislation to extend that by a year. House and Senate Republican leadership have already said they are open to negotiating over those subsidies and potential changes to them, including income limits. But that is something that is to be negotiated, not used as a bludgeon in a government shutdown, which will only hurt the very

people that Democrats claim they want to help. So just to make sure I understand, you're saying that the debate over the subsidies is one worth having, you just don't want to have it during this process. Is that right? Sure. It's a worthwhile discussion to have, and it's something that can be negotiated. But why would you shut down the government to do it? What we have done in the House is pass a clean CR, which Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Nancy Pelosi, and you name the Democrat, have always said they support, have always demanded Republicans support, have always lectured America about the consequences of a shutdown. We have passed a clean CR. It is sitting in the Senate. Senate Democrats could act today, tonight, before midnight, to agree with Republicans to pass

a clean CR and keep the government open and funded so that we can finish our appropriations work and negotiate over issues like the ACA subsidies. I do want to put to you, what our latest PBS News, Maris NPR poll shows. We asked if there's a government shut down, which party would Americans blame some 38% said they would blame Republicans. 31% said both. 27% said Democrats, some 4% said neither. Are you misreading where the American public is right now on this? I don't think the American people want a shutdown, period. Regardless of what a poll says, the bottom line is there's no reason to shut the government down. And House Republicans have done our job. We already passed a CR to keep the government funded and open through November 21st.

The only thing standing in the way of a CR passing the Senate is Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats who refuse to actually advance the measure and are demanding certain concessions in return. I think ultimately the American people have always soured on government shutdowns. They don't view them as productive, and neither do I, which is why. I've always been consistent in supporting keeping the government open and funded. Can I ask you, too, about the way in which this debate has been unfolding over a potential shutdown, which includes President Trump posting an AI-generated video of House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, with a superimposed mustache and a sombrero with music playing in the background.

I'm not asking you to explain that posting, but I do want to ask you if you support that. No, I'll defer to the president on why you posted it. But at the end of the day, from my vantage point, that is a distraction from the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that there is a clean CR sitting in the Senate ready to be voted on and pass so that we keep the government open and funded. At the end of the day, the American people are not interested in the side show. They're interested in us doing our jobs. We all have a responsibility to govern. And right now, Democrats could pass a CR with Republicans in the Senate to avert a government shutdown. That is what is most important at this moment. That is Republican Congressman Mike Lawler of New York joining us tonight. Congressman, thank you for your time. Thank you. In the day's other headlines, Pfizer has agreed to cut prescription drugs. drug prices as part of a deal that spares the company from certain tariffs on its imports. President Trump made the announcement at the White House today, alongside Pfizer's CEO.

Under the deal, the company will sell many of its drugs to Medicaid at prices similar to those paid by other developed countries. Pfizer says specific terms of the deal remain confidential. It was not immediately clear how the policy would truly lower the prices Americans pay for drugs, which often depend on insurance coverage. The president also unveiled a new direct-to-consumer website dubbed Trump RX. Officials say it will launch early next year. In the Middle East, Hamas says it will review a peace plan for Gaza and consult with other Palestinian factions before responding.

The 20-point plan put forward by President Trump calls for the group to disarm in exchange for humanitarian aid and the reconstruction of Gaza, among other terms. Speaking to reporters, President Trump, Trump today said Hamas has three to four days to respond, adding that if they don't comply, in his words, it's going to be a very sad end. Meantime, in Gaza, local hospitals say Israeli strikes killed at least 31 people today. Residents say they are wary of the proposed peace plan.

We as citizens are concerned. The plan, as it appears, serves the enemy's interests more than it serves the people's interests. We call on everyone to work out this plan what remains of the people, what remains of the land and what remains of the homes. Mr. Trump's plan also calls for the return of the remaining hostages and the creation of an international board of peace to help run Gaza after the war. The territory would remain surrounded by Israeli troops

and Hamas would have no part in its administration. Back in this country, a second detainee has died following last week's shooting at an immigration facility in Dallas. In a statement, the family of Miguel Anhele Garcia Hernandez has confirmed that he succumbed to his injuries after being removed from life support. The house painter from Mexico was one of three detainees who were shot when a gunman opened fire from a nearby rooftop before taking his own life. Officials say the suspect wanted to incite terror by attacking federal agents.

No ice personnel were hurt in the shooting. In Florida, officials are setting aside a prime piece of Miami real estate as a potential site for Donald Trump's presidential library. The nearly three-acre plot sits next to the historic Freedom Tower and has been appraised at more than $66 million, though some estimates put the value much higher. There's been no official confirmation that the library will be built there, but President Trump's son, Eric, who's a trustee of Trump's Presidential Library Foundation, celebrated today's unanimous vote on social media saying that it will be the greatest presidential library ever built. On Wall Street today, stocks ended higher as investors shook off concerns about the looming government shutdown. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added around 80 points. The NASDAQ rose nearly 70 points on the day. The S&P 500 also posted modest gains. And journalist and socialite, Lally Weymouth

has died. She was the daughter of the late Washington Post publisher Catherine Graham. Instead of taking a leadership role at the paper herself, she built a reporting career, interviewing world leaders for the likes of Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, and The Post. Weymouth's daughter said she died from pancreatic cancer at her home in Manhattan. Lally Weymouth was 82 years old. And one of the last surviving combat pilots of the Tuskegee Airmen has died, Lieutenant Colonel George Hardy began aviation training in 1944 when he was just 19 years old. He'd never even driven a car, but he flew more than 20 missions in World War II and served in the Korean and Vietnam. wars. The Tuskegee Airmen were the nation's first black military pilots. In a Facebook post,

the organization said, quote, his legacy is one of courage, resilience, tremendous skill, and dogged perseverance against racism, prejudice, and other evils. George Hardy was 100 years old. Still to come on the news hour, President Trump warns of a war from within at a gathering of military leaders. Why, more mothers are leaving the workforce. And Princeton University's president discusses his new book about free speech on college campuses. 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. Today, President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth spoke to nearly the entire senior officer corps of the military.

It was an unprecedented gathering at a marine base just south of Washington. Heggseth announced new directives, and as Nick Schifrin reports, the president laid out a vision to use the military not against overseas enemies, but for threats he sees here at home. Today, speaking to a sea of generals and admirals whose experience was forged by two decades of foreign wars, the commander-in-chief said their chief enemy was domestic. We should use some of these dangerous cities as training ground. for our military, national guard, but military. The Trump administration has deployed active duty Marines and National Guard to Los Angeles, as well as guardsmen to Washington, D.C.

But they've spent more time strolling than training. And President Trump vows to deploy troops into Chicago, Memphis, and Portland. Defending the homeland is the military's first and most important priority. That's what it is. Only in recent decades did politicians somehow come to believe. believe that our job is to police the far reaches of Kenya and Somalia while America is under invasion from within.

For years, the senior officers in today's room not only led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and special operations forces troops across more than 80 countries, they've also been trained and educated all their careers to believe the U.S. military should not be deployed against fellow Americans. And the few exceptions have been managed by the National Guard, who, outside of D.C., are led by state authorities. But that is not President Trump's vision. It's a war from within controlling the physical territory of our border is essential to national security.

And this morning, he warned what would happen to officers who resist. I'm going to be meeting with generals and with admirals and with leaders. And if I don't like somebody, I'm going to fire them right on this spot. But if the words I'm speaking today are making your heart sink, then you should do the honorable thing. and resign. For 45 minutes before President Trump, Secretary Pete Hegseth told the gathered generals and admirals that he was, in his words, ending the war on warriors. In many ways, this speech is about fixing decades of decay.

Hegset today issued 11 new memorandums, many about fitness. Requirements for each combat specialty changed to, quote, the highest male standard only. Physical fitness tests for all service members would be changed to, quote, male standards. grooming requirements would be enforced. It's tiring to look out at combat formations or really any formation and see fat troops. Likewise, it's completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country in the world. It's a bad look.

It is bad, and it's not who we are. Hegset also vowed to overhaul equal opportunity, military equal opportunity, and the inspectors general who investigate misconduct. Hegseth has long argued that the Biden administration was too focused on ensuring military diversity. But critics of today's speech say Hegseth's version of lethality is misdefined. By changing the standard to the highest male combat arms physical fitness, lethality would go down because talent would decrease. Haley Gibbons is a former Army ranger who met the same requirements as male rangers

and says there should be different requirements for different military. occupational specialties known as MOSs. Having different standards for different MOSs allows for creative minds, intelligent people, specialized skills. One of the main aspects of lethality is unic cohesion, and that is built on trust, shared hardship, and leadership, not if you can deadlift a 350-pound barbell. Hegseth has fired the top U.S. general who was black, and the Navy's top admiral who's a woman. He said they and others went too far in embracing, quote, woke policies. But

Gibbon says the Army defines leadership differently. Being a leader is influencing people, giving them purpose, direction and motivation to accomplish a goal. By not creating space for diverse minds, different backgrounds, different genders, we are narrowing our ability to operate effectively. It is not clear how much today is gathering costs, but given that generals and admirals flew from around the world, some estimates run in the millions of dollars. For more perspective, we turn to former captain Margaret Donovan. She's a former assistant U.S. attorney and army lawyer who deployed to Iraq and Syria, where she provided legal advice on more than a thousand air strikes and other lethal engagements. She's now in private practice

and a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School. Thanks very much, Margaret Donovan. Welcome to the News Hour. What's your reaction to President Trump's comments that I played earlier in the story that, quote, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training gowns for our military, our National Guard. Sure. I think my reaction is probably a combination of shock and embarrassment. On one hand, you have the Secretary of Defense who is saying, lethality, lethality, he wants the troops to be more lethal. And then on the other hand, you have the President of the United States saying, I want training to happen in American cities. So how exactly are they going to train the military

on becoming more lethal in American cities? None of that makes sense. It's extremely dangerous and troops should not be normalizing that behavior. But if the president is going to deploy the U.S. military into these cities, and he's already done that, and he's got a series of cities that he vows to do that again, why not make training part of that mission as well? Because the military is not designed for domestic operations. Law enforcement is designed for keeping city safe, crowd control, the things that I think is what the administration wants to use it for. Let me explain that when the military deploys, for example, before a unit goes on a combat

deployment, they receive training on the rules of engagement. They learn about, for example, what is the declared hostile force? Who can we kill and how can we kill them? How do we engage the enemy, right? they're not receiving training on how to apply the First Amendment to protesters in a foreign country. So we can't expect the military to understand how to apply what would normally be overseas rules of engagement to a domestic training environment like the United States with its constitutional protections of its citizens. Stepping back, how unusual is it? How much does it go against the norms of decades of training and education that the generals

and admirals who are in Quantico today, that the commander-in-chief says, quote, the military's first and most important priority is defending the homeland. You know, I think the military's priority is defending the homeland, but the problem is the military's priorities protecting American citizens. American citizens are not the enemy, and the message that the president seems to be sending is that there is an enemy within. That is not true. Soldiers are training to protect American citizens. citizens from foreign adversaries, there are training to defend the Constitution. So it is incorrect to say that the enemy is in the country, and that is something that the military

has to be prepared for. It stands against everything, every norm, every ethic, every moral that these military commanders have developed, learned, and hopefully imposed on their junior soldiers throughout their careers. To your point, after the attacks on Pearl Harbor and 9-11, Congress passed laws that demanded the president used the military for forward. defense. Of course, the idea being that if we attack them there, we will not be attacked at home. Again, how different is President Trump's vision of the military from those two historical examples?

Yeah, precisely. We're talking about foreign adversaries, right? We want to be able to defend the homeland from foreign adversaries from foreign threats. What he's talking about now, or what he seems to be alluding to, is some type of internal enemy that doesn't actually exist, right? Soldiers need to remember when they're seeing this on TV, when they're getting their training. What is the oath that they took? Who are they sworn to protect and defend? What are they supposed to do to uphold the Constitution? And these are the questions that they need to be asking themselves when they receive orders that they question are unlawful. And I imagine that the commanders who heard that speech today are wondering the exact same thing. You know, what am I supposed to tell my soldiers that the president is

going so far off base? And the other thing that you should remember is this is a president who has really a passing understanding of what the military is about, right? Everything that he's learned about the U.S. military, he has learned from the movie. So it's kind of no surprise that he doesn't really know what he's talking about, that he thinks you can direct the military to do this or that and not, you know, stay in accordance with the law and the constitutional intent for the military, for example, that only Congress can declare a war. So it's kind of no surprise that he's misdirected here.

And you just hope that the senior military officials recognize that. that and can respond accordingly with the leadership skills that they have. Margaret Donovan, former Jag and of Yale Law School. Thank you very much. Thank you. A growing share of mothers with young children in America are leaving the workforce. Erasing gains made after the COVID-19 pandemic when working remotely became more common.

Economics correspondent Paul Salman reports on the impact. Here, I'll put it up. Nicoletta Barbera always saw herself as a working mother. She and husband Stephen worked for the U.S. Institute of Peace funded by Congress while raising two sons in Washington, D.C., until March. Overnight and with barely any warning, almost the entirety of the workforce of the United States Institute of Peace was laid off, kind of. en masse. Dozed, including both Barbera and her husband. The rug was really kind of taken out

from under us because we not only went from two incomes to zero incomes, we went from having a family health insurance policy for us and our two young children to no health insurance. Even moms who haven't been axed are leaving their jobs, especially in the back to the office federal government. Those positions are predominantly held by women and in particular women with children who often are willing to forego wages in the private sector for more flexible work environments, work environments that historically the federal government has provided. Pick one that you could eat. But now, the share of working mothers with children under five is falling, says economist Misty Heganis. We've seen this continual perpetual decline in mothers' labor

force participation. The first half of 2025, it shrunk by three percentage points. A lot of good stuff. In the pandemic era, remote flex time schedules helped push women's participation up to a record 78 percent. Once the flexibility vanished, however, it was either going to be my kids or it was going to be my work, and I chose my kids. A braid or a bubble braid. Mom of four Casey Palo juggled her job, an accountant for the New York Giants, and kid care when she worked from home. Then All right. My employer was calling for everyone to return to the office. So that was really like the final straw for me. That was like the breaking point where I knew like I couldn't do that. Working nine to six in an office with no days from home. If school was closed, who was going to stay home with my kids? If she had to be picked up because she was sick, I was going to be the one to leave work to go get her. Like something had to give. She's now a stay at home mom. I felt like forced. And it's a. In the position I was in, there was no other option.

You're going to smush that one? Same for Jennifer Arenas Cardinus, who depended on FlexTime to balance her job as a school psychologist with the needs of three-year-old twins and a new baby. But last school year... I was told to come at a certain time, to leave at a certain time, whereas in years past, as long as I did my job within the hours that I was there. I wasn't really given too much grief over it. Arenda's Cardinus loved her work, wanted to stay, but she says, Trying to manage work expectations, trying to manage home life with twins and a new baby. It just, it came to a point where it was unmanageable.

Could you not have put the kids in infant care or something like that? If we were to go that route, then my entire take-home paycheck would be going into their child care. And so you just figured if it's going to be a wash financially better that you, you be the parent than somebody else? Yes, exactly. It's going to eat up my entire paycheck. Then I might as well just stay home with the kids. Made sense for her family, but it wasn't necessarily better for her clients. When I was able to do video calls with families or call outside of a typical school schedule, it worked out a lot better for families. I was able to accommodate them and meet them where they were at. Let's say if a mom got off of work at 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock, I didn't have to

make her come to the school at 3.30, I could accommodate my schedule to meet that family with where they were at. Why do you think your school, and other places, of course, eliminated hybrid work if there was an advantage to the people they were serving? I think there's this misconception that if you can't see your employees and what they're doing, that they're not doing the job and that you have to be there at a certain time within an office, within a desk, and if you're doing that, you're productive. There are real costs to the mothers like Orenas Cardenas, who've left or lost their jobs, says economist Heganis. When you step back from the labor force, it's not only something that affects you today. It is something that ripples throughout your entire lifetime earnings trajectory.

And there are broader effects beyond the mothers themselves. I'm not contributing to the economy. I'm not receiving a salary. I'm not able to pay taxes as I have been consistently for. for the last 20 years of my life. And so when you're taking that and you're taking many thousands of mothers who are going through this, it's going to create a ripple effect. Last year, women only earned an average of 81%

what men did, despite now making up the bulk of the college-educated workforce. The motherhood penalty hasn't gone anywhere. What happens is as soon as they have children, you see women's earnings decrease significantly that first year or so. and then she never recovers. She never gets back onto the trajectory

that she was before having children. I've applied to over 140 jobs since early April and have not had success yet. Nicoletta Barbera is technically still part of the labor force since she's looking for work and technically unemployed. I've been told by recruiters or colleagues at other organizations that hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of people, just like me, are applying to these jobs.

And it's especially bad, in the D.C. area, rife with federal job cuts. I have a lot of pressure and stress and feel a sense of urgency to provide for these children. I'm applying to jobs that are several positions below what I would normally be applying to, maybe even taking a 50% pay cut from what I was being paid earlier. But even so, I'm not having success at finding a job. Some jobs she doesn't even apply for. Where I assume that I won't be selected for a certain type of position,

because of my age or the fact that I'm a mother of two young children. I self-select myself out of positions where maybe a man wouldn't do that. Arenas Cardenas chose to leave, but she'd love to be back working her old job. Even in my hometown here in Arizona, there's multiple school agencies throughout town who are looking for school psychologists. And I'm sure that there's multiple school psychologists just like myself who are kind of in the same boat. Casey Pileo intends to be a full-time mom for the foreseeable future. I thought I would be able to have my flourishing career and be this amazing mom.

I wasn't able to do that. Wasn't able to do it, which figures to have economic repercussions for her, and perhaps for us all. You could do show and share a time. And PBS NewsHour, Paul Sondon. Carry your backpack. In his second term, President Trump has waged an all-out war on higher education by, among other things, freezing billions in federal grant funding, launching investigations into dozens

of institutions over DEI practices, targeting and detaining students who hold pro-Palestinian views, and more recently developing a plan to change how universities are awarded research grants, giving a competitive advantage to schools that mirror President Trump's values. But a new book by Princeton University President Christopher Icegruber argues that despite criticism, colleges and universities are meeting the moment when it comes to permitting free speech on campus. I spoke with Ice Gruber recently about his book, Terms of Respect, How Colleges Get Free Speech, Right. Christopher Icegruber, welcome to the News Hour. Delighted to be here. Thank you.

In this book, you argue that despite much criticism, American colleges are largely doing free speech right. What observations led you to that conclusion? Some of it is about observations on my own campus at Princeton University, where I find students and faculty very engaged on issues and able to talk civilly with each other. Some of it's about broader observations. There's a lot of attention that gets paid to, I think, the relatively rare incidents where things, go wrong. And I understand why those attract attention. But there's a lot going right. And it's going right at a time when our country, along with our college campuses, faces a crisis where people find it hard to talk to one another. Well, critics make the point that universities have betrayed free speech,

that professors indoctrinate students, that conservatives are silenced. You have urged university leaders to be what you call visibly open to conservative viewpoints. What does that look like in practice. Yeah, well, I would say people make those claims, but the evidence, I think, doesn't support those claims. It is really important for universities to signal their willingness to engage around all kinds of viewpoints. One of the things we know about the United States today is that people divide into opposing political camps, and they tend to demonize the people in the other camps. A poll out of Johns Hopkins, for example, finds that half of Republicans and half of Democrats think that people in the opposing party are downright evil. That was the term that

the pollsters used. Under those circumstances, it's very important not just to allow free speech to occur, but to give clear signals about the willingness to engage with the other side. And that's important on university campuses. Well, walk us through one or two campus controversies, whether recent or historical, that illustrate both the pitfalls and successes you describe in the book, places where colleges got it right, where they met the moment, and others where they might have failed. Well, let me start by talking about some of the recent controversies that we've had around Israel and Palestine and the arguments about what justice requires in.

the Middle East. I would say, first of all, there are lots of arguments on both sides taking place on college campuses. People are engaging with one another. Some of that happens through protests, and in terms of getting it right, I think it's very important that colleges adhere to the principles that come out of the United States Constitution. It's really important that people be able to say their minds, to express what they believe. It's also important that colleges enforce the kind of time, place, and manner rules that allow people to go about their business and allow people who want to listen to what's being said to hear from the other side. So I think where you see things going right is when colleges are both allowing for free

speech, including in the form of protest and enforcing time, place, and manner restrictions so that students who want to get to class are able to do that so that speech remains orderly on the campus. Free speech does allow for protest. That's an important part of what free speech allows in our country. But the job of universities is to create civil discussions about these topics that go beyond what happens during protests. And in this moment where the Trump administration has slashed billions of dollars in federal funding for universities, labeled universities as liberal bastions, how do you defend Princeton and higher education more broadly against what appears to be a sustained campaign to weaken it, or at least force a desired outcome?

Well, I think what's important for people to realize is that American research universities are extraordinary engines for American prosperity, health, and security, the quality of the research taking place, and the quality of the teaching taking place on these campuses is exceptional. They're magnets for talent from throughout the world, and that's something that people should be able to appreciate, and that the government should be able to appreciate, and people in Congress should be able to appreciate regardless of what their political opinions are. So I think part of what we need to do as universities is to admit when things have gone wrong, that they've gone wrong.

We need to emphasize where we've been able to do extraordinarily well and the strengths that American universities demonstrate. And we need to be articulate about the set of principles that guide us through what are a difficult set of controversies. The book title, Terms of Respect, it struck me, what does respect mean in the context of free speech? on campus? Who gets to define those terms and how do you avoid them becoming tools for censorship? Yeah. You know, I think one of the things to understand about the terms of respect and what respect is, nobody gets to authoritatively define what respect means. Part of what we do in the United States, an important part of free speech controversies is that we contest what it means to be appropriately respectful. So I think university leaders have a responsibility to model respect for all persons on

their campus, and they have a responsibility to create for civil discourse. But an important part of what's going on in the United States right now is we argue with one another during a very polarized time is that people are competing to define what counts as appropriate respect. In reading this book, one of the prevailing questions I had for you is, you know, what's it like to lead a university in this moment with political attacks from Washington, intense scrutiny of campus debates, rising polarization, shaping nearly every decision? What's it like now as compared to when you started more than a decade ago? Well, two things are constant about my job. One is it's a wonderful job because I get to be part of this extraordinary academic community with students and faculty

members who inspire me every day. The second thing that's constant about my job is that it's always been a hard job because there are lots of different constituencies that have very strong views about what it is that the university should be doing. And they disagree with one another as they should. So that makes these jobs demanding. It has gotten harder. I think when you have a multi-constituency job and you've got a lot of disagreement and polarization in the country, that makes things harder. obviously educational institutions have been in the crosshairs and centers of controversy in our country right now. That makes things harder. But it's also really important that we be able to get this right because these institutions are important to what America is and

important to our future. Princeton University President Christopher Ice Gruber, the book is Terms of Respect, How Colleges Get Free Speech Right. A real pleasure to speak with you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. And that is the News Hour for tonight. I'm Omnan Vaz. I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at The NewsHour, thanks for spending part of your evening with us.