PBS News Hour - Full Show - September 5, 2025 – PBS News Hour full episode

Episode Date: September 5, 2025

Friday on the News Hour, a slowdown in hiring sends a warning signal about the health of the economy. Four years after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, thousands of Afghan immigrants in America face deportation, despite fears that they'll be targeted by the Taliban. Plus, the rise of artificial intelligence and the infrastructure needed to support it causes a sharp rise in electricity bills. 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 slowdown in hiring sends a warning signal about the health of the U.S. economy. Four years after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan, thousands of Afghan immigrants in America face deportation, despite their fears that they'll be targeted by the Taliban. There is no justice. There is no court. They were just ordered their soldiers to check their aim and just shoot you in your head. And the rise of artificial intelligence and the infrastructure needed to support it causes

a sharp rise in electricity bills. Welcome to the News Hour. The fresh government data show the labor market hit a wall this summer. The August jobs report came in far weaker than expected, signaling a slowdown that could challenge the president's economic message. Employers added just 22,000 new jobs last month. The only sector that added significant numbers was health care. Several other sectors, including manufacturing, lost jobs. Revision also showed that the economy lost 13,000 jobs in June. That is the first net loss since December of 2020 during the pandemic. President Trump was asked about those weaker numbers. He said high interest rates were partly to blame and predicted unprecedented job growth to come next year. He then cast some doubt on the latest data and said there may be more adjustments to come. The other thing is so many different elements aren't included yet.

And one of the things we've learned, and we've learned that the hard way watching over the last few months are the corrections that people have been making. They'll say you're losing jobs and then they say, by the way, we have a correct. a month later. This was the first monthly jobs report since the president fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics just hours after a weak jobs report last month. Experts said today they've seen no problems with the agency's work yet or the acting commissioner overseeing it.

I spoke about all of this earlier today with Austin Gouldsby, the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Austin Goulsby, welcome back to the NewsHour. Thanks for joining us. Hi. Thank you for having me. So let's just start with your reaction to those jobs numbers. 22,000 new jobs added in August.

What do those numbers say to you about the labor market and the economy? Well, they're not positive numbers. They're coming in weaker than was expected and weaker than what folks would like. The only thing I will raise and remind folks is, A, be a little careful over indexing on one month, And B, for a variety of reasons, the monthly payroll jobs number has gotten a little noisier, let's call it, as an indicator of where we are in the business cycle. There are also some other indicators you want to look at, like the unemployment rate, the hiring rate, what's happening with layoffs, and not all of the labor market indicators are showing the kind of weakness that this monthly number is showing. So it's a little mixed. And what about that downward revision, looking back to June, a net loss of 13,000?

What's behind that? Well, one thing could be behind it is we could be seeing a deterioration of the labor market. Another thing that could be behind it that's probably pulling the numbers down is we've got, we've had a pretty significant reduction in net immigration to the United States. And immigration is usually a pretty significant control. contributor to the labor force, or at least labor force growth. So we've been highlighting for months now that this could happen, that if we started really squeezing labor force participation or cracking down on immigration, that you might start seeing

monthly jobs numbers shrinking, this is probably a little smaller than what we expected from that. we tend to think of it as economists around a break-even. What would be the break-even that you would say the economy is neither overheating or under-cooling? The break-even, if I had to guess, 75,000, 85,000, so that we're in below that is making folks a little bit concerned. Well, Chair Powell referenced some of the immigration restrictions, specifically last month in his remarks, their impact on the labor market. and we know those restrictions are not changing under this administration any time soon. Just yesterday, there was a raid on a Hyundai plant in Georgia in which more than 400 people were arrested.

Are those kinds of actions having an impact on the labor market? And is this the beginning of a longer downward downward slide? The first thing to note is what matters is not one specific raid or anything like that. It's the total net immigration into or out of the country. And we saw last year, for example, big jobs numbers, $185,000 a month on average for the year. It ended up being a sign that looking back, ah, there was a lot more population growth than we knew as it was happening. That's what we're trying, everyone is trying to tease out from the data like the ones that are coming out today, is we don't observe, we don't know how much the immigration is pulling down. the number. I'm more comfortable looking at multiple job market indicators. The hiring rate is

kind of low, but the layoffs have not really commenced. If you thought this was the beginning of a recession, you'd think you would be seeing a big uptick in layoffs. And the job opening slash vacancy rate is actually still quite good. It's even better than it was 2019 before the pandemic, which was a strong labor market. So we're just going to have to see as the months come through here, is this a sign that the labor market is deteriorating? Or is this a sign that some things are happening behind the scenes that make the number a little noisier to interpret? You know, while I have you, I've got to ask quickly about the fact that this is the first jobs report that we've seen since President Trump fired the BLS commissioner. There were a lot of

questions about whether or not the numbers could be trusted. If there was political pressure. Do you have any reason not to trust these numbers? I have no reason not to there were a lot of nose in there. I have no reason not to trust these numbers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is absolutely the best source of data that exists about the labor market in the U.S. economy. It's not perfect and there's definitely noise in it and the noise has gotten harder over time because people don't answer surveys and things like that. So I would encourage everybody look at as many pieces of information as you can. As I say, if you're one of the data dogs,

one of the key rules of the data dog is sniff everything that hits the floor because it might be food. So look ahead for us if you can now. Do these latest numbers strengthen the case for interest rate cuts ahead? As you know, the law tells the, gives the Fed a job when setting monetary policy

to pursue what we call the dual mandate, to maximize employment and stabilize prices. You've got to pay attention to inflation, and we've had some months of really benign readings that almost said, hey, no need to pay attention here. But in the latest data, we saw a couple of warning signs, disturbing signs, like services inflation, really kicking back up again.

That's probably not coming from tariffs. So we're on the lookout, was that just a, blip or do we got to be thinking about both sides of the Fed's mandate at the same time? And that's always the more uncomfortable circumstance. I'm sure you've been aware of the president's very public campaign to apply pressure to the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, as well, and also his attempts to fire Lisa Cook from the Fed board. I also want to ask you about the fact that the president's been very clear about the fact that he would like to exert more control over the Fed. He's used explicit language saying that we will have a majority soon if he's able to replace Lisa Cook on that

board. What do you make of that? Are you worried about political interference on the Fed? Are you worried about it maintaining its independence? We have through the Federal Reserve Act a process that was designed to keep as much as humanly possible Fed monetary policy decisions away from that there will not be political interference in determinations like that. That's not just at the Fed, all the rich countries of the world have independent central banks because economists are basically unanimous that it's extremely important that we preserve central bank independence from that kind of political interference. So I think that's a very strong endorsement of independence.

makes me uncomfortable anybody who's making the argument that the monetary policy decision should not be based on the economic conditions and the economic outlook, but should instead be based on the political viewpoint of one party or another. I think it's a mistake. That's a recipe for inflation coming back.

If you just look around the world at places where they don't have that independence, inflation is much, higher, growth is slower, the job market does worse. Austin Gouldsby, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Always good to speak with you. Thank you again for making the time. Lovely to see you again.

We start today's other headlines with a notable name change from the nation's commander-in-chief. This afternoon, President Trump, that the Defense Department changed back to its old title, the Department of War. I think that's a big one, I'll be honest. The move is largely symbolic. Only Congress can officially change the department's name, but today's order will authorize the Pentagon

and Defense Secretary Pete Hegeseth to use secondary titles, like calling himself the Secretary of War. Both Hegeseth and Trump acknowledged the symbolism of today's action. They went a route that I think was probably a post politically correct, but not correct for our nation. So I think the Department of War sends a signal. Within minutes of today's announcement,

staff at the Pentagon started taking down signs to have them changed. The department was called the Department of War for 150 years until shortly after World War II when it was changed to defense. Also today, President Trump signed an order that would allow the U.S. to punish countries that wrongfully imprison U.S. nationals.

It would create a new designation for state sponsor of wrongful detention, similar to the designation of state sponsors of terrorism. More now on the immigration raid in Georgia. Homeland Security officials say they've carried out the largest single-site enforcement operation in DHS history. 475 people were arrested at the manufacturing plant where Hyundai makes electric vehicles, most of them South Korean nationals. At a news conference, officials described a month-long investigation into allegations of, quote, unlawful employment practices. This operation underscores our commitment to protecting jobs for Georgians and Americans,

ensuring a level playing field for businesses that comply with the law, safeguarding the integrity of our economy, and protecting workers from exploitation. Following the raid, South Korea's government expressed concern and regret over what it called possible violations of its citizens' rights. Hyundai, South Korea's biggest automaker, invested billions in the Savannah facility, which specializes in electric vehicle battery production. Notable Republicans, like Georgia's governor, Brian Kemp, have touted the project as the largest economic development project in the state's history. Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that any foreign troops deployed to Ukraine while the war is ongoing would be considered, quote, legitimate targets. His comments come a day after more than two dozen countries said they would provide a reassure.

force for Ukraine once a ceasefire is reached. Speaking to reporters alongside the European Council President today, Ukraine's Volodemir Zelenskyy said that the force would number, quote, in the thousands. Well, at an economic forum, Putin called Ukraine's bid to be an EU member a legitimate choice, but drew the line that it's joining NATO. They continue to cling to the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. This is the thing that is entirely unacceptable to us. Even though every nation has the right to choose how to ensure its own security,

such matters cannot be resolved without regard for Russia's security. Meantime, fierce fighting continues from both sides. Ukraine's Air Force says Russia sent more than 150 drones and seven missiles toward Ukraine overnight. Russian officials say they destroyed 92 drones sent from Kiev. And Gaza, health officials say at least 27 people were killed in the latest wave of Israeli attacks on Gaza City. One airstrike brought this 14-story building to the ground. Israel has accused Hamas of using such high-rises for surveillance. It's part of a controversial military build-up in Gaza City, which Israel has declared a combat zone.

Israel insists it is targeting Hamas combatants and takes steps to mitigate civilian harm, like evacuation warnings. But many Gazans say they have nowhere to go, and instead shelter intense as a hunger crisis. there grows worse. Back here at home, the artificial intelligence company Anthropic has agreed to pay $1.5 billion to settle a class action lawsuit filed by book authors. If approved, it would be the largest in the history of American copyright cases. A trio of authors sued the company last year over the use of their books to train an AI chatbot. In June, a judge ruled that while the training wasn't illegal, Anthropic did download millions of books from pirated sources. Today, the company agreed to pay close to $3,000 for each of about 500,000 books covered in the suit.

And author, George Saunders, has been named this year's winner of the National Book Award for Distinguished Contributions to American Letters. It's a Lifetime Achievement Award given to past luminaries like Tony Morrison and Judy Bloom. Saunders is perhaps best known for his first novel, Lincoln in the Bardo, which won the Man Booker Prize. He's also the author of popular short story collections, including 10th of December and Civil Warland in bad decline. Saunders' next book, Vigil, is due out early next year. On Wall Street, stocks ended lower after that downbeat jobs report. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 220 points on the day. The NASDAQ slipped just seven points, so nearly flat, the S&P 500 also ended lower. And a passing.

Of note, Joseph McNeil, a key figure in the civil rights movement, has died. McNeil was one of four college students who refused to leave their seats at a segregated North Carolina lunch counter back in 1960. The Greensboro sit-in, as it became known, expanded to more than 50 U.S. cities in nine states and became a catalyst for student-led action during the civil rights movement. The store itself was desegregated within six months. Years later, McNeil reflected on those turbulent times. It is very, very difficult individually to step up when wrongs occur. and to individually put yourself and all you value on the line. Students did that.

We risked our education, but that courage, the ability to be brave. And that's always going to be there, even today. McNeil went on to become a two-star major general in the Air Force Reserves and worked as an investment banker. A cause of death is unknown. Joseph McNeil was 83 years old. Still to come on the News Hour, David Brooks and Jamel Bowie weigh in on the week's political headlines. Author Darren Walker discusses his new book examining inequality and democracy in the U.S. And it's the end of the penny, we'll explain.

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. Tech leaders from some of the country's biggest companies met with President Trump at the White House last night, promising hundreds of billions of dollars to accelerate artificial intelligence and the infrastructure to power it. They also offered unusually lavish praise for the president at a moment when many in the industry are pressing for a hands-off regulatory approach. It's all unfolding as electricity bills climb nationwide, rising faster than inflation in many places and in some regions far more sharply. The explosive growth of AI and the massive data centers behind it are driving demand and straining the grid. To explain how this hits consumers

and what can be done about it, I spoke earlier with Ari Pesco, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School. So electricity prices are surging nationwide. To what extent is the rapid expansion of AI and those data centers driving up those costs? So the rise of these industrial scale computing facilities that are needed for AI and other internet applications. It's certainly one of the factors driving up prices. And I think there's a chance that AI is going to drive our bills even higher in the future. And there's a couple of reasons for that. One is that these facilities are using so much energy that utilities are building billions of dollars of infrastructure to support them.

and spreading those costs to all of us. And the second reason is that there are energy markets where utilities buy their power. And because demand from these AI energy centers is booming, it's driving up prices. And we're all paying those higher prices. And some regions are getting hit harder than others. The nationwide average increases around 6%

compared to as high as 14% in places like New Jersey and New York. What explains those disparities? Well, a lot of our electricity bill, increases are due to decisions being made by your local utility. Three out of four Americans receive electricity service from a for-profit company that makes money by investing in infrastructures such as power lines and other related assets. And so a lot of utilities have been replacing power lines on their aging systems and investing in new infrastructure and that's been driving up bills, but different utilities are making different investment decisions.

And that explains some of the disparity around the country. I'm sure there are people who will hear you say that, and they'll ask the question, shouldn't the tech companies that are profiting from these data centers and the AI advances, shouldn't they be the ones to fit the bill? Why are everyday Americans being forced to pay these higher costs? That's exactly the right question to be asking. But the business model of the utility industry for now more than 100 years has been to invest in their systems and then spread those costs for everyone.

That's always thought to be the fair approach to supporting our electricity system. And when you think about it in a lot of ways, that is fair. So, for example, if there's a storm in your neighborhood and a tree falls on a power line and the lights go out in your neighborhood, the utility comes to fix that, but it doesn't bill you and everyone in your neighborhood for that. Rather, it spreads the cost of those repairs to everybody. And that is seen to be fair because certainly you did nothing wrong when that tree falls down. And so that idea of spreading costs through everyone of when the utility needs to expand the system,

it doesn't just charge the new residences or new businesses that are joining the system. But again, it spreads those costs to everyone. We're in a bit of a new situation here when you have individual facilities, these data centers, that are using as much electricity as large cities. and they happen to be supporting the wealthiest corporations in the world. I think we need to revisit some of these fundamental assumptions behind how we share the costs of our power system. So much of this data center buildout is relatively new.

Should we be bracing for even higher prices in the years ahead, or are we already seeing the peak? I think it's certainly possible that the costs of this data center expansion are going to increase for everyone. And that's because this, you know, data centers have have been part of the backbone of our internet for some time now. But the size of these facilities has just so vastly expanded since the introduction of chat GPT just a few years ago

really kicked off this wave of, again, these city-sized data centers that we've never seen before. And many of them are still in development. So the costs of all the infrastructure and energy associated with them really haven't hit our bills just yet. And of course, the Trump administration is pushing coal, natural gas, power to meet the AI-driven demand while kind of moving away from renewable energy like wind and solar. Do you see that approach as addressing the core challenge posed by the rising

energy needs? No, I mean, it doesn't make any sense to take supply options off the table, and that's really what this administration is doing, particularly with wind energy. We really need every option we can to boost the amount of electricity if we're going to power of these new computing facilities. And as I said, demand is rising and that's causing prices to go up in many markets around the country. When demand goes up, you want to increase supply as well. And under basic economics, that's going to even out some of the prices. But it doesn't make any sense what they're doing. So higher bills are here to stay? That's certainly the trend that we're seeing right now. And all the trend lines are unfortunately pointing in the wrong direction

for consumers. So it would be nice to see, again, let's put more supply options on the table that will help alleviate some of the stress we're seeing. And in addition, we have to be able to get more juice out of our current system. We have to have the utility industry operated more efficiently. So rather than just building more and more and more, we're actually able to use what we have in a more efficient cost-effective manner. Ari Pesco, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School. Great to speak with you. Thank you. So much. Four years ago, this past Sunday, the last American soldier walked up the ramp of the last

departing military flight out of Kabul, ending nearly 20 years of the American war in Afghanistan. The U.S. also left thousands of Afghans behind who had worked with the United States and believed in the American-led war against the Taliban. Many of them are still left behind after the Trump administration suspended all relocation programs. Nick Schifrin spoke with two men still in Afghanistan about the fear they live with today and the dark memories from the Taliban takeover. Four years ago, a community forsaken.

Thousands of Afghans flooded Kabul airport, desperate to flee, and many, having worked with the U.S., begged American soldiers for a chance to keep their freedom. As the Taliban took back Afghanistan, and after two decades, the United States withdrew. That was very, very bad scenario for us, not only for my family. for all the Afghans, especially those who work with international India and for the U.S. During that time, we have to say we lost our hope. This is a man we'll call Mohamed, who's still in Afghanistan, and whose identity we are concealing and voice we are altering.

He was a humanitarian coordinator for more than 20 years. He worked with USAID, the UN, and others to promote women's rights, expand education, and bring together community leaders from across the country, to build peace. What were you trying to accomplish by helping the U.S. and the U.N. in Afghanistan? The United States tried to develop or increase democracy in Afghanistan

in human rights, especially rights for women and children. I tried to educate people, and that was my responsibility. It was a good chance for me to serve my people, my community, especially in remote areas where they had no access to anything, no education, no health services, no roads and no water. But Muhammad's help for his homeland nearly cost him his only son. He was kidnapped by the Taliban and tortured for nearly a month.

They said they would need $400,000 to release my son, which was not possible for me. Finally they accepted $60,000. I had to sell everything. I lost my house. I sold my car. Even after I received my son, they message me that you have no more rights to work with UN international NGOs, especially with U.S. projects. Otherwise, you will be killed, or we will kill your family.

It's very bad memory that I have. And my wife, after many years, she's not mentally okay. The family is not okay. Today, the threat they face is daily. When the Taliban took over, they released his son's torturers, who are now local commanders. This is the fourth house which I changed. During the four years, when me and my son go to the bazaar or market, we just put on masks and sunglasses to not be recognized by anyone.

Under Taliban rule life for Afghans who aided America has become a living nightmare. The Taliban administer their vengeance through torture, drowning this former member of the security forces. Shooting this former police chief. But America's Afghan allies have nowhere to go. Soon after inauguration, President Trump suspended the refugee admissions program. And in May, Secretary of Homeland Security, Christy Knoem, rescinded Afghan's temporary protected status, which allowed them to live in the U.S. for up to 18 months.

She said Afghanistan's conditions, quote, do not meet the requirements for a TPS designation and that Afghanistan has had an improved security situation. In late July, President Trump suggested he wanted to take care of only some Afghan refugees. What is America's debt to our Afghan war allies that kept our veterans safe over there? There's been some talk about setting a lot of them back. Would you let your administration do that? We know the good ones and we know the ones that maybe aren't so good. You know, some game over that aren't so good.

And we're going to take care of those people, the ones that did a job. We were so happy that he is the president of the United States. But he surprised everyone by what he did, you know, the executive orders put on suspension. A man will call Abdul is a former English teacher, including of girls. He worked with the U.S. Embassy and American Council for five years before the Taliban takeover. He'd been approved for a P-1 visa, designated for at-risk refugees, referred by U.S. government agencies and NGOs. He was just waiting for his medical check and flight when President Trump suspended the president. We're changing your voice. We're blurring your face. What's the risk that you face today?

Two options, detain or kill. If it's known that I was a person who worked with the U.S. Embassy and American Council, especially with the people of America, there is no justice. There is no court. They were just ordered their soldiers to check their aim and just shoot you in your head. I do not have a plan for now or for the future. That is the situation at this time in Afghanistan. An Afghanistan under the Taliban is one of tyranny and tribulation. Descent is met with public execution. Unemployment and inflation are high. And women have been silenced, barred from receiving an education or even participating in almost all aspects of public life.

Some of their homes are now their prisons. I no longer know what will be the future of us, the future of my students, who still didn't even complete their education. and these thoughts hits me hard so by the course of time even I feel depressed

why were we lived behind what crime did we commit we gave all of our ability we gave everything we had and now we are living in limbo we are living anonymously we are hiding in a corner of our home hiding and hopeless

four years later American allies and many Afghans have never felt more alone for the PBS News Hour I'm Nick Schifrin From today's from today's weaker than expected jobs report to the president rebranding the Pentagon, it's been another jam-packed week of news. For analysis, we turn now to the analysis of Brooks and Bowie. That's David Brooks and Jamel Bowie, both columnists at the New York Times.

Jonathan Capehart is away this evening. It's good to see you both. So as we reported, the August jobs report is out today, and the numbers are fairly bleak. The U.S. economy added just 22,000 jobs last month, well short of forecasts. The unemployment rate ticked up to its highest number in four years. A setback for President Trump, David, but it could, on the other hand, bolster his argument that the Fed should cut interest rates when it meets later this month. How do you see it?

Well, inflation is still over what the Fed wants. It's 2.9, and they set a target of two. they're in a bit of a pickle, and they might cut a little about 25 basis points, but it's hard to see them cutting a lot more because of the inflation threat. This is caused by, as Austin Goobbley sort of suggested earlier in the program, I think it's called by uncertainty about the tariffs, but then also the cuts in immigration. 2025 could be the first year in American history where America loses population. And immigrants, whether you like high immigration or don't, they're an economic boom to the country.

And if you take away all that labor, you're taking away a source of economic strength. One of the things that was more interesting about the report was that the number of manufacturing jobs lost last month was 12,000, and then breaks the total number of lost manufacturing jobs under the Trump administration of 78,000 people. That's not what he was promising when he's running. So he's really not helping. And finally, the most depressing thing for me, and the most concerning, is attitudes about what's happening.

The Wall Street Journal had a poll out earlier this week where they asked people, do you think there's a chance, any chance your living standard will go up? Only 25% of Americans say that. That's the lowest levels since 1986. Something weird has happened about people's view of the country and the economy. There's a way to predict how people will view the economy based on economic statistics. And up until COVID, the statistics and the consumer sentiment rose and fall together. After COVID, they're totally diverged.

The economic statistics look pretty good. But the people's view of the economy is cratering. And that's just a generalized loss of faith, the growth of pessimism. And Jamel, for the first time since 2012, there are now more unemployed Americans than job openings. What does that tell us about the direction of the labor market and how does it shape the larger political debate? Well, the labor market is clearly weakening.

And I think that it is something that is going to be a real challenge for the administration. It's, I think, important to recognize that Trump won re-election or won this second term on essentially an economic argument. I will lower the cost of goods and services. I will ensure prosperity. and he won narrowly on that basis. And if his term thus far has been characterized by job losses, by slowdowns, by rising inflation, by the exact opposite of what he promised, this, to me, signals that the administration and

the president's party is simply in trouble going in to the end of this year and the beginning of next year and the beginning of midterm elections. Say nothing of the upcoming elections in New Jersey and Virginia, where we'll start to get a sense of where the public stand. with regards to Republican governance. The president seizing on these jobs numbers to hammer the Fed and to hammer Democrats, how effective is that line of attack?

I think it probably pleases people to hammer the Fed. I mean, they're unelected. A lot of people don't like it. Republicans don't like it. But just to give Jerome Powell credit where it's due, never before in American history if we brought down inflation without recession. And he did it, along with the other Fed governors.

So I think what they've achieved over the last several years, to me, is kind of remarkable. But no president likes the Fed, because he wants the Fed to pump up the, or pump up or pump down interest rates, if you can pump down something, and in order to goose the economy for an election. But that's precisely why we have an independent fit. Right, right. Well, on that point, I mean, President Trump's nominee for the open Fed governor role,

Stephen Myron at his confirmation hearing this past week, said he wouldn't fully resign his position at the White House while filling this vacant seat on the Federal Reserve's board, if confirmed. So how troubling is this. dual role arrangement for the institutional independence of the Fed? I mean, I would call it very troubling. It's very clear that the president wants to undermine Fed independence and he's trying to do everything he can to make that happen. The accusations against Lisa Cook, the supposed firing of Cook is part of this. And I would consider this, another attack on Fed independence for exactly the reasons David described. He wants to lower

rates. He wants essentially be fed to act as a kind of backstop to his own, irresponsibility, set of economic policies with regards to tariffs and immigration. We'll say more about that, this notion that the president is treating independent economic bodies as tools of political strategy rather than tools of technocratic governance. Yeah, I mean, he's a personalist. He thinks the office of the presidency is not something that belongs to the American people, but it belongs to him. And this has been a pretty consistent theme, in fact, amazingly consistent theme throughout his entire administration. And we relied on the idea that some things are sacred, some things you just don't know, there are lines. We all have

these, like in journalism. We're not going to be journalists and also run for office as a Democrat and Republican. We're just not going to do that. There's a line. And the fact that they didn't, weren't intuitively, instinctively appalled by the idea of crossing that line shows that just the norm has gone away. As we reported earlier this evening, President Trump signed an executive order today renaming the Defense Department, the Department of War, his latest move to project military toughness. You can see the old sign there at the Pentagon coming down. Jamel, what does this rebranding suggest about, rather, how should we understand the symbolism behind all of this as we also look at the administration's policy and its approach using the military?

Yeah. Part of me wants to say that this is just kind of silly. I mean, first of all, the executive order specifically says you can call the Department of Defense Department of War as well if you want to, but officially it is still the Department of Defense, right? That's established by congressional statute. That's not something the president can kind of just change unilaterally. I suppose you can say that beyond whatever PR thing he's looking at, it's supposed to signal the return of as Secretary of Defense, I'm not going to call him Secretary of Four, Secretary of Defense beat Hagsef says maximum lethality. And I suppose it's demonstrated by the recent attack on the on the boat, allegedly, of Venezuelan drug dealers.

But as has emerged out of that, what we see are a lot of questions about the decision-making that went into that, about the legality of that strike. This recommitment to legality appears to also be kind of a PR thing. Like, I don't see anything strategic or interested in the national security interests of the United States. What I see here is a president who understands the entire world as a kind of television show, and Secretary of War sounds better for TV than Secretary of Defense. Do you see a through line here?

The rebranding of the Pentagon, the deadly strikes on this alleged drug-running boat off the coast of Venezuela without congressional approval, the president sending federal troops into L.A. and D.C. and threatening to do the same in Chicago. I mean, what's the story is the president trying to tell about himself and the power of the presidency? Yeah, I don't think it arises to TV. it's more call of duty. And, you know, the Pentagon was renamed in the late 40s. And the people who were there when it was renamed

were people like James Forrestall, who was Secretary of Defense, and then later George Marshall and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs was Omar Bradley, literally the guys who won World War II. And they did not have anything to prove about their machismo. And I found that the people I admire

who really have shown toughness in combat, men and women, they don't need to brag about it. They don't need to say Secretary of War. They're like, no, I'm not going to do that. You'll never hear one of them say, hey, let's lock and load. They just don't talk that way. And this crew, to go from George Marshall to Pete Hexeth, that's a long way. And, you know, I'm a conservative.

I believe government should be careful about assuming what it knows, because the world is really complicated. And sending a missile at some ship where you don't know what's on the ship, that's just foolish. It's killing people potentially. Absolutely. When you don't even know what they're doing. There's a reason we board ships because you want to have some evidence that you're actually going after drug dealers rather than whatever, some random 11 people on a boat. And so the targeting of ships using acts of war, what should be acts of law enforcement, really does cross a line to me. And the time that remains, I want to talk to you both about the New York mayor's race,

largely because the mayor, Eric Adams, said tonight that he is going to stay in the race and run for reelection. This is amid the reporting that the Trump administration has is considering nominating him to serve his ambassador to Saudi Arabia to prompt him to exit the mayoral race and consolidate the opposition to the Democratic socialist candidate Zohran Amdami, potentially benefiting Andrew Cuomo. Jamel, why is Donald Trump so invested in making sure that Andrew Cuomo is the next mayor of New York City? I think Donald Trump, first of all, if he could have had anything in his life, it might have been to be mayor of New York City. I think in a lot of ways he's a big city mayor that escaped containment. But I think he sees the elevation of Mamdani to the mayorship as just something he thinks is bad for New York.

I suppose he believes it bad for the country. He doesn't see it into political interest and wants to see an ally, Cuomo, who has given every indication that he would cooperate with the administration, especially with immigration enforcement, in the New York mayor's office. I think that the strategy here is probably misguided. Yorkers do not approve of Trump and giving Mamdani an opportunity to basically run against Trump, which is what Adam's dropping out would do, I think would only redound to Mamdani's benefit. It's striking. You've got a right-wing populist in Trump targeting a left-wing populist in

Mamdani in this political era that, as you so often say, is defined by the rise of populism. Yeah, though I do like sending people to ambassadorships to get them out of the way. This is a sacred tradition. I think FDR sent Joe Kennedy away. I think John F. Kennedy said Adelaide Stevenson. There was talk, I think, of sending Chris Christie during the first Trump. So, let's send him to Australia. So this is not the first time somebody has used an ambassadorship as an attempt to get rid of someone politically inconvenient. David Brooks, Jamal Bowie.

It's good to see you both. Have a great weekend. Thank you. spent much of his life fighting inequality. From humble beginnings in rural Texas, he went on to lead one of the nation's most powerful philanthropic institutions overseeing billions in funding to address some of the country's most pressing crises. Walker is now nearing the end of his tenure as president of the Ford Foundation and is out with a new book, called The Idea of America, reflections on inequality, democracy, and the values we share. And Darren Walker joins me now.

We should note as well that the Ford Foundation is a funder of PBS News. Darren, welcome back to the News Hour. Thanks for joining us. Delighted to be here. There are a number of themes throughout this collection of nearly 100 essays and speeches and other remarks you've made over the last 12 years. One is this idea of how you see the world and how you lead and that it's all deeply defined by where you come from. So tell me about how your beginnings came to define where you are now and how you see the world. world?

Well, this book is really a love letter to America, to the country that made possible my improbable journey. And a country like no other in the world where a boy born to a single mother in a charity hospital in rural Louisiana could grow up dreaming and believing that dreams, if I worked hard, if I could sacrifice, and if I had ambition and humility and held on to that dream, that indeed my American dream could become a reality, and that has happened. The idea of America, the title of my book, is among the most tested and contested words in American history. The idea of America meant many different things.

to our founding fathers. But they had a shared belief, a set of principles and values that they documented in our founding documents that today we need to be mindful of and return to as we grapple with the unprecedented levels of polarization that we see in our country today.

And as we speak, we should note America is also at a time of growing inequality. It's an equality you've worked hard to address over your time at the Ford Foundation. But you do write in one of your pieces in the book that this tension is plain to see. Our systems in America perpetuate vast differences in privilege and then task the privileged, all of us, with improving the systems that benefit us. So, Darren, what is the role of philanthropy in all of this? I mean, you write that it can't save America. So what should be the goal and the mission of philanthropy right now?

Well, I'm inspired by the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, who wrote about philanthropy the following. Philanthropy is commendable, but it should not allow the philanthropist to overlook the economic injustice, which makes philanthropy necessary. And so what Dr. King was calling us to was to examine our own culpability, our own complicity and engagement in creating some of the very challenges we seek through philanthropy to solve. And what I mean by that is looking at how our own behaviors, whether it's our investments,

whether it's our way we treat the climate, the environment, et cetera, how that contributes to some of the problems of poverty and inequality. You know, the reality of our country is that hope is the oxygen of democracy. We today, unfortunately, have a crisis of hope in America. Now is the time to roll up our sleeves and be committed to whatever our identities are. I am black. I am gay. Yes, those are my identities.

But the most important identity is that I am an American. And we Americans share a set of values. We have very different views about many things. But we, as our founding fathers, reminded us, we must share the values of consensus building, of engagement, of understanding that ultimately compromise is necessary for democracy to continue to sustain, to be vibrant. Darren, a lot of those goals feel very distant to people at a time of such deep divisions in America right now.

And your New Year's message in 2017, this was just weeks before Donald Trump was sworn into office for the first time, that message was titled, Let America Be America Again. And you talk about attention, as you write, between a sense that our times are dangerously unprecedented and a sense that while dangerous, they are all too familiar. So are we just repeating old cycles here? How do you see this? Well, there's no doubt that there are cycles of progress and regress in our history. But the one consistent theme in American history is that there have been patriots, people who love their country, who love this country.

Fannie Lou Hamer loved America, even though in her lifetime she knew that she would never see the justice that she hoped for. And yet she carried that flag across rural roads of Mississippi and Alabama to Washington, D.C. She believed in America, as Langston Hughes did in his great poem, Let America Be America Again, which begins with, let America be America again. America never was America to me. He is expressing his anger, his rage at being a black man who is marginalized in the 1930s. living in Harlem. And yet he ends the poem with the stanza, but oh, someday, America will be. He believed in America. And today, when some people feel hopeless and feel depressed,

I'm inspired because Langston Hughes and Fannie Lou Hamer and so many others call out to me to help this country, to do what I can, to contribute, to ensure. that the words in our founding documents, that inequality and justice for all is our North Star, that e pluribus unum is indeed possible. So yes, I may sound naive, but I love my country. I am not prepared to give up on America, and I hope others will join me in this pursuit.

Your message of radical hope is one I think many of us could use right now. That book is the idea of America, and the author is Darren Walker. Darren, thank you so much. Pleasure to speak with you. Thank you. The penny could soon be a thing of the past. President Trump is pushing to end production of the one-cent coin, citing its rising costs. Each penny costs nearly.

four cents to make, and scrapping it could save taxpayers about $56 million a year. And that raises the question, does it still make sense to keep minting them? Our Dima Zane has more. It's the latest step in the Trump administration's push to end the one-cent piece. For more on this fight, and what it could mean for you, we're now joined by John Feigenbaum, who runs Whitman Publishing, a leading producer of numismatic reference books and executive director of professional numismatist guild, an organization made up of the country's top rare coin

and collectible paper money dealers. John, welcome to the program. Thank you for having me. To jump in, I want to ask, how big of a deal is this? You know, it's a huge deal that we're finally, you know, coming to an end with the United States sent. It's an amazing time in collecting for us

and in the whole numismatic community. And we've been waiting for this shoe to drop, actually, I have for a long time. So in 2006, the penny became more expensive to make than its value. Can you talk a little bit about how that stands today? Yeah, I think the last time we checked, it cost 3.7 cents to make a 1 cent penny. So as you can see, every time you make a coin, you lose money, which is really a bad situation for any manufacturing facility, which is what the United States meant really is

at the end of the day. And talking about how much money that is, how big of savings is this really going to to be. Well, it's substantial. And, you know, I think it would be really exciting if we shifted the production from, let's say, the penny to a $5 coin, for example, which I think is much more practical in the current time. Let's buy a cup of coffee with a coin rather than what can we do with a penny? I don't know. I don't pick them up anymore. The nickel costs 13.8 cents to produce. That's a 5-cent nickel. So do we see that other coins could be next on the chopping block? You know, I would suspect that practical minds would prevail in that regard.

And I think the nickel is probably in the same department where it should be reconsidered whether we keep making them. You know, again, it's the whole, do I pick this up off the street kind of mentality? Does it pass that test? So what are some of them the potential downstream consequences that we may see as a result of getting rid of the penny? Well, I mean, the common argument against getting rid of the penny has traditionally been. that this hurts low-income families and things like that. And it's certainly something that we should be very sensitive about. But the practical remedy is to round up to the nearest, right now, the nickel.

I just think it's a better use of the government's time and energies to make a more valuable coin that you could buy a cup of coffee or a sandwich. What's going to happen with those pennies that are circulating now? Well, there is nothing short of billions of these pennies in circulation, sitting in jars and all over this country and in the world. So the pennies are still, you know, are still legal tender. So you don't have to rush to the bank to get rid of them. You can hold on to them.

They'll still always be worth one penny and perhaps they'll be worth more if collectors get super interested in the hobby. But they're always going to be worth a penny. So I think that people will find interest in this. I mean, you've invited me here to your show, which is just, I can't tell you, is wonderful. And I hope that this sparks an interest in our hobby. John Feigenbaum, thank you so much for joining us today.

Well, thank you for having me. Be sure to watch Washington Week with The Atlantic tonight here on PBS. Jeffrey Goldberg and his panel discussed President Trump's rebrand of the Defense Department and the fallout from Secretary Kennedy's heated Senate hearing. And watch PBS News Weekend. tomorrow for a look at the Trump administration's plans to eliminate the federal agency that investigates chemical disasters. And that is the News Hour for tonight. I'm Omna Nawaz. And I'm Jeff Bennett. For all of us here at the PBS NewsHour, thanks for spending part of your

evening with us. Have a great weekend.