June 21, 2024 - PBS NewsHour full episode

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening.

I'm William Brangham.

Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett are away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law that prohibits domestic violence abusers from owning guns.

We take a closer look at the political fund-raising after the Biden and Trump campaigns receive multimillion dollar donations from billionaires.

And following Prime Minister Modi's securing a third term in office, Muslims in India continue to face discrimination and hate.

AFZAL, 10 Years Old (through translator): We felt terrible.

We wondered why they're demolishing our mosque in school.

It didn't do any harm to anyone.

They told me: "This is not your school.

This is the government's land now. "

(BREAK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Welcome to the "News Hour."

The Supreme Court today handed down a major victory for gun control advocates, ruling that domestic violence abusers can be barred from owning guns.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the federal law that makes it illegal for people with domestic violence restraining orders to possess firearms.

Joining us now is our Supreme Court analyst, Marcia Coyle.

Marcia, so nice to see you, as always.

So this, again, major Second Amendment decision, 8-to-1, but a lot of writing today.

Seven justices felt they needed to weigh in on this, writing on this.

Remind us what this case was all about and what the court ruled.

MARCIA COYLE: OK. Well, Mr. Rahimi was the person who challenged the federal law, the federal ban.

And he had a domestic violence restraining order against him.

He was a pretty bad actor, William, to be honest with you.

I mean, he physically assaulted his girlfriend, threatened her and his child that they had.

He shot off his gun on different occasions, despite the restraining order, and in different places as well.

His challenge went all the way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

That court ruled in his favor and struck down the federal law after applying the test that the Supreme Court announced in 2022 in a case that we call Bruen, had to do with New York's open carry laws.

And that test is whether the gun regulation being challenged, whether there is a tradition, a history of gun regulation prior to 1900 that would support the current law.

The Fifth Circuit said, nope, we couldn't find anything.

So they struck it down.

The Biden administration brought the case to the Supreme Court.

And, today, the majority said, sorry, but we found there was historical support for this law and pointed to two different sets of laws that could have principles, the chief justice said, that support the principle behind the - - or undergirding the federal law.

What was pretty important, William, here is that the chief said that the Bruen decision never meant that the law was trapped in amber, an interesting sort of metaphor, that really, instead of looking for an historical twin to the current law, you look at principles, historical principles, that could support the current regulation being challenged.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The one dissenter today was Justice Clarence Thomas, and he is the one who authored that Bruen decision.

And I want to read a little bit of what he wrote in his dissent today.

He wrote: "The question of whether the government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order, even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime, it cannot.

The court and government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen's Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence. "

So it seems like that he is in direct opposition with the chief justice here.

Does this chip away in some way at the strictures that Bruen had set up?

MARCIA COYLE: I think, in a way, William, it softens, maybe clarifies a little bit the Second Amendment tests for the lower court judges, and those judges have been pretty critical of the Thomas tests.

They have complained that they're not historians.

They don't have the time, the resources to do the historical research that's required.

So I think, when the chief sort of emphasized looking at principles, historical principles, it gives them a little more room.

Even Justice Barrett, in her concurring opinion, had mentioned that historical regulations reveal principles, not molds.

So I think there is a little softening here, but I have to tell you, honestly, that I think this conservative majority is still quite strongly in favor of the history and tradition test that they announced in Bruen.

And it's very clear that the liberals, even Justice Jackson now, who was not on the bench at the time of Bruen, made clear that they do not like this test at all, that they don't feel it's responsive to current needs.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I want to ask you a little bit about the impact that this might have on lower courts.

Earlier, today we spoke to Gloria Terry.

She is the CEO of the Texas Council on Family Violence.

This is a group that works with domestic violence survivors.

And she described tears of joy and relief when this ruling came down.

Here's a little bit of what she had to say.

GLORIA AGUILERA TERRY, CEO, Texas Council on Family Violence: This ruling is exactly what the advocacy field and the thousands of survivors across the country needed to hear, that their lives matter more than the ability of somebody who has lost that privilege to own a firearm.

It sends waves of relief.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Marcia, you mentioned what this might mean for the Supreme Court.

Do you have any sense as to whether this ruling then also ripples down into lower courts when they hear other potential gun control challenges?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, I'm quite sure the judges will be looking at this ruling and attempting to apply it.

And there are many gun challenges coming.

In fact, there are still some pending in the U.S. Supreme Court, but very -- all different kinds of gun challenges.

And the bump stock case we had just last week, that wasn't even a Second Amendment challenge.

But I think there are many Second Amendment challenges coming and that guns, pretty much, in a sense, like abortion, are going to continue to come to the Supreme Court.

And we will have to wait and see how this Supreme Court, after the opinion today, is going to apply it to those challenges.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And lastly, Marcia, we know next week is the Supreme Court's last week, but they certainly have a big backlog of major, major cases.

What's the one you're really looking for, one or two for next week?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, I'm sure, like many people, I'm very interested in what they're going to say about former President Donald Trump's claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

That's probably at the top of many people's lists.

And, also, I think there's a major abortion case and also two very important social media First Amendment cases.

So you're right, William.

There's quite a bit still left over, and the tradition has been to finish it up by the end of June.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It gives me a strong suspicion that we are going to see you again next week.

Marcia Coyle, as always, wonderful to see you.

Thank you.

MARCIA COYLE: My pleasure.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In the day's other headlines: Health officials and emergency workers in Gaza say that Israeli airstrikes on camps near Rafah have killed at least 25 people; 50 others were injured.

It's just the latest attack on Southern Gaza, where hundreds of thousands have sought shelter from the ongoing fighting.

For its part, Israel's military released video of its continued ground offensive against Hamas.

Meantime, in Lebanon, recent Israeli airstrikes have left southern border towns in ruins.

Near-daily exchanges of fire between Israel and Hezbollah prompted the U.N. chief to issue a stark warning.

ANTONIO GUTERRES, United Nations Secretary-General: One rash move, one miscalculation could trigger a catastrophe that goes far beyond the border and, frankly, beyond imagination.

Let's be clear.

The people of the region and the people of the world cannot afford Lebanon to become another Gaza.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Also today, Armenia became the latest country to officially recognize Palestinian statehood despite opposition from Israel.

Roughly three-quarters of the 193 U.N. member nations have done so.

State media in China is reporting that at least 47 people have died amid catastrophic flooding and landslides in the south of the country.

A week of downpours has walloped Guangdong Province.

One area saw more than 14 inches of rain in just a single day.

State television showed a riverside village completely inundated by floodwaters.

In the neighboring Guangxi province, rescuers deployed to a major city after a river there rose nearly 12 feet above its flood warning line.

More extreme weather is forecast for other parts of the country.

This week's record-setting heat is set to carry into the weekend across much of the U.S.; 90 million Americans were under heat alerts today from California to the Rockies and from the Midwest through the Ohio Valley.

A day earlier, temperature records were topped across New England.

The sweltering heat will ratchet up in the mid-Atlantic and the Gulf Coast this weekend, where heat indices may rise into the 100s.

The European Union has officially set a date to begin membership talks for Ukraine and Moldova.

Negotiations will begin on Tuesday in Luxembourg, but the full process could take years or even decades.

Meantime, Russia says it's shot down more than 114 Ukrainian drones overnight.

Ukraine claims to have hit three oil refineries and a drone launch site in Southern Russia.

Today, President Putin said Russia would prioritize military production, including its nuclear program.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russian President (through translator): We plan to further develop the nuclear triad as a guarantee of strategic deterrence and to preserve the balance of power in the world.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Those comments come as South Korea summoned Russia's ambassador to protest Moscow's new defense pact with North Korea.

This week, Putin and Kim Jong-un agreed that their nations would defend each other if either is attacked.

In Nevada, a judge dismissed the charges today in a fake electors case against six Republicans.

They were accused of submitting so-called fake elector certificates to Congress that falsely declared Donald Trump had won the state in the 2020 election.

The judge said the case should have been brought in a venue that was closer to where the alleged crimes took place.

Afterward, Nevada's Democratic attorney general told reporters -- quote -- "The judge got it wrong and we will be appealing immediately."

But defense attorneys say the case is dead since the statute of limitations for filing charges expired back in December.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first menthol-flavored electronic cigarettes for adult smokers.

All e-cigarettes previously authorized by the FDA have been tobacco-flavored.

The decision applies to four menthol products by the vaping brand NJOY, which was recently acquired by Marlboro maker Altria.

It lends new credibility to claims by vaping companies that their products can help blunt the toll of traditional smoking, but parents groups and anti-tobacco advocates criticize the decision.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, has approved new measures to handle misconduct.

In a statement, the agency said two independent offices will hear - - quote -- "claims of harassment, discrimination, other interpersonal misconduct and retaliation following feedback from FDIC employees."

This comes after a scathing workplace investigation that prompted the chairman of the board, Martin Gruenberg, to announce last month that he would resign.

It was a quiet close to the week on Wall Street.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained just 15 points to close at 39150.

The Nasdaq slipped by 32 points.

The S&P 500 also ended slightly lower.

And the celebratory duckboats were back out in force in Boston today.

Fans flooded the streets of Beantown to honor the Celtics for their record-setting 18th NBA championship.

Celtics star Jayson Tatum hoisted the Larry O'Brien Trophy to cheers from the crowd.

The traditional duckboat parade has become a familiar sight in Boston because the city's many teams have won 13 titles already this century.

Still to come on the "News Hour": amid growing scrutiny, British journalist Robert Winnett reverses course and backs out as The Washington Post's next top editor; David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart break down the latest political headlines; and recommendations on what movies to watch this summer.

The 2024 campaign was already shaping up to be the most expensive election of all time.

But now several high-profile billionaires are dumping massive amounts of money into the presidential race.

Laura Barron-Lopez has the details of who these donors are and what their impact might be.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Thanks, William.

New reporting shows two notable donations.

Businessman Timothy Mellon gave $50 million to a Donald Trump-aligned super PAC the day after the former president was convicted of 34 felonies.

And former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who challenged Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination in 2020, is spending $20 million to help the president's reelection effort.

The campaigns themselves are reporting huge fund-raising hauls as well.

In May, the Biden team raised $85 million, but was outshadowed by the Trump team, which reported raising $141 million.

Let's explore where the money is coming from and where it's being spent with Anna Massoglia, editorial and investigations manager at OpenSecrets.

Anna, thanks so much for being here.

ANNA MASSOGLIA, Editorial and Investigations Manager, OpenSecrets: Thank you so much for having me.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: The contributions from megadonors like Mike Bloomberg and Timothy Mellon are eye-popping.

How unusual are these donations and what do you think it'll do for the campaigns?

ANNA MASSOGLIA: Well, multimillion-dollar donations to super PACs are becoming run-of-the-mill at this point.

But the size of these donations and the sources, in particular in the case of Mellon, where we have not seen a donation this large coming from him, and it being such a huge donation compared to others, it's one of the largest donations that we have seen, really stick out.

With Mike Bloomberg, he has a long history of giving, of funding his own presidential campaign, so it is to be expected that he would give money to Joe Biden or to a super PAC supporting him.

But when it comes to Timothy Mellon, his influence is much newer, and we are just now starting to really see what the full capacity of that influence is.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Yes, as you said, a lot of people know who Mike Bloomberg is.

They don't really know who Timothy Mellon is.

Who is he, and how much of a big deal do you think it is that he's contributing to Trump at this point?

ANNA MASSOGLIA: It's significant.

Mellon is also given to a super PAC supporting Kennedy, as well as now to Trump, which really plays into the complicated dynamics of the Kennedy campaign's influence on the two main candidates.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: To RFK Jr. ANNA MASSOGLIA: Yes, that's correct.

And one of the things that's noteworthy is, also, this is not money going directly to the Trump campaign.

This is going to a super PAC supporting him, MAGA Inc., which is the main super PAC aligned with the Trump campaign run by Trump allies.

One of the big differences there is that super PACs can raise and spend unlimited sums, unlike campaigns which are limited with how much they're able to bring in from one specific individual.

And the super PAC really opens the door for more billionaires to be able to pour money in to influence the elections.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So we know how much these billionaires are spending because it had to be disclosed, but what about the impact of money with murkier origins, so-called dark money?

How prevalent is that this year?

ANNA MASSOGLIA: Dark money is pouring into U.S. elections.

One of the new ways that we are tracking at OpenSecrets is dark money contributions to super PACs.

While super PACs, as I mentioned, have to disclose the origin of their funding who's donating to them, they can just disclose dark money groups, 501(c) groups that are not technically political committees, so they don't have to disclose the ultimate source of funding.

They may disclose shell companies.

And so even though the super PAC is following the letter of the law by disclosing who is giving the money to them, they are able to skirt the disclosure requirement because the ultimate funder is not known.

And that is something that we're seeing on track for a new record this cycle with money pouring into super PACs from dark money groups.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: President Biden had a big cash week this week.

He brought in $30 million at a Hollywood fund-raiser.

That was the single biggest cash haul at a single event for the Democratic Party, broke a record there.

But we're seeing that President Biden's cash advantage is slipping away and that Donald Trump is starting to catch up.

What -- how significant is that?

Is it going to have a long-term impact?

ANNA MASSOGLIA: We're certainly seeing the tables turn where, for several months, Biden was outraising Trump, had a larger cash reserve.

And just these last two months, we're really starting to see Trump catching up and this month actually exceeding what Biden had raised, and especially Trump and the RNC compared to Biden and the DNC, which is another important dynamic, not just for the campaigns, but also for the parties, since that influences a number of other candidacies.

And the money that's flowing in now, it depends how it's used.

A big expense that Donald Trump has that Joe Biden does not would be legal fees.

And so much of his money is being burned through for legal fees, whereas Biden is able to devote so much more funding to things like media and outreach and staffing, expenses that Trump still has, but has less funding overall for when you count the legal fees.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: How much money is going into the organizations like Heritage Foundation that is establishing Project 2025, which is this blueprint for a second Trump term?

ANNA MASSOGLIA: One of the issues with outside groups such as 501(c) nonprofits is that they aren't expressly political, so they aren't legally required to disclose their fund-raising to the Federal Election Commission, who their donors are, or even details of their spending, as long as they aren't expressly advocating for a candidate.

And so with the case of The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action, it's a 501(c)(3) and a (c)(4), so they - - we won't know anything about their finances that's substantial for this year until their next tax return is due.

And, even then, we won't know who's funding these efforts, and very few details about how their spending is.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Anna Massoglia of OpenSecrets, thank you for your reporting.

ANNA MASSOGLIA: Thank you for having me.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Turbulence is swirling in the top rungs of one of the nation's leading media outlets.

The Washington Post is again looking for an editor in chief, after the British journalist who was set to take that position just withdrew.

This comes after a year marked by staff cuts at The Post, a high-profile resignation, and mounting red ink that totaled in the millions.

Lisa Desjardins has more on it all and why it matters outside the D.C. Beltway.

LISA DESJARDINS: The latest issue surrounds Robert Winnett, a British journalist who was to take over as the paper's top editor in November.

Over the weekend, The Post and The New York Times published stories tying Winnett to multiple instances of using practices in the U.K. seen as unethical in this country, including fraudulently obtaining phone and other data.

Today, The Post announced he is out.

Winnett was handpicked by the paper's new publisher and CEO, William Lewis, who is also a British journalist and is also facing scrutiny and calls to resign.

For more, we're joined by Margaret Sullivan, executive director for Columbia Journalism School's Newmark Center and a former columnist with The Post.

To help our audience, I want to lay out what's been reported about Robert Winnett.

He is a longtime investigative journalist.

Now, The Post found a former source had written that Winnett helped cover up some clandestine activity, and The Post looked at his past stories and found that he may have used illegal means in his reporting as well.

Now, Winnett has not responded publicly to these stories and allegations.

As he is out and the publisher, his mentor, facing the same scrutiny, is still in, both of these men have long journalistic records.

Are these transgressions enough to say they should not be leading The Post?

MARGARET SULLIVAN, Former Columnist, The Washington Post: Well, Lisa, I think what we see is a history of prominent journalism.

I think some of the practices that they have used, both Winnett and Lewis, have been things that maybe they fly in the U.K., but they actually run pretty counter to the ethics and standards of the -- of sort of big journalism in the United States.

So, these are things that The New York Times and The Washington Post would not do, for example, paying for a scoop, working with a source who has stolen material.

These kinds of things, which have come out in recent days, are just practices that, again, maybe they're kind of OK in tabloid journalism in the U.K., but they really seem to us to be very dicey.

LISA DESJARDINS: This is a statement about journalism in the United States, but also The Washington Post.

But I want to ask you, why does it matter to folks outside of the D.C. Beltway who was running the newsroom at The Washington Post?

MARGARET SULLIVAN: Well, The Washington Post is one of the most important news organizations in the nation and really in the world.

So, and it has, as I think people may remember, a really strong history of holding powerful people and institutions accountable, most notably during the 1970s, when it broke the Watergate story and helped to unseat a corrupt president in Richard Nixon.

But even in many cases since then, the kind of journalism that The Washington Post does, kind of investigative work it does, has been extremely important and has resonated through all of the media ecosystem and has made a difference in our country.

So it's not just one newsroom who cares.

It really goes far beyond that.

LISA DESJARDINS: We have seen billionaires have increasing influence directly on media.

That includes Jeff Bezos, of course, the Amazon founder, owner of The Post.

What does this say about his leadership there?

He said he wanted an ethical paper for the next kind of dawn of journalism.

MARGARET SULLIVAN: I think that Bezos has been a good owner for The Post.

When he took over, when he bought The Post for a bargain price of $250 million back in 2013, he -- Don Graham, who -- the Graham family had owned The Post for a long time, told him, the paper is going to scrutinize you and it's going to scrutinize Amazon and you need to be OK with that.

And Bezos has really done that.

He has not interfered in the editorial product.

He hasn't messed with the newsroom and he has tolerated The Post's own reporting on him.

And he's really celebrated The Journalism at The Post and been a supportive and good owner.

So now the question is, what -- which Washington Post does he want to be the owner of, the one that he bought or something else that is -- seems to be on the horizon right now?

LISA DESJARDINS: Your last column with The Post was a warning and a clarion call to journalists about the 2024 election year.

The stakes, again, are so high.

How did you think journalism is situated right now to deal with this strange, let me call it, election that we're facing?

MARGARET SULLIVAN: I think journalists have learned a lot since the mistakes of 2016, when they really didn't see Donald Trump coming entirely, and they have self-corrected somewhat.

But I think what needs to happen is for journalists to emphasize, as my friend and colleague Jay Rosen says, not the odds, but the stakes, in other words, not the horse race or the polls or who's up and who's down, but what are the consequences of this election?

And so I would like to see newsrooms really stress that in the months ahead, because American voters need to go to the voting booth knowing exactly what's at stake.

LISA DESJARDINS: Margaret Sullivan, thank you so much.

MARGARET SULLIVAN: You're welcome.

Thanks.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This morning's Supreme Court ruling marks a major moment for a country divided over access to guns.

On that and more, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Gentleman, happy Friday.

So nice to see you both.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hey, William.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jonathan, about this - - the Rahimi case that I mentioned, this marks really the first time that the court has affirmed a gun control measure after a very long stretch of moving in the opposite direction.

What are your takeaways of this?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, this is one of those cases where a sigh of relief, I think, could be heard throughout the country, especially for a court where people have been so geared up waiting for the worst, waiting for the worst decisions to come out.

And on this one, in particular, especially after the Heller decision from, I think, it was 2022, which decimated New York City's gun safety laws, the idea that people actually thought the United States Supreme Court would say, it's OK to be a domestic abuser and keep your gun, the fact that people thought that was a possibility shows you just how far the court has swung to the right and how low, in terms of esteem, lots of people hold the court.

But the court made the right decision.

And, clearly, it was one, at an 8-1 decision, right, it was -- clearly, it was the right thing to do morally, but also the right thing to do legally.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Heller decision that Jonathan mentions, that was justice Antonin Scalia, a devoted gun rights activist, who said, yes, there is -- the Second Amendment confers a right to own a gun.

But he also said in that ruling that governments can put these restrictions in place, and the court seemed to echo that today.

I mean, do you think that this opens the door, that the court could be more open to this kind of thing going forward?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, so if you're a Martian, you land and you think, oh, the United States has decided not to allow people who beat their partners, throw them under the windshields of cars, shoot into houses, we're not going to allow that person to have a gun, you think, is this a hard call?

Like... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

Right.

DAVID BROOKS: It's astonishing to me that this is even a case, and it shows how far we have gone.

I don't know if the court will go further back.

I'm a little disturbed by the larger precedent that they're arguing over the historical pattern.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

This is the Bruen decision that Thomas enshrined.

DAVID BROOKS: Right.

And so there are a lot of historical patterns that I don't really like.

(LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: Agreed.

DAVID BROOKS: And you might agree.

And so to say that the status quo has a preference is like -- seems to me like stare decisis on stilts.

And would they have said that before the Dobbs decision?

Oh, well, there's a historical pattern, and there's been an abortion -- right to abortion, we're going to go with the historical pattern?

It just seems to me it's biasing the court toward whatever is.

And that's just really not for the court to decide.

It's whether it was lawful.

I get that.

But whatever is?

That seems to be stepping beyond the bounds.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Yes, I mean, even the idea that there was pre-1900 the idea of spousal abuse, that a man could -- I mean, the laws about this did not exist.

Anyway, let's turn to immigration.

This week we saw President Biden issue this executive order that allowed some undocumented spouses and children of U.S. citizens to get a faster track to stay here in this country.

Separate from what you think about this politically, Jonathan.

Does this feel like smart, sane policy to you?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: In absence of congressional action, yes.

What we're talking about are families that I call status-discordant, where one is here either fully naturalized or green card or something, and someone else in the family or multiple people in the family are here as undocumented.

The level of insecurity, instability, fear that runs through that household is immeasurable.

But, also, we have to remember that those households, they're contributing to their communities.

They're working.

They're going to school.

They're every much a part of the American fabric as if they were full-on citizens.

And so, in absence of any kind of congressional action, I think it's right that the president moved to bring them fully legally into the fold.

It would be great if Congress were functioning and rational and able to have a nice, substantive, rational debate where you could come up a terrific comprehensive immigration bill that would fold all these folks in.

But I remember, when President Obama was in the White House, the Senate passed a terrific immigration bill, and Speaker John Boehner just sat on it.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if Speaker Boehner hadn't... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And same thing recently... JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM:... where Congress, Republicans and Democrats got together, and President Trump picked up the phone and said, kill it.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Kill it.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And it died.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you think that this helps offset, David, some of the concerns that Democrats and immigrants rights activists had for President Biden's previous executive order that really closed off asylum seekers' access?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I went to Jonathan on the status of this thing.

It just doesn't seem right to break up families.

If an American marries you, I think you should pretty much count as an American.

So -- but as for the politics of this, I just think the president is looking reactive.

It looked like we're way behind in the polls, we have got to be tough on the border.

So a couple of weeks ago, he's tough on the border.

And then all the activist groups are upset with us and probably a lot of the junior staff is upset.

And so now we got to faint this way.

And, to me, it's just -- set aside the substance of it.

The politics of it, I think, are self-destructive, that the immigration issue is one of the top issues in the world today.

And you just have to have a simple rule.

I believe in immigration, we're going to control the border.

That has to be it.

And the British Labor Party is hitting the British Conservative Party from the right on this issue.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: And so that's to me where Biden has - - his job is to get reelected right now.

And so, to me, it's simple, secure border, secure border, secure border.

And I would not muddy that message.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We have seen from President - - former President Trump some rather strange mixed messaging on this.

He has both said, I'm going to round up everybody.

I see you're already starting to smile.

You can't control yourself here.

(LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: Finish your question, William.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You know what I'm going to say, that he said, I'm going to round up millions of people and throw them out of the country.

And then just this past few days, he floats the idea of green cards for everyone who's here illegally to -- who graduates from college.

What is going on there?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, if I understand it, is, if you are going to one of the elite universities, or even not an elite university, but you're in school and you graduate, you should automatically get a green card with your diploma.

Buckle up, America, because he's correct.

(LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: He is absolutely right.

It doesn't make sense that you get all of this talent coming in, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, and then they graduate and then they have to leave?

Donald Trump is right.

But, but I don't believe him for one minute, for one minute.

He made the same promise when he was president, did nothing about it, and was draconian in his immigration views and policies.

So I don't believe that he is actually going to do this.

And I would love it if it -- at the debate on Thursday if they ask him about that and see if he sticks with it, because I doubt - - I don't believe -- I do not believe him.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you believe him?

DAVID BROOKS: I sort of believe him.

(CROSSTALK) JONATHAN CAPEHART: Oh, come on.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Because it feels like, as Jonathan is saying, common sense that, if you're educated here, like, be an American.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, that's not why I believe him, because it's common sense.

(LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: I believe him because he's a business executive.

He was in conversation at that moment with two tech executives.

And that's their number one issue.

And so he's, A, an executive.

Immigration is good for business.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: B... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Educate them, put them into the work force.

DAVID BROOKS: B, he's talking -- he's a politician, even though he pretends not to be, and he's saying the things that will make the people -- the rich guys he's talking to as happy as it's possible to be.

Third, I observe the phenomenon that MAGA has moved a lot in the last three or four years further to the right, way further to the right than it was and way further to the right than Donald Trump is.

And that's true on abortion.

That's true on immigration.

That's true on a range of issues.

So he is now looking a lot more flexible on all sorts of issues than his movement.

And I think this is a pattern we're going to see.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I -- one additional thing.

Let's say he actually tries to follow through.

I would like to know, from where?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: From which universities, you mean?

(CROSSTALK) JONATHAN CAPEHART: No, no, no.

From which countries?

Because I wouldn't put it past Donald Trump saying, if you're from Asia, South East Asia, no, you can't.

You're not a part of this.

If you're from Africa, no, you're not a part of this.

If you're from Latin America, no, you're not a part of this.

This does not apply to you.

There's lots of evidence, lots of audio, lots of stories about how Donald Trump feels about countries that are not European, and specifically Northern Europe.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lastly, Jonathan, you mentioned this debate.

David, I'm curious what you think.

There are a lot of Democrats who are openly worried about how President Biden is going to perform in this debate with Donald Trump.

Van Jones, the political commentator on CNN, the other day said, if Biden blows it, it is game over.

How substantive, how important is this debate?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think it's a much bigger risk for Biden.

Yes, I agree.

I don't know if it's game over, but the rumblings to replace him would be massive.

And I think maybe they could still try to do that.

But so Biden really is laying it all on the line.

Having said that, I understood why Biden wanted to debate this early.

I think he needs a momentum shift more than Trump does.

And I'm a little surprised that Trump went with all the rules that he went with, like cutting off the microphones when it's not your turn.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: Donald Trump's M.O.

is interruption.

And so I'm sure, during the debate, he will actually be shouting at Donald -- Joe Biden, but he will just see his mouth moving, I guess.

Maybe we won't even -- we will hear a little through Biden's microphone.

So I'm a little surprised that Trump agreed to do this, because he's got some costs here too.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, all along, he's just said, I will debate you anywhere.

I will meet you in the street corner and I will do it.

So, anyway, something we will all be watching for next week.

David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, great to see you both.

Thank you.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, William.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This month, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi secured a third term, but his party lost its majority in Parliament.

Modi portrays himself as the strong leader of a rising India, but his 10 years in office have been marked by a fierce crackdown on dissent on millions of Indian citizens who belong to ethnic and religious minorities.

Producer Zeba Warsi traveled across Northern India to report on the impact on India's Muslims.

ZEBA WARSI: Nestled in Northern India, Ghatmika is a Muslim-majority village where the roads are dusty, crumbling walls are patched with sun-baked bricks, and the memories are searing.

Last year, this forgotten hamlet suffered the unforgettable.

SAJIDA, Wife of Junaid (through translator): I couldn't believe it, but I had to come to my senses.

I had no choice.

We never thought something like this could happen to us.

We spoke to Sajida about her husband, Junaid, and his friend, Nasir, killed by Hindu extremists last year, their car torched, their bodies burnt.

Junaid and Sajida raised six children.

That's their eldest, 13-year-old Parvana with their youngest, 4-year-old Varfaan (ph).

Parvana seemed sick, depressed, and wouldn't speak much.

Her mother told us she's been like this since her father's murder.

SAJIDA (through translator): She has never recovered since her father was killed.

We are trying to get her treatment.

She had an attack after her father's death.

ZEBA WARSI: She truly never recovered.

Just weeks after we met her, Parvana died.

It's not clear how.

The family blames heartbreak.

The whole family is heartbroken.

Junaid's cousin Ismail visits this grave site often.

The two men were so brutally beaten and burned, their remains were beyond recognition.

So each gravestone bears both names.

ISMAIL, Cousin of Junaid (through translator): To this day, people fear.

The way in which Junaid and Nasir were abducted in broad daylight, people are still scared.

ZEBA WARSI: And people don't trust the police, who turned Junaid and Nasir away after they had been abducted, but before a mob burned them alive.

ISMAIL (through translator): How could the police just send them away when they saw these men around the verge of dying?

Had the police done its job and helped them, and had they arrested those who beat them up, instead of letting them take them away, Junaid and Nasir would have been alive today.

ZEBA WARSI: Why do you think your husband was targeted?

SAJIDA (through translator): Because he was Muslim.

He had no enemies, nothing.

Only because he was a Muslim.

ZEBA WARSI: Junaid and Nasir's alleged killers belong to Bajrang Dal, a far right Hindu extremist group which the U.S. once labeled a militant religious organization.

They attack Muslim men for allegedly smuggling and killing cows, considered sacred by many Hindus.

During Prime Minister Narendra Modi's tenure, India has seen rising anti-Muslim violence by self-styled vigilantes.

Videos like these of Muslim, Christian and other religious minorities being beaten are all too common.

Human Rights Watch reported, in recent years, dozens of Muslim men have been killed and hundreds injured in hate crimes.

The prime suspect in Junaid and Nasir's case is this man, Monu Manesar, a local Hindu right leader often seen with assault rifles.

He used to upload videos of his own crimes against Muslims on social media.

He has also been seen in the company of top government ministers, including Modi's right-hand man, India's home minister, Amit Shah.

Months after Junaid and Nasir's murder, he called for a provocative Hindu right rally in the same state where they were killed.

The rally turned violent, as Hindus and Muslims fought.

At least six people were killed, a mosque was burnt, and its young imam stabbed over a dozen times.

The "News Hour" 's questions for local government officials and requests for an interview went unanswered.

In the days after, the state government led by Modi's party launched a crackdown not against the suspects, but against their victims.

This used to be a bustling cluster of Muslim-owned shops, businesses and homes that have now been reduced to rubble by Indian authorities.

The government says it was targeting illegal construction.

But activists and civil society experts say that this is part of a larger trend and that India's Hindu right government has weaponized demolishment of Muslim properties as a mode of collective punishment and to instill fear in the community.

MILAN VAISHNAV, South Asia Program Director, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: There are many things which are legally built in India, but the idea that it is just these particular habitations as being targeted is, I think, symptomatic of the broader issue of essentially minorities being targeted because of their beliefs.

ZEBA WARSI: Milan Vaishnav is the director of the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He said Modi's government has condoned violence against India's religious minorities.

MILAN VAISHNAV: The state is sort of giving or granting a broad permission structure, under which these groups are allowed to act with impunity.

ZEBA WARSI: Last year, at the White House, next to President Biden, when he was asked about anti-Muslim discrimination, Modi issued a strong denial.

NARENDRA MODI, Indian Prime Minister (through translator): Democracy is in our DNA.

We have always proved that democracy can deliver.

And when I said deliver, this is regardless of caste, creed, religion, gender.

There's absolutely no space for discrimination.

ZEBA WARSI: But Modi's election campaign was filled with anti-Muslim hate speech.

He referred to India's 200 million Muslims as infiltrators.

And within weeks of Modi's reelection, three Muslim men have been killed, allegedly in a hate crime.

And over a dozen Muslim homes have been demolished in states ruled by his party.

MILAN VAISHNAV: These are not something that one election at the national level will do away with.

I think it's fair to say that we can expect more of this to continue in the months and years to come.

ZEBA WARSI: In January, he launched his campaign by fulfilling the promise of a grand temple at the same site where, three decades ago, a 16th century mosque was demolished.

Days after, in the wee hours of a winter morning in New Delhi, his government flattened a 13th century mosque without notice.

The government says it was an encroachment and an illegal structure on forest land.

For these children, many of them orphans, that historic mosque was home.

It is where they lived, studied and prayed, and they were made to watch it fall.

Today, they are sheltering at another smaller mosque.

Rahil Khan is 10 years old.

RAHIL KHAN, 10 Years Old (through translator): I watched "Iron Man."

I want to build robots, so we can send them to protect our country and save the lives of our soldiers.

My dream is for my country.

ZEBA WARSI: But they fear their country is stifling their dreams.

AFZAL, 10 Years Old (through translator): We felt terrible.

We wondered why they're demolishing our mosque in school.

It didn't do any harm to anyone.

They told me: "This is not your school.

This is the government's land now. "

ZEBA WARSI: Afzal loves to play sports and is the designated troublemaker in the group.

But on that day, he felt cold and helpless.

AFZAL (through translator): They dragged the mosque's chief and snatched his phone.

No one was allowed to come in or go out of the compound.

We were asked to get out of our room and made to stand out in the cold for hours.

MUZAMMIL SALMANI, Teacher (through translator): I saw students who were lying on floor on a single bed sheet.

And they did not have jackets.

They did not have shoes.

They did not have sweaters.

Seeing me there, they started crying.

ZEBA WARSI: Muzammil Salmani is their teacher.

He accused the government of going out of its way to bring down the mosque in a sudden and secret manner.

Why do you think that mosque was targeted?

MUZAMMIL SALMANI: A 700-year-old mosque cannot be an illegal encroachment.

They are demolishing the Constitution of India.

They are demolishing an idea of India.

ZEBA WARSI: An idea of India where these young Muslims say they truly have equal rights and won't fear their future.

For the PBS "News Hour," I'm Zeba Warsi in New Delhi, India.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It's officially summer, which means it is a great time to go to the movies, and not just to get out of this heat.

Jeffrey Brown learns what's headed to the big screen for our arts and culture series, Canvas.

(CHANTING) JEFFREY BROWN: Last summer, Hollywood strikes time and the blockbuster Barbenheimer phenomenon.

ACTOR: You are the men who gave them the power to destroy themselves.

JEFFREY BROWN: This summer, a slow box office start, with "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" and "The Fall Guy" underperforming expectations.

For a look ahead, I recently spoke with Aisha Harris of NPR and Mark Olsen of The Los Angeles Times, starting with some of the season's biggest upcoming films.

AISHA HARRIS, NPR: I am definitely looking forward to, or at least curious, about "A Quiet Place: Day One."

ACTOR: Shelter in place.

AISHA HARRIS: You may remember "A Quiet Place," the original film, which was John Krasinski's debut and it was all about a family struggling to survive and raise their children in a world where the apocalypse has come, giant aliens who are hungry and who have ultrasonic sound are lurking and waiting to kill them and eat them.

But what I am most interested about this is the fact that it stars Lupita Nyong'o.

It's great to see her actually helming a big-budget franchise.

I'm also very curious about "Fly Me to the Moon."

I don't know if it's necessarily going to be a big blockbuster hit, but it's a space rom-com directed by Greg Berlanti.

He's known for "Love, Simon," "You."

And "Fly Me to the Moon" is actually a sort of -- set during the space age.

It stars Scarlett Johansson and Channing Tatum.

WOODY HARRELSON, Actor: NASA needs a marketing specialist, and you are the very best.

CHANNING TATUM, Actor: Excuse me.

What are you doing?

SCARLETT JOHANSSON, Actress: I tracked you down because I felt we had a connection.

CHANNING TATUM: What?

AISHA HARRIS: And they are working together to try to create a version of the moon landing in case the actual moon landing doesn't work.

JEFFREY BROWN: Mark Olsen, your turn.

Some big films you want to call our attention to?

MARK OLSEN, The Los Angeles Times: Yes.

Well, I think since the summer has kind of had a bit of a slow start at the box office with movies like "The Fall Guy" and "Garfield" and "Furiosa" underperforming, it's kind of putting a lot more pressure now on the movies that are coming out.

I'm thinking of, for example, the movie "Twisters."

ACTOR: Guys, whatever's in there, it's big and it's moving fast.

Drive.

Go.

It's directed by Lee Isaac Chung, who made the film "Minari" a few years ago that was kind of a small family drama.

And now he's helming this really big-budget summer action sequel that's a reboot of the movie from the '90s.

Another movie that's going to be coming out is going to be "Deadpool and Wolverine," which is another film in the sort of Ryan Reynolds-Deadpool sort of superhero satire universe, but this time adding Hugh Jackman'S Wolverine character.

And it's -- I think those are two movies that Hollywood is going to be putting a -- betting a lot of chips on that those movies do well to help save the summer.

JEFFREY BROWN: How about a couple of smaller independent films perhaps you saw in the festival circuit.

Aisha?

AISHA HARRIS: Yes, the first I want to recommend people look out for is "Thelma," which is the directorial debut of Josh Margolin.

And this is a movie I saw at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year.

It starts June Squibb in what I believe is her first leading role in her 90s.

And she plays a grandmother who finds herself on the end of a scam, and a scam that is usually perpetuated against elderly people.

And she goes on the hunt to find the scammer and get the bet.

ACTOR: Mail $10,000 to this address.

JUNE SQUIBB, Actress: Ten thousand dollars?

ACTRESS: How did you think this is real?

ACTOR: Mom, you thought it was real too.

ACTRESS: Oh, my God.

AISHA HARRIS: It's a fun sort of action comedy about aging and also about just trying to live your life and enjoying life at that age.

It also features a really lovely performance by Richard Roundtree, one of his final performances before he passed away last year.

And another film I want to recommend, which was actually at Sundance in 2023, is "Fancy Dance" that stars Lily Gladstone.

And it's directed by Erica Tremblay.

And Lily Gladstone has a fantastic performance here.

She is playing a woman who is taking care of her niece after her sister goes missing.

And she has to sort of figure out how to both bond with her niece, but also search for her for her sister.

LILY GLADSTONE, Actress: I'm calling about my sister's case.

No, I did speak to the sheriff's.

AISHA HARRIS: It shows a perspective of indigenous life that we don't often see in Hollywood movies.

So I'm very excited for that.

JEFFREY BROWN: Mark Olsen, some smaller films?

MARK OLSEN: One film that premiered on the festival circuit back in the fall and it's just coming out now.

It's called "Janet Planet."

It's being released by A24.

It's the writing and directing debut from the celebrated playwright Annie Baker, and it stars Julianne Nicholson as a single mother, kind of raising her 11-year-old daughter over a summer in the kind of rural Massachusetts.

JULIANNE NICHOLSON, Actress: And I think maybe it's ruined my life.

ACTRESS: Can you stop?

JULIANNE NICHOLSON: Stop what?

ACTRESS: Stop trying.

MARK OLSEN: And it's just a very tender mother-daughter story that I think is really exciting.

ACTRESS: Have you ever played the nervous game before?

Are you nervous?

ACTOR: Yes.

MARK OLSEN: Another film from Sundance, it was called "Didi."

It's a feature directing debut from Sean Wang.

And it's just a tender coming-of-age story of an Asian American family.

And it's just got a real energy to it.

The young actor who plays the lead in that movie is just really thrilling to watch.

JEFFREY BROWN: So here we are a year after the strikes, a year after the Barbenheimer phenomenon.

Where do you see the industry today?

Aisha?

AISHA HARRIS: We are still very much in a transition/trying to figure out things mode.

"Barbie" and "Oppenheimer," that was such a phenomenon that you could never duplicate.

What I'm hopeful for is that we will see a little bit -- continue to see sort of a mixture of films that are both very, very big budget in theaters, but also smaller.

The problem is, like, streaming just complicates everything.

So people are just like, I can wait a couple weeks.

I can wait a month until it goes on streaming.

And I think that's been an option that's been way more enticing for the average moviegoer than it ever was before.

JEFFREY BROWN: Mark Olsen, where do you see the industry today?

MARK OLSEN: Well, I think to Aisha's point that moviegoing is a habit, and people have just fallen out of that habit.

And it's for a number of different reasons.

Streaming certainly is one of them, I think, as you're saying, a lack of product.

The strikes last year really impacted just what movies are coming out.

Studios have become much more cautious and what they want to green-light and spend money on.

So there just simply doesn't feel like there are as many kind of big movies as there should be in a typical summer.

And I think you look at the prices for movies, especially with premium format, I think a lot of people are choosing to wait and see things at home, except for those movies that do feel like you want to get out in the theater to see it with a crowd.

And, right now, Hollywood's really struggling to deliver those impact films to audiences.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, much still in flux, but much on the screen this summer.

Mark Olsen and Aisha Harris, thank you very much.

MARK OLSEN: Thank you.

AISHA HARRIS: Thank you.

Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Be sure to tune into "Washington Week With The Atlantic" tonight for a look at what to expect in next week's historic presidential debate, and, on tomorrow's "PBS News Weekend," a look at what's behind the lack of affordable rental units in Austin, Texas.

That is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm William Brangham.

On behalf of the entire "News Hour" team, thank you so much for joining us.