GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "News Hour" tonight: Top U.S. intelligence officials are questioned about newly revealed details from their group chat discussing U.S. military strikes.

GEOFF BENNETT: The U.S. Supreme Court upholds a Biden era regulation that aims to make so-called ghost guns easier to trace.

AMNA NAWAZ: And five years on, Judy Woodruff sits down with two people with very different views of the COVID pandemic, the former director of the National Institutes of Health and a truck driver and podcast host.

WILK WILKINSON, Trucking and Logistics Manager: Who do you believe?

We, as a society, often put our trust in people who maybe haven't earned it, but have somehow acquired it.

(BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "News Hour."

Today, "The Atlantic" magazine published the full messages among the president's national security aides right before the launch of military strikes in Yemen.

GEOFF BENNETT: The new messages written on the commercially available app, Signal, show that the secretary of defense posted the timing and weapons used in the attack 30 minutes before the operation began.

Those details have shocked many in the national security community and dominated a prescheduled House Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill today.

Nick Schifrin starts our coverage.

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): This is classified information.

NICK SCHIFRIN: At a hearing dedicated to worldwide threats, Democrats today pointed their criticism inside the administration.

REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA): Communicating these sorts of things in Signal is not OK.

Targets, times,those kinds of things are absolutely classified.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The accusations followed "The Atlantic"'s publishing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth messages that he wrote before surprise attacks on Houthi leaders and targets, revealing extraordinary detail.

"Time now, 11:44 Eastern.

Weather is favorable.

Just confirm with Central Command we are a go for mission launch, 12:15 p.m., F-18s launch first strike package, 1:45 p.m., trigger-based F-18 first strike window starts.

Target terrorist is at his known location, 2:10 p.m., more F-18s launch, 2:15 p.m. strike drones on target, 3:36 p.m., F-18 second strike starts.

We are currently clean on operational security.

Godspeed to our warriors."

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): Everyone here knows that the Russians or the Chinese could have gotten all of that information.

And they could have passed it on to the Houthis, who easily could have repositioned weapons and altered their plans to knock down planes or sink ships.

I think that it's by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots right now.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Democrats pointed to a January 2025 Department of Defense manual that lists military plans, weapons systems or operations as the first reason to call information classified.

National Security Adviser Mike Waltz later added real-time intelligence that the U.S. targeted "the Houthis' top missile guy.

We had positive idea of him walking into his girlfriend's building, and it's now collapsed."

Those details' source is provided by sensitive classified collection.

And multiple former defense and intelligence officials told "PBS News Hour" today that they would consider this level of detail classified and exquisite that could have put troops at risk.

But Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who holds declassification authority, called the accusations baseless.

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. Defense Secretary: Because they know it's not war plans.

There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also defined classified material narrowly.

TULSI GABBARD, U.S. Director of National Intelligence: The conversation was candid and sensitive.

But as the president and national security adviser stated, no classified information was shared.

There were no sources, methods, locations or war plans that were shared.

NICK SCHIFRIN: That point shared by Republicans with Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

REP. AUSTIN SCOTT (R-GA): Was the target terrorist named in the text or was it simply referred to as target terrorist?

TULSI GABBARD: The target was not named.

REP. AUSTIN SCOTT: Thank you.

Was the location named?

TULSI GABBARD: Congressman, no, no locations were named.

REP. FRENCH HILL (R-AR): Were there any war plans distributed in that Signal chat?

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA Director: No, Congressman.

REP. FRENCH HILL: And were sources and methods that would compromise our intelligence system or your agents in the field around the world, were they discussed on the Signal chat?

JOHN RATCLIFFE: No.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But, this afternoon, Senate Armed Services Chairman Republican Roger Wicker said he was asking the administration to open an inspector general investigation.

And he said -- quote -- "The information as published recently appears to me to be of such a sensitive nature that, based on my knowledge, I would have wanted it classified."

Regardless of the domestic political debate, the U.S.' closest intelligence allies are watching.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is one of the Five Eyes, intelligence-sharing alliance.

MARK CARNEY, Canadian Prime Minister: It's a serious, serious issue.

And all lessons must be taken.

NICK SCHIFRIN: As President Trump has said when it comes to his national security adviser and Signal -- quote -- "He probably won't be using it again."

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Nick Schifrin.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, tonight, President Trump called the whole episode a witch-hunt and said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth -- quote -- "had nothing to do with this."

We're joined now by Jeffrey Goldberg, editor in chief of "The Atlantic" and moderator of "Washington Week" here on PBS.

Geoff, it's good to see you.

So, help us understand first your decision to release the strike plans, which you were mistakenly made privy to, in light of the days of denials and downplaying from the administration about the content of the signal messages.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes, that's a good question.

We -- yesterday, when the president and various other national security officials said that there was nothing sensitive in this material and accused us of lying about the nature of the material,we began to think maybe we should just put this out there so that the American people can see it and make their own conclusions, draw their own conclusions.

What we did all yesterday was reach out to various agencies, CIA, DNI, NSC and so on, and ask them specifically, even though the president said there was nothing to see here, we wanted to just be sure, obviously, that we were not releasing anything that could do harm to Americans in the field.

Most agencies didn't reply.

Some did.

We did -- in fact, the CIA did, in fact, ask us not to publish one of the texts, and we agreed not to do it because we obviously would want to be responsible.

But, I mean, it's interesting that the CIA director says there's nothing sensitive or classified in this, but his own agency asked us not to publish one of these texts.

And, this morning, we decided to publish these texts so people can see for themselves what was going on in the Signal chat that I saw, obviously inadvertently, because I was included in this secret Signal chain.

And these are texts, and especially the Pete Hegseth text that you referred -- that was referred to earlier, saw that two hours before the beginning of a strike.

Obviously, when I was seeing that, one of the thoughts that was crossing my mind was, what if it wasn't me who was mistakenly included on this chain, but what if it was somebody who was friendly to the Houthis or to their Iranian sponsors or to Russia or China?

And I think the point is well-taken.

This needlessly endangered Americans who are already in positions of danger.

This added a layer of danger that was completely unnecessary and reckless.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, let's talk more about the substance of these messages, because, as you noted, well before the first bombs fell, the defense secretary is detailing the strike plan hour by hour.

This is before the pilots on the attack mission were even airborne.

And then, after the strike, Mike Waltz sends a message with what appears to be real-time intelligence about the conditions on the ground.

He writes: "Building collapsed.

Had multiple positive I.D."

What stands out to you about that?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Well, what stands out is that, at this hearing, some of the Republicans were arguing that no sources or methods were disclosed in this.

Sources and methods is this shorthand in the intelligence community for where information comes from and how it's developed.

Now, quite obviously, you don't want the Houthis on the ground in Yemen to understand that there may be humans on the ground who are observing them or other forms of maybe technical surveillance.

Obviously, on the one hand, Houthis generally understand that there are probably satellites and drones watching them.

But you don't want to indicate in any way, shape or form -- and obviously all intelligence professionals agree on this.

You don't want to indicate in any way, shape or form that you know, that we do -- you know in real time what's going on, on their location.

That would cause them obviously to shift patterns, to go into hiding or do other things that obviously make the mission harder.

The whole point here is, why would you possibly put all of that material into a messaging app that is not secured by the government?

It's just -- I mean, even days later, or a week-and-a-half after I first saw these messages, it's still sort of mind-boggling.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, the White House is now quibbling about the definition of war plans and about what constitutes classified information.

Here's what the defense secretary had to say about that earlier today.

Take a look.

PETE HEGSETH: Nobody is texting war plans.

I noticed this morning out came something that doesn't look like war plans.

And, as a matter of fact, they even changed the title to attack plans because they know it's not war plans.

There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, in the minute-and-a-half we have left, first, how does that strike you?

And then, secondly, why did "The Atlantic" choose the phrase attack plans in the headline today after using the phrase war plans yesterday?

Because that's something that the White House and the DOD comms shop were eager to point out today.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Yes.

Attack plan is actually worse.

War plan actually refers to -- and I think that for -- in the vernacular, they are interchangeable.

Obviously, this is a plan to use military vehicles and missiles and other components of U.S. military to kill our enemies.

The attack plan actually refers to more technical aspects of what is done in an attack.

A war plan really actually refers more to strategy.

So, I changed the word.

We use it interchangeably, in fact.

But I changed the word because attack plan actually gets to the heart of what Pete Hegseth was doing, which was giving a minute-by-minute countdown of what they were hoping to do.

But, again, that's a -- this is a -- that's a sideshow.

They are trying to avoid the issue at hand, which is that they engaged in a massive security breach.

And this would not have been discovered had they not accidentally shared their Signal channel with me, which is in itself evidence of a massive security breach.

So they can quibble about semantics, but the point is, is that they put information out into the world that they shouldn't be putting out on those channels.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jeffrey Goldberg of "The Atlantic" and "Washington Week," thanks for joining us.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: To further discuss the Signal incident, I spoke earlier with Republican Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska.

He spent nearly three decades in the U.S. Air Force, retiring as a brigadier general.

Congressman, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thanks so much for joining us.

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): Thank you very much.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, as you have seen, many in the White House and many people who are on this Signal group chat have denied that it included classified information.

We have seen "The Atlantic" has now published the text of those chats.

You specialized in intelligence in the Air Force.

Do you see classified info in these chats?

REP. DON BACON: I think it's clearly classified.

So, they're digging themselves a bigger hole.

They should just be straightforward and honest, say, we screwed up.

Now, I want to say the operation itself, I praise it.

We -- the Houthis have been shutting down the sea lines of communication.

We had to open it up.

So I support that.

I don't want to take away from that.

But there's no doubt, when you start saying two hours before an operation, we're going to launch these aircraft at this time, or we're going to have bombs go off at this time, and you're talking about Yemen, that is classified.

And so I would implore the secretary of defense and others, just own it and say, it was my fault, I screwed up, and take responsibility.

I think they keep digging a deeper hole, and then, when you do that, you lose credibility.

And I don't think that's good for America either.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, on why this information was shared in the first place, I mean, one expert we talked to said that even a junior officer would have known that this is classified information.

Should Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense Hegseth, who did serve in the military, shouldn't he have known it was classified?

REP. DON BACON: Yes.

He should have known it, absolutely.

And I think everybody on that Signal chat should have known that was an inappropriate place to put launching data of our aircraft, the timing, the impact times, and all that.

It's -- the secretary of defense should have known that.

Now, I'm trying to give people the benefit of that.

I just imagine maybe he felt pressured or rushed.

I don't know.

But there's really no excuse for putting that kind of data -- and, by the way, it's endangers our crews, because that was put on an unclassified network two hours before the strikes.

That's enough time for -- if somebody would have informed the Houthis, say, if Russia would have informed the Houthis, that they could have been more prepared for these attacks.

And so that puts our forces at risk.

AMNA NAWAZ: So if this was a breach and it puts our forces at risk, what does accountability look like?

I mean, we know Mike Waltz added the journalist Jeff Goldberg to the chat.

Pete Hegseth posted the information.

Should they be fired?

REP. DON BACON: I'm not prepared to say that.

I do want to thank Mike Waltz for coming online and saying, hey, it was my fault for adding the journalist.

And that's what you want to see.

You want to see someone take responsibility.

I think Mike or -- the -- Waltz, he's a friend of mine, I believe he's a reasonable voice in the administration, a voice that we need.

The secretary is still in denial, though, that he did anything wrong.

And I think that that reflects worse than the actual incident, when you can't own up to a mistake.

So I think the jury's still out, and I'm a little reluctant to, say, fire this or do that.

I just -- I want accountability from the individual taking responsibility.

That's where I'm at.

AMNA NAWAZ: But is taking responsibility enough for you?

I mean, if accountability is what you want to see -- for instance, if someone in your command when you were in the military disclosed information like this, they would have been prosecuted.

There would have been some kind of accountability.

What does that look like here?

And if there's no accountability, what message does that send?

REP. DON BACON: Well, you're right.

If I would have done this in the Air Force, I would have lost my clearance.

I probably would have got an Article 15, which is nonjudicial punishment.

It would have probably prevented me from being promoted.

So you're absolutely right.

I also know we're dealing with a secretary of defense.

He made a mistake.

I'm more worried by the fact that he won't admit it.

AMNA NAWAZ: I want to ask you too about just yesterday you hosted a town hall for your constituents.

Thousands of people showed up.

It was a virtual town hall.

I know you said you hosted it so you could take more questions.

You had a lot of questions about the House Republican budget that was just passed.

And you did say, according to reports, there are no threats right now to the stability of Medicaid, which people asked about.

Mathematically, sir, you know there's no way to reach the target cuts that have been set in the budget by that committee other than touching Medicaid.

It has to be touched in some way.

So how can you guarantee that the hundreds of thousands of people in Nebraska will not feel any impact to Medicaid?

REP. DON BACON: You're right.

If the final numbers are $880 billion out of E&C, I think you're right.

It would affect Medicaid.

But I was assured by the chairmen of both committees that are involved with us, as well as the leadership, like our whip, Tom Emmer, that the final numbers will look a lot more like the Senate numbers.

The Senate hasn't agreed to these numbers, and they won't.

They're going to agree to something significantly less, we believe.

And so I voted to move this forward to create the negotiations between the House and the Senate.

And I believe most Republicans, at least ones I affiliate with, are looking at significantly less reductions in E&C, which is where Medicaid is at.

AMNA NAWAZ: I see.

So you support it as long as it's not $880 billion that they're trying to cut there.

I just want to clarify too.

When I said hundreds of thousands, I meant hundreds of thousands of Medicaid recipients in Nebraska.

REP. DON BACON: Right.

AMNA NAWAZ: That's what I was referring to.

While I have you, can I ask you about Elon Musk's DOGE team?

Because you said recently in an interview that you're urging them to take their time and not act too swiftly.

That seems to be the opposite of the way this team is moving.

Are you comfortable with their approach?

REP. DON BACON: Well, I know that's the way he does business.

Like, he has a space launch failure, they will just, OK, we will do another one real quick and try to fix what happens.

But you're dealing here with people's lives.

And when you're firing people and then you bring them back in, I think that's traumatic for many of these people.

This is their careers.

This is their lives.

So I would urge more caution and more analysis before you fire somebody to ensure -- I think most people think our federal government's too big.

It should be downsized.

But when you're firing nuclear physicists, inspectors in our meat processing plants, FAA folks who are helping keep our airspace clear, then you have to go back and hire them back, it's not a good way to do business.

AMNA NAWAZ: But that's not what they're doing.

Are your concerns being heard?

Have you spoken directly to Mr. Musk about this?

REP. DON BACON: I haven't spoken to him directly, but I have talked to the White House directly.

And we have been able to get some of these things replaced.

So, for example, I learned that some of the folks that keep birds flying around our airports, they were fired.

And so we don't want to dangerous airports with birds that could get ingested in aircraft engines.

So I was able to contact the White House and we got them reinstated.

But we shouldn't have to do that anyway.

They should have known this beforehand without having someone like me call us and say, hey, we got a problem.

So I am concerned.

It's not right to have to fire people, then you have to find them to bring them back in.

Let's do the analysis up front and do it right.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is Republican Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska joining us tonight.

Congressman, thank you for your time.

Please come back again soon.

REP. DON BACON: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: We begin the day's other headlines with a legal blow to the Trump administration.

A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court ban on the deportation of hundreds of immigrants earlier this month.

Alleged to be part of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, the administration removed the migrants under an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act.

They were brought by the planeload against a judge's orders to a high-security prison in El Salvador.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem today visited that prison.

She also met with that country's president, Nayib Bukele, as part of a three-day trip to the region.

President Trump has announced new 25 percent tariffs on all foreign-made automobiles.

However, Mr. Trump said if certain parts are made in the U.S., but the car is not, then those parts would not be subject to tariffs.

He said the goal is to encourage auto companies to set up more factories in the United States.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: So we will effectively be charging a 25 percent tariff.

But if you build your car in the United States, there is no tariff.

And what that means is a lot of foreign car companies, a lot of companies are going to be in great shape because they have already built that plant.

AMNA NAWAZ: At present, nearly half of all vehicles sold in the United States are imported.

The auto tariffs announced today go into effect next Wednesday, along with others.

Turning overseas to the tentative cease-fire on energy infrastructure between Russia and Ukraine, both countries have accused the other of breaking the deal.

Russian drone strikes hit multiple cities in Ukraine's Sumy region early today, as well as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's hometown of Kryvyi Rih.

A senior Ukrainian official said at least eight energy facilities have also been attacked since Moscow claimed it stopped such strikes last week.

In Kyiv, Ukraine's foreign minister urged European allies to keep pressure on Russia with the prospect of more sanctions.

ANDRII SYBIHA, Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs (through translator): We separately touched on the topic of strengthening sanctions against Russia.

Moscow will engage in deception, not negotiations, until it feels the real power of diplomatic sanctions.

There can be no easing of pressure as long as Russian aggression continues.

AMNA NAWAZ: Moscow has claimed that easing sanctions was a precondition to the targeted cease-fire deal.

Ukraine denies this.

Russia said Ukrainian drones have hit electric facilities in several border regions since yesterday.

The Supreme Court in Brazil has ordered former President Jair Bolsonaro to stand trial on charges that he attempted a coup to stay in power three years ago.

The far right leader, who governed Brazil from 2019 until 2022, will face criminal prosecution for alleged plans that included killing a Supreme Court judge and poisoning his successor, the current president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Prosecutors say the efforts to seize power continued after Lula was sworn in.

Pro-Bolsonaro rioters storming Brazil's presidential palace and Congress in 2023 was reminiscent of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Bolsonaro has denied all wrongdoing and says he's being politically persecuted.

In the Gaza Strip, Palestinians protested today against Hamas in a rare show of dissent against the ruling militant group.

Hundreds of anti-war demonstrators yelled, "Hamas get out," in a second straight day of protest in Northern Gaza.

Hamas has violently cracked down on previous shows of opposition, but there was no apparent effort to do so these past two days.

In Israel's Parliament, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used the protest as evidence to claim that Israel's renewed offensive in Gaza is working.

Massive wildfires in South Korea have killed at least 24 people and forced almost 30,000 to evacuate.

The blazes are some of the worst in the country's history.

Officials say close to 5,000 firefighters and other personnel are battling at least six active fires in the country's south.

Fanned by strong winds for days, the fires have scorched nearly 70 square miles, destroying more than 300 structures, including ancient temples dating back to the seventh century.

On Wall Street today, markets closed before President Trump's announcement on tariffs, but that didn't keep stocks from tumbling.

The Dow Jones industrial average went from an early gain to a modest loss.

The Nasdaq fell precipitously, losing more than 2 percent at close.

The S&P 500 also slumped by more than 1 percent.

And scientists have unearthed a new species of dinosaur in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia and unveiled their findings in the journal "iScience."

The dino, known as Duonychus, lived roughly 95 million years ago and sported a pair of fearsome foot-long claws, the largest ever found fully preserved.

But the 10-foot-tall, 500-pound dinosaur was actually not a predator.

It used its long claws and long neck to reach for vegetation, though experts say the species could defend itself with those sharp talons when necessary.

Still to come on the "News Hour": the Centers for Disease Control becomes the latest federal agency to face a leadership shakeup and major cuts; Republicans question the heads of NPR and PBS as they consider pulling federal funding; and the former director of the National Institutes of Health and a truck driver discuss the nation's divisions after the COVID pandemic.

The Supreme Court today, in a 7-to-2 ruling, upheld Biden era regulations on so-called ghost guns.

Those are firearms that can be put together at home with partially assembled kits, making them nearly impossible to trace.

Sales of those guns exploded after they came on to the market, and their use in gun crimes rose significantly too.

Joining us now to talk more about the significance of today's ruling is Jennifer Mascia, a senior news writer at The Trace, which covers gun violence in America.

Jennifer, welcome back to the "News Hour."

JENNIFER MASCIA, The Trace: Good to be here.

AMNA NAWAZ: So let's just start off with what this ruling means.

Can you help us understand what it does and also what it doesn't do?

JENNIFER MASCIA: In 2022, President Biden's DOJ implemented a rule requiring gun assembly kits to have serial numbers and buyers to undergo background checks, basically treating them like any other gun.

And these are parts kits that you can buy online and use to assemble a gun, sometimes in as little time as 20 minutes.

Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority today, one of the court's conservative justices, he said that the regulation of some weapons parts and kits is allowed under the 1968 Gun Control Act, which says a weapon qualifies for regulation if it is capable of being readily converted into a gun.

So a gun group that's actually to the right of the NRA, the Firearms Policy Coalition, had sued over the rule a couple years ago, arguing that the government was overstepping by classifying these gun assembly kits as firearms.

But Justice Gorsuch ruled that some assembly kits can actually be covered.

There was some disagreement, though, about how broad or narrow this ruling is.

It sounds to me like it depends on the amount of time and energy that goes into putting together one of these guns from one of these kits.

Justice Gorsuch singled out a company called Polymer 80, which was responsible for most of these gun kit sales.

They have a buy, build, shoot kit, which contains all the necessary components to put together a gun in 20 minutes.

And he said, clearly, this qualifies.

AMNA NAWAZ: So this now means that manufacturers, they have to mark their products with serial numbers, they have to obtain licenses, they have to conduct background checks.

This was a regulation, though, as you mentioned, put into place by the Biden administration.

Is this ruling the end of it, or is this something in the way of regulation that President Trump could potentially roll back?

JENNIFER MASCIA: Well, President Trump didn't have much to say about ghost guns in his first administration, but this is really just a phenomenon that's arisen in recent years, really during the Biden presidency.

President Trump did sign an executive order pledging to review literally everything the Biden administration did on guns.

He could ask the DOJ to devise a new rule that reverses the ghost gun rule.

Notably, he hasn't addressed this rule in any executive orders yet, but we could very well wind up once again before the same Supreme Court.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jennifer, are there any other moves from this administration related to gun safety or gun access that you're anticipating down the line?

JENNIFER MASCIA: I think that nothing is off the table.

President Biden's administration made a lot of progress on guns, mostly with funding for community violence interruption organizations.

That funding may be disrupted at this point.

So I am looking specifically to see if he does address this rule.

Once again, if he does anything with this rule, it will be challenged immediately in another lawsuit, this time by a gun reform group probably, or a gun reform-minded citizen.

And we could end up in front of the same nine justices next year.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, that is Jennifer Mascia, senior news writer at The Trace, joining us tonight.

Jennifer, thank you so much.

Appreciate your time.

JENNIFER MASCIA: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Trump has put into place a very different team than his predecessors when it comes to public health and research, and the CDC is very much in the thick of it.

The president just nominated Dr. Susan Monarez, the CDC's current acting chief, to become its new permanent director.

That's after a prior candidate withdrew under pressure because of his vaccine skepticism.

Five senior leaders at the CDC have announced their departures, and staff are anticipating cuts that could affect as much as a third of its work force.

Lena Sun is a national reporter focusing on health for The Washington Post.

LENA SUN, The Washington Post: Happy to be here.

GEOFF BENNETT: So let's talk about the new nominee for CDC director.

What should we know about her experience, her prior focus, and why President Trump settled on her as his pick?

LENA SUN: She's the acting director, and she's been in place since January as the acting CDC director.

I think what happened after the last nominee withdrew or had his nomination withdrawn -- that was former Congressman Dave Weldon -- is that the administration and in particular the president wanted someone who maybe would not be so out there in terms of controversial vaccine ideas.

And that is what sank the previous person.

He didn't get -- he didn't have the votes in the Senate.

In her time as acting, she has been kind of under the radar.

She has seemed pretty willing to put in place the initiatives that the administration has wanted when they have wanted CDC to take down the Web site or make changes.

She does not seem to have been putting up a big fuss.

And maybe they see in her someone who can steer the ship and not cause too much of a ruckus.

She does have a background in biosecurity, and she's very much into use of A.I.

and technology.

And she has been in government in and out for 20 years.

She served in previous government positions.

So I think they want someone who is a little bit more moderate.

GEOFF BENNETT: With senior leaders stepping down after the announcement of her nomination, what are the concerns among career CDC staffers about her and the kind of leadership that she might bring?

LENA SUN: I think the stepping down of those senior leaders was not directly tied to her nomination.

I think that has been coming for some time because of the pressure the administration has put on the health agencies, the external pause, the freeze on travel, this very much clamping down.

You notice we have had this enormous measles outbreak since late January.

There has not been a single briefing about measles.

That would normally have taken place under CDC.

So, they have basically muzzled many of the health agencies because no external communication can take place without being cleared by HHS, the parent agency.

I think the stepping down of senior officials is partly they see the handwriting on the wall with the Republicans in Congress.

There is definitely going to be a push to scale down the scope and mission of the agencies.

And in particular at the CDC, I think you will see definitely cuts to personnel and also downsizing of programs, if not elimination of entire centers.

And the targets would be Global Health, the Injury Center, HIV prevention.

GEOFF BENNETT: How detrimental might the staffing cuts at the CDC be?

LENA SUN: Those RIFs, reductions in force, have not taken place yet.

There's been rumors about them for weeks now.

They have slashed the positions of many of those probationary employees that we have all been writing about.

They're bracing for deeper cuts and we don't know how extensive those will be.

If the reduction in force is something like 30 percent, which is one number that has been bandied about, that will be a big, big loss at the CDC.

GEOFF BENNETT: I also want to ask you about the vaccine skeptic David Geier, who will oversee a study checking connections between vaccines and autism.

What should we know about his past work and the concerns there?

LENA SUN: David Geier is not a physician.

David Geier and his father, Mark Geier, have a long history of publishing papers in which they push this debunked, long-debunked theory or claim that vaccines, including vaccines that have thimerosal, which is a preserve -- mercury-based preservative, link to autism.

Those claims have been around for decades, and they have been thoroughly and extensively debunked, disproven.

There is no "there" there.

And the fact that the federal government, the Health and Human Services Department, has hired someone like that to conduct yet another study is something that many public health and autism experts say is such a waste of time and dangerous, because resources are precious.

They're cutting agency budgets.

They're cutting personnel.

And to take time and money to go do something that is already settled and to have it led by someone whose opinions and track record and background all point to debunking vaccines means that you're going in with a conclusion.

And that is not how science is done.

And, ultimately, they think the goal here is for the administration to completely harm vaccines, and that would be terrible short-term, medium-term, and long-term for the United States.

GEOFF BENNETT: Lena Sun of The Washington Post, thank you for joining us tonight.

LENA SUN: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: On Capitol Hill today, the heads of America's public media networks, PBS and NPR, faced sharp questioning by a House Oversight subcommittee about allegations of bias and why their work justifies continued federal support.

GEOFF BENNETT: That support also helps to fund programs like the "News Hour."

President Trump, Elon Musk, and many in the Republican Party have argued those funds should be completely cut.

William Brangham has our report.

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): NPR and PBS have increasingly become radical left-wing echo chambers for a narrow audience.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Today's hearing was organized by subcommittee chair Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia.

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: PBS News is not just left-leaning, but it is -- actively uses taxpayer funds to push some of the most radical left positions, like featuring a drag queen on the show "Let's Learn."

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Greene and her fellow congressional Republicans accused PBS and NPR of having a liberal bias.

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): I don't even recognize the station anymore.

REP. MICHAEL CLOUD (R-TX): All things are considered, yet their history of political bias has shown that there are a number of things they have not considered.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The bulk of the criticism fell on NPR CEO Katherine Maher, who acknowledged shortcomings in some of NPR's past coverage.

KATHERINE MAHER, CEO, NPR: We were mistaken in failing to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story more aggressively and sooner.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: She also expressed regret about old comments made in 2018 before she worked at NPR, where she called President Trump racist.

KATHERINE MAHER: I would not tweet them again today.

They represented a time where I was reflecting on something that I believed that the president had said, rather than who he is.

I don't presume that anyone is a racist.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But Maher also defended the work of NPR, calling their journalism and varied programs an essential part of a democratic society.

KATHERINE MAHER: It correlates with higher rates of civic engagement, greater civic cohesion and economic advantages, such as better municipal bond ratings.

Recent independent polling found that more than 60 percent of all Americans and more than half of Republicans trust public broadcasting to deliver fact-based news.

PAULA KERGER, CEO, Public Broadcasting Service: There's nothing more American than PBS.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: PBS CEO Paula Kerger extolled the virtues of her network's extensive commercial-free programming for children.

PAULA KERGER: Our educational programming is backed by scores of research studies showing that our programs like "Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood" and "Super Why!"

help kids develop essential skills like reading, math, and problem-solving.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Kerger was pressed on the accusation Representative Greene had made that PBS was promoting sexualized content towards kids.

REP. WILLIAM TIMMONS (R-SC): Do you think that it was inappropriate to put the drag queen on the kids' show?

Do you think that was a mistake?

PAULA KERGER: The drag queen was actually not on any of our kids' shows.

The image that Chairman Taylor Greene showed was from a project that our New York City station did with the New York City Department of Education.

REP. WILLIAM TIMMONS: What time of day did it air?

PAULA KERGER: It did not air.

It was a digital project.

REP. PAT FALLON (R-TX): Propaganda wing of the Democratic Party.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The "PBS News Hour" was criticized as well.

Representative Pat Fallon, Republican of Texas, cited a conservative media watchdog group that says it analyzed the "News Hour"'s coverage of the 2024 presidential conventions.

REP. PAT FALLON: Seventy-two percent of the coverage of the GOP convention was negative; 88 percent of the coverage of Democratic Convention was positive.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): A large majority of Americans say they trust PBS.

And that's exactly why extremists are trying to tear it down.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Democrats, like Representative Greg Casar of Texas, came to public media's defense, arguing that if cutting the federal budget is the imperative, there were far bigger targets.

REP. GREG CASAR (D-TX): Private insurers and Medicare Advantage overcharged taxpayers $83 billion just last year.

That could pay for public broadcasting 160 times over.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Congress sends money to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB, which disburses the funds throughout the public media system.

For 2025, Congress appropriated $535 million to CPB.

That's less than 1/100th of a percent out of the total federal budget.

It costs, per American, a little over $1.50 a year.

While some Republicans argued that funding might have made sense once upon a time, the advent of the Internet makes public media irrelevant.

REP. WILLIAM TIMMONS: Technology has changed everything.

We are not living in 1967.

There are various options for people to get news and to get disinformation or information, whatever you want to get.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But Ed Ulman, who's the president and CEO of Alaska Public Media, testified today that, in many rural parts of his state, public media was still a critical resource and needed financial support.

ED ULMAN, President and CEO, Alaska Public Media: Our system leverages this crucial seed money seven times over in highly efficient public-private partnerships.

Reducing or eliminating federal funding would be devastating.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Other Republicans, like Representative James Comer of Kentucky, argued that their criticisms of public media were solely because taxpayers were helping fund it.

REP. JAMES COMER: A media entity like MSNBC or Huffington Post that, in my opinion, consistently spews disinformation, they can do that.

They're a private company.

But NPR gets federal funds.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, justified that support by citing the example of PBS' "Sesame Street," which in recent years had a funding deal to also air on HBO Max, but that deal wasn't renewed.

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): The reason they canceled it is because it wasn't making a profit.

See, because when you try to do "Daniel Tiger" or "Sesame Street" and you try to do what Mister Rogers was talking about, helping the emotional and social development of kids, it's not easy.

You have got to hire people who are child psychologists.

You have to hire people who are educationalists.

A lot goes into this.

And HBO said, you know what?

It's not making money.

REP. BRANDON GILL (R-TX): I will spend all of my time doing everything I can to ensure you guys never get another dollar of taxpayer funding.

This is complete garbage.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It's unclear exactly when federal funding for public broadcasting will face a vote, but the next deadline for Congress to pass a government funding bill is September 30.

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: The subcommittee stands adjourned.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For the "PBS News Hour," I'm William Brangham.

GEOFF BENNETT: Americans were sharply divided over the public health response to COVID-19, things like masking, remote learning, business closures, and later vaccines.

Five years on from the start of the pandemic, Judy Woodruff recently sat down with two people on opposing sides of that divide trying to figure out how to move forward as part of her series America at a Crossroads.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS, Former Director, National Institutes of Health: I will be honest.

The first conversation, I thought, this is never going to work.

(LAUGHTER) DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: This guy has such strong opinions that are so different than my strong opinions that it's going to be tough here to see if we can understand each other or try to find common ground.

WILK WILKINSON, Trucking and Logistics Manager: Being a blue-collar guy from the Midwest, somebody that is completely separated from everything going on here in D.C. and things like that, I thought it was a very interesting concept, but I'm one that would have a conversation with anybody.

So I'm like, yes, let's make this happen.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Dr. Francis Collins has spent his life in medicine and research, a physician geneticist who led the project to successfully map the human genome in 2003, before serving as director of the National Institutes of Health from 2009 to 2021.

Wilk Wilkinson is a career truck driver who now manages a team of drivers in rural Minnesota and in his spare time hosts a podcast called "Derate the Hate."

WILK WILKINSON: Even the people with the best of intentions often find they have these unconscious biases.

JUDY WOODRUFF: To engage with people across the political divide.

In 2022, they were brought together through Braver Angels, a national nonprofit that pairs people across that divide together to engage in civil discourse about difficult issues.

That was the beginning of their friendship.

The two recently met again at Collins' home near Washington.

WILK WILKINSON: You don't try to change minds.

You just try to open them.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Collins explained that after stepping down as NIH director, he wanted to better understand why so many people were so upset by the actions he and others in government took during the pandemic.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: It was the worst pandemic in more than a century, thousands of people dying every day in those days in 2020 before we had a vaccine.

And we were doing the best we could.

And it felt kind of hard to be criticized for sometimes making recommendations that we had to revise later because we got more data.

So I was probably on the defense side.

And it was really part of my goal in having these conversations with Wilk as part of Braver Angels to try to get past that and to try to understand how these good, honorable people all over the country were not as impressed with some of the things that we had been recommending and putting into place.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Wilkinson says he's sympathetic to the difficult position Collins was in and that at first everyone he knew was on board with those measures.

WILK WILKINSON: After a while, it ceased to make sense.

We just weren't seeing the kind of things in out-state Minnesota, rural Minnesota that other people were seeing in New York City or different metropolitan areas throughout the country.

So once people started to see that their lived experience and the things that they were experiencing in their communities were not the same things that they were seeing on the news and that the 24/7 fearmongering and things like that was happening on the news just did not comport with the things that they were seeing in their communities, you could see trust within our institutions dropping like -- I mean, it was painful.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And this notion of one-size-fits-all, was that just assumed from the beginning that, if we're going to do this for anybody, we have got to say this -- say it and put these recommendations out there for everybody?

Was that... DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: Yes, I think it was assumed that was the default.

There are a number of background things here that got in the way of being more effective in that space.

One was the data collection in the United States was much, much less effective than it was in lots of other countries in the world.

Our whole public health apparatus across the U.S. had been allowed to get very much underfunded and understaffed.

And so I would love if in Minnesota there had been in every community a public health person saying here's what's happening here, let's adjust the plan on the basis of our experience.

That data wasn't coming in.

So at that time, the thing was, well, let's just do everything and hopefully it'll settle out.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Another point Collins and Wilkinson and agree on, trust was damaged very early in the pandemic, when officials first told Americans they didn't need to wear masks and then reversed themselves.

Collins explained that, with two earlier coronaviruses, SARS and MERS, patients weren't infectious until they got very sick, and so masks weren't needed for people without symptoms.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: It was one of those horrible moments in the whole history of what we were going through, realizing that actually there are lots and lots of people who are feeling perfectly fine who are super-spreaders and are passing this virus to anybody close by.

And then, oh, my gosh, we have got to insist then that everybody start wearing a mask.

But we did a poor job of explaining that.

This is another lesson, I think.

WILK WILKINSON: There was no explanation to Middle America that the data is going to change.

Things are going to change.

We are going to have to course-correct based on the information we have at the time.

That was never said, but there was this kind of dictate from on high kind of message coming out on our televisions saying, you're going to do this, and all of a sudden this changed by tomorrow or by next week or whatever.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Wilkinson says, that mistrust would later extend to the vaccines as well.

WILK WILKINSON: Now, all of a sudden, you would introduce a thing like vaccines, and people are like, OK, well this is different than putting on a mask.

Now they're wanting me to inject this thing that may or may not be completely understood into my kid, into my arm.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How much thought was being given to, how do we explain this to people that we have done this really fast and yet it's still safe?

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: Not nearly enough thought, not nearly enough sort of research to understand the science of science communication and how do you effectively convey information to people that -- is going to be really important for their decision-making.

And, of course, it did work.

Let's be clear.

The estimates are, probably 3.2 million lives were saved in the United States alone by that vaccine, but a bunch of people didn't want it.

And the estimates are also that maybe 234,000 people died unnecessarily because we had not convinced them that this was something they wanted for themselves or their families, even though, from my scientist brain, this was, like, so clear.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Collins pointed out that there was often more than one messenger in the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the NIH, leading to more confusion.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: I think the other thing to remember is that, even going into COVID, we already had a very polarized country.

So here you have the public health effort to try to put out what -- here's what we know.

Meanwhile, there's a vast universe of other messages coming at people from social media, from cable news, from somebody who heard something down the street and thinks you should know about.

WILK WILKINSON: Overnight, there came to be all of these people who yesterday they were a fantastic plumber, but today they have got the they have got the they have got the skinny on everything having to do with science and COVID, right?

A lot of times, it comes down to, who do you trust, who do you believe?

And we, again, as a society, often put our trust in people who maybe haven't earned it, but have somehow acquired it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Looking ahead, both Collins and Wilkinson agree that work needs to be done now before the next public health crisis to rebuild trust and to rebuild communities.

WILK WILKINSON: We need to get out amongst the communities again.

We need to talk to our neighbors.

We need to engage our family members in uncomfortable conversations, but understand that you can approach a contentious topic in a non-contentious way.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: I think Wilk has totally got it right.

I don't think we're going to see a solution to our polarization, our divisiveness our America at the crossroads that you're highlighting coming from the politicians.

They're more polarized than the public is.

I don't think it's necessarily going to come from the media, because many of the media has already adapted a particular perspective that fits in the bubble that's making the bubble even more tightly enclosed.

I think it's going to come from we, the people, Judy.

WILK WILKINSON: Absolutely.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: And we the people like Wilk and me getting to the point of really spending time understanding each other's perspective, not that we completely agree on everything.

I think he's wrong about stuff.

And I'm sure he thinks I am.

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS: I think we could get there.

It won't happen overnight.

It's going to be a huge enterprise.

But that's our best hope.

That's what Americans have generally done in the past.

Let's try to do that again.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Advice from two people still trying to find common ground in a divided era.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Judy Woodruff in Washington.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, remember, there is a lot more online, including a look at what qualifies as government fraud and how the U.S. has traditionally rooted it out.

That is at PBS.org/NewsHour.

GEOFF BENNETT: And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

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