AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "News Hour" tonight: Tensions rise between Pakistan and India after dozens are killed in strikes that Pakistan is calling an act of war.

AMNA NAWAZ: The conclave begins, as cardinals are sequestered in the Sistine Chapel to select the next pope.

GEOFF BENNETT: And Judy Woodruff visits Vermont to check out a social media platform that's bringing people together in a time of increasing political division.

MICHAEL WOOD-LEWIS, Front Porch Forum: Unlike big tech social media, we really just want you for five or 10 minutes a day, and then please put the phone down and go outside and talk to your neighbors.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "News Hour."

Tonight, Pakistan is vowing to avenge Indian missile strikes that Pakistan says killed more than 30 people.

AMNA NAWAZ: India says it targeted terrorist infrastructure in retaliation for an attack last month in Indian-administered Kashmir.

President Trump today called for the violence to end, but cross-border fire between the countries continues and there's worry in both countries of escalation.

Nick Schifrin begins our coverage.

NICK SCHIFRIN: This morning, in the mountains of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, a mosque shattered into a shell, 350 miles to the south, another mosque gutted, its dome ripped off.

Pakistani officials say an Indian attack here killed 13.

MOHAMMAD ZUBAIR, Pakistan Resident (through translator): This is a cowardly action by India.

There are certain rules in war.

Places of worship, hospitals and educational institutions are not attacked.

Women and children are not harmed.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Last night's strikes the most widespread aerial attack by India on Pakistan in half-a-century.

India says it targeted nine sites used by Pakistani militant groups, most of the targets within Pakistan-administered Kashmir, but some missiles hit in Pakistan's Punjab province, Pakistan's heartland, where India has long accused Pakistan of hosting terrorist training.

India calls it revenge for the death of more than two dozen mostly Hindu tourists in April, the deadliest attack on civilians in Indian-administered Kashmir in decades.

And India today said its attacks were proportionate, not designed to escalate, and preemptive.

VIKRAM MISRI, Indian Foreign Secretary: Our intelligence monitoring of Pakistan-based terrorist modules indicated that further attacks against India were impending.

There was thus a compulsion both to deter and to preempt.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But India appeared to suffer significant losses.

Pakistan said it shot down five Indian fighter jets and drones.

India hasn't commented, but local media filmed crash plane debris.

And Pakistan is threatening a further response.

This morning, its National Security Committee warned: "Pakistan reserves the right to respond in self-defense at a time, place and manner of its choosing to avenge the loss of innocent Pakistani lives and blatant violation of its sovereignty."

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif: SHEHBAZ SHARIF, Pakistani Prime Minister (through translator): We vow that every drop of blood of our martyrs will be accounted for.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Meanwhile, both sides shelled across the de facto border in Kashmir.

And India says Pakistani artillery killed at least 12 and wounded more than 50, including children.

Today, President Trump made it clear the U.S. wanted last night's round to be the end.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I want to see them work it out.

I want to see them stop.

And, hopefully, they can stop now.

They have got to tit for tat.

So, hopefully, they can stop now.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But, tonight, there's an expectation of escalation.

This is a drill that Indian authorities held today to prepare civilians for more attacks.

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

AMNA NAWAZ: To discuss this further now, we get two views.

First, I'm joined by Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh.

Ambassador sheik, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thank you for joining us.

We saw Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif call those Indian strikes a blatant act of war.

He promised retaliation.

Give us Pakistan's view at this moment.

What could that retaliation look like?

RIZWAN SAEED SHEIKH, Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States: Thank you, Amna, for having me at this show.

As you have mentioned, that the prime minister of Pakistan called it a blatant act of aggression.

That's what exactly it was, because it was conducted without affording any evidence of the incident that took place in the Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir in Pahalgam.

So it was presumptuous pretext on which this aggression was conducted, without affording evidence and also without accepting Pakistan's well-intended offer of conducting an impartial, neutral inquiry into the incident, investigation to the incident, which was generally welcomed and supported by the international community.

So Pakistan yesterday acted in self-defense.

And we, as you have seen and mentioned, downed five Indian fighter jets, three of them Rafale, SU-30, and then, of course, the MiG 29 as well.

AMNA NAWAZ: And is that -- the downing of those jets, is that the totality of the Pakistani response or will there be more?

RIZWAN SAEED SHEIKH: Well, there was a meeting of the National Security Committee this morning in Islamabad.

It took a full view of the entire situation.

And if you look at the declaration that has come out of it, you would notice that it mentions that Pakistan still reserves the right to respond to the time of its -- and place of its choosing.

So, whatever we did yesterday was in self-defense.

But under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, Pakistan reserves the right to respond.

We are a peaceful nation.

We do not want the situation to escalate.

But given the bluntness of the act, we will continue to review it very closely and see how do we need to respond in the national interest, in our security interests.

AMNA NAWAZ: And should we take that to mean, Mr.

Ambassador, that there will be additional military response?

And has Pakistan ruled out strikes inside India in response to the Indian attacks that were carried out inside Pakistan?

RIZWAN SAEED SHEIKH: Well, it's a question of determination and strategy, which perhaps cannot and should not be revealed in a public statement or at a public forum.

But as I have mentioned, Pakistan has this right in terms of international law.

We do not want to escalate.

We are a peace-loving nation, but we want peace with dignity.

And that is what we are seeking in this episode or in any other such episode.

But the important question here is that, after Pahalgam, which is after a lapse of almost six years, this incident has taken place.

The international community needs to pay attention to the broader issue of the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which under the U.N. resolutions has to be resolved peacefully.

It has to be settled peacefully through a U.N.-supervised plebiscite.

And until that larger problem is attended to, incidents like this can happen and blames like this, which India has leveled, can continue to fly around.

So it is important to attend to the major core issue between India and Pakistan, which is Kashmir.

And there is this opportunity to do that right now.

AMNA NAWAZ: Mr Ambassador, if I may, in this moment, setting aside the larger issue of Kashmir, which I know the two nations have fought multiple wars over now, we heard President Trump say that he hopes this ends very quickly.

Is there a role for the U.S. to play right now when it comes to mediating or de-escalating, or is the ball squarely in Pakistan's court now?

RIZWAN SAEED SHEIKH: Well, the United States and the broader international community has previously played a role in similar situations.

The United States being, of course, the preeminent world power, has perhaps a disproportionate responsibility with regard to international peace, security, stability, and its maintenance, particularly in a region which India and Pakistan put together, holds no less than 1.6 billion people.

And the president, of course, himself has mentioned that he wants to leave a legacy of peace.

He wants to liquidate peace to the world at the end of his term.

So, there is no other situation in the world today which is perhaps more impactful in terms of human lives and livelihoods than India-Pakistan situation, and Kashmir being the core issue has to be resolved to that end.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., Rizwan Saeed Sheikh.

Ambassador Sheikh, thank you for your time.

We appreciate it.

RIZWAN SAEED SHEIKH: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, to understand India's perspective and how it's preparing for Pakistan's potential response, we turned out to Vikram Singh.

He's a senior adviser to the U.S.-India strategic partnership forum and was deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia under the Obama administration.

Vikram, welcome.

Thanks for being here.

VIKRAM SINGH, Senior Adviser, U.S.-Strategic Partnership Forum: Hey, Amna.

Glad to join you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Just want to get your response to what you heard from the ambassador there, who did not rule another potential military response from Pakistan.

VIKRAM SINGH: Yes, I mean, I think the Pakistanis are definitely considering now whether they sort of call it a day.

We shot down some planes.

We don't know if that's true or not or how many are not yet, but that will emerge.

And maybe that's the easiest off-ramp for Pakistan, the easiest exit.

But India did step things up in this reprisal.

We haven't seen anything like this since 2019.

And in this case, India hit many more targets in many more locations, including one target in Punjab, which is a part of the country that hasn't been a part of an active conflict since the 1971 war.

So, certainly some in Pakistan will be pushing for more reprisal.

AMNA NAWAZ: In terms of how India would view a Pakistani response, what would be seen as de-escalatory versus a potential escalation in these tensions?

VIKRAM SINGH: I think India is trying to re-establish deterrence over terrorist strikes emanating from Pakistan.

The Indian view is quite simply that the attack that happened two weeks ago, which was worse in some ways than prior attacks, because it didn't target the military, it pulled Hindu men away from their families at a tourist site and they were massacred in front of their families.

And the way that's resonating in India has really pushed Indian officials to have a strong response like we have seen.

And I think they would hope to see the Pakistanis call it a day.

I think both sides know that escalation gets more complicated to manage, not less complicated, if you don't take any off-ramps.

So the one indication is if a jet was brought down, one or more, could the Pakistanis use that as an off-ramp and say, look, you can do this stuff, we don't want you to do it, but we can defend ourselves?

AMNA NAWAZ: And we have just now learned that both the Indian and Pakistani national security advisers are speaking to each other.

Do you take that as a positive sign that this will somehow be mediated to a de-escalation between the two nations without a third party intervening?

VIKRAM SINGH: I mean, that should be a positive sign.

And this is going to get -- if this gets -- when this gets resolved, which it probably will, it probably will not escalate uncontrollably, when this gets resolved, it's going to be through that channel, the national security adviser channel.

That's the most important conduit for India and Pakistan to actually communicate over things like this.

But the Indian side is going to be saying, we need you to dismantle these terrorist camps and this infrastructure.

And though the Pakistanis act as if there is no terrorist infrastructure there, it's really widely known that those are actually camps and bases for Jaish-e-Mohammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, globally designated terrorist organizations, and that the Indians are going after people that are recognized by the U.N. and the United States and even Pakistan itself as terror groups.

AMNA NAWAZ: And we know Jaish-e-Mohammad did claim responsibility for a 2019 attack against Indian troops in Kashmir.

But to this point, as the Pakistanis continue to say, they have seen no evidence, we know Indian officials did show locations that they say were where the terror cells had been training there.

But without anyone claiming responsibility, without additional evidence, should India present that to Pakistan if they have it?

VIKRAM SINGH: I mean, I think India should present whatever it has.

I think the real question tends to be, is the Pakistani state involved or not?

I think the -- when Pakistan denies any connection, I don't think that is really what they mean.

They're basically saying, hey, this is because of grievances in Kashmir and there's angry people and they do these things and it's not our doing.

But I think Pakistan really needs to step up on dismantling terrorist infrastructure inside Pakistan.

That's the way to get India to the table to discuss underlying issues.

AMNA NAWAZ: As you heard the ambassador there reference, Kashmir remains the larger core issue here, still a disputed territory.

Before that terror attack in Indian-administered Kashmir two weeks ago, Prime Minister Modi had said Kashmir was stable and it was safe.

Does the attack show that that is not the case, and what does that mean for the future of that conflict?

VIKRAM SINGH: I think it's a bit of a shock after all of these years.

And also Indian and Pakistan have actually been in a surprisingly durable cease-fire along the line of control since 2021.

And this is something that people really viewed as not very sustainable, but it's shown that they could have it.

But shelling had stepped up.

And I think the Pakistani certainly extremist groups have wanted to make sure that the area is unstable.

And this certainly shocks the Indian system into realizing that they can't just rest on their laurels.

AMNA NAWAZ: We will wait and watch and see what happens next.

Vikram Singh, senior adviser to the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum, thank you so much for being here.

Really appreciate your time.

VIKRAM SINGH: Thank you.

Thank you, Amna.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we start today's other headlines with the latest strikes between Russia and Ukraine.

Ukrainian drone attacks disrupted flights at Moscow's main airports for a third straight day, even as preparations were under way for a massive military parade to mark 80 years since victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.

China's Xi Jinping arrived today to attend the festivities.

Meantime, Russian forces struck Ukraine overnight, killing two people in the capital, Kyiv, while, in Washington, Vice President J.D.

Vance told a conference that the U.S. is focused on brokering a long-term deal to end the war.

J.D.

VANCE, Vice President of the United States: The Russians are asking for a certain set of requirements, a certain set of concessions in order to end the conflict.

We think they're asking for too much, OK?

We would like both the Russians and the Ukrainians to actually agree on some basic guidelines for sitting down and talking to one another.

GEOFF BENNETT: Russia had rejected a 30-day cease-fire proposal from the U.S., which Ukraine agreed to.

Instead, President Vladimir Putin announced a three-day pause in fighting during Russia's Victory Day celebrations, which went into effect in the last hour or so.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has dismissed that cease-fire, calling it a theatrical show.

Hospital officials in the Gaza Strip say Israeli airstrikes killed at least 92 people today, including women and children.

One of the attacks hit a busy market in Gaza City.

Our producer on the ground who provided this footage says at least 23 people were killed there, including two journalists.

Footage from the scene showed bloodstains and food still left on tables at a restaurant that was hit.

It comes just days after Israel announced plans to step up operations in Gaza, which would include seizing the territory.

For the second time in two weeks, a us Navy fighter jet from the USS Truman aircraft carrier fell overboard into the Red Sea.

The ship has played a vital role in the U.S. air campaign against Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Tuesday's incident occurred when an F/A-18 Super Hornet tried to land on the flight deck, but the arresting gear designed to catch the jet with a hook and wire system failed.

That's according to an official.

The two pilots ejected safely and sustained only minor injuries.

In April, another F/A-18 slipped off the deck of the Truman.

Each jet costs more than $60 million.

The FAA says it will take immediate steps to improve operations at Newark Airport after more than a week of disruptions that will include brand-new telecommunications systems and a boost to air traffic control staffing.

It comes as Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is expected to announce a multibillion-dollar plan tomorrow aimed at upgrading air traffic control systems nationwide.

And air travelers must also get used to a new reality.

Starting today, Real ID is now a requirement to fly domestically.

The rollout has been mostly smooth so far.

Those without the I.D.s were given handouts advising them to use one the next time they fly or face delays.

Former President Joe Biden says it wouldn't have mattered if he had dropped out of the 2024 presidential race earlier than he did, but that it was still the right decision.

The comments came in his first broadcast interview since leaving the White House.

Biden spoke with the BBC to mark the 80th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe, and said he worries that the relationship between Europe and the U.S. is fracturing under President Trump.

He also said the Oval Office confrontation between Trump and Ukraine's President Zelenskyy was beneath America, and he dismissed President Trump's proposals to acquire the Panama Canal and Greenland and make Canada the 51st state.

JOE BIDEN, Former President of the United States: What the hell is going on here?

What president ever talked like that?

That's not who we are.

We're about freedom, democracy, opportunity, not about confiscation.

GEOFF BENNETT: In that same interview, Biden described the Trump administration's willingness for Ukraine to concede territory to Russia as modern-day appeasement, a reference to British leader Neville Chamberlain's policy of trying to appease Hitler before World War II.

The final race of the nation's 2024 election has finally been decided six months after voters went to the polls.

In North Carolina, the Republican challenger for a state Supreme Court seat, Jefferson Griffin, conceded to the Democratic incumbent today.

That clears Allison Riggs to officially be reelected to an eight-year term as an associate justice.

It comes just two days after a federal judge ruled that thousands of disputed ballots challenged by Griffin must remain in the final tally.

Those results also show that the Democrat, Riggs, won the election by just 734 votes out of more than five million cast.

Three former Memphis police officers were acquitted today on state charges in the death of Tyre Nichols.

The jury took about eight hours over two days to find Tadarrius Bean, Demetrius Haley, and Justin Smith not guilty on all charges.

But they could still spend years in prison after being convicted of federal charges last year.

Two other officers had already pleaded guilty in the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols, who fled a traffic stop in 2023.

The 29-year-old's death sparked nationwide protests and renewed calls for police reforms in the U.S.

The Federal Reserve kept its benchmark interest rate unchanged today as officials monitor the effects of President Trump's trade wars.

So far, inflation and unemployment remain relatively low nationwide, but: JEROME POWELL, Federal Reserve Chairman: Uncertainty about the path of the economy is extremely elevated.

GEOFF BENNETT: Fed Chair Jerome Powell said today that those tariffs could, in his words, generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth, and a rise in unemployment.

President Trump and treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have pushed for lower borrowing costs.

Powell said that won't affect the Fed's decisions on rates moving forward.

Following the Fed's announcement, Wall Street ended higher.

The Dow Jones industrial average added nearly 300 points on the day.

The Nasdaq rose nearly 50 points, or about a quarter of 1 percent.

The S&P 500 also closed in positive territory.

Still to come on the "News Hour": we examine the ongoing legal battles sparked by President Trump's hard-line immigration policies; Republican Congressman Chip Roy on the budget battle in Congress; and a social media app that aims to bring neighbors together.

Black smoke poured today from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, as 133 cardinals from across the globe began in earnest the process of selecting the next pontiff.

As expected, the smoke signifies the cardinals could not reach a two-thirds consensus on the first ballot.

Before the vote, church leaders gathered for a final mass.

Then, with a ceremonial Latin declaration, the chapel was cleared, the doors were closed, and the group began one of the most secretive elections in the world.

The cardinals will be considering a number of difficult and sometimes divisive issues.

Survivors have also called on the cardinals to consider the history of sexual abuse and the church's conduct in the past,when crimes have been covered up and priests have too often been protected.

Peter Isely, a founding member of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is in Rome.

He spoke to us as the conclave began about demanding accountability and a new path forward that his group calls zero tolerance.

PETER ISELY, Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests: Zero tolerance means two things.

One, any priest or cleric where it has been determined that he has sexually assaulted or abused a child is permanently removed from the priesthood.

Secondly, zero tolerance means accountability.

It means that any church official, cardinal, or bishop that has been again determined after investigation that he has covered up sexual abuse crimes of children, that he has obstructed justice in the countries where these crimes are occurring, that he can no longer function as an authority or an official in the Catholic Church.

GEOFF BENNETT: Isely also said he's concerned the next pope may also have a history of too easily ignoring past abuse or not being transparent enough, but he hopes the successor to Francis may feel pressure to meaningfully change the Vatican's approach.

PETER ISELY: You got to be optimistic.

You have to be hopeful, but I'm hopeful about how much awareness has happened in the last 30, 40 years.

What I think about as a survivor are the thousands of survivors I know and I have worked with, my brothers and sisters.

We have all undergone this trauma, and we all want this never to happen to another child.

This is the first time really in history in which the issue of abuse and cover-up and these crimes is being taken very seriously, it seems.

The Vatican is talking about it.

They're saying this is going to be the number one or one of the top priorities for the next pope, and that's historic.

GEOFF BENNETT: For more now on the conclave and the controversies facing the Catholic Church, we're joined by Philip Shenon.

He's an investigative reporter and the author of "Jesus Wept: Seven Popes and the Battle for the Soul of the Catholic Church."

Thanks for being here.

PHILIP SHENON, Author, "Jesus Wept: Seven Popes and the Battle for the Soul of the Catholic Church": Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Your book is an investigation of the Catholic Church post-World War II, and sex abuse is this ever-present theme.

Why has this been such an enduring problem for the Catholic Church?

PHILIP SHENON: Well, it's actually an enduring problem that dates back to the Dark Ages.

This apparently has been a problem within the Catholic Church for centuries and centuries.

And we know that, in recent decades, that it has been a story of cover-up, cover-up by popes, cover-up by cardinals in the Vatican.

And it's been a very long reckoning for the church to come to terms with it, and I would argue it still has not come to terms with it today.

GEOFF BENNETT: And why is this notion of zero tolerance a point of contention?

On its face, it seems like a very clear and morally just principle.

PHILIP SHENON: It's a crime, child abuse.

What the priesthood is, what the Catholic Church is, is a hierarchy that is in many ways a brotherhood in which these men watch out for one another, as they would for a brother or a father or grandfather.

You protect those in the family.

And, in fact, unhappily, that cover-up, that wilderness to protect has meant that a lot of crime has gone unpunished in the church.

GEOFF BENNETT: So give us an example of one of the egregious cover-ups you recounted in your book.

PHILIP SHENON: I think the single most shocking document I uncovered in all my years of research was a letter written in 1999 by Cardinal John O'Connor of New York, arguably the most powerful churchman in America at the time, who had just learned he was probably about to die.

He'd just undergone brain surgery.

And in one of his final acts on Earth, he sends a letter to Pope John Paul II to warn him that he must not promote Cardinal or then Bishop Theodore McCarrick of New Jersey to any higher post in the church, because he was well-known to be a sexual predator.

And the story is that lots of other people told this to John Paul II.

John Paul II still wanted to believe McCarrick was an innocent man, made him a cardinal in Washington, D.C., and McCarrick became one of the most prominent spokesmen for the church in America for decades to follow.

GEOFF BENNETT: The cardinals will assemble again tomorrow for a second round of voting.

Give us a sense of the competing factions within the church and the differing visions of the future.

PHILIP SHENON: Well, I think the question will be whether or not the legacy of Pope Francis will live on beyond his papacy.

His message to the world was one very much framed by the Gospel as one of mercy and tolerance, putting -- punishing sin behind promoting mercy as the cause of the church.

And there are many people who think he was too liberal, too progressive,he ignored too much of the tradition of the church.

And I think the central debate now among the cardinals will be, do we want somebody who continues that mission, continues that agenda, or somebody who reverts back to a much more traditional church?

GEOFF BENNETT: What other issues might the next pope face?

PHILIP SHENON: Well,Pope Francis, I think, will probably best be remembered for his outreach to gay Catholics.

He uttered those famous words "Who am I to judge?"

in reference to gay people.

And that really rewrote 2000 years of tradition.

Previously, homosexuality had been branded a grave sin.

And he had a dialogue with divorced Catholics in a way that had not been true in centuries.

They were given an easier way to remarry within the church and allowed to receive holy communion for the first time in centuries.

And there are people within the hierarchy who believe that that was the wrong move, that that dishonored tradition, and that Pope Francis' agenda on those issues must be reversed.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there are some who are predicting a pivot toward a more conservative papal leadership.

Do you see that happening?

PHILIP SHENON: Well, there's a lot of talk about that among conservative Christians.

A lot of American commentators seem to believe that there will be a pope to follow Francis who will reverse his agenda.

I find that hard to believe, if only because 80 percent of the cardinals who will choose Francis' successor were put in the college of conclaves by Francis.

And it seems to me hard to believe that these men, given this great honor by Francis, would want to dishonor his legacy by finding a pope who reversed much of his policies.

GEOFF BENNETT: Are there any lessons from previous conclaves that inform the current moment?

PHILIP SHENON: Well, I think, as is true for most conclaves, we really don't know how this is going to end.

I think this conclave in particular is unpredictable.

We have a variety of cardinals who've never met one another.

They come from the far ends of the Earth.

Francis increased the countries represented in the conclave by something from 40 to 80, to nearly 80.

And, again, these men don't know each other so well.

Many of them are not particularly well-known within the church.

And I think it's going to be at least a few days of deliberations among the cardinals about who they're comfortable with leading their church.

GEOFF BENNETT: Where are you watching for?

PHILIP SHENON: I would watch for the name that the new pope chooses when he emerges on the balcony at St. Peter's.

That's obviously a first message to the world about what his agenda will be.

If the new pope is Pope Francis II, I think that tells you that Francis' legacy lived on.

If he chooses the name of one of his more very conservative papal predecessors, you can look for a change in the church.

GEOFF BENNETT: Philip Shenon, thanks so much for your insights.

We appreciate it.

PHILIP SHENON: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: In an effort to increase its deportation numbers, the Trump administration is planning to deport immigrants to Libya on U.S. military planes as soon as today.

That's according to multiple reports citing unnamed U.S. officials.

But when asked about it in the Oval Office today, President Trump didn't seem to know what his administration was planning.

QUESTION: Is the administration sending migrants to Libya?

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I don't know.

You will have to ask Homeland Security, please.

AMNA NAWAZ: Our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, joins me now for the latest on the president's deportation agenda.

Good to see you, Laura.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Good to be here.

AMNA NAWAZ: So what else do we know about these possible migrant flights to Libya?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: We don't know much more, Amna, that because of the fact that the administration is not answering basic questions.

We reached out to Homeland Security, as the president referred to.

We reached out to the White House.

And they didn't answer any questions when we asked which undocumented migrants would be deported, when and whether or not it was to Libya or to other countries.

The State Department simply said that they do not discuss details of diplomatic conversations with other governments, despite the fact that the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has repeatedly said that they are looking for other countries to deport undocumented migrants to.

Now, we should note that Libya's two rival governments, that's the Western internationally recognized government,as well as the Eastern militia government, both rejected any existence of an agreement or talks of any kind of agreement to deport migrants to Libya.

And just hours ago, a federal judge in Massachusetts restricted the president's ability to deport migrants to Libya, saying that doing so would clearly violate prior orders that he has made.

AMNA NAWAZ: We should note the conditions in these prisons in Libya is well-documented.

What would migrants face if they're deported there?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: A recent State Department report on human rights practices in Libya found that there is no access to immigration courts or due process for those that are housed in detention centers there.

And I spoke to Frederic Wehrey.

He is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace who has actually visited several of these migrant detention facilities, and he detailed those conditions.

FREDERIC WEHREY, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: It's a whole litany of horrors, I mean, obviously, overcrowding.

When you first walk in, you're immediately overwhelmed by the sheer mass of humanity that's stuffed inside these narrow, windowless confines, obviously severe sanitation problems, routine beatings.

The prison guards admitted to me that they routinely administer beatings as a matter of practice, sexual violence, malnutrition, all sorts of very visible ailments, infections.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Frederic Wehrey also said that migrants in Libya are viewed as expendable and that it's a matter of practice that migrants' fates are often horrific and unknown.

AMNA NAWAZ: Meanwhile, Laura, we should note the president's deportation campaign reached Washington, D.C., this week.

There were a number of restaurants in the capital that were targeted.

What's the latest on that front?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: On Tuesday, ICE agents showed up at a number of restaurants across the District, and they were asking for I-9 forms.

Those are to verify the employment eligibility of individuals.

And so far, no -- there were no detentions from those visits that we can report, but immigrant advocates referred to them as attempted raids.

And we're told that more than half-a-dozen of restaurants were targeted.

AMNA NAWAZ: And you spoke to an owner of one of the businesses that was targeted.

What did they tell you?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: I talked to Bo Blair.

He is the owner of Millie's, which is a restaurant in a Northwest D.C. neighborhood.

And he told me that ICE agents showed up on Tuesday.

Some were in uniform.

Some were in plain clothes.

And agents asked to speak to employees.

And they were denied access to those private areas of the restaurant.

And they asked, again, for those I-9 documents, but those are not housed at the restaurant.

They're housed at headquarters.

Bo Blair told me that two of his employees are already too scared to return to work, they did not return to work today, and he's concerned that they may not come back for the rest of the week.

Bo Blair told me that he's worried about the overall chilling effect that this could have on his workers, some who have worked there for 20 to 25 years.

He called it -- quote -- "a whole new level of harassment" of his law-abiding employees and said that without immigrants there are no restaurants, that they are key to that industry.

Now, we also spoke to George Escobar.

He works with the immigration advocacy group CASA, and he said that they are giving a lot of different advice to both businesses, as well as individuals, on how to handle these ICE visits.

GEORGE ESCOBAR, CASA: Have private areas where only the workers or where only the owners may enter, right?

Those private areas, nobody, even law enforcement, can have access to unless they present a warrant, right?

And even at that point, even after they present a warrant, the warrant signed by a judge has to be pretty specific about what types of information is subject to the warrant, what types of information that individual has to turn over.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Earlier, I said they're giving different advice.

I should have said that they're giving similar to -- advice to both small businesses and individuals about their rights.

Now, ICE agents also told the Millie's owner, Bob Blair, that they are going to return some time early next week.

AMNA NAWAZ: Meanwhile, Laura, related news, there are developments this week on the Alien Enemies Act.

Multiple judges have ruled against the president on this.

What did they say and what happens next?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: In the last two days, two federal judges in New York and in Colorado ruled that the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act exceeds his authority under that law.

So, to date, that means three federal courts have essentially said that the president's use of that act is unlawful.

Now, we should also note that this evening, another federal judge, James Boasberg, held a hearing on whether or not the government needs to facilitate the return of not just Kilmar Abrego Garcia, but all Venezuelans that were deported to El Salvador under the use of that Alien Enemies Act.

Now, we do not expect a ruling in that case until at the earliest some time next week.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, that's our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, with the very latest for us.

Laura, thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Trump's agenda is facing a major test in Congress to help fund his tax cuts.

Medicaid is the single biggest area of savings on the table.

Last night, we spoke with GOP Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis, who opposes some Medicaid cuts.

Tonight, a different view.

And correspondent Lisa Desjardins picks it up there.

LISA DESJARDINS: Today, the Congressional Budget Office sent out its analysis of the impact of some potential Medicaid cuts that some Republicans have proposed, finding that these particular cuts would mean 5.5 million fewer people on Medicaid and about 2.5 million without insurance.

Those proposed cuts at the same time would save $700 billion.

To discuss the Republican plans, Texas Congressman Chip Roy joins me now.

Thank you, Congressman.

Those millions of Americans who could lose Medicaid coverage are the reason that moderates have pushed back so hard, as you know.

And they say Speaker Johnson told them he's taken those cuts off the table.

Are those cuts off the table now, as far as you're concerned?

And could you support a bill without them?

REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): I think those numbers are not quite right.

So we think we can get better services, better programs, save money for the American people and be more fair and have a better overall health care system.

So we have some pretty simple thoughts, that you shouldn't get more on Medicaid than Medicare, that you shouldn't be able to qualify if you're ineligible, for example, if you're illegal or if you're not qualified under the program, that, if you can work, that you should work, and that you shouldn't get more if you're able-bodied than if you're vulnerable.

We think it's pretty straightforward.

LISA DESJARDINS: Congressman, Congresswoman Malliotakis told us last night that she has managed to take these larger reforms, these larger changes, she would call them cuts to some people, out of the bill.

And Speaker Johnson has indicated that as well.

Is it your understanding they're out of the bill and are you OK with that?

REP. CHIP ROY: Well, I don't know of a bill yet.

The Energy and Commerce Committee has not produced a bill.

LISA DESJARDINS: But are they off the table in the discussion?

REP. CHIP ROY: Lord knows the bill has not gone through the Rules Committee, on which I sit, and it sure as hell hasn't gone off the House floor, which I certainly have an election certificate to sit on.

The fact of the matter is, they need to come to the table and show us the math.

How are they going to balance the tax cuts that they so often want to dole out, but not do the spending reform we need to do when we're $37 trillion in debt, and the average American can't afford health care, and the average American can't afford a car, and the average American can't afford to live, and the average American can't afford a house?

And interest rates are going up.

And we're spending a trillion dollars a year on interest because Republicans never met a promise they didn't want to make without the taxes to actually pay for the promise that they're delivering to people.

So I would say to my Republican colleagues, my moderate friends, you have a hard wall you have got to get through.

And that is me and a bunch of others that believe that our budget needs to balance, the deficits need to go down, and that we need to be honest with the American people.

And I'm tired of the vulnerable getting screwed by the empty promises of both Republicans and Democrats who want to try to lie to them and say that they can have this magic fairy dust of government-provided programs which are subpar and then complain when we have $37 trillion of deficits.

We owe our kids and our grandkids better than that.

So that's my answer.

Nothing's off the table, because, if it's off the table, then I'm off the table.

LISA DESJARDINS: What do you say to some of those vulnerable populations?

I think 9 percent of your district or so is on Medicaid.

And also rural hospitals are really concerned.

They have been struggling as it is.

That's a -- I know, a larger problem, but they're concerned that if there are more uninsured, that's going to fall on them and that that could be an existential crisis.

What do you say to those vulnerable populations?

I know you're fighting for a bottom line here, but people could get hurt in the middle.

REP. CHIP ROY: Yes, I'm fighting for the vulnerable population who are getting screwed by empty promises from politicians.

That's what I'm fighting for.

LISA DESJARDINS: But rural hospitals and those on Medicaid are concerned, like in your district.

REP. CHIP ROY: Because -- they're concerned, but they're concerned because they don't want the provider tax touched, but it's a provider tax that is a flawed model.

Rural hospitals can do just fine if we create a model in which they can work and so they can actually have doctors.

How about doctors owning hospitals, instead of major corporations?

How about letting an individual go to a doctor and a DPC model, so you have a direct relationship and you have money in an account that you can use to go shop for care, instead of being screwed by an insurance company, who tells you that, oh, you don't have the doctors in your network?

Or you know what?

You only can have a co-pay of this or a high deductible of this, when you're spending $2,000 a month for the privilege of insurance.

I don't think that Medicaid coverage or highly regulated insurance coverage is actual coverage.

I think I should just be able to go to the doctor.

And that's what I'm fighting for, the average hard-working American who can't afford health care, the poor and vulnerable who are getting hosed because we're making promises to corporate executives, and all of these people making tons of money off of a crony, capitalistic, rigged system by both Democrats and Republicans who don't want to tell lobbyists no.

I'm happy to tell the lobbyists no, to stand up for the hardworking Americans that I represent.

LISA DESJARDINS: In just a minute or so we have left, Congressman, I am a debt nerd.

You are a debt and deficit hawk.

Where this bill stands right now, do you think it could add trillions to the deficit, could it not?

Or how do you see it?

And is it on a track you can support?

REP. CHIP ROY: Yes, well we're only going to be able to support legislation that will reduce the deficit.

Otherwise, we will be a no.

The only question is going to be, what math are we looking at, right?

There's going to be a lot of people throwing a lot of models around.

They're going to want to say they get enough savings out of Medicaid, enough savings out of food stamps, enough savings out of student loans or whatever to add it up.

And they're going to want to be really robust on tax cuts.

And they're going to want to say, oh, the economic growth plus the savings will be fine.

And I'm going to be looking at it and trying to be honest about what we're actually talking about.

The American people deserve honesty.

They don't deserve simple campaign rhetoric.

I'm tired of that.

Republicans campaign on balanced budgets and they campaign on tax cuts, but they only deliver tax cuts and never deliver a balanced budget.

We have got to actually deliver.

I applaud Jodey Arrington and a bunch of my colleagues across the spectrum who recognize and believe in that, and my good friends like Nicole, whom you mentioned, who I share a whole lot of values with and I think we can actually come together and produce a product that matters.

But what we can't do is put our head in the sand.

We have to deliver for the people we represent.

LISA DESJARDINS: Being honest, and we want to have you on another time to talk about Social Security and Medicare, which are the biggest drivers of the debt and not addressed yet IN this bill.

But, Representative Chip Roy of Texas, thank you so much.

REP. CHIP ROY: Thanks, Lisa.

AMNA NAWAZ: Large social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, and TikTok have billions of users across the globe.

And the decisions those companies make about privacy, content moderation and misinformation can impact people's social lives and mental health.

Judy Woodruff reports on how a different kind of social network, one grown locally, might hold lessons for another way forward IRL, or in real life.

It's part of her ongoing series, America at a Crossroads.

JUDY WOODRUFF: On a recent Tuesday evening in the Chapel of Saint Michael's College in Colchester, Vermont, the Freedom and Unity Chorus, a nod to the state's motto, is rehearsing for its upcoming concert at a nearby home hospice care.

The chorus is led by Maria Rinaldi, who works at Saint Michael's but lives 20 minutes away in the small town of Jericho.

To build the chorus, she went online, recruiting nearly every member through Vermont's most popular social media network, Front Porch Forum.

MARIA RINALDI, Vermont Freedom and Unity Chorus: I would ask people in my chorus who lived in different towns like Burlington to advertise on their Front Porch Forum or Essex or Colchester or whatnot, and so that's really how we started to build a larger chorus.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Rick Peyser and Betsy Evans both joined the chorus after seeing posts on their local forums.

RICK PEYSER, Vermont Freedom and Unity Chorus: It's like a community bulletin board.

I mean, people sell everything from chickens to tires.

But it's more than selling things.

BETSY EVANS, Vermont Freedom and Unity Chorus: If you need something or you even want to talk about something, there's discussions there.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, I see baby items, sports gear.

MICHAEL WOOD-LEWIS, Front Porch Forum: Somebody wants to talk about an old church pew.

Someone's doing political organizing.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Twenty-five years ago, after moving to Burlington and struggling to connect with his neighbors, Michael Wood-Lewis started the LISTSERV that would become Front Porch Forum.

He says he became inspired by Robert Putnam's book "Bowling Alone" -- his copy still sits on his bookshelf - - to create something that helps neighbors build community through mundane interactions.

MICHAEL WOOD LEWIS: When neighbors have some trust, some track record of working with each other, of giving, borrowing, trading, then, when harder things come along, be it a house fire, a flood, even a contentious school budget debate, people have a level of trust.

I don't agree with John over there, but I know he's a good guy because he helped me clean up my gutters last week.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It's another approach to the growing problem of isolation.

Each day, people submit postings online, and, each day, a new edition of posts arrives to subscribers' inboxes.

To join, you must use your real name and live in the specific area defined by each of the more than 250 forums across the state.

There's no endless scrolling, no like button, and no comments section.

If you want to respond to a post, it won't show up until the next edition.

There's also no algorithm customizing users' experience.

Everyone in town sees the same thing.

MICHAEL WOOD-LEWIS: Unlike big tech social media, which is trying to pull you in and hold you in for 24/7, we really just want you for five or 10 minutes a day.

And then please put the phone down and go outside and talk to your neighbors.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Over in Essex Junction, Paul Lyons and Maggie Riley say they have grown tired of online echo chambers.

Lyons teaches music and plays in local bands, and he's used Front Porch Forum to find students.

Riley works in construction and on a farm.

She's used the forum to find furniture, truck accessories, and new hobbies.

On the day we visited, they were meeting in person for the first time at a music studio near Burlington after Maggie responded to Paul's Front Porch post seeking better conversations around political differences.

PAUL LYONS, Musician: I found that social media, it's just bubbles.

And so I found that it was just my own bubble talking back to me a bunch of stuff that I kind of already knew.

And I was like, well, yes, but what do other people think?

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Maggie, you saw that posting that Paul had put out there.

What was your thought when you saw it?

MAGGIE RILEY, Construction Worker: I just thought that was like really nice and different than the way a lot of people nowadays think about politics.

Similar to Paul, I recently have just been thinking whichever side it's from, people are too angry at each other and not able to talk to each other.

PAUL LYONS: There's a disc golf course right around the block.

MAGGIE RILEY: Oh, I haven't noticed that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Paul's post led to a 90-minute phone call.

They had some disagreements and decided to keep the contents of that conversation to themselves.

But they want to keep the dialogue going.

PAUL LYONS: Front Porch Forum is helpful, in that there's no comments section.

The only way you can connect with somebody is to connect with them.

It's not owned by billionaires.

It's not being used to extract time, energy and attention from people.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Front Porch Forum is free for its users, but makes money through local advertising, optional subscriptions with more access, and donations.

And while vigorous discussion is encouraged, personal attacks and misinformation are prohibited.

MICHAEL WOOD-LEWIS: Eight thousand members participate in this single neighborhood forum.

They saw this.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Around 12 moderators, all real people living in Vermont, review each post before it's published to ensure it complies with the terms of use.

MICHAEL WOOD-LEWIS: As long as people aren't spreading disinformation, aren't violating our rules in some other way, we welcome that content.

But it's challenging.

And in these times that we're in, these increasingly divisive, difficult times, it's gotten harder.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you think about the policy or approach of some of the other social media platforms that say, well, we need to let everybody speak for themselves and let them duke it out, so to speak, that we are all about free speech in this country?

MICHAEL WOOD-LEWIS: Yes, I don't buy it.

It's highly irresponsible.

They have created platforms with massive, massive power to change people's lives, and they're generating massive wealth for themselves and sucking a lot of that wealth out of local communities.

And they need to take more responsibility.

ELI PARISER, Co-Director, New_ Public: When you're controlled by one person, what that one person does has huge consequences.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Eli Pariser has been thinking about the Internet's impact on society and democracy for decades.

In the early 2000s, he led the progressive site MoveOn.org in opposition to the Iraq War and, in 2011, wrote "The Filter Bubble" about how online algorithms customize users' experience, while extracting and selling their personal information.

He now co-directs New_ Public, a nonprofit trying to shape online models to better promote democracy and civic engagement, especially at the local level.

ELI PARISER: So in physical communities, we have private businesses, but we also have libraries and parks and these other public institutions that just do different stuff.

And it's not to say that bookstores are bad.

Bookstores are great, but you need libraries too because there are things that bookstores will never do because they're organized as businesses.

I think, in the digital world, we have lived in this world that's just private companies that's 100 percent -- it's like organizing your whole society in a mall.

And building these public spaces that can really serve public needs seems like it needs to complement the private entities.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Last year, New_ Public and the University of Texas commissioned a survey of Front Porch Forum users.

It found that Front Porch Forum performed better than its much larger competitors, Facebook and Nextdoor, on key metrics like connecting users with where they live, treating people humanely and helping users feel more informed.

ELI PARISER: I think we can do better.

And I think we can do better by reinventing kind of what's the container, what's the business container that we're putting this in?

Does it have to make billions and billions of dollars or can it serve the public as well?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Back in Burlington, there's a question about whether Front Porch Forum could work beyond Vermont in more urban, more diverse and larger settings.

Pariser is working to create the digital tools to help others build their own models in communities across the country.

But while Michael Wood-Lewis: has a couple of pilot forums in neighboring states, he doesn't plan to expand Front Porch Forum.

MICHAEL WOOD-LEWIS: That's a whole other challenge that we would require a whole different kind of team and resources.

There are other people trying that and I applaud them.

But I think the solution that excites me is 1,000 different local solutions.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Judy Woodruff in Burlington, Vermont.

AMNA NAWAZ: And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

For all of us here at the "PBS News Hour," thanks for spending part of your evening with us.