July 26, 2023 – PBS NewsHour full episode

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening.

I'm William Brangham.

Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett are away.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Hunter Biden's plea deal unravels over concerns about whether future charges can be brought against the president's son.

Despite lower inflation, the Federal Reserve stays the course with another planned interest rate hike.

And the lives of displaced Syrians are put at risk after a Russian veto at the United Nations halts aid to rebel-held areas.

KHALED AHMED HAJJ, Syrian Camp Resident (through translator): The closure of the crossing will cause us to suffocate and starve to death.

The camps depend only on U.N. aid, and closing the crossing means killing us.

(BREAK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

A plea agreement that would have kept Hunter Biden out of prison for tax and gun charges was unexpectedly put on hold today, adding new questions to an already politically divisive deal.

Laura Barron-Lopez explains.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: A tumultuous day in federal court for Hunter Biden after a judge put his guilty plea agreement on hold in Wilmington.

The legal drama for the president's son, again a subject of fierce debate in Washington.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): To the extent that it looks like the administration is treating Democrats more favorably than Republicans, I can understand why, people in the House are upset about it.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Bottom line is, this is a prosecution being done in a fair way by a former Trump prosecutor, and I have faith in the results.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: The deal was, Biden would plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges.

In exchange, he would not face prosecution for a felony gun charge, provided he remains drug-free for two years and does not purchase another weapon.

But, today, Biden pleaded not guilty to the two tax charges after district court Judge Maryellen Noreika, who is presiding over the case, voiced concerns early about the deal.

At the White House, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reaffirmed the president's position.

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, White House Press Secretary: Hunter Biden is a private citizen, and this was a personal matter for him.

As we have said, the president, the first lady, they love their son and they support him as he continues to rebuild his life.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Despite the charges, congressional Republicans have accused Hunter Biden of receiving special treatment from the Justice Department... SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): No, I mean, it sounds like it was rife with all kinds of irregularities.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: ... and have targeted his business dealings with some, with House Republicans weighing an impeachment inquiry into unproven allegations that President Biden was involved.

REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): With each passing day, House Republicans' investigations uncover more and more evidence showing that Joe Biden not only knew about, but was involved in his family's illegal influence peddling scheme.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Again, those accusations are unsubstantiated.

But Republican attacks on the president and his son will almost certainly ramp up in the aftermath of today's hearing, which left Hunter Biden's legal future unresolved.

To help us understand it all, I'm joined by Glenn Thrush of The New York Times.

He's in Wilmington, Delaware, where he was inside the courtroom.

Glenn, thanks so much for joining.

Today was expected to be smooth sailing for Hunter Biden on this guilty plea deal, but that all broke down.

What happened?

You were in the courtroom.

Can you explain?

GLENN THRUSH, The New York Times: It was pretty extraordinary.

When you cover a plea deal, it tends to be the signing of some papers.

The judge tends to go through a whole list of questions that are sort of written out in advance.

But the tenor of this hearing was totally different from the start.

The judge in the case seemed utterly skeptical, nearly hostile towards this agreement, and she attacked two provisions in particular.

The first was a provision that was the gun agreement on the diversion program.

And the second, and more importantly, was this blanket immunity that the government had granted to Hunter Biden relating to any issues, not -- that appeared to relate to any issues, not just tax and gun charges, emanating from that period of time, which is roughly 2014 to 2019, when he was simultaneously earning millions of dollars a year working as a consultant for foreign countries and in the throes of a really desperate drug and alcohol addiction.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And so Hunter Biden ended up pleading not guilty to those two misdemeanor tax charges that you mentioned.

But he could still end up working out a deal with the Justice Department, right?

So can you walk us through where all those charges stand, including that potential felony gun charge?

GLENN THRUSH: I wish I knew.

I don't think anybody at this point knows.

I think Hunter Biden's lawyers at this moment are trying to figure out how to pick up the pieces.

But, yes, you're right.

The not-guilty plea is intended to be a placeholder.

It's a placeholder that could actually turn into a real plea if they don't come up with an agreement.

But, at the moment, the judge gave them two weeks to essentially overhaul this plea deal to address two particular concerns.

One is her level of involvement in overseeing the gun deal -- she thought she was given too much of a role in it -- and rewriting a provision in that immunity agreement, which she wants more narrow.

So if they're able to come up with an agreement, we could be back here in a couple of weeks for what could be a less dramatic version of today's events.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And, as you noted, the dispute between the Justice Department and Hunter Biden's lawyers centered on a question over the breadth of the immunity that he was or wasn't going to get in this deal and about whether or not he could face future criminal charges.

How likely do you think additional charges could be down the road, if they ultimately come to a deal?

GLENN THRUSH: Well, you're getting at what was probably, I think, the most interesting moment in the hearing.

The judge asked the government, in this case, one of the top prosecutors in Delaware, whether or not this investigation was ongoing.

And the prosecutor said, categorically, yes.

She then asked a series of questions, really interesting ones, asking, hypothetically, what were the potential charges apart from the tax and gun charges that might be looked at?

And one of them that she mentioned involved registering as a lobbyist for a foreign country.

That is something that has been mentioned as a potential charge that was looked into.

But it was interesting that the prosecutor did not deny that and indicated that that was one of the areas that would not be covered under the plea agreement that was submitted today.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Yes, right there, you're referring to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which could apply to Hunter Biden.

Glenn, do we have any idea if, in the future dealings here, whether or not they have one that they ultimately come to, if the president's son could ultimately face prison time?

GLENN THRUSH: I mean, at this point in time, things are up in the air.

I would say, just generally speaking, there is a strong motive for both Biden and the prosecutors to get a deal done.

I think David Weiss, the prosecutor in this case, has invested an awful lot of his capital.

He's been on the job for a long time.

He is a Trump appointee.

He wants this thing done with.

He is currently facing a grilling at the hands of House and Senate Republicans.

So I think he would like to have this -- be past this when he goes up on the Hill to testify perhaps in September and October.

And Hunter Biden -- probably the most emotional part of today was Hunter Biden talking about his drug and alcohol addiction in the past tense.

I think he very much wants to put his legal problems in the past tense as well.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Glenn Thrush of The New York Times, thank you so much for your reporting.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In the day's other headlines: Interest rates are headed higher again, as the Federal Reserve resumes its fight with inflation.

After a one-month pause, the Central Bank raised its benchmark rate by a quarter point today.

The Fed's inflation target is 2 percent a year, but it's still running a point above that range.

The heat stayed on high today across the American Southwest.

Phoenix has now hit at least 110 degrees for 27 straight days.

The strain has broken air conditioning units and even left desert cacti drying up.

Forecasters say next week may finally bring a bit of relief with daytime highs below 110.

Meanwhile, wildfires kept spreading across Southern Europe, claiming more lives, including two in hard-hit Greece.

On the island of Rhodes, firefighters joined with homeowners to help put out flames.

But locals said the devastation is immense.

PHILIPPOS KARAGEORGIOU, Rhodes Resident (through translator): More than 200,000 acres have been burned.

I believe it is more than one third of the island.

It is not only forest areas with virgin forest of several years that was destroyed, biodiversity and life, from herbs to anything you can imagine.

And Rhodes is famous for all of these.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In Italy, fire crews have battled some 1,400 blazes since Sunday.

News accounts today said at least two people died when their home burned near the Palermo Airport.

A jury in London has acquitted actor Kevin Spacey on multiple charges of sexual assault.

Several men had accused him of groping them in incidents dating back over a decade.

One accused him of a nonconsensual sex act.

After the verdict was announced today, Spacey spoke to reporters outside the courthouse.

KEVIN SPACEY, Actor: I'm enormously grateful to the jury for having taken the time to examine all of the evidence and all of the facts carefully before they reached their decision, and I am humbled by the outcome today.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Spacey's career came to a halt in 2017 when these accusations against him emerged at the height of the MeToo movement.

Back in this country, the Senate's top Republican, 81-year-old Mitch McConnell, appeared to freeze up today at a briefing.

The Kentucky senator began speaking, then stopped mid-sentence, staring straight ahead.

Colleagues finally helped him move aside, and he returned to his office.

Minutes later, he came back, said he was fine and took questions.

Aides said he'd felt lightheaded.

McConnell suffered a concussion earlier this year.

Seven major car companies have announced they will build electric vehicle charging stations throughout the U.S. and Canada.

General Motors, Stellantis, and five others pledged today to install 30,000 high-power stations along highways and in cities.

That's nearly double the existing number of outlets in North America.

On Wall Street, in the face of the latest interest rate hike, stocks showed little movement.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 82 points to close at 35520.

The Nasdaq fell 17 points.

The S&P 500 was nearly unchanged.

And Irish singer-songwriter Sinead O'Connor has died.

Her family announced her passing today, but gave no details.

O'Connor was known for her sensational voice and provocative actions, including tearing up a picture of Pope John Paul II on "Saturday Night Live."

She shot to global fame in 1990, with a cover of the Prince ballad "Nothing Compares to You."

(MUSIC) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Sinead O'Connor was 56 years old.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": Waters off the coast of Florida reach hot-tub-like temperatures, bleaching coral reefs; the Biden administration's efforts to get insurance companies to cover mental health care; upheaval in Israel prompts calls for the U.S. to cut off billions in annual aid; author Wes Lowery addresses increasing racial violence in his new book; plus much more.

As heat waves roll across so much of the world, oceans are also heating up.

Surface temperatures in many oceans are right now breaking historical records, including in the Atlantic, where these warmer waters threaten ocean life and coral reefs.

For example, off the coast of Southern Florida, surface water temperatures have topped a shocking 100 degrees Fahrenheit, triggering a sudden massive bleaching event on some coral reefs.

To help us understand more about what's happening and what can be done, we're joined by Katey Lesneski.

She studies the coral reefs at the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Katey Lesneski, it is so good to have you on the "NewsHour."

I know you have been diving in some of the reefs recently.

I can't imagine what it's like swimming in water that is that warm.

Can you just tell us a little bit about what you have been seeing on those reefs?

KATEY LESNESKI, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Yes, thanks, William, for having me on today to talk about this important and timely issue.

So I work on the reefs as many days as we can get out there.

And I have been out over the last several days.

And, immediately, when you jump into the water, it feels like you are in a hot tub.

Fortunately, the waters on the reefs here are not at 100.

They're in the low 90s.

That 100-degree temperature was taken in a shallow landlocked area.

But we are still seeing temperature records being shattered.

And that has direct impact on all of the amazing life on the reefs, including the coral reefs.

And what I'm seeing right now are stark white corals that are undergoing what we call bleaching, which, if corals can't recover, can lead to their pretty immediate death.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: If corals experience that die-off or that bleaching, does that mean that the corals cannot recover?

KATEY LESNESKI: So, corals can indeed recover from periods of bleaching.

Bleaching can actually be caused by a number of different factors where environmental conditions aren't quite right for the corals.

Of course, the most well-known one at this point, the most well-studied perhaps, is increasing temperatures.

And if conditions don't return to a preferable state, so if the waters don't cool off, these corals can actually die from that bleached state in a number of days to a number of weeks.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And, at that point, then, they're not coming back.

KATEY LESNESKI: Exactly.

Once they die, there are other reef organisms that will actually settle on that skeleton, take up space, and the coral tissue can't grow back, unfortunately.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, for people who may have only seen coral reefs in videos or photographs, I mean, we know how extraordinary they are to look at.

But can you remind us why they're so valuable within the ocean ecosystem?

KATEY LESNESKI: So, corals and coral reefs provide a really wide number of ecological and economic benefits.

We can basically bin those into two categories.

So, just from an ecological standpoint, over 25 percent of all of the world's marine species depend on coral reefs and the structure of corals at some point in their lifetime.

So that's everything from sea turtles and sharks that people love to see to lobster and conch, other commercially fish species, game fish.

Florida alone depends on reefs for somewhere between $2 billion and $4 billion dollars a year from tourism and all the other valuable parts of the reef.

So, the ecology and the economics are very closely intertwined.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Is there anything that you have been seeing that gives you hope that there might be some solution, some way out of this?

KATEY LESNESKI: Mm-hmm.

So I have been diving on some of the deeper reefs that still show signs of what we call resistance to bleaching, where corals are not undergoing any of those signs associated with bleaching.

And so that -- these depth pockets can almost serve as a refuge.

There are other individuals at other sites, these very shallow reefs, that still look quite healthy.

So that tells us something about potentially the genetic diversity and the unique genetics that could -- in these corals could contribute to their ongoing resistance to this bleaching.

So we will be looking at those deeper reefs and tracking those unique individuals as much as we can into the future.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Can I ask you what it is like for you personally, as someone who studies these, to see the temperatures go up like they are and then to go in and to see these direct impacts?

I mean, that's got to be a difficult thing to witness.

KATEY LESNESKI: Yes, it's been very difficult for me and many of our colleagues who not only have the reefs part of our day-to-day job, but it's something that many of us enjoy spending time on, on the weekends and what we have really made our career out of to study.

We did not expect to see this amount of bleaching occurring this early in the season.

These predictions, they seem to be changing by the day, based on just how rampant this widespread heat wave is here, as well as the prolonged ocean temperatures.

And we're already seeing hundreds of corals dying all across the Florida Keys.

So, every day, we're holding our breath, and we will see what tomorrow brings.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Katey Lesneski at the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, thank you so much for being here.

KATEY LESNESKI: Thank you, William.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Now the latest in the Federal Reserve's campaign to raise interest rates and bring down inflation.

That effort is almost a year-and-a-half-old now.

At the same time, Fed Chair Jay Powell wants to tame inflation without tipping the economy into a recession, which is a tall order.

Economics correspondent Paul Solman helps us unpack the thinking behind the Fed's moves.

PAUL SOLMAN: As expected, the Federal Reserve raised its key lending rate again today after a pause in June to the highest level in 22 years.

Chair Jay Powell: JEROME POWELL, Federal Reserve Chairman: Powell inflation has moderated somewhat since the middle of last year.

Nonetheless, the process of getting inflation back down to 2 percent has a long way to go.

PAUL SOLMAN: A long way to go, despite signs that inflation is ebbing.

EDWARD AL-HUSSAINY, Columbia Threadneedle: Rental inflation, the cost of housing, which was rising very rapidly in the course of 2021-2022, is now reversing.

PAUL SOLMAN: And even wages are moderating, says analyst Ed Al-Hussainy.

EDWARD AL-HUSSAINY: Wage growth as well peaked about a year ago.

It's decelerating.

It's not decelerating as fast as inflation, but it is decelerating.

People have come back into the labor force from the sidelines, particularly women.

So the size of the pool of people available to work is higher today than it was in 2019, and that's taking a lot of pressure off of wages, and, therefore, inflation that's related to services that is connected to the labor market.

PAUL SOLMAN: No wonder then that the Consumer Price Index was up just 3 percent in June.

A year ago, it was embracing 9.1.

But Chair Powell worries about putting too much stock in one month's data.

JEROME POWELL: The June CPI report, of course, was welcome, but it's only one report, one month's data.

Inflation repeatedly has proved stronger than we and other forecasters have expected.

And at some point, that may change.

We have to be ready to follow the data.

And given how far we have come, we can afford to be a little patient, as well as resolute, as we let this unfold.

EDWARD AL-HUSSAINY: We are not sure that the inflation story is finished.

PAUL SOLMAN: Moreover, adds Ed Al-Hussainy: EDWARD AL-HUSSAINY: And we're not sure that higher inflation is not being embedded in the economy, in the psychology of people's everyday decision-making.

PAUL SOLMAN: In short, our inflation expectations, as shoppers, as workers, they really matter, says economist Julia Coronado.

JULIA CORONADO, MacroPolicy Perspectives: For the Fed, that inflation psychology is a very important element of inflation dynamics.

If we believe that the Fed is going to control inflation, that gives rise to behavior that reinforces that low inflation.

Companies stop raising prices.

People stop demanding cost-of-living increases.

And that, in turn, helps sort of lock in lower inflation.

PAUL SOLMAN: So the Fed thinks it's doing it's duty, trying to discourage us from spending in order to slow down economic activity, says former Fed official Krishna Guha.

KRISHNA GUHA, Vice Chairman, Evercore ISI: The Fed has promised to deliver 2 percent inflation.

Now, that doesn't mean they have to be inflation nutcases and crash the economy to get inflation back to 2 at the very earliest opportunity.

But they do need to seriously commit to get it there over the next few years.

PAUL SOLMAN: To maintain credibility.

But Guha admits prices rose for reasons that had nothing to do with the Fed.

KRISHNA GUHA: The big forces that drove inflation higher were coming, obviously, from fundamental shocks to the economy.

PAUL SOLMAN: The forces you have heard here and elsewhere beaten drumlike, COVID, supply chains, Ukraine, corporate opportunism, stimulus checks.

KRISHNA GUHA: A big part of the process by which inflation hopefully eventually returns to target is just that those big shocks dissipate and the dislocations in the economy gradually sort themselves out.

PAUL SOLMAN: In which case, says Ed Al-Hussainy: EDWARD AL-HUSSAINY: And the mystery is whether the Fed had anything to do with it.

PAUL SOLMAN: But, even so, the Fed's using, well, the standby arrow in its quiver, targeting higher interest rates, even at the risk of recession, to hit its bullseye, 2 percent inflation.

EDWARD AL-HUSSAINY: Think about the problem the Fed is trying to solve is this.

Let's pick a number for inflation that will be immaterial to people's everyday decision-making, to how they bargain for wages, how they make consumption and purchasing decisions around large items like cars or homes.

Does the Fed have the luxury to re examine the target in today's environment?

Categorically, the answer is no.

PAUL SOLMAN: Finally, a looming question: Is this likely to be the last Fed rate hike for a while?

EDWARD AL-HUSSAINY: The Fed's tightening cycle is coming to an end.

They are very likely to pause in the course of the next several meetings.

And that's a world away from where they were six to 12 months ago.

PAUL SOLMAN: For his part, Powell was noncommittal about what the Fed might do at the next meeting.

JEROME POWELL: In September, we're going to look at two additional job reports, two additional CPI reports, lots of activity data.

And that's what we're going to look at.

And it's really dependent so much on the data.

And we just don't have it yet.

PAUL SOLMAN: But, by September, they will.

For the "PBS NewsHour," Paul Solman.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: President Biden has been hitting the road to sell his economic record, emphasizing pocketbook and consumer issues, including a new rule this week to crack down on insurers for inadequate coverage of mental health care.

But his agenda also faces some headwinds.

The Federal Reserve's decision to hike interest rates again today is a sign that the battle against inflation is not over.

And, yesterday, a federal judge blocked a key part of the president's immigration policy.

To talk about all of this, we are joined by Neera Tanden.

She is the president's domestic policy adviser.

Neera Tanden, thank you for being back on the "NewsHour."

First to immigration.

Yesterday, this judge ruled that a key part of President Biden's asylum policy was unlawful.

And this came after complaints that you well know that the policy was cruel and was a warmed-over version of the Trump policy.

How much does this ruling constrain your ability to deal with the border?

NEERA TANDEN, White House Domestic Policy Adviser: As you know, in the ruling itself, the judge stayed his own order.

So it's really important for people to understand that the rules the president has put in place are operational.

We have seen a large-scale decline in border crossings since the implementation of this rule.

The rule is working effectively to get better control of the border.

And that is part of the argument that we are making.

We -- as I understand it, the Department of Justice has issued statements saying how confident they are in the process, how confident they are that we will win on appeal.

And what's really most important for people to remember is that this rule has really helped stabilize the border and it is a central part of ensuring that we have stable immigration policies.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, turning to some of these pocketbook issues, yesterday, the administration rolled out a proposal to pressure health insurance companies to do a better job of covering mental health care.

What is the evidence, as you see it, that they are not living up to that right now?

NEERA TANDEN: Well, according to various studies, people who have insurance are paying out of pocket.

In fact, it is more than twice as likely -- if you have insurance, you're more than twice as likely to pay out of pocket than -- for mental health care than for physical health care.

And we know that Americans who are insured are paying billions of dollars a year for mental health care.

That is not supposed to be.

Over 15 years ago, the Congress passed, on a bipartisan basis, the Mental Health Parity Act.

The Mental Health Parity Act stipulated and really demanded that mental health care is treated like physical health care by the health care system.

But what we have seen over the last several years is that there are tactics and perhaps even evasions of the system.

Insurance companies have mental health providers in their network, but there are just too few of them.

So people have to wait years to get access to therapy that is covered.

Or there are prior authorizations, hurdles that people have to go to, to access mental health care.

And, sometimes, the reimbursement level is different for mental health care for doctors.

For psychiatrists, reimbursement level is lower for them than for physicians or doctors who are helping with physical care.

All of that contributes to a system where it's just much harder to get covered care from -- mental health care than physical care.

And that is why the president acted.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: One of the things -- and you touched on this -- and health insurers make this argument, and, certainly, there is evidence that this is the case as well.

I have seen this in my own reporting, that, even if you do have coverage, that finding a provider to care for you is very, very difficult.

Isn't that an equally problematic part of this issue?

NEERA TANDEN: Well, all of these issues interact.

And let me explain how.

If you are a psychiatrist, and you get a lower level of reimbursement from the insurers than physicians, sometimes, you're going to think that it's just more difficult to take -- to be in an insurance system, and maybe you will just go the route of only having people pay out of pocket.

But that -- you know, the people -- the number of people who can really pay out of pocket or very few.

What we find is that, when reimbursement levels are the same, when insurance systems are trying to ensure that they have enough providers, that that actually creates an incentive structure for more people to be providing this kind of care.

So it is absolutely the case that we need more mental health providers.

But we also need insurance systems to partner and support in solving this problem by ensuring that they're providing enough mental health therapists, physicians who can provide mental health care, mental health providers in their networks, so people can access care.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Turning to the broader economy, as you know, the Fed raised interest rates again, which makes borrowing money, costlier.

One in three Americans right now believe that President Biden is not doing enough to address their economic concerns.

What is the administration doing about that?

NEERA TANDEN: The president has been laser-focused on ensuring that we are doing everything we can to lower costs.

I work on health care policy for the president.

We have a robust agenda of lowering prescription drug costs.

Medicare will be negotiating drug prices for the first time.

That will lower drug costs.

We should also recognize that inflation has adjusted.

In fact, inflation has decreased every month for the last year.

That doesn't mean our work is done.

There's plenty more work to do.

But we should recognize that this economy has created 13 million more jobs, inflation is declining, and we have also created an economy where we have amongst the lowest unemployment rates in recent history.

So there's work to do on lowering costs.

But we also recognize that this is a strong and stable economy that's really growing from the middle out and the bottom up.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Neera Tanden, domestic policy adviser to President Biden, thank you so much for being here.

This month, a Russian veto at the United Nations Security Council led to the closure of a U.N.-operated border crossing.

That crossing was the gateway that supplied vital humanitarian aid to rebel-held parts of Northwest Syria.

The Syrian regime now says all deliveries will be coordinated through Damascus and not the U.N.

But with this closure, more than four million Syrians, most of whom are internally displaced, have lost access to crucial humanitarian aid.

John Yang has more.

JOHN YANG: In a tent city in Northwest Syria, an entire generation born into war, children who have only known life in the narrow lanes of this camp and who learn to live with the bare minimum.

At the Atalrama (ph) camp, Khaled Ahmed Hajj feeds his children what little he can.

They dip bread in oil and thyme, the six of them eating from a single small plate.

They have not had meat, fruit or vegetables for months.

KHALED AHMED HAJJ, Syrian Camp Resident (through translator): There are no job opportunities for us to work.

There's nothing.

Even bread and thyme, we can barely buy.

My children are malnourished.

My baby needs food, milk, fruits, and protein.

JOHN YANG: Hajj says the closure of the U.N.-operated border crossing at Bab al-Hawa on the Turkish border will block aid to his camp.

That, he says, amounts to a death sentence.

KHALED AHMED HAJJ (through translator): The closure of the crossing will cause us to suffocate and starve to death.

The camps depend only on U.N. aid, and closing the crossing means killing us.

JOHN YANG: Next door, Mohammad Hasram tries to cool his tent with water.

It's over 100 degrees on most summer days.

His youngest child can't bear it.

MOHAMMAD HASRAM, Syrian Camp Resident (through translator): There's little water here.

We use some of it to cool the tent.

Look at this dilapidated tent and other conditions.

The picture speaks louder than words.

JOHN YANG: Hasram came here after fleeing Homs.

Once known as the capital of the Syrian revolution, Homs has long been reduced to rubble by the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Today, Hasram faces another battle, keeping his children alive.

MOHAMMAD HASRAM (through translator): No one looks at our situation and no one helps.

We depend on U.N. aid.

We used to get some aid, but now it's completely cut off.

If it continues to be stopped, life here will stop.

This is a food war on us.

JOHN YANG: The Bab al-Hawa crossing was the last remaining humanitarian corridor between Turkey and the rebel-held Idlib province.

It closed earlier this month after Russia vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution, a move that angered many Syrians in the region.

ABDUL KAFI AL-HAMDO, Air Worker: Syrian regime and Russians have used the food weapon for years against civilians.

We want to say for the whole world that you shouldn't wait until seeing people dying out of hunger, out of lack of food and any humanitarian assistance.

People in Northwest Syria have been suffering for years.

JOHN YANG: Now the Syrian regime wants to control aid delivery into these rebel-held territories through Damascus.

Charles Lister is a senior fellow and director of the Syria and Countering Terrorism and Extremism Programs at the Middle East Institute.

CHARLES LISTER, Middle East Institute: The Syrian regime, who have spent 12 years besieging, gassing and killing hundreds of thousands of Syrians, now gets to claim to the international community that it's willing to provide humanitarian access, it is willing to open a border crossing.

The rate of humanitarian aid provision into Northwestern Syria will unquestionably collapse significantly.

JOHN YANG: Lister said an average of 12,000 aid trucks had passed through the U.N. crossing each year.

But on the Assad-controlled routes, since 2021, only a total of 152 trucks have delivered, an average of only 74 a year.

CHARLES LISTER: The regime would in most cases simply refuse to allow the aid in at all.

And all across Syria over the past 12 years, there have been towns and cities where people have been eating grass, have been eating mud, in desperation because they have no aid.

On the few occasions in those historical cases where the regime did allow small amounts of aid in, they were then in the practice whereby the Syrian regime would -- for example, they put shards of glass inside shipments of flour.

They put bird feces inside baby formula.

JOHN YANG: Health officials say the crossing's closure will have a devastating effect on the health care system.

It's already crippled by February's twin earthquakes that destroyed medical facilities, killed medical staff and damaged equipment that has yet to be replaced.

Now, with the border crossing closed, more than half of Northwest Syria's remaining hospitals are at risk of shutting down.

Dr. Zuhair Karat is head of the Idlib Health Directorate.

DR. ZUHAIR KARAT, Idlib Health Directorate (through translator): The cessation of aid entry will lead to great damage to the health sector and will lead to the closure of these facilities.

We are heading for a major health disaster.

JOHN YANG: That would compound an already dire humanitarian crisis.

And until the international community comes up with a solution, millions of displaced Syrians are looking toward a grim future.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm John Yang.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Israel's current political turmoil, driven by the most far right government in that nation's history, has renewed the debate over America's financial assistance to that country.

The U.S. has been a supporter of Israel since its creation in 1948 and has given it significant aid since the U.S.-brokered peace deal between Israel and Egypt in 1979.

Israel receives more U.S. aid each year than any other country, totaling $3.8 billion in military aid annually.

However, there are growing calls to revisit that.

Joining us to discuss this are Daniel Kurtzer.

He served as U.S. ambassador to Egypt during the Clinton administration and to Israel during the George W. Bush administration.

He's now a professor at Princeton University.

And Dennis Ross has also served in Democratic and Republican administrations as a Middle East peace envoy.

He's a counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Gentlemen, thank you both so much for being here.

Daniel Kurtzer, to you first.

You have long argued that the U.S. ought to revisit this issue of aid to Israel and to draw it down.

Why?

DANIEL KURTZER, Former U.S.

Ambassador to Israel: Well, Israel is a mature country with a mature economy.

In fact, its GDP per capita is stronger than Japan's.

And so, in fact, it really doesn't need the U.S. military assistance, number one.

Number two, this has nothing to do with the current crisis in Israel.

It's not punitive.

But it's, rather, a way to make this relationship sound and on a much better footing than it currently is.

What I have argued for is to substitute for the military assistance two agreements between our countries, one that would effectively give Israel access to American technology and America access to Israeli technology, and, secondly, to set up a joint R&D mechanism so that we can really build technology together.

That would be a far better way than this kind of dependency relationship that we have established over the years.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And, Daniel, just sticking with you for a moment, would you like to see that happen immediately?

DANIEL KURTZER: No, it's not realistic to think about it immediately.

We have to do this through agreements.

It would have to be phased out.

We have experienced phasing out assistance programs with Israel.

In the 1990s, we phased out our economic assistance over 10 years.

And I think it would take at least five, perhaps more years to work out the agreements that I have been calling for.

And I think, frankly, it's better for both of our countries.

The Israeli military industry will grow as a result of it.

And there won't be this shadow hanging over our relationship that somehow we can exercise pressure as a result of aid.

We don't do that anyway.

And this would remove that possibility.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Dennis Ross, you have heard this argument.

What do you make of this?

DENNIS ROSS, Former U.S.

Envoy to Middle East: Look, I think there's a lot of logic to what Dan is saying.

My concern would be the message it sends now.

Dan is suggesting that this isn't something that you would do now; this is something you would -- you would do through agreement, you would phase it in.

But I'm concerned that, in the current environment, it will be seen not just as a punitive step.

I think it's going to be misread by the Iranians, by Hezbollah.

They already believe that Israel is dramatically weakened because of what's going on domestically.

If it now appears that if the United States is announcing it's going to cut off military assistance to Israel or military security assistant to Israel, I think that sends a message to them that this is a time to basically increase the pressures they have on Israel.

And I would also say it sends a different kind of message to others within the region.

There are those who have heard American presidents since Ronald Reagan say, our commitment to Israeli security is ironclad.

That term has been repeated over and over again.

So if it now looks like we're saying, OK, we're going to actually cut off military assistance to Israel -- and, to be fair, that's not exactly what Dan is saying -- but many are -- many favor that.

Many will interpret calls for that this way now.

I'm afraid that you have others who doubt whether we're really reliable in the region, others who look to us for security, but have become questioning of our position in the region.

They now believe we're going to pull out of the region.

If you suddenly say a commitment that has been ironclad is now sort of one in which we're going to be reducing our military and security assistance to Israel, I suspect it tends to validate the view that we really are withdrawing from the region.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Daniel, what about that point, that, no matter how you frame it, that simply talking about the U.S. changing its ironclad commitment to Israel this way, that this does send a message to Israel's enemies, and that could be genuinely destabilizing?

DANIEL KURTZER: Well, actually, it's just the opposite.

I think it's a straw man argument to say that this will be misinterpreted, because it has to flow from an agreement coming from the United States and Israel.

Both of our countries need to approach this maturely and realistically.

And, in fact, there are voices in Israel today, including from the right wing and some of the right-wing press that are making the same argument.

Now, they make it for different reasons.

They want to be out from under the possibility of American pressure.

But the argument resonates in both of our countries.

So I don't think it should be taken seriously that people are going to misinterpret it.

There's strength in the U.S.-Israeli relationship in Congress.

There's strength in the U.S.-Israeli relationship in public opinion.

And that's not going to change at all.

We support Israel in the United Nations.

We support Israel in so many ways in our bilateral relationship that a bilateral set of agreements that replaces this artificial aid, I think, will actually be seen as strengthening the relationship between our two countries.

And I think that's the way it can be perceived, as long as both of us agree on this.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Dennis Ross, what do you see as the principal benefit of this aid?

I mean, as Daniel is saying, Israel is a wealthy country.

They are militarily very, very strong.

They don't necessarily need this money or this assistance.

So what do you see is the benefit of it?

DENNIS ROSS: Look, we have benefited a great deal from a lot of the developments that the Israelis have made because of our security assistance.

We have benefited from issues like helping to finance the Israelis on Iron Dome, a defensive missile.

We have helped by helping to finance Israel's development of the Arrow missile, also a defensive missile.

We're now helping to finance Israel's development of Iron Beam, which is a laser defensive system.

Much of the equipment we provide the Israelis that they improve on, but also much the security assistance that we provide to them, ends up benefiting us as well.

So there is a benefit to this.

I don't dispute the idea that there could be an agreement that phases out over time.

My concern is, in the current setting, in the current context, that Dan may feel that it won't be misread.

I think there are many critics of Israel who in fact are not supporters of Israel and who don't believe Israel has a right even to self-defense who would seize upon this.

And I think you have to be very careful how you present it.

You look at Iran and Hezbollah.

Hezbollah's behavior over the last several months is demonstrating they're becoming less risk-averse in a context where they read there's great turmoil and division within Israel.

And if it appears as if the U.S. is taking a step away from Israel, I think it just feeds that perception and I think it makes things a good deal less stable.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Daniel, do you believe -- let's just say enough people hear your argument and want to bring it up.

Do you believe that, politically, in America, right now that this could ever get traction?

I mean, I -- it's hard to think of a more bipartisan issue that holds Republicans and Democrats together than support of Israel.

I mean, several years ago, over 300 members of the House signed a letter saying: We will always stand by Israel.

Do you think that this has any realistic chance of actually coming to fruition?

DANIEL KURTZER: Look, I would argue strongly against the United States undertaking this unilaterally.

This is all predicated on the United States and Israel beginning a very deep discussion of whether or not the agreements that I indicated could not only substitute for the military assistance, which accounts for a very small part of Israel's GDP -- less than 1 percent of Israel's gross domestic product results from this assistance -- but, rather, whether or not the benefits that can accrue from the technology gains that we would accomplish together and the access to technology that both of us would have from each other's scientific community would far outweigh the particular dollars involved.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Daniel Kurtzer and Dennis Ross, thank you both so much for being here.

DENNIS ROSS: Pleasure.

Thank you.

DANIEL KURTZER: Pleasure.

Thanks.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: On our Bookshelf tonight, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Wesley Lowery examines the pattern of racist violence that follows racial progress in America, including the recent white supremacist violence that surged following Barack Obama's presidency.

Lowery recently sat down with Geoff Bennett to discuss his findings, which he details in his new book, "American Whitelash: A Changing Nation and the Cost of Progress."

GEOFF BENNETT: Wesley Lowery joins us now.

Welcome back to the "NewsHour."

WESLEY LOWERY, Author, "American Whitelash: A Changing Nation and the Cost of Progress": Thanks so much for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the book, you look at how and why racist violence has spiked since the election of Barack Obama.

And you write: "The election of a Black president did not usher us from the shadows of our racist past.

Rather, it led us down a perilous path and into a decade-and-a-half and counting of explicit racial thrashing."

Pick it up from there.

WESLEY LOWERY: Think about what we have seen in the time since President Obama's election, the rise of a nativist movement hyperconcerned with immigration and refugees that vowed to ban Muslims from coming into the country, and ultimately was able to elect President Trump.

We have seen a rise of a civil rights movement, of young, energetic, diverse activists attempting to push the country forward on various issues of justice and to push the country beyond perhaps what it imagined it might be willing to consider not that long ago, right?

And so we have been in this era, where, following a Black president, we have now been locked even further into the conversations about race and racial justice across the country.

One of the things that's also true, right, we still live in a majority-white country.

And we have seen in the polling that in the years since Barack Obama's election, white Americans have become increasingly racially anxious, concerned, right?

By the end of the Obama presidency, 55 percent of white Americans say that they believe they are racially discriminated against, right?

So the essence of having one Black guy run the country meant that all the white people thought they were now racial minorities and facing systemic discrimination, right?

And that speaks to -- and one of the things I look at, it speaks to a changing -- a changing nature of our politics.

And then there are people out there, other movements, people who really are avowed white supremacists who look at this and they smile.The idea that so many Americans would be so anxious, so concerned, that these things will be in the forefront this way, they think they can use that to recruit.

And, ultimately, we end up seeing a lot of violent acts being committed by people who join those movements.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the book, you also capture the stories of people who fell prey to this racist violence.

What story stood out to you?

WESLEY LOWERY: I think a lot about the story of Marcelo Lucero, who was an Ecuadorian immigrant who was murdered in Long Island not long after Barack Obama was elected, days after the election, prior to the inauguration.

And as much as this book talks about the rise that comes following Barack Obama's election, it -- I tried to be careful and to be clear that Barack Obama inherits a set of issues that were already at play.

And so you see Marcelo Lucero, who comes to this country with his brother to seek freedom and seek liberty, and, ultimately, at a time when people in that part of the country were very anxious that their property values might fall because of immigration, that there was going to be a competition for resources.

Local politicians began adapting really dehumanizing rhetoric, so much so that the local high school kids started going out, seeking immigrants to attack and beat up.

And one night they found Marcelo Lucero.

And, so, so much of this book is about what our role is, those of us in the public square, public officials, and our role in acknowledging that when we allow dehumanizing rhetoric to take over our politics, the result is that people are dehumanized, and some of -- some people among us stop treating those people as humans.

GEOFF BENNETT: The federal government, as you well know, has warned about this.

Both the DHS and FBI have warned about the increased activity and recruitment among white supremacist groups, among right-wing militia groups.

Tell me more about how this threat has proliferated in this social media age, in this age where people feel emboldened to say things they wouldn't, say and do things they wouldn't normally otherwise.

And how is the federal government confronting the challenge?

WESLEY LOWERY: Of course.

We have seen an unquestionable rise.

We've seen the FBI director and DHS come out and say that currently the biggest terroristic threat to the United States of America is from white supremacist terror and domestic terror, not foreign or Islamic terrorism.

And those threats can be difficult and be difficult to grapple with, in part because there are First Amendment concerns that might not exist in a more international context, in part because there is a hesitance sometimes and a desire not to label people who might fall on a certain side of the political spectrum as potentially dangerous, right?

And so we have seen this kind of time and time again, where law enforcement has been hesitant to aggressively combat and disrupt such movements and such spaces.

Increasingly, as you allude to in your note, we now see people gathering in online spaces, that these are not hierarchical, big organizations in most cases, but, rather, the white supremacist movement has adopted what one of its leaders called leaderless resistance, this idea they're going to put out all this propaganda, they're going to make it available on the Internet, and enough aggrieved people will locate it and find it and know what to do.

And we have seen this over and over and over again.

In Charleston, Dylann Roof starts Googling for information about -- quote, unquote -- "Black-on-white crime" because he's been following media coverage of Trayvon Martin's death.

And that leads him to these dark corners of the Internet that proselytize about the violent threat that Black people present to white people and the violent threat that immigration presents to the -- quote, unquote -- "white race," because, again, we know that race is not biological that way.

And, before long, he's writing a manifesto where he's talking about the -- quote -- "Jewish problem" and he's walking into a Black church and massacring people, right?

And, so, so much of this movement today is about using these online spaces to proselytize and radicalize without ever having to give direct marching orders.

GEOFF BENNETT: What sparked your interest in this?

What motivated you to write this book?

WESLEY LOWERY: So, my first book was about the rise of Black Lives Matter as a movement.

And as 2016 gave way to 2017, I was thinking a lot about, what does it mean to be a writer and a journalist who looks at issues of race and justice?

And, increasingly, we were seeing these cases and these incidents of people being attacked or the expression explicitly of these white supremacist ideas that had been socially taboo previously, that there was a clear emboldenment of this movement because our politics was playing footsie with it.

That we're seeing white supremacists gather in D.C. around the inauguration giving "Heil Hitler" salutes.

We're seeing a Muslim woman being attacked on a train in Portland.

We're seeing the shootings in Pittsburgh and Buffalo and El Paso.

And so I thought that it was important to use whatever talent or space or resources I had to try to tell some of those stories, to record them for history, but then also to try to put them in concert with each other, to explain, if we're living in a moment of increased racial grievance in this space, we should understand it, because, if we understand it, perhaps we can do something to combat it.

GEOFF BENNETT: The book is "American Whitelash: A Changing Nation and the Cost of Progress," already a New York Times bestseller.

Congratulations.

WESLEY LOWERY: Thank you so much.

I know the viewer is going to help us keep - - keep ourselves on the list.

(LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: Wesley Lowery, it's good to see you, as always.

WESLEY LOWERY: Thank you man.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Remember, there is plenty more online, including a look at who is most vulnerable to extreme heat and tips for staying safe.

That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.

And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm William Brangham.

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