SUMMARY: Eleven-year-old Jerry Bruce Hennon was born with a congenital heart disease. His strength and determination have made him a local hero. Emma Kate Woods of Dalton Middle School produced this report as part of our Student Reporting Labs for our series Limitless.
A coordinated double attack in Iran on Wednesday left 12 people dead and wounded dozens, according to state media. The Islamic State group claimed responsibility on its website. If true, it would be the first major attack by the terrorist group in Iran.
Attackers armed with pistols and assault rifles stormed the Iranian parliament building in the capital Tehran Wednesday morning as people scrambled to escape, some through windows. A session of parliament was in progress at the time. Lawmakers took cover in the locked chamber during the siege.
The same morning, more assailants struck the mausoleum for Islamic Republic founder Ayatollah Khomeini in southern Tehran. At least one attacker detonated a suicide vest, according to state broadcaster Irib. Khomeini led the 1979 Islamic revolution that removed the Western-backed shah and was the country's first supreme leader.
The sieges ended with four of the attackers dead. Later in the day, Iran's ISNA news agency reported that police in Tehran arrested five suspects, according to Reuters.
Iran is fighting Islamic State militants in Syria and Iraq. The last major attack in Iran, which is majority Shiite, was in 2010 when Sunni extremists bombed a mosque in the Sistan-Baluchestan province.
The militant group's Aamaq news agency released a video purporting to show the inside of the parliament with a body lying on the floor. A voice says in Arabic, “Do you think we will leave? We will remain, God willing.”
President Donald Trump offered the following statement: “We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times. We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin offered his condolences and said Russia “resolutely condemns” the violence. He pledged to continue fighting international terrorism.
SUMMARY: Gunmen stormed Iran's parliament building Wednesday morning, igniting a siege that lasted for hours, killing 13. Meanwhile, the shrine of the Ayatollah Khomeini was also attacked. Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner reports, and William Brangham speaks with Randa Slim of the Middle East Institute and Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
SUMMARY: Members of Congress are back in Washington, ready to return to their legislative to-do lists. Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate are diving right back into the debate over health care -- maybe the biggest item on the GOP agenda right now. But infrastructure, tax and spending bills, and the debt ceiling are priorities too. Lisa Desjardins and John Yang join Judy Woodruff for a closer look.
SUMMARY: For aid organizations, especially those in conflict zones, remaining politically neutral is crucial for trust. A New York Times investigation found that the conduct of a logistics company could drive suspicion that aid groups in Yemen were somehow acting as agents of the U.S. government. William Brangham speaks with The New York Times' Eric Schmitt and Daryl Grisgraber of Refugees International.
SUMMARY: Recognizing bias in news stories is one form of media literacy. Spotting when the news is totally fabricated is something else entirely. How can teachers help students tell fact from media fiction? Educators and media literacy advocates in Washington state are working together with legislators to address the problem. Special correspondent Kavitha Cardoza of Education Week reports.
SUMMARY: “Dear Evan Hansen,” a surprise hit musical, is the story of an ordinary teen who all his life has felt invisible. But when a classmate commits suicide, Hansen is mistakenly seen as his one friend and becomes the center of attention. The Tony-nominated show draws awareness to the loneliness and pain of teen life and how isolation can be intensified in today's social media world. Jeffrey Brown reports.
SUMMARY: Venezuela is in freefall after years of recession, skyrocketing inflation and a formidable food crisis, sparking outcry and protest. It's pushed angry Venezuelans to take to the streets on a regular basis, demanding that President Nicolas Maduro step down, and inspired a fierce government crackdown. Special correspondent Nadja Drost and videographer Bruno Federico report.
Metropolitan police say they have identified two of the three attackers behind Saturday's terrorist attack.
Police said in a statement they believe Khuram Shazad Butt and Rachid Redouane, both from Barking, east London, were responsible for the attacks that killed seven and injured 48 on the London Bridge and Borough Market.
It was the third terrorist attack in the country in three months, occurring less than two weeks after a suicide bomber killed 22 and injured 116 at an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena.
Butt, 27, was a Pakistan-born British citizen who was known to the police. But “there was no intelligence to suggest that this attack was being planned,” police said in a statement.
Redouane, 30, was believed to be Moroccan and Libyan; he also used the name Rachid Elkhdar, police said. A third attacker has not been identified.
Police and counter-terrorism officers have arrested 12 people since Saturday night's attacks. They've also searched six properties, officials said.
“The police and our partners are doing everything we can across the country to help prevent further attacks and protect the public from harm,” Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said in a statement.
London Mayor Sadiq Khan led a vigil for victims of the attack Monday night in Potters Bridge Park, “to show the world that we stand united in the face of those who seek to harm us and our way of life.”
“We must defeat this threat. Our values must prevail,” Khan wrote in an op-ed for the Evening Standard. We should not jump to knee-jerk conclusions, but failing to act is simply not an option.
SUMMARY: Police raided an apartment complex and tire shop Monday in East London, detaining more people in the wake of Saturday's attack that killed seven. Officials also named two of the attackers, who were shot dead minutes after driving a van into people and then stabbing others. Special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports on how the attack is playing into politics on both sides of the Atlantic.
As the Trump Administration comes out swinging in favor of one of the United States' most controversial surveillance laws and Congress debates them with top intelligence and Department of Justice officials, everyone in the country should be thinking about why being watched by the government makes us queasy.
I've been working on US surveillance issues as a lawyer, policy analyst, and general geek for the past three years. In my current role, I spend every day investigating and spreading the word about what the government is doing with your private data, especially your Internet and phone conversations.
Although there are plenty of good arguments out there — both principled and pragmatic — about why government overreach in this area matters, the ones I seem to wind up discussing most with people who are curious about these issues tend to center on the idea of “privacy.”
Sometimes, even as I say the word, I can see my listeners' eyes start to glaze over. Privacy — really?
There are people out there with guns and bombs who want to kill and maim others en masse.
How can something like privacy — which is almost never absolute anyway — take precedence over the need to prevent that?
Aren't governments responsible for protecting their populations?
So, maybe arguments that only focus on “privacy,” in the abstract, leave you cold.
Well, the truth is that—at least at a visceral level—they do the same for me.
But after spending many hours pondering the nature of government surveillance, I've been able to pin down exactly what it is about the large-scale and overwhelmingly secretive programs run by the US that does trouble me deeply—and, in my view, should also trouble you.
Especially as Congress gears up for a major battle over whether to reform one of the country's most sweeping warrantless communications surveillance laws, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (the subject of the upcoming Senate hearing), we should all be asking ourselves what it is about these programs that disturbs us.
Here's what keeps me up at night.
First, it bothers me that these warrantless, potentially enormous programs create such a vast power disparity between the US government and the people it is intended to represent and serve.
In this, I have solid backing: James Otis, a Boston lawyer who made a fiery argument in 1761 about the British colonial authorities' use of broad “general warrants” to barge into homes and rifle through private papers, decried that practice as “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book.”
Otis pointed out that such broad powers enabled any official who wielded them to carry out “petty tyranny” and “lord it over us”—and in doing so, he helped inspire the American Revolution.
Particularly when I look at the government's Section 702 programs, which include warrantless demands for private communications from major US Internet companies and (allegedly) the bulk scanning of many of the communications that pass over the undersea cables that connect the US to the rest of the world, Otis' objections still seem relevant.
This is not how democracy is supposed to look.
It also bothers me that the US government effectively misleads its own population, not to mention the rest of the world, about what it is doing.
To cite just one example, the authorities like to describe Section 702 surveillance as “targeted” because, officially, the monitoring must “target” foreigners (or foreign entities) outside of the United States.
What the government doesn't announce with quite as much enthusiasm is that as part of this ostensibly targeted monitoring, it believes it is entitled to sweep up potentially huge numbers of private calls, emails, texts, and so on—including those belonging to Americans—“incidentally.”
There are other examples of executive branch use of narrow, secret, or non-obvious interpretations of terms in an apparent effort to conceal or minimize its activities.
If the government truly believes its surveillance practices are constitutional, then its use of these verbal smokescreens is, to say the least, difficult to understand.
It bothers me that my free speech is no longer truly free.
As many of us probably do, I hesitate before using certain words in emails or texts. And by “certain words,” I mean those that allude to my religious beliefs, which—I can say with great confidence—would not please everyone.
I mean those that express my views on culturally sensitive topics. I mean those that some might regard as obscene, or are the product of frustration or anger or simply bad taste.
I mean those that some US government official, somewhere, someday, might not like.
In case law about the First Amendment, there's a term for this hesitation: the “chilling effect.” It's a pretty unambiguous sign that fundamental rights are in jeopardy.
It bothers me that if an FBI agent reads this and doesn't like what I've written, he or she can do a search for any of my communications the government might have “incidentally” grabbed under Section 702. Literally. Right now. Without a warrant.
These are known as “backdoor searches,” and the government doesn't think it needs any suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever to do them—it only needs to be hunting for “foreign intelligence information” (a very broadly defined term) or “evidence of a crime.” The potential consequences for activists, demonstrators, minorities, and the politically unpopular should be obvious.
After all, surveillance powers are wielded by humans, with all of their prejudices and temptations and flaws. This is why they're supposed to be constrained by clear, strict laws and overseen by judges on a case-by-case basis—which Section 702 snooping is not.
Ultimately, these are all problems that privacy protections are intended to forestall. Think of privacy as a “gateway” right; when I know my calls and emails are truly private, and that law enforcement can't search them unless it has a specific pre-existing reason to think I've done something wrong, I speak more freely.
When I know I can trust my government to be forthright about when it can and cannot spy on me, I'm more likely to take advantage of my legal rights to assemble with others, protest, or explore or practice a religious faith.
If I'm ultimately charged with a criminal offense, the existence of clear laws and policies on when the government can monitor me (and what it can do with that information) will help ensure that I can discover and challenge any activities that may have violated the law.
In a rule-of-law country, these are necessities, not luxuries.
If you believe in democracy and in individual freedoms, there is a great deal about the federal government's out-of-control surveillance, including under Section 702, that should worry you. Now is the time to think about why it does.
As elected officials increasingly turn to social media to communicate with constituents, some are blocking those who disagree with them. Some say it violates the First Amendment. Legislators say it's about promoting a “healthy, civil dialogue.” Expect court battles ahead.
This story was co-published with Slate.
As President Donald Trump faces criticism for blocking users on his Twitter account, people across the country say they, too, have been cut off by elected officials at all levels of government after voicing dissent on social media.
In Arizona, a disabled Army veteran grew so angry when her congressman blocked her and others from posting dissenting views on his Facebook page that she began delivering actual blocks to his office.
A central Texas congressman has barred so many constituents on Twitter that a local activist group has begun selling T-shirts complaining about it.
And in Kentucky, the Democratic Party is using a hashtag, #BevinBlocked, to track those who've been blocked on social media by Republican Gov. Matt Bevin. (Most of the officials blocking constituents appear to be Republican.)
The growing combat over social media is igniting a new-age legal debate over whether losing this form of access to public officials violates constituents' First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Those who've been blocked say it's akin to being thrown out of a town hall meeting for holding up a protest sign.
On Tuesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University called upon Trump to unblock people who've disagreed with him or directed criticism at him or his family via the @realdonaldtrump account, which he used prior to becoming President and continues to use as his principal Twitter outlet.
“Though the architects of the Constitution surely didn't contemplate presidential Twitter accounts, they understood that the President must not be allowed to banish views from public discourse simply because he finds them objectionable,” Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute's executive director, said in a statement.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment, but Press Secretary Sean Spicer said earlier Tuesday that statements the President makes on Twitter should be regarded as official statements.
Similar flare-ups have been playing out in state after state.
Earlier this year, the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland called on Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, to stop deleting critical comments and barring people from commenting on his Facebook page. (The Washington Post reported that the governor had blocked 450 people as of February.)
Deborah Jeon, the ACLU's legal director, said Hogan and other elected officials are increasingly foregoing town hall meetings and instead relying on social media as their primary means of communication with constituents. “That's why it's so problematic,” she said. “If people are silenced in that medium,” they can't effectively interact with their elected representative.
The governor's office did not respond to a request for comment this week. After the letter, however, it reinstated six of the seven people specifically identified by the ACLU (it said it couldn't find the seventh). “While the ACLU should be focusing on much more important activities than monitoring the governor's Facebook page, we appreciated them identifying a handful of individuals — out of the over 1?million weekly viewers of the page — that may have been inadvertently denied access,” a spokeswoman for the governor told the Post.
Practically speaking, being blocked cuts off constituents from many forms of interacting with public officials. On Facebook, it means no posts, no likes and no questions or comments during live events on the page of the blocker. Even older posts that may not be offensive are taken down. On Twitter, being blocked prevents a user from seeing the other person's tweets on his or her timeline.
Moreover, while Twitter and Facebook themselves usually suspend account holders only temporarily for breaking rules, many elected officials don't have established policies for constituents who want to be reinstated. Sometimes a call is enough to reverse it, other times it's not.
Eugene Volokh, a constitutional law professor at the UCLA School of Law, said that for municipalities and public agencies, such as police departments, social media accounts would generally be considered “limited public forums” and therefore, should be open to all.
“Once they open it up to public comments, they can't then impose viewpoint-based restrictions on it,” he said, for instance allowing only supportive comments while deleting critical ones.
But legislators are different because they are people. Elected officials can have personal accounts, campaign accounts and officeholder accounts that may appear quite similar. On their personal and campaign accounts, there's little disagreement that officials can engage with — or block — whoever they want. Last month, for instance, ProPublica reported how Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., blocked users on his campaign account after they criticized his positions on health reform and other issues.
But what about their officeholder social media accounts?
The ACLU's Jeon says that they should be public if they use government resources, including staff time and office equipment to maintain the page. “Where that's the situation and taxpayer resources are going to it, then the full power of the First Amendment applies,” she said. “It doesn't matter if they're members of Congress or the governor or a local councilperson.”
Volokh of UCLA disagreed. He said that members of Congress are entitled to their own private speech, even on official pages. That's because each is one voice among many, as opposed to a governor or mayor. “It's clear that whatever my Senator is, she's not the government. She is one person who is part of a legislative body,” he said. “She was elected because she has her own views and it makes sense that if she has a Twitter feed or a Facebook page, that may well be seen as not government speech but the voice of somebody who may be a government official.”
Volokh said he's inclined to see Trump's @realdonaldtrump account as a personal one, though other legal experts disagree.
“You could imagine actually some other president running this kind of account in a way that's very public minded — 'I'm just going to express the views of the executive branch,'” he said. “The @realdonaldtrump account is very much, 'I'm Donald Trump. I'm going to be expressing my views, and if you don't like it, too bad for you.' That sounds like private speech, even done by a government official on government property.”
It's possible the fight over the President's Twitter account will end up in court, as such disputes have across the country. Generally, in these situations, the people contesting the government's social media policies have reached settlements ending the questionable practices.
After being sued by the ACLU, three cities in Indiana agreed last year to change their policies by no longer blocking users or deleting comments.
In 2014, a federal judge ordered the City and County of Honolulu to pay $31,000 in attorney's fees to people who sued, contending that the Honolulu Police Department violated their constitutional rights by deleting their critical Facebook posts.
And San Diego County agreed to pay the attorney's fees of a gun parts dealer who sued after its Sheriff's Department deleted two Facebook posts that were critical of the sheriff and banned the dealer from commenting. The department took down its Facebook page after being sued and paid the dealer $20 as part of the settlement.
Angela Greben, a California paralegal, has spent the past two years gathering information about agencies and politicians that have blocked people on social media — Democrats and Republican alike — filing ethics complaints and even a lawsuit against the city of San Mateo, California, its mayor and police department. (They settled with her, giving her some of what she wanted.)
Greben has filed numerous public-records requests to agencies as varied as the Transportation Security Administration, the Seattle Police Department and the Connecticut Lottery seeking lists of people they block. She's posted the results online.
“It shouldn't be up to the elected official to decide who can tweet them and who can't,” she said. “Everybody deserves to be treated equally and fairly under the law.”
Even though she lives in California, Greben recently filed an ethics complaint against Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, a Democrat, who has been criticized for blocking not only constituents but also journalists who cover him. Reed has blocked Greben since 2015 when she tweeted about him … well, blocking people on Twitter. “He's notorious for blocking and muting people,” she said, meaning he can't see their tweets but they can still see his.
In a statement, a city spokeswoman defended the mayor, saying he's now among the top five most-followed mayors in the country. “Mayor Reed uses social media as a personal platform to engage directly with constituents and some journalists. … Like all Twitter users, Mayor Reed has the right to stop engaging in conversations when he determines they are unproductive, intentionally inflammatory, dishonest and/or misleading.”
Asked how many people he has blocked, she replied that the office doesn't keep such a list.
J'aime Morgaine, the Arizona veteran who delivered blocks to the office of Rep. Paul Gosar, a Republican, said being blocked on Facebook matters because her representative no longer hosts in-person town hall meetings and has started to answer questions on Facebook Live. Now she can't ask questions or leave comments.
“I have lost and other people who have been blocked have lost our right to participate in the democratic process,” said Morgaine, leader of Indivisible Kingman, a group that opposes the president's agenda. “I am outraged that my congressman is blocking my voice and trampling upon my constitutional rights.”
Morgaine said the rules are not being applied equally. “They're not blocking everybody who's angry,” she said. “They're blocking the voices of dissent, and there's no process for getting unblocked. There's no appeals process. There's no accountability.”
A spokeswoman for Gosar defended his decision to block constituents but did not answer a question about how many have been blocked.
“Congressman Gosar's policy has been consistent since taking office in January 2010,” spokeswoman Kelly Roberson said in an email. “In short: 'Users whose comments or posts consist of profanity, hate speech, personal attacks, homophobia or Islamophobia may be banned.'”
On his Facebook page, Gosar posts the policy that guides his actions. It says in part, “Users are banned to promote healthy, civil dialogue on this page but are welcome to contact Congressman Gosar using other methods,” including phone calls, emails and letters.
Sometimes, users are blocked repeatedly.
Community volunteer Gayle Lacy was named 2015 Wacoan of the Year for her effort to have the site of mammoth fossils in Waco, Texas, designated a national monument. Lacy's latest fight has been with her congressman, Bill Flores, who was with her in the Oval Office when Obama designated the site a national monument in 2015. She has been blocked three times by Flores' congressional Twitter account and once by his campaign account. One of those blocks happened after she tweeted at him: “My father died in service for this country, but you are not representative of that country and neither is your dear leader.”
Lacy said she was able to get unblocked each time from Flores' congressional account by calling his office but remains blocked on the campaign one. “I don't know where to call,” she said. “I asked in his D.C. office who I needed to call and I was told that they don't have that information.”
Lacy and others said Flores blocks those who question him. Austin lawyer Matt Miller said he was blocked for asking when Flores would hold a town hall meeting. “It's totally inappropriate to block somebody, especially for asking a legitimate question of my elected representative,” Miller said.
In a statement, Flores spokesman Andre Castro said Flores makes his policies clear on Twitter and on Facebook. “We reserve the right to block users whose comments include profanity, name-calling, threats, personal attacks, constant harping, inappropriate or false accusations, or other inappropriate comments or material. As the Congressman likes to say — 'If you would not say it to your grandmother, we will not allow it here.'”
Ricardo Guerrero, an Austin marketer who is one of the leaders of a local group opposed to Trump's agenda, said he has gotten unblocked by Flores twice but then was blocked again and “just kind of gave up.”
“He's creating an echo chamber of only the people that agree with him,” Guerrero said of Flores. “He's purposefully removing any semblance of debate or alternative ideas or ideas that challenge his own — and that seems completely undemocratic. That's the bigger issue in my mind.”
SUMMARY: Britain remains on high alert following Saturday night's terrorist attack on two locations in central London. At least seven people died after attackers ran a van into pedestrians on London Bridge and stabbed others nearby. NewsHour Weekend Special Correspondent Malcolm Brabant joins Hari Sreenivasan from London.
SUMMARY: British Prime Minister Theresa May called on the country to ramp up its security protocol hours after it was struck by the third terrorist attack Saturday in as many months. Peter Neumann, a professor at King's College who is also with the International Center for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, joins Hari Sreenivasan from London to break down security tactics.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including President Donald Trump's move to withdraw the United States from a global agreement aimed at curbing climate change-causing carbon emissions.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): At the end of another week jam-packed with news from Washington, it's time for Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Welcome, gentleman.
So, what is there to talk about, Mark, but yesterday's climate change decision, the President's announcement that the United States will pull out of the Paris Climate Accord? What did you make of it?
MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated Columnist: In immediate impact, Judy, it probably means less in the American environment than the rules and regulations already repealed by his administration and by his EPA that were put in force, emissions controlled by President Obama.
But, in a larger sense, it belies and reveals that President's sense about the world. The world is a dangerous, sinister place. There's conspiracies. Other countries are not our friends, or are partners. Everything is transactional. There are no fixed values.
We saw that, I thought most dramatically, at NATO, where the President showed an absolute absence of any historical understanding of American exceptionalism. And, as one who frankly subscribes to it that three times in the 20th century the United States saved the world from totalitarianism, twice in World Wars, once in the Cold War, and 124,965 American graves around the world in cemeteries, and 94,000 still missing.
And I just don't understand. The President knows that it was for values. And when NATO has made mistakes, we have made mistakes. We have been guilty of hubris. But the world is a much better place because of the United States' leadership. And this was an example of the United States working with other nations for a common good to preserve our planet. And he just turned his back on it.
JUDY WOODRUFF: What did you make of the President's decision and his argument for why he did it?
DAVID BROOKS, The New York Times: Yes, well, I sort of agree with Mark. It was nice to have an American century. We were a superpower once. And now we're headed the way of Portugal.
No, it was — environmentally, I can't get super excited about it. I think it was a setback for the cause of addressing global warming. But, as we have heard many times, it was a voluntary agreement.
And so this — and we have done a very good job, because of natural gas and fracking and other things, of reducing emissions over the last five years or so. And I presume the market will still work and the emissions will still come down.
And so we — Donald Trump could have addressed his concerns about coal workers and stayed in the Paris accords. There is nothing block. It was totally voluntary.
So this wasn't about global warming. This wasn't about the environment. This was about sticking a thumb in the eye of polite society, the elites, the globalists. This was a Steve Bannon-led thing designed to change America's role in the world.
And so, to me, the effect is much worse on the global diplomacy and the idea of a world order than it is, at least in the short-term, about climate change. And the effects, I think, are ruinous.
You can't lead the world and stick your thumb in the eye of the world. People — if you act extremely selfishly to other people, they will start acting extremely selfishly to you. And that is about to happen.
And so as the idea that America could lead the world and should influence the world and should have friendship with other powerful nations in the world, that's an idea that took a big hit this week.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But, as we famously heard him say, yesterday, Mark, the President said, I'm here to represent the people of Pittsburgh, and not the people of Paris.
MARK SHIELDS: Yes, no, it was a nice alliterative line that didn't have much relevance in reality, Pittsburgh having supported Hillary Clinton and basically being a green city.
And I think it was a political statement. One can say, in defense of the President, I guess, he kept his word. He hasn't been known as a truth-teller always. No one has confused him with George Washington on veracity. But he kept his word on the Trans-Pacific treaty, trade treaty. He kept his word on NATO and that he was going to belittle it, or at least diminish it. And he kept his word here.
And I think that was probably the strongest argument inside.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes.
Yes, I'm just struck by the fact that his is an administration driven solely by resentment. He will side with the Steve Bannon side if that position will alienate the people he feels resentful for. He will side with the regular Republican side and the budgetary, the more free market side if that will offend elite opinion.
It seems to be all based on some sense of resentment, a sense of social inferiority, a sense of fragile ego, him just wanting to stick the eye in the people he is resenting.
And I — more than any other time — we have talked about Trump not telling the truth a lot over the last year. But that global warming speech to me set new standards of just being irrelevant to the facts.
We devote our lives to talking about the evidence. We write these wonky columns about exciting things and this and that. And what Donald Trump said about the Paris accord is — just has no engagement with reality.
The fact that somehow we're bound by this, somehow that we would be under some sort of legal liability if we didn't abide by the Paris Accords, the fact that the Chinese are given permission by Paris to do this and we're not, all that has no contact reality, and it doesn't seem like Donald Trump knows that.
SUMMARY: Monday marks the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War, a 1967 battle between Israel and neighboring Arab nations. The war created a stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians that continues today. It's the same standoff that confronted President Donald Trump on his recent visit to the Middle East. Fifty years later, former NewsHour correspondent Terence Smith reflects on his coverage of the war.
SUMMARY: There was a time when TV went on summer vacation, and viewers were confined to reruns. No longer: Now, TV doesn't take a break when the weather gets hot. Jeffrey Brown talks to Sonia Saraiya of Variety and Eric Deggans of NPR about the binge-worthy shows they'll be watching.
SUMMARY: Attract members of the "creative class" to a city and they will create jobs and spur urban renewal. But that idea, championed by noted urbanologist Richard Florida, has a double-edged downside: increased economic segregation and less affordable housing. Economics correspondent reports on how Florida wrestles with that tension in his latest book, "The New Urban Crisis."
SUMMARY: What does it feel like to be diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's disease? Pam Montana and Chris Hannafan offer their 'Brief but Spectacular' takes on what it means to live with the disease and how their worlds have changed.
SUMMARY: Political satire demands a different set of skills from actually practicing politics. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken explains what it's really like to transition from entertainment to government in his new book, “Al Franken: Giant of the Senate.” Hari Sreenivasan sits down with Franken to discuss reports about Jared Kushner, Republican efforts to replace Obamacare, who's funny in the Senate, and more.
SUMMARY: President Trump tweeted Wednesday that his decision on the Paris Accord will come “over the next few days,” an announcement that arrives after weeks of signaling he may walk away from the deal. The pact was signed in 2015 in order to reduce carbon emissions. William Brangham speaks with Princeton University's Michael Oppenheimer and Phil Kerpen of American Commitment about what's at stake.
SUMMARY: How did politics play into President Trump's move to withdraw the U.S. from the global agreement on combating climate change? Judy Woodruff analyzes the decision with Matt Schlapp of the American Conservative Union and Karine Jean-Pierre of MoveOn.org, plus the effects of ongoing tensions from within the White House over the ongoing Russian investigations.
SUMMARY: The White House stood firmly by President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement on Friday. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt delivered an energetic defense, saying the U.S. has nothing to be apologetic about. But the announcement touched off a chorus of protests around the country and abroad. Judy Woodruff reports.
SUMMARY: President Trump gave several reasons why he thought the Paris climate accord was a bad idea in his announcement on Thursday. William Brangham digs into those claims to put them in context and get other points of view.
SUMMARY: Can the most basic nurturing techniques help heal the traumas of premature birth? Leaving the womb too early puts babies at a higher risk for emotional, behavioral and developmental challenges later in life. William Brangham reports on one research effort in New York aimed at minimizing those impacts by strengthening the emotional connection between mother and child.
SUMMARY: A long-term study on helping preterm babies, using the simplest of interventions, is showing signs of promise. In part two of our story, William Brangham explores the study's outcomes, as well as questions about the complex past of the doctor behind it.
