amna: good evening. i'm amna nawaz. geoff: and i'm geoff bennett. on the "newshour" tonight, more than 100 days into his second term, president trump doubles down on his economic and immigration policies that have sparked widespread pushback. amna: u.s. supreme court justices appeared divided over whether to allow publicly funded religious schools. in a case that's challenging the separation of church and state.

geoff: plus we speak with a former u.s. attorney general about president trump pushing the legal limits of his authority. >> it takes a while to build up a cathedral like the rule of law. it doesn't take very long to destroy it. announcer: major funding for "the pbs newshour" has been provided by -- >> in 995 two friends set out to make wireless coverage accessible to all with no long-term contracts, nationwide coverage, and 100% u.s.-based customer support. consumer cellular. freedom calls.

>> the judy and peter blum kovler foundation, upholding freedom by strengthening democracies at home and abroad. the walton family foundation, working for solutions to protect water during climate change. so people and nature can thrive together. supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed toage a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at macfo macfound.org. and with the ongoing support of these institutions. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. geoff: welcome to the "newshour." president donald trump crossed the 100-day mark with a late night rally and a heated prime time interview where he defended his controversial deportations. amna: and today the president held a roundtable meeting with his cabinet who spent much of it

touting their records over the past few months. laura baron-lopez begins our coverage. laura: with 100 days of his second term behind him and the stock market and his polling in a slump, president trump gathered his cabinet to praise his work. >> it's been a momentous 100 days with you at the helm. because of your leadership, sir, i believe we are making the military great again. >> this could be the greatest administration. >> your first 100 days has far exceeded that of any other presidency in this country. laura: despite the judiciary continuing to voice concern that trump administration officials are defying court orders, attorney general pam biondi joked with cabinet secretaries about the lawsuits. >> we still have been defending over 200 civil lawsuits filed against you on top of everything else. i think i'm representing every one of you in this program in some capacity. i know you will not be arrested by the u.s. marshall. laura: secretary of state marco rubio joined in taunting judges

over the administration's deportation of kill march abrego garcia. >> have you been in touch with el salvador about returning abringingo garcia as a formal request from the administration been made? >> i will never tell you that and i will also never tell a judge. laura: last night at a rally marking the 100-day milestone -- pres. trump: i miss you guys. i miss the campaign. laura: trump touted deportations of alleged venezuelan gang members to el salvador. under the centuries old alien enemies act. deportations done without due process and blocked in part by the supreme court. but trump brushed off the court challenges. and put the brutal megaprison conditions on full display in a pre-produced video. the controversy also came up during a sitdown interview on abc news last night. >> but you're not being very nice. laura: trump sparred with terry moran about abrego garcia who was wrongly deported after

living in mld for 14 years. a tattoo of his enthusiastic -- was evidence that garcia is a member of the ms-13 gang. pres. trump: ms-13 on his knuckles. >> he had sam tattoos that are interpreted that way. let's move on. laura: terry, you -- >> the letter ms -- laura: says ms-13. >> that was photo shopped. terry -- he had ms as clear as you can be. not interpreted. laura: multiple federal judges have said that the administration has provided weak or no evidence proving its allegations of garcia's gang membership. calling the assertions, quote, unsupported. trump also told abc he could bring garcia back to the u.s. but he's just following the lead of his legal team. >> you could get him back. that he is a phone on this desk. >> i could. >> pick it up and all the power of the presidency you could call up the president of el salvador and say send him back. right now. laura: and if he were the gentleman you said he is i would do that.

>> the court has ordered you to facilitate that -- >> i'm not the one making this decision. we have lawyers -- >> you're the president. laura: and now his administration is looking for more countries to deport undocumented migrants or possible u.s. citizens to. >> we are active. not just el salvador. we are working with other countries to say we want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your countries. we do that as a favor to us? the further away from america the better. laura: this afternoon minority leader hasim jeffries joined senate democrats as they criticized trump's first few months in office. >> donald trump first 100 days in office have been a disaster. laura: for the "pbs newshour," i'm laura baron-lopez. vaness: i'm vaness ruiz for stephanie sy. the latest headlines. the u.s. and ukraine have rifled a much anticipated -- reached a much anticipated deal.

the two sides signed an agreement to establish the united states ukraine reconstruction investment fund. in a statement, secretary scott bessent wrote that this agreement signals clearly to russia that the trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free sovereign and prosperous ukraine over the long term. the deal includes collaboration on ukraine's critical minerals. the trump administration has made it clear that such an agreement was required to continue the overall effort to end the war. in vermont, a federal judge released a palestinian activist who led protests against the war in gaza while a student at columbia university. [cheering] vaness: mohsen mahdawi a legal permanent resident. u.s. for 10 years. he was arrested by i.c.e. agents early this month during an interview about finalizing his u.s. citizenship. his lawyers say he was detained

for speaking out for palestinian human rights. the trump things wants to deport him saying his presence in the u.s. has foreign policy consequences. speaking to supporters today, mahdawi remained defiant. >> and i am saying it clear and loud. >> yes. >> to president trump and this cabinet, i am not afraid of you. vaness: mahdawi co-founded the palestinian student union at columbia with mahmoud khalil, another palestinian permanent resident of the u.s. khalil was detained by immigration authorities in march and remains in custody. communities cleaned up today across parts of the ohio valley and for the east. after a massive line of thunderstorms turned deadly. tuesday's storms known as a derecho stretched hundreds of miles and were responsible for at least three deaths in pennsylvania. hurricane force wind gusts tore

off roofs, toppled trees into houses and brought down power lines throughout the region. more than 500,000 people were without power today, mostly in pennsylvania. and in the south central u.s., officials are warning of flash flooding across southern oklahoma and northern texas amid record rainfall. at least two people died in oklahoma today after their cars were caught in floodwaters. still to come on the "newshour," democratic senator elissa slot kip on reshaping her message to party voters and economic policies 100 days in. and a look back at the vietnam war half a century after the fall of saigon. announcer: this is "the pbs newshour" from david m. rubenstein studio at weta in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university.

amna: we turn now to our series on nobody race where we hear a range of perspectives on how government should function, what's led to this moment in american history, and where the country goes next. tonight, we'll focus on the rule of law and president trump's apparent willingness to test its limits. i spoke earlier with alberto gonzalez, dean of belmont university's law school. he served as attorney general and white house counsel under the george w. bush administration and is the only person to ever hold both positions. attorney general alberto gonzalez, welcome to the "newshour." thanks for joining us. alberto: i'm happy to do so. amna: even though you are a republican in the last election, you did choose to come forward and endorse kamala harris and saying so at the time you said donald trump is, quote, most serious threat to the rule of law in a generation. just a month ago, you said what we're seeing today is even more than i had imagined. so 100 days in to this second trump presidency, what is your

assessment? is the rule of law safe? is it protected in this country? alberto: well, one of the things that's important for people to understand is that the rule of law constrains power. and there are other things that constrain power. you know, such as norms and institutions, curse thomas, things of that nature. and people who want to exercise powers without restrictions, they want to eliminate or at least weaken those constraints and so obviously it keeps -- the rule. law is under some serious stress. amna: the president has lawyers around him, right? he has his general counsel in the white house. he has the attorney general who's advising him on this. and even when you were in the white house, under president george w. bush, you were accused of enabling an abusive executive power for some of the legal arguments you crafted regarding the war on terror. so is it just true that every

white house crafts a legal argument that it needs to move its agenda forward? alberto: i think what we're seeing here is the president surrounding himself with loyalists who give maybe an extra push toward trying to do what facilitates what the president wants to have happen. so their interpretation is one that perhaps you and i might -- you and others that i serve with might disagree with. but nonetheless, it is an attempt by lawyers. you're absolutely right. lawyers are involved. because the president quite frankly most times isn't a lawyer and certainly doesn't have the time to sit down and go through the law books. and that's why he does take advice from lawyers. but the lawyers that he's choosing it appears to me have fierce loyalty to him and i was very loyal to president trump. robert f. kennedy was very loyal to his brother john f. kennedy but nonetheless hopefully you have lawyers in place that make a good faith attempt to interpret the law and are honest with the president in saying you don't have the authority to do this. amna: i hear you saying hopefully that's the case. but is that the case in this instance with this president and this team? alberto: you know, sometimes

lawyers disagree about the interpretation of laws. and i think what this president is trying to do is surround himself with people who he believes will be loyal to him, will give him the advice that will allow him to carry out the agenda that would -- for which he campaigned on. and so i -- unless you're there in the room, and you're with the lawyers and the president, you're not really sure what advice is being given to the president. amna: there's the question about whether or not the administration is in compliance with court orders from judges. there's the case of kill march abrego -- kilmar abrego garcia they mistakenly deported to el salvador and the president saying he could bring abrego garcia back if he wanted to but he is not. do you believe that this administration is flouting a judge's order in this case? alberto: well, before last night, i think might have legitimate questions as to whether or not there was a flouting. a judge did order the

administration to facilitate a transfer. and last night, the president from what i've read appeared to concede that he did have the authority to simply ask for this individual to be returned which is going to raise a question in the eyes of the judge. have you asked and why haven't you asked? you've been ordered to if a sill daylight the return of this individual. and so i think -- amna: if i may, he seems to be saying he's not asked. and that he doesn't want to. that's why. does that mean that he's ignoring the judge's order? alberto: well, again, i think what you're going to -- given this new statement by the president, you're probably going to see a request by the judge asking those very same questions. and we'll see what the administration says or does. and at that point, you know, i'm often asked -- i've been asked many times when will we have a constitutional crisis? in my judgment, we'll have a constitutional crisis when the supreme court commands the

administration to do something pursuant to the constitution within a certain period of time and the president not doing so. amna: attorney general, you called donald trump the most serious threat to the rule of law in a generation. based on the norm breaking and the rule bending we've seen so far, are you worried that you can't get it back once it's gone? alberto: it takes a while to build up a cathedral like the rule of law. it doesn't take very long to destroy it. and so it can be destroyed like a cathedral can be destroyed but it can be built back up with the right kind of leadership and dedication. so do i think we'll get it back? i'm hopeful we'll get it back once we have changes. perhaps in leadership in washington. and not just in the white house. i think congress has been missing in action. i don't know what they're doing. they're doing nothing, i guess, is the right answer. so once we have new leadership in washington, i think -- yes.

it can be built up. and i'm hopeful that the institutions that exist today, those norms that have not been torn down yet i hope they will continue to provide a check on the excise -- the excess use of power. amna: former u.s. attorney general alberto gonzalez joining us tonight. sir, thank you so much for your time. really appreciate it. alberto: thanks for having me. geoff: the u.s. supreme court heard arguments today in a case that could clear the way for publicly funded religious charter schools. our john yang has more. john: geoff, in 2023 the oklahoma school board approved the catholic virtual school, the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. but the state supreme court blocked it saying it violated the oklahoma constitution's bar

on using state money for religious education. the head of the state charter school board told the "newshour" that st. isidore would benefit oklahoma. >> we have an educational crisis. and my opinion is that we need everybody to join in and help. and i'm hopeful that we will be able to enlist those who are very capable just like st. isidore to come to the table and say, hey, let's get the josh done and provide better outcomes for the families of oklahoma and the children of our future. john: but erica wright, the founder of the oklahoma rural schools says religious education has no place in public schools. >> we have two kids in public school right now. and we chose to send them there because we want them to get a quality secular education while our family and our trusted pastors guide their religious

education. john: "newshour" supreme court analyst was in the courtroom. the courtroom was a little different than usual. there are only eight justices on the bench. why is that? >> john, that's because justice barrett decided to step aside from this case. now, she didn't give any particular reason for that. in fact, she never does. but it's sort of assumed that it's because st. isidore, the catholic school that's at the supreme court, is being represented by the religious liberty clinic of notre dame law school where justice barrett taught for many years before becoming a judge. and she's also a very close friend of a law professor there who's been a leading advocate of religious charter schools. so i think maybe that's what persuaded her to step aside. john: this is -- creates the potential for a tie vote. john: absolutely it raises the risk of a tie vote. what happens then is really the lower court decision that stands. and if that happens here, that means the oklahoma supreme court

decision that was against st. isidore would stand. it doesn't create a precedent. it just doesn't even resolve the issue. the court simply issues a one sentence order that says because of the tie vote, the lower court is -- opinion is affirmed. john: what was the charter school's argument about why this doesn't violate the prohibition on secular -- i'm sorry, on sectarian education in public schools? >> well, first of all, the board, the oklahoma state charter school board, is the entity that brought the case to the supreme court and st. isidore with it as well. and they claim that oklahoma charter schools are run, operated by private organizations and so is st. isidore run by a private organization, the catholic archdiocese of oklahoma city and tthe city of tulsa. and the argument they sit within

a trio of recent cases by the supreme court that say if you hold out a public benefit to private organizations, you can't discriminate just because an organization is religious. so that is their argument. and there was considerable pushback not only from the state attorney general who is the one who sought the oklahoma supreme court ruling that this is an illegal contract. but, for example, justice kagan was looking at charter schools and says they seem like public schools. they're free. they're open to everyone. the state supervises the curriculum. they have to meet certain standards. they can be audited. and the state can even close them. and justice jackson pushed back at the state board saying i don't think you're looking for a public benefit that everybody has. i think you're looking for a public benefit that no one has because she explained in their contract with the state board, they xed out the requirement of

curriculum be secular. they amended the requirement that there be no discrimination in order to accommodate choism autonomy interests. -- church autonomy interests. and says no charter school has that. there was considerable pushback from the liberal side of the court. the oklahoma attorney general was saying that it violates -- while it's true that private organizations operate the charter schools, these are public schools. they've always been public schools. the public understands them to be public schools. and there's a lot of supervision by the state. that's what they are. they are public schools. john: so after listening to the arguments, where is your sense where this is headed? >> well, if you look at the trend in the supreme court, you -- you probably would say based on the arguments that some

made and i'll just note one, justice cavanaugh who said in oklahoma charter schools can organize around a theme. they can be sports. it can be language immersion. it can be stem, math, english. the only thing it can't be is religion. and he said that's rank -- sounds like rank discrimination to me. and so i think that bottom line is there could be a conservative majority in favor of st. isidore. but that eight justice number on the court, which sets up the possibility of a 4-4 split, it may be that it's the chief justice who will make the difference here. he played his cards very close to the vest. asked questions of each side. and we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

john: this is the last time we will be talking to marsha coyle about the supreme court. tell us what you're going to be doing. >> well, john, i'm hoping to spend more time actually writing about the supreme court. i'll continue to follow it and write for the national constitution center which i've been doing a little bit of. but not as much as i probably should be doing. and also i'll be spending i assume more time with my grandchildren that i have. john: two adorable grandchildren. >> i have to say before i go, john, that you know that by training and many years of experience, i've been a newspaper reporter which i've really loved. but i've also felt it was an honor to experience the world of television news and the very best television news which is the "newshour." all of you here whether you're in front of the camera, behind the camera, in the makeup room, in the control room, or digital, are real professionals and genuinely kind people. so it's been a pleasure. john: we are deeply grateful to you for what you've been doing for us all these years. and wish you well. >> thanks, john. if you ever need me, you know my number.

amna: 100 days in, the president has made a bold gamble with a fundamental change in economic policy. launching a series of tough tariffs and trade wars. the president argues that in time, tariffs will revitalize manufacturing, reduce the national debt substantially and grow the economy. but there are many questions about that approach. g.d.p. numbers out today showed the economy shrank last quarter and are being seen as yet another sign of the negative impact of tariffs. we're going to get two distinct views about all of this and we begin with orri cass, founder and chief economist at the influential think tank american compas and author of a new book called "the new conservative. restoring america's commitment to family, community and industry." welcome back to the "newshour." thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me. amna: so let's start with that laivment g.d.p. number which

showed a contraction in the first quarter. the first g.d.p. pullback in three years. there are some pointing out the numbers are a little bit distorted because of big advance purchases that were being placed before the tariffs hit. but there's also real concern about a slowdown ahead. so what's your view? >> i think it's fair to be concerned. but it's also correct that the number that just came out doesn't indicate that one way or another. there are all sorts of interesting nuances in how g.d.p. gets calculated and in this case if you strip out the noise, it doesn't really look like an abnormal quarter at all. so one way or another, i think we're still waiting and seeing on that. amna: there have been other indicators people have pointed to as signs of concern, though. we saw consumer spending, yes, very strong in march, again, people thinking americans are trying to get ahead of the tariffs. and in april, though, we did see consumer confidence drop for the fifth straight month. it's now at covid era lows. we have a consumer-driven economy. this is a crucial indicator for economic growth. so does that confidence slump

tell you there could be trouble ahead? >> it certainly is a possibility. as you said, that slump is maybe five months running now. and so whatever is going on isn't purely a result of the tariff policy. but i do think it's fair to say that an important part of good economic policy isn't just the nuts and bolts and numbers. it's also how clearly do you communicate what you're trying to do and how much certainty do you give and on those fronts, i think the trump administration is -- they're trying to work in the right direction, i think what they're focused on is exactly right. but the amount of back and forth that there's been, the abruptness of it, i think has definitely imposed a lot of extra costs. amna: when you say it's imposed extra costs, you mean that sort of air of uncertainty and making it ziff for c.e.o.'s and business leaders to plan ahead and make decisions at this time? >> i think for business leaders and c.e.o.'s and as you said, it is for consumers. i think when you see a lot of things changing quickly in the economy, when you see a sense that risks are rising, when

there's uncertainty, that affects everybody. and so i think what the administration is doing in challenging the failed system of globalization is exactly right. it's necessary. it could be very good for america in the long run. but we have to be cognizant that that brings disruption with it. and so it's important to work extra hard to minimize that disruption and to make very clearly what's happening and why. amna: so in terms of what consumers can face, i mean, the tariffs are so broad. i think it's fair to say that they will be felt by consumers in some way. depending on how much of the cost and which companies feel they can absorb some of them. when you speak directly to consumers, what do you think that impact will be? what will they feel? >> i think it's important to emphasize the kind of price changes we're potentially look at aren't anything what we

experienced with the inflation in the biden administration. you know, inflation then got up toward 10%, economy wide across all prices. and the reality is that imports are just not a large enough share of what people consume to have that kind of effect. and so i think we might see particular products, particularly if there are products that were overly dependent on china for -- where there are disruptions. where prices do increase. but it's not the kind of inflationary situation that we saw previously. and so what i think we have to focus on and also hope for is that as we see some more consistency in the policy, as we hopefully see some things phased in a little bit more gradually, that gives -- that gives businesses time to adjust. that gives them a chance to find alternative sources of supply. and so will there be some changes? yes. but if the policy is done right, we can also see a lot more investment in making things in america. and that's really important, too. amna: so if you don't see that kind of consistency, which we have not seen so far in the administration, does that raise your concern about a slowdown ahead? >> i think the problem if we don't have consistency is two things. one, it raises the costs in the short term. it does create uncertainty. and the other problem is we

don't get the benefit, right? the whole reason to pursue this kind of policy is to really encourage more investment in the united states. and businesses don't invest based on what the tariff is today. they invest based on what the tariff is going to be in two years, three years, five years. and so that's where if we really want the plan to work, if we want to see the kind of rebuilding in america that we need, we have to have policies that are clear and consistent and everybody believes they're going to remain in place. amna: the work of building plans, of luring back companies and reshoring some of these jobs, that is years long work. do you see that happening? do you see the president and this administration sticking to this for the long haul? >> the construction starts right away. the building of the factories has to happen and jobs in them. we can see that's encouraging what's a happened with something like chips, right? the last couple of years congress and the biden administration and both

republicans and democrats really focused on bringing chip manufacturing for computers back to this country. and that's working. we're seeing hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. we saw the construction jobs and now where seeing the permanent jobs as well and the chips are starting to come off the assembly line. amna: founder and chief economist orri cass at american compass. thank you so much for joining us. >> my pleasure. good to see you. amna: now we get the view of a leading economist who was the chair of the council of economic advisors for president obama. jason furman is an economist at harvard university and joins me now. jason, welcome back to the "newshour." thanks for joining us. jason: good to be with you. amna: so want to get your take on this latest g.d.p. figure we have out today and what it suggests about what's going on right now and what could be ahead. jason: i spent hours talking with my economist friends. and the ultimate conclusion is that it's looking in the past with a very, very confusing set of numbers. but looking forward, there's a

lot to be worried about. amna: tell me why. what worries you most? jason: well, what worries me most is two bad things are happening simultaneously. one is what an economist would call a supply shock. that's like quht price of oil goes up, and it drives up prices, and it also increases unemployment. that's what we're doing to our ourselves through the tariffs. second, the way in which we're doing the tariffs has created so much uncertainty, so much doom and gloom, that it's what an economist would call a very large negative demand shock. that's something that would add even more to the unemployment rate. so at this point, when we look at the rest of this year, the debate is not will inflation and unemployment go up. it's how much will they go up? amna: you heard orrin cass say this is a long-term plan that's been laid out by the president. and he has said himself the president that there will be short-term pain. but they argue here that it's worth doing because of the damage wrought by what they see as a failed globalization

experiment. and that this is a chance worth taking to realign the global economy. what do you say to that? jason: first of all, things just weren't that terrible four months ago. we had a 4% unemployment rate. real wages were rising. the economy was growing strongly. there was no reason that we needed to just blow all of that up. second of all, i don't think it's a plan because it's a constantly shifting set of impulses. and they change day-to-day. tariffs go on, tariffs go off. and the final thing i would say in the long run if what this results in, is less exports and less imports, because when you have tariffs, you detach yourself from the global economy, that's bad for workers and export industries. bad for consumers who buy

imports. which is all of us. amna: i hear you saying it wasn't that bad a few months ago based on the indicators. but if you could speak to the parts of the country who believe it's been very bad for a long time for them. who believe that the globalized economy wrought havoc on their communities. who saw jobs leave and who think that this disruption is worth the risk if it means jobs and manufacturing or a potential change for them. what would you say to them? jason: i would say there's a lot of things we need to do to invest in america. to make america stronger. one thing i agree with orrin is the chips program to make more microchips in the united states. i think that's a great thing to do for our national security. but we don't want to cause a recession in the short run in order to have even worse jobs when we come out of it on the other end. that's -- to make things worse not better. amna: there is also a pledge by the president that this will revitalize some parts of our manufacturing sectors. clearly we're not going to be making sneakers here at any point. but are there parts of our withered manufacturing sector that could be brought back to life by this program?

jason: you know, we want the best jobs for americans and in general it's not government policy that's going to figure out what those best jobs are. we want the ones with high wages, high productivity and the like. in some cases, for national security reasons, we do want to do things here. so i would love to do more microchips. i would love to make more drones in the united states. there are parts of our industrial base that matter for our security. but in general, the best possible jobs for americans are not necessarily going to be ones that the government picks and chooses and are not necessarily going to be manufacturing jobs. amna: you know, in speaking with some c.e.o.'s and business leaders they say that the uncertainty of the moment it makes it tough. they don't want a broad based tariff approach. but not opposed to some targeted tariffs and trade imbalances to address here. do they have a point? jason: i don't think they have much of a point. if we have trade imbalances, you know, we have a trade imbalance with madagascar. why? because they make vanilla beans, they make cocoa beans. we don't make those things in the united states. and so we buy them from madagascar and by the way, they're a poor country and they

don't buy much from us. so much of our trade imbalances are just like we have right now with madagascar. china is an exception. there are a set of both security and economic issues with china. i'm not sure that a traditional laissez-faire approach is the right one vis-a-vis china on -- for just about the rest of the world. they have pretty low tariffs against the united states. until recently, we had low tariffs against them. i don't think anyone was being unfair to us or taking advantage of us in any significant scale. amna: all right. that is jason furman of harvard university joining us tonight. thank you so much for your time. jason: thank you. geoff: as democrats grapple with president trump's first 100 days in office, they're also contending with a minority in both the house and senate. and looking ahead at the long

road to the 2026 mid-term elections, some democrats are hoping to shape the party's message and platform well before then. michigan democratic senator elissa slotkin has been laying out her strategy and welcome back to the "newshour." great to have you here. elissa: thanks for having me. geoff: as part of this road map to contain and defeat donald trump the democratic party should shed its public perception as weak and woke. why is that the right approach and how do you suggest democrats get there? elissa: yeah. actually, that perception came from some focus groups we did in michigan with a bunch of people in february. just trying to understand what happened in 2024. why we didn't win at the top. ticket. and you can't figure out where you're going until you understand what's happened and those are the two words that were used over and over again. and i think for me, focusing on pocketbook issues, people's wallets, people's kids, and then on the second side of it, just bringing a little alpha energy

back into the party, right? and i'm from the midwest. and for us, leaders like our coaches, are just -- they've got some alpha energy to them. and i think we've lost some of that in the party. and i want to see that come back. geoff: what's the most urgent course correction you think democrats need to make right now? elissa: we need to be talking about what we want to bring to people affirmatively, proactively. we can't just be the party of no, no, no, status quo, no change. we got to talk about how we want responsible change, smart change, not reckless change and what that looks like. particularly on supporting a strong middle class. like we've got to have a strong middle class in this country or we are in trouble. so i think keeping a sort of rigorous focus on that would be helpful. but then just understanding that we got to get to those voters who don't want to be gotten to, right? who are not coming to a protest. not coming to an event. but they swing elections in places like michigan. for them, they're worried about again, their pocketbooks. their kids, that means social

security, the economy writ large and how trump is walking us into a recession. so we got to get the middle into the fight by focusing on the issues they're most concerned about. in addition to the good work we do on democracy and corruption. which is vital given what donald trump is doing, but not alwayslet way we get to those middle voters. geoff: you also critiqued the party's tone and messaging and you say that democrats should stop referring to the trump administration as an oligarchy. senator bernie sanders had something to say about that. take a listen. >> i think the american people are not quite as dumb as mis larkin thinks they are. i think they understand very well when the top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%, when big money interests are able to control both political parties, they are living in an oligarchy. geoff: what's your response to

that? elissa: so my response is i agree with everything he said other than my dad didn't know what oligarchy meant. he asked me what it was about. it's not that i disagree on the concepts or on the principles and he's right. and that energy that he's bringing is great. it's just that we got to again communicate to those folks who may not know what an oligarchy is like my dad. geoff: to your point about the energy that he and i would add to that congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez drawing huge crowds when thoaf rallies and injecting lots of energy into the party and led to some questions about the ideological future of the democratic party. you, though, say that the debate among democrats isn't really about moderates and progressives. elissa: you're right. i do not think the debate anymore is about moderate versus progressive and whatever all of that means. i think it's about our -- do you believe that we need to fight back against the trump administration? or that we should wait it out? and there's a really big difference among elected democrats right now on whether to just like wait and let all these things that trump is doing just play out and boomerang on him and we'll get through it. or do you think that trump 2.0

is really different than trump 1.0 and raises some existential questions about the fate of our democracy and therefore we need to fight and fight in different ways. i'm in that second category. fight. but that debate is not about moderates or progressives. it's -- it doesn't break down on those lines at all anymore. geoff: the question about the tariff plan. because -- and the manufacturing-heavy state like michigan, the hollowing out of factory jobs as you well know is a real issue and if you don't believe that trump's tariff plan is the right solution, how do you address the economic dislocation that has hollowed out the workforce in many ways and is really hitting the middle class? elissa: yeah. and really hitting my part of the country, right? the midwest is really feeling this change in our economy where it's become harder and harder to get in and stay in the middle class. that's just a fact. right? that's not -- that's not conjecture. and in michigan, we invented the middle class. we literally invented the concept where you can work at an

auto plant and afford the car that you were building. and i got to tell you for all president trump has tried to make of he's a man of the people and a working person, the tax plan he's about to lay out in black and white is very clearly to the advantage of the wealthiest, to our biggest corporations, and not to working people. again, just fact. look at the black and white. geoff: you are in the process of delivering a series of speeches with marching orders for democrats. the next one as i understand it focuses on killing sacred cows. care to give us a preview? what are those sacred cows? elissa: slaughtering sacred cows. to me we have to be willing to hear what the public is saying. not just people that voted for donald trump want change. people not thrilled with our health or education system or how government responds to their needs. ive just want responsible change and not reckless change. i want something smart not breaking stuff just to break stuff. but we have to hear that and therefore be willing to take

down some like older ideas. that again, don't work for the american people. so for instance, regulation. right? a lot of regulation that we put on, small business owner or a farmer, was well intended. it was. but what ends up happening is there are 25 different regulations on a farmer including watching how he climbs a ladder in order to get him the certification that he needs. i think we slow down the process and we need to be willing to say you know what? maybe 25 good well meaning regulations ends up in a bureaucratic morass that we need to take a look at. that's what i mean by going after slaughtering sacred cows is like we have to be willing to take an open mind to change. geoff: michigan democratic senator elissa slotkin, thanks for being with us. we appreciate it. elissa: thank you. geoff: today, vietnam marked the

50th anniversary of the fall of saigon and the unification of the country under communist rule after decades of war. but 50 years later, from the ashes, the u.s. and vietnam now enjoy close relations due in no small part to american veterans who sought to revive a country they once helped destroy. here's nick schifrin. jason: in vietnam's capital today, a celebration of what they called a victory of justice. with uniforms similar to those worn by communist north vietnamese troops. a fly-by by russian jets. and a parade led by the communist leader who defeated the united states and provided this city's modern name. but 50 years later, this vietnamese leadership did not fight the war. and this anniversary parade is

not only about triumph but also reconciliation. >> from a poor backward country ravaged by war under embargo and isolation, today, vietnam is deeply integrated into international politics, the global economy, and the civilization of humankind. nick: for the u.s., april 30, 1975, was a day of disgrace. the u.s. abandoned its embassy, via little couldn't. the final moment of what's known here as the american war that killed as many as three million and drove millions more from their homes. but for vietnam, april 30, 1975, was the first act of reunification, north vietnam and viet cong soldiers conquered saigon and u.s. allies south vietnam ending a 30-year fight against colonialism. today, vietnam is one of asia's youngest populations for whom helicopters are a source of pride. >> peace is when you hear the roar of helicopters, but you run toward them to watch. and we went wow, to fighter

jets. that's what peace means to us. nick: a peace born from the legacy of war. the u.s. dropped more than seven million tons of bombs, three times what it used in world war ii. and it sprayed agent orange to kill trees to expose fighters but it also exposed u.s. troops and damaged the bodies and genes of some four million vietnamese. but if american troops were the culprit, some became the redeemer. >> you begin to wonder how did we ever go to war with these people? nick: that is john terzano, former sailor who served in the gulf of tonkin and returned to vietnam in december of 1981, part of the first visit by vietnam combat veterans. >> we're sitting down with people who 10 years before if we would have met them and killed them we would have gotten medals for it. now we're sitting down and having a conversation. they're feeding us. we're laughing. we're joking.

it's -- you know, we're finally starting to see vietnam for what it is, a beautiful country. and the vietnamese people not as the enemy. nick: the group visited victims of agent orange, helping them realize the damage that the war and its fighters had wrought. >> we got people here that are hurting. that with humanitarian efforts. like that little hospital we went to today. nick: out of that trip was born joint efforts to find remains of missing soldiers. quleer unexploded ordinance -- clear unexploded ordinance and clean some of the agent orange left behind, all that built trust, that opened doors. >> it served as a foundation for the u.s. vietnam relations. i would say unequivocally that serving as a solid foundation for the u.s. and vietnam relations, and get to where we are today. absolutely not. nick: thao griffiths is a commissioner on the international commission of missing persons and the former

country director of the vietnam veterans of america foundation. >> with that enabling environment, with that solid foundation, the change in commerce can take place and really booming in the last three decades. nick: the u.s. has become vietnam's number one export market. and the two militaries cooperate to counter neighboring china. the relationship crescendoed to vietnam's highest level of partnership. >> this new elevated status that will be a force for prosperity and security, in one of the most consequential regions in the world. pres. trump: this is liberation day. nick: but president trump slapped 46% tariffs on vietnam before issuing a pause. and the administration stopped and defunded many legacy of war projects before restarting and refunding some. >> without continuing and maintaining the programs, it will be difficult to say that,

you know, you can do all the commerce and trade and defense and security and everything else on top. nick: the u.s. vietnam strains continued today to which level u.s. diplomat would attend. but for the vietnamese at least, today was not about the u.s. >> for me, today is about vietnam. it's really about a unit of north and south, of all generation of vietnam. it makes us proud because we want you to see us, how far we have come in the last 50 years. geoff: to explore the 50 years since america left vietnam as well as the present relationship, we turn to daniel credittenbrink the u.s. ambassador to vietnam during the first trump administration and was assistant secretary of state for east asian and pacific

affairs during the biden administration and now a partner at the asia group and international consulting firm. and thank you very much. welcome back. >> honor to be here. geoff: this is a country vietnam where a million people at least died fighting in the doctor where 50,000 americans died in the country during the war, a country that game a touchstone here in the united states for a generation. how did we get here today from the end of the war to the u.s. having this comprehensive strategic partnership and vietnam really being one of the u.s.' most important partners in asia? >> it is extraordinary what the u.s. and vietnam have achieved in the last 50 years to go from the brutality of that war and the depth of the tragedy that both countries experienced to now as you said, where vietnam is one of mesh's closest partners and friends truly is extraordinary. i think one of the most amazing stories of the last half century. nick: we heard that from the piece we just aired that the vietnam veterans who came over and the vietnamese partners they had, they were essential, that people to people relationship over agent orange, over unexploded ordnance and how essential was that? >> absolutely vital. the u.s.-vietnam partnership is a forward looking friendship and

we talked about the here and now and where we want to go in the future but make no mistake about it. that friend she'll is built on a foundation of having dealt responsibly and carefully with issues of the past. nick: how important is vietnam specifically become to the u.s. effort to respond to beijing's regional efforts? >> i think it's central. it's vital. the united states and vietnam, we share a vision of the kind of region and world we want to live in. a world in which countries play by the rules. large and small. and a world in which all countries can prosper and benefit and no one country dominates others. nick: and manufacturing, what part does that play? >> well, the trade relationship, it's extraordinary. and if you go back to 1994 and 1995, our trade was almost non-existent. today, we have nearly $150 billion trading relationship. vietnam is one of our fastest growing export markets. and we have a very large trade deficit as well. but there's no doubt across the board from economics to security to health to people to people ties, vietnam is an

extraordinarily important and capable partner. nick: so that's where we have been the last few years and it's evolved to that point. earlier this year, the trump administration took a couple of steps. one, they cut off funding for those projects that we were just talking about. legacy of war projects. things like agent orange, things like cleaning up unexploded ordinance. and restored part but not all of that funding. and then the trump administration placed 46% tariffs on vietnam. and again, paused those tariffs and now vietnam like every other country in the world is on 10% tariffs. what do you believe is the consume la active impact of those steps, this administration has taken even though again they have pulled them back? >> i think that vietnamese friends have been surprised and perhaps shocked by some. steps that they've seen coming from washington. i think they were deeply unnerved by the initial steps to cut off the funding for the legacy of war work that you and i have discussed. but secondly, they were probably even more stunned to see the 46%

tariff rate levied on them on april 2. and i think for vietnamese friends, they continue to look at the united states as an incredibly important partner with whom they can balance against china and other challenges. and so they were surprised to think that the united states would carry out such a move against them. and i think also, the vietnamese had such a positive experience with president trump in his first term. i think that only increased the impact of the moves. now, the good news is, though, the vietnamese moved very quickly and after they i think got over the initial shock and some of the anger that they felt, they picked up the phone and now we have an agreement where the united states and vietnam are going to conduct negotiations on some sort of a deal that will hopefully address u.s. concerns and bring those tariff levels down. nick: do you foresee those trade negotiations ending with a new agreement that would lower tariffs? >> i think if the trump administration wants a trade deal, there's a deal to be had. the vietnamese are very practical and very focused. and i think they will come to the table with some kind of a

package that probably involves increased commercial purchases from the united states. the resolution of various market access issues. and probably some proposals for vietnamese investment in the united states. but i think the vietnamese are prepared to cut a deal and if the trump administration is as well, i'm cautiously optimistic. nick: cautiously optimistic about u.s. vietnam trade. let's zoom out to u.s.-china trade. your last job as i mentioned assistant secretary of state for east asian and pacific affairs. that means you covered the whole region. >> indeed. nick: when i talk to chinese officials today, they make it very clear that they will not blink first and they want to teach trump in their words to me a lesson. that you cannot pressure beijing on trade and expect to win because beijing doesn't want trump to think that he can

pressure them on taiwan. or technology. or anything else. and win. do you believe that there's an off ramp to this trade war? >> china believes it learned lessons from the first trump administration and one of those lessons that it has told itself is that if you are hit by the united states, you have to reciprocate and retaliate immediately. and so that's what they've done. really in a tit for tat. what concerns me is president xi jinping and counterparts in beijing are starting to think that time may be on their side and that they can endure more pain than the united states. what i hope does not happen, i hope this does not become a test of wills and i would like to think that there could be channels of communication quietly open behind the scenes that could explore as you said an off ramp. nick: thank you very much. geoff: there is more online including how artists in america's heartland are marking the 50th anniversary of the fall of saigon. that's at pbs.org/newshour. amna: and thabs the "newshour" for tonight. i'm amna nawaz. geoff: i'm geoff bennett. for all of us here at the "pbs newshour," thank you for spending part of your evening with us. announcer: major funding for "the pbs newshour" has been provided by -- >> cunard is a proud supporter of public television. on a voyage with cunard, the

world awaits. a world of flavor. diverse destinations. and immersive experiences. a world of leisure. and british style. all with cunard's white star service. announcer: certified financial planner professionals are proud to support "pbs newshour." c.f.p. professionals are committed to acting in their clients' best interests. more information at letsmakeaplan.org. friends of the "newshour" including jim and nancy bildner, and the robert and virginia schiller foundation. the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. and with the ongoing support of individuals and institutions.

announcer: this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. announcer: this is "pbs newshour" west from the david m. rubenstein studio at weta in washington and from our bureau at the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university.

(inspiring music) - for me, family comes first, but food comes a very close second. i love it! it's the joy of growing- it looks like ringlets, doesn't it? cooking- it's a bit of all right. and eating it. well, it can't be bad if i'm having a second lot. - howay man, mary! - i'm getting a bit sort of happy. and i love meeting the people who share this passion. - (blows kiss) exquisite. (kids cheering)