AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening. I'm Amna Nawaz. GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett. On the “NewsHour” tonight: legal limboon the southern border after an appeals court puts a Texas law allowing police toarrest and deport migrants back on hold. AMNA NAWAZ: Congress and the White Housereach a deal to fund the government. But will it make it to PresidentBiden's desk before a shutdown? GEOFF BENNETT: And a lookat some of the downballot results from yesterday's primary elections. (BREAK).
AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the “NewsHour.” After a series of legal back-and-forths, a controversial immigration law in Texasis back in the hands of an appeals court. GEOFF BENNETT: The law givesstate officials the power to arrest migrants whom they believecrossed into the U.S. illegally. After a Supreme Court ruling yesterday allowedTexas to enforce the law, a federal appeals court put it back on hold and a three-judge panel heardarguments today on whether it should be enforced. AMNA NAWAZ: Gaige Davila from Texas Public Radiohas been covering all of this and joins me now. So, Gaige, the last 24 hours have reallybeen legal whiplash for this law known.
As S.B.4. As we speak now, where do thingsstand with the law and its implementation? GAIGE DAVILA, Texas Public Radio:Well, right now, S.B.4 is not law. And another hearing is expected in earlyApril, which will decide whether to allow some provisions of that law to continue whilelitigation against it is being ruled on. So, the state met in court todayto discuss it. And, initially, Texas argued that this law should be enforcedwhile litigation against it is pending. But by the end of the hearing andsome questioning by the judges, the state asked if at the very least thatstate officers could arrest migrants to give them federal immigration — give them overto federal immigration authorities. But the.
Judges said that this was already somethingthat they do with current trespassing laws, because migrants have already been arrestedfor that under Operation Lone Star. But just to clarify, that law is not law, eventhough it was for a few hours yesterday evening. AMNA NAWAZ: So, Gaige, what are youhearing from those Texas state officials, the police departments and sheriff'sdepartments on the ground? Are they ready and resourced to enforce this kind of law? GAIGE DAVILA: I think, with police, there'salmost a resounding confusion how to enforce this law, because officers are nottrained for immigration enforcement, which adds to how much police are used assolvents to what are ultimately policy issues.
To give an example, the Baird Countysheriff, which is in San Antonio, has commented on how enforcingthis law puts a huge liability on the department if they arrest somebodyunjustly. On the legal and advocacy end, there's this fear of increased racial profiling aswell among border towns and in the state at large. And there's questions on how exactlythis would even be carried out, right, in terms of deportations. Mexico has alreadysaid that they would not accept deportations from Texas, and the state didn't explain thisprocess either when it was in court today. AMNA NAWAZ: What are you hearing fromany Border Patrol officials? I mean, these are the federal officerswho are tasked with and have the.
Authority over enforcement in theseborder areas. They are increasingly stretched thin amid these record numberswe're seeing at the U.S. southern border. Do they want state officersto be able to act in this way? GAIGE DAVILA: Well, often Border Patrol do use police or sheriff officerswhen they need the assistance. But, as far as I know, they have not commentedon this specific policy and whether it will help them. But I do know that the Border Patroland Texas National Guard are currently at odds in Eagle Pass in terms of who is ableto do what and where. B.P. has called for more resources before, which was part of abill that has famously stalled in Congress,.
Of course, but police is notnecessarily part of that. AMNA NAWAZ: Well, earlier today, weshould note, Texas Governor Greg Abbott was speaking at a Texas policy summit.He reaffirmed his commitment to S.B.4, even as it pinballs through the courts.Here's part of what he had to say. GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R-TX): Texas has aright to defend ourselves and we will use that authority to declare an invasionand fight back against that invasion! AMNA NAWAZ: Gaige, as you know, thishas really fueled a high-stakes state and federal standoff between GovernorAbbott and the Biden administration. What are the implications for thisbeyond Texas and beyond immigration?.
GAIGE DAVILA: I think this should be seen asan attempt to codify Operation Lone Star, but without any real infrastructure to see it throughand, as advocates and some Democratic members of Congress have pointed out, that these areultimately policy issues and not policing issues. But what is happening here, much like withabortion rights through the last few years, is the state attempting to codify culture warissues as policy that don't address the needs of people in border communities or the state atlarge. In fact, it kind of outright harms them. So the implication there is that there areefforts at addressing these issues and others via policy that are routinely blocked bya nationalist wing of the GOP. And we will likely see that continue without some sortof federal or congressional intervention.
AMNA NAWAZ: So you mentioned this before isnot law now. What do we expect to happen next? GAIGE DAVILA: Well, it's goingto be a waiting game for these next few weeks in the courtsuntil it is heard on again. But, at least, at the very least, Texaspolice cannot arrest migrants for seeking asylum, which they are legallyallowed to do so. So, as of now, nothing can move on that law, but it willjust be a waiting game until early April. AMNA NAWAZ: Gaige Davila of TexasPublic Radio joining us tonight. Gaige, thank you very much. GAIGE DAVILA: Thank you so much.
GEOFF BENNETT: Let's shift our focus now back toCapitol Hill because Congress is racing toward another shutdown deadline, with leadersputting the finishing touches on a final funding package and lots of questions about thetimeline for actually passing the legislation. It's all unfolding on a busyday at the U.S. Capitol, where Republicans are again focused ontheir investigation of the Biden family. Let's bring in congressionalcorrespondent Lisa Desjardins. It's good to see you, friend. LISA DESJARDINS: Hi. GEOFF BENNETT: Here we go again. Congressis now facing this Friday deadline to.
Fund 70 percent of governmentagencies. Where do things stand? LISA DESJARDINS: I want to remind people that thisis a problem. We have been through this so much that there is a real danger of everyone, includingmembers of Congress, becoming numb to this. Where we are is, there is hope that they willmeet this deadline, but there's also the chance that they don't. Let me take you throughthe calendar of where we are. As we sit, today is Wednesday. Some of us had toremind ourselves today. Today is Wednesday. The potential shutdown would begin Saturdayif the spending bills are not passed by then. Partial shutdown, it would be about 70percent of the agencies involved. Now, here's the situation. House Republicanshave an internal pledge where any bill,.
They should get three days to read thebills. One, two, three. You count that, clearly, there's not enough time to reada giant bill and pass it by Saturday. So what we have is a situation where HouseRepublicans are preparing to waive their own internal rule to pass this by suspendingthe rule. And the hope is that this will be voted on in the House on Friday, quicklyrun across the other side of the Capitol, and then the Senate would then pass it. I don't have to tell you, I don't haveto tell our viewers, the Senate does not move quickly. And so it is a big questionmark as to whether the Senate can actually pass this on time. Here is what some of theleaders involved said about all this today.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I'm a rule follower,and I believe in that idea. We're also up against the crunch of the weekend. And some members onboth sides of the aisle will be traveling and that kind of thing. So we're talking abouthow to expedite it as quickly as possible, but also allow all the members to have anadequate time to review the legislation. SEN. BRIAN SCHATZ (D-HI): This is not a politicalor policy question for me. It's basic timekeeping. Amending this bill will take up time that we don'thave, all but guaranteeing a shutdown. So, again, no one wins a shutdown, and everyone knows whatwe need to do. We're almost there. We can do this. LISA DESJARDINS: Brian Schatz therespeaking at the leadership news conference. Can they do it, though, is the question. Thisbill is going to be well over 1,000 pages,.
Maybe 2,000 pages' long. As we sit here tonight,we still don't have the text. The speaker said it was going to happen this afternoon. We're allwaiting. So this is going to be incredibly close. GEOFF BENNETT: So the bill is not written,but there is this handshake agreement on a spending deal. We heard the House speaker,Mike Johnson, say that he's a rule follower. Tell us about that, where that stands. LISA DESJARDINS: Right. It's important because, in this era of gridlockat the U.S. Capitol, one of the main things that Congress does is pass spending bills. Thisis how they affect our lives in one of the most consequential ways. So breaking down whatI have learned from my sources in both parties.
That's going to be in this bill, specifically,this includes money for the Pentagon, DHS, Homeland Security, HHS, Labor, Treasury, theWhite House, very big parts of our government. What they have agreed to is to, onething, raise the number of detention beds for ICE to 42,000. That will bethe largest number of detention beds funded in this country in our history.There will be no funding in this bill, it will say no funding for the next calendaryear, until next March, for UNRWA. That is, of course, the U.N. agency that has come underclose scrutiny because of the situation in Gaza. And, in addition, there will be 12,000 Afghanspecial visas granted. Those are for those Afghan interpreters and others who were alliesof the U.S. while they were in Afghanistan.
But those are specifics. Let's talk a bigpicture. What is the point of all of this? This bill alone will be $1.2 trillion inspending. Add that together with the other portion that passed recently, total spending forthis current fiscal year then will be about $1.6 trillion. What does that mean? Basically, defenseis going to get a small increase over last year. All the non-defense agencies are sayingabout the same. That's important because Democrats were fearing big cuts there. Oneother note. Once all this gets through, Speaker Johnson has told House Republicansthat he plans to try and tackle Ukraine. We asked him about this today.He does not have a plan for how. So we're going to watch that. And, of course,also waiting in the wings that impeachment of.
Homeland Security Secretary AlejandroMayorkas that the House passed. Also, we will be dealing with that after this and afterthe House and Senate return from a spring break. GEOFF BENNETT: So, Lisa, iflawmakers miss the deadline, what would a weekend shutdown actually mean? LISA DESJARDINS: Actually, not that much. And Ithink that's why we could see one, because I think the pressure on the Senate is not that great whenit talks about a Saturday and Sunday shutdown. For one, there is a law now in place whereall furloughed government workers would have to be repaid in the end. We also know thatsome folks usually affected by these kinds of shutdowns in national parks would not beaffected at all. They were already funded.
In a previous bill. The District of Columbiawould not be affected. Often, they are as well. I really tried to figure out theeffects. Every agency will have problems, complications because of this, but… GEOFF BENNETT: Like TSA workers, for instance. LISA DESJARDINS: Like TSA workers, exactly. GEOFF BENNETT: Yes. LISA DESJARDINS: They willhave to work without getting technically paid that day. But paychecks lag. One group that will be affected, here's anexample. The Air Force Academy, because of.
How they're funded, their athletic programwill continue, but they may not be allowed to have fans watch. They have got wrestling andbasketball this weekend. It's that kind of stuff. GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, Republicans inCongress are still trying to advance their impeachment probe of President Biden.They held a hearing today. They had hoped to hear from Hunter Biden publicly.That didn't happen. Bring us up to speed. LISA DESJARDINS: That's right. Hunter Biden saidhe couldn't attend because he wasn't asked about his calendar and he had a court date ofhis own in California over tax charges. But who did attend were two Republicanwitnesses, one of whom is in federal prison now, a former associate of Hunter Biden's,for fraud himself on different charges..
The other is a man named Tony Bobulinski.Now, he says that he was privy to the idea that Joe Biden was at least adjacentto all of the Biden business schemes. And, in particular, it seemed that Republicanswere drilling down on one 2017 meeting that Joe Biden was said to have appeared at. This isafter he left office. Here in Washington at the Four Seasons, there were Chineseofficials, including the chairman of the top Chinese energy company, obviouslyrelated to the Chinese Communist Party. The person who testified to this saidit was not a business conversation, but Republicans have honed in on this. Andhere's what Tony Bobulinski said about that. TONY BOBULINSKI, Former Hunter Biden Associate:Ten Chinese individuals had to go back to mainland.
China and say that they were in a room with JoeBiden is the value of what they were giving. LISA DESJARDINS: This is thesame accusation we have had, that they were selling access to Joe Biden. And he also noted that it has been shownthat those Chinese officials sent millions of dollars to Hunter Biden's company shortly afterthat. But the problem is, Democrats say Hunter Biden was doing business. Yes, maybe he was notright to be selling the idea of the Biden name. But this doesn't say that Joe Bidendid anything wrong. So here's what some Democrats were pushing back. Andhere's Robert Garcia, congressman. REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I just want tojust for the record be very clear that,.
In Mr. Bobulinski's testimony, he has providedzero evidence, zero evidence of any sort of link between Hunter Biden and the president asfar as it relates to the business dealings. And so, once again, we're back to a hearing where no evidence is being provided of anysort of wrongdoing by the president. LISA DESJARDINS: Bobulinski disagrees, butit is circumstantial evidence right now. Now, other Republicans are openlysaying there's no case here, this case is unraveling. So what we learnedtoday is that Republicans still don't have the momentum to get to impeachment thatthey claimed they would have a year ago. GEOFF BENNETT: All right, Lisa Desjardins,thanks, as always, for that great reporting.
LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome. GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines:The Federal Reserve left short-term interest rates unchanged again, but signaled itstill anticipates three cuts this year. Policymakers also estimated thatinflation will stay higher than first expected into next year.Fed Chair Jerome Powell said it might mean interest rates can'tcome down as fast as they hoped. JEROME POWELL, Federal Reserve Chairman:We were saying that we will — it's going to be a bumpy ride. We consistently said that.Now here are some bumps. And the question is, are they more than bumps? And we just don't — we.
Can't know that. That's why we areapproaching this question carefully. GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, the CongressionalBudget Office projected that, in 30 years' time, federal debt will reach 166percent of U.S. economic output. That's actually down from the last forecast. Secretary of State Antony Blinken is back in theMiddle East tonight trying to get an agreement to halt the war in Gaza. He began with a stopin Saudi Arabia to meet with the crown prince and his foreign minister. Blinken flies toEgypt tomorrow and then to Israel on Friday. In Washington, Senate Majority Leader ChuckSchumer declined a request by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak tothe Senate Democratic Caucus today. The.
Prime minister spoke instead via videocall to Senate Republicans. Schumer had criticized the prime minister last weekand suggested Israel needs new elections. Today, the parties blamed eachother for politicizing the issue. SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I care deeplyabout Israel and its long-term future. When you make the issue partisan,you hurt the cause of helping Israel. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I stillthink our best policy is to not give any democratic ally adviceabout when to have an election, who ought to run the government, orhow to conduct a military campaign. GEOFF BENNETT: In Gaza, Palestinians reportat least 28 people were killed in a series of.
Israeli airstrikes on Tuesday. Today, peoplesearched for survivors after one attack on a refugee camp. And mourners said funeralprayers over the dead in Central Gaza. Helicopters started airlifting Americancitizens out of Haiti's capital today as gang violence there raged on. The StateDepartment announced, 15 people were able to leave Port-au-Prince. Nearly 1,600have inquired about being brought out. VEDANT PATEL, Principal Deputy StateDepartment Spokesperson: And, of course, the situation the ground is one of thebiggest factors into determining the frequency at which we can do this andwhat other options might be available to American citizens, includingpotential commercial options.
GEOFF BENNETT: The airlift took place asgangs staged new attacks in the suburbs of Port-au-Prince. Caribbean officials are trying toarrange a transitional council to restore order. The Biden administration is awardingIntel nearly $20 billion in loans and grants to expand U.S. computerchip production. The president announced it today at an Intel campus nearPhoenix during a Western campaign swing. And former President Trump is indicatinghe could support a national abortion ban at 15 weeks of pregnancy. The formerpresident previously took credit for appointing three Supreme Court justiceswho voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. And on Wall Street, major stock indexes reachedall-time highs after the Fed said it's still.
Planning for three interest rate cuts thisyear. The Dow Jones industrial average gained 401 points to close at 39512. The Nasdaqrose 202 points. The S&P 500 added 46. And Major League Baseball's new season officiallyopened tonight with its first game ever in South Korea. Seoul was the setting, as the LosAngeles dodgers beat the San Diego padres 5-2. L.A. scored four runs in the eighth inningto fuel the comeback win. And Shohei Ohtani capped the rally with a single in his Dodger debutafter signing a record $700 million contract. And the U.S. is falling fast in the annual WorldHappiness Report. The global survey found the U.S. sliding to 23rd place from 15th last year.Americans under the age of 30 drove the drop, while seniors were much happier.The University of Oxford reports.
That Finland is still the happiest country.Afghanistan and Lebanon rank at the bottom. And still to come on the “NewsHour”: the EPAupdates standards for vehicle tailpipe emissions; Hong Kong passes a second national security law, tightening China's grip and cracking down ondissent; victims seek maximum sentences for the six Mississippi police officers who torturedand sexually assaulted them; and a new novel explores the life of an accomplished,but forgotten member of the art world. AMNA NAWAZ: One of the nation's most closelywatched Senate races this year is now set. Ohio businessman Bernie Moreno cruised to victoryin the state's U.S. Republican Senate primary last night, after earning the backing of formerPresident Donald Trump. He will take on incumbent.
Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown this fall in arace that will help decide control of the Senate. Following it and other elections in the state isOhio Statehouse News bureau chief Karen Kasler. Karen, always good to see you. So these results last night with thisCleveland-based businessman Bernie Moreno backed by Mr. Trump beating out the other twocandidates, was this the expected outcome? KAREN KASLER, Ohio Public Radioand Television: I think so. And it really came down to two things, and both of them involve former PresidentTrump. It came down to Trump's endorsement, and also about $2.5 million, $2.7 millionworth of ads that were purchased by a.
Political action committee that's connectedto U.S. Senate Democrats. They had put ads out trying to portray Moreno as too conservativefor Ohio, because he had been endorsed by Trump. And Democrats said, it seemed to be, thatthey wanted Moreno to be the candidate who runs against Democratic incumbent SherrodBrown. Republicans call that meddling in the election. And it turned out potentiallythat that, along with a Trump rally at the airport in Dayton on Saturday, thosetwo things may have been the two things that really vaulted Moreno over and had himwin by a little over 17 percentage points. AMNA NAWAZ: Well, we should point outthis is in a state that Mr. Trump won by eight points in 2020. I should point out SenateMajority Leader Chuck Schumer told me recently.
That he is not worried about the Democraticincumbent, Senator Sherrod Brown. Should he be? KAREN KASLER: Well, when you lookat the results from election night, Bernie Moreno won in every county inOhio, and he was facing two opponents, Secretary of State Frank LaRoseand state Senator Matt Dolan. Dolan was his real competition toward theend. Dolan was more of a GOP establishment candidate endorsed by Governor Mike DeWine andformer Senator Rob Portman. And yet Dolan really ended behind, well behind Moreno in thefinal result. So the idea that Moreno has done so well in so many counties againsta more — somebody who was perceived as a more moderate candidate, though stillaligned with Trump, is interesting.
And also Moreno's strongest performancewas in the Youngstown area. And that's an area that Sherrod Brown used to have alot of support in. It's gone more and more Republican over time. And so that's going tobe a critical area for both those candidates. AMNA NAWAZ: Karen, as you know,this has already been a brutal and, as you shared, a very expensive primaryfor Republicans so far. It's getting a lot of national attention.It's a top target for the GOP. What do we expect ahead? KAREN KASLER: I expect this to be the mostexpensive U.S. Senate campaign in Ohio history. It's on track for that, $56 millionalready involved from the three candidates who.
Ran for the Republican nomination and SherrodBrown himself, who has much more money than all three of the candidates who were running forthe Republican nomination have put together. So, certainly, we're going to see ittop the 2022 U.S. Senate race in Ohio, which was the most expensive race in Ohiohistory. And I think there's going to be a lot of interest from not only people inOhio, but also outside Ohio, because the Senate margin is so slim. And Republicans reallyfeel that this is a seat that they can knock off. Democrats feel that Sherrod Brownspeaks to not only their voters, but also can reach more moderate Republicans and voters who are independent. So it'sreally going to be a battle, I think.
AMNA NAWAZ: There's another key House raceI know you're following in Northwest Ohio. There's a Trump-backed candidate there, DerekMerrin, who won his primary. He's now going to face Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in November.Is this a seat that Republicans could flip? KAREN KASLER: Well, Marcy Kaptur isthe longest-serving woman in Congress, and she's been popular even after her district wasredrawn to really try to make it more competitive. Last time, she ran againsta candidate, J.R. Majewski, a Trump-aligned candidate. He ran this time, buthad to drop out because of derogatory comments that he made about Special Olympians that gothim in trouble. And that whole situation as well as the other candidates in the racereally seemed to benefit Derek Merrin,.
Who himself was involved in a battleover leadership in the Ohio House. And so his name being out there with thatmay have helped him come — it may have helped win that contest, but he does havean uphill battle in facing Marcy Kaptur. AMNA NAWAZ: A lot to follow in Ohio. We areso glad you're here to help us with that. That is Ohio Statehouse Newsbureau chief Karen Kasler. Karen, thank you very much. KAREN KASLER: Great to talk to you. Thanks. GEOFF BENNETT: The Biden administration hasfinalized what are the toughest standards for vehicle emissions that limit the amountof greenhouse gases allowed from tailpipes.
The new rules are designed to acceleratethe transition to electric vehicles, but it hasn't come without some pushback. David Shepardson is covering all ofthis for Reuters, and he joins us now. Thanks for coming in. DAVID SHEPARDSON, Reuters: Thanks. GEOFF BENNETT: So, the Biden administration isrolling out these new standards for passenger cars and trucks designed to push the U.S. automarket toward electric vehicles and hybrids. What's the EPA's expectation forthat transition under this new rule? DAVID SHEPARDSON: It's pretty aggressive. Sothese rules start in 2027 and go through 2032,.
And, by 2030, you would have at least 50percent plug-in hybrids and full electric vehicles under the various scenariosthat auto companies can use to comply. But, as you said, they can pick from a mixof different options, hybrids, plug-ins, advanced gasoline vehicles. And unlike theinitial proposal, which had projected that there'd be 60 percent all E.V.s by 2030 and67 percent E.V.s, those numbers are coming down because EPA is slowing the rate of increaseand giving auto companies a break through 2030. GEOFF BENNETT: Well, to your point, the fact thatthese rules are being rolled out more slowly, companies have more choices in terms of howthey can comply, Toyota, which is the world's largest automaker, they were pretty forceful intheir initial pushback. What was their argument?.
DAVID SHEPARDSON: So, their argument wasthat plug-in hybrids are — can save an equivalent or more CO2 becausethey have smaller batteries, can be deployed across more vehicles, asopposed to larger batteries and single vehicles. And that argument, I think, had a lot ofresonance with the administration and with other advocates. So the rule incentivizesplug-ins further by giving them additional credits, which they were not goingto get originally. So, the new rule really looks far more holistically at advancedvehicles, looking at both E.V.s and plug-ins, rather than focusing primarily, asthe earlier proposal did, on E.V.s. GEOFF BENNETT: That concession,allowing more plug-in hybrids,.
What does that say about thedemand for pure electric vehicles? DAVID SHEPARDSON: Well, it's notmoving as fast as people had thought. Now, certainly, it's still rising,but there have been some troubling signs. Auto companies like Ford have cutback production of the F-150 Lightning. We have seen other auto companieslike GM delay some significant E.V. projects. So it is still rising. We'reat about 8 percent we were in last year. And it's going to continue to go up,but there are concerns that that very high level of increase we have seen in thelast few years is going to moderate and the companies are not going to be able tomeet these very aggressive standards.
GEOFF BENNETT: What about the infrastructurefor electric vehicles? When are all of those new chargers, when is thatsupposed to come online? DAVID SHEPARDSON: Right, because, remember, the administration spending $7.5 billion toget hundreds of thousands of chargers in place. GEOFF BENNETT: Right. DAVID SHEPARDSON: And there's really not manyof them, really just a few dozen, roughly. So I think the argument the administration ismaking is, we're going to see all of those by 2030 or earlier, right? And so thebattery factories will be online, a lot more vehicles will be in place, and thecharging infrastructure will be much more robust.
So, in theory, the conditions are there tohave a much more aggressive, robust take rate on E.V.s than we have now. But, certainly,critics say, if you take your foot off the gas, so to speak, then you're not going to be –that auto companies might slow that change, might be a little less willing tomake the full investment toward E.V.s. GEOFF BENNETT: Take your footoff the gas, so to speak. DAVID SHEPARDSON: Right, exactly. (LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: So, look, there are alot of political battle lines being drawn around all of this. Donald Trumphas railed against electric vehicles.
The United Auto Workers union,which has endorsed President Biden, they have expressed a lot ofconcern about job protections and wage protections for people who buildthe cars and build the E.V. batteries. DAVID SHEPARDSON: Right. GEOFF BENNETT: Help us understand that dynamic. DAVID SHEPARDSON: So, President Trumpcertainly has been very bombastic, right? In his administration, he soughtto roll back and did roll back some of the greenhouse gas standards that were reinstatedand then increased by the Biden administration. But one of the benefits to plug-in hybrids,that both the UAW, Toyota, you mentioned,.
Others like is that they still have internalcombustion engines, so they require more workers to build those. That's what the UAW likes, andthat's why many Americans are more comfortable, because, if you run out of electricity,you can still put gasoline in that vehicle. So, at least for the short term, there'sa lot of people who like that vehicle, even though the environmentalbenefits are somewhat in dispute, given we don't know how much that vehicleis going to be charged versus on gasoline. But there's no question that this issue inthose key states, right, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, those auto states, so that theformer President Trump's harangue about E.V.s, and the Biden administration's arguing, hey,this is going to ensure we're competitive.
With China and we're going to create more jobson net with all these new battery factories, is going to be a key decider on what sidethey will come down on in the election. GEOFF BENNETT: David Shepardson,thanks so much for your reporting and insights. I could talkto you about this all day. DAVID SHEPARDSON: Thanks, Geoff. GEOFF BENNETT: All right, take care. AMNA NAWAZ: Beijing criticized the West today for questioning Hong Kong's new nationalsecurity law known as Article 23. The once mostly autonomous city is now led bylegislators entirely handpicked by Beijing,.
Who swept aside years of concerns by pro-democracyadvocates to pass the bill in record time. Critics say the legislation is a death blow towhatever independence the city still had. Here now is Nick Schifrin. NICK SCHIFRIN: In Hong Kong, this is howliberty dies, unanimously. By a vote of 89-0, Hong Kong's Legislative Council passed a law thatauthorities say safeguards the city's security. REGINA IP, Hong Kong LegislativeCouncil Member: I'm sure Hong Kong will do better going forward. We willbecome more prosperous, more safe, more secure going forward. And thislegislation is good for everybody. NICK SCHIFRIN: In this once liberal gatewayto mainland China, Article 23 expands Hong.
Kong's authorities' ability to punishdissent. Crimes linked to state secrets and sedition can now be punished for 10 years.Espionage can carry a sentence of 20 years, and treason, insurrection and sabotageare punishable with life imprisonment. KELVIN LAM, Former HSBC China Economist: Article23, basically, in a business community point of view, is that it will make Hong Kong more similarto China, in terms of operating environments. NICK SCHIFRIN: Kelvin Lam wasa local Hong Kong politician and macroeconomist with HSBC HongKong and is now based in London. KELVIN LAM: How do you definestate secrets and how do you define espionage activities? It's upto the prosecutors. And, as you know,.
Judicial independence in Hong Kong isnow kind of not completely there anymore, so that's why different businesses aremore worried about this kind of new law. NICK SCHIFRIN: For decades, Hong Kong prideditself on its freedom of speech, and, in 2019, tens of thousands of demonstrators protested alaw that required extradition to mainland China. In July, the protesters turned violentand occupied the Legislative Council. One protester told me that day he was unrepentant. PROTESTER: Some say we broke the glassdoors, the entrance, we are breaking the government properties. Yes, we can saythis is violence, but the tyrant is there. NICK SCHIFRIN: Beijing used the violenceto pass a national security law that jailed.
Thousands of peaceful protesters, shut downindependent media, and imprisoned pro-democracy activists. The U.S. said Article 23further silences Beijing's critics. VEDANT PATEL, Principal Deputy State DepartmentSpokesperson: We believe that these kinds of actions have the potential to accelerate theclosing of Hong Kong's once-open society. NICK SCHIFRIN: But the law's backers don't seem to care about foreign criticism orinternational financial anxiety. ANDREW LEUNG, President, Hong KongLegislative Council: Hong Kong is such a beautiful place for doing businessand traveling into Hong Kong. So, if they don't come, if they don't dobusiness here, they miss their chances.
NICK SCHIFRIN: For a perspective onwhat Article 23 means for Hong Kong, we turn to Anna Kwok, ExecutiveDirector Of Hong Kong Democracy Council, which fights for democracy and humanrights in Hong Kong. The government of Hong Kong has levied a bounty of onemillion Hong Kong dollars for her arrest. Anna Kwok, thank you very much. Welcome… ANNA KWOK, Executive Director, Hong KongDemocracy Council: Thanks for having me. NICK SCHIFRIN: … to the “NewsHour.” The national security law that wedescribed that Beijing — Hong Kong passed a few years ago already stifledprotests, already stifled media freedoms,.
Already silenced dissent. Sohow does Article 23 go further? ANNA KWOK: Well, you're right that thenational security law was implemented in 2020, and it was definitely awatershed moment for Hong Kong. But if the NSL was a watershed moment, I wouldsay Article 23 is actually a nail in the coffin on Hong Kong as this global internationalfinancial hub that we have seen, because, with Article 23, there's this ambiguous theftof state secret. You don't even know what state secret is. And there's also intention toapply the law to Hong Kongers abroad and also to foreigners who work in Hong Kong, foreignerswho have some sort of relations of Hong Kong. And now even communicating withforeign organizations can also be.
Accused of breaking Article 23. So itreally expanded the legal ground for the government to criminalize Hong Kongersfor basically just having connection to the outside world. So that would definitelychange the future of Hong Kong forever. NICK SCHIFRIN: Authorities in HongKong, as you heard in that story, say the law was necessary becauseit will make the city safer and because this ends the risk of violencein Hong Kong. What do you say to that? ANNA KWOK: Well, I think we'reall very clear about where the violence is in Hong Kong. It'sfrom the Hong Kong police force. And I definitely do not think that Article 23 isactually addressing what they want to address..
But, instead, I think it's their way to please theBeijing government and also to really double down on the kind of global authoritarian expansion thatthe Chinese Communist Party has been conducting everywhere in the world, including in Taiwan,including in Southeast Asia, many other countries. NICK SCHIFRIN: As we said, so many activists,pro-democracy demonstrators are already in prison. ANNA KWOK: Yes. NICK SCHIFRIN: Could Article23 be applied retroactively and actually extend their sentences longer? ANNA KWOK: Well, it's the sameas the national security law. Even though the government clarified that it wouldnot be applied retroactively, but it did happen.
That the government would use evidence from yearsago to say that, oh, this person has been with the intent to treason for a long time. So that'swhat we're expecting from Article 23 as well. NICK SCHIFRIN: And could italso be used, as you mentioned, against overseas activists, even perhapswithout the people who are living overseas, without their knowledge that Article 23is actually being imposed or being used against them, whether it's aboutpassports or about anything else? ANNA KWOK: Yes, definitely. So, last year, there was the case of a Hong Kongstudent studying in Japan. She only found out that she was accused of breaking the law once sheentered Hong Kong, once she left her flight..
And that's what we're expecting to happen more andmore with Article 23. So there is a huge chilling effect happening among Hong Kongers that theywill censor themselves even if they're abroad. And with the passport, in Article 23,it also mentioned that absconders like myself will have my passport invalidated by thegovernment. Now, how they will actually do that, it's not clear, because they cannot cometo the U.S. and collect my passport, per se, but they will definitely makeit known to other governments around the world that these passportsof people will be invalidated. And it's also very likely that peoplewill only find out when they try to use that Hong Kong passport topass customs and pass borders.
NICK SCHIFRIN: We heard the StateDepartment deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel, in the story from beforemaking a statement against the law. But what are you asking the U.S.government, the Biden administration, and also Congress to actually do?What actions are you pushing for now? ANNA KWOK: Right. I'm urging the Biden administration to imposesanctions on high-ranking Hong Kong officials, prosecutors who are responsible for Article23 national security law and abusing human rights. The last time that any sanctions wasplaced was already three years ago, in… (CROSSTALK).
NICK SCHIFRIN: So, the Trump administrationsanctioned Hong Kong leaders then, right. ANNA KWOK: Exactly. Exactly. And now in the past three to four years, we haveseen like more than 1,800 political prisoners, but we're still not imposing more sanctionson that. I think that is very alarming. So that's why that's one of my asks.And for Congress, I really hope that we can pass the Hong Kong Economic and TradeOffice Certification Act as soon as possible, since that will recertify whether theseoffices by the Hong Kong government can still have their privilegesand rights here in the U.S. NICK SCHIFRIN: Essentially, HongKong diplomats who are based in the.
United States, not Chinese mainlanddiplomats, but Hong Kong diplomats, who you believe, what, have been actinginappropriately in the United States? ANNA KWOK: Yes. So they definitely receive orders fromBeijing, and they have also conducted surveillance against Hong Kong diasporain the U.S. So that has really posed a lot of danger for us. And we have also seenhow Hong Kong government utilized their network here in the U.S. to lobby againstlegislations that we're pushing forward. So that's why having these officeshere will be very dangerous in terms of transnational repression as well going forward.
NICK SCHIFRIN: And, finally, a littlepersonally, if you don't mind, you were anonymous back in 2019, when some of thoseprotests that we were showing were spreading. You started your public advocacy in2021. And, as I said, today you have a one million Hong Kong dollar bountyon your head. The U.S. government has accused Beijing of transnationalrepression. Do you feel safe here? ANNA KWOK: Well, I wish I could feel safe, but, honestly, I don't feel thesafest here in the United States. A few months ago, in San Francisco, I wasprotesting against Xi Jinping because he was here to have this bilateraltalk with President Biden. And.
On the streets of San Francisco, therewere people following me, tailing me, and there were also a number of pro-Xiprotesters attacking Tibetan activists. Some of them were beaten with head injuries.So I think there's a lot of things going on, that we're not really trying to look into yet.But transnational repression is definitely happening. And that's why, whenever I walk onthe streets, I would always look back to see if anyone is following me, and I would alwayshave to be very careful about my whereabouts. And I think that really tells how deep transnational repression and howinfiltrated it has become here. NICK SCHIFRIN: Anna Kwok, thank you very much.
ANNA KWOK: Thank you. AMNA NAWAZ: In Mississippi, two more policeofficers were given lengthy sentences today for their role in a series of brutalattacks, including against two Black men. They're part of a group of former officerswho are being sentenced this week, after pleading guilty to horrifying chargesthat include torture and sexual assault. John Yang has more. JOHN YANG: Amna, a federal judge in Mississippihas just handed down the harshest sentence yet in a startling case of law enforcement misconduct,40 years in prison for the fourth former deputy in the self-proclaimed Goon Squad in the RankinCounty, Mississippi, Sheriff's Department.
A total of six former deputies have pleadedguilty. Federal prosecutors say that, for nearly two decades, they bargedinto homes in the middle of the night, handcuffing and torturing occupants forinformation or confessions. The current charges stem from a January 2023 home invasion ofthe residents of Michael Jenkins and Eddie Parker. The officers repeatedly shocked them with Tasers, sexually assaulted them with a sex toy andshot Jenkins in the face, nearly killing him. Parker spoke to reporters afterone of the sentencing hearings. EDDIE PARKER, Victim of Rankin County,Mississippi, Police: What's done already, man, can't be erased, man, can't betaken back. I relive this every day.
JOHN YANG: The years of brutal misconductwas documented by an investigation by Mississippi Today and The New YorkTimes Local Investigations Fellowship. Brian Howey is an investigative reporter at Mississippi Today. He waspart of this reporting team. Brian, the sort of severity of this behaviorand the fact that it went on so long really is eye-grabbing, sort of very startling.Tell us how this self-proclaimed Goon Squad came about. How did it get started? How big wasit? How did they pick the people they targeted? BRIAN HOWEY, Mississippi Today: Thanks, John. Well, it's unclear how the Goon Squad wasactually started, but we do know that this.
Pattern of behavior involved a core groupof deputies stretching back nearly 20 years. They chose their targets based on thesepeople's alleged crimes. They mainly went after folks that they suspected of dealingor possessing methamphetamine or other drugs. Then, after they found them, they wouldburst into their homes or pull them over while they were driving and beginthese brutal interrogations that often involved anywhere from repeated Tasings,to water-boarding, to burning, you name it. JOHN YANG: I mean, this has been goingon for some time, say, two decades. How many other cases arethere out there, do you think? BRIAN HOWEY: Well, we don't know how many casesthere are out there, but we interviewed over 50.
People who claimed they experienced or witnessedtorture at the hands of Rankin County deputies. Of those, we were able to corroborate 17 torture incidents involving 20victims dating back 18 years. JOHN YANG: The sheriff is resistingcalling — calls to resign. How high up did knowledge about this go, howsenior supervisors were aware of this? BRIAN HOWEY: You're right, John. Thesheriff has resisted calls to resign and has claimed numerous times that he hadno knowledge of his deputies' actions. But what we found were that some of thehighest-ranking deputies at the sheriff's department were involved and activelypartaking in these torture incidents..
And we spoke to multiple people who claimedthey were tortured by deputies who said that they filed complaints with the department,which should have gone to the sheriff, and, in some cases, even reached out directly tohim to notify him of his deputies' actions. JOHN YANG: What does this say aboutthe culture of the department? BRIAN HOWEY: Well, it says that thereis potentially a deeply ingrained culture of violent misconduct at theRankin County Sheriff's Department. This culture has actually been referencedseveral times in the sentencing hearings this week by some of the deputies themselves,who themselves acknowledged that they were indoctrinated into this culture and became a partof it as they went on at the sheriff's department.
JOHN YANG: This — Rankin County is majoritywhite. It sits right next to Jackson, which has one of the highest percentages of Blackpopulation of any good-sized city in America. To what extent is there aracial dimension to this? BRIAN HOWEY: We found thatthe majority of the alleged victims who were tortured by GoonSquad members were actually white, and we think that that's because weare looking at a majority white county. However, when people of color cameforward and said that they were tortured, there was often a racial aspect to the torture.They were called racial slurs. They were told to go back to Jackson, which is a common phrase,referring to Jackson and how many people at.
The department and in Rankin County see thecity as a source of crime and corruption. JOHN YANG: Do you think this is goingon in other counties in Mississippi? BRIAN HOWEY: It's hard to say. We do know that, across Mississippi,sheriff's departments have very little to no oversight. Our team, Ilyssa Dalyand Jerry Mitchell, have uncovered other accusations of sexual assault by sheriffs atdifferent departments. And so it's clear here that we have an issue of accountabilitywith sheriffs generally in Mississippi. JOHN YANG: You said this has been going on for two decades. Complaints went to thesheriff's department, to no avail.
How did this escape the notice ofstatewide officials, of federal officials? BRIAN HOWEY: That's a great, great question,John. I'd love to know that myself. We do know that a state investigation intothe incident involving Michael Jenkins and Eddie Parker is sort of what initiatedall of this in the first place. But, as far as we know, so far, stateand federal officials only recently became aware of the conduct at theRankin County Sheriff's Department. JOHN YANG: And the trials that have been goingon. The sentencing has all been in federal court. Are any local county officials,the county prosecutor looking into this? BRIAN HOWEY: Yes. All of the deputieswho faced sentencing in federal court.
This week will also face another roundstate sentencing in the coming weeks. JOHN YANG: Brian Howey of MississippiToday, thank you very much. BRIAN HOWEY: Thanks, John. I appreciate it. GEOFF BENNETT: A new novel takeson art and personal history, using fiction to explore the lives of boththe author and an important art world figure. Jeffrey Brown has the story for ourarts and culture series, Canvas. (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) JEFFREY BROWN: It was a celebrationof a local writer. Xochitl Gonzalez grew up in a working-class neighborhood ofBrooklyn and was now surrounded by fans and.
Friends at the Center for Fiction,a nonprofit literary organization, as she released her new novel, one thatcomes with some big questions at its heart. XOCHITL GONZALEZ, Author, “Anita de MonteLaughs Last”: There's that adage, like, history is told by the victors. That includessometimes art history. I think that now we have to start questioning, what are the waysin which we decide that something has value? JEFFREY BROWN: “Anita de Monte Laughs Last”is a tale of two women, parallel lives, a generation apart, Anita, a Cuban-bornrising star in the New York art world, Raquel, a Latina student finding her wayat an Ivy League college, the latter, Gonzalez told me at her Brooklyn apartment,very much based on her own experience.
XOCHITL GONZALEZ: You know what's funny?I really thought that we were going to be very different. And then, asI was walking her through a day, I realized that some of the things thatmaybe I felt in college were inevitable. That kind of change and not really being able toexpect it and then not being able to maybe explain it to your family, like, your baseline,it results in a little bit of isolation. JEFFREY BROWN: It's you bumping upagainst issues of class and race and… XOCHITL GONZALEZ: Yes, class and race, and Ithink just sort of conditioning, to some extent. JEFFREY BROWN: Gonzalez, daughter of a PuertoRican mother and Mexican-American father, was raised by her maternal grandparents.
She attended public schools and then, throughscholarships and loans, Brown University, where she struggled at times with feelings ofdislocation, whether she was prepared enough and belonged there, and whether others thought so, allcaptured later in her fictional character Raquel. XOCHITL GONZALEZ: I felt that Ihadn't seen what I knew to be a pretty broad experience ofhaving this triumph. Like, you get into this amazing college, andthen it is personally just so difficult. And I have said this to a collegeadministrator maybe 10 years ago. I was like, we were invited to the table,but nobody set us out forks and knives. JEFFREY BROWN: That's how it felt?.
XOCHITL GONZALEZ: Yes, that's how it felt. And soyou're sort of oscillating between being really frustrated and looking around and being like, Ineed to eat and how do I not embarrass myself? (LAUGHTER) XOCHITL GONZALEZ: I need to figure this out, andhow do I do this without embarrassing myself? And I just felt there was a swathe of people, Latinasalways first, but a swathe of people, of people of color, people from lower-class experiences that Iknow had walked this path that Raquel had walked. JEFFREY BROWN: In fact, it would takeGonzalez herself almost 20 years after graduating before she took up writing. She builta wedding planning business for, her term, rich hipsters, an experience that found its way intoher breakout debut novel, “Olga Dies Dreaming.”.
XOCHITL GONZALEZ: I had to make aliving first. There were a lot of loans. JEFFREY BROWN: Yes. Yes. (LAUGHTER) XOCHITL GONZALEZ: I walked out and there was a lot of loans. And I think itfelt to me a little daunting. And then my grandmother, who was sort of theinspiration for Raquel's mom, when she passed away, I just felt like, I think now I can kindof do whatever I want. It just happened right before I turned 40, which is always a goodtime to decide you can do whatever you want. And I was like, I'm just going to startwriting. I'm just going to start writing now.
JEFFREY BROWN: You took the leap at around 40? XOCHITL GONZALEZ: Yes. JEFFREY BROWN: Yes. XOCHITL GONZALEZ: And I'd say because Icame from such a working-class background, and I have had a nice run througha bunch of different experiences, I think I'm able to come at thingswith a slightly different angle. Walking through life from the outsideof the perimeter gives you a lot of different perspectives on the insideof the circle. There's a lot less sense of neighborliness and connectivity, I think,.
As things change, and that's probablythe thing I'm the most obsessed with. JEFFREY BROWN: She's also now bringing thatperspective to cultural change in her city and others, writing essays on gentrification,race and class for “The Atlantic.” Last year, she was a Pulitzer Prizefinalist for her commentary. The new novel's dedication gives a clue toits other main character. Anita is based on the real-life Ana Mendieta, a performanceartist, sculptor and painter best known for incorporating her own body into her work, oftenset in nature. Tragically, she's also known for her death in 1985 at age 36, when she fellor was pushed out of an apartment window. Her husband, Carl Andre, older and a majorfigure in the art world when the two met,.
Was charged with her murder, but acquitted.His place in art history is assured, but what of hers? Gonzalez wondered whyshe herself had barely heard of Mendieta, even studying art history in college, and onlylearned of her by accident outside the classroom. XOCHITL GONZALEZ: The discovery of Ana Mendieta,the discovery of kind of Caribbean art and Puerto Rican art, it was my first time realizingthat I have to seek out legacy and what can I do to learn my own history andtalk about it and give it some space? And I think it made me just realize that you can'tjust take everything at face value. My youthful presumption was, oh, well, then it mustn't begood enough to not be in this classroom. And, suddenly, I was like, oh, well,maybe that's not quite the case,.
And I have to just work and try to nudgein the narrative and add people in. JEFFREY BROWN: In a recent New York Times article, the family of Ana Mendieta raised concernsabout fictionalizations of her life and death, including this one. Her estate refused to let usshow photos it owns of the artist or her work. For her part, Gonzalez says this of herdecision to give Mendieta a fictional voice. XOCHITL GONZALEZ: I don't think thatartists should ask for permission to make their art. To me, I felt thatI was respectful to the story. I was very clear about how I felt about whathappened to her legacy in the aftermath. And I felt it was also about the influence thatshe's had on other generations, including myself.
And my generation. And so, to me, that was thehighest form of respect that I could probably pay. JEFFREY BROWN: Novelist, essayist, she'salso eager to work in TV and films including, a possible adaptation of her first novel. Gonzalez says there's oneclear thread in all her work. XOCHITL GONZALEZ: What I always try to center inall of my pieces, like in “Olga” and in this book, is, this is a Latino experience,but it's an American experience, and these are American women, and Iwant to see those experiences reflected. JEFFREY BROWN: All right, the bookis “Anita de Monte Laughs Last.” Xochitl Gonzalez, thank you very much.
XOCHITL GONZALEZ: Thank you very much. GEOFF BENNETT: We invite you tojoin us again here tomorrow night, as we will have a look at the healthconsequences of being evicted. And that is the “NewsHour” fortonight. I'm Geoff Bennett. AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz. On behalf of the entire “NewsHour”team, thank you for joining us.
