william: good evening. i'm william brangham. amna nawaz and geoff bennett are away. on the "newshour" tonight, the rift between the u.s. and israel widens due to a united nations resolution demanding a ceasefire in gaza. then, former president trump will go on trial next month, and he gets a break on his multi-million-dollar bond while

he appeals a separate civil fraud ruling. and, how a pandemic-era child tax credit lifted some families out of poverty, but only temporarily. what you're robbing peter to pay paul. and eventually, paul runs out. and peter, so you're left with nothing. a™ >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. and iends of the newshour,

including leonard and norma, and the judy and peter bloom foundation. >> you don't need vision to do most things in life. yes, i'm legally blind and yes, i am responsible for the user interface.

data visualization. if i can see it and understand it quickly, anyone can. it's exciting to be part of a team driving the technology forward. ople who know, know bdo.ng >> two retiring executives turn their focus. giving these former race dogs and real chance to win. a raymond james financial advisor gets to know you, your purpose, and the way you give back. life well planned. >> the william and flora hewitt foundation. for more than 50 years, advancing ideas and supporting institutions to promote a better world. >> and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. a™ this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. william: welcome to the "newshour." there is a public break tonight between the united states and

israel after the u.s. refused to veto a u.n. security council resolution that calls for a ceasefire in gaza. israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu accused the u.s. of changing its policy on the war in gaza, and cancelled a planned visit of his top aides to washington. nick schifrin is here now with more on these fast-moving developments. what is it that happened today that led to this very public disagreement? nick: the un security council today for the first time in more than five months of or demanded a cease-fire in gaza and it did so because the u.s. abstained on a vote. resolution 27-28 "demands an immediate cease-fire for the month of ramadan, respected by all parties, leading to a lasting and sustainable cease-fire." just a few points -- one, the holy month of ramadan is already halfway over. the word lasting was replaced because the u.s. asked for it rather than the word permanent. three, that paragraph refers to a cease-fire and hostage release in the same paragraph. an earlier draft allow those two things to be split and that is what, the reason why the u.s. abstained today, according to the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. >> we fully support some of the critical objectives in this nonbinding resolution. and we believe it was important for the council to speak out and make clear that any ceasefire must come with the release of

all hostages. nick: but the resolution did not condition the cease-fire on the hostage release or did it condemn hamas' terrorist attack on october 7. netanyahu has been saying you did change your policy which led to him canceling this delegation that was supposed to arrive tomorrow in washington and led to this statement by the israeli ambassador to the u.n. >> your demand for a ceasefire without conditioning it on the release of the hostages, not only is not helpful, but it undermines, undermines the

efforts to secure their release. to this council, israeli blood is cheap. this is a travesty. and i'm disgusted. nick: in response to that, national security council spokesman john kirby tried to downplay the u.s. had done. he said that the israeli cancellation of the delegation was disappointing, but also said that netanyahu was making a bigger deal of today's vote than it was actually. >> we get to decide what our policy is. the prime minister's office seems to be indicating through

public statements that we somehow changed here. we haven't, and we get to decide what our policy is. it seems like the prime minister's office is choosing to create a perception of daylight here when they don't need to do that. william: how serious do u.s. officials believe this is? nick: kirby said he's disappointed the u.s. will not be able to detail that alternative to the assault on rafah. israeli officials say it is necessary because the final battalions are based there. the u.s. had planned to provide a detailed or tentative -- alternative, more about targeting high-value members of hamas. doing more to secure the egyptian order and allowing displaced gazans to go home to central and northern gaza. u.s. officials are skeptical that israel wants to hear an

alternative to an assault on rafah because all israeli officials are convinced it is necessary, as we heard from the defense minister visiting washington as well today. >> in my first meeting, which will be with national security advisor jake sullivan, i will stress the importance of destroying hamas and returning the hostages home. >> russian officials raise the devil 139 in a terror attack outside of moscow. investigators spoke of engines as they work the scene. city hall is debris and devastation. days after attackers laid waste to a rock concert. it was the deadliest terror attack in decades. vladimir putin said radical islamists were behind the massacre, but he also continued to implicate ukraine without evidence. >> we know that the crime was committed by the hands of radical islamists, whose ideology the islamic world has been fighting for century.

we're interested in who ordered it. stephanie: ukraine's president zelenskyy denounced the suggestion. four main suspects appeared in a russian court and appear to have been beaten. the islamic state's afghan branch posted this video claiming responsibility for the attack, a claim verified by the u.s. which had shared intelligence with moscow ahead of time. >> they have been preparing this for sometime. the u.s. had given warnings a few weeks ago that this attack could take place. stephanie: paul is a former operations officer for the cia, with a focus on eastern europe

and counterterrorism. isis has attacked russia a number of times over the years and has recently begun recruiting heavily from central asia, including pajic's stand. >> workers are in moscow, so they provide both a willing and attractive recruitment pool for isis because they have access to russia. because they can be radicalized. and because they can be bought relatively cheaply. stephanie: the deadly attack has shaken russia. days after president putin, fresh from securing a fifth term, promised stability. for the pbs newshour, i'm stephanie sy. william: the attack in moscow has done nothing to slow russia's renewed bombardment of ukraine's capital. today, missiles were fired at kyiv for the third time in five days. after some of the weapons were intercepted, debris fell on homes, injuring nine people.

japan's prime minister fumio kishida has offered to meet with north korea's kim jong-un. it would be the two nations' first summit in nearly two decades, if it happens. kim's sister, kim yo-jong, announced it today. but, she insisted tokyo accept the north's weapons program and ignore abductions of japanese citizens. japan acknowledged it wants a summit, but with no pre-conditions. the u.s. and britain say china was behind a sweeping hacking campaign against lawmakers, defense contractors, and others. today, they sanctioned a company said to be a front for beijing. the u.s. justice department said it underscores "the potential for cyber-enabled foreign malign influence, as we approach the 2024 election." the european union launched new anti-trust probes into apple, google, and meta today. regulators say the tech giants may be violating a new digital

markets act which aims to help consumers move freely between competing services and not be cornered by so-called gatekeeper companies. >> consumers must have access to all the necessary information about their choices. gatekeepers can no longer prevent businesses from informing their users within the app about cheaper app options outside of the gatekeeper's ecosystem. william: the tech companies dispute the allegations, but they could be fined 10% of their global annual income. florida's republican governor ron desantis has signed one of the country's most restrictive social media laws for minors. it bars children under 14 from creating and owning accounts, and requires parental permission for 15 and 16-year-olds. if it withstands legal challenges, the law takes effect next january 1. an early spring snowstorm churned across the northern plains and upper midwest today, while the south watched for thunderstorms and tornadoes.

it followed a weekend storm in new england that dumped more than two feet of snow and knocked out power to hundreds of thousands. police also reported hundreds of accidents. boeing is shaking up its executive suite amid a plague of safety problems. the company announced today that david calhoun will step down as ceo at year's end. the board chairman and the head of the commercial airplanes unit are also leaving. boeing is under intense scrutiny after a 737 max lost a door panel in january. los angeles dodgers shohei ohtani says he never bet on sports. he spoke at a news conference today five days after his interpreter was fired amid allegations that he engaged in illegal gambling and theft from otani. ohtani said his interpreter had been stealing money and has told lies. major league baseball has opened a formal investigation. not clear whether he is the target of the investigation. he is the subject of sexual assault lawsuits and has denied the claims. still to come on the newshour.

retired supreme court justice. this is after a judge rejected lambs $300 million and granted him an additional 10 days to secure that money. andrea bernstein has been covering all the former president's legal matters for npr and joins us now. so good to see you. let's first talk about this hush

money case that you were in the courtroom for today. the trial was supposed to start today, but that was derailed by the sudden arrival of thousands of pages of new evidence. and trump's lawyers argue there was sothing nefarious going on here, but it sounds like the judge rejected those accusations. andrea: right. so, even though this case was indicted almost a year ago, it took trump's lawyers until january to subpoena federal prosecutors who in 2018 investigated michael cohen, who is going to be the witness, the main witness in this case. the investigated cohen for campaign finance violations, including having paid stormy daniels, the adult film actress who said she had a fair with

trump, the hush-money payments. trump's team did not subpoena those records until january and they got just as much over 100,000 pages of documents. the d.a. says most of them are not relevant but what trump's lawyers argue is that the das office was committing some sort of malfeasance by not requesting these documents earlier. the d.a., when the documents were produced by the federal prosecutors, ok, we can have a 30 day delay but we are ok. the judge set i will have a hearing instead and he sharply rebuked trump's lawyers for saying that the da had done some kind of willful malpractice here. the judge said there was no

evidence of that and he was moving forward to hold the trial on april 15. this judge has tried trump's corporation. i have seen him many times. he is very calm, but today, he got very testy. william: that trial will start april 15. let's pivot to this civil fraud ruling. donald trump is appealing that nearly half $1 billion ruling against him on the allegations that he defrauded the state of new york by inflating his assets to get better bank loans. trump appealed and was asked to pay a whopping amount on a bond. that was now reduced by almost $300 million. trump now has an extended grace period to get that money. what happens next in that particular case? andrea: so, in this case, the appeal goes through the appeals court but this was really quite extraordinary because normally what happens in new york is when you have such a judgment against you, you can appeal it, but you have to put up a bond with the court that says if it goes against me, i still can pay. trump originally said i don't want to pay $450 million, i will take $100 million. the appeals court said no way. he went back and said i cannot find a bank to guarantee this

money. i cannot find an insurance company that guarantees me this money because i don't have enough liquid assets. and after that is when the appeals court came back and said, ok, you don't have to pay $450 million, you can pay $174 million. they are also allowing trump continue to run his business and take out loans. this will wind its way through the appeals process could take some time. the attorney generalsaid the $450 million judgment still stands, but we will have to wait some time for trump to have to pay the full amount if he loses on appeal at new york's highest court where he will certainly take this case. william: any immediate seizure of assets which some people were thinking might start today -- andrea: that is off.

because it looks like he will be able to come up with the $175 he has 10 days to do it. he already said he can come up with $100 million so it looks like that will happen. and basically, it puts everything on hold while the case winds its way through the court system. yet another legal delay spurred by donald trump, which is also what happened in the hush money case. that investigation began in 2018. it is now 2024. trump took it to the u.s. supreme court twice, arguing that he could shoot somebody on fifth avenue and not be investigated while he was president. now finally on april 15 of this year, the judge is insistent this case will go to trial. william: andrea, thank you so much for helping us wade through all of this. andrea: thank you. william: the u.s. supreme court will hear arguments tomorrow over whether to restrict access

to mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions. the case will be the first the court has heard on abortion since it overturned roe v. wade. special correspondent sarah varney reports on what's at stake. sarah: in a doctor's basement in upstate new york, a makeshift production line is underway. >> i have myself, my sister, and some friends who help me with doing the packaging. sarah: to ensure this doctor's safety, "newshour" is not showing her face. she sends medication abortion pills mostly to people living in the 14 states where abortion is illegal. >> texas was the main one. and in the last few months, we've been seeing more and more

from georgia and florida as well. sarah: this doctor is part of an extensive network of providers that is getting medication out the door, quickly. >> hi, this is the hotline doctor, can i help you? sarah: dr. linda prine is part of the same group, and helps patients from her manhattan apartment. >> you can order pills online, and that's what most people from the restricted states are doing. sarah: she's been prescribing mifepristone since the fda first approved the drug to end early

pregnancy 24 years ago. what are your observations as a longtime provider about the safety and efficacy of mifepristone? >> it's very effective. i don't even have medications that are 98% to 99% effective. our blood pressure medicines aren't effective like that. it is an unusually effective medication of anything an extreme lease safe. -- an extremely safe. sarah: for decades, patients could only get mifepristone at a medical clinic. but during the covid pandemic, the fda eased the rules to allow the drug, like many others, to be prescribed online. >> you don't need to be handed the pill in the office in order for it to have efficacy. sarah: when the supreme court overturned the constitutional ars ago, dr. prine scrambledtwo to find a way for doctors in new york to help patients in states where abortion had been outlawed. >> this is how we protect the rights of not just new yorkers but all americans. sarah the result of her work was : a new york state shield law, passed last year, that protects

medical providers who prescribe pills across state lines. >> it felt empowering, both for me and for the people who were asking for the pills. sarah: five other states have passed similar laws. how many pills are you mailing a month? >> january, i think was 10,000. every month, it's a few thousand more. sarah: abortion pills are more widely available now than ever before. in fact, six out of 10 women end their pregnancies using the medication. and that's made mifepristone an urgent priority for anti-abortion groups. the christian legal advocates who helped overturn roe v. wade filed a suit in texas in november 2022 to ban the medication outright. an appeals court didn't go that far, but it did order the fda to reinstate nationwide a number of restrictions, including the requirement that doctors can only prescribe pills in person. now, that case has reached the supreme court. the anti-abortion group in this case says mifepristone is dangerous and cites two studies that claim abortion pills increase e.r. visits and the risk of hospitalization. the medical journal that published those studies has since retracted them. >> the articles made claims that were not supported by the data. sarah: in this case, these researchers used a trip to the emergency room as a proxy for something has gone wrong. is that right? >> that's right. sarah: ushma upadhyay, professor of reproductive sciences at the university of california san francisco, conducted the largest study to date of telehealth

abortions in the u.s. >> there's no medical reason to overturn or to turn back those regulatory approvals by the fda. sarah: upadhyay says that a small percentage of patients who have medication abortions do visit an emergency room, but mostly to make sure their symptoms are normal. >> what's important to know is that a visit to an emergency room is not the same as a serious adverse event. people go to an emergency room to get care and to ask questions and to get clinical support. sarah: kaniya harris is a college senior in washington, d.c. last spring, after getting a positive pregnancy test, she took medication abortion pills. >> i was going through my finals. i think a lot about how i didn't think i was going to finish college if i had to continue to be pregnant. people that are like, oh, you should only have an abortion for this reason, this reason, this reason, i feel like it's very harmful. sarah: kaniya says ending her pregnancy at home put her in control of her own health care. >> at first, i was really anxious if i did it in clinic because i knew there a lot of protesters in the d.c. area. i was able to do it in my apartment, watch my favorite shows, eat the foods i want. i could just be in the comfort of my own home. sarah: legal experts say taking

away this option for patients, and overriding the fda would be unprecedented. >> at the heart of this case is a real contest about what evidence matters. sarah: rachel rebouche is the dean of temple university's law school. she filed an amicus brief in support of the fda. >> this case really crystallizes what's always been the politicization of science in the abortion regulation area. but, the stakes are getting higher as we have courts strip federal agencies of their ability to make expert decisions. sarah: the case also contains what scholars say is a bold legal strategy. anti-abortion lawyers claim that a long dormant federal law passed in 1873, the comstock act, prohibits the mailing of any supplies used for abortions. so, that can be not just abortion pills, but also hospital beds and medical gloves, anything. >> anything. sarah: it would essentially shut down abortion across the united states. >> because everything is mailed. sarah: for activists like

kristan hawkins, that is the aim. >> you make it illegal for doctors, for abortion vendors, for pharmacies to distribute drugs with the intention to end human life. that is a direct abortion. that is what the pro-life movement seeks to stop. >> no one will be targeting these precincts. sarah: hawkins runs students for life, one of the largest anti-abortion groups in the country. >> state attorneys general need to go after and prosecute those who are legally mailing abortion drugs into their state. those who are committing those crimes and violating the federal comstock act by shipping chemical abortion pills over state lines, there should be consequences for those who are clearly violating state lines. sarah: but those who support abortionights say bodily

autonomy for women has been a hard-won freedom. and this case is a dangerous backslide into the past. >> i think about like, oh, like hundreds of years ago, they were trying to control our bodies, and they're still trying to control our bodies to this day. it's really upsetting because i'm like, well, i should have that choice. sarah: for now, doctors will continue to head each day to local post offices, filling hundreds of prescriptions from patients across the country. for the "pbs newshour," i'm sarah varney in new york. william: we continue our series, "america's safety net," about the government programs that help americans in need. tonight, we look at the pandemic when lawmakers dramatically, but temporarily expanded the social safety net, including more money for families with children. amna nawaz and producer sam lane

report on how the impacts of those changes are still being felt and debated to this day. >> some days are better than others, but it can be, pretty, pretty overwhelming. amna: her family of five can stretch 35-year-old dafnee chatman pretty thin. >> the responsibility as a parent is on you to provide food, clothes, water, gas. amna: providing for 13-year-old whitnee, five-year-old rowen, and three-year-old twins, trinitee and legaciee, in their hometown of ville platte, louisiana is a challenge. of the town's 6200 residents, more than 40% live in poverty. >> in this rural area, we don't

have access to much. amna: ville platte has been called the state's poorest town and it's where chatman has spent most of her life. back in early 2020, chatman was working at a local community college, a job she loved. she was also pregnant with the twins. and then -- >> the covid-19 outbreak as a pandemic. >> widespread economic damage is becoming clearer. amna: as the nation shut down, chatman lost her job. >> the best way i can explain it is that i felt like someone took my air. amna: what do you do? how do you provide for your family? >> you don't. you're choosing between making sure you have lights or making sure you have food. you're robbing peter to pay paul. and eventually, paul runs out. and peter, so you're left with nothing. amna: chatman resorted to selling things around the house, books, jewelry, pictures, just to make ends meet. she developed anxiety and panic attacks. her kids, especially whitnee, started feeling the stress, too. >> you can see in her eyes that

she felt like i can't help my mom and my mom can't help me right now. amna: then, in march of 2021, president biden signed the american rescue plan. the nearly $2 trillion relief package passed with only democratic votes extended unemployment benefits, sent stimulus checks to individuals, ramped up food stamps and housing assistance, and it significantly expanded the federal child tax credit, or ctc. pre-pandemic, that credit gave parents up to $2000 per child. it came with an earnings requirement, and was paid in one lump sum at tax time. but the rescue plan raised the credit to $3600 per child under six and to $3000 for kids under 18. half the amount came in monthly payments. and, for the first time, even parents with no taxable income were eligible for the full amount. >> it was like i was able to come up for a little air. amna: would you say that the benefits kind of took care of all your problems?

>> i wouldn't say it took care of all of them, but it took care of enough for me not to worry as much. amna: families across the country felt that relief. laura douglas lives with her husband and their two kids in southern minnesota. their younger son daxton has a rare condition that causes seizure-like episodes. so sometimes, laura has to miss work. >> i might be out of work for two weeks, and i've already used all my pto. that's hundreds of dollars not coming into our account to cover our bills. amna: the ctc payments started before daxton turned one. >> that was nice to know that there would be money if i had to stay home due to being sick or if he was sick. it was nice to have that security. amna: in 2021, the national child poverty rate dropped to its lowest level on record, 5.2%, down from almost 10% in 2020. the poverty gap between white children and children of color also shrank dramatically. the census bureau estimated that, in total, the ctc expansion lifted more than two million children out of poverty. >> i think in a policy sense, that's a resounding success. amna: bradley hardy is a

professor of public policy at georgetown university. >> we had a highly salient and disturbing public health crisis that actually provided some clarity for policymakers to plug holes in the nation's social safety net that were already in existence. amna: research from hardy and his colleagues found the ctc expansion had the greatest impact in states with low costs of living and high poverty rates, states like louisiana. nearly every single child in the state of louisiana, an estimated 94%, benefited from the expansion of the child tax credit. according to one study, the

state saw a 56% decline in child poverty. joyce james leads the middleburg institute. a louisiana nonprofit that helps low-income residents. the organization traveled the state, educating families about the ctc. >> unlike what was said, that people would not know how to manage the money, they would not spend it on the children. we talked to parents, and we heard that they were able to buy school supplies. they were able to feed them healthy meals, vegetables, fruits. amna: but just as families were getting their last monthly ctc checks in 2021, a fight was brewing in congress. legislation to extend the payments died in the senate. west virginia democrat joe manchin, concerned about the cost and how parents spent the funds, dealt the final blow. by tax time in 2022, as the second half of the ctc hit bank

accounts, the expansion was over. >> i remember my response was, oh, wow, what am i going to do now? amna: chatman had already been working any odd job she could, food delivery for door dash, writing resumes for $35 apiece, as she looked for steady work. >> i counted it, somewhere about 1100 job applications. amna: 1100 job applications. in 2022. >> 1100 job applications in 2022. amna: what is that like for you in that moment, not knowing when you'll have a steady job again, knowing the benefits have just gone away? >> it's indescribable. it makes you feel undervalued. amna: in 2022, the child poverty rate more than doubled to 12.4%, the largest year-over-year increase on record. >> the 2021 changes, i think, were somewhat of a mistake. amna: matt weidinger is a senior fellow at the conservative american enterprise institute. he says even when child poverty rebounded in 2022, it was still below pre-pandemic levels. >> it's always good to have lower child poverty. we have continued to make strides. we obviously didn't make as many strides as when the government was literally forcing cash, you know, into families' pockets in the name of pandemic relief. but, the progress against poverty has continued over time.

amna: weidinger argues the key problem was making the ctc available to those with no taxable income. >> democrats in 2021 said, let's just eliminate any connection of this benefit with work except at the very highest levels of income and say everybody gets the same benefit no matter what. that eliminates a work requirement and, in effect, revives a welfare system that was eliminated a generation ago. i think it's appropriate that benefits like the ctc that have always been connected to work remain connected to work. amna: but some experts and advocates say the 2021 ctc didn't discourage work at all. >> some of the families actually were working two or three jobs when getting the child tax credit and still did not make enough money to take care of the children. amna: the ctc expansion was also problematic, matt weidinger says, because of its cost. >> during the pandemic, government policy was designed to spend money, which by the way, was all added to the deficit, all borrowed from the future. and families will have to repay with higher taxes, interest and inflation in the future. >> i think we have to think

about the cost of doing nothing. we have this long body of social science evidence that these investments in children lead to improved educational outcomes, health outcomes, higher incomes in adulthood. amna: that idea has since led 15 states to implement their own ctc. the largest passed last year is in minnesota. families can receive up to $1750 per child. there's no minimum income, but it starts phasing out when families make more than about $30,000 a year. laura douglas sees her state's new ctc the same way she saw the 2021 federal payments. >> not really life changing, but it was definitely helpful. it wouldn't be able to, like, replace my income or my husband's income. we still need that. amna: in january, the u.s. house passed a bill that would again expand the federal ctc. not as large as the 2021 expansion and it would still have some income requirements. but estimates say it could lift about 500,000 kids out of poverty.

the legislation has yet to pass the senate. meanwhile, dafnee chatman is keeping her faith that she can keep providing for her family. in january, she found a steady job with the state's department of children and family services, but says she's always uneasy. what if her car breaks down? what if rowen needs new shoes? she says lawmakers in washington don't seem to understand that stress. >> but in 2021, i felt like somebody started to feel our pain or started to feel like they matter, you know. amna: it doesn't feel that way anymore? >> not really. not to me. a™ william: former president trump gets a reprieve and a trial date. congress steps back from the brink, but might've triggered another speaker fight. and the supreme court takes up abortion, again. it's a perfect time for our politics monday team.

that's tamara keith of npr and susan page of "usa today." amy walter is away. welcome to you both. thank you for being here. good to see you. tam, cannot overlook the fact that this was a big legal day for donald trump. he gets a reprieve on the bond he has to pay for the civil fraud rolling, but there is going to be a trial in the middle of next month. donald trump will have to be in the courtroom every single day. we are in the middle of a presidential campaign. i feel like i've asked you this before, we don't know how this will play out but does this matter to voters or is this a

big kick? -- baked cake? tamara: first off, his team will inevitably try to delay this. maybe they will succeed a little, we will find out. william: the judge seemed very skeptical of delays. tamara: that is true but in terms of whether this hurts him, with hard-core republican based voters, the kind of people who were voting in primaries, none of this baggage hurt him in the primary. we are headed into a general election where there are voters who say if he's convicted of a crime, republican voters who say if he's convicted of a crime, they would have a hard time voting for him. but, it is also possible he's not convicted of a crime. this is a trial. and this, in terms of what the experts think, this is the thinnest read. one of the most flimsy legal theories and legal challenge that he faces. william: susan, the other big development was this reprieve he got on the amount he has to pay and the timing he has to pay on this bond. trump today afterwards said i will pay this out of my own cash, although that is cash i would've liked to use to fund my campaign. we know there are some fundraising totals that have been coming out. when you look at those numbers between biden and trump, what do

they tell you? susan: trump has not donated any of his own money to his campaign since 2016. putting that aside, president biden has several big problems, including trailing narrowly in battleground states, but he has a big advantage when it comes to campaign cash. he has about twice as much campaign cash on hand as donald trump does. talk about the repercussions of trump's legal troubles. maybe they are not political, but they are financial. the trump people spent $10 million on legal fees just this year so far. that is a big drain for his campaign. campaign money is not everything, especially in a campaign where the two candidates are so well-known, but it is something. william: what do you make of that? is it insurmountable? tamara: i would say his fundraising appeal that it at the other day had 90% of it going to his campaign and 10% of it going to a political action committee that has been funding the legal challenges. so, they are definitely pulling money into this committee that is basically spending money on

lawyers. it is a big deficit that he faces now in terms of money. the question though is up until this point, president biden has been able to combine with the dnc and state parties all over the country and raise huge sums of money from wealthy people. donald trump was not the presumptive nominee. did not have control of the rnc and cannot do that for the last many months. now that he has control of the rnc, that spigot could open but it depends on whether wealthy people want to give all that money and also the small dollar donations do matter too. there's an element of fatigue there among the small dollar donors. william: susan, tomorrow, the supreme court will take up its first abortion case. this case has enormous implications legally for women's health, for whether the fda scientists can continue to approve drugs for all americans. separate from that, and

regardless of how this comes down, this could have enormous political implications. susan: look at the repercussions

ve a huge influence in this e. this case goes right to the heart of the concerns many voters have about access to abortion services. most abortions in this country are now performed with drugs, medical abortions. more than 60%. you look at where americans stand on this issue, there was a poll that showed 63% of americans thought there should be dissipation of abortion drugs, including 41% of republicans. if these conservative antiabortion groups succeed, this puts at risk not only the abortion drugs, it puts at risk

ivf drugs, some forms of contraception. i cannot imagine that is a winning political issue. william: it's incredible to watch how that will unfold. tam, on congress, it seemed like last week they stepped back from the brink, a voided a shutdown. speaker johnson did cobble this deal together, but marjorie taylor greene holding this sort of damocles over his head. what is your sense of how this will play out? tamara: she introduce this motion to vacate but did not force a rapid vote on it. so, we don't really know how it will play out. what i do know is that members of congress are tired. certainly, there are marjorie taylor greenes, other allies of hers, and other people who are similarly very upset and have an absolutist view, very upset that johnson would put something on the floor that did not have support of all the republicans. but, everyone is tired. and even democrats are tired after the very long process to get kevin mccarthy into the speaker seat and then the very long process once he was booted. it is certainly possible that if it were to come up for a vote, democrats would not be all united against speaker johnson in the way they were against speaker mccarthy. that said, if you are speaker johnson, do you really want democrats bailing you out? probably not. william: thank you both for being here. great to see you. >> nice to see you. >> you're welcome.

william: for as long as america has had a constitution, there's been heated debate over how to interpret it. the u.s. supreme court is often where those debates are most intense and their judgments the most far-reaching. for nearly 30 years, stephen breyer served on the nation's highest court, deciding cases that still resonate today. breyer recently spoke with amna nawaz about how he interprets the nation's foundational document. that's the subject of his new book, "reading the constitution: why i chose pragmatism, not textualism." amna: welcome back to the "newshour." thank you so much for joining us. >> well, thank you. amna: so, there is, i think it's fair to say, a sort of sense of mission in this book. you outline your concerns about textualism and originalism, interpreting the constitution based solely on its text and the intent at the time it was written. and you write that you hope that the next generation of law students or two will read this book, and that you can slow what you call a tidal wave of sorts. tell us what you meant by that. >> well, i think there is a traditional way of interpreting statutes and in interpreting the constitution. and that traditional way starts just like textualism starts with the language. i mean, if you have a statute and the statute has the word fish, fish doesn't mean carrot. you know, a carrot is not a fish. ok? now some, at the moment, textualists think what you

should do is stop right there. stop right there. just read the words or read the words and see what they meant in the constitution to those who were alive in 1788 or 1789, or maybe 1869 or something like that. and i think that's not traditional, and i think it could be harmful. and so i have in the 40 years i've been a judge and 28 on the supreme court, i have taken a different approach. you start with the language, but then that might not tell you the answer, well, look to other things. what did john marshall say? he said, look to everything that will help. and what did holmes and brandeis and the others say, look to the purposes. why did congress put those words

in there? why did congress write this statute? and when you work that out and it isn't always easy to do, but it helps very often to figure out why. what was the purpose? you see, you have to know the purpose and you have to look at the consequences quite often. i mean, look at the values. is this consistent with those basic values in this book, right here in this document right here. amna: as you know, many of the justices on the court identify as originalists. that includes justices thomas and gorsuch, kavanaugh, barrett, even justice jackson. what do you think those justices are missing in that approach? >> i think that they're friends of mine. we get on well personally. i've never heard a word in anger, really, or insult to any other judge made by one of the judges in the conference, but we don't agree there about the usefulness of that textualism. what they're thinking is it's so simple.

it's clear. we'll get a clear answer. well, good luck, and i have a few hundred pages here to explain why that doesn't work, or will stop the judges from substituting what they think is good for society, substituting that for the law. and what i try to explain here is no, that doesn't work either. amna: you devote significant time in the book to the 2022 dobbs decision, which did eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion. and on that, you write this -- if the only basis for overruling an earlier case is that an originalist judge applying originalism to the earlier case concludes that it was wrongly decided, then many, many earlier cases will be candidates for overruling. do you believe that earlier rulings on same-sex marriage or interracial marriage or contraception, other protections

based on that same right to privacy that undergirded roe, those could also be overruled by this court? >> the answer to that is no, but leave out the specifics of the cases, because i don't want to comment on cases that might come or might not come, or might be decided this way or that way. amna: but, why is the answer no then? >> why is the answer no? because if you started overruling every case that wasn't decided in a textualist way, you'd overrule half the law or maybe three quarters, and there would be chaos. there wouldn't be law. so, i don't think anybody's going to do that. amna: as you know, the majority in dobbs did say that they believe that roe had been wrongly decided. but earlier in each of their cases, justices gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett in each of their confirmation hearings, this is actually what they said when they were asked about roe. >> a good judge will consider it as precedent of the u.s. supreme court worthy as treatment of

precedent like any other. >> it is settled as a precedent of the supreme court. >> as richard fallon from harvard said, roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn't mean that roe should be overruled. amna: justice breyer, how do you square what they said then with how they eventually ruled on roe? >> first, i would say keep the confirmation process out of it. i'm not an expert on confirmation. remember, i was not a confirming person. i was a person who was confirmed. so, to ask me about that process is sort of like asking for the recipe for chicken a la king from the point of view of the chicken. so, i'm not talking about that. i am talking about, how do you decide whether to overrule? now, three of us, justice kagan, justice sotomayor, and i wrote a joint dissent. we thought it was totally, it was wrong to overrule roe. it was wrong to overrule casey. those were cases that were working pretty well, and you

start overruling too many cases, you won't have a law left, you will have a shambles. and so, be careful. amna: there's a note of caution in this book as well that you seem to be issuing for your fellow justices. you write, "they may be well concerned about the decline in trust in the court as shown by public opinion polls." one such poll late last year found only about 28% of u.s. adults said they had a great deal of confidence in the supreme court, 36% had some, another 36% had little or none. how do you look at that? i mean, is that within the court's power to turn around, and if so, how should they do that? >> well, that is a very good question, and it's a difficult question to answer. and i think the best answer was given by professor freund, who is a professor here at harvard and he said, no judge, no decent judge will take into account the

political temperature of the day. but, all judges do and probably should take into account the climate of the era. so if you tell me in an opinion poll, the judges, you know, judges are not looked at well, or they don't like them or people don't like them, have those people read the many cases that probably the bottom line they do agree with? are they deciding on the basis of bottom line or the reasons and the judges on this court, like judges on prior courts, probably are unanimous about 40% of the time. and so you don't just look to opinion polls. on the other hand, sometimes, you see, and why this is difficult and a good question, sometimes it does matter. amna: on this trust issue, do appearances matter? i mean, you've seen all the reporting about ethics concerns among some of the justices. there's questions about appropriate recusals. would it, for example, help to build back trust in the court if

justice thomas were to recuse himself from cases related to january 6, given the role that we know his wife played in those events, would that kind of thing help build trust back in the court? >> justice thomas or any other justice on any court, whether it's the supreme court or some other court, must do what the law says they must do. i mean, they interpret the statutes according to law, and they all think that's the job. you're talking about ethics. of course, ethics in general, and in particular, is relevant to supreme court justices. i had readily accessible seven volumes written by the judicial conference, i think, explaining all the different ethical rules for all the judges. and in my experience there, the judges, when they had difficult questions, would consult those volumes and they'd ask other colleagues what they thought and they would try to do the right thing. amna: specific to january 6 cases, do you think it would help in terms of trust in the court? >> i would not take myself out of a case unless i thought that's what the ethics required. and that's just as important as taking yourself out of the case when the ethics requires that. the main point for the public is, of course, you follow

ethical rules if you're a judge, and you do your best to do it, and it isn't always easy, but you're not pushed one way or the other by the public opinion. you are pushed by what is right. and that is, that's a fundamental rule. the job of the judge is to do what you think is right. that has been my experience. that has been my experience over 40 years, and i try to write enough here, not just to give you that conclusion. i mean, you can't just accept that conclusion from the fact that i say it, but you can perhaps be moved if i show you not the theory of the thing, but rather how these approaches, different approaches, how they work out in practice, through cases, through examples written in a way, i hope that people who are not judges, who are not lawyers, can understand what i'm talking about. amna: there is so much more we could talk about. it's a fascinating book. justice stephen breyer, author of "reading the constitution." thank you so much for joining

us. i really enjoyed our discussion. >> thank you. thank you. william: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm william brangham. thank you so much for joining us. good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- >> on an american cruise line's journey, along the columbia and

snake rivers, travelers retrace their route forged by lewis and clark more than 200 years ago. american cruise lines fleet of modern riverboats travel through american landscapes to historic landmarks. where you can experience local customs and cuisine. american cruise lines, proud sponsor of pbs newshour. >> committed to advancing restorative justice and meaningful work through investments in transformative leaders and ideas. supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just and peaceful world. more information at 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. this is pbs newshour west from washington and our bureau at the

walter cronkite school of journalism.

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪