amna: good evening. i'm amna nawaz. geoff bennett is away. on the “newshour” tonight, the supreme court weighs possible immunity for donald trump while the former president's hush money trial continues. a new york appeals court overturns the rape conviction of former film producer harvey weinstein.

and two years into russia's bombardment of kharkiv. we report from ukraine's second largest city as they struggle to hold off russia's advance. >> the goal of the russians is to destroy the sovereignty of ukraine. kharkiv is one of the pillars of ukraine. ♪ >> major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by. ♪ >> moving our economy for 160 years.

bnsf. the engine that connects us. >> certified financial planner professionals are proud to support "pbs newshour." cfp professionals are committed to acting in their client's best interest. more information at letsmakeaplan.org. >> the kendeda fund, committed to advancing restorative justice and meaningful work through investments in transformative leaders and ideas. more at kendedafund.org. carnegie corporation of new york, working to reduce a political polarization through -- more at carnegie.org. and with the ongoing support of these individuals and 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. amna: welcome to the “newshour”" on the very last day of arguments, the u.s. supreme court heard debate over one of its most consequential cases, whether a former president is immune from prosecution for official actions taken while in office. outside the court this morning, protesters gathered dressed as kangaroos and holding signs reading things like "trump is not immune." inside, arguments were heard on an appeal brought by former president donald trump, who's being prosecuted by special counsel jack smith for attempting to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. john yang joins us now in studio with more.

john: amna, it was a big day for former president trump in a number of courts. in addition to the nearly three hours of oral arguments in his immunity case at the supreme court, a grand jury in arizona indicted several of his closest allies for allegedly trying to subvert the 2020 election. following all of this is the newshour's william brangham, and our supreme court analyst marcia coyle. they were both at the supreme court. remind us of what is president trump's argument and what is the response. marcia: former president trump is asking the council to say the former president has absolute unity for conduct involving his or her official acts, and that that immunity stretches all the way to the outer perimeter of his office. and he is looking to certain clauses in the constitution and certain precedents to both of that argument. but the court is saying there is no immunity clause in the constitution and it does not

extend to the president's official acts, although the government said there is a small core group of powers inarguable to the constitution that are off-limits to criminal law. john: the justices spent a lot of time today exploring how to distinguish between a private act and a public act. we have justice elena kagan posing a hypothetical to trump's attorney. >> he was the president, he is the commander in chief. he talks to his generals all the time. and he told the generals, i dont feel like leaving the office, i want to stage a coup. is that immune? >> if it's an official act, there needs to be impeachment and conviction beforehand, because the framers viewed -- >> if it is an official act. is it an official act? is it an official act? >> on the way you've described

that hypothetical, it could well be, i just don't know. >> that answer sounds to me as though it's like yeah, under my attest it's an official act. but that sure sounds bad, doesn't it? >> well, it certainly sounds very bad. john: why is this question so important? william: this is trying to delineate what is prosecutable and what is not. a private act, one that has nothing to do with your official duties as president, if it is criminal you can be prosecuted for it if you're caught dealing narcotics out of the white house no one is going to argue that should not be prosecuted. this gets to the heart of trump's argument which is that in all of the thing the doj alleges he was doing that they argue was a conspiracy to subvert the election he says that was just part of talking to the department of justice and state election officials to root out any potential fraud and that that is not illegal, first.

and because i was doing it as president i should be immune from it. that is the argument and that is where the fighting today really rested. john: what else to the justices seem to be concerned about? marcia: there was some concern that the criminal laws might be used by political opponents of former presidents to go after them for decisions they made or acts they took. there was concern that presidents -- or knowing that there's no immunity might actually pardon themselves for everything before they leave office. but most importantly, i think there was concern about whether there would be a chilling effect on a president doing his or her duties, if there is no immunity at all for official acts. john: and two justices, samuel alito, a conservative, and justice ketanji brown jackson, one of the liberals, sort of talked about this at very different viewpoints. marcia: very different view points. >> if an incumbent who loses a

hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? >> i think it's exactly the opposite. there is an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence. if you lose, you accept the results. that has been the nation's experience. >> you seem to be worried about the president being chilled. i think that we would have a really significant opposite problem if the president wasn't chilled. if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there

would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. i'm trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the oval office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country. john: so what is next? marcia: well, a decision at some point. my sense overall was that the court doesn't seem inclined to buy mr. trump's argument for absolute immunity. and if that's the case, and they start trying to delineate, as william said, between official acts and private acts, what kind of tests should be applied to do that, they may well send it back to the lower courts to apply it to mr. trump's situation. now, the hardest cases that are argued in april generally aren't decided until the end of the term, which would be late june, maybe even early july. but the supreme court sets its own schedule.

and there's been a lot of talk, discussion, briefs, urging the court to act quickly here so that the trial may get underway at some point before the election. so i think we just have to wait now and see what happens. john: william, what does the timing potentially due to former president trump's trial? william: well as marcia is saying, it's all in the matter of not just how the court rules but when they rule. because they could still rule in trump's favor, and so you do not have blanket immunity as you're arguing, but when they issue that ruling, whether they push it back down to the lower courts or whether they just take a long time, if you look at the calendar, if they rule the end of june, early july, judge tanya chunkin has said her case needs about three months before that trial could start for lawyers to catch up on motions and things like that. if that starts three months later, that is pushing that trial date right at the heart of the election, perhaps october or november. and there will be a great deal

of pressure on her to not run a case right in the middle of an election. john: i want to turn to you and ask you about the the indictment in arizona that we mentioned at the top of the introduction. grand jury in arizona returned charges late yesterday against 18 trump allies for conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results with a fake elector scheme. they include former chief of staff mark meadows, attorneys rudy giuliani and john eastman, and the indictment refers to trump as unindicted co-conspirator number one. here's arizona attorney general chris males. >> the scheme, had it succeeded, would have deprived arizona voters the right to have their votes counted for a chosen president. it effectively would have made the right to vote meaningless. john: so william, what exactly are they charged with doing? william: so this is 18 people who are charged with conspiracy, fraud, and forgery, just as you mentioned, which is all going back to their alleged efforts to deny the fact that joe biden won

arizona and donald trump did not. it's the seven trump aides and lawyers that you mentioned, but also 11 of these other people who signed up to be what we've now called fake electors. these are people who knew that trump had not won but they stood forward and signed documents saying we will go to washington, d.c. and cast arizona's electoral votes for donald trump, which he did not win. and so they are being charged with being part of this scheme. as you mentioned, trump is not named in this charge. but arizona has now joined four other states that are pursuing similar cases like this at the local level. john: william branham, marcia coyle, thank you very much. william: thanks, john. ♪ amna: donald trump's legal challenges also start our day's other news. at his hush money trial in new

york, a former tabloid publisher offered more details about burying stories in 2016 that could have hurt then-candidate trump. david pecker described so-called catch and kill schemes. one involved a former playboy model who claimed she had an affair with trump. also today, prosecutors said trump violated a gag order four more times. that brings the total to 15. the judge has not yet ruled on that matter. the u.s. and 17 other nations have issued a joint appeal for hamas to release the roughly 130 hostages still believed to be held by the group. the statement insisted that quote, the deal on the table to release the hostages would bring an immediate and prolonged ceasefire in gaza. hamas said it would not be influenced by the appeal. that comes a day after hamas released an undated video of american-israeli hostage, hersh goldberg-polin. today, the state department said the video underscores the urgency of reaching an agreement. >> it is high time that every hostage be released. there has been a deal on the table that hamas continues to

move the goal posts for. and so we would stress the dire circumstance and the dire importance for this to be done and to be done so immediately. amna: also today, a hamas official told the associated press that the group would agree to a truce, if a palestinian state is established. the israeli government of benjamin netanyahu has said it's opposed to such a scenario. meanwhile, israeli airstrikes killed at least six people in the southern city of rafah. the early morning attacks reduced three houses to rubble. at least two children and a local journalist were reported among the dead. and in washington, mourners gathered at the national cathedral to honor seven world central kitchen aid workers killed in gaza earlier this month by a series of israeli airstrikes. chef jose andres said they represented the quote, best of humanity. in haiti, ariel henry has resigned as prime minister, after months of gang violence

left more than 2500 people dead or injured between january and march. a nine-member transitional council is now tasked with selecting a new leader and cabinet. the interim prime minister, a hold-over from henry's government, said the crisis has gone on far too long. sot boisvert >> haiti, our country, is at a crossroads in the search for solutions to overcome this multidimensional political crisis, the consequences of which are detrimental to the population, to property, and both public and private infrastructures. amna: the white house called the council a quote, critical step toward free and fair elections in haiti. the federal communications commission voted to reinstate so-called net neutrality rules today. the regulations were first introduced during the obama era. they treat broadband service like a utility, similar to phones and water, meaning they can be regulated. fcc chair, jessica rosenworcel, stressed the importance of the

ruling, saying quote, every consumer deserves internet access that is fast, open, and fair. this is common sense. in baltimore, a cargo ship exited the harbor today for the first time since the francis scott key bridge collapsed last month. maritime traffic has been limited since the cargo ship dali lost power in late march and crashed into the bridge. six road workers were killed in that crash. secretary of state antony blinken is pushing chinese officials on what the u.s. considers beijing's unfair trade practices. in china, blinken pressed shanghai's highest official on the need for a quote, level playing field. asked about blinken's comments, chinese foreign ministry spokesperson wang wenbin stood by his nation's economic policies. >> china has always carried out economic and trade cooperation in accordance with the principles of the market, and has always been firmly supportive of the multilateral trading system, and fully implements the rules of the

world trade organization. amna: blinken next heads to beijing, where he's scheduled to meet with china's foreign minister on friday. the u.s. economy grew at its slowest pace in two years to start 2024, as consumer spending pulled back. the commerce department reported gdp growth of 1.6% in the first quarter, compared to the same period last year. that's less than expected. and it's down from a 3.4% growth rate in the final months of 2023. that weaker-than-expected economic data sent a shiver through wall street. the dow jones industrial average lost 375 points to close at 38,085. the nasdaq dropped just over 100 points. and the s&p 500 gave back 23 and venice has become the first city in the world to charge an entrance fee. day-trippers arriving between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. will have to pay roughly $5 on peak days. it's part of a pilot program to help curb overtourism.

single-day visitors make up the majority of the crowds in venice. hundreds of locals protested the new fees today. they say it won't discourage mass tourism. still to come, protests against israel's war in gaza spread across college campuses nationwide. the epa unveils new rules curtailing emissions from coal power plants. and a new book on the groundbreaking career of barbara walters. >> this is the "pbs newshour" from weta studios in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. amna: new york's highest court has overturned harvey weinstein's 2020 rape conviction, a stunning reversal in the landmark case of the #metoo movement. in a 4-3 decision, the court of appeals said -- did not

include the witness's allegations in the charges precluded weinstein from having a fair trial. weinstein's lawyers commended the court earlier today for what they called a tremendous victory for criminal defendants. >> there are some people who are very unpopular in our society. but we still have to apply the law fairly to them. and in this courthouse behind us at that trial, the law was not applied fairly to harvey weinstein. amna: weinstein is currently being held in an upstate new york prison. for more on what this reversal means for him, and why the case unfolded as it did, i'm joined by jodi kantor, new york times investigative reporter who broke the story of mr. weinstein's sex crimes. jodi, you and your colleague of course broke that story back in 2017. no one has followed it more closely. did today's decision surprise you? jodi: no. this has been brewing for a long time.

from the start megan and i were never really sure how harvey weinstein would be treated by the criminal justice system. because when we think of the allegations against him, there are so many. those women could fill an entire courtroom by themselves. but a lot of them were not eligible to stand at the center of a new york trial. a lot of the allegations were about sexual harassment, which is not a crime, or they passed the statute of limitations, or they did not take place in new york. so the new york trial was only about two women, both of whom had consensual sex with weinstein in addition to the very upsetting acts they describe. that could be very messy for juries. so prosecutors brought in additional witnesses to bolster their case. but the complaint against them was always the classic criminal law complaint saying the facts presented in that courtroom need to be relevant to the charges in

the trial. and that, in fact, is the basis on which the conviction was overturned. amna: after your initial reporting more than 100 women came forward with allegations of sexual assault or harassment by weinstein. today one of those survivors, ashley judd, reacted to the news. >> this today is an act of institutional betrayal. and our institutions betray survivors of male sexual violence. i stand shoulder to shoulder with women who have bloody knees, because male sexual violence may knock us down, but we get right back up. amna: have you heard this similar sentiment from other survivors? jodi: i called ashley today when i first heard the news and i was actually the one to share it with her. and she found it disappointing and upsetting but she was also unwavering. and she said, we know what really happened. and yes, i have heard similar

sentiments from weinstein's alleged victims today. and i think a special upset for the women who stood up and went through the difficulty of a criminal trial and provided that extra testimony which the court has now wiped away. but i should tell you, some of the strongest objections were from some of the appellate judges per this was a very split of judges who had a very painful debate. the majority only won by one vote. and some of the judges who were in the minority basically protested and said what are you doing? you are naive, you are disregarding the process we have made in learning how to process sex crimes. amna: what does this mean for weinstein himself? he is still imprisoned in upstate new york. what do we know about his health and his future based on this decision? jodi: well, he is not a free man.

because remember he was also convicted in los angeles. so soon he is going to be moved to california to start serving out that sentence. meanwhile, that conviction is being appealed by his lawyers month on the same basis that the new york case was overturned. they are going to complain about these additional witnesses. whether it will matter, i don't know california law is a little clearer and firmer on the use of those witnesses. i should tell you the lawyer in that case is the same attorney was able to get bill cosby's conviction thrown out. amna: in new york the da's office has said they will try to retry the case. what does the timeline ahead look like for that? jodi: it is confusing and it is a tough decision i think for them. because the case is so culturally important and means so much to so many people that

to let it stand here will be very unsatisfying. but to go back to the beginning, do this again and get the women to tell those painful stories in court, i am not sure it is going to be possible. that is new york times investigative reporter jodi kantor, who broke the story of harvey weinstein's sex crimes back in 2017. jodi, thanks for joining us today. we appreciate it. jodi: thank you. ♪ amna: campus protests against israel's war in gaza are continuing to grow across the u.s. the university of southern california announced today it is canceling its main commencement ceremony next month. encampments are now in place in at least 20 colleges. and hundreds of demonstrators have been arrested in the last several days at multiple

schools, including the university of texas, ohio state, and emory university. amid police confrontations, multiple arrests, and large demonstrations, emory university today became the latest flashpoint in a wave of pro-palestinian protests on college campuses. early this morning, at boston's emory emerson university, violence erupted as police cleared a student encampment. more than 100 were arrested. authorities say four officers were injured. >> get your hands off! amna: that followed this clash at the university of southern california. officers there say protesters refused to remove their encampments. the protesters say they were provoked. >> what we just saw was an act of usc acting aggressively and failing to defend, and in fact, being the aggressor against its students. amna: by nightfall, more than 90 people were taken into custody.

these incidents are just the latest in a series of pro-palestinian demonstrations unfolding on campuses from coast to coast. and beyond, including universities in paris, cairo, and sydney. >> divest, we will not stop, we will not rest. amna: some in the u.s. say they want their universities to cut financial ties with israel. >> we want the university to disclose its financial holdings and divest from its relationships with financial institutions. and we want the university to recognize and acknowledge to its student body that there is a genocide happening to our families in gaza. amna: officials at columbia university yesterday extended talks with demonstrators to clear the campus. [loud booing] where that same afternoon, house speaker mike johnson was booed after his remarks. >> the cherished traditions of this university are being overtaken right now by radical and extreme ideologies.

they place a target on the backs of jewish students in the united states and here on this campus. amna: jewish students across the country have said they feel unsafe amid the demonstrations, and after being targeted by hate speech and anti-semitic symbols. but some are taking part in the protests. which continue to spread to more campuses, and show no signs of ending soon. the protests have also reached vanderbilt university in nashville, tennessee, where dozens of students have faced suspension, expulsion, and even arrest for their participation in recent protests on campus. joining us now is vanderbilt university chancellor daniel diermeier to discuss his school's approach, which he outlined in a recent wall street journal op-ed. thank you for joining us. before we get into your school's specific experience i want to get your reaction to how quickly and how widely these protests have spread across campus. daniel: what we have seen in the

last week or two is certainly these issues have intensified. but really we have had them for the last six months or so. amna: vanderbilt has been among those who have seen their own protests. there was a late march incident, 27 students for your -- forster their way into a closed administration building. a campus officer was injured. most of the students had to be escorted out. four were arrested, is my understanding. why were those students arrested and some expelled? daniel: overall over the last six months things on campus have done very well. our students have done great. they had vigils and in-depth discussions. we had a passover celebration just a few days ago with 400 students on our main law. and some students are protesting as well on both sides. we have had displays for the

victims in gaza, displays for the hostages. all of that has gone very well. but about a month ago we had a small group of students that forced their way into our main administration building where we are still doing construction. they ran over a security office and then try to get into my office. they tried to push over some of my staff but did not succeed and sat down in the hallway. then after a few hours we told them this is inconsistent with university policy and disruptive conduct. we then had three of the students arrested that had pushed over the police officer. we had one student arrested who has smashed a window. and then the other students left on their own accord. amna: so the line for you was the physical violence part? you are fine with students entering and sitting in an protesting, in other words? daniel: it is whether you are disrupting university operations.

certainly if you are forcing your way into a closed building and you are injuring a public safety officer, a line has been crossed. the critical question is always, are you protesting and making your voices heard or are you engaging in disruptive conduct? that can have many different forms. for example we would not allow them to enter a classroom with a negative -- megaphone and disrupt the class. this was certainly across the line. amna: you said that free speech is alive and well at vanderbilt but there was a letter by several members of your faculty that disputes that. they say the administration has been excessive and punitive in its response to student protests. they say the rules seem arbitrary. and the criteria that protests must not disrupt is prodigiously vague and expansive. what do you say to that? daniel: this particular issue has nothing to do with free speech. as i mentioned before, there

have been many expressions of student protests on campus. the issue for us in this case is the people forced their way into a construction building and injured a police officer. i don't think anybody should confuse that with free speech. amna: but this line that you draw that protests should not disrupt university operations, your opposition says that is too vague and too expansive. many would say the purpose of protest is to disrupt. daniel: the purpose of protest is to make your voices heard. the purpose of protest is not to injure member of the staff or disrupt classes. amna: one of the things the students were asking for was a referendum asking for the university to divest itself financially from any financial ties to israel. my understanding is you did not allow that referendum to move forward, which then of course leads students to say their free speech is baying violet -- is

being violated. why not allow them to hold that vote? daniel: the university has three principles. free speech. neutrality, which means the university will not take issues unless they directly affect the university. and the third is civil discourse, which means we treat each other with respect and we listen to each other. and when students come on campus they sign a creed where they affirm their commitment to the last value of civil discourse. the students wanted to have a referendum to use student government funds to basically boycott any firms that had a connection with israel. in tennessee that is against the law. even the vote itself would have put our state funding at risk and so as a consequence of that we did not allow the vote. it is inconsistent with tennessee state law. but i want to be clear that it

is inconsistent with our stand on neutrality. amna: i have to ask that if you believe you and other leaders are handling the protests well, that you are hitting the balance between free speech and safety. why do you think that the protests and objections are spreading as rapidly as they are? is there a chance here that you are not hearing the concerns of your students in the way they feel they need to be heard? daniel: i need to distinguish what is happening on my campus. on this campus it was an isolated incident that involved 30 students. what other universities do in how they handle that will depend on their context. all of us will be tested. our approach has been we have been very clear about the principles i just stated. and we will enforce those principles. that is how we have handled the situation. amna: that is vanderbilt university chancellor daniel diermeier joining us tonight. thank you very much for your time. daniel: sure. thank you.

♪ amna: in recent weeks, russia has ramped up its airstrikes on kharkiv, in eastern ukraine, a city already facing nonstop bombing since the full-scale invasion more than two years ago. this latest campaign has left the 1.3 million residents of ukraine's second-largest city worried about what comes next as the war reaches a critical juncture. my colleagues and i traveled to kharkiv when we were in ukraine last week, to file this report. despite russia's relentless attempts to derail daily life, the city of kharkiv carries on. less than 20 miles from the russian border, shops open daily for business, walls are graffitied with local pride, and fluttering ukrainian flags line the blocks. even the metro still runs on time.

but down here, commuters aren't alone. since last september, school children have been attending class inside kharkiv's subway tunnels. it's one of the few places they're safe from russia's bombing campaign, that's only intensified in recent weeks. six-year-old yulia is one of nearly 800 kids at this station. do you know why you're in school down here in the subway? >> because there is a war. amna: there's a war. and what does that mean? >> it's where rockets go tu-dum. amna: is that what you hear? you've hear those booms? >> it's like somebody's playing a drum, but a very loud one. when you hit something, it's gone. amna: classrooms below ground are nearly identical to the ones above. students build legos at playtime, practice their

needlework, hone their english, and solve math problems, sometimes with a little help. immediately after russia's full-scale invasion in february 2022, schools closed and classes went online. since then, more than 60% of the city's educational facilities have been damaged. for the youngest students, this school is the only one they've ever known. hi, what's your name? ivana, it's so nice to meet you. can you tell me your favorite thing about school? >> the blackboard. amna: you like the blackboard? >> yes. amna: your english is so good. can you draw us something to take as a memory? beautiful. tell me, what's this? beautiful. but even below ground, the war above looms, especially for kids with parents on the frontlines. >> war is when people are dying, but our military is saving them.

amna: what's the first thing that you want to do with your papa when he comes home? >> my papa will come back when it's my birthday and i just want papa to always be with us. amna: and older students, like 11-year-old 6th grader lisa, remember well what life was like before. do you miss the way school used to be? >> yeah, i miss my school. i want to go back to my old school because it's so much better there. the subway school is fine, but i want to go back to the school where i left things two years ago. amna: more than 2000 students go to school at five underground locations funded by the city, with over 500 teachers, psychologists, and medical staff on site. it's just a fraction of the 56,000 students who remain in kharkiv, but organizers say it's a start.

kharkiv city education official hanna zaykina says few believed this project was possible. but the school was built in a month. >> children need socialization so they feel like they are part of ukraine. so that they can share their successes not only through a computer screen, but with each other. holding each other's hands, interacting, facing the reality of war together. amna: not only did they build these air ducts to pump in fresh air for the kids from outside, they also sound proofed the facility, so the kids don't hear any explosions, and not even the air sirens. since the first days of war, those sirens have been ringing at a terrible pace, more than five times a day in kharkiv. russian forces reached the city's outskirts after the initial invasion, only to be repelled by ukrainian troops. an incessant and unflinching air campaign began, including this march 2022 hit on a central kharkiv government building.

today, it bears a quote from ukraine's 19th century hero, poet tuhrahs shevchenko, keep fighting, you are sure to win. earlier this month, strikes on residential areas killed at least eight people. others knocked out power plants, leading to rolling blackouts for much of the region. and despite quick clean-up efforts, the city remains scarred - once-vibrant blocks are now dotted with boarded up windows, piles of rubble, and buildings in ruin. roman semenukha is the region's deputy governor. why do you think kharkiv is such a target for the russians? >> the goal of the russians is to destroy the sovereignty of ukraine. kharkiv is one of the pillars of ukraine. putin can't eat the elephant whole. he wants to cut it into pieces. his goal is not kharkiv, not kyiv. his goal is to destroy ukrainian sovereignty. amna: the greatest fear among people here, and of analysts around the world, is that

russia's ramped up attacks mean a ground invasion is imminent. an invasion that would force people like 20-year-old lisa nikonorova to flee their homes for a second time. >> if russians come here, you have no other choice but to run. because i don't want to be under russia. amna: her family went to western ukraine in the war's early days, but returned a year later. >> this is the only place where i can feel at home. so, if i move even to another city, i won't feel safe because this is the place where i belong. amna: that sense of belonging, hanna zaykina says, is how the city will survive. >> the only emotion that's unchanged is a great love of kharkiv. all the people of kharkiv are madly in love with it. my family and i never left the city. we were educating from day one of the invasion.

when people, when children, were living in the metro stations, teachers didn't leave their kids. even though we've lost buildings, we haven't lost a single child's potential. amna: even in war and uncertainty, down here, there is joy. i ask yulia what's her favorite thing about school. she answers quickly, and with a smile -- everything. ♪ amna: the environmental protection agency has finalized a long awaited set of regulations regarding proposed limits on fossil fueled power plant emissions. but these new rules could mean the end of the coal industry as a source of electricity generated in the united states. stephanie sy has more. stephanie: fossil fuel power plants account for more than one

quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the u.s. the biden administration is trying to crack down on the worst polluters, and that's the remaining coal powered plants, which emit the most carbon dioxide. the new epa rules require coal plants to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2039, or close. there are about 200 coal burning power plants and operations in the u.s. and last year, coal fired plants generated a little over 16% of the nation's electricity. for more on these rules and the reactions to them, i'm joined by bloomberg's jennifer, who reports on energy and environmental issues. jennifer, thanks so much for joining the "newshour." as you know, the coal industry has already been in decline for decades in this country. will these new rules make an enormous difference when it comes to climate change and public health? jennifer: well, we're already expecting about half of the nation's capacity of coal fired

power to go offline by 2039, which is essentially a stoppage date in this rule as well, so that's already happening. we're already seeing that decline. this rule, however, will encourage more coal plants to close. that's clearly an expectation here. and it will do that by basically saying that coal plants if they want to keep running after january, 1, 2039 will have to be capturing nearly all of their greenhouse gas emissions, and they'll have to start doing that actually, by 2032, seven years earlier. those systems are expensive. there are utility owners and power plant owners that may decide, you know, it's simply not wise to expend that much money trying to retrofit an existing coal fired power plant to keep it operating into the 2040's. so this will absolutely hasten coal plant retirements that we're already seeing, and it will affect new natural gas plants that are coming online as well. stephanie: you talked about the expense of meeting these standards.

carbon sequestration is listed in the rules as one way that coal plants, for example, can reduce their emissions. but where is that technology and being able to meet those targets? jennifer: you know, carbon capture and tech technology has been around for decades. and yet it has not been deployed widely at a commercial scale, especially in the power sector. and that's really one of the big concerns that we're hearing from power plant owners and from utilities and grid operators, you know, right now, is that frankly, carbon capture systems may not be ready to deploy at the scale this rule would required to keep coal plants online. stephanie: so besides coal, one of the new standards and you mentioned this requires that new gas fired power plants control 90% of their carbon pollution. however, that doesn't apply to existing gas power plants. why did the biden administration ultimately decided not to have tougher standards on the gas industry?

jennifer: yeah, it really was a matter of pushing that decision off until later. the administration looked at this rule and looked at some of the inevitable legal challenges to it. and they decided to put off the decision for existing gas plants and do it as part of a separate rule. they're hoping to advance later this year. you know, that is a big disappointment. there are environmentalists who were really concerned about getting at not just the new gas plants that will be built, but a huge source of pollution coming from the existing fleet. for now, they're going to have to wait at least another year for that to be completed, for that process to be finished. stephanie: there are also critics of the new rules in the coal industry and to hear them talk about it, they say that when you're really looking at extreme demand, say, on a very cold day or a very hot day, that the most reliable power is still fossil fuel power.

is there validity to those concerns as far as what we know about the reliability of renewables? jennifer: yeah, they're very real concerns about reliability that are being voiced by those interests, and the epa, the administration tried to respond to some of those concerns. the rule has a safety valve, essentially, for demand emergencies. so when power spikes and you really need to have those coal plants, gas plants running, they're going to make sure that they have the ability to keep running under this rule. so that is seen as addressing some of those concerns. but you're right, this is coming at a time when power demand is expected to grow tremendously because we've got ai demand, we have data centers, we have electrification of our cars. all of that is going to require more power from the grid. and, you know, there are many folks today wondering if they can get enough renewable zero emission supplies on the grid in the next few years to offset what will be a decline of coal power that provides kind of an always on power source today. stephanie: and quickly, jennifer, do you believe that these rules will be enacted

anytime soon? or are they going to face the same type of legal and political scrutiny that we've seen other big announcements on carbon emissions face? jennifer: this is, frankly, the third attempt by the epa under three different administrations to set these kinds of limits on the power sector. it's difficult to do, it faces inevitable legal challenges. and, frankly, if president trump is elected, this whole effort will probably be, you know, a target for elimination, or at least a rollback. you know, the next few years will be a challenge in both legal courts and in the court of public opinion, and really, we'll see what happens with the election. this is clearly an attempt by the epa and even by the folks they were working for in the industry to create more durable rules that will stand and last the test of time. stephanie: we will see.

bloomberg's jennifer dlouhy, thank you so much. jennifer: thank you. ♪ amna: barbara walters became an icon of the news media industry, rising through the ranks to become one of the country's first and most successful female television journalists. but her enormous television success often came at great personal cost. her life is the focus of a revealing new book i discussed recently with author susan page, called “the rulebreaker: the life and times of barbara walters.” susan page, welcome back to the "newshour." susan: great to be here. amna: so barbara walters was a very public figure. she even had parts of her private life covered in the tabloids. what was missing from her narrative that you felt needed to be explored and told in this book? susan: you know, i think one thing that we've lost is a sense of how hard it was for her. you know, we remember her as

this enormously successful, wealthy person with lots of honors seen as a real groundbreaker. but she got there with a process that took unbelievable grit and determination and putting up with all kinds of grief. amna: lou walters was her father. what really struck me was how much of an impact he had on her life. he was a showbiz guy, right? how did he inform how she navigated her path forward? susan: so, he was a great impresario. he originally was booking vaudeville acts. he became the founder of a famous nightclubs, including the latin quarter. but he would earn a fortune and gamble it away. he would have a successful nightclub, open another one, see it go bankrupt, and at one point he even attempted suicide, a great pivot point for barbara walters in her life. amna: what did that uncertainty and the instability do to her? how do you think it impacted her? susan: it gave her the sense that you could never be content. you were never safe. that however famous you were,

you could lose it in a flash, just like her father had. amna: and yet she did break barriers. became the first woman to host a morning show on national television. how did she do it? how did she get where no other woman had gone before? susan: you know, it's not like they welcomed her. nobody wanted her to go where she was going. nobody had done it before. so she had no model. she didn't have a mentor. but she wanted it. and she was really good at doing interviews, and she just plowed ahead. you know, she became a correspondent on the today show with frank mcgee, who was the host of the show. he set a rule that she could not speak during an interview until he had asked the first three questions. can you imagine. amna: in every interview? susan: in every interview. this was, of course, very frustrating to her. she responded eventually by setting up her own interviews outside the studio so that she could ask all the questions, and with that, she really found the thing she was best at, which is the big interview. amna: she had a reputation for being very competitive, very tough.

and there's this quote in your book from her as well. she says, television is a tough game, and you don't win by always being ms. nice guy. was she ever miss nice guy, though? susan: well, not when she was climbing the ladder. she was never miss nice guy. and if you want to think how competitive she was, ask diane sawyer, because their competition, their rivalry at abc is the stuff of legend. amna: there's a quote from connie chung about this actually. you explore this idea with people who knew her at the time. and connie says this -- it was a constant battle royale, talking about the competition between her and diane, but so were the three anchormen. she points out peter, dan and tom -- jennings, rather and brokaw. she says when barbara and diane were fighting it out, they'd call it a cat fight. how much of that whole narrative do you think was informed by sexist tropes? susan: some of it, some of it was. and it's true that male anchors were also enormously competitive with one another. but there was an edge, i think, to the rivalry between barbara

walters and diane sawyer that went beyond that, between anybody else. what made her so driven? and, you know, i think it was not that she was so confident. i think it's because she was so uncertain. she was so anxious. she never felt, as i said, that she was content and could rest on her laurels. she was never content that it was enough. it was never enough. not even at the point when she was in her 80's and finally retired from the "view." after that show, another correspondent said to her backstage, what is it that you want? meaning, do you want to go to the bahamas? do you want to learn to play golf? and she said, i want more time. meaning, i want more time on the air. amna: did she at all resent that other women who came after her had a lot of things easier than she did? susan: she did resent that. barbara walters cut a path for herself because she wanted to do these things, and it had the effect of cutting a path that women afterwards could walk with more ease than she ever did.

and she liked the idea that she was the groundbreaker, but she resented the fact that the women who followed her had an easier time than she had. amna: and yet she defined this whole new genre, this big interview get, that really defined big moments in television, especially when you have millions of people tuning in to watch her talk to monica lewinsky or ronald reagan or others. you write in the book that barbara lived for the get, getting that interview. she would feel a void in a personal life that was dominated by her needy parents and sister, her disappointing marriages, her estrangement from her only child. but only her professional life could fill her with a sense of victory and vindication. what is the personal toll of that kind of career? susan: she paid a price. three failed marriages, for a long time in a strange relationship with her only daughter. this sense of constantly being competing. you know, we talk about work-life balance these days. for barbara walters, there was no work-life balance. there was work. any time there was a conflict between her life, her personal life, and her professional life,

work would come first. and that is a tough thing for husbands and children to understand. amna: there's a 2004 interview with oprah when she was asked about her life and she said, most of the time when i look back on what i've done, i think, did i do that? and you know what i say to myself? why didn't i enjoy it more? was all the work and the sacrifice, was it worth it to her in the end? susan: i think it's i think it was worth it to her. and one reason i say that is because of what she chose to put on her gravestone. her gravestone is not a traditional one. it's not the beloved wife, the beloved sister, the beloved mother. her gravestone says, no regrets. i had a great life. amna: the book is "rule breaker: the life and times of barbara walters." susan page, thank you so much. great to speak with you. susan: thank you. ♪

amna: and that is the “newshou”" for tonight. i'm amna nawaz. on behalf of the entire “newshour” team, thank you for joining us. >> major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by. the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions, and friends of the "newshour," including leonard and norma klorfine, and the judy and peter blum kovler foundation. >> actually, you don't need vision to do most things in life. it's exciting to be part of a team driving the technology forward. i think that's the most rewarding thing. people who know, know bdo. >> a law partner rediscovers her grandmother's artistry and creates a trust to keep the craft alive. a raymondjames financial advisor gets to know you, your passions, and the way you enrich your community. life well planned.

>> certified financial planner professionals are proud to support "pbs newshour." cfp professionals are committed to acting in their client's best interest. more information at letsmakeaplan.org. >> the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. and with the ongoing support of these institutions. and friends of the "newshour." this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.]

>> you'

hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour and company." here's what's coming up. today, i'm announcing the biggest strengthening of our national defense for a generation. >> with u.s. aid to ukraine finally on its way, britain's conservative prime minister says he's putting the economy on a war footing. i ask david lammy, who could be the uk's nextei