AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "News Hour" tonight: DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: They should have done the deal.

I told them, do the deal.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Trump urges Iran to surrender amid the prospect of direct U.S. involvement in its escalating war with Israel.

AMNA NAWAZ: Senate Republicans propose changes to the president's budget bill, with major implications for Medicaid and green energy.

GEOFF BENNETT: And farmers turn to artificial intelligence to help feed the world's most populous country.

KESHAVA MURTHY, Farmer (through translator): People think agriculture means losses, and I want to prove that it's sustainable with short-, middle-and long-term strategies.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "News Hour."

President Trump convened his top national security aides today for a crucial meeting on Iran, as Israel's air campaign continued for a fifth day.

AMNA NAWAZ: The meeting came after Mr. Trump left the G7 summit early to fly back to Washington and as the U.S. is sending fighter jets and a second American carrier strike group to the region.

(SIRENS BLARING) AMNA NAWAZ: Across Israel today, a now familiar sound, the swell of sirens, signaling incoming missiles from Iran.

A now familiar sight follows, plumes of black smoke after an impact.

Crews raced to put out fires at a bus depot in Central Israel after an airstrike left this crater in the ground.

Nearby explosions were seen around a Mossad building in a separate attack.

Iran claims it hit the intelligence agency's headquarters, which Israel has not confirmed.

To the north, a funeral for a mother and two daughters from the Khatib family killed when an Iranian missile hit their home in the Arab-Israeli town of Tamra over the weekend.

In the meantime, Israel said today one of its strikes on Iran killed a top military commander.

BRIG.

GEN. EFFIE DEFRIN, Israeli Defense Forces Spokesperson (through translator): We eliminated Ali Shadmani, the war chief of staff, the most senior military commander of the Iranian regime.

AMNA NAWAZ: Parts of Tehran now lie in ruins.

In Amin Alley in Northern Tehran, Mojtaba is back at his bakery minutes after learning that his brother was killed in an Israeli airstrike.

MOJTABA, Tehran, Iran, Resident (through translator): People still need bread.

They're not responsible for this war.

This is my front line.

Israel should know that, with its actions, it will not succeed.

Even if hundreds more die, we will still do our duty.

AMNA NAWAZ: Israel pounded Tehran last night and into today, prompting chaos in the capital city as thousands clog the main roads trying to leave.

President Trump has been messaging to Iranians online, last night, warning residents of Tehran to -- quote -- "immediately evacuate," today claiming the U.S. knows where Iran's supreme leader is hiding, but -- quote -- "We're not going to take him out, kill, at least not for now," and later calling for -- quote - - "unconditional surrender from the regime."

Trump met the top security aides after leaving early from the G7 meeting in Canada.

On Air Force One, the president said he's less inclined to use diplomacy after Iran backed out of nuclear talks with the U.S. DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: They should have done the deal.

I told them, do the deal.

So I don't know.

I'm not too much in a mood to negotiate.

AMNA NAWAZ: He also directly contradicted his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, who back in March said this: TULSI GABBARD, U.S. Director of National Intelligence: Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.

AMNA NAWAZ: Testifying on Iran's nuclear capability to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The president today: DONALD TRUMP: I don't care what she said.

I think they were very close to having one.

AMNA NAWAZ: Meantime, the prospect of U.S. involvement is causing a rift in the Republican Party.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): These are dangerous times.

AMNA NAWAZ: On FOX last night, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham called on the U.S. to use force, not diplomacy.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Be all in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat.

If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs.

If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations.

AMNA NAWAZ: But some prominent MAGA Republicans, like former FOX host Tucker Carlson, say U.S. involvement in Iran does not align with their America first agenda.

TUCKER CARLSON, Former FOX News Anchor: I'm really afraid that my country's going to be further weakened by this.

I think we're going to see the end of American empire.

Obviously, other nations would like to see that, and this is a perfect way to scuttle the USS America on the shoals of Iran.

AMNA NAWAZ: Also breaking with the president, Georgia Representative and Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene, posting on X last night -- quote -- "Foreign wars, intervention, regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction," all while the U.S. deploys more fighter jets to the Middle East to bolster its forces, as the two regional powers continue to trade blows.

Let's delve into this more now with Eric Edelman, who was a career Foreign Service officer and served at high levels in the State and Defense departments in both Democratic and Republican administrations, and Karim Sadjadpour.

He's a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East.

Gentlemen, thank you for joining us.

Eric Edelman, we have seen President Trump's language towards Iran really ramp up over the last few days of Israeli strikes, threatening the ayatollah outright, calling for surrender.

What do you see here?

Is this a U.S. that's pushing for talks or that's preparing for more of a military effort in some way?

ERIC EDELMAN, U.S.

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy: Well, I think the president obviously has expressed in the past that he would prefer a diplomatic solution, but has been frustrated in that effort for a variety of reasons.

I think now the administration and the president and his colleagues today are facing up to a very difficult reality, which is that Israel has done enormous damage to Iran's nuclear program, but it is not able to completely eliminate it because of a lack of certain military capabilities, which the U.S. possesses.

And so the challenge he now faces is whether the worst outcome would be to leave an Iran that has been damaged, humiliated, but still has the capability of reconstituting its nuclear program.

I mean, this is a country that since the revolution has been founded on the notion of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."

So, in that sense, the American and Israeli faith are entwined at this point.

AMNA NAWAZ: I want to ask you more about the U.S. capabilities in just a moment.

But, Karim, to bring you in here, tell us about how President Trump's messages are -- to evacuate Iran, calling for the surrender, how are they being received by the regime and by the Iranian people?

Are they seeing that as pressure to negotiate or something else?

KARIM SADJADPOUR, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Well, the population at the moment is living in a state of profound insecurity and fear.

They're really spectators.

They're not participants in this.

And I think there was an initial hope that maybe these attacks could trigger the population to rise up.

But as long as they're under aerial bombardment and they're being told to evacuate, that's not a high likelihood.

I think the supreme leader is in the most difficult position he's ever been.

He's an 86-year-old man, has limited mental and cognitive bandwidth at this point.

And he essentially has two terrible choices.

He's being told by President Trump that he either needs to agree to total surrender, which for any dictator that wants to be feared by his own population is an outcome which cannot devastate consequences, or he could pursue the path of defiance and resistance.

And he's threatened as much tonight, saying that Iran plans to retaliate.

And that could lead to his external destruction.

So Ayatollah Khamenei is in the most difficult position he's ever been in, in his 36 years as supreme leader.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Eric, given that context, you mentioned Israel not having the capability itself to fully take out Iran's nuclear program.

What would the U.S. be able to do to help them do that?

And should the U.S. take that action?

ERIC EDELMAN: Well, the U.S. has a capability, the GBU-57, which is a deep earth-penetrating bomb.

It's a 30,000-pound bomb that can drill down into 200 feet of earth and rock.

And since the remaining major Iranian facilities are built into mountains, whether you're talking about the Fordow facility or the so-called Pickaxe Mountain facility, those would have to be destroyed by that kind of ordinance.

And, as far as I know, that ordinance can only be delivered by American B-2 bombers.

AMNA NAWAZ: And is that something, is that a step that you believe the U.S. should take in order to fully wipe out the nuclear program?

What would you recommend to the president at this point?

ERIC EDELMAN: I think at this point, the idea of allowing Iran to have a residual capability to reconstitute its nuclear program, given everything that's happened, would be catastrophic for the region, for Israel and for the United States.

So I'm inclined to agree with Senator Graham.

I don't think this is something actually we can -- a capability we can give to Israel because the B-2 bombers are -- they're small in number and they're a part of our nuclear triad or the air-breathing leg of our nuclear triad.

I don't think it's something we can just lend to the Israelis.

So, I think, unfortunately, the onus will be on us if we want to see this program destroyed.

And this is not just, by the way, something that President Trump believes.

This is -- the idea that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon is something that every American president going back to the late '80s, early '90s has said.

So I'm not sure we have much choice at this point.

AMNA NAWAZ: Karim, what's your take on that?

Do you agree that the U.S. should get involved in that way?

And what would the impact of that kind of us intervention be?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: You know, I think Eric would agree that there's profound risk of inaction and there's obviously risks of action as well, as Eric laid out well.

If the regime remains intact and that nuclear facility, which is half-a-mile underground in Fordow remains intact, there's a real danger that, when the dust settles, they will try to race for a nuclear weapon.

So that's the risk of inaction.

But the risk of action is oftentimes much more unpredictable, and it can have consequences for decades to come, whether that's Iran unleashing everything it has in the Middle East, destabilizing Persian Gulf, destabilizing global trade, or it's the impact that it has on Iran's internal politics.

These types of actions and interventions oftentimes have unforeseeable consequences.

So I'm reminded of something that Henry Kissinger once said, that, when you're in government, a lot of the big decisions are 51-49.

And I think this is going to be an incredibly consequential decision, which will have negative externalities either way.

AMNA NAWAZ: Karim, I have less than a minute here, but I just have to ask, do you see the real possibility for regime change here in Iran?

KARIM SADJADPOUR: That's within the realm of possibilities, but one thing we would need to look for are signs of internal fissures within the regime, defections, fissures.

Regime instability and regime implosion requires not only popular tumult, but those types of fissures.

So far, we haven't seen it happen, but certainly this is a population in Iran, I would estimate up to 80 percent of Iranian society would like to live under a government whose ethos is not "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," but long live Iran.

AMNA NAWAZ: Karim Sadjadpour and Eric Edelman, thank you both so much for joining us.

We appreciate your time.

KARIM SADJADPOUR: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: We start today's other headlines in New York.

There were dramatic scenes at an immigration court as the city's comptroller, Brad Lander, was arrested by federal agents.

BRAD LANDER (D), New York City Mayoral Candidate: Sir, you don't have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens.

GEOFF BENNETT: Video provided to the "News Hour" by his campaign shows a group of ICE and FBI agents struggling with Lander as he tried to escort a migrant out of the building.

Lander, who is also a candidate for mayor, is heard in the video repeatedly asking to see a judicial warrant before he's pushed into a wall and arrested by the agents, who are not wearing uniforms or displaying badges.

Immigration lawyers say warrants are not needed in immigration courts because they are public spaces.

Lander was released several hours after his arrest.

Meantime, a federal appeals court in California heard arguments today on whether the Trump administration can keep using National Guard troops to prevent protests and protect immigration agents in Los Angeles.

The hearing by the three-judge panel came just days after a lower court ruled that Trump's use of the Guard was illegal and ordered those troops return to California state control.

The Trump administration appealed that decision, saying it was within its rights to bypass Governor Gavin Newsom to maintain order.

BRETT SHUMATE, U.S. Assistant Attorney General: Those Guardsmen are necessary on the ground today to prevent breaches of the federal buildings, to protect ICE officers when they are conducting their law enforcement operations.

The Guardsmen are not conducting law enforcement.

They are charged with a protective mission, not a law enforcement mission.

GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass lifted her curfew for parts of the city that were roiled by last week's protests against immigration raids.

Turning now to the war in Gaza, Palestinian health officials say at least 51 people were killed and more than 200 others wounded as they waited for U.N. trucks bearing much-needed food.

WOMAN (through translator): This is not aid.

This is an ambush.

This is not aid.

This is an ambush against the youth, not to feed them, but to kill them.

GEOFF BENNETT: Eyewitnesses spoke of an Israeli airstrike and gunfire in the southern city of Khan Yunis.

Israel's military acknowledged reports of several casualties and said they are investigating.

Russian missiles and drones killed at least 15 people and injured more than 150 in Ukraine overnight, the vast majority of them in the capital city of Kyiv.

Hours after the attack, firefighters were still struggling to put out blazes.

Rescue teams searched through the rubble of crushed apartment buildings for survivors.

Officials say it's the deadliest attack on the capital this year.

As peace talks between the two countries falter, Ukraine says Russia has stepped up assaults on civilian areas.

Kyiv's mayor declared that Wednesday will be a day of mourning.

VITALI KLITSCHKO, Mayor of Kyiv, Ukraine (through translator): Another attack by Russian barbarians.

We hope that no casualties will be found under the rubble, but this cannot be guaranteed and the number of dead may rise.

GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy secured $1.5 billion in new military aid from Canada's prime minister today.

Zelenskyy has been trying to rally support from Western allies at the G7 summit.

He was supposed to meet with President Trump today, but that was canceled after the president headed home early.

Food giant Kraft Heinz announced today that it will remove all chemical dyes from its products by the end of 2027.

The company says the shift will affect about 10 percent of its brands.

That includes Kool-Aid and Crystal Light, plus Jell-O and other desserts and beverages that contain specific dyes.

Kraft Heinz is the first company to announce such plans since Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in April that his agency would work with companies on removing artificial dyes by the year 2026.

On Wall Street today, stocks slipped after a weaker-than-expected report on U.S. retail sales.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell nearly 300 points on the day.

The Nasdaq slipped nearly 200 points.

The S&P 500 also closed in negative territory.

Still to come on the "News Hour": pastors weigh in on the Trump administration's ongoing immigration raids; the nationwide risks posed by a rise in political violence; and what led to the mass resignation of the Fulbright exchange program's board?

AMNA NAWAZ: It's crunch time in Congress, where Senate Republicans have released their latest version of the president's so-called big, beautiful bill, and it differs notably from the version passed by House Republicans.

Lisa Desjardins is here to unpack the latest proposed changes and the political sticking points.

Good to see you.

LISA DESJARDINS: Good to see you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So tell us about the changes that the Senate made.

What are they?

LISA DESJARDINS: First, one note.

I want to remark that today there was an unusual atmosphere on Capitol Hill.

It felt a bit like a place on edge.

Part of that are the stakes in this bill.

It could be one of the historically largest in history.

So I want to talk about Senate Republicans' draft of some key provisions.

So let's look at what they would change from House Republicans.

First of all, they would increase the child tax credit and make it permanent.

They would make some business tax cuts permanent as well.

For Medicaid, more cuts in this Senate draft than there are in the House-passed bill.

And for solar and wind, those tax credits that are being cut, the Senate would slightly delay them more, but ultimately they would still eliminate them, Senate Republicans.

One more change that is notable, one of my fellow reporters noticed this first.

There's gun provisions in this bill.

Remember in the House bill that they ended taxes on silencers.

Well, in the Senate bill, they do that, but they also extend that to short-barreled shotguns and rifles, so no taxes and also no regulations.

Those would no longer be firearms in this Senate bill.

AMNA NAWAZ: Interesting.

So we know the president wants this bill passed by July 4.

Where does this stand in Congress?

Is it on track to do that?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right now, it's going the other way.

We have seen more Republicans move away from the bill in the last day.

Let me give you five reasons why.

Let's look at these five senators in particular who are opposed to some of the Medicaid cuts in this Senate bill.

One of them, you may not have seen before, Jim Justice there on the top row, of West Virginia.

He came out today and said these increased Medicaid cuts in this Senate draft, he doesn't like them as much as he liked the House provisions.

Now, that's just one part of the issue.

There are other senators with other problems in this bill.

In all, they want to get through both chambers by July 4.

I think it would be a win for Republicans if they can get it through the Senate by July 4.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have also been reporting on rising tensions, rising security concerns especially for lawmakers themselves, and that's following this weekend's horrific shootings in Minnesota.

What are you hearing from lawmakers on this?

LISA DESJARDINS: This is what I'm talking about also, a place that was on edge and even felt a little bit frayed on Capitol Hill.

Now, part of what senators are reckoning with, of course, the murder of those two state lawmakers in Minnesota, the shooting of two others there.

They have been talking about this.

And someone familiar told me that there were two lists of lawmakers, one in the gunman's car and then one also where he lived.

And that included many members of Congress.

So we saw yesterday Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota -- there's one of the photos there from my colleague Jamie Dupree -- talking to Senator Mike Lee of Utah.

He had put out on social media the idea that Democrats were to blame for this.

And that caused outrage across parties.

Today, Mike Lee took those social media posts down.

He said it was the right thing to do.

I talked to Senator Smith extensively.

She said she still hadn't gotten a real apology.

This was on a day when there's also a security briefing for members that left many of them sober.

Threats against members of Congress have risen to 9,000 in the last year.

Many of them calling for more protection.

They don't have the resources for that right now.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have also been following the story of California Senator Padilla.

He was handcuffed last week when he interrupted a press conference that the homeland security secretary was hosting in Los Angeles.

What's the latest on the senator?

LISA DESJARDINS: That's right.

I also spoke with him today.

And he spoke to the public, going to the Senate floor today, giving a speech on his experience, where he detailed his experience being handcuffed, pushed down to the ground.

And I have learned today that he had a National Guard representative and an FBI member escorting him into the room.

What Democratic senators are talking about a great deal is the fact that neither that FBI agent nor the National Guardsmen stood up for him or protected him.

And that's something that I have had members of both parties say was a concern.

He was trying to identify himself.

But those who were with him in official capacity did not stand up for him.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, finally, amid all the things you're covering, Lisa, the Senate passed a major bipartisan compromise today on cyber currency.

What should we know about that?

LISA DESJARDINS: Let's talk about this quickly.

It is important.

This is a bill called the GENIUS Act.

I'm going to talk to you about what's in it.

Let's go through it quickly.

This would be -- this is something that regulates something called stablecoins, which are cyber currency attached to a real asset like gold or dollars.

Now, this would include consumer protections for this very nascent industry.

This would be the first cyber currency law if it gets all the way through Congress, bipartisan.

It just passed the last couple of minutes in the U.S. Senate, last hour or so.

It's significant because some people say, oh, cyber currency, is that serious?

Here's the U.S. Congress taking it seriously.

If this bill or some form of it gets through all of Congress, some people think the floodgates will open in that industry.

One last thing, this bill does say us members of Congress cannot profit off of stablecoins, but it doesn't say whether the president can.

And some Democrats say that's a huge problem for a president whose family clearly is getting in that business.

AMNA NAWAZ: Lisa Desjardins quite literally covering it all on Capitol Hill.

Lisa, thank you.

LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Trump administration's hard-line immigration policies have sparked protests across the country and have had a profound impact on many Latino communities.

We're going to hear now from two pastors on the front lines offering support and helping families navigate the fear and practical challenges that come with immigration enforcement.

First, we're joined by the Reverend Carlos Malave, president of the Latino Christian National Network, representing evangelical and mainline leaders across the country.

Thanks for being here.

We appreciate it.

REV.

CARLOS MALAVE, President, Latino Christian National Network: My pleasure.

Thank you for the opportunity.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what concerns you the most about the way the ICE deportation raids are being carried out?

REV.

CARLOS MALAVE: I would say that we as a nation and especially the Latino community in the U.S. is at a crossroads at this at this moment.

Our people are systematically being repressed.

And the level of fear that our community is experiencing is at levels that we have never experienced as a community in this country.

At least we never expected that we will be here in this moment.

But the suffering of our people is real.

And we didn't have to come to this point.

So we are accompanying our people as spiritual leaders in this crossroad moments in our nation.

GEOFF BENNETT: When you say this isn't something that you ever expected, Donald Trump ran on greater border enforcement, mass deportations.

Those were the two biggest pledges he made as a candidate.

In fact, at the Republican National Convention, there was a sea of people holding signs that said "Mass Deportation Now."

I mean, doesn't his aggressive immigration approach align with what the public was told to expect in the event that he won?

REV.

CARLOS MALAVE: In a sense, that's true.

But there are nuances to that.

And there was a rhetoric that was used, and it's even still being attempted to be used, the rhetoric that what the administration wanted to do, and the president, was to deport criminals.

And so, based on that, we can ask, what does the president and administration consider criminals?

Because what we see every day through social media, in our communities and even through the regular media is that families, children, workers, people who are normal people who've been a blessing to our community are being repressed and harassed and persecuted.

GEOFF BENNETT: Your organization filed a lawsuit to stop ICE from targeting places like churches and schools.

A federal judge refused to block that new policy.

What effect has that had on the community?

REV.

CARLOS MALAVE: The community, soon after the inauguration, when we began to hear all this rhetoric and the intentions of the administration, our church members enter into actually a real deep fear mode.

And that began to affect them to the fact that they -- many, many thousands just stopped going to churches, not only going to churches, but going to -- even to hospitals, to doctor's visits, sometimes even to the market.

But then that subsided a little bit for a while, for a few months.

But now, when we see the increment of this vicious acts of the administration, now real people are really living in real deep fear.

GEOFF BENNETT: When you speak of fear, do you think that's deliberate on the part of the Trump administration, creating fear as part of this strategy for immigration enforcement and deterrence?

REV.

CARLOS MALAVE: We have no doubt.

At least those leaders that work with us have no doubt that this is a fear campaign, that it's intentional to confuse our people.

And it's intentional.

The very sad part of this is that our people are being persecuted and inflicted fear over just for the sake of being Latinos.

We strongly believe that there is a strong component of racial prejudice on this.

And we have seen this again, again and again.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Reverend Carlos Malave, president of the Latino Christian National Network, thank you for joining us.

REV.

CARLOS MALAVE: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: And for another perspective on this, the Reverend Sam Rodriguez is back with us.

He's president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and senior pastor of the New Season Church in Sacramento, California.

He's also an adviser to the White House on faith issues.

It's good to have you back.

Thanks for being here.

REV.

SAM RODRIGUEZ, President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference: Thank you for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: So when you and I spoke back in November, just after Election Day, about Trump immigration policies, you said you had assurances from the Trump team that their focus would be on deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

Here's what you said at the time.

REV.

SAM RODRIGUEZ: Now, I could tell you, right here to your audience, I would be the first one vociferously protesting if the administration comes after families that have been here 20, 25, 30 years, 15 years, God-fearing, hardworking, not living off government subsidies whose children were born here.

GEOFF BENNETT: So did you did you protest when ICE started arresting and deporting long-settled families and farmwork?

REV.

SAM RODRIGUEZ: I can't necessarily express how I protested, but I can say with clear conviction and with a love to God and integrity in my children, I can go to sleep at night knowing that I was faithful to my word.

I was given assurances.

And I commend and applaud President Trump for pivoting, for making a declarative statement as it pertains to please target the criminal element and, his wording, not mine, leave the good people who are hardworking,and he was referencing farmworkers in California, but others likewise, leave them alone.

Let's find a solution out there, but just target the criminal element.

I agree with President Trump's clear articulation that the priority should be exclusively those involved in nefarious activities.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Obama deported far more undocumented immigrants than President Trump has, even earned the nickname deporter in chief, but he focused on recent arrivals and undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

And you were an adviser to President -- former President Obama at the time.

So how do you compare with what happened then to what you're seeing now, especially with these high-profile raids that critics say are designed to provoke and escalate and instill fear?

REV.

SAM RODRIGUEZ: These high-profile raids may very well be the outcome of sanctuary states and sanctuary laws.

Let me put it in perspective.

If sanctuary states, cities and laws would not exist, Department of Homeland Security, ICE would have access to prisons and jails and to information and cooperation from local law enforcement.

When that is no longer present, they have to go with this large net, this incredible net.

Now, that was explained to me specifically and directly, as I asked the same identical question.

And I was told explicitly, the only reason this is happening, the raids are directly proportional to sanctuary laws.

If you're not cooperating, we're going to have the cast a large net.

And in that large net unfortunately may be -- and I'm quoting here, I air quote here for purpose -- innocent bystanders, meaning those that came in here undocumented, but not have not -- have not been engaged in nefarious activities, and may be family members to the criminal elements being picked up.

GEOFF BENNETT: When you say that you spoke up, you expressed your concerns to the Trump administration, what was the response that you received?

REV.

SAM RODRIGUEZ: Again, for ethical purposes and for purposes of preserving my relational dynamic with the current administration, I cannot share the specifics of how, when, where, who.

What I can tell you is that I did express my angst and my consternation, because I'm hearing it from pastors.

I really am.

I'm hearing it from pastors.

There's great concern.

And we're talking about pro-Trump pastors, conservative Christian pastors, the 64 percent that supported his reelection in 2024.

And there's great anxiety out there because their parishioners are living in fear.

So, really, if Homeland Security would execute President Trump's instructions, the fear would go away and we would work on a congressional solution.

GEOFF BENNETT: I will put to you the same question I put to Pastor Malave.

I mean, do you think the fear is by design?

REV.

SAM RODRIGUEZ: Is the fear by design?

Is the fear by design?

I don't deny the fact that there may be a strategy to prompt people to self-deport.

And in order to prompt people to self-deport, there may be an element of fear or fearmongering that may be part of the algorithm currently in place.

And I'm not here to justify President Trump's policy.

I'm here to tell you firsthand in conversations that's not President Trump's directive.

It isn't.

It may be others', but it's not his.

GEOFF BENNETT: He's still president, no?

REV.

SAM RODRIGUEZ: But -- he is president, but, right now, I'm going to be honest.

There are a couple -- and this is important, of course, to all of us, but Israel, Iran, the U.S. engagement, there are some pretty important things happening simultaneously right now, where this issue may not be front and center as a priority item list as of today.

But there are others who are executing, and, as you mentioned previously, there seems to be a disconnect between his directive and the execution of policies currently.

So I do hope they place themselves in perfect alignment with the president's petition, for lack of a better term.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Reverend Sam Rodriguez, senior pastor of the New Season Church in Sacramento, California, thanks again for your time this evening.

REV.

SAM RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: The shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and their spouses this weekend are just the latest instances of targeted political violence in America, a trend experts say is being exacerbated by increased polarization and heated rhetoric from public figures.

William Brangham joins us now with more.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Amna, as you say, these disturbing acts are part of a pattern that we have seen playing out over the last few years, a congressman at a baseball practice, the family of the former speaker of the House, Pennsylvania's governor, and candidate Donald Trump all targets of graphic political violence.

To help us better understand the root causes and potential solutions for this, we are joined again by Cynthia Miller-Idriss.

She's a professor at American University and the author most recently of "Man Up: The New Misogyny and the Rise of Violent Extremism."

Cynthia Miller-Idriss, so good to have you back on the program.

Before we get into this broader trend, I want to ask you about this attack over the weekend in Minnesota.

We know that the alleged suspect there targeted Democrats and their spouses, and his list of potential victims were also all Democrats.

Is there anything else about his history that gives us some clues as to his motivations?

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS, American University: Well, thanks for having me.

It's good to see you again, William.

The history of this particular attacker included some very anti-LGBTQ statements and very strong anti-abortion stances, including language in a speech in sub-Saharan Africa that depicted sort of gendered changes in the U.S. as motivated by the enemy, like the enemy has seeped into their souls kind of language.

So what you see is somebody who is motivated not just to attack progressive causes or politicians, but also really saw gender and women's reproductive rights and LGBTQ issues as a kind of existential threat.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And is that a more common theme that emerges with these kinds of attackers?

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: I mean, it's so common that it's shocking how often we silence it or ignore it, to be honest.

It's very hard to think of an example of a mass shooter or terrorist attacker in American history over the last two decades that did not involve some prior history of domestic and intimate partner violence, anti-LGBTQ statements, harassment, stalking.

So, everyone from the Parkland school shooter to the Uvalde, Texas, shooter, to the Maryland newsroom attacker, just to name three examples that often aren't included in that, had some history of gendered, misogynistic or sexist actions.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In an op-ed that you published recently, you talked about increased political polarization as being a big driver of this violence as well.

What does that mean, practically speaking?

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: Practically speaking, the biggest problem that we're seeing is the use of language that demonizes the other.

And this happens both on the Republican and the Democratic side, but particularly using language like describing the other as evil, as demonic, as an existential threat to the country, to the future of democracy, or as the enemy within, to use language that President Trump has used in his campaign period of time leading up to the election.

That's really the kind of language that can make it seem like someone feels like they have to take action, they're compelled to take what they think is heroic action or patriotic action.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In fact, we saw in response to this Minnesota shooting, several conservatives employed that exact kind of language.

They seem to be doing the exact thing you're saying exacerbates violence.

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: Yes, there's an absolutely right way, unequivocally right way to respond to acts of political violence like this across the partisan spectrum.

What we need is immediate condemnation of violence.

So we did see that from President Trump.

We did see an immediate statement, but a lot of other leaders, we have seen that kind of rhetoric that continued to demonize or paint it as if it were deserved.

And we saw that when President Trump's first assassination attempt happened too.

We saw language like, you reap what you sow, right?

That kind of language that says political violence is somehow justified or valorizes it or blames the other is extremely dangerous.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But as any student of American history knows, we have a long history of this, civil wars, lynchings, assassination attempts.

Is there anything unique to this moment in your mind?

Or is this just part of our long, dark history?

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: We have a long, dark history of political violence, and we have had periods of time like this before, when you think about the assassinations of Martin Luther King or Kennedy, right?

The political assassinations of the 1960s is the kind of thing that we're seeing now.

I think what's different is that this is part of an uptick that dates back about 20 years.

We now see a 2000 percent increase in targeted violent plots over the past 20, 25 years.

That's now three plots a day, according to data from the University of Maryland START Center.

That's different than what we saw 20 years ago.

So we're in a cycle in which this isn't the only time we have had it, but we're definitely in a more dangerous and high-risk environment for political violence.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, that is American University's Cynthia Miller-Idriss.

Always great to talk with you.

Thank you so much.

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: Great to talk with you, William.

Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: A week ago, 11 of the 12 members of the board overseeing the prestigious Fulbright Program, which promotes international educational exchanges, resigned, citing political interference by the Trump administration in their work.

In a statement, the board members said they chose to resign, "rather than endorse unprecedented actions that we believe are impermissible under the law, compromise U.S. national interests and integrity, and undermine the mission and mandates Congress established for the Fulbright Program nearly 80 years ago."

Joining us now is one of the former members of the Fulbright board, David Price, former Democratic congressman from North Carolina.

Congressman, it's great to have you here.

FMR.

REP. DAVID PRICE (D-NC): Good to be here.

Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we should explain for the unfamiliar, the -- Fulbright is overseen, it's funded by the State Department as the government's flagship international educational exchange program.

How would you describe the political interference that you experienced by the Trump administration?

FMR.

REP. DAVID PRICE: Well, when the program was first set up almost 80 years ago, Senator Fulbright himself wanted to safeguard against political interference in the program in the selection of scholars, interference with academic freedom on the part of any administration in the future.

So the board was written into the statute with precisely that mission.

It's an unusual mission for a board, but we were given final authority over the selection process.

And we went through that, as we always do, this year.

We had the awards ready to go in the middle of March.

But the Trump administration's political appointees told us that they intended to review our work and to make their own judgments.

And that was ominous, but we watched that process.

We tried to communicate with them.

When we got wind that they were going to be canceling a number of the awards, we objected and cited our statutory responsibility and the values underlying it.

And we got silence, no response whatsoever.

So, finally, when all this became clear in the middle of May, two months later, over 200 applications had been canceled by the Trump appointees.

And another 1,200 or so were under review.

At that point, it was clear that the Trump administration wasn't responsive to our questions and they were ignoring their legislative mandate.

And we didn't think there was more we could do.

Indeed, we just could not remain in position and appear to legitimize the gross distortion -- for the first time in 80 years, the first gross distortion of this program, the political interjection of politics into the selection process.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, our team reached out to the State Department for comment on all of this.

And a statement provided by a spokesperson reads in part this way: "The 12 members of the Fulbright board were partisan political appointees of the Biden administration.

It's ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump's executive orders."

How do you respond to that argument?

FMR.

REP. DAVID PRICE: I'm saying that President Trump's executive orders cannot override the statute and that the board is established by statute precisely to protect the integrity of the program.

So, as usual, they're kind of turning things totally on their head.

Yes, we're presidential appointees.

And that's always been the case.

But this is a board with a particular charge, a particular charge written in statute.

And the charge is precisely to avoid what the Trump administration, for the first time in history, they have done what Senator Fulbright most feared.

GEOFF BENNETT: To your point about all of this being written in statute, the board has resigned.

So what recourse is there at this point, if any?

FMR.

REP. DAVID PRICE: It's a very precarious situation.

By the way, there is a small Fulbright Program that's administered by the Education Department.

That one has gone away simply because the DOGE guys fired all the people who were administering it.

And now the president has zeroed out the Fulbright Program in the coming budget.

Now, when he did that in his first term, Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, wrote the program back into the appropriations bills.

And, of course, we very much hope that will happen.

So we hope for funding.

But, of course, then there will still be the question of the impartial administration of the program, which preserves academic freedom and preserves the diplomatic strength of this program, which is - - lies in its integrity, its worldwide respect.

It's just been a mainstay of American foreign policy ever since World War II.

And the thought that this would be distorted in this way, let alone that it would go away, is just unthinkable.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, I was going to ask you how you see this affecting the Fulbright's global reputation, its longstanding role in public diplomacy.

But, beyond that, I mean, do you see a longer-term risk to U.S. academic exchange programs like the Fulbright?

FMR.

REP. DAVID PRICE: Yes and yes.

There's no question this has been a mainstay of American soft power, so-called, a major diplomatic -- major source of goodwill and strong ties of friendship, association with this country all over the world.

The list is very, very long of Fulbright Scholars who went on to become leaders in their countries.

It is just a linchpin of American diplomatic relations.

And, of course, it's also an important academic program.

Thousands of U.S. students and young faculty are able to go abroad and strengthen their education.

And there too it depends, though.

A lot depends on its integrity and the academic freedom that's always been respected.

GEOFF BENNETT: David Price, always great to speak with you.

Thanks for being with us.

FMR.

REP. DAVID PRICE: Thank you.

I appreciate it.

AMNA NAWAZ: One of the largest challenges facing the world's most populous nation is food security, how to sustain food production for 1.4 billion people in India amid deteriorating soil conditions, diminishing water supplies and climate change.

For some, including hundreds of artificial intelligence start-ups, the challenge represents a business opportunity.

From India, Fred de Sam Lazaro reports.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: From all appearances, this vineyard looks very healthy, but its owner must stay constantly on guard for pests or disease that can wipe out a crop, another challenge, persistent water shortages.

NARAYANAPPA MURTHY, Farmer: Water, full scarcity.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Water is very scarce.

NARAYANAPPA MURTHY: Especially water management is very difficult.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Just over a year ago, Narayanappa Murthy signed on to a service that, for between $30 and $70 a year, offers a bounty of useful data.

A sensor constantly monitors soil and leaves for moisture, which, along with weather data, is analyzed with artificial intelligence to provide guidance precisely tailored to this farm.

It's led to big savings.

NARAYANAPPA MURTHY: Fifty to 60 percent cutback.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: So you have saved 60 percent?

NARAYANAPPA MURTHY: Sixty percent.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: In your water bill?

NARAYANAPPA MURTHY: Water bill and power bill.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Murthy has branched out to grow pomegranates and added a newer model of the sensor made by an agriculture tech start-up called Fyllo.

MAN: Irrigation, all the way, it will be the same.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Fyllo has seen robust growth since its founding five years ago.

SHRIYOG NORLAWAR, Institutional Sales Lead, Fyllo: We are working with almost 10,000-plus farmers.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Shriyog Norlawar, Fyllo's sales chief, says, in many cases, the company's product has made the difference in keeping farmers in business.

SHRIYOG NORLAWAR: The usage of water is four to five times excessive than it should be.

We have saved around 90 billion liters of water.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: The smartphone app tied to their devices is accessible in multiple languages, he says.

SHRIYOG NORLAWAR: We have developed modules for all kinds of crop for its irrigation management and for its nutrition management also in addition.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: A.I.

has enabled the ability to interpret massive amounts of raw data collected in the field or via satellites.

KRISHNA KUMAR, Co-Founder, Cropin: Today, we have like 0.5 billion records of farm data from 103 countries on 500 crops and 10,000 varieties of those crops.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: In 2010, Krishna Kumar founded Cropin, another among scores of agriculture tech start-ups.

KRISHNA KUMAR: Now this model predicts the future.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Most of his clients are large multinationals like Walmart and Pepsico, who are provided real-time intelligence about supplier farms across their far-flung supply chains.

KRISHNA KUMAR: What is the risk approaching?

What disease can hit your farm in like seven to 15 days?

What yield you can expect?

We layer thousands of variables on every unit of the farm, and then we scale that to a country in the supply chain.

So you can factor the data for various use cases, whether it's a sourcing decision, policymaking decision, you want to go to a newer country to grow a newer variety, how that variety will perform in that country.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Based in India's tech capital, Bangalore, Cropin, Fyllo and others have generated lots of interest in financial markets.

The question is, are they really improving this country's food security?

For the majority of India's farmers, who own only small plots of land, artificial intelligence might hold some promise, but their problems go well beyond the scope of A.I.

It's no use knowing when to irrigate, for example, when you don't irrigate your farm and depend on rainfall.

It's no use knowing what market prices are when your produce can't get to the market on time.

AMIT PRAKASH, International Institute of Information Technology, Bangalore: Almost 80 to 90 percent of our farmers are smallholders.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Amit Prakash teaches technology and ethics at the Indian Institute of Information Technology in Bangalore.

AMIT PRAKASH: When we start looking at them as problems who need a solution that comes to them from either Bangalore or California or anywhere else or New Delhi, then I think we have started with a bias.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And that bias against small rural farmers has been the pattern for some decades when it comes to bringing technology to agriculture, he says.

Data cannot capture the whole picture, for example, sending a farmer advisories that they can get a better price for their produce in market two instead of market one.

AMIT PRAKASH: They would still take it to market one because they have been transacting with a person, a commission agent in market one, since their grandfathers' time.

Those kinds of relationships matter quite a lot.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Smallholder farmers, many living in poverty with little formal education, can ill afford risk, he says, and so they rely heavily on such relationships, the familiar.

That applies to getting advice as well.

AMIT PRAKASH: Knowledge absorption is better if I hear it from someone who I have seen or who I am able to relate to better.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: And trust, basically.

AMIT PRAKASH: Trust, yes, and proximity.

The person who is talking about whatever they have done on their farm is also a farmer like me.

WOMAN: We saw how farmers learn from one another through informal social networks.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: That peer-to-peer approach is used by a group called Digital Green.

NIDHI BHASIN, CEO, Digital Green Trust: We are very clear.

We are addressing the smallholder farmer.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Nidhi Bhasin leads the nonprofit group started in 2008 and now serving farmers in India and parts of Africa.

It began with YouTube videos, with farmers sharing insights with each other, but has now evolved to a chatbot called Farmer.chat... WOMAN: We have built a multilingual A.I.

chatbot system.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: ... offering vetted expertise, weather and market information in the farmers' native languages.

NIDHI BHASIN: Localize cost-effective information advisory, which will help them to increase their incomes.

We're also sending them certain information which is very contextual.

It's something... FRED DE SAM LAZARO: It's less foreign to the farmers.

NIDHI BHASIN: Yes, it's less foreign.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Chandrakala and husband Keshava Murthy have used it to help plan a climate-smart, sustainable farm with livestock, timber, fruits and vegetables.

KESHAVA MURTHY, Farmer (through translator): People think agriculture means losses, and I want to prove that it's sustainable with short-, middle- and long-term strategies.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: They showed me how Farmer.chat guided them to find a natural cure, neem oil, for a disease threatening their lemon trees.

CHANDRAKALA MURTHY, Farmer (through translator): I can use the phone to ask any number of questions.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Digital Green has tried in particular to reach women farmers and to work in more impoverished regions like India's Bihar state.

In all, it serves 160,000 farmers in India and East Africa, meeting a tiny fraction of the need, Nidhi says.

The group is trying to look to partner with private for-profit players.

NIDHI BHASIN: We also want a good balance between the two approaches.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Do you need to make those partnerships in order to scale further, you think?

NIDHI BHASIN: Yes, from a scale point of view.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Professor Prakash agrees all A.I.

players should have a role in sustaining small farmers, and it will take government too, he says, to update farm policies and infrastructure.

Most of all, it will take farmers, he says.

AMIT PRAKASH: We have to bring in the small farmers.

We have to hear what they have to say, not from the perspective of providing them with a solution, but designing a solution along with them.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Along with them, at 150 million smallholder farmers, most of them marginal and struggling, but still a critical pillar of India's economy.

For the "PBS NewsHour," this is Fred de Sam Lazaro in Bangalore.

AMNA NAWAZ: And Fred's reporting is a partnership with the Under-Told Stories Project at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota.

And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

For all of us here at the "PBS News Hour," thanks for spending part of your evening with us.