March 25, 2024 - PBS NewsHour full episode

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening.

I'm William Brangham.

Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett are away.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: The rift between the U.S. and Israel widens due to a United Nations resolution demanding a cease-fire in Gaza.

Then: Former President Trump will go on trial next month, and he gets a break on his multimillion-dollar bond while he appeals a separate civil fraud ruling.

And how a pandemic era child tax credit lifted some families out of poverty, but only temporarily.

DAFNEE CHATMAN, Mother: You're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And, eventually, Paul runs out and Peter, so you're left with nothing.

(BREAK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

There is a public break tonight between the United States and Israel after the U.S. refused to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the U.S. of changing its position on the war in Gaza and canceled a planned visit of his top aides to Washington.

Nick Schifrin is here now with more on these fast-moving developments.

Nick, what is it that happened today that led to this very public disagreement?

NICK SCHIFRIN: The U.N. Security Council today for the first time in more than five months of war demanded a cease-fire in Gaza.

And it did so because, as you just said, the U.S. abstained on a vote.

Resolution 2728 -- quote -- "demands an immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan, respected by all parties, leading to a lasting and sustainable cease-fire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages."

So while we keep up that text, just a few points.

One, the holy month of Ramadan is already halfway over.

Two, the word lasting was replaced because the U.S. asked for it, rather than the quote - - than the word permanent.

And, three, that paragraph there refers to a cease-fire and hostage release in the same paragraph.

An earlier draft allowed those two things to be split.

And that is what -- the reason why the U.S. abstained today, according to U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield.

LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, U.S.

Ambassador to the United Nations: We fully support some of the critical objectives in this nonbinding resolution.

And we believe it was important for the council to speak out and make clear that our cease-fire must, any cease-fire, must come with the release of all hostages.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But the resolution did not condition the cease-fire on the hostage release, nor did it condemn Hamas' terrorist attack of October the 7th.

And that is why Netanyahu said today, hey, look, that's what you were calling for in your own draft resolution.

You have changed your policy.

That led to Netanyahu canceling this delegation that was supposed to arrive tomorrow to Washington.

And it led to this statement by Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Gilad Erdan: GILAD ERDAN, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations: Your demand for a cease-fire, without conditioning it on the release of the hostages, not only is not helpful, but it undermines, undermines the efforts to secure their release.

To this council, Israeli blood is cheap.

This is a travesty, and I am disgusted.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In response to that, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby today tried to downplay what the U.S. had done.

They said -- he said that the Israeli cancellation of the delegation was disappointing, but he also said, William, that Netanyahu was making a bigger deal of today's vote than it was actually.

JOHN KIRBY, NSC Coordinator For Strategic Communications: We get to decide what our policy is.

The prime minister's office seems to be indicating, through public statements, that we somehow changed here.

We haven't.

And we get to decide what our policy is.

It seems like the prime minister's office is choosing to create a perception of daylight here, when they don't need to do that.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, how serious do U.S. officials believe this rift really is?

NICK SCHIFRIN: I mean, Kirby, as he said, he's disappointed that the U.S. won't be able to detail their alternative to the assault on Rafah.

Israeli officials say that an assault on Rafah is necessary because Hamas' final four battalions are based there.

But two U.S. officials told me that the U.S. had planned to provide a detailed alternative to an assault on Rafah, more about targeting high-value members of Hamas, doing more to secure the Egyptian border and allowing displaced Gazans to go home to Central and Northern Gaza.

U.S. officials, frankly, are skeptical that Israel wants to hear an alternative to an assault on Rafah because all Israeli officials are convinced it's necessary, as we heard from Yoav Gallant, defense minister, who's visiting Washington as well today.

YOAV GALLANT, Israeli Defense Minister (through translator): In my first meeting, which will be with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, I will stress the importance of destroying Hamas and returning the hostages home.

We will operate against Hamas everywhere, including in places where we have not yet been.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Not yet been -- not yet been is presumably a reference to Rafah.

Bottom line, two U.S. officials also think that Netanyahu is playing domestic politics here, because his coalition is at a particularly fragile moment.

But, look, there has been tension between the administration and the Israeli government, today particularly public.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Nick Schifrin, as always, thank you so much.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In the day's other headlines: Russian officials raised the death toll to 139 in the Friday night terror attack outside Moscow.

Today, the Kremlin talked of vengeance, as investigators worked the scene.

Stephanie Sy reports.

STEPHANIE SY: Crocus City Hall is a charged shell of debris and devastation.

Rescue workers search for bodies buried in its ruins days after attackers armed with rifles and knives laid waste to a rock concert.

It was the deadliest terror attack in Russia in decades.

Today, Russian President Vladimir Putin said radical Islamists were behind the massacre, but he also continued to implicate Ukraine, without evidence.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russian President (through translator): We know that the crime was committed by the hands of radical Islamists, whose ideology the Islamic world itself has been fighting for centuries.

We are interested in who ordered it.

STEPHANIE SY: Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy denounced the suggestion.

Four main suspects appeared in a Russian court and appeared to have been beaten.

They're all of Tajik descent.

The Islamic State's Afghan branch, ISIS-K, posted this video claiming responsibility for the attack, a claim verified by the U.S., which had shared intelligence with Moscow ahead of time.

They have been comparing this for some time.

PAUL KOLBE, Senior Fellow, Harvard University: U.S. had given warnings a few weeks ago that this attack could take place.

STEPHANIE SY: Paul Kolbe is a former operations officer for the CIA with a focus on Eastern Europe and counterterrorism.

ISIS has attacked Russia a number of times over the years and has recently begun recruiting heavily from Central Asia, including Tajikistan.

PAUL KOLBE: Tajik workers are in Moscow, so they provide a -- both a willing and attractive recruitment pool for ISIS-K, because they have access to Russia, because they can be radicalized, and because they can be bought relatively cheaply.

STEPHANIE SY: The deadly attack has shaken Russia days after President Putin, fresh from securing a fifth term, promised stability.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Stephanie Sy.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The attack in Moscow has done nothing to slow Russia's renewed bombardment of Ukraine's capital.

Today, missiles were fired at Kyiv for the third time in five days.

After some of the weapons were intercepted, debris fell on homes, injuring nine people.

Japan's Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has offered to meet with North Korea's Kim Jong-un.

It would be these two nations' first summit in nearly two decades if it happens.

Kim's sister Kim Yo-jong announced it today, but she insisted Tokyo accept the North's weapons program and ignore abductions of Japanese citizens.

Japan acknowledged it wants a summit, but with no preconditions.

The U.S. and Britain say China was behind a sweeping hacking campaign against lawmakers, defense contractors, and others.

Today, they sanctioned a company said to be a front for Beijing.

The U.S. Justice Department said it underscores - - quote -- "the potential for cyber-enabled foreign malign influence as we approach the 2024 election."

The European Union launched new antitrust probes into Apple, Google, and Meta today.

Regulators say the tech giants may be violating a new Digital Markets Act which aims to help consumers move freely between competing services and not be cornered by so-called gatekeeper companies.

MARGRETHE VESTAGER, Antitrust Commissioner, European Union: Consumers must have access to all the necessary information about their choices.

Gatekeepers can no longer prevent businesses from informing their users within the app about cheaper options outside of the gatekeeper's ecosystem.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The tech companies dispute the allegations, but they could be fined 10 percent of their global annual income.

Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has signed one of the country's most restrictive social media laws for minors.

It bars children under 14 from creating and owning accounts and requires parental permission for 15- and 16-year-olds.

If it withstands legal challenges, the law takes effect next January 1.

An early spring snowstorm churned across the Northern Plains and Upper Midwest today, while the South watched for thunderstorms and tornadoes.

It followed a weekend storm in New England that dumped more than two feet of snow and knocked out power to hundreds of thousands.

Police also reported hundreds of accidents.

Boeing is shaking up its executive suite amid a plague of safety problems.

The company announced today that Dave Calhoun will step down as CEO at the end of the year.

The board chairman and the head of its commercial airplanes unit are also leaving.

Boeing is under intense scrutiny after a 737 MAX lost a door panel mid-flight back in January.

Los Angeles Dodger Shohei Ohtani says he never bet on sports.

Ohtani spoke at a news conference today, five days after his interpreter was fired amid allegations that he engaged in illegal gambling and theft from Ohtani.

Ohtani said his interpreter had been -- quote - - "stealing money and has told lies."

Major League Baseball has opened a formal investigation.

And on Wall Street, stocks cooled a bit after last week's run-up to record highs.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 162 points to close at 39313.

The Nasdaq fell 44 points and the S&P 500 was down 16.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": the fate of the most commonly used abortion pill goes before the U.S. Supreme Court; Tamara Keith and Susan Page break down the latest political headlines; and retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer discusses his new book on interpreting the constitution.

The first criminal trial of former President Donald Trump is set to begin next month, after a judge today rejected Trump's claims of prosecutorial misconduct.

That comes as a New York appeals court reduced the amount Trump needs to post in a bond for a civil fraud ruling by nearly $300 million and granted him an additional 10 days to secure that money.

Andrea Bernstein has been covering all of the former president's legal matters for NPR, and she joins us now.

Andrea, so good to see you.

Let's first talk about this hush money case that you were in the courtroom for today.

Trial was supposed to start today, but that was derailed by the sudden arrival of thousands of pages of new evidence.

And the -- Trump's lawyers argued that there was something nefarious going on here, but it sounds like the judge rejected those accusations.

ANDREA BERNSTEIN, NPR Contributor: Right.

So, even though this case was indicted almost a year ago, it took Trump's lawyers until January to subpoena federal prosecutors, who had in 2018 investigated Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen, who is going to be the witness - - main witness in this case.

They had investigated Cohen for campaign finance violations, including having paid Stormy Daniels, the adult film actor who says she had an affair with Trump, the hush money payments.

So Trump's team didn't subpoena those records until January, and they got just this month over 100,000 pages of documents.

Now, the DA says most of them are not relevant, but what Trump's lawyers argued was that the DA's office was committing some kind of malfeasance by not having requested these documents earlier.

And the DA, when the documents began to be produced by the federal prosecutor, said, OK, we could have a 30-day delay, but we're really OK.

The trial was supposed to start today, and the judge said, I'm going to have a hearing instead.

And he sharply rebuked Trump's lawyers for saying that the DA had done some kind of willful malpractice here.

The judge said there was no evidence of that, and he was moving forward to hold the trial on April 15.

This judge has tried Trump's corporation.

I have seen him many times.

He is very calm, but, today, he got very testy for Judge Juan Merchan.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And that trial, as we said, is going to start April 15.

Let's pivot now to this civil fraud ruling.

Donald Trump is appealing that nearly half-a-billion dollar ruling against him on the allegations that he defrauded the state of New York by inflating his assets to get better bank loans.

Trump appealed and was asked to pay a whopping amount on a bond.

That was now reduced by almost $300 million.

Trump has now an extended grace period to get that money.

What happens next in that particular case?

ANDREA BERNSTEIN: So, well, in this case, the appeal will go through the appeals court, but this was really quite extraordinary, because normally what happens in New York is when you have such a judgment against, you can appeal it, but you have to put up a bond with the court that says, if it goes against me, I still can pay.

And Trump originally said, well, I don't want to pay $450 million.

I will pay $100 million.

The appeals court said, no way.

And then he went back and he said, well, I cannot find a bank to guarantee this money.

I can't find an insurance company to guarantee me this money, because I don't have enough liquid assets.

And after that is when the appeals court came back and said, OK, you don't have to pay $450 million.

You can pay $174.

They also are allowing Trump to continue to run his business, to continue to take out loans, and this will wind its way through the New York appeals process, which could take some time.

So, the attorney general said today, look, the $450 million judgment still stands.

This is still a serious case, but we will have to wait some time for Trump to have to pay the full amount if he loses on appeal at New York's highest court, where he will certainly take this case.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So any immediate seizure of assets, which some people were thinking might start today, is now... ANDREA BERNSTEIN: Oh, yes, that is off.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: ... clearly going to get pushed off.

ANDREA BERNSTEIN: Yes, that is off because it looks like he will be able to come up with the $175 million.

He has 10 days to do it.

He already had said he could come up with $100 million.

So it looks like that will happen.

And then basically it puts everything on hold while the case wends its way through the court system, yet another legal delay spurred by Donald Trump, which is also what happened in the hush money case.

That investigation began in 2018.

It's now 2024.

Trump took it to the U.S. Supreme Court twice, arguing to them that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not be investigated while he was president.

And just now, finally, on April 15 of this year, the judge is insistent that this case will go to trial.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Andrea Bernstein, as always, thank you so much for helping us wade through all of this.

ANDREA BERNSTEIN: Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow over whether to restrict access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions.

The case will be the first the court has heard on abortion since it overturned Roe v. Wade.

Special correspondent Sarah Varney reports on what's at stake.

SARAH VARNEY: In a doctor's basement in Upstate New York, a makeshift production line is under way.

WOMAN: I have myself, my sister and some friends who help me with doing the packaging.

SARAH VARNEY: To ensure this doctor's safety, "NewsHour" is not showing her face.

She sends medication abortion pills mostly to people living in the 14 states where abortion is illegal.

WOMAN: Texas was the main one.

And in the last few months, we've been seeing more and more in Georgia and Florida.

SARAH VARNEY: This doctor is part of an extensive network of providers that is getting medication out the door quickly.

DR. LINDA PRINE, Aid Access: Hi, this is the hot line doctor.

Can I help you?

SARAH VARNEY: Dr. Linda Prine is part of the same group, and helps patients from her Manhattan apartment.

DR. LINDA PRINE: You can order pills online, and that's what most people from the restricted states are doing.

SARAH VARNEY: She's been prescribing mifepristone since the FDA first approved the drug to end early pregnancy 24 years ago.

What are your observations as a longtime provider about the safety and efficacy of mifepristone?

DR. LINDA PRINE: It's very effective.

I don't even have medications that are 98 percent to 99 percent effective.

Our blood pressure medicines aren't effective like that.

So, it is an unusually effective medication of anything and extremely safe.

SARAH VARNEY: For decades, patients could only get mifepristone at a medical clinic.

But during the COVID pandemic, the FDA eased the rules to allow the drug, like many others, to be prescribed online.

DR. LINDA PRINE: Obviously, you don't need to be handed the pill in the office in order for it to have efficacy.

SARAH VARNEY: When the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion nearly two years ago, Dr. Prine scrambled to find a way for doctors in New York to help patients in states where abortion had been outlawed.

GOV.

KATHY HOCHUL (D-NY): This is how we protect the rights of not just New Yorkers, but all Americans.

SARAH VARNEY: The result of her work was a New York state shield law, passed last year, that protects medical providers who prescribe pills across state lines.

DR. LINDA PRINE: It felt empowering, both for me and for the people who were asking for the pills.

SARAH VARNEY: Five other states have passed similar laws.

How many pills are you mailing a month?

DR. LINDA PRINE: January, I think, was 10,000.

Every month, it's a few thousand more.

SARAH VARNEY: Abortion pills are more widely available now than ever before.

In fact, six out of 10 women end their pregnancies using the medication.

And that's made mifepristone an urgent priority for anti-abortion groups.

The Christian legal advocates who helped overturn Roe v. Wade filed a suit in Texas in November 2022 to ban the medication outright.

An appeals court didn't go that far, but it did order the FDA to reinstate nationwide a number of restrictions, including the requirement that doctors can only prescribe pills in person.

Now that case has reached the Supreme Court.

The anti-abortion group in this case says mifepristone is dangerous, and it cites two studies that claim abortion pills increase E.R.

visits and the risk of hospitalization.

The medical journal that published those studies has since retracted them.

USHMA UPADHYAY, UCSF School of Medicine: The articles made claims that were not supported by the data.

SARAH VARNEY: In this case, these researchers used a trip to the emergency room as a proxy for something has gone wrong.

Is that right?

USHMA UPADHYAY: That's right.

SARAH VARNEY: Ushma Upadhyay, professor of reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, conducted the largest study to date of telehealth abortions in the U.S. USHMA UPADHYAY: There's no medical reason to overturn or to turn back those regulatory approvals by the FDA.

SARAH VARNEY: Upadhyay says that a small percentage of patients who have medication abortions do visit an emergency room, but mostly to make sure their symptoms are normal.

USHMA UPADHYAY: What's important to know is that a visit to an emergency room is not the same as a serious adverse event.

People go to an emergency room to get care and to ask questions and to get clinical support.

KANIYA HARRIS, Student: Right now, I'm graduating.

SARAH VARNEY: Kaniya Harris is a college senior in Washington, D.C. Last spring, after getting a positive pregnancy test, she took medication abortion pills.

KANIYA HARRIS: I was going through my finals, and I think a lot about how I didn't think I was going to finish college if I had to continue to be pregnant.

People that are like, oh, you should only have an abortion for this reason, this reason, this reason.

I feel like it's very harmful.

SARAH VARNEY: Kaniya says ending her pregnancy at home put her in control of her own health care.

KANIYA HARRIS: At first, I was really anxious if I did it in clinic, because I knew there were a lot of protesters in the D.C. area.

I was able to do it in my apartment, watch my favorite shows, eat the foods I want.

I could just be in the comfort of my own home.

SARAH VARNEY: Legal experts say taking away this option for patients and overriding the FDA would be unprecedented.

RACHEL REBOUCHE, Dean and Peter J. Liacouras Professor of Law, Temple University: You know, at the heart of this case is a real contest about what evidence matters.

SARAH VARNEY: Rachel Rebouche is the dean of Temple University's Law School.

She filed an amicus brief in support of the FDA.

RACHEL REBOUCHE: This case really crystallizes what's always been the politicization of science in the abortion regulation area, but the stakes are getting higher as we have courts strip federal agencies of their ability to make expert decisions.

SARAH VARNEY: The case also contains what scholars say is a bold legal strategy.

Anti-abortion lawyers claim that a long-dormant federal law passed in 1873, the Comstock Act, prohibits the mailing of any supplies used for abortions.

So that could be not just abortion pills, but also hospital beds and medical gloves, anything.

RACHEL REBOUCHE: Anything.

SARAH VARNEY: It would essentially shut down abortion across the United States.

RACHEL REBOUCHE: Because everything is mailed.

SARAH VARNEY: For activists like Kristan Hawkins, that is the aim.

KRISTAN HAWKINS, President, Students for Life of America: You make it illegal for doctors, for abortion vendors, for pharmacies to distribute drugs with the intention to end human life.

That is a direct abortion.

That is what the pro-life movement seeks to stop.

No one is going to be targeting these precincts.

SARAH VARNEY: Hawkins runs Students for Life, one of the largest anti-abortion groups in the country.

KRISTAN HAWKINS: Well, state attorneys general need to go after and prosecute those who are legally mailing abortion drugs into their states.

Then those who are committing those crimes and violating the federal Comstock Act by shipping chemical abortion pills over state lines, there should be consequences for those who are clearly violating state lines.

SARAH VARNEY: But those who support abortion rights say bodily autonomy for women has been a hard-won freedom and this case is a dangerous backslide into the past.

KANIYA HARRIS: I think about like, oh, like hundreds of years ago, they were trying to control our bodies, and they're still trying to control our bodies to this day.

It's really upsetting, because I'm like, well, I should have that choice.

SARAH VARNEY: For now, doctors will continue to head each day to local post offices, filling hundreds of prescriptions from patients across the country.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Sarah Varney in New York.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We now continue our series America's Safety Net about the government programs that help Americans in need.

Tonight, we look at the pandemic, when lawmakers, dramatically, but temporarily, expanded the social safety net, including more money for families with children.

Amna Nawaz and producer Sam Lane report on how the impacts of those changes are still being felt and debated to this day.

DAFNEE CHATMAN, Mother: Some days are better than others, but it can be, pretty, pretty overwhelming.

AMNA NAWAZ: Her family of five can stretch 35-year-old Dafnee Chatman pretty thin.

DAFNEE CHATMAN: The responsibility as a parent is on you to provide food, clothes, water, gas.

AMNA NAWAZ: Providing for 13-year-old Whitnee (ph), 5-year-old Rowen (ph), and 3-year-old twins Trinitee (ph) and Legaciee (ph) in their hometown of Ville Platte, Louisiana, is a challenge.

Of the town's 6,200 residents, more than 40 percent live in poverty.

DAFNEE CHATMAN: In this rural area, we don't have access to much.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ville Platte has been called the state's poorest town and its where Chatman has spent most of her life.

Back in early 2020, Chatman was working at a local community college, a job she loved.

She was also pregnant with the twins.

And then: JUDY WOODRUFF: The COVID-19 outbreak as a global pandemic.

AMNA NAWAZ: Its biggest one-day jump in both new cases and deaths.

JOHN YANG: Widespread economic damage is becoming clearer.

AMNA NAWAZ: As the nation shut down, Chatman lost her job.

DAFNEE CHATMAN: The best way I can explain it is that I felt like someone took my air.

AMNA NAWAZ: What do you do?

How do you provide for your family?

DAFNEE CHATMAN: You don't.

You're choosing between making sure you have lights or making sure you have food.

You're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And, eventually, Paul runs out and Peter, so you're left with nothing.

AMNA NAWAZ: Chatman resorted to selling things around the house, books, jewelry, pictures, just to make ends meet.

She developed anxiety and panic attacks.

Her kids, especially Whitnee, started feeling the stress too.

DAFNEE CHATMAN: You could see in her eyes that she felt like "I can't help my mom and my mom can't help me right now."

JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: Thank you for being here.

AMNA NAWAZ: Then, in March of 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan.

The nearly $2 trillion relief package passed with only Democratic votes extended unemployment benefits, sent stimulus checks to individuals, ramped up food stamps and housing assistance, and significantly expanded the federal child tax credit, or CTC.

Pre-pandemic, that credit gave parents up to $2,000 per child.

It came with an earnings requirement, and was paid in one lump sum at tax time.

But the Rescue Plan raised the credit to $3,600 per child under 6 and to $3,000 for kids under 18.

Half the amount came in monthly payments.

And for the first time, even parents with no taxable income were eligible for the full amount.

DAFNEE CHATMAN: It was like I was able to come up for a little air.

AMNA NAWAZ: Would you say that the benefits kind of took care of all your problems?

DAFNEE CHATMAN: I wouldn't say it took care of all of them, but it took care of enough for me not to worry as much.

AMNA NAWAZ: Families across the country felt that relief.

Laura Douglas lives with her husband and their two kids in southern Minnesota.

Their younger son, Daxton (ph), has a rare condition that causes seizure-like episodes.

So, sometimes, Laura has to miss work.

LAURA DOUGLAS, Mother: I might be out of work for two weeks, and I have already used all my PTO.

That's hundreds of dollars not coming into our account to cover our bills.

AMNA NAWAZ: The CTC payments started before Daxton turned one.

LAURA DOUGLAS: That was nice to know that there would be money if I had to stay home due to being sick or if he was sick.

It was nice to have that security.

AMNA NAWAZ: In 2021, the national child poverty rate dropped to its lowest level on record, 5.2 percent, down from almost 10 percent in 2020.

The poverty gap between white children and children of color also shrank dramatically.

The Census Bureau estimated that, in total, the CTC expansion lifted more than two million children out of poverty.

BRADLEY HARDY, Georgetown University: I think, in a policy sense, that's a resounding success.

AMNA NAWAZ: Bradley Hardy is a professor of public policy at Georgetown University.

BRADLEY HARDY: We had a highly salient and disturbing public health crisis that actually provided some clarity for policymakers to plug holes in the nation's social safety net that were already in existence.

AMNA NAWAZ: Research from Hardy and his colleagues found the CTC expansion had the greatest impact in states with low costs of living and high poverty rates, states like Louisiana.

Nearly every single child in the state of Louisiana, an estimated 94 percent, benefited from the expansion of the child tax credit.

According to one study, the state saw a 56 percent decline in child poverty.

Joyce James leads The Middleburg Institute.

JOYCE JAMES, Founder, The Middleburg Institute: Did you all know about the child tax credit?

AMNA NAWAZ: A Louisiana nonprofit that helps low-income residents.

The organization traveled the state educating families about the CTC.

JOYCE JAMES: Unlike what was said, that people would not know how to manage the money, they would not spend it on the children, we talked to parents, who were able to buy school supplies.

They were able to feed them healthy meals, vegetables, fruits.

AMNA NAWAZ: But just as families were getting their last monthly CTC checks in 2021, a fight was brewing in Congress.

Legislation to extend the payments died in the Senate.

West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, concerned about the cost and how parents spent the funds, dealt the final blow.

By tax time in 2022, as the second half of the CTC hit bank accounts, the expansion was over.

DAFNEE CHATMAN: I remember my response was, oh, wow, what am I going to do now?

AMNA NAWAZ: Chatman had already been working any odd job she could, food delivery for DoorDash, writing resumes for $35 apiece, as she looked for steady work.

DAFNEE CHATMAN: I counted it somewhere about 1,100 job applications.

AMNA NAWAZ: Eleven hundred job applications?

DAFNEE CHATMAN: Eleven hundred job applications.

AMNA NAWAZ: In 2022?

DAFNEE CHATMAN: In 2022.

AMNA NAWAZ: What is that like for you in that moment, not knowing when you will have a steady job again, knowing the benefits have just gone away?

DAFNEE CHATMAN: It's indescribable.

It makes you feel undervalued.

AMNA NAWAZ: In 2022, the child poverty rate more than doubled to 12.4 percent, the largest year-to-year increase on record.

MATT WEIDINGER, American Enterprise Institute: The 2021 changes, I think, were somewhat of a mistake.

AMNA NAWAZ: Matt Weidinger is a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

He says even, when child poverty rebounded in 2022, it was still below pre-pandemic levels.

MATT WEIDINGER: We have continued to make strides.

We obviously didn't make as many strides as when the government was literally forcing cash into families' pockets in the name of pandemic relief, But the progress against poverty has continued over time.

AMNA NAWAZ: Weidinger argues the key problem was making the CTC available to those with no taxable income.

MATT WEIDINGER: Democrats in 2021 said, let's just eliminate any connection of this benefit with work and say everybody gets the same benefit no matter what.

That eliminates a work requirement.

And, in effect, it revives a welfare system that was eliminated a generation ago.

I think it's appropriate that benefits like the CTC that have always been connected to work remain connected to work.

AMNA NAWAZ: But some experts and advocates say the 2021 CTC didn't discourage work at all.

JOYCE JAMES: Some of the families actually were working two or three jobs when getting the child tax credit and still did not make enough money to take care of the children.

AMNA NAWAZ: The CTC expansion was also problematic, Matt Weidinger says, because of its cost.

MATT WEIDINGER: During the pandemic, government policy was designed to spend money, which, by the way, was all added to the deficit, all borrowed from the future, and families will have to repay with higher taxes, interest and inflation in the future.

BRADLEY HARDY: I think we have to think about the cost of doing nothing.

We have this long body of social science evidence that these investments in children lead to improved educational outcomes, health outcomes, higher incomes in adulthood.

AMNA NAWAZ: That idea has since led 15 states to implement their own CTC.

The largest passed last year is in Minnesota.

Families can receive up to $1,750 per child.

There's no minimum income, but it starts phasing out when families make more than about $30,000 a year.

Laura Douglas sees her state's new CTC the same way she saw the 2021 federal payments.

LAURA DOUGLAS: Not really life-changing, but it was definitely helpful.

It wouldn't be able to, like, replace my income or my husband's income.

We still need that.

MAN: The House will be in order.

AMNA NAWAZ: In January, the U.S. House passed a bill that would again expand the federal CTC,not as large as the 2021 expansion and it would still have some income requirements.

But estimates say it could lift about 500,000 kids out of poverty.

The legislation has yet to pass the Senate.

Meanwhile, Dafnee Chatman is keeping her faith that she can keep providing for her family.

In January, she found a steady job with the state's Department of Children and Family Services, but says she's always uneasy.

What if her car breaks down?

What if Rowen needs new shoes?

She says lawmakers in Washington don't seem to understand that stress.

DAFNEE CHATMAN: But, in 2021, I felt like somebody started to feel our pain or started to feel like those -- they matter, you know?

AMNA NAWAZ: It doesn't feel that way anymore?

DAFNEE CHATMAN: Not really, not to me.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Former President Trump gets a reprieve and a trial date.

Congress steps back from the brink, but might have triggered another speaker fight.

And the Supreme Court takes up abortion again.

It is a perfect time for our Politics Monday team.

That is Tamara Keith of NPR and Susan Page of USA Today.

Amy Walter is away.

Welcome to you both.

Thank you so much for being here.

Good to see you, Susan.

SUSAN PAGE, Washington Bureau Chief, USA Today: Great to be here.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tam, cannot overlook the fact that this was a big legal day for Donald Trump.

He gets a reprieve on the bond that he has to pay for the civil fraud ruling.

But there is going to now be a trial in the middle of next month.

Donald Trump will have to be in that courtroom every single day.

We are in the middle of a presidential campaign.

I feel like I have asked you this before, and our -- and Amna and Geoff have asked the same.

We don't know how this is going to play out, but does this matter to voters or is this a baked cake?

TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: We also don't know how that's going to play out.

First off, his team will inevitably try to delay this.

Maybe they will succeed a little.

Maybe they won't.

We will find out.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This judge seemed very skeptical of delays.

TAMARA KEITH: Yes.

Yes, that is true.

But in terms of whether this hurts him, with hardcore Republican based voters, the kind of people who are voting in primaries, none of this baggage hurt him in the primary.

We are headed into a general election, where there are voters who say, if he is convicted of a crime, Republican voters who say, if he is convicted of crime, they would have a very hard time voting for him.

But it's also possible that he's not convicted of a crime.

This is a trial.

And this -- in terms of like what the experts think, this is the thinnest reed.

This is one of the more flimsy legal theory and legal challenge that he faces.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

Susan, the other big development was this reprieve that he got on this, the amount he has to pay and the timing he has to pay on this bond.

Trump today afterwards said, I will pay this out of my own cash, although that is cash I would have liked to have used to fund my campaign.

We know that there are some fund-raising totals that have been coming out there.

When you look at those numbers between Biden and Trump, what do they tell you?

SUSAN PAGE: Just let's note that Trump has not donated any of his own money to his campaign since 2016.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

SUSAN PAGE: But, putting that aside, President Biden has several big problems, including trailing narrowly in battleground states and in most national polls.

But he has a big advantage when it comes to campaign cash.

He has about twice as much campaign cash on hand as Donald Trump does.

And you talk about the repercussions of Trump's legal troubles.

Maybe they're not political, but they're financial.

We know now from numbers that we just released that the Trump people spent $10 million legal fees just this year so far.

So that is a big drain for his campaign.

Campaign money isn't everything, especially in a campaign where the two candidates are so well-known, but it is something.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

What do you make of that?

Is it an insurmountable gap?

TAMARA KEITH: Well, what I would say is that his fund-raising appeal that I looked at the other day had 90 percent of it going to his campaign and 10 percent of it going to a political action committee that's been funding the legal challenges.

So they are definitely still pulling money into this political action committee that is just basically spending money on lawyers.

It is a big deficit that he faces now in terms of money.

The question, though, is, up until this point, President Biden has been able to combine with the DNC and campaign -- and state parties all over the country and raise huge sums of money from wealthy people.

Donald Trump was not the presumptive nominee, didn't have control of the RNC and couldn't do that for the last many months.

And now that he has control of the RNC, that spigot could open, but it depends on whether wealthy people want to give all that money.

And also the small-dollar donations do matter too.

And there's an element of fatigue there among his small-dollar donors.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

Susan, tomorrow, the Supreme Court is going to take up its first abortion case since Dobbs.

This is the mifepristone case.

This case has enormous implications legally for women's health, for whether the FDA scientists can continue to approve drugs for all Americans.

Separate from that, and regardless of how this comes down, this could also have enormous political implications.

SUSAN PAGE: Yes, just look at the repercussions since Dobbs two years ago.

It is what some Democrats -- it really helped Democrats in the elections we have had since then.

Some Democrats think it will have an enormous influence in this one.

And this case goes right to the heart of the concerns many voters have about access to abortion services.

Most abortions in this country are now performed with drugs, medical abortions... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Yes, I think it's six in 10.

SUSAN PAGE: ... more than 60 percent.

That's right.

And you look at where Americans stand on this issue, there was a Gallup poll that showed 63 percent of Americans thought there should be distribution of abortion drugs, including 41 percent of Republicans.

But if these conservative anti-abortion groups succeed in this legal case, that puts at risk not just the abortion drugs.

It puts at risk IVF drugs.

It puts at risk some forms of contraception.

I cannot imagine that is a winning political issue.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

No, it's incredible to watch how that's going to unfold.

Tam, on Congress, it seemed like last week they stepped back from the brink, avoided a shutdown.

Speaker Johnson did cobble this deal together, but Marjorie Taylor Greene holding this sword of Damocles over his head.

What is your sense of how this is going to play out?

TAMARA KEITH: Right.

So, she introduced this motion to vacate, but she did not force a rapid vote on it.

And so we don't really know how it will play out.

What I do know is that members of Congress are tired.

Certainly, there are Marjorie Taylor Greenes, there are other allies of hers, and other people who are similarly very upset and have sort of an absolutist view, very upset that Johnson would put something on the floor that did not have support of all the Republicans.

But everyone's tired.

And even Democrats are tired after the very long process to get Kevin McCarthy into the speaker's seat and then the very long process once he was booted.

It is certainly possible that, if it were to come up for a vote, that Democrats would not be all united against Speaker Johnson in the way they were against Speaker McCarthy.

That said, if you're Speaker Johnson, do you really want Democrats bailing you out?

Probably not.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tamara Keith and Susan Page, thank you both so much for being here.

Great to see you.

SUSAN PAGE: Nice to see you.

TAMARA KEITH: You're welcome.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For as long as America has had a Constitution, there's been heated debate over how to interpret it.

The U.S. Supreme Court is often where those debates are most intense and their judgments the most far-reaching.

For nearly 30 years, Stephen Breyer served on the nation's highest court, deciding cases that still resonate today.

Breyer recently spoke with Amna Nawaz about how he interprets the nation's foundational document.

That's the subject of his new book, "Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism."

AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome back to the "NewsHour."

Thank you so much for joining us.

STEPHEN BREYER, Former U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice: Well, thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So there is, I think it's fair to say, a sort of sense of mission in this book.

You outline your concerns about textualism and originalism, interpreting the Constitution based solely on its text and the intent at the time it was written.

And you write that you hope that the next generation of law students or two will read this book and that you can slow what you call a tidal wave of sorts.

Tell us what you meant by that.

STEPHEN BREYER: Well, I think there is a traditional way of interpreting statutes and interpreting the Constitution.

And that traditional way starts, just like textualism starts, with the language.

I mean, if you have a statute and the statute has the word fish, fish doesn't mean carrot.

You know, a carrot is not a fish.

OK?

(LAUGHTER) STEPHEN BREYER: Now, some, at the moment, textualists think what you should do is stop right there.

Stop right there.

Just read the words, or read the words and see what they meant in the Constitution to those who were alive in 1788, or 1789, or maybe 1869 or something like that.

And I think that's not traditional, and I think it could be harmful.

And so I have, in the 40 years I have been a judge and 28 on the Supreme Court, I have taken a different approach.

You start with the language, but then that might not tell you the answer.

Well, look to other things.

What did John Marshall say?

He said, look to everything that will help.

And what did Holmes and Brandeis and the others say?

Look to the purposes.

Why did Congress put those words in there?

Why did Congress write this statute?

And when you work that out -- and it isn't always easy to do, but it helps very often to figure out, why?

What was the purpose?

You see, you have to know the purpose, and you have to look at the consequences quite often.

I mean, look at the values.

Is this consistent with those basic values in this book, right here in this document right here?

AMNA NAWAZ: As you know, many of the justices on the court identify as originalists.

That includes Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, even Justice Jackson.

What do you think those justices are missing in that approach?

STEPHEN BREYER: I think that, look, they're friends of mine.

We get on well personally.

I have never heard a word in anger, really, or insult to any other judge made by one of the judges in the conference, but we don't agree there about the usefulness of that textualism.

What they're thinking is, it's so simple.

It's clear.

Well get a clear answer.

Well, good luck, and I have a few hundred pages here to explain why that doesn't work.

Or we will stop the judges from substituting what they think is good for society, substituting that for the law.

And what I try to explain here is, no, that doesn't work either.

AMNA NAWAZ: You devote significant time in the book to the 2022 Dobbs decision, which did eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion.

And on that, you write this: "If the only basis for overruling an earlier case is that an originalist judge applying originalism to the earlier case concludes that it was wrongly decided, then many, many earlier cases will be candidates for overruling."

Do you believe that earlier rulings on same-sex marriage or interracial marriage or contraception, other protections based on that same right to privacy that undergirded Roe, those could also be overruled by this court?

STEPHEN BREYER: The answer to that is no, but leave out the specifics of the cases, because I don't want to comment on cases that might come or might not come, or might be decided this way or that way.

But I don't... AMNA NAWAZ: But why is the answer no?

STEPHEN BREYER: Why is the answer no?

Because if you started overruling every case that wasn't decided in a textualist way, you would overrule half the law, or maybe three-quarters, and there would be chaos.

There wouldn't be law.

So, I don't think anybody is going to do that.

AMNA NAWAZ: As you know, the majority in Dobbs did say that they believe that Roe had been wrongly decided.

STEPHEN BREYER: Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: But earlier, in each of their cases, with Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, in each of their confirmation hearings, this is actually what they said when they were asked about Roe.

NEIL GORSUCH, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice: A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice: It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court.

AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice: Richard Fallon from Harvard said, Roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled.

AMNA NAWAZ: Justice Breyer, how do you square what they said then with how they eventually ruled on Roe?

STEPHEN BREYER: First, I would say keep the confirmation process out of it.

I'm not an expert on confirmation.

Remember, I was not a confirming person.

I was a person who was confirmed.

So to ask me about that process is sort of like asking for the recipe for chicken a la king from the point of view of the chicken.

So I'm not talking about that.

I am talking about how do you decide whether to overrule.

Now, three of us, Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor, and I, wrote a joint dissent.

We thought it was totally -- it was wrong to overrule Roe.

It was wrong to overrule Casey.

Those were cases that were working pretty well.

And you start overruling too many cases, you won't have a law left.

You will have a shambles.

And so be careful.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's a note of caution in this book as well that you seem to be issuing for your fellow justices.

You write -- quote -- "They may be well concerned about the decline in trust in the court, as shown by public opinion polls.

One such poll late last year found only about 28 percent of U.S. adults said they had a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court; 36 percent had some.

Another 36 percent had little or none."

How do you look at that?

I mean, is that within the court's power to turn around?

And, if so, how should they do that?

STEPHEN BREYER: Well, that is a very good question.

And it's a difficult question to answer.

And I think the best answer was given by Professor Freund, who is a professor here at Harvard.

He said, no judge, no decent judge will take into account the political temperature of the day.

But all judges do and probably should take into account the climate of the era.

So if you tell me in an opinion poll that judges are not looked at well or they don't like them or people don't like them, have those people read the many cases that probably the bottom line they do agree with?

Are they deciding on the basis of bottom line or the reasons?

And the judges on this court, like judges on prior courts, probably are unanimous about 40 percent of the time.

And so you don't just look to opinion polls.

On the other hand, sometimes, you see -- and why this difficult and a good question -- sometimes, it does matter.

AMNA NAWAZ: On this trust issue, do appearances matter?

I mean, you have seen all the reporting about ethics concerns among some of the justices.

There's questions about appropriate recusals.

Would it, for example, help to build back trust in the court if Justice Thomas were to recuse himself from cases related to January 6, given the role that we know his wife played in those events?

Would that kind of thing help build trust back in the court?

STEPHEN BREYER: Justice Thomas or any other justice on any court, whether it's the Supreme Court or some other court, must do what the law says they must do.

I mean, they interpret the statutes according to law, and they all think that's the job.

You're talking about ethics.

Of course, ethics in general and in particular is relevant to Supreme Court justices.

I had a readily accessible seven volumes written by the Judicial Conference, I think, explaining all the different ethical rules for all the judges.

And in my experience there, the judges, when they had difficult questions, would consult those volumes, and they'd ask other colleagues what they thought, and they would try to do the right thing.

And you want to ask specifically about... AMNA NAWAZ: Specific to January 6 cases, do you think it would help, in terms of trust in the court?

STEPHEN BREYER: No, I would not take myself out of a case unless I thought that's what the ethics required.

And that's just as important as taking yourself out of the case when the ethics requires that.

The main point for the public is, of course, you follow ethical rules if you're a judge, and you do your best to do it, and it isn't always easy, but you're not pushed one way or the other by the public opinion.

You are pushed by what is right, and that is a fundamental rule.

The job of the judge is to do what you think is right.

And that has been my experience.

That has been my experience over 40 years.

And I try to write enough here not just to give you that conclusion.

I mean, you can't just accept that conclusion from the fact that I say it, but you can, perhaps, be moved if I show you not the theory of the thing, but rather how these approaches, different approaches, how they work out in practice through cases, through examples, written in a way I hope that people who are not judges, who are not lawyers can understand what I'm talking about.

AMNA NAWAZ: There is so much more we could talk about.

It's a fascinating book.

Justice Stephen Breyer, author of "Reading the Constitution," thank you so much for joining us.

I really enjoyed our discussion.

STEPHEN BREYER: Well, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm William Brangham.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Good night.