GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "News Hour" tonight: U.S. automakers get a break on tariffs.

The latest change to the Trump administration's policy that's made Americans anxious about their finances.

GEOFF BENNETT: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and his Liberal Party win that nation's election in a stunning change of fortune spurred by worsening relations with the U.S. AMNA NAWAZ: And the CEO of PBS weighs in on the president's efforts to cut funding for public media.

PAULA KERGER, CEO, Public Broadcasting Service: This is really a resource that the communities treasure and would not exist were there were not federal dollars to help.

(BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "News Hour."

President Trump signed an executive order today aimed at softening the blow his tariffs have imposed on the automotive industry and U.S. manufacturers.

A tariff of 25 percent on imported cars and auto parts will remain in place, but the administration will make some changes so differing tariffs can't be stacked on top of other tariffs for automakers.

GEOFF BENNETT: Beyond that, automakers will be reimbursed for some of the costs of imported parts.

That news came as President Trump marked his first 100 days in office.

Just before he left for a trip to Michigan today, he explained why he adjusted the levies for carmakers.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: We just wanted to help them endure this little transition short term.

And during this little -- if they can't get parts, it has to do with a very small percentage.

If they can't get parts, we didn't want to penalize them.

GEOFF BENNETT: But tensions with China and a number of countries remain high and companies are concerned.

For its part, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a video today saying it would not back down from the trade war with the U.S. NARRATOR: History has proven compromise won't earn you mercy.

Kneeling only invites more bullying.

China won't kneel down, because we know standing up for ourselves keeps the possibility of cooperation alive.

GEOFF BENNETT: For more on all this, we're joined now by Gavin Bade, trade and economic policy reporter for The Wall Street Journal, who first reported on the story.

It's great to have you here.

Thanks for coming in.

GAVIN BADE, Trade and Economic Policy Reporter, The Wall Street Journal: Thanks for having me back.

Glad to be here.

GEOFF BENNETT: So help us understand more about the exemptions the president announced today.

How big of a break is this for automakers, especially when the broader 25 percent tariffs on imported parts and cars remains in effect?

GAVIN BADE: Yes, I think the impact is still a little bit uncertain.

The automakers I talked to are still digesting it, but it's significant that we're not going to see, for instance, the 25 percent steel and aluminum tariffs, that they were going to be stacked on top of these 25 percent auto tariffs before this action today.

That was going to be really painful for a lot of automakers, not just for finished cars, but for the parts they're bringing in from other countries.

Then we will also see a small rebate for these automakers on the tariffs they will pay on a these parts coming in, so giving them a little bit of the breathing room to hopefully reconfigure their supply chains to have more U.S. supply in their cars.

GEOFF BENNETT: People can be forgiven if they're confused by all of this.

It's a lot to track.

What does this mean for people who are in the market to buy a car?

GAVIN BADE: I think it means that, while we will still see some significant price increases this year in automobiles, it will not be quite as steep as it might have been.

I think this means that automakers will be able to continue constructing cars in the United States using some of their foreign suppliers while they try to find new ones here in the United States.

GEOFF BENNETT: There was also this interesting wrinkle today, this dust-up between Amazon and the White House.

There was reporting that Amazon considered letting its discount platform display the cost of tariffs next to the total cost of a product.

The White House called that a hostile and political act.

President Trump called Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to personally complain about it.

Amazon backed away from it, withdrew this idea.

Tell us more about this.

GAVIN BADE: Yes, I think this just really demonstrates the swirling political controversy around these tariffs and how sensitive the White House is.

They really took this as a poke in the eye this morning.

You could hear the emotion in Karoline Leavitt's voice at the briefing when I was there this morning, calling this a hostile political act.

And they are really on the lookout for anyone who's trying to critique their trade policy from the corporate world.

I think that's why you see very few companies such as these automakers come out and directly criticize these tariffs.

I mean, these were a very big crisis for the automakers.

You didn't see them do something like this, I think, because they were looking to not get a reaction like Amazon got this morning.

GEOFF BENNETT: And still they're concerned about their bottom line.

We saw GM say today it needs to reassess what tariffs mean for their earnings.

Other companies have made similar statements in recent weeks too.

GAVIN BADE: Yes, I think over 40 companies at our last count have either revised or pulled back on their earnings statements just because of the economic uncertainty.

And in the auto sector, what I'm really interested to look at is how this is going to affect the auto parts suppliers not just in other countries, but in the U.S.

They were hoping for a break from these tariffs as well, but it's only the auto manufacturers who got it.

So I think there's still going to be some pressure on them and we might see some closures if they can't find out another way around these tariffs.

GEOFF BENNETT: So President Trump is trying to recalibrate as it's clear his tariff plan is a drag on the markets, on consumer confidence and beyond.

China, though, as we saw in that clip we played, they're not backing away.

They're not easing up.

GAVIN BADE: They're certainly driving a very hard bargain.

And they -- the Chinese have been steadfast in saying there are no significant trade conversations going on right now with the Trump administration.

Every time they do that, the Trump administration comes back and says, no, no, no, we're talking, we're talking at multiple levels.

So it's kind of like, who do you trust or distrust more at this point?

What I think is clear is that, if there is going to be a trade deal with China, it's not going to be tomorrow, it's probably not going to be next week.

There's going to have to be a lot of hashing out to do.

The question is that can we get to a deal with them before the supply chain convolution starts to hit this summer?

GEOFF BENNETT: Based on your reporting, how closely is the White House reading the public mood and trying to respond to it?

GAVIN BADE: They put on a strong face and say that we are very -- we're steadfast in our tariff approach here, but I think you see them being sensitive not only to the public, but also to the stock and bond markets with all of these walk-backs that they have done in the past few weeks.

GEOFF BENNETT: Gavin Bade covers trade and economic policy for The Wall Street Journal.

Always a pleasure, my friend.

Good to see you.

GAVIN BADE: Thank you, sir.

AMNA NAWAZ: It has been 100 days since President Trump was inaugurated for his second term in office.

The 100-day mark is a modern measuring point for presidential administrations, and few have seen more action in the first three months than in this White House.

But how are the American people taking it in?

Our latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll gives us some insight.

And Lisa Desjardins is at the super screen to walk us through the numbers.

So, Lisa, where does the president stand at his 100-day mark?

LISA DESJARDINS: First, I know a lot of people don't like polling, but I have to stress this is scientific.

It's not perfect, though.

It's not a pinpoint.

It's a compass, and it tells us a lot.

So let's start with the big number, first of all, President Trump's approval rating his first 100 days in his second term, 42 percent.

Now, that compares with disapproval rating 53 percent.

So a majority of Americans in our poll disapprove of the job he's doing.

That's just a pinpoint.

Let's look at what that means as a trend.

If you go back two months ago, February, here's what was going on.

Trump was relatively 50/50.

Americans were not sure, approve or disapprove.

But now look at this.

Now there is by 11 points people disapprove of the job that he is doing.

Now, let's put this more in a historical context.

Where is he in terms of most presidents at this time in office?

Here we go.

Here's President Trump right now, second term, 42 percent.

If you compare that to Joe Biden, 54 percent first 10 days of his first term, his only term, and then 39 percent for Trump in his first term.

So you see Trump is below Biden.

Clearly, what about other presidents?

That holds up.

President Trump in general, his approval rating for his first 100 days this term and his first term are lower than the historical averages and certainly for any recent president.

AMNA NAWAZ: So Lisa, that trend line in disapproval, what was fascinating to me, where exactly is the president losing support and why?

LISA DESJARDINS: This is the fun part.

This is where you really learn about what's happening.

And I want to talk about who some of Trump's voters are that he should be watching.

Rural voters.

Look at this number, only 46 percent right now approving of the job Trump is doing.

How many voted for him?

Sixty-six percent told us they were voting for him back in November.

How about this?

working-class Americans under $50,000 of income, just 41 percent of them approving of the job that Trump is doing.

Why?

How about it's the economy stupid?

Right now, every adult, you ask them, 55 percent disapprove of the job Trump is doing on the economy.

That used to be his number one issue.

But look what it's doing with these groups, 48 percent of rural Americans unhappy with Trump on the economy, 57 percent of working-class Americans unhappy with him on the economy.

If you dig down a little deeper, you can see one of the reasons, grocery prices.

This poll was now.

This is still -- this is where Americans are at this moment.

Rural Americans, 57 percent think grocery prices are going to go up in the next six months.

Look at this.

Almost two-thirds of working-class Americans are nervous about grocery prices.

Both of these numbers, Amna, are 10 points higher than they were just two months ago.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's fascinating on this single most important issue to most people as well.

But, Lisa, what about immigration?

That's another big issue for the president.

How's he doing on that?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

On immigration, the president, this is his best issue currently.

Now, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a total positive, because if you look at how he's handling the economy -- right now, 44 percent of Americans approve of the immigration handling for the president; 52 percent disapprove.

Now, something about this issue, it has become his number one issue, but it also shows where his strength is.

When I looked at the data here, I saw one group popping out, white evangelical voters.

While most Americans disapprove of President Trump on immigration, look at this, 70 percent of white evangelical voters approve of how he's handling immigration.

Now, one issue for President Trump is due process.

At least that's what our data seems to be showing us.

We asked about the case of Abrego Garcia.

He's the Maryland man who was protected from deportation, but nonetheless was deported to El Salvador, where he still is.

His case is a due process case right now, the Trump administration keeping him in El Salvador.

Do Americans approve of the handling of this case?

No, they do not; 49 percent say we disapprove.

Just 35 percent approve.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Lisa, when you look ahead, what are the potential flash point or other issues where things could shift in the days and weeks and months ahead?

LISA DESJARDINS: Well it does come down to the economy.

We saw overwhelmingly that people are concerned about, for example, grocery prices coming up.

And that's not the only one.

When you talk about Trump's impact, his policies they have on people, only 32 percent of Americans think that they have had a positive impact on him; 49 percent of Americans say the impact on them of Trump's policies has been negative.

What does that mean exactly?

Well, we asked about tariffs.

Do you approve Trump's handling of tariffs?

Most Americans don't; 58 percent - - 58 percent disapprove of Trump's handling.

And here's what really fascinated me.

Talk about key voter groups.

Let's look at this.

We asked, have you sped up or delayed any purchases because of your expectations on tariffs?

White voters, 40 percent said, yes, we have changed our habits.

But look at this.

Black voters, Latino voters, 71 percent, 70 percent are changing what they're doing because of tariffs.

These were voter groups that Trump did not win, but he made big gains in.

That's how he was able to win the election one way.

And these groups have major problems with the economy.

They're not the only ones.

And this is why Trump's numbers are going down.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, Lisa Desjardins back at the super screen for us.

Lisa, thank you.

LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.

AMNA NAWAZ: The day's other headlines start at Harvard University.

The school announced this afternoon that it will review academic offerings and admissions policies in response to a pair of internal reports about antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus.

Harvard's president, Alan Garber, commissioned the reports following last spring's pro-Palestinian protests.

Garber wrote today that he wants to -- quote - - "ensure that Harvard University is a place where ideas are welcomed, entertained, and contested in the spirit of seeking truth."

It comes as the university fights a legal battle with the Trump administration, which froze billions of dollars of federal funding amid accusations of antisemitism at campus protests.

Well, the lights are almost fully back on in Spain and Portugal after yesterday's massive blackout, but it's still not clear what caused the outage.

The Portuguese grid operator said earlier today that all 6.4 million of its customers had power back.

In Spain, more than 99 percent of energy demand has been restored.

Today, train stations in Madrid were packed as stranded passengers tried to get home.

Emergency workers in Spain say nearly 35,000 people had to be rescued along railways and underground.

Speaking today, Spain's prime minister dismissed claims that the blackout was caused by a cyberattack and said officials are investigating the cause.

PEDRO SANCHEZ, Spanish Prime Minister (through translator): The government of Spain is going to get to the bottom of this matter.

Reforms will be made and necessary measures will be taken to ensure this does not happen again.

And, obviously, we will demand the relevant responsibilities from all private operators.

AMNA NAWAZ: The blackout was one of Europe's most severe outages in recent memory.

Spain lost the equivalent of 60 percent of its national energy demand in just five seconds, knocking out transit, banking, and phone services, among others.

Here at home, the Senate today confirmed David Perdue as President Trump's U.S. ambassador to China.

Perdue is a former business executive who served a single term as a Republican senator from Georgia.

He steps into the job in the middle of a tense tariff war between the two largest economies in the world.

China's military actions in the Indo-Pacific have also deepened its strategic rivalry with the U.S. At his confirmation hearing earlier this month, Perdue described the U.S. relationship with China as the -- quote -- "most consequential diplomatic challenge of the 21st century."

The Trump administration has dismissed many of former President Joe Biden's nominees to the board that oversees the U.S.

Holocaust Memorial Museum here in Washington, D.C. That includes Doug Emhoff, the husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris.

In a statement, Emhoff, who is Jewish, wrote -- quote -- "Let me be clear.

Holocaust remembrance and education should never be politicized."

Former Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain and former domestic policy adviser Susan Rice were also let go.

In Illinois, families and loved ones grieved today after a vehicle plowed through a building on Monday, killing three children and a teenager at an after-school program.

MAN: It killed some kids.

Those are kids.

WOMAN: Oh, no.

AMNA NAWAZ: The victims ranged in age from 18 to as young as 7.

Six other children were hurt.

Officials say the driver was a 44-year-old woman who was not injured in the crash.

Toxicology reports are pending to see if she was impaired.

Authorities say the crash is under investigation, but they do not believe it was a targeted attack.

On the West Coast, Los Angeles County workers walked the picket line today to demand higher wages.

The workers showed up by the tens of thousands, the first time ever that all of L.A. County's union members went on strike.

The two-day stoppage could mean closures or disruptions to many critical government services in a county that's home to some 10 million people.

The government there says it's facing unprecedented stresses and has little room in its budget for increased pay.

The union's last contract expired in March.

A prosecutor told a court in England today that the famous Sycamore Gap tree was cut down in a deliberate and mindless act.

The majestic landmark once sat between two hills along the ancient Hadrian's Wall in Northern England.

It was a popular tourist site that was even featured in the Kevin Costner film "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves."

Authorities say they have evidence that a man cut it down at night with a chain saw in 2023 while another filmed the act.

Two men in their 30s have pleaded not guilty to two counts each of criminal damage.

On Wall Street today, stocks ended higher as investors weigh the latest developments on tariffs and potential trade deals.

The Dow Jones industrial average added 300 points on the day.

The Nasdaq gained nearly 100 points, or about half-a-percent.

The S&P 500 also closed in positive territory.

And Congress today bestowed its highest civilian honor, the Congressional Gold Medal, to the only Black all-female unit that served in Europe during World War II.

The Six Triple Eight, as it was commonly known, played an invaluable role by processing a backlog of about 17 million pieces of mail in just three months.

That was twice as fast as expected, and it delivered a much-needed morale boost to American forces.

In a ceremony this afternoon at the Capitol, House Speaker Mike Johnson said the honor was long overdue.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): They got the job done, even in the face of inadequate supplies and even in the face of discrimination, both within the Army and back home.

These women were valiant members of our Greatest Generation.

AMNA NAWAZ: The Six Triple Eight inspired generations of Black women to join the military and were the subject of a documentary and also a feature film starring actress Kerry Washington.

Still to come on the "News Hour": Republican Congresswoman Maria Salazar discusses the first 100 days of the Trump administration; we examine the widespread impact of the president's aggressive immigration policies; and the CEO of PBS on the potential impact of cutting government funding for public media.

GEOFF BENNETT: Canada's Liberal Party secured a fourth consecutive term after a narrow win in an election that was seen as one of the most consequential in its recent history.

AMNA NAWAZ: Liberal Party candidate and interim Prime Minister Mark Carney flipped his party's fortunes with a campaign focused on combating President Trump's tariffs and threats of annexation.

Nick Schifrin has the story.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In Ottawa today, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney returned to his office victorious after celebrating a victory that he scripted with an unlikely co-writer.

MARK CARNEY, Canadian Prime Minister: President Trump is trying to break us so that America can own us.

That will never -- that will never, ever happen.

We will fight Trump's countertariffs.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Carney's combative tone throughout the campaign against President Trump's taunts... DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: So I think Canada is going to be a very serious contender to be our 51st day.

NICK SCHIFRIN: ... led Carney and the Liberal Party to a remarkable reversal of fortune.

In January, when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stepped down... JUSTIN TRUDEAU, Former Canadian Prime Minister: I intend to resign as party leader, as prime minister.

NICK SCHIFRIN: ... Trudeau and the Liberal Party appeared set to lose by double digits.

But Trump maintained his pressure, disparaging Trudeau, vowing imperial expansion and portraying Canada not as a neighbor, but an economic drag.

DONALD TRUMP: They should be a state.

I mean that.

I really mean that, because we can't be expected to carry a country.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Anti-Trump sentiment in Canada surged and became a newfound nationalism.

That helped Carney, who's led both the Canadian and the British central banks, portray himself as the best candidate to take on Trump.

HEATHER MCALLISTER, Ottawa Resident: It is a scary time with what's happening across the border in the United States, and I feel that Mark Carney is the serious choice for a leader who will address that really with the right level of gravitas.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In contrast, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre's policies and rhetoric were characterized as Trump-like.

He lost even his own election.

SYLVIE BOUDREAU, Haskell Free Library: When the people are coming here, they are putting one foot in Canada and one foot in the United States.

NICK SCHIFRIN: These Trump-propelled politics perhaps personified in the Haskell Free Library, where for 120 years Americans and Canadians have been able to read across a border marked only by a line of tape.

SYLVIE BOUDREAU: The library always been a symbol of unity, a symbol of unification, a symbol of friendship, a symbol of our two countries, our two communities.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Sylvie Boudreau is the president of the library's board of trustees.

The Trump administration will soon block Canadians from entering the U.S. side without going through border control.

And in this election, Boudreau says Canadians rallied against U.S. pressure.

SYLVIE BOUDREAU: The election was about who's going to be the best person to deal with Donald Trump.

It should not have been that.

It should have been just about our -- us Canadians.

This is what it is.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The Liberals failed to secure a majority and will likely have to form a coalition government.

So, Carney faces a challenging road ahead, one that he says will be paved without American partnership.

MARK CARNEY: Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over.

The system of open global trade anchored by the United States is over.

These are tragedies, but it's also our new reality.

We are over -- we are over the shock of the American betrayal, but we should never forget the lessons.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Tonight, President Trump and Prime Minister Carney spoke on the phone, and Carney's office said the leaders agreed on Canada and the U.S. working together -- quote -- "as independent sovereign nations."

To decode what all this means for Canada and U.S.-Canada relations, we turned to Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute, an independent research not-for-profit.

She joins me from Vancouver.

Shachi Kurl, thanks very much.

Welcome to the "News Hour."

As we noted, Mark Carney took over as prime minister just two months ago at a moment when the Liberal Party was way down in the polls.

How do you think he turned -- he was able to execute this reversal of fortune?

SHACHI KURL, President, Angus Reid Institute: Well, thanks very much for having me this evening.

There were really three factors.

Some of them, you have already covered in the report that you put together.

One of those things was, of course, the Trump factor.

Trump was in many ways the main character in the narrative of the Canadian election, overshadowing both Carney and his main conservative opponent, Pierre Poilievre.

So if Canadians were planning to look at their ballot question and really what was driving their vote through the lens of do the governing Liberals deserve a rare fourth term after almost 10 years in power, that was pushed entirely to the side by questions of sovereignty.

And it's important to remember, I think, for a U.S. audience that, unlike many countries around the world, since Canada was granted its Dominion in 1867, no one has ever threatened Canada's borders or sovereignty, either rhetorically or otherwise.

So this was something that really rattled Canadians.

It rattled their psyche and it had a profound effect.

Of course, the departure of Justin Trudeau, deeply unpopular, also released a massive pressure valve for disaffected Liberals.

It enabled them to come back to the party.

And then, of course, Carney ran a good rhetorical campaign that was not matched by Mr. Poilievre.

He, in the initial weeks of all of the Trump tariff annexation drama, continued to try to run a campaign that was based on cost of living, consumer carbon pricing, lots of other domestic issues at a time when Canadians were emotionally not there.

And he's paid the price for it.

I should point out, however, he managed to grow the size of his caucus in last night's vote and grow his share of percentage of popular vote.

I think he will probably hang on to his job.

But, of course, it's Carney who just eludes getting a parliamentary majority by a handful of seats.

NICK SCHIFRIN: We played some of the sound from Carney's speech last night in which he talked about how the system of open global trade anchored by the U.S. is -- quote -- "over."

He seems to be trying to position himself as a kind of ideological leader of the free world.

He's talked about building a coalition of like-minded countries who share our values.

Can he, can Canada really do that?

SHACHI KURL: It's a very tall order, but it is something that has been on the minds of Canadians, again, going back to the renegotiation of NAFTA back in 2018, again under a Trump administration.

So NAFTA had been going merrily along since basically 1993, and it created a situation wherein Canada needed to start thinking about its economic situation in the world, its security situation in the world.

And so there is an expectation and a desire on part of Canadians to see their government be able to build bridges and build coalitions, economic or security or otherwise, with other countries.

But it's going to be tough to do at a time where Canada is struggling to forge really, really deep relationships, for example, with countries such as India, where it's a very frosty Canada-India relationship, or with China, where that relationship is almost nonexistent.

Definitely, it's part of why you have seen Mark Carney make overtures to France, to Europe, to the United Kingdom to try and not only reestablish that relationship, but shore it up and strengthen it.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And those -- some of those challenges that Carney faces internationally are not only, of course, China and India and those frosty relationships, but also the relationship with Donald Trump.

The two did have a phone call just a few minutes ago, so we will see where that goes.

But Carney still faces Trump himself, the tariffs, criticisms of low defense spending.

And so how short do you believe this honeymoon will be when it comes to Canada and the U.S.?

SHACHI KURL: Well, I mean, I think it's going to be a very short honeymoon for Mr. Carney, simply because of the size and the daunting nature of the task in front of him, insofar as trying to make the case for the removal of these tariffs, or at least not seeing greater tariffs placed on Canada, which is already having an impact on jobs in this country, on the manufacturing sector, and, of course, driving all kinds of economic anxiety and uncertainty among Canadian employers.

And, of course, employers' businesses don't like uncertainty.

So they're already thinking about, well, how do we move our business interests out of Canada?

And none of that is good news for Canada.

However, we have also seen the president say one thing one day, say something very different the next day, lean all in on very punitive tariffs at very high amounts and then take them back.

And so what Carney cannot control for is that.

He can't control for the chaotic nature of decision-making out of the White House.

What he can control is what he tries to do at the state level and with big cities and trying to repair that relationship with the U.S. NICK SCHIFRIN: Shachi Kurl, thank you very much.

SHACHI KURL: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: Within days of taking office, President Trump launched an aggressive crackdown down on illegal and legal immigration.

It has featured high-profile raids, some controversial deportations, and a showdown with the courts.

I spoke earlier with Florida Republican Congresswoman Maria Salazar, who has introduced a bill in the House aimed at addressing immigration reform.

Miami-Dade County, which you represent, has the highest share of immigrants in the country.

President Trump's move to revoke deportation protections from hundreds of thousands of legal migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, how is that affecting your constituents?

REP. MARIA SALAZAR (R-FL): Well, I agree with what you're saying.

We have a lot of people who come from other parts of the world.

And I am very happy that right now the TPS program and the people who came in through the 220-I and different forms of immigration procedures are continuing.

We are giving protection to the Venezuelans through the TPS because their courts came in and they indicated to the Trump administration that they needed to have some due process of law.

So that is the beauty of democracy.

Sometimes, the legislative -- the judicial system talks to the legislative and talks to the executive.

And things -- but in this hour and for what concerns my community, we are happy that the TPS people are protected, basically Venezuelans.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, what do you think the administration misunderstands about immigration patterns in South Florida, especially given the instability in Latin America that continues to drive migration?

REP. MARIA SALAZAR: Look, this is a very big conversation, and I think you're right on point.

The problem here is this.

The last four years, the Biden administration opened the border.

Ten million people came in.

The Trump administration is trying to fill those potholes left by Biden.

I am not saying that we had -- what I am trying to say is that this is a very complicated topic And that's why you're having me here on your news station, because I am the only Republican on the floor that is putting together a bill called the dignity act, which is going to try to fix immigration from legal to illegal once and for all, something that has not been addressed for the last 40 years.

GEOFF BENNETT: You are the only House Republican with a bill on the floor.

Why?

What's stopping Republicans from moving forward on a legislative solution?

President Trump controls Washington.

Republicans control both chambers and immigration is a top priority.

REP. MARIA SALAZAR: I'm going to tell you why, because we had the issue four years ago with the border.

And then now we need to put some order at the border, which he has without passing any laws.

It was just a new sheriff in town.

So the border is sealed.

We don't have any more illegals or any more -- that much fentanyl or arms crossing our border in this disarray that we had four years ago.

So now that the border is sealed, we are going to start that national conversation.

And yours truly is going to welcome that national conversation and saying, OK, the border is sealed.

Now what are we going to do with those people who have been here for more than five years, have American kids, are paying taxes, have been contributing to the economy, people that are not criminals?

It's true that they are illegals.

Of course they are illegals, but someone gave them a job.

It's true that illegals, but we're Christians.

It's true they're illegal, but they have been helping the economy for 20 years.

So let's be realistic, guys.

Let's do something with them.

Let's give them dignity.

And that's all I'm saying.

This is a one-shot deal, because,remember, 40 years ago with Reagan, Reagan was the last guy who gave some type of legality to the group of people who were also illegals.

He gave them legality, and -- but then what happened?

The border was not sealed.

And then we had the catch-and-release, and we had all these problems that we as a serious nation should not be having, because you know that the asylum system is broken.

People are gaming the system.

So it's a lot of parts in this puzzle that I'm sure you understand that we need to put an end, and that's why my Dignity Act will do that.

GEOFF BENNETT: Republicans sank the compromise bill, which was the Republican Senate bill at the end of 2024, largely because President Trump, who was then a candidate at the time, said he wanted to be able to run on the issue, the problem of immigration.

And there was money in that bill that called for the hiring of more immigration judges, which would have sped up the deportation process.

What's different between now and then?

REP. MARIA SALAZAR: Well, it was too little too late.

It -- that bill did not address the whole issue.

It was -- you cannot fix such a monumental problem with just one little bill.

Let me see what I can put together in order to fix the problem at the time.

Everyone has good intentions and noble intentions, but this is such a monumental problem of biblical proportions that we need to have thought it out well and then start from illegal immigration to legal, seal the border.

And that's what I think I'm doing.

I am incorporating some of those aspects and provisions of that bill that you're talking about.

The thing is that, if we want to continue growing as the number one economy in the world, if we want to continue being the beacon of hope and the bastion of human rights and civil rights, we need to pay attention to those human beings who have been here.

Yes, they're illegal, I got it.

Been here.

We have let them stay for 20 years.

What are we going to do with them?

Now is the time to start that conversation.

GEOFF BENNETT: When you talk about being a beacon of civil rights and human rights, the Trump administration, in its push toward mass deportations, in many cases is deporting people without due process.

And due process, as you well know, is a bedrock constitutional protection.

Why hasn't there been more pushback from Republicans on that matter in particular?

REP. MARIA SALAZAR: Well, I am sending message.

I spoke with the leadership of Department of Homeland Security.

I have been talking to the powers that be, including the White House.

And I have been saying that this is a country of laws, that I understand that sometimes the righteous pay for the sinners, but not in the United States.

And I am saying, be careful, because we do need to follow the law and give due process.

And I am very happy that some judges, not others, because some other judges are legislating from the bench, are saying, we need to follow due process.

But that is why I am introducing legislation.

That's exactly what I am doing.

We're doing the -- I am doing the job that people in District 27 send me to do, write a law that will solve a problem.

And that's what I am doing.

And may the lord help me.

And I am sure that President Trump, who is a very smart -- and who knows how to put deals together, will pay attention to the Dignity Act.

GEOFF BENNETT: When you advise the White House to follow the law, as you say, what's the response that you get?

REP. MARIA SALAZAR: Of course, they got -- they are OK with that.

And they are -- and they have been very receptive when I have gone to them with specific cases that -- where the due process has not been followed.

So it's not that the White House has this desire just to not pay attention to what the system and what the American way of life or the American system calls for.

No, they are being receptive when I have called upon them.

GEOFF BENNETT: At the moment, polls show President Trump underwater on his handling of immigration.

A new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds an overall 52 percent disapproval, and among Latinos in particular a 59 percent disapproval.

Does that give you more leverage, more opportunity to push for the changes that you want to see in the administration's approach?

REP. MARIA SALAZAR: I think that's a fantastic question.

And I am definitely going to -- there are polls and polls and polls and polls.

There are polls for everything.

But I do know that the Hispanic community would love to see this administration to solve the problem.

I have said it to the White House clearly.

Trump could be for immigration what Reagan was for Russia, period.

There's no other president that has been sitting in the Oval Office in the last 40 years can solve such a monumental mess that has been just left for the next administration, starting with Reagan.

We're talking about 40 years.

Trump is the only guy who can do it.

GEOFF BENNETT: Congresswoman Maria Salazar, thanks again for your time this evening.

We appreciate it.

REP. MARIA SALAZAR: My pleasure, and thank you very much.

GEOFF BENNETT: And for another perspective on President Trump's immigration agenda at its 100-day mark, let's turn to White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez -- Laura.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Thanks, Geoff.

I'm joined by David Bier.

He's the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute.

David, thank you for joining the "News Hour."

DAVID BIER, Director of Immigration Studies, Cato Institute: Thanks for having me.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: President Trump ran on closing the border and on promises of mass deportation of millions.

And since he's been in office, his administration has run a million-dollar ad campaign pressuring migrants to deport.

He's detained foreign students who protest on campus.

And his administration even arrested a judge on courthouse grounds.

So, 100 days in, what do you think defines President Trump's immigration agenda?

DAVID BIER: His immigration policy is really driven by the overarching goals of this administration, which is to consolidate as much power over the U.S. economy and society as possible.

So, if you look at it, it's not about legal versus illegal.

We're arresting legal residents.

We're arresting people who never violated any immigration law or any other laws.

We're targeting U.S. citizens, taking away citizenship from babies born in the United States.

We're eliminating due process for people charged as removable in the United States.

So, now your birthright -- your birth certificate is no longer going to be a defense for you if you are being targeted by ICE.

And then you're not going to get any due process by this administration either.

They're going to deport you even to a foreign prison without any due process.

And we're already explicitly hearing from the president plans and considerations to target U.S. citizens for removal to El Salvador.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: The White House says they're looking into the legality of that possibility.

One of the successes that the southern -- that the president is touting is that southern border crossings have fallen to lows not seen in decades.

But when asked by the administration why they're keeping the emergency declaration in place at the border, President Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, said this: TOM HOMAN, White House Border Czar: It's an emergency until we shut it down.

It's an emergency until the cartels are wiped off the face of this Earth.

This is the biggest national security failure this country's ever seen.

This is the border emergency until we end it, end all of it.

We're making good strides.

But, right now, it's still an emergency until we shut it down.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: What's your response to Tom Homan's comments?

And is it sustainable for them to keep the crossings that low?

DAVID BIER: Well, I don't think it's sustainable in the long term, but, really, what he's saying there is that it's going to be an emergency forever, because there's always going to be violations of the law.

There's always going to be transnational criminal organizations.

So the idea that we're in a perpetual state of emergency, where the president has permanent emergency powers, really goes to my point about, look, this is about power.

He wants to have these emergency powers going forward to be able to target whoever he wants for deportation and removal without due process.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's some parts of the administration's agenda that you, in theory, support, like that there should be no federal funding to cities that shelter immigrants, right?

DAVID BIER: Absolutely, yes, I don't support Congress' appropriations for that money.

Of course, the president should follow whatever laws Congress passes.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And so that's the thing.

You disagreed with them deciding to withdraw funding from cities who ended up sheltering immigrants, correct, the administration's withdrawing of those funds.

DAVID BIER: Well, obviously, Congress appropriated this money for this purpose.

You can't just take that money and decide, I'm going to spend it on deportations because that's what I want to spend money on.

That's not how we operate in a democracy.

Congress passed the laws to do this.

I think it's totally inappropriate for Congress to be paying for New York City's shelter program.

But that's not up to me.

Congress decided to appropriate this money.

And it's not up to the president either.

He should follow the laws as they're written.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: On sanctuary cities, President Trump signed an executive order yesterday threatening to withhold federal funds for states and localities that -- quote -- "provide in-state higher education tuition to aliens" -- end quote.

And Tom Homan also promised more raids and arrests of undocumented migrants.

Do you expect an escalation between federal agents and state and local authorities?

DAVID BIER: We're already seeing the escalation with the arrest of a state judge.

This is the trajectory that we have been going on.

They have been threatening criminal penalties for Democratic cities that do not cooperate with the mass deportation agenda of this administration.

And it's understandable why these municipalities lack trust with this administration because they're not targeting criminals and public safety threats.

I think some of these sanctuary policies go too far, but that does not mean that they should be targeted with criminal penalties or other retaliation by the federal government.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: In recent weeks, multiple federal courts have blocked the president's deportations, especially under the Alien Enemies.

A Republican-appointed federal judge said that, if the administration is claiming it has the authority to send migrants to foreign prisons with no due process, then what assurance will there be to Americans that they won't be deported and then the government takes no responsibility for returning them?

A few days after, about a week or so after that ruling, three U.S. citizen children were deported by the administration, along with their undocumented mothers.

And those lawyers for those children told me that they had no ability to talk to legal counsel or to go through due process.

Do you think ultimately that the courts are going to be the check on President Trump's immigration agenda?

DAVID BIER: Well, that really remains to be seen.

We don't know how the Supreme Court is going to decide these cases.

If they are the check, then that is a significant limitation on his power.

But if they decide to green-light these abuses of authority and failure to follow the Constitution, then that would upend our system of government as we know it.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: David Bier of the Cato Institute, thank you for your time.

DAVID BIER: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: The Trump administration is expected to ask Congress to rescind more than a billion dollars of funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB.

That's the congressionally created body through which NPR and PBS get federal funding, including for this program.

What's more, CPB sued the Trump administration in federal court today, saying the administration illegally fired three of its board members.

Those members, all nominated to their current terms by President Biden, were terminated in an e-mail on Monday.

The administration did not provide a reason for the firings.

But CPB said in a statement today that it's - - quote -- "not a government entity and its board members are not government officers subject to the president's authority."

I spoke earlier with Paula Kerger, the CEO of PBS.

Paula Kerger, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thank you for being here.

PAULA KERGER, CEO, Public Broadcasting Service: Oh, thank you for having me.

I always enjoy spending time with you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So there has been some reporting I'm sure you have seen.

The administration made delay sending that request to rescind those funds to Congress while lawmakers are focused on the budget reconciliation process.

What is your sense of the effort to rescind those funds?

Is it a done deal at this point?

PAULA KERGER: Well, I mean, we're trying to understand exactly what's happening, and it seems to be very much a moving target Over the last few weeks, we have heard that a rescission package may be imminent, and then it hasn't come forward.

But this is probably the most difficult and serious threat in the time that I have been in public broadcasting.

This idea that funds that had already been put aside for public broadcasting would be taken away really has tremendous implications to our stations, because that's actually where the resources go.

Most of the money actually does not go to PBS or any national organization.

It goes directly to our stations to help them support their operations.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, as you and your team go, I know you're meeting with lawmakers, speaking to them to make the case.

What is the argument you're laying out to them and what are you hearing in response?

PAULA KERGER: Yes.

Well, I think the most important thing is that -- from our perspective is to make sure that legislators, as they're thinking about very difficult decisions about how to deal with our country's budget, understand where these dollars go.

It amounts to about $1.60 per person a year, just to put it into context.

And the money goes directly to fund the operations of our stations across the country.

When the Public Broadcasting Act was signed back in the late '60s, it was envisioned that public broadcasting would be a public-private partnership.

This is different than many other public broadcasters around the world, which are largely state-supported.

We are not.

About 15 percent in aggregate numbers -- that's 1-5 percent -- of the budget for public broadcasting comes from the federal government.

The rest of it comes from contributed money from viewers like you.

But the idea behind this public-private partnership is that there are many stations in communities that, without the federal support, the stations would not exist.

I have been to really extraordinary stations in small parts of the country in places like Granite Falls and in Cookeville, Tennessee, where you just see that the public media stations are such an important part of the fabric of those communities.

This is where people come together.

This is where politicians come in for town halls and for debates.

This is really a resource that the communities treasure and would not exist were there not federal dollars to help.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned that you see this as a very serious effort in terms of the funds.

We should note there's been Republicans who have long sought to cut funding for public media.

So is there something different about this effort this time around?

PAULA KERGER: Yes.

I mean, here's the irony.

I mean, we have always received bipartisan support.

If you go back over the years, some of our biggest champions have been from both sides of the aisle.

I think this feels a little different because the country feels a little different.

I think the debates around our priorities in terms of what we fund have been different conversations than we have had in the past.

For us, as I look at this as -- and for many of our stations for whom this would be an existential crisis, I think it's very important that we make sure that, as those final decisions are made, the legislators understand the consequence of it, because the problem is, once these stations are gone, they're gone.

It's not that, well, maybe in a year we will bring them back or so forth once they're gone.

And you have to understand that in public broadcasting, we do a lot of work that people see.

We also do a lot of work that people do not see.

And one example is, our public broadcasting system really provides a lot of public service in terms of the use of the technology.

So we use our broadcast as the emergency backup for emergency alerts for the country.

And you need 100 percent coverage to make that happen.

So there are a lot of arguments that we make around the importance of it.

But I think the most is that this is really critical funding put in places that need it.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's also a couple of arguments we have heard from the administration as they look to cut those funds.

They argue that, by covering issues like race in America and gender issues, that public media is broadly engaging in what they call cultural indoctrination.

They also cite, among other things, the former NPR editor Uri Berliner's accusations that he said his network pushed progressive viewpoints.

That was at NPR, which is not PBS, to be clear.

But do you worry about that?

And what's your response to that accusation?

PAULA KERGER: Well, I think we work very hard, and I'm proud of this broadcast of its focus on bringing the most important stories forward.

I think that, when you look at news, it's important that we are here to be covering the important stories, whether they're international or national or local, and that's the work that our stations do.

You also have to remember that it's like 10 percent of the work that we do is news.

The rest of it is programming around science and history and so forth.

A big part of what we do is for kids.

We do eight hours of kids programming a day on most of our stations.

And when you consider the fact that 50 percent of children in this country do not attend formal pre-K, 50 percent, and the whole goal when "Sesame Street" was created, when Mister Rogers' first began looking into a camera and telling children that they are perfect just the way they are, that was really the beginning of an effort to try to make sure that kids that do not have access to a wide range of resources and possibilities would have that through their public television stations.

And that's what we do.

We're parents' first partners.

We're deeply involved in providing content for classrooms.

And we are there with a wide array of programming.

That's what is the role of public broadcasting.

AMNA NAWAZ: I know you have seen some of the latest Pew Research data as well in terms of how Americans are looking at this.

There are some 43 percent of Americans who say that NPR and PBS should continue to receive federal funding.

They want to see that continue.

Some 24 percent say Congress should remove that funding; 33 percent say that they're not sure.

So that means about 57 percent of Americans are either not sure or don't want to see federal funds continue for public media.

What does that say to you?

PAULA KERGER: Well, that's one survey.

I mean, we have done a series of surveys recently that show that 65 percent of Trump voters support funding for public broadcasting.

I think that, again, as I travel around and meet people in communities that are part of the fabric of the communities that we do serve, they tell us that what you do is tremendously important, and they especially love their local stations.

They treasure what they do, and they want to see them continue.

So I think you talked a few minutes ago about the conversations we have on the Hill.

I actually don't spend a lot of time on the Hill.

The people that do are those that are viewers of their local stations.

Those are the voices that I think legislators want to hear.

They want to hear from their constituents.

They want to know that, as they are wrestling with what to fund or not fund, that this is something of value.

And so, as we look forward over the next weeks, I know that many have called and said, what can we do?

I said, well, if you have an opinion, let your legislator know how you feel about support of your local stations.

AMNA NAWAZ: Paula Kerger, CEO of PBS, thank you so much for being here.

Really appreciate it.

PAULA KERGER: Thank you for having me with you.

GEOFF BENNETT: And that's the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "News Hour" team, thank you for joining us.