Funding for To The Contrary provided by: This week on To The Contrary: First, the Trump administration cracks down on immigration, and the administratio reverses course on cutting money for the popular Women's Health Initiative.

Hello, I'm Bonnie Erbé.

Welcome to To The Contrary, a discussion of news and social trends from varied perspectives.

Up first: Immigration.

This week's deportation of thre American children to Honduras, including a cancer-stricken four year old, underscores another course reversal for President Trump.

The administration says the children were deported alongside their mothers because the mothers weren't in the US legally.

The president signed three executive orders.

One order targets so-called sanctuary cities, another on enhancing protections for law enforcement officers, and the third ties commercial truck driver's license to English literacy.

Advocates and a federal judge criticized what they see as insufficient legal protections.

Joining me on the pane this week: senior policy analyst at the Independent Women's Forum, Carrie Sheffield, political scientist and author Lara Brown, Republican strategist Whitley Yates and Democratic strategist Nailah Amaru.

So, Lara Brown, should U.S. citizen children be deporte with their undocumented parents?

Well, certainly the administration seems to believe that is the case.

What we have heard is that the White House and the administration says that the mothers who are undocumented are the ones who have brought this on themselves.

And they are blaming the victim of this purported crime.

I think one of the things that's important is this align with the administration's belief that birthright citizenship is not sacrosanc and a part of the Constitution.

So we will see those arguments play out in front of the Supreme Cour in the not-too-distant future.

But clearly this is a contested and really, I think, contemptible instance of the administration looking to deport immigrants in this country.

Is this an appropriate case to open up a constitutional debate over?

Anybody who wants to jump in?

Well, I think that the media here quite often wants to cherry pick cases.

And that's— I mean, that does happen in politics because we could also cherry pick the most heinous and vile criminals and rapists and assaulter illegal aliens who are in this country.

And yet the media chooses to ignore them.

If you look at the media mentions of Abrego versus the—the actual Maryland mother whose daughte was violently raped and murdered by an illegal alien, there's not even close to a proportionate amount of media coverage.

So, you know, and this is why Trump won.

This is why Trump made the mainstream media totally irrelevant, because they chose to cherry pick certain cases that make their argument, and they're not objective at all.

And so when you look at th actual constitutional argument that Trump is making about birthright citizenship, he's making the argument that that was a civil war era period when there was a dispute about whether slave were considered citizens or not.

That's what it was intended to be.

It was much more narrow and it's been exploited.

And I tell—Lara used the word contemptible.

I say, what truly is contemptible is how illegal aliens will use children who are not even their children, in some cases, as props in order to cross the border.

There is a rampant human trafficking, rampant sexual assault.

Numerous international organizations say that anywhere between, you know, to a quarter to a third of all women will be sexually assaulted as they are trafficked along the southern border.

But not anymore under this president.

This president has finally said enough is enough.

We actually take women's rights and humans rights seriously along the border, and he's put a stop to that.

Lara, do you agree?

Is it—is it that dire out there?

I certainly don't agree.

I mean, the facts disput so much of what has been said.

The reality is that naturalized and immigrants in this country, in fact, commit fewer violent crimes than do native born Americans.

In addition— Excuse me, but that data doesn't parse out illegal versus legal immigrants, and that's a very important distinction— What is also very important is that we have due process.

The president of the United States is likely only sitting in the Oval Office, because he exploited due process himself to ensure that his criminal trials were delayed as long as possible.

He is looking to deprive due process from immigrants in this country.

He has also decided that they are guilty before even given a chance to assert their innocence.

And that is what that media stunt at the White House was about.

Putting up those mug shots all on the lawn in front of the White House.

I don't think that, you know, the Biden administration would have gotten away with putting up Trump and all of his fellow administration cronies from the first term who actually were convicted of crimes on the front of the White House lawn.

Nailah Amaru, what are your thoughts about this?

If—if what Lara is saying is true why isn't the nation up in arms?

Why aren't we in the middle of a revolution, constitutional crisis?

The nation is split.

I think the issue has been raised in terms of the Trump administration's deportation policy, essentially prioritizing enforcement over due process, right.

And there are folks on the one hand who are perfectly okay with that.

And there are folks on the other hand who are absolutely not okay with that.

And so with that said, I think with those— with those two camps you know, by really focusing on, you know, those quick removals, it kind of shows, executive authority and kind of thinking through what does legal review look like that when we're talking about enforcement over due process and what are those legal protections that are being bypassed in favor of expediency for those quick removals?

All right.

And, Whitley, your thought if—if indeed things are as bad as some critics are saying, why is America putting up with it?

I think that America genuinely feels that the immigration crisis tha we have needs to be tended to.

And I'm really upset to hear that we're utilizing the term due process to state that what's happening is somehow illegal.

Due process does not mean due presence, which means that we can respect the rule of law without rewarding the illegal entry.

We can conduct the hearings remotely after deportation.

So it doesn't allow for them to stay in this country illegally when they can have the exact same process from outside the country.

The Constitution does guarantee a process, but not a plane ticket or a free stay into this country.

But the courts have sai clearly that the administration is not even attempting a process.

They have rejected the idea that the Trump administration is actually following the law They are showing and have said over, you know, multiple instances now because we've had several rulings that the administration has not noticed, has not had hearings, and has not legitimately, allowe for even the right of dissent.

This is a problem from a due process standpoint.

It is also the case that the administration has admitte that they mistakenly deported, you know, the man from, from Maryland and that he is sitting in an El Salvador prison.

And Trump said in an interview that he could bring him back, but he won't.

So he is defying the court and defying the rule of law, because he believes that his word is the rule of law.

He's not defying the rule of law.

The Supreme Court has allowed the president to use the Alien Enemies Act, which says that in, in certain circumstances, the president is allowed to have these deportations when there's an extreme case of war or, you know, the case of these violent criminal gangs.

When you look at the death and destruction that has been caused by the opioid crisis, I don't think folks realize we had around 100,000 deaths due to the opioid crisis.

That is many, multiple times the number of people killed in 9/11, which was about 3,000 people.

And we went to war in Afghanistan over the deaths of 3,000 people in one year.

And so when you're talking about these criminal alien gangs, this is an invasion.

And so the Supreme Court has allowed the president to invoke this act.

There are those who say that the guy currently in El Salvador is not a member of a criminal gang and didn't do anything illegal.

First, he is not a Maryland man.

He's an illegal alien, El Salvadorian man.

He is not a U.S. citizen.

He does not receive the same due process rights as a U.S. citizen.

And then there's also the fact that there was a—immigration court ordered his deportation and temporarily stopped it because they said he was at risk of being attacked by a violent gang.

Well guess what?

That gang no longer exists.

Therefore, that immigration court order is lifted in terms of the pause on it.

And so his deportation is absolutely legal.

And then there's also the fact that he is in a sovereign country.

And so I don't think my co-panelists here would want the United State to invade a sovereign country, to pick up a, an illegal alien and bring him back so that you could just be re-deported under this the same immigration court order that is now in effect because that other illegal gang or criminal gang is no longer in existence.

I think this is one of thos clearly political issues where, you know how this issue is framed and how people interpret it, that there be people who, you know, think along side, you know, that the same line of reasoning as my co-panelists, and other folks who, who don't.

Who, who fundamentally will say there should be no deportation until due process has, you know, the person has had the right to go through their, their due process.

So I think this is just one of those situations where people will have their minds made up.

And, which, which creates, again, I think, opportunities for political conversations like this to happen, which obviously have political implications.

Do we think that this is going to destabilize the United States, to the point where the future of our unity is in danger or is that just an exaggeration?

Well, I would love to see Michelle Obama stop spreading misinformation.

She went on a podcast and said that she's— she's kept up at night, she can't slee because of these deportations, when in fact, her husband was nicknamed the Deporter-in-Chief and deported 3 million illegal aliens.

Whereas President Trump in this term has—has deported far fewer than that.

And if and if, you know, Brett Bear made this point, if we had followe the same extensive due process that they now claim they want for those 3 million illegal aliens under Barac Obama, we'd still have them here in court.

But no, he didn't.

He said, they've got to go.

Barack Obama did.

And so I would love the Democrat Party to remember who they were back under a certain president, because now they want to play politics and have selective amnesia about illegal immigration.

This week was the 100th day of the Trump presidency in office.

Do people think that we— that Trump is overreaching?

Is he pulling us towards what could end up being some kind of, I don't know, disunity, rebellion, you name it?

Biden said he was going to restore—restore the soul of America, and we definitely didn't see the soul of America restored.

And he consistently not only attacked his political opponents, but attacked people tha believed differently than him.

So the thought that America wa somehow so unified under Biden and is now fractured under Trump is just a false narrative.

Because the truth is, we cannot have a sovereign natio without protecting our borders.

And so if we are looking for stability, what we need to do is make sure that our borders are protected at all costs.

But when you say, you know that we're united on this, President Trump's polling numbers have dropped.

They were never super high for a brand new president, but they were above the 50% mark.

Now it's down closer to 40%.

And that's a fairly big drop for just a couple few months.

Would you say that we are— Let me start with you, Lara.

Are we a united nation or has he pulled us apart?

We are not a united nation.

We have not been a united nation since, really, the country split 50/50 in the 2000 election.

So for the last 25 years we have been going essentially back and forth across the cente line from one party to another with a brief moment of unity around 9/11.

And other than that, we have seen polarization increase in this country and a— an exoneration of each party's president by each party's partisans while they are in office.

So that hypocrisy is true.

And I agree with Carrie on that issue.

I think that what is missing is actually a factual analysis of how poor all of our presidents have been, really, in this millennia.

All right.

Let us know what you think.

Please follow me on X @BonnieErbe From the border to funding for research.

The Trump administration has reportedly reversed its decision to terminate funding for the Women's Health Initiative, a landmar study tracking more than 160,000 postmenopausal women since the mid 1990s.

The initial pla to end regional center contracts has sparked significant backlash To this date, we have heard nothing but those reports.

No one has contacted any of the regional centers from HHS and officially said that's what's happening.

So we're in limbo.

Researchers expressed concern over the potential loss of invaluable data and the impact on scientist whose work heavily relies on the WHIs infrastructure.

Participants and their familie have also voiced the importance of the study, underscoring its significanc in understanding women's health.

It doesn't just study one health outcomes, it studies all health outcomes in women.

So, for example, we're really interested now in cognitive change in dementia.

We've got young investigators studying the physical and mental impacts on the body from being treated for cancer with, you know, radiation, chemotherapy and, maybe loss of activity and studying then their risk of heart disease.

It's just a massive opportunity for more knowledge.

And it would be tragic if it was lost.

So Whitley Yates, what are your thoughts about this back and forth on the Women's Health Initiative?

I think when you're looking at the cuts that the government is doing, it is pretty normal tha something is going to get found or caught in the crosshairs.

So I'm not surprised that this has happened.

And the system worked exactly the way that it was supposed to, because when it was found out and when it came to Secretary Kennedy, he said, no, we're not cuttin this and we're going to keep it.

That's exactly how government should be working.

I think it's important that this administration has stated and is showing through their work that they do believe in women's health and reinstituting not only this institute, but these studies.

And so it's important that we keep women's health as a topic o the forefront of people's minds.

But in this case and in this situation, I think this happened exactly the wa that it was supposed to happen.

Does anybody worry that important data from this study may be lost?

And this is a huge—160,000 postmenopausal women is a very larg chunk of Americans of a certain age and of a certain gender.

How would it hurt us, if at all, if this is shut down on those data or destroyed?

Absolutely.

I absolutely know that cutting funding to this type of long term studies of health absolutely has some pretty far reaching consequences.

One: again, the data, that data that has been collected for decades can't be replicated, right?

So there's a tremendous loss in helpful information that could potentially impact, you know, treatments or public health guidelines for, for the future that that data could have been really helpful in informing.

And also, as, as a infrastructure of research, right?

Whenever there's an interruption of work that disrupts this shared infrastructure that a lot of researchers do rely on.

And so I do think, that this, you know, funding cut is going to have some really terrible consequences for future development, public health and public health care guidelines.

Does anybody worry about— because I was reading in advance of this—taping this show about how science cut are going to impact the economy, and it's not good because these are huge amounts of money that are flowing into the economy.

Does anybody worry about pulling back all these data possibly destroying all the data or losing it as, as can happen in a situation like this?

Does anybody see any potential downsides besides the loss of information for women's health, which— and this study has gone back and forth on everything from breast cancer to just about all diseases and conditions that impact older women from a health perspective.

Well I think I think what's important to point out about these conversations, is that the Trump administration is cutting the administrative bloat so that vital research can actually get the funding that it does need.

And he's—he' moving the government standard so there's a ratio of basically bureaucrats to actual scientists and researchers and unfortunately, over the years, there's been this creep where the bureaucrats keep growing in size to the detriment of the actual science and the researchers.

And—and it's actually gotten to the poin where the ratio of bureaucrats to scientists is much worse in the government than it is in the private sector or private charity, for example, like the Gates Foundation.

And so he's actually implementing best practice through the Trump administration so that the actual vita scientific research is preserved and funded and even expanded in some cases where it's warranted.

And so that the peopl who are basically the fat cats, who aren't actually adding anything innovative, they're just pushing paper around.

They need to be getting jobs in the productive sector, and they should be doing something else.

That's actually a benefit to the economy, to have them go into a sector that is more productive.

Are you going to feel that way if this happens and the money is pulled and all of a sudden we're in—in a recession?

We need to take what they cal a zero-based budgeting approach, which is we zero everything out, and then we build on top of it that it has to be— You have to prove that that this projec is in the vital public interest as opposed to a pet interest or a narrow, you know, crony project for someone.

And so that's really what they've done.

And I think that that's that is—thats reflective in why people say over and over—the voters say, I want waste, fraud and abuse cut out of government.

I do want good funding.

I want good research.

And that's the approach that th Trump administration's taking.

If we have a recession, because billions of dollars of federal funding for all kinds of medical and scientific research is pulled, are people going to be happy about that?

President Trump has already dropped.

His popularity has gone from being in the 50s after he was first elected a few months ago, to being in the low 40s now.

How long is it going to take, if it's going to happen at all, that—that we will see very negative economic reactions to these changes?

What needs to happen is what would happen in any capitalistic society.

If we need research, the the private sector will step up and fund the research of what they need, where the government is not necessarily the clearinghouse of all of the research that is being done, but it is also in partnership with the private sector, where the government can then create a culture where these types of—these types of research studies can be done, but they don't have to necessarily be the clearinghouse.

And I don't think that we should be worried about a recession right now.

What I think we should be doing is getting back down to spending pre-COVID.

We have had bloated budgets for quite some time, and so all of this bloat within our budget from Covid, which I understand why, is not going to be good for us to continue that level of spending.

So I am for reducing the size of the government.

I am for reducing the bureaucrats, an I'm also for the private sector to really step up and do what they are supposed to do.

When we look at Covid and we look at Pfizer and all of the money that the government spent to create a vaccine that it then had to pay for to use, to give to citizens, it is a little alarming that that is how the public and private sector work together.

It appears as though the country may already be headed toward a recession.

The GDP did contract during the first quarter of this administration.

Much of that, as economists are aware, is related to the back and forth with tariffs and really the disruption and uncertainty that has been fostered by this administration's both foreign policy and economic policy.

Second, the budget is not yet done for next year.

That is something that is still in debate.

And one of the things that may well find itself back on the chopping block is this women's health study that has been ongoing since the 90s.

I can tell you, as someone who actually wrote a master's thesi on discrimination against women in AIDS policy in the early 90s, that back then, no health research was really done on women.

In fact, one of the most stunning statistics to me that I wrote about at that time was that women's— the decisio for hormone replacement therapy was made on the basis of giving 23,000 men estrogen because they were supposedly the baseline and they were going to be abl to be the test of whether or not women got cancer in late times from hormone replacement.

So this study came out of really horrible facts and massive market failures in terms of addressing the research needs of all Americans, not just thos who were in the power structure.

Lastly, I think it's important to recognize that most of the economic benefit that accrued to the country in the 1960s was a direct resul of federal government investment post-World War II into the universities and into scientific research.

And I'm not—I'm not sure whether— I mean, it hasn't been decided certainly yet for sure, but I'm not sure wher it will end up with this study, in particula the Women's Health Initiative.

They paused the some of the cancer experiments because the data came back and showed that they were so bad, the impact was so bad.

So unless they straighten out a number of questions raised by this study, it's going to leave a lot of huge holes in terms of America's knowledge of how to move forward.

That's it for this edition of To The Contrary.

Keep the conversation going on our social media platforms Instagram, Facebook, X, TikTok.

Reach out to us @tothecontrary and visit our website, the address on the screen.

And whether you agree or think, to the contrary, see you next time.

Fundin for To The Contrary provided by: You're watching PBS.