GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "News Hour" tonight: the dramatic war of words between President Trump and Elon Musk.

We examine the potential fallout for the country.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration is being brought back to the U.S. to face criminal charges.

AMNA NAWAZ: And we speak with two transgender service members as the Trump administration bans them from the military.

2ND LT. NICOLAS TALBOTT, U.S. Army Reserve: We transgender service members are living proof that we belong in the uniforms that we have worked so hard for.

We have earned our spots.

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

We begin tonight with the fallout from the extraordinary public feud between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk that followed their public rift over Mr. Trump's massive tax and spending bill.

The president this morning reportedly said he thought Musk had lost his mind and that he won't be speaking with Musk for a while.

GEOFF BENNETT: For his part, Elon Musk sparred publicly throughout the day with former Trump adviser Steve Bannon on social media, calling him a criminal.

That came after Bannon suggested that Trump should have the government seize control of SpaceX and investigate Musk's immigration status.

Musk, who was born in South Africa, has been a naturalized U.S. citizen since 2002.

For more, we're joined now by Tyler Pager, White House correspondent for The New York Times.

Tyler, thank you for being with us.

So you and your colleagues have new reporting on what triggered this Trump-Musk rupture.

What set it off?

TYLER PAGER, White House Correspondent, The New York Times: Yes, thanks so much for having me.

And I think it's important to note that this relationship has been eroding over time.

There's been several points over the last few months where Trump and Musk have distanced themselves from one another.

But one key flash point that my colleagues and I are reporting today in The New York Times is the decision by President Trump to withdraw the nomination of Jared Isaacman for -- to run NASA.

He is a close ally of Elon Musk.

And NASA is one of the most critical agencies for SpaceX, Elon's space exploration company.

And Elon grew very upset with the decision by Trump to withdraw the nomination.

GEOFF BENNETT: Today, though, neither side seemed to see the benefit of escalating their rhetorical attacks.

What are you hearing from the White House about what might come next?

TYLER PAGER: Yes, the White House has made clear the president is not all that interested in engaging right now with Elon Musk.

At the same time, as you note, the president has not continued to attack Musk on social media.

Both have sort of laid down after a tit for tat yesterday over the course of several hours.

That was just remarkable to see play out in the open, though I can say White House officials have told me the president is considering selling the Tesla he bought in March.

And that was done as sort of a goodwill gesture to Elon Musk, whose company had faced some backlash from his association with the Trump administration.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, this morning, we saw that Tesla still parked on the White House grounds.

Well, after this spat, Tesla shares dropped by 14 percent.

According to Bloomberg, Musk's personal net worth dropped $34 billion.

So the president has shown that he's willing to wield the full power of his office against his perceived enemies.

What would that look like in Musk's case?

You mentioned the relationship between NASA and SpaceX.

What else?

TYLER PAGER: Yes, the president said yesterday on TRUTH Social, his social media platform, that maybe the government should consider cutting all the contracts and tax subsidies that they give to Elon Musk's companies, that, over the years Elon Musk's company, particularly SpaceX, but also Tesla have received billions of dollars in government contracts and subsidies.

So it would be a significant hit to those companies if Trump followed through on that threat.

It seems that he has not continued to make that threat.

But it shows you just how intertwined Elon Musk's private business is with the federal government.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yesterday, Elon Musk appeared to flirt with impeachment talk, impeaching President Trump, hinted at forming a new political party.

Trump allies appear to be closing ranks around him.

But is there any long-term political risk here for President Trump?

TYLER PAGER: Yes, President Trump, as my colleagues reported in this new story, has been going around telling people in the last few days that his poll numbers are better than Elon Musk's, a sign that he is not all that concerned about Elon Musk's political influence.

But one thing that is important to note is that Elon Musk is a huge financial backer, not just of the president, but of the broader Republican Party.

And Musk had signaled to Trump aides that he would give $100 million to groups controlled by pro-Trump allies.

Our understanding, as a few days ago that money, had not yet been received.

So there is a financial component to this relationship.

And that is uncertain going forward.

GEOFF BENNETT: Is this more than just a personal feud, Tyler?

I mean, does it reveal a deeper fracture between the populist right and Silicon Valley or even within the Republican coalition itself?

TYLER PAGER: Yes, I mean, that is exactly what Steve Bannon, one of the president's former top advisers, told me yesterday when we spoke on the phone.

He has long railed against Elon Musk's role in the Trump administration and the broader MAGA movement.

And so I think there is some people that want to use this as an opportunity to separate the MAGA movement from some of the billionaires and yank it back to Bannon's view of populism.

I think it's too early to say whether this is a permanent fracture or just more of a personal falling out that maybe recovers in the coming days.

But there are real repercussions for the broader Republican Party should Trump and Musk not repair this relationship.

Elon Musk has shown that he's willing to use his fortune and his social media platform to wield it against critics, whether that is Democrats or Republicans.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the 30 seconds we have left, when Steve Bannon says he's pushing the president to use the Defense Production Act to seize SpaceX or to investigate Elon Musk's immigration status to make sure that his immigration papers were handled properly, how seriously is that being taken within the White House, based on your reporting?

TYLER PAGER: I mean, I think it's a little premature to say that that is the next step the administration is going to take.

I spoke with numerous White House officials today who said the president is not solely focused on Elon Musk today, rather focused on the economy and the legislation he's trying to push through Congress.

But Steve Bannon is an influential voice in the MAGA movement and has a relationship with Donald Trump.

So it's important to keep track of what he's saying.

GEOFF BENNETT: Indeed.

Tyler Pager, thanks, as always.

We appreciate it.

TYLER PAGER: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: Kilmar Abrego Garcia is now back in the United States.

Prosecutors had acknowledged that the Maryland resident was wrongly deported to a prison in El Salvador in March when the president invoked the wartime Alien Enemies Act.

A grand jury in Tennessee indicted him last month on two charges related to a traffic stop in 2022.

The indictment, unsealed today, alleges that Garcia committed conspiracy to transport aliens and unlawfully transported undocumented aliens.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Garcia's return this afternoon.

PAM BONDI, U.S. Attorney General: Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant and they agreed to return him to our country.

We're grateful to President Bukele for agreeing to return him to our country to face these very serious charges.

This is what American justice looks like.

AMNA NAWAZ: If he is convicted, the attorney general said Abrego Garcia would be returned to El Salvador after completing any prison sentence in the United States.

Laura Barron-Lopez is here now with the details.

So, Laura, tell us what else the indictment says and what happens next for Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, first, some context.

In 2022, when that traffic stop occurred, Abrego Garcia was not charged with any crime, was not charged with human trafficking, even though an officer at the time documented suspecting human trafficking.

Now, the indictment today, unsealed today, alleges that Abrego Garcia was transporting, as you said, undocumented immigrants, but that also includes transporting -- quote -- "children on the floorboards of vehicles," according to the indictment.

Now he faces charges in Tennessee.

Now there is the expectation that Garcia's wrongful deportation case before a federal judge in Maryland will be dismissed.

The federal government is likely to ask for that dismissal, saying that they have now complied with facilitating his return to the United States.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, this is a reversal, right, from the White House position.

They have been saying for months that he would not be returned to the U.S., that he would stay in that mega-prison in El Salvador known as CECOT.

What is the White House saying about that?

And what does this mean, if anything, for the more than 100 other Venezuelan migrants who were deported to that same mega-prison without due process?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: The White House and the Homeland Security Department said in statements to us today -- they're essentially not admitting in any of the statements that they sent to us that this was to comply with those multiple judges' orders to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return.

Remember, even the Supreme Court said that they had to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return from CECOT in order to follow due process.

But, rather, the White House is taking a victory lap.

And in statements to us, they said that both Democrats and the media were -- quote -- "played like fools," that they have no credibility.

But the facts are that, again, they were ordered to facilitate his return.

Now, that also comes as a federal judge, James Boasberg, said just this week that those 100, more than 100 other Venezuelan migrants who were deported under the Alien Enemies Act, that they have to -- that they were illegally deported.

That's what he ruled this week.

And he also said that the administration has until next week to come up with a plan so that those men can challenge their deportations.

Now, what an immigration lawyer told me who's representing some of those men is that what Abrego Garcia's case means is that the administration, despite what they have said, can work with El Salvador to return some of these migrants that they have deported without due process.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura, before you go, this is the second deportation the administration reversed this week.

What do we know about the other case?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, this week, the administration had to return a Guatemalan man to the United States that they illegally deported to Mexico, so they provided no due process and a federal judge ordered that they had to return him, giving him due process under the Constitution.

He's now being placed in Arizona detention.

I should just note, Amna, that, just moments ago, the president did address the Abrego Garcia return, essentially blaming judges and saying that he disagreed with their initial rulings.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, Laura Barron-Lopez with the very latest on this for us.

Laura, thank you.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: We start the day's other headlines at the Supreme Court.

This afternoon, justices decided to allow members of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to access Social Security systems that contain personal information millions of Americans.

That includes school records, salary details, and medical information.

The Trump administration had argued that DOGE needs that information to root out waste and fraud.

A lower court found that DOGE's efforts amounted to a fishing expedition.

Separately, the court found the team once led by Elon Musk does not have to turn over internal records to a government watchdog group.

The court's three liberal members dissented in both rulings.

The Trump administration is also asking the Supreme Court to allow its plans to dismantle the Department of Education to proceed.

Today, the Justice Department filed an emergency appeal asking the justices to pause a lower court order that would reinstate some 1,400 agency employees.

The government argues the judge in the case exceeded his authority.

Separately, a federal judge temporarily blocked President Trump's latest effort to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students.

On Wednesday, President Trump issued a proclamation that barred such students from entering the U.S., citing national security grounds.

International students make up about a quarter of Harvard's student body.

The U.S. economy added fewer jobs in may than the month before, though the pace of hiring remained steady.

The Department of Labor said this morning that employers added 139,000 jobs, slightly more than expected.

Strong hiring in the health care and restaurant sectors helped offset a drop in federal government jobs.

And the unemployment rate remained unchanged at 4.2, despite ongoing concerns about the impact of President Trump's trade wars.

Russia hit Ukraine with a massive air attack overnight, killing at least four people and injuring about 50 others.

Explosions lit up the night sky in Kyiv during what Ukrainian officials called one of the largest aerial attacks of the war.

Russia's Defense Ministry says the bombardment was -- quote -- "in response to terrorist attacks by Ukraine" after Kyiv struck military airfields deep inside Russia last weekend.

Russia also says it's shot down nearly 200 Ukrainian drones early Friday.

This all comes after President Trump said yesterday it might be better to let the two sides -- quote -- "fight for a while" before pursuing peace.

A Kremlin spokesperson dismissed that position, saying -- quote -- "The U.S. president may have his own point of view, but for us it is an existential question.

It's a question of our security."

In Gaza, U.S.- and Israeli-backed aid groups stopped operations after limited distribution earlier today, citing overcrowding and unsafe conditions.

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has now suspended operations twice this week.

An earlier pause came after Palestinians were shot near the aid sites.

Israel's military said it fired warning shots at people it described as suspects.

Meanwhile, Gaza health authorities say Israeli airstrikes killed at least 16 Palestinians today, and the Israeli army said four of its soldiers were killed in an explosion in the southern city of Khan Yunis.

This comes as residents of Gaza marked the Eid al-Adha holiday in the demolished ruins of their places of worship.

Others visited graveyards to offer prayers for relatives killed in Israel's military campaign.

BAHAA AL HAWANI, Palestinian Worshiper (through translator): We are marking Eid with the remains of our children, with the remains of our fathers and mothers.

Every Palestinian house is wounded.

Every Palestinian house has a martyr.

All of the Gaza Strip is bleeding.

AMNA NAWAZ: For the roughly two billion Muslims around the world, Eid al-Adha marks the end of the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, where Muslims from around the world gather to perform acts of worship and renew their faith.

It's also known as the Festival of Sacrifice for its ties to the Prophet Ibrahim or Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son and is marked by prayers and community meals with family and friends.

And on Wall Street today, stocks gained ground to end the week.

The Dow Jones industrial average added more than 400 points on the day.

The Nasdaq jumped more than 230 points.

The S&P 500 closed above the 6,000-point level for the first time since February.

And today marks 81 years since D-Day, the military operation that helped turn the tide in the Second World War and changed the course of history.

NARRATOR: Between Le Havre and Cherbourg in Normandy, the Allied lightning strikes.

AMNA NAWAZ: The invasion by air, land and sea was a body blow to Adolf Hitler's regime that eventually led to its collapse.

Today, an ever-dwindling number of surviving U.S. veterans returned to Normandy, France, where more than 150,000 Allied troops stormed the beaches on that fateful day.

They saluted the thousands of allied soldiers who died in what was the largest amphibious invasion in history.

Still to come on the "News Hour": David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on the week's political headlines; and former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern discusses her new memoir and keeping hope and empathy in politics.

Today is the deadline for the estimated 4,200 active-duty transgender military members to accept what the Defense Department calls voluntary separation.

Those who volunteer to leave may be eligible for separation pay.

Transgender troops who don't leave voluntarily will be kicked out, and whether they get separation pay remains to be seen.

Earlier this week, Nick Schifrin spoke to two transgender servicemen about the choice they face to leave the service or stay and fight it out in the courts.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In one of President Trump's first executive actions, he declared that transgender service members corrode military effectiveness and -- quote -- "Adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."

Now, following legal battles, the Defense Department is moving forward to expel service members -- quote -- "with a current diagnosis or history of or exhibiting symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria," which is officially defined as six months of marked incongruence between a person's experience and assigned gender.

Last month, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth put the ban this way, criticizing what he calls previous policies that undermine military readiness.

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. Defense Secretary: We are leaving wokeness and weakness behind, no more pronouns, no more climate change obsession, no more emergency vaccine mandates, no more dudes in dresses.

We're done with that (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

NICK SCHIFRIN: For a perspective, we turn to Chief Petty Officer Ryan Goodell, who has been in the Navy since 2011 and is an intelligence analyst.

He's choosing to leave the military ahead of the deadline.

And 2nd Lieutenant Nic Talbott is a platoon leader of a military police unit in the Army Reserve.

He joined the Army a little over a year ago and is suing the government over its policy and is staying in the military, despite the deadline, and therefore faces involuntary separation.

Thanks very much, both of you.

And I should say ahead of time that the opinions you're going to express, I know, are personal opinions and not those of the Defense Department or your military services.

Ryan Goodell, let me start with you.

You are a cryptologic technician collection, which is to say you collect and analyze foreign communications.

Why are you taking the separation?

And was this a hard decision?

CHIEF PETTY OFFICER RYAN GOODELL, U.S. Navy: Yes, absolutely.

It has been an incredibly difficult decision.

Honestly, seeing the opportunities and just seeing the outside, right, because I have been in the military for almost 14 years, seeing the outside, I was like, you know what, I actually think that I'm going to put a little bit of control into this, what feels like an uncontrollable situation.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The military calls what you're choosing to do voluntary separation.

Is that what it feels like?

CHIEF PETTY OFFICER RYAN GOODELL: Certainly not.

It definitely doesn't feel voluntary.

So I reenlisted back in December for a reenlistment bonus, and clearly stated in the memo I may have to pay that back.

And that... NICK SCHIFRIN: If you were to choose not to leave by the deadline?

CHIEF PETTY OFFICER RYAN GOODELL: Correct.

If I chose the involuntary route, I would be liable to pay that back.

And so that felt pressure enough to help steer me in that -- quote, unquote -- "voluntary direction."

NICK SCHIFRIN: Nic Talbott, you enlisted as a reservist last March and you became an officer in January, but you have actually wanted to join the military for a long time.

Why?

2ND LT. NICOLAS TALBOTT, U.S. Army Reserve: Joining the military is something that I have felt compelled to do for the majority of my life.

And as I got older and became more experienced and really gained some expertise in some areas that are critical to what the military does, that calling to serve has just grown in me.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And, at this point, you're the lead plaintiff in the first case against the policy.

The judge sided with you, but ultimately this policy is going forward because of ruling by the Supreme Court.

Why did you choose to sue and why are you choosing to fight to stay in the military?

2ND LT. NICOLAS TALBOTT: So this was my second time being involved in a lawsuit challenging this type of a ban.

Back in 2017, I was one of the plaintiffs in Stockman v. Trump.

So, this time around, becoming reinvolved in pursuing this fight was really a no-brainer for me.

And now that I have been given the chance to go out and meet the marks and exceed the standards, I have proven that I am able to be here and able to keep up with other people and put on the uniform and do my job every single day.

I can't, in good conscience, just give it up, especially with no benefit or incentive to do so.

As a reservist, as somebody who's so new to the military, there is nothing about the so-called voluntary process that benefits me in any way, shape, or form.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Ryan Goodell, as I said, the Defense Department makes this argument, that individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of or exhibit symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.

What do you say to that argument?

CHIEF PETTY OFFICER RYAN GOODELL: I would say that, honestly, I have become more mentally sound since transitioning, because, before I had a label, right, for what I was feeling on the inside, I was essentially battling a war within myself.

I would be a rock star at work, doing great things, getting high marks on all my evaluations, but then I would come home and the voices inside my head would get very loud and tell me that you're living a lie, this isn't who you really are.

And I could hide that at work, because, in the military, you're a uniform, right?

The Navy colors are blue and gold, and that's all you see.

Realizing and pursuing my truth has made me more mentally stable.

My depression is gone.

I'm a better leader.

I can think more clearly, I don't have those nagging self-doubt moments anymore.

I know who I am, and I lead very effectively.

And that's why, in part, I was chosen to be a chief petty officer.

NICK SCHIFRIN: You received your gender dysphoria diagnosis in June 2018.

You started transitioning in December 2019.

What support did the military give you, whether it was the institution or your fellow service members?

CHIEF PETTY OFFICER RYAN GOODELL: My fellow service members have been nothing but supportive.

I draw my strength from them.

They're the reason I serve every day.

And they have just been incredible.

They don't allow folks to look at me the wrong way.

If they hear somebody misgendering or using -- saying anything disparaging, they're pretty quick to knock it out.

And I have had that support up and down the chain of command.

NICK SCHIFRIN: When you hear Nic sticking it out, basically, wanting to stay in until they force him out, what's your response to that?

CHIEF PETTY OFFICER RYAN GOODELL: It's incredibly selfless.

And I think that comes from a lot of self-discipline to be willing to put yourself on the line.

And that's what we need in the military.

2ND LT. NICOLAS TALBOTT: We transgender service members are living proof that we belong in the uniforms that we have worked so hard for.

We have earned our spots.

We have earned our ranks.

We have earned our awards.

And our service should speak for itself.

NICK SCHIFRIN: You began your transition in 2012.

What was it like to serve having already transitioned?

2ND LT. NICOLAS TALBOTT: Nobody that I have served with thus far has known that I am transgender unless I have told them or they have seen it posted on the Internet somewhere.

At the end of the day, what our fellow service members care about is whether or not we can put on our uniforms and perform our duties.

NICK SCHIFRIN: A senior defense official told reporters last month, the primary means of identification for those who do not voluntarily separate will be through a service member's periodic health assessment, which tracks whether the service member's health is -- quote -- "consistent with future service."

You, of course, are very public, so your situation is perhaps different.

But what is your sense of how the military will identify people who do not choose to separate?

2ND LT. NICOLAS TALBOTT: As of now, unfortunately, it's not entirely clear what that process is going to look like for us.

NICK SCHIFRIN: What are you going to do if you're forced to leave?

2ND LT. NICOLAS TALBOTT: I will figure something out.

I am the kind of person that, when one door closes in front of me, I look for another door to open up.

I do like to emphasize the fact that this fight is not over.

We still have cases going on.

We have cases going through the courts right now, and this is not the end.

In the grand scheme of things, sometimes, you lose a few battles here and there and you still win the war at the end.

And that's what we're facing right now.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Ryan Goodell, I see you shaking your head.

What are you going to do when you leave?

CHIEF PETTY OFFICER RYAN GOODELL: So, I would love to take advantage of the significant investment that the Navy has made in me and leverage the skills that I have gained over my 13.5 years to stay in this area and continue to serve the nation, just in a civilian capacity.

I would love to stay within the intelligence community.

It is part of a larger fight to serve in any capacity.

And I would like to continue to advocate for transgender service members and also transgender Americans.

2ND LT. NICOLAS TALBOTT: I think there are a lot of very strong opinions out there in the world about transgender people and the LGBTQ community.

And I think the big takeaway at the end of the day is, we're all human beings.

We all have our strengths, our weaknesses, our faults, and our hopes and our dreams.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Nic Talbott, Ryan Goodell, thank you very much to both.

2ND LT. NICOLAS TALBOTT: Thank you so much.

CHIEF PETTY OFFICER RYAN GOODELL: Thanks.

GEOFF BENNETT: The clash between President Trump and Elon Musk is the latest twist in a whirlwind week of political drama and global headlines.

Here to discuss it are Brooks and Capehart.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor of The Washington Post.

Welcome, gentlemen.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, this public falling out between the president and the world's richest man upended one of the most powerful dynamics shaping Donald Trump's second term.

David, I remember on this program right after inauguration you said that this rupture was inevitable.

What are the implications now that it's happened?

DAVID BROOKS: It's so rare that every pundit makes a prediction and it comes true.

DAVID BROOKS: But it did happen.

I, of course, thought they're having a philosophical discussion about debt-to-GDP ratios, and Elon Musk thinks they're too high and Trump doesn't -- isn't bothered.

But they do have substantive disagreements.

Elon Musk thinks the spending bill is too big and he thinks the future is in renewable energy, not fossil fuels.

And that is the core.

There actually is a substantive core.

But these are the two Super Bowl beefers of the online world.

And so, as you saw it unfold on Twitter on Thursday, you realize they're super self-conscious about what they're doing.

They know how the beefing game is played.

They're good at it.

They love the attention.

And you almost got the sense that they were cooperating.

I don't think they were.

But it's so practiced.

It's now such a routine to have these online beefs that it seems almost like meta.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, as you see it, what's at stake here for both men?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, one, I just want to say the fight between them, to pick up on what David was saying, it's so petty.

I mean, I would look at the traffic back and forth and just be like, girl, really?

This is what you're doing.

But, look, what we have here is a battle between two epic characters.

One is the world's most powerful leader just by virtue of being elected president of the United States.

The other one is the world's richest person, who has his own media company, i.e.

X, formerly known as Twitter.

And so, yes, they can beef with each other and smack each other around.

But, again, this was so predictable, right?

I think we both said right afterwards that this is doomed to failure.

And the other thing I will point out is that these are two men who, especially with President Trump, loyalty is a thing.

But with President Trump, loyalty is a one-way street.

And what we have seen with Elon Musk, well, for him, loyalty is a one-way street as well.

And so you have in Elon Musk what you haven't had in anyone else President Trump has gone toe -- has battled or criticized, and that is someone who is willing to fight back with him in the same way that he fights.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yes.

Well, more to come on that front, for sure.

Let's shift our focus to foreign policy.

We had that astonishing attack this week by Ukraine on Russian bombers deep inside Russia, by some accounts wiping out more than a third of their long-range bomber fleet.

And then you had President Trump in the Oval Office with this response: DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: Sometimes, you see two young children fighting like crazy.

They hate each other and they're fighting in a park.

And you try and pull them apart.

They don't want to be pulled.

Sometimes, you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.

And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday.

GEOFF BENNETT: Comparing the war in Ukraine to two children fighting in a park, what does that tell you about the way the president sees this conflict?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, he is an amoralist.

He just doesn't get moral sensibility.

And so these were not two children fighting in the park.

This was one dictatorship invading a democracy.

So there's just a moral difference, but he's obtusely unaware of it.

Second, it turns out winning a Nobel Peace Prize is harder than it looks.

And you actually have to do stuff.

And the one thing he has to do to Vladimir Putin is to raise the cost of continuing this war.

And so, if he wants peace, it's not two children.

You raise the cost for Vladimir Putin.

You have more sanctions.

You give Ukraine more aid.

You welcome Ukraine into NATO.

You do the things that Vladimir Putin doesn't want you to do.

But Donald Trump will never do that because he doesn't actually do that kind of diplomacy, where you impose costs on people to get them to do what you want to do.

And that leads to the thing which may be the theme of our two first subjects.

Narcissists cannot understand what's going on in other people's minds.

And whether it's Musk or Trump or Musk v. Putin, none of these three guys can understand how another person is thinking.

And you can't do a negotiation, broker a deal between two warring parties if you can't put yourself in other people's shoes.

So, on multiple levels, Trump is just whiffing on his Russia policy.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan, how do you see it?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: And I would add to that that the interesting thing here is that the United States' influence around the world seems to be diminishing.

And I think it's diminishing, one, because of who's sitting in the Oval Office.

He doesn't want alliances.

He doesn't want partnerships.

We look at what's happening with the Iran nuclear talks now.

And it was brought back to when President Obama was negotiating the Iran nuclear deal.

And the thing that jumped out was that it wasn't just the United States and Iran having the conversation.

It was the United States and other nations as a united front putting pressure on Iran and having these negotiations.

We don't have any of that.

It's not happening.

Is President Trump working with the Europeans to help come up and put the pressure on Putin that David is talking about?

No.

He's on the phone for two hours with President Putin.

For what?

What came out of it?

Nothing.

So, as long as the president decides to go it alone, his dreams of having some foreign policy success and certainly a Nobel Peace Prize will never -- it's never going to happen.

GEOFF BENNETT: As we wind up our conversation, I want to talk, David, about your column this week, because you write about the Democrats' big problem, as you see it, you say they don't understand that the Trump revolution has upended the whole political order and that Democrats need to rethink their entire world view.

How existential an issue is this for the Democrats as you see it?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I have just - - all my Democratic friends are mad at the party leadership.

We need a message.

We need a policy.

But, to me, that's too small.

Sometimes, historical epochs change.

And parties have to change to deal with it.

In 1932, when FDR started the New Deal, that changed the historical epoch.

And the Republican Party spent 20 years ignoring that fact and losing, until Dwight Eisenhower came along and said, I accept the New Deal, we're going to move on.

And, to me, we're in that kind of historical pivot.

It started sometime in the 2010s.

Global populism was on the rise.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say, we're in decline.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say, elites don't get us.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say, experts don't care about people like me.

This is a populist epoch.

And there's a left-wing version and a right-wing version.

But if the Democrats continue along the Clinton-Obama-Biden road, that's just not up to the moment.

And so I think it takes a big rethinking, a new identity, a new grand narrative, a new definition of what the biggest problem in the world right now is.

And those are all beyond the scope of working politicians who are trying to fund-raise.

GEOFF BENNETT: A big rethinking.

I mean, meantime, Democrats have launched a $20 million initiative to figure out -- as you put your head down lamenting -- $20 million to figure out how to talk to young men, the kinds of young men who broke for Donald Trump in the last election.

Is that money well spent?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: No, it is not money well spent.

(LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: You don't need a think tank to figure out how to talk to young men.

Just go talk to young men.

I look at -- before I get into that, one, I stand by what I have said on the show many times.

The Democrats don't have a message problem.

The Democrats don't have a narrative problem.

The Democrats don't have a policy problem.

I think what the problem that they have is what David pointed out in your column.

They haven't quite figured out how to turn all of that and have it meet the moment that we're in.

Democrats are still looking for a savior.

They're looking for that one person to bring them back to the promised land, instead of focusing on where we are right now and making sure that these constituencies understand that Democrats get what they want to do.

And I keep thinking about the candidate for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Iowa.

His name is Nathan Sage.

When you look at his launch video, you would swear, you look at the guy, he must be MAGA.

You listen to his tone, it's aggressive, it's focused, it's clear.

He must be MAGA, but he's not.

He is a Democrat with a capital D and he's talking like a real person.

If -- the people who are putting that $20 million into this dumb think tank, how about taking a look at people like Nathan Sage and other Democrats around the country who have gotten the message that they need to talk like real people about real issues and talk about what they're going to do about it?

That's already in the Democratic playbook.

That's what they need to be doing.

GEOFF BENNETT: Lots of Democrats are going to be Googling Nathan Sage tonight.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, my thanks to you both.

DAVID BROOKS: Thank you.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Geoff, thanks.

AMNA NAWAZ: At 37 years old, Jacinda Ardern was the world's youngest female head of government when she became prime minister of New Zealand.

She was also just the second in history to give birth while in office.

And she led her nation of five million through multiple crises, including a devastating mass shooting and the COVID pandemic, before resigning in 2023.

Her historic journey is the focus of a new documentary called "Prime Minister" set to premiere next week.

And I spoke with her recently about her time in office and her new memoir, "A Different Kind of Power.

Prime Minister Ardern, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thank you for being here.

JACINDA ARDERN, Former Prime Minister of New Zealand: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, in the book, in the very first page, you dedicate it to the criers, the warriors, and the huggers, which just hit me right in the heart.

AMNA NAWAZ: But the words that you use to describe power are not words we usually hear from heads of state.

You talk about empathy and kindness.

You write about preparing to become prime minister and wanting to bring kindness back.

How and why did those become your guiding principles?

JACINDA ARDERN: Well, in part because I think those are all of the things that took me into politics in the first place.

And I think, unfortunately, over time, and this is something that I notice is a bit of a universal thing, we have built up an expectation about the way that politicians need to behave in order to survive the political environment.

But I don't believe that necessarily means that is what people are expecting of us, that idea that you have to be devoid of kindness because that would equate to weakness, or the idea that it's a compassion-free zone.

I actually do think voters seek that.

And, hopefully, my time in politics demonstrated that you can lead in that way and you can successfully lead in that way.

AMNA NAWAZ: You write in the book about very suddenly someone unexpectedly being thrust into leadership.

And you write very honestly about I think what's fair to call the impostor syndrome of it all.

AMNA NAWAZ: You wrote in the book: "I had been deputy leader for exactly five months.

Now I was running to be the prime minister of New Zealand.

There were moments where I hovered above myself, just an observer to these high-speed events.

It all felt so surreal."

So how do you get over that sense of, how did I get here and can I do this?

JACINDA ARDERN: Responsibility.

There is nothing I think that will overshadow any self-doubt more than a sense of responsibility.

And I did question at times whether I was the right person to be seven weeks out from an election suddenly at 37 years of age, being thrust into the position of running to be prime minister of New Zealand.

But I think the message that I would like to share is, even if you have that confidence gap, first of all, you are able to overcome it when what becomes bigger in your mind is your sense of responsibility and your duty to others, but, equally, that confidence gap can actually bring some strength as well.

It often means you bring humility to leadership.

It means that you prepare.

It often means you look for risk and that you bring in experts and others who can help inform your decision-making.

Those are good leadership qualities that we too often discount.

AMNA NAWAZ: You write about how you wanted to bring people into the experience of leadership, especially leading in crisis.

And you had to do that, as you mentioned, when there was a white supremacist mass shooting at two mosques in New Zealand, killed 51 people in 2019.

And we should remind people gun ownership in New Zealand is relatively high, right?

JACINDA ARDERN: It is.

AMNA NAWAZ: Guns, in this case, in that shooting, had been legally acquired.

You said never again.

AMNA NAWAZ: You pushed for change.

And you do it.

You ban military-style semiautomatic weapons.

You limit high-capacity magazines, establish a firearms registry, all within just over a year.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I know that you're hesitant to weigh into other nations' politics, especially here in the U.S., but you live here now.

You know both these countries.

So I wonder what you think the difference is between the two nations that kept similar changes from being enforced here.

JACINDA ARDERN: And, look, I comment as an observer and also acknowledging the significant differences in our political systems.

Yes, we changed our gun laws and the ban on military-style semiautomatic weapons after that horrific event in New Zealand.

Those laws changed within 27 days.

But that was also because we had the support of members of Parliament.

We have 120 of them, and 119 voted in favor of their change.

And I think it's because they felt the weight of expectation from the New Zealand public, because an empathetic response is nothing if it's not coupled with action that doesn't drive change.

And my observation, of course, is that our systems are different, but also in New Zealand we do see gun ownership as very much a responsibility versus a right.

But I, having said that, still observe an expectation as well here.

AMNA NAWAZ: Among the general public?

JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, among the general public.

I do sense that.

I think merely the fact that I'm asked so frequently about that change in New Zealand, that I'm asked to make an observation here, that tells me that crisis is still calling for change.

It just has not yet been answered yet.

AMNA NAWAZ: Do you feel lawmakers here have failed to meet the expectations then?

JACINDA ARDERN: Again, this is where I just, again, as an outside observer -- only lawmakers could speak to the circumstances that are leading to the status quo.

My observation, though, is that, the public, is that the expectation for change is still present.

AMNA NAWAZ: You write very personally in the book too about all the questions that you, as a woman, as a woman in her mid-30s, as a woman who talked about wanting a family, faced all along your political career as you rose into power, whether or not you were planning on getting pregnant, whether or not you would take maternity leave if elected.

One interviewer asking about, shouldn't employers know who they're hiring?

That's the moment you write about on a TV show in which you kind of snap.

JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

(LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: And you point to him and you say: "It is totally unacceptable in 2017," when this interview was, "to say that a woman should have to answer that question in a workplace."

You repeated: "It is unacceptable."

AMNA NAWAZ: Tell me about that moment.

What happened?

JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, there had been a bit of -- I mean, there had been some -- as you say, some context to that, some buildup.

I had perhaps climatized to the idea that it was something that for me was not going to be personal.

And, in part, I accepted that.

I lived a -- I was in public life.

I was in a role where I was asking for people to support me.

So I guess in a way I put myself in a different category when it came to questions around having a family.

So I was used to the speculation, and I was happy to answer that question, but I completely rebelled against the idea that every woman should have to answer that question.

And so that was a moment where I pushed back hard, not for me, but I hoped, in that moment, for others.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have become very familiar with this country in a bit more ways.

In the headlines today is this very public, very personal back-and-forth between two of the most powerful men on the planet, President Trump and Elon Musk.

And I just wonder, as you watch this unfold in the way that it is, very shoot from the hip, very emotional, what do you make of that?

How are you watching that?

JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I mean, one of the things that I hope to do by putting out a book that I never really intended to write was to spotlight different types of leadership, because, actually, regardless of whether you start a conversation about politics in the U.S. or in parts of Europe, we are in a moment where a particular style of leadership is being spotlighted.

But it's not the only one.

I lead a fellowship on empathetic leadership with politicians who are out there in the field now often in senior positions who are leading in a very particular way, but that often doesn't attract headlines.

So I will use whatever opportunity I have to put the spotlight on them instead.

AMNA NAWAZ: Could you ever see two women having this kind of public back-and-forth in leadership positions?

Is there a double standard still at play?

JACINDA ARDERN: Maybe we put a few more women in leadership, and then we can ask ourselves the question.

AMNA NAWAZ: Do you think the U.S. will have a woman president in our lifetime?

JACINDA ARDERN: In my lifetime, I do believe.

Yes, I do.

I do.

AMNA NAWAZ: Why do you think that?

JACINDA ARDERN: And I don't think I'm particularly engaging in anything that would give me any outstanding longevity.

So why do I think that?

I think all Western liberal democracies are designed to represent the communities they serve.

And I'm very lucky.

In New Zealand, the first country in the world to give women the right to vote, I was the third female prime minister.

There does come a point where gender doesn't become an issue anymore and it just becomes about good leadership.

AMNA NAWAZ: The book is "A Different Kind of Power."

The author is the Right Honorable Dame and former Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern.

Prime Minister, thank you so much for your time.

JACINDA ARDERN: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: And we'll be back shortly with a look at some special PBS programming coming up.

GEOFF BENNETT: But, first, take a moment to hear from your local PBS station.

It's a chance to offer your support, which helps to keep programs like the NewsHour on the air.

AMNA NAWAZ: For those of you staying with us, a look at the little known stories of the women who operated lighthouses across the country, saving lives and keeping history.

John Yang brings us this encore report.

JOHN YANG: Surfers and seabirds called this stretch of the California coastline home.

It can be dramatic and breathtaking.

But the rocky, jagged shore and shoals, sometimes shrouded in fog, can also be treacherous for boats and ships that get too close.

For generations, the Point Pinos Lighthouse in Pacific Grove has stood century, warning mariners to keep their distance.

When it was built in the mid-1850s, this was an isolated outpost.

The nearest town, Monterey, was about four miles away, reachable only by a twisty dirt and sand trail.

Those on the east coast who wanted to get to the west coast generally traveled by sailing boat, a six month ordeal that took them around Cape Horn at the tip of South America.

JOHN YANG: This is the oldest continuously operating lighthouse on the U.S. Pacific coast.

Two women have been principal lighthouse keepers here, dating back to 1856, when Charlotte Layton became the first woman to have that job on the West Coast.

NANCY MCDOWELL, Docent Coordinator, Point Pinos Lighthouse: Charlotte Layton, who was the first, took over when her husband was killed.

She sort of knew what to do and she was widowed and the people around the local community wanted her to have a job so she wouldn't be destitute.

JOHN YANG: Nancy McDowell is the docent coordinator at Point Pinos.

How did her husband die?

NANCY MCDOWELL: He was with the group that went out to the house where this bandit was and he went to the back door and that's where the bandit came out and shot the three of them that were back there.

JOHN YANG: And that's how she lost her husband, but also became the head keeper.

NANCY MCDOWELL: Yes.

JOHN YANG: These are sort of unheralded pioneers doing this.

NANCY MCDOWELL: Right.

We think it's wonderful and especially that she got the same pay as her husband had.

JOHN YANG: It was one of the first non-clerical government jobs open to women.

Over the years, there were scores of women lighthouse keepers from coast to coast.

SHAUNA MACDONALD, University of Canada: One of my grandfathers worked at a lighthouse here in Nova Scotia, so I've always been fascinated.

JOHN YANG: Shauna MacDonald of Cape Breton University in Canada works to shine a light on the women who ran lighthouses.

SHAUNA MACDONALD: There were hundreds of women from the 18th, but really 19th and 20th centuries who kept lighthouses in the United States.

Most of them, however, would not have been official keepers.

So the official number is somewhere around 200.

JOHN YANG: 200 is more than I had imagined.

Did that number surprise you?

SHAUNA MACDONALD: Absolutely.

I mean, I'm someone who's always been interested in women's history and women's lives, and I just -- I sort of felt ashamed that it hadn't ever occurred to me, you know, even though I had been researching lighthouses, when I realized how many women had done this work or had been involved in some way.

NANCY MCDOWELL: So from here you can see the original lens up there and -- JOHN YANG: At Point Pinos the second woman to be principal lighthouse keeper was Emily Fish.

She had the job from 1893 to 1914.

NANCY MCDOWELL: She hopefully had a time to sit, maybe resting during the day after being up all night with the lamp.

JOHN YANG: The widow of a physician, she was known as the socialite keeper.

She entertained guests at the lighthouse in her fashionable sitting room.

NANCY MCDOWELL: We're going up the ladder to the lantern room.

JOHN YANG: So we see this vista and this light is going out 17 miles is in this entire direction.

NANCY MCDOWELL: Yes.

However many degrees this is all the way around.

It's not 360 because this little part's gone.

And I'm not sure how many that is, but it goes everywhere except in the fog.

And I don't know how far it does go.

It depends on how thick the fog is, I suspect.

JOHN YANG: By 1990, all U.S. lighthouses had been automated, eliminating the need for keepers.

SHAUNA MACDONALD: Lighthouse keeping was not a terribly posh job, despite the exception of someone like Emily Fish.

These were mostly working class people.

These were not easy jobs.

JOHN YANG: Ida Lewis was arguably the best known U.S. woman lighthouse keeper.

She made it onto the cover of Harper's Weekly in 1869.

She ran the Lime Rock Lighthouse in Rhode Island's Newport Harbor.

SHAUNA MACDONALD: She did a lot of rescuing, so that's how she was.

She came to be known by rowing out in her rowboat and rescuing people who had gotten into some kind of trouble on the water.

She began at the age of 15 because her father had fallen ill. And so he just sort of supervised and she did the work until she was an elderly woman.

By all accounts, she was a tiny woman, but she was able to do these wonderful things.

So she was famous in her time.

But then I also love women who haven't gotten as much attention.

Laura Hedges.

She kept a lighthouse in New Jersey for a while when her husband had fallen ill. And then I was able to visit the National Archives and find the logs where I can see Laura Hedges having been the keeper in 1925 and 1926, and the day that her husband passed, she simply had written in the log, keeper died.

And the time and the rest of the log is weather and sailing reports.

JOHN YANG: Her husband dies, she makes a note of it.

But she keeps on working.

She keeps on her job.

SHAUNA MCDONALD: She keeps on working.

These women are remarkable for their strength, I think, both physical and mental, as well as obviously emotional to be able to keep doing this work.

Most of them didn't think of what they were doing as remarkable or interesting or strange.

They did their jobs.

They did them well.

They cared for people.

NANCY MCDOWELL: These logs were written by Emily Fish.

NANCY MCDOWELL: And usually it had to do with the weather and what was happening around.

JOHN YANG: Hazy fog, clear showers; 89 years old, Nancy McDowell is determined to keep a spotlight on the stories of these women keepers just as they and those like them around the country kept their shoreline beacons illuminated.

GEOFF BENNETT: There's a lot more online, including the latest episode of our digital program "PBS News Weekly," which takes a look at President Trump's new travel ban and his feud with Elon Musk.

That's on our YouTube page.

AMNA NAWAZ: And be sure to watch a special "Washington Week With The Atlantic" tonight on PBS.

The New York Times' Thomas Friedman joins Jeffrey Goldberg to discuss President Trump's expanding list of global crises and his escalating feud with Elon Musk.

GEOFF BENNETT: And on the next "PBS News Weekend": how A.I.

may be robbing new college graduates of entry-level jobs.

And that is the "News Hour" for tonight and this week.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "News Hour" team, thank you for joining us and have a great weekend.