GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "News Hour" tonight: The balance of# power comes .. calls for a federal judge to be disbarred and the# Supreme Court hears a critical redistricting case.

GEOFF BENNETT: Top Trump officials appear# to accidentally share Yemen war plans via## a commercial messaging app# with "Atlantic" editor and## "Washington Week" moderator Jeffrey# Goldberg, who joins us with details.

AMNA NAWAZ: And farmers across the country# feel the impact of federal funding cuts.

HANNAH SMITH-BRUBAKER, Pasa Sustainable# Agriculture: It's heartbreaking to tell a## farmer who is counting on it, and the season# does.. (BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "News Hour."

In a U.S. appeals court today, the Trump# administration chall.. decision to stop the deportations of alleged# gang members using a rare wartime authority.

AMNA NAWAZ: The three-judge panel has yet to rule,## but there was one apparent point of# consensus among two of the judges,## agreeing the judiciary does have the# authority to review President Trump's actions.

It's the latest chapter in the ongoing showdown# between President Trump and the judiciary.

Our White House correspondent, Laura# Barron-Lopez, joins us now with the latest.

So, Laura, this was a nearly two-hour-long# hearing in this D.C. appeals court on the Trump## administration's use of this centuries-old# Alien Enemies Act.

What stood out to you?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, this# three-judge panel includes judges## appointed by President George W. Bush,# Barack Obama, as well as Donald Trump.

And there was one big point of# agreement among two of the judges## that spoke the most during the arguments.# I'm talking about Judge Justin Walker,## who is an appointee of President Trump,# and an Obama appointee, Patricia Millett.

And they were both skeptical of the# Trump administration's arguments that## essentially the president's actions# are beyond judicial review.

So they## both said they believe that# the judiciary can review this.

Now, Judge Justin Walker focused his questions# on whether or not D.C. was the right venue,## saying maybe this lawsuit should# be brought somewhere else.

Now,## Judge Patricia Millett focused her# questioning on due process.

And she## basically said that there was no record that# the people that were deported under the Alien## Enemies were necessarily Tren de Aragua, or# if they were maybe victims of Tren de Aragua.

And, specifically, Judge Millett said that# there were planeloads of people.

There were no## procedures in place to notify these people who# were deported, that Nazis got better treatment## under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened# here, referring to due process and hearing## boards that were held the last time the Alien# Enemies Act was invoked during World War II.

The final big moment during the hearing, Amna,# was that the Justice Department lawyer said that,## if the appeals court ruled in their favor,# the government would immediately resume mass## deportations under Alien Enemies without# giving notice or without due process.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, it was Judge Boasberg who# first ruled to block the deportations under## that Alien Enemies Act before this appeals# hearing.

He stood by that ruling.

Tell us## what he had to say.

And also did this appeals# court appear likely to uphold his ruling?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: There's no way to# know right now how the appeals court is## going to rule.

But Judge Boasberg# did reaffirm his ruling blocking## the Trump administration from using# the wartime powers for deportations.

And in a 37-page opinion shortly# before this appeals court hearing,## Judge Boasberg said that he believed that the:# "Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on another## equally fundamental theory.

Before they," meaning# the migrants, "may be deported,they are entitled## to individualized hearings to determine# whether the act applies to them at all."

So, again, a similar argument to what# Judge Millett was making in the hearing,## that ultimately they believe that# there needs to be due process here.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, of course, this# whole court battle is playing out## as the Trump administration continues its# campaign against members of the judiciary,## particularly Judge Boasberg.

What# should we understand about that?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Across the board,## Trump officials have been criticizing and# questionin.. Elon Musk has repeatedly said that Judge# Boasberg should be impeached.

And that's## part of a pattern.

We did a review, Amna, of# Musk's posts on social media, his X platform.## And Musk has made at least 94 posts criticizing# the judiciary and their decisions since January.

And other members of the Trump# administration have jumped on board,## including Attorney General Pam Bondi and# Seb Gorka, an adviser to the president.

PAM BONDI (R), U.S. Attorney General# Nominee: This is an out-of-control judge,## a federal judge trying to control our# entire foreign policy.

And he cannot do it.

SEBASTIAN GORKA, Senior Director For# Counterterrorism: And there is one person,## according to the Constitution, according to the#statutes of the nation, who has the right to decide who can be in America, who are the aliens,# who are the foreigners who are allowed into the## nation and who we keep out.

That individual is the# commander in chief.

And that man is Donald Trump.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: In addition to those# two officials, President Trump has also## attacked Judge Boasberg and the judicial branch,# calling Judge Boasberg -- quote -- "conflicted"## and saying that he should be disbarred, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura, more broadly, what# kind of response have we seen to this## tension between the president and the judiciary?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Former# federal Judge J. Michael Luttig,## a conservative, said that Trump is# declaring a war on the judiciary.

He wrote in The New York Times today that# -- quote -- "No one wants murderers or other## criminals to be allowed to stay in this# country.

But to rid the country of them,## the president must first follow the Constitution.# Judge Boasberg does not want to assume the role## of president.

The president wants# to assume the role of the judge."

Now, Judge Luttig was ultimately# optimistic that the judiciary would## stand their ground here and provide# checks and balances on the president.## Other constitutional scholars I# talked to said that it would take## much more than just the judiciary to# keep the president in line here, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura Barron-Lopez with# the latest starting us off today.

Laura, thank you.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT:## U.S. negotiators held talks with a# Russian delegation in Saudi Arabia## today on a proposed partial cease-fire in Ukraine.

AMNA NAWAZ: That comes one day after# the negotiators met with the Ukrainian## delegation.

Both countries have agreed# in principle to a temporary cease-fire,## but major sticking points remain.

GEOFF BENNETT: For now, though, the war grinds on.

In Sumy, Ukraine, people stranded in their# homes today after a Russian missile barrage## set residential buildings ablaze.

The# attack injured the elderly and hit this## school while children were sheltering inside,# while, thousands of miles away in Riyadh,## Saudi Arabia, high-stakes negotiations to# try and iron out the details of a cease-fire.

Two senior U.S. officials met behind closed# doors today with the Russian delegation led by## Moscow's former deputy foreign minister.

That's# after the U.S. met yesterday with the Ukrainian## delegation led by that country's defense minister.

President Trump today speaking to reporters.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States:# We're talking about territory right now.## We're talking about lines of demarcation.# We're talking about power plant ownership.

GEOFF BENNETT: But it's not clear the sides# agree on exactly what has been paused in their## limited cease-fire.

The White House and Kremlin# described it as a stop on energy infrastructure## attacks.

But Ukraine described it as a halt# on energy and other civilian infrastructure.

Also on the table, a deal to pause attacks in## the Black Sea,where Ukraine managed# to sink or push out Russia's fleet.

STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. Special Envoy# to the Middle East: Putin's got a## huge respect for the preside.. GEOFF BENNETT: It comes amid a 180-degree shift# in U.S. policy toward Moscow.

Th.. display when Special Envoy Steve Witkoff# suggested in a weekend interview with Tucker## Carlson that Ukrainians in four regions partially# occupied by Moscow want to be part of Russia.

STEVE WITKOFF: They're Russian-speaking.

TUCKER CARLSON, Former FOX News Anchor.. STEVE WITKOFF: There have been refere.. people have indicated that they# want to be under Russian rule.## Will the world acknowledge that# those are Russian territories?

GEOFF BENNETT: Those September 2022# Kremlin-run referendums have been## denounced as shams by the international# community.

Security footage from one of## them shows a woman being led to vote# by a Russian soldier carrying guns.## Another shows an elderly woman monitored by# a Russian soldier as she casts her ballot.

Witkoff went further, imagining# a total reset with Russia.

STEVE WITKOFF: Thinking about how to# integrate their energy policies in the Arctic.

TUCKER CARLSON: Exactly.

STEVE WITKOFF: Share sea lanes.. GEOFF BENNETT: Back in Ukraine, until# there's an across-the-board cease-fire,## Ukrainians will continue to pick up the# pieces after persistent Russian attacks.

AMNA NAWAZ:## We start the day's headlines# with growing unrest in Turkey.

Police have detained more than 1,000 people,# cracking down on protests and dissent that## began after the arrest of one of President# Recep Tayyip Erdogan's main political rivals.## Union representatives said today that# journalists were seized in their homes.

Some of the massive demonstrations,# the largest in more than a decade,## were met by riot police with water cannons,# tear gas and pepper spray.

The protesters and## opposition see the jailing of Istanbul's# Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu as a political ploy## to remove him from the next presidential# race.

Erdogan defended the arrest today,## criticized his opponents and called# the protests a movement of violence.

RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkish President (through# translator): What we have witnessed in the last## five days has shown us the truth again.

A# country like Turkey has a main oppositi.. party that is too small, too primitive,# and too weak in terms of foresight, vision,## and quality.

It has become apparent once again# that they could not be trusted to run a country,## let alone local governments, or even a buffet.

AMNA NAWAZ: Mayor Imamoglu faces# corruption and terrorism charges,## which he and the opposition have decried as false.

More aid groups have come under fire in the# escalating violence in the Gaza Strip.

The## International Committee of the Red Cross# said one of its offices in Southern Gaza## was damaged by an explosive projectile the# Israel Defense Forces later said was fired## by mistake.

That comes as the United Nations has# decided to temporarily scale back about a third## of its footprint in Gaza after a recent# Israeli strike hit one of its compounds.

Israel, meanwhile, has been bombarding Gaza in# recent days.

Gaza's Health Ministry said more## than 65 people were killed in just the last 24# hours, including two Palestinian journalists.## The Committee to Protect Journalists# now says more than 170 journalists## and media workers have been killed in# the war, the vast majority Palestinian.

Back here at home, Dr. Susan Monarez has# been nominated to head the Centers for## Disease Control and Prevention, making# permanent the acting role she already## holds.

Her nomination comes after President# Trump abruptly withdrew his first pick,## former Florida Congressman David# Weldon, earlier this month.

Also today, Postmaster General Louis# DeJoy is stepping down from his post## effective immediately.

DeJoy, who# has served in the role since 2020,## had already led dramatic efforts to restructure# USPS, including shrinking its work force and## cutting its budget.

He'd recently asked Elon# Musk's DOGE team for help cutting further costs.

On Wall Street today, stocks soared from# optimism after President Trump indicated## he might soften his tariff stance.

The Dow# Jones climbed by almost 600 points, while the## Nasdaq made its own 400-point gain.

The S&P 500# finished up after four straight weeks of losses.

And a passing of note.

Former U.S. Representative# Mia Love has died.

The daughter of Haitian## immigrants, Love was a pioneer, the first Black# Republican woman elected to Congress representing## Utah, a state that's overwhelmingly white.

She# was seen as a rising star within the GOP, but## she distanced herself from Donald Trump.

She lost# to a Democrat while seeking a third term in 2018.

Love suffered from brain cancer,# and her daughter posted earlier## this month that she was no longer responding# to treatment.

Mia Love was just 49 years old.

Still to come on the "News Hour": two former# heads of the EPA discuss the impact of cuts to## the agency; the Supreme Court hears a critical# redistricting case about race in Louisiana;## and Tamara Keith and Amy Walter break# down the latest political headlines.

GEOFF BENNETT: Senior Trump administration# officials, including the vice president and## secretary of defense, used the encrypted# commercial messaging app Signal to debate## the pros and cons of launching military# strikes against the Houthis in Yemen.

AMNA NAWAZ: And they accidentally invited# the editor in chief of "The Atlantic"## and "Washington Week" moderator Jeffrey# Goldberg to be part of that chat group.

Goldberg revealed the details today in a report# published for "The Atlantic," and he joins me now.

Jeff, welcome to the "News# Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, you're added to this gro.. them appear to be senior national security and# Cabinet officials like Marco Rubio, J.D.

Vance,## Pete Hegseth, John Ratcliffe, Tulsi Gabbard,# Stephen Miller, Steve Witkoff, Michael Waltz.

How did you end up on this chat?

And when do you# realize it looks like you were added by mistake?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I was invited a couple of# weeks ago to connect with Michael Waltz, the## national security adviser.

That didn't strike me# as particularly strange, given my job and his job.

A little while later, I'm added to a group# chat with the people you just named.

That## seemed strange.

But I kind of just ignored# it a little bit.

And then it really became## a very bizarre situation on Saturday the# 15th of March, when I was shared on a text## in this group from somebody purporting to# be Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense.

And this text contained operational# military information, including the## time that bombs were supposed to# start dropping on Yemen.

And this## was two hours before that time.

So I# simply waited and stared at my phone.

And, sure enough, the attack, the American attack# on Yemen began to be felt at about 1:30 Eastern or## so, 1:50 Eastern.

And that's when I realized# that the chain was real.

Until that point,## I really had a deep suspicion that I# was being spoofed or hoaxed or being## led astray on a disinformation campaign,# the rationale for which I can't figure out.

But this all seemed so improbable that I# simply assumed that it couldn't be real.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I want to point# out you share some details.

You## report some details of what# unfolds on that text chain.

When it comes to these operational# details, though, you're very careful## with your language.

You write in your piece# what appears to be from the account of Pete## Hegseth posts -- quote -- "operational# details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen,## including information about targets, weapons the# U.S. would be deploying and attack sequencing."

This gets posted two hours# later.

The bombings begin.## And then what do you see unfold on the group chat?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: A lot of happiness and virtual# high-fiving.

There's some reporting, again,## material that I didn't feel comfortable# reporting because it contained tactical## operational information, about the effects# of the bombing on various places in Yemen.

Mainly, it was the participants in this group# chat, which, as you note, contained most of the## national security leadership of the United States# congratulating each other and sending emojis,## flag emojis, muscle emojis, fire emojis to each# other in celebration of a successful mission.

AMNA NAWAZ: We did hear from Brian# Hughes.

I know you did as well,## the spokesman for the National Security# Council, who sent a statement in response## when you did reach out.

He said that it# appears the message thread was authentic,## that they're reviewing how an inadvertent# number, presumably yours, was added.

He also says -- quote -- "The thread is a# demonstration of the deep and thoughtful## policy coordination between senior officials.# The ongoing success of the Houthi operation## demonstrates that there were no threats to# our service members or our national security."

Jeff, you have reported on national security for# decades.

That this is being held up as an example## of a deep and thoughtful policy coordination,# had you ever seen anything like this before?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I don't disagree# with something that he said.

If you look at the story on TheAtlantic.com,# you will see that they are having a live debate,## including the vice president of the United# States, about the utility of attacking Yemen and## the European component of this and various other# things.

There's interesting discourse going on.

But, according to everything I understand,# they're not supposed to be doing this on## commercial messaging apps.

They got quite lucky# that they included my phone number in the -- if## they're going to pick an errant phone number, I# mean, at least it wasn't somebody who supported## the Houthis, because they were actually# handing out information that I believe## could have endangered the lives of American# servicepeople who were involved in that operation.

AMNA NAWAZ: I guess the question here too, Jeff,# is, what don't we know?

How many other group chats## are there?

Do you know how frequently Signal as# this kind of -- in this sort of way at that level?

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: We don't know that.

I am# under the impression from administrations## prior to this administration that Signal is# often used by national security officials,## but mainly as a planning device, what# time is the meeting, that sort of thing.

I have never in my life seen a# commercial messaging app used## to discuss whether and when and# how to attack another country.

AMNA NAWAZ: This is a stunning report.# It's available in full at TheAtlantic.com.

That's the editor in chief of "The# Atlantic" and the moderator of## "Washington Week" right here at PBS,# Jeff Goldberg, joining us tonight.

Jeff, thank you.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: For more on the# national security .. we turn now to Leon Panetta.

He served as# secretary of defense and director of the## CIA during the Obama administration,# among many other roles in government.

Welcome back to the "News Hour," sir.

How does this lapse strike you from# an operational security perspective,## that the country's top national security officials# shared information about an imminent strike,## an imminent attack on a commercial messaging app?

LEON PANETTA, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense:# Well, look, this is a serious security breach,## particularly when it comes to war plans.

Look, war plans, attack plans are among the# most sensitive and classified information that## you can have.

And it has to be handled# with care.

I think it was a mistake to## have a conversation a Signal app that is not# approved for sharing classified information.

So,## I'm not sure why they even placed# any of this information on Signal.

But, nevertheless, the fact that# it included somebody who was not## cleared for that information, and as a# matter of fact was a member of the press,## is a serious breach and one that# needs to be fully investigated.

GEOFF BENNETT: What are the# traditional secure channels## for this type of discussion?# How would this normally unfold?

LEON PANETTA: Well, when I was both director of# the CIA and secretary of defense, when it came to## attack plans, the discussion was reserved for the# Situation Room in the National Security Council,## which is highly protected and is a# place where you can have that kind of## discussion without having to worry whether# or not any of that information would leak.

So I'm a little bit taken aback that they# would have this kind of conversation a## commercial messaging network.

That just# strikes me as being pretty careless.

GEOFF BENNETT: How might a# foreign intelligence service,## a foreign country trying to do the U.S.# harm, how might they use this kind of## information or how might they exploit# what appear to be lax security practices?

LEON PANETTA: Well, there are very serious## consequences to leaking information# about a potential military attack.

If that information is leaked to an adversary,# not only does it jeopardize very important## intelligence resources that are being used# to be able to determine military plans,## but, in addition to that, that kind of# leak would give a potential adversary## an advantage of being able to strike first# and going after whatever weapons, whatever## naval vessels were going# to be used for the attack.

So it could cost lives of our men and women in# uniform if that information was leaked.

That's## the danger here.

And, furthermore,# it weakens our national security,## very frankly, if we cannot protect# that kind of sensitive information.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Trump, when he# was asked about this today by reporters,## he said he didn't know anything about it,# and then he quickly pivoted to criticizing## "The Atlantic."

It doesn't appear that# he's focused on taking accountability.

And, of course, he faced a criminal trial,# criminal charges from his handling of classified## information.

That aside, in your# view, what should the consequences be?

LEON PANETTA: Well, I don't think there's any# question that somebody made a serious blunder## here, a serious mistake, of including# somebody that should not have been part## of a national security group discussing war plans.

So, who added that name?

And why did that# happen?

That really does have to be investigated,## because it could involve a breach of our# espionage laws, because that kind of breach## simply cannot happen when the security# of the United States is on the line.## That is the danger of having# that kind of information leak.

GEOFF BENNETT: Former Secretary Leon Panetta,# thank you for your time and for your insight, sir.

LEON PANETTA: Good to be with you.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Trump's efforts# to overhaul the Environmental Protection## Agency are being cheered by many# in the fossil fuel industry who are## critics of what they say is excessive regulation.

But many, including scientists and# environmentalists, are deeply concerned.

Our William Brangham joins# us now with more -- William.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Geoff, the EPA's# new administrator, Lee Zeldin,## has been quite explicit, saying he# is -- quote -- "driving a dagger## through the heart of climate change religion."

That has meant enormous changes, ranging from# laying off EPA scientists, repealing dozens## of rules and regulations, to challenging the very# idea that greenhouse gases endanger human health.

We are joined now by two former# EPA administrators.

Christine Todd## Whitman headed the agency under# President George W. Bush and is## a former Republican governor of New# Jersey.

And Gina McCarthy ran the EPA## under President Obama and served as a# top climate adviser to President Biden.

Thank you both so much for being here.

Christine Todd Whitman, to you first.

You and# Gina McCarthy have both been -- excuse me.

Gina McCarthy, excuse me, to you first.

You and Christine Todd Whitman have both# very clear about the dismay that you## see at what is happening at the agency# that you used to run.

When you look at## the scale and scope of what is going on,# what is it that most stands out to you?

GINA MCCARTHY, Former Administrator,# Environmental Protection Agency: Well,## first of all, I thank Christie for all of her# wo.. op-ed just a few weeks ago on this.

Look, they# are challenging all of the fundamental tenets## of what EPA stands for.

First of all, we know# that Administrator Leavitt (sic) has changed## the mission of the agency from protecting health# and the environment to American energy dominance.

Now, how does that work for an agency# that's trying to people healthy,## that's trying to reduce sources of# pollution, and do it in a way that's## credible and consistent with the laws of our# country?

And so it is a sad moment right now,## because they're trying to dismiss 65 percent of# the human beings that have worked so hard at EPA.

And they're really looking at dismantling all# of the scientists, the Office of Research and## Development, our Environmental Justice office.

So# there is nothing that isn't at risk at EPA, but,## most importantly, the risk it poses to people# in our country is extraordinary, and they have## to be aware, because we may end up having to# protect ourselves if EPA isn't there for us.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Christine Todd Whitman,## one of the things that Gina McCarthy just#.. series of scientists, including those at# the Office for Research and Development.

For people who don't know,# can you explain who those## people are and what their dismissal or# departure would mean for the agency?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, Former Administrator,#Environmen... potential problems for the# public, for public health.

I mean, these are the people that have# done all the research on plastics,## showing how microorganisms or micro pieces of the# plastic are now getting into the human food chain,## and why it's important that we start to deal with# that.

These are the people that are looking ahead.

I mean, when we had the anthrax attacks,# there was no standard for what was safe,## one spore of anthrax, 15 spores of anthrax.

That## came back to us.

It was the EPA that# set the standard.

We set it at zero.

But the scientists followed that up to see, what# is the safe standard?

So these are people who are## working every day to protect us and to look# for new areas where we might have problems## or things that we have seen as problematic# in the past that are not so problematic now,## that we figured out ways around them or they're# not as bad as we thought they might have been.

EPA has a very simple mission, as I'm# sure Gina said, which is to protect## human health and the environment.

And these# scientists are focused on doing just that,## on making sure that we anticipate where there may# be problems and to address them as quickly as we## can with -- based on science, emissions from cars,# lead in pipes that gets into the drinking water.

EPA is the one who did the research to show the# impact on children's health and development,## brain development, from lead in pipes and passed# the regulations to reduce that.

So it really## has -- and these scientists are the ones that have# a very real impact on people's everyday lives.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Gina McCarthy, President Trump,# when he was a candidate, was crystal clear how he## stood.

He thought that climate change is not# something to focus on.

He said regulations,## including those from the EPA, are hurting# consumers,they are hurting the economy.

He's clearly got a big constituency in the# business community that agrees with him on## a lot of those points.

And he won the election.# Is that not how democracy is supposed to work?

GINA MCCARTHY: No, that's not how# democracy is supposed to work.

I mean,## the president can have his opinions,# but EPA is regulated by Congress.

They establish laws.

EPA is required under the# law to implement the actions that Congress is## demanding.

And EPA has been doing that.# But I think the bigger challenge is,## let's not lose sight of the fact that# the federal government is really falling## apart in so many ways.

EPA is definitely# one of the targets.

But, rest assured,## we have to rally the troops in# states and local communities.

And, frankly, that's where I'm spending most# of my time actually working with Bloomberg## on America is All In, because states also have# legal authority.

So we have to move forward and## protect the interests of people in this country# and protect our natural resources.

And if the## federal government wants to drop that charge, then# the rest of the country is going to pick it up.

And that's what we're working on now.

And it is# an enormous coalition that continues to grow.## That includes businesses and institutions# as well.

So this is not just about states## and local governments.

It's about all# of us trying to protect our interests## of our children in which climate change# is concerned, protect our ability to live## healthy lives and leave our children in a# better position than we are in right now.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Christine# Whitman, the -- in 2009,## on this, specifically on this# issue of climate change, in 2009,## EPA said carbon dioxide and greenhouse# gases are a direct threat to human health.

That funding -- that finding has now# allowed EPA to take a lot of action to## combat the negative effects of climate# change.

The current EPA administrator,## Zeldin, says he wants to look at that# finding again and potentially undo it.

What would that do to the EPA's ability# to address climate change specifically?

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Well, it# would pull a rug out from under them.

And if we haven't seen from these ever-increasing# storms, the severity of the storms.. the floods, the tornadoes the real economic# and human impact of what's going on,## we -- you can't deny climate# change.

It's happening.

I mean,## we're not the cause of it, but we# certainly exacerbate what's going on.

And we need to be smart about# figuring out, how do we take## advantage of new technologies# to slow down what's happening,## to prepare for the kind of impact that we're# seeing around the country, and to do better with## everyone?

And nobody does innovation better# than the United States.

And that's where we## should be focusing.

What can we do to continue# to grow our economy, actually to grow it faster?

Because you can't have a healthy# economy if people don't have clean## water to drink and clean air to breathe# and if we don't try to harden ourselves## against these ever-increasing storms and# disasters that we see around the country.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, that# is Christine Todd Whitman and Gina## McCarthy, both former heads of the# Environmental Protection Agency.

Thank you both so much for being here.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN: Pleasure.

GINA MCCARTHY: Thanks.

Thanks, .. GEOFF BENNETT: The U.S. Supreme Court heard# arguments this morning in a dispute over## redistricting that could reshape how state# legislators draw districts based on race.

The case centers on Louisiana's congressional# map, which was recently redrawn to include two## majority-Black districts for the first time in# decades.

The new map came after a federal court## ruled the state's previous congressional maps# discriminated against Black voters in the state.

Now a group of voters who identify themselves as# -- quote -- "non-African American" sued the state,## arguing that the map is racially# biased towards Black voters.

Joining us now to discuss the case is Amy Howe,# who covers the Supreme Court for SCOTUSblog.

Thanks for being here.

AMY HOWE, SCOTUSblog.com: Thanks for ha.. GEOFF BENNETT: So this case# united different interests,## Louisiana's Republican attorney general and# the voters who are represented by the NAACP## Legal Defense Fund.

Why is that?

And how did# this dispute end up before the Supreme Court?

AMY HOWE: So, back in 2022, Louisiana drew a# new map after the 2020 census, and Louisiana## has six congressional districts and roughly# one-third of the state's population is Black.

And so it had one-majority Black district.

So this# group of Black voters went to court challenging## that, saying it was a violation of Section# 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits## election practices that result in the denial or# abridgment of the right to vote based on race.

And so this federal district court threw out# the map, agreeing with the Black voters.

The## conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the# Fifth Circuit upheld that ruling and said,## you need to draw a new map, state, or# this federal court will do it for you.

And so the Louisiana legislature# went back to the drawing board,## drew a second map with two majority-Black# districts, and then this group of non-African## American voters came to court saying# that this violated the Constitution## because it was an unconstitutional racial# gerrymander.

It relied too heavily on race.

So the state and then the Black voters# that had challenged the first map both## came to the Supreme Court to appeal, and the# state says, look, we're between a rock and## a hard place here.

We wanted to address# this violation of the Voting Rights Act,## but we also -- once we decided to# do that, it was about politics.

We wanted to protect two powerful Republican# incumbents in Congress, Speaker of the House## Mike Johnson and then Julia Letlow, who's on# the powerful House Appropriations Committee.

GEOFF BENNETT: What stood out to# you today from during the arguments?

AMY HOWE: So, sometimes you can -- especially# with this conservative court, you have a pretty## good idea of where the court was going.

Today# was not one of those days, unfortunately.

The conservative justices clearly had# some concerns about this map and about## the shape of the second majority-Black district,## but they spent a lot of time talking about some# issues that weren't really before the court,## whether or not the first district court# decision, throwing out the original map,## was correct, and whether or not the state should# feel like it had to follow that court order.

And then Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised# the prospect, which he's raised before## in an earlier ruling in 2023, that# this idea of Section 2 of the Voting## Rights Act addressing race in redistricting is# something that should have a logical endpoint,## the same way the court held in cases# involving, for example, affirmative action.

So that they were clearly skeptical, but it# wasn't clear whether that -- those kinds of## sort of concerns are going to translate into a# decision that upholds the map or throws it out.

GEOFF BENNETT: The court heard a similar case,## a nearly identical case two years ago,# about Alabama's congressional map.

What's the precedent#there?

And do the justices -- I mean,## would they feel bound by that# precedent in this Louisiana case?

AMY HOWE: That is -- it was a 5-4 decision.# It was a little bit of a surprise after the## oral argument, because Chief Justice John# Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined## the court's three liberal justices in# saying that Alabama likely did violate## the Voting Rights Act when it created a# map that had seven districts.

Only one## was a majority-Black district and roughly 27# percent of the state's population is Black.

And so there was that decision.

And then there was# a decision last term involving South Carolina.

A## group of Black voters brought that case alleging# that they had been moved out of Nancy Mace's## district based on their race.

The Republican# legislature defending that map said this## wasn't about race, this was about politics.

We# wanted to make that a safe seat for Republicans.

And the Supreme Court ruled for the Republican# legislature in that case.

So we heard echoes## of that decision from the lawyers for# Louisiana and the Black voters today.

GEOFF BENNETT: Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUSblog,# thanks for coming in.

Great to have you here.

AMY HOWE: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: Since taking office in January,## the Trump administration has moved to# cancel or freeze trillions in federal## funding.

That includes billions in funding# from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

William Brangham is back now with this report# on how the funding freeze is affecting farmers.

SCOTT MUNRO, Farmer: They# decided that was the best place.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

SCOTT MUNRO: It gets a lot of sun there.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: These brand-new solar panels# on Scott Munro's farm are now up an.. SCOTT MUNRO: It shows production a# daily basis.

If the sun stays out,## we will have good production today.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That energy powers# Munro's shop and his grain dryer,## which uses a lot of electricity,# processing the 1,200 acres of corn,## soy and wheat that he grows# here in Central Pennsylvania.

SCOTT MUNRO: In the peak months, we can# have bills $3,000 to $5,000 a month.

And## we thought that this solar project would# be the way to maybe help us with that.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: To offset the cost# of building the solar array, in 2023,## Munro applied for a U.S. Department of Agriculture# grant under its Rural Energy for America Program.

If the grant program hadn't existed, do you# think you would have put this solar array in?

SCOTT MUNRO: We weren't going to do the project# if we didn't get the grant.

So that's where we... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I see.

He got one for $94,000, which co.. structured, Munro pays for the whole project# up front.

But after 30 days of operation,## which he's hit, he's supposed to receive the# grant money.

But that is currently frozen.

SCOTT MUNRO: It's in limbo.

Are we# going to end up footing the whole bill,## which isn't really what we signed up for,# or is it going to come through down the## road and we're going to get the grant# money?

We just don't know at this point.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And how does that feel?

SCOTT MUNRO: Not very good.

(LAUGHTER) SCOTT MUNRO: Kind of cheated.

Like, that's what we signed up for.

And now you're# saying that's not what we're going to get.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: While this grant program# has existed since 2002, the funding for## Munro's project and many others like it came from# President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In all, that law allocated# nearly $38 billion over 10 years to the USDA.

BROOKE ROLLINS, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture: I,# of course, am hyperfocused on our ag producers.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In February, President# Trump's agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins,## announced that some funding would be released,# but that -- quote -- "USDA continues to review## IRA funding to ensure that programs are# focused on supporting farmers and ranchers,## not DEIA programs or far left climate programs."

SCOTT MUNRO: I get if your policies are different## than the previous administration.

I# understand that.

And going forward,## if you want to change that, feel free.

That's# your -- you're in charge now.

You do that.## But to take something away that's already# been granted just doesn't seem fair to us.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: According to one analysis,# there are over 2,000 energy projects around## the country like Scott Munro's that have# been promised federal funds, but now face## this uncertain future.

And that's not the only# USDA grant program that's currently on hold.

HANNAH SMITH-BRUBAKER, Pasa Sustainable# Agriculture: If this -- if the climate## smart program does get canceled... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Hannah Smith-Brubaker# runs Sustainable Agriculture.

In 2023,## this Pennsylvania nonprofit received a USDA# Climate-Smart grant worth up to $55 million over## five years to work with farms across 15 Eastern# states on environmentally sustainable practices.

HANNAH SMITH-BRUBAKER: For the first time,# small, midsize, highly diversified farms,## farms that are farming in a way that really are# responsive to the ecological needs around them## were really getting noticed.

And dollars# were starting to be directed their way.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But now that# funding is abruptly on hold.

HANNAH SMITH-BRUBAKER: Those farmers# trusted that the agreement they## had with us and that we have with the# federal government was unquestionable.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

You signed contracts.

HANNAH SMITH-BRUBAKER: Exactly.

It's# heartbreaking to tell a farm.. counting on it, and the season doesn't# wait and the climate doesn't wait.

WILL BROWNBACK, Farmer, Spiral# Path Farm: Within that handful,## we have our typical blend# of rye, vetch, and clover.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Second-generation# organic farmer Will Brownback is## showing off his cover crop, which is an# off season planting to protect his lands.

Oh, and, look, got ladybug right in there.

WILL BROWNBACK: Yes, look at that.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: His farm# has done this for ye.. but was supported last year by a Pasa grant.

WILL BROWNBACK: Not something that# we're making direct money off of,## but it helps stabilize the soil, provides# habitat, eliminates erosion.

It's really## disappointing that some farmers who want# to be able to do this on their farms,## but need a little bit of help to get going# with it are unable to do it right now.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In Northeast Pennsylvania, Liz# Krug is the co-owner of Endless Roots Farm, which## grows vegetables year-round on about 10 acres.

Her# farm is also a recipient of a Pasa climate grant.

LIZ KRUG, Owner, Endless Roots Farm:# It was financially helping some of## the practices we had already# been doing.

Looking forward,## it was helping to fund some projects that# maybe were a bit financially out of our reach.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That includes# adding new cash crops in the future,## like blueberries.

Without the grant, that's a# stretch for a small farm working on leased land.

LIZ KRUG: I'm not saying that it's completely## out of the picture without# this grant.

It would just... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It's just a riskier proposition.

LIZ KRUG: Right.

It would just take us a lot# longer to decide that we would .. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In April, Hannah# Smith-Brubaker's organization will be furloughing## almost all its employees.

And last week, it joined# a new lawsuit against the Trump administration.

On top of grants being frozen, she says# the recent decision by USDA to cancel $1## billion in funding for schools and food banks# to buy food locally directly impacts farmers.

HANNAH SMITH-BRUBAKER: It just seems# like, at every turn, regardless of how## honestly you engage in securing the funding or# stewarding the funding, it's just disappearing.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Members of this# administration argue that, look,## priorities are changed now.

They# argue that some of these types of## programs are DEI or left-wing climate# initiatives.

What do you say to that?

HANNAH SMITH-BRUBAKER: They're out# of touch with reality.

Farmers are## dealing with the climate every single# day.

They are desperate for help.

So,## if we're serving farmers, listen to the# farmers.

This is what the farmers want.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Back at Scott# Munro's farm, he's hoping the## grant he was awarded for his solar project# comes through, but he's not counting on it.

SCOTT MUNRO: Maybe they will calm down# and realize some of the things they did## are hurting people whom a lot of people# in that industry voted for them.

So... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: If the grant doesn't come,# Munro will have to swallow the almost $100,000## he's already spent.

In the meantime, spring is# here and it's nearly time to start planting.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm William# Brangham in rural Pennsylvania.

AMNA NAWAZ: For more on the fallout from today's# top stories, I'm joined by our Politics Monday## team.

That is Amy Walter of The Cook Political# Report With Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR.

Great to see you both.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: Tam, kick us off ..

I want to begin with that stunning# Atlant.. being added to a national security group# chat about military operations unfolding## on Signal.

What kind of reaction are# we seeing among lawmakers to this?

TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: I# think some very telling reaction is from## the president of the United States, who# was asked about it and essentially said,## I don't know.

He said, you're telling# me about it for the first time.

This was hours after the story broke and he's# claiming not to have been briefed on this major## national security breach.

You have lawmakers# from both sides of the aisle, bicameral,## all of it, concerned, very concerned# about this because this was a breach.

And the question is, in an administration where# the president of the United States has given## himself, his White House broad authority to# give security clearances to pretty much anyone## they want without going through the process,# are they going to take this seriously or not?

AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, what's your take on that?# They will take this seriously or not?

AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Well, I# think the first place we're going to look is,## what do Republicans in Congress decide# to do?

I think it's pretty clear that,## had there been a Democratic president in# office, that this happened under their watch,## I would expect to see Republicans rise# up and say there must be hearings here.

Remember, Congress is a co-equal branch.# Their job is to hold the executive branch## responsible and to dig into these sorts# of incidents.

Now, Democrats right now## are calling for these level of hearings.# We're not hearing that from Republicans yet.

They come back today, tonight.

And I think# that would be something that you could see.## We have these conversations a lot on this# between the three of us about whether we're## seeing an adequate position when it comes to# the three branches, whether the legislative## is holding the executive accountable.# Where does the judicial fit into this?

Here is a perfect example# where the legislative could be## holding the executive accountable for this.# I don't expect to see it happen, but maybe.

AMNA NAWAZ: We shall see.

Well, meanwhile, while I h.. weekend.

Thousands of people we saw a# turn out to a rally in Denver, Colorado.## It was headlined by Congresswoman Alexandria# Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders.

Tam, as you saw, it was billed as part# of their Fighting Oligarchy tour.

What## do you take away from the size of the# crowd, from the reaction of the crowd,## and also just the messaging that# Sanders and AOC were giving there?

TAMARA KEITH: Yes, I think that there is a lot of## pent-up Democratic energy# looking for a place to go.

There -- I mean, among voters, among Democratic# voters who are deeply frustrated with what they're## seeing out of Washington, wondering, where is the# leadership?

What is the party that they voted for## and followed?

What is that party doing?

And it# is notable that Bernie Sanders is an independent## and he is both -- caucuses with Democrats,# but is also quite critical of Democrats.

In terms of the message, a lot of# the economic message is something## that other Democrats do actually want# to -- it's a very similar message to## what other Democrats are looking# to push headed into the midterms,## as President Trump ran on bringing down grocery# prices and other prices.

And prices are still## high.

It's a contrast that other Democrats# are trying to also figure out how to make.

AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, when you see this, we# have talked a lot about what direction## the Democratic Party will take.

Does this# tell you what direction it's going to take?

AMY WALTER: Well, it's interesting.

This# is less ideological than it is stylistic.

It is about the fight itself, not over the# issues that they're fighting for.

As Tam said,## it is correct.

What you're hearing from# Chuck Schumer and what you're hearing## from Bernie Sanders on making# the economy the centerpiece,## and specifically holding the Trump administration# responsible for many of the policies they want## to put forward and may ultimately put# forward, that's going to be similar.

It's the way in which they go about making# the case.

And I think we will see whether## what is going on right now at these town# halls is a sign of broader dissatisfaction## with Democratic voters at the way that# the leadership in Washington is handling## Donald Trump.

It will show up, I think,# first and foremost, in party primaries.

We're going to start to see folks announce for# congressional seats soon enough.

And will these## primaries, much like we saw when Republicans# were in -- they were not in the White House,## they were trying to get back in the White House,## will we see something similar where# we will have something of a Tea Party?

We saw back in those days in the# 2009, 2010, and of course, with Trump,## this idea, the same thing.

We need to# see people fight more.

In many cases,## some of those fighters turned out not to be# great general election candidates.

That's## a big question going forward, I think,# for Democrats in this next few months.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, that is Amy# Walter of The Cook Political Report## With Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR# joining us, as always, for Politics Monday.

Thank you to you both.

TAMARA KEITH: You're welcome.

AMY WALTER: You're welcome.

GEOFF BENNETT: And that is the "News# Hour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "News Hour"# team, than..