AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "News Hour" tonight: President Trump extends the deadline for a tariff deal with Mexico by another 90 days, fueling speculation he could announce pauses for other countries ahead of his Friday deadline.

AMNA NAWAZ: A record number of Senate Democrats support a failed bid to block weapons sales to Israel.

GEOFF BENNETT: And the latest on the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, as the president tries to shift focus and the Justice Department faces mounting pressure to release all the case files.

JULIE BROWN, The Miami Herald: There's still not a real good answer as to why some of this material can't be released.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "News Hour."

With just hours to go before President Trump's own deadline, dozens of countries are facing the possibility of significant new tariffs that could go into effect tomorrow, in some cases as high as 50 percent.

But, once again, there's uncertainty around the deadline and the range of responses from the administration.

Today the president announced a 90-day extension for Mexico in order to reach a broader agreement.

AMNA NAWAZ: At the same time, the president has announced agreements with other allies, including South Korea, which agreed to pay 15 percent tariffs on its exports and invest $350 billion in the U.S.

It would purchase $100 billion more in U.S. energy as well.

In some cases, the president has ramped up threats, including against Canada.

Trump was asked today whether he and Prime Minister Mark Carney could reach a deal.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: He's called.

And we'll see.

But we have made a few deals today that are excellent deals for the country.

You know, we're taking in literally trillions of dollars for the country.

This is making our country very rich and respected again.

AMNA NAWAZ: Joining us now is Jason Furman, economics professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and former head of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Obama.

Jason, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

JASON FURMAN, Former Chair, White House Council of Economic Advisers: Great to be with you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So when we spoke last in April about tariffs and all the uncertainty around them, you said, the question wasn't if inflation and unemployment would go up.

It was how much.

I should point out in your latest op-ed for The New York Times, this is the title.

It's: "The tariffs kicked in, the sky didn't fall.

Were the economists wrong?"

So that's the question I will put to you.

Were you and they wrong?

JASON FURMAN: No.

We have more than a hint of stagflation in the economy right now.

In the first half of the year, the economy grew at a 1.2 percent annual rate.

That's well below the 2 percent we'd like to see.

And inflation, excluding volatile food and energy, was at a 3 percent annual rate.

That's well above the 2 percent we would like to see for that one.

So we're starting to see problems in the economy already.

AMNA NAWAZ: We're starting to see them, but some of the predictions were pretty dire.

You also write in your piece: "Economists, including me, suffer from tariff derangement syndrome.

We find ourselves disproportionately worked up every time they're increased.

Business leaders and financial markets can suffer a touch of this at times too."

Tell me more about that.

Do you feel like the reaction has been disproportionate?

And what's behind that?

JASON FURMAN: Yes, look, I think tariffs are a rather dumb way to raise revenue.

There are so many better ways to get money that do less damage to consumers, less damage to workers and less damage to our international standing.

But they're not the only thing in the world.

They're not necessarily even the worst thing in the world.

And so, when we hear them, we get sort of worked up and probably sometimes make them sound even worse than they are.

But don't get me wrong, they're still not good.

AMNA NAWAZ: In terms of what people are feeling in their everyday lives, though, there was a key inflation measure today that finds core consumer prices rose four-tenths of a percent in June.

That's up 2.8 percent from a year earlier.

Just put that into context for us.

Is that something people are feeling already or will feel soon?

JASON FURMAN: Yes, people experience inflation differently because everyone buys different stuff.

The most salient measure for most people is what the price of gasoline is.

And in the first part of this year, it was going down.

Ironically, that was in part because of the tariffs.

They were weakening the global economy, and that put downward pressure on the price of oil.

Over the last month, you have seen rising gasoline prices in addition to rising prices for lots of other stuff, especially the types of goods that are subject to tariffs, like toys, furniture, computers.

And so I think some of the lull people have felt is starting to come to an end.

AMNA NAWAZ: We are seeing companies handling it very differently, though, right?

We saw Procter & Gamble that make Tide and Pampers, for example, say that they will raise prices on a quarter of all their products next month in part because of the tariffs.

The Wall Street Journal compared Amazon and Walmart prices.

They found Amazon prices rose on 1,200 of their cheapest household goods, while at the same time, Walmart lowered prices on those same items by nearly 2 percent.

Why are we seeing these differences?

JASON FURMAN: Yes, different companies have different strategies, but in the long run, it's really hard to have prices that are completely disconnected from your costs.

And I think you're going to see that especially in the auto industry.

Major auto companies have been reluctant to raise prices.

They don't want to attract the ire of President Trump, who's told them not to raise prices.

But General Motors just posted a big loss.

They can't go on forever selling cars at a loss.

They're not going to do that.

At some point, they are going to raise prices because their costs have gone up.

And otherwise they'd go out of business.

AMNA NAWAZ: So when you take a big picture, look at the strategy here from the White House, it's not 90 deals in 90 days, as they promised.

But the White House and President Trump will argue that they have been making deals.

They have just made a big one in particular with the E.U., which is arguably lopsided in the U.S.' favor.

So is this strategy, including a lot of pledges to buy American products and buy American energy, big picture, is it working?

JASON FURMAN: Look, we're not in the worst of all worlds.

The worst of all worlds would have been a global trade war.

I've actually been surprised that we've gotten all of these deals.

But let's not mistake it.

The tariffs that we have done hurt us.

So whatever other countries did, we were hurting ourselves with these tariffs.

That they have made some of these concessions to open their markets to invest in the United States, that takes away some of the sting.

But it's all much, much smaller than the direct effects of our own tariffs on our own economy.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is Jason Furman, economics professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, joining us again tonight.

Jason, thank you.

Always good to speak with you.

JASON FURMAN: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Today's other headlines start with U.S. efforts to address hunger in Gaza.

The White House announced that President Trump is sending two officials there tomorrow to inspect food distribution.

Special envoy Steve Witkoff is already in the region.

He met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel today to discuss the humanitarian crisis.

White House officials say Witkoff will be joined by U.S.

Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee for tomorrow's visit.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, White House Press Secretary: Special envoy Witkoff and ambassador Huckabee will be traveling into Gaza to inspect the current distribution sites and secure a plan to deliver more food and meet with local Gazans to hear firsthand about this dire situation on the ground.

GEOFF BENNETT: Gaza health officials say that, in the past day, at least 91 people were killed and more than 600 others were wounded while trying to get aid.

That includes 54 people waiting for food in Northern Gaza.

Israel says it fired warning shots into a crowd that swarmed an aid truck, but is not aware of any injuries.

Officials in Ukraine say Russian drone and missile attacks overnight killed at least 13 people and wounded more than 130 others in Kyiv.

The air assault hit dozens of locations across the capital, damaging more than 100 buildings.

More casualties are expected as rescue teams search the rubble for survivors.

Also, in Kyiv today, Ukrainians celebrated after Parliament approved a bill to restore the independence of two main anti-corruption agencies.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy tried to bring the watchdogs under his government's oversight, but the move led to rare and widespread protests.

Zelenskyy quickly reversed course and today signed the new bill into law.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President (through translator): It is very important that the state listens to public opinion, it hears its citizens.

Ukraine is a democracy, absolutely, no doubt.

GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, U.S. diplomat John Kelley told the U.N. Security Council today that President Trump wants a deal to end the war by August 8.

Earlier this week, Mr. Trump said he was moving up his timeline to reach a cease-fire and has threatened to impose tariffs and other measures on Russia if a deal is not reached.

Delta Air Lines says it's working with federal safety officials on investigating an incident of significant turbulence that sent dozens of people to the hospital.

The flight from Salt Lake City to Amsterdam last night hit rough air some 40 minutes after departure, then diverted to Minneapolis.

Flight data shows the plane descended more than 1,000 feet in just 30 seconds.

First responders took 25 people to the hospital, though most have since been released.

Serious injuries from turbulence are rare, but scientists say they could happen more often as climate change alters the jet stream.

Thousands of mourners honored police officer Didarul Islam today, one of four New Yorkers killed in a mass shooting earlier this week inside a Manhattan office building.

Islam's fellow officers lined up in rows as his coffin was carried through the Bronx, the borough where he lived and worked.

A funeral service was held inside a local mosque.

Islam had picked up an off-duty security shift when he was fatally shot.

Another victim, Julia Hyman, was buried following an emotional service yesterday at a Manhattan synagogue.

Funeral arrangements for the other two victims have not been made public.

An investigation into the shooting is ongoing.

President Trump announced this afternoon that he's reviving the Presidential Fitness test at U.S. public schools.

(APPLAUSE) GEOFF BENNETT: Prominent athletes and officials joined the president as he signed an executive order to restore the President's Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition and the test itself.

The program was created in 1966 and it required schoolkids to run certain distances, do push-ups and pull-ups and other physical challenges.

It was a rite of passage for more than four decades until President Obama replaced it back in 2012 with a program that focused more on overall health.

On Wall Street today, stocks gave up early gains amid worries over President Trump's tariff deadline.

The Dow Jones industrial average ended more than 300 points lower.

The Nasdaq slipped just seven points, so nearly flat.

The S&P 500 also ended in negative territory.

Still to come on the "News Hour": the chair of the FCC discusses the Trump administration's approach to regulating the media; an author of the intelligence community's report on Russian election interference pushes back against Trump administration accusations it was a politically motivated lie; and Texas Republicans seek to redraw congressional districts and expand their electoral advantage.

AMNA NAWAZ: A late-night congressional vote fell short of the votes needed to block weapons sales to Israel as it continues its war in Gaza in response to the October 7 attacks.

But in a dramatic shift, more than half of Democrats supported the measure, reaching its highest level of support to date.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen is the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

She was one of those yes-votes.

And she joins us now from Capitol Hill.

Senator, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): Nice to be with you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, back in April, you voted against the weapons block.

Last night, you voted for it.

Why the change?

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: I think the humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire.

All you have to do is watch the news reports coming out of Gaza to see the people who are desperate for food.

Israel needs to open up those humanitarian corridors.

We need to get food in.

We need to get it distributed in a way that doesn't harm Palestinians in the process of getting the food.

And so I think it's important to send the message to Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government that things need to change.

AMNA NAWAZ: So is this about sending a message at this moment in time or does this represent some bigger policy shift?

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: Well, I think we have to wait and see how the government responds.

But, right now, they have made some slight progress in the last few -- the last week really, since the weekend, and are talking about allowing more humanitarian aid in.

But we need to see many more aid convoys in and we need to make sure that the food gets distributed in a way that doesn't have Hamas or some other group taking that food away from the people who really need it who are starving.

AMNA NAWAZ: So back in April, you cited not wanting to upset what you called the delicate negotiations to restore the cease-fire as part of the reason that you didn't support the weapons sales block now.

Should we take your yes-vote now to mean that you don't have confidence in any cease-fire talks being restored?

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: Well, sadly, as we have seen in the last week or so, the cease-fire negotiations fell apart and Doha, and the United States team came home.

So, hopefully, after that Mr. Witkoff is going to go back, they're going to be able to get back to the negotiating table and come to an agreement.

But not only do we need to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza, but there are still hostages and there are the remains of hostages who are still being held by Hamas.

We need to get them back to their families and put an end to this horrible nightmare that those families are living through.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned not seeing enough action from Israel to allow in more humanitarian aid.

We saw from President Trump this week saying, based on the images that he's seen from Gaza, you can't fake it, meaning the images.

And he says his administration is going to be even more involved.

We know Israeli Ambassador Mike Huckabee and special envoy Steve Witkoff are on the ground meeting with Netanyahu.

They're going to visit Gaza themselves, even as Mr. Witkoff was pulled from the cease-fire talks.

What do you think is the role that the U.S. should be playing right now?

What's their responsibility right now?

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: Well, the responsibility is the Israeli government's responsibility.

But what I think we can do in the United States and what I -- I was pleased to hear President Trump's comments, because I think it heightens the concern that the world has in looking at the pictures coming out of Gaza, looking at the starving children who need that humanitarian aid and they need it now.

So I think that's helpful.

I think anything that envoy Witkoff and Ambassador Huckabee can do to be very clear with the Israeli government that the United States has an interest in seeing humanitarian aid get into Gaza is important.

AMNA NAWAZ: And do you think that they should threaten to withhold weapons sales to Israel in order to force some of that action you want to see?

Is that a line you want to see them take?

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: Well, I think there are a variety of ways in which we can incentivize and provide carrots and sticks to Israel to try and address the situation.

I hope they will discuss a full range of those, and that's certainly one of them.

AMNA NAWAZ: I also need to ask you about a Republican member of Congress this week, Marjorie Taylor Greene, saying that the conduct by Israel in Gaza, in her view, is genocide.

She's the first Republican member of Congress to say that and a Trump loyalist.

Do you agree with her assessment?

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: I think we have a dire -- as I said, a horrific humanitarian situation in Gaza.

We have people who are starving.

I think the Israeli government bears some responsibility for what's happening there and we need to see that change.

And I don't care how you want to label it.

The issue is, how do we make sure people are not starving to death, that starvation is not being used as a weapon of war?

And for all of us who are watching what's happening there, there are real questions about the actions of the Netanyahu government.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the 30 seconds or so I have left, based on the vote you saw last night, are you seeing some larger shift among Democrats in terms of how they view Israel and their conduct in Gaza right now?

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: I think people are more and more concerned about what's happening there.

You can't watch the pictures coming out of Gaza, you can't see the stories of the children who are suffering, the people who have been killed when they're trying to get to the food, and not be concerned about what's happening there.

And I think that's what's being reflected in the vote last night.

AMNA NAWAZ: Senator Jeanne Shaheen, thank you so much for taking the time to join us tonight.

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: We appreciate it.

GEOFF BENNETT: We're taking a closer look now at the FCC's decision to allow Paramount, the parent company of CBS, to merge with the Hollywood studio Skydance.

It's one of the most scrutinized media deals in recent history approved in a 2-1 vote by the FCC after Paramount agreed to a $16 million settlement with President Trump over a "60 Minutes" interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris and after Skydance agreed to install an independent monitor to review alleged bias at CBS, among other concessions.

Earlier this week, we spoke with FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, who opposed the deal and raised serious concerns about its impact on First Amendment rights and press freedom.

Tonight, we're joined by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who voted in favor of the merger.

Mr. Chairman, welcome to the "News Hour."

BRENDAN CARR, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission: Yes, great to be with you.

Thanks for having me on.

GEOFF BENNETT: You have said this merger will help restore fair, fact-based reporting and ultimately serve the public interest.

How does this deal meet that standard?

And what criteria did the FCC use to assess it?

BRENDAN CARR: Yes, I'm really proud of the FCC's work on this.

Our staff worked incredibly hard.

I think it's ultimately a really good win for the American people.

If you step back right now, there's sort of overall a really significant trend towards lack of trust in the media.

And that trend hasn't been a new one over the last couple of years.

It goes back all of the 1970s.

We have seen a pretty significant decline.

One thing that CBS has agreed to do as part of this transaction is to bring more fact-based, objective, unbiased coverage to their newsrooms.

I think it's a really good win for the American people.

One thing they said they were going to do in particular was to embrace a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum, so not just bringing one side of the political debate to the table, but making sure that all views are aired.

And I think that's a good thing for American people, because, when you look out there, I think too often we see news coverage that's merely sheepdogging people towards preferred political narratives one way or the other.

So having an entity out there committing to diversity of viewpoints, I think it's a really good win for the public.

GEOFF BENNETT: On the matter of this idea that there's bias in legacy media, should government regulators play a role in correcting that perceived bias?

Isn't that the job of the audience or the free market, not the FCC, not the federal government?

BRENDAN CARR: There's a couple of different types of outlets that are out there, and the FCC's role is different with respect to all of them.

So, for instance, to your point, when it comes to podcast or streamers, the FCC doesn't really regulate them.

So they're subject entirely to market forces.

On the other hand when it comes to legacy broadcasters like CBS, like PBS, they're licensed by the FCC to operate and they're licensed because the airwaves are a scarce national resource.

When we license you or license a CBS station, we're necessarily denying another outlet the ability to use those airwaves.

As a condition of that, broadcasters are unique.

They have a public interest obligation.

I think, for years, the FCC has walked away from enforcing that public interest mandate.

And I don't think we're better off for it.

Again, if you just step back and look at trust in mainstream outlets, like Gallup survey shows that it's at an all-time low, increasingly below even the levels of trust that people have in Congress.

So I do think it's an important role for Congress as a sign to the FCC to make sure that broadcasters meet their public interest obligations.

And that's what we're trying to do.

GEOFF BENNETT: With this so-called bias monitor at CBS, if CBS News produces a hard-hitting piece about President Trump, could that story then be subject to review or complaint under this new framework?

Who ultimately decides what counts as bias?

BRENDAN CARR: In the first instance, this will be up to the company itself.

This bias monitor is someone that they're hiring inside CBS.

They're going to report directly to the president of CBS itself.

And I think the model there is very similar to what we see in newspapers, right?

So, for years, newspapers have had a public editor, for instance.

It's also not unprecedented for the FCC back a couple of years ago, during a Democrat administration, when Comcast was doing a deal, NBC, they agreed to put some sort of ombudsman in place as well to address things like journalistic independence.

So this concept is fairly well-established.

And, again, it's going to be for the broadcaster in the first instance to deal with it.

If there's a complaint around news distortion, which the FCC does have rules on, again, on broadcast, not cable, then we would look at that complaint as it comes in.

But, hopefully, the course-correction here happens inside the company.

GEOFF BENNETT: With that NBC-GE precedent you mentioned, in that case, the ombudsman protected the NBC newsroom from ownership interference by GE.

Here, Skydance is agreeing to government-endorsed oversight or review of news content.

And that raises the question, doesn't this run afoul of press freedom?

BRENDAN CARR: No, not at all.

Again, I think, in both cases, the NBC precedent and the one here, the government is signing off on the concept of the company having an ombudsman.

And to the extent that their job is to make sure that there's balance in the newsroom, balanced news, I think it's good that they have it.

Again, it's not direct regulation by the FCC in terms of regulation of the newsroom itself.

It's the company saying, we want to put forth an ombudsman to help us do our job.

And, again, on the broadcast side, these are entities that have an obligation to promote the public interest.

And I think it can be a good thing.

We need to have some sort of change.

The general trajectory of the American people simply not trusting these news outlets, I don't think it's a good thing or a healthy thing for the country.

But one other thing that they committed to was empowering local stations.

So, remember, most people don't realize this.

You do obviously in the industry.

But you can think about the media space at two levels.

On the one hand, you have the national programmer itself.

That's CBS, NBC.

But then you have the actual local TV station that's licensed by the FCC.

And what's happened over the years is that national programmers, NPR, PBS, have exerted, in my view, more and more control over the operations of those local TV stations.

I don't think that's a good thing.

So, again, there was a commitment here made by CBS to empower those local TV stations.

I think we're going to be better off for that as well.

GEOFF BENNETT: You're making the point that these concessions were offered voluntarily by Skydance and by Paramount.

How voluntary can they be when the price was effectively government approval and when so many of the concessions so clearly align with President Trump's political interests, like scrapping DEI policies and the like?

BRENDAN CARR: Again, this was very common, normal practice at the FCC.

So, for instance, during the last administration, there was a transaction before where a company came in and made commitments in the record to advance DEI initiatives.

And those were accepted by the FCC in its decisional document.

Here, we're doing the same type of the thing, but moving in the opposite direction, which is, there's versions of DEI, not all DEI, but there's versions of DEI that amount to invidious forms of discrimination.

And the FCC has long had rules on our books, EEO regulations, that prohibit broadcasters and others from engaging in those forms of discrimination.

And so the commitments made here by CBS was to get rid of any of those invidious forms of discrimination.

And I think overall that's a good thing and, again, sort of consistent with our authority to make sure that we have nondiscrimination across regulated entities.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Trump suggested in a social media post last week that you should consider revoking the licenses of ABC and NBC because he considers them too partisan, in his words, too Democrat.

Is that something that you're considering?

BRENDAN CARR: Well, look, again, I think we need to have some sort of course-correction as a general matter here.

And if you step back, I think one of the things that President Trump did, particularly when he ran for election, was he ran at a lot of these legacy national news meeting that, again, a lot of the American public don't trust.

And he is empowering people to have more choices across different sources of news and information.

Again, it's a much more competitive environment right now, whether you have podcasts or online or streaming.

It used to be that you (AUDIO GAP) news from one of the three broadcasters back in the day.

I think, again, with more choice, with more competition, that's a good thing.

And, again, this idea that broadcasters are this sort of gatekeeper and they have to be trusted by everybody, that used to be the way that people viewed it, but it's different now.

I think it's a good thing that people have choice.

And, of course, on the broadcast side, if you have a license by the FCC, if you're not complying with your public interest obligations, then license revocation is always a penalty that's possible.

GEOFF BENNETT: When President Trump made similar threats during his first term, the then-FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, said: "I believe in the First Amendment, and under the law, the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on the content of a particular newscast."

What's changed?

BRENDAN CARR: Well, that was a statement by Chairman Pai, not a statement by me, but, among other things, that statement was very narrow, if you read it.

It was the content of a particular broadcast.

But, again, if we are seeing broadcasters that are engaged in patterns and practices that ultimately are inconsistent with their public interest obligation, then Congress has directed the FCC to take action in those contexts.

Again, I don't think it's benefited the American people to have the FCC step back from enforcing the public interest mandate.

And so I think that's something that we're going to do.

It's something that Congress wants us to do.

If the American people don't want that, then they're free to go to lobby Congress to change the law.

But up to now, there is a public interest obligation.

And it's our responsibility to enforce it.

GEOFF BENNETT: FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, thanks again for joining us this evening.

We appreciate it.

BRENDAN CARR: Yes, good to be with you.

Thanks.

AMNA NAWAZ: As pressure continues for President Trump to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the president's evolving answers about his relationship with Epstein and why it ended have raised more questions.

Joining us now is investigative reporter Julie Brown of The Miami Herald.

She's the author of the book "Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story."

And it was Brown's reporting in 2017 and 2018 that led to sex trafficking charges against Epstein and identified nearly 80 of his victims.

Julie Brown, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

JULIE BROWN, The Miami Herald: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So it's no secret that President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein knew each other.

There's videos and photos confirming all of that.

It was previously reported it was a real estate deal that led to their falling out in 2004.

President Trump has talked about Jeffrey Epstein being a creep and that's the reason he kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago.

But on Air Force One on Tuesday, the president offered this explanation for why their friendship ended.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: And people were taken out of the spa, hired by him, in other words, gone.

And other people would come and complain, this guy is taking people from the spa.

I didn't know that.

And then when I heard about it, and I told him, I said, listen, we don't want you taking our people.

AMNA NAWAZ: Julie, these are new details.

So what do you make about this evolution of a response from the president?

JULIE BROWN: Well, it raises a lot of new questions, I think.

Apparently, it sounds like he knew that Epstein was whisking away or having Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell, his accomplice, take some of these or lure some of these young women from the spa and Mar-a-Lago.

So you have to wonder.

He says people, plural.

How many others were lured away?

And what did Trump think he was doing with these people, with these young girls and women?

Or perhaps he already knew what Epstein was doing.

I mean, we just don't know the answer to that.

But it raises those questions, I think.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's also real questions about the timeline here.

The incident when Epstein was hiring away Mar-a-Lago employees was in 2000.

The real estate fight was reportedly 2004.

Mr. Epstein was reportedly banned from Mar-a-Lago in 2007.

So, based on your reporting and what we know so far, can we say for sure what led to the break between the two men?

JULIE BROWN: No, I don't think we know, because we have been told inconsistent stories.

And even the latest iteration of this story doesn't make sense.

Using the words that they were taking his people, what does that mean?

Was there more than one young girl or women, or was he also taking groundskeepers?

I mean, we don't know the answer to these questions.

And it's troubling that the story sort of has changed.

AMNA NAWAZ: We also know Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly briefed the president that his name appeared in the files earlier this year.

Of course, the appearance of anyone's name in the files does not indicate any wrongdoing.

And we know there's a number of prominent MAGA voices and Democrats calling for the files to be released.

Do we know what could be in those files related to the president?

JULIE BROWN: Well, yes, we do.

We know, for example, that President Trump was on Epstein's plane.

And the plane manifests, or at least some of them, were part of the FBI investigation at some point.

We also know that there were message pads that were found in Epstein's Palm Beach home at the time of his arrest in 2005-2006.

And Trump's name was on some of those message pads.

And we know, of course, that Trump is in his so-called little black book, or this directory of phone numbers that had become part of the case.

So we know the three examples of him being in there.

But one would think that wouldn't be enough to block release of the material, because all that stuff is already public.

AMNA NAWAZ: What about Ghislaine Maxwell?

We know the Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche spent a couple of days down in Florida, where she is imprisoned, questioning her.

We know Congress has subpoenaed her to testify.

What could we learn from her at this stage?

JULIE BROWN: Well, she knows everything.

I mean, there's no doubt that she was the person that started or helped start launch Epstein's sex trafficking operation.

She was the person who came up with the idea of going around to Palm Beach schools, to gyms, to spas, and recruiting these girls, leaving her business card around.

And we know this because the valet who drove her to these various places testified in court that he did this.

So she knows exactly how this whole thing operated, because she helped formulate it, quite frankly.

AMNA NAWAZ: Julie, have you continued to stay in touch with the survivors?

Do they want to see the files released right now?

JULIE BROWN: I think there's some mixed emotions about whether the files should be released, because they have been disappointed so many times.

And every time that there's a hope that we're going to get closer to perhaps finding justice for them -- and that justice to them means that some of not only the other men that were involved, but also some of these enablers would be held accountable for what they did.

And every time it seems like we might be getting closer, the door slams in their face.

And I think, at some point, they're just feeling that it's never going to really become public, that somebody's covering it up because there are so many important people involved.

And so I think they have mixed emotions about how to handle that because they're afraid.

One of them did tell me: "If the president of the United States doesn't want to release these files, there must be something big in there, and that makes me very, very nervous."

AMNA NAWAZ: Julie Brown, investigative reporter at The Miami Herald.

Julie, thank you so much for joining us.

Appreciate your time.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Trump administration is trying to discredit the intelligence community's 2016 assessment that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an operation to interfere in the U.S. election that year with the intent of helping elect Donald Trump.

Contrary to intelligence findings, President Trump and his aides allege a broad conspiracy by the Obama White House to subvert Trump's win, and they allege what they call a yearslong coup against Mr. Trump.

The Justice Department announced last week it has created a so-called strike force to look into legal steps against former President Obama and intelligence officials who served in his administration.

TULSI GABBARD, U.S. Director of National Intelligence: There is irrefutable evidence that detail how President Obama and his national security team directed the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false.

GEOFF BENNETT: An intelligence report written nearly a decade ago back in the spotlight.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard last week took aim and looked to cast doubt on the intelligence community assessment ordered by then-President Barack Obama after Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election.

President Trump now relitigating the 2016 campaign and seeking to undermine the assessment while facing ongoing questions about the Jeffrey Epstein case.

The report's purpose, to document what was known about how and why Russia interfered to help Mr. Trump win.

An unclassified version of the report concluded: "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency."

The report also said: "We further assess Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for president-elect Trump."

It's the last part of the assessment that Gabbard and the Trump administration are challenging.

Last week, Gabbard released a newly declassified report issued in 2020 by the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee in which Gabbard says shows how the 2016 intelligence assessment had significant tradecraft failings, was unnecessarily rushed and subjected to inadequate review and coordination.

TULSI GABBARD: There was a gross politicization manipulation of intelligence by the Obama administration intended to delegitimize President Trump even before he was inaugurated.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Trump going further, saying President Obama had committed a crime.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: The leader of the gang was President Obama, Barack Hussein Obama.

He's guilty.

It's not a question -- I like to say, let's give it time.

It's there.

He's guilty.

They -- this was treason.

GEOFF BENNETT: An Obama spokesperson pushing back, calling the claim outrageous, adding: "These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction."

Earlier this week the CIA under Director John Ratcliffe issued its own review of the 2016 intelligence assessment.

It said senior involvement likely influenced participants and ultimately compromised analytic rigor.

In 2018, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan review of the 2016 intelligence community assessment.

They concluded that it "reflects proper analytic tradecraft despite being tasked and completed within a compressed time frame, and that the committee heard consistently that analysts were under no politically motivated pressure to reach specific conclusions."

MARCO RUBIO, U.S. Secretary of State: I think you deserve a lot of credit.

GEOFF BENNETT: The committee vice chair at the time was Senator Marco Rubio, who now serves as both secretary of state and national security adviser.

At the time, he agreed with the findings.

MARCO RUBIO: The intelligence community has assembled probably an unparalleled amount of evidence in regards to the Russian not just efforts to interfere in 2016, but ongoing efforts to interfere in American society.

GEOFF BENNETT: For perspective on all of this, I spoke earlier with Michael van Landingham.

He was a Russia political analyst at the CIA and was one of the lead authors of the intelligence community's assessment of Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

So Tulsi Gabbard and others have claimed that the Obama administration directed the creation of a report they knew to be false.

From your vantage point as the primary drafter of it, was there any top-down political pressure to reach a certain conclusion?

MICHAEL VAN LANDINGHAM, Former CIA Russia Political Analyst: No, not at all.

I don't think the authors were handpicked in any way by political appointees.

We were all people who were familiar with the material before and had an idea of what we would write, how we'd write it.

And we never received any instruction from anyone above us about how to put that into a final report.

GEOFF BENNETT: This was also a rapid turnaround report completed in a matter of weeks, and there are people who say that that's evidence that it was rushed or politically motivated.

Did the speed in any way result in sloppy?

MICHAEL VAN LANDINGHAM: I don't believe so.

And I think both -- the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has found that the paper used proper tradecraft.

The speed was unfortunate, but the president asked for it to be completed on that timeline.

And as the head of the intelligence community, the president usually receives what he or she asks for.

GEOFF BENNETT: House Republicans, as you well know, they reject the court judgment that Vladimir Putin favored Donald Trump.

Walk us through the constellation of evidence that supports that conclusion.

MICHAEL VAN LANDINGHAM: The House issued a partisan assessment of our intelligence community assessment in 2017.

That was recently declassified.

The House took issue with only one judgment.

In fact, they said we used proper tradecraft to reach the other judgments about Russian hacking of U.S. political organizations, the Russian influence campaign ordered by President Putin.

It was just on the one political motivation.

For us, the primary evidence to get to Putin's mind-set was a clandestine source that said, essentially, when Putin realized that Clinton would win the election, he ordered an influence campaign against Hillary Clinton because Trump, on whose victory he was counting, seemed less likely to win.

Then we saw a series of events that happened with the hacked U.S. materials by the Russian special services or intelligence services to leak those materials similar to the information a clandestine source had provided.

At the same time, we saw lots of members of the Russian media portraying Donald Trump in a more positive light.

Putin also had very negative things to say about Hillary Clinton from his experience with her as secretary of state.

And, along with that, there was other information that was collected by the U.S. intelligence community that gave us more confidence in that.

So, over time, looking at those things, having a high-quality, clandestine source telling you that Putin was counting on Trump's victory, having members of the Russian state saying Trump would be better to work with because of his views on Russia that don't represent the U.S. establishment, all of those things gave us high confidence that Putin wanted Trump to win, as did his comments in Helsinki in 2018 in July, where, when asked, he said: "Yes, I wanted him to win."

GEOFF BENNETT: How did the Steele dossier factor into your work?

And how do you respond to the persistent claims from Republicans that it shaped the core of the assessment's findings?

MICHAEL VAN LANDINGHAM: It's unfortunate that that is the perception, and I don't believe it's true at all.

The CIA, almost up to the senior management level, did not want to include the Steele dossier or the material that was included.

We had almost completed the paper when we received this Steele dossier.

Of course, there were press reports floating around.

Lots of people in Washington, D.C., had seen fragments of it because of the provenance of the information.

But when we received it, I was vehemently against including it, as were my co-authors and many other members.

But it was one of those things that I guess was at a higher level negotiated to be put into an annex.

None of the information, if you want to call it that, in the Steele dossier was included as evidentiary points in the broader body of the intelligence community assessment.

It was in the annex so that it could be briefed to the president-elect and others in the most highly classified version to, I guess, make people aware of this compilation of rumors and low-quality information.

GEOFF BENNETT: There's a lot of confusion about what the intelligence assessment does not claim, and that's that Russia actually changed votes.

Clear that up and help us understand why you think that has gotten lost in this political debate.

MICHAEL VAN LANDINGHAM: Yes, so some of the documents released recently by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence alleged that the ICA kind of cooked the books on the assessment that Russia meddled in the election because a previous intelligence community assessment said that Russia did not have the sort of access to vote counting systems, vote tallying systems that could affect the final count.

Bodies like the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security that are in charge of cybersecurity and those things made the call that the Russian hacking of local election systems, state and local election systems, were not of systems that would be involved in vote tallying.

GEOFF BENNETT: Looking back now, what's your assessment of the intelligence community assessment?

This is a document that has been scrutinized, politicized, investigated for nearly a decade.

Would you change anything?

MICHAEL VAN LANDINGHAM: I don't think so.

The people I worked with at all three agencies, the NSA, FBI and the CIA, did their best work.

And I think the reason why the paper has withstood seven or so investigations, whether criminal, like the Durham investigation, or political, like the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation, or, most recently technical, the CIA's tradecraft review, all of those things have affirmed the quality of the paper.

I am glad that we said that we had high confidence in the information, because I thought that at the time we should say what we mean.

And we meant that Putin wanted Donald Trump to get elected.

And so when, at the Helsinki press conference in 2018, Putin was asked, did you want Donald Trump to win, and he says, in Russian verbatim, "Yes, I wanted him to win."

VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russian President (through translator): Yes, I did, because he talked about bringing U.S. relations back to normal.

MICHAEL VAN LANDINGHAM: ... it felt like vindication.

But I think that, if you look at the evidence on which it's based, which is now mostly declassified, and you're looking at it from a fair-minded point of view, with the benefit of all of the documents that have since come out, in addition to the social media activity hacking and investigations into U.S. person activity, such as Mueller investigation, you will see that there was something going on.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the president was involved in that criminal conspiracy.

But it does mean that Russia attempted to influence the election.

GEOFF BENNETT: Michael van Landingham, thank you again for your time and for your insights.

MICHAEL VAN LANDINGHAM: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Texas lawmakers are revisiting their congressional maps in a rare mid-decade review, looking to redraw their lines in favor of Republicans in the state.

Ali Rogin has more on the controversial fight that could have a major impact on future elections -- Ali.

ALI ROGIN: The redistricting typically happens at the beginning of the decade after the release of new census data.

But President Trump has urged leaders in the state to restructure their maps in an attempt to maintain Republican control of the U.S. House.

In a statement, the Republican Party of Texas praised the move, saying it is -- quote -- "an essential step to preserving GOP control in Congress."

But some residents have pushed back at hearings regarding the proposed district lines.

GARRETT NEAVES, Texas Voter: How about we all stop allowing ourselves to be treated like pawns?

Reject this attempt by Trump to serve and protect himself at your expense.

ALI ROGIN: For more on the Lone Star State's redistricting battle and the impact it could have on next year's midterms, I'm joined now by Abby Livingston of Puck.

Abby, thank you so much for being here.

The legislature last drew its map just a few years ago.

Why is President Trump asking them to do it again now?

ABBY LIVINGSTON, Puck: Well, the people who drew the map in 2021 were actually Texas Republicans, and they drew a map that would prevent any sort of competitive races in the state and that would bolster all of the incumbents.

And Donald Trump and several other -- many other Republicans in Washington saw room to give.

And so they went -- they directed Texas Republicans to redraw the map in a much more aggressive way in order to bolster Republicans next year in the midterms.

ALI ROGIN: And what are the differences between the current map, which was drawn in 2021, and the new proposed map?

ABBY LIVINGSTON: The biggest difference is several Democrats are going to have a very hard path for reelection.

Four Democrats were drawn in the same just two different -- there's two pairs of Democrats in two districts where they may have to run against each other.

These are very painful types of races for the Democratic Party, but it also frees up districts where Republicans can win.

ALI ROGIN: Now, Governor Abbott of Texas initially resisted this push, but came under some pressure from President Trump's political team.

What does that say about President Trump's influence right now?

And what kind of precedent does this set for redistricting fights all over the country?

ABBY LIVINGSTON: I think this shows Donald Trump's total domination of the party from the top to the bottom.

When I first heard of this, I was very surprised and some of my Republican sources were very surprised he was moving forward on this.

But that is one of the number one takeaways of this, beyond the actual political repercussions.

ALI ROGIN: And as you just mentioned some of those specific seats, five seats across major metropolitan areas and South Texas, many of them are majority Hispanic.

If Republicans do succeed in flipping those, how could that shift the national balance of power in the lead-up to the 2026 midterm elections?

ABBY LIVINGSTON: Democrats right now are expected to have a headwind behind them as they head into the midterms.

But if they take losses in Texas, that will make it that much more difficult.

It could also ram up the prices of running congressional campaigns in Texas on the handful of ones that are still competitive.

ALI ROGIN: And we know that some Democratic governors, Gavin Newsom in California, Kathy Hochul in New York, Phil Murphy in New Jersey, are also considering pushing for new maps in their states.

If Texas does go through with this, are we going to see a full-blown redistricting arms race around the country?

ABBY LIVINGSTON: I think that's already happening.

When I talk to Democrats in Texas, but also outside of Texas, even the most institutionalist-minded Democrats are ready to fight this fight.

Texas Republicans did this in 2003, and there was almost no fanfare.

This is a completely different political war that we're watching right now.

ALI ROGIN: And there are some Republican governors elsewhere who are also considering these moves in Missouri, Florida.

Other states could follow.

Are Democratic states going to be able to keep up with this if it really does become a pattern, given that the president's support of it is so strong?

And which party do you think is going to benefit the most from these moves in the long run?

ABBY LIVINGSTON: I think, for right now, the Republicans have the advantage in that many Democratic states have more restrictions on redistricting mid-decade or how you implement it.

There are aims for bipartisan commissions.

And so Texas alone is a very simple process and makes it much more easy, easier to do that.

Now, on the flip side, if Democrats do have a wind at their back, they can take a little bit more risks than the Republicans can when they're redrawing their maps.

ALI ROGIN: And, of course, we have seen Democrats and constituents showing a lot of outrage about these plans.

Can this be a voting issue for Democrats around the country as an issue in 2026?

ABBY LIVINGSTON: I think that's absolutely happening in Texas.

We are seeing big turnout at the hearings around the redistricting.

It's a focal point for organizing.

And we are seeing the national party push this elsewhere.

Hakeem Jeffries went to Texas this week.

And so I think there will be a full-blown emphasis on this process over the next two years.

ALI ROGIN: Abby Livingston of Puck, thank you so much for breaking this down for us.

ABBY LIVINGSTON: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there's a lot more online, including a look at the rise in state executions, as the Trump administration promises to restore the federal death penalty.

That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.

AMNA NAWAZ: And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

For all of us here at the "PBS News Hour," thanks for spending part of your evening with us.