WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening. I'm William Brangham. Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett are away. On the "NewsHour" tonight: The rift between
the U.S. and Israel widens due to a United Nations resolution demanding a cease-fire
in Gaza. Then: Former President Trump will go on trial
next month, and he gets a break on his multimillion-dollar bond while he appeals a separate civil fraud
ruling. And how a pandemic era child tax credit lifted
some families out of poverty, but only temporarily. DAFNEE CHATM
AN, Mother: You're robbing Peter
to pay Paul. And, eventually, Paul runs out and Peter,
so you're left with nothing. (BREAK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Welcome to the "NewsHour." There is a public break tonight between the
United States and Israel after the U.S. refused to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution
calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
accused the U.S. of changing its position on the war in Gaza and canceled a planned
visit of his top aides t
o Washington. Nick Schifrin is here now with more on these
fast-moving developments. Nick, what is it that happened today that
led to this very public disagreement? NICK SCHIFRIN: The U.N. Security Council today
for the first time in more than five months of war demanded a cease-fire in Gaza. And it did so because, as you just said, the
U.S. abstained on a vote. Resolution 2728 -- quote -- "demands an immediate
cease-fire for the month of Ramadan, respected by all parties, leading to a lasting a
nd sustainable
cease-fire, and also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all the hostages." So while we keep up that text, just a few
points. One, the holy month of Ramadan is already
halfway over. Two, the word lasting was replaced because
the U.S. asked for it, rather than the quote -- than the word permanent. And, three, that paragraph there refers to
a cease-fire and hostage release in the same paragraph. An earlier draft allowed those two things
to be split. And that is what -
- the reason why the U.S.
abstained today, according to U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield. LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD, U.S. Ambassador to
the United Nations: We fully support some of the critical objectives in this nonbinding
resolution. And we believe it was important for the council
to speak out and make clear that our cease-fire must, any cease-fire, must come with the release
of all hostages. NICK SCHIFRIN: But the resolution did not
condition the cease-fire on the hostage rel
ease, nor did it condemn Hamas' terrorist attack
of October the 7th. And that is why Netanyahu said today, hey,
look, that's what you were calling for in your own draft resolution. You have changed your policy. That led to Netanyahu canceling this delegation
that was supposed to arrive tomorrow to Washington. And it led to this statement by Israeli Ambassador
to the U.N. Gilad Erdan: GILAD ERDAN, Israeli Ambassador to the United
Nations: Your demand for a cease-fire, without conditioning it on t
he release of the hostages,
not only is not helpful, but it undermines, undermines the efforts to secure their release. To this council, Israeli blood is cheap. This is a travesty, and I am disgusted. NICK SCHIFRIN: In response to that, National
Security Council spokesman John Kirby today tried to downplay what the U.S. had done. They said -- he said that the Israeli cancellation
of the delegation was disappointing, but he also said, William, that Netanyahu was making
a bigger deal of today's vo
te than it was actually. JOHN KIRBY, NSC Coordinator For Strategic
Communications: We get to decide what our policy is. The prime minister's office seems to be indicating,
through public statements, that we somehow changed here. We haven't. And we get to decide what our policy is. It seems like the prime minister's office
is choosing to create a perception of daylight here, when they don't need to do that. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, how serious do U.S.
officials believe this rift really is? NICK SCHI
FRIN: I mean, Kirby, as he said,
he's disappointed that the U.S. won't be able to detail their alternative to the assault
on Rafah. Israeli officials say that an assault on Rafah
is necessary because Hamas' final four battalions are based there. But two U.S. officials told me that the U.S.
had planned to provide a detailed alternative to an assault on Rafah, more about targeting
high-value members of Hamas, doing more to secure the Egyptian border and allowing displaced
Gazans to go home to Cent
ral and Northern Gaza. U.S. officials, frankly, are skeptical that
Israel wants to hear an alternative to an assault on Rafah because all Israeli officials
are convinced it's necessary, as we heard from Yoav Gallant, defense minister, who's
visiting Washington as well today. YOAV GALLANT, Israeli Defense Minister (through
translator): In my first meeting, which will be with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan,
I will stress the importance of destroying Hamas and returning the hostages home.
We will operate against Hamas everywhere,
including in places where we have not yet been. NICK SCHIFRIN: Not yet been -- not yet been
is presumably a reference to Rafah. Bottom line, two U.S. officials also think
that Netanyahu is playing domestic politics here, because his coalition is at a particularly
fragile moment. But, look, there has been tension between
the administration and the Israeli government, today particularly public. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Nick Schifrin, as always,
thank you so much.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Thank you. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In the day's other headlines:
Russian officials raised the death toll to 139 in the Friday night terror attack outside
Moscow. Today, the Kremlin talked of vengeance, as
investigators worked the scene. Stephanie Sy reports. STEPHANIE SY: Crocus City Hall is a charged
shell of debris and devastation. Rescue workers search for bodies buried in
its ruins days after attackers armed with rifles and knives laid waste to a rock concert. It was the deadliest
terror attack in Russia
in decades. Today, Russian President Vladimir Putin said
radical Islamists were behind the massacre, but he also continued to implicate Ukraine,
without evidence. VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russian President (through
translator): We know that the crime was committed by the hands of radical Islamists, whose ideology
the Islamic world itself has been fighting for centuries. We are interested in who ordered it. STEPHANIE SY: Ukraine's President Volodymyr
Zelenskyy denounced the suggest
ion. Four main suspects appeared in a Russian court
and appeared to have been beaten. They're all of Tajik descent. The Islamic State's Afghan branch, ISIS-K,
posted this video claiming responsibility for the attack, a claim verified by the U.S.,
which had shared intelligence with Moscow ahead of time. They have been comparing this for some time. PAUL KOLBE, Senior Fellow, Harvard University:
U.S. had given warnings a few weeks ago that this attack could take place. STEPHANIE SY: Paul Kolbe is a
former operations
officer for the CIA with a focus on Eastern Europe and counterterrorism. ISIS has attacked Russia a number of times
over the years and has recently begun recruiting heavily from Central Asia, including Tajikistan. PAUL KOLBE: Tajik workers are in Moscow, so
they provide a -- both a willing and attractive recruitment pool for ISIS-K, because they
have access to Russia, because they can be radicalized, and because they can be bought
relatively cheaply. STEPHANIE SY: The deadly a
ttack has shaken
Russia days after President Putin, fresh from securing a fifth term, promised stability. For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Stephanie Sy. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The attack in Moscow has
done nothing to slow Russia's renewed bombardment of Ukraine's capital. Today, missiles were fired at Kyiv for the
third time in five days. After some of the weapons were intercepted,
debris fell on homes, injuring nine people. Japan's Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has offered
to meet with North Korea's Kim J
ong-un. It would be these two nations' first summit
in nearly two decades if it happens. Kim's sister Kim Yo-jong announced it today,
but she insisted Tokyo accept the North's weapons program and ignore abductions of Japanese
citizens. Japan acknowledged it wants a summit, but
with no preconditions. The U.S. and Britain say China was behind
a sweeping hacking campaign against lawmakers, defense contractors, and others. Today, they sanctioned a company said to be
a front for Beijing. The U.S. Jus
tice Department said it underscores
-- quote -- "the potential for cyber-enabled foreign malign influence as we approach the
2024 election." The European Union launched new antitrust
probes into Apple, Google, and Meta today. Regulators say the tech giants may be violating
a new Digital Markets Act which aims to help consumers move freely between competing services
and not be cornered by so-called gatekeeper companies. MARGRETHE VESTAGER, Antitrust Commissioner,
European Union: Consumers must ha
ve access to all the necessary information about their
choices. Gatekeepers can no longer prevent businesses
from informing their users within the app about cheaper options outside of the gatekeeper's
ecosystem. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The tech companies dispute
the allegations, but they could be fined 10 percent of their global annual income. Florida's Republican Governor Ron DeSantis
has signed one of the country's most restrictive social media laws for minors. It bars children under 14 from creatin
g and
owning accounts and requires parental permission for 15- and 16-year-olds. If it withstands legal challenges, the law
takes effect next January 1. An early spring snowstorm churned across the
Northern Plains and Upper Midwest today, while the South watched for thunderstorms and tornadoes. It followed a weekend storm in New England
that dumped more than two feet of snow and knocked out power to hundreds of thousands. Police also reported hundreds of accidents. Boeing is shaking up its execu
tive suite amid
a plague of safety problems. The company announced today that Dave Calhoun
will step down as CEO at the end of the year. The board chairman and the head of its commercial
airplanes unit are also leaving. Boeing is under intense scrutiny after a 737
MAX lost a door panel mid-flight back in January. Los Angeles Dodger Shohei Ohtani says he never
bet on sports. Ohtani spoke at a news conference today, five
days after his interpreter was fired amid allegations that he engaged in ille
gal gambling
and theft from Ohtani. Ohtani said his interpreter had been -- quote
-- "stealing money and has told lies." Major League Baseball has opened a formal
investigation. And on Wall Street, stocks cooled a bit after
last week's run-up to record highs. The Dow Jones industrial average lost 162
points to close at 39313. The Nasdaq fell 44 points and the S&P 500
was down 16. Still to come on the "NewsHour": the fate
of the most commonly used abortion pill goes before the U.S. Supreme Court;
Tamara Keith
and Susan Page break down the latest political headlines; and retired Supreme Court Justice
Stephen Breyer discusses his new book on interpreting the constitution. The first criminal trial of former President
Donald Trump is set to begin next month, after a judge today rejected Trump's claims of prosecutorial
misconduct. That comes as a New York appeals court reduced
the amount Trump needs to post in a bond for a civil fraud ruling by nearly $300 million
and granted him an addition
al 10 days to secure that money. Andrea Bernstein has been covering all of
the former president's legal matters for NPR, and she joins us now. Andrea, so good to see you. Let's first talk about this hush money case
that you were in the courtroom for today. Trial was supposed to start today, but that
was derailed by the sudden arrival of thousands of pages of new evidence. And the -- Trump's lawyers argued that there
was something nefarious going on here, but it sounds like the judge rejected tho
se accusations. ANDREA BERNSTEIN, NPR Contributor: Right. So, even though this case was indicted almost
a year ago, it took Trump's lawyers until January to subpoena federal prosecutors, who
had in 2018 investigated Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen, who is going to be the witness
-- main witness in this case. They had investigated Cohen for campaign finance
violations, including having paid Stormy Daniels, the adult film actor who says she had an affair
with Trump, the hush money payments.
So Trump's team didn't subpoena those records
until January, and they got just this month over 100,000 pages of documents. Now, the DA says most of them are not relevant,
but what Trump's lawyers argued was that the DA's office was committing some kind of malfeasance
by not having requested these documents earlier. And the DA, when the documents began to be
produced by the federal prosecutor, said, OK, we could have a 30-day delay, but we're
really OK. The trial was supposed to start today, and
the judge said, I'm going to have a hearing instead. And he sharply rebuked Trump's lawyers for
saying that the DA had done some kind of willful malpractice here. The judge said there was no evidence of that,
and he was moving forward to hold the trial on April 15. This judge has tried Trump's corporation. I have seen him many times. He is very calm, but, today, he got very testy
for Judge Juan Merchan. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And that trial, as we said,
is going to start April 15. Let's pivot now to
this civil fraud ruling. Donald Trump is appealing that nearly half-a-billion
dollar ruling against him on the allegations that he defrauded the state of New York by
inflating his assets to get better bank loans. Trump appealed and was asked to pay a whopping
amount on a bond. That was now reduced by almost $300 million. Trump has now an extended grace period to
get that money. What happens next in that particular case? ANDREA BERNSTEIN: So, well, in this case,
the appeal will go through the app
eals court, but this was really quite extraordinary, because
normally what happens in New York is when you have such a judgment against, you can
appeal it, but you have to put up a bond with the court that says, if it goes against me,
I still can pay. And Trump originally said, well, I don't want
to pay $450 million. I will pay $100 million. The appeals court said, no way. And then he went back and he said, well, I
cannot find a bank to guarantee this money. I can't find an insurance company to
guarantee
me this money, because I don't have enough liquid assets. And after that is when the appeals court came
back and said, OK, you don't have to pay $450 million. You can pay $174. They also are allowing Trump to continue to
run his business, to continue to take out loans, and this will wind its way through
the New York appeals process, which could take some time. So, the attorney general said today, look,
the $450 million judgment still stands. This is still a serious case, but we will
ha
ve to wait some time for Trump to have to pay the full amount if he loses on appeal
at New York's highest court, where he will certainly take this case. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So any immediate seizure
of assets, which some people were thinking might start today, is now... ANDREA BERNSTEIN: Oh, yes, that is off. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: ... clearly going to get
pushed off. ANDREA BERNSTEIN: Yes, that is off because
it looks like he will be able to come up with the $175 million. He has 10 days to do it. He al
ready had said he could come up with
$100 million. So it looks like that will happen. And then basically it puts everything on hold
while the case wends its way through the court system, yet another legal delay spurred by
Donald Trump, which is also what happened in the hush money case. That investigation began in 2018. It's now 2024. Trump took it to the U.S. Supreme Court twice,
arguing to them that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not be investigated while
he was president. And jus
t now, finally, on April 15 of this
year, the judge is insistent that this case will go to trial. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Andrea Bernstein, as always,
thank you so much for helping us wade through all of this. ANDREA BERNSTEIN: Thank you. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The U.S. Supreme Court will
hear arguments tomorrow over whether to restrict access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used
in medication abortions. The case will be the first the court has heard
on abortion since it overturned Roe v. Wade. Special c
orrespondent Sarah Varney reports
on what's at stake. SARAH VARNEY: In a doctor's basement in Upstate
New York, a makeshift production line is under way. WOMAN: I have myself, my sister and some friends
who help me with doing the packaging. SARAH VARNEY: To ensure this doctor's safety,
"NewsHour" is not showing her face. She sends medication abortion pills mostly
to people living in the 14 states where abortion is illegal. WOMAN: Texas was the main one. And in the last few months, we've been see
ing
more and more in Georgia and Florida. SARAH VARNEY: This doctor is part of an extensive
network of providers that is getting medication out the door quickly. DR. LINDA PRINE, Aid Access: Hi, this is the hot
line doctor. Can I help you? SARAH VARNEY: Dr. Linda Prine is part of the
same group, and helps patients from her Manhattan apartment. DR. LINDA PRINE: You can order pills online, and
that's what most people from the restricted states are doing. SARAH VARNEY: She's been prescribing mifepr
istone
since the FDA first approved the drug to end early pregnancy 24 years ago. What are your observations as a longtime provider
about the safety and efficacy of mifepristone? DR. LINDA PRINE: It's very effective. I don't even have medications that are 98
percent to 99 percent effective. Our blood pressure medicines aren't effective
like that. So, it is an unusually effective medication
of anything and extremely safe. SARAH VARNEY: For decades, patients could
only get mifepristone at a medica
l clinic. But during the COVID pandemic, the FDA eased
the rules to allow the drug, like many others, to be prescribed online. DR. LINDA PRINE: Obviously, you don't need to
be handed the pill in the office in order for it to have efficacy. SARAH VARNEY: When the Supreme Court overturned
the constitutional right to an abortion nearly two years ago, Dr. Prine scrambled to find
a way for doctors in New York to help patients in states where abortion had been outlawed. GOV. KATHY HOCHUL (D-NY): This
is how we protect
the rights of not just New Yorkers, but all Americans. SARAH VARNEY: The result of her work was a
New York state shield law, passed last year, that protects medical providers who prescribe
pills across state lines. DR. LINDA PRINE: It felt empowering, both for
me and for the people who were asking for the pills. SARAH VARNEY: Five other states have passed
similar laws. How many pills are you mailing a month? DR. LINDA PRINE: January, I think, was 10,000. Every month, it's a few
thousand more. SARAH VARNEY: Abortion pills are more widely
available now than ever before. In fact, six out of 10 women end their pregnancies
using the medication. And that's made mifepristone an urgent priority
for anti-abortion groups. The Christian legal advocates who helped overturn
Roe v. Wade filed a suit in Texas in November 2022 to ban the medication outright. An appeals court didn't go that far, but it
did order the FDA to reinstate nationwide a number of restrictions, including the r
equirement
that doctors can only prescribe pills in person. Now that case has reached the Supreme Court. The anti-abortion group in this case says
mifepristone is dangerous, and it cites two studies that claim abortion pills increase
E.R. visits and the risk of hospitalization. The medical journal that published those studies
has since retracted them. USHMA UPADHYAY, UCSF School of Medicine: The
articles made claims that were not supported by the data. SARAH VARNEY: In this case, these researche
rs
used a trip to the emergency room as a proxy for something has gone wrong. Is that right? USHMA UPADHYAY: That's right. SARAH VARNEY: Ushma Upadhyay, professor of
reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, conducted the largest
study to date of telehealth abortions in the U.S. USHMA UPADHYAY: There's no medical reason
to overturn or to turn back those regulatory approvals by the FDA. SARAH VARNEY: Upadhyay says that a small percentage
of patients who have medication
abortions do visit an emergency room, but mostly to
make sure their symptoms are normal. USHMA UPADHYAY: What's important to know is
that a visit to an emergency room is not the same as a serious adverse event. People go to an emergency room to get care
and to ask questions and to get clinical support. KANIYA HARRIS, Student: Right now, I'm graduating. SARAH VARNEY: Kaniya Harris is a college senior
in Washington, D.C. Last spring, after getting a positive pregnancy
test, she took medication ab
ortion pills. KANIYA HARRIS: I was going through my finals,
and I think a lot about how I didn't think I was going to finish college if I had to
continue to be pregnant. People that are like, oh, you should only
have an abortion for this reason, this reason, this reason. I feel like it's very harmful. SARAH VARNEY: Kaniya says ending her pregnancy
at home put her in control of her own health care. KANIYA HARRIS: At first, I was really anxious
if I did it in clinic, because I knew there were a lo
t of protesters in the D.C. area. I was able to do it in my apartment, watch
my favorite shows, eat the foods I want. I could just be in the comfort of my own home. SARAH VARNEY: Legal experts say taking away
this option for patients and overriding the FDA would be unprecedented. RACHEL REBOUCHE, Dean and Peter J. Liacouras
Professor of Law, Temple University: You know, at the heart of this case is a real contest
about what evidence matters. SARAH VARNEY: Rachel Rebouche is the dean
of Temple Un
iversity's Law School. She filed an amicus brief in support of the
FDA. RACHEL REBOUCHE: This case really crystallizes
what's always been the politicization of science in the abortion regulation area, but the stakes
are getting higher as we have courts strip federal agencies of their ability to make
expert decisions. SARAH VARNEY: The case also contains what
scholars say is a bold legal strategy. Anti-abortion lawyers claim that a long-dormant
federal law passed in 1873, the Comstock Act, prohib
its the mailing of any supplies used
for abortions. So that could be not just abortion pills,
but also hospital beds and medical gloves, anything. RACHEL REBOUCHE: Anything. SARAH VARNEY: It would essentially shut down
abortion across the United States. RACHEL REBOUCHE: Because everything is mailed. SARAH VARNEY: For activists like Kristan Hawkins,
that is the aim. KRISTAN HAWKINS, President, Students for Life
of America: You make it illegal for doctors, for abortion vendors, for pharmacies to d
istribute
drugs with the intention to end human life. That is a direct abortion. That is what the pro-life movement seeks to
stop. No one is going to be targeting these precincts. SARAH VARNEY: Hawkins runs Students for Life,
one of the largest anti-abortion groups in the country. KRISTAN HAWKINS: Well, state attorneys general
need to go after and prosecute those who are legally mailing abortion drugs into their
states. Then those who are committing those crimes
and violating the federal Comstoc
k Act by shipping chemical abortion pills over state
lines, there should be consequences for those who are clearly violating state lines. SARAH VARNEY: But those who support abortion
rights say bodily autonomy for women has been a hard-won freedom and this case is a dangerous
backslide into the past. KANIYA HARRIS: I think about like, oh, like
hundreds of years ago, they were trying to control our bodies, and they're still trying
to control our bodies to this day. It's really upsetting, because
I'm like, well,
I should have that choice. SARAH VARNEY: For now, doctors will continue
to head each day to local post offices, filling hundreds of prescriptions from patients across
the country. For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Sarah Varney in
New York. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We now continue our series
America's Safety Net about the government programs that help Americans in need. Tonight, we look at the pandemic, when lawmakers,
dramatically, but temporarily, expanded the social safety net, including mo
re money for
families with children. Amna Nawaz and producer Sam Lane report on
how the impacts of those changes are still being felt and debated to this day. DAFNEE CHATMAN, Mother: Some days are better
than others, but it can be, pretty, pretty overwhelming. AMNA NAWAZ: Her family of five can stretch
35-year-old Dafnee Chatman pretty thin. DAFNEE CHATMAN: The responsibility as a parent
is on you to provide food, clothes, water, gas. AMNA NAWAZ: Providing for 13-year-old Whitnee
(ph), 5-year-ol
d Rowen (ph), and 3-year-old twins Trinitee (ph) and Legaciee (ph) in their
hometown of Ville Platte, Louisiana, is a challenge. Of the town's 6,200 residents, more than 40
percent live in poverty. DAFNEE CHATMAN: In this rural area, we don't
have access to much. AMNA NAWAZ: Ville Platte has been called the
state's poorest town and its where Chatman has spent most of her life. Back in early 2020, Chatman was working at
a local community college, a job she loved. She was also pregnant with the tw
ins. And then: JUDY WOODRUFF: The COVID-19 outbreak as a
global pandemic. AMNA NAWAZ: Its biggest one-day jump in both
new cases and deaths. JOHN YANG: Widespread economic damage is becoming
clearer. AMNA NAWAZ: As the nation shut down, Chatman
lost her job. DAFNEE CHATMAN: The best way I can explain
it is that I felt like someone took my air. AMNA NAWAZ: What do you do? How do you provide for your family? DAFNEE CHATMAN: You don't. You're choosing between making sure you have
lights or making s
ure you have food. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. And, eventually, Paul runs out and Peter,
so you're left with nothing. AMNA NAWAZ: Chatman resorted to selling things
around the house, books, jewelry, pictures, just to make ends meet. She developed anxiety and panic attacks. Her kids, especially Whitnee, started feeling
the stress too. DAFNEE CHATMAN: You could see in her eyes
that she felt like "I can't help my mom and my mom can't help me right now." JOE BIDEN, President of the United Stat
es:
Thank you for being here. AMNA NAWAZ: Then, in March of 2021, President
Biden signed the American Rescue Plan. The nearly $2 trillion relief package passed
with only Democratic votes extended unemployment benefits, sent stimulus checks to individuals,
ramped up food stamps and housing assistance, and significantly expanded the federal child
tax credit, or CTC. Pre-pandemic, that credit gave parents up
to $2,000 per child. It came with an earnings requirement, and
was paid in one lump sum at
tax time. But the Rescue Plan raised the credit to $3,600
per child under 6 and to $3,000 for kids under 18. Half the amount came in monthly payments. And for the first time, even parents with
no taxable income were eligible for the full amount. DAFNEE CHATMAN: It was like I was able to
come up for a little air. AMNA NAWAZ: Would you say that the benefits
kind of took care of all your problems? DAFNEE CHATMAN: I wouldn't say it took care
of all of them, but it took care of enough for me not to w
orry as much. AMNA NAWAZ: Families across the country felt
that relief. Laura Douglas lives with her husband and their
two kids in southern Minnesota. Their younger son, Daxton (ph), has a rare
condition that causes seizure-like episodes. So, sometimes, Laura has to miss work. LAURA DOUGLAS, Mother: I might be out of work
for two weeks, and I have already used all my PTO. That's hundreds of dollars not coming into
our account to cover our bills. AMNA NAWAZ: The CTC payments started before
Daxton
turned one. LAURA DOUGLAS: That was nice to know that
there would be money if I had to stay home due to being sick or if he was sick. It was nice to have that security. AMNA NAWAZ: In 2021, the national child poverty
rate dropped to its lowest level on record, 5.2 percent, down from almost 10 percent in
2020. The poverty gap between white children and
children of color also shrank dramatically. The Census Bureau estimated that, in total,
the CTC expansion lifted more than two million children o
ut of poverty. BRADLEY HARDY, Georgetown University: I think,
in a policy sense, that's a resounding success. AMNA NAWAZ: Bradley Hardy is a professor of
public policy at Georgetown University. BRADLEY HARDY: We had a highly salient and
disturbing public health crisis that actually provided some clarity for policymakers to
plug holes in the nation's social safety net that were already in existence. AMNA NAWAZ: Research from Hardy and his colleagues
found the CTC expansion had the greatest impact
in states with low costs of living and high
poverty rates, states like Louisiana. Nearly every single child in the state of
Louisiana, an estimated 94 percent, benefited from the expansion of the child tax credit. According to one study, the state saw a 56
percent decline in child poverty. Joyce James leads The Middleburg Institute. JOYCE JAMES, Founder, The Middleburg Institute:
Did you all know about the child tax credit? AMNA NAWAZ: A Louisiana nonprofit that helps
low-income residents. The
organization traveled the state educating
families about the CTC. JOYCE JAMES: Unlike what was said, that people
would not know how to manage the money, they would not spend it on the children, we talked
to parents, who were able to buy school supplies. They were able to feed them healthy meals,
vegetables, fruits. AMNA NAWAZ: But just as families were getting
their last monthly CTC checks in 2021, a fight was brewing in Congress. Legislation to extend the payments died in
the Senate. West Virgi
nia Democrat Joe Manchin, concerned
about the cost and how parents spent the funds, dealt the final blow. By tax time in 2022, as the second half of
the CTC hit bank accounts, the expansion was over. DAFNEE CHATMAN: I remember my response was,
oh, wow, what am I going to do now? AMNA NAWAZ: Chatman had already been working
any odd job she could, food delivery for DoorDash, writing resumes for $35 apiece, as she looked
for steady work. DAFNEE CHATMAN: I counted it somewhere about
1,100 job applic
ations. AMNA NAWAZ: Eleven hundred job applications? DAFNEE CHATMAN: Eleven hundred job applications. AMNA NAWAZ: In 2022? DAFNEE CHATMAN: In 2022. AMNA NAWAZ: What is that like for you in that
moment, not knowing when you will have a steady job again, knowing the benefits have just
gone away? DAFNEE CHATMAN: It's indescribable. It makes you feel undervalued. AMNA NAWAZ: In 2022, the child poverty rate
more than doubled to 12.4 percent, the largest year-to-year increase on record. MATT WEIDINGER
, American Enterprise Institute:
The 2021 changes, I think, were somewhat of a mistake. AMNA NAWAZ: Matt Weidinger is a senior fellow
at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. He says even, when child poverty rebounded
in 2022, it was still below pre-pandemic levels. MATT WEIDINGER: We have continued to make
strides. We obviously didn't make as many strides as
when the government was literally forcing cash into families' pockets in the name of
pandemic relief, But the progress against p
overty has continued over time. AMNA NAWAZ: Weidinger argues the key problem
was making the CTC available to those with no taxable income. MATT WEIDINGER: Democrats in 2021 said, let's
just eliminate any connection of this benefit with work and say everybody gets the same
benefit no matter what. That eliminates a work requirement. And, in effect, it revives a welfare system
that was eliminated a generation ago. I think it's appropriate that benefits like
the CTC that have always been connected t
o work remain connected to work. AMNA NAWAZ: But some experts and advocates
say the 2021 CTC didn't discourage work at all. JOYCE JAMES: Some of the families actually
were working two or three jobs when getting the child tax credit and still did not make
enough money to take care of the children. AMNA NAWAZ: The CTC expansion was also problematic,
Matt Weidinger says, because of its cost. MATT WEIDINGER: During the pandemic, government
policy was designed to spend money, which, by the way, was a
ll added to the deficit,
all borrowed from the future, and families will have to repay with higher taxes, interest
and inflation in the future. BRADLEY HARDY: I think we have to think about
the cost of doing nothing. We have this long body of social science evidence
that these investments in children lead to improved educational outcomes, health outcomes,
higher incomes in adulthood. AMNA NAWAZ: That idea has since led 15 states
to implement their own CTC. The largest passed last year is in Minn
esota. Families can receive up to $1,750 per child. There's no minimum income, but it starts phasing
out when families make more than about $30,000 a year. Laura Douglas sees her state's new CTC the
same way she saw the 2021 federal payments. LAURA DOUGLAS: Not really life-changing, but
it was definitely helpful. It wouldn't be able to, like, replace my income
or my husband's income. We still need that. MAN: The House will be in order. AMNA NAWAZ: In January, the U.S. House passed
a bill that wo
uld again expand the federal CTC,not as large as the 2021 expansion and
it would still have some income requirements. But estimates say it could lift about 500,000
kids out of poverty. The legislation has yet to pass the Senate. Meanwhile, Dafnee Chatman is keeping her faith
that she can keep providing for her family. In January, she found a steady job with the
state's Department of Children and Family Services, but says she's always uneasy. What if her car breaks down? What if Rowen needs new s
hoes? She says lawmakers in Washington don't seem
to understand that stress. DAFNEE CHATMAN: But, in 2021, I felt like
somebody started to feel our pain or started to feel like those -- they matter, you know? AMNA NAWAZ: It doesn't feel that way anymore? DAFNEE CHATMAN: Not really, not to me. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Former President Trump gets
a reprieve and a trial date. Congress steps back from the brink, but might
have triggered another speaker fight. And the Supreme Court takes up abortion again.
It is a perfect time for our Politics Monday
team. That is Tamara Keith of NPR and Susan Page
of USA Today. Amy Walter is away. Welcome to you both. Thank you so much for being here. Good to see you, Susan. SUSAN PAGE, Washington Bureau Chief, USA Today:
Great to be here. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tam, cannot overlook the
fact that this was a big legal day for Donald Trump. He gets a reprieve on the bond that he has
to pay for the civil fraud ruling. But there is going to now be a trial in the
middle of
next month. Donald Trump will have to be in that courtroom
every single day. We are in the middle of a presidential campaign. I feel like I have asked you this before,
and our -- and Amna and Geoff have asked the same. We don't know how this is going to play out,
but does this matter to voters or is this a baked cake? TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: We also
don't know how that's going to play out. First off, his team will inevitably try to
delay this. Maybe they will succeed a little. Mayb
e they won't. We will find out. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This judge seemed very skeptical
of delays. TAMARA KEITH: Yes. Yes, that is true. But in terms of whether this hurts him, with
hardcore Republican based voters, the kind of people who are voting in primaries, none
of this baggage hurt him in the primary. We are headed into a general election, where
there are voters who say, if he is convicted of a crime, Republican voters who say, if
he is convicted of crime, they would have a very hard time voti
ng for him. But it's also possible that he's not convicted
of a crime. This is a trial. And this -- in terms of like what the experts
think, this is the thinnest reed. This is one of the more flimsy legal theory
and legal challenge that he faces. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right. Susan, the other big development was this
reprieve that he got on this, the amount he has to pay and the timing he has to pay on
this bond. Trump today afterwards said, I will pay this
out of my own cash, although that is cash I
would have liked to have used to fund my
campaign. We know that there are some fund-raising totals
that have been coming out there. When you look at those numbers between Biden
and Trump, what do they tell you? SUSAN PAGE: Just let's note that Trump has
not donated any of his own money to his campaign since 2016. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right. SUSAN PAGE: But, putting that aside, President
Biden has several big problems, including trailing narrowly in battleground states and
in most national polls. B
ut he has a big advantage when it comes to
campaign cash. He has about twice as much campaign cash on
hand as Donald Trump does. And you talk about the repercussions of Trump's
legal troubles. Maybe they're not political, but they're financial. We know now from numbers that we just released
that the Trump people spent $10 million legal fees just this year so far. So that is a big drain for his campaign. Campaign money isn't everything, especially
in a campaign where the two candidates are so wel
l-known, but it is something. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right. What do you make of that? Is it an insurmountable gap? TAMARA KEITH: Well, what I would say is that
his fund-raising appeal that I looked at the other day had 90 percent of it going to his
campaign and 10 percent of it going to a political action committee that's been funding the legal
challenges. So they are definitely still pulling money
into this political action committee that is just basically spending money on lawyers. It is a big defi
cit that he faces now in terms
of money. The question, though, is, up until this point,
President Biden has been able to combine with the DNC and campaign -- and state parties
all over the country and raise huge sums of money from wealthy people. Donald Trump was not the presumptive nominee,
didn't have control of the RNC and couldn't do that for the last many months. And now that he has control of the RNC, that
spigot could open, but it depends on whether wealthy people want to give all that mo
ney. And also the small-dollar donations do matter
too. And there's an element of fatigue there among
his small-dollar donors. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right. Susan, tomorrow, the Supreme Court is going
to take up its first abortion case since Dobbs. This is the mifepristone case. This case has enormous implications legally
for women's health, for whether the FDA scientists can continue to approve drugs for all Americans. Separate from that, and regardless of how
this comes down, this could also have e
normous political implications. SUSAN PAGE: Yes, just look at the repercussions
since Dobbs two years ago. It is what some Democrats -- it really helped
Democrats in the elections we have had since then. Some Democrats think it will have an enormous
influence in this one. And this case goes right to the heart of the
concerns many voters have about access to abortion services. Most abortions in this country are now performed
with drugs, medical abortions... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Yes, I think it's six
in
10. SUSAN PAGE: ... more than 60 percent. That's right. And you look at where Americans stand on this
issue, there was a Gallup poll that showed 63 percent of Americans thought there should
be distribution of abortion drugs, including 41 percent of Republicans. But if these conservative anti-abortion groups
succeed in this legal case, that puts at risk not just the abortion drugs. It puts at risk IVF drugs. It puts at risk some forms of contraception. I cannot imagine that is a winning polit
ical
issue. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right. No, it's incredible to watch how that's going
to unfold. Tam, on Congress, it seemed like last week
they stepped back from the brink, avoided a shutdown. Speaker Johnson did cobble this deal together,
but Marjorie Taylor Greene holding this sword of Damocles over his head. What is your sense of how this is going to
play out? TAMARA KEITH: Right. So, she introduced this motion to vacate,
but she did not force a rapid vote on it. And so we don't really know how
it will play
out. What I do know is that members of Congress
are tired. Certainly, there are Marjorie Taylor Greenes,
there are other allies of hers, and other people who are similarly very upset and have
sort of an absolutist view, very upset that Johnson would put something on the floor that
did not have support of all the Republicans. But everyone's tired. And even Democrats are tired after the very
long process to get Kevin McCarthy into the speaker's seat and then the very long process
onc
e he was booted. It is certainly possible that, if it were
to come up for a vote, that Democrats would not be all united against Speaker Johnson
in the way they were against Speaker McCarthy. That said, if you're Speaker Johnson, do you
really want Democrats bailing you out? Probably not. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tamara Keith and Susan Page,
thank you both so much for being here. Great to see you. SUSAN PAGE: Nice to see you. TAMARA KEITH: You're welcome. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For as long as America has
ha
d a Constitution, there's been heated debate over how to interpret it. The U.S. Supreme Court is often where those
debates are most intense and their judgments the most far-reaching. For nearly 30 years, Stephen Breyer served
on the nation's highest court, deciding cases that still resonate today. Breyer recently spoke with Amna Nawaz about
how he interprets the nation's foundational document. That's the subject of his new book, "Reading
the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism."
AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome back to the "NewsHour." Thank you so much for joining us. STEPHEN BREYER, Former U.S. Supreme Court
Associate Justice: Well, thank you. AMNA NAWAZ: So there is, I think it's fair
to say, a sort of sense of mission in this book. You outline your concerns about textualism
and originalism, interpreting the Constitution based solely on its text and the intent at
the time it was written. And you write that you hope that the next
generation of law students or two will read this bo
ok and that you can slow what you call
a tidal wave of sorts. Tell us what you meant by that. STEPHEN BREYER: Well, I think there is a traditional
way of interpreting statutes and interpreting the Constitution. And that traditional way starts, just like
textualism starts, with the language. I mean, if you have a statute and the statute
has the word fish, fish doesn't mean carrot. You know, a carrot is not a fish. OK? (LAUGHTER) STEPHEN BREYER: Now, some, at the moment,
textualists think what you
should do is stop right there. Stop right there. Just read the words, or read the words and
see what they meant in the Constitution to those who were alive in 1788, or 1789, or
maybe 1869 or something like that. And I think that's not traditional, and I
think it could be harmful. And so I have, in the 40 years I have been
a judge and 28 on the Supreme Court, I have taken a different approach. You start with the language, but then that
might not tell you the answer. Well, look to other things. W
hat did John Marshall say? He said, look to everything that will help. And what did Holmes and Brandeis and the others
say? Look to the purposes. Why did Congress put those words in there? Why did Congress write this statute? And when you work that out -- and it isn't
always easy to do, but it helps very often to figure out, why? What was the purpose? You see, you have to know the purpose, and
you have to look at the consequences quite often. I mean, look at the values. Is this consistent with t
hose basic values
in this book, right here in this document right here? AMNA NAWAZ: As you know, many of the justices
on the court identify as originalists. That includes Justices Thomas and Gorsuch,
Kavanaugh, Barrett, even Justice Jackson. What do you think those justices are missing
in that approach? STEPHEN BREYER: I think that, look, they're
friends of mine. We get on well personally. I have never heard a word in anger, really,
or insult to any other judge made by one of the judges in the c
onference, but we don't
agree there about the usefulness of that textualism. What they're thinking is, it's so simple. It's clear. Well get a clear answer. Well, good luck, and I have a few hundred
pages here to explain why that doesn't work. Or we will stop the judges from substituting
what they think is good for society, substituting that for the law. And what I try to explain here is, no, that
doesn't work either. AMNA NAWAZ: You devote significant time in
the book to the 2022 Dobbs decision,
which did eliminate the constitutional right to
an abortion. And on that, you write this: "If the only
basis for overruling an earlier case is that an originalist judge applying originalism
to the earlier case concludes that it was wrongly decided, then many, many earlier cases
will be candidates for overruling." Do you believe that earlier rulings on same-sex
marriage or interracial marriage or contraception, other protections based on that same right
to privacy that undergirded Roe, those cou
ld also be overruled by this court? STEPHEN BREYER: The answer to that is no,
but leave out the specifics of the cases, because I don't want to comment on cases that
might come or might not come, or might be decided this way or that way. But I don't... AMNA NAWAZ: But why is the answer no? STEPHEN BREYER: Why is the answer no? Because if you started overruling every case
that wasn't decided in a textualist way, you would overrule half the law, or maybe three-quarters,
and there would be chaos. T
here wouldn't be law. So, I don't think anybody is going to do that. AMNA NAWAZ: As you know, the majority in Dobbs
did say that they believe that Roe had been wrongly decided. STEPHEN BREYER: Yes. AMNA NAWAZ: But earlier, in each of their
cases, with Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, in each of their confirmation hearings,
this is actually what they said when they were asked about Roe. NEIL GORSUCH, U.S. Supreme Court Associate
Justice: A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U
.S. Supreme Court worthy
as treatment of precedent like any other. BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. Supreme Court Associate
Justice: It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court. AMY CONEY BARRETT, U.S. Supreme Court Associate
Justice: Richard Fallon from Harvard said, Roe is not a super precedent because calls
for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled. AMNA NAWAZ: Justice Breyer, how do you square
what they said then with how they eventually ruled on Roe
? STEPHEN BREYER: First, I would say keep the
confirmation process out of it. I'm not an expert on confirmation. Remember, I was not a confirming person. I was a person who was confirmed. So to ask me about that process is sort of
like asking for the recipe for chicken a la king from the point of view of the chicken. So I'm not talking about that. I am talking about how do you decide whether
to overrule. Now, three of us, Justice Kagan, Justice Sotomayor,
and I, wrote a joint dissent. We thought
it was totally -- it was wrong
to overrule Roe. It was wrong to overrule Casey. Those were cases that were working pretty
well. And you start overruling too many cases, you
won't have a law left. You will have a shambles. And so be careful. AMNA NAWAZ: There's a note of caution in this
book as well that you seem to be issuing for your fellow justices. You write -- quote -- "They may be well concerned
about the decline in trust in the court, as shown by public opinion polls. One such poll late l
ast year found only about
28 percent of U.S. adults said they had a great deal of confidence in the Supreme Court;
36 percent had some. Another 36 percent had little or none." How do you look at that? I mean, is that within the court's power to
turn around? And, if so, how should they do that? STEPHEN BREYER: Well, that is a very good
question. And it's a difficult question to answer. And I think the best answer was given by Professor
Freund, who is a professor here at Harvard. He said, no judge
, no decent judge will take
into account the political temperature of the day. But all judges do and probably should take
into account the climate of the era. So if you tell me in an opinion poll that
judges are not looked at well or they don't like them or people don't like them, have
those people read the many cases that probably the bottom line they do agree with? Are they deciding on the basis of bottom line
or the reasons? And the judges on this court, like judges
on prior courts, probably
are unanimous about 40 percent of the time. And so you don't just look to opinion polls. On the other hand, sometimes, you see -- and
why this difficult and a good question -- sometimes, it does matter. AMNA NAWAZ: On this trust issue, do appearances
matter? I mean, you have seen all the reporting about
ethics concerns among some of the justices. There's questions about appropriate recusals. Would it, for example, help to build back
trust in the court if Justice Thomas were to recuse himself fro
m cases related to January
6, given the role that we know his wife played in those events? Would that kind of thing help build trust
back in the court? STEPHEN BREYER: Justice Thomas or any other
justice on any court, whether it's the Supreme Court or some other court, must do what the
law says they must do. I mean, they interpret the statutes according
to law, and they all think that's the job. You're talking about ethics. Of course, ethics in general and in particular
is relevant to Supreme Co
urt justices. I had a readily accessible seven volumes written
by the Judicial Conference, I think, explaining all the different ethical rules for all the
judges. And in my experience there, the judges, when
they had difficult questions, would consult those volumes, and they'd ask other colleagues
what they thought, and they would try to do the right thing. And you want to ask specifically about... AMNA NAWAZ: Specific to January 6 cases, do
you think it would help, in terms of trust in the cour
t? STEPHEN BREYER: No, I would not take myself
out of a case unless I thought that's what the ethics required. And that's just as important as taking yourself
out of the case when the ethics requires that. The main point for the public is, of course,
you follow ethical rules if you're a judge, and you do your best to do it, and it isn't
always easy, but you're not pushed one way or the other by the public opinion. You are pushed by what is right, and that
is a fundamental rule. The job of the ju
dge is to do what you think
is right. And that has been my experience. That has been my experience over 40 years. And I try to write enough here not just to
give you that conclusion. I mean, you can't just accept that conclusion
from the fact that I say it, but you can, perhaps, be moved if I show you not the theory
of the thing, but rather how these approaches, different approaches, how they work out in
practice through cases, through examples, written in a way I hope that people who are
not ju
dges, who are not lawyers can understand what I'm talking about. AMNA NAWAZ: There is so much more we could
talk about. It's a fascinating book. Justice Stephen Breyer, author of "Reading
the Constitution," thank you so much for joining us. I really enjoyed our discussion. STEPHEN BREYER: Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And that is the "NewsHour"
for tonight. I'm William Brangham. Thank you so much for joining us. Good night.
Comments