amna: good evening. i'm amna nawaz. geoff bennett is away. on the “newshour” tonight, the justice department and 16 state attorneys general sue apple for maintaining a monopoly. with a vote to avoid a government shutdown set for

tomorrow, house speaker mike johnson works to keep his fractious majority intact. and an arizona lawmaker talks about why she publicly announced her decision to terminate her non-viable pregnancy. ♪ >> major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by. >> actually, you don't need vision to do most things in life. it's exciting to be part of a team driving the technology forward. i think that's the most rewarding thing. people who know, know bdo. >> a law partner rediscovers her grandmother's artistry and creates a trust to keep the craft alive. a raymondjames financial advisor gets to know you, your passions, and the way you enrich your community. life well planned.

>> the kendeda fund, committed to advancing restorative justice and meaningful work through investments in transformative leaders and ideas. more at kendedafund.org. carnegie corporation of new york, supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security, at carnegie.org. and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by

contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. amna: welcome to the "newshour." the department of justice and more than a dozen states sued apple today in a landmark antitrust case. they argue that the tech giant has created an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market by using excessively restrictive hardware and apps that keep customers locked into apple's ecosystem, and that puts a quote, chokehold on competition. that includes its payment and messaging systems and basic connections with other apps. doha mekki is the principal deputy assistant attorney general at the department and she joins me now. welcome to the "newshour." doha: it is nice to be with you. amna: the department of justice is arguing that apple's monopoly comes at the expense of consumers. how are consumers being harmed? doha: today's lawsuit was filed

about alleged novelization, monopoly maidens, by apple. that we allege have artificial has thwarted competition in the smartphone market. specifically we allege that apple imposed restrictions on apps, products, and services that threaten to disrupt apple's smartphone monopoly. and so consumers really suffer the consequences of that. sometimes that looks like higher prices for smartphones, including the iphone. it looks like disruptive innovation by potential innovators -- developers that harms the entire smartphone ecosystem. it also means that apple is thwarting technologies and emerging paradigms that may make consumers device agnostic altogether. amna: part of apple's response says the lawsuit threatens what they called the principles that

set them apart. they say if successful, this lawsuit would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from apple, where hardware, software, and services intersect. as you know, part of what makes apple so popular is that they have this integration across this suite of systems and apps. everything just kind of worked together. is there a sense here that doj is punishing them for what customers like them best for. doha: absolutely not. the united states is in favor of consumer electronics and products and services that work for consumers. and competition is the best way to make sure that there is ample opportunity in the market for different kinds of providers to offer more of what consumers want. the united states government in its lawsuit is also very in favor of privacy and security.

and specifically none of the conduct that we challenge in our lawsuit is necessary to ensure privacy and security. amna: so part of the doj's challenge is to prove that the benefits apple delivers to consumers don't outweigh its alleged antitrust practices. how do you do that? doha: they will be many months of discovery and a long road to trial in this case, which we very much look forward to. one of the things that we will focus on is really developing a full record ahead of trial about all of the ways that apple undertakes anti-competitive and exclusionary conduct. obviously apple will have an opportunity to put forward any alleged justifications for its conduct. and it is our burden to show that the exclusions and restrictions that they deployed in their app store through developer guidelines, etc.,

outweigh what is required to deliver their products and services. amna: if the lawsuit is successful, what kind of changes could doj be looking apple to make? could you be looking at structural changes, breaking the company up? doha: that is really a legal question. our burden right now is to demonstrate an antitrust demonstration. it is blackwater law in the united states that a remedy really has to be tailored to redress the violation and prevent its recurrence. and so it is too early right now say what the precise concourse of the remedy are but it is the role that the tradition and long-standing goal of the justice department to take on monopolies and pry open markets that have been encumbered by the use -- abusive monopoly power and make sure competition can take hold so we are protecting the opportunity for next generation technologies and disruptive services and products that americans have always

looked forward to. it is about making sure the next generation of apples are about to take hold. amna: this lawsuit follows years of regulatory scrutiny of apple. they have already fought off a number of other antitrust challenges. what prevented the doj from taking action sumer -- acting sooner? doha: the lawsuit was filed after a methodical, careful and very deliberate investigation. we take our cases and facts as they find them and we only file lawsuits when we are confident that we have real competition concerns that cannot be addressed short of going to court. and so that is what happened here. there is no doubt justice delayed is justice denied and we will be excited to try our case as soon as it is ready. amna: that is doha mekki, assistant attorney general at the department of justice. thank you so much for your time. doha: thank you so much for having me.

♪ amna: in the day's other headlines, the quest to end the grinding war in gaza took secretary of state antony blinken to egypt, on his latest middle east mission. blinken met in cairo with president abdel fattah el-sissi and later with his arab counterparts. and he voiced hope about mediated talks in qatar between israel and hamas. >> negotiators continue to work, the gaps are narrowing, and we're continuing to push for an agreement in doha. there's still difficult work to get there, but i continue to believe it's possible. amna: meanwhile, in gaza city, smoke billowed from a fourth day of fighting around the al-shifa hospital complex. the israeli military said it has killed more than 140 palestinian gunmen there. ukraine's capital city has suffered its heaviest barrage of russian missiles in weeks.

military officials say all 31 of the missiles were shot down. still, falling debris caused extensive damage to residential buildings. in all, 13 people were injured in the attacks, including a child. the european union today formally took up the question of using frozen russian assets to help ukraine's military. the interest on those assets could provide more than $3 billion a year. eu leaders met in brussels, and german chancellor olaf scholz was among those endorsing the plan, despite russian warnings that it amounts to theft. >> i am quite sure that we are sending a very clear signal to putin here. he has made a miscalculation if he believes that we are not able to support ukraine for as long as it is necessary. and the use of windfall profits is a small but important component. amna: the european move came as $60 billion in american aid for ukraine is still tied up in congress. back in this country, sentencing concluded today for six white,

former law enforcement officers who tortured two black men in mississippi. the final pair received federal prison terms of 27 years and 10 years. the six defendants admitted to torturing michael jenkins and eddie parker after breaking into a home without a warrant in 2023. the biden administration has announced it's forgiving a new round of federal student loan debt. the announcement affects 78,000 teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other workers in public service jobs. it cancels nearly $5.8 billion in student loans that they still owed. that makes nearly $144 billion in federal student debt forgiven so far by the administration. and on wall street, computer chip makers led the way, and major indices finished at record highs again. the dow jones industrial average gained 269 points to close at 39,781. the nasdaq rose 32 points. the s&p 500 added 17. and a passing of note.

richard higgins, one of the last survivors of the pearl harbor attack, has died in bend, oregon. he was a u.s. navy radioman when japanese planes attacked on december 7, 1941. in later life, he became an engineer. richard higgins was 102 years old. it's believed about two dozen other pearl harbor survivors are still living. still to come on the "newshour," why suicide rates are higher among tank units than the rest of the army. californians approve a plan to address homelessness and mental health. the life-threatening risks associated with eviction. and dartmouth basketball players push the boundaries on unionizing college athletes. >> this is the "pbs newshour" from weta studios in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. amna: congress is on the verge

of passing a large spending deal, six months into its fiscal year and with less than 48 hours left before a partial government shutdown. lisa desjardins has more on what has made this congress one of history's most dysfunctional. lisa: that dysfunction is one of the defining characteristics of this house of representatives. we have a narrow republican majority which has made governing unpredictable and at times, impossible. the basement of the u.s. capitol is a messy place of power. of lawmakers in a thin majority and dim light. and for the past 15 months, house republicans' regular meetings here have showcased the most chaotic majority in modern american history. >> a speaker has not been elected. lisa: not just the 15 votes to find a first speaker, nor the unprecedented ouster of that speaker in just 10 months.

>> this is a whole new concept of individuals that just want to burn the whole place down, it doesn't work. lisa: but other failed votes that should be easy. >> the nays are 216. the resolution is not adopted. lisa: to keep government going, speaker johnson has repeatedly suspended the rules to pass key legislation like spending bills. common, internal divide has taken an uncommon form. >> we need to be instilling confidence, not in not showing dysfunction. however, i know that you don't mind the debate either, and they don't mind it being public as well. lisa: and that is the point to some. >> like we all said, the border is the number one issue. what are we going to do about the border? nothing, right? lisa: if you recognize that face of house freedom caucus member chip roy, it may be for his repeated, public criticism of republican decisions. he's one of 19 or so gop rebels who say the party compromises too much.

they have power in part because of the slim three-vote margin in the house. and starting next week, disorder will make that even tighter. >> too many republican leaders are lying to america. lisa: with the departure of colorado congressman ken buck who has blasted republicans as pushing lies for former president donald trump. now, leaving months before his term is up, he is blunt. >> it is the worst year of the nine years and three months i've been in congress and having talked to former members, it's the worst year in 40, 50 years to be in congress. >> i think that this is a tough moment that can really define the conference overall. lisa: erin perrine is a republican strategist who worked for kevin mccarthy in house leadership. she sees bright spots, including wide agreement last week on the bill to limit tiktok. but the underlying tension remains. >> some people are never going to want to compromise. they want to stand where they want to stand. but to be able to get the conference to move legislation together forward, that's the big

thing. lisa: the situation's been a bit of a nightmare for republicans like sarah chamberlain, who heads the republican main street partnership that includes 75 house members, with a creed focused on governing. chamberlain has watched debates turn into public disarray and knows of worse behind the scenes. >> i mean, there's almost been fist fights. and it's funny, we're not the the parliament in england. i mean, there truly have been very close to some real problems on the floor, and certainly in conference. lisa: fist fights? that's from another era. >> right. the democrats already, the democrats should be the group we're working against, not fellow republicans. lisa: in her alliance are members fighting for their political lives in swing districts and she says fighting for sensible governing on the floor of the house. she points to rebels like matt gaetz of florida who have used social media and the small margin to derail what should be simple votes, like the rules for debate. >> no one ever does that.

but now it gets done on a pretty regular basis, which is unfortunate. they don't want to be on the team and maybe they're ok being in the minority. at main street we certainly do not want to be in the minority. lisa: but what republican hard liners want is to dig in. what others in their party see as a nightmare, they shrug off. >> in the last, you know, last 200-plus years, show me a year that isn't dysfunctional. everybody just looks back on it through the rose colored glasses of time. but it's always dysfunctional. lisa: some of your mainstream guys in swing districts say they're they're getting hurt by it because the republicans look like they can't govern. >> so i'm supposed to compromise my views? no, i'm not going to compromise. country's too important to me. lisa: in the small capitol basement, it's all a massive test for a new speaker trying to govern with members who don't agree on what that means. hardliners say the disorder is within gop leadership, that they skirt rules, or bend pledges.

or break pledges. but the majority of republicans i speak with say no, the issue is the hardliners, demanding untenable positions like allowing a government shutdown. some hardliners see shutdowns as leverage. others see them as a disaster. amna: remind us why this matters. who is impacted by all this disarray? lisa: we have been used to dysfunction before but this is a special situation. when you have this level of dysfunction there is not time or the room on the heel that he'll to deal with -- on the hill. while these hardliners spend a lot of capital trying to deal with it, they have gone the other way. there is not time to get work done. another thing that is important is this is why we have continued risk of shutdown print we almost had a debt ceiling problem. and this is the rest of the world looking at america as an unstable democracy.

just on monday vladimir putin in russia called american democracy a catastrophe. so our reputation in the world is at stake with how the house of representatives is able to do or not do its job. and of course the majority is also at stake for republicans. amna: the world is watching. lisa desjardins, thanks as always. lisa: you are welcome. ♪ amna: the patchwork landscape of abortion restrictions in a post-roe america can be both confusing and dangerous. this is true even for some lawmakers, one of whom took to the floor of the arizona state senate to describe her own recent experience with a non-viable pregnancy. >> after numerous ultrasounds and blood draws, we have determined that my pregnancy is once again not progressing and is not viable. and once again, i have scheduled an appointment to terminate my pregnancy.

i don't think people should have to justify their abortions, but i'm choosing to talk about why i made this decision because i want us to be able to have meaningful conversations about the reality of how the work that we do in this body impacts people in the real world. amna: eva burch is the democratic whip of the arizona state senate, and she joins me now. senator birch, thank you so much for joining us. let me begin by saying how very sorry we are for your loss. sen. burch: thank you so much for having me and i appreciate the sentiment. it is obviously an unfortunate thing to happen but i am so glad to have the opportunity to turn this sad moment into something powerful and meaningful and has the opportunity to affect change. amna: tell me about your decision to share that decision publicly. how easy was it to decide to speak out on the floor like that? sen. burch: of course it is a complicated decision but i do not know it was a difficult decision.

i started going through this process and as i was having my initial consultation where you have to have this counseling in arizona, it became clear to me that i was being told who i was in that counseling meeting. my provider did not want to say the things they said. and i felt a strong sense of responsibility to take ownership of that back and to tell people who i was instead of the other way around. i knew i had an opportunity to do that. i know there is a stigma about who the abortion patient is. and the way i was being treated was unacceptable to me and i had to speak out about it. amna: tell me about what the reaction has been like from your fellow lawmakers print many of whom may disagree with you on this issue. sen. burch: i have a lot of respect and appreciation for my fellow lawmakers. i have good relationships with many of my fellow lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. we do have an extremist republican leadership in the arizona senate and i am not

particularly surprised that i do not think i was heard on the leadership in the arizona legislature. but what i do know is i was heard by so many other people. i have had an overwhelming response of people reaching out to me telling me their own stories, and it makes me clear to me that we are in an environment where people are ready for change. amna: you laid out in your speech the multiple steps that arizona state law currently requires women to go through to legally get an abortion, including an invasive vegan or ultrasound you did not need. you also said your medical provider was quote, forced to tell me multiple things that don't apply to my situation and some which were just transparently false. what did you mean by that? sen. burch: several things that were specific to me was that for example, i was told adoption was an option for me or that parenting was an option for me. i did not have a viable pregnancy. it is cruel to tell someone they

can be parenting when that is not an option for them. this was a wanted pregnancy. we would have been happy to carry a healthy baby to term. that was not not on the cards for me. i was also told if i chose to continue my pregnancy that the father would have to support me financially, which also would not apply to my situation. i have a very loving and wonderful relationship with my husband but i certainly don't need to be financially supported. and that was not a practical application to my situation as well. providers are also forced to talk about the probable anatomical properties of the fetus at the time of the abortion. and in my case that also did not apply. my embryo was dying and not subject to the probabilities of a healthy pregnancy. it was just cruelty for the sake of cruelty. it was clear to me it was not medical providers or experts putting this list of counseling together. it was people opposed to abortion who are trying to be coercive and convince me to make a different decision. amna: you have made clear your

views and beliefs on this issue but as you know there are many people in arizona and across the entire u.s. who do not share those beliefs. they don't believe that you should have a right to an abortion at all or after a certain point. and they might ask why not continue to carry it even if it means miscarrying. what would you say to those people? sen. burch: i would say that those people should not have an abortion if they feel comfortable and if they would want to carry to term themselves. but i would say that people don't have to feel obligated to explain their stories and explain their situations to others to gain their approval in order to have autonomy over their decision-making and over their health care. are there reasons other than a medical necessity or other than a nonviable pregnancy can make other people uncomfortable? of course there are. and that would maybe have high disapproval from other

individuals. we also have to look at the reality of what the outcomes are for people who seek abortions and are unable to get them. there are real serious consequences as well that should be considered. these patients are more likely to be the victim of domestic violence, they are more likely to be evicted, they are more likely to not be able to afford basic needs. their children are less likely to be developing normally. you're more likely to have developmental delays. there are so many consequences that can happen. when someone cannot make a decision for themselves. we have to allow people to make those decisions because it usually is the right decision for them. the vast majority of patients feel good and confident about the decision they made and we have to allow them to do that. amna: that is democratic arizona state senator eva burch joining us tonight. thank you so much for your time. ♪ alarming suicide rates among the

military and veterans can be traced to the stress and trauma from the long wars in afghanistan and iraq. but those conflicts are over. and suicides remain at what the pentagon calls an unacceptably high level. as nick schifrin details, a new report reveals that within the army, armor brigade combat teams, which revolve around tanks, have the highest suicide rates. nick: since 9/11, more than 30,000 active duty service members or veterans of the post-9/11 wars have died by suicide. that is more than four times the number of those who've died in combat. secretary of defense lloyd austin has repeatedly said that even one suicide is too many, and that the department must do more to prevent suicide. a new report by the army times found the highest rates of suicide are among soldiers in the army's tank community. it was written by senior reporter davis winkie, who joins me now. and i'm also joined by craig bryan, a former air force psychologist, member of a congressionally chartered study

about suicide in the military and author of the book "rethinking suicide: why prevention fails and how we can do better." thanks very much, both of you. welcome to the "newshour." davis winkie, let me start with you. in your extraordinary report, you found that between 2019 and 2021, tank brigades experience a suicide rate twice as high as the rest of the active duty force. why? davis: nick, it's tragic, frankly. new trends in suicide prevention research are linking daily hassles and sustained stress over time with higher suicide rates. that functions by stripping away the resilience of somebody and potentially making them more vulnerable to suicidal behavior if they experience an acute stressor in their lives. a lot of people in the army community have known for a long time that the tank brigades are not ok, that they've been run ragged over the past decade.

but i didn't realize how deeply that had impacted service members down to the core of their beings. there are service members who do their three or four year contracts and never know anything but the relentless grind that these types of units have experienced. nick: what you're talking about is what you call operational tempo, what the military would call operational tempo. talk about that a little bit more, and also about what you call a lack of cohesion. what did you find in these tank brigades that aren't necessarily in other brigades? davis: what we found for armored brigade combat teams is that because they've been in such high demand overseas over the past 10 years, that their op tempo, as it's shortened, got largely out of control. they would spend nine months abroad, come home, and they would have 18 months just to prepare to do it again. and over the course of those 18 months, they would have to spend a lot of time in the field, away from their families, preparing for the next deployment.

or in their motor pools, fixing their vehicles for the next training exercise. and that really compounded over time. that combined with manning requirements that essentially say if a unit is going to deploy to europe, it needs to have this many of its slots filled. what that meant functionally was that in order to have a brigade meet those requirements to go overseas, you would have to break down other armored brigades to fill in their empty slots. and when it comes to a loss of cohesion, that's referring to the fact that tank crews would be broken up in order to achieve those administrative requirements. and nick, you can't exaggerate how tight-knit and close a tank crew is. and that loss of cohesion can't be overstated when it occurs. nick: craig bryan, let me turn to you. what's your reaction to this? what stands out most in these

findings? craig: yeah. i think one of the things that stood out to me as soon as i heard about the statistics was the focus on the tank community as a whole. i think when many of us think about military suicide, tankers are not necessarily what comes to the forefront of our thoughts. craig: we have long seen and understood suicide as something that is sort of a characteristic of the person. and so we think of in many ways resiliency or suicide risk being something that a person has. but what we understand is that over half of those who die by suicide do not have a mental health condition. this is true within the military as well as outside the military. and we know that for those without a mental health condition who struggle with suicidal thoughts and died by suicide, oftentimes it is environmental life stressors that are much more common. the prevailing thinking right

now about suicide prevention just really has not embraced that complexity. nick: secretary of defense lloyd austin, as i said, has discussed combating suicide as a priority. and the department has a campaign to reduce the number of suicides, including foster a supportive environment, improve mental health care, address stigma, revise training, and promote a safety culture. are those working? craig: well, i think it's a little bit too early to tell. you know, being a part of that congressionally mandated review panel last year, we offered over 100 recommendations of ways that we believe the department of defense can change how they approach suicide prevention. and many of those have only started to be implemented. and so, i think it'll take a little bit more time for us to see what works and what doesn't work. but i think one of the key things, key takeaways from that committee that many of us served on, s that right now, the dod doesn't really seem to have a

centralized strategy as it relates to suicide prevention. and that a lot of the way that it thinks and approaches this issue is very reactive in nature. nick: davis winkie, is that what you've also seen, the dod be reactive and not have a centralized strategy? davis: what i've seen of army suicide prevention is that, as doctor bryan said, it's largely focused on it as an individual problem. that approach appears to be inadequate in that it doesn't account for systemic risk factors that cut across multiple installations, such as armor brigades and their operational tempo. and frankly, for them to consider that as a systemic suicide risk factor would require the army to take a very hard look in the mirror about what it's asking its soldiers to do. and the institution isn't always incentivized to be as self-reflective.

nick: eight members of the first battalion of the 66th armor regiment. you spoke with current and former. they spoke on the record. that is not common. for those who cover the military. why did they do so? and did they risk their own careers in doing so? davis: traditionally speaking, members of the military are not supposed to speak out on matters of policy, and especially on matters of policy that could cast the service in a negative light. and when i spoke with these these soldiers and veterans, i made sure they understood the risks. i made sure they understood the different ways they could possibly face reprisal. and they had a number of reasons for speaking out anyways. they were loyal to each other after having gone through so many deaths in such a short time. they were loyal to those they'd lost.

but most of all, they understood the message that it would send for them to put their names to their words and say, this wasn't ok. the army needs to hear us. nick: davis winkie, the series is called broken track. doctor craig bryan, thank you very much to you both. craig: thank you. davis: thanks. ♪ amna: california voters have narrowly passed a ballot measure that will fund billions of dollars to help the state tackle its homelessness crisis. william brangham looks at the initiative that just passed by a razor-thin margin. william: about a third of the people who are homeless in america live in california. and for years, it's been an endlessly vexing problem for the state. since many of these people also

suffer from severe mental illness and addiction issues, the newly passed proposition one includes a $6.4 billion bond to fund 11,000 housing units and treatment beds. it also funds $1 billion for homeless veterans. today, governor gavin newsom celebrated the victory, but opponents say it doesn't do enough to keep people from becoming homeless in the first place, and that it gives the state too much control over mental health spending. christine mai-duc has been covering all of this closely for the wall street journal and she joins us now. thank you so much for being here. heidi laid out some of the top line numbers. what can you explain a little more about who this is most intended to help? christine: yeah, absolutely. from the beginning governor newsom and all the allies behind this effort have been clear that this is about helping those who are the most desperate, the most in need of help in terms of

mental health services, in terms of substance abuse disorders, and also homelessness. so basically these between crises of substance abuse disorder and homelessness really trying to get those folks who are in the most dire of need off the streets. william: i have read it is estimated about 180,000 people who don't have a place to live in california. not all of those people are mentally ill or substance abuse issues. but 11,000 beds or treatment openings doesn't seem like it closes the gap that much. christine: it certainly is not going to erase the problem overnight. and you are right, not all the folks on the streets in california suffer from mental illness or substance abuse disorder. what researchers do now is that sometimes those two challenges can precipitate about what is homelessness or being on the streets can exacerbate those conditions.

so what we are looking at here is an attempt to create some of the spaces that are needed for treatment. william: what was the opposition for this? this seemed like a particularly narrow victory. how do you explain what the opposition was? christine: the opposition came from two distinct places. one was a number of mental health advocates who are concerned that a portion of this measure that would actually divert some funding away from existing mental health programs and put it towards housing would be detrimental to the mental health system in california. the tax that was passed in 2004 that funds this that will be redirected, it makes up basically one third of the state's mental health -- public mental health system at the moment. and so there was some concern that current and existing programs might be harmed by that. the other concern is that as california and other states really re-examine what the balance is between compelling

people into treatment, certain involuntary methods of trying to get folks off the streets and into treatment, whether for mental health issues or substance abuse issues. that more of this money might go to locked facilities or promote more involuntary treatment which is not something that many advocates like the aclu and other civil rights groups support. william: they are arguing that some of the measures might be too coercive for people who do not or may not be ready for that treatment, is that the argument? christine: i think there is always a concern when there is a question over whether someone will be put into treatment or in a facility involuntarily. the original sin of all of this was de-institutionalization burn -- during the 1950's and 1960's and a shutdown of the big mental health infrastructure system in the state that was not really

replaced with anything else. going back to those days is not really what everybody wants to do. that said, i think there are some questions. and this is an ongoing policy issue in california. there'll be some laws implemented that change what conservatorship means and includes substance use disorder among the reasons that somebody can be put under a conservatorship and had -- have those decisions made for them. william: california is not unique for suffering with these kind of public policy issues. but california has had a very long-standing problem with this. does your reporting help us understand why california has been struggling with this for so long? christine: certainly the lack of affordable housing in california does not help the situation. there has been in under building in california for decades. some folks say millions of units of housing short in terms of the population and what is needed.

and so it is harder to build in california pretty it becomes more expensive to build in california. state and local governments have tried to change some of the policies and laws to help with that in recent years. but even as more and more money and millions of dollars gets put towards homelessness issues, folks are falling into homelessness as quickly as we can bring them out in a lot of cases. william: christine mai-duc of the wall street journal, thank you so much for sharing your reporting with us. christine: thank you so much for having me. ♪ amna: with pandemic protections like eviction moratoriums and emergency rent assistance drying up, eviction filings have risen more than 50% in some cities. and new rearch shows that housing instability can have deadly consequences. stephanie sy has the story. stephanie: as the cost of

housing in the u.s. continues to soar, new research shows a link between eviction and premature death, a link shown to be even stronger during the pandemic. during the first two years of the covid-19 crisis the mortality rate was more than twice as high for renters facing eviction. we spoke to renters across the country who have faced eviction about the toll housing instability took on their health. >> my name is sabrina davis. i live in kansas city, missouri. i was evicted in february of 2021. >> i live in dallas, texas. i was faced with eviction and i currently am still struggling. >> i currently live in durham, north carolina i am the mother of a wonderful 10-year-old son. we were evicted in december of 2022. >> after two years of struggling to pay rent i got faced with eviction. all i could feel was my blood pressure drop.

during that moment i saw myself in the street. in dallas we have a homelessness problem and i saw myself like that. >> after living in a house i was renting for a year and complaining about high utility bills, the landlord instead of fixing the issue, decided to evict me. where was i going to go? that was my main thing. >> there was no cushion for a working mother and a son who was excelling in school. we were supposed to be part of a community. the decline immediately happened. the sleepless nights, the diet changes, the anxiety. >> your mind is racing and it is the one topic in your mind. eviction, eviction, eviction. >> i suffer with chronic pain in my neck and toes. when i got evicted, that stress intensified that chronic pain i was already living with. >> there was about a six or

seven month span of airbnb and hoteling before we found a room to rent. we didn't have a kitchen to cook in. everything was microwaved, or eating out. in addition to that, we are open to covid and viruses and colds. there's a fear of going to the doctor. you are trying to pay for a roof over your head every night, so god forbid you get sick and have to pay for medicine or examinations. >> i decided the extra $100 or $200 i had to spend until the next pay period, it is no longer for food or transportation, it is to catch up on rent. >> my hair was falling out really bad. it was scary. i was having such stress that one day i was having heart palpitations, i got really clammy and sweaty and nauseous. i didn't think i would make it to the other side. >> if you are not relatively

healthy entering this you are going to be depleted at the end. it's a disease that has no name at this point other than eviction. stephanie: we're joined now by nick from princeton university's eviction lab, lead author of a recent study that found a link between eviction and mortality. thank you so much for joining the "newshour." before we go into your study, what do you understand about who is impacted by eviction? nick: we have known for a long time tenant organizers and advocates have been sounding the alarm that seem -- this seems to often be black tenants, especially women with children. in the study we found close to 30% of black women with children are threatened with eviction each year. you think of these disparities as a result in a lot of ways of raising -- racist housing. often exploitative rental

markets, where eviction becomes part of the business model. stephanie: in you are research just published, you do look at court records. these are people that are facing eviction filings, threatened with eviction. and then you look at mortality. what made you want to study the correlation between evictions and health? nick: we have a lot of reason to think eviction has a lot of terrible consequences for health, both in terms of chronic stress and mental health. and mortality serves as sort of a social mirror, the culmination of all the mechanisms making mental health. whether that is prioritizing rent over health care and food, or experiencing really intense housing for garrity after eviction. we found that renters -- mortality rates during the pandemic were double what we expected based on freeport time it -- based on pre-pandemic mortality rates, which was extremely high. stephanie: how do you delineate

what was associated with the eviction, versus what other factors that same group of folks you looked at might have been going through during the pandemic? for example, lack of access to health care? nick: it is tough to parse out those different pathways. we think of an eviction filing is really an indicator of risk of an acute event happening such as the event itself. but also an indicator of financial distress. -- the constant stress of making rent or facing eviction is dramatic. there's an expression, the rent eat first. tenants sacrifice food and health care when rent goes up, which can often proceed an eviction. all of these compound over time in a way that shape health, both leading up to and following the event of an eviction. stephanie: to be clear, your research does not really look at

causality, right? how strong is the evidence that you are talking about? you are bringing up pathways. i don't see that your paper necessarily proves that. nick: that is right. we are not making a claim about the causality of the event itself. we are comparing how mortality changed among those who were evicted during the pandemic versus the mortality rates we were seeing in that group prior to the pandemic. so this is sort of a descriptive finding rather than a causal finding. pointing out that there is a really big spike in excess mortality for these folks, sort of induced by that first year or two of the pandemic. stephanie: even with the limitations of the study, it seems clear from your study that you have found an anomaly, something you would not expect the number of excess deathss with people facing addiction and court filings. what do you hope people, lawmakers, policymakers, take

from this research? nick: the lesson i would want to take away from this is moving towards creating a country where quality housing is affordable for everyone. and also pointing out that we are experiencing a housing crisis before the pandemic. and so these data show how these things were exacerbated by covid-19. but i think that today, as rent burdens hit record highs and evictions are increasing again, we should really be thinking about these policies and guarantee affordable housing. it is not just housing policies, but critical health policies. stephanie: nick from princeton's eviction lab, thank you so much for joining us. nick: thank you so much for having me. ♪ amna: march madness is officially underway, but underlying the excitement of brackets and potential upsets is a conversation around athletes' efforts to unionize.

last month, the dartmouth men's basketball team voted 13-2 to form a union, after the national labor relations board ruled the players were employees of the private university. but this week, the ivy league's board said it would not enter into a collective bargaining unit with the team, saying adamantly that they are not university employees. john yang explores what could happen next. john: amna, this is the latest challenge to the student-athlete model that has defined college sports for so long. recent court decisions have pushed the ncaa to allow athletes to make money from their names, images, and likenesses and to get limited payments to cover living expenses. but allowing players to enter into collective bargaining for things like health benefits would be a whole new ballgame. gabe feldman is director of tulane's sports law program and he is also the school's associate provost for ncaa compliance. gabe, there are all sorts of -- there are many steps to go here. dartmouth is appealing this to the national labor relations board.

but potentially, how big a deal is this? gabe: it's massive potentially. as you said, there are many steps to go and dartmouth has announced that they are going to refuse to bargain with this union. but assuming it does go all the way and it is affirmed and that the dartmouth men's basketball players can unionize, it is likely that virtually every college athlete in the country will be able to unionize and collectively bargain over their compensation. and their other terms and conditions of employment. so it would completely upend the system of college sports we've had in the past. it might lead to massive salaries on some ends and lower salaries and other ends. but it would certainly fundamentally changed the relationship between the college athletes and their universities. john: and at the heart of this dispute is whether what qualifies as an employee. dartmouth because you said it's not going to bargain with this union, they said. varsity athletes in the ivy league are not employees. they are students whose

educational program includes athletics. the nlrb says they are employees because they get compensation, six pairs of shoes every season and tickets. how do you look at those two competing arguments? gabe: well, i think you look at the past several decades and every court that has looked at this has said that college athletes are not employees because what they're doing is part of the educational system. and we have seen a shift as there's more and more money pouring into high end college sports where people have said well, these athletes are working really hard. they're generating a lot of money for their schools. the schools are controlling every hour of their day, and they're getting compensation through athletic scholarships. for dartmouth men's basketball players, it's very different. they're not generating a lot of money. they are not receiving athletic scholarships. hletic department. theirntrol but it's a very different analysis, so i think this is a tough case for the dartmouth men's basketball players to win. it may be that many college athletes are employees because

they are doing work for the benefit of their schools. but it may not be that dartmouth men's basketball players are employees. so this still may have a massive impact down the road. but i'm not sure it's clear that it's going to affect ivy league players and athletes at the d2, d3, and really non-power football or basketball levels. john: there is a similar effort going on today at a power school. usc, university of southern california is trying to do the same. is this going to have any effect on usc's case do you think? gabe: keep in mind, the national labor relations act only applies to private employers, so it only applies to private schools. dartmouth is a private school. so are all of the other schools in the ivy league. but the majority of division one schools and the schools in what used to be called the pac-12 our public schools, so the nra does not apply to them. what's interesting in the usc case is nlrb is arguing that the conferences are also the employers of the athletes. and because all of the conferences are private, if they win that case, it means that every athlete at every school, public or private, would also be

covered under the nlra so they would all have the right to unionize. i think usc, if you look at the technical factors of employment status, probably those football players and basketball players have a better argument because they are receiving compensation in the form of athletic scholarship, as opposed to six pairs of sneakers that the dartmouth men's basketball players are receiving. john: in addition to college athletes, there are a number of other programs, similar programs in college, like the the marching band marches at halftime for football game. might they want to try to claim that there are employees of the university? gabe: i think they might. we're certainly seeing the growth of unions on college campuses for student workers, and it might be that the music student or the marching band student argues that they're doing just as much work as the college athletes, and they're also getting free gear and they're getting free travel and then maybe getting preferential admissions. but what the national labor relations regional director said that distinguishes dartmouth athletes from potentially dartmouth musicians is that the music program does not exercise

as much control over the musicians, and they don't, unlike with the athletes, they don't say if you're going to be a music student, you can't take certain majors and you have to miss class so that you can go to your rehearsals or your practices were performances. so that's the line that was drawn in the dartmouth case. but i do think it might open the door for not only all college athletes, but as you said, other college students on caus who are working hard and believe that they should be protected by federal labor law. john: gabe feldman from tulane university. thank you very much. gabe: thanks for having me. amna: and finally tonight, some 1100 world war ii soldiers, who served in the so-called ghost army, received long overdue recognition today at the u.s. capitol. during the war, they belonged to units that specialized in trickery to outwit the germans. their methods included inflatable tanks, sound effects, and phony radio transmissions. all told, they carried out 20 highly secret operations. today, three of the seven known surviving members accepted the congressional gold medal,

congress' highest honor, on behalf of their comrades. >> we salute the ingenuity of their spirit, creative brilliance, and the bravery they displayed in risking their lives to confuse and deceive the nazis on the battlefield. >> they gave their talents and their lives to defeat the nazis and preserve freedom around the world, and for that, we are forever grateful. amna: the u.s. army estimates that the ghost army's work saved the lives of up to 30,000 american servicemen. and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm amna nawaz. on behalf of the entire "newshour" team, thank you for joining us. >> major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by. ♪

>> moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf. the engine that connects us. the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions, and friends of the "newshour," including leonard and norma klorfine, and the judy and peter blum kovler foundation. the ford foundation, working with visionaries on the front lines of social change worldwide. and with the ongoing support of these institutions. and friends of the "newshour."

this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.] >> you're

♪ hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour and company." here's what's coming up. >> 100% of the population in gaza is at severe levels of acute food insecurity. >> the international rescue committee calls famine in gaza a profound failure of