geoff: good evening. i'm geoff bennett. amna: and i'm amna nawaz. on the “newshour” tonight, former president trump is found guilty on all counts in his criminal hush money trial. >> i think it's a just a disgrace. and we'll keep fighting, we'll fight till the end and we'll win.

geoff: president biden gives ukraine permission to fire u.s. weapons into russia. amna: and a former senior state department official on why she resigned in protest of u.s. policy in gaza. ♪ >> major funding for the "pbs newshour" has been provided by. >> 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. >> cunard is a proud supporter of public television. on a voyage with cunard, the world awaits. a world of flavor, diverse destinations, and immersive experiences.

a world of leisure, and british style. all with cunard's white star service. >> carnegie corporation of new york, working to reduce political polarization through philanthropic support for education, democracy, and peace. more information 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. geoff: welcome to the "newshour." the verdict is in. former president donald trump is found guilty on all 34 criminal charges against him in a new york court room. amna: an historic moment as he becomes the first former president charged and now convicted of a felony. the case stemmed from mr. trump falsifying business records to cover-up hush money payments to adult film actress stormy daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. mr. trump reacted after the verdict and said this case is long from over. >> this was a disgrace. this was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. it's a rigged trial, disgrace. they wouldn't give us a venue change. we were at 5% or 6% in this district in this area.

this was a rigged, disgraceful trial. the real verdict is going to be november 5 by the people. and they know what happened here and everybody knows what happened here. geoff: the judge has scheduled sentencing for july 11, just four days before the start of the republican national convention in milwaukee. william brangham spent the day in the courtroom, and joins us now. you were our eyes and ears in the courtroom. tell us what you saw when the verdict came in and with the mood was there. william: this whole afternoon suddenly capsized like the titanic. we were all expecting that we were going to go home for the day. the judge had been in the courtroom saying the jury asked to be done for the day, they were going to be dismissed at 4:30. then minutes later he said actually the jury passed me a note saying they have received a voter -- a verdict. the former president had been

chatting amiably with his lawyer but then he sat still until the jury came in. then, for 34 distinct counts, when they kept saying guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty, the former president was just staring straight ahead. it was clear once all 34 counts were read how serious this all was. the jury then filed out, went right in front of the former president, no one made eye contact with him. he seemed to be staring straight ahead. as the former president filed out today, he was as visibly angry as i have ever seen him. i have seen him in a few other court cases here in new york city, and he has fought with judges and seemed angry and frustrated and perturbed. this was as angry as i have ever seen him. he shook his son eric's hand quite vigorously and then walked out the door. just an incredibly striking day and a dramatic turn of events. geoff: does the relative speed

of the jury reaching a verdict, does that make sense in light of what they asked for earlier today? william: it does in some ways. because the jury this morning heard two different things at their request. they wanted to hear jury instructions and a certain type of testimony reread to them. both of those, now looking back in hindsight, give some clues as to what they were thinking. both of those things they were read today go right to the heart of this case. the first one was jury instructions which detailed whether a defendant can be found guilty if they orchestrated acts that other people dead. criminal acts that other people did. and donald trump clearly is guilty of that. the testimony they asked to relisten to today centered on this family -- famous 2015 trump tower meeting, that many people pointed to as this original moment when the entire scheme

that eventually undid the president in this case was concocted. this is where david pecker, michael cohen, and donald trump met, and created this scheme to become the eyes and ears of the trump campaign, to look for any negative stories, to pay people to stay quiet, and that is what eventually led to today's guilty verdict. again, hindsight is always 20/20, but it does seem like what they wanted to hear this morning that that is the direction they were pointing and now we know. geoff: lastly, what comes next? william: as you mentioned, the sentencing is right before the rnc convention. each of these counts carries a four year $5,000 penalty. we have no idea whether the former president will be sentenced to prison. in new york state, judges have a lot of leeway to make that up. he could be sentenced to probation or house arrest. this judge has repeatedly said

he understands that donald trump is running for president, that he very well may likely be the next president. and so he has said he wants imprisonment to be a last resort. but he is also said if he feels that that is appropriate, that he would consider that. so again, we simply do not know. the other thing important to remember is trump has been insulting this judge and attacking him. every time he left the courtroom he attacked the judge, and the judge's daughter. those things could be factored in as well, but we won't know until later this summer. geoff: that is william brangham in new york for us tonight. thank you so much. william: thanks. amna: for more on the verdict and the legal fallout, we're joined by two former federal prosecutors who have been following the trial. jessica roth of cardozo school of law school in new york. and renato mariotti, an attorney in chicago. good to see you both. i want to start with each of you in turn.

just to get your brief reaction to the historic news that we have today of the first former president now convicted of a felony. jessica, why don't you begin. jessica: it is an extraordinary day. this was the first trial of a former president charged with crimes and therefore it is the first conviction of a former president charged with crimes. i thought that the jury's deliberations, the speed with which the jury returned this unanimous verdict on all 34 counts, spoke to how they really did not think this was a difficult case. they asked for testimony and for jury instructions to be read back to them. that highlighted that they essentially had no trouble finding that these records were false. and what they were interested in was finding out if these records were falsifying a conspiracy intended to further conceal a conspiracy to promote trump's

candidacy for office. that is what david pecker's testimony went to most clearly, and it corroborated michael cohen's account of essentially how this conspiracy was launched. so i thought it was very telling that they ask for pecker's testimony and asked about accomplish -- accomplice liability, the mechanism that holds donald trump accountable for the falsification of business records, even if it was done through the hand of other people. amna: renato, what stands out to you? renato: first of all, i think it is a remarkable moment, and i think it is a day in which the criminal justice system in the state of new york work, despite how difficult this was. we did have a completed trial from beginning to end. the judge's rulings were within the zone of what i would expect the judge to rule. and ultimately the jury stayed together and we had a full jury

here and they rendered a verdict. regarding the verdict itself, i actually think it was a case that was very winnable for the defense but they ended up losing this case because they adopted their client's strategy. i mean, trump likes to deny everything and attack everyone, and that is what they did here. they denied the fact of an encounter between trump and stormy daniels. they denied the hush money scheme itself. they claimed all of this money was payment for legal services. they did not focus the jury on the very technical, legal defenses they had. instead of mounting the sort of attack all things defense that may work in a rally or on a political program, but does not work in a manhattan courtroom. geoff: tell us more about the judge in this case. he served on the bench for some 17 years but this is by far the most high-profile case to ever cross his courtroom. tell us about him and how he has

handled himself during this case. jessica: i thought he handled himself remarkably well despite being tested during the course of this case. mr. trump was attacking not only the judge but the judge's daughter which lead to one aspect of the gag order which was to preclude donald trump from speaking about the judge's family members. and despite those provocations the judge remained i thought remarkably calm on the bench, evenhanded in his rulings, and really randy the courtroom in such a way that there were no disruptions. there was one defense witness called, mr. costello, who was very disrespectful to the judge, and the judge shut that down immediately, but did that outside the presence of the jury so he would not be in any way communicating to the jury's view about this witness. so i thought he really did a remarkable job controlling the courtroom. maintaining order.

and also running things very efficiently. this trial concluded far sooner than many of us anticipated one. -- it would. amna: walk us through what happens next logistically. we are talking a former president under secret service protection. after a conviction like this, what happens? renato: he is out on bond. he is not imprisoned. there will be a sentencing. that date has been set. july 11 by the judge. that is of course in the midst of the presidential election. the judge will have that sentencing in the courtroom and donald trump will need to be there in court again. i do not expect that the former president will be sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment. i would be very surprised if that is the case given the punishments that have been doled out for the same charge in manhattan in the past.

but nonetheless i believe he will receive some punishment as a sentence and it remains to be seen what exactly that is. it could range anything from house arrest to something much less than that. geoff: in the couple of minutes that remain, donald trump's legal team can appeal this verdict. one imagines they will appeal. can anything happen over the course of this trial that would work to donald trump's advantage on appeal? jessica: there are a number of bases on which i am sure he will appeal, including some of the evidence that came in. most notably some of the details stormy daniels testified about with respect to their encounter. that might be the basis for an appeal but i don't think it would prevail. i think the judge actually made sure that overly prejudicial testimony did not come in and moreover, trump did not object in a timely way too much of that. i think there are some interesting legal questions that could provide the basis for appeal, including the use of

this new york conspiracy election statute incorporating by reference other unlawful means. that is something i am sure will be tested on appeal, that i am sure appellate judges would take seriously. amna: do you agree with that when it comes to a potential appeal and how could play out? renato: i think that is right. i do think there are a number of issues, particularly the judge's good -- ruling regarding some pretrial motions as well as his jury instructions that he gave regarding the agreement of the jerry -- jury as to the unlawful means by which the election was sought to be influenced and the underlying campaign finance crime which now has been proven to be concealed here. i do think that there are some issues there that there could be room for disagreement. you can see some potential merits on appeal. that said, i have to think that

prosecutors are very pleased right now because regardless of what happens on appeal, they did prevail in trial. amna: that is renato mariotti and jessica roth joining us tonight. thank you to you both. we appreciate your time. geoff: can we are of course watching this historic verdict against the backdrop of the current presidential election. joining us now is our political team. that is lisa desjardins, who covers the trump campaign. and laura barron-lopez, who covers the white house and the biden campaign. amna: we heard donald trump's immediate reaction earlier and he shall. what are you hearing? lisa: the trump campaign are using a single word over and over. shameful. according to house speaker mike johnson, the top elected republican in the u.s. right now, he wrote today is a shameful day in american history. this was a purely political exercise, not a legal one. the weaponization of our

ecosystem has been a hallmark of the biden administration. obviously they have the first president ever convicted of felonies, they are going to say this was wrong and they are trying to put the blame on the biden administration. but when you go deeper and talk to other republicans, some who opposed former president trump, like asa hutchinson, i spoke to him a short while ago and he said no, this speaks to confidence in the justice system. he told me this is a very serious moment, and he felt like this was a very serious decision. he said he is not sure if this will make a difference in the campaign. it is, however, potentially making the difference in the dollars for the trump campaign. we have seen in the last hour since he verdict was announced, the site crashed because of interest, and they believe they would raised half $1 million to $1 million. geoff: how was the biden campaign reacting to this? one imagines they had a plan for this outcome. laura: first, the white house is

essentially saying, my sources there are saying president biden is not expected to address this verdict today in any kind of official form. that could change in the coming days if he gets questions from reporters that are with him as he travels. and white house counsel spokesperson said essentially the white house respects the rle of law and we have no additional comment. but a biden campaign aide i spoke to said the never expected that any result in this would ultimately help or hurt trump. now, when it comes to the official statement the biden campaign put out, they said in new york today we saw no one is above the law. there is still only one way to keep donald trump out of the oval office -- at the about box. convicted felon or not, trump will be the republican nominee for president. again, they are saying right there that they think that they are going to persuade swing voters based on issues, much more than on this verdict.

amna: lisa, you have been reporting on that potential impact as this trial coverage unfolds. this is against the backdrop of a major presidential election. some of the polling has shown that most of the support for mr. trump is baked in. but do we have any idea what this guilty verdict means for his support? lisa: up until now there has been real divide over the bringing of these charges and whether politics was involved or not. i know we have discussed that, but i want to point back to the polling. we asked registered american voters if the former president was found guilty, would they be more likely were not to vote for him? among all registered voters, just 15% said they would be more likely, and 17% said less likely. two thirds of those said it would make no difference. let's look at republicans though in that same survey. if donald trump is found guilty, 25% of republicans said it would make them more liky to vote for him. 10% less likely.

these are folks who identify as republicans. and it's happening when you talk to republican sources, this is republicans who believe that this was a set up, a political event, and that is why they say it would make them more likely to vote for him. what does it mean to vulnerable republicans? i talked to dave schweikert, congressman in arizona and a tossup, a critical seat. he said he does not think there will be a difference from voters. he think's voters are locked in, that trump has broad support down ballot and does not think that is changing. there is question from deeper republican sources i talked to, the nikki haley voters, unhappy republicans, independents, who may secretly be republicans or -- but are not comfortable saying there republicans anymore. this is something republicans will watch. is this the kind of verdict that will affect those voters, take them away from trump and move them to biden? geoff: how is the biden campaign, how does this affect their outreach to those moderate

republicans and those voters who supported nikki haley, who said they will never support donald trump under any circumstances? laura: the biden campaign is actively courting those nikki haley voters, independents who lean to the right, republican moderates. people close of the campaign told us this would have an impact at the margins, and this election is going to happen at the margins. that ultimately this creates a new barrier for those moderate republicans to vote for donald trump. are they going to become to move voting for now a convicted felon? but i have some new reporting from outreach by the biden campaign, specifically on this voter group. the biden campaign held a call last night with roughly a dozen or so former republican lawmakers, specifically saying that they needed their help with outreach to these voters, that they think are true persuasion voters. and these republican lawmakers, former republican lawmakers told him on the call, to really enlist and use them. they agreed that they are going

to create essentially work in groups, where some of these repugnant lawmakers are going to be tasked with trying to get bigger name republican import -- endorsements for the biden campaign. some will be tasked as key surrogates for the biden campaign, some will be working on trying to get local state republicans to swing over to biden. so, this just goes to show you that the biden campaign, with the help of former republican lawmakers, is really trying to reach out to these moderate republicans. they think the three areas they can potentially do this on aggressively are threats to democracy and extremism. this verdict feeds into the extremism. reproductive rights, as well as the economy. amna: lisa, look ahead for us now and what we see ahead in the campaign. is this a message that you see former president trump leaning into? because it could potentially motivate his base more. lisa: absolutely, and not just him. let's talk about the chairwoman of the house or publican conference, her job to keep the

majority. she quickly came out with a statement. her job is also to raise money. we know the rnc has had trouble keeping pace with the democratic party. this is something they have already seen as a fundraising boon to them. we know former president trump has done well when it is us against the world. when all of his supporters are being attacked by someone. we should expect him to say that even more. geoff: our great thanks to you both for that incredible reporting. amna: let's return now to william brangham in new york. he has been inside the courtroom today on this historic day. william, how does all of this fit into the broader legal landscape that the former president now faces? william: as you say, this is the first trial of his to go actually to trial and be heard in front of a jury. as we have reported, there are three other major cases donald trump is facing.

there is the georgia case, the fulton county case that alleges election interference with state officials in the 2020 election. trump and many other codefendants in that case. but that trial has no date set. the lead prosecutor on that, the d.a. fani willis, has a court that is looking into whether or not she should be removed from that case. so there is no progress on that. the second case of course is the january 6 case, a major case being brought against donald trump for his role in the january 6, 2020 election insurrection, trying to overturn that election. that case is also going nowhere. it is waiting on a ruling from the supreme court as to whether or not donald trump has immunity for any actions he took. the third case is the classified documents case in florida, that is also a federal case. the judge in that case has postponed that indefinitely and it is on a fast-track to know where. so it is very likely that what

has just transpired here will be the only case that donald trump faces a jury before the election. and many people have argued, it's inappropriate that voters will go to the polls not knowing whether or not the leading candidate is actually guilty on any of these major cases that he is charged with. we heard at the top of the program that donald trump said that the real verdict will be november 5 and that is, in one way, incredibly true. because if he is reelected, two of those three cases will go away because he is likely to appoint an attorney general who will take over the to permanent justice and eliminate those cases were dismissed those entirely. that is the january 6 case and the classified documents case in florida. both of those would go away if trump is president. georgia, we are not so sure about. so still very uncertain future legally for donald trump. amna: that is william brangham reporting to us from new york. thank you.

geoff: we will leave it there for now. for stations taking this special report, we return you now to your regular programming. for those of you watching the "newshour," we will be right back with the rest of the day's news in just a moment. amna: in another major story we are watching today, there has been a major change in u.s. policy on arming ukraine, in particular, how the weapons that washington provides are used. for the first time, the white house will allow some u.s. weapons to be used to strike inside russia. for that i'm joined now by our nick schifrin. what did president biden decide? nick: for two years, president biden has had two goals. one is to help ukraine resist russia's onslaught and that meant u.s. weapons and money. at the same time, biden has said avoided direct u.s./russia clash. that is why for the last two years ukraine has not been allowed to use u.s. weapons to

fire into russia. but in the last few weeks russia has bombarded creamy in towns along the ukraine/russia border to create what russia calls a buffer zone. they have also been bombarding kharkiv city which was the second largest city in ukraine, despite the fact that ukraine and the u.s. were watching russian troops gather right across the border inside of russia. and yet, ukraine was not allowed to use u.s. weapons on those russian troops that everyone knew were about to come into kharkiv. so a u.s. official confirms to me that quote, the president recently directed his team to ensure that ukraine is able to use u.s. supplied weapons for counter fire purposes in the kharkiv region, very specifically, so ukraine can hit back against russian forces that are attacking them or preparing to attack. but the restrictions are only partially limited. the statement goes on, our

policy with respect to prohibiting the use of long-range u.s. weapons strikes inside of russia has not changed. that is a reference to the longest range u.s. weapons that the u.s. says ukraine has been using effectively inside ukraine. ukraine is still not allowed to use that long-range into russia. amna: it is fair to say this is not a decision they arrived at in a vacuum. there was a lot of international pressure on the biden administration. nick: the u.k. almost a month ago lifted any restrictions on the long-range weapons they give to ukraine to fire into russia. then last week french president emmanuel macron, nato secretary jens stoltenberg said the same thing, that ukraine needs to be able to use western weapons to fire into russia, because russia has a safe haven to fire into ukraine. but a u.s. official took me through this. the president made this decision may 15, two weeks ago, well before the comments. that came after ukraine for the first time formerly on may 4 --

on may 13 asked for permission to use these weapons across the border. ukraine has publicly complained it cannot use these weapons but fairly privately only did so on may 13. the president received bidens from his national security advisor jake sullivan but also lloyd austin, and european commanders all saying that yes, ukraine should be allowed to do this. it went through the process and finally executed today. u.s. artillery and other weapons will be used to allow ukraine to fire into russia but only in that kharkiv region and not beyond it. amna: nick schifrin with this major reporting. thank you. nick: thank you. ♪ amna: in the day's other news, israel's prime minister is

facing new pressure from within his own ranks. the national unity party of benny gantz, who sits on benjamin netanyahu's war cabinet, said today that one of its lawmakers filed a motion to dissolve parliament. in a statement, the party said quote, netanyahu, it's not too late to come to your senses. either together we are victorious or you continue alone with the method of divide and rule. the move follows an ultimatimum that gantz issued in may, demanding that netanyahu lay out a post-war plan for gaza by june 8. back here, the u.s. state department today renewed its own calls for a plan. >> it is imperative that our partners in israel have a vision for what the day after this conflict is going to look like and steps are taken to do whatever we can to get the region out of the cycle of violence. amna: in the meantime,

slovenia's government endorsed a plan to recognize a palestinian state today. it requires approval by the country's parliament to take effect. that comes just two days after spain, norway, and ireland officially recognized a palestinian state, which israel has condemned. police in detroit dismantled a pro-palestinian encampment at wayne state university this morning. officers arrested at least 12 people, after organizers refused to leave and declined offers to meet with university officials. the university's president cited health and safety concerns, and disruption to campus operations, as justifications for the crackdown. the u.k. has joined the european union and human rights groups in criticizing the conviction of 14 democracy activists in hong kong. they are among 47 people charged under a 2020 national security law that was drafted by china. several of the activists were seen entering court ahead of the ruling. they were convicted of conspiracy to commit subversion for their involvement in an

unofficial primary election in 2020. britain's minister for the indo-pacific said today that the verdict quote, sends a message that hong kongers can no longer safely and meaningfully participate in peaceful political debate. the convicted face a maximum sentence of life in prison. boeing officials spent three hours today presenting the federal aviation administration with steps they'll take to address safety and quality issues. the faa gave boeing 90 days to come up with a plan after a door-plug blew out during an alaska airlines flight in january. since then, company whistleblowers have raised concerns about boeing's safety culture. the plan has not been made public, but the faa administrator said today that it checks his agency's boxes. >> what we were looking for was a plan that's comprehensive, that's detailed, and that deals with the things we know need to be addressed, like quality management, more robust safety

management system, an environment where employees feel that they can speak up and address safety issues, and better manufacturing processes. and those are all elements of the plan. amna: the faa said it will not yet allow boeing to increase production of its best-selling 737 max jets. the company was ordered to slow down output after the incident in january. the supreme court sided with the national rifle association today in a case involving first-amendment rights. in a unanimous ruling, the justices said that the nra can sue a former new york official who encouraged companies to stop doing business with the nra after the 2018 parkland school shooting. in her opinion, justice sonia sotomayor wrote that quote, ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the first amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech. however, she added that the ruling does not shield the nra and others from regulation. supreme court chief justice john

roberts has declined an invitation to meet with senate democrats to discuss flags flown outside justice alito's homes. his response came in a letter, in which he said that quote, participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable. senate judiciary chair dick durbin and senator sheldon whitehouse had asked for the meeting. they want alito to recuse himself from any cases involving the january 6 attack or the 2020 election, after the new york times reported two instances in which flags associated with insurrectionists were flown at alito's houses. the u.s. economy grew less than previously thought in the first quarter of the year. new commerce department data shows that u.s. gdp expanded at an annual rate of 1.3% from january to march. that is down from an initial reading of 1.6%. that's also the weakest quarterly growth since the spring of 2022. consumer spending also grew at a slower pace, at just 2% for the quarter, amid high interest rates and lingering inflation.

and on wall street, stocks fell as investors digested that economic data. the dow jones industrial average dropped 330 points to close at 38,111. the nasdaq fell 183 points, or more than 1%. and the s&p 500 gave back 31 points. still to come on the "newshour," rising costs and a supply shortage limit first-time buyers' ability to purchase a home. and nobel prize winner maria ressa on the future of journalism and democracy. >> 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: another u.s. government official announced today she has resigned to protest the biden administration's policy toward israel. at least half a dozen officials in the state, defense, education, and interior departments have done so since

the war in gaza began, following hamas' october 7 attack. the latest official is stacy glbert, leaving the state department after a 20-year career. nick schifrin is back now with the story. nick: the officials who help shape america's national security policy often disagree on key decisions, sometimes publicly. but the war in gaza has created more internal dissent and public resignations than perhaps any recent u.s. policy challenge. and today, stacy gilbert, former senior civil military advisor in the state department's bureau of population, refugees, and migration wrote, quote, i cannot continue working for a government that denies and enables israel's deliberate carnage in gaza. and stacy gilbert joins me now. thank you very much. why have you chosen to resign rather than fight for policy? stacy: this follows a lot of frustration about the policy,

but especially seeing what is happening in gaza. when this national security memo directive came out in early february, which directed the state department and department of defense to write a report to congress assessing countries on two things. their ability to adhere to international humanitarian law, also known as the law of war or the geneva conventions, and whether they facilitate and not block humanitarian assistance. i have worked in government for a long time. i am not one who relishes getting tasked with more reports. but i thought this is a report that actually could have some impact. i was mostly focused on humanitarian assistance. so when the report came out on may 10 and i read the conclusion , especially the conclusion that israel was not locking

humanitarian assistance, i decided i would resign. i thought that was not the opinion of subject -- the humanitarian community, organizations working in gaza. nick: and those experts included you because you were participating in the report. here is the quote from the state department report that you reference. we do not currently assess the israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restrict in the transport or delivery of u.s. humanitarian assistance within the section 620-i. now, as you say, that was not the opinion of you, your other colleagues, some of the some of your other colleagues in state department and usaid, and you write this quote. there is abundant evidence showing israel is responsible for blocking aid. to deny this is absurd and shameful. what is your evidence for that?

stacy: there are databases. for any day, you could you could get quantifiable data about how many trucks are backed up at the border, how many tonnes of flour have not been allowed in. and sometimes things get in, but most often things are delayed, blocked. there are other bureaucratic impediments to delivering that aid. we have the data. it is known. the organizations working on the ground in gaza have sent numerous reports detailing those obstacles. so, to look at that information and assess that israel is not blocking aid is ludicrous. nick: the report does criticize israel for, quote, not fully cooperating with u.s. efforts to maximize aid delivery. but it goes on to point out that hamas is embedded in the civilian population and appropriated aid for military purposes. and it points out that israel

substantially increased aid in early- to mid-april as the report was being released. so doesn't that mean that israel was not blocking aid at the time the report was released? stacy: israel has been blocking aid throughout this, and it's like turning on and off a spigot. sometimes aid comes in, often it gets turned off. and it is simply not enough to address the needs in gaza. it hasn't been. that's why there is a famine. famine is not -- nick: the u.n. has not declared a famine. they've said famine is is looming. the world food program, the executive director, has declared a famine in northern gaza. the conditions for famine are there. widespread. it is severe malnutrition. the assistance that israel allows in has been minimal. it has been turned on, turned off. and it's not just assistance going in. it's things like visas for aid workers.

it's a range of obstacles they imposed. nick: we should say that israel has said it doesn't block aid and it actually has blamed the u.n., as you know, for the ability or inability, as israel has argued, in order to deliver d you accused officials in the united states state department of denying the facts. that's a quote from your letter. and here's what deputy spokesperson vedant patel said today. >> we stand by the national security memorandum 20 report. we are not an administration or a department that twists the facts and allegations that we have are unfounded. nick: did the state department twist the facts? stacy: they did. again, the subject matter experts are in consensus on this, that israel has blocked humanitarian assistance in many ways. nick: the report that you drafted, that you saw, the version of the report that you

saw was changed, you told me earlier today, by undersecretary level, kind of, number three level underneath the secretary of state. isn't that normal, though? isn't it normal for people like you to draft things, and then the ultimate decision goes to higher level people, including the secretary? stacy: what typically happens is the subject matter experts draft the report and it goes through a clearance process. that's very common. in this case, subject matter experts were removed from the report and it was drafted at a higher level. that's not to say there aren't other constraints that the humanitarian or aid organizations face. but i'm also resigning in part to speak up for them. nick: stacy gilbert, former senior civil military adviser in the state department's bureau of population, refugees and migration. thanks very much. stacy: thank you. ♪ geoff: the cost of housing is a

top financial concern for voters this election year, second only behind inflation. that's according to a gallup poll this month. it comes as home prices in the u.s. jumped 6.5% in march compared to a year earlier, marking the sixth time over the past year the home price index has hit a new record high. all of this as interest rates remain at their highest levels in more than two decades. i spoke earlier with alex horowitz, project director of the housing policy initiative at the pew charitable trusts. thank you so much for being with us. alex: glad to be here. geoff: one indicator of just how tough this housing market is, the number of first-time homebuyers who are relying on their parents to cosign loans or help with downpayments is as high as it has been in at least 30 years. that is according to a freddie mac analysis of loan applications. what are the implications? alex: right now, home prices are about the highest they have been a share of income.

and with interest rates being this high and a structural shortage of housi, housing affordability has gotten awfully tough and it is very tough to crack into this market as a first home -- first-time homebuyer. geoff: it also widens the divide between those who can afford a home and those who cannot. alex: we see that people who were previously homeowners have equity in that home and so it is much easier to trade up to another home because the value of the home they are in has been increasing as well. but if somebody has not been in the market before, then it is tough to break in and rents are also at an all-time high as a share of income. so saving up for a down payment has gotten the hardest it has ever been because residents are spending so much on rent while they are waiting to buy. geoff: the u.s. is in a long-term housing shortage right now. the construction of new homes failing to meet the demand. we also have people who have locked in record low interest rates during the pandemic who are reluctant to move for obvious reasons.

all told, a shortage of some 7 million homes. what does a viable policy solution look like? alex: there are places in the u.s. who have succeeded in adding to their housing supply even as home construction in the u.s. is awfully low and not keeping up with population growth and the need for more housing. the places that have been successful have made it easier to build. that is true in cities, that is true in towns, and it is true in states. and in those places that have added a lot of supply by updating their zoning, by allowing townhouses, duplexes, apartments, we see real results. affordability is improving in places like minneapolis. it is improving in places like houston, even while it is getting worse in most of the u.s. geoff: what about california? because california lifted restrictions to encourage more multi found -- man -- more multi family housing. but two years after that law went into effect according to state data as reported by the wall street journal, the number

of housing units completed is in the dozens. what went wrong in california? alex: that california duplex law has not worked yet. it often takes more than one tried to get a state law alright. california enabled duplexes. they are typically -- they are technically allowed. but the left jurisdictions a lot of ways to block them. again, we are talking at this point individual homeowners looking at duplexes. and so it doesn't adding up to the housing supply only to allow duplexes. that is not a viable solution. but really it is local regulatory barriers to those duplexes that have not been fixed in the state law. when california first legalized accessory dwelling unit, that is a backyard conversion, they did not get many. it took until 2017 after they started trying in the 1980's

until they started getting a serious building of accessory dwelling units. now more than 100,000 of those have come online in california. but they need a very strong state law in order to produce them. geoff: so those states and cities that have seen success in encouraging more supply and density of housing, what are they doing? alex: the foremost tactic that has worked has been to make it easy to build apartments near commerce were near transit. -- or near transit. because buildings are ready to build apartment buildings. they know how. the main obstacle is that the permitting is very difficult because most land doesn't allow apartment buildings because of local regulatory barriers. but we see that the cities that have made the most progress in improving affordability have said yes to apartment buildings. they have said yes to it as a matter of right in their zoning so that builders know if they submit an application to build an apartment building, they are going to be able to do so.

and now we are seeing states start to model their laws on the success of those localities, with five states now making it easier to build apartments on land that's zoned commercial, and that has a lot of potential to add to the housing supply, even though all of those state laws a very recent. so we have not seen them have a big effect yet. geoff: alex horowitz is the housing director at the huge charitable trusts. thank you for being with us. alex: thanks a lot. ♪ amna: amid a rise of authoritarians and crackdowns on press freedom worldwide, the future of news and democracy are inextricably linked. nobel prize-winning journalist maria ressa, author of the book, "how to stand up to a dictator," and ceo of the digital news site rappler, has spent nearly 40 years on the frontlines of the

battle for press freedom in her home country of the philippines and around the world. she joins us now for a deeper discussion. welcome back. great to see you. maria: thanks for having me. amna: so, you are town because you're being honored by the group vital voices for your commitment to press freedom in the philippines and around the world. on the press freedom front, i want to ask you about what reporters with borders recently shared from their annual world press freedom index. they found that political pressure on media has increased at an alarming rate. tell us about why we are seeing this right now. maria: i mean, it's hand in hand with the deterioration, the degradation of democracy, right? and you compare rsf with freedom which is a decline of the last 17 to 18 years. and then you put that together with the committee to protect journalist numbers, the attacks on journalists have increased as the quality of democracy has gone down globally. we have to sacrifice more to keep doing our jobs. amna: when you look at the stakes, we talk a lot about the u.s. election this year, but

this is really a key election year around the world. globally, more voters than ever are heading to the polls in 2024, representing some 49% of the world's population. when journalists themselves are under this kind of political pressure and under these kinds of attacks, what is the potential impact on elections? maria: this is -- let me throw another quick stat, which is that sweden has said -- there's a think tank there that said 71% of the world is now under authoritarian rule. right? we are electing illiberal leaders democratically, because journalists are attacked, not just the business model, not just the government that wants to grab power, but also the people, the trust of the people in the news organization. all this coming through information warfare, information operations on social media. and it is about to get worse because you now have generative

ai coming in. so you are going to get industrial grade propaganda coming at you, and you won't be able to tell the difference from fact and fiction. amna: on that tech front, because you focus a lot there on the intersection between big tech and journalism, you wrote recently, and you said, what's clear is that journalism won't survive if we don't build our own tech. what should journalists be doing now that we're not? maria: so, look. essentially democratic governments, including the united states, have outsourced technology for the public sphere to private companies driven by profit, and this business model, surveillance capitalism -- suhana zubov wrote about it, that book didn't come out until 2019. we didn't even know. our data is being collected, we're being cloned and micro targeted. it's a different business model from a news organization, right? you're not going to see different the personalization of your reality. the difference with that, though, is if you have 100 people, and they have their own personalized realities, they would be in an insane asylum.

so globally this is what we're creating because of surveillance for profit, and that surveillance for profit has to stop. impunity must be stopped because it has been used by china, russia, iran, to microtarget the cellular level of democracy. this is why, starting in 2016 in the united states, you've had russia, russian disinformation touch 126 million americans. this is data that was released by the senate intelligence committee in 2018. amna: at the same time, what we're seeing is really a coming together of some news companies and big tech firms with ai technology. we just saw in the last couple of days, last week, the atlantic, vox media, and the wall street journal owner news corp. making deals with openai to develop products, to access their archives. what do you think the future holds there? maria: generative ai has not been proven. it is still speculative at best, and neither ai of social media

nor generative ai are anchored in facts. so what we are doing when we cut deals with these companies is the same mistake we made with social media. when we took the share button and put it on our websites. we are giving away valuable -- in that case, our relationships with our with our community to social media that allowed the growth of facebook, meta, the world's largest distributor of news now, just last year, decided they were going to choke traffic to digital news sites. so, you lose control. on generative ai, by giving that, you're going to get a fraction of the kinds of investments that are walking into these companies, and again, they will not be anchored on facts. amna: you spoke recently at harvard's commencement, and there was a powerful moment you pulled from your own experience as a journalist under attack in the philippines, and the advice that you gave to them, and you said this -- these times will hopefully teach you the same

lesson i learned -- you don't know who you are until you're tested, until you fight for what you believe in, because that defines who you are. what do you hope this next generation of journalists and leaders takes away from that? maria: you know, i speak with both our young journalists, because rappler is a young organization. our median age is 25 years old. we're about 100, 120 people. right? median age is 25. and when we came under attack, it wasn't just our young reporters, but it was also their parents you have to deal with, right? and the question they always ask is, why do you want to be a journalist? but you know what? when we came under attack, all the friction of a news organization, running a news group, fell away. the mission became everything. this is the time that will define whether facts, evidence-based thinking, whether that will win. amna: maria ressa, we are so grateful for your leadership in this space and for making time to come talk to us. always great to see you. maria: thank you for having me. amna: and before we go, an

update to our lead story today. a new york jury found donald trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records and covering up hush-money payments to adult film actress stormy daniels as he was running for president in 2016. geoff: mr. trump's scheduling -- sentencing is scheduled for july 11. and that's the "newshour" for tonight. i'm geoff bennett. amna: and 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 watching pbs.

♪ hello, everyone, and welcome to "amanpour & company." here's what's coming up. >> we don't want to see a major ground operation. we haven't seen that at this point. >> walking back another u.s. red line. we get the latest on the devastation in gaza, and we ask senator van hollen whether there is a way out. then -- >> the one thing i could not protect her from was the monster she was married to.