what are the legal and political implications of this ruling? when it comes to abortion access, is america exceptional? we will look at reproductive rights. all that with two top journalists. then president biden is in germany today for the meeting of the g7. will the world's advanced economies ramp up pressure on russia ?

will it work? israel's government collapses. what does that mean for the country, the region, and for bb netanyahu? finally, a seismic shift in french politics. president macron's centrist party loses its parliamentary majority but the far right and left make electoral gains. why is this happening? just who are these voters embracing the extremes? first, here is my take. american democracy has been under stress for sometime now. trust in its institutions is near the lowest on record. when we say this we usually mean congress and the presidency. the supreme court's decision on roe v. wade has brought the public's confidence in the court to an all time low and puts it in the same category as the others defined bipartisanship and polarization. the court's decisions this week are not conservative. they are radical.

one of the time honored conservative doctrines has been a respect for precedent. and yet in two days the court swept aside a right that for half a century american jurisprudence held was a constitutional right. it also uprooted a new york law regulating guns that was 111 years old and had never before been found in conflict with the constitution. many of the justices were asked in their nomination hearings about roe v. wade and precedence and they answered in a way any plain observer would describe as declaring the precedent of roe and many rulings affirming it should be respected. it's worth noting that the power

of judicial review by which the supreme court evaluates laws and strikes down those it deems un-constitutional is itself nowhere in the constitution. was created by an 18-3 ruling from chief justiceohn marshall and is respected by all three branches of government. we'll talk more about roe in a moment. let me explain why the court's other decision on guns is equally radical. the second amendment is 27 words with three oddly placed commas. a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. grammarians and red pens would have a field day with the sentence. no one is sure what the first clause about the militia has to do with the right to bear arms . for almost 200 years however the lack of clarity was barely an issue. many states had what we would today regard as very strong gun control laws and pass muster with all sorts of courts.

in the 1970s new leadership took over the nra and made it the mission to protect every individual's right supposedly in the second amendment to keep and bear arms. this caused the former supreme court justice, warren berger, conservative jurist appointed by richard nixon, to say the following on pbs in 1991. >> this has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the american public by special interest groups i have ever seen in my lifetime. >> 217 years after the ratification of the second amendment justice antonin scalia and his colleagues on the supreme court discovered in the heller decision an individual right to bear and carry arms, treating the first clause of the second amendment as if it were totally inconsequential. the founders knew exactly what well regulated militias meant. as the scholar michael waldman

told me. >> you had an individual right to gun ownership to fulfill your duty to serve in the militia. every adult white man was required by law to serve in the militia and own a military weapon and keep it at home. >> the latest supreme court ruling striking down a new york law that restricted who can carry a concealed handgun in public is even more radical than heller. as george will the conservative columnist explains the oldest legal tradition has been to balance an individual's right with the state's concerns for public safety. for example the court stated in 1919 that your right to free speech does not allow you to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. this supreme court seems less and less impartial and judicious and more nakedly political, which under mines trust in a

great american institution once respected but has been losing that respect in recent years. we know that january 6th was a terrible day for american democracy. sadly, we now have to add two more days -- june 23rd and 24th to that calendar of shame. let's get started. this weekend american women woke up to a country remade. 50 years of constitutional abortion rights gone overnight. at least ten states effectively banned abortion since friday's decision and women with procedures scheduled found their appointments canceled. an additional 16 states have laws that indicate they could outlaw or set sharp limits on

abortions. all over the country protesters flooded the streets to demonstrate against the decision overturning roe v. wade. but the fight in the streets is only the beginning. courts will almost certainly be flooded with challenges to bans in the coming months and years. to talk more about the supreme court decision and what it might mean for the country i am joined by staff writer at the "new york times" legal magazine who writes often and brilliantly about legal affairs. welcome. i want to start by asking if you can frame this decision in terms of history. how often does the supreme court, you know, take back a constitutional right that it has granted for two generations? >> not often at all. i cannot think of a precedent for rolling back an individual right that especially women have depended on for five decades. the court changes its mind on occasion. but not in this direction. we usually see the court trying

to expand people's rights over time. and this is a direction that is entirely the opposite from the point of view of women especially people generally. >> what i'm struck by is the method of reasoning and the dissents point this out. when you look at a ruling like plessy vs. furgs which allowed for segregation, when brown vs. board of education overturned that and said we made a mistake, what it cited was decades of social science evidence that showed that the contention in plessy versus ferguson which was that separate is equal was not true in education in particular. that having separate education for blacks and whites was inherently unequal. so they were citing facts on the ground that had changed. this ruling doesn't do any of

that, right? >> right. i mean, we're really going in the opposite direction. so in this case we have more and more evidence that abortion is safe and effective and crucial for women's advancement in society. there is really good social science. so the court claimed a comparison between overturning roe and overturning plessy. but, in fact, if you're thinking about evidence and if you're thinking about people's individual rights, those decisions are diametrically opposite in their effect. >> so what do you think this tells us about the court going forward? there was an article in the "new york times" that said, what this means is that john roberts has become the most inconsequential chief justice in a long time, because he has no moderating power. he tried to find a way to split the difference, to find a kind of compromise. now that there are solid -- there is a solid conservative majority, he is kind of irrelevant. >> that is exactly right. he has been sidelined along with his moderating impulses.

and what we see here are five conservative justices that are really determined to change the law in a way that is going to affect americans' lives directly. you talked about the decision from new york which makes it harder for states and localities to control their own gun safety laws, and now we have this huge up ending of reproductive rights across the country. so you really see a court that is willing to use its power in a conservative direction. the question will be what the american people decide to do about that over time. >> clarence thomas says that the court now, this is one justice and not joined by others, says that the natural consequence of overturning roe would be to rethink gay marriage, access to contraception, all of that kind of thing because in a sense it all came out of the same idea that there was a right to privacy famously described as existing in the penumbras of the constitution. >> right. all of these decisions rely on an interpretation of the 14th

amendment based on privacy and conception of liberty. this conservative majority does not buy into that thinking. so for the moment, justice thomas is the only justice saying out loud these other decisions, same sex marriage, contraception, are also called into question. it is entirely possible there is more support for that on the court. i think that while, you know, the court would say that public opinion and public response is not relevant to its considerations, we know of their history that that is not true. how far the court goes really

will be at least in part a response to the way americans respond to this decision overturning roe and the signals the political system sends to the court about what people are willing to tolerate when the court seems to move far away from american popular opinion. >> always a pleasure to have you on. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> next on "gps" from abortion rights at home to abortion rights around the world. how did the u.s. under roe compare to other countries? how does it compare now? that's when we come back. ferguson bibi starry decisis [zoom call] ...pivot... work bye. vacation hi! book with priceline. 'cause when you save more, you can “no way!” more. no wayyyy.

no waaayyy! no way! [phone ringing] hm. no way! no way! priceline. every trip is a big deal. while wayfair is installing your new refrigerator and hauling away your old one. you're binging the latest true crime drama.

while the new double oven you financed is taking care of dinner and desert. you're remembering how to tie a windsor. and while your washer is getting out those grass stains. you're practicing for the big leagues! for all of life's moments get the brands you trust to get the job done at wayfair. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ (mom allen) verizon just gave us all a brand new iphone 13. (dad allen) we've been customers for years. (dad brown) i thought new phones were for new customers?

we got iphone 13s, too. switched to verizon two minutes ago. (mom brown) ours were busted and we still got a shiny new one. (boy brown) check it out! (dad allen) so, wait. everybody gets the same great deal? (mom allen) i think that's the point. (vo) now everyone can get a new iphone 13 on us on america's most reliable 5g network. (allen kid) can i have a phone? (vo) for every customer. current, new, everyone. to show the love.

once upon a time, at the magical everly estate, landscaper larry and his trusty crew... were delayed when the new kid totaled his truck. timber... fortunately, they were covered by progressive, so it was a happy ending... for almost everyone.

in the majority opinion that overturned roe v. wade justice samuel alito repeated a claim often invoked by antiabortion activists. the claim is that under roe the u.s. is a global outlier. more permissive than most other countries in its abortion law. is that true and does that assertion tell us the whole story of abortion rights in america and around the world? my next guest is a reporter of the "new york times" who covers health. first, let's get the facts on the table. it is true as far as i know that the u.s. is a rare country where abortion is a constitutional right. i think in no european country is it given that level of protection. it is also true that the united states allows abortions up to about 24 weeks, which is pretty -- a longer time period than most countries. fair, not fair. give us a sense of the outline. >> well, i think that would have been fair as of a couple days ago but because of the new supreme court decision we no longer have a constitutional right to abortion in the united states so these decisions about when abortions will be allowed

have been left to state legislatures, potentially to congress. i think that does make it more like other countries of the world. there are some countries where courts have gotten involved and there have been constitutional rulings about reproductive rights but for many countries especially in europe these have been legislative matters. we've seen countries decide with their parmts what they want their abortion laws to be. >> it is technically correct the united states was unusual in having a very expansive abortion right prior to this decision but i think in practice it is a little more complicated. a lot of countries in europe have laws that say you can have abortion for any reason up to 12 or 14 weeks of pregnancy but then after that you can get an abortion if you have a reason like a health or socio economic reason. these reasons differ by country of course. on the ground in real life in many of these countries it was in fact easier to get an abortion later in pregnancy than some parts of the united states and of course the contrast has

become much more sharp now. >> it is fair to say that most overwhelming majorities of pregnancies you tell me the percentage happen very early on. they don't happen in week 22, 23? >> that's right. even in the united states when abortion was technically legal up until the point of fetal viability about 23 weeks of pregnancy the vast majority like 95% or more of abortions were taking place before that point. more than 90% of abortions in the united states happen in the first trimester of pregnancy. >> ruth bader ginsburg famously said about roe, which she supported, but she said it did have this bad effect, which was that it stopped the democratic process from finding compromises. and you can see that in europe where these decisions have been made by democratic legislatures that they come up with these compromises which are more in

the center than the united states is, 14 weeks, or germany is 12 weeks i think. as you say, after that with reasons. is it possible that we will come to some kind of centrist, moderate compromise in the united states? >> i think it is certainly possible. that is not at all what it looks like right now. right now what we see are some states are very comfortable with the kind of abortion rights we've had for the last 50 years under roe and are looking to cement that right and perhaps expand it to help people who want to come in from other states. then there are about half of the states looking to ban abortion almost entirely. these laws that are going into effect several of which have already kicked in in the last few days ban all abortions except in very rare exceptions. in that way they are very

different from what we see in the rest of the world. those kinds of laws exist in the minority of countries of the world. and the long term trend has been toward liberalizing abortion law not tightening them. >> that is very interesting what you say. that where we will end up in this country, two completely different sets of states. some with laws almost in a sense enacting roe and some with extreme bans on abortion. so the american average may end up at something like 12 or 14 weeks but that will be because you have two completely different countries. one that has abortion laws that resemble more, i don't know, nigeria or something, and the other side which has laws that resemble the most liberal european country. >> and of course women can travel in the united states from state to state. we've already seen that there are states even before this decision where it was hard to get an abortion and where women wanted to go someplace where it

was a little easier to schedule an appointment. but of course not everyone is going to be able to do that. we do anticipate that the number of abortions is likely to decline as a result of these very strict state laws and, particularly, because the states that are looking to limit abortion are kind of geographically clustered. that makes it much harder for a woman to travel. it is not just in many cases she would have to go to a neighboring state but she might have to travel hundreds and hundreds of miles to reach a state where abortion is legal. >> now, there is a hope that many democrats have that this will galvanize democrats, suburban moms, and things like that. it seems to me that the key is for the democrats not to come across as equally extreme. that the country is somewhere in the middle. 70% in favor of pro choice position but they all grapple with, you know, where to set that limit. does it seem to you, i look at chuck schumer's proposal that abortion is to be allowed for

even longer than roe. looking at other countries, does the success come if you present yourself as understanding there is a need for compromise or is it bet tower go hard and get your constituent? >> i think it is hard to know because obviously the political and legal history of these other countries is different. it is certainly the case that the kind of laws we see in europe, which say you can have an abortion for any reason early in pregnancy, then later in pregnancy if you have a health reason, some severe socio economic problem or something like that, that is where we really see american public opinion in general, about two-thirds of americans, and this has been very stable for many decades, support abortion in those kinds of circumstances. they want there to be some kind of right to abortion but they are in many cases uncomfortable with very expansive abortion rights that allow abortion for any reason until very late in pregnancy. it is just very hard to see in our current polarized environment how the united states gets to a political reality, to a legal reality that reflects that kind of compromise consensus view we see in other

countries and that we also see in the american public at large. >> such a great point. how to reflect the majority or plurality of the country in the center and moderate on a lot of these issues. that was terrific. thank you so much. next up foreign policy panel about all kinds of things russia, ukraine, israel, saudi arabia. when we come back. wow! it's been 38 years since we were here. back then we could barely afford a hostel. i'm glad we invested for the long term with vanguard. and now, we're back here again... no jobs, no kids, just us. and our advisor is preparing us for what lies ahead. only at vanguard, you're more than just an investor you're an owner. giving you confidence throughout today's longer retirement. that's the value of ownership. ♪ ♪ make way for the first-ever chevy silverado zr2.

with multimatic shocks, rugged 33-inch tires, and front and rear electronic locking differentials. dude, this is awesome... but we should get back to work. ♪ ♪ this good? perfect. if you're gonna work remote... work remote. find new workspaces. find new roads. chevrolet.

what's on the horizon? the answers lie beyond the roads we know. we recognize that energy demand is growing, and the world needs lower carbon solutions to keep up. at chevron, we're working to find new ways forward, through investments and partnerships in innovative solutions. like renewable natural gas from cow waste, hydrogen-fueled transportation, and carbon capture. we may not know just what lies ahead, but it's only human... to search for it.

new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. so... i know you and george were struggling with the possibility of having to move. how's that going? we found a way to make bathing safer with a kohler walk-in bath. a kohler walk-in bath provides a secure, spa-like bathing experience in the comfort of your own home. a kohler walk-in bath has one of the lowest step-ins of any walk-in bath for easy entry and exit. it features textured surfaces,

convenient handrails for more stability, and a wide door for easier mobility. kohler® walk-in baths include two hydrotherapies— whirlpool jets and our patented bubblemassage™ to help soothe sore muscles in your feet, legs, and back. a kohler-certified installer will install everything quickly and conveniently in as little as a day. they made us feel completely comfortable in our home. and, yes, it's affordable. i wish we would have looked into it sooner. think i might look into one myself. stay in the home and life you've built for years to come. call... to get a free kohler® highline™ comfort height™ toilet including installation with the purchase of a kohler® walk-in bath. and take advantage of our special offer of no payments for 18 months.

president biden is in germany today for the meeting of the g7 and what to do about russia is on top of the agenda. i am joined by richard haas and my guests. the author of "the age of the strong man" terrific book joins me from london. let me put to you a proposition i've been wondering about which is the economic sanction strategy against vladimir putin is not working and is not likely to work. as long as you have this huge exception for energy, russia is basically the second, first or second largest energy exporter in the world, putin is getting more and more cash from that because prices are high because of curtailment of supply. say prices are up 40%. he makes out. there isn't an easy solution because you can't embargo the oil. the whole world would go into a sharp recession.

and the more you squeeze it actually the less supply there is and the prices go even higher. is this economic sanction misconceived or am i getting it wrong? >> i think you certainly put your finger on the major flaw in the strategy. i don't think we should be too gloomy. there are effects on the russian economy. people expect it to shrink by up to 10% this year. there are some things they'll find very hard to get around. for example restrictions on semiconductor imports which may in time affect their ability to produce weaponry and so on. but you're right. they are currently getting something like a billion dollars a day in revenue from oil and gas exports and the europeans being far from cutting them off,

but gas, it will take three years and that is optimistic to get rid of and mean while the russians turn the pressure back on the europeans by threatening to turn off the gas tap in time for wint irwhich could cause europeans to do energy rationing in countries such as germany and italy. so, yeah. we can damage the russians but we are also learning the russians can damage us. >> one quick point on that. you've written the book "the age of strong men" putin is not likely to be particularly moved by the plight of ordinary russians if he is getting all this energy revenue, right? >> absolutely. the political situations that the two sides have to deal with are very different. putin is in a position to crush any dissent. thousands of people were arrested for demonstrating against the war. so even if the russian economy goes into, you know, a deep spiral downwards there is not going to be a direct effect on

putin. whereas if you're a western politician, and you're looking at soaring inflation, possible energy rationing, you immediately have to start worrying about the next election. there is a kind of asymmetry there. >> richard, if you agree with this analysis, let me ask you, another way of getting at this is the economic strategy is not working. how to make the military strategy work because even there the russians are in this very brutal way gaining ground. i mean, since the goal is to bring putin to the negotiating table, he doesn't want to do it now, doesn't see that he is losing, how to change that dynamic on the battlefield? >> well, i'm not sure, fareed. you can change the dynamic to bring putin to the negotiating table, if he is winning he is going to want to continue. if he's losing he'll never accept defeat. he will basically hang tough until he believes things will

move in his favor. i think what we need to do and by we i mean the west is gear ourselves for a long war. we need to be providing ukraine with more quantity and quality than we are. over time russians may run short of munitions. that is where some parts of the sanctions could have some bite. so essentially we need to do what we're doing. just do more of it faster. >> and, richard, do you think there is a way to -- i've raised this often -- find a way to get ukrainian ships out of odesa. ukraine's economy which seems to have contracted 45% this year is in free fall unless it can export particularly grain but everything out of odesa. >> you're right. the grain matters not just to ukraine as an export but it matters to a big chunk of africa and the middle east as an import. we can see considerable instability, food riots, or worse around the world. the idea of organizing some type of a flotilla, the model is in the late 1980s when kuwaiti tankers were escorted by the

united states in the context of the iran/iraq war. that is a possibility. we'd have to get turkey onboard given its unique position in the black sea. we have to get the countries that import grain involved, the egypts of the world. we wouldn't want it to be simply an american or nato effort. i think it is a long shot, fareed. it would be a bold step. up to now we've obviously avoided any type of direct military involvement. i'm not saying we should rule it out but, one, i think it is risky and, two, a long shot that we'd be able to organize it. so we may need to think about imperfect approaches for example importing as much or exporting rather as much as we can of ukrainian grain out through places like romania. like i said, it is a second best outcome, but less risky and might be something more within our control. >> stay with me. when we come back i want to

pivot to the middle east. israel has perhaps the most unstable government in the world and now has a new prime minister. there may be elections soon. what is going to happen there? more on the middle east when we come back. real meals. real good. all of knorr's high quality pasta and rice sides are now made with no artificial flavors or preservatives. knorr. taste for good. announcer: type 2 diabetes? discover the power of 3 in the ozempic® tri-zone. in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. announcer: ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have

multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. announcer: you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.

once upon a time, before jill said yes. she learned she had ibs-c and could treat it with linzess. that's why some things helped, but her constipation with belly pain would often return.

maybe there was another way? or something left to learn? when her doctor connected the belly pain, discomfort, and bloating to ibs-c, it made sense to jill. so did learning that she could treat it with a once-daily pill. and that's why she said yess to adding linzess. linzess is not a laxative. it helps you have more frequent and complete bowel movements. and is proven to help relieve overall abdominal symptoms-belly pain, discomfort and bloating. do not give linzess to children less than two. it may harm them. do not take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain. especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe, stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach area pain, and swelling. could your story also be about ibs-c? talk to your doctor and say yess to linzess. learn how abbvie and ironwood could help you save on linzess. with best western rewards you get rewarded when you stay on the road and on the go. find your rewards so you can reconnect, disconnect, hold on tight and let go!

stay two nights and get a free night. book now at bestwestern.com. we are back with my guests. i want to ask your reaction to the israeli government collapsing or however you want to describe it. was this inevitable? what do you think comes of it? >> it was inevitable. this was an eight-party coalition that bridged the entire political spectrum. the one thing they had in common was they were against the previous prime minister, bibi netanyahu, but governing was always going to be difficult. some might say it is amazing they lasted as long as they lasted.

israel is going back to its fifth election in as many years. my guess is bibi netanyahu's party likud will get plurality but never in any history has any party gotten the majority. first he has the challenge of putting together a government. that will be extremely difficult. even if he were to succeed he'd have real problems getting a govern that could govern. israel essentially is stuck with a political system and society that is so divided that it can't essentially get out of its own way to produce a working majority. >> gideon rockman, israel is also one of those countries that has famously not really condemned the russian aggression

in ukraine and is not being particularly helpful to ukraine. ukraine's president called them out on it. could any of that change? >> i think unlikely to be honest. netanyahu if he does make it back as prime minister is somebody who actually prided himself on having a good relationship with vladimir putin. the israelis say they need to work with the russians to some extent because the russians are so present in syria. they say they are effectively israel's next door neighbor and they probably know there is a limit to which any american government is going to go in punishing israel for not following the guidelines of u.s. foreign policy. so i think they'll walk this tight rope for a while. they're going to, you know, not obviously endorse what russia has done but i think they'll try and preserve a relationship with russians at the same time. >> and biden is, in looking at the region, biden is going to saudi arabia. we all understand why. he wants them to pump more oil. the saudis are going to be asking for something very tough on iran i imagine. can the united states find a way to both deal with the iranian nuclear issue in a way biden and the obama administration tried

which was some kind of deal and placate saudi arabia or are those two contradictory goals? >> ultimately they are contradictory. even if we were able to get back into the agreement with the iranians it would simply buy a little time on the nuclear side. it wouldn't buy you anything on the missile side. it wouldn't buy you anything on the regional destabilization side. that said i think the odds of getting back into it are long. i think this becomes part of the new axis in the middle east, fareed. you and i are of the generation where so much was along the israeli/palestinian divide and then the iraqi divide. now it is along the iranian divide. no matter who is the prime minister of israel including bibi netanyahu there is consensus on one thing. a hard line toward iran. i think israel and saudi arabia share that and the real question is will the biden administration that wants to pivot to asia, that's obviously heavily involved in europe as we were

just discussing, whether it has the appetite and the band width to also take a tough line toward iran. this could be the big foreign policy test of this administration before all else is done. >> when you watched the g7, the images coming out, is there something you think that they should be talking about that they're not? what do you think should happen here? >> i think it is inevitable they'll be very much focused on ukraine and that is probably the direct call. but obviously, that can crowd out other stuff. as richard was saying you could have a crisis in iran soon and i think america has a perpetual problem knowing china is the long term challenge for the united states but constantly finding its attention drawn

away, during the obama years to the middle east, now during the biden years toward ukraine. in the trump years toward north korea. maintaining the focus on the long term challenge of china is a big issue. i think you'll see more at the next summit, the nato summit where interestingly they've invited major asian powers to attend -- japan, south korea, australia. i think that indicates that nato is now looking not just at russia but also increasingly at the challenge of china. >> richard, i have about 30 seconds. if you had a magic wand and wanted these leaders at the g7 or nato to do something big, what would it be? >> do something about natural gas the key to russia's economic strain. limit natural gas imports from russia. obviously accelerate the military tools. i don't think it's a game changer, fareed. this is a long war. we have to gear ourselves to that and avoid, if you will, fatigue. >> i assume what you mean by that is also encourage american natural gas. the united states is the saudi

arabia of natural gas and could export a lot of it to europe and the world obviously in liquified form. richard haass, gideon, thank you so much as always. such a pleasure. next on "gps" the far right and left made surprising gains in france's legislative elections this week. who are these people voting particularly for the far right? we will explore this with an economist when we come back. (vo) when it comes to safety, who has more iihs top safety pick plus awards— the highest level of safety you can earn? subaru. when it comes to longevity, who has the highest percentage of its vehicles still on the road after ten years? subaru. and when it comes to brand loyalty, who does jd power rank number one in the automotive industry for three consecutive years? subaru. it's easy to love a car you can trust. it's easy to love a subaru.

it's time to get outdoorsy. it's hot! and wayfair has got just what you need. we need a rug. that's the one. yeah. yeah we're getting outdoorsy. save on outdoorsy furniture, decor, and more. you're so outdoorsy honey. what are you... spend less on everything outdoorsy at wayfair. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪

are you a christian author with a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today!

in the united states it's not unusual for the president to govern with an adversarial house or senate. in france, on the other hand, a sitting president has not lost a parliamentary majority for over three decades. that is until this week when french voters denied a centrist -- an answer salute majority in the legislative elections. macron will have to govern through negotiation and compromise with both sides of the aisle. the far right national party scored a historic success in the selection. on the left, the new coalition gained ground as well. so why is this happening and just who are these voters em bracing the extremes? we are joined from paris by the bureau chief for "the economist". pleasure to have you on, sophie.

>> good to join you. >> tell us what this means. what's the broader significance? is this one more case of incumbency being unpopular of people railing against the establishment in times that seem turbulent with inflation and war and all that kind of thing? >> i think that's part of the answer, and certainly if you think back to the presidential election in france in april, don't forget that macron was -- but it was a narrow margin oover his opponent, and the fact that she got a better score this time than when he beat her, it tells you there's a sense of sort of anti-establishment anger still out there in france. and that that hasn't gone away. so i think in that respect, yes, this is what this is about. but i think it's more than that. i think what you're looking at is a very particular system in

france which hands strong powers under the presidency. that's the way it was devised in 15. in doing so, i think what the french were trying to do was put some kind of break on the way in this macron exercises power. he makes full use of that. and i think what the french are trying to do by handing him a parliament in which it's fragmented. there are extremes on the left and the right, that trying to curb the way he exercises power and force him in some ways to govern differently, to take a more inclusive approach to government. >> the most surprising result to me at least was the dramatic surge in le pen's far right nationalist vote. it's up dramatically even from 2017. did anyone predict that, and what do you think that's about? >> the polls didn't predict that at all. it's extraordinary. she has 89 deputies, and you

could see them coming into parliament this week. it's an 11-fold increase on 2017. actually, it's the highest that the party has ever told in parliament. she has done a lot to try and kind of clean up her party's act. she has tried to make it more moderate. i think there's been a normalization of some of the more xenophobic anti-immigrant discourse in france. but she's also moderated that a little bit with a program that has been really focussed on cost of liing issues. >> another thing that struck me about her support is that she gets it, and this was true in the presidential election, she gets a lot of support from young voters. in fact, it's a bit of the opposite of what happens in america and britain where in france macron was saved by people who were over 50. that young voters were disproportionately more likely to vote for the far right. what explains that, do you think? >> that is true. i mean, the one thing i would say about this parliamentary election is that the young

didn't vote at all. few of them. there was a 70% that didn't vote. that said. of those who did vote, the young voted for le pen. part of that is i think that she has exactly the sort of shift in her program. i'm not convinced that this is an anti-immigration vote. i think it's because they see her as someone who -- she has promised, for example, that anyone under the age of 30 wouldn't pay income tax. she has been a very -- careful to look after the sort of social side of the worries that young voters have. so i think yes, it's something that certainly for macron, who is relying on the older votes, it's something for him to think about very seriously. >> and finally putin. le pen had fairly direct ties to putin and the russians. received loans from russian essentially government entities.

that didn't seem to hurt her at the polls at all. >> i mean, the war in ukraine clearly was being debated a lot in france. but it didn't damage her, and partly i don't think it damaged her was on the far left of the political spectrum in france, you also had another who was also before the war, instinctively sympathetic to putin and hostile to nato. so you had a sort of balancing each other out, and neither daring to contest the other on that particular issue. >> always a pleasure to get these insights from you. thank you. >> thank you very much, indeed. and thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week. only at vanguard, you're more than just an investor you're an owner. that means that your goals are ours too.

and vanguard retirement tools and advice can help you get there. that's the value of ownership. here we go... remember, mom's a kayak denier, so please don't bring it up. bring what up, kayak? excuse me? do the research, todd. listen to me, kayak searches hundreds of travel sites to find you great deals on flights, cars and hotels. they're lying to you! who's they? kayak? arr! open your eyes! compare hundreds of travel sites at once. kayak. search one and done. (mom allen) verizon just gave us all a brand new iphone 13. (dad allen) we've been customers for years. (dad brown) we got iphone 13s, too. switched two minutes ago,

literally right before this. (vo) now everyone can get a new iphone 13 on us on america's most reliable 5g network. for every customer. current, new, everyone. to show the love.

thank you so much for joining this sunday in new york. we begin this hour with outranl boiling over after the u.s. supreme court's ruling to overturn roe v. wade. protests happening across the country. right now demonstrations just steps from the halls of the u.s. supreme court are still taking place. activists have been gathering there since friday's historic ruling. but the heated debate devolving into violence in other parts of the u.s. in greenville, south carolina, po