captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. >> stewart: and i'm alison stewart. >> woodruff: on the newshour tonight, off to a rocky start-- the republican controlled congress opens the new session with a fight over ethics. >> stewart: also ahead this tuesday, judy sits down for the first part of an interview with c.i.a. director john brennan to talk about russia, hacking and more. by a number of adversaries and a number of countries, so i don't think one should think certain >> woodruff: and, caught in the aftermath of turkey's failed coup, soldiers flee their homeland, while the president demands their return.

>> turkey's president erdogan has been ramping up the rhetoric in relation to the military personnel accused of complicity erdogan has said it is simply inexcusable to give shelter to what he calls terrorist soldiers. >> stewart: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> lincoln financial-- >> lincoln financial-- committed to helping you take

charge of your financial future. >> and with the ongoing support of these 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. >> woodruff: good evening and happy new year. we're going to have some guests joining me here at the newshour anchor desk in the coming weeks. tonight, it's alison stewart, who many of you recognize from the weekend newshour. welcome, alison. in our lead story, the 115th congress is officially off and running, but house republicans stumbled out of the gate on this opening day. lisa desjardins begins our coverage. >> desjardins: for republicans, day one of congress and what

they hope is a bright new era for their party started with old issues of internal dispute, as house republicans overnight rebelled against paul ryan and other leaders, to change a house ethics panel. but then, this morning, reversed course. the change was about the independent "office of congressional ethics" or o.c.e., which reviews accusations it cannot punish members itself, but it can refer cases to the house ethics committee. the proposed revision change would have changed the office's name to "complaint review." and, more notably, would have stripped away its independence, putting it under the control of the house ethics committee. today some, like iowa's steve king, were dismayed that the measure was pulled: >> so i think we addressed a think we should have gone forward. and i'm going to push for the full disbandment and abolishment of the o.c.e. because they're based upon the wrong principles and no one should have to be subjected to public criticism that's generated by anonymous accusers. >> desjardins: but more republicans, like outgoing

ethics committee chairman charlie dent, said the change would have been a mistake. >> i thought it was not the best way to proceed. >> desjardins: perhaps no coincidence, also saying it was a mistake was president-elect trump, who asked on twitter if the change should be a priority. and house democratic leader nancy pelosi slammed republicans, writing that the move showed "clear contempt for ethics." it all led to rare tension on what is usually a happily bipartisan day with members' families. during the roll call vote for speaker, some democrats pointedly mentioned the need for strong ethics, sparking boos from republicans. (booing) >> desjardins: but, now beginning his first full term as speaker, paul ryan spoke not to dissatisfied members but to dissatisfied voters. >> i want to say ¡we hear you. we will do right by you. and we will deliver. >> desjardins: in the senate,

there was less political theater, but more signs of serious battles ahead, as new senate democratic minority leader chuck schumer took on the mantle of a key opposition voice to president elect-trump on obamacare repeal. mr. president-elect, what is your plan to make sure all americans can get affordable health care? the pace picks up tomorrow, as both president obama and vice president-elect mike pence visit the capitol. >> woodruff: so, lisa, what does this split among republicans over the ethics office tell us about what's coming up ahead? >> i think it has very serious implications. republicans have long had problems with oorves rules and procedures, and those continue. there is a lot of unhappiness with the conference. but i think the bigger point here is that they remain a divided conference on some serious issues, and one big one is coming up in which no one in america has really

the clear direction yet, which is how do you replace obamacare? so the house caucus with the republicans is having trouble with this office of congressional thoirkz which they've been talking about for years amongst themselves, it raises questions about how they will form a plan to replace obamacare in the next year, if that is possible. >> woodruff: now, we heard speaker ryan say among other things, "we hear you," talking to the voters. and in fact, it was some voters who were weighing in today that had something to do with this ethics outcome, didn't it? >> it's such a good point. i think that what we're seeing here is while voters are watching president trump, they're also very closely watching this congress. and it's clear that voters don't yet trust republicans here in congress fully, and they're watching carefully. they reacted very quickly, overwhelming phone calls here at the capitol. i talked to a dozen members of congress who said, republicans and democrats, that their phone lines were clogged, and it was about that ethics change. i talked to a house operator who told me it was just a

meas, all those calls coming in. and, judy, what's amazing, that change happened late last night. voters got up and made those phone calls right away. >> woodruff: lisa, we also heard a little bit there from chuck schumer, the incoming democratic liter leader in the senate. what is the opposition strategy as of no? jiet right. call him maybe the opposition in chief. democrat vase lot of recovery to do. it's not clear who will be their leading voice, but right now chuck schumer seems to be it. i'm not sure what their strategy is yet. today they tried out one, which is to question how donald trump operates. in his speech today, chuck assumer said it's irresponsible how donald trump makes decisions and pointed out his tweets. i thought i'm not sure trump voters that hits where they are about donald trump. i think we're going to see a lot of different attempts at answering donald trump. i'm not sure democrats have figured out how to do it quite yet, but chuck schumer is the man to watch.

>> woodruff: and just a few seconds, lisa, what's the word on republican plans on obamacare? >> right, watch the next couple of days, especially tomorrow morning, judy, when president obama tries to really his democrat and vice president-elect mike pence tries to rally his republicans. >> woodruff: lisa desjardins will be right up there reporting. thank you, lisa. >> my pleasure. >> stewart: in the day's other news, president-elect trump criticized general motors for building compact cars in mexico, on the same day ford announced plans of its own to invest in a plant in the u.s. in a tweet aimed at g.m., mr. trump warned: "make in usa or pay big border tax!" the company responded with a statement that only a tiny fraction of its chevy cruze compacts are made in mexico. in the past mr. trump had criticized ford's plans to build its "focus" small car in mexico. today, ford shifted gears, with its c.e.o. pointing to the new administration. >> we're also encouraged by the

pro-growth policies that president elect trump and the new congress have indicated that they will pursue. and we believe these tax and regulatory reforms are critically important to boost u.s. competitiveness. >> stewart: ford now plans to invest $700 million in an existing michigan plant that has been making the focus. we'll take a closer look at all of this later in the program. >> woodruff: meanwhile, the president-elect tapped robert lighthizer as his nominee for u.s. trade representative. he served as a deputy in that office during the reagan administration and has called for a heavy tariff on imported goods from china. in a statement, the president- elect said lighthizer will fight for "good trade deals that put the american worker first." >> stewart: in turkey, police spent another day hunting for the suspect in that deadly new years attack on an istanbul club.

jonathan rugman of independent television news has the latest. >> only seconds away from a new year! five, four, three, two, one. >> reporter: it was a new year countdown to a massacre. 75 minutes later, a gunman opened fire here, killing 39 people and injuring 69 others. turkish media claimed this is the chief suspect filming himself in the center of istanbul we don't know when. although most reporting, including this, is based on government leaks, and some of it has turned out to be false. two foreign nationals have been arrested at istanbul's main airport in connection with the attack. 16 people have been been detained in all. the authorities said yesterday they're close to identifying the gunman. today, officials were silent on that. there was only one policeman on duty outside one of istanbul's most famous nightclubs. even though tens of thousands of extra police

were supposedly deployed in the city on new year's eve. this evening, hundreds joined a protest against the violence, and turkey's main opposition leader called on the government to resign. people are frightened of criticizing president erdogan's increasingly oppressive administration, though some turks now are. the "the only way to get over this kind of situation is to bring more democracy and freedom and peace and more secular institutions." >> reporter: and after the latest terrorist attack, this is an even more febrile, volatile, and divided country. in the thrall of a government promising security, but failing to deliver it. >> stewart: the islamic state group has claimed responsibility for the nightclub attack. >> woodruff: doubts are rising about the cease-fire in syria, as government forces press an offensive outside damascus. the rebel-held barada valley controls the water supply for millions of people in and around

the capital. the government says it's targeting members of an al-qaida affiliate who are not part of the cease-fire. >> stewart: here in this country, cleanup crews are working across the deep south after a night of killer storms. four people died when a possible tornado knocked a tree onto their mobile home in rehobeth, alabama. and in florida, a man drowned in floodwater. the line of severe thunderstorms brought heavy, flooding rains and multiple reports of tornado sightings. alabama, georgia and the florida panhandle were the worst hit. >> woodruff: it turns out investigators have found no evidence that russian hackers attacked an electrical utility in vermont. "the washington post" reports that malware found on a laptop does not appear connected to the hacking operation known as "grizzly steppe." initial reports last week raised fears the russians could be trying to penetrate the country's electric grid. >> stewart: and the new year got off to a good start on wall street, with a boost from tech and health care stocks.

the dow jones industrial average gained 119 points to close at 19,881. the nasdaq rose nearly 46 points, and the s&p 500 added 19. >> woodruff: still to come on the newshour, my conversation with the c.i.a. director. turkish soldiers seeking safe- haven following a failed coup- attempt, and much more. >> woodruff: now, to begin a series of conversations with top officials in the obama administration, as its eight years in office come to a close. john brennan has served as director of the central intelligence agency since march of 2013. it's an agency he knew well, before his tenure as director: he was a station chief overseas, and an analyst and executive in the agency for 25 years. i began our conversation by asking about the status of the intelligence community's report

on russia's hacking of the election. >> well, the report is in its final throes of production, and so the report will be shared with the president, who ordered up this comprehensive review, within days. and the d.n.i., jim clapper is the one hois leading this effort on behalf of the intelligence community, and so it's been a very, very rigorous and dill jebt review to make sure we have full appreciation of all the intelligence that's relevant, and i think that the story in there, the intelligence in there, will be exactly what the president asked for-- a comprehensive and thorough review about what happened during our recent election and russian involvement. >> woodruff: will it prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that russian officials were trying to interfere with the u.s. election? >> well, i think as jim clapper and jeh johnson said as early as december, that there was clear evidence that the russians were interfering in the election. i'm not going to reveal the

contents of that report because it is still under seal, and it will be provided to the president and to others, as appropriate. but it will address what russia was doing, how it was doing it, and how we know that. >> woodruff: i ask because as you know, there are many doubters out there. one of your former predecessors, one of your predecessors at the c.i.a., jim woolsey said in an interview just this morning. he sid it wasn't just the russians. he said there were other countries likely involved. he mentioned china and iran. are you convinced it was just russia? >> well, we know that a number of countries are involved in the digital domain and doing things in terms of collecting information and exposing information. but this report focuses on what russia specifically did in the election. and so i think that the intelligence carries the analysis and the assessments in it. and i will leave it to the president and others to then make decisions about how that report is going to be handled, and what information will be shared

and with whom. >> woodruff: are ruling out hack by other countries? >> there is a lot of activity that is is out there, but one of the things that we want to make sure we understand is what might some of our adversaries be doing to disrupt one of the foundation tenets of our democracy, which is our presidential election. >> woodruff: i want to continue with the doubters because donald trump himself has been questioning this saying, "how do you know it's the russians?" he's pointed to the fact-- in fact he said a number of times now that the c.i.a. has been wrong before. he keeps referring to the allegations-- >> iraq, w.m.d. >> woodruff: iraq weapones of mass destruction which was wrong. >> and in the aftermath of that, there was a total review of the review process and the analytic process and the assessments that are done within the intelligence communities with a number of steps that were taken to make sure we are going to be as accurate as possible. so it's been light-years since the iraq w.m.d. report has been done, and there has

been tremendous, i think, further development of our analytic capabilitys. there is no intelligence community worldwide that has the capabilities, ther and teerks the analytic expaibility as the u.s. intelligence community. so i would suggest to individuals who have not yet seen the report, who have not yet been briefed on it, that they wait and see what it is that the intelligence community is putting forward before they make those judgments. >> ifill: and you were telling me that president-elect trump will see this report before the public does. >> the president-elect will be entitled to receiving briefings. the report itself, if president obama says that's what should happen, but, absolutely, as the incoming administration and the incoming president he will be entitled to the full report. >> woodruff: let me ask you about wikileaks. the organization that produced these leaks about the democrats in this-- in the election founded by julian assange, he told me in an interview last fall,

he reiterated in the last couple of days, that wikileaks did not get this information from the russians, or from any state actor. how how does that square with what you're saying? >> well, he's not exactly a bastion of truth and integrity. and so, therefore, i wouldn't ascribe to any of these individual making comments that it is providing the whole, unvarnished truth. again, this report is going to include what it is that we know about what happened, what was collected, what was disclosed, and what the purpose and intent of that effort was. >> woodruff: will it make clear what the connection was between the russians and wikileaks, how wikileaks got it? >> again, i'm not going to get ahead of this report coming out. these are things that will be addressed and are addressed in the report. >> woodruff: the intelligence communities, officials in the intelligence community have told reporters it wasn't it was the republicans, republican national committee was also hacked. was it? and if so, why wasn't that material leaked?

>> again, i am not going to get ahead of the release of this report to the president and to others. but there is active collection that goes on in that cyber realm by a number of our adversaries and a number of countries. and so, i don't think one should think that certain elements or entities are protected from that type of collection. but there's collection and then there's also disclosure. so what it is that we do is try to find out what people are doing, who is responsible for it, and what their intention is, and how they're seeking to use it to advantage themselves and to disadvantage u.s. national security. >> woodruff: do you think the motive of the russians was to help donald trump? >> again, that's one of the things that will be addressed inside the report. i'm not going to address that in advance of its release. >> woodruff: and if i ask you about whether the trump campaign was hacked, the answer would be? >> i would say that's a question to ask the trump campaign, and those agencieses responsible for domestic intelligence and

homeland security. >> woodruff: and what about trump businesses since he became a prominent candidate for president? >> again, that is something for others, not the c.i.a. director to address. >> woodruff: so i ask because people are pointing out the fact that there are buildings with trump on them, the trump label on them, loarkted all over the world. are those buildings now a target because donald trump is the next president? >> well, i think there are a lot of identifiers of the united states and the u.s. government, some that are very iconic, and the i think the trump name is something that is associated more and more today because he's been elected our president that identifies with the united states. , the united states government. it's one of the things i think those responsible for security of those facilities, as well as for the systems and networks, need to take into account that in this day and age where there are so many ways to damage buildings, infrastructure,"systems and networks, they need on put in place the appropriate safeguards to protect themselveses from these

types of attacks, whether they be kinetic attacks or cyber attacks. >> woodruff: is it the c.i.a.'s or intelligence community's nawlt this happened, or is it the individual political organizations that were hacked? is it their responsibility? >> well, i think there are so many ways to get into the digital domain right now and to collect information, and that's one of the things that i really hope the next administration picks up on what the obama administration did was to try to better secure our digital environment. and it's one of the things we as a country, i don't think, have come to terms with, just how vulnerable we are to these types of attacks from adversaries, whether it's to collect information, personal identifying information, or it's to bring down infrastructure or to prevent our military services from carrying out their duties. so this is something that i think is going to be sort of the wave of the future in terms of what it is that we as a country need to do in order to protect ourselves,

our future, our prosperity, and that environment right now still is very vulnerable to nation station, to organizations, to hacktivists, to individuals who have the talent and capability to navigate inside system networks and disable and destroy them. >> woodruff: my question is should the intelligence community have prevented this, have seen it coming and stopped it? >> the intelligence community has a responsibility to provide our policy makers, as well as officials with law enforcement, homeland security responsibilities, the best intelligence we have about what adversarys' capabilities and intents are, and that's what we do. we try to make sure they understand what types of attacks we could be seeing in the cyber realm, what they might be trying to accomplish, under what scenarios might they leverage those capabilities. a lot of countries have the ability to do damage in that cyber domain. they decide not to do it because they know there would be steps taken against them. >> woodruff: my question, though, still is was it the

intelligence community's responsibility to prevent this from happening? >> no, not the intelligence community's responsibility. we share responsibility with the rest of the government. but it's not just the government that has responsibility. we're talking about a digital environment that is 85 owned by the private sector, owned and operated by the private sector. so the government's ability to protect that system from those penetrations is limited. that's why there needs to be a national consensus on what the roll of the government is going to be, the law enforcement community, what the f.b.i. is supposed to be doing. we've seen these battles raging about what the bureau is able to do with the various devices and this unbreakable encryption. well, we need to come to terms with this reality that in the 21st century, these systems are going to be used to advance the human condition but they're also going to be used by our adversaries, whether it be terrorists, proliferators, pedophiles, or others. and what are we going to allow the government to do to protect those systems. >> woodruff: did the c.i.a., about the

intelligence community underestimate vladimir putin? >> underestimate? no, i think we always felt he was somebody had a very assertive and aggressive strain weapon he tends to flex muscles, not just on himselfs, but also in terms of russia's military capabilities. he plays by heinze rules in terms of what it is that he does in some of these theefortz conflict. so i don't think we underestimated him. he has sought to advance russia's interests in area where's there have been political vacuums and conflicts, but he doesn't ascribe to the same types of rules that we do. for example, in law of armed conflict. what the russians have done in syria in terms of some of the scorched earth policy they have pursued that led to devastation and thousands upon thousands of innocent deaths, that's not something the united states would ever do in any of these military conflicts. >> ifill: did the united states, did the intelligence community miss the fact that russia was going to get

involved in syria? that wasn't known ahead of time. >> it was. russia has had a 50, 60-year investment in syria. they have had military bases there, military advisers and facilities. they ratcheted up the support to the bashar assad regime as the opposition gained strengths and the syrian regime continued to be degrade by the opposition forces. we could see the russians were not going to abandon a long-term ally. they were going to invest more in protecting that ally. there have been negotiations going on to try to get the russians and others to understand that bashar assad is part of the problem. he's not part of the solution. but they decide to double down and to bring in their latest weaponry, both in terms of fixed and rotor wing aircraft, tankses, a.p.c.s, other types of things. so they have a major investment in syria, and the opposition was as good as they were putting up a fight against the regime. they were fighting the syrians. they were fighting the iranians. they have been fighting hezbollah as well as the russian military. so the odds were stacked

against them. but the russians decided that they were not going to allow the free syrian army, the opposition, that have legitimate grievances against the assad regime to prevail. usly, the russians painted the entire opposition as terrorists, and that's why they undertook this very bold and nmy mind, in many respects, reckless military action to mow down so many syrians. >> woodruff: but could the situation in syria have been better by any degree had the u.s. gotten more involved? >> 20/20 hindside is illuminating, looking in the rearview mirror in terms of what could have happened basis based on what did happen. there has been an unfortunate turn of events over the last years. when the syrian revolution started, the arab spring, there was no such thing as isil. isil was al qaeda and iraq and less than 1,000 individuals. there was a wave then of

developments inside syria and iraq that resulted in current-day syria. no one could have envisioned that in terms of the series of events that took place. so do we lament what has happened in syria? absolutely. if we had a chance to do it over again, would there have been some adjustments and changes? i can't speak for policy makers. i'm not a policymaker. but when i look back, in light of the way things evolved, i think that there could have been some adjustments to some of the policies, not just by the united states, but by other countries, in order to address this question early or, and not allow the isils and the alinous remark the al qaedas to gain momentum and steam and making advantage of the destruction of that company. >> sreenivasan: so not getting involved turns out to be something that's regretted. >> well, i think the way that the situation unfolded is regrettable. >> woodruff: c.i.a. director john brennan.

>> woodruff: tune in tomorrow night for part two of our conversation, where we look ahead to the u.s.' relationship with russia in the trump administration. >> stewart: stay with us, coming up on the newshour: the economics and politics behind ford's decision to invest more in michigan. and president obama's enduring mark on the u.s. education system. but first, in turkey, president recep tayyip erdogan is pushing nato allies to return hundreds of officers and soldiers who've sought asylum in other countries following the coup attempt last july. in greece, eight wanted turkish military personnel are fighting extradition. and since the coup, president erdogan has disputed a longstanding border treaty between the two countries. military analysts warn that relations between greece and turkey are at their lowest point in more than twenty years.

from greece, malcolm brabant reports. >> reporter: the attempted coup against president erdogan only lasted a few hours in july. but the clashes left about 300 dead and more than 2,000 injured. (gunfire) within hours of president erdogan wrestling back control, eight turkish military personnel flew to northern greece and sought political asylum. they went to court on charges of entering the country illegally amid turkish claims that they were terrorists. since then they've been fighting extradition, arguing that they risk a death sentence if returned. the eight turkish soldiers and pilots are currently being held at this police station on the outskirts of athens. >> they realize they are held here as prisoners, basically prisoners of war, this is how i would name them. they are extremely depressed, they are anxious. and they are frightened, scared, extremely scared about what's going to happen. >> reporter: stavroula tomara is

one of the lawyers trying to prevent their extradition. she insists their claims for asylum are entirely justified. >> these people were persecuted due to because of political opinions, social status they had. they were kemalists, they are kemalists. they were in a social group that is being persecuted. >> reporter: kemalists uphold the ideals of kemal ataturk, the first world war hero who modernized turkey, by turning it into a secular westward oriented state. the army's traditional role buttressing secularism has been eroded under president erdogan and his vision of turkey as a regional superpower with conservative islam at its core. erdogan alleges that this man orchestrated the coup. his name is fetullah gulen, and he is living in exile in pennsylvania, where he runs an organization that purports to

promote moderate islamic values. erdogan accuses him of running a terrorist group called feto. on several occasions he's expressed anger that turkey's nato allies refuse to extradite military personnel seeking asylum in countries across the alliance, from the united states to belgium. >> ( translated ): belgium is now an important centre for militants. it is not only an important while important things happen, while our mosques are set on fire, nobody seems to care. instead of saying 'thank you' to my state which put down the attempted coup in my country, you are standing by the plotters. the mutineers are already in your country. >> reporter: turkey's president erdogan has been ramping up the rhetoric in relation to the military personnel accused of complicity in the coup and seeking asylum in nato countries. erdogan has said it is simply inexcusable to give shelter to what he calls terrorist soldiers. despite international concerns about ankara's attitude towards human rights, nato has been at

pains not to upset turkey and its unpredictable president. such is its strategic importance. at a recent news conference, the nato secretary general jens stoltenberg expressed solidarity with turkey. >> it was shocking to visit the national assembly in ankara, where i saw the damage caused by bombs from f-16s, bombing the and of course turkey has the right to prosecute those behind the failed coup attempt. >> reporter: and stoltenberg avoided taking sides over the extradition question. >> regarding the turkish officers, it is up to the nato nations to assess and to make decisions on requests for asylum. that's not a nato decision. >> reporter: it's estimated that 70,000 people have been in arrested in what critics describe as a purge.

as a result, hundreds of turkish officers serving in nato countries have defied orders to return and have sought asylum. the highest ranking asylum seeker to go public, was based at the giant ramstein base in germany. he is air force brigadier mehmet yalinap, >> what i see is, the number of people who have this common denominator, like having strong belief in ataturk's founding principles of our state: democracy, freedom of speech, openness, integration with the west in values of course, have been pulled into a list of purge and they are pushed away from the government. >> reporter: vice president joe biden tasted erdogan's anger during a visit to ankara in august when he was urged to extradite fetullah gulen the man turkey's president blames for the coup.

>> ( translated ): according to the extradition of criminals treaty between the two countries, people like him, gulen would be at least taken under custody, arrested and remain under arrest throughout the trial. this person continues to manage this terrorist organization from where he is. >> we are determined to listen to every scrap of evidence that turkey can provide or that we can find out about but again i say to the people of turkey: what possible motive could we have to in fact harbor a terrorist? >> reporter: but of all the nato countries resisting turkey's will, it is greece that is facing greatest pressure in a region popular with european vacationers. turkish mainland resorts like bodrum are just five miles or so from the greek islands in the aegean sea. greek air space above the islands is frequently breached

by turkish war planes probing defenses and testing athens' resolve. greece and turkey almost went to war 20 years ago, over a small uninhabited islet called imia, which is not very far away from here. military analysts say the hostile atmosphere that prevailed then has returned since president erdogan announced that he's not happy with the treaty of lausanne, which defines greek and turkish territory. that treaty was signed in 1923 and so for almost a century it has been the guarantor of peaceful, if antagonistic coexistence. but there are genuine fears here that these islands are about to become less tranquil. military analyst athanasios drougas is concerned that disputes over the turkish soldiers and territory in the eastern aegean sea could whip up into a perfect storm. >> we would probably see as a scenario, turks to be on a greek island or some rocks in the aegean sea.

i'm talking about skirmishes, not of course a total war, because of course greece and turkey are members of nato and we will have american or nato diplomatic intervention. >> reporter: nato warships are currently patrolling the aegean to discourage migrants from attempting to reach the greek islands. following a turbulent 2016, and a potentially dangerous 2017, the last thing nato wants is serious trouble between two so- called allies. for the pbs newshour, i'm malcolm brabant in greece. >> woodruff: today's announcement by the ford motor company that it would add 700 more jobs at a michigan plant came after it became one of a number of companies squarely in the eye of president-elect trump. william brangham follows up on what's behind this move, and others like it.

>> brangham: the ford anno follows moves from several other companies saying they too might keep some jobs in the u.s. that are planned for mexico or elsewhere. the president-elect has repeatedly tweeted about some of these companies in the past, including ford, pressing them to keep jobs in the u.s. but ford insists today that it did not consult with mr. trump on the michigan decision. josh boak is covering these issues for the associated press. so, josh, bring us up to speed. what did ford agree to do today? >> ford announced that it wasn't going to bhld a $1.6 billion plant in mexico. there were a few reasons for that, one of which was that the plant was going to build ford focuses, and sales of that car have dipped as oil prices have fallen. >> brangham: this is a small, fuel-efficient vehicle. >> exactly. but the other major impact has been donald trump on twitter talking about companies and what he wants to see them do, and those two seem to have combined together. ford's own c.e.o. said he hopes trump's policies on

deregulation and taxes would be good for the company and good for the country. >> brangham: as we mentioned before, this follows moves where trump targeted other companies-- carrier, lockheed martin-- and companies have shifted positions based on what mr. trump is saying. overall, how many jobs are we talking about here are going to be staying in the u.s.? >> as far as ford's announcement today, they're look to hire 700 workers starting in 2018. when we look at carrier, that's 800 jobs. when we look last week at sprint, that's 5,000 jobs, one web, that's 3,000 jobs. now, that sounds like a lot in an individual announcement, but the u.s. economy is massive. it added 2.25 million jobs last year alone. that's so great that this is really a drop in the bucket in the big picture, but it's massive symbolically. we can't forget that part of economics is psychology and the animal spirits, and

trump is really stirring them right now. >> brangham: so do you credit these moves to donald trump? i mean, he would love to take credit for them, and we've seen him do that many times in the past. do you credit him with what we saw out of ford today? >> well, many of the chief executives involved in these decisions are crediting donald trump, or attributing their decisions to him. and they've benefitted from that. last week, with the sprint deal, for example, we saw son say this has been the result of actions by the trump administration. and giving credit to donald trump is actually been good for these companies. sprint's stock is up more than 40% as of last friday since trump became president. so if the bottom line is what these c.e.o.s really care about, then being on trump's side thus far has been profitable. >> brangham: so how much of this, getting back to the point you made, how much of this is about economics and how much of this is about politics? is this about a substantial change in manufacturing policy by these companies, or is this about being on the right side of public

opinion? >> well, it's critical to note there actually hasn't been a policy change, just a series of tweets and public statements and phone calls. we haven't seen a policy overhaul. we've seen the promise of policy overhauls on regulatory and tax issuees, but those haven't been manifest yet. so what this really appears to be is a president-elect able to exercise power on social media in a way that's unprecedented. and corporations have seen benefits to responding to that. >> brangham: we saw president-elect trump leaning on g.m. today. is this, in your mind, the new paradigm, that companies in the u.s. have to prepare for the fact that you might have the president-elect or the soon-to-be president just naming them and shaming them? >> it's definitely possible. business leaders i've talked to have said that they expect to have a bull's eye on them, but what we've also seen talking with members of the trump transition team is donald trump sees these actions and interventions as a way to stay connected with his voting base. >> brangham: doug do you

think-- as you mentioned, this is not necessarily reflectionave new policy. do you have any sense how trump might-- how these actions might translate into a more cohesive economic policy going forward? >> he ran on the premise of america first, and that was all part of the greater make america great again theme. he's clearly said he wants to increase manufacturing jobs, so this seems to be a component of that. the question is how he goes about that. we don't have the policy details, although he has suggested that he'll impose a border tax of some kind on companies that move jobs oafertion. he's also suggest had he's going to cut regulation, which increases profits for a lot of these companies. what remains to be seen is whether he can create jobs on a meaningful scale and generate the kind of economic growth that's he's actually promised, about 3.5% a year. >> brangham: it seems to be he has a carrots and sticks policy going here. he's going to offer them, potentially, less regulation and lower taxes. and then also threaten to

put this tax on them if they try to leave the country. do you think that there's an appetite in congress to actually put those measures into place? >> well, that remains to be seen. what executives like ford c.e.o. mark fields has said when he talks about his decision on mexico is to say-- is to emphasize the taxes and deregulation. he is focuses on the carrots, not the sticks. business leaders are emphasizing those carrots, can which means they don't want to address the sticks or they don't think the sticks are likely to happen. >> brangham: you, obviously, have been covering economic policy fair long time. how unusual is this to have a president-elect naming companies by name and singling them out, and them responding? >> it's unprecedented because he hasn't assumed office yet. more importantly, he's doing so on social media and other venues that president historically have not had. >> brangham: because it hasn't existed. >> exactly.

>> brangham: all right, josh boak, thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> stewart: we continue our look at the obama years and his legacy. tonight we focus on a subject that often gets less attention, public education. much of what happens in the classroom is decided at the state and local level. but the federal government can also be a big player in some respects, and that was definitely the case with the obama administration, which is also the focus of our weekly segment, "making the grade". >> reporter: throughout most of his term, president obama and his former education secretary, arne duncan, exercised far more power and influence in education than many of their predecessors. one major focus: a demand for greater student testing tied directly to teacher evaluation and accountability, and crucially, federal money for schools. duncan was essentially the

gatekeeper of billion dollars of stimulus money known as "race to the top." districts could qualify if they agreed to meet those criteria. initially, many states joined in. but over time, backlash began building to testing and data- driven metrics. the president himself addressed those concerns. >> when we talk about testing, parents worry that it means more teaching to the test. some worry that tests are culturally biased. teachers worry that they'll be evaluated solely on the basis of a single standardized test. everybody thinks that's unfair. it is unfair. but that's not what race to the top is about. what race to the top says is, there's nothing wrong with testing, we just need better tests applied in a way that helps teachers and students, instead of stifling what teachers and students do in the classroom.

>> reporter: it also led to a backlash of state standards known as the common core. >> they're impacting the kind of education kids are getting because they're eating up a lot of introduction time with test preparation and test drilling. if what you're measuring is >> reporter: the administration promoted the expansion of charter schools, and pointed to a national graduation rate topping 83%. at the same time, the president's team took a bigger role in higher education. it became the direct lender to students, instead of having the loans made directly by banks. savings were used to expand pell grants. and the administration took aim at the world of for-profit colleges, cracking down on federal funds and contending that students were frequently not well-served by the schools. >> stewart: let's dig a little deeper into the obama legacy in education with two people who have covered it extensively. alyson klein is one of our partners at "education week," and scott jaschik of "inside

higher ed." thanks to both of you for being here. let's talk about what the obama administration wanted to do when it first got into office. alyson, what was one thing they wanted to tackle of k-12 education? >> they were in a very fortunate position when they first came into office in the obama administration was given $100 billion for education through the american recovery and reininvestment act, better known as the stimulus. and with some of that money and the program known as race to the top, they were able to prod states to adopt common core, new forms of teacher evaluation, that relied in part on student test scores, and dramatic ways of turning around the lowest performing schools, including getting rid of principals and many teachers. >> stewart: we'll unpack that in a little bit. same question for you, scott, about higher education. what the obama administration wanted tackled right away? >> sure, in president obama's first statest union, he said something no president had said before, which is every american needs at least one year of

post-secondary training to succeed in today's economy. and you see that priority reflected in much that the administration did-- proposals for free community college, putting more money into aid for low-income students. the key difference between past administrations is that i'd say historically, the focus of higher ed policy has been on helping middle-class families who are already going to send their children to college to do so in more affordable ways. president obama focused on the students who weren't going, those who needed higher education, but were not seeking it. >> stewart: alyson, let's unpack a little bit of what you talked about. testing became a buzz word among k-12 education, associated with common core state standards. the common core was, obviously, an idea, a way to have a federal standards so students in nevada could be compared to students in texas. what happened in theor with common core and testing versus what happened this practice? >> so the obama

administration didn't tell states that they had to adopt the common core standards, but they did give them a number of states money who chose to do that. and they also used some of the money from the stimulus which i talked about to help states develop new, more innovative forms of tests aligned with those standards. but they were really demanding a lot from states. teach herself to adjust to brand new standards that were much more rigorous in many cases than the standards they had before and manned brand new types of tests and it put a lot of pressure on a system. >> stewart: and also on teacher evaluations. that became a very difficult subject because you had teachers in certain schools with certain sort of support and scaffolding being compared to teachers in other schools perhaps in more affluent areas. >> yes, that's right. one of the big issues with teacher evaluation is teachers felt it didn't necessarily reward them for taking on more challenging groups of students. and as i mentioned before, the tests and the standards were changing at the same time that teacher performance was being held

to those tests. so they really felt like that was an unfair situation for them. >> stewart: charter schools was another big part of the obama administration's push. i believe there are something like $208 million for charter schools in 2008-2009, and that's up to $333 million approximately now. why the focus on charter schools? >> so charter schools are one of the few areas of k-12 education policy where democrats and republicans really see eye to eye for the most part. the obama administration in particular really pushed state that had low-performing schools to consider turning those schools into a charter. but they also asked states to set a high bar for charters, make sure that charters were serving all different kinds of students, students in special education, english language learners, and were being held to the same standards as regular public schools. >> stewart: scott, let's breng you into the conversation. >> sure. >> stewart: you mentioned bringing new people into the higher education population. how did the president and his administration make this possible? were they successful with

bringing people in to the higher population, higher education population, that wouldn't have been there before? >> many times they were successful, but not the way he proposed it. >> stewart: what does that mean? >> take free community college. president obama proposed a state-federal partnership what would make community college free. congress never touched it. so you can say on one hand, nothing happened. but the reality is that districts all over the country took the idea and ran with it. and so there are free community college programs in individual districts all over the country. also, i'd say by talking about the issue, president obama put much more emphasis on that choice than you ever saw before. president obama and also mechelle obama used their bully pulpits to say, "hey, it's important to go." and they said-- they linked it over and over again to jobs that students would need for the future. and in that sense, i think he changed the conversation. community colleges used to be sort of a side issue. he made them much more

central. he also focused a lot on endorsing alternative ways to go to college. he's a fan of online education, competency-based education, all kinds of new approaches that, again, he used the bully pulpit to promote, not so much federal legislation but with attention. >> stewart: how about dealing with income inequality. we see that in secondary education. kids who come from well to-do families often go to college. it's a small percentage for people who come from lower income family what happens did he do in his administration to help those folks? >> early on he proposed large increases and he got some in pel grants, the largest federal program for low-income students. he wasn't thrilled with the results, though, because a lot of the money ended up going to students at for-profit institution where's he questioned the quality. so i think that's part of what led him to free community college to focus attention on another sector. he also focused a lot on the

quality of institutions. he was not, you know, a looking at community colleges through rose colored glasses. he talked about the need for them to improve their graduation rates, to improve their connection betweens their job training programs and actual careers. so he was putting attention there, not on harvard and stanford. >> stewart: what about attention about what's going on, on campus? there were so many stories about sexual assault issues campuses in the past year and a half. >> i think this is an area where the obama administration played a very significant role. one, they talking about it a lot. not just the education department, but president obama, vice president biden in repeated events. they also, the administration changed the rules. they told colleges to change the burden of proof when colleges were considering these cases saying had it only be a preponderance of evidence. so that's a lower standard than, say, guilty beyond a reasonabl doubt. and they empowered the office for civil rights at the education department to

have resources to do more investigations. so attention and policy. at the same time that activists on campuses were raising the issue more than ever. >> stewart: a final question for both of you. what do you think will be the lasting impact of his education legacy, the thing that will stick around, regardless of what's going on in terms of politics? >> that's a great question. i would say one of the big focuses of the administration was on turning around the lowest performing schools, and that's something that's been enshrined in a law called the ever suant succeeds act. states will still have to focus on schools that are just at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to performers. that's something i expect to continue no matter who's in the white house. >> stewart: what do you think, scott giwould say this idea of free college, even though he didn't get it. today, new york's governor proposed free public higher education. that comes out of the sanders and clinton plans, but i also think it comes

out of the obama proposal about free community college. eight years ago, people were not talking about the idea of free college. now they are. >> stewart: scott jaschik and alyson klein, thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: on the newshour online right now, is it time to reevaluate the value of having a job? on our making sense page, history professor and author james livingston shares an excerpt from his book, "no more work." all that and more is on our web site, pbs.org/newshour. >> stewart: tune in later tonight, on charlie rose: breaking down the new round of saber-rattling over north korea's nukes. and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm alison stewart. >> woodruff: and i'm judy woodruff. join us online, and again here tomorrow evening. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you and good night.

>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide. >> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and individuals.

>> 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 sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> this is bbc "world news america." >> funding of this presentation is made possible by the freeman foundation. newman's own foundation, giving all profits from newman's own to charity and pursuing the common good. kovler foundation, pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. and aruba tourism authority. >> planning a vacation escape that is relaxing, inviting, and exciting is a lot easier than you think. you can find it here in aruba. families, couples, and friends can all find their escape on the