captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening, i'm judy woodruff. >> cornish: and i'm audie cornish. >> woodruff: on the newshour tonight... the ninth circuit court refuses to reinstate the trump administration's travel ban. >> woodruff: jeff sessions is confirmed as attorney general, while fallout from the president's attacks on the judiciary mounts. >> woodruff: and, a look at steve bannon the filmmaker-- what mr. trump's chief strategist's works reveal about his influence as the president's close advisor. >> what we've seen over the course of his films is that he explored a lot of the themes-- the nationalist and populist themes that really then echoed in donald trump's campaign. >> cornish: all that and more on tonight's pbs newshour.

>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> supported by the rockefeller foundation. promoting the well-being of humanity around the world by building resilience and inclusive economies. more at rockefellerfoundation.org

>> carnegie corporation of new york. supporting innovations in education, democratic engagement, and the advancement of international peace and security. at carnegie.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these 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. >> woodruff: hello and i'm joined again tonight by audie cornish of npr's all things considered - welcome, audie. our lead story: the federal appeals court based

in san francisco has refused to re-instate president trump's immigration order. a 3-judge panel issued the unanimous ruling late today. president trump's reaction came in a tweet that said: "see you in court, the security of our nation is at stake! joining me to examine the ruling, is newshour regular, marcia coyle of the national law journal. marcia, you've had a little bit of time to look at this ruling that just came down 45 minutes ago. what did you find in. >> this was an unsigned opinion, and it was a unanimous opinion by the three appellate judges. the government had to show the panel here that it had the likelihood of success on the merits and also there was a likelihood of irreparable harm if this panel did not put aside the temporary restraining order that was blocking the

president's executive order. the panel said basically that the government did not provide evidence to support either claim, that it would succeed on the merits and that there was irreparable harm. in terms of the likelihood of irreparable harm, the government had said these seven countries, for example, that are targeted in the order, were countries that had been designated by prior administrations and congress as having terrorist activity, but the panel said that there was no evidence of strikes here in the country by those, and also that the temporary restraining order just restores the status quo that existed for years before president trump issued his order. then on the merits, the panel was concerned about two things in particular. one, it felt that the claim that the people who were denied entry to the country had been also denied due process of law.

by that we mean they were not given notice or a hearing to determine whether they could enter the country. and the panel was particularly concerned about legal permanent residents. even though the white house council had said the order didn't cover, that the panel said that wasn't binding, and it had to go on the basis of the order itself, and the panel also found that there were serious claims of religious discrimination, even though those claims are very early in terms of judging the merits, the panel felt that there was enough there for now that the temporary restraining order should stay in effect and allow the next step to go forward, which would have been a full hearing by the federal judge in seattle. finally, the court looked at the public interest here, and it said there were aspects of the public interest that favored both sides. one side the government, national security. on the other side, freedom from jim -- jim food and drug

administration, -- discrimination, freedom from separation of family. that was the basis for the court to hold that the government loses. >> woodruff: but marcia, again, the three judges essentially disagreed with the government's arguments on its main point. >> it did. in fact, one particularly crucial point, the government had argued that this executive order was unreviewable by a federal court, and the panel said on that point that that argument runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy, the role of the judiciary, the panel said, is to interpret the law, and sometimes that requires resolving litigation that challenges the constitutional authority of one of the three branches, and the panel said it's our duty to do what we're doing basically. >> woodruff: as we reported a moment ago, the president has

said, "see you in court." it's clear the government is going to appeal this. >> the department of justice tonight said it is reviewing its options. it can seek full review before the ninth circuit. all of the judges on ninth circuit. or it may also go perhaps to the u.s. supreme court with an emergency request to set aside the temporary restraining order. judy, i also should point out there were many people who followed the hearing on tuesday. the panel's decision is on the ninth circuit's web site. you just have to google ninth circuit and you'll be able to find it. >> woodruff: that is very helpful. we wait to see what the administration does. marcia coyle, thank you. >> my pleasure. >> woodruff: the appeals court decision came after president trump's criticism of the courts, even as he pushes his nominee for the u.s. supreme court. john yang has that story, from the white house. >> a new era of justice begins, and it begins right now. >> the man who ran as the

law-and-order candidate made clear today he's now the law and order president as jeff sessions was sworn in as president trump's attorney general. >> we face the menace of rising crime and the threat of deadly terror. it's not getting better, but it will get better. >> reporter: for days mr. trump has been attacking the federal judges considering challenges to his temporary ban on travel from seven mainly muslim countries. his supreme court nominee, neil gorsuch, told connecticut democratic senator richard blumenthal that a tweet referring to one of the jurists as a "so-called judge" was disheartening and demoralizing. even though a spokesman for gorsuch confirmed the comment, today the president insisted otherwise. >> his comments were misrepresented, and what you should do is ask senator blumenthal about his vietnam record that didn't exist. so you misrepresented that, just like you misrepresented judge gorsuch. >> reporter: blumenthal, who

was in the marine corps reserves during the vietnam war but never served overseas apologized in 2010 for saying during his senate campaign he had served in the war. the president's comments came in a bipartisan meeting that included democratic senators he hopes will vote for gorsuch. they included four democrats up for reelection next year in states that mr. trump won, like john chester of montana. >> the president can say what he wants about dick blumenthal, but dick blumenthal is a quality guy and a very, very good senator. >> reporter: does that sort of thing impact your decision at all? >> no, not on this, not on this at all. i think we'll take a look at the nominee for what he is and what his past work and we'll move forward from there. >> reporter: meanwhile, senior tripadvisor kellyanne conway got into hot water today when she followed up on the president's criticism of nordstrom for dropping ivanka trump's fashion line. >> i own some of it. i'll give it a free commercial. go buy it. you can find it online.

>> that appeared to violate an ethics line of federal employees endorsing products. the president is exempt under that law but conway is not. white house secretary sean spicer. >> kellyanne has been counseled on that subject and that's it. >> reporter: house oversight committee jason chaffetz said conway's remarks were clearly over the line and unacceptable. shortly after the court decision came down, a group of reporters ran into the president in the hallway in the west wing. he told them that he thought the decision was political, that he was going the fight on, and that he would eventually prevail, saying that the nation's security was at stake. judy? >> woodruff: john, just quickly, it's clear this has become an enormous issue for this white house. >> yang: absolutely. i think the fact that this is one of the... a campaign

promise, a signature promise of the campaign, one of the first big executive orders challenged in court, and you have seen how important this is, taking on the judges personally in tweets and saying that he's going to fight this to the end, fight all the way to the supreme court. >> woodruff: john yang at the white house, we thank you. >> cornish: in the day's other news, the top u.s. commander in afghanistan said thousands more troops are needed to help defeat taliban insurgents. general john nicholson testified before the senate armed services committee saying more trainers and support could help the afghan army break what he called "a stalemate." >> i have adequate resources in my counterterrorism mission. in my train, advise and assist mission, however, we have a shortfall of a few thousand. this is in the nato train, advise and assist mission, so it can come from the u.s. and it's allies. >> cornish: the u.s. still has more than 8,400 troops in afghanistan, in a war that's now lasted 16 years. >> woodruff: a powerful storm

paralyzed cities across the northeastern u.s. today, dumping more than a foot of snow in some places. scores of accidents tied up roads across the region. and, the heavy snow and high winds forced hundreds of schools to close, from new york to boston to maine. officials everywhere appealed to the public. >> when we get into the evening and the overnight if people continue to stay out of the way of sanitation let them do their job then they go on offensive and are not fighting a constant barrage of snow coming in. they can get things for pretty good for tomorrow morning. >> woodruff: the storm has also grounded more than 3,500 flights through tomorrow. >> cornish: construction on the final stretch of the controversial dakota access oil pipeline is now underway. that's after the u.s. army corps of engineers gave the go-ahead for crews to lay pipe under a north dakota reservoir. the cheyenne river sioux tribe filed a last-ditch legal challenge to try to stop its completion. the tribe fears a leak could

taint their water. >> woodruff: the newest member of the united states senate took his seat today. the governor of alabama appointed state attorney general luther strange to the post. he was sworn in by vice president pence this afternoon. a special election will be held in 2018 to fill the seat permanently. strange replaces jeff sessions who officially became the u.s. attorney general today. >> cornish: and, on wall street, a rally fueled by strong corporate earnings reports. the dow jones industrial average gained 118 points to close at 20,172. the nasdaq rose 32 points, and the s&p 500 added 13. still to come on the newshour: president trump's continued attacks against federal judges. the white house takes heat for calling a deadly raid in yemen a success. arizonans outraged over an undocumented mother's deportation, and much more.

now the a different court question, and this is the mounting controversy over president trump's attacks on the judiciary, we've just referred to them. for that we turn to two former judge, paul cassell teaches at the university of utah college of law. he served as a federal judge for five years in utah's district court. and rebecca kourlis is a former justice of the colorado supreme court. she now runs the institute for the advancement of the american league system at the university of denver. we welcome both of you to the program. and, of course, i'm talking to you, professor cassell and justice kourlis just as we've learned about what the circuit court in california has ruled, and that is denying the administration's appeal. let me turn to you first, justice kourlis. what is your reaction to what president trump has been saying in recent days about this circuit court in california?

>> good evening, judy, and thanks for the opportunity to comment on this. my concern is not so much the disagreement with the outcome but rather the attack on sort of the legitimacy of the process, and that risks further polarity, further critique of the judiciary as a political branch of government, which it is not, cannot be, was never intended to be. >> woodruff: so an attack on the legal system is what you're saying, and you're saying it's inappropriate, it's over the line? how would you characterize it? >> well, i don't want to sort of join in the epithet-tossing contest that we seem to be in nationally at the present, but

i am a longtime former judge, justice, and i now study the court in the context of the institute at which i work. our whole focus is on trying to protect the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, which is not to say that i'm an apologist for judges. judges make mistakes. judges can approach cases in a biased way. there are some judges who are activists. but the point is that the process itself is what we count on, and we agree as a society that we will trust the ultimate outcome from that process. there are appeals. there are ways to approach things, but ultimately it's about the balance of powers and the legitimacy of the court. >> woodruff: professor cassell, how do you see it, what the president has been saying about the court, very critical remarks? >> well, i think he's been very

critical of the courts, but then again, the court has been striking down or at least staying one of his signature pieces of his campaign, the immigration reform. we have a long tradition of three coequal branches of government, coequal branches of government that have often felt free to criticize what the others are doing. you can go all the way back the abraham lincoln, who very famously even refused to follow some edicts from the u.s. supreme court. so i see the dialogue as in some wayings being healthy, although i hope the discourse could be elevated at least above some of the things that have recently been said. >> woodruff: justice kourlis, why isn't it just healthy dialogue? it does go back. we think about what other presidents have said and done about the court? >> it's sort of the bottom line for me, judy: it's not okay to criticize a judge as illegitimate or activist just because you disagree with the outcome. it's fine to say, i think that's the wrong ruling, i disagree

with the basis upon which the ruling is issued, but to sort of claim that the judge has no right to issue that ruling, that to me crosses the line. >> woodruff: and professor kourlis, when president trump called judge robart a so-called judge and then he went on to talk about... i think he used the word "disgraceful" the way the judges conducted themselves or some of the judges conducted themselves at the appel et hearing on tuesday of this week, is that not stepping over the line? is that calling into question the very role that judges play? >> it is to me. >> woodruff: i'm sorry, i meant that for professor cassell. >> i think he's stepping over a line of decorum, but i'm not sure he's stepping over some line that invalidates the separation of powers. president trump has made it one of his signature i guess style points you could say that he's

going to be very plain spoken some it's not surprising to find he's using strong language to criticize the judges. i wouldn't be using that same language. i think it's a violation of our rules of civility, but one of the things that president trump has indicated is that he's going to press some of those boundaries and he's going to use new forms of communication like twitter that probably prevents some of the nuance or maybe some of the elegance we've seen from previous presidents. >> woodruff: justice kourlis, what about that? it can be argued that this president is taking advantage of new methods of communication, including twitter. >> i'm okay with that actually, and i'm okay with plain talk and an effort to pierce through some of the complexities of the legal system because i certainly don't think it's okay to hide behind that, but my point fundamentally is that judges have a role. their role is to determine the facts in from the of them at the trial court level, apply the

law, rule, and then the parties can appeal it as far up the process as possible. if the whole process is perceived to be political, if judges are perceived to rule on the basis of who appointed them or what political party they have, then impartiality goes out the window. so people in positions of power, people in leadership positions i hold to a higher standard of acknowledging the balance of powers, the role of each branch of government, and by the way, i would apply this even handedly. i don't think it's okay to call president trump a so-called president. there's a legitimacy of process that we all honor and that's part of democracy. >> woodruff: what about the point she's making, professor cassell? >> well, president trump i think has recognized legitimacy of the process.

he's appealed to the ninth circuit and i'm assuming he's going to ask the justice department to appeal to the supreme court now to have the decision overturned. but i think it's unfair to take certain labels off the table as inappropriate. there is a healthy debate in this country about whether our judiciary and particularly our federal judiciary is too activist, that is it is making laws rather than applying laws. you can have that debate in the dry language of law professors or you can have it in the more robust language of twitter feeds and plain-spoken talk. i think president trump is trying to have that debate in a way that average americans can understand and communicate effectively in that way. again, i wouldn't speak in those ways, but i think he certainly is entitled to speak in those ways. >> woodruff: i want to come back to you quickly professor cassell and read to you what president trump said in one of his remarks. he said, "this judge opens up our country to potential terrorists. he said, "if something happen, blame him and the court system."

you think that's within the bounds of what a president can say? >> yes, absolutely. what's at stake on this immigration debate is ady bait about whether we're effectively protecting our country from terrorism. so to point to the consequences of an adverse ruling is exactly what the government lawyers are doing out in the ninth circuit and i assume will be doing soon before the supreme court. >> woodruff: and we do expect we have ever reason to assume the white house, the administration will continue to challenge and to appeal that decision. well, we want to thank both of you, professor paul cassell, justice rebecca kourlis, we appreciate you joining us. thank you. >> thank you, judy. >> thank you. >> cornish: there are lingering questions over the deadly raid by u.s. navy seals launched in yemen in late january. while it's still unclear exactly what happened on the ground, the

question of whether the raid should be seen as a success has become political. eight days ago, president trump flew to dover air force base in delaware to honor a navy seal killed in yemen. the u.s. also lost an osprey aircraft in the january 29 raid on al-qaeda. despite the losses, the white house called the operation a "success," but critics like republican senator john mccain disagreed. >> when you lose a $75 million airplane and more importantly american lives-- life-- is lost and wounded. i don't think that you can call it a success. >> cornish: the president fired back this morning, tweeting that it "only emboldens the enemy" to discuss the raid with reporters. he said of mccain: "he's been losing so long he doesn't know how to win anymore." later today mccain's daughter defended her father on twitter. she said, "trump has never served. my father cannot bend one of his knees or lift one of his arms above his head. i am done with this. done." sean spicer argues the seals

gathered critical intelligence. >> it's absolutely a success. and i think anyone who would suggest it's not a success does disservice to the life of chief ryan owens. >> cornish: the raid also killed civilians, including women and children. "the new york times" reported this week that yemen has now withdrawn permission for such operations. yemen's foreign minister denied that, but said they are seeking a re-assessment. we break down what we know of the raid now with nancy youseff, national security correspondent at buzzfeed news. >> thank you for having me. >> cornish: now with the tweets from the white house, congress, this has really become a kind of political football. what are people saying inside the pentagon? >> well, it's frankly made it hard for people in the pentagon to talk about this because what they see as a military operation has now involved into a political issue. inherently they don't talk about covert operations. now you have everything being put in this context trying to answer the question of what is success on a u.s. military

operation. john mccain has called it a failure. last week the white house is saying success was a delicate term because civilians and chief owens had been killed in the raid. and this week they said it was categorically a success. so inside rather than a discussion about success or failure, there is a measure going on about the risks and rewards of this raid and was it worth it given how mum mull choose that it would involving into a firefight and you now have questions swirling around it that was this worth it? was the intelligence gathered worth all that's come out of it since. >> cornish: i think this has also sparked a greater conversation about the process and the thinking that goes into green lighting a raid like this, right, and also comparing it to the obama administration? talk about that. what do we know about what happened in terms of that process? >> so the obama administration

was really risk averse, and president trump during the campaign really campaigned on the idea of being more aggressive in terms of going after extremist elements like al qaeda, which was the target of this raid, and the islamic state. and so we've heard that the obama administration was aware of the raid and the planning for it, which was months before it actually happened, but that they had decided essentially that this was not a decision for them to make. while it had reached to the national security council, it hasn't reached the president. because the military wanted to launch this raid on the first lunar moon, which was on january 29th, nine days after the raid, the decision was formally made by president trump. i think the question that people are having is: what does the process tell us about how president trump will make decisions on these raids and how much of that differs from the obama administration. and is this more aggressive approach how... is it going to manifest in more risky raids, more risky operations than we

have seen in the past eight years under the obama administration, which really was willing to endure some risks of terror groups being allowed to sustain rather than take the risk of doing operations like this, dropping boots on the ground in a combat zone like war-torn yemen. >> as you mention, yemen has been in free-fall for many years now. we're seeing a renewed focus by the u.s. on this country, and do we have any sense about what that could mean going forward? >> remember the early hours of the trump administration, they conducted drone strikes in yemen, and we had started to hear talk that while the focus has been on isis for the past few years, al qaeda in the arab peninsula has been one of the few groups that's been able to execute external attacks on western allies. remember they were part of the planning for the "charlie hebdo" attack in paris, france. so there has been a feeling that perhaps this administration would want to expand its counter-terrorism operations to

not just focus on isis but focus on a group like al qaeda that has really been able to flourish in the last five years of the yemeni civil war because there's so much ungoverned space and such a fertile ground for them to recruit and train. >> cornish: nancy youseff is national security correspondent for buzz feed. thank you for speaking with us. >> thank you. >> woodruff: stay with us, coming up on the newshour: companies in a delicate dance with a businessman as president. and the ideology white house chief strategist steve bannon portrayed in his films. but first, how one woman's story has sparked protests in arizona. guadalupe garcia de rayos, a mother of two, has lived in the u.s. illegally for more than two decades. she was arrested wednesday after her regular check-in with

immigration officials. dozens of protesters rallied overnight in phoenix, as activists blocked off entrances to the federal immigration and custom enforcement building and a van carrying garcia de rayos. she was deported today. earlier, i spoke with daniel gonzalez of the arizona republic. daniel gonzales, thank you very money for talking with us. so miss garcia de rayos had been checking in regularly with immigration officials, was not deported. what was different about this time? >> well, what her lawyer and activists are alleging is that what was different is the executive order that president trump signed on january 25th. this greatly expands the priorities that ice is given for deportation. it basically sends a message to ice that the trump administration would like to see a much broader scope of deportation. so the feeling is that under the

bum administration she was allowed to check in and remain in the united states. she was allowed to remain with her family, but when she went in to check in yesterday, she was taken into custody and then quickly deported to mexico. >> woodruff: and we know there was a felony on her record. it had to do with a 2008 raid at her workplace conducted under then sheriff joe arpayo. she was found to have had inaccurate identification, and there was a felony conviction, but again, under the previous administration, that was not considered enough to deport her. >> right. basically what happened was she was working with a fake social security number. sheriff arpayo was conducting these massive work site raids back in 2008. when he conducted... when his deputies conducted this raid, they seized a lot of the i-9 forms, government employment

records, and that led her to... that led sheriff's deputies to ms. garcia de rayos. they went to her house. they arrested her. she plead guilty to a felony charge, and then she was turned over to ice custody. she spent some time in a detention facility. and then ice decided that she was not considered a high priority, most likely because of her long ties to the united states, her two u.s. citizen-been children, for two decades here. what she was basically doing was every year checking in with ice and then they would renew the superviseed release. >> woodruff: she argued she was 14 years old when she came to the united states. this is now 22 years later. she's 36. she has two children. she has a husband. what do people believe is going to happen to her now? what is her recourse? >> well, she's staying in a

shelter in mexico. her family is driving down to bring her some clothes. she didn't have anything when she went down. there but as far as i know, she has no legal recourse. she could spend... she could be permanently barred from coming back to the united states. there are some provisions that allow you the apply for hardship waivers, but usually you have to remain out of the country for ten years, but it's really unclear whether she would even qualify for that. once somebody has been removed from the country, it's very, very difficult to ever come back. >> woodruff: daniel gonzales, reporter for the "arizona republic." we expect there to be a number of other stories like this one. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> woodruff: it's become a routine question: what kind of separation there is between the

president, his family and the promotion of their businesses. kellyanne conway's comments about ivanka trump fueled a new round of criticism, and concerns for the companies involved. all of which gets to a tricky question: how should companies navigate the waters of the new trump administration? our economics correspondent paul solman explores that for his weekly installment of "making sense." >> reporter: the super bowl, politicized this year, through ads: air bnb branding itself as immigration-friendly. ♪ oh beautiful for spacious skies coca cola recycling a 2014 ad that also suggests an alternative definition of american patriotism. and in the larger world, backlash from uber customers over president trump's immigration ban-- #deleteuber-- that ultimately forced its c.e.o. to step down from a white house advisory panel.

nordstrom, dropping the first daughter's clothing line back in january, with neiman marcus and following suit, prompting a tweet from president trump yesterday: "my daughter has been treated so unfairly by nordstrom. she is a great person-- always pushing me to do the right thing! terrible!" so are we seeing the rise of a new partisan consumerism, echoing the country's polarized politics? we invited two harvard business school professors, nancy koehn and len schlesinger, to answer the question. >> what we're seeing now is the culmination or perhaps the next logical step of a long series of events and trends among consumers, where they use their dollars to vote on social, political and economic issues. >> and relative to today's administration there are

countless examples of how that's being played out on a daily basis. so we have the scenario of the ivanka merchandising line which has now been essentially removed from nordstrom and neiman marcus. a hashtag boycott nordstrom, a hashtag boycott neiman marcus for actually tossing our ivanka out of the store and the same on the other side of the equation. >> reporter: so boycotts have been used to express political beliefs and to try to affect political outcomes. >> for at least 50 or 60 years and probably going back farther than that. what's new i think, paul, is the reach and the speed. and that's all running on the high octane fuel of social media and i think the other thing that's new and different is the emotional energy that social media allows. these are all businesses that have a very big word of mouth component to them, they have a big ego or identity component to

them, so the ability of these boycotts to affect those aspects of success, consumer loyalty, word of mouth, brand power, that's a big deal. >> an interesting thing is seeing where it really is a big deal is in the context of uber. it is a service that people hate to love or love to hate and the c.e.o. announces he's going to join the president's business advisory council and in the midst of everything that was going on at uber and everything that was going on in the administration within the immigrant community, he had no choice but to withdraw from the president's advisory council. you wonder what got him possessed to join in the first place. >> reporter: because he ought to have anticipated the uproar that-- >> given the population he served and the populations quite honestly the uber services having a huge negative impact

on, it should have been obvious. >> i would ask or want business leaders to have the same kind of consciousness about the divisiveness about the electorate about the different kinds of issues that were uncovered during the campaign. so it's not stay away, it's let's think this through very carefully as we think about how to respond, react, predict. >> reporter: but aren't you saying at the end of the day stay away? >> i've been advising in more situations than not for c.e.o.'s after doing their balance sheet to actually lay low until there's a bit more certainty of how the administration truly is going to govern going forward. >> reporter: are we seeing what's been called identity politics playing out now across the board? >> think about how people that are on the boycott-trump- businesses side of things are

thinking of themselves. they're thinking of themselves first as i don't support the president. secondly, i want to make a difference here in voicing and in doing something with my opposition, my resistance, so that is in some ways an exercise in identity. interestingly, when we talked during the campaign about identity politics we talked often on the side of trump supporters. i'm not sure of my identity, i'm not sure where i belong in this country, i'm not sure that people in washington understand or are acting on my behalf. >> reporter: because candidate trump embodied their sense of identity sort of counter to the mainstream. >> absolutely. i wonder if we're not going to see a kind of consumer activism, identity politics, potentially a cohesion of the resistance or opposition to mr. trump, that actually has to do with an

emerging patriotism. a huge amount of the resistance when you dig down deep in is about the integrity of trump's actions with relation to the constitution or fundamental american values. >> reporter: how does that manifest itself in terms of consumption? >> you see it play out just this week at the super bowl, okay? so i'm fascinated by listening to all of the responses to the lady gaga halftime show but the reality is she started singing god bless america and she had a whole portrayal of what i will call incredibly patriotic songs by someone who would not be naturally assumed to be among the great patriots. and the reality is it's exactly what we are talking about. >> and then think about the ads. >> reporter: for example? >> well you know the anheuser busch commercial celebrating the arrival of august busch, the airbnb commercial, celebrating the diversity in the american population without ever talking

about what airbnb is or what it does. >> reporter: i literally did not know that was an airbnb commercial. >> think tactically from a marketing perspective, we're not talking about what airbnb is, but we are talking about the values of the airbnb brand or the values of the anheuser busch brand. it's a little bit like nike towns, we make these investments in our brand that may or may not translate quickly into profitability or feed the bottom line and yet they're long term investments in how we want our consumers to understand who we are. >> reporter: and your point about the airbnb ad being like nike, i mean, nike is all about image and identity and not function. >> just do it. absolutely. and it's been viewed from the long term remarkably successful. >> reporter: do you think that

there will be a group of companies now, or even products or services that actually embody the oppositional form, i don't know how to put this, the oppositional form of american patriotism and if so what would they be? >> i think we saw some of it this weekend as we saw some of the more subtle messages that came out of the commercials. we're about all americans, we're about being open to everybody we're about being absolutely clear that we welcome all to our country and to our businesses. >> reporter: so last question. do you guys imagine that four years from now we will have a country that's as divided in terms of what it shops for as who it votes for? >> if i extrapolated from the trends of the last several months i would say yes but that requires me to actually predict

that what we're experiencing today continues and gets exaggerated over the next four years. i as an academic can say that would be really interesting. as a human being, that's scary. >> reporter: from the harvard business school in boston, this is economics correspondent paul solman, reporting for the pbs newshour. a different kind of look at the views of one of the president's closest advisers, stephen bannon. how his past work in film provides a window into some of his ideas. jeffrey brown has our look. >> brown: he is chief strategist to president trump, close at hand as policy is made and decisions come from the white house. the president even recently appointing him to a seat on the national security council-- a controversial decision. stephen bannon has quickly gained so much of a reputation as an influential behind-the-

scenes string-puller that saturday night live portrayed him as the grim reaper in a recent skit. >> send in steve bannon. >> brown: bannon was well-known previously as chairman of breitbart news, the right-wing news organization that bannon himself called the "platform of the alt-right"-- a fringe conservative group that mixes populism, white nationalism and racism. but he's also worked extensively in the film world, as executive producer on two traditional dramas including "the indian runner," sean penn's directorial debut. and as the producer, writer and director of political documentaries, often released during election cycles. among his film topics: the global financial crisis, in 2010's "generation zero," sarah palin, featured in "the undefeated" in 2011. more recently, 2016's "clinton

cash," about alleged corruption in the clinton foundation. and also last year, "torchbearer," about an america turning from god, and the concurrent rise of a violent and radical islam. reporters at the "washington post" have been looking at stephen bannon's work in films and how he may inform his role as the president's rite-hand man. ann hornaday is a film critic for the post. matea gold covers news. >> bannon has made and produced fiction films in the past. it's really his documentaries that get the most attention. and often they have political themes. he has a few sort of canards and villains that he returns to. he doesn't like the clintons very much. he doesn't like any political elite very much. he rails against the sort of

permanent political class. he sees... the films often predict the world in very manaquin terms, very apocalyptic terms. >> brown: manaquin, black and white. >> good versus evil, clash of civilizations cage match. lately that's centered around what he calls the judeo-christian west and what he sees as radical islamic jihadism. >> woodruff: well, matea gold, he's referred to the work as a weapon newsing film. he said, "we've tried to weapon news films and do it in a certain way to get it to people who might not necessarily see a political documentary." so he's very upfront in this work as at breitbart. >> one thing that's important to understand about bannon is he's a canny practitioner. he's spoken admiringly about the techniques of the nazi

propagandaist and michael moore the liberal filmmaker. and what we've seen over the curse of his films is that he explored a lot of the themes, the nationalist and populist themes that really then echoed in donald trump's campaign. he did a documentary about illegal immigration. he went through a whole film that examined the fallout of the financial crisis. we saw him elevating figures such as sarah palin in his film. so we really saw him wrestling with some of these same issues that later came to bear in his politics. >> brown: let's take a short look at the "torch bearer" featuring phil robinson, best known for "the duck dynasty series" and the theme of defending christianity against the rise of violent islam. >> in the absence of god, the man with the biggest stick determines your worth. caesar demands his piece of incense. violence, decadence, political anarchy, moral decay, welcome to the city of man.

when he opened the fourth seal, i heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, "come and see these events, more to come," and i looked and behold a pale horse, and the name of him who sat on it was death, and hades followed with him. >> brown: there's a lot more graphic imagery we were not able to show. a lot of it is fast-paced and louder. what do you see? >> he's definitely perfected this rhetoric that's very hyperbolic, very stylized. he's an emotional storyteller. there are many ways to make a documentary. some documentaries are explanatory. they try to make a case in terms of rationality and data and evidence-based learn, but he's very much a guy who goes for the jugular. it's very emotional, very emotionalistic. and as matea said, you can see the echoes of threat rick style, that rhetorical style, not only in trump's rhetoric, but just in

the behavior in the first couple weeks in terms of the way they've approached, you know, say the immigration policies that they unfurled really without a whole lot of process involved in terms of making sure you get buy-in from agencies and legislators, because i think, you know, that kind of fused the same principle of make a big splash. >> brown: you got a look at an outline for a proposed film that never got made written by stephen bannon called "destroying the great rise of islamic fascism in america." >> this explored a lot of aspects of not only the potential of radical muslims to inflict attacks here in the united states, but the potential for muslim organization, community groups to be serving as front groups, and it also

would have explored the sort of appeasement, as he put it, of enablers such as the media, the university, the american jewish community, that the outlying argued were facilitating the rise of some of these radical elements. and this is a window enter how concerned and preoccupied i think bannon has been with the potential of fundamental islam here threatening the united states. >> brown: it uses phases like "fundamental clash of civilization," right? >> you've heard him speak about. this he actually gave a talk to a group at the vatican in 2014 in which he outlined a lot of these worries, the sense that he has that the west and islam are on the path of a major clash and war, something that's going to be very destructive. he warns in very dire apock lick tip terms, as ann put it, the potential for radical islamic jihadis to really gain ground in europe and also the united states, and that's something

that you see spread through all of his work. >> brown: stephen bannon didn't talk to you for the article, but you did talk to other people around him or who have worked with him. what do they say to explain or defend what he's after? >> people who know him and have worked with him say he does not harbor a bias, an animus toward muslims as a whole, but it seems that really this perception of what islam is has been overtaken in his mind by the radical elements that he really sees as the vast majority of people who practice islam. so i think it's sort of hard to separate where his personal views are and his political views are, but there is no question when he talks about islam, he talks about it as a sort of threatening set of beliefs as opposed to a religion. >> brown: ann, you brought up michael moore earlier as someone that stephen bannon admires as a filmmaker? there's a a long tradition of agitprops. >> they're both polemics.

>> brown: completely other side. >> he's perfected his on screen every-man persona. that's a rhetorical strategy in and of itself. but bannon-has stayed behind the scenes. sometimes he directs these films. he of often will write them. but when he's producing them, they really do share, i think, this kind of common grammar, and as matea said, what's interesting, especially in torch bearer, is that nowhere does he kind of acknowledge that islam all abrahamic religions. the god is presumably the same god, but that's nowhere... he doesn't see islam as a religion, it's more of an ideology. >> brown: matea gold and >> for the record, 9we've asked the white house for an interview with mr. bannon

about this and other subjects. they have declined our requests for now. >> woodruff: finally, to "newshour" share. something that caught our eye that we thought might be of interest to you, too. the oregon ask has gotten an unusual amount of snow this winter and has a video that's gone viral of its residents frolicking in the powder to prove it. we reached out to one of the ask's head keepers to learn more about how they and their animal counter parts deal with winter weather. >> my name is amy cutting. i'm an an mall curator here. i've been here 15 years. we've had maybe three or four snow events that caused us to close the zoo. this year has been exceptional because we got a lot of snow and it stayed around for days and days. so when we're closed to the public, the people who feed the animal, the veterinarian, the grounds crew, they make it in

regardless of what the weather is doing. they've been known to walk across the city the make sure someone is here to take care of the animals. there are definitely a lot of animals for whom snow would be normal, the polar bear, the river otters, we have cougars an black bears. they all really enjoy it. it's positive reaction when they see the snow coming down. a lot of them will go out and explore and have a great time. there are certainly animals here at the zoo for whom snow would not be part of their natural environment. all of the animals from africa, our asian elephants, just like your cat or dog first time they see snow, there's investigation, surprise, sometimes they like it and will romp around for a while and then realize they're getting awfully cold and wet and be ready to come inside. so they'll have access to the indoors, even if they can be outside in the cold. even our tiger and leopard from the siberian region, they have heated rocks and sheltered places where they can go. plus i think it's an exciting

opportunity for the animals to, regardless of where they're from, to experience something new and different. if you think about it, getting to encounter different kinds of substrate type, water, snow, ice, soil, straw, different kinds of bedding, it's yet another way we make sure our animals have a comprehensive experience of the world. i think one of the reasons people get so excited about videos of animals in the snow is it really is reminiscent, it recaptures that childhood joy and excitement you had when it's going to be a snow day tomorrow. i also think polar bears, unlike children at age seven, as i can attest from myself, they can be in the snow for hours and hours without ever feeling it. there's no wining about cold fingers or complaining, where is the hot chocolate. the sheer joy of getting to interact with that environment without any negative consequences is a really fun thing for people to watch.

>> cornish: once again the top story of the day, the federal appeals court based in san francisco has refused to reinstate president trump's immigration order. they issued the unanimous ruling late today. president trump called this a political decision and he tweeted to say the security of our nation is at stake. that's the nude hour for tonight. i'm audie cornish. >> woodruff: it's been great to have you with us this week. >> cornish: thank you. >> woodruff: and join us again online and tomorrow with mark shields and david brooks. for all of us at the pbs "newshour," thank you and we'll see you then. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> 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. captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

boom! hello, i'm julia child. welcome to my house. what fun we're going to have baking all kinds of incredible cakes, pies and breads right here in my own kitchen. how does bread from a bread machine stack up against a handmade loaf? lora brody, our bread machine wizard teaches us how to use this popular appliance to make everything from breadsticks to quitza.