on january 20th, donald trump entered the white house with a full agenda. >> the forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer. everyone is listening to you now. you came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement, the likes of which the world has never seen before. >> on the eve of his 100th day in office, we examine his presidency so far. he has signed controversial executive orders on immigration, the environment, and the economy. he placed a new supreme court justice on the bench. >> the american people, i am humbled by the trust placed in me today. i will never forget that to whom much is given, much will be expected.

>> and trump took military action against syria. >> it is in this vital national security interest of the united states to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. >> but opposition to his agenda continues on capitol hill, in the streets, and in the ports. tonight on kqed "newsroom," the first 100 days of the trump administration ask its impact on california. hello. and welcome. i'm thuy vu. tonight on "newsroom," a special one-hour program about the first 100 days of the trump administration. we'll talk with californians who voted for trump to get their assessment. and we'll get a snapshot from different parts of california from kqed reporters around the state. wus we'll here from people who have become politically active for the first time since trump took office. first i talk with california congressman adam schiff, ranking

democrat on the house intelligence committee. he played a key role in calling for an impartial probe into russia's hacking of the presidential election. leading to this revelation by fbi director james comey. >> i have been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. >> and joining me now is congressman adam schiff. congressman, welcome back to the program. >> thank you, great to be with you again. >> well, russia connections are continuing to make headlines in the first 100 days of the trump administration. particularly about michael flynn, president trump's former national security adviser. do you think he broke the law by not disclosing payments he received in business dealings with russia? >> it certainly does look like an apparent violation of law. think there are three legal clouds now hanging over general flynn. the first is whether he was legally entitled or even able to

accept the payments that he did from foreign powers, from russian entities, from the turkish government. the second is whether he violated the law by not reporting the receipt of these payments so when he submitted his forms for his security check where you are required to report contacts with foreign powers. then finally a question about whether any of the false statements he may have made also subject him to legal liability. so i think there are a lot of legal concerns in terms of the general's conduct. that may go into why the general has asked our committee for immunity. that is something that we wouldn't consider until we had reviewed all of the other witnesses and documents and determined, based on a proffer from general flynn, whether his testimony would add value. we'd obviously want to talk with the justice department to make sure that their equities were considered. but i think there are a lot of

legal questions now swirling around general flynn's conduct. >> how would you assess the performance of the trump administration so far in the first 100 days, insofar as its impact in california? >> well, you know, to be candid, it's hard to imagine an administration off to a worse start from the california point of view. an administration that is running in the wrong direction when it comes to issues like climate change, where california has been the leader. the administration has been repealing the obama clean power plan. wants to go backwards in terms of fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. may walk away from the global climate agreement we reached in paris that united states helped lead that global effort. so on environment, it's been disastrous 100 days. he's also thinking about repealing the establishment of some of the national monuments. when it comes to the immigrant families in our district and breaking up families, the far more aggressive deportation policies are a disaster. when it comes to our relations

with our southern neighbor, a wall proposal is a disaster. the health care plan the republicans have and the president supports would cut more californians off of health care than any other state. so in each and every way, whether it's tax cuts, immigration, the wall, the environment, this administration couldn't be more hostile to the values that our state embodies. >> president trump this week released his texas reform plan. it includes massive tax cuts for corporations. what is your reaction to that plan? >> well, i have a couple of reactions. you know, it's certainly good for people like the president that have a big business and would benefit from that kind of a major tax cut for corporations and for very wealthy americans. but the biggest problem is, none of it is paid for so it's all pie in the sky. it's all, well, we can give everybody a tax cut, we don't have to cut anyone's services, and we don't have to worry about our deficits and debt. well, we already have a substantial deficit, a very

substantial national debt, this will add $7 trillion to $10 trillion to the national debt. so it's not so much a tax plan as it is kind of a wish list of what the president would like to do to his wealthy benefactors, for his wealthy benefactors, and for his own family. but it doesn't offer much for americans and for people in california in particular, it would really hurt us. in a couple ways. it would hurt us because they're going to do away with the deduction for state and local taxes, meaning states like california that provide a lot of services will have to cut those services because the states won't get that kind of benefit anymore. and when you add that to the health care reform proposal republicans have, it means we'd be cutting millions off of medicaid in california. we'd be cutting millions out of the exchanges that have pre-existing conditions who couldn't afford coverage. and the states would be in even worse position to provide any

backfill support because of this tax cut plan of the president's. so for california, terrible news all around. >> also wanted to turn to foreign policy with you and ask about north korea and the rising tensions there. what tools do we have in our diplomatic arsenal right now to contain the north korean threat? >> the most important one that we have is our ability to use our leverage with china. we don't have that much leverage anymore with north korea. we already sanctioned them, at least directly, in as many ways as we possibly could. but there are other steps that we can take to impress upon china, which provides this lifeline, the safety valve, for north korea, to clamp down on the north if it's going to continue with its nuclear missile program. so there's a lot the chinese can do that they haven't been willing to do. and to the degree we impress upon china that, look, if you don't take these steps, we're going to have to do things for our own national security and that of our allies that you're not going to want to see. we're going to have to increase our military and nato presence in the region. we're going to have to be more

aggressive in terms of our implementation in missile defense which we're starting to implement in south korea. we're going to impose secondary sanctions meaning we're going to sanction chinese banks for doing business with north korea. these are kind of steps that the chinese do not want to see happen but i think if we explain, these are going to be necessary, it may motivate the chinese to do a lot more. it's still no guarantee that the chinese can get north korea to back off but we do need to explore every lever we have, because the military options are just so awful. >> all right. congressman schiff, thank you so much for being with us. >> you bet, thank you. still ahead, we will hear from people who have become politically active for the first time since trump was elected. but right now, for a different look at president trump's first 100 days in office, we turn to kqed senior editor for politics and government, scott shafer. >> joining me now are republican national committee woman from california, harmit dillon.

long dive time republican political consultant sean walsh. "san francisco chronicle" politics reporter joe garafoli, welcome. something we heard adam schiff talk about, that is the california penalty. noting that a lot of the president's policies on the environment, health care, immigration, the new tax plan, seem to be singling out california for additional punishment. sean, what do you think of that notion? >> i don't think it's singling out california for punishment, but california always wants to have it kind of my way. they almost act like they're an independent state. so i remember when governor wilson was governor, you had a number of folks who said, well, california can't have its own immigration policy, the federal government has that exclusive right and responsibility. now it's 180 degrees different. so the truth of the matter is california wants a lot and asks for a lot and acts like it's its own independent state but it's not being punished, it just has policies out of the mainstream and policies donald trump articulated when he was running for office. >> is there an element of

payback to any of this in terms of, you gave hillary clinton 4.3 million votes than i got? >> not at all. every republican i know and a lot of state voters and democrats are very much anticipating and looking forward to law and order returning to california. the immigration -- failure to enforce our immigration laws is a big problem for safety and security -- >> what about the tax plan? that in particular, and i realize it's just a one-page piece of paper and not implemented. >> a recently floated one-page piece of paper. i seriously doubt there was a lot of analysis that went into it with regard to that one aspect, the deduction of the state income taxes. i'm sure there will be a number of refinements. we have a lot of members of congress from california from both parties who will have a lot to say about that. so it's a draft. i don't see it as some kind of penalty. >> joe, just politics? >> california's treating it like it's a penalty. setting up their own sanctuary state. even talking about setting up their own sanctuary cannabis state. so california can have its own cannabis laws and push back on the federal intrusion to those.

so it's definitely politics. you know -- it's good for politicians -- >> that's the way the states and the south acted with regard to the slavery issue as well. and so there are limits to the concept of federalism and the federal government does have exclusive jurisdiction over some areas of our laws. and california needs to respect that. >> so scott -- >> what adam's not saying is, so california, huge companies that have hundreds of billions of dollars offshore. >> apple, google. >> if we repatriate that money to the united states, apple, google, those companies are going to bring that money back to california and california is going to have a windfall of tax benefits. >> taking a step back, big picture, almost 100 days of the trump administration. one word for you that encapsulates the first 100 days? >> gorsuch. >> gorsuch, okay. >> slow, steady progress. not one word -- >> that's not one word.

joe? >> chaos. >> so i'm wondering, certainly the gorsuch nomination, big success, everyone would agree. he has done a lot of the things he said he would do on immigration, environmental regulations. yet his approval ratings are very low. i'm wondering why do you think he hasn't been able to move beyond his base in terms of what people think about him and whether they support him or not? >> he doesn't -- he's not yet learned that governing is different than campaigning. fantastic campaigner as we saw. but he didn't come in with -- he makes these pronouncements but there hasn't been the policy behind them. whether it be syria, which was well received on both sides of the aisle. what's our syria policy? he violated politics 101 by bringing the affordable care act vote or halting that -- >> was that him or paul ryan? >> both. he has to own that too. reince priebus should know

better, paul ryan should know better. he has both houses of congress. this is his time to act and we're not seeing it. >> joe said he violated all the rules. he's been doing that all along and people keep waiting for the laws of gravity to apply and they don't seem to apply to him. >> my abuse of the one-word rule, number one he only has his cabinet secretaries in place. i've been back in california the past two weeks. it's almost a ghost town around the executive offices. the assistant secretaries and deputy secretaries have been appointed but not confirmed and put into place. i think you'll see progress on that issue. the one area i think that i have concern about is mr. trump is going to have to work with the members of congress on the republican side and get legislative successes. it is critical those two elements work together. because the clock is ticking. when you go into next year, you are going to be looking at a re-election cycle. everything changes. >> has he squandered the honeymoon? typically the first few months you can get a lot done because your popularity is high, people are giving you the benefit the

doubt -- >> he's not playing by any traditional rules. i agree with both the other speakers here that he's -- if it could come from his mouth and directly to his base and sign it like the executive orders, then that's gone very well. that part where he's able to exert his will over the jurisdiction that he has. but where dealing with congress is a predicate to getting things done, i think that's where the team has got some ways to go. >> on the executive orders, the first travel ban was struck down. the second one was as well. and he didn't run it really by the agencies that were affected. homeland security, so on. even i think linreince priebus didn't read it. that is a failure of just being coordinated? rookie mistake? his temperament? what accounts for that sort of beginning? >> what accounts for that beginning is i'm not sure how many people actually thought mr. trump was going to win. he ran an unconventional campaign that was very small so he didn't have very large teams

in place that then get pulled up and put into an administration. even his white house team. i don't think he had the personnel and people around him to implement what he wanted to do and i think he rushed to try to execute things he said i'm going to do on day one. you say day one but you need to have your act together, your policy in order, and your fact sheets done. they just threw it all out there and it was easy to get mashed up in a blunder. >> day 100, he doesn't have number two, number three, number four, number anything in the department of justice. s so the lawyers who are arguing and processing the defense of all these important issues are either legacies from obama administration or career officials who don't share the views of the president. and that shows in the lawyering. >> but he's also, like in the state department, said there's a bunch of jobs i'm not going to fill at all. because we don't need them. >> that appeals to the base. less government is more. and -- but you have to also have enough team players to get stuff done. the thing is, he played 103

promises during the campaign. he's kept six so far. and none of them had to do with the cooperation of congress. so he has to link arms. and -- but let's face it, here's a guy who's come from -- spent his career in a family-owned business with no board pushing back against him. there's nobody who's pushing back against him now. and he has to learn to play in the sand box with other people. he hasn't been doing that. >> you mentioned california at the beginning with adam schiff. and whether or not is he taking it out on california? there was also a $650 million grant for cal train electrification that got yanked back. what about that? is that not punishing the state or punishing jerry brown? >> it got more yanked back, actually, from republicans in congress who don't think we should have the high-speed rail and that's effective use of the money. i wouldn't conflate that as punishment for california, they just don't like that policy, they don't want to see the federal government on the hook for tens of billions of dollars which will probably be over a

$100 billion train all said and done. >> it's exposes regional differences in california. devin nunes told us at the quenlgs, why doesn't silicon valley pay for that? all those rich guys there. why is that incumbent on the federal government to pay that? >> there's regional pay -- back -- >> he ran on infrastructure, we haven't seen any plan which presumably would include rail. >> there's legitimate concern by any sane person looking at the way california has run its finances, the uc system slush fund for example, can you trust california for money? i give them money for this, maybe not looking at the fine details, and will it go into some other pocket of pie in the sky project like the high speed rail project that democrats and republicans a lot of them have concerns about. >> go ahead, sean. >> well, and to further add to that, california is part of their health care put 4 million people on medi-cal. 4 million. so they are now putting -- >> it's also a very stable exchange. >> well -- let's see. when the bills come due and the

fact that the federal government as it phases out or ramps down how much money we're going to give to the state of california. putting forward a single payer initiative? last time mr. leno put a similar bill forward, department of finance scored that a $250 billion cost. >> jerry brown has indicated he's not going to sign that. >> also those folks on medi-cal, the expansion, a lot of those folks are in trump counties that he won. he could be his own political seed corn if they lose their health care and they're like, wait a minute, what happened, i voted for you. >> obviously i think the president acknowledges that and frankly a lot of conservatives have taken issue with the president's details about wanting to satisfy all of these concerns, but i think we're going to see something else. i don't think it's fair to say that the current situation here in california is stable. i don't hear anybody who's happy with it. >> really quickly, going forward what would you like to see change? >> i'd like to see get staffed up. i'd like to see a methodical

execution on the policies that he articulated when he was running for office. don't rush to the party. get it done. you don't have to get it all in one bite. he's got four years and possibly eight years. do it in a slow, methodical way. after four years you'll have success. >> we'll be back after the next 100 days and see how we're doing. thank you all very much. sean walsh, dillon, and joe, thank you. immigration has been one of the biggest issues for this administration so far. here's a timeline of key events. on day eight, trump signed an executive order to clamp down on travel from several countries in the middle east. it ignited a weekend of protests at airports around the country. on day 21, the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled to block it. trump threatened to take the case to the supreme court but issued a revised version of the ban. another executive order to cut off federal funds for sanctuary cities was challenged by san francisco and santa clara county.

day 95, a federal judge knocked down that order. for many people, donald trump's election was a turning point. one that inspired them to get more involved in politics to make their voice heard. i talked with one of those people, eleanor chang, who at the age of 60 found a new calling for political action, both online and on the streets. san francisco retiree eleanor chang is a u.s. citizen who never thought much about politics. >> i have never been politically active, being from hong kong, we were told as youngsters not to be political of anything, right. >> reporter: but donald trump's election changed everything for her. for the first time, she felt she had to publicly stand up for the values she treasures. >> as a student from hong kong to come to the united states, i felt i had wonderful opportunity to get a good education, establish a very good career, i

felt very lucky to be a u.s. citizens. i feel as immigrants we all help build america. >> reporter: at 60 years old, she headed to washington, d.c. for her first political protest. >> when i learned about the women's march, i was so excited. because i said, i have to go and be part of that. >> tell me about this photo here. >> this is my cousin and her daughter. the three of us, first-time marchers. >> all three of you? >> all three of us, all the generations, putting on pussy hats. >> i love that. >> here's the shot of this woman who gave me the poster after i admired it. >> what was it about that poster that you liked so much? >> you can see her hair was just amazing. and then her looking up. and the expression, just the hope to me. it says hope. >> also a strong message about women. >> very uplifting.

>> reporter: after a long career in the banking industry, chang says she's discovering a new passion, political activism. >> i'm hoping that they will send a message to president trump that his positions are not exactly what everybody is thinking in their minds. that he would listen to us and help us become more of a diverse and civilized society. >> reporter: but if president trump doesn't get this message, she feels she can still make a difference by empowering other women to find their own political voice. so vreally nice things about upcoming programs they have going on -- >> it's really important for us to have a network of friends to continue to talk about the issues that we face. and then to also keep up the momentum and to cheer each other on to continue to resist. a lot of them, they're afraid of public speaking. and actually, once they get

trained, it's really not too bad. not too hard, right? >> yes, exactly. >> because we do it. >> right. >> this whole process let me think that i've been empowered to do something that i believe in. that i could be active and engage and tell people about it. i'm really excited i found that in myself to be able to be politically active. >> it will never be too late, even at 90. >> as people like eleanor chang were protesting around the country, another clash was quietly mounting as attorneys began filing complaints and lawsuits. the steady stream of court challenges has placed lawyers on both sides and judges at the forefront of policy in the first 100 days of this new administration. joining me now with analysis is uc berkeley interim dean at the law school, melissa murray, good to see you again. >> thank you for having me. >> president trump has a broad agenda. we've seen lots of demonstrations. at the end of the day it seems like the people at the forefront

of this fight against the president's proposals are the attorneys. >> it's a great day for law schools. lots of things are happening. every new administrative effort seems to spark some kind of legal response. and lawyers have been right there. lawyers from my own law school, uc berkeley. it's been really energizing for the legal field. but also a bit exhausting. it's been nonstop for the last 100 days. >> so legal challenges to presidents aren't anything new. we saw that in the nixon era. his fight to keep his oval office tape recordings secret, went all the way to the supreme court. we've seen the obama administration's immigration rules facing court challenges. what is different this time? >> well, what's different about this time is it seems to have started immediately at the beginning of a presidential administration. and it doesn't seem to have let up at all. so it's only been 100 days but there's been so much to talk about. and lawyers have been at the forefront of all of it. so from the travel ban to the

neil gorsuch nomination to the planned to defund planned parenthood. this is nonstop legal action, all interesting to follow but again, really exhausting. it's a lot to handle and we have 1,300 days left. >> speaking of the travel ban, the attorneys that brought those challenges scored a victory but there are some other suits out there. do they possibly face tougher hurdles? for example, i'm thinking of the one that the group citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington has filed. it has to do with the emoluments clause. charging that the president's failure to sell his business interests really put them in a blind trust, actually violates the constitution. how tough are the hurdles for that type of lawsuit as opposed to an immigration ban challenge? >> so in every lawsuit there are two big issues. one, procedurally, does this lawsuit belong before a federal court? are the plaintiffs the right plaintiffs to bring the case? and then the substantive issues like on the merits does this violate the constitution?

here, before we even get to the merits question, we have to determine whether or not the plaintiffs are the right plaintiffs to be bringing this. and the public interest group crew that you mentioned has brought this suit but immediately faced a question of whether or not they have standing as plaintiffs because they are not directly harmed by the president's refusal to put his interests in a blind trust. they've amended their lawsuit to include a group of restaurants and other hotels. but they still face something of a hurdle on the standing question because even though these groups might be able to claim injury due to the president's failure to put his interests in a blind trust, there's still questions about whether or not this can be traced directly to the receipt of an emolument and whether it's redressable by a federal lawsuit. there are a lot of standing questions in that suit but it raises broader juanness of the emoluments clause and violations to it, and that puts the administration in the hot seat. >> let me ask about the ninth u.s. circuit court of appeals as well. the rulings huntsmanhalting the

bans, both ended up in the ninth circuit appeals court. this week president trump said he has absolutely considered proposals to break up the ninth circuit, carve it out, make it smaller. how serious is that threat? >> he's not the first president to talk about breaking up the ninth circuit. it's the largest circuit in the country, headquartered here in san francisco. but it takes on all of the western states. so everything from montana and idaho to alaska, hawaii, california, arizona. it's massive. >> nine west coast states and two u.s. territories. >> it's a massive court. it also hears quite a large volume of cases. the charge has always been that it's famously liberal, but it hasn't really been that liberal in recent years. president carter appointed a number of nominees who were famously liberal, but in recent years, president clinton has appointed the largest number of judges to that court, and president obama and president bush have also appointed members. and they're more moderate than they used to be for sure.

so the idea that this is a left-leaning court, that's changed a lot i think over the last couple of years. it's much more moderate still, the idea that it as liberal court lives on. again, this particular imposition on the ninth circuit that president trump has raised sort of around the idea of politics, that this is a court he will not get a fair hearing in because it is liberal. lots of people have made that claim but it's very hard to break this up. you have to get congressional approval, it has to go through congress. many judges have said this would not make sense to break up. the natural splitting of this particular circuit doesn't seem that natural at all. the last time we had a circuit split is when the fifth circuit, which included southern states, texas, florida, georgia, split into the 11th circuit -- >> what year? >> back in the '80s. >> you vu: and that concludes the sunday edition of our special program. to see the full hour of our coverage, go to... i'm thuy vu. thank you for watching.

captioning sponsored by wnet on this edition for sunday, april 30th: president donald trump defends his first 14 weeks in office and looks ahead. also, how many of those detained in recent immigration raids have a criminal record? and in our signature segment: using drones to prevent dangerous encounters between elephants and people. next on "pbs newshour weekend." >> pbs newshour weekend is made possible by: bernard and irene schwartz. judy and josh weston. the cheryl and philip milstein family. the john and helen glessner family trust-- supporting sue and edgar wachenheim, iii. barbara hope zuckerberg.