hello and welcome to "kqed newsroom." i'm thuy vu. coming up on today's program, tensions continue to mount between north korea and the u.s. i'll talk with uc berkeley professor john yu about how technology is changing the rules for war. and the gop's proposal for tax reform. how will it affect the richest and the poorest californians? but first we look at a debate that's flared up again in the sports world. since last weekend, nfl players locked arms to protest president trump's criticism of athletes who kneel in protest during the national anthem. >> wouldn't you love to see one of these nfl owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say get that son of a [ bleep ] off the field right now? out. he's fired. >> professional athletes in other sports have also now

entered the debate, but the spotlight for now is still on the nfl, where the symbolic protests first began. >> i don't know why any president could use that kind of language on any subject, but we've just got to be positive about it. >> i think he's given us an opportunity. he's given us eyeballs to talk on the issues that colin and i started protesting about. i think it's helped us. it's helped people get past the fact that we're protesting during the anthem, and it's giving us an ear to why we're doing it. >> some fans say they wish football teams would simply stick to sports but the latest string of protests is being called historic for the intercession of politics and sports. scott shafer takes it from here. >> joining me now are san francisco chronicle sports writer ann killian and sports reporter kevin lynch. well, this is an issue that americans are paying very close attention to. there was an espn poll that showed it kind of split down the middle more or less.

what is it, ann, about this issue that strikes such a chord in people, do you think? >> well, i think it goes to the fabric of our country, which is, you know, we like football. football is this american thing. we've got the flag, the anthem, football players representativing -- which they don't really represent communities. they really represent corporations, branches of this big corporation called the nfl. but, you know, it goes back to some of the things of our childhood, what it means. and i think right now for a lot of people who do support this, they see this as an opportunity for these guys who have a huge spotlight to use it. and why not? but then, you know, there's in enormous backlash too. >> kevin, of course we saw this in some ways begin with colin kaepernick although there were other things that we'll get to later that happened before it. but the issue seems to have morphed from when he started the focus on police brutality and

racial injustice. do you see it? it seems to be changing almost every game day, including last night in green bay. >> yeah, i think it really does. i think one of the disappointments, i think colin kaepernick has and many of the athlete who's are protesting is when donald trump enters the fray, then we talk about him, and we're not talking about the issues that they really want to talk about and that they want to address. and a lot of those things are, you know, when we say social justice or we're representing injustice, you know, what does that mean? i think for them it means getting more things involved with community of color and more resources to community of color. >> you say that they wanted to talk about it, and they do now. but it was really a little bit below the radar. i mean it was really a relatively small protest, quiet protest until the president weighed in. so why? why did they hold back, do you think? any thoughts about that? >> well, i think there is guys like eric reid, who you just had on, who is continuing a protest from last year. but the climate has changed, you

know. when colin started doing this, donald trump was a candidate. there was an expectation he would not be president. it was a different kind of climate. now to continue it on this season, it's a very charged climate. charlottesville, you know. so i think there's been -- while there might be more reason to protest, it's also the stakes are higher. the volatility is higher. the noise is higher. and while the message is diluted and getting lost, i do think because now people are saying unity isn't protesting, a show of unity. but i think that a lot of these players are saying, we support our -- maybe we didn't take a knee, but we support the guys who did take a knee, and don't come at our teammates like that because we -- while we might, you know -- tom brady might not take a knee, he doesn't want anyone telling his teammate what to do. so i think there is a power to

this how it's morphed. i think what's happened last sunday was one of the most interesting and powerful days we've seen in sports. >> what do you make of the fact that the owners almost to a person decided to join with players in one way or another, locking arms, kneeling, staying -- you know, a couple teams stayed out altogether of the field until the anthem was over. what's the significance, do you think, of that unity between the players and the owners who, you know, often don't see eye to eye on things? >> well, i think they were criticized too. i think they were involved in what donald trump said. so i think they took it personally. i think that's why they joined with everybody else. >> but they were criticized in part for lightning up on making it harder to have hard hits and maybe worrying too much about concussions. kind of all these things got mixed up together. >> well, he attacked their business, and they're businessmen first and foremost. he attacked their bottom line, and that makes them angry. i think that they also feel that

he -- they are businessmen, but why is he involved in their affairs that way? >> so it's really just a don't mess with us? >> i think very much so. don't mess with us, yeah. >> they were trying to back him off. >> so where is colin kaepernick in all of this? he's been relatively quiet. >> very quiet. >> there was a "sports illustrated indication cover with steph curry and lebron james. colin kaepernick wasn't part of that. >> that was a joke that he wasn't on it. he did really -- he was the lone figure for a long time, and really he's lost his job because of it. he's given away a million dollars of his own money to -- and i think that's another thing that the owners and everyone involved in the nfl really resent is you can't call these guys s.o.b.s. i mean j.j. watt -- and he wasn't one taking a knee, but he just raised all that money for hurricane relief. these guys are out in their community. they are doing so much in their community on a daily basis. sure, there's some bad apples in

the nfl, but come on. you can't broad brush these guys, and i think that was also part of the protectiveness. but colin is one of those guys who is out there doing amazing things with underserved communities and kind of sitting at home. and i think, you know, he just decided i don't need to make -- >> kevin, does he stand to benefit from this in some way? >> no, i don't think he stands to benefit at all. i think there was a possibility that he would play this year. now i think that's not going to happen because of everything that is happening. >> he'd just bring more attention to -- >> exactly. the owners want to control this now. there's already rumors that the owners are going to the players and saying, this needs to end now. so i think colin kaepernick is the face of this, and he's the one who started it. and he's done, as ann mentioned, i mean here's a guy who got a plane to somalia to help starving people. >> yeah. >> if there's anybody in the nfl

who actually saves lives, it's colin kaepernick. >> he might have been able to get a plane to puerto rico. who knows? >> exactly. >> but i kind of disagree with you because i think this is now widespread enough that it's not just about colin kaepernick, and i think an owner could take a chance on him because there's a lot of guys who are kneeling and are problemably going to keep kneeling. so if your quarterback goes down and you think you might need someone -- >> he's got cover. >> he's got cover, but i think also the nfl owners are in a position now where they don't want this to tfn. i think they're employing a divide and conquer strategy. there was a call between roger goodell, the commissioner of the nfl, and many players just last night. eric reid wasn't even included in that call because i think he's very close to colin kaepernick. and he's also said, this is more important than my job. the nfl doesn't want players who say, this is so important to me, it's more important than my own employment.

>> let's not forget that this latest chapter sort of began with a tweet about steph curry, and the team was going to decide the next day, saturday -- >> a comment by steph curry on friday, saying, i don't want to go. >> to the white house. >> we're going to talk about it as a team, but personally i don't want to go. >> what effect do you think that's had on the warriors because there was some sense that, you know, it short-circuited a conversation that the team was going to have about whether they should go to the white house or not. >> that was going to be a short conversation. i think it hasn't had an effect on the warriors really at all except for them to, you know, band together to roll their eyes that the president is attacking steph curry, another guy who does so much in the community. and they weren't going to go the way it played out hurt the president's feelings apparently. >> when you think about the nba and the nfl and how race has played out either historically or now, what are the

differences? >> well, i think one of the differences is -- and i think the nfl has always been a very hubristic organization. they believe what they do, that they can overcome anything. >> and they're patriotic also, more infusing patriotism. >> right. although you could argue what eric reid and colin kaepernick are doing is much more patriotic. they're believing, hey, this union isn't perfect. there are large segments of our population who are being left out, and it's not justice for all. >> but then it's tried to intertwine itself with patriotism and the flag and military in a way that no other sport and organization -- >> the other thing i think should be pointed out about this is when colin kaepernick first did this, there was a big meeting with his team. and he confronted a lot of white players, saying, do you stand with me against discrimination, violence, and racism? and a lot of people who didn't want to stand for the national

anthem or -- or wanted to stand for the national anthem said, yes, i stand with you. i will still stand for the national anthem, but i will stand with you against these elements. that's missing now. a lot of these teams don't have a kaepernick to say, here's what this movement is all about. >> but a lot of them do. >> a lot of them do, but there are still -- i mean certainly the eagles do with malcolm jek h ins, but there are a lot of -- >> let me ask because we're a little short on time. when there have been historic protests in the past, the montgomery busboy cot, sitting in at the counters, it was clear what they wanted, what the protesters wanted. what's the ultimatum here? where is this going? what would be enough to stop these protests? when would they be satisfied? in other words, can they really effect the kind of change they're talking about? >> i'm not sure about that. i think, you know, what they want is a conversation. what they want is recognition that there's an issue that would

then help heal the conversation and make it be a real thing. i think leaders in the african-american to get involved and they want their voices to be heard. and they don't want the president of the united states to shut them down or fans to boo them. you know, they do have a platform, and they're going to use it. >> real short on time. is this -- have we seen the peak of this? we've got another weekend of games coming up, and a warriors game as well coming up on saturday night. has it peaked, and it's going to start subsiding? >> it could peak, yeah, and it could start to subside. i think that might be a good thing because i think then you maybe do put focus on what they're asking for, and that's more resources in community of color. >> all right. another weekend of games coming up. we'll see what happens. >> it will be interesting. >> thank you both so much. turning now to an international conflict. north korea's foreign minister has warned that his country is ready to shoot down american

military planes even if they're not in north korean airspace. tensions have been escalating as both countries have threatened the other with military action. we talk next with uc berkeley's john yu. his new book "striking power, how cyber, robots, and space weapons changed the rules for war" devotes a chapter to north korea. professor, you also served in the bush administration's justice department as well. he joins us now. welcome. >> thanks for having me. >> so the u.s. aproefrn "h" approach against north korea has been primarily relying on economic sanctions. where would new technologies, the types you're talking about in your book, robotics, for example, cyber, where would that fit into the current strategy? >> the problem that our presidents have had for more than 20 years is they've been stuck between essentially appeasement, bribery, paying off north korea, and having to consider a war that would kill millions of people in south korea and 30,000 troops and hundreds of thousands of americans who live in south korea. so as you say, we've tried to

fill that gap between those tragic choices with sanctions, which have not been really working. so new technologies, i think, offer ways to coerce north korea to punish it, prevent it, but to raise the costs for having a program in nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles as they've been building. >> and how so? can you explain? >> yeah. so defensively where technology, i think, could be first applied, would be to build a more complete missile defense system in that region. our missile defense system right now is relatively primitive, and it's built to shoot down missiles at the hardest point, which is when they're re-entering the atmosphere and heading towards the united states. that's the hardest time. that's called the terminal phase for a reason of ballistic missile launch. what you want to do is try to shoot them at the boost phase when they're first taking off. we've all seen the videos when a missile is first taking off. it's really slow. it's trying to defeat gravity. this is the easiest time to see the missile and to shoot it down. so high technology would allow us to put sea vessels, drones

around north korean airspace and to shoot the missiles at that point. >> so more broadly speaking, if you're looking at conflicts around the world, syria, iraq, where is the future of warheaded if you're talking about all these new technologies? >> interestingly about technology, we see the effects of similar technologies all around us in the economy with self-driving cars, amazon, drones, and so on. they have similar effects in war, we think, in striking power, we argue mores could be run more precise and less destructive. think of the drones we've already seen where they fire missiles at precise targets based on realtime intelligence using space. future drones are going to be even smaller, cheaper, more precise. so you're going to have less harm to civilians and hopefully it will head off broader wars if nations are able to use drones and cyber against each other in

lower intensity conflicts with less destruction, it might convince them to head off a pact to a major war. >> critics, and there are many including human rights advocates, point out don't you run the risk of having this lead to more provocation and things getting out of control because robots, for example, lack a moral conscience. they don't have accountability. they don't have responsibility for the decision. >> there's two kinds of criticism. i think they're both valid. i don't think they should stop us from developing and deploying these weapons, but one is war is too cheap and easy now. if you can send a drone and there's no casualties that our soldiers are going to suffer, then presidents are going to start sending drones to solve every problem. the second problem, this is more like elon musk signed a letter with 100 tech ceos last month calling for a ban on these kinds of weapons, is somehow we're going to lose control, and it's going to be like the terminator movies where the robots will take over and seize authority over war from us and might even

turn the weapons against us. i think that's science fiction. i've seen all those movies. they're great movies, but i think so far there's no evidence or proof that that would actually happen. should we give up all the gains and lower death, lower destruction, more precision, to where hopefully less wars because we're worried about some far off future where robots are going to take over? >> let me ask you something else also related to asia. president trump is going to be making a trip to asia in november. you authored the so-called torture memos during the bush administration. you've long advocated for largely unchecked presidential power in times of crisis. and north korea, we may be heading toward a crisis. what are your feelings about that now with president trump in office? do you still think that a president should have unchecked presidential power? >> i do. i'm not a personal supporter of president trump. i was actually quite critical of him during the campaign. i do think, though, that is why

we have a president is because a legislature, 535 people, can't make decisions quickly enough, and i think correctly enough, in time of crisis. so that's why our framers created the presidency is because, yes, a president can make mistakes. obviously we have a history of that. every country that has histories of their individual leaders making mistakes. but in times of crisis and emergency like in north korea, our framers thought it's better for there to be one person who can act quickly because emergencies are so unpredictable and the damage to our country could be so great. >> so would you feel comfortable applying that thought that you had during the bush administration to the trump administration, that is in times of crisis, the president should have unchecked powers that he can bypass the constitution? >> well, i think it's all limited by the constitution. i just think the constitution gives the president that role on behalf of the country. he is the branch or she is the branch of the government that has to respond quickest. and in times of emergency when national security is at stake,

as i think the president has the right to use the force of the country to stop those kinds of threats. i took that view. you know, i took that view under president obama. i think that's what made abraham lincoln a great president. i think that's what made fdr a great president, the ability to rise to circumstance. i would hope that president trump if faced something in north korea or iran would put aside these petty differences and stop tweeting about the nfl and rise to the, you know, the responsibility of his great office. >> all right. i want to ask you also about the free speech debate because you teach at uc berkeley, and this week attorney general jeff sessions weighed in urging what he calls a recommitment to free speech on campus. and basically saying that protesters shutting down speeches are shutting down speeches that don't conform to their views. do you agree with mr. sessions? >> i agree with the diagnosis. i don't know what his course of treatment is. i think you have seen in the last year or two speakers

primarily conservative being shouted down, prevented from speaking, interference with the rights of the free speech groups that invited them. i think a lot of this is being caused by people who are not students. most of the students i trust them to make up their own minds. i don't want their education to be just listen to an echo chamber. that's not why we should send our kids to college, and that's why our colleges are the greatest ones in the world is because we have free expression of ideas. i think the university has a duty and obligation to stop interference with free speech rights of anybody who is speaking on campus. >> let's talk about immigration. version three of president trump's travel ban now includes eight countries, and among the added ones, north korea and venezuela. what do you think of the latest ban? >> i think version 1.0 was unconstitutional because it

seemed to be aimed at muslim countries and muslims only. version 3.0, now that it includes venezuela and north korea, does not seem aimed at religion. i think it will pass constitutional muster unless president trump does something that raises questions in the minds of judges that he has some kind of racial or religious bias against muslims. >> all right. uc berkeley law professor john yu, thank you very much. >> thank you. it was great to be wu. now to taxes. on wednesday, president trump and republican lawmakers released a new plan to overhaul taxes. the president says it was lower taxes for the working class and simplify the tax code. >> under our framework, the vast majority of families will be able to file their taxes on a single sheet of paper. >> but some experts think the plan would mostly benefit the rich while expanding the national deficit. joining me now is uc berkeley

professor of economics alan auerbach. given what you know right now about the tax proposal, who will likely benefit the most and who the least? >> it's likely to benefit very high-income people because of the reduction in the top bracket. it's also going to benefit business owners of all kinds, partnerships, sole proprietorships, limited liability companies, corporations, because there will be a substantial reduction in the tax rate on those businesses. >> and also it eliminates the estate tax. >> it eliminates the state tax, that's right. >> which primarily benefits the rich as well. this plan, as you just said, cuts corporate taxes to 20% from 35%. the individual tax rate from 39.6% to 35%. but yet it raises the bottom rate from 10% to 12%. so how is the trump administration justifying its claim that this benefits the working class? >> well, they are doubling the standard deduction, which is the

deduction that most lower income families get. so for certain lower income families, there will be a bigger deduction. on the other hand, they're also eliminating personal exemptions, which are another benefit that every family gets, including low-income families. so it is quite likely that some low-income families will have increases in their taxes. >> are you talking when the state and local tax deduction? >> no. just because of the 12% tax rate. the state and local tax deductions are more of a middle income benefit, and one of the things that the proposal would do is to eliminate most, not all, tax deductions. and a really big one, especially for people in california, is the state and local tax deductions. so that's state income taxes, local property taxes, which a lot of people in california deduct, would no longer be allowed. >> and california is one of six states that when you take them together, they really take up more than half of all state and local tax deduction dollars, and

that's the data according to 2014 on the tax foundation. so what happens at this point? i mean what's the likelihood that something like this would pass because many of those six states are dominated by democrats, who are very unhappy with this proposal. >> well, i don't think that the president and other republicans who put this together were thinking a lot about the democrats. but they're are a lot of the republicans, especially in southern california, who were on edge about the proposal like this. they've got to run for re-election in 2018, and running on a new tax system that has gotten rid of this deduction is going to make them pretty unpopular. that's one of the problems whenever there's a big tax reform proposal. there are winners and losers, and the losers are already lining up to try to undo some of the proposed provisions. >> so are we looking at something similar to health care? do you think it will end up maybe a lot of noise but nothing actually happens? >> they don't have a deadline they have with health care of trying to do everything by

october 1st for parliamentary reasons. but they still have big problems because they have a number of things that are unspecified, and so for even though there is some opposition, there are a lot of people who don't know what to think because they don't know exactly what the proposal will be. when the details are fleshed out, there's likely to be even more opposition on some counts. and given that they're trying to do this in a partisan way without any help from democrats, they don't have a lot of room to maneuver. and if they lose republicans, they've lost just the way they did on health care. >> supporters say this plan will stimulate the economy. will it? >> it could. some of the business provisions should help investment. for example, there's a provision to allow immediate deduction for capital expenditures, which would certainly help investment. on the other hand, it also looks like the proposal will increase the budget deficit quite substantially. and if it does, that's going to be counterproductive in terms of helping economic growth.

>> that means future generations will pay. >> not only will future generations pay, but even in the short run, government borrowing will compete with the borrowing that companies try to do to finance their investment, and we may actually get less investment overall. >> so as an economist, what are the biggest questions you still have about this plan? >> well, i'd like to know about more details. for example, we know that there will be three tax brackets, 12%, 20%, 35%, but we don't know at what incomes those will apply. that's a pretty important issue, and we haven't heard about it yet. there's a proposal to limit the interest deductions that companies can take, but we don't know exactly what that's going to be. there's some pretty important pieces here that will make a big difference in terms of the effects as well as the impact on the deficit. >> devil is in the details, as they say, right? >> it is. >> professor, thank you so much. >> thank you.

and that will do it for us. you can find more of our coverage at kqed.org/newsroom. i'm thuy vu. thank you for joining us.

>> under pressure from the president, tom price resigns. i'm robert costa. we discuss a week of white house setbacks, controversies, and the new republican tax plan, tonight on "washington week." >> fear and desperation in puerto rico. >> this is not a good news story. this is a "people are dying" story. this is a life or death story. >> the trump administration defends its response to hurricane maria. >> i am proud of the work that's being done. i am proud of americans helping americans. friends and strangers alike. >> nine days after the storm, more than three million americans face dire shortages. >> we're going to cut taxes for the middle class, make the tax code simpler and more