captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the newshour tonight: >> one by one, it's going to come down, and we're going to have great health care in our country. >> woodruff: president trump deals dual blows to obama-era policies, first ending subsidies to health insurance companies through the affordable care act. then, he decertifies the iran nuclear agreement, saying the country is not living up to the spirit of the deal. >> we will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror and the very real threat of iran's nuclear breakout. >> woodruff: plus, unrelenting wildfires tear through california. firefighters make progress, but warn the danger is far from over.

and, it's friday. mark shields and david brooks are here to analyze a full week's news. all that and more, on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.

>> collette. >> the ford foundation. working with visionaries on the frontlines of social change worldwide. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions: and friends of the newshour. >> 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: late last night, the white house announced the federal government will immediately stop cost-sharing payments to health insurance

companies that help lower-income americans afford coverage. it is a move that many experts say could destabilize the health care marketplace. the trump administration argues that it could not legally continue to make the payments. and today, the president asserted the insurance subsidies have not benefited recipients. >> the subsidy is really a subsidy for the insurance company. that's not going to people; that's making insurance companies rich. that money is going to insurance companies to lift up their stock price, and that's not what i'm about. take a look at who those insurance companies support, and i guarantee you one thing: it's not donald trump. >> woodruff: today, the minority leader in the house of representatives, nancy pelosi, condemned this latest blow to the affordable care act. >> because of president trump's decision last night, middle income families will be hit the hardest. taxpayers will pay more. ending these payments will

increase the deficit by nearly $200 billion over ten years. what is he thinking? >> woodruff: we will walk through the implications of halting the subsidies, after the news summary. the president also announced today, he finds iran is not in compliance with the 2015 nuclear agreement reached with other world powers. he had certified the deal twice before, in july and april. in a white house speech, he stopped short of actually withdrawing the u.s. from the agreement, but said tehran isn't living up to its "spirit." mr. trump is now giving congress 60 days to decide whether sanctions that were lifted under the pact should be re-imposed. we will have more on the announcement and what comes next, later in the program. the speaker of the house of representatives paul ryan got a first-hand look today at the destruction in puerto rico. his visit came after president trump questioned the resources

the territory needed to recover from hurricane maria. speaking in san juan, ryan pledged additional federal assistance, saying that an aid package passed by the house yesterday "isn't the last." >> this is why we have the disaster relief fund. this is why we passed emergency supplementals. so we do believe that there is a very important, proper role at all levels of government to respond to this. now, in the meantime, for the immediate term and over the long haul, there is so much work to be done and we want everyone to know that we are absolutely committed to getting this done. >> woodruff: meanwhile, president trump did appear to take a softer tone on puerto rico today. he tweeted that he will "always be with" the island. in northern iraq, tensions are rising between the central government and kurdish forces. it is happening in the disputed territories around the oil-rich city of kirkuk. the kurdish government ordered thousands of troops to the area to confront what it called "threats" by the iraqi military. at the same time, kurds also

pulled back their defensive lines to avoid conflict. baghdad has tried to isolate the autonomous kurdish region since its vote for independence last month. new clashes ahead of kenya's presidential election re-run have left at least two people dead. authorities shot and killed the opposition protesters, who allegedly threw rocks at a western police station. and in the capital nairobi, riot police fired tear gas on demonstrators who defied government orders and tried to march on the central business district. back in this country, maine republican senator susan collins says that she is not running for governor. collins is one of the senate's few remaining centrists. she famously split with her party on its efforts to repeal the "affordable care act." she announced her decision to stay in the senate at a chamber of commerce event this morning in rockport, maine. >> i realized how much needs to be done in a divided and

troubled washington, if we are to serve the people that we represent effectively. the best way that i can contribute to these priorities is to remain a member of the united states senate. >> woodruff: collins is serving in her fourth senate term, which ends in 2020. california's governor has declared a state of emergency to combat a hepatitis a outbreak. it is the largest outbreak of the virus in the u.s. from person to person since a vaccine became available in 1996. 18 people have died. the proclamation allows the state to buy vaccines directly from manufacturers. the head of amazon studios has been placed on leave amid allegations of sexual harassment. a producer on the amazon series "man in the high castle" said

that roy price propositioned her with crude language in 2015. this follows sexual harassment claims by dozens of women against movie mogul harvey weinstein. the university of north carolina has avoided major penalties, after it had been accused of running sham classes for student-athletes for decades. the n.c.a.a. said the student- athletes did likely benefit from so-called "paper courses" but it "could not conclude academic violations." the school's chancellor said it was the "correct and fair outcome." and on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average gained 30 points to close at 22,871. the nasdaq rose 14, and the s&p 500 added two. for the week, all three indeces gained a fraction of a percent. still to come on the newshour: president trump's rollback of obamacare and the iran nuclear deal. wildfires show few signs of

abating in northern california. mark shields and david brooks on the week's news. and, much more. >> woodruff: the president's decision to stop paying subsidies to health insurers was his second direct blow in one day at the law that came to be known as obamacare. the payments are made directly to insurance companies which, in turn, use that money to reduce costs for lower-income americans. the money help pay for deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket costs. depending on a person's income level, they have lowered costs by about $1,000 a person, and can range anywhere from $700 to more than $3,300 a person. the subsidies were first challenged by a lawsuit from

congressional republicans in 2013. a federal judge agreed, saying the money was not appropriated by congress. payments had continued while the case was in limbo. julie rovner of kaiser health news joins me to help break this down. >> nice to be here. >> woodruff: welcome to the program. remind us, clarify for us who, what was getting these subsidies and why. >> there are two kinds of subsidies in the affordable care act. people up to four times poverty level get help with premium, but people 2 times, in addition to premiums, they get helps for out of pocket costs on the theory even if they could afford the premium they might not be able to afford coverage. about 7 million of the roughly 10 million people who buy on the health insurance exchanges south a majority of those people and actually they will continue to get these subsidies. >> woodruff: you were saying to me a little while ago , again

4% of the pofer level -- >> about $64,000, people getting help with the premiums. to get help with the cost shares subsidies you would have to learn substantially less per couple about $40,000. >> woodruff: what about first on the health insurance companies? >> this is where it's going to come home. right now the insurance companies are required under contracts and by the law to provide these subsidies to these low-income people, to provide the cost-sharing subsidies, there's the questions as we've seen with the lawsuits about whether or not congress formally appropriated the money, but whether or not congress appropriated it, the law says the insurance companies will provide it to the individuals and that the federal government will pay back the insurance company, so it's money that's owed. the easy way to solve it would be for congress to appropriate the money. >> woodruff: and these insurance companies, there is

some dispute about what that means for the insurance companies. >> there is a number of things the insurance companies can do. the president telegraphed from the beginning to have the administration he might stop paying these. for a while he was paying, waiting to see if congress would repeal and replace the affordable care act, and they didn't. companies have mostly built into their premiums for next year. remember open enrollment starts in about two and a half weeks, we've built in not getting these subsidies, but it's not true of every company or state. so a mixed bag. they can also sue and say you owe us this money and may be able to get it and others have sued on their behalf. >> woodruff: so it's out there and we can't predict at this moment. consumers, bottom line, what does this mean for people who have been receiving the benefits? >> there is a lot of confusion. not paying the subsidies doesn't mean the people getting them now

won't get them. if insurance companies pull out and they can do that, that's in most of their contracts that if these don't get paid they can pull out and nobody would get coverage, but if insurers stay the people getting the subsidies will continue to get them. the people who will pay are people who aren't getting help paying peoplously, the people who earn 4 times poverty line. an additional 7 million people will be asked to pay the entire premium increases because they're not getting help. >> woodruff: i think that's an outcome of this i think a lot of people have not focused on. let's talk about the cost to the government. on its face you would think, well, they're stopping the subsidies, that means the government will save a lot of money but it's not that simple? >> no, what's ironic is this will cost the federal government more money according to the congressional budget office because insurers will raise premiums and when they raise premiums remember the premium subsidies come in and will go up to match the increases in premiums. so people getting help won't see

the increases. as i mentioned, the people who aren't getting help, the people paying the entire premiums themselves will be asked to pay more and the government will also be asked to pay more. >> woodruff: looking at the overall healthcare marketplace, how much is this going to impact that. >> relatively small piece, about 17 million people out of 330 million americans, but even people who represent employer plans were complaining this could end up affecting them, if there are fewer people with insurance or people who couldn't pay out of pocket costs that providers would pass those along to people with employer insurance, that there are ways this could have a ripple effect, probably not a big one but it could help affect the insurance market. >> woodruff: the president's done this. could congress in any way step in and change? >> all congress needs to do is appropriate the money, and there's been discussions in congress since the last repeal and replace failed to do that,

to pay it for a couple of years, it's a bipartisan effort. the administration signaled they might not even accept that if coming were be able to come to a bipartisan decision to do this, if they might want to get more in order for the president to accept that. >> woodruff: it's one more step in a story i feel has gone back for eons. it's only been a few years but it's gone back for a long time, yet another wrinkle today. julie rovner, thank you very much. >> woodruff: in california, the death toll from the massive wildfires has risen to at least 32, and that number could continue to climb. officials say about 90,000 people have been forced to evacuate, and at least 3,500 homes and businesses have been reduced to ashes. from pbs station kqed in san

francisco, monica lam reports. >> reporter: the degree of destruction and death is unparalleled. whole neighborhoods reduced to rubble and ash. still-- a glimmer of hope, as officials say they've made gains on the ground. >> great progress is being made here. the resources out there are doing an amazing job. they're tired. they're working hard. but we're making great progress. >> reporter: napa country fire chief barry biermann said containment numbers are up for several fires, but warned, they aren't out of the woods yet. winds are likely to return to heightened strength this weekend-- what's known as red flag conditions-- and could blow new life into the already ferocious flames. >> today, the weather is cooperating, but we are going to back into red flag again. and that's going to be an issue. we're going to have to keep a close eye-- with low humidities and, potentially, wind for the next couple days.

>> reporter: a force of at least 9,000 firefighters have been deployed across california's wine country. since igniting sunday night, fighters have been overwhelmed by the velocity of the flames. >> none of the usual resources we used were very effective. when you get hit with something you can't deal with, it's a humbling feeling. it makes you realize how helpless you really can be, even in a position of power. >> reporter: more than 15 wildfires spanning more than 300 square miles still burn. >> you're amidst something that's heartbreaking, pretty much, so, that's kind of what it's been like. >> reporter: yesterday, in the evacuated town of calistoga, firefighters amongst the trees struggled to complete their one mission: contain the blaze. >> they're everywhere. you know, there's little pockets. there's parts that we just can't get to, so we're waiting for it. so yesterday, all yesterday, we were prepping houses. and we thought we were going to be defending houses, but now i think we're transitioning into that defense mode now.

>> reporter: sonoma county has sustained the most damage so far. the tubbs fire is responsible for more than 15 deaths, with 400 still reported missing. some evacuees have fled to the sonoma-marin fairgrounds in the town of petaluma. sonia diaz and her family arrived on monday. >> our son and our house is not under mandatory evacuation, but we decided to come because the smoke is really bad for our kids. >> reporter: the community has rallied around the grounds, donating numerous piles of supplies for evacuees in need. in addition, this emergency center boasts both mental and medical services. >> i just started posting on next door and facebook, and before i knew it, believe it or not, the community came in with these donations. they built this up. this is all from the community of petaluma. >> reporter: at a raceway in

sonoma county, wildfire evacuees set up tents and campers to wait out the flames. hilda napoles fled her home wednesday with her family. >> i said, when you have to run, you have to run. you have no choice. with nothing. you have to leave faster. you have to leave with nothing. you just have to save your life. and your kids' life. >> reporter: the napoles family have no idea whether or not their house is still standing. >> we're just, kind of like, scared, and worried that our stuff will, like, burn in our houses. >> reporter: as officials prepare for winds to pick up again over the weekend, once again spurring dangerous fire conditions, some 190,000 acres have already been seared. for the pbs newshour, i'm monica lam in santa rosa. >> woodruff: now, we return to the second major decision

president trump announced today. he refused to re-certify iran's compliance with the 2015 iranian nuclear agreement. nick schifrin has that. >> schifrin: today, president trump followed through on his vow to renounce one of his predecessor's signature achievements. >> today i am announcing our strategy to confront the iranian regime's hostile actions and to ensure that iran never-- and i mean never-- acquires a nuclear weapon. >> schifrin: president trump accused iran of violating the agreement's nuclear restrictions. he didn't decertify based on that, but because he said the deal didn't do enough to curb iranian actions. >> we will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror, and the very real threat of iran's nuclear breakout. >> schifrin: president trump cited long-standing criticisms: the deal doesn't restrict iranian support of groups such

as hezbollah, which the u.s. calls a terrorist organization. the deal doesn't restrict iranian missile testing, and the deal includes expiry dates, or sunsets, on iranian enrichment and uranium stockpiles. >> as key restrictions disappear, iran can sprint toward a rapid nuclear weapons breakout. >> schifrin: part of today's announcement was new sanctions on iran's islamic revolutionary guard corps for sponsoring terrorism. in iran, president hassan rouhani held a primetime address. he defended the revolutionary guard and called the deal non- negotiable. >> ( translated ): the iranian nation has not and will never bow to any foreign pressure. >> schifrin: the deal's defenders called president trump's statement misguided and dangerous. house democratic leader nancy pelosi: >> president trump's refusal to re-certify is a grave mistake that threatens america's

security and our credibility at a very critical time. >> schifrin: and the e.u.'s top diplomat, federica mogherini, said iran was in compliance. >> we cannot afford, as international community, as europe for sure, to dismantle a nuclear agreement that is working, and delivering, especially now. >> schifrin: what happens now is up to congress. senator bob corker will lead negotiations to eliminate the deal's expiry dates, and automatically re-impose nuclear sanctions if iran advances its nuclear program. >> in the event iran takes steps to move to a lesser place than a one-year breakout, and do certain things with intercontinental ballistic missiles, we're going to reapply our sanctions. we have provided a route to overcome deficiencies and to keep the administration in the deal. >> schifrin: but today trump said, if congress fails and allies don't get on board, he won't stay in the deal.

>> we'll see what they come back with, see if it's satisfactory. if not, in a very short time, i'll terminate the deal. >> schifrin: we break down that threat and the legislation before congress, with rob malley. he was special assistant to president obama and the lead senior white house negotiator for the agreement. he is now a vice president of the international crisis group. and, mark dubowitz is chief executive of the foundation for defense of democracies, a washington, d.c.-based think tank. he has been advising the trump administration on iran policy. welcome to you both. thank you very much. rob malley, let me start with you. a lot of people defending the president say, look, this is the best way to get any leverage to actually get a better deal. the president has to decertify, congress needs to make a move and the president needs to threaten to walk away. what's wrong with that. >> it's not going to work. that's what's wrong wit. we have a deal that's working. everyone who's looked at it says it's working. what's striking is that the

president who would be desperate to say iran was not in compliance had to say they are in compliance, and that's what he doesn't like. so the deal is working and if you del the iranians either you agree to change the deal or we're walking away or tell the europeans either you renegotiate or you're out, is that leverage or is that violating the deal that convinces them there is nothing to be done with this administration. i think the preference would be to tell the president, violate it on your own, we're not going to be accomplices. >> mark dubowitz,legs or violation? >> leverage, i agree it's working for the iranians because they're getting hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief the revolutionary guard is using to fund its destructive activities abroad and internal repression at home and the deal is working for rinerians because it was never about iranian compliance. it was all about iranian

violations with respect to the deal and a patient pathway to nuclear weapons and icbms. we are obsessed with rating violations they are obsessed with waiting for restrictions to go away and emerge ten years with an industrial-sized nuclear program with near zero nuclear breakout with icbms with, sr. fiewj they can hide under mountains a trillion economy and can use sanctions. sounds like the deal is working. >> does the deal hand these things to iran? >> let's remember where wear are in 2014 and 2016. the threat our republicans and democrats were saying was the existential request we faced was iran requiring enough fissile material to build a nuclear bomb. that's what everyone was saying they had to address. president obama addressed it. it's working. we have ten to 15 years where iran was at least a year away

from acquiring the fissile material and other restrictions would last longer than that. what mark is saying you threaten to walk away if iran doesn't renegotiate, which they won't do that, and then we'll face an iran with not only blah listing missiles but also with the freedom to go ahead and accumulate and enrich uranium at levels they currently can't do and without the inspections that are unprecedented and mark didn't mention that. >> so senator corker, we're shag has perhaps a solution to some of these problems and he's going to layout legislation that would have automatic snapback sanctions if iran dips below one-year breakout to a nuclear weapon and he says effecly rid the deal of the sunset clauses and penalize iran for its intercontinental ballistic mssile program. can that work? >> well, i think rob deserves a lot of credit for actually getting iran to one-year breakout so that's a good move.

>> because it was only about a month before. >> yeah, they got to the one-year breakout. the problem is brach brac baracd after year ten through twelve, breakout falls to weeks and days. bob corker said that's unacceptable as a matter of national security that iranians will be a turn of the strew away from having dozens of nuclear weapons. so he wants to lock in as a matter of statute and u.s. law and policy that iran shoul shoud never have less than one-year breakout and we have to find a bipartisan way to deal with the sunset vo visions so they don't emerge with a massive nuclear program and develop into nuclear weapons and threaten the united states. >> can senator bob corker and the senate unilaterally change the aspects to have the deal? isn't that a violation of the deal? >> sure, they can try.

they won't succeed. the way not to go about it is to tell the iranians today, by the way, we're unilaterally going to rewrite the deal, the deal which part of the compromise was after a period of time some of the restrictions would be lifted though iran would never be allowed to build a nuclear bomb, it still would have to submit to intrusive inspections, those would last forever, but some of the contraints would be lifted over time. that was part of the deal. if we tell the iranians that part of the deal which we negotiated for months we're taking it away, you're not going to have any freedom to lift any of these constraints over time, they'll say what's in it for us? what did we negotiate for? the right way is to say, let's implement this deal now. why create an artificial crisis when today we have iran at a one-year breakout timeline. let's keep it, if in four to six years we can sit with the iranians and say the deal is the

deal but there are some things we want now we would like to have more which is we would like some of these things to be extended there. may be things the iranians want. you negotiate. if you impose unilaterally, you encourage the iranians to do the same, the deal will cop laps and we will be alone in that. >> and mark dubowitz, that is one other criticism that this is going to isolate the u.s. and, you know, critics say, well, if we're going to try and change the deal now, our word is worth less and, so, therefore, people like north korea won't negotiate in the future. >> so what the president said in his speech as well is part of the strategy is not to work legislatively with senator bob corker but to work with the europeans. president macron said please keep the nuclear deal, don't walk away and if you don't walk away we are prepared to address the sunset provisions and the post-scenario that are problematic, we have to deal

with the missile program, we don't want iran to have icbms, we have to deal with their destructive behavior. so the europeans are already showing a willingness to shift the debate which is keep it and fix it instead of nix it. >> why don't we sit down and say -- why would the iranians sit down with us? >> it happened multiple times in the cold war when the soviet union had nuclear tipped missiles aimed at american cities. we walked away, negotiated deals, negotiated follow on agreements, it happened with the soviet union. even though everyone said the soviets were not prepared to negotiate but ronald reagan showed them that was not the case. >> we'll leave it there. rob malley, mark dubowitz. >> thank you very much. s, rob.

>> woodruff: stay with us. coming up on the newshour: a film portraying thurgood marshall's fight for justice, years before he sat on the supreme court. and, a foreign correspondent whose job made her rethink her own country's history. but first, to the analysis of shields and brooks. that's syndicated columnist mark shields, and "new york times" columnist david brooks. welcome to both of you. where to begin? i guess we start with, david, how much the president, over the last few days, seems to be trying to roll back the legacy of his predecessor president obama. the moves of obamacare, the affordable care act, the iran nuclear deal, we've just been listening to that, the power plan which he has sawed he's not going to support those regulations. he's going to completely undo them.

can he undo the obama legacy? >> well, a lot of it, these are all campaign promises. this is what he was elected on. i'm struck by a couple of things. first, he's more aggressive than just about anybody else in the administration. whenever you hear about what's happening in the administration, it's always other people trying to restrain him. the republican party has no great clamoring to reverse the iran deal. a rot of them oppose to the time but even very hawkish people said there is no use in going backwards, let's go forwards. so on that he's pushing harder. on north korea he's more aggressive than just about anybody else in the administration, so if you're looking to see a chastened donald trump, you're seeing quite the reverse in the last couple of weeks. >> woodruff: what do you think, mark? >> what do i think, judy? i think that the results of the alabama primary where donald trump was on the losing side with luther strange and steve bannon was on the winning side with roy moore are still coming in. donald trump since then has returned to the promises he made, to the applause lines he

got, and the healthcare being a perfect example of it. you know, there is no replace. i mean, so, the fantasy that there was a republican health plan has been totally exposed and exploded and donald trump gave the final lie to that. all he wants to do now is to destroy and dismantle that which was what he can't -- sam rayburn said any jackass with kick down a barn, it takes a good carpenter to build one. they're about dismantling. jim mattis, a decorated marine combat veteran said that the iranian deal, the senate armed services committee, is in the national security interest of the united states of america and donald trump, you know, some cockamamie explanation is going to change it to, you know, he's going to be playing right into

the hands of the iranian revolutionary guard. >> i would just say, it's not like -- we hear dismantle, dismantle and we think it's an act of destruction, that was my first impulse, but when you look, it's more complicated than that. the iranian deal, there are two pieces of it. the last discussion just reflected it very well that the iranians are keeping the nuclear peace but there was a hope which president obama expressed often is it would welcome iran into the community of nations. on the contrary, they are behaving worse and using the money we gave them to arm terrorists around the world. so donald trump and his policy are completely right to recognize the second piece takes a looking at. on healthcare, they are dismantling it, there will be a period of disruption. what was interesting about the c.b.o. analysis, after this period of disruption, there will be more, not less insured. so it won't look like obamacare but as the markets

respond there is a possibility more will be insured. >> woodruff: at a higher cost. i could not disagree more. more people will be insured on a cheaper plan. it's a great plan if you're healthy and young, just don't get sick and need medical treatment. donald trump promised repeatedly during the campaign including on 60 minutes it would be better, cheaper, wider for everybody, you could keep your doctor, would be better and happen immediately. that is untrue. you know, we have been in open collaboration with the iranian revolutionary guard in syria, against i.s.i.s., and, you know, when we talk about their money, giving us -- it's their money that we unfroze. >> iran's money. yeah. i just think i left the impression we're somehow writing a check to iran, those were the frozen assets of iran that belong to them. i'm not defending iranian policy but this agreement on nuclear was in the interest of the

united states. >> only on pbs to get i.s.i.s. and health care exchanges in the same paragraph as we talk to each other. i agree a lot with donald trump. let's start with the healthcare thing. donald trump oversold what he's doing and i don't agree with that. i think the exchanges were basically a moderate way to expand insurance coverage. i'm saying he has a philosophical position here, is that a lot of the subdz days involved in the big insurance pools is unfair to a certain set of people subsidizing the sick and poor and maybe as a society we should be doing that as matter of social solidarity. donald trump does not think so so he's giving more people especially small employers a chance to pool resources, create associations and give people insurance that which. so it is a vision. eth not just some nihilistic policy. there is a vision, more than one would expect. >> woodruff: you're saying there's a governing philosophy?

>> david just did the impossible, he detected a coherent policy in donald trump. donald trump never explained that. he has never gone before the american people or the congress of the united states and say this is why i'm doing it. david, i give him great credit, the power of perception, david has found in donald trump what donald trump -- >> i am the trump whisperer. you are it! >> woodruff: pre-k o still a lot of conversation, david, over the last few days about whether the president is singling out puerto rico. there are polls done asking people whether they think the government has done enough for puerto rico compared to what the government's done for texas after hurricane harvey, for florida after hurricane irma, and we're showing the numbers. done enough # 36, not done enough 55%. the message coming through based on several tweets and comments by the president is basically, you know, you, pre- puerto rico,

you've made this mess. we'll do a lit fortunately you but we won't be around forever. >> there was total graciousness toward texas and florida but he's incapable of showing any compassion and graciousness toward people who are just trying to find drinking water in puerto rico. so the lesson is the lesson that we're all going to draw from that is the people in puerto rico don't look like a lot of people in texas and i think that's probably a pretty fair judgment. >> it's a harsh judgment but an accurate judgment. the difference is 67 electoral votes. 38 electoral in texas, 29 in florida, none in puerto rico. when donald trump went down to puerto rico, what was he looking for, to understand what the people were going through, the health and public safety hazard? no. he was fishing for compliments. did they say we did a good job? do they say we're doing a good job? thank goodness we have a three-star general saying we are here for the duration, basically

saying we do have a responsibility to each other as americans, as fellow human beings, and the united states government recognizes that. >> a bit a sign his default position is never compassion and friendship. his default is attack if you attack me. that's character logical. his position is not 99% of humanity's response. >> woodruff: speaking of at that, we haven't heard as much in the last few days about his back and forth with senator bob corker i of tennessee. they were goingative hammer and tongue the last few days. we don't know where that will end up. what we are hearing is steve bannon, who was the president's chief strategists, said it's his mission to go virtually after ever republican in the senate to make sure they don't get reelected. >> except ted cruz. >> woodruff: except ted cruz, sorry. is that smart for the president to have his good friend steve bannon trying to do this?

is it realistic? >> it may very well be realistic based upon the alabama returns. it's certainly not helpful if you're trying to retain a majority to have a divisive and bitter primary for your party's candidate. but i don't think it's any question -- i mentioned ted cruz because the mercer family who are funding steve bannon, their original presidential candidate was ted cruz. so ted cruz is exempt from this purge. but, judy, steve bannon doesn't have a party, he's not a republican. donald trump is increasingly a man without a party. i mean, so he has no loyalty to the republicans, and he's depending upon them. as of last night, the republicans did not have the 51 votes needed to adopt a budget next week. if they don't have the votes for the budget you can say goodbye to any tax plan or legislative program. the republicans are going into 2018 because they need to pass a

budget to meet the senate rules to pass the senate a tax bill with 51 votes. so they are in terrible terrible shape. >> woodruff: is the answer, david, to elect more populist republicans on the republican line to get the is that in shape? >> i had a chance to talk to bannon and he's pling in terms of centuries. like talking to lenin in 19056789 he says we have the beabuchanan moment, palin momen, trump, that's a moment, we'll have a lot ohio more moments but it is 50 years ahead, and it is to take over the republican party with populists and if you can scare veraco, you can scare them all. so he has a world historical view stretching out 50 years. i hope he's wrong but he might be right. >> woodruff: is that a good move for the republican party to have this kind of turmoil? >> no, not for donald trump in the short term.

bannon is playing a long game where he already picked off one. if he can pick off one or two more sitting republicans then he'll effectively control them all. >> they're terrified, judy. if you're sitting in a district where the republican primary voters are 45, 50, 60% trump partisans and zealots, you are scared stiff of alienating in any way steve bannon or donald trump. so there's a paralysis of fear that grips republicans, especially in the house. you've got a safe republican district. that means that the majority of voters in your district, in the primary are overwhelmingly supporters of president trump. >> in that way it is sort of effective for him because nobody in congress likes trump. there is no relationship. >> none. so he governs by fear, not necessarily fear of trump but his base, and that's how he's governing and maybe the more roy moores are, the more fear there will be and he will have some party discipline that way. >> i think he's right. >> woodruff: you think he's

right? earlier you said -- >> better than the nationals. >> woodruff: we're in miles pe -- we're inmourning. mark shields, david brooks, thank you both. >> woodruff: and now, a new glimpse into the early career of one of the country's most famous legal scholars. jeffrey brown has this look at "marshall," in theaters now. >> you are making a mistake. >> brown: he was a man who would make history as the first african american supreme court justice. >> this here is mr. thurgood marshall. he's an attorney. you will respect him. >> brown: but the new film "marshall," based on real events in 1941, gives us a young thurgood marshall, lawyer for

the then-fledgling n.a.a.c.p., going from town to town to represent black defendants in a justice system rampant with discrimination. and this marshall, played by chadwick boseman and directed by reginald hudlin, is full of flash and swagger. >> what's in the bags? >> guns. books, mr. friedman. >> he loved sarcasm. he drank, he smoked, he flirts. you know, he's a real, kind of rock n' roll guy. and what i really love is that young people in particular see this depiction of this period of his life, and they go "oh, he's that kind of guy." and then they say, "well, i can be that." i could be a flawed guy who does the right thing. >> brown: the film centers on a real case in connecticut, in which marshall was asked to defended joseph spell, a black chauffeur accused of raping eleanor strubing, the wife of his wealthy white employer. >> it's a great legal thriller

that happens to star the greatest attorney in american history. >> the n.a.a.c.p. are not like most lawyers. we only represent innocent people. it's our mission, you understand? so i need to know this, did you do what they said you did? >> i never touched that woman. >> the stakes are very high. when we start the film, thurgood marshall has just lost a case in oklahoma. not only does this mean that an innocent man is going to jail for life, but the donations to the n.a.a.c.p. rise and fall based on whether he wins or loses cases. >> brown: yeah, and that's a very interesting aspect of this whole thing, isn't it? it wasn't just about the individual case, it was the larger cause and the need to raise money. >> right. so we think of n.a.a.c.p. as this venerable institution, over 100 years old. and the fact is, it was a fledgling organization that can go away very easily.

so, thurgood basically has to win this case, for the sake of the organization, for the sake of the community. >> brown: through the trial, we see glimpses of the towering legal figure marshall would become. >> here in america, our differences are not supposed to matter. here, we are promised equal protection under the law. nothing complicated about that. that promise has not been realized, not even close. >> brown: i asked actor chadwick boseman about the key to capturing marshall. >> the great thing is that you do have is the destination. you know what he's going to become. >> brown: even if he doesn't know it at the moment. >> even if he doesn't know it at the moment. you can't play what he doesn't know. people like that have a greater sense that you're here to do something. there's something inside of you that must be fulfilled. i did want to give a sense of that. and that confidence, that

9arrogance. >> brown: boseman is no stranger to tackling historical icons. he played baseball's jackie robinson in "42," and musician james brown in "get on up." but "marshall" posed a unique challenge because of the real- life circumstances of the trial. as an out-of-state attorney, marshall was barred by the judge from speaking in court. that, instead, fell to his less experienced partner, samuel friedman, played by josh gad, a jewish insurance lawyer and initially unwilling accomplice. so you, as an actor, are playing a guy who's famous for his ability to talk and persuade people, but he can't do it in this case. >> yeah. i think, when i was reading the script, at first, i was like, "wait a minute, how does this get resolved?" and i get to give my, you know, my closing statements at the end of the movie-- >> brown: you wanted to make

your big courtroom speech? >> --had to, you know? but the more i read it, i realized this was the exact obstacle that would make the movie interesting. >> brown: but for you yourself, the truth of the matter is, you're acting when you're silent. your non-verbals are dialogue subtext, and that's actually just as hard, if not harder, than having the huge speech at the end or the closing statements. >> brown: "marshall" was filmed in 2016, amid heightened racial tensions around the country. hudlin says echoes of past and present are inevitable. most of all, he wanted to portray a man making a difference. >> i would say, you know, thurgood ultimately was a saint. not an angel, but a saint. >> brown: what's the difference? >> well, an angel kind of implies perfection. a saint means, you know, you

push through your humanity, you do something greater than. >> brown: in 1967, thurgood marshall became the 96th justice of the united states supreme court. for the pbs newshour, i'm jeffrey brown. >> woodruff: journalist suzy hansen grew up in a small town in new jersey, before moving first to new york city and later to turkey, where she now works as a foreign correspondent. what she discovered, as you'll hear in tonight's "in my humble opinion," is how living abroad forced hansen to reconsider what she thought she knew about her own country. >> ten years ago, i moved to istanbul to become a foreign correspondent. i had only been there a month before someone called me a spy. he was a young turkish man, he had gone to a very good college in the united states, and he was a brilliant person.

so i was a little surprised that he would repeat that kind of cliché, that kind of conspiracy theory, about americans abroad. and he said, "why not? even if you are not technically a spy, no doubt that the information you are sending back to your country will be used for something terrible." i didn't understand what he meant by that, really. but then he said something else that surprised me even more. he said that he believed the americans had planned september 11th, that there was no way that the world's most powerful country could have let such a thing happen. you've got to be kidding, i said. and he replied: "you americans use that phrase so casually, you always accuse us of that, but it is the rest of the world, it is us, that have been a victim of your conspiracies." he was talking about the cold war. he was talking about history. these kinds of exchanges, these conversations, kept happening in my first years abroad; in turkey, in greece, in egypt or afghanistan. in greece, in 2009, i had been sent to cover the financial

crisis, and there, i was interviewing dozens of people, asking, "what happened here?" i always framed my questions to foreigners in this supposedly "tough journalist" kind of way"" what did you do to your country? how did you end up in this place?" i realized there was something accusatory in my questions: when will you ever get it together? when will you become more like us? and more often than not, the greeks-- from all different backgrounds-- replied, "well, if we want to talk about how this crisis happened in greece, we actually need to start with 1946 or 1949, and the greek civil war, and the american intervention. you know." they always assumed i knew what they were talking about, because this history, our shared history, was part of them, part of their identities and worldviews. what the greeks considered an american intervention, i had known as the truman doctrine. other than that, i had never known the united states wielded such heavy influence in greece. that history wasn't part of me. it was more than two years before i really felt confident enough to write for major

publications about turkey. i traveled the region, had countless conversations with foreigners. in the process, my worldview was changing radically-- it felt sometimes even as if my brain was physically changing. in those first years abroad, i saw that we americans were actually engaged in an intimate relationship with people all over the world, one that we knew very little about, and even if we did, it was not at all the whole story. before i could write about another country, i realized, i first had to understand my own. >> woodruff: and streaming on pbs right now: a new documentary focusing on advances in gene therapy. a federal drug administration panel made the recommendation yesterday to approve an experimental gene therapy for a rare form of blindness. "the gene doctors" focuses on a new army of physicians looking

at the root causes of genetic diseases and potential treatments. you can watch it now at www.pbs.org/genedoctors. right now, robert costa is preparing for "washington week," which airs later tonight. robert, what's on tap? >> we go behind president trump's latest push to dismantle his predecessor's legacy. what is driving his decisions, and could they force compromise? that's later tonight on "washington week." judy. >> woodruff: and we'll be watching. tomorrow on pbs newshour weekend, why so many baby boomers are paying off student loans into their 60s, 70s, and beyond. >> i can't afford to retire. i could never make the payments. >> reporter: payments for student loans she took out for her son andy about a decade ago. the $30,000 she still owes, plus interest, costs her $500 a month. and there's no end in sight. do you know how long it's going to take for you to pay your loan off? >> i don't think i'll pay mine off. i don't think i'll live long enough to pay it off.

>> reporter: the number of americans age 60 and older with student loan debt has quadrupled over the last ten years to nearly three million. and the average amount tey owe has doubled from $12,000 to nearly $24,000. >> student loans are structured to be paid over a very long period of time. they have no statute of limitations, which means that they follow you. they can follow you till you die. >> woodruff: that's tomorrow night, on pbs newshour weekend. and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. have a great weekend. thank you, and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> bnsf railway. >> collette. >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems-- skollfoundation.org.

>> the william and flora hewlett foundation, helping people build immeasurably better lives. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and friends of the newshour. >> 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 >> you're watching pbs.

welcome to "kqed newsroom." i'm scott shafer in for thuy vu. coming up on today's program, an update on the wildfires that have killed at least 35 people and burned more than 220,000 acres in california. we'll hear of one man's determination to save one of the oldest properties in the napa valley. also we'll gather a team of political gurus to analyze the week in politics, including senator dianne feinstein's decision to seek at term. and we'll talk with a uc berkeley professor about the link between climate change and devastating wildfires. but first an update on the fire. the death toll from wildfires raging across california keeps climbing. as of 4:00 p.m. friday, cal fire is reporting 35 people