good evening. i'm geoff bennett. amna: and i'm amna nawaz. on "the newshour" tonight. tucker carlson out at fox news. how the host became a leading voice for the far right and what his departure means for media and the republican party. geoff: foreign governments scramble to evacuate their citizens from sudan as fighting intensifies between the army and paramilitary forces. >> the civilians are bearing the brunt of what these two individuals are are doing right now, which i think is a power struggle just to be in power. amna: and, arkansas' republican lieutenant governor weighs in on the debate over access to abortion medication, now in the hands of the u.s. supreme court.

♪ >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- ♪ and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions and friends of the newshour including leonard and norma klorfine and koo and patricia yuen. >> it was like an aha moment, this is what i love doing. early stage companies have an energy that energizes me and these are people that are trying to change the world. when i volunteer with women entrepreneurs it is the same thing. i'm helping people reach their dreams. i'm thriving by helping others every day. people who know, know bdo. >> the william and flora hewlett

foundation. for more tha yrs advancing ideas and supporting institutions to promote a better world at hewlett.org. and with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. ♪ ♪ >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. amna: welcome to the "newshour”" three high-profile departures in less than 24 hours marked a

major shift in the u.s. media landscape. geoff: fox news abruptly announced prime-time host tucker carlson is leaving the network effective immediately. that is just days after the fox corporation settled a legal battle over accusations that fox hosts, including carlson, aired false election claims. also today, cnn host don lemon tweeted he had been fired after 17 years at the network, adding -- quote -- "it is clear that there are some larger issues at play." lemon had been criticized for controversial comments he made about women and aging on air. and nbc universal ceo jeff shell was let go sunday after admitting to an inappropriate relationship with a woman at the company. we start with a closer look at what's behind fox's decision to let its highest rated prime-time host go so suddenly. >> good evening, and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight.” geoff: for more than six years, tucker carlson has been a force in the prime-time cable news landscape, a champion for the trump era gop, a bullhorn for conspiracy theories, and fox

news' most popular personality. tucker carlson: this is the boldest election interference ever attempted in this country's history. geoff: but in an unexpected announcement today, fox abruptly severed ties with carlson, the network saying in a statement only that they agreed to part ways, adding: "we thank him for his service to the network.” >> lies have consequences. geoff: the announcement comes less than a week after fox settled an historic defamation lawsuit, agreeing to pay more than $787 million to dominion voting systems for the network's role in promoting lies about election fraud in 2020. tucker carlson: you have heard a lot over the past few days about the security of our electronic voting machines. and this is a real issue. geoff: carlson was a key figure in that case, pushing those false claims and conspiracy theories on fox's airwaves, despite admitting in private that he didn't believe what trump and his team alleged, carlson even calling mr. trump a demonic force in a text message

late on january 6 2021, according to a court filing. still, he staunchly defended the former president and his supporters after the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. carlson has repeatedly and falsely argued that the insurrection was actually a false flag plot and that the defendants charged for breaching the capitol are in fact victims. tucker carlson: the doj has been allowed to prosecute and jail hundreds of nonviolent political protesters whose crime was having the wrong opinions. geoff: earlier this year, with help from house speaker kevin mccarthy, he aired selectively edited security camera footage to promote his case. tucker carlson: they're not destroying the capitol. they obviously revere the capitol. geoff: over the years, carlson's outrage-driven monologues have drawn scrutiny for amplifying and promoting antisemitic, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic narratives, in 2018, losing advertisers after this anti-immigrant tirade. tucker carlson: we have a moral obligation to admit the world's poor, they tell us, even if it

makes our own country poorer and dirtier and more divided. geoff: carlson has also promoted the so-called great replacement theory, a racist conspiracy theory about a covert effort to replace white populations in majority-white countries. tucker carlson: they say it constantly. the great replacement? yes, it's not a conspiracy theory. it's their electoral strategy. and we know that because they say it all the time. geoff: today, his unexpected departure drew celebration from the left, as the news broke during the daytime talk show "the view.” whoopi goldberg, co-host, "the view": they thank him for his surface and as a contributor. wave. geoff: fox says it will rely on a rotation of interim hosts until it names a permanent replacement. carlson's departure from fox news raises many questions about the right-wing network's future. we're joined now by brian stelter, a special correspondent for "vanity fair" and the author of "hoax: donald trump, fox news, and the dangerous distortion of truth."

he's writing a new book about fox set to be released later this year. brian, thanks so much for being with us. and, tucker carlson, as you will know, he gave no indication at the end of his show on friday that he'd be leaving, and the network was running promos for his show today. have you, through your reporting, been able to determine the exact cause of this departure? >> well, he did have no idea this was coming. he thought he'd be back at work today. so did his top producer. his top producer was also terminated today. my sense is, is that it is related to the dominion lawsuit in the following way. for all the messages that were emerging publicly, like tucker carlson calling trump a demonic force and a destroyer, there's so much more that dominion and fox was able to read from carlson's phone privately that was never seen in public. it was redacted. and there's actually hundreds and hundreds of pages of redactions that's part of the public record with the court. so, whatever carlson was saying privately, whenever he was texting that's been redacted by fox, that's probably what led to his ouster. now, there's also a pending lawsuit from a former fox

producer who's accused tucker carlson of having a misogynistic, sexist workplace. put all that together, and there was ample reason to remove him from his show. geoff: well, that former producer, abby grossberg, we have a statement from her attorney. it reads this way. part of it reads this way: "tucker carlson's departure from fox news is in part an admission of the systemic lying, bullying and conspiracy-mongering claimed by our client.” tell us more about this suit, because, as i understand it, it's in its early stages. and she alleges that the harassment when she worked for that show was so bad that she contemplated suicide. brian: that's right. and she has signaled that she is ready to fight this in court for a long time. she has filed a discrimination lawsuit, and this could take months or years. so, i think maybe we should view what's happening the following way. fox was willing to settle the dominion lawsuit. they maybe want to tie up, clean up some of the other litigation that's pending. they have got the smartmatic lawsuit coming, shareholder suits pending, all of this that

maybe they just want to try to unburden themselves from. and they're willing to even let their biggest star go. there's always been a belief inside fox that the network is the star, not any single host. and this moment is the biggest test of that ever, even bigger than bill o'reilly, because, right now -- well, no, not right now. until today, tucker carlson was basically controlling the republican party. whatever he wanted, he got. kevin mccarthy gave him the surveillance tapes from january 6. when he would survey all the 2024 nominees, all the prospective nominees, they all responded to his survey, but not anymore. he's disappeared. geoff: well, tucker carlson has really evolved over his two decades in television. he right now or he was a symbol of the most inflammatory right-wing rhetoric, but he didn't start that way. he started really a sort of a william f. buckley jr. conservative. track his transition for us and what that suggests about the transformation of the republican party. brian: well, i was interviewed with him i'm on msnbc almost 20 years ago.

he was on msnbc as a host. it's impossible to imagine today. and that's because of the radicalization of not all, but some of the republican party. and carlson has been a big part of that by promoting conspiracy theories and an alternative reality, where there's always an evildoer, an enemy around the corner, oftentimes an immigrant or a democrat out to get you. that's the story he was telling every single night. and millions of people seemed to believe him because they came back for more. he was unlike almost everything else on even fox. he was kind of an island to himself. so maybe rupert murdoch is trying to clean up his house today. or maybe he's just trying to get some lawsuits to go away. geoff: brian, what happens to the republican party in this election year with tucker carlson abandoning the networks and you could argue the republican party's biggest microphone right now? brian: well, this is a supply-and-demand story. so one of the biggest supplies has been cut off today. tucker carlson is gone. fox will figure out how to replace him. maybe they will choose a less

conspiratorial, less paranoid host. but the show will go on. fox has an addicted audience, a very loyal audience that, frankly, many other media companies would love to have. but they do that through hyperpartisan programming that actually misleads and distorts the public's perception. most people don't want it. most people see through it. but folks like donald trump really believe it, and they fall for it. and that's what we saw play out in the dominion lawsuit. right now, i think what we see is this fracture in the republican party. what direction is it going to head in? and fox has an incredible amount of influence over that. so what i'm curious about now is, what's rupert murdoch going to do? what's his son lachlan going to do? do they want to go the tucker carlson route with somebody else? or do they want to bring fox back to a more reality-based, news-based perspective? maybe they can take tucker carlson's huge salary and hire 100 journalists. geoff: we will see. brian stelter, thanks so much for sharing your insights and your reporting with us. we appreciate it. brian: thanks.

stephanie: here are the latest headlines. closing arguments began in the january 6 trial of the far right proud boys' leaders. the group's former national chair, enrique tarrio, and four lieutenants are accused of seditious conspiracy. federal prosecutors in washington argued they intended all-out war to keep then president trump in power. in turn, a defense attorney told the jury the case is built on misdirection and innuendo. jury selection is under way for a man accused of killing 11 worshipers at a synagogue in pittsburgh. the shooting at the tree of life synagogue in 2018 was the deadliest antisemitic attack in u.s. history. if convicted, robert bowers could receive a death sentence. president biden today welcomed a trio of tennessee lawmakers who gained national notoriety for demanding stiffer gun laws. the president and vice president harris met with justin jones, justin pearson and gloria johnson.

mr. biden praised their efforts after a deadly school shooting in nashville. pres. biden: it's just tragic to see what's happening in your state, in particular, in your city, but also across the country. and nothing is guaranteed about democracy. every -- every generation has to fight for it. and you all are doing just that. stephanie: jones and pearson were expelled from the state house after leading a protest from the chamber's floor. they were reappointed days later by officials in their districts. the former minnesota police officer who killed daunte wright in 2021 was released from prison today. kim potter said she mistook her gun for a taser during the confrontation. she served 16 months of a two-year sentence for manslaughter and is now on supervised release. and the one-time officer who killed breonna taylor in her louisville, kentucky, home is now a sheriff's deputy in a nearby town. the hiring of myles cosgrove

prompted a small protest today. he fired the shot that killed taylor during a mistake and drug raid, but he was cleared of wrongdoing. in the war in ukraine, russia claimed a ukrainian sea drone tried to attack a naval base in crimea, which the russians illegally annexed in 2014. moscow said the black sea port city of sevastopol was the target, but the attack failed. kyiv did not comment on the report. elsewhere, ukrainian forces reportedly have crossed the dnipro river. it could signal an effort to cut russia's land access to crimea. russia faced a sharp rebuke from western diplomats today at a tense u.n. security council meeting. the russian foreign minister chaired the session, as moscow holds the rotating presidency for april. he blasted western policies, but u.s. ambassador linda thomas-greenfield fired back. >> our hypocritical convener today, russia, invaded its

neighbor ukraine and struck at the heart of the u.n. charter and all of that i will -- all the values that we hold dear. as we sit here, we brace ourselves for the next bucha, the next mariupol, the next kherson, the next war crime. stephanie: thomas-greenfield also demanded that russia release americans paul whelan, a former u.s. marine, and evan gershkovich of the wall street journal. in pakistan, twin bombings at a counterterror police station killed at least a dozen people today and wounded at least 50. it happened in the swat valley in northwestern pakistan. the area was once a taliban stronghold. there was no claim of responsibility, but the pakistani taliban have been stepping up attacks in the region. back in this country, abortion and north dakota is now banned starting at six weeks of pregnancy. the republican governor signed the measure today, it's one of the strict just antiabortion

laws in the country with no exceptions for rape or incest. it goes into effect immediately. the supreme court will decide if public officials get to make their social media accounts or if it violates the first amendment. the two cases accepted today involve california school district officials and a michigan city manager. the court had dismissed a similar case involving former president trump. the white house says president biden's top domestic policy adviser, susan rice, is stepping down after two years. she oversaw issues from health care and immigration to gun safety and racial equity. rice previously served as -- in the obama administration. and longtime "dancing with the stars" judge len goodman has died. he had a career as a professional ballroom dancer in britain. then, in his 60s, he became head judge on the bbc hit show "strictly come dancing." that led to his spot on the american spinoff for more than 15 years. len goodman was 78 years old.

still to come on the "newshour": tamara keith and amy walter analyze the latest political news. a new list identifies the top library books that people tried to ban last year. why one man started walking tours in an underserved san francisco neighborhood; plus much more. >> this is the pbs newshour, from w eta studios in washington, and in the west on the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. geoff: the u.s. announced a 72 hour cease-fire tonight to start in sudan between the army and arrival paramilitary group. e flying over the land routesets that lead from the capital, khartoum. since evacuating embassy staff

to djibouti over the weekend. though civilians are fleeing street battle set of killed more than 400 people in infighting that started 10 days ago. nick schifrin starts her coverage. quick sudan's capital is collapsing. khartoum was a city of 5 million. now it is marked by widespread destruction and depravity. >> everyone is pretty much in lockdown and in their homes and just using what they have just to sustain and get by. it's pretty dreadful, there's a lot of people out of water, out of electricity, or it comes and goes. it is pretty bleak. people are injured and then people can't, you know, get their loved ones to the hospital or to clinics. nick she sent us this photo of a

: bullet that landed in her backyard. >> today was probably the most intense day for us in regards to where we live and where the fighting took place. it happened exactly over our rooftops. i mean my kids came running to me and said, mom, look, we've got warplanes there. nick: her children in happier days. her three-year-old, her six-year-old son and her , 8-year-old daughter, doing their homework together introducing himself to cows. ,>> i have a six year old who who drew a tank yesterday, and some you know, things have like what would he would see up in the sky, which is pretty sad. i mean, you don't want your kids to be living in such an environment. the civilians are bearing the brunt of of what these two individuals are are doing right now, which i think is a power struggle just to be in power. nick: those two individuals military leader gen. abdel fattah al-burhan, who was supposed to lead a transition to civilian rule. and mohamed hamdan dagalo, known as hamedti, the leader of the paramilitary rapid support forces, former infamous janjaweed militias that committed the

genocide in western sudan's darfur region. more than 2 million people were killed. they are fighting for the capital and the country, and likely won't stop until one wins. italy and other governments but not the us have managed to airlift hundreds of their citizens to safety. but most sudanese must try and board increasingly rare buses, whose drivers are gouging the desperate. >> the fares was around less than $100 to, say $50. and now it's reached up to $500. we hope to by tomorrow morning, take off and go to egypt, praying that nothing will happen on the way there. nick: her family will take an 18-hour bus ride north, to egypt. others drive northeast, to port sudan on the red sea, where we spoke to dallia abdelmoniem, after a 24-hour bus ride, and multiple military checkpoints. >> we spent something close, like 48 hours calling something no less than 50 different companies trying to find a bus that would take us.

nick: she is a former journalist, turned baker and political commentator, who accuses the us and international community of accommodating hamedti and his rsf forces, to try and transition to civilian rule. >> the rsf is, was made up of a group of gunmen, you know, paramilitary, paramilitary terrorized darfur for so long. and they're taking their methods of torture and terrorism, you know, into the capital. and we the people are the ones caught in the middle again. again. i mean, i have never been forced to leave my house. i've never been forced to pack an ergency bag. and just the idea that i may n come back for any time soon is just, it's just killing me. the fact that i'm leaving behind my home, family, friends, this is my country. i don't want to leave, but we have to. >> we have dashed hope.

but we do have aspirations and dreams to return to a democratic, civilian rule in sudan. we want peace. we want justice. we want freedom for all. that's pretty much it. nick: to discuss the conflict in sudan, and u.s. policy toward sudan at this moment, we turn to delaware democrat senator chris coons, of the senate appropriations and foreign relations committees. thanks very much. first on the cease-fire that was analysis afternoon by u.s. secretary of state antony blinken. can this hold? there have been multiple cease-fires in the past that haven't. >> nick, i'm hopeful that the cease-fire will hold, but we need to be skeptical and continue to apply pressure and continue to work with the u.n. and our other partners in the country to organize additional convoys that will allow more

folks who want to leave the country to do so safely. nick: staying on politics, how can the u.s. help ensure not only that the cease-fire holes but that it becomes a genuine resumption of political negotiations to transition back to civilian rule? >> well, we've been engaging actively, both diplomatic and military leaders from the united states have put in a series of calls to both of these warring faction leaders, and over the last few years since the sudanese civilian population rose up and bravely overthrew the long-term dictator in 2019, we have engaged with and supported civil society groups in sudan. i think we need to continue to do so. we have a significant joint national population in sudan. sudan is the very large country,

about the size of alaska with lots of potential, loss of agricultural and mineral wealth, and we need to do everything we can to help avert a tragedy descending into a civil war. the u.s. is not the only actor in sudan. the russian paramilitary group, the wegner group, china has influence because of economic investment. as you pointed out, there is not a problem of lack of u.s. leverage in this moment. >> is i just reference, for decades this was a country that was on the state-sponsored terrorism list. this was the country that harbored al qaeda, that osama was in and that help facilitate their attacks on the uss cole, the uss naval vessel, attacks on

u.s. embassies decades ago. our hope was after the civilian overthrow that there would be a movement toward a democratically elected government. in my last visit to khartoum, i shared a dinner with the then prime minister. unfortunately since then there has been a military coup, and as you have been reporting the last few days, the resumption of violence and active fighting in khartoum and across the country, we do have some leverage come about the encouragement of the possibility of robust humanitarian and development assistance, and the possibility of targeted sanctions on those who might facilitate and foment further violence. so ongoing engagement by the united states, by other regional leaders, the african union, the kenyan president who is the leader of a regional grouping, they can and should play a constructive and positive role. nick: let's go back to the

evacuation that you reference. there's some 16,000 americans in sudan, that's an estimate. today national security advisor jake sullivan pointed out u.s. drones and other military assets are flying above sudan. u.s. warships are sailing off the coast. the u.s. is helping americans who reach the border to travel further. as you can see, there other countries who have managed to figure out a way to go into sudan and evacuate their citizens. why can't the u.s.? >> well, none of them have evacuated anything like 16,000 people. let's be clear. this is not a country where it is easy or safe to go in, take control of the airport in khartoum and flight military scale missions tovacuate thousands of people. each of the countries you reference have evacuated handfuls of people. we have evacuated something like 140 american citizens, both through a special forces

operation to evacuate our embassy over the weekend and through the u.n. -- you and lead overland convoy that arrived earlier today if i'm not mistaken. there will be other convoys, we are working in close partnership with the and other countries to make available whatever means of evacuation are reasonably possible, but there is a big difference between evacuating the americans who work in our embassy and with usaid and providing for evacuation of thousands and thousands of people. it has never been our practice to provide evacuation support for all citizens in a country. nick: sorry to interrupt, but do you fear the administration is too gun shy when it comes to evacuations because of the chaos with the kabul evacuation? >> this is really apples and oranges. in kabul, we have thousands and thousands of u.s. and allied military troops on the ground. we had decades of experience

operating in afghanistan, and we had an understandable moral obligation to help evacuate those who had fought alongside us in the 20 years that we were at war in afghanistan. the situation in sudan is fundamentally different. the khartoum airport is not a military airport, and for us to secure it and be able to operate safely, regular flights out of it would take a significant insertion of american armed forces, that something i certainly would not recommend or support. this is a lot closer to what happened in ukraine or syria or yemen or libya whereas those countries were descending into civil war, we evacuated u.s. citizens who served in our embassy and provided support for other americans who sought to evacuate, but not through being a large-scale, coordinated military operation. nick: thank you very much. ♪

amna: the supreme court's decision late friday evening allows access to mifipristone for now. but confusion and questions remain over future access to abortion medication, particularly in states with some of the toughest restrictions, like arkansas, one of seven states that quickly banned abortions after roe was overturned last year. leslie rutledge is the state's republican leutinent governor and she joins us now from little rock. welcome back to the newshour, and thanks for joining us. let's begin with that supreme court decision to keep access to mifepristone in place for now. what is your view on that? can people in arkansas still legally access the drug by mail, for example? >> well, it's certainly a disappointing decision by the supreme court. but, in arkansas, no, they cannot access this abortion-by-mail drug that the fda had approved long ago. and so, once again, this is a

point that, in arkansas, women, unless it is absolutely to save the life of mother, we have outlawed abortion. that law was in place. it was a trigger law. once the u.s. supreme court made the decision in dobbs last june, as attorney general, last june, i certified that law that the supreme court had, in fact, overturned roe v. wade. and our trigger law, act 180, went into effect outlawing abortions in arkansas. we have saved countless lives in the last year. i'm encouraged. and i hope that the u.s. supreme court will not allow the fda to have an overreaching impact and be able to essentially override states such as arkansas, who have made the decision to outlaw abortion. amna: you mentioned it's outlawed in all cases in arkansas, unless, of course, the life of the mother is at risk. do you know how many legal abortions have been performed in arkansas since roe was overturned? is that something you're tracking? >> well, to date, there are no

legal abortions except to save the life of mother. amna: correct. >> and so that is -- right. and so i don't know if there have been any where the mother's life has been in jeopardy. but it's something that we certainly hope that the life of the mother and the baby are always saved. amna: let me ask you about this, because we have seen numbers from some neighboring states where abortion access has remained legal going up, kansas and illinois, in particular, near to your state. one clinic in illinois said last fall they had about three to five people with appointments every day coming from arkansas. so, some critics will look at your ban and say you're not actually ending abortion access. you're just forcing people to spend thousands of dollars, travel hundreds of miles to get abortions in other states. what do you say to that? >> well, i would hope that the leaders in illinois would pass the same sort of laws that arkansas has, and i would encourage them do so to protect those innocent lives of the unborn. that these individuals, these women are making the decision to

travel and to spend money in order to take the life of an innocent baby is a decision that that mother is going to -- may make and is going to have to live with for the rest of her life. we should not make it easy. and that's why, in arkansas, we have, in fact, outlawed it. and so, to my neighboring states, i would say join us in making it more difficult to take the life of an innocent baby. amna: lieutenant governor, as you know, when we last spoke -- i believe it was after the leaked dobbs opinion -- i'd asked you then how you were planning to prepare for what would surely be arise and unplanned pregnancies and births. you said then: we're going to make sure that we have the resources necessary to take care of our kids. so can you share with us, what specific resources have you introduced since june of last year to support pregnant women and children in arkansas? >> well, since that decision, we have a new governor, governor sarah huckabee sanders, and a republican legislature that passed numerous laws this year

in order to protect women and children. we have a very active pro-life pregnancy centers in the state of arkansas that we support and encourage women to have access to those pro-life pregnancy centers. these are -- we want women to have the opportunity to, if they are going to have that child, and we want them to, we want that child to be adopted. we have been very supportive of adoptive and -- adoption in arkansas, that there is more than one option for women who are pregnant. and that option can be to have that child, to love that child, just as i love my 4-year-old, or if you're not at a point in your life where you can be a mom, someone out there really wants to have that baby and to love that baby. so give that woman the opportunity. amna: lieutenant governor, if i may, i apologize for the interruption. i know our time is limited. as you well know, arkansas has the highest maternal mortality rate in the country. it has the third highest infant mortality rate. one out of every five children in your state live in poverty.

so, i will ask again, are there specific resources you have put to any of those issues in arkansas since roe was overturned? >> well, our arkansas department of health and arkansas department of human services work very closely with those women. we want to make sure that we -- we want to lower that mortality rate. we want to make sure that women are healthy. and part of that decision comes from not just simply, as they find themselves pregnant, but also making sure that they have healthy lifestyles. amna: and, if i may, what is your plan to do that, to lower those rates? >> well, our plan is to ensure that those women are educated, that those women understand that, when they do become pregnant, that they have access to health care, and to ensure that we have our local hospitals, as well as these pro-life pregnancy centers. and these are hospitals all across rural arkansas. these are not just simply our large hospitals of baptist and chi st. vincent here in the capital city, but all across rural arkansas to make sure those women are getting the health

that they need. and we're also making sure that they understand, when they are pregnant, that their body has certain needs and to ensure that they're getting the nutrients for themselves and for that baby. amna: leslie rutledge is arkansas' republican lieutenant governor joining us from little rock tonight. lieutenant governor, thank you for your time. >> thank you. ♪ amna: the fierce political debate around abortion access comes as president biden is preparing to launch his reelection campaign this week. here to discuss, amy walter of the cook political report with amy walter and tamara keith of npr. good to see you both. let's begin with that abortion access issue, which we know now rests with the supreme court. it's interesting to see. it's an issue when it comes to medication abortion that republicans democrats are actually largely aligned on.

when you look at our latest "pbs newshour"/npr/marist poll asking if medication abortion should be banned, 64 percent of all americans said, no, it should not be banned, and that includes 55% of republicans. it seems like the real divide here, a larger divide, is just within the republican party. we heard former president trump say it should be left up to states. his former vice president mike pence disagreed. here's what he had to say ts weekend. >> i do think it's more likely that this issue is resolved at the state level. but i don't agree with the former president who says this is a states-only issue. i think looking to the congress of the united states, creating a minimum protection, 15 weeks, that is supported by some 70 percent of the american public at the federal level. amna: amy, how does that divide within republicans fit within the larger national conversation? amy: it seems as if every republican learned a lesson from 2022, which is, republicans are

on the wrong side of this issue. and if we're going to win over the swing voters we need in battleground states, we have got to find a better position on it. what the answer is, is a big question mark. interestingly enough, in the rest of that clip, mike pence did go on to say that he supports the banning of the mifepristone, which, as we noted, is not particularly popular. what republicans seem to be doing right now -- we saw it in iowa this weekend, where there was the faith and family conference, where he made that statement, and what we're hearing, just if you're paying attention at all to the republican primary, is that the issue of abortion, which used to be a unifying issue for republicans, has been replaced instead by gender and racial ideology issues. and it was interesting. i was looking through a poll done by a group called echelon insights. they asked republican voters only, what do you think is the more important issue, gender, racial ideologies, or abortion

and religious liberty? by 10 points, republicans picked the gender and racial issue. so, abortion, which was an issue that certainly mike pence made a central part of his entire political career, no longer having the same place as this issue. but it doesn't mean that republicans have solved it, necessarily, for the general elections. amna: tam, how do you look at this? tamera: right. so, former president trump, he kind of wants it both ways, because he wants to take credit for the supreme court that gave conservatives the dobbs decision. he absolutely wants to take credit for that. but he also is a very smart politician who looks at things like polls and looks at public opinion and says, oh, this is this is not actually an issue that you -- that you want to be out front on as a republican. and so he has this sort of balance, where he's like, well,

you should thank me, but maybe we should just leave it with the dobbs decision, leave it to the states, and let's not talk about it too much, because, as amy said, this is -- this is one of those issues where, when it was abstract, when it was like republicans saying, well, we just should have fewer abortions, it was an easy issue for republicans. it was a great base issue. but now that it has been -- something has been taken away, now republicans are in the position of having to talk about specifics, 15 weeks, six weeks, this abortion pill, which is used in 55 percent of abortions in the united states. and when you're talking about specifics, it becomes a much more difficult issue. that's why it was a difficult issue for democrats before when republicans were trying to get them to talk about so-called late-term abortion. amna: well, speaking of democrats, tam, i want to ask you about this. it's been clear that sort of vice president harris has stepped out as the lead messenger on this issue from the administration. what does that say to you about where they see this issue and also her role in the white

house? tamara: right. so she had been, i think, for some time sort of struggling to find an issue that she could own that wasn't a total loser problematic issue. like, owning immigration is not a great issue for the vice president, because it is intractable politically and it's just -- no easy solutions. and it's a big, ugly bunch of headlines for the administration. she had taken on voting rights as an issue that she was pushing forward on. but then this abortion issue came up with the dobbs ruling. and it is a base-motivating, it is a broader-than-the-base-motivating issue. and so, as a woman, as a woman of color, she is in a unique position to be able to talk about this in a way that an 80-year-old male president can't talk about as comfortably. and that's setting aside the fact that he's catholic, and has sort of challenges with that.

amna: meanwhile, we are speaking in a week that we do expect him to make his reelection official announcement, we believe. that's as polls show that some 70% of americans don't want him to run. that includes 51% of democrats. why announce now? what changes when he announces officially? amy: well, i think it goes directly to that piece right there, which is, you have a democratic base that isn't very excited about the upcoming election. and they are not feeling very emboldened by their sitting precedent, right? they want to feel like they can own this race. he needs to, hopefully by announcing, hopefully for -- when -- the way his campaign thinks about it, what it will do is help to energize the base. it will help to bring the base back to biden. one thing i want everybody to -- i think we do remember this, but when he was first running in 2020, he never had this sort of enthusiastic support behind him,

right? you look at in this most recent poll that you put up on the nbc poll asked, did you vote for biden because you liked what he stood for or did you vote for biden because he didn't like donald trump? democrats evenly divided or voters for biden evenly divided on that question. so he does not have the support around him personally that, say, a barack obama did, certainly a donald trump does. but waiting to jump in would only help to focus on the fact that the base remains sort of placid and not engaged. it's not going to change these numbers overnight. but i think it allows the campaign to say, no more chitchatting about this, no more speculation about, am i running or not? i'm absolutely doing this. and, democrats, let's get on board. amna: tam, well, as you know, there is -- there are questions about his age. at 80, he's already the oldest president. there's some frustration among journalists -- you know this as

the president of the white house correspondents association -- about access to the president. what is the white house saying about all this? tamara: well, in terms of access, what the white house is saying is, he does all of these things where you shout a question, and he answers quickly, and so he's super available. i quibble with that, as president of the white house correspondents association. we would all -- i think the american people would benefit from more press conferences where the press prepares, the president prepares, and the president gives longer answers that give the public more insight into his thinking. putting that aside, the white house says that there are lots of people who are 80 years old, 82 years old, 86 years old who are super performers, and he is someone who is certainly not sitting around watching cable all day. he's the president of the united states. and he is actively using his mind. and, also, they say that they really have -- the white house doesn't say this -- officials, not the white house, say that he has consolidated the support of the democratic party. he is the party's candidate.

there isn't someone waiting in the wings right now. and there is this sense that, if he were to face a legitimate primary challenge, that you could end up with a situation, like jimmyarter or george h.w. bush, where they were -- where they were hurt by the primary. and this is a little weird to say, but democrats are a bit risk-averse, and they don't want to take any chances, especially if trump is the nominee. amna: now we're left to see, will he or won't he? amy: yes, donald trump continues be the greater motivator for democrats than joe biden. amna: correct. amy walter, tamara keith, always good to see you. thank you. geoff: battles have erupted at schools, school boards and library meetings across the country, as parents, lawmakers and advocacy groups are debating the value and merit of many books, new and old.

this is national library week, and a report out today catalogs the surge of challenge juices to what's on the shelves in america's libraries. jeffrey brown has more for our arts and culture series, canvas. jeffrey: in its report, the american library association documented more than 1,200 challenges to library books and resources last year. that's nearly twice as many as 2021, about three times the pre-pandemic average, and the highest since the ala started collecting data 20 years ago. it also lists the 13 books that have been most challenged this past year, including the top three, "gender queer: a memoir" by maia kobabe, "all boys aren't blue" by george m. johnson, and nobel prize-winning author toni morrison's "the bluest eye.” deborah caldwell-stone is the director of the american library association's office for intellectual freedom, and joins me now. thank you for being with us. to understand first some of the terms, what exactly are you counting here? what does a challenge mean versus an outright ban?

deborah caldwell-stone, director, american library association office for intellectual freedom: a challenge is a demand to remove a book from a library shelf at a school or public library. a ban is when the library board, the school board takes action to remove the book and prevent the intended reader from reading it. jeffrey: so, do we know how much this has led to out-and-out banning? or is it a question -- you have you have used the word soft censorship. deborah: we're seeing about half of these challenges result in outright bans or restrictions that prevent the reader from reading it. that could mean moving a book in the children's section or the young adults section to the adult section, placing restrictions like parental consent rules on the book, or, well, the worst of all, is just taking the book out of the library altogether. we don't know the outme of every reported challenge to the office, because we do rely on media reports and other sources that don't often follow up. but, by and large, we're seeing an increase in the actual removal of books, rather than

simply evaluating the book and placing it back on the shelves. jeffrey: now, what do you see happening in terms of what's leading to this big jump in challenges? i know one thing you have pointed to is that, in the past, it would usually be one parent challenging perhaps one book. now you're seeing many books challenged at a time. >> absolutely. i mean, i think what the numbers are showing, the really unprecedented jump in the number of challenges and the jump in the number of books being challenged, reflects reay organized political activity by a number of advocacy groups like moms for liberty, no left turn in education to go to board meetings and demand the removal of as many as 100 books at a time, that it has resulted in the real depopulation of many library shelves, particularly in some states like florida and texas. where we're getting reports of school boards just removing hundreds of books at one time, either to respond to a demand to

censor books or response to state legislation. jeffrey: now, i mentioned three of the books, three of the 13, the themes that have been much discussed -- and you discuss it in your report now -- around gender, sexuality, race and racial history. tell us what you're seeing in the books that are being challenged. deborah: we're seeing challenges primarily to books that elevate the voices of those who've been traditionally marginalized in society, particularly books about gay, queer, transgender persons, or persons of color, black persons, really a real effort to censor any narrative that challenges the status quo, that elevates the voices of alternative groups, that reflect the experiences and lives of persons of color or lgbtq persons. we're even seeing legislation targeting this, the don't say gay bill in florida, which has

just recently been expanded in such a way that no one between k-8 may hear about the fact that some people are homosexuals, or book -- legislation that ban actual books like the 1619 project. jeffrey: so if individuals or groups do feel that some books go too far in terms of their graphic language or descriptions, some see them as pornography, does the ala have guidelines? what is the process that you would like to see happen? >> well, we do have recommendations for policies for collection development and reconsideration. but it's our position that the decision about what books a young person can access is really in the hands of the parent. we can't act in loco parentis. we can't know what a parent's values are or a student's values are. and so we strongly recommend that parents get involved with guiding their child's reading. and librarians are always anxious to help a parent find books that match the family's

values and needs. but we do say that no one parent should dictate that decision for other families, for other students, for other parents, and that the library should be there as a community resource to meet everyone's information needs, no matter what they believe or value. there are many books dealing with sex education, sexuality, gender that are important for the readers they are intended for. and many of the books that we're hearing complained about are kind of falsely portrayed as being in the hands of very young children, when they're intended for older adolescents or in high school libraries, young adult collections, and intended for that age group. and we would recommend, really, that anyone concerned about censorship, about preserving their own families individual choice in reading, their own choice in reading, that they get involved at the local level with initiatives like unite against book bans, which is at uniteagainstbookbans.org, which is really a toolkit for individuals who want to preserve the freedom to read in their community and to preserve their own ability to choose the books they want to read and to choose

the books they want their own child to read. jeffrey: all right, deborah caldwell-stone of the american library association, thank you very much. deborah caldwell-stone: thank you very much. geoff: one writer whose work has long been the subject of censorship right up until today is judy blume, the author of "are you there god? it's me, margaret," and numerous other books for young readers. jeffrey brown will have an interview with the legendary author later this week. ♪ geoff: del seymour works to secure long-term employment for underserved communities in san francisco. he's lived there for more than 30 years and is also co-chair of san francisco's local homeless coordinating board. here, he shares his brief but spectacular take on restoring people's dignity. del seymour, founder, code tenderloin: you know, the number one thing in getting clean is the desire to be clean. now, you can -- you can make the mechanics of being clean.

any of those people could stop using drugs at any moment. but do they want to stop using drugs? those are two completely different things. i arrived in the tenderloin 35 years ago. i never even knew what that name meant, probably never even heard that name. but i just wanted to come visit san francisco. and when i got out of my car, it looked like a movie set. i said, this can't be real. this has got to be propped-up houses, storefronts, and all the people walking around in all these delirious situations with needles in their arms and halfway naked or fully naked got to be extras in a movie. you will see people walking around in all kinds of states of delusion, addiction, mental illness. life took a left turn on me. i didn't take a left turn on life. there's 9,000 unhoused people in san francisco that a lot of them had life take a left turn on them. what i mean by that is, lose

your job, get kicked out your house as a youth, come out of the closet as lgbt, just get out of the service and haven't got your benefits established, having cancer, having any kind of medical disease. walter hughes, 14 years ago, he met me in a park in the tenderloin where he invited me to church, they embraced a crackhead in the middle of the church. and we prayed together, we cried together. he wasn't pushing me. he just started showing me the way to a better life. the reason i developed and founded the code tenderloin tours was to give people a different version of what they see. so, i'm able to walk you through and tell you why this guy is laying in the middle of street, why this woman is blocking the sidewalk. why is this guy stashing all of his stuff in a shopping cart? the biggest myth or assumption of a neighborhood like the tenderloin is that everyone wants to be out here in the street. and that's not the case. that's for someone that don't understand addiction. addiction is a disease.

who in the hell wants to have cancer? who in the hell wants to be an addict? i wish i could answer the question of how to solve homelessness and what we're doing wrong. you got to go to cities that do it right to get those answers. they don't go out and tell the homeless, you need to do this and this and this. they go out and tell the homeless, what do you need to get off the streets? what do you need to make your life better? and let's try to do that. once a person finds their dignity, you better get out of the way. my name is del seymour, and this is my brief but spectacular take on restoring dignity. geoff: and you can watch more brief but spectacular videos online at pbs.org/newshour/brief. and that is the newshour for tonight. i'm jeff bennett. amna: on behalf of the entire newshour team, thank you for joining us. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by -- ♪

>> a proud supporter of public television. the world awaits. a world of flavor, diverse destinations, and immersive experiences. a world of entertainment, and british style. >> the kendeda fund, through -- supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just and peaceful world. more information at matt found.org. and with the ongoing support of these institutions.

♪ this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.] >> this is pbs newshour west, from w eta studios in washington and from our bureau at the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. ♪ >> you're watching pbs.

♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ -today on "america's test kitchen," erin makes bridget roast turkey breast with gravy, lisa shares her favorite mops, and dan makes julia oatmeal dinner rolls. it's all coming up right here on "america's test kitchen."