william: good evening. i'm william brangham. geoff bennett and amna nawaz are away. on "the newshour" tonight, the january 6 and classified documents cases against

president-elect trump are dropped, as he transitions back into the white house and as he builds up a team to carry out his agenda. then, we examine what was and was not accomplished at the latest global climate conference as world temperatures continue to rise. and venezuela's opposition leader speaks out about president nicholas maduro's crackdown ahead of his inauguration to a third term. >> we will never, never surrender. all venezuelans will never give up. venezuela will be a free country, a prosperous country. ♪ >> major funding for the pbs news hour has been provided by -- the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions.

and friends of the news hour, including leonard and norma klorfine and the judy and peter bloom closer foundation. >> two retiring executives turned their focus to greyhounds, giving these former race dogs a real chance to win. they raymondjames financial advisor gets to know you, your purpose, and the way you give back. life well planned. >> the william and flora hewlett foundation, for more than 50 years advancing ideas and supporting institutions to support 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. william: welcome to the "news hour.” the two federal felony criminal cases against president-elect donald trump are being dropped. special counsel jack smith filed motions today to end the case, charging trump with illegally holding classified documents and the other for his efforts to unlawfully overturn the 2020 presidential election. smith defended the evidence in both cases and the decision to prosecute, but said today's expected move hinged on a longstanding justice department policy that a sitting president cannot face criminal prosecution. smith left open the possibility the cases could be reopened when trump leaves office. trump lauded today's move,

writing, the cases were, quote, "empty and lawless.” meanwhile the president-elect continues to round out his cabinet, including some key economic appointments. he's chosen billionaire hedge fund manager scott bessent for treasury secretary. and, for commerce, he's chosen howard lutnick, the ceo of financial services firm cantor fitzgerald and a big backer of tariffs. for more on what these choices mean for trump's agenda, we are joined again by david wessel. he's the director of the hutchins center on fiscal and monetary policy at the brookings institution. david, so nice to see you again. >> good to be with you, william. william: let's talk a little bit, a bit more about scott bessent. the markets and investors seem to be very excited about his pick. why is that? david: yes, you could actually hear the sigh of relief from the markets that the president chose somebody like scott bessent, a hedge fund manager who actually could easily have been a treasury secretary in a more

conventional republican administration, somebody who seems to be a calm set of hands in a very, very fiery cabinet, if you don't mind the metaphor. william: no, no, your metaphors always work for us. what is it about him then? if he could fit into a bush administration or a would-be romney kind of administration, what is it that he brings that trump seems to like? david: well, i think donald trump understands that he needs to have the financial markets on his side. he may not care about the models that we have at the brookings institution, but he cares about the stock and bond markets. and scott bessent has, he seems to have a pretty clear message. he's got this 333 plan, 3 percent growth, which is a little faster than we have had, but certainly could happen, 3 percent of gdp budget deficit, which would be heroic, half the current level of the deficit, and a three million increase in the barrel, number of barrels of oil that we produce. so he's got kind of a shtick, and i think people feel comfortable with him.

but i wonder whether he will actually have as much influence with the president as the markets seem to be hoping. william: the contrast to that would be howard lutnick at commerce, who seems to be a little bit on the opposite side of things than his treasury pick. david: right. right. so howard lutnick is a really interesting guy. his firm almost got wiped out in 9/11. he's very volatile. he's very outspoken. he would have been a pick that i think would have made people nervous. and, as you point out, he's a big proponent of tariffs. scott bessent is, he's starting to mouth that tariffs are ok, but he talks about them as a negotiating tool, a lever. we're not going to do anything radical, in a hurry and stuff like that. so i begin to think it's a bit of a team of rivals. the wall street journal explained or described william: this is like lincoln's famous, sort of fractious cabinet. david: exactly.

william: that served to be a strength to have opposing viewpoints going at it. david: exactly. the wall street journal explained the competition between scott bessent howard lutnick to be treasury secretary as a knife fight. so that's quite a way to start an administration with these two economic policymakers who clearly don't trust each other. william: on that issue of tariffs, which is trump's off-stated belief that he will, argument that he will put tariffs on china and other nations if they don't conform to his economic policies, how likely is it that he will do that and where, which of those men will come out on top in that argument? david: well, we don't really know. i mean, the question is, who will he listen to? and predicting that with donald trump is always hard. but worrying about the trade deficit and proposing tariffs has been something that donald trump has said for much of his political career or even before he was a politician. so i suspect they will do something on tariffs. it would be embarrassing if they didn't. but the question is, will he do some little move and then we will see what the other side does or will he do something dramatic? one thing that's really important is, the president has a lot of authority on tariffs,

things he can do without the consent of congress. so that means the only break on him will be scott bessent and the markets. william: to this team of rivals, we also, they're not in the cabinet, but we have also got elon musk and vivek ramaswamy, who are coming in with the pledge to chop, chop, chop. david: right. william: how do you see that playing out? david: i think this is going to be incredibly good theater. we will see what they actually do. william: theater, good theater, but maybe not good economics? david: well, we, certainly, we have a big budget deficit problem, but it's really hard to fix. if you say we want to cut taxes, we don't want to touch social security or medicare. so that leaves a big chunk of the budget on the side. i am sure that elon musk and vivek ramaswamy will propose some spending cuts. what i'm not so sure about is that congress will go along with them. in the past, the history of these commissions is, people who have been outside government, so you could cut this, you could cut that, you could cut this, and then when it gets to the appropriations committee and congress, it's sort of like,

well, maybe not this. william: they say, we know who's really the boss. david: right, exactly. so i think it's going to be quite contentious. and i think the issue that scott bessent has is, he's the chief bond salesman for the world's so, if congress and president trump do things that explode the deficit beyond current projections, he's going to have a hard time managing that without seeing a big increase in interest rates, which, of course, will filter through the economy, raise mortgage rates, and could slow the economy down. william: david wessel, always great to have your counsel. thank you so much. david: you're welcome. william: turning now to another side of trump's cabinet, for the office of management and budget, the president-elect has chosen russell vought. vought previously led that office for part of trump's first term. he is also a co-author of project 2025, the controversial heritage foundation blueprint for a second trump term. laura barron-lopez joins us now to break down what this pick may signal.

hi, laura. laura: hi. william: why is this vote nomination significant? laura: russell vought wrote a chapter for project 2025 that was all about expanding and transforming the executive office of the presidency. and vought has made clear through his writings and public statements that he believes president trump has far more authority to exert his presidential powers and make changes unlike any we have really seen in modern history, william. and vought has said that his plans for the president are that he believes the president has the power to slash spending programs without congress. around he also believes that the president can use the military during civil unrest, and that the president should assert more control over the justice department, as well as as well supporting, russell vought supports stripping federal workers of their protections. and that last one, william, which would potentially replace tens of thousands of federal workers with political appointees is something that vought is probably going to be tackling almost immediately if

he is confirmed to this position at the office of management and budget. and vought is also expected to work closely with elon musk and vivek ramaswamy in those positions that you just mentioned in terms of government efficiency and slashing agencies across the board. william: yes, those are some very striking possible steps for a president to take. what else has vought said vis-a-vis his desire to change the scope of presidential power? laura: well, vought believes that, in his role as the head of the office of management and budget, he can go to battle with the agencies to exert this power alongside the president. and he recently shared his goals for trump's second administration when he appeared on tucker carlson's show. >> we have to solve the woke in the weaponized bureaucracy and have the president take control of the executive branch. so my belief for anyone who wants to listen is that you have to, the president has to move executively as fast and as aggressively as possible with a

radical constitutional perspective to be able to dismantle that bureaucracy in their power centers. laura: and when it comes to controlling the justice department, william, vought has said that there is no law dictating that there are independent agencies, essentially saying that the norms of independent agencies like the justice department is simply just that, a norm that was established in the watergate era. and vought has said that the whole idea of the justice department being independent, as well as some of the other agencies being independent, should be, quote, "thrown out.” william: all along during the campaign trail, when trump was asked about project 2025, and what do you think about this, and what do you think, he kept saying, i don't know anything about it, it's not me, that's not my campaign. but he is now tapping other people from that heritage foundation project. who else is he tapping? laura: you're right, william. the president-elect just tried to say repeatedly he didn't even know the people who wrote it. but he clearly does, because there are at least six people so

far that he has a name to be in his administration who authored chapters or contributed in some way to project 2025. that includes russ vought. it also includes tom homan, who will be his border czar within the white house, john ratcliffe i to lead the cia, as well as brendan carr, who wrote a chapter for project 2025. trump has named him to lead the federal communications commission. and some of those people have to be confirmed by the senate. others don't, like tom homan. he does not have to be confirmed at all. and he, as well as his vought, has recently made clear a lot of his plans, saying on fox just this weekend that he believes that trump should cut federal funding to states that say they are not going to cooperate with their mass deportation plan. he said that he can guarantee that trump will do that. william: laura barron-lopez, as always, thank you so much. laura: thank you.

i stephanie: here are the latest headlines. president-elect donald is threatening to impose new tariffs on the u.s. largest trading partners his birthday back in office, writing on true social he said, quote, i will sign all necessary documents to charge mexico and canada at 25% tariff on all products coming into the united states. in a separate post he say plans to charge china and additional 10% tariff. he said his penalties for drugs entering the u.s.. in other news, israel's ambassador to washington says the potential cease-fire deal between israel and hezbollah and lebanon is close and can happen within days. officials say prime minister netanyahu's security cabinet will meet tomorrow to discuss the proposed deal. israel has ramped up its attacks on lebanon in recent days,

launching airstrikes on the suburbs of beirut. a lebanese politician said that escalation is actually a sign that a deal could be close. >> in the past hours, we have seen an increase in the frequency of israeli attacks. it has become known that the israeli enemy always begins to escalate when it gets closer to a serious negotiation with serious files in its hands. it escalates to put pressure on the other side to make concessions. >> yesterday, hezbollah launched one of its largest attacks on israel yesterday, firing some 250 rockets and missiles. several people were injured and buildings damaged in northern and central israel, according to officials. the prospect of a cease-fire deal was also top of mind today as foreign ministers from the group of seven nations gathered outside rome. secretary of state antony blinken joined his g7 counterparts as they expressed cautious optimism about the

cease-fire process. the issue of ukraine also looms large at the meeting. it's the last of its kind before a new u.s. administration takes office in january. meanwhile, on the ground today in ukraine. >> people were injured by shrapnel. i escaped as i left the office. stephanie: russian rockets injured more than 30 people in a wave of strikes on two of ukraine's largest cities, kharkiv and odesa. there is further evidence today that a woman's own home is now the most dangerous place for her to be. that's according to a sobering united nations report on global femicide, which is the gender-related killing of women and girls. the organization said 85,000 such killings occurred last year. of those, around 60%, or 140 per day, were at the hands of someone close to the victim. in europe and the americas, most women and girls were killed by intimate partners. elsewhere, close relatives were the primary perpetrators.

these findings come as women around the world held demonstrations this weekend and into today to mark the u.n.'s 25th annual day for the elimination of violence against women. officials in egypt say at least 17 people are missing after a tourist boat sank in rough waters in the red sea. the vessel, named sea story, left the town of marsa alam for a five day trip yesterday. 31 tourists of different nationalities were on board, along with 14 crew members. rescue teams managed to bring dozens of survivors back to shore today with some needing medical treatment. it's not immediately clear what caused the yacht to sink, but authorities had warned against -- of rough seas. here in the u.s., service workers at charlotte douglas international airport went on strike today ahead of what is expected to be the busiest holiday travel season record.

the workers, who clean planes, and escort passengers in wheelchairs, are protesting what they call unlivable wages. their union spokesperson said the strike is expected to last for 24 hours. airport officials say they're working to make sure terminal operations are not impacted. and author barbara taylor bradford has died. the british journalist turned bestselling novelist made her mark while in her 40s with the novel "a woman of substance" about a servant girl who rises to become a business tycoon. that arc partly mirrored bradford's own self-made success. she was born to a working-class family and went on to write more than 40 books that touched on themes of love, power and money. she sold some 90 million copies worldwide and amassed a $200 million fortune. bradford was even featured on a postage stamp. barbara taylor bradford died

yesterday at her home in new york. she was 91 years old. still to come, donald trump success among young men illustrates the influence of the online nano spear. tamara keith and amy walter breakdown latest political news. and president biden grants his final pardons, two turkeys, that is. >> this is the "pbs news hour" from the david m rubenstein studio at weta in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. william: at the u.n. climate talks in baku, azerbaijan, negotiators at the very last moment struck a deal. wealthy nations have pledged $300 billion a year by 2035 to help developing countries deal with the impacts of climate change and to help their transition to cleaner energy.

while that pledge is stepped up from previous pledges, it is nowhere near the estimated $1 trillion a year that many experts and analysts say is needed. while some have called this deal woefully inadequate, the cop 29 president, mukhtar babayev, defended its accomplishments. >> this was the hardest task the multilateral climate process has ever attempted. we had many difficult conversations. we never stopped pulling you together. we pushed you to reach for the highest possible ambition. with this breakthrough, the baku finance goal will turn billions into trillions over the next decade. william: so for more on this summit, we are joined again by manish bapna. he's the president and ceo of the nrdc, the natural resources defense council. manish, so nice to have you back. what is your initial takeaway from this summit? well >> well it is a down

payment. what we saw from this deal, which was largely about finance, is that it represented what was possible in a geopolitically complicated world today, not necessarily what ultimately will be needed. so the 300 billion that you spoke about is going to help developing countries make the shift to clean energy. it's going to help them adapt to extreme weather that we're seeing happening today. but most independent experts say we need $1.3 trillion. so a lot of the hard work that still is left is, how do we move from the $300 billion to the $1.3 trillion over the coming years? william: because it is in that chasm that all the outrage exists coming out of baku. i mean, as you know, these nations argue, we did nothing to cause this problem, and yet we are suffering the worst impacts, the famines, the droughts, the things that are made worse by climate change. and they're saying we have to foot the bill for this and ts hear comes nowhere near what we

are owed for this. i want to play one little bit of sound. this is the climate negotiator, one of them, from panama. here's what he had to say. >> they throw text at us at the last minute, shove it down our throat, and then for the sake of multilateralism we always have to accept it and take it. otherwise. the climate mechanisms will go into a horrible down-spiral. and no one needs that. this is the only space that we have to negotiate and to work towards our common goals. we accepted the text because we could not leave baku without a text, but we're not satisfied whatsoever. william: not satisfied at all. well, what do you make of that concern? manish: i hear that point of view. i really empathize with that point of view. when you look at the united states, the e.u., russia and china, they represent roughly 60 percent of global emissions. you look at the 10 most vulnerable countries in the

world on climate, less than 1 percent of emissions. so this is environmental injustice on a global scale. when covid took place, the rich world was able to mobilize $20 trillion overnight. so developing countries are asking, why not? why can't we get more money? and the arguments for why the rich world should give the money are compelling, strong economic reasons, security reasons, and justice reasons. clean energy is a $2 trillion market this year. we are moving from the dirty energy of the past to the clean energy of the future. important to make that commitment. if we don't, we're going to see increasing climate impacts, increasing conflict, increasing displacement. it's an investment in our security. and, as i said, from a global justice standpoint, those that are bearing the brunt of the costs did the least to

contribute to the problem. william: so those are the arguments for greater contributions to funds like this. what is the argument that the western nations, the e.u., the americas of the world, put forward to say why this is too much money to spend or inappropriate money to spend? manish: well, part of the argument is that it's a lot and it represents a tripling of the commitment that was made back in 2009 by secretary hillary clinton when she was secretary of state, when it was $100 billion for 2020. so part of it is, how you move from $100 billion to $300 billion is not easy. it requires both governments, rich governments, rich country governments to give money to the developing world. but it also means mobilizing international institutions like the world bank, the asian development bank. it is also further complicated by the geopolitical moment we're in, where conflicts all around the world are taking resources and a recognition that, here in the united states, the trump administration, future trump administration is unlikely to

provide support. so other countries are going to have to step up even more in the short run. and so that is what is making this particular moment complicated to get to a higher number. william: some people have argued that this whole, the way cop is run, which is, has every single nation involved, close to 200 nations, everyone has to agree on every line and every sentence of every agreement, and that that becomes an unwieldy morass that never gets substantive things done. do you share that concern? manish: part of that critique is absolutely true. i mean, at one level, it is incredible that the international community, 190 countries, can get behind a single document about how to shift from fossil to clean energy. but that level of unanimity that is required means any single country can derail process. and we see that happening year after year. so i do believe we need to see about some more fundamental reform in e process around international climate negotiations, so that we can actually get global agreements

that are commensurate with the challenge. the problem we're facing at the moment is not direction to travel. i think there's an increasing recognition that clean energy, that tackling climate is part of the future. the problem we're facing is pace, speed. how do we move faster? and that is where we can't let individual countries get in the way of what the vast majority of countries want to do. william: manish bapna of the nrdc, always great to see you. thank you. manish: delighted to be here. thank you. william: this year, compared to the 2020 election, president-elect trump made gains across almost every single demographic group. but one of the most notable shifts was among young men, who moved roughly 15 points to the right. laura barron-lopez examines how mr. trump was able to court

young men online by reaching out to them in spaces well beyond mainstream media outlets. laura: on the night it became clear president-elect donald trump won the presidency again, he was joined on stage by members of his family and several high-profile supporters. >> this is karma, ladies and gentlemen. he deserves this. they deserve it as a family. laura: including the ceo of ultimate fighting championship, dana white, who paid tribute to a group of men he believed helped sway the election. dana: i want to thank the nelk boys, adin ross, theo von, bussin' with the boys, and last but not least the mighty and powerful joe rogan. laura: while those names may sound unfamiliar to some, they are all part of a growing online ecosystem that's been dubbed the manosphere, a term loosely defined as male-centered content published on platforms like tiktok, youtube, and the popular

livestreaming site for gamers twitch. >> it is so crooked. laura: during his campaign, candidate trump saw massive untapped potential to reach young male voters by appearing on podcasts like "the joe rogan experience.” donald trump: kamala goes on "60 minutes," gave an answer that a child wouldn't give. it was so bad. laura: his three-hour-long interview has been viewed more than 50 million times on youtube, providing several viral moments that could then be shared in clips across all of social media. donald trump: you want to start? you go ahead. theo von, comedian: are we rolling? laura: a strategy that trump used repeatedly on the campaign trail. donald trump: and is that a good feeling? theo von: no. on comedian theo von's podcast, he discussed drug addiction. donald trump: with cocaine, more than anything else you can think of. theo von: cocaine will turn you into a damn owl, homey. laura: he danced with livestreamer adin ross. donald trump: you want a drink? laura: and joked around with online pranksters the nelk boys on his private jet. man: well, mr. president, people surely love it.

laura: for these online content creators, the focus often isn't politics, says internet and culture writer joshua citarella. >> these are just general men's interests, sports, comedy, things like this, looking at pictures of attractive women. but if you dig a bit deeper into some of these communities, there are critiques about modernity, women's liberation, women joining the work force. laura: citarella has been researching and tracking how online spaces, including the so-called manosphere, can shape young people's political beliefs. how young are young men, boys when they start interacting with this kind of content? joshua citarella: by age 13, 14, 15, they are definitely familiar with it through memes and clips on videos. and following that, if you maintain relationships with these people, you see how their world view evolves over that time. those implicit ideas that they encountered years ago can later manifest and turn into something that is a real political commitment, in which they may decide to vote a certain way. so those early ideas do turn out

to be very impactful years later. >> what is actually happening to abortion access right now in this country? laura: while vice president harris did repeatedly reach out to voters online, including sitting down with popular podcasters, she faced criticism for not speaking with joe rogan, the nation's most popular one. >> talking on a more personal level with somebody like rogan would have boded well for her. laura: twenty-two-year-old evan gibeau is a longtime joe rogan listener and a trump voter. he says trump's interview with rogan allowed young men to see a different side of the president-elect. donald trump: i'd give an answer, which was a very good answer. i always talk about i like to give long, the weave. i like to. >> yes, you like to weave things in. evan: and we got to hear a lot of stories that trump wouldn't typically say on the road. he uses a lot of rhetoric in his rallies that you really didn't get on the podcast. and i think it was a refreshing view of trump. laura: reaching young men who often listen to podcasts and get their news from social media was a deliberate effort by the trump

campaign, says gop digital strategist eric wilson. eric wilson, gop digital strategist: they had a theory that if you watch cable news, whatever end of the political spectrum you're on, you already had your mind made up about the candidates and who you were going to vote for. they went out to these platforms where people might not be as engaged in news and current events to tell them about the election, tell them about the candidate. laura: a recent study from the pew research center found that about four in 10 voters under 30 regularly t their news from content creators. jeremiah johnson, center for new liberalism: the republican party and the trump campaign put in the effort in this space. they put in the effort, and, frankly, the democrats did not. laura: jeremiah johnson is the co-founder of the center for new liberalism, an organization that advocates for center-left politics. he says while harris' team dominated the campaign trail in traditional ways, including fund-raising and door-knocking, they made a critical mistake in not doing more online appeals to

young men. man: is this your mug shot? donald trump: yes, can you believe it? man: you're a gangster. donald trump: this is what we're reduced to. jeremiah johnson: especially in the podcast that young men were watching, trump was everywhere. and these are friendly spaces for people to kind of have relaxed conversations. and more than just donald trump, he was also sending j.d. vance to do these same podcasts. he was sending elon musk and many of his other kind of campaign representatives and ultimately resulted in a national shift to the right politically. laura: during these interviews, president-elect trump was rarely, if ever, fact-checked and influencers themselves at time repeated misinformation. their format allowed trump to speak at length and unfiltered. well >> he didn't just use these platforms, but he used them well and he understood their cultural dynamics. laura: ioana literat is an internet researcher at columbia university and co-author of "not your parents' politics." she says misinformation spreads

easily on these platforms. donald trump: the transgender operations, where they're allowed to take your child when he goes to school and turn him into a male, to a female without parental consent. ioana literat: so if you listen to his speeches or his interviews that he's done with his different podcasters and streamers, they're very incendiary, inflammatory. they can be easily packaged into bite-sized content that then can read spread, sometimes can even be taken out of context. laura: including, she says, content that reinforces negative stereotypes about women. ioana: so these misogynistic messages that trump himself often uses, that these streamers use, his podcasters use, his gamers use, they're really not only received, but reinforced online, and through clicks, through likes, through shares, through comments. laura: but for some young men, like evan gibeau, these spaces represent something else entirely.

evan: i think a lot of young conservatives are having to really suppress the amount that they talk, especially in public forum spaces, like on a college campus, because they're not really socially accepted. laura: that sentiment is what jeremiah johnson says democrats urgently need to address. jeremiah: i think what democrats have learned in this 2024 election is it's very, very hard to win an election with just your base. democrats need to focus on expanding the tent, on welcoming more people into the tent, on not shaming and scolding people until they leave the tent. laura: but joshua citarella says many young men are still persuadable, and democrats could even win back those who voted for trump. joshua citarella: i have seen people change in their beliefs. the most important thing is participation in this media landscape and having a message that speaks to their experience of the world.

donald trump: what's a good one? man: the "ymca," man, that's the donald trump: yes, "ymca" is the best. man: that's the best one. laura: still, democrats have catching up to do in an emerging space that's already shown its power to turn out voters. for the "pbs news hour," i'm laura barron-lopez. william: as the major federal felony cases against him get dropped, president-elect trump is rapidly filling up his cabinet. for that and for more, we turn to our politics monday duo. that is amy walter of the cook political report with amy walter and tamara keith of npr. so nice to see you both in your fabulous color coordination or not coordination. >> we did not coordinate it at all, but it works. william: tam, i want to start with you. this news today that, we knew that this was going to happen,

but that the felony charges against donald trump have gone away, that, this die was obviously cast on the night of the election, but there was all of this considerable evidence, will now never be heard by any jury. what do you make of all that. tamara: this is a validation of the legal plan that trump's team had. they were running out the clock. they had been running out the clock since before charges were card even filed. and, in essence, this, although vice president harris and others . others didn't really talk about this as being part of the campaign, it really was part of the campaign. he was the nominee in large part because republicans consolidated behind him after the search of mar-a-lago. that really closed off a path for some of the competition. so this is integral to this eltion. and this is, elections have consequences and this is what, this is the result. amy: you know, what's also really fascinating to think over the course of these four years,

there were so many different inflection points where the outcome of this could have looked different. there was, of course, the february 2021 impeachment, had more republicans voted to impeach. that's a decision on january 6. you obviously have the justice department that there were a lot delays in. a lot of delays in getting this investigation started. maybe had it started sooner, we wouldn't be talking about it in 2024. and then, of course, you have the immunity decision by the supreme court, along with trump's ability to really draw things out. so, at every step of the way, we could have had a different outcome. and, obviously, we knew going into this election that the outcome essentially of this case would be determined by whatever happened on election night. william: i'm curious, do either of you think that harris' decision not to focus on this more could have made a difference?

or is that just, they assume that this is baked in, that people know that donald trump in january 6, that he's responsible for that? tamara: yes, it's not just that she didn't talk about the legal cases. when her supporters would start chanting, "lock him up," which they did regularly during the campaign, she would cut them off. and she would say, no, that's for the courts to decide. i think that that was an acknowledgement of the political toxicity of these cases, that the cases actually engaged and riled up trump voters, and that her base wasn't necessarily voting on that alone. william: right. tamara: yes. amy: i mean, it was, it's also amazing when you talk to the trump campaign, the inflection point that was those indictments, right? tamara: yes. amy: i mean, they will argue, we already had momentum going into the primaries. but those first indictments helped to shore up his base. and that base has never left him. william: right. amy: and that's also, again, one of the many decision points along the way. william: i want to turn back to

laura's piece that she just did about this, quote, unquote, "manosphere" and just the incredibly effective way that trump reached out to these young men online, the way he did it, and their incredible reception to the way trump was making his pitch to them. heard how do you see that dynamic? tamara: there was a large part work of the electorate this cycle who were actively avoiding one political news. they did not want to think about politics. they were not seeking it out. william: they weren't watching politics monday? tamara: they were not watching politics monday. they, yes, unless we accidentally came through their tiktok feed somehow. (laughter) tamara: but, so people were actively avoiding politics. both campaigns were trying to crack the code on how do you reach people who don't want to

be reached? what trump figured out is, you are go on these bro podcasts that are not political podcasts. they are podcasts about other things. william: right. tamara: and then the politics just sort of seeps in. it finds people in their natural environment where they're avoiding politics and it are not introduces politics at a time when they are open to suggestion. and all along, we were talking about how this was sort of a risky strategy, because young men are not regular voters. they're not regular voters. well, he got them engaged. he found them on their podcasts and in the tiktok feeds, and he got them engaged enough to vote for him. it's not clear that they voted downballot necessarily. amy: you know, i have been talking to a lot of folks who study this both before, during and then after this election. your and it is, this gen z gender divide is really quite fascinating, and it goes much beyond our politics. i mean, there definitely was a gender divide on election day, the kind of which we had never seen before in a place like pennsylvania. among the youngest cohort of voters, the gender gap was 62 points. william: yes. amy: just to put that in context, the overall gender gap was like 25 or 26 points in that state. william: that's incredible.

gender amy: what we see, what we're seeing right now is that more and more of these young men now that are using these sites, whether it's tiktok or the podcasts or youtube as a way to build community. this is a generation of young men who feel very disconnected, who feel very lost, who feel left behind. and these are the places that they go to find that community. what i noticed as well is, it's not just that trump went to those places, but the organic way in which conversations that started off about sports or video games would also then lead into the host themselves talking about, oh, hey, did you see trump go into mcdonald's? did you see trump was at the fight? william: the ufc fight. amy: the ufc thing. and so he became part of it,

even though, so we know this. the best candidates are able to meet voters where they are, and that's what he was able to do. william: do you think, tam, it's a fair criticism that's been made against harris that she didn't more actively do that didn't, go on "joe rogan," say? tamara: right. she didn't go on joe rogan. they were in negotiations. it didn't work out. one hour later ultimately, rogan said that he was offered a one-hour interview. he wanted three and that he would have to come to washington and not have it in his studio. she did go in spaces that are not normal places for politicians to go. she did go on podcasts. her vice presidential nominee also went on podcasts. also, if you remember, in the very early stages of her campaign, there was the coconut tree meme and there was brat summer and all of this stuff. or and a lot of that was organic. but in the end, it sort of faded out. and also at the same time, the harris campaign was more cautious. i mean, trump went on podcasts that she definitely wouldn't go go on on just because like you

don't know what these guys are going to say. william: sure. sure. it's incredibly risky. tamara: yes. amy: yes. and, again, i think it comes back to that authenticity piece. tamara: yes. amy: i mean, when you saw her numbers really spike, it was when the coconut memes and all the brat stuff was happening because what younger people were seeing was, oh, this is something i can relate to. this is something that's interesting. as soon as she became more of a traditional candidate, as soon as it was about rolling out white papers and putting policy into place, there wasn't that same connection to her among those same younger voters. and even among younger women, there was a shift to the right in this election. she still overwhelmingly won those women, but they were not connecting with her in the same way that younger men were connecting with trump. william: amy walter and tamara keith, so nice to see you both in your visions of red. have a great thanksgiving. thanks for being here.

>> this week income the venezuelan opposition accused the majuro government of -- nick schifrin speaks to the head of the opposition first looks at this summer's spirited election and what has happened since. nick: through the window of argentina's embassy in caracas, an urgent alert. the opposition films venezuelan security forces, threatening their political opponents. that opposition has faced a crackdown. unprecedented mass arrests, and been on the run, ever since nicolas maduro and his government claimed victory in a july election that the opposition calls stolen.

last week, the u.s. recognized opposition candidate edmundo gonzales as president-elect, as he helps lead the opposition from exile in spain, after maduro issued a warrant for his arrest. his political matron, maria corina machado, was banned by maduro's regime from contesting the election. and yet she rallied across the country, mobilizing an opposition and providing proof that gonzales won twice as many votes as maduro. over 11 years, maduro's authoritarian rule has led to economic collapse, diplomatic isolation, and the exodus of nearly 8 million venezuelans. the u.s. continues to call for a dialogue between maduro and the opposition, and a transition to democracy. >> we come here united in the commitment to defend the human rights of the venezuelan people, and committed to bring about an inclusive, venezuelan-led effort to restore the nation's

democratic future. nick: maria corina machado remains in hiding, and joins us now from an undisclosed location in venezuela. maria corina machado. thanks very much. welcome to the news hour. we have seen an unprecedented crackdown on the opposition, on anyone in venezuela who opposes the government. can the opposition survive if the crackdown continues? >> not only the country and the democratic forces will survive, but the regime will have to accept that their time is over. it's important to understand that the more violent they get, it's because they are weaker, more desperate. maduro is totally isolated, not only in venezuela but also internationally, and the cracks and fractures among the different groups that support -- that comprehend the criminal regime are growing by the hour. nick: the biden administration vows to continue imposing costs on maduro.

critics of the administration have called on the administration to impose more sanctions and revoke the licenses that allow oil companies to work in venezuela. do you want to see the biden administration take those steps? >> we certainly believe the international community should let maduro know that all those criminals who are violating human rights and have committed crimes against amenity will be -- against humanity will be held accountable. at the same time, maduro supports himself on criminal activities, from drug trafficking, smuggling, money laundering, and all these resources, they use them to persecute and repress the population. it is the moment where the international community should act. nick: until now the biden administration been concerned that more sanctions would imperil the regional coalition it has tried to build, especially brazil, colombia, and

mexico's support for what the is doing. critics of the administration want the u.s. to go further regardless of what regional players want. what do you think is more important, increased u.s. pressure or regional unity? >> i do not think one thing is against the other. i think latin american countries and even european are aligned around a democratic transition. we won an election by a landslide and maduro since then has unleashed the worst repression campaign. it's a moment we have to put a stop to these and make maduro understand that the cost of staying in power is going to be higher every day that goes by. he cannot wait until january when president-elect edmundo gonzales, recognized by the united states administration, inunited states administration, should be sworn into the presidency.

william: you say he can't wait until january. january 10 is when the venezuelan inauguration is scheduled. january 20 as the u.s. inauguration. have you been speaking to the incoming members of the trump administration and do you want to take some of the same steps they did in the first trump administration, including the sanctions and oil licenses they took back? >> i have contact with the current administration. i have contact with the next administration. and i hope the strategy, putting strength and pressure on maduro, will work this time because it is a totally different regime, weaker than ever, and our country is united. under legitimate leadership as never before. william: you point out it's a different regime. the trump administration tried to support juan guaido.

they called juan guaido the president-elect. they tried massive sanctions. it didn't work. why do you think it didn't work and why is today different? >> maduro had at that time a lot of support internationally. not anymore. he has russia, iran, north korea, syria, belarus, not much more. maduro at that time had more support from the military that was more united. not anymore. and also he had more resources that he could use to persecute or to even buy allies. now we have a united opposition, a legitimate leadership, because we went to a primary process, then to an election that we won by a landslide. this is the time to move forward, for the regime to understand that their time is over and it is in their best interest to sit down and accept the terms of a negotiated transition.

if he doesn't do that before january 10, maduro and his cronies, it's going to be on worse terms. in nick: you have supported u.s. legislation to block the u.s. federal government from doing business with anyone who has commercial ties with the maduro regime. that legislation is sponsored by representative from florida, michael waltz, senator marco rubio, the national security advisor, and the secretary of state under the trump administration. the attorney general says your statements have constituted the commission of crimes of treason against the country and conspiracy with foreign countries. does that increase the threat against you today? >> i am accused every day of a new crime. i wouldn't have enough lives for years to address all the accusations they have put on me. i don't know what else they think they can do, but they

certainly would not stop us from doing what we should. we will never, never surrender. nick: maria corina machado. thank you very much. >> thank you, nick. william: president biden took to the south lawn today, using his lame duck status to spare a flock of fowl from the chopping block this holiday season. deema zein has the report. deema: for the fourth year in a row, president joe biden marked the start of the holiday season by carving out some time to make sure two turkeys would not be on the menu this thanksgiving. pres. biden: i hereby part peach and blossom.

keep calm and gobble on. deema: the president took a more reflective tone today than in past years. pres. biden: this event marks the official start of the holiday season in washington. it's also my last time as your president during this season. i give thanks and gratitude. let me say to you, it has been the honor of my life. i am forever grateful. deema: biden used the moment to represent his home state of delaware, naming departed birds after the state flower, a peach blossom. gobble for more than three rather decades, turkeys have gobbled up attention at the white house rather than the dinner table. but how it got started, that debate has ruffled some feathers. >> president truman was the first president to pardon a turkey. deema: actually truman was the first president to receive a turkey from the national turkey federation, but there is no record of a pardon. according to the white house historic association, truman said the bird would come in handy for christmas dinner. who was the first president to pardon a turkey?

technically it was honest abe lincoln after his young son todd begged to save the life of a bird originally destined to become christmas dinner. jack the turkey instead became a white house pet. john president john f. kennedy gobbler was the first to spare a thanksgiving gobbler in 1963, despite a sign hanging around the turkey's and that read, good eating, mr. president. kennedy sent them back to the farm and a year before richard nixon received a pardon of his own, his daughter chose to gift his turkey to a local petting zoo. it was ronald reagan who carved out a spot in history as the first to use the word pardon when talking turkey. in 1987, the tradition became formalized by president george w. bush. >> let me assure you and this fine tom turkey that he will not end up on anyone's dinner table. deema: the event is now an annual white house ritual and for the past decade, the turkeys have been able to experience a treat as sweet as pie, a stay at

the four-star willard hotel instead of making it to the dinner table. from here, peach and blossom will head back to minnesota where they will live out their days as agricultural ambassadors for minnesota's agricultural interpretive center, says john zimmerman, chairman of the national turkey federation, who talked to us with his son grant. >> they have a nice campus and facilities where they will house these birds and comfort, feed and take care of them, but they will also be available to school trips and the general population to visit with the birds and hopefully learn more about turkey farming and agriculture. deema: before they were pardoned, we got a chance to meet them up close and even catch them in an interview. how do you feel about being the top two out of 40 pardoned? they were talking turkey to me. four the pbs news hour, i'm deema zein.

william: keep on and gobble on. that is the news hour for tonight. i'm william brangham. on behalf of the entire newshour team, thank you so much for joining us. >> major funding for the pbs news hour has been provided by -- ♪ supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation, committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. more information at macfound.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 the "pbs news hour" west from the david m rubenstein studio at weta in washington and in the west from the walter cronkite school of journalism at arizona state university. >> you're watching pbs.

♪♪ ♪♪