♪ amna: good evening. i'm amna nawaz. geoff: and i'm geoff bennett. on the news hour tonight, states sue to block massive cuts to medical research, while a federal judge says the trump administration is ignoring his court order to pause a broader funding freeze. amna: president trump announces new tariffs on steel and

aluminum imports, escalating his administration's trade wars. geoff: and the los angeles-area wildfires reveal a devastating new reality. in a world threatened by climate change, homeowners are increasingly left without insurance. >> as somebody who's always known what i was going to do and where i was going to be and all that stuff. all my life. it's just seems like there's a blank in my future. ♪ >> major funding for the "pbs news hour" has been provided by -- >> on an american cruise lines journey, along the legendary mississippi river, travelers explore civil war battlefields and historic riverside towns. a board our fleet of american riverboats, you can experience local culture and cuisine.

and discover the music and history of the mighty mississippi. american cruise lines. proud sponsor of pbs news hour. >> the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions. and friends of the news hour, including leonard and norma core vine, and the judy and clover foundation. ♪ >> the william and flora hewlett foundation. for more than 50 years, 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. geoff: welcome to the news hour. today a federal judge said that president donald trump violated his order that lifted a blanket freeze on federal spending and again directed the administration to release the funds. amna: that as top prosecutors in nearly half the country sued the -- just want a temporary legal victory restoring medical research funding, stripped late last week. white house correspondent laura barron-lopez joins us for more. we are three weeks into the trump administration. you are seeing a growing number of federal judges described the president's actions as

overreach. what more do federal judges say about mr. trump's attempts to freeze those federal funds? laura: on that sweeping freeze of federal funding, a district judge said in a ruling today that the trump -- the trump administration's freeze of those funds "violate the plain text of an order he previously issued, saying they needed to stop, and they needed to release all of those funds." judge mcconnell called trump's actions "likely unconstitutional" and said the freeze continues to cause irreparable harm to much of the country. he did not hold any government officials in contempt, criminal contempt, but hinted he might in the future if they violate this order. he specifically order the administration to stop freezing money for the infrastructure law, inflation reduction act, fine and error laws, as well as the administration needed to release funding for the national institutes of health. the question here is does the trump administration comply with this order? i asked the white house and they did not answer.

there are suggestions from people like vice president pence and elon musk that they think the administration should defy the court orders. amna: you mentioned the national institutes of health. on friday night, the trump administration announced it was cutting billions of dollars in nih funding. we saw a temporary legal victory for the case to let those funds move ahead. what should we understand about that case and its impact? laura: a second judge has said moments ago that the administration needs to release that funding for the national that goes to medical centers, universities, and it funds research for things like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. they said the administration needs to show within 24 hours that they have released those funds, they have to show that on an ongoing basis. the state's argue this is lifesaving research that is being held up because of this block. amna: we see mr. trump and elon musk's work to slash that.

laura: the head of the budget office for the trump administration, but also the acting director of the cfpb, the consumer watchdog group, he ordered all cfpb staff stop working, don't come into the office. this is something project 2025 wanted to do. they wanted to eliminate the entire agency. like the u.s. a id agency for international development, it takes an act of congress if you will dismantle any of these agencies, or even try to transfer their functions. it is a question of whether or not congress will step in here. it is a playbook similar to what they did with usaid. we did see that despite a judge's orders saying usaid workers had to be allowed to return to work, and to reinstate their functions and the work of the agency, ultimately, those workers were barred from entering their office today. amna: our correspondent laura

barron-lopez with the latest. thank you. laura: thank you. amna: also today, president trump assigned orders to put 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports to the u.s. two key american allies, canada and mexico, would be significantly impacted. but so would american businesses and consumers. for more, i am joined by greg ip, chief economics commentator at the wall street journal. it is good to see you. let's start with this announcement of 25% steel and aluminum tariffs. a few days ago, you wrote in your column that the early verdict on tariffs was bad economics, better politics. does this latest announcement for an in with that pattern? greg: only time will tell. we will have to see what happens with this. a from trump's first term, that when he and similar tariffs on steel and aluminum, the result was to create some additional domestic production in jobs and -- in the steel and aluminum industries.

but it erased costs and caused a lot of harm in the industries that consume steel and aluminum. that harm was compounded when our trading partners retaliated against those tariffs. the net effect was an economic negative. fast forward to today. when president trump a week earlier said he was going to impose 25% tariffs on canada and mexico, we saw a very negative reaction of the stock market. that too suggests investors inspect -- expect that it will be negative. amna: we should point out that there is an intention to target china. china is not one of the top steel or aluminum suppliers to the u.s. there are already existing tariffs on chinese steel and aluminum even from the previous administration. how with this potential move impact china? greg: i think certainly trump's first administration in to some extent, the biden

administration, made a distinction between china and everybody else. there was a reconition that china was eight -- was a strategic competitor to the united states and it did not adhere to the rules of global trade as other countries understand. there was a better case from imposing high tariffs on china, notwithstanding the harm that would cause to those who import things from china. in this case, the president is not making that distinction. he is saying tariffs on everybody, whether or not you are an ally. that is tickets the motive is to try to protect the u.s. steel and aluminum industries. china, even though it is not being singled out in these tariffs, it is so if they're in the background. one of the concerns folks have had about tariffs and about china in the past is even when there are tariffs on chinese steel, it comes in through third countries, where china sells steel cheaply to one country. that country's industry suffers and it sells it to the united states. there might be in a roundabout

way then effort to get at china. that is secondary. what trump is saying is he is willing to impose high tariffs indefinitely to protect industries that are important to him. amna: is it clear what the actual goal is for the trump administration? especially when it comes to canada and mexico, the other tariffs he has postponed as well. greg: trump's advisors put forth many different justifications for tariffs. they will tell you that there is a difference between tariffs that are intended for negotiation, or punitive tariffs. that is the tariffs that we are -- that were threatened against mexico and canada as a way to get them to act on american concerns on the inflow of migrants and fentanyl. there is a different bucket they call structural tariffs. these are indefinite and meant to inculcate long-term economic and political changes, such as strengthening the u.s. manufacturing base, or revenue that can pay for tax cuts. the tariffs that were threatened

against mexico and canada a week ago fall into the first bucket. they were not, if you listen to the president, intended to be there forever. just long enough until mexico and canada did act. it appears they are acting on american concerns. the tariffs the president announced today on steel and aluminum, and the ones he set are coming, the reciprocal tariffs on everybody, those are probably more in the second bucket of structural open-ended tariffs. we can expect those to be in place for a long time. the problems that they are addressing, the large trade deficit, are not going away in a few months. geoff: that is greg ip, chiefs economic commentator at the wall street journal. thank you so much. good to speak with you. greg: thanks for having me. ♪ geoff: the day's other headlines begin in the middle east where a

fragile ceasefire between israel and hamas may be at risk. hamas says it will delay the further release of hostages, accusing israel of breaking parts of the six-week cease fire agreement. so far, five swaps have freed 21 israeli hostages and over 700 palestinian prisoners. hamas left the door open for the next exchange, it says, if israel "abides by its obligations." meantime, more comments from president trump have the potential for inflaming tensions in the region. he told fox news that under his proposed u.s. takeover of gaza after the war, palestinians who leave would not be allowed back. pres. trump: think of it as a real estate development for the future. it would be a beautiful piece of land, no big money spent. >> would the palestinians have the right to return? pres. trump: no, they wouldn't, because they're going to have much better housing. geoff: that contradicts comments from administration officials, including white house press secretary karoline leavitt, who said last week that palestinians

would be temporarily relocated. president trump is also set to pardon former illinois governor rod blagojevich, according to multiple reports. the president had already commuted his 14-year sentence for corruption during his first term. blagojevich was once on mr. trump's show, "celebrity apprentice" and politico reports that he is under consideration to be ambassador to serbia. romanian president klaus iohannis says he will resign after months of pressure, and as he was set to face an impeachment vote. iohannis is term-limited, but after romania's top court controversially scrapped an election back in december, it also kept him in office until a new presidential election in may. in the face of protests, and a growing number of lawmakers who've said his extended term was illegal, iohannis said an impeachment process would've only caused more pain. >> to spare romania from this crisis, this useless and negative evolution, i resign from the position of president of romania and i will leave the day after tomorrow, february

12th. geoff: romania's senate president is supposed to fill the role of acting leader, until the new election is held. opening statements began today in the trial for the man accused of stabbing author salman rushdie on-stage at a lecture back in 2022. 27-year-old hadi matar has pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and assault. rushdie was stabbed more than a dozen times, leaving him blind in one eye and paralyzed in one hand. the indian-born, british-american novelist had been a target of death threats for years after publishing his 1988 novel "the satanic verses." he's expected to testify during the trial. in hawaii, a $4 billion settlement for victims of the 2023 maui wildfire can finally move forward after months of legal delays. the state's supreme court ruled today that insurance companies may not take their own legal action against those blamed for the fires including hawaiian electric company. insurers insisted they had the right to do so in order to

recoup money paid out to policyholders. the case now goes back to a maui judge for next steps. the fire was the deadliest in the u.s. in more than a century. on wall street today, across-the-board gains to start the new week. the dow jones industrial average rebounded from last friday's worst loss in nearly four weeks, while the nasdaq shot up by almost a full percentage point. the s&p 500 also posted a solid gain. and eagles fans can keep riding the high from last night's super bowl victory all week long. the team's star quarterback, jalen hurts, enjoyed a day at walt disney world, and the birds will parade through philadelphia on friday, valentines day, to celebrate their landslide 44-20 win against the kansas city chiefs . >> your philadelphia eagles are super bowl champions! geoff: last night, watch parties across the city ended with cheers, even some tears, from elated fans who then poured into the streets in droves. it's the second time the eagles

have taken home the lombardi trophy, denying the chiefs their chance at the first three-peat in nfl history. still to come on the news hour, the former acting secretary of homeland security discusses the trump administration's immigration agenda. a look at how the courts may serve as check on the trump presidency. and the insurance crisis laid bare by the devastating california wildfires leaves victims in financial straits. >> 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. geoff: the consumer financial protection bureau has been shut down by president trump at least for this week and possibly much longer, perhaps permanently. the agency, which was created by congress after the 2008 financial crisis, has limited credit card fees, made mortgage loans easier to understand and

returned billions of dollars to consumers. but it's also long been a target by many who see it as overly aggressive. rohit chopra is the former director of the consumer financial protection bureau and joins me now. thank you for coming in. this has been known as one of the nation's most powerful watchdog agencies. what has typically fallen under its purview since its creation? rohit: we saw what happened in the years leading up to the financial crisis. mortgages that were setting people up to fail, and it crashed the economy. what congress did is created some real law enforcement with keith -- with teeth to take down crimes against consumers. over the years, we have recovered billions of dollars of funds that were really taken from people. they were treated, and it is back in their pockets. i don't think it makes any sense to defend law enforcement that is policing wall street, big tech companies and others, who

are taking advantage of people, who are just trying to get by. geoff: the broad scope of work is one of the reasons why republicans have been targeting it for so long. russell vote, the newly installed acting head of the agency, over the weekend tweeted this. the cfpb has been a woke and weaponized agency against disfavored industries and individuals for a long time. this must end. to which he would say what? rohit: i don't know what on earth that means. the actions that have been taken by the cfpb in the past few years are against debt collectors who are illegally collecting on medical debt against companies like capital one, which have been withholding billions of dollars in interest. credit reporting companies who have tarnished credit reports improperly due to errors. these are things people of every political stripe want to protect themselves against. and often, consumers do not have

much power again some of the most -- the biggest corporations in america. that is what the cfpb does to level the playing field. geoff: apart from those who view the agency as being too aggressive, there are people who wonder if the functions could be carried out in another way. every state has a consumer protection office. why can't states to do this work, why can't the doj do this work? rohit: he tried that and it was an enormous failure. that is one of the reasons why there was a mortgage crisis. there was not a dedicated group of law enforcers focused on this. if people want to play some sort of game of musical chairs, that feels like pretext for actually wanting to sweep crime under the rug by some of the most powerful people in america, and that's just totally wrong. geoff: during the first trump term, the agency at one point requested a budget of zero dollars.

this was back when mick mulvaney was the interim head of the agency. this was done as a way of defining their corporate actions. what was the impact then and what is the comparison between what was done then and what republicans are trying to do now? rohit: when i took over as director of the cfpb, there was not much oversight over big companies. in some ways, there were concerns that it was focused on small-scale actors. just take a look in the last few weeks of the last administration. we saw the cfpb sue capital one, sue experian, one of the biggest credit reporting conglomerates. get $120 million back from cash cap, one of the biggest payment apps. and the list goes on and on. i really think defunding this kind of oversight is just begging for another financial crisis, and it is a complete giveaway to many of these big tech companies who increasingly want to become a bank. geoff: what are the implications

of this current shutdown? what work is not getting done? rohit: that's what i want to know and we have to figure out, are all of the investigations that were in advanced stages, is all of that going to simply be deleted? that means all of those consumers who might have been cheated and all of the companies and their executives, who is really winning and that? it is clearly not consumers. geoff: former director of the consumer financial protection board, thanks so much. rohit: thanks. ♪ amna: president trump has spent his first weeks in office reshaping much of the american immigration system through executive actions, and working to see through a campaign promise of mass deportations. for more on this, i'm joined by chad wolf, former acting secretary of homeland security

in the first trump administration and current executive director of the america first policy institute, a conservative think tank. secretary wolf, welcome back to the program. sec. wolf: thanks for having me. good to be here. amna: what has press secretary carolyn levitz, more than a thousand people have been arrested in immigration enforcement action since president trump was inaugurated on january 20. we have seen reports that the president has been unhappy with the pace of arrests and deportations. when you talk to people on the inside, what do they tell you about the challenges of meeting these expectations? sec. wolf: the number i have gotten is a -- is over 11,000. i think it is a good first step. we have to remember that we are only going on the fourth week of the administration. scaling up, the number of folks removed from the country will take a little time. i think they want immediate results. given where the president has been on this. as you indicate, there are

challenges to doing that, both you need manpower to target and arrest individuals, and then you need detention space to put them in as they are being flown out of the country. all of that takes logistics, it takes scaling up to be able to do that. three weeks, four weeks into this effort, and they are at a very high rate. amna: have seen the pace slowing a little bit. the highest single day arrest total we saw was about 1100 over 1100 early in mr. trump's administration. there was reporting that of that total, about half of all of those, 600 people or so, were arrested as criminal arrests. the rest are what you would call nonviolent offenders on civil immigration charges. is that your understanding of the trend, have of everyone arrested so far has been on a criminal arrest? sec. wolf: i have not seen the exact breakdown of criminal versus noncriminal arrest within that overall number. that does not surprise me. they will target the worst of the worst.

those criminal aliens. what they have said is as they target these individuals, and they have to go into these neighborhoods and cities, that they are not going to ignore other individuals that they come into contact with. meaning other individuals that are here in the country illegally, and don't have a legal right to be here, what they often referred to as collateral arrest. what we saw during the biden administration is they would not detain those individuals, they would not report them. trump administration has said, ignoring the law, we will not do that. we will let i.c.e. do their job. i think you are starting to see more and more of those types of arrests as they continue to roll out and look for those violent and dangerous individuals. amna: if that's the case, can you clarify for us? there are a lot of ways people can have protected status here, temporary protected status, for hundreds of thousands of people, daca is another form of that action. you probably saw there was a report out of florida about a

middle school teacher who was a doctor recipient, a 24-year-old teacher, who was reportedly detained, arrested and deported back to honduras after appearing for what the union said was a regular immigration appointment. that has caused a lot of concern for people. can you clarify if someone hasd -- can you clarify if someone has daca, are they protected from deportation? sec. wolf: there is a number of early that the government provides to folks. you mentioned daca, they could be in the middle of their asylum proceedings. all of those measures and relieve have an ongoing process that you have to adhere to. unless those individuals for any number of reasons fall out of status, so they can commit a crime, do any number of other things, therefore eligible for removal. if you have some type of relief where you are in a process of doing that, then you are

obviously not eligible to be removed. amna: can i ask if you can share anything to help clarify the deportation flights we have seen to guantanamo bay? there have been a few military flights already. it's been reported between 60 and 70 people so far. we heard president trump say this is where what he calls the worst of the worst will be sent. what is the bar for deporting someone to guantanamo? do they have to be convicted of a violent crime? sec. wolf: they are using guantanamo bay as a staging area. any time target an individual, arrest an individual, you have to put them in a bed in order to hold them, in order to line up a deportation flight back to their home country or back to another third country. they are using guantanamo bay as a staging ground. the coast guard has done this in the past with haitian migrants, cuban migrants that they pick up at sea. that facility has some muscle

memory on how to do that. obviously, for the number of arrests that this administration wants to see as they scale up, they will need more and more bets. whether that is through the military at places like guantanamo bay, or that is through state and local sheriffs, or through private contractors. they will need more capacity to hold individuals as they line up flights to remove them out of the country. amna: the u.s. has not held people en masse there from cuba and haiti since the 1990's. that stopped in 1996. there have been fewer than a hundred or so migrants held at the facility. the bar for deporting someone from the united states soil to guantanamo bay -- quintana mowbray, is a clear where that is? sec. wolf: i continue to hear the worst of the worst. it doesn't matter what they have done. if you are eligible for removal, they can move you to places like guantanamo bay. . they can move you to other places they have in the u.s. and texas and arizona. it is just a holding facility so that then you can be put on an

aircraft and flown back to your home country or another country that will repatriate you. amna: i want to get a big picture question in here. the agency you use to lead, the department of homeland security, that has the third largest federal department by workforce, was targeted in that outline in project 2025. it was looking for ways to reshape the incoming trump administration as a department that could be eliminated wholesale. when you look at the actions taken by elon musk and his team, looking for efficiencies, places to cut the workforce, what is your view on that? should the department of homeland security be eliminated? sec. wolf: i would not advocate for abolishment of dhs. but are there places where you can trim the fat? absolutely. whether does wants to come in or other individuals want to come in, take a look at the department, where they are meeting their statutory mandate, where they have had that mission creep over time and where can they scale back, save the

american taxpayers some money, but continue to keep america safe, protect the homeland, and do what was originally envisioned by congress. amna: former acting secretary of homeland security, chad wolf the executive director director of the american first policy institute. thank you. good to speak with you. sec. wolf: thank you. geoff: the start of president tump's second term brought dramatic proposals and unprecedented changes to the federal government that includes pushing the legal boundaries of executive authority. our new series, on democracy, is taking a step back to look at big questions about the changing laws, institutions and norms. stephen vladeck is a law professor at georgetown university who focuses on federal courts and constitutional law. great to have you here. is -- as donald trump pushes the

limits of executive power, he told reporters that no judge "should be allowed to rule against the changes his administration is making. add to that a tweet from jd vance who appeared to question the judicial branch's authority after a federal judge temporarily stopped elon musk and his aides from accessing government systems. vance said judges are not allowed to control the executives legitimate power. that seems to at least raise the idea that the current administration is ignoring or defying, ready to ignore or defy a federal court order. stephen: i don't think we are there yet. it is important to note that as we have had 47 some odd lawsuits from the new administration, there is no sign yet that the administration is affirmatively choosing to not comply with these court orders. we saw earlier today a judge in rhode island who said, here are a couple places where you are not complying fast enough. it's the not -- it's not the same thing.

the rhetoric is far out in front of what is happening on the ground. just an administration that is largely abiding by these court orders even as we see this dangerous rhetoric about why they may not have to. geoff: how much discretion does the executive branch have? stephen: historically, none. we should be clear about this. the north historically has been that when individual district judges, even in far off parts of the country are blocking federal programs, the right remedy is to appeal and ask that intermediate federal courts and the supreme court to rule on the legality of the program. it's what we saw during the first trump administration with the travel bans. the reality that the danger in vice president vance's tweet is the assumption that what the executive branch is doing is legitimate, that's not up to the executive branch. that's up to the courts, acting consistent with the separation of powers, and it is up to the branches working together to make sure no one branch gets too far out of line. geoff: what would happen if this president, any president, were

to openly and willingly defy a court order? stephen: we have been lucky that we have had -- we have not had to face the problem. quote about andrew jackson and john marshall is a profitable. i think what would happen is a political crisis. the question at that point would be, are the courts going to use other tools at their disposal? the federal government depends upon the federal courts. almost as much as a plaintiff, as adults when it is being sued in federal policies. our courts going to fight back? is congress going -- which has been far too acquiescent and what the president has been doing, going to push back? it is a redline we have never crossed, and when we have not crossed for good reason. geoff: on this matter of the president's unilateral efforts to reshape the federal government, jim jordan who chairs the house judiciary committee, he was 1 -- he was on one of the sunday shows. he defended the work of elon musk by making this argument that musk is a proxy of the

executive branch. >> the constitution is clear. article two, section one, says the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of america. first sentence in the section about the executive order. it is the presidents, not a bureaucrat, is not some staff person or employee at the department of education. it is the president of the united states. the folks who work for that are federal employees carrying out the will of the executive branch leader. geoff: is that argument hold up? stephen: so far as it goes which is to say not very far. yes, doge is an office within the executive office of the president. the president is allowed to have subordinates who do his bidding. those subordinates are even more bound to follow the relevant statutory contracts -- constraints. there are mandatory appropriations that the executive branch is not abiding by. there are statutes limiting the

ability to cut funding for nih, the executive branch is not abided by. it is a fair amount of deflection on the part of chairman jordan's part. the reality is we have an executive branch that is claiming the authority to exercise just about unfettered control over federal spending, over the federal bureaucracy, and through the vice president, over the federal courts. james madison wrote in one of the federalist papers that the accumulation of all power is legislative, executive, and judicial, may be pronounced the definition of tyranny. there is a reason why these statutes are important constraints. there is a reason why we depend upon the courts to enforce these statutes. just because elon musk has this sway within the executive branch, does not change legal analysis about whether the executive branch can trample on these congressional powers. geoff: the system was never set up to have the courts be the only check on the executive.

yet that is the situation in which we find ourselves. democrats are power and republicans are giving broad consent to donald trump. what are the applications? stephen: they go well beyond our current moment. our constitutional system is premised on the idea that ambition must be made to counteract ambition. each of the branches should be pushing up against each other, even when they are controlled by folks who agree with each other. we have an ambitious president. we have an ambitious judiciary. we have a congress that is doing almost nothing to assert its institutional prerogative. i think that is a big part not just of where we are today, but why in recent years, so many of our national policy fights have turned into fights between the executive branch and the courts. it is not sustainable in the long term. we are starting to see a lot of evidence as to why. geoff: how do you answer the question that some republicans asked, which is, isn't this what joe biden did when he tried to waive student debt?

the supreme court said you could not do that and he tried to find a path forward. stephen: we ought to be careful to be nuanced. president biden after he lost on the heroes act version of his student loan program, tried again through a different statute. he said, i want to try to accomplish the same policy result through a legal authority the courts have not yet blocked. he lost that one too. but nowhere along the way in either of those rounds of litigation did you have president biden or vice president harris or anyone else say that the courts have no power to review the legality of this program. they conceded that they did. they just tried two different ways to get there. that's not new. president trump himself tried three shots at the travel ban during his first administration. what is different about what we are hearing this week is the notion that there is something inherently illegitimate about federal judges reviewing the legality of what the executive branch is doing. that has never been how we have understood the relationship

between the courts and executive in this country. geoff: what will you be watching for moving forward? stephen: a lot. there is a lot to keep track of. to me, there are a couple of big pressure points. one, which of these cases gets to the supreme court first? two, how is the executive branch going to react if it loses in the supreme court? even the supreme court which gave president trump a huge weight last july. i think it will not be inclined to completely restructure the separation of power the way president trump wants to. if he loses in this court, will he abide by those rulings? third, what is it going to take to get at least some republicans in congress even a handful in the house, a handful in the senate, to actually think that congress's institutional prerogatives are worth asserting? what is going to be the redline? that's the big question looming over all of this litigation activity. geoff: stephen vladeck, thanks as always for your insights.

stephen: thank you. geoff: we are now seeing the first polling about how the american public views president trump's second term so far. for that and the other political headlines, we turn to our politics monday duo. that's amy walter of the cook political report with amy walter. and tamara keith of npr. hello, hello. president trump has started his term with net positive marks for americans overall, according to a new cbs news you give poll. he has a 53% approval rating and many of his policies have majority support, like immigration, his handling of the situation in gaza. when you look at these numbers, what do you see? amy: this one poll definitely starts donald trump in a place he did not spend any time in his first term, which is about 50% approval rating. if you look at the average of all of the polls that have been

taken since he has started his tenure as president, he is a little lower than that, but still in positive territory. i think there are a couple things to note. the first is, historically, his overall approval rating is lower than where most presidents have been. but what is the most telling and the most unique is how high his disapproval ratings are. usually, a first-term president comes in, even though this is not your typical first-term president. with a certain amount of benefit of the doubt from the other side. if you look at somebody like ronald reagan, his overall approval ratings when he first came in were not that hyper they were somewhere in the low 50's. his disapproval ratings were like eighth. this is 47%. there is a doug in opposition to donald trump. that's why the number that will be the most important going forward is looking at whether

that opposition to him grows, rather than looking just at his approval rating number. geoff: another important number in this poll is 66% of respondents also think he is not spending enough time on the thing he was elected to do, and that is lower prices. i remember talk about the price of eggs four dollars being too high and it has gone about that. tamara: i think it is about twice that month -- twice that now. it is affecting real people when they go into the grocery store every time they go into the grocery store. the reality is that is bird flu, and is not something that the president of the united states has direct control over. the president of the united states does not have a lot of levers to pull to bring down prices broadly in the economy. that said, some of the things president trump is doing, including raising tariffs, just announced 25% on aluminum and steel, and other tariffs he is talking about, generally speaking, mainstream economists

will say raising tariffs is essentially raising prices on the american people in the end. he is doing some things that don't seem to move in the direction of lowering prices. his white house is definitely not talking about prices very much. it is not their emphasis. their emphasis is on things they do have more control over. like immigration, like picking public fights, like saying he is going to band paper straws. amy: let's be clear, in those poles, what people are telling pollsters is they think donald trump is actually leading up to what he said he was going to do. the fact that he is taking action and people see he is actually following through on things, i have been listening in on focus groups of voters who voted for biden last time around, voted for from this time. and that is really one of the main takeaways. they said, at least he is doing something. he said he would try all these things and he is doing.

geoff: it raises the question, how did democrats and trump critics, how do they respond to this? democrats said that trump was unfit for public office, he gets reelected. now there are concerns about, as they see it, an unconstitutional power grab and he has got this high favorability. tamara: there is a lot of looking at wounds that is happening among democrats. as we speak, there are lawmakers and others protesting outside of the consumer financial protection bureau, protesting elon musk. what democrats have realized is elon musk is less popular than donald trump, so they are putting emphasis on him. and they are also trying, though they have not exactly gotten there yet, they are trying to bring the focus back to prices whenever they can, and they are trying to figure out a way to defend the government without defending the government.

a lot of voters think the government is too big and think the government does not work for them. so democrats are kind of struggling, i would argue, to figure out a way to defend institutions while not also defending the status quo. geoff: there is this dynamic where donald trump and elon musk, this approach of using a hammer instead of a scalpel in this effort to remake the federal government, it has the effect of hurting red states. we heard from senator jerry moran who warned about usaid, since it is correct -- connected to u.s. agriculture. katie britt raised concerns about cuts to biomedical research at the nih, how that could affect that state. texas, north carolina, the list goes on. we heard from susan collins, i was blinking there for a second. >> there are definitely repercussions to this. and you all have been reporting on it too. of health centers that have not gotten their funding.

there are real-life consequences that are happening to people in red states and blue states. that said, when i was growing up, in politics, there was the theory that all politics is local, and what happens to your constituents is the most important thing you can do. you have to deliver for your constituents. all politics now is more national. to me, the most important quote i have seen yet from an elected official about why they are choosing to support or at least not stand up and say no to some of the things trump is doing that might hurt them, is the chairman of the national republican campaign committee was quoted saying that, look, trump has a mandate, and our job is to make sure that mandate gets fulfilled. essentially, this midterm election coming up is a referendum on whether we fulfilled trump's mandate. to be clear, trump did better in a lot of these congressional

districts than they did. they are looking at somebody who defied political gravity time and time again. it is going up against their old model of what politics used to be. and trump has been beating the old model for a long time now. geoff: as we tracked the differences in this new model of politics, i'm not sure if you have time to play the sound -- here is donald trump responding to a question about whether jd vance is his successor. pres. trump: -- >> do you view jd vance as your successor? the republican nominee in 2028. pres. trump: no, but he is very capable. i think you have a lot a very capable people. so far, i think he is doing a fantastic job. it's too early. we are just starting. geoff: can you imagine any other president giving an answer like this, and not being completely upending the future career of a vice president? >> but this is donald trump at he just says what he is thinking. and sort of transparently, he is saying, it's early.

donald trump is still joking he will not leave office in four years. also -- geoff: we assume it's a joke. amy: that's fair. he likes to pick winners. . he likes to associate himself with winners and he waits to see who is really going to be a winner. tamara: i think that is a very good point. talking about your successor this early on is seating your own power, and he does not like to do that. geoff: amy walter and tamara keith, thanks as always. ♪ amna: before thousands of people in los angeles lost their homes in the recent deadly wildfires, many of them had lost their insurance. william brangham recently spent time in the region, to better understand the state's insurance crisis as costs rise dramatically and coverage shrinks. as william reports, there is no easy fix, especially in a world dealing with the long-term

impacts of climate change. william: so your place was right here. >> right here on the corner. william: this is all that's left of piggy holter's home of 47 years. her townhouse, tucked in the hills of the pacific palisades, is now unrecognizable. >> it's really hard on my son because he was born in this house and went to school, lived his whole life, you know, his -- he said, these were the stairs where i waited outside for school. william: in a matter of hours last month, the palisades fire consumed her whole neighborhood. it left just a few small reminders of the past, like this tea set she was given as a child. for now, this retired journalist is staying with her son. >> i just don't know. and as someone who has always known where i was going to do and where i was going to be all my life, it just seems like there's a blank in my future. william: your life savings was

in this property? and you are not going to get any of that back? >> no. william: holter says that's because her insurance company, state farm, dropped her policy last year. they cited the condition of her roof, something only her homeowner's association could address. it was part of a massive insurance retreat from this area. in 2023, state farm, which is california's largest insurer, said it wouldn't write any new policies in the state. then, last year, it declined to renew about 30,000 existing policies here, including over 1600 in the pacific palisades. the company said the rising cost of rebuilding, and the risk of extreme weather, was too great. but even for those who did have insurance, like holter's neighbors, pam nye and chuck foster, the fires have been devastating. as a home, as a place, as a refuge, what was it like? >> a place where you felt loved, a place where you felt

comfortable. it was just a little piece of heaven. william: since their home and neighborhood burned, nye and foster have bounced from hotel to hotel. before the fires, they were paying farmers insurance about $5,000 a year for coverage, which they say included fire protection. so after they lost everything, they went to meet with farmers in person, hoping to speed up their claim. >> they asked us a lot of questions. and then at one point, they said , you really have no coverage. you have flood insurance. i looked at her and said, that can't be right. william: farmers didn't respond to news hour's request for comment. but foster and nye have been calling their insurer almost daily, looking for clarity while reflecting on all they have lost. >> i couldn't believe in my wildest dreams that would ever happen to us.

i always thought that despite the fact that we were living in the mountains and living in a forest, that we would be safe. william: imagine you are looking for a place to live. a neighborhood like this looks pretty appealing. beautiful houses, up in the hills, surrounded by woods. i mean, who wouldn't want to live here? but if you are an insurance company, this neighborhood looks very, very different. a place like this, with houses surrounded by forests, is a potential disaster in the making. and that's exactly what happened here. and this is why insurance companies have been leaving this area in droves. >> california has been in the grip of an insurance crisis for about seven years before these fires hit. william: amy bach is executive director of the consumer advocacy group united policyholders, they are a california-based organization that helps people deal with insurance companies. >> consumers were getting dropped regularly from insurers that had been insuring them for decades. people were having a really hard

time replacing their coverage. competition had slowed to a virtual standstill in a lot of zip codes. people were increasingly having to turn to either a brand name they'd never heard of, or the state-supported insurer of last resort. william: that insurer of last resort is called the california fair plan and as the private market shrunk, the fair plan exploded, more than doubling the number of policies in the last few years. does the fair plan have enough money to cover the potential cost of these disasters? >> the fair plan will have enough money and will remain solvent during this crisis. william: ricardo lara is california's insurance commissioner. last year, to move people off the fair plan, and bring private insurers back, lara's office pushed through a series of reforms, including allowing companies to consider future impacts of climate change when setting rates and letting insurers pass along the cost of insuring themselves what is

known as reinsurance to homeowners. >> if we're going to ever get to affordable rates, we have to get to tackle the availability issue. insurers have to come back to california and expand in order to bring down the cost. and that is what the reforms do. william: lara says his job is to strike a delicate balance. >> you have to make sure you have a solvent and strong market and that you have the consumer protections to make sure that they can pay out those claims when people need it. my role right now for these fires is to make sure that they're paying off the claims that they owe to southern californians who are trying to rebuild, recover after these catastrophic fires. if they don't do that, i'm going to go after them. william: in a statement to the news hour, state farm said ita™s already paid out more than a billion dollars in fire claims and is "bringing the full scale and force of our catastrophe response teams to help customers recover." but last week, the company asked lara to approve an emergency rate hike averaging 22% rate

-- saying, "we must appropriately match price to risk." lara's office is now analyzing and he says these wildfires prove that climate change is already upending everything about the state's insurance market. >> here we're talking about fire today, but there's sea level rise. there is extreme heat. there is, you know, catastrophic flooding from atmospheric rivers. and we haven't even talked about -- climate change has affected every aspect of our lives. and i would be lying to you if i told you that doesn't have impact on insurance. william: back in the palisades, chad comey and his family like a lot of californians had already been priced out of the private insurance market. this complex was where his family lived for three generations. they have lost everything. the exterior was covered by the fair plan but he says any claim likely won't be enough to rebuild. >> i don't know if we'll be able

to keep it in the family or just the financial hardships that come with being with one, for us, not having insurance on our unit. william: so you guys had no insurance whatsoever for the inside? >> for the inside, no insurance. no. william: and why is that? >> my parents couldn't afford it. my -- they are living paycheck to paycheck off, i guess. so they're living social security check to social security check. it was never financially feasible for them to purchase insurance. william: peggy holter's exterior was also covered by the fair plan. but like chad comey, she thinks the payout will be far less than her home's actual value. meanwhile, state farm has offered to renew some of the policies it dropped in the fire zone. holter believes she likely won't qualify. what about the argument that the insurance companies make that as beautiful as this is, it is just too dangerous to have people living in what could be, and turned out to be, a tinder box and that they can't take that risk?

>> when this was built, it had everybody's approval. they chose to ensure it for 47 years. i mean, what's good? they made money off people for 47 years. that is the point of insurance, isn't it? that you you know, you chip in and when somebody else needs that, they get it. and when you need it, you get it. but in this case, they're saying, we're sorry, too bad. william: these wildfires could turn out to be the costliest in american history. for this region to rebound, the state, and its insurers will have to find a way to manage the growing risks of living in a warming world. for the pbs news hour, i am william brangham in los angeles. amna: and that is the news hour for tonight. i am amna nawaz. geoff: i'm geoff bennett. for all of us here, thanks for spending part of your evening with us. >> major funding for the "pbs news hour" has been provided by -- >> cunard is a proud supporter

of public television. on a voyage with cunard, the world awaits. a world of flavor. diverse destinations. and immersive experiences. a world of entertainment. and british style. all with cunard's white star service. >> in 1995, two friends set out to make wireless coverage accessible to all. with no long-term contracts, nationwide coverage, and 100% u.s.-based customer support. consumer cellular, freedom calls. ♪ >> 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.] >> you're watching pbs.

hello, everyone and welcome to "amanpour and company". here is what is coming up. numerous political rallies on the republican side over many years and i have never heard we should rip poor africans off of life-saving drugs. at