AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "News Hour" tonight: More than 100 days into his second term, President Trump doubles down on his economic and immigration policies that have sparked widespread pushback.

AMNA NAWAZ: U.S. Supreme Court justices appear divided over whether to allow publicly funded religious schools in a case that's challenging the separation of church and state.

GEOFF BENNETT: Plus, we speak with a former U.S. attorney general about President Trump pushing the legal limits of his authority.

ALBERTO GONZALES, Former U.S. Attorney General: It takes a while to build up a cathedral like the rule of law.

It doesn't take very long to destroy it.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "News Hour."

President Donald Trump crossed the 100-day mark with a late-night rally in a heated prime-time interview where he defended his controversial deportations.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, today, the president held a roundtable meeting with his Cabinet, who spent much of it touting their records over the past few months.

Laura Barron-Lopez begins our coverage.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: With 100 days of his second term behind him, and the stock market and his polling in a slump, President Trump gathered his Cabinet to praise his work.

SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. Treasury Secretary: It's been a momentous 100 days with you at the helm.

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. Defense Secretary: Because of your leadership, sir, I believe we're making the military great again.

ELON MUSK, Department of Government Efficiency: I think this could be the greatest administration since the founding of the country.

PAM BONDI, U.S. Attorney General: Your first 100 days has far exceeded that of any other presidency in this country.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Despite the judiciary continuing to voice concern that Trump administration officials are defying court orders, Attorney General Pam Bondi joked with Cabinet secretaries about the lawsuits.

PAM BONDI: We have still been defending over 200 civil lawsuits filed against you.

On top of everything else, I think I'm representing every one of you in this room in some capacity.

PAM BONDI: I know you will not be arrested by the U.S.

Marshals.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Secretary of State Marco Rubio joined in, taunting judges over the administration's deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

QUESTION: Have you been in touch with El Salvador about returning Abrego Garcia?

Has a formal request from this administration been made?

MARCO RUBIO, U.S. Secretary of State: Well, I would never tell you that.

And you know who else I will never tell?

A judge.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Last night at a rally marking the 100-day milestone in Michigan... DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I miss you guys.

I miss the campaign.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: ... Trump touted the deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, under the centuries-old Alien Enemies Act, deportations done without due process and blocked in part by the Supreme Court.

But Trump brushed off the court challenges and put the brutal mega-prison conditions on full display in a pre-produced video.

The controversy also came up during a sit-down interview on ABC News last night.

DONALD TRUMP: Terry, but you're not being very nice.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Trump sparred with Terry Moran about Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported last month after living in Maryland for 14 years.

The president insisted that a photo of Garcia's tattooed knuckles, Photoshopped by the White House with text, was evidence that Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang.

DONALD TRUMP: He had MS-13 on his knuckles tattooed.

TERRY MORAN, ABC News Senior National Correspondent: He had some tattoos that are interpreted that way.

But let's move on.

DONALD TRUMP: Wait a minute.

Terry, Terry, Terry... TERRY MORAN: He did not have the letter MS-13.

DONALD TRUMP: It says MS-13.

TERRY MORAN: That was Photoshopped.

So, let me... DONALD TRUMP: That was Photoshopped.

Terry, you can't do that.

He had MS-13 on his knuckles tattooed.

He had MS as clear as you can be, not interpreted.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Multiple federal judges have said that the administration has provided weak or no evidence proving its allegations of Garcia's gang membership, calling the assertions -- quote -- "unsupported."

Trump also told ABC he could bring Garcia back to the U.S., but he's just following the lead of his legal team.

TERRY MORAN: You could get him back.

There's a phone on this desk.

DONALD TRUMP: I could.

TERRY MORAN: You could pick it up.

And with all the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, send him back right now.

DONALD TRUMP: And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that.

But he is not.

TERRY MORAN: But the court has ordered you to facilitate that release.

DONALD TRUMP: I'm not the one making this decision.

We have lawyers that don't want to do this.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And now his administration is looking for more countries to deport undocumented migrants or possibly U.S. citizens to.

MARCO RUBIO: We are active, not just El Salvador.

We are working with other countries to say we want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your countries.

Will you do that as a favor to us?

And the further away from America, the better.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: This afternoon.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries joined Senate Democrats as they criticized Trump's first few months in office.

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Donald Trump's first 100 days in office have been a disaster.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we start the day's other headlines with a much-anticipated deal between the U.S. and Ukraine.

The Treasury Department confirms that the two sides signed an agreement to establish the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund.

In a statement, Secretary Scott Bessent wrote that: "This agreement signals clearly to Russia that the Trump administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term."

The deal includes collaboration Ukraine's critical minerals.

The Trump administration had made it clear that such an agreement was required to continue the overall effort to win the war.

In Vermont, a federal judge released a Palestinian activist who led protests against the war in Gaza while a student at Columbia University.

GEOFF BENNETT: Mohsen Mahdawi had been a legal permanent resident of the U.S. for 10 years.

He was arrested by ICE agents earlier this month during an interview about finalizing his U.S. citizenship.

His lawyers say he was detained for speaking out for Palestinian human rights.

The Trump administration wants to deport him, saying his presence in the U.S. has -- quote - - "foreign policy consequences."

Speaking to supporters today, Mahdawi remained defiant.

MOHSEN MAHDAWI, Permanent U.S. Resident: And I am saying it clear and loud to President Trump and his Cabinet: I am not afraid of you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Mahdawi co-founded the Palestinian Student Union at Columbia with Mahmoud Khalil, another Palestinian permanent resident of the U.S. Khalil was detained by immigration authorities in March and remains in custody.

Communities cleaned up today across parts of the Ohio Valley and Northeast after a massive line of thunderstorms turned deadly.

Tuesday's storms, known as a derecho, stretched hundreds of miles and were responsible for at least three deaths in Pennsylvania.

Hurricane-force wind gusts tore off roofs, toppled trees into houses and brought downed power lines throughout the region.

More than 500,000 people were without power today, mostly in Pennsylvania.

And in the South Central U.S., officials are warning of flash flooding across southern Oklahoma and northern Texas amid record rainfall.

In the Middle East, Israel is appealing for international assistance as it battles wildfires raging near Jerusalem.

Extreme heat and high winds are fanning the flames, which have prompted the evacuation of several communities.

At least 12 people have been hospitalized.

Authorities shut down a main highway today after drivers there abandoned their cars when smoke engulfed the road.

The fires came as many marks the country's Memorial Day for fallen soldiers.

Some Independence Day celebrations set for tomorrow have been called off.

On Wall Street today, stocks shook off losses early on as investors digested the latest economic data.

The Dow Jones industrial average ended the day 140 points higher.

The Nasdaq slipped about 15 points, but that's well off its lows.

The S&P 500 managed a slight gain.

Still to come on the "News Hour": Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin on reshaping her party's message to voters; taking stock of President Trump's economic policies 100 days in; and a look back at the Vietnam War half-a-century after the fall of Saigon.

AMNA NAWAZ: We turn now to our series On Democracy, where we hear a range of perspectives on how government should function, what's led to this moment in American history, and where the country goes next.

Tonight, we will focus on the rule of law and President Trump's apparent willingness to test its limits.

I spoke earlier with Alberto Gonzales, dean of Belmont University's Law School.

He served as attorney general and White House counsel under the George W. Bush administration and is the only person to ever hold both positions.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

ALBERTO GONZALES, Former U.S. Attorney General: I'm happy to do so.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, even though you are a Republican, in the last election, you did choose to come forward and endorse Kamala Harris, and saying so at the time, you said Donald Trump is -- quote -- "the most serious threat to the rule of law in a generation."

Just a month ago, you said, "What we're seeing today is even more than I had imagined."

So, 100 days into this second Trump presidency, what is your assessment?

Is the rule of law safe?

Is it protected in this country?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, one of the things that's important for people to understand is that the rule of law constrains power.

And there are other things that constrain power, such as norms and institutions, customs, things of that nature.

And people who want to exercise powers without restrictions, they want to eliminate or at least weaken those constraints.

And so, obviously, it seems to me that the rule of law is under some serious stress.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, the president has lawyers around him, right?

He has his general counsel in the White House.

He has the attorney general who's advising him on this.

And even when you were in the White House under President George W. Bush, you were accused of enabling an abuse of executive power for some of the legal arguments you crafted regarding the war on terror.

So is it just true that every White House crafts the legal arguments that it needs to move its agenda forward?

ALBERTO GONZALES: I think what we're seeing here is the president surrounding himself with loyalists who give maybe an extra push towards trying to do what facilitates what the president wants to have happen.

So their interpretation is one that perhaps you and I might -- you and others that I served with might disagree with.

But, nonetheless, it is an attempt by lawyers.

You're absolutely right.

Lawyers are involved, because the president, quite frankly, most times isn't a lawyer and certainly doesn't have the time to sit down and go through the law books.

And that's why he does take advice from lawyers.

But the lawyers that he's choosing, it appears to me, have a fierce loyalty to him.

And I was very loyal to President Bush.

Robert F. Kennedy was very loyal to his brother John F. Kennedy.

But, nonetheless, hopefully, you have lawyers in place that make a good faith attempt to interpret the law and are honest with the president saying, you don't have the authority to do this.

AMNA NAWAZ: I hear you saying, hopefully, that's the case.

But is that the case in this instance with this president and this team?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Yes, sometimes, lawyers disagree about the interpretation of laws.

And I think what this president is trying to do is surround himself with people who he believes will be loyal to him, will give him the advice that will allow him to carry out the agenda for which he campaigned on.

And so, again, I -- unless you're there in the room and you're with the lawyers and the president, you're not really sure what advice is being given to the president.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's also the question about whether or not the administration is in compliance with court orders from judges.

There's the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who the administration said they mistakenly deported to El Salvador.

We saw the president last night say that he could bring Abrego Garcia back if he wanted to, but he is not.

Do you believe that this administration is flouting a judge's orders in this case?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, before last night, I think one might have legitimate questions as to whether or not there was a flouting.

A judge did order the administration to facilitate a transfer.

And last night, the president, from what I have read, appeared to concede that he did have the authority to simply ask for this individual to be returned, which is going to raise a question in the eyes of the judge, well, then have you asked and why haven't you asked?

You have been ordered to facilitate the return of this individual.

And so I think that might have been a sort of... AMNA NAWAZ: If I may, he seems to be saying he's not asked and that he doesn't want to.

That's why.

Does that mean that he's ignoring the judge's order?

ALBERTO GONZALES: Well, again, I think what you're going to -- given this new statement by the president, you're probably going to see a request by the judge asking those very same questions.

And we will see what the administration says or does.

And, at that point, I'm often - - I have been asked many times, when will we have a constitutional crisis?

In my judgment, we will have a constitutional crisis when the Supreme Court of the United States commands the administration to do something pursuant to the Constitution within a certain period of time, and the president not doing so.

AMNA NAWAZ: Attorney General, you called Donald Trump the most serious threat to the rule of law in a generation.

Based on the norm-breaking and the rule-bending we have seen so far, are you worried that you can't get it back once it's gone?

ALBERTO GONZALES: You know, it takes a while to build up a cathedral like the rule of law.

It doesn't take very long to destroy it.

And so it can be destroyed, like a cathedral can be destroyed, but it can be built back up with the right kind of leadership and dedication.

So do I think we will get it back?

I'm hopeful we will get it back once we have changes perhaps in leadership in Washington, and not just in the White House, I think Congress has been missing in action.

I don't know what they're doing.

They're doing nothing, I guess is the right answer.

So once we have new leadership in Washington, I think, yes, it can be built up.

And I'm hopeful that the institutions that exist today, those norms that have not been torn down yet, I hope they will continue to provide a check on the excised -- the excess use of power.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales joining us tonight.

Sir, thank you so much for your time.

Really appreciate it.

ALBERTO GONZALES: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case that could clear the way for publicly funded religious charter schools.

Our John Yang has more.

JOHN YANG: Geoff, in 2023, the Oklahoma Charter School Board approved the creation of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school.

But the state Supreme Court blocked it, saying it violated the Oklahoma Constitution's bar on using state money for religious education.

The head of the state charter school board told the "News Hour" that St. Isidore would benefit Oklahoma.

BRIAN SHELLEM, Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board: We have an educational crisis, and my opinion is that we need everybody to join in and help.

And I'm hopeful that we will be able to enlist those who are very capable, just like St. Isidore, to come to the table and say, hey, let's get the job done and provide better outcomes for the families of Oklahoma and the children of our future.

JOHN YANG: But Erika Wright, the founder of the Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition, said religious education has no place in public schools.

ERIKA WRIGHT, Founder, Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition: We have two kids in public school right now, and we chose to send them there because we want them to get a quality secular education, while our family and our trusted pastors guide their religious education.

JOHN YANG: "News Hour" Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle was in the courtroom for the arguments today.

Marcia, the courtroom was a little different than usual.

There were only eight justices on the bench.

Why is that?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, John, that's because Justice Barrett decided to step aside from this case.

Now, she didn't give any particular reason for that.

In fact, she never does.

But it's sort of assumed that it's because St. Isidore, the Catholic school that's at the Supreme Court, is being represented by the Religious Liberty Clinic of Notre Dame Law School, where Justice Barrett taught for many years before becoming a judge.

And she's also a very close friend of a law professor there who's been a leading advocate of religious charter schools.

So I think maybe that's what persuaded her to step aside.

JOHN YANG: This creates the potential for a tie vote.

What would happen in that case?

MARCIA COYLE: Oh, absolutely.

Absolutely.

It raises the risk of a tie vote.

What happens then is that there's -- really it's the lower court decision that stands.

And if that happens here, that means the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision that was against St. Isidore would stand.

It doesn't create a precedent.

It just doesn't even resolve the issue.

The court simply issues a one-sentence order that says, because of the tie vote, the lower court opinion is affirmed.

JOHN YANG: Now, what was the charter school side's argument about why this doesn't violate the prohibition on secular -- I'm sorry -- on sectarian education in public schools?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, first of all, St. -- the board, the Oklahoma State Charter School Board, is the entity that brought the case to the Supreme Court and St. Isidore with it as well.

And they claim that Oklahoma charter schools are run -- operated by private organizations.

And so is St. Isidore run by a private organization, the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa -- the city of Tulsa.

And because of that, the argument goes, they fit within a trio of recent cases by the Supreme Court that say if you hold out a public benefit to private organizations, you can't discriminate just because an organization is religious.

So that is their argument.

And there was considerable pushback not only from the state attorney general, who is the one who sought the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that this is an illegal contract, but, for example, Justice Kagan was looking at charter schools and said they seem like public schools.

They're free.

They're open to everyone.

The state supervises the curriculum.

They have to meet certain standards that can be audited and the state can even close them.

And Justice Jackson also pushed back at the state board, basically saying, I don't think you're looking for this public benefit that everybody has.

I think you're looking for a public benefit that no one has, because she explained in their contract with the state board they X'ed out the requirement that curriculum be secular.

They amended the requirement that there be no discrimination in order to accommodate church autonomy interests.

And she said that -- no charter school has that.

So there was considerable pushback from the liberal side of the court.

The -- Oklahoma's attorney general was saying that while it's true that private organizations operate the charter schools, these are public schools.

They have always been public schools.

The public understands them to be public schools.

And they're over - - there's a lot of supervision by the state.

That's what they are.

They are public schools.

JOHN YANG: So after listening to the arguments, what's your sense of where this is headed?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, if you look at the trend in the Supreme Court, you probably would say, based on the arguments that some made -- and I will just note one, Justice Kavanaugh, who said in Oklahoma charter schools can organize around the theme.

They can be sports.

It can be language immersion.

It can be STEM, math, English.

The only thing it can't be is religion.

And he said that's rank -- this sounds like rank discrimination to me.

And so I think that bottom line is there could be a conservative majority in favor of St. Isidore.

But that eight justice number on the court which it sets up the possibility of a 4-4 split, it may be that it's the chief justice who will make the difference here.

He played his cards very close to the vest, asked questions of each side, and we will just have to wait and see how it turns out.

JOHN YANG: Marcia Coyle, thank you very much.

We should note that this is the last time we will be talking to Marcia Coyle about the Supreme Court.

Tell us what you're going to be doing.

MARCIA COYLE: Well, John, I'm hoping to spend more time actually writing about the Supreme Court.

I will continue to follow it and write for the National Constitution Center, which I have been doing a little bit of, but not as much as I probably should be doing.

And also I will be spending, I assume, more time with my grandchildren that I have.

JOHN YANG: Your two adorable grandchildren.

MARCIA COYLE: But I have to say before I go, John, that you know by training and many years of experience, I have been a newspaper reporter, which I have really loved, but I have also felt it was an honor to experience the world of television news, and the very best television news, which is the "News Hour."

All of you here, whether you're in front of the camera, behind the camera, in the makeup room, in the control room or digital, are real professionals and genuinely kind people.

So it's been a pleasure.

JOHN YANG: We are deeply grateful to you for what you have been doing for us all these years, and we wish you well.

MARCIA COYLE: Thanks, John.

If you ever need me, you know my number.

AMNA NAWAZ: One hundred days in, the president has made a bold gamble with a fundamental change in economic policy, launching a series of tough tariffs and trade wars.

The president argues that, in time, tariffs will revitalize manufacturing, reduce the national debt substantially, and grow the economy.

But there are many questions about that approach.

GDP numbers out today show the economy shrank last quarter and are being seen as yet another sign of the negative impact of tariffs.

We're going to get two distinct views about all of this, and we begin with Oren Cass.

He's founder and chief economist at the influential think tank American Compass.

He's also author of a new book called "The New Conservatives: Restoring America's Commitment to Family, Community, and Industry."

Oren Cass,welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

OREN CASS, American Compass: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So let's start with that latest GDP number, which showed a contraction in the first quarter.

It's the first GDP pullback in three years.

There are some pointing out that the numbers are a little bit distorted because of big advanced purchases that were being placed before the tariffs hit.

But there's also real concern about a slowdown ahead.

So what's your view?

OREN CASS: Well, I think it's fair to be concerned, but it's also correct that the number that just came out doesn't indicate that one way or another.

There are all sorts of interesting nuances in how GDP gets calculated.

And, in this case, if you strip out the noise, it doesn't really look like an abnormal quarter at all.

So one way or another, I think we're still waiting and seeing on that.

AMNA NAWAZ: There have been some other indicators people have pointed to as signs of concern, though.

We saw consumer spending, yes, very strong in March, again, people thinking Americans are trying to get ahead of the tariffs.

In April, though, we did see consumer confidence drop for the fifth straight month.

It's now at COVID era lows.

We have a consumer-driven economy.

This is a crucial indicator for economic growth.

So does that confidence slump tell you there could be trouble ahead?

OREN CASS: It's certainly a possibility.

As you said, that slump is maybe five months running now.

And so whatever is going on isn't purely a result of the tariff policy.

But I do think it's fair to say that an important part of good economic policy isn't just the nuts and bolts and numbers.

It's also how clearly do you communicate what you're trying to do, how much certainty do you give.

And on those fronts, I think the Trump administration is -- they're trying to work in the right direction.

I think what they're focused on is exactly right.

But the amount of back-and-forth that there's been, the abruptness of it, I think, has definitely imposed a lot of extra costs.

AMNA NAWAZ: When you say it's imposed extra costs, do you mean that sort of air of uncertainty is making it difficult for CEOs, business leaders to plan ahead, make decisions at this time?

OREN CASS: Well, I think there's -- for business leaders and CEOs.

And, as you said, it is for consumers.

I think when you see a lot of things changing quickly in the economy, when you see a sense that risks are rising, when there's uncertainty, that affects everybody.

And so I think what the administration is doing in challenging the failed system of globalization is exactly right.

It's necessary.

It could be very good for America in the long run.

But we have to be cognizant that that brings disruption with it.

And so it's important to work extra hard to minimize that disruption and to communicate very clearly what's happening and why.

AMNA NAWAZ: So in terms of what consumers can face, I mean, the tariffs are so broad, I think it's fair to say that they will be felt by consumers in some way, depending on how much of the cost and which companies feel they can absorb some of them.

When you're speaking directly to consumers, what do you think that impact will be?

What will they feel?

OREN CASS: Well, I think it's important to emphasize that the kinds of price changes we're potentially looking at aren't anything like what we experienced with the inflation in the Biden administration.

Inflation then got up toward 10 percent economy-wide across all prices.

And the reality is that imports are just not a large enough share of what people consume to have that kind of effect.

And so I think we might see particular products, particularly if there are products that we're overly dependent on China for, where there are disruptions, where prices do increase.

But it's not the kind of inflationary situation that we saw previously.

And so what I think we have to focus on and also hope for is that, as we see some more consistency in the policy, as we hopefully see some things phased in a little bit more gradually, that gives businesses time to adjust.

That gives them a chance to find alternative sources of supply.

And so will there be some changes?

Yes.

But if the policy's done right, we can also see a lot more investment in making things in America.

And that's really important too.

AMNA NAWAZ: So if you don't see that kind of consistency, which we have not seen so far in the administration, does that raise your concern about a slowdown ahead?

OREN CASS: Well, I think the problem if we don't have consistency is two things.

One, it raises the costs in the short term.

It does create uncertainty.

And the other problem is, we don't get the benefit, right?

The whole reason to pursue this kind of policy is to really encourage more investment in the United States.

And businesses don't invest based on what the tariff is today.

They invest based on what the tariff is going to be in two years, three years, five years.

And so that's where, if we really want the plan to work, if we want to see the kind of rebuilding in America that we need, we have to have policies that are clear and consistent and everybody believes are going to remain in place.

AMNA NAWAZ: Or in the work of building plans, of luring back companies, of reshoring some of these jobs, that is yearslong work, right?

Do you see that happening?

Do you see the president and this administration sticking to this for the long haul?

OREN CASS: Well, the construction starts right away.

The building of factories has to happen and then you get some of the jobs in them.

I think what we can see that's really encouraging is what's happened with something like chips, right?

Over the last couple of years, Congress and the Biden administration and both Republicans and Democrats really focused on bringing chip manufacturing for computers back to this country, and that's working.

We're seeing hundreds of billions of dollars of investment.

We saw the construction jobs, and now we're seeing the permanent jobs as well, and the chips are starting to come off the assembly line.

AMNA NAWAZ: Oren Cass, founder and chief economist at American Compass, thank you so much for joining us.

OREN CASS: My pleasure.

Good to see you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, now we get the view of a leading economist who was the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers for President Obama.

Jason Furman is an economist at Harvard University and joins me now.

Jason, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

JASON FURMAN, Former Chair, White House Council of Economic Advisers: Good to be with you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, just want to get your take on this latest GDP figure we have out today, what it suggests about what's going on right now and what could be ahead.

JASON FURMAN: You know, I spent hours talking with my economist friends, and the ultimate conclusion is that it's looking in the past with a very, very confusing set of numbers, but, looking forward, there's a lot to be worried about.

AMNA NAWAZ: Tell me why.

What worries you most?

JASON FURMAN: What worries you most is, two bad things are happening simultaneously.

One is what an economist would call a supply shock.

That's like when the price of oil goes up and it drives up prices and it also increases unemployment.

That's what we're doing to ourselves through the tariffs.

Second, the way in which we're doing the tariffs has created so much uncertainty, so much doom and gloom, that it's what an economist would call a very large negative demand shock.

That's something that would add even more to the unemployment rate.

So at this point, when we look at the rest of this year, the debate is not, will inflation and unemployment go up?

It's, how much will they go up?

AMNA NAWAZ: You heard Oren Cass there say, look, this is a long-term plan that's been laid out by the president.

And he has said himself, the president, that there will be short-term pain.

But they argue here that it's worth doing because of the damage wrought by what they see as a failed globalization experiment, and that this is a chance worth taking to realign the global economy.

What do you say to that?

JASON FURMAN: First of all, things just weren't that terrible for months ago.

We had a 4 percent unemployment rate.

Real wages were rising.

The economy was growing strongly.

There was no reason that we needed to just blow all of that up.

Second of all, I don't think it's a plan because it's a constantly shifting set of impulses, and they change day to day.

Tariffs goes on, tariffs go off.

And the final thing I'd say is, in the long run, if what this results in is less exports and less imports, because when you have tariffs, you detach yourself from the global economy, that's bad for workers in export industries, bad for consumers who buy imports, which is all of us.

AMNA NAWAZ: I hear you saying it wasn't that bad a few months ago based on the indicators.

But if you could speak to the parts of the country who believe it's been very bad for a long time for them, who believe that the globalized economy wrought havoc on their communities, who saw jobs leave, and who think that this disruption is worth the risk if it means jobs and manufacturing or a potential change for them, what would you say to them?

JASON FURMAN: I'd say there's a lot of things we need to do to invest in America, to make America stronger.

One thing I agree with Oren is, for example, the chips program to make more microchips in the United States, I think that's a great thing to do for our national security.

But we don't want to cause a recession in the short run in order to have even worse jobs when we come out of it on the other end.

That's going to make things worse, not better.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's also a pledge by the president here that this will revitalize some parts of our manufacturing sectors.

I mean, clearly, we're not going to be making sneakers here at any point, but are there parts of our withered manufacturing sector that could be brought back to life by this program?

JASON FURMAN: You know, we want the best jobs for Americans, and, in general it's not government policy that's going to figure out what those best jobs are.

We want the ones with high wages, high productivity, and the like.

In some cases, for a national security reason, we do want to do things here.

So I'd love to do more microchips.

I'd love to make more drones in the United States.

There are parts of our industrial base that matter for our security.

But, in general, the best possible jobs for Americans are not necessarily going to be ones that the government picks and chooses and are not necessarily going to be manufacturing jobs.

AMNA NAWAZ: You know, in speaking with some CEOs and business leaders, they say that the uncertainty of the moment, it makes it tough.

They don't want a broad-based tariff approach, but they're not opposed to some targeted tariffs, that there are trade imbalances to address here.

Do they have a point?

JASON FURMAN: I don't think they have much of a point.

If we have trade imbalances -- we have a trade imbalance with Madagascar.

Why?

Because they make vanilla beans, they make cocoa beans.

We don't make those things in the United States.

And so we buy them from Madagascar.

And, by the way, they're a poor country.

They don't buy much from us.

So much of our trade imbalances are just like what we have right now with Madagascar.

China is an exception.

There are a set of both security and economic issues with China.

I'm not sure that a traditional laissez-faire approach is the right one vis-a-vis China.

But for just about the rest of the world, they have pretty low tariffs against the United States.

Until recently, we had low tariffs against them.

I don't think anyone was being unfair to us or taking advantage of us in any significant scale.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, that is Jason Furman of Harvard University joining us tonight.

Thank you so much for your time.

JASON FURMAN: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: As Democrats grapple with President Trump's first 100 days in office, they're also contending with a minority in both the House and Senate.

And looking ahead at the long road to the 2026 midterm elections, some Democrats are hoping to shape the party's message and platform well before then.

Michigan Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin has been laying out her strategy.

And she joins me now.

Welcome back to the "News Hour."

It's great to have you here.

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, as part of this road map to, as you say, contain and defeat Donald Trump, you say the Democratic Party should shed its public perception as weak and woke.

Why is that the right approach and how do you suggest Democrats get there?

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN: Yes, actually, that perception came from some focus groups we did in Michigan with a bunch of people in February, just trying to understand what happened in 2024, why we didn't win at the top of the ticket, because you can't figure out where you're going until you understand what's happened.

And I think we -- those are the two words that were used over and over again.

And I think, for me, focusing on pocketbook issues, people's wallets, people's kids, and then, on the second side of it, just bringing a little alpha energy back into the party, right?

And I'm from the Midwest and for us, leaders like our coaches are just -- they have got some alpha energy to them.

And I think we have lost some of that in the party and I want to see that come back.

GEOFF BENNETT: What's the most urgent course-correction you think Democrats need to make right now?

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN: I mean, first of all, I think we need to be talking about what we want to bring to people affirmatively, proactively.

We can't just be the party of no, no, no, status quo, no change.

We got to talk about how we want responsible change, smart change, not reckless change, and what that looks like, particularly on supporting a strong middle class.

Like, we have got to have a strong middle class in this country or we are in trouble.

So I think keeping a sort of rigorous focus on that would be helpful, but then just understanding that we got to get to those voters who don't want to be gotten to, right, who are not coming to a protest, not coming to an event, but they swing elections in places like Michigan.

For them, they're worried about, again, their pocketbooks, their kids.

That means Social Security.

That means the economy writ large and how Trump is walking us into a recession.

So we got to get the middle into the fight by focusing on the issues they're most concerned about, in addition to the good work we do on democracy and corruption, which is vital, given what Donald Trump is doing, but not always the way we get to those middle voters.

GEOFF BENNETT: You have also critiqued the party's tone and messaging, and you say that Democrats should stop referring to the Trump administration as an oligarchy.

Senator Bernie Sanders had something to say about that.

Take a listen.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): I think the American people are not quite as dumb as Ms. Slotkin thinks they are.

I think they understand very well.

When the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, when big money interests are able to control both political parties, they are living in an oligarchy.

GEOFF BENNETT: What's your response to that?

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN: So my response is, I agree with everything he said, other than, my dad didn't know what oligarchy meant.

Like, he asked me what it was about.

It's not that I disagree on the concepts or on the principles, and he's right.

And that energy that he's bringing is great.

It's just that we got to, again, communicate to those folks who may not know what an oligarchy is like my dad.

GEOFF BENNETT: To your point about the energy that he, and I would add to that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, they're drawing huge crowds when they have those rallies, injecting lots of energy into the party.

And that's led to some questions about the ideological future of the Democratic Party.

You, though, say that the debate among Democrats isn't really about moderates and progressives.

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN: You're right.

I do not think that the debate anymore is about moderate versus progressive and whatever all of that means.

I think it's about, do you believe that we need to fight back against the Trump administration or that we should wait it out?

And there's a really big difference among elected Democrats right now on whether to just, like, wait and let all these things that Trump is doing just play out and boomerang on him and we will get through it, or do you think that Trump 2.0 is really different than Trump 1.0 and raises some existential questions about the fate of our democracy, and, therefore, we need to fight and fight in different ways?

I'm in that second category, fight, but that debate is not about moderates or progressives.

It doesn't break down on those lines at all anymore.

GEOFF BENNETT: A question about the tariff plan, because, in a manufacturing-heavy state like Michigan, the hollowing out of factory jobs, as you well know, it's a real issue.

And if you don't believe that Trump's tariff plan is the right solution, how do you address the economic dislocation that has hollowed out the work force in many ways and is really hitting the middle class?

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN: Yes, and really hitting my part of the country, right?

The Midwest is really feeling this change in our economy, where it's become harder and harder to get in and stay in the middle class.

That's just a fact, right?

That's not conjecture.

And, in Michigan, we invented the middle class.

We literally invented the concept where you can work at an auto plant and afford the car that you were building.

And I got to tell you, for all President Trump has tried to make of he's a man of the people and a working person, the tax plan he's about to lay out in black and white is very clearly to the advantage of the wealthiest, to our biggest corporations and not to working people.

Again, just fact.

Look at the black and white.

GEOFF BENNETT: You are in the process of delivering a series of speeches with marching orders for Democrats.

The next one, as I understand it, focuses on killing sacred cows.

Care to give us a preview?

What are those sacred cows?

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN: Slaughtering sacred cows.

To me, I think we have to be willing to hear what the public is saying.

It's not just people who voted for Donald Trump that want change, right?

I don't know a lot of people who are thrilled with our health care system or our education system or how government responds to their needs.

I just want responsible change and not reckless change.

I want something smart, not breaking stuff just to break stuff.

But we have to hear that and therefore be willing to take down some like older ideas that, again, don't work for the American people.

So, for instance, regulation, right?

A lot of regulation that we have put on a small business owner or a farmer was well-intended.

It was.

But what ends up happening is, there's 25 different regulations on a farmer, including watching how he climbs a ladder, in order to get him the certification that he needs.

I think we slow down the process.

And we need to be willing to say, you know what, maybe 25 good, well-meaning regulations ends up in a bureaucratic morass that we need to take a look at.

That's what I mean by kind of going after slaughtering sacred cows, is, like, we have to be willing to take an open mind to change.

GEOFF BENNETT: Michigan Democratic Senator Elissa Slotkin, thanks for being with us.

We appreciate it.

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Today, Vietnam marked the 50th anniversary of the fall of Saigon and the unification of the country under communist rule after decades of war.

But, 50 years later, from the ashes, the U.S. and Vietnam now enjoy close relations, due in no small part to American veterans who sought to revive a country they once helped destroy.

Here's Nick Schifrin.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In Vietnam's capital today, a celebration of what they called a victory of justice, with uniforms similar to those worn by communist North Vietnamese troops, a flyby by Russian jets, and a parade led by the communist leader who defeated the United States and provided this city's modern name.

But 50 years later, this Vietnamese leadership did not fight the war, and this anniversary parade is not only about triumph, but also reconciliation.

TO LAM, General Secretary, Vietnamese Communist Party (through translator): From a poor backward country ravaged by war under embargo and isolation, today, Vietnam is deeply integrated into international politics, the global economy, and the civilization of humankind.

NICK SCHIFRIN: For the U.S., April 30, 1975, was a day of disgrace.

The U.S. abandoned its embassy via helicopter, the final moment of what's known here as the American war that killed as many as three million and drove millions more from their homes.

But, for Vietnam, April 30, 1975, was the first act of reunification.

North Vietnam and Vietcong soldiers conquered Saigon and U.S. ally South Vietnam, ending a 30-year fight against colonialism.

Today, Vietnam has one of Asia's youngest populations, for whom helicopters are a source of pride.

TRINH THI THANH THUY, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Resident (through translator): Peace is when you hear the roar of helicopters, but you run toward them to watch.

PHUNG THI THANH HUONG, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Resident (through translator): And we went wow at the fighter jets.

That's what peace means to us.

NICK SCHIFRIN: A peace born from the legacy of war.

The U.S. dropped more than seven million tons of bombs, three times what it used in World War II.

And it sprayed Agent Orange to kill trees to expose fighters, but it also exposed U.S. troops and damaged the bodies and genes of some four million Vietnamese.

But if American troops were the culprit, some became the redeemer.

JOHN TERZANO, International Commission on Missing Persons: You begin to wonder, how did we ever go to war with these people?

NICK SCHIFRIN: That is John Terzano, a former sailor who served in the Gulf of Tonkin, and returned to Vietnam in December 1981, part of the first visit by Vietnam combat veterans.

JOHN TERZANO: We're sitting down with people who 10 years before, if we would have met them and killed them, we would have gotten medals for it.

Now we're sitting down.

We're having conversations.

They're feeding us, we're laughing, we're joking.

It's -- we're finally starting to see Vietnam for what it is, a beautiful country, and the Vietnamese people not as the enemy.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The group visited victims of Agent Orange, helping them realize the damage that the war and its fighters had wrought.

JOHN TERZANO: We got people here that are hurting, that with humanitarian efforts, just like that little hospital we went to today.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Out of that trip was born joint efforts to find remains of missing soldiers, clear unexploded ordnance, and clean some of the Agent Orange left behind.

All that built trust that opened doors.

THAO GRIFFITHS, Commissioner, International Commission on Missing Persons: It served as a foundation for the U.S.-Vietnam relations.

I would say unequivocally that, without the war legacy program serving as a solid foundation for the U.S. and Vietnam relations, we wouldn't get to where we are today, absolutely not.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Thao Griffiths is a commissioner on the International Commission of Missing Persons and the former country director of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.

THAO GRIFFITHS: With that enabling environment, with that solid foundation, the trade and commerce can take place and can really booming in the last three decades.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The U.S. has become Vietnam's number one export market, and the two militaries cooperate to counter neighboring China.

The relationship crescendoed to Vietnam's highest level of partnership.

JOE BIDEN, Former President of the United States: This new elevated status that will be a force for prosperity and security in one of the most consequential regions in the world.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: This is liberation day.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But President Trump slapped 46 percent tariffs on Vietnam before issuing a pause.

The administration stopped and defunded many legacy of war projects before restarting and refunding some.

THAO GRIFFITHS: Without continuing or maintaining the war legacy programs underneath, it would be difficult to say that you can do all the commerce and trade and defense and security and everything else on top.

NICK SCHIFRIN: U.S.-Vietnam strains continue today to which level U.S. diplomat would attend.

But for the Vietnamese, at least, today was not about the U.S. THAO GRIFFITHS: For me, today is about Vietnam.

It is really about an unity of North and South, of all generations within Vietnam.

It makes us proud, because we want you to see us, how far we have come in the last 50 years.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And to explore the 50 years since America left Vietnam as well as the present relationship, we turn to Daniel Kritenbrink, who was the U.S. ambassador to Vietnam during the first Trump administration and was assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs during the Biden administration.

He is now a partner at the Asia Group, an international consulting firm.

Daniel Kritenbrink, thanks very much.

Welcome back to the "News Hour."

DANIEL KRITENBRINK, Former U.S.

Ambassador to Vietnam: Thank you, Nick.

Honor to be here.

NICK SCHIFRIN: This is a country, Vietnam, where a million people at least died fighting the United States, where some 50,000-plus Americans died in country during the war, a country that became a touchstone here in the United States for a generation.

How did we get here today from the end of the war to the U.S. having this comprehensive strategic partnership, and Vietnam really being one of the U.S.' most important partners in Asia?

DANIEL KRITENBRINK: Well, Nick, it truly is extraordinary what the United States and Vietnam have achieved over the last 50 years.

To go from the brutality of that war and the depth of the tragedy that both countries experienced to now, as you said, where Vietnam is one of America's closest partners and friends, truly is extraordinary, I think one of the most amazing stories of the last half-century.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Well, we heard that from the piece that we just aired, that the Vietnam veterans who came over and the Vietnamese partners they had, they were essential.

That people-to-people relationship Over Agent Orange, over unexploded ordinance, how essential was that?

DANIEL KRITENBRINK: Absolutely vital.

I always tell people that, today, the U.S.-Vietnam partnership is a forward-looking friendship.

We spend the vast majority of our time talking about the here and now and where we want to go in the future, but make no mistake about it.

That friendship is built on a foundation of having dealt responsibly and carefully with issues of the past.

NICK SCHIFRIN: How important has Vietnam specifically become to the U.S. effort to respond to Beijing's regional efforts?

DANIEL KRITENBRINK: I think it's central.

It's vital.

The United States and Vietnam, we share a vision of the kind of region and the kind of world that we want to live in, a world in which countries play by the rules, large and small, and a world in which all countries can prosper and benefit, and no one country dominates others.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And manufacturing, what part does that play in it?

DANIEL KRITENBRINK: Well, the trade relationship, it's extraordinary, Nick.

If you go back to 1994 and 1995, our trade was almost nonexistent.

Today we have a nearly $150 billion trading relationship.

Vietnam is one of our fastest growing export markets.

Of course, we have a very large trade deficit as well, but there's no doubt across the board, from economics to security to health to people-to-people ties, Vietnam is an extraordinarily important and capable partner.

NICK SCHIFRIN: So that's where we have been over the last few years, and it's evolved to that point.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration took a couple of steps.

One, they cut off funding for those projects that we were just talking about, legacy of war projects, things like Agent Orange, things like cleaning up unexploded ordnance, and restored part, but not all of that funding.

And then the Trump administration placed 46 percent tariffs on Vietnam and again paused those tariffs.

And now Vietnam, like every other country in the world, is on 10 percent tariffs.

What do you believe is the cumulative impact of those steps this administration has taken, even though, again, they have pulled them back?

DANIEL KRITENBRINK: I think that Vietnamese friends have been surprised and perhaps shocked by some of the steps that they have seen coming from Washington.

I think they were deeply unnerved by the initial steps to cut off the funding for the legacy of war work that you and I have discussed.

But, secondly, they were probably even more stunned to see the 46 percent tariff rate levied on them on April 2.

And I think, for Vietnamese friends, they continue to look at the United States as an incredibly important partner with whom they can balance against China and other challenges.

And so they were surprised to think that the United States would carry out such a move against them.

And I think, also, the Vietnamese had such a positive experience with President Trump in his first term.

I think that only increased the impact of the moves.

Now, the good news is, though, the Vietnamese moved very quickly.

And after they, I think, got over the initial shock and some of the anger that they felt, they picked up the phone and now we have an agreement where the United States and Vietnam are going to conduct negotiations on some sort of a deal that will hopefully address U.S. concerns and bring those tariff levels down.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you foresee those trade negotiations ending with a new agreement that would lower tariffs?

DANIEL KRITENBRINK: I think that the Trump administration wants a trade deal.

There's a deal to be had.

The Vietnamese are very practical, they're very focused, and I think they will come to the table with some kind of a package that probably involves increased commercial purchases from the United States, a resolution of various market access issues and probably some proposals for Vietnamese investment in the United States.

But I think the Vietnamese are prepared to cut a deal.

And if the Trump administration is as well, I'm cautiously optimistic.

NICK SCHIFRIN: So, cautiously optimistic about U.S.-Vietnam trade.

Let's zoom out to U.S.-China trade.

Your last job, as I mentioned, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, that means you covered the whole region.

DANIEL KRITENBRINK: Indeed.

NICK SCHIFRIN: When I talk to Chinese officials today, they make it very clear that they will not blink first and they want to teach Trump, in their words to me, a lesson that you cannot pressure Beijing on trade and expect to win, because Beijing doesn't want Trump to think that he can pressure them on Taiwan or technology or anything else and win.

Do you believe that there's an off-ramp to this trade war?

DANIEL KRITENBRINK: China believes it learned lessons from the first Trump administration.

And one of those lessons that it has told itself is that, if you are hit by the United States, you have to reciprocate and retaliate immediately.

And so that's what they have done really in a tit for tat.

What concerns me is that I think President Xi Jinping and counterparts in Beijing are starting to think that time may be on their side and that they can endure more pain than the United States.

What I hope does not happen, I hope this does not become a test of wills.

And I would like to think that there could be channels of communication quietly opened behind the scenes that could explore, as you said, an off-ramp.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Dan Kritenbrink, thank you very much.

DANIEL KRITENBRINK: Thank you, Nick.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there is more online right now, including how artists in America's heartland are marking the 50th anniversary of the fall of Saigon.

That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.

AMNA NAWAZ: And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

For all of us here at the "PBS News Hour," thanks for spending part of your evening with us.