WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening.

I'm William Brangham.

Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett are away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: Days after a deadly earthquake hit Myanmar and neighboring countries, U.S. aid is largely absent, leaving a vacuum that China is quickly filling.

In pushing legal boundaries, the Trump administration sends more alleged gang members to El Salvador despite court orders, and the president suggests he could run for a third term, despite the constitutional restriction.

And with another round of tariffs on major trading partners set to take effect, we examine whether they could revitalize American industries.

(BREAK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Welcome to the "News Hour."

The true impact of Friday's massive earthquake, which was centered in Myanmar, is now starting to reveal itself.

Myanmar's military government says the official death toll is more than 2,000 people, with hundreds still missing.

Thousands are injured and now homeless, as local and international efforts turn from rescuing survivors to recovering remains.

Nick Schifrin begins our coverage.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Three days after the earthquake shook this monastery to the ground, the victims are finally being recovered.

Nearly 300 monks lived here.

Fifty are confirmed dead, the fate of 150 more unclear.

In Mandalay, the powerful earthquake pulled buildings to the ground, collapsed hotels and destroyed an entire apartment complex.

A shop owner who wanted to stay anonymous shows the scars from the building that collapsed on top of him.

He was rescued after being trapped for hours.

MAN (through translator): I have been removing the debris from my shop on my own.

No one has helped me.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In neighboring Thailand, Friday's terrifying collapse of a high-rise under construction sent people running for their lives.

Today, at the site, they recovered one of the 18 who were killed.

Authorities are investigating why the tower fell, when the damage to the rest of Bangkok was minimal.

The epicenter was near Mandalay, Myanmar's second largest city, but the impact of the 7.7-magnitude quake spread to rural areas that today have little communications and are still stranded.

Years of civil war following the 2021 military coup has left more than three million people displaced, and local media report fighting continued even this weekend between resistance groups and the military.

International aid organizations such as the U.N.'s Children's Fund and World Food Program are working to deliver relief.

SAI HAN LYNN AUNG, Chief, UNICEF Field Office in Mandalay: We know this is an absolute catastrophe for children and family across Mandalay.

Many homes have been destroyed, road and bridge damaged.

Many children and family are still missing and traumatized.

NICK SCHIFRIN: One of the most visible rescue teams has been Chinese.

This morning, Chinese rescuers pulled a child out of the rubble, the team's successes broadcast on Chinese TV.

WOMAN (through translator): The Chinese rescue teams came to help us.

Thank you very much.

I hope I can express my gratitude to the Chinese rescue teams on behalf of all the people in the affected areas.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In Washington, the State Department announced a humanitarian aid team would soon arrive and deny that USAID cuts prevented a U.S. response.

TAMMY BRUCE, State Department Spokesperson: The aid can continue, and it may simply look different, and it may involve more partners.

The success in the work and our impact will still be there.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But a log written by current USAID employees and obtained by "PBS News Hour" says that on Friday afternoon disaster response experts working on the earthquake received alerts that they should go home; 45 minutes later, they were told if they had urgent or critical needs, they could continue to work as necessary.

The log goes on to say -- quote -- "The U.S. government no longer has the tools or personnel to respond when our global neighbors request assistance."

For a perspective on this, we turn to Chris Milligan, who previously held the most senior career position at USAID during the last Trump administration, and prior to that was the agency's mission director to Myanmar.

Chris Milligan, thanks very much.

Welcome.

CHRIS MILLIGAN, Former Senior USAID Official: Thank you for having me.

NICK SCHIFRIN: What is your assessment of the U.S. response to the earthquake that happened on Friday so far?

CHRIS MILLIGAN: There really hasn't been a response.

Normally, what would happen if there was a natural disaster like this, the U.S. government would deploy a disaster assistance response team within our.

And this disaster assistance response team would be composed of technical experts in sectors like search-and-rescue, water, hygiene that would save lives.

For example, when there was the massive earthquake in Turkey in '23, the U.S. government deployed a disaster assistance response team that grew to about 200 people, and 160 of those were search-and-rescue staff.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And just to give us perspective, the State Department spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, said today that a team from USAID was traveling to Myanmar now to help identify its most pressing needs, and the U.S. pledged $2 million in humanitarian assistance.

It sounds like what you're saying is that that is not how things used to work.

CHRIS MILLIGAN: Correct.

It's too little and too late.

The three individuals, although I respect that they're humanitarian assistance advisers, are not specific technical experts across the fields that are required at this time.

This does not replace a 200-person DART, or disaster assistance response team.

When there is a natural disaster, the U.S. government provides well more than $2 million to help those in need.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And not only that, timing, right?

Why are the first 72 hours so critical after an earthquake?

CHRIS MILLIGAN: They're called the golden hours.

If you can find people and rescue them, then they have a chance of surviving.

You have to get in there quickly to save lives.

And the next thing you have to do is prevent a secondary wave of loss of life by ensuring that there is adequate clean water, food, and shelter.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And on both of those notes, let's put them in perspective for the recent USAID cuts overall.

A congressional official tells me that the transport contracts that could have moved the dogs, the search-and-rescue teams, those transport contracts have been terminated and that was notified to Congress.

And an employee recently let go from USAID confirmed to me that some of the programs that regional offices could have been using in circumstances like the earthquake in Myanmar, those programs have also been cut.

What is the impact of those cuts, the overall cuts on USAID on a moment like this?

CHRIS MILLIGAN: The real-world impact is that the agency and the United States government does not have the capacity to help those in need.

Those cuts that you mentioned occurred.

But there are other cuts that are also significant.

The internal programs inside the country were cut.

So our ability or USAID's ability to pivot those programs to address the immediate needs of Mandalay doesn't exist anymore either.

The relationships with the local individuals and local leaders don't exist anymore either.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And I want to read that sentence that I read from the log from current USAID officials... on Friday -- quote -- "The U.S. government no longer has the tools or personnel to respond when our global neighbors request assistance," do you agree with that?

CHRIS MILLIGAN: I agree with that.

We had the capacity.

We had the assets.

We chose to turn them off, and now people are dying.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Let's talk about some of the soft power aspects of this.

In the report we just showed, Chinese rescue officials are seen pulling bodies out of the rubble.

What's your response when you see and hear that?

CHRIS MILLIGAN: Yes.

We provide humanitarian assistance because we're a generous country, and we do it based upon needs.

However, there is a big dividend back here for America.

It shows -- it's a showcase of American values.

It creates goodwill.

It strengthens our partnerships in the world, and it supports our global leadership.

By walking away from humanitarian assistance, we are creating a political void that others, such as China, can fill for their own advantage.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And does that hurt national security?

CHRIS MILLIGAN: What would a world look like without USAID?

It means more pandemics, pandemics coming to America.

It means less jobs for Americans; 11 of the top 15 trading partners we have were recipients of foreign assistance, $2 billion in agricultural products purchased by USAID to go overseas, a billion dollars in pharmaceuticals.

The list goes on and on.

It's a less stable world, more conflict, more demands on American soldiers.

It's a less free world, and it's a world where China becomes the global leader.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And, finally, you worked, as I said, as the senior career official, the counselor under USAID under the first Trump administration.

What was your experience then, and how does it compare to how current USAID employees are being treated?

CHRIS MILLIGAN: USAID had a very positive experience under the first Trump administration.

Together, we instituted reforms that made USAID more fit for purpose to address global challenges.

So it was a very positive experience.

We are not -- the agency, as you know, being decimated and abolished, this is not the same experience.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And, to that point, USAID employees would have been willing to work with this Trump administration?

CHRIS MILLIGAN: Of course.

I have worked across six different presidential administrations.

I was one of the first civilians in Iraq for the Iraq War under a Republican administration.

We don't do politics.

We do national security.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Chris Milligan, thank you very much.

CHRIS MILLIGAN: Thank you.

A pleasure.

Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The day's other headlines begin in France, where a court found far right politician Marine Le Pen guilty of embezzlement and barred her from running for office for the next five years.

Le Pen abruptly left the Paris courtroom before the judge even finished reading her sentence.

This effectively dashes Le Pen's 2027 presidential hopes.

She had her eyes set on what would have been her fourth election bid.

Reacting on French TV this evening, Le Pen said the verdict violates the rule of law.

MARINE LE PEN, National Rally Party (through translator): What she is doing here is, the judge is saying, I'm going to make you ineligible straight away and I'm doing it precisely to stop you from being able to be elected president.

If that's not a political decision, I don't know what it is.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It's unclear how the ruling will affect voters, and Le Pen vowed to repeal it.

But it paves the way for her heir apparent, 29-year-old Jordan Bardella, to represent the National Rally Party in the next election to succeed Emmanuel Macron.

In the Middle East, the Israeli military ordered sweeping new evacuations today in the Southern Gaza City of Rafah.

Residents there packed up and headed north.

The order indicates Israel may launch another major ground operation in Rafah after resuming its war against Hamas earlier this month.

Meantime, our producer in Gaza captured this video of a funeral for several of the 15 emergency responders who were killed last week by Israeli fire.

Israel says their vehicles were acting suspiciously and that several militants were killed in the attack.

Three U.S. soldiers have been found dead in Lithuania after four went missing last week during a training exercise.

The remaining soldier is still missing.

The Army said the bodies were inside their armored vehicle submerged in a swamp near the Belarus border.

The recovery was part of a massive six-day effort by U.S., Polish, and Lithuanian troops and emergency responders.

How the incident happened is still under investigation.

Back here at home, heavy storms are in the forecast from the mid-Atlantic to the Gulf Coast tonight.

It's a one-two punch of turbulent weather after deadly thunderstorms barreled across the nation this weekend, killing at least five people in Oklahoma, Indiana, and Michigan.

Three of the deaths, all in Michigan, were children.

The Great Lakes also saw a much different type of storm, freezing rain.

Crews worked today to clean up down trees and power lines that had taken out electricity for nearly half-a-million customers in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana.

On Wall Street, stock seesawed today before finishing mixed.

The Dow Jones industrial average rebounded to gain 1 percent today, while the Nasdaq dropped by a meager 24 points.

The S&P 500 also bounced back from sharp losses early in the day to finish slightly up.

And speaking publicly for the first time since returning from their unexpectedly long stay in space, astronauts Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore said they would fly again aboard the Boeing spacecraft that could not bring them home last year.

BUTCH WILMORE, Starliner Test Flight Astronaut: Because we're going to rectify all the issues that we encountered.

SUNI WILLIAMS, Starliner Test Flight Astronaut: We're going to fix them.

We're going to make it work.

Boeing's completely committed.

NASA is completely committed.

And with that, I would get on in heartbeat.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It was Elon Musk's SpaceX that eventually did bring Williams and Wilmore home after their original Boeing craft returned to Earth empty because of technical issues.

Both astronauts said they owed part of the blame for what became a 286-day mission and that they still want Starliner to succeed.

Still to come on the "News Hour": Elon Musk's efforts to influence a Wisconsin Supreme Court election; leading figures in science and technology denounce the Trump administration's dismantling of research; and Tamara Keith and Amy Walter break down the latest political headlines.

The State Department deported 17 more immigrants to El Salvador over the weekend.

They were allegedly members of a Venezuelan gang.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the removals a -- quote -- "successful counterterrorism operation."

This occurred after a federal judge had blocked the administration from invoking a rare wartime authority to deport hundreds of immigrants without due process.

The president was sharply critical of that judge.

And it comes as he's also taken aim at major law firms for representing clients or cases that conflict with his administration.

For more, we are joined now by Deborah Pearlstein.

She's director of the Princeton Program on Law and Public Policy.

Deborah Pearlstein, thank you so much for being here.

Could you help us understand how the administration is continuing these deportations?

We had one judge say, I'm going to block you from doing -- using this Alien Enemies Act to deport people.

And then another judge on Friday said, you can't deport people who don't have some national connection to the countries you're sending them to.

So how are these deportations continuing?

DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN, Princeton University: So thanks for having me.

The first thing to say is, we don't fully know or know at all what legal basis the president is invoking to continue these deportations.

That's in part by design.

It makes it harder to challenge the legality of what he's doing.

But there's several possibilities of what's going on here.

One possibility with the recent deportations of more alleged Venezuelans over the weekend is that the president is continuing to use authority under the Alien Enemies Act, which he invoked before.

If that's what's going on, that would be in direct defiance of an ongoing temporary restraining order that was put in place by a district court in Washington, D.C., that's still in place, that was upheld on appeal, that was recently extended to April.

But the State Department today refused to confirm or deny whether, in fact, it was the Alien Enemies Act that the president was acting under.

There are and long have been under existing laws and statutes in the United States authority to deport people for various reasons, as long as they are entitled to some process under the law.

But we can't even tell that, whether the people have had that kind of process.

And that's why there's undoubtedly going to be ongoing litigation here as well.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's part, perhaps, why we saw some different justifications for it, that the secretary of state called it a counterterrorism operation, and then another administration official said that this was just under the regular course of immigration law.

The Trump administration, as you mentioned, one of their appeals, they have taken this all the way to the Supreme Court, this injunction about the Alien Enemies Act.

How does this pushback fit into this larger, quite intense tug-of-war between the administration and the judiciary?

DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN: So we're really seeing a wide-scale attack by the administration against not just the courts and individual judges, but against legal institutions across the board, law schools, bar associations, individual attorneys, and, in recent weeks, large corporate law firms as well.

The courts and lawyers have proven among the most effective so far institutions in pushing back against some of the president's initiatives, particularly some of the president's unconstitutional initiatives.

And so what we're seeing is, instead of efforts to simply comply with those court orders, we're seeing some compliance, but we're also seeing enormous attacks against the institutions themselves and the rule of law.

That's one of the things that worries not just constitutional law professors, but should worry all Americans, I think, most.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We saw the administration also fired two line prosecutors, which is somewhat of an unusual move for the administration to do.

These are the lawyers in Department of Justice offices nationwide who are working particular cases.

But I want to loop back to this point you were mentioning before about the move against major law firms.

I mean, we have seen the administration targeting several firms, extracting concessions from others.

Help us understand, why are they doing that?

What is behind that effort, in your view?

DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN: So they seem to be targeting these firms, and they're doing it through sort of executive pronouncements.

They call them executive orders, but they're not executive orders in any traditional sense.

And they're targeting firms expressly because they say these firms have hired or employed lawyers who took positions against the administration.

They represented Democratic political officials.

They took on representation of people who were advocating for transgender individuals, right?

And so the administration is expressly saying, if you do these things, if you represent people we don't like, issues we don't like, we are going to, in the case of corporate law firms, strip lawyers there of security clearance, deny them access to federal buildings, including federal courthouses, and take other measures that effectively make it impossible for these firms to do business.

We're seeing a few, two firms in particular, try to strike deals with the administration to avoid the worst effects of these.

And we're seeing the courts consistently, three different judges, three different courts, strike down these orders as unconstitutional, I think rightly.

But in the meantime, the chilling effect that we're seeing across law firms, even those firms that haven't been targeted directly, is beginning to impact not so much the ability of corporate clients to get lawyers.

They are still able to get lawyers.

That are a lot of law firms out there.

But the willingness of firms to take on pro bono or even paid clients who are taking positions that the administration doesn't like.

This is a threat not just to the First Amendment rights of the firms and the lawyers who work there, but the ability of individuals to give effect -- the right of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

That's part of the central reason why the courts are striking these down so quickly.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you think that that is a real fear?

Is there a real concern that -- again, these are some of the biggest and most powerful law firms in the country -- that they really will shy away from providing this counsel, which every person who goes before a court is allowed to have a lawyer?

You really think that that's going to happen?

DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN: So I have already heard multiple instances from people I know who work at these law firms, from nonprofit organizations who have sought the assistance of these law firms, which they have done for many, many years, saying they're less inclined to take on the cases.

One in particular says there was an instruction that went around in his firm saying, you can work on these pro bono matters, but don't put the firm's name on the brief if you do.

So we're already seeing that happen in certain cases.

Whether or not that becomes widespread, I think we have to wait and see.

But there's no question that these orders, even though they're being struck down quickly in the courts, are already starting to have, at least to some extent, a chilling effect on the willingness of some of the best lawyers in the country and in the world to take on some of the most important cases that are out there now.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Deborah Pearlstein of the Princeton Program on Law and Public Policy, thank you so much for joining us.

DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN: Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As President Trump escalates his fights with federal judges, he's also bolstering a judicial candidate in the battleground state of Wisconsin.

It is a loud and expensive race that has become a fight over the president's agenda.

And, as Deema Zein reports, it's testing the limits of presidential adviser and billionaire Elon Musk's money and popularity.

DEEMA ZEIN: Across Wisconsin, a critical election that will determine who will fill a seat on the state Supreme Court for the next 10 years.

It's seen by many as an early litmus test of how voters feel about President Trump's policies in a swing state he won by nearly 30,000 votes last year, on the ballot, two current county judges both looking for a promotion.

SUSAN CRAWFORD, Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidate: Wisconsinites want a commonsense justice who will be fair and impartial.

DEEMA ZEIN: Judge Susan Crawford from Dane County, home to the state capital, Madison, and a liberal stronghold... BRAD SCHIMEL, Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidate: It's not a good look for our country.

DEEMA ZEIN: ... versus Judge Brad Schimel from Waukesha County, a conservative-leaning suburb of Milwaukee.

He's also Wisconsin's former attorney general.

Whoever wins Tuesday will determine the majority of the seven-member Supreme Court, which after 15 years in conservative control, flipped to a 4-3 liberal majority in the last election two years ago.

BARRY BURDEN, Elections Research Center Director, University of Wisconsin-Madison: The level of intensity in the state feels about like a presidential election.

DEEMA ZEIN: Barry Burden is the director of the Elections Research Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

BARRY BURDEN: It's now become kind of a national referendum, or at least a way to measure the temperature of the electorate a couple of months into the Trump administration.

The fact that the court is up for grabs ideologically and is weighing in on these important issues and money is so easily spread into these campaigns has really been the kind of magic stew that has put these elections on the map for everyone.

DEEMA ZEIN: The result?

NARRATOR: Too extreme for the Supreme Court.

DEEMA ZEIN: The most expensive court election in U.S. history, with more than $90 million spent so far.

NARRATOR: Because she fights for them, not us.

DEEMA ZEIN: While the race is officially nonpartisan, the dividing lines are clear.

SUSAN CRAWFORD: This election will determine the future of our state.

DEEMA ZEIN: Crawford has support from the state Democratic Party.

BRAD SCHIMEL: I hope to have your vote.

DEEMA ZEIN: Schimel is backed by Republicans, including President Trump.

BRAD SCHIMEL: Then the call comes: "Hello, Brad.

It's your favorite president."

(LAUGHTER) PROTESTERS: Not for sale!

Not for sale!

DEEMA ZEIN: But it's the efforts by Elon Musk that are getting the most attention.

The billionaire businessman, who has spent the last two months slashing federal spending and firing federal workers in the name of government efficiency, has turned his sights to the Badger State.

NARRATOR: Susan Crawford's record disturbing and dangerous.

DEEMA ZEIN: Musk has dropped $20 million to support Schimel's campaign on ads and more direct get-out-the-vote efforts.

ELON MUSK, Department of Government Efficiency: The very important election for Judge Schimel.

DEEMA ZEIN: His political action committee offered voters $100 to sign a petition against -- quote -- "activist judges."

ELON MUSK: Let me first hand out two $1 million checks.

DEEMA ZEIN: And, on Sunday, he was in Wisconsin handing out million-dollar checks to two people.

Musk originally limited eligibility to voters, but changed it to petition signers after legal scrutiny.

The Democratic attorney general accused Musk of trying to buy votes and sued all the way to the state Supreme Court to block the giveaway, but the justices declined to step in.

BARRY BURDEN: Musk has become a pretty central figure in the campaigns.

Democrats and progressives are arguing that this election ought to be a rebuke of what Musk is doing in Washington, and they have turned it into kind of a judgment on his actions, asking voters to send a message that Musk should not be meddling in Wisconsin state politics.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have really embraced him.

SUSAN CRAWFORD: He has basically taken over Brad Schimel's campaign.

DEEMA ZEIN: Musk has become central for the candidates on the trail and in their final debate.

Musk's electric car company, Tesla, is suing to overturn a law that prevents it from opening a dealership in the state, an issue that could ultimately end up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Schimel says Musk's support won't sway how he would rule.

BRAD SCHIMEL: If Elon Musk is trying to get some result in that lawsuit, he may be failing, because I enforce the law and I respect the laws passed by the legislature.

MAN: The Wisconsin State Supreme Court is now in session.

DEEMA ZEIN: The winner could have a critical vote on other issues as well.

WOMAN: Our first case this morning.

DEEMA ZEIN: Union rights, voting rules and congressional redistricting are all likely to end up at the court.

WOMAN: We're trying to figure out if medical providers here are going to be able to save women's lives.

DEEMA ZEIN: Wisconsin's current justices will soon decide the fate of an 1849 law that bans nearly all abortions in the state.

MAN: I mean, we're trying to get it right, I hope, not just get an outcome here.

DEEMA ZEIN: And while the winner on Tuesday won't have a role in that specific case, the issue still looms large in the race.

MAN: You believe the 1849 law is valid?

BRAD SCHIMEL: It was a validly passed law.

MAN: Today?

BRAD SCHIMEL: I don't believe -- I don't believe that it reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin today.

MAN: Judge, do you believe that law is valid today, the 1849 law?

SUSAN CRAWFORD: Well, Matt, this is an issue that's pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

I'm not in a position to weigh in at this point.

DEEMA ZEIN: Schimel has called himself pro-life, while, as a lawyer, Crawford represented Planned Parenthood.

All those swirling issues have led to a surge in turnout at the polls.

WOMAN: Read carefully.

DEEMA ZEIN: Nearly 650,000 voters cast ballots early, up more than 40 percent from the Supreme Court election two years ago, for voters, deeply personal choices.

On abortion access.

LINDA OLIVER, Wisconsin Voter: I don't think that we should be governed by a law that was passed before the Civil War.

LEWIS TITUS, Wisconsin Voter: I believe in the sanctity of life.

And I believe that Brad Schimel is the one that's going to be able to carry that on.

DEEMA ZEIN: On larger questions about the role of judges.

CINDY SUPLINSKI, Wisconsin Voter: I was very impressed with how he is really focused on upholding the laws, not making the laws, not bringing his own personal biases into the laws.

DEEMA ZEIN: And voters' own judgments about President Trump's first few months in office.

CHRISTINA DANFORTH, Wisconsin Voter: The president is sidestepping the laws.

He's just sidestepping them.

And I don't want somebody representing the status Wisconsin that will allow that, will tolerate that.

DEEMA ZEIN: A technically nonpartisan race highlighting deep political divides.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Deema Zein.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Trump administration is waging a -- quote -- "wholesale assault on U.S. science, an effort that threatens the country's health, economic development, national security, and scientific preeminence."

That's according to an open letter published today by nearly 2,000 doctors, scientists, and researchers in response to the administration cutting tens of thousands of jobs across the Department of Health and Human Services and scrapping billions of dollars in scientific grants.

We are joined now by one of the authors of that letter.

Dr. Steven Woolf is professor of family medicine and population health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine.

Dr. Woolf, welcome back to the program.

DR. STEVEN WOOLF, Virginia Commonwealth University: Thanks for having me.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Your letter cites a series of impacts, economic, technological, impacts on human health.

You write -- quote -- "We are sending this SOS to sound a clear warning: The nation's scientific enterprise is being decimated."

How so?

DR. STEVEN WOOLF: Well, we have spent 80 years in this country building up our scientific infrastructure.

We -- federal agencies have been investing in the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation.

And that's enabled our country to make remarkable scientific discoveries that have made the United States the envy of the world.

In a matter of weeks, the Trump administration has pursued a set of policies that are basically removing the capacity of our country to do this kind of research.

And it has broad implications across many of the sectors that you mentioned.

I'm a physician, so it's of great concern that this is going to affect health and the life expectancy of Americans.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Devil's advocate, though, let's just say there are a few less thousand scientists at the NIH or the HHS.

How does that actually roll out into real people's lives?

DR. STEVEN WOOLF: Well, to start with, by cutting the funding for these agencies and dismissing thousands of federal scientists from these agencies, we're also seeing a sharp reduction in the funding for the research that occurs at universities and research institutions across the country.

The net effect of this is to slow the process of a discovery, so that we're slower in identifying new treatments for cancer, new ways of treating heart disease, and starting to seed the edge, the advantage to other countries, like China and other countries, that are investing heavily in our research.

So we're going to lose our edge, and the implications are ultimately going to affect everyday Americans.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Your letter cites impacts to climate research, to cancer research, to HIV.

Specifically in your field, which is health policy, what are you most concerned about on that front?

DR. STEVEN WOOLF: Well, I have spent my entire career studying the fact that Americans have shorter life expectancy and poorer health outcomes than people in other high-income countries.

That's been the case for many years now, and the gap is widening.

My concern is, the very kind of research that would help us improve the health of Americans and reverse that trend is getting cut.

We're seeing large slashes in funding for the very kind of research that would make America healthier again.

This is a stated priority of the administration, but it's doing the exact opposite of what we would need to improve our health.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I assume you saw the news about Peter Marks, the head of -- the vaccine regulator at the FDA was basically forced out on Friday.

That's the kind of thing you're talking about, again, a preeminent researcher in his field being pushed out ostensibly because of ideological differences?

DR. STEVEN WOOLF: Yes, we're seeing this across the administration, but, in our world, in research, the very top scientists, the top minds in our country and in our government who have the expertise for doing this research are being pushed out and being replaced by individuals who have more of a commitment to the ideological and partisan agenda of the administration.

And the reason why this affects Americans is that they're not necessarily getting the straight facts about what the science tells us.

It's very important for Americans to be able to receive the truth about what the evidence tells us and not have to worry whether it's being slanted to suit politics or special interests.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There are, as I mentioned, almost 2,000 signatories to your letter, all members of the national academies.

But there are also several major research institutions, universities that have been a little bit tamer in speaking out the way you all are in this letter.

We have seen certainly the sort of pressure that's been put on universities, Columbia University, Harvard University today.

You describe this culture of fear that exists out there.

What are your colleagues telling you?

DR. STEVEN WOOLF: Oh, there is definitely a climate of fear.

The leaders of our research institutions, the leaders of our universities, the leaders of our academy are all in a very difficult position, because they are under financial and legal pressures that are actually very difficult and are unable to speak out openly about their greatest concerns about this attack on science.

So we say that we're giving -- we're speaking as individuals, sending out an SOS, in effect, saying what our leadership cannot say.

And it's very important for the public to pay attention to this, because it has implications for them.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Is there anything that the administration is doing on the scientific front that you can admire?

I mean, you look at RFK Jr., the head of HHS, his desire to address chronic disease, highly processed foods.

Are there things that you can admire that the administration is doing?

DR. STEVEN WOOLF: I absolutely agree with the diagnosis.

Many of the issues that Secretary Kennedy has raised and others in the administration are spot on.

He himself talks about the low life expectancy of the United States.

The chronic disease burden is a real issue.

The food industry and the food environment is also a problem.

The trouble that we're having is, the solution, the treatment for the disease is bizarre.

It's exactly the opposite of what the evidence would tell us we should do.

So under the label of what the administration is calling a restoration of gold standard science and making America healthy again, a set of policies are being pursued that experts like the group that signed this statement are certain will actually have the opposite effect and endanger Americans.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Dr. Steven Woolf, always great to see you.

Thank you very much.

DR. STEVEN WOOLF: Pleasure being here.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The impact of tariffs is just starting to be felt just as more are on the way.

The markets just closed out their worst quarter in 2.5 years, and some businesses are warning how tariffs could hurt sales and their bottom lines.

This week, President Trump plans to announce a new set of tariffs on major U.S. trading partners.

That would be in retaliation for tariffs other trade barriers imposed on U.S. exports.

But one of the biggest questions about the president's approach is whether they can help revitalize American manufacturing.

Economics correspondent Paul Solman breaks that down.

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

PAUL SOLMAN: So President Trump proclaimed in the Oval Office last week when adding 25 percent tariffs on U.S. auto imports.

And, on Wednesday, it's promised there will be more still.

DONALD TRUMP: We're going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth, taking a lot of things that they have been taking over the years.

They have taken so much out of our country, friend and foe.

And, frankly, friend has been oftentimes much worse than foe.

PAUL SOLMAN: And thus, says Mark DiPlacido, a policy adviser at pro-Trump think tank American Compass: MARK DIPLACIDO, Policy Adviser, American Compass: We need a transformational change in our economy.

And I think the administration is pursuing that.

PAUL SOLMAN: Part of that change, creating supply chains in America for Americans.

DONALD TRUMP: We shouldn't have supply chains.

We should have them all in the United States.

We have the companies to do it.

PAUL SOLMAN: But the main theme is tariffs.

The president and his team have cited very different reasons for imposing them.

DONALD TRUMP: They have allowed fentanyl to come into our country at levels never seen before.

This is retaliatory to a certain extent.

Millions of people flowed into our country through Mexico and Canada.

And we're not going to allow that.

This is going to be what pays down the $36 trillion in debt and all the other things.

PAUL SOLMAN: But the dominant case has been that tariffs will reindustrialize America.

What exactly the administration will do on liberation day, don't know yet, but the argument is, says DiPlacido: MARK DIPLACIDO: For 30 years, we have basically allowed other countries to distort their market, to subsidize their own markets at the expense of our market and keep our goods out.

PAUL SOLMAN: And then, on what would be a level playing field, firms operating in the U.S. will, and I don't mean this snarkily, make American manufacturing great again.

MARK DIPLACIDO: When companies realize the incentives have changed, that they're going to have to factor in tariffs for imports, and they're not going to be able to just import cheap labor also from other countries under the president's policies, these companies are going to be incentivized to invest in the education and training that our population needs to be successful.

PAUL SOLMAN: And become more productive.

Predictably, I asked a number of economists for a critique.

HA-JOON CHANG, University of London: In theory, it could work.

PAUL SOLMAN: That's University of London trade economist Ha-Joon Chang in the U.K.

But, he says: HA-JOON CHANG: It is going to take a lot of time, and you don't have that time.

You have run down the industrial base over the last four decades.

It cannot be built up in two years or whatever tariff policies that you have.

In the meantime, things will be very expensive, especially if you are putting tariffs on the main trading partners like Mexico and Canada.

And can people tolerate any more inflation?

PAUL SOLMAN: But if enough Americans think inflation is a price worth paying for a rebuilt industrial base and foreign firms relocate in the U.S.?

HA-JOON CHANG: Yes, people think that, but the trouble is that it's not just the factories.

If you really want these factories to be productive, you need workers with the right skills.

You need infrastructure that is needed for that particular industry.

You even need universities around it to do research in whatever the firm is producing.

PAUL SOLMAN: Back across the pond at the Harvard Business School, Professor Willy Shih agrees.

WILLY SHIH, Harvard Business School: Let's say you wanted offshore production from the U.S. to China.

You had to set up a new factory.

You had to hire the work force.

You had to train the work force.

You had to bring in suppliers.

You had to set up your logistics.

And what paid for that was, you got lower cost of product.

That's going from a high-cost country to a low-cost country.

Now, if you want to bring stuff from a low-cost country to a high-cost country, and you have to set up a factory and you have to hire the work force, and you have to train the work force and bring in your suppliers, what's going to pay for it?

Your product cost is going to be higher.

PAUL SOLMAN: And there's another major hurdle, say Shih and others, uncertainty, as President Trump keeps changing what he threatens.

WILLY SHIH: Because, with uncertainty, you can't plan.

Think about football, right?

Business is conducted on a playing field, where there are rules defined by the government and others.

Imagine if the rules changed every five minutes.

It's like, how would you play that game?

PAUL SOLMAN: Our last critic, Robert Zoellick, U.S. trade representative under George W. Bush, economic adviser under Bush I.

He spent his career negotiating tariff reductions.

But in today's economic environment, might there be advantages if America erects barriers and more nearly goes it alone?

ROBERT ZOELLICK, Former U.S. Trade Representative: We have got some advantages, but also then you have to ask, if we go it alone, what happens to all the farm production that we make in the United States that we sell abroad?

And in the case of North America, we're far more efficient because of the Mexican-Canadian-American supply chains that produce cars.

So if you put the types of tariffs that President Trump is talking about, you will increase the price of cars by $3,000 to $12,000 are the estimates.

Do people want that?

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, no, but I mean, I have talked to a number of people who say they will bring their plants here to America.

And that's the point, to create more jobs, more work here in America.

ROBERT ZOELLICK: So, the problem with Trump's approach is, it combines incoherence and protectionism.

And you have to look at both parts.

So the protectionism will add costs.

And then you also have the retaliation.

We tried this in the 1930s.

We raised tariffs to an average of 59 percent, and other people hit back.

We had a trade surplus, but we also had unemployment at 25 percent.

So it's a policy that reverses 70 years of America's international economic leadership.

PAUL SOLMAN: OK, the crux of the critiques, higher prices at home, maybe even a recession, plus policy uncertainty, while waiting for America to reindustrialize, who knows by when, if ever.

Mark DiPlacido's response?

MARK DIPLACIDO: We have a new president.

It's only been two months.

He's promised to make the most substantial changes to our economy in decades.

And that's going to come with some disruption, as he's indicated, and it's going to come with some uncertainty.

But I think, by the end of the spring, people are going to have a very clear idea.

What the president has been consistent on is saying, if you manufacture in America, if you produce in America, you are not going to have to pay these tariffs.

PAUL SOLMAN: And if we can provide enough homegrown workers, expertise, capital, we recapture our manufacturing edge.

But more manufacturing jobs, when even China is losing them to increased automation?

Yes, says DiPlacido, because U.S. firms will become more productive.

And that, he says, is what the administration is betting on.

For the "PBS News Hour," Paul Solman.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We're fewer than 100 days into the new Congress, but elections are on a lot of minds this week.

Two key congressional seats are up for grabs in Florida, and, as we heard earlier, so is a swing seat on Wisconsin's state Supreme Court.

Plus, President Trump is talking openly about staying in office for a constitutionally prohibited third term.

For more, we are joined by our Politics Monday team.

That is Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR.

Good evening.

So nice to see you both.

AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Hello.

Great to see you.

TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Great to see you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Let's talk about the Supreme Court case.

Deema touched upon this in her very good report.

But, Amy, how much can you read into the results of a single state's Supreme Court race?

AMY WALTER: Right.

Right, this far away from the 2026 midterm elections, you have to be careful not to read too much on it, especially the topics and the issues that folks are talking about today are unlikely to be the topics we're going to be talking about in November.

One thing, though, that is going to be really important is to look at turnout.

Now, what we have known in this Trump era is that in lower turnout elections, which a state Supreme Court race in April normally is, Democrats tend to have an advantage now.

And that is because the Democratic base voter tends to be older, they tend to be higher educated, more affluent.

Those are voters who show up in election after election.

Trump's core base are people that don't always show up in off-year elections.

They show up in presidential elections.

So this is a really big test to see if the Trump coalition is actually going to turn out.

And Elon Musk is spending a lot of money doing just that, arguing that they can actually get those people who normally aren't paying much attention to politics without Donald Trump off of the couch and into the voting place.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right, because Elon Musk cuts both ways in that regard.

I mean, he can be a big driver for the MAGA base, but he can also bring Democrats out because they're furious.

TAMARA KEITH: Right.

And this is the first big proxy battle of this new Trump era.

And Elon Musk has made it very clear by spending a lot of money, having a rally, handing out giant checks, that he's putting his political capital and his literal capital into this.

President Trump also has endorsed Brad Schimel.

Brad Schimel's literature has Donald Trump all over it.

And so while a lot of the messaging that the candidates are using, they're talking about crime and things that the state Supreme Court doesn't even actually deal with very much... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

TAMARA KEITH: ... while that's a lot of the messaging, the reality is that this is a proxy war.

Democratic big donors have also put money in.

Democratic small donors from all over the country are sending their dollars into this race.

And so you have this record-breaking state Supreme Court race.

I will say, as Amy cautions, in April of 2023, the Democratic-backed candidate for a state Supreme Court seat, she won.

And everybody said, wow, abortion is going to be this huge factor in the 2024 presidential race.

And in the end Donald Trump won Wisconsin.

It's this 50/50 state.

He won.

And this wasn't actually much of a predictor.

Abortion was less of a factor than anyone would have imagined it 19, 20, 22 months earlier.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

Let's talk about these Florida elections.

We have got two special elections, both in GOP House seats right now.

One of these is Matt Gaetz's seat.

This is the seat that he is not refilling after his bid to become attorney general failed.

The second is Mike Waltz's seat that he is not filling because he has now ascended to become Trump's national security adviser.

Those are thought to be safe seats.

I mean, your team has called them solid R. AMY WALTER: Yes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And Trump won both of those districts by more than 30 points.

AMY WALTER: More than 30, yes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, again, are there real implications here if the Republicans win both those seats again?

AMY WALTER: Right.

So, again, this is why we're looking really much more at the margin than we're looking at the winner and loser or what the topics of the debate are.

You're right, Donald Trump won the more competitive of these districts by 30 points.

Nobody thinks the Republican is going to win this by 30 points or even 20 points.

The question is, what if it's single digits?

What is that going to tell us if the margin has shrunk that much?

It, again, suggests that the ability for Republicans to turn out those Trump voters is really being challenged when he's not on the ballot.

Now, this is also a time when Donald Trump is about as popular as he's ever been with his base.

And so, if you're Republicans right now and looking at these special elections and you say, wow, even when Trump's this popular, we still can't get folks to turn out and vote for Republicans, what happens next year if he's not this popular with the base or that the base still likes him, but they're just not as energized as they are today?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

Right.

AMY WALTER: That's what we're really looking for.

What we have seen in the most recent special elections for legislative races is that Democrats are outrunning what they should be getting by about nine points.

That is a significant number, when, again, if we look to 2026, if that's how well Democrats are doing in 2026, that puts them on a really good path for the House, flipping the House.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

And this is akin, Tam, to what happened with GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik, who was supposed to be U.N. ambassador, but then they looked at the numbers and they thought, no, no, no, no, why don't you stay there because we need to protect that seat.

TAMARA KEITH: Yes, and certainly the president needs a Republican House and does not want to take any chances.

Elise Stefanik is nothing if not a loyal Trump Republican at this point.

And there were some questions about who the Republican candidate would be in that district.

And she is popular, as President Trump has said.

Going to the Florida Six House race, what is remarkable there is just how much money is being spent, which means just how much money is being donated.

On the Democratic side, they raised, as of mid-March, $9.5 million.

That is a lot of money.

That would put it in the top 20 for the races that happened in 2024 of House races.

If the Democrat comes up short, comes up well short, that's a big question for Democrats about where they're putting their money.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Let's shift one more gear here, staying with you, Tam.

Last night on Air Force One, you asked President Trump about these repeated comments that he has made about assuming the presidency for a third time, which we know the Constitution says you can't do.

Let's listen to what he had to say.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I don't want to talk about a third term now, because, no matter how you look at it, we have got a long time to go.

We have a long time.

We have almost four years to go.

And that's a long time.

But, despite that, so many people are saying, you have got to run again.

They love the job we're doing.

Most importantly, they love the job we're doing.

TAMARA KEITH: Are you planning to leave office January 20, 2029?

Or are you saying you might not?

DONALD TRUMP: Go ahead.

Any other questions?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For people who didn't catch that, that's you saying... are you planning on sticking around?

And he says, "Any other questions?"

He didn't want to answer, but he cannot get around the Constitution, can he?

TAMARA KEITH: There are some novel legal theories that are being floated by the likes of Steve Bannon and others of that ilk.

And, no, he can't get around the Constitution, but that doesn't mean that people aren't actually talking about it.

And the fact that President Trump isn't dismissing it out of hand means that it can't be ignored, even if a lot of people still think that it's a joke, even if he's smiling when he's saying it.

There is -- it's something that cannot be completely dismissed.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you think this is just idle talk?

Should we just not be... AMY WALTER: No, I think you should take him literally and seriously with all these matters.

And, look, quite frankly, he's seen that there's not been much pushback on much of what he's doing from anybody.

Why would he not try to do this?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, so nice to see you both.

Thank you for being here.

TAMARA KEITH: You're welcome.

AMY WALTER: You're welcome.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm William Brangham.

On behalf of our entire "News Hour" team, thank you very much for joining us.