GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Amna Nawaz is away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: Texas Democrats leave the state to stop Republicans from passing a partisan redistricting plan backed by President Trump.

A former Trump appointee warns, the president's decision to fire the head of the office that crunches U.S. jobs numbers undermines trust in vital economic data.

And five years after a massive chemical explosion ripped through Beirut, families struggle to rebuild their lives knowing the nation's leaders have not been held accountable.

NICOLE TORBAY-MAKHLOUF, Wife of Blast Victim: They were gambling with our lives because they know that there's no justice in Lebanon.

They know that they are above the law.

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

Democrats from the Texas House of Representatives have fled the state in order to block the passage of a new congressional map.

The redistricting is a priority for President Trump, but critics call it gerrymandering and election rigging.

Stephanie Sy has more.

STEPHANIE SY: In the Texas House of Representatives today: STATE REP. DUSTIN BURROWS (R-TX): Members, a quorum is not present.

STEPHANIE SY: Gridlock.

The Republican majority had planned to vote through new partisan congressional district maps, a goal pushed by President Trump and one of the reasons for this special session.

STATE REP. DUSTIN BURROWS: To those who are absent, return now.

The people of Texas are watching, and so is the nation.

And if you choose to continue down this road, you should know there will be consequences.

STEPHANIE SY: Instead, nearly every Democrat was absent from the chamber, preventing any voting.

STATE REP. VENTON JONES (D-TX): This is state Representative Venton Jones, and we're here at the airport preparing to break quorum.

STEPHANIE SY: Many of them had fled the state Sunday, posting their protests from the tarmac.

STATE REP. VENTON JONES: The governor and president has forced redistricting down our throats.

STATE REP. RAMON ROMERO JR. (D-TX): I'm out, but I'm here for you.

STEPHANIE SY: They landed in Democratic strongholds like Chicago.

STATE REP. GENE WU (D-TX): If Donald Trump is allowed to do this, if he is allowed to once again cheat and get away with it, there's no stopping this.

STEPHANIE SY: And Albany.

STATE REP. MIHAELA PLESA (D-TX): The fight to protect democracy is not confined to one state.

The fight is for all 50.

STEPHANIE SY: Democratic governors welcomed them.

In Illinois, J.B. Pritzker: GOV.

J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): Let's be clear.

This is not just rigging the system in Texas.

It's about rigging the system against the rights of all Americans for years to come.

STEPHANIE SY: And, in New York, Governor Kathy Hochul, who said if the Texas maps moved forward, she would push her state to redraw its own congressional map to boost Democrats.

GOV.

KATHY HOCHUL (D-NY): If Republicans are willing to rewrite these rules to give themselves an advantage, then they're leaving us no choice.

We must do the same.

STEPHANIE SY: An escalation in a redistricting arms race.

It started with Texas Republicans' plan to axe five Democratic-held U.S. House seats.

Currently, Republicans hold 25 of the state's 38 seats in the chamber.

The proposed map would bring the number of likely Republican-held seats to 30, bolstering the chances of the GOP maintaining control of the House in next year's midterm elections and beyond.

Besides what Democrats see as a brazen power grab, the new map could disproportionately disenfranchise Black and Latino voters.

Republicans, including Texas Governor Greg Abbott, have been quick to fulfill the president's wishes.

GOV.

GREG ABBOTT (R-TX): They're very un-Texan.

Texans don't run from a fight.

STEPHANIE SY: Governor Abbott was on FOX News today.

GOV.

GREG ABBOTT: Because these Democrats have absconded from the responsibility, and I believe they have forfeited their seats in the legislature because they're not doing the job they were elected to do.

STEPHANIE SY: In Austin today, Republicans in the Texas House passed a motion to call the absent members back under warrant of arrest if necessary.

But despite the threats and facing fines of $500 per day, Democrats say they have no intention of returning until the special session ends on August 19.

STEPHANIE SY: For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Stephanie Sy.

GEOFF BENNETT: For more on Texas Democrats' efforts to block mid-decade redistricting in the state, we're joined now by state Representative James Talarico, who's currently in Illinois.

Thanks for being with us.

STATE REP. JAMES TALARICO (D-TX): Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: Texas Democrats broke quorum back in 2003 to block redistricting, and again in 2021 to stop new voting laws.

Both efforts ultimately failed.

They were not successful.

Why do you believe this effort could succeed were the others fell short?

STATE REP. JAMES TALARICO: Well, I'd actually like to disagree with that.

I was part of the 2021 walkout, when we broke quorum to fight back against the Republicans' voter suppression bill.

They were trying to make it even harder to vote in Texas.

And Texas is one of the hardest places to vote in the entire country.

And by breaking quorum and shining a national spotlight on their bill, we pressured our Republican colleagues to take the worst parts of that bill out, so a ban on Souls to the Polls, which is early Sunday morning voting, when African American churches usually go to vote, a provision that would have allowed Republicans to overturn election results that they didn't like.

Those were taken out of the bill because of our quorum break.

And so while the bill did pass, and I voted against that bill, it was less harmful than it would have been without the quorum break.

So these kinds of acts of civil disobedience, of good trouble, they can have a tangible impact on legislation and therefore a tangible impact on people's lives.

I'm hopeful we can do something like that with this redistricting power grab that Trump is trying to execute in our state.

GEOFF BENNETT: Governor Abbott says he may try to remove you and your Democratic colleagues from office.

He may try to appoint your replacements.

And then, beyond that, he says that any fund-raising you do while you're out of state could violate bribery laws.

What's your response to that?

STATE REP. JAMES TALARICO: Well, it's completely consistent, because, with these rigged maps, Governor Abbott is trying to rob Texans of their ability to elect representatives of their choice.

That is the most fundamental part of our representative democracy.

And now he's threatening to literally remove the people's representatives from office.

I mean, we're getting close to banana republic territory here.

He is taking a page out of Donald Trump's authoritarian playbook.

He is less charming, less charismatic, but he is still just as dangerous.

And it's why we have walked out.

It's why we're breaking quorum to stop this power grab from going through.

We want to protect Texans' ability to elect the candidates of their choice, whether they are Democrats, independents or Republicans.

GEOFF BENNETT: How is this walkout, this quorum denial effort coordinated?

And how long do you intend to stay out of state?

STATE REP. JAMES TALARICO: Well, we're taking this one special session at a time.

We have all committed to staying out of the state capital for the next two weeks.

That's when the special session is scheduled to end.

Now, Governor Abbott can continue to call special sessions if he chooses.

But I am hopeful that the retaliation being promised by blue state governors may pressure Texas Republicans and Donald Trump to walk back from the brink.

What we don't want is a partisan war between red states and blue states.

We don't want gerrymandering in any state.

It's wrong when Republicans do it.

It's wrong when Democrats do it.

We should have a citizen-led independent redistricting process in every state.

In fact, I have actually filed a bill in the Texas legislature to bring that kind of process to Texas, because voters should be choosing their politicians.

Politicians shouldn't be choosing their voters.

That said, if one side is intent on cheating, as the Republicans are doing with this mid-decade redistricting, then all bets are off.

And the other side has to respond.

I'm hoping we can de-escalate and prevent these gerrymandered maps from spreading across the country.

GEOFF BENNETT: If de-escalation doesn't work, if this strategy of trying to prevent the passage of the GOP redistricting plan doesn't work, what other legal or political tools are available to Texas Democrats to continue challenging the map?

STATE REP. JAMES TALARICO: Well, you're going to see court challenges.

You're going to see us bring those legal challenges in court.

I think you're also going to see Texans rising up, as they already have over the last 24 hours.

I mean, we have been overwhelmed, inundated with messages and calls and e-mails and grassroots donations from Texans all over the state.

And it's not just Democrats.

I actually got a message from a Republican who thanked me for fighting for free and fair elections.

And I think that's exactly what we're going to need if we're going to keep power out of the hands of people who want to consolidate it.

And we can finally get a check on our government.

And that's what Donald Trump's trying to prevent.

He's worried about losing the next election.

And so he's trying to insulate himself from the will of the public.

Nothing could be more un-American than that.

GEOFF BENNETT: Democratic Texas State Rep. James Talarico, thanks for being with us.

STATE REP. JAMES TALARICO: Thank you for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: And a note: We invited Texas Governor Greg Abbott to join us for an interview tonight.

His office declined our request.

In the day's other headlines: At least 40 Gazans were killed today by Israeli gunfire and airstrikes, including more who were seeking food.

YUSUF AL-AWAWDA, Gaza Resident (through translator): We saw death.

We have been out since 6:00.

We saw death in our eyes.

GEOFF BENNETT: Ten people died near aid sites belonging to the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, according to medics on the ground.

Five more people have died from starvation or malnutrition in the past 24 hours, bringing the total number of hunger-related deaths in Gaza to 180 since the war started.

That's according to local health officials.

Meantime, in Jerusalem, dozens of Israelis protested outside the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israeli leader faces mounting pressure to end the war and secure the return of the remaining hostages as part of a cease-fire deal.

Today, Netanyahu faced more blowback for his Cabinet's unanimous decision to fire the country's attorney general, claiming she exceeded her power.

That attorney general had been prosecuting Netanyahu for corruption.

Israel's Supreme Court immediately froze the move and is considering its legality.

Here at home, over 3,000 Boeing workers who build fighter jets and weapons went on strike today.

It's the second strike for the aerospace giant in less than a year.

The workers from three Midwestern plants rejected Boeing's latest contract offer of a 20 percent wage increase over four years.

Boeing's defense branch accounts for more than a third of the company's revenue.

This all follows a bigger work stoppage last year when 33,000 commercial plane workers went on strike for more than seven weeks.

In Montana, a suspected killer is still at large more than three days after law enforcement said he'd gunned down four people in cold blood at a local bar.

Authorities say 45-year-old Michael Paul Brown, a U.S. Army veteran, is armed and unstable.

He was known as a regular at the Owl Bar in Anaconda, Montana, where the shooting took place.

Officials say he escaped in a stolen vehicle that contained clothes and camping gear.

Yesterday, the state's attorney general warned residents that the suspect could come back to the area.

AUSTIN KNUDSEN (R), Montana Attorney General: This is a dangerous individual who has committed an absolutely heinous crime against this community and these victims.

We have got air assets, ground assets.

We're going to catch this guy.

This is still absolutely priority number one.

GEOFF BENNETT: The victims included Nancy Kelly, a bartender at the Owl Bar, as well as three male patrons, Daniel Ballie, David Leach, and Tony Palm.

All four of them lived in Anaconda.

In the West, more than two dozen wildfires are burning in California, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah fueled by dry conditions and high temperatures.

One of the largest fires, that's the Gifford Fire, prompted hundreds of evacuations in Southern California in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties.

It scorched more than 100 square miles and is barely contained.

Three people have been hurt from the blaze.

Meantime, smoke from the more than 700 Canadian wildfires have prompted air quality alerts across the Midwest and Northeast, a thick haze seen over places like Chicago and Upstate New York today.

Markets rebounded today after last Friday's sell-off due to shakeups at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Fed.

The Dow Jones industrial average shot up by nearly 600 points, while the Nasdaq finished higher by nearly 2 percent.

The S&P 500 rounded out the day's across-the-board gains.

And we have a passing of note.

Actress Loni Anderson has died.

LONI ANDERSON, Actress: Good morning, Herb.

ACTOR: Any calls?

LONI ANDERSON: No.

ACTOR: Messages?

LONI ANDERSON: No.

ACTOR: Mail?

LONI ANDERSON: None.

ACTOR: OK. How about lunch?

LONI ANDERSON: No lunch either.

(LAUGHTER) ACTOR: Dinner?

LONI ANDERSON: Busy.

ACTOR: OK. How about later, my place?

LONI ANDERSON: You're married, Herb.

ACTOR: Oh, yeah.

(LAUGHTER) GEOFF BENNETT: Her big break came in 1978, when she played the platinum blonde receptionist in the sitcom "WKRP in Cincinnati."

Her character is quick wit and competence on the job helped keep the struggling radio station afloat, despite her fumbling male colleagues.

Anderson was nominated for three Golden Globes and two Emmys for the role.

In the '90s, she split with her third husband, actor Burt Reynolds.

Their lengthy divorce was a mainstay in the tabloids.

Anderson's publicist said she died after a prolonged battle with an unspecified illness.

She was 79 years old.

Still to come on the "News Hour": Amy Walter and Jasmine Wright break down the latest political headlines; we speak with a Jesuit priest about what he witnessed at an immigration court near the southern border; and with access to care under threat, the Gates Foundation steps in with a multibillion-dollar boost for women's health.

President Trump is expected to nominate a new head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics this week days after firing Commissioner Erika McEntarfer following the release of a disappointing jobs report.

Friday's report showed just 73,000 jobs added in July, well below expectations, and included sharp downward revisions for May and June.

The president quickly dismissed the data as rigged and manipulated for political purposes, a claim he repeated last night.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: We had no confidence.

I mean, the numbers were ridiculous, what she announced.

But that was just one negative number.

All of the numbers seem to be great.

GEOFF BENNETT: For a closer look, we're joined now by William Beach.

He is the previous commissioner of labor statistics and was nominated by President Trump during his first term in office back in 2017.

Mr. Beach, thanks for being with us.

WILLIAM BEACH, Former U.S. Commissioner of Labor Statistics: Well, it's my pleasure.

Thank you very much for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: So President Trump called the July numbers fake.

He accused Erika McEntarfer, the BLS commissioner he fired, of rigging the data.

What's your reaction to her firing and the underlying allegation?

WILLIAM BEACH: Well, it's just very implausible.

And I will tell you why.

The commissioner of labor statistics -- that was my job -- has no access to the collection of the data, has no access to the summation of the data when it comes out of the regions, goes to the national office, has no access, no hand, no possibility of having any involvement in the calculation of the numbers that are ultimately published.

In fact, the commissioner doesn't see the number for the first time -- the numbers are revealed to the commissioner Wednesday morning, usually around 11:00, in a meeting.

Those numbers have now been loaded into all the machines all over the data center, which will go all over the world eventually on -- at 8:30 Eastern time Friday morning.

So the claim that the commissioner could influence the data has to be a lot more specific, because there's no access to actually influence the data.

Could the commissioner then have put pressure on people to bend the data in one way or another?

And I want to tell you, that's even more impossible knowing the hardheaded and loyal Americans who work at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who would never yield to pressure, whole life is devoted to having nonpolitical numbers come out of there.

So I think President Trump just got some bad advice.

The system does not work that way.

It's not like a boardroom or it's not like the YMCA, where you could -- you might have access to change a theme or to change a focus.

It's very difficult to imagine that world working that way at all.

GEOFF BENNETT: You led BLS during the end of the first Trump administration into the beginning of the Biden administration.

Did you ever face political pressure in the role?

WILLIAM BEACH: I think both administrations would very much like -- have liked their priorities to be reflected in the BLS numbers, but neither administration went so far as even to suggest that.

There was never the hint that BLS would be subject to a second look or that I should carry a message back to the staff, you know, the numbers should be a little bit more or a little bit less than what they are.

That is just a -- was never asked that.

So this is what so shocks me that the allegation would be credibly laid at BLS' door.

It does a great deal of damage, by the way, because BLS is a highly trusted worldwide organization at bankers in Dusseldorf.

I had one call me one time who says, we actually stop trading in Dusseldorf 10 minutes prior to 8:30 on Eastern time, because we want to make sure we're ready for that report to come out.

That's how accurate they see it and how important it is.

And when you begin to say, well, it's probably politically rigged or it's not right or something, that -- it throws aspersions on it, not just that it's inaccurate, it is going to take some time to correct that damage.

GEOFF BENNETT: The May and June jobs numbers were revised down by more than 250,000 total.

How unusual are revisions that large?

And if the initial estimates can be so far off, isn't at least some criticism fair?

WILLIAM BEACH: Well, I think everyone should be focused on the reason why those numbers were revised down.

Remember that in May and -- the May and June numbers that were revised down were revised because more information became available, not less.

And what does that mean?

Well, the survey is sent out to 600,000 or so businesses, sometimes less than that.

And then we give three months for a business to get their return in.

About 68 percent return everything the first month.

And on the basis of that, we say, well, the remaining 32 percent of the sample will look just like the first 68 percent.

If we get additional information and it is not like the first 68 percent, then the numbers are revised up or down in the direction of the new information.

And that clearly happened in this case.

We got some information from people, from businesses, and we think it was state and local education units, that was quite different than the first set of data points.

Does this mean the economy is slowing down or does it just mean that we're having a problem in a particular sector of the economy, in this case, state and local education, which is very important, by the way, to the job estimates?

That remains to be seen.

But the point is, the revisions were made because there was more information.

Now, they were big revisions, absolutely, no question about that.

And not too many of those big revisions occur, though many did under my tenure because I was the commissioner during COVID, totally different reasons why the revisions were big.

No one disputed that we shouldn't use more information then to correct the initial estimates.

And I don't think that that dispute should be made now.

This is just getting more information, putting it in place.

GEOFF BENNETT: President Trump says he will nominate someone more competent -- that was the word he chose to use -- than McEntarfer.

It's not clear how he's judging competence.

Can a new commissioner be trusted and be seen as credible?

WILLIAM BEACH: I mean, certainly.

You could have a highly respected individual who has impeccable life credentials in that position.

And I think that's what you need now.

The president has made some assertions, and now you need to have someone in there who will raise the organization back to the level that it should be at, a highly trusted, gold standard organization.

Unfortunately, that person will probably have to deliver one or two months of bad news to the president.

And the impression will be on the part of some who don't follow it as much as you and I do that the number that's reported was probably a lot better than the real number, because the president has now said there are real numbers and there are rigged numbers.

So it's going to take a while.

I'm sure President Trump wants a healthy BLS.

I can't imagine he would not want one.

GEOFF BENNETT: You're assuming that the president will nominate someone who's highly qualified.

But if he fired Erika McEntarfer because he didn't like the jobs report, who's to say he's not going to appoint a yes-man or a yes-woman to that role?

WILLIAM BEACH: I just think that the Senate would have a lot to say about that.

They know on a bipartisan basis how important that position is.

Wall Street has a huge say in all of this.

The people who make investments in this country have a big say in who serves in that position.

You can't see it just as a parochial county judge-type operation, right?

It represents a lot of the data integrity of the United States and is used with huge impact by people making enormous economic decisions.

So whoever is appointed will be highly scrutinized.

And now that that will be a very perhaps controversial appointment and have to go through a great deal of testing.

Congress will be on its front foot when that nominee comes through, regardless of whether they're Republicans or Democrats.

GEOFF BENNETT: William Beach, former BLS commissioner, now executive director of the Fiscal Lab on Capitol Hill.

Thanks for being with us, Mr. Beach.

We appreciate it.

WILLIAM BEACH: My pleasure entirely.

Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Members of Congress leave Washington for a monthlong recess with no deal on President Trump's nominees.

That's as Texas Democrats risk arrest as they flee the state to block GOP-led redistricting.

Time now for Politics Monday with Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter and Jasmine Wright, White House correspondent for NOTUS.

Tamara Keith is away this evening.

It's always great to see you both.

So let's begin with President Trump firing the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after that week jobs report.

Jasmine, this is another scenario where the White House is working to create an environment that retroactively justifies what President Trump has already done.

What are you hearing from your White House sources?

And how is that justification landing with some Republicans on the Hill?

JASMINE WRIGHT, NOTUS: Yes, well, the White House is really sticking to this idea that firing the BLS head was because of all of these mistakes that they say the BLS made under her leadership, basically.

Right after the firing happened, the White House put out kind of this one sheet looking at all of the amount of revisions that have happened under her leadership, looking -- highlighting the number of them, basically trying to support their narrative that this is not because of a bad jobs support, but this is because of what they called incompetency.

And some Republicans are certainly buying it.

Obviously, this is within the president's threshold to do this.

Others are not.

We talked to Thom Tillis at NOTUS, and he basically made the case that if there was some evidence that showed that these numbers were manipulated, as the president said, then, yes, this person should be fired.

But if this was just a firing because they did not like the job numbers, he said -- quote - - "They need to grow up -- or "Time to grow up."

And so I think that there is some mix.

But I think specifically we're seeing Republicans kind of go along with what the president wants to do, which we have seen the last six weeks, really giving him the latitude to decide who is within his administration.

And I think you're seeing that play out again.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Amy, as we heard from Mr. Beach there, the former BLS commissioner, there's a risk here, because you risk that this whole thing could backfire by eroding the trust of investors, companies, and organizations that rely on firewalled economic data.

And if anyone has a question about that, look no further than countries like Argentina or Greece that have already been through this sort of thing.

AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: That's absolutely right.

I mean, we're already living through an era of declining trust in almost every major institution.

And what President Trump is doing here is just throwing more fuel onto that distrust level.

I think there's something else really important, though, when it comes to the politics of it all.

For voters, and we asked this question in our own poll in the 2024 cycle where we said, how do you -- as an American, how do you judge the strength, the health of the economy?

And, overwhelmingly, folks chose how much stuff costs, basically, the cost of living more important as an indicator of whether the economy is healthier or not, more so than the unemployment rate or the GDP rate or whatever other sort of official statistic is coming out.

And we're seeing that in other forms of data as well, Americans still feeling pretty anxious about inflation, still feeling frustrated about how much stuff costs, giving Donald Trump some of his lowest ratings ever between his first term and now on his handling of the economy.

So, whatever the BLS numbers, the GDP numbers, again, throw at any other number, the Fed, whatever they say, it is very important to the sanctity of financial institutions being able to trust what is coming out from the federal government.

But when it comes to Americans and voters, they're also looking inward.

They're looking at what stuff costs in their own lives to judge whether the economy is as hot as the president says it is right now.

GEOFF BENNETT: Based on your reporting, Jasmine, is the White House factoring in any of that as they consider a replacement for Ms. McEntarfer?

JASMINE WRIGHT: Yes, I think that they're factoring it all in, primarily because they want to make sure that their narrative is getting to the American voters.

Now, I don't think that the BLS head is something that Americans are talking about all the time, but the economy is something that this White House is talking about all the time.

Donald Trump often opens his remarks talking about how hot the country is, talking about how he feels prices are lower, even if the American voters don't necessarily feel that.

And so they want to make sure that people are feeling secure about what they're doing.

And I think that that's potentially the type of person that you're going to see them put forward.

But, of course, we know that this Republican Congress is going to give Donald Trump the leeway to have in his Cabinet or have in his administration who he wants, basically.

GEOFF BENNETT: You set up my next topic perfectly, because we're talking about Congress, with Texas Democrats fleeing to Chicago and New York in hopes of blocking this Republican effort to redraw political maps.

Amy, can you break down the math?

I know you can.

I'm not even sure why I'm asking if you can.

I know you can.

So, how dramatically would a five-seat swing out of Texas, how would that change the map and what would have to happen in places like New York, Illinois, California, which I'm not even sure if that state constitution allows them to do what Newsom says they want to do, what would Democrats have to do to make up for Texas redistricting?

AMY WALTER: No, you're exactly right.

That is a big shift.

I mean, right now, Democrats, they only need to net four seats to flip control to Democrats in this upcoming midterm election.

You add another five onto that from Texas, and Ohio is also redistricting -- doesn't get as much attention as Texas, but they could get as many as two seats out of their mid-decade redistricting, which would add another seven really problematic seats for Democrats, maybe making as many as 10 or 11 seats that Democrats would need to net in order to get a majority.

So that's a very, very big deal.

In the last midterm election, Republicans narrowly carried that election, won control of Congress, but they netted just nine seats.

So you can see, in this era of declining margins, even nine or 10 seats, it becomes really, really, really challenging.

And I'm watching California very closely.

You're exactly right, Geoff.

I mean, this is a place where Democrats could make up some of those losses, four or five seats, maybe more, depending on how aggressive they want to get.

But it is like most likely seems to go in front of voters.

And that's another real challenge here for Democrats.

Not only do they have to get it on the ballot in time, but they have got to convince voters who believe in this independent redistricting, who like independent redistricting, that going to partisan redistricting is worth it in order to fight back against President Trump.

Obviously, this is a very blue state, but it is going to be our first test of just how much blue voters want to fight fire with fire, as many blue legislators are saying they would like to be able to do.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yes, and for Governors Hochul, Pritzker, Newsom, for the Texas Democrats who have retreated to those respective states, New York, Illinois, and California, it's important for them to be seen fighting among the base.

JASMINE WRIGHT: Yes, I mean, I think that they are basically answering this call from Democrats that I'm sure that Amy has seen in her polling of them being upset with Democratic Party at large because they are not fighting enough.

They're not doing enough to stymie Donald Trump's agenda.

Now, I think the reality is that Democrats can't do much in Congress, but they can at least do messaging bills.

They can do these things where it looks like they're fighting back.

And so this is giving Democrats one of their moments.

I think, if you look at the last six months, it was kind of questionable about what Democrats have been doing.

But if you look at the last four weeks, not only were they basically unified on fighting against Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, no Democrat voted for it, then they were also unified and drilling down that it was a Medicare problem using that messaging to really kind of tank the support of that bill.

And now they're sticking together on this redistricting fight a bit.

I think you're seeing some infighting.

I'm looking at Cory Booker in the Senate talking about his colleagues.

But certainly I think you're seeing these Democrats try to come together and answer that call from their party.

The question is whether or not it will be enough and whether or not it gets too close to the midterms.

GEOFF BENNETT: Amy Walter, Jasmine Wright.

Jasmine, it's always great to have you here.

JASMINE WRIGHT: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Five years ago today, Beirut, Lebanon, sat shattered.

One of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history had ripped apart its waterfront with a terrifying power that registered well up the Richter scale.

The blast, which many still refer to as the bomb, was not terrorism, nor was it war.

It was caused by issues that have long plagued Lebanon for years and still do, municipal incompetence, government corruption, and a perceived indifference among local leaders.

Now, years later, as Leila Molana-Allen reports, the outlook for Beirut is, if anything, more dire.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: A single moment that changed the face of a city and its people.

At 6:08 p.m. on August 4, 2020, 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate exploded in the Port of Beirut, ravaging 12 miles of the city.

It was the third largest non-nuclear explosion in history.

Issam's 38-year-old brother, Abdo, died that day.

Issam thought it was the end for him too.

Moments after the blast, as he pulled shards of shattered window from his face, his entire apartment building collapsed on top of him.

ISSAM ATAH, Brother of Blast Victim: I woke up eight minutes after.

I had -- I tasted the blood.

And both of my legs were stuck.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: The government did little to respond.

Beirutis and Lebanese volunteers from across the country rushed to help.

Issam was trapped under the rubble of his home for 17 hours before being rescued.

ISSAM ATAH: I was in pain, but the only thing that made me survive the 17 hours was the people that I was surrounded by.

Whoever lived nearby, they came to give some help.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: With extensive rehabilitation, he can now walk a short way with limited movement in his left leg.

Running is a distant dream, but it's the loss of his beloved brother he can't move past.

ISSAM ATAH: Abdo was a loving person.

He was smart.

He was the cool guy.

He was -- he didn't have any hatred.

He was generous, just the guy that you can talk anything with.

We still didn't process the space.

For me, he always walks with me unseen, unheard.

And, yes, he's always with me.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Rising from the ashes of the port, Beirut's mighty grain silos are still standing.

They were built to keep the nation fed, but saved Beirutis in a different way.

The vast cement cylinders blocked the worst of the blast from hitting the west of the city.

The east was devastated.

The ruined silos have become a memorial to those who were lost.

The government has tried multiple times to tear them down, arguing they're unstable.

The families say it's to try and wipe away the visual scar on the city, the evidence of what was done to its people, they believe by their own leaders.

ISSAM ATAH: The survivors who are struggling to be treated, to get the medication and all that, they left with nothing.

We all come from different backgrounds, different religions, but we all stuck together.

And we're against politicians.

We're just Lebanese fighting for our rights.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Compounding the loss and lasting trauma is the sting of impunity.

Despite extensive evidence that multiple Lebanese governments knew the danger the fertilizer posed, and did nothing, the investigation into the blast has been blocked at every turn.

Five years on, no senior figures have been brought to justice, nor have the injured received compensation.

Nada Abdel Sater is a lawyer who's been campaigning for years for an independent international investigation into the blast.

NADA ABDEL SATER, Attorney: Corruption and negligence of the authorities were viewed to be the primary responsible, because they allowed an explosive, a nuclear bomb, so to speak, in the middle of the city, in the heart of the city.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Nada says she's now representing more than 1,000 victims and their families.

NADA ABDEL SATER: The system is broken because there are people breaking it.

It's because there are corrupt people and there is impunity.

It's time for impunity to stop.

It's time for the Lebanese people to live in freedom, in security.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: For some of the victims, the torment they seek freedom from is that of their own minds.

We first met Nicole in August 2020, as her husband, Najee (ph), lay in hospital, waking from a coma.

NICOLE TORBAY-MAKHLOUF, Wife of Blast Victim: I went to the hospital.

It was really chaos there, doctors running, people screaming.

The hospital was really overflowing with death and wounded people.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Nearly 7,000 people were wounded in the explosion.

Najee was one of around 1,500 to sustain severe, life-changing injuries.

NICOLE TORBAY-MAKHLOUF: The moment I saw him, he was overflowing with blood everywhere.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: The doctors said, while Najee would make a full physical recovery, brain damage meant he would likely suffer ongoing problems with cognition and motor skills.

NICOLE TORBAY-MAKHLOUF: He has a big damage on the frontal side of his brain, which means Najee lost all the sense of planning, of the emotion.

Najee cannot smell anymore.

The sense of tasting as well, he lost it.

He is a different version now.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Nicole was just happy her husband was coming home.

She didn't know the man coming back to her would be a different person.

NICOLE TORBAY-MAKHLOUF: Najee was a person full of life.

He was very different, now is silent.

He doesn't want to do anything.

Najee is not the husband that I married.

It has a big, huge impact on me and on my daughter's as well, because she had a hero at home and suddenly she has to live at -- with someone who is severely injured.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Nicole hasn't just been coping with the irreversible impact on her husband and daughter, Yasmina (ph), who was just 10 when the blast destroyed their home, but on their daily lives.

NICOLE TORBAY-MAKHLOUF: I feel really anger, really disgust.

They were gambling with our lives, and because they know that there is no justice in Lebanon.

They know that they are above the law.

They know that nobody will pursue them.

Sometimes, I feel like I'm screaming under the water and no one is listening.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: With Najee still unable to work, medical and rebuilding costs have been debilitating.

And Nicole says the house means nothing when she's lost the souls of the people who made it a home.

NICOLE TORBAY-MAKHLOUF: August 4 is the day that split my life in two, before and after.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Pounded relentlessly for five years by the blast, economic crisis, political paralysis and war, peace has forgotten this city.

Those still bearing the scars pray they won't be forgotten too.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Leila Molana-Allen.

GEOFF BENNETT: After promising the largest mass deportation effort in U.S. history, the Trump administration has made sweeping changes to the country's immigration system.

Some of those have been challenged in court.

And, on Friday, a federal judge barred the rapid deportation of hundreds of thousands of migrants who entered the U.S. legally through humanitarian programs.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal.

And many migrants still face an uncertain future.

William Brangham joins us now with more -- William.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's right, Geoff.

In recent months, ICE agents have been arresting migrants outside courtrooms and courthouses.

Many of them are being seized immediately after immigration judges had terminated their cases, often at the request of the federal government.

Father Brian Strassburger is a Jesuit priest who serves migrants on both sides of the southern border.

He recently attended one of these immigration court hearings in Harlingen, Texas, and wrote an article for "American" magazine about what he saw.

And Father Brian Strassburger joins us now.

Father, could you just tell us a little bit about that case that you witnessed in Texas?

Who was before the judge and what happened that day?

REV.

BRIAN STRASSBURGER, Director, Del Camino Jesuit Border Ministries: Yes, thank you for the invitation to be here and to share the story.

In early July, I went to the immigration court in Harlingen because I had heard that, just like in courtrooms across the country, migrants at immigration court were being targeted for detention and deportation.

And I wanted to witness it with my own eyes.

And so while I was there that morning, a migrant walked in, Carlos.

He's been in the country for five years.

He's fleeing persecution in Nicaragua, where he was politically active against the government.

And he went to his court date and followed along with the judge who was giving him instructions around the next steps of his legal process.

This is someone, for the five years he's been in the country, has followed the law and done everything as instructed to him.

At the end of his conversation with the judge, she turned to a representative of DHS, who was also sitting in the courtroom, who leaned into his microphone and said: "The government moves to dismiss the case."

And so despite, Carlos' protestations, saying, "I'd like to continue my case, I have a case for asylum, I'd like to present it in a court of law," the immigration judge accepted the motion from the Department of Homeland Security and said, "Your case has now been closed."

So now Carlos is walking out of the courtroom.

I'm accompanying him, and he no longer has an active court case in immigration.

Outside the courtroom, there were two ICE agents waiting for him for exactly this reason.

They had their faces covered with masks.

They called him aside, took his possessions and handcuffed him in place of an unmarked vehicle to put him in a form of fast-track deportation called expedited removal, simply because of the fact that the judge had allowed his immigration court case to be closed just moments before.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You wrote in that article documenting this experience of yours that this was a breakdown of justice in America.

How so?

Because it sounds like Carlos had his moment before the judge, the judge heard him, the judge turned to the government and the government asked to dismiss it.

How is this a breakdown of what you argue is supposed to happen?

REV.

BRIAN STRASSBURGER: Well, what should happen is that Carlos should be entitled to present his asylum case in a court of law.

This was not the meeting for him to do that.

He had another one scheduled.

And the government said, we don't want to hear that claim or that case.

And they're doing that because they want to take advantage of a way to deport and detain people in higher volumes with more speed, without allowing them and entitling them to due process.

And so the fact that Carlos is there saying, I want to continue with my case, I want to present my case for asylum, it seemed like all of a sham, that he's having this conversation with an immigration judge.

She's explaining the next steps in the process.

And at the end, the government says, we don't want to put you through that process.

We found another way to get rid of you, to detain you and deport you faster.

Now, where is Carlos right now?

Carlos finds himself detained in a center in Louisiana, where he most likely is awaiting a credible fear interview, which is kind of a stopgap measure where perhaps he could be able to continue with an asylum claim.

But he's doing that while being detained right now, as opposed to being able to contact a lawyer to talk about his case, to present his evidence.

So it's -- again, it's tactics that are being used by the government to increase detention and deportation, and especially fast-track deportation, without allowing someone to go through the regular procedures of the law that have been part of us immigration policy for decades.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As news of these kinds of tactics get out, I mean, you have been -- you're in touch with migrants on both sides of the border quite frequently.

Is it your sense that this is going to stop people from doing, as you say, their due diligence and trying to show up at court?

REV.

BRIAN STRASSBURGER: I get messages all the time now from migrants who have upcoming court dates who are terrified to go to court.

I know a young single mom with two kids who had an upcoming court date late July in North Carolina, and she was messaging me daily: "Father Brian, I'm so afraid to go to court.

I'm so afraid to go to court.

I have heard what's happening.

Can you get the read?

Is this happening in the court I'm going to?

Should I not go to court?"

And, of course, I encourage her, you have to follow the law, you have to show up in court that day.

And I was trying to help her and find things out.

And ultimately her court date got postponed.

And some courts are allowing people, migrants to present online, which is a way to kind of skirt this tactic by the government and still continue with your legal immigration proceedings.

And so we are trying to advise people that, if their court is allowing it -- them to do so to take advantage of these venues to avoid where this could happen.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: More broadly, the Trump administration argues that all of these different deportation techniques are removing what they argue are violent, dangerous criminals from American communities.

What is your overall response to that argument?

REV.

BRIAN STRASSBURGER: My overall response would be, meet the migrants that are being detained and deported.

I do so every day.

I mean, that's our ministry here on the border is to accompany migrants.

And what I see are people who are marked by faith, by values, contributing to our community, the kind of people that we want to be members of our community, to be our neighbors, to be our co-workers, to be the parents whose kids go to our schools.

And so I think people are waking up to that fact, to that reality that the Trump administration is promising mass deportations and to only target criminals, and it's coming up short because there's not a lot of criminals in the migrant population, unfortunately.

And so it's way to fill that gap, is to criminalize the migrant population among us.

But I would say anybody -- and I think many of the viewers probably have migrants in their community that they know and are familiar with.

And that's the best way to know and to realize that promise of the Trump administration just isn't true.

There are a lot of great members of our community who are being targeted for detention and deportation under this administration.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Father Brian Strassburger, thank you so much for joining us.

REV.

BRIAN STRASSBURGER: My pleasure.

Thanks again for the invitation.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Gates Foundation announced a new $2.5 billion pledge through the year 2030 for women's health initiatives across the globe.

It comes at a time when the Trump administration is cutting major research and aid directed at women and maternal health.

Amna Nawaz spoke recently with the point person about the goals of this new funding.

AMNA NAWAZ: Dr. Anita Zaidi is president of the Gates Foundation's Gender Equality Division, and she joins me now.

Dr. Zaidi, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

DR. ANITA ZAIDI, Gender Equality Division, Gates Foundation: Thank you, Amna.

Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So this new commitment of $2.5 billion for women's health over the next five years is focused on five areas.

I will tick through them quickly here, obstetric care to make pregnancy and delivery safer, maternal health and nutrition, gynecological and menstrual health, more accessible and effective contraceptive options, and better diagnosis and treatment of STIs, or sexually transmitted infections.

So why these five priorities?

What's the overarching goal here?

DR. ANITA ZAIDI: So, Amna, this is -- when we looked at all of the data that is there for women's health and what it is that causes a lot of problems around the world, these were the areas that had three things in common.

One is, they are a huge burden and unmet need.

Two is that they are very neglected from an R&D perspective.

And three is that low-cost, affordable innovations that can be available in the near-term horizon are possible for many of these issues.

AMNA NAWAZ: You said also these are going to particularly affect women in low and middle-income countries.

We should point out your background was in pediatric care in Pakistan.

Can you just give us an example of the kinds of things that you would see that tells you these investments make a real difference?

Give us one or two stories.

DR. ANITA ZAIDI: Yes.

So how often, for example, women don't get Caesarean sections in time because we don't have the right tools to diagnose when she needs a Caesarean section, or unnecessary Caesarean sections are done because we guess wrong.

And that's a problem actually that women face all around the world.

But I used to see this all the time, that a Caesarean section was delayed because you did not know that this woman actually needed to be in a hospital that was far away.

And so one of the things I think which would be the most transformative and which we will see come out sooner, in the next five years, is going to be what we can do with artificial intelligence to be able to really understand when a woman really needs a Caesarean section for a safe delivery.

AMNA NAWAZ: We should point out too these are areas that have long been underfunded.

There was a 2021 study that found just 1 percent of health care research and innovation is invested in female-specific conditions outside of oncology, just 1 percent.

Why is that?

DR. ANITA ZAIDI: Yes, so that's a really good question, Amna.

It's -- there's several reasons.

There is a systemic issue, structural, in medicine where the male body has been the default body.

And so the assumption is that whatever works for men also works for women.

But there are fundamental biological differences between men and women that need different solutions.

And two is that many areas such as pregnancy are considered very high risk for research.

And so often the thing has been you leave pregnant women out of a lot of clinical trials.

And what that has resulted in is the situation where we actually now don't have medicines that we can use if a pregnant woman develops a problem.

A very big example of this, which is a problem that women, pregnant women, face around the world is preeclampsia, which is hypertension during pregnancy.

Preeclampsia has no treatment anywhere around the world.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's also been reports that look at how the money invested in women's health pays dividends more broadly in society.

Is this just about investing in women's health?

DR. ANITA ZAIDI: Well, so when you work in low-resource environments like I have worked, you very quickly see the connection between women's health, children's health, and family health.

And so I would say one of the most profound lessons I learned by working in communities is how children cannot thrive where women are not thriving.

And those things are extremely closely related.

And, in fact, if we want to decrease child mortality around the world, you really need to focus on women's health.

AMNA NAWAZ: We're also speaking at a time when you have seen the U.S. government pull back from a lot of foreign aid funding it was doing, dismantling health programs right here in the U.S. and making it harder, a lot of people argue, to access things like family planning and maternal health care.

How much did all of that inform this investment right now?

DR. ANITA ZAIDI: So they're not connected.

I would call this investment a foundational pillar of the Gender Equality Division at the Gates Foundation.

And I'm just really proud to be able to share this commitment.

It's the largest commitment that the foundation has ever made to any particular area of R&D.

And we chose the five years for a good reason as well.

One is that I think that this is a unique opportunity to accelerate progress for women's health, because so many A.I.

has made so much faster progress possible.

And two is that it's a short enough time that I want to hold myself accountable to be able to deliver on the promise.

So that's the five years.

No foundation or groups of foundations can match the funding that the U.S. government has historically provided for fighting disease, hunger, and poverty around the world.

And our hope is that this investment can catalyze attention and interest from the private sector and from philanthropy.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have called this $2.5 billion just a drop in the bucket.

To meet the need that's out there, what needs to happen?

DR. ANITA ZAIDI: Yes, so it seems like a big number.

And it is a big number, $2.5 billion for the next five years for women's health innovations.

But for what the need is, it's a drop.

It really is a drop in the bucket.

And we really are hoping that this is the -- this announcement sparks interest from a lot of other funders, innovators, private philanthropy, private sector to come in and see that this is not just the right thing to do, but there's a tremendous opportunity for coming up with new solutions in a very exciting area of science.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is Dr. Anita Zaidi, the president of the Gates Foundation's Gender Equality Division.

Dr. Zaidi, thank you.

Such a pleasure to speak with you.

DR. ANITA ZAIDI: Same here.

Thank you so much, Amna.

GEOFF BENNETT: There's a lot more online, including a look at Coca-Cola's decision to start offering Coke made with cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup in the U.S. That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.

And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

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