GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm# Geoff Bennett Amna Nawaz is away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: Democrats on Capitol# Hill push Trump administration intelligence## officials for answers on why they used a# commercial messaging app to discuss war plans.

The Wall Street veteran nominated to# lead the Social Security Administration## is questioned about potential cuts at the agency.

And we speak with Finland's president about# efforts to end the war Russia started in Ukraine.

ALEXANDER STUBB, President of Finland: European#security is in the interest of#American security and vice versa.

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

A typically ordinary Senate hearing on# worldwide thre.. contentious today following news of a major# national security breach.

The editor in chief## of "The Atlantic" revealed yesterday# that he was accidentally put into a## chat on the Signal messaging app with top# U.S. officials as they discussed military## strikes in Yemen.

Two of those officials# testified in the Senate hearing today.

Our congressional correspondent,# Lisa Desjardins, has our report.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): I can just say this.# If this was the case of a military officer or## an intelligence officer and they had this# kind of behavior, they would be fired.

LISA DESJARDINS: Democrats on the# Senate Intelligence Committee today## hammered CIA Director John Ratcliffe# and director of national intelligence,## Tulsi Gabbard, over the# Signal chat security breach.

SEN. MARK WARNER: Director Ratcliffe,# were you on the group chat?

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA Director: Senator,# I was on a Signal messaging group.

SEN. MARK WARNER: So you were# the John Ratcliffe on that chat?

JOHN RATCLIFFE: I was.

SEN. MARK WARNER.. LISA DESJARDINS: Throughout the he.. confirming they do use the encrypted app# for work purposes and stating it's allowed## for high-level use.

Initially, both denied# the chat contained classified information.

JOHN RATCLIFFE: To be clear, I haven't# participated in any Signal group messaging## that relates to any classified information at all.

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): OK. Director Gabbard?

TULSI GABBARD, U.S. Director of National# Intelligence: .. answer.

I have not participated in any# Sign.. another app that contained# any classified information.

LISA DESJARDINS: In "The# Atlantic"'s bombshell report,## editor and chief Jeffrey Goldberg wrote the# text chain disclosed -- quote -- "information## about targets, weapons the U.S. would# be deploying, and attack sequencing."

Asked about those specifics, Gabbard and# Ratcliffe gave versions of the same nonanswer.

JOHN RATCLIFFE: I don't recall.

TULSI GABBARD: I don't recall# giving that .. JOHN RATCLIFFE: In that setting, I don't recall.

LISA DESJARDINS: With a few definitive moments.

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): The# deliberation between principals## in our national security apparatus about# whether or not to strike another country,## would you consider that to# be classified information?

JOHN RATCLIFFE: Pre-decisional strike deliberation# should be conducted through classified channels.

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): Is your testimony## that it was appropriate that he# was added to this Sign.. LISA DESJARDINS: Democrats say the chat# posed an unacceptable national security risk.

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET: Did you know that# the president's Middle East adviser## was in Moscow on this thread while# you were, as director of the CIA,## participating in this thread?

Were you# aware of that?

Are you aware of that today?

JOHN RATCLIFFE: I'm not aware of that today.

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET: This sloppiness, .. agencies and the personnel who work for them is# entirely unacceptable.

It's an embarrassment.

JOHN RATCLIFFE: Senator... SEN. MICHAEL BENNET:.. LISA DESJARDINS: Later in the hearing, Gabbard and# Ratcliffe seemed to say that nothing clas.. from their agencies was involved, but# they couldn't speak for the Pentagon.

SEN. MARK WARNER: It's stunning to# me.

And the idea, somehow, well,## none of this was classified, but we can't talk# about it here, you can't have it both ways.

SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): I think the# witnesses' point is, they can't speak## for every official in the government who# has original classification authority.

LISA DESJARDINS: Most Republicans didn't ask about## the leak.

A few said they would# talk only behind closed doors.

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): I'm going to address it,# but I'm going to address it in the closed session.

LISA DESJARDINS: Outside the hearing room,# one Republican who stopped had little to say.

SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): I mean,# you heard what I heard.

I don't## really have anything to add to that.

I# just think there's going to be -- have## to be more investigation into# the facts and circumstance.

LISA DESJARDINS: But at least one House# Republican was critical with me earlier today.

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): China and Russia is clearly# on these networks.

You are -- you put people's## lives at risk when you do this.

So it's wrong.# There's no two -- there's no ambiguity here.

LISA DESJARDINS: Former Intelligence Chair and# ranking Democrat Mark Warner went much further,## particularly about Hegseth, who# reportedly shared the most specifics.

SEN. MARK WARNER: For me, particularly,## if Secretary Hegseth let this# information out, he should resign.

LISA DESJARDINS: For his part,# Hegseth has slammed the report,## late yesterday saying it was flat wrong.

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. Defense Secretary:# Nobody was texting war plans,## and that's all I have to say about that.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the# United States: We will look into it.

LISA DESJARDINS: President Trump,## speaking today in the White House# Cabinet Room.. DONALD TRUMP: There was no classified information.

LISA DESJARDINS: ... and called on# National Security Adviser Mike Waltz,## whose account added Goldberg.

Waltz praised Trump,# blasted the press, and offered no contrition.

All of this eclipsed a hearing that was# supposed to focus on outside threats,## like Iran, which Gabbard said is not# building a nuclear weapon currently, but: TULSI GABBARD: Iran's enriched# uranium stockpile is at its## highest levels and is unprecedented# for a state without nuclear weapons.

LISA DESJARDINS: ... and like cartels,# named the top threat this year.

Independent Angus King of Maine# noticed something not in the report.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): Has global climate# change has been solved?

Why is that not in## this report?

And who made the decision# that it should not be in the report,## when it's been in every one# of the 11 prior reports?

LISA DESJARDINS: Dominating not just the hearing,## but much of Capitol Hill today,# was still the Signal chat.

MAN: It is absolutely unacceptable.

LISA DESJARDINS: With a dozen House# Democrats who served in the military## calling for an investigation, adding# another question to the story.

How will## Capitol Hill Republicans in charge# handle this breach by their own?

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm# Lisa Desjardins on Capitol Hill.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we asked each of the# Republican senators on the Intelligence## Committee to join us for an interview# tonight, but none accepted our invitation.

We start the day's other headlines with a# breakthrough between Russia and Ukraine.## After three days of separate talks with the# U.S., both sides now say they have reached an## agreement to ensure safe navigation in the Black# Sea and to take steps towards stopping strikes## on energy facilities, a limited cease-fire# in pursuit of a comprehensive peace deal.

In Kyiv today, Ukrainian President Volodymyr# Zelenskyy praised the development and the U.S.## for brokering it, but he indicated there are# still questions about the deal's enforcement.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian# President (through translator):## These are the first steps, not the very first,# but initial ones, with this presidential## administration towards completely ending# the war.

It doesn't say in the statement## what happens if someone violates.

I understand# why, because the American side really wanted## all this not to fall apart.

These are the first# agreements.

They don't want them to fall apart.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Kremlin warned# the deal is contingent on the West## easing its sanctions on Russian food and# fertilizer exports.

The U.S. pledged to## help make that happen.

Zelenskyy insisted# the deal did not require sanctions relief.

The Oscar-winning Palestinian director of the# documentary "No Other Land" was released by## Israeli authorities a day after soldiers# detained him in the occupied West Bank.## Hamdan Ballal left an Israeli police station today# with bruises on his face and blood on his clothes,## he says from being beaten by# Israeli settlers and troops.

Meantime, on Capitol Hill, President# Trump's nominee to be ambassador to## Israel assured senators at his# confirmation hearing that his## personal views would not affect his work.# Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is## an evangelical Christian who has supported# Israel's right to annex the West Bank.

MIKE HUCKABEE, U.S.

Ambassador to# Israel-Designate: It'll be my duty to## carry out the president's policy, not mine.# One of the thing.. ambassador doesn't create the policy.

He carries# the policy of his country and his president.

GEOFF BENNETT: In Gaza, Israeli airstrikes# overnight killed at least 23 more Palestinians.## Health officials say nearly 700 people have been# killed in just the past week.

Tens of thousands of## Gazans are under new evacuation orders as Israel# resumes and ramps up its campaign against Hamas.

A court has ordered the prominent# South Korean-based church known as## the Unification Church to dissolve in Japan.# That church has faced scrutiny following the## 2022 assassination of former Japanese Prime# Minister Shinzo Abe.

An investigation revealed## ties between the church and Abe's party, the# Liberal Democratic Party, that spanned decades.

The man accused of shooting Abe# blamed the church's fund-raising## practices for bankrupting his family.# The Unification Church called the ruling## regrettable and unjust, representing# a serious threat to religious freedom.

Pope Francis came so close to death# during his recent hospitalization that## his medical team briefly considered ending# treatment so that he could die peacefully.## The doctor coordinating the pontiff's hospital# care said today that a breathing crisis in late## February forced them to choose whether# to stop and let him go or to push it,## taking the very high risk# of damaging other organs.

GEOFF BENNETT: Pope Francis made his# first public appearance in more than## five weeks on Sunday from his hospital# window in Rome.

He's under doctors'## orders to avoid large gatherings for# the next two months while he recovers.

And it was another day of gains on the Wall# Street, but those gains were minimal.

The Dow## Jones industrial average finished up by# less than five points, while the Nasdaq## notched the biggest gain.

The S&P 500 also# had a positive, but quiet finish on the day.

Still to come on the "News Hour": a# potential turning point in Sudan's civil war;## we look at the history of public media, as# Republicans scrutinize its federal funding; and## the bankruptcy of 23andMe raises questions about# the future of millions of people's personal data.

President Trump's nominee to lead the# Social Security Administration faced## tough questions today on Capitol Hill# about the future of that agency and## about the staffing cuts and other changes# carried out by Elon Musk and his DOGE team.

White House correspondent# Laura Barron-Lopez has more.

SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID): The# committee will come to order.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: The harsh words came before# Frank Bisignano even had a chance to speak.

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-OR): The Web sites# are crashing and seniors are getting## lost in the system.

It is clear that this# is happening around America today.

It is## time to bring a halt to DOGE's destruction of# Social Security before it goes any further.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: As Democratic senators# challenged President Trump's nominee to## lead the Social Security Administration# on the drastic changes at the agency,## all as Elon Musk goes on a cost-cutting# campaign across the government that is## expected to impact the program, which serves about# 73 million retired and disabled beneficiaries.

FRANK BISIGNANO, Social Security# Commissioner-Designate: What I will## commit to is that I will.. LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Bisignano, who recently called# himself -- quote -- "a DOGE person," pledged to## protect private information and improve customer# experience, but was quickly forced to defend## recent actions directed by Musk's team known# as the Department of Government Efficiency.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Last week,# the acting commissioner of Social Security,## who is openly working with Elon Musk, actually# threatened to shut down the entire agency.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Including plans to# lay off nearly half of its work force,## close physical offices across the# country, and slash phone services.

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): When you# have a system that is not working out,## do you think it's a great idea# to lay off half of the employees?

FRANK BISIGNANO: I don't know if.

Do I# think it's a great idea to lay off half## of the employees when our system doesn't# work?

I think the answer is probably no.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: President Trump# has repeatedly pledged to not cut back## benefits from the popular program, which keeps# millions of older Americans out of poverty.## But Musk has been publicly hostile to the# agency, calling it the biggest Ponzi scheme.

More recently, Commerce# Secretary Howard Lutnick said,## if Social Security checks were paused,# only fraudsters would scream and yell.

HOWARD LUTNICK, U.S. Commerce# Secretary: The easiest way to## find the fraudster is to stop payments and listen.

QUESTION: Yes.

Yes.

HOWARD LUTNICK: Because .. LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Comments that Democratic# senators pounced on in today's hearing.

SEN. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO (D-NV): Do# you agree with Secretary Lutnick that only## fraudsters complain when the government# fails to send Social Security checks?

FRANK BISIGNANO: I don't think anyone would## appreciate not getting their# Social Security check on time.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Bisignano, a long time# financial executive and current CEO of Fiserv,## was also asked repeatedly whether or# not he intended to privatize the system,## something he declined to flatly rule out.

FRANK BISIGNANO: I have never thought about# privatizing.

It's not a word that anybody's## ever talked to me about, and I don't see# this institution as anything other than a## government agency that gets run for# the benefit of the American public.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Republicans# praised his track record.

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): You have exactly# the right sort of skills that we need.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And they accused their# Democratic colleagues of fearmongering.

SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID): The attack all day has# been on DOGE and undercutting Social Security and## shutting it down or privatizing it or whatever# it is.

The bottom line is, the president of## the United States has said very clearly that we# are not going to cut Social Security benefits.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: But Senator Maria Cantwell,## who said DOGE had wrongly pegged# one of her constituents as deceased,## stopping his payments for months, said# the impacts were already being felt.

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA): He had to# go down to the building in Seattle,## the federal building that you're trying to# close, and stand in line for hours and hours## and hours to try to say he wasn't# dead and to stop taking his money.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Bisignano is# expected to soon be confirmed,## as millions of Americans wait to see what# comes next for benefits and services.

SEN. MIKE CRAPO: With that,# this hearing is adjourned.

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

GEOFF BENNETT:## After nearly two years of brutal civil war# between Sudan's army and the paramilitary## Rapid Support Forces, a potential# turning point.

The army recaptured## the presidential palace and the center# of the capital city, Khartoum, last week.

Our William Brangham gets# a dispatch from the ground.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tens of thousands of# people have been killed in Sudan's civil## war, and the fighting has triggered the# biggest humanitarian crisis in the world,## with an estimated 14.6 million people displaced.

Both sides are credibly accused of committing## war crimes, and the U.S. has accused the# paramilitaries of committing a genocide.

The New York Times' Declan Walsh is# in Khartoum, and he joins us now.

Declan, thank you so much for being here.

You and photographer Ivor Prickett were# among the first into Khartoum after the## army made these substantial gains and# retook the center of the city and the## presidential palace.

Can you tell us what it# is you first saw when you entered the city?

DECLAN WALSH, The New York Times: We# found -- when we crossed the River## Nile into that city center area that until# just days earlier had been held by the RSF,## for the previous two years, we found these# scenes of utter destruction, almost apocalyptic.

We drove along the Nile.

All of the buildings,## the government buildings that symbolize power# and authority in Sudan, the army headquarters,## various ministries, and finally getting# to the presidential palace, and they all## lay in ruins.

There were destroyed cars# everywhere.

Many shops had been looted,## and it was just this picture of a city that has# been really bent low after two years of war.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You reported that there is# still fighting ongoing outside of the city,## so is there any sense that this victory by# the army could be a turning point in the war?

DECLAN WALSH: I think there's little doubt,## William, that this is certainly# a major moment in the war.

The paramilitaries have -- had held# the capital from the first days of## the conflict in April 2023 until just last# week, and now they have lost it.

So that is## certainly going to change the dynamic of the# war.

Until certainly the end of last year,## the United States and Arab and African# countries were leading efforts to## try and find some sort of diplomatic or# negotiation settlement to this conflict.

But that does not appear to be in view right# now.

The leaders on both sides have made it## clear that they want to try and settle this# militarily.

And, in fact, the Sudanese military,## its leader just some days ago in a speech made it# clear that he sees this the gains against RSF as## a step towards retaking the capital entirely# and then, as he puts it, to ending the war.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This war, as you have so ably# documented, has been an absolute humanitarian## nightmare for the people of Sudan.

What is the# current status of that humanitarian crisis?

DECLAN WALSH: It's extremely# serious.

Since we have been here,## we have traveled around parts of the city# that had changed hands in recent weeks## and months.

And we met many people who were# in a dire situation, people with no water,## no electricity, in many cases for the# last two years, malnourished children## in extremely badly provisioned hospitals,# some of them literally gasping for life.

And their parents told us that they had been# living in areas where they were unable to get## any food or certainly very meager food# rations because of the fighting.

There## are aid groups that have accused both sides# in the war of using food as a weapon of war,## of denying food access to humanitarian groups# in areas that are controlled by their enemies.

And we certainly saw on the ground here the really# dire consequences of all of those factors coming## together.

And that's just here in Khartoum,# in the capital.

Out in the West of Sudan,## in particular in the area of Darfur,# conditions are in many cases even## worse.

A famine has officially been# declared already in parts of Darfur.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you have any# sense as to whether the Sudanese army,## if they are able to continue# to hold the upper hand,## would be interested in trying to# ameliorate that humanitarian crisis?

DECLAN WALSH: Certainly, both sides# in this war are very keen to show that## they are for the people.

And the Sudan# military has said that it intends to,## after it recaptures the capital -- we spoke# with senior generals today who told us they## think it could be just a matter of weeks before# the capital is fully back in the military's hands.

They say that they will start# to rebuild.

They have already## started to encourage some people who# -- some Sudanese who've been displaced## to cities hundreds of miles away to# start returning home.

But, to be honest,## when you look around the scale and intensity of# the devastation in this city, one of the huge## questions that looms is just how the Sudanese are# going to set about rebuilding this broken city.

The -- there are no estimates yet of how much# that would cost.

But you can only imagine## that it would be a huge figure.

And it's hard to# know right now where that money might come from.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, that is New York# Times reporter Declan Walsh from Khartoum,## along with photographer Ivor Prickett.

Thank you so much for sharing# your reporting with us.

DECLAN WALSH: Thank you, William.

GEOFF BENNETT: We return to the# Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The Russians and Ukrainians appear to have# agreed on which types of energy-related## facilities will be safe from attack during a# limited cease-fire.

And, as we reported earlier,## there's now an agreement to ensure safe# navigation of ships in the Black Sea.

I spoke earlier with the president# of Finland, Alexander Stubb,## about all of this, the threat from Russia,# and broader U.S. relations with Europe.

President Stubb, welcome to the "News Hour."

ALEXANDER STUBB, President of Finland: Thanks.

GEOFF BENNETT: As .. the U.S. today said an agreement has been reached# to ensure safe navigation in the Black Sea.

Does that provide any hope toward a# more encompassing cease-fire deal?

ALEXANDER STUBB: Yes, definitely.

I mean, I think we have to split the process into#two.

First, it's a cease-fire, and only after that## can you negotiate an actual peace agreement and a# peace settlement.

And it looks like we're taking## the cease-fire step by step.

So,first, there was# an idea of not bombing energy and infrastructure.

Now we're going to the Black Sea.

So I# think what the Americans have brokered## here is a good first step towards# some kind of a full-on cease-fire.

GEOFF BENNETT: And the U.S. is also# acknowledging that it will pursue## sanctions relief for Russian food, fertilizer,## and shipping companies.

Is that an appropriate# accommodation for Russia, in your view?

ALEXANDER STUBB: Well, I can't take a stand# on what the American administration does## on sanctions.

On the European side, I don't# see any lifting of sanctions at this stage.

As a matter of fact, we're working on a 17th# package.

But it is with certain joy that I## hear that American senators are putting up a# sanction package led by Senator Lindsey Graham,## where the idea is that, if the cease-fire is# broken, then a new wave of sanctions will be## put down, because, in my experience, the only# thing that Putin and Russia understands is power.

GEOFF BENNETT: Let's talk more about that,# because there is concern across Europe about## the current administration's stance on# Vladimir Putin.

President Trump's envoy,## Steve Witkoff, in a recent interview with Tucker# Carlson called Vladimir Putin super smart,## said he didn't regard him as a bad guy.

And he also suggested that there# are Ukrainians who want to live## under Russian rule.

Take a listen to what he said.

STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. Special Envoy to# the Middle East: I think the largest## issue in that conflict are these so-called four# .. TUCKER CARLSON, Former FOX# News Anchor: Luhansk, yes.

STEVE WITKOFF: Luhansk.

And ther..

They are Russian-speaking.# They're Russian-speaking.

TUCKER CARLSON: Yes.

STEVE WITKOFF: There have be.. people have indicated that they# want to be under Russian rule.

TUCKER CARLSON: Yes.

STEVE WITKOFF: I think that'.. world where Russia and the United States are# doing collaboratively good things together?

GEOFF BENNETT: What's your reaction to that?

ALEXANDER STUBB: Finland has a# 1,340-kilometer-long border with Russia,## and we have coexisted with Russia and# the Soviet Union.

Since the 1300s,## we have had roughly 30 wars and# skirmishes.

So my take is that,## with Russia, you always have to be# alert and you have to be quite careful.

Perhaps Mr. Witkoff looks at things a# little bit from a real estate perspective,## and sees this a little bit as a zero sum# game.

And in my experience with the Russians,## it's a little bit more complicated than# that.

The only thing that Russia understands## is power.

There's a saying that if you have a# bayonet in your hand in Russia and it's soft,## you push it through.

If it hits# something hard, you pull back.

And I think right now, it's a time# to be hard, not soft with Russia.

GEOFF BENNETT: Given Finland's# long border with Russia,## how have you adjusted your defense# strategy in light of the invasion?

ALEXANDER STUBB: Well, we really haven't,# apart from, of course, joining the alliance.

You have to remember that, having had such# a long border and experience with Russia,## we have always had one of the strongest# militaries in Europe.

We have 62 F-18s.## We bought 64 F-35s from the U.S.# We have long-range missiles, land,## air, and sea.

And we have the biggest# artillery in Europe, together with Poland.

And, as I always say, we don't# have them because we're worried## about Stockholm.

We have them because we# want to have a deterrent towards Russia.

GEOFF BENNETT: You have said that the# only real solution to deter Moscow was## to militarize Ukraine to its teeth.

How can Europe## do that without the full support of# the U.S.?

Is that -- is it possible?

ALEXANDER STUBB: Well, we have to work hand in# hand.

The first observation to make is that,## of course, the biggest military# power in Europe right now is Ukraine.

I will just give you one example.# Three years ago, when the war started,## they were not able to produce any drones.

Last# year, they produced 1.5 million.

This year,## they will produce 4.5 million.

So, of course, we# need to continue to support Ukraine.

But it is,## in all honesty, very important, of course, that# the United States continues to support Ukraine,## because what we want to do is, we want# to avoid this thing happening again.

And the only way in which you# do it is by making sure that## Ukraine is strong enough that there is# no incentive for Russia to attack again.

GEOFF BENNETT: You mentioned that Finland# is buying some 60-plus F-35s from the U.S. A number of European leaders, your counterparts,# are now apparently looking to buy weapons from## elsewhere because they view the U.S. as being# a less-than-reliable partner.

For example,## just today, a conservative member of Parliament# in Denmark tweeted in response to the speculation## about F-35 having a kill switch that would# allow the U.S. to potentially disable it.

But in this tweet, he says: "I don't know if# there's a kill switch in the F-35s or not.

We## obviously cannot take your word for it.

I can# easily imagine a situation where the USA will## demand Greenland from Denmark and will threaten# to deactivate our weapons and let Russia attack## us when we refuse.

Therefore, buying American# weapons is a security risk that we cannot run."

Do you share that view?

ALEXANDER STUBB: Well, no.# No, I don't share that view.

I mean, two observations on# this.

Finland has been working on## military and defense industry and cooperation# with the United States since the early 1990s,## when we bought our over 60 F-18s.

Always a# very reliable partner in so many ways.

As a## matter of fact, in my first phone conversation# with President Trump, we discussed the F-35s.

And we are on track for the first# delivery before the end of this year,## and we will continue to work with the American# military industry.

Just a little gentle reminder,## I think, two things.

One is that# military planning is always long term,## so you don't make these orders and then just# suddenly say, sorry, we're not going to do it.

I mean, it's really, really long processes.# We're talking five, 10, even 15 years,## so you can't sort of just switch them off.

The# second one is that I don't think that there is## a disincentive for the U.S. military industry# to wind down in Europe.

The reason is that## Europe actually buys double the amount of stuff# from the U.S. in terms of military equipment,## in terms of vehicles, in terms of# the F-35s, than the U.S. does itself.

GEOFF BENNETT: On the matter of defense spending,# historically, Europe has relied on the U.S. for## security, leading to a underinvestment# in Europe's own defense capabilities.

Some European countries have increased their# own defense spending.

But what's really## required in shifting that paradigm,# as President Trump has called for?

ALEXANDER STUBB: Well, my first observation# is to say that President Trump is right,## and the pressure that he has put on# allies in NATO has been very welcomed.

But there are a lot of our European# allies that haven't done enough.

So,## when President Trump started to put pressure# on the allies in 2016, there were only about## three NATO countries that went over the 2 percent# threshold.

Now we're 23.

The U.S. wants Europe to## take more responsibility for its own security and# defense.

And I think the U.S. is right on that.

But the transition is long, and this is not# binary.

We're allies.

We're in this together,## hand to hand.

European security is in the# interest of American security, and vice versa.

GEOFF BENNETT: Looking ahead, how do you see the# geopolitical landscape in Europe changing as a## result of the war in Ukraine and compounded by the# current administration's approach toward Moscow?

ALEXANDER STUBB: Two things# come to mind.

The first one is,## I have never seen the European Union or# Europe as united as we are right now.

If someone would have told me three# years ago that Finland would join NATO,## that Sweden would join NATO, that Ukraine# would become a member of the European Union,## et cetera.

et cetera, I said,# not in your wildest dreams.

The second observation to make is that, in# the first five weeks of the Trump presidency,## he has probably done more to give incentive# for Europe to take care of its own security## and defense than we have seen in the past 30 or# 50 years overall.

So there is a paradigm shift.

I think the most important thing to keep in# mind here is that values bind.

And that's## why I think interests bind as well.

So it's# going to have to be a continued partnership,## transatlantic partnership, between# Europe and the United States,## where Europe takes more responsibility,# because we all understand that, when it## comes to Putin, all he wants basically# is imperialism.

And we don't want that.

GEOFF BENNETT: The president# of Finland, Alexander Stubb,## thank you for your time and# for your insights this evening.

ALEXANDER STUBB: My pleasure.

GEOFF BENNETT: The genetic testing company# 23andMe has filed for bankruptcy.

And its## potential sale has raised alarms about what could# happen to the DNA data of its millions of users.

23andMe was once a pioneer in# the DNA testing kit industry,## allowing customers to send in samples to# get information about their heredity and## genetics.

Yet the company faced backlash after# hackers leaked the genetic data of millions of## users in 2023.

More than 15 million people have# provided genetic information to the company.

Privacy and cybersecurity experts are now# concerned about what this could all mean.

Ginny Fahs is watching this closely for# "Consumer Reports," and joins us now.

Thanks for being with us.

So what does the sale of 23andMe# mean for people's priv.. GINNY FAHS, "Consumer Reports": Well, there are 15# million people who have used 23andMe to create DNA## data.

People are interested in understanding# their family history and their genetics,## but the mere creation of this data means that# there is highly sensitive information out there.

And because 23andMe is going through bankruptcy# and that data could be changing hands,## it means that some of the most sensitive data# that a consumer can create may be at risk.

GEOFF BENNETT: Are there any rules or protections## about what could happen to the# data if a sale does take place?

GINNY FAHS: There are.

So, in the United Stat.. is the ability to delete your data entirely# from a company.

And so what that means is,## if you are a 23andMe customer and you are# worried about this sensitive information## being out there and possibly changing hands, you# can initiate a deletion of your data with 23andMe.

And you would do that by going to their Web site.

GEOFF BENNETT: And it's also true# that the company has already used## and even shared some of the data before# now.

What more do we know about that?

GINNY FAHS: Well, according to 23andMe's# privacy policy, in addition to genomic data,## which is the A's, C's, T's, and G's that# we all learn about in science classes,## they also collect a lot of personal# information about their customers.

So that's things like your home address, your# family history, your payment information,## those sorts of things.

So they're sitting on a# pretty robust amount of data for each of their## customers.

And because the privacy policy# gives them dispensation to use that data## in lots of different ways, it's hard to know as# a customer how exactly that data is being used.

You would have to read a multipage privacy# policy with a lot of legalese to understand.## And in the case of this bankruptcy, it's# possible that that data will change hands## and be beholden to different policies.

So# there's a lot of uncertainty out there.

And that's why we are advising 23andMe customers# to delete their data as soon as possible.

GEOFF BENNETT: How would people do that?

GINNY FAHS: So, if you want to delete your# data from 23andMe, you shoul.. account on their Web site and go to settings,# where you can navigate to deleting your data.

In some states, that deletion of data will# also allow the actual original test sample## to be deleted.

And there's a way to specify that# you want that removed on the 23andMe site as well.

GEOFF BENNETT: Should consumers of other# DNA testing companies be concerned?

GINNY FAHS: Well, something I will# say is that, when you create DNA data,## it is hard to know what will happen to the# institution that you have given that data to.

So, even if you feel really good in the# moment about a company having access to## this sensitive information, that company# could fold, that company could sell,## that data could change hands, and it's# hard to know where it will end up.## Imagine a world where the 23andMe data is# somehow acquired by an insurance company.

That data could be used to deny you insurance# coverage.

It could be used to charge you higher## premiums for life insurance, for long-term# care insurance, for disability insurance.

And## so if you're going to create DNA data or genetic# data, it's important to think through everything## that could happen in the future, even if you# trust the group that you would be working with.

GEOFF BENNETT: That, in fact, is# my next question for you.

I mean,## how might this information be used?

Beyond the# example you just gave of an insurance company,## what are the other possible uses and concerns?

GINNY FAHS: Well, something about this data# is, DNA data is unique to every person.

And so## what that means is, there's a lot of clues that# can be read as far as your health in this data.

So this data may reveal diseases you already# have or diseases you can be predisposed to.## It can often reveal who you're related to,# possibly even where your relatives live,## other information about your relatives.# It could reveal family secrets.

There's a## lot that could come from this data falling into# the wrong hands.

And so that's why, if you have## created your DNA data with 23andMe, especially,# we advise you to delete that as soon as possible.

GEOFF BENNETT: Ginny Fahs, director of# product and R&D at "Consumer Reports,"## thanks for joining us this# evening.

We appreciate it.

GINNY FAHS: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT:## President Trump today voiced his# support for defunding America's## public broadcasters.

It comes a# day before the heads of PBS and## NPR testify in front of the House Subcommittee# on Delivering Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

The hearing will examine alleged bias# in public media, with calls for federal## funding cuts growing louder.

That funding# in part helps support the work of PBS News.

We wanted to take a moment to explain exactly how## public media is funded and more# broadly how we got to this point.

William Brangham is back with that.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In the weeks since# President Trump took office, his allies## have repeatedly taken aim at the nation's public# broadcasters, accusing them of liberal bias.

REP. BRANDON GILL (R-TX): Pushing leftism.

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Liberal indoctrination.

REP. CLAUDIA TENNEY (R-NY):# Propaganda from the left.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Elon Musk has also# called for def.. Now, allegations of bias and threats to public# media are about as old as the industry itself,## so it's important to understand the history.

ANNOUNCER: Remington electric shaver.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For a lot of the# 1900s, broadcasting in the U.S. was## dominated by commercial networks.# They sold on-air ads and used that## revenue to pay for programming,# but some wanted an alternative.

So, in the 1960s, the Carnegie# Corporation launched a study of## non-commercial TV in the and how# to bring it to more Americans.

VICTOR PICKARD, University of Pennsylvania: A# system that, in their view, could focus more## on educational programming, making sure that all# members of society have access to broadcast media,## going places where there simply were not# incentives for a commercial media system.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: A key recommendation of# the Carnegie report was for the federal## government to provide funds to help# operate stations across the country.

In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson signed the# Public Broadcasting Act, which did just that.

LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON, President# of the United States: Today,## we rededicate a part of the airways# which be.. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The law led to the creation# of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,## or CPB.

It's a nonprofit composed# of Republicans and Democrats that's## responsible for distributing federal# dollars out to local stations.

ALLISON PERLMAN, University of# California, Irvine: The vision## of public broadcasting was.. and local stations themselves should really# be at the heart of what public media was.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Almost instantly,## public broadcasting began featuring a kind of# .. children's programming like "Sesame# Street" and "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood."

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Arts and culture shows# like "The French Chef with Julia Child."

JULIA CHILD, Chef: And this is# going to be an all-purpose batter.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And "Masterpiece Theater."

MAN: By five modern English novelists.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As well as news.

ROBERT MACNEIL, Former Anchor, "PBS# NewsHour": Good evening from Wa.. WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In 1973, Robert# MacNeil teamed up with Jim Lehrer## for gavel-to-gavel coverage of the# Watergate hearings.

That broadcast## eventually became "The MacNeil/Lehrer# Report" and later the "PBS News Hour."

GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But there was always# something missing, a perma.. mechanism.

The original Carnegie report had# suggested a tax on TV sales to make sure the## money wasn't ensnared in the yearly appropriations# battle, but that didn't make it into the 1967 law.

ALLISON PERLMAN: When the Public# Broadcasting Act passed with no real## plan in place to politically insulate# public media, it set the stage for,## I think, six decades now of threats to public# media funding, often for political reasons.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So public broadcasting had# to regularly fight for its funding.

In 1969,## one of its biggest stars# testified on Capitol Hill.

FRED ROGERS, "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood": I# feel that if we in public television can only## make it clear that feelings are mentionable and# manageable, we will have done a great service.

MAN: I think it's wonderful.

Looks# like you just earned the $20 million.

(LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But the fight never stopped.

ALLISON PERLMAN: In the 1990s, what we# see are social conserv.. anxiety about the political direction# of some public television programming## joining forces with economic conservatives# who think that the transformations in the## media landscape that had taken place from 1967 to# the present no longer required federal support.

The mix of an economic rationale# with a cultural rationale to try## to dismantle federal support for public media# continues throughout the successive decades.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Every Republican administration,## except Gerald Ford's, has tried to# cut public media funding.

Here's## what then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney# said in a 2012 debate moderated by Jim Lehrer.

FMR.

SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT): I'm sorry,# Jim.

I'm going to stop the subsidy to## PBS.

I'm going to stop other things.

I like# PBS.

I love Big Bird.

Actually like you too.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In his first term,# President Trump proposed defunding## public media.

This year, Republicans have# introduced multiple bills to do the same.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Government# doesn't need to subsidize the media## anymore because the world's changed.

But# I still probably wouldn't object that much## if the reporting by these entities was# fair and was balanced.

But it is not.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We should note here,# independent analyses have found both PBS## and NPR to be among the most objective# and reliable news sources in America.

But back to the question of funding.

For# 2025, Congress appropriated $535 million## to CPB.

That's less than 1/100th of a percent# out of the total federal budget.

It costs,## on average, per American,# a little over $1.50 a year.## Most of those funds are distributed to# some 1,500 local stations nationwide,## which produce shows themselves and pay NPR# and PBS for the rights to Air National shows.

But federal funding makes up just a# fraction of public media's budgets.## The average public radio station# gets about 8 percent of its revenue## from the CPB appropriation.

For TV# stations, it's roughly 17 percent.

So, to make up the difference, the system relies# heavily on donations, grants, and sponsorships.

VICTOR PICKARD: The U.S. is almost literally# off the chart for how little we allocate towards## our public media.

At the federal level,# it comes out to a little over $1.50 per## person per year.

Compare that to the Brits,# who spend roughly $100 per person per year## for the BBC.

Northern European countries# spend well over $100 per person per year.

And it really shows in the health of their# of their public broadcasting systems.

They## tend to view those systems as essential# democratic infrastructure.

And, indeed,## data show that there is a positive# correlation between the health of a## public broadcasting system and the# health of a democratic governance.

ANNOUNCER: Now on "Frontline."

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Federal funding today help.. "Frontline" to full-length live concerts.

It funds# historical dramas and Ken Burns' historical films.

ANNOUNCER: That bring our history to life.

VICTOR PICKARD: Public broadcasting# also provides emergency broadcasting## services.

It's often the last source of news and# information during moments of natural disaster.## It's committed to this kind of# universal service mission that,## again, a commercial media system# is very unlikely to adhere to.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And that mission# reaches 99 percent of the country,## with public media stations broadcasting# everywhere from South Florida to Northern Alaska.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm William Brangham.

GEOFF BENNETT:## Famed magazine editor Graydon Carter rose through# the ranks at "TIME," "LIFE," "Spy," "The New York## Observer," and ultimately "Vanity Fair," becoming# known for his sharp wit and keen eye for talent.

Under his leadership, "Vanity Fair" transformed# into a cultural juggernaut, known both for its## celebrity profiles and quality journalism.

Now# Carter is sharing his story in a new memoir,## "When the Going Was Good: An Editor's Adventures# During the Last Golden Age of Magazines."

I spoke with him last week.

Graydon Carter, welcome to the "News Hour."

GRAYDON CARTER, Author, "When the Going Was Good: An Edito... During the Last Golden#Age of.. GEOFF BENNETT: Let's start our conversation# where you open y.. you were feeling as "Vanity Fair" was# about to out Mark Felt as the Watergate## informant Deep Throat, scooping "The# Washington Post" on their own story.

What was going through your mind at that moment,## and what did that story represent# in the life of "Vanity Fair"?

GRAYDON CARTER: Well, it was a great scoop for us,# but it was also a sort of display of how we played## a very long game.

It had started two years earlier# when I'd gotten a call from a lawyer who said he## represented a man called Mark Felt, who I'd never# heard of before, and said that he was Deep Throat.

And we talked for a while, and I thought, we will# follow up on it, because I used to take any phone## call that came in just in case there was a lead# onto something.

And I signed one of my editors## to the story, David Friend, and he worked with# the lawyer off and on for two years on this,## finding out about Mark Felt, trying to# verify that he was, in fact, Deep Throat.

And we had issues because he was suffering# from creeping dementia at the time,## so it wasn't 100 percent solid.

And then I got# married and went on my honeymoon item, and was## waiting at the Nassau Airport to come back to# New York.

And I got a call from David Friend on## my wife's cell phone because I didn't have one# at the time, and saying that we would release## the story that morning, and they were waiting# for confirmation from Woodward and Bernstein.

And, finally, just before we got on the# plane, they confirmed that Mark Felt was## Deep Throat.

It was a huge hit for us,# and it went around the world.

It was on## every newspaper everywhere, and it was# one of journalism's last great secrets.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, before "Vanity Fair,"# you co-founded "Spy" magazine back in 1986,## which had this reputation for fearless# satire, aimed mostly at the rich and powerful.

Tell me about that transition from# "Spy" to "Vanity Fair," the shift## from outsider provocateur# to establishment tastemaker.

GRAYDON CARTER: Well, I didn't quite feel I# was an -- in the establishment when I came## to "Vanity Fair," but I had a period# in between where I took over "The New## York Observer," that period that sort of# helped the transition into "Vanity Fair."

But when I got to "Vanity Fair," it was not --# it was not a pleasant experience for the first## couple of years because we had spent five years# at "Spy" writing about "Vanity Fair," its editors,## its writers, the house voice.

And so I wasn't# the most popular candidate when I arrived.

GEOFF BENNETT: We are living in this moment now# where billionaire media owners are increasingly## becoming the gatekeepers of information and they## shape the public discourse# to serve their own benefit.

But you describe your old boss,# Conde Nast chairman S.I.

Newhouse,## as this unwavering champion who# provided you with editorial and## financial freedom.

How did he influence# you and ultimately shape your career?

GRAYDON CARTER: Well, one thing that# differentiated S.I.

from a number of## sort of new billionaire owners is,# S.I.

absolutely loved what he made.

He was in charge of Conde Nast, which are# magazines, and Random House.

He loved books## and he loved magazines.

And he -- and# that's a baseline for it -- to become a## great proprietor.

He loved editors.

He gave them# everything they needed to succeed.

If you did,## that was wonderful.

But if you# didn't, you could never fault him.

Even if you last there, like I did for 25# years, there's a million little failures## along the way.

He was unwavering in his# support.

And that made all the difference,## because all you -- all you really care about is# the confidence of your -- of your proprietor.

GEOFF BENNETT: You mentioned the# million little failures.

There were## lots of successes too at "Vanity Fair,"# to include the New Establishment list,## the annual Hollywood issues that you crafted.# What was the thinking behind those franchises?

GRAYDON CARTER: Desperation at first.

The Oscar party came first, and that was --# I'd gone to Swifty Lazar's.. and he invented the whole notion of# the Oscar party.

I went to his last## one.

Then he died in December.

And I# decided that we could probably take his## place the next March.

And so we scrambled# to pull it together.

And I -- we had like## 150 people for dinner and maybe 150 or 200# people from the Academy Awards afterwards.

And my philosophy is always# that if you're going to fail,## best do it with the smallest audience# possible, but it was -- it was a success.## And so each year it grew and grew and# it became eventually an institution.

GEOFF BENNETT: What were the hallmarks# of the golden age of print magazines?

GRAYDON CARTER: The ability to assign# writers to write at great length,## if they were writers who could write at great# length, to send them anywhere in the world,## but also all the other editors were at the# absolute tops of their game.

So everybody## was good.

The competition was extreme for readers,# for advertisers and for writers and photographers.

So that's what got you up and going every# day.

And there was a 40-year period there## where magazines were thick and writers were# paid well and photographers were paid well.## And they helped shape the culture more than# newspapers did, more than television in a way.

There was a newsstand on every major street# corner, in every lobby of every office building.## And those are all gone now.

So it was -- even# the ways of seeing a magazine have changed,## because you would just walk by a newsstand, you# would see all these covers, and it immediately## gave you a -- like a snapshot of what the culture# looked like at that particular, particular moment.

GEOFF BENNETT: Writing this memoir, I# imagine, was a process of reflection.## What about you, your attitude or your# approach has been key to your success?

GRAYDON CARTER: I think a good editor is a fearful# one -- both a curious one and a fearful one,## curious in that you're interested in many# things, and fearful in that you think that## the story you have assigned today, somebody# else is going to do it earlier and better.

And so it was -- it just --# that's what kept you going,## is just the thrill of the chase.# It's still what keeps me going.

GEOFF BENNETT: Graydon Carter.

The memoir is "When the Going Was Good:## An Editor's Adventures During the# Last Golden Age of Magazines."

Thanks again for your time.

GRAYDON CARTER: Geoff, thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Remember, there's a lot more# online, including a look at President Trump's## attempt to ban transgender service members from# the U.S. military.

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.