PBS NewsHour full episode Jan. 25, 2017

JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
On the "NewsHour" tonight:
DONALD TRUMP (R), President of the United States: We are in the middle of a crisis on
our southern border.
JUDY WOODRUFF: President Trump takes on a big election promise, ordering a border wall
be built and cracking down on illegal immigration.
Then: getting to the bottom of Mr. Trump's vow to investigate unsubstantiated claims
that millions voted illegally in the general election.
Plus: Federal agencies ordered by the Trump administration to restrict their communications
raises concerns about the government holding back information from the public.
And after years of stigma, why researchers are turning back to psychedelic drugs as a
way to treat severe PTSD and other mental illnesses.
STEPHEN ROSS, NYU Langone Medical Center: Psychiatrists are really yearning to have
something that works differently, that works quickly, that lasts longer to add to their
toolbox.
It's really important to do that.
JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."
(BREAK)
JUDY WOODRUFF: Day three of this first White House workweek, and the focus today turned
to the southern border.
President Trump moved to make good on long-promised action to stop illegal crossings.
DONALD TRUMP (R), President of the United States: We have been talking about this right
from the beginning.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The Department of Homeland Security was the backdrop for getting tough
on immigration.
The president signed two executive orders, one to start work on completing a wall along
the Mexican border.
DONALD TRUMP: You folks know how badly needed it is as a help, but very badly need.
This will also help Mexico by deterring illegal immigration from Central America and by disrupting
violent cartel networks.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The wall was a signature promise from the campaign, and so was his insistence
about who will foot the bill.
DONALD TRUMP: Who's going to pay for the wall?
AUDIENCE: Mexico!
DONALD TRUMP: Not even a doubt.
OK?
JUDY WOODRUFF: Today, before signing off on the wall, Mr. Trump told ABC News that while
construction could begin within months, Mexico will not be paying up front.
DONALD TRUMP: And we will be, in a form, reimbursed by Mexico, which I have always said.
QUESTION: So they will pay us back?
DONALD TRUMP: Yes, absolutely, 100 percent.
QUESTION: So the American taxpayer will pay for the wall at first?
DONALD TRUMP: All it is, is, we will be reimbursed at a later date from whatever transaction
we make from Mexico.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But, at the announcement, the president said construction would start immediately.
Mexico's President Enrique Pena Nieto has insisted his government will not pay for a
wall, but he is due to visit Washington next week, and Mr. Trump said today he is optimistic
about that meeting.
DONALD TRUMP: By working together on a positive trend, safe borders, and economic cooperation,
I truly believe we can enhance the relation between our two nations, to a degree not seen
before, certainly, in a very, very long time.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The president also acted today to boost the number of Border Patrol and immigration
agents, and strip federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities that shield undocumented
immigrants from arrest or detention.
In addition, he moved to end the practice of taking undocumented immigrants into custody,
but then releasing them with orders to report in later.
Beyond immigration, the president was busy today on other matters.
With a series of tweets, he said he will announce his nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court vacancy
on February 2, he promised to order an investigation into alleged voter fraud, and he threatened
to send in federal authorities to curb Chicago's record surge of gun violence.
In response, Chicago's Mayor Rahm Emanuel said today he would welcome federal help.
RAHM EMANUEL (D), Mayor of Chicago: Chicago, like other cities right now that are dealing
with gun violence, wants the partnership with federal law enforcement, at least in a more
significant way than we're having it today, whether that's the FBI, the DEA, the Drug
Enforcement Agency, and the ATF.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Tomorrow, the president heads to Philadelphia to address the congressional
Republican retreat.
The White House indicates he will also announce steps in coming days to restrict refugees
entering the U.S.
A senior Mexican official now says that President Pena Nieto is considering canceling his trip
to Washington because of the order to start work on the border wall.
We will focus in detail on Mr. Trump's immigration orders and on his call for investigating voter
fraud after the news summary.
In the day's other news: The White House distanced itself from news reports that it may order
a major review of handling terror suspects.
The reports said that a draft executive order could allow for renewed use of banned interrogation
methods, and for reopening so-called black site prisons outside the U.S.
Presidential spokesman Sean Spicer said it wasn't a White House document, but he declined
to say more.
A big day on Wall Street, as the Dow Jones industrial average, for the first time, broke
the 20000 barrier.
The Dow gained 155 points, to close at 20068.
The Nasdaq rose nearly 55 points, and the S&P 500 added 18.
Stocks surged from the start, as strong earnings and President Trump's promise of deregulation
and tax cuts sparked the rally.
MARIA FIORINI RAMIREZ, MFR Securities: Companies may have less cost related to whether it's
compliance or regulation, and that frees quite a bit of the earnings at the bottom line,
and they can use some of that to reinvest, and invest in capital, and spread it to dividends
going to shareholders.
JUDY WOODRUFF: The broader market is also passing milestones.
Both the S&P and the Nasdaq have had a series of record closes lately.
In Somalia, Islamist fighters attacked a hotel that's popular with the country's lawmakers.
The government said at least 11 people were killed.
The city's ambulance director said 28 died.
It happened in the capital, Mogadishu.
The extremist Al-Shabaab group claimed responsibility.
Four attackers rammed a car bomb into the hotel's gates, and then stormed the compound.
Police eventually ended the siege, killing all of the militants.
Hope dimmed today in Italy in the search for survivors of an avalanche last week.
Officials confirmed 25 dead, as rescue workers pulled out more bodies.
But crews continued digging through the snow, looking for the four people who are still
missing.
Meanwhile, Italy's prime minister admitted to parliament that there were delays in the
response.
PAOLO GENTILONI, Italian Prime Minister (through translator): If there are responsibilities
for the tragedy, the investigations will clear this up.
The government certainly doesn't fear the truth, but the truth helps us do better, not
to poison the debate.
It is in our hands to make sure that once the disaster has past, further injustice is
not created.
JUDY WOODRUFF: As the prime minister spoke, residents of quake-struck areas marched towards
Italy's parliament, protesting the handling of the crisis.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": full analysis of the Trump administration's latest moves,
including efforts to build a wall on the Mexico border; the unsubstantiated claim that three
million people voted illegally; an alleged crackdown on federal agencies' communication
with the public; remembering Mary Tyler Moore; and much more.
We take a deeper look now at President Trump's executive actions on immigration and border
security with Marielena Hincapie, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.
It's an immigrant rights group.
And Jessica Vaughan, she's from the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for
tougher border security.
And we welcome both of you to the program.
Marielena, I'm going to start with you.
Overall reaction to what the president had to say today?
MARIELENA HINCAPIE, Executive Director, National Immigration Law Center: Well, Judy, we are
-- we find this announcement today as an extremist policy.
I think President Trump's campaign rhetoric that was anti-immigrant, xenophobic, anti-refugee,
anti-Muslim today is becoming a harsh reality.
And it's sending a message of great fear to immigrant communities across the country.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Jessica Vaughan, reaction to what he had to say overall?
JESSICA VAUGHAN, Center for Immigration Studies: This is a very impressive set of actions.
He really went big.
But that is what was needed to restore integrity to our immigration system, and to not only
secure the border, but also restart interior enforcement, which has collapsed in the last
few years, and shine that not only do we need border security, but it has to be backed up
by policies that make sure that people cannot game our system.
You know, the end to the catch and release system that's been in place for the last few
years is going to make a big difference in deterring future illegal immigration.
And that's important.
We needed to start sending that message to people that they aren't going to be able to
get away with just getting to the United States, getting in, and then being home-free from
enforcement.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, let me pick up on that and ask Marielena Hincapie about that.
What about -- the president said, we're going to stop the so-called catch and release, where
they were stopping people, arresting them, but then letting them go and said come back
for a certain court date.
MARIELENA HINCAPIE: Right.
And the reason that people are being allowed to go before an immigration judge is because
many of the people, particularly from Central America in the recent, last couple of years
were people that actually, once they went before an immigration judge, were able to
show that they had a credible fear and that they were eligible for asylum.
This is a country where we believe that every single person should have their fair day in
court.
That is no different in our immigration system.
The problem is, we have a very dysfunctional immigration system, very few immigration judges.
And, in fact, one of the things that President Trump has done, not today, but in some of
his previous announcements, has been to freeze all federal hires.
And that includes immigration judges.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Jessica Vaughan, if it is a system that could have been working if
there were enough people, enough federal employees to make it work, why then dismantle it and
go back and say we won't release you anymore?
JESSICA VAUGHAN: Well, the system has been exploited and too many cases dumped on the
immigration courts that should never have been there.
There are other forms of due process that ICE could have been using and the Border Patrol
could have been using all these years that would have been resolved much more quickly
and used less resources, and brought about a quicker resolution to the case for the illegal
immigrant.
But what's going to happen now is, they're going to put resources at the border, so that
the Border Patrol can resolve these cases.
There will be asylum officers and immigration judges there, so that any applications for
asylum can be dealt with very quickly.
And what we won't see is tens of thousands of people admitted into the country who then
skip out on their immigration hearings or are not successful in getting asylum, but
then just disappear into the woodwork and ICE is told not to go looking for them.
That is what makes our system so dysfunctional now, and that's what is going to change under
these actions.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Marielena Hincapie, one of the things the president announced was hiring
more Border Patrol agents, hiring more immigration officials.
Why isn't that a good thing in order to enforce the law?
MARIELENA HINCAPIE: We actually already have a lot of both Border Patrol agents and immigration
agents.
What is happening, Judy, is, one, is a lot of what was announced today, particularly
with respect to the wall, particularly with respect to the number of Border Patrol and
immigration agents, frankly, is political theatrics.
None of that is going to go into effect without congressional appropriations, without more
money, more federal spending.
And, in fact, it is us as taxpayers that will pay for all of that.
Part of what was really troubling about today's announcements is, as Jessica mentioned, it's
not just at the border, but in the interior, the orders begin, the executive order today
begins by saying that every individual, right -- we're talking about the 11 million undocumented
immigrants -- are considered a national security threat, a public safety threat.
That includes people who are taking care of our children.
It includes people who are picking our fruits and vegetables.
It includes people who are serving us at restaurants.
Those are not individuals who are, in fact, national security threats.
They are our neighbors.
They are part of our families.
JUDY WOODRUFF: I want to ask you both about the wall.
But, before I do that, let me ask you, Jessica Vaughan, about this notion.
Did the president send a signal today that every one of these, whether it's 11 million
or 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country, are a threat?
JESSICA VAUGHAN: No, I don't think that's what is being said at all.
Under the law, of course, anyone who is here illegally is potentially subject to deportation.
But these orders focus very clearly on deterring illegal immigration, dealing very quickly
with people who cross the border illegally, and enforcing the law in the interior of the
country, with criminal aliens being the top priority.
So, that is appropriate.
That's smart enforcement.
That's what has been missing for the last eight years.
And, yes, enforcement costs money, but illegal immigration and tolerating illegal immigration
costs much more.
The National Academy of Science has found that it's something like $50 billion a year
that goes to services to illegal alien-headed households.
And it's about time that we get back on track and start enforcing the law again.
That's what the public expects.
That's why they voted for Donald Trump in part.
JUDY WOODRUFF: You want to respond quickly to that, and then we're going to ask about...
(CROSSTALK)
MARIELENA HINCAPIE: Yes.
So, actually, that's not what has been missing, Judy.
Under President Obama, he was in fact focusing on people with criminal convictions.
What is different here is, in addition to focusing on individuals with criminal convictions,
this executive order actually says that individuals who have been charged with a crime, even if
they haven't been convicted, even someone who may have done something that is considered
to be a crime would be priorities for enforcement.
Again, that is deeply troubling in a country when we believe that people are innocent until
proven guilty.
Due process is critical to both our criminal justice system, as well as our immigration.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Jessica Vaughan, only a minute left.
On the wall, the president said throughout the campaign this was something going to be
paid for by Mexico.
Today, though, he said, at least initially, the taxpayers will pay for it.
Did you want him to go farther than that?
Is this what you expected?
JESSICA VAUGHAN: This is pretty much what I expected.
It will take time to raise the revenue from other sources, whether it's Mexico or illegal
aliens or, you know, through remittances or withheld tax refunds or visa fees or what
have you.
There are lots of different ways to raise that revenue.
But I think Congress is very willing and the public is very willing to put taxpayer funds
up front to get this enforcement going right away and to improve security at the border,
because, as I said, it's a lot more expensive not to enforce the law.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quick, 10 seconds on the wall.
MARIELENA HINCAPIE: This is political theatrics, Judy.
Mexico was never going to pay for this wall.
We as taxpayers are now stuck with that bill.
Everything that has been announced by President Trump is extreme, it's expensive, and ineffective.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we are going to continue to it look at this.
We know more will be unfolding in the days to come on the question of immigration.
Marielena Hincapie, Jessica Vaughan, thank you.
MARIELENA HINCAPIE: Thank you.
JESSICA VAUGHAN: You're welcome.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Turning now to another initiative from the president, this one about the integrity
of our elections.
Mr. Trump has again repeated the unproven claim that millions of illegal votes were
cast in the last election, and now he says he will order a federal investigation to look
into it.
William Brangham has that story.
DONALD TRUMP (R), President of the United States: We're in a rigged system, folks.
We're in a rigged system.
They even want to try to rig the election at the polling booths.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: He made it a rallying cry during his presidential campaign.
Now, having won the White House, President Trump is raising the issue yet again.
On Twitter today, he announced: "I will be asking for a major investigation into voter
fraud.
Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures."
This follows his remarks to congressional leaders on Monday, where, in a closed-door
meeting, the president repeated his claim that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote
only because of three to five million illegal votes being cast for her.
In fact, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the presidential election last
fall.
And what's more, previous studies have found no such evidence going back to 2000.
Top Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, underscored that point yesterday.
REP.
PAUL RYAN (R-WI), Speaker of the House: I have seen no evidence to that effect.
And I have made that very, very clear.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham went further, telling the president
to knock it off.
SEN.
LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), South Carolina: If the president of the United States is claiming
that 3 to 3.5 million people voted illegally, that shakes confidence in our democracy.
He needs to disclose why he believes that.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Still, the president persists, as his White House spokesman, Sean Spicer,
acknowledged on Tuesday.
SEAN SPICER, White House Press Secretary: He continues to maintain that belief.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And President Trump's pick for attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions,
said at his confirmation hearing this month that he believes -- quote -- "We regularly
have fraudulent activities occur during election cycles."
Today, White House spokesman Spicer said the investigation that the president wants is
about the integrity of the system.
SEAN SPICER: There's a lot of people that are dead that are on rolls.
There are people that are voting in tow places or that are on the rolls in two different
states.
I think taking the necessary steps to study and to track what we can do to understand
is something that is definitely, clearly in the best interests.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Senator Bernie Sanders and leading Democrats fired back that the president
is actually -- quote -- "telling Republicans to accelerate voter suppression" with stricter
voter I.D. laws.
Spicer acknowledged today that expanding controversial voter I.D. laws could be one outcome of the
investigation.
For more on the president's unproven allegations and his call for an investigation, I'm joined
now by Rick Hasen.
He's a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and writes the Election
Law Blog, and by Alex Padilla, who is California's secretary of state.
He's a Democrat, and he oversees elections there.
Gentlemen, welcome to you both.
Rick Hasen, I would like to start with you.
The allegation on the table is that three or four or five million people voted illegally
in this last election.
Is there any evidence that that went on?
RICK HASEN, University of California, Irvine: There's no evidence that that went on.
There is no evidence even that thousands or even hundreds of illegal votes were cast.
And, you know, think about five million people involved in a conspiracy that no one has been
able to detect, even in those states with Republican secretaries of state that are looking
out for this kind of fraud that is supposedly happening.
It is just a ludicrous idea.
And if you were going do this and engage in this vast conspiracy, you would think that
you would be able to actually swing the results of the election and put maybe 10,000 or 20,000
more votes in Michigan and in Pennsylvania.
It just -- it is a ludicrous accusation.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Secretary of State Padilla, the same question to you.
You oversaw an election in the biggest state in the country.
How much election fraud did you see in your state?
ALEX PADILLA, California Secretary of State: Look, I can honestly tell that you we have
zero evidence of any non-citizens voting in the November election here in the state of
California.
We take voter fraud very seriously and invite anybody that has information about irregularities
or wrongdoing to bring it forward.
And we're happy to look into it.
I extended that offer to team Trump back in November.
And that offer still stands.
But, like Rick mentioned, there's zero evidence of this happening.
Here's what my bigger concern is.
And I think the more that President Trump and the administration calls into question
the integrity of the elections, they're simply setting the stage for proposed changes to
policy and changes to law that will follow that will take our country backwards as it
pertains to voting rights.
And we need to push back every step of the way.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Mr. Padilla, though, staying with you, a lot of conservatives will argue
that if you don't need to have an I.D. to prove you are who you say you are when you
go to vote, couldn't there be widespread voter fraud, and you just wouldn't know about it?
ALEX PADILLA: There's a lot of hypotheticals that people would like to kind of put out
there to create the concern, to create the doubt.
But the fact of the matter is, voter fraud isn't something that we just started paying
attention to in this November election.
It is a question that comes up in each and every election cycle.
And there has been study after study, report after report, investigation after investigation
in a variety of sectors that all conclude the same thing.
Voter fraud may be very, very isolated, but at the end of the day, it is nearly nonexistent.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Rick, a question for you.
Sean Spicer today tried to seemingly dial down the accusations that Donald Trump had
made.
And he said that the investigation, if it goes forward, will look at things like dead
people on the voter rolls or people being registered in two different states.
Interestingly today, it turned out that the president's daughter, his commerce secretary
pick and his counselor Steve Bannon were themselves all registered to vote in two different states.
But those things happening, dead people on voter rolls or registering in two states,
is that evidence of fraud?
RICK HASEN: Well, there is occasional fraud.
But almost all of these accusations of dead people voting turn out to be either bureaucratic
incompetence or voter error.
So, a few years ago, there was a sensationalized statement in North Carolina that there were
tons of dead people voting.
And when they actually investigated, they found that not one of those involved voter
fraud.
Mostly what they involved was either a mistake where, say, a senior was confused for a junior,
or a voter signed on the wrong line in the poll book.
And there is a lot of dead wood.
There are a lot of people who move from one state to another.
That may be what is happening with some of the people in the Trump administration.
And their old registration is not canceled.
But we have very little evidence of people engaging in -- certainly in impersonation
fraud, which you mentioned earlier, double voting, very rare.
The kind of fraud that does happen, when it does happen, tends to be absentee ballot fraud.
And that is the one kind of fraud I have not heard Donald Trump mentioning anything about
trying to cut down on.
If we really cared about fraud, that would be number one on the list.
And it's not even on the list, apparently.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Secretary Padilla, we often see, after there are accusations of voter
fraud, very soon thereafter, there are attempts to crack down and to pass stiffer voting I.D.
laws.
Do you expect to see that in the wake of this investigation?
ALEX PADILLA: That's frankly my biggest fear here.
You know, we have heard the allegations starting in November about rampant voter fraud with
not a shred of evidence or proof to back it up.
Now we are hearing not just those allegations yet again, but now a call for a major investigation,
to use his words, an investigation based on allegations that are not based in reality
or in any evidence whatsoever.
That's where we are today.
And like I said, if this is simply setting the tone for going backwards on voting rights
in America, that is something that we ought to be concerned about and be prepared to push
back on, because we have seen the playbook.
Look what has happened in state after state after state across the country, overly aggressive
purging of voter rolls, very creatively written voter I.D. laws, the elimination or significant
reduction of early voting opportunities, making it harder for American citizens to be registered
to vote and to actually cast a ballot.
That's unpatriotic, in my opinion, un-American and undemocratic.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Rick Hasen, let's say this investigation that is being called for by
the Trump administration goes forward.
Could it be a good thing?
If so, how would you like it to unfold?
RICK HASEN: Well, I think if we had an investigation into the extent to which there is voter fraud
and suppression, and we had it with bipartisan, well-respected people in charge, as we had
in 200, when we had Presidents Carter and Ford, or in 2004, when we had President Carter
and James Baker, or in 2008, when we had Ben Ginsberg and Bob Bauer, two Republican and
Democratic election lawyers, if we had professionals, we had election administrators all involved,
and we looked at the whole picture, do these laws suppress more votes than prevent -- than
the amount of fraud they prevent, I think that would be a great thing.
I just don't think that that is what Donald Trump's administration is going to set up.
And so I don't have a lot of confidence that the investigation would be a full, fair investigation
on a bipartisan basis that really looks at evidence to get to the truth.
ALEX PADILLA: And I would offer two things, if I may.
Short term, if the president really was interested about the integrity of the November election
that just took place, he ought to pick up that intelligence briefing.
The intelligence community is unanimous in their findings that there was foreign interference
with our elections this November.
The president ought to acknowledge that and he should act on that.
Longer term, if the Trump administration really wants to be helpful and the Republican Congress
really wants to be helpful, there would be another round of election funding.
The last time there was significant investment into how we conduct elections came in the
wake of Florida in 2000.
Congress acted on a bipartisan basis, put moneys out to the state for the upgrade of
our voting systems.
But those systems are now more than a decade old.
And as the Brennan Center and other bipartisan commissions have told us, that is probably
the ticking time bomb threat to our elections.
We need to invest in new equipment.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Alex Padilla, the secretary of state of California, and
Rick Hasen, U.C.
Irvine, thank you both very much.
ALEX PADILLA: Thanks.
RICK HASEN: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Stay with us.
Coming up on the "NewsHour": using psychedelic drugs to treat illness; and remembering Mary
Tyler Moore.
But, first, one other story that has been getting much attention about these first few
days of the Trump administration, are government agencies being silenced from their normal
way of communicating with the public?
And is this administration going further than its predecessors?
Jeffrey Brown has the story.
JEFFREY BROWN: Reports continued today from several news outlets that the Trump administration
has tried to limit the flow of information from key government agencies, many involved
in environmental and scientific research.
Among them, according to The Washington Post, Associated Press and others, the Environmental
Protection Agency, where staff are reportedly banned from sending press releases or posting
to the agency's social media accounts.
Similar orders were allegedly issued within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture.
Officials from the USDA later told reporters the order was improperly issued and not cleared
by senior leadership.
Meanwhile, at the White House today, Press Secretary Sean Spicer disputed the broader
claims altogether.
SEAN SPICER, White House Press Secretary: No, no, there's nothing that's come from the
White House.
JEFFREY BROWN: In a separate interview with NPR, however, a spokesman for the Trump transition
team at the EPA did say agency scientists will likely have their research reviewed on
a case-by-case basis before being released publicly.
Juliet Eilperin has been looking into these developments for The Washington Post.
She joins us now.
So, Juliet, a certain amount of confusion at this point.
How much do we know about whether the administration is attempting to silence these agencies?
JULIET EILPERIN, The Washington Post: Well, there are certainly -- there are some agencies
where there have been clear efforts by new members of the administration who are restricting
the communication.
Now, other administrations have also sought to get everyone on the same page.
They seem -- these new administration officials seem to be going further, and, in some cases,
they're quite restrictive.
So, just it kind of depends on a case-by-case basis, but there is no question that there
is a clampdown on direct communication with the public in some of these agencies.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, before I ask you for an example, but go back to that comparison.
There is always a normal changeover, right?
And so does this look more like a temporary pause in these agencies, or is this on a different
scale?
JULIET EILPERIN: It certainly seems to be more severe in terms of some individual agencies.
And also, because of advances in technology, they're simply more forms of communication.
There weren't, you know, tons of Twitter accounts back when the Obama administration took over.
So, you know, it is certainly being done in a visible way.
And it is affecting more platforms, and that is something that is different.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, so take an example.
A lot of focus, of course, on the EPA, for example, restricting social media, when papers
can be published.
Some talk now about whether there is a review of the Web site, specifically about the climate
change information there.
What do we know so far?
JULIET EILPERIN: At that agency, it's very clear that you have officials who are restricting
the level of communication, both in terms of, again, these social media accounts, press
releases, other kinds of communication, as well as the fact that they are indicating
on the record that they will regulate kind of what communications scientists can have
with the public in certain instances.
So that is something that is significant.
Now, in terms its of the Web site, which is something we have been looking very carefully
into, the EPA has many Web pages devoted to climate, sharing data, things like that.
There was an effort to explore taking it down, and career staff there resisted.
And, as a result, they are now not going to do that.
But that did happen.
But there was this effort, but then it was reversed later on.
JEFFREY BROWN: You heard Sean Spicer say today it is not a White House effort.
Where would it be coming from, if not from there?
Could it be the agencies themselves sort of taking proactive steps?
JULIET EILPERIN: It seems like it's a combination of new appointees in some of these agencies
and to some extent career officials responding to what they think are messages they might
have gotten from the administration more broadly.
Sean Spicer, as you noted and as you explained, is on the record saying they are not directing
this.
But there is no question that this is something that certainly has transpired since President
Trump has taken office.
JEFFREY BROWN: And to go from the EPA to some other agencies, a common thread or some of
the focus clearly is on scientific data, specifically around climate change, correct?
JULIET EILPERIN: Right, that is something that certainly surfaced at USDA, although,
again, they reversed themselves over time.
What is interesting about the Interior Department is they are restricting a huge amount of communication,
including with, say, tribes, which potentially can raise questions of sovereignty.
So, it is not just a question of a tweet, which is kind of one of the things Sean Spicer
was talking about.
It is really about, how are you communicating, whether it's your research or your policies,
to the broader public?
JEFFREY BROWN: And are you able to talk to people inside these agencies?
What kind of concerns are you hearing?
JULIET EILPERIN: Many of the career officials are quite scared right now.
There is no question.
Now, I think we will see how this plays out.
Again, there are -- there have been these tensions early on in previous administrations.
And so what we are looking for are what are the decisions past this initial flurry of
activity that will really set the ground rules for, to what extent can federal officials
share what they know and what they are finding out with the public, whether it's through
the media or directly?
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post, thank you very much.
JULIET EILPERIN: Thanks so much, Jeff.
JUDY WOODRUFF: We turn now to Congress.
Republican members of the House and Senate are in Philadelphia today for their annual
retreat.
They are trying to outline an ambitious agenda to accomplish in the next 200 days, and setting
the tone for how they will work with President Trump and his administration.
Our Lisa Desjardins has been there.
Lisa, first off, we led off tonight's program with the announcements by the president today
having to do with cracking down on illegal immigration.
Of course, one big element of that is the border wall.
We know members of Congress, especially the Republicans, are looking at how to pay for
that.
Have they come up with an answer?
LISA DESJARDINS: There is some news.
This is not definitive yet, but a plan seems to be emerging, Judy.
House Speaker Paul Ryan told gathered Republicans today that they should consider possibly a
supplemental spending bill.
That would be a separate spending bill devoted just to homeland security and maybe some military
spending.
Now, a caveat here, that request needs to still come from the president.
But this looks like the mechanism.
The questions about that bill are, of course, what is in it, probably a border wall, probably
all of those new border and customs agents that the president wants.
We don't have a price tag yet, also no clear way how they would pay for it.
But the idea seems to be to get that spending bill off the ground and maybe pass within
the next two months.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, Lisa, you have been reminding us, Republicans in Congress tackling a number
of complicated issues, what to do about them, taxes, health care.
They have been divided among themselves over what to do.
Now that they are getting closer to the nitty-gritty, working out the details, are they coming any
closer together to agreement?
LISA DESJARDINS: I spoke to so many Republicans today, Judy.
And there is certainly a will, but the way is not clear yet on many of these issues.
There is still major divide over big things like Medicaid and also over some clear just
issues of process.
How many bills does it take to accomplish all of this?
How long does it take to do it?
There is one thing, though that seems to be at least on the tracks, a deadline for when
the actual final repeal bill will move through Congress.
The House says they want their bill all the way done and voted on in the next month.
That is just the repeal, not the replace, but that would be a major step.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, finally Lisa, we know the president is making news on a number of fronts
today, issuing executive orders on a variety of things.
He's been tweeting.
He's been doing interviews.
And one of the things that came out late this afternoon in an interview he did with ABC
News has to do with his belief, he is stating his belief again that enhanced interrogation,
which is one way of saying torture, he believes, can be effective with terror suspects.
On some of these -- are things like this and other executive actions and statements by
the president, what effect are they having on these conversations among Republicans?
LISA DESJARDINS: Absolutely.
Look at the program we have had tonight.
All of the issues that you have brought up tonight have landed on Republicans' laps coming
from the White House in this retreat.
This is not what they wanted to talk about, but they have been talking about it.
And on torture, there is some divide among Republicans.
For example, I asked Senator John Thune.
He said that that is a decided issue, that torture is unlawful.
But others, like new Congresswoman Liz Cheney, daughter of Dick Cheney, said she thinks it's
not that simple.
So there is some divide on that.
That is what Republicans have been asked about today.
It's not what they really wanted to talk about.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Fascinating, Lisa Desjardins, on top of it all in Philadelphia.
Thank you, Lisa.
Now: why some psychiatrists and researchers are giving psychedelic drugs a second look
as a possible way of treating depression and some mental illnesses.
The idea had been shunned for years, but now some say a time for larger trials with the
drugs is due.
Miles O'Brien has the story for our weekly segment on the Leading Edge of science.
SGT.
C.J. HARDIN (RET.), U.S. Army Veteran: I was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder
in Fort Campbell.
MILES O'BRIEN: C.j.
Hardin is a former Army helicopter mechanic and machine gunner who faced imminent death
in Iraq, and also after he got home.
C.J. HARDIN: The way that my emotions ran, and how it felt uncontrollable, I didn't trust
myself having a weapon around me, because I was suicidal, very suicidal at that point.
MILES O'BRIEN: Years of pills and talk therapy failed to help his post-traumatic stress disorder.
So, he turned to a surprising alternative at the center of a revolution in neuroscience
and medicine.
DR.
MICHAEL MITHOEFER, Therapist: So, this is the MDMA that we use for the current study.
MILES O'BRIEN: Hardin took MDMA, more commonly known as Ecstasy, under the watchful eyes
of therapists Michael and Annie Mithoefer, a husband-and-wife team based in Charleston,
South Carolina.
DR.
MICHAEL MITHOEFER: This is where we do the MDMA sessions.
We don't know how this works, but we have ideas about it.
MILES O'BRIEN: In one study of 19 subjects, more than 80 percent reported significant
improvement, after carefully guided sessions like this.
SGT.
C.J. HARDIN: Which I knew was the PTSD.
I was never feeling comfortable at home.
I was still lucid, but it just felt like I had opened up a new avenue of thinking.
MILES O'BRIEN: C.J. Hardin says the difference for him was like night and day.
SGT.
C.J. HARDIN: I had three experiences at full dosage, but the effects after the first treatment
were profound.
I would have said a 60 percent reduction in my symptoms immediately.
I felt a mighty change had occurred.
MILES O'BRIEN: The fact that these studies are happening at all represents a mighty change
in the scientific community, a renaissance in thinking about psychedelic drugs like MDMA,
LSD and psilocybin, the drug found in magic mushrooms.
STEPHEN ROSS, NYU Langone Medical Center: Psychiatrists are really yearning to have
something that works differently, that works quickly, that lasts longer to add to their
toolbox.
It's really important to do that.
MILES O'BRIEN: Stephen Ross is a psychiatrist and addiction specialist at NYU Langone Medical
Center.
He is exploring the medical uses of psilocybin, a close cousin of LSD.
He says the drugs are safe, but only in a carefully controlled setting.
Can you overdose?
STEPHEN ROSS: There are no known overdoses with psilocybin.
It's not known to have a toxic dose.
It's considered safe physiologically.
But, psychologically, that's where the potential damage and danger is.
And that's why these drugs, in uncontrolled settings, can create anxiety, they can create
paranoia, they can create dangerous behavior.
MILES O'BRIEN: Skeptics say the studies are relatively small, and it's extremely difficult
to compare these drugs with a placebo.
Concerns notwithstanding, researchers across the nation are tuning in and turning on to
psychedelics a few generations after psychologist Timothy Leary unintentionally stigmatized
them.
In the 1960s, Leary conducted a series of valid experiments with LSD and psilocybin,
but as he devolved into an infamous psychedelic poster boy, the drugs escaped the lab.
MAN: The natural state of the brain is chaos.
MILES O'BRIEN: In 1970, the federal government made the drugs illegal, in the same category
as heroin.
The mainstream medical community tapped out, even though there was a lot of data suggesting
the drugs might help people with certain mental illnesses.
STEPHEN ROSS: I was fascinated that, how could this have been such a big part of a psychiatry
and that I never heard about it, completely buried in my training?
And that just made me really curious to look further into it.
MILES O'BRIEN: Much remains a mystery, but advanced neuroimaging has provided some new
clues.
Psilocybin seems to quiet brain areas known as the default mode network, essentially our
autopilot mode.
And this might help break the chains of addiction, or lift the fog of depression.
STEPHEN ROSS: So it's plausible that sort of deactivating that network can take someone
away from a stuck pathologic rhythm into something else.
MILES O'BRIEN: The Mithoefers are working on a similar hypothesis as they study MDMA
and its effects on PTSD.
They too suspect the drug helps break a cycle.
DR.
MICHAEL MITHOEFER: We know that people with PTSD have increased activity in the amygdala,
the fear center, and they have decreased activity in the prefrontal cortex.
MILES O'BRIEN: The amygdala is at the center of our brain.
It is what creates our emotional reactions, pleasant and unpleasant, including sadness,
anxiety and fear.
The prefrontal cortex, our executive brain, is where we temper those emotions through
rational decision-making.
MDMA decreases activity in the amygdala and increases activity in the prefrontal cortex.
So it tamps down the negative emotions in the first place and also increases the brain's
ability to keep those feelings in check.
Researchers aren't sure whether the drug works by causing direct changes in brain chemistry,
or simply by making trauma easier to talk about and process.
DR.
MICHAEL MITHOEFER: What we see in the sessions is that it seems to kind of bring people down
from being overwhelmed by emotions, but also kind of bring them up from being numbed out
or disconnected from emotions.
That's when the therapeutic change happens.
MILES O'BRIEN: With both drugs, doctors use a similar approach.
Dr. Ross showed me the room where he and his team conduct therapy Sessions for subjects
under the influence of psilocybin.
STEPHEN ROSS: We walk over to them, give them the pill, some water, they take it, and then
they will essentially sit here for about half-an-hour.
We will turn the music on, the pre-selected music, give them some art books, or they will
meditate a little bit.
And then after, about half-an-hour, when they're feeling something, we will instruct them into
the default position.
Lie down on your back, eye shades, music.
And the two therapists sit here for many hours.
MILES O'BRIEN: In December, Ross and colleagues published a paper on the impact of psilocybin
for people with severe anxiety or depression due to a grave illness.
They found that a single dose of psilocybin reliably helped 60 percent to 80 percent of
them feel better immediately, and for as long as six months.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins reported similar results.
ESTALYN WALCOFF, Psychotherapist: My name is Estalyn Walcoff and I work as a psychotherapist.
MILES O'BRIEN: Estalyn Walcoff was a subject in the NYU study.
ESTALYN WALCOFF: It was as if this spirit that I had hoped to connect to was so much
bigger and stronger than I had ever imagined.
I was quaking in my boots.
MILES O'BRIEN: Ross and Mithoefer say it's important to temper the enthusiasm.
DR.
MICHAEL MITHOEFER: This seems to be a very powerful tool, but it is only a tool.
And it's the person's own healing process and their relationships, the therapeutic relationships,
that support that that are very important.
I think there is the danger of people thinking of it as a magic bullet.
STEPHEN ROSS: We're following the data.
We don't think that this is going to cure anything or change the world.
We are focused on helping sick people and just doing more science and following the
data, seeing where it leads.
MILES O'BRIEN: Both drugs may soon be put to a bigger test.
Researchers are asking the government to approve some major trials, with hundreds of subjects,
some time this year.
Miles O'Brien, the "PBS NewsHour," New York.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight: remembering a TV legend, Mary Tyler Moore.
And back to Jeffrey Brown, who has our remembrance.
JEFFREY BROWN: It was sitcom television that signaled and helped push larger cultural change,
"The Mary Tyler Moore Show" in the 1970s, in which the actress played a single, 30-something
working woman, Mary Richards, a TV producer at a local Minneapolis station, here with
her boss, played by Ed Asner.
ED ASNER, Actor: You know what?
You have got spunk.
(LAUGHTER)
MARY TYLER MOORE, Actress: Well...
ED ASNER: I hate spunk.
(LAUGHTER)
ED ASNER: I'll tell you what.
I will try you out for a couple of weeks and see how it works out.
If I don't like you, I will fire you.
MARY TYLER MOORE: Right, right.
ED ASNER: If you don't like me, I will fire you.
(LAUGHTER)
MARY TYLER MOORE: That certainly seems fair.
I will get a towel from the kitchen.
JEFFREY BROWN: In the '60s, Moore had been a beloved figure in a more traditional role
for women, as the frazzled, but often hilarious wife of Dick Van Dyke on the show bearing
his name.
MARY TYLER MOORE: Snow White lived.
(LAUGHTER)
DICK VAN DYKE, Actor: Oh, what a day.
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFREY BROWN: Over the years, she won seven Emmy Awards for her television roles, and
an Oscar-nominated performance in the 1980 film "Ordinary People," the story of a disintegrating
family following a son's death.
Moore wrote and spoke of her own struggles, a battle with alcoholism, and with the diabetes
she lived with for some 40 years.
She was also a champion for animal rights.
Mary Tyler Moore was 80 years old.
A short time ago, I spoke with Dick Cavett.
He interviewed Mary Tyler Moore a number of times over the years, and was a good friend.
I began by asking about her talent as a comic actor.
Dick Cavett, thanks so much for joining us.
First, Mary Tyler Moore, the comic performer, what did she have?
DICK CAVETT, Entertainer: She had it all.
She had everything.
And she had more than many comic performers.
We had that period of so many wonderful what used to be called comediennes, Lucy and Carol
and Mary.
Mary was extremely beautiful.
And that doesn't necessarily go up to that period of time with comediennes.
They were either scrawny or had bad hair or looked funny.
And to be a beauty and to be a comedienne, witty, and even, when required, slapstick,
Mary had it all.
Once, a writer on the show said, Mary is the only person I have ever worked with who made
every script better.
And I said, be specific.
And he said, all can I say is, when we gave Mary the script, we found laughs in straight
lines that we didn't know were there.
Mary had the greatest laugh, the gutsiest, almost really bawdy laugh that you rarely
saw her do on television, a great sense of humor.
Though we didn't have the term glass ceilings, she in fact came through one, and made it
better for a lot of other women in television by showing that she was somebody who was -- a
woman could pull, pull the audience in a very big way.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Dick Cavett, thank you very much for joining us.
And for some more perspective on Mary Tyler Moore's influence, I'm joined now by Cynthia
Littleton of "Variety."
She has written about Moore and is the author of two books about television.
You know, Cynthia, it's almost hard to think back to TV in those days, the kinds of subjects
that were not discussed, the way women were not portrayed, or the way they were portrayed.
In what ways did Mary Tyler Moore and that show change things?
CYNTHIA LITTLETON, "Variety": Well, as you said, the image of a strong, independent woman
over 30 who wasn't necessarily hunting for a husband, but wanted to build a career, that
was pretty revolutionary for September of 1970, when the show premiered.
And when you think about what was going on in the country, you have the stirrings of
the second wave of the modern women's movement.
It really was quite a confluence.
JEFFREY BROWN: So, what are examples of some things that she helped bring to the fore in
the culture, in popular entertainment?
CYNTHIA LITTLETON: I think the show very famously made references to her taking birth control
bills, made references to her spending the night with dates, made a very early reference
to a character, a guest star character being gay as almost a matter-of-fact aside.
And those were -- those were things done in a show that didn't necessarily wear its social
consciousness on its sleeve, not as much as "All in the Family," but in reflecting the
state of the culture as it stood in the early '70s, just had profound impact.
JEFFREY BROWN: And much of this, of course, through the very specific persona of Mary
Tyler Moore herself, right?
CYNTHIA LITTLETON: Mary Richards, and I think there was a continuum to the character she
played on "The Dick Van Dyke Show."
Laura Petrie was not a mousy sitcom wife, but very independent, very, very smart.
She famously wore capri pants around the house.
She -- Laura Petrie was also -- I think Mary Tyler Moore's career truly was a continuum
of role models right -- that were right for the era.
JEFFREY BROWN: And, very briefly, I mean, obviously, there was impact in spinoffs from
that program, but do you see the impact and legacy today in performers and shows?
CYNTHIA LITTLETON: So many workplace comedies are always held up against the standard that
"The Mary Tyler Moore Show" set.
JEFFREY BROWN: Such as?
CYNTHIA LITTLETON: You know, current shows that try to have a workplace setting, like,
you know, so many shows over the years.
That ensemble of characters, it was just a murderers row of Betty White, Cloris Leachman,
Valerie Harper, Ed Asner.
It really does still set the standard.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Cynthia Littleton of "Variety," thank you very much.
CYNTHIA LITTLETON: Thank you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: On the "NewsHour" online right now: Researchers predict that the average
monthly water bill will rise by nearly $50 over the next five years.
That means that for one-third of Americans, water could become unaffordable.
You can see which communities are most at risk.
That's on our Web site, PBS.org/NewsHour.
Later tonight on PBS, Twin Cities PBS presents a film about one of the most critical health
crises to face the country.
"Alzheimer's: Every Minute Counts" illuminates the mounting emotional and financial costs
associated with caring for those afflicted by the disease and it provides a powerful
wakeup call that underscores the pressing need to come up with viable solutions, and
quickly.
"Alzheimer's: Every Minute Counts," it airs tonight on most PBS stations.
And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.
I'm Judy Woodruff.
Join us online and again right here tomorrow evening.
For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, and good night.

PBS NewsHour full episode Jan. 25, 2017

Latest Posts