AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "News Hour" tonight: Amid differing intelligence assessments, President Trump doubles down on his claim that U.S. strikes completely destroyed Iran's nuclear program.

AMNA NAWAZ: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that states can cut off Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood, even if it's not being used for abortions.

GEOFF BENNETT: And in her first interview since being freed, we speak with the American who was imprisoned in Russia for donating $51 to Ukraine.

KSENIA KARELINA, Freed Russian-American Prisoner: All of your world all of a sudden just flip upside down, and you don't have anything that you're used to anymore.

You don't have your loved ones.

You don't have your freedom.

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

The Trump administration today again furiously defended the U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program, claiming the facilities were destroyed.

It comes in response to a leaked initial intelligence assessment that said Iran's nuclear program was set back by only a few months.

That leak is now being investigated by the FBI.

AMNA NAWAZ: The report was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA.

But the director of the CIA issued a statement last night contradicting its finding.

At an early morning briefing today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denounced the news media for its coverage of the report.

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. Defense Secretary: Because of decisive military action, President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating, choose your word, obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Every outlet has breathlessly reported on a preliminary assessment from DIA a day-and-a-half after the actual strike, when it admits itself in writing that it requires weeks to accumulate the necessary data to make such an assessment.

It's preliminary.

It points out that it's not been coordinated with the intelligence community at all.

There's low confidence in this particular report.

There's -- it says in the report there are gaps in the information.

GEOFF BENNETT: The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, showed a video of the testing of the kind of bomb that was used on Fordow and one other Iranian nuclear site to show the kind of damage it can do.

Meantime, Iran's supreme leader played down the impact of the U.S.-Israeli bombings on Iran's nuclear sites.

AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, Supreme Leader of Iran (through translator): They attacked our nuclear facilities, but they were not able to achieve anything significant.

The president of the United States made an unusual exaggeration in describing what had happened.

It became clear that he needed this exaggeration.

Anyone who heard those words understood that beneath the surface of those remarks there was another underlying truth.

They couldn't achieve their intended goal.

AMNA NAWAZ: For perspective on all this, we now turn to David Albright.

He's the founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

He's also the co-author of the book "Iran's Perilous Pursuit of Nuclear Weapons."

David, welcome back.

Thanks for being here.

DAVID ALBRIGHT, President, Institute for Science and International Security: Good to be here.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, after the U.S. bombing, you issued a report in which you said this.

You said: "Israel's and the U.S. attacks have effectively destroyed Iran's centrifuge enrichment program.

It'll be a long time before Iran comes anywhere near the capability it had before the attack."

So does that mean you agree with the secretary of defense's assessment that the program was completely destroyed?

DAVID ALBRIGHT: Well, I think what we saw in satellite imagery, and we know a lot about the nuclear sites, is, you had thousands and thousands of centrifuges destroyed.

And, more importantly, you have the ability to make them was destroyed and to create the thing that's enriched.

There's a -- you put in uranium in a centrifuge, and it's a form of uranium hexafluoride.

The plant to do that is large, complicated, and it was destroyed.

And so, in that sense, they can't make any more centrifuges.

And once they run out of a supply of uranium hexafluoride, they can't run the centrifuges.

So, but, that being said, they also have these stocks of 60 percent in rich uranium.

They may have some centrifuges that have been made or manufactured, but not deployed in the two centrifuge plants, Natanz and Fordow, that were attacked.

AMNA NAWAZ: So what does all of this mean for that initial assessment that was leaked and reported on from the Defense Intelligence Agency that said the program was only set back a few months, not destroyed?

How should people make sense of those two?

DAVID ALBRIGHT: Yes, I think it's -- it was a report that the secretary or the chairman said was, should we strike again?

Did we get enough?

And so it's a worst-case assessment to try to decide if there should be another one.

And I think the leadership had decided, no, we have done enough.

It needs to be fleshed out with new information.

AMNA NAWAZ: So let's look a little deeper into the report you issued, because you include satellite photos.

They show the Fordow mountain, the holes in the ground where the American bunker-buster bombs struck, right where the ventilation shafts were located.

You have another image that you overlay over that appears to be a floor plan from inside the facility.

Just explain to us what we're seeing here and why this is significant.

DAVID ALBRIGHT: We lined up with the tunnel entrances.

And then in the floor plan, there's a ventilation system.

And we lined it up and we looked at imagery, and this goes back several years, and we could see the ventilation system being built in the mountain and then covered up.

And so we felt that that was a shaft that went from the mountain top right down to the plant and was a vulnerability.

AMNA NAWAZ: And that tells you that those strikes were successful?

DAVID ALBRIGHT: I mean, it tells us that I would expect them to be successful because they weren't boring through a mountain.

They were going down air in a shaft.

AMNA NAWAZ: You also include satellite photos that show the damage to another nuclear site, this one at Isfahan, that was targeted both by Israel and by the U.S. with cruise missiles.

What does this tell us about how damaged the facility was and how much it sets back Iran?

DAVID ALBRIGHT: Yes, and Israel attacked it twice.

And the United States attacked it once.

And so there was tremendous amount of damage there.

And some of the buildings held in the past 60 percent enriched uranium and 20 percent enriched uranium.

And then and that was clearly a target.

AMNA NAWAZ: And so is there an assessment on how far back the program is set?

Months?

Years?

DAVID ALBRIGHT: Well, it can take them years to rebuild these facilities.

I mean, I hate to put a year on it, a year, but it's not going to happen any time soon.

AMNA NAWAZ: David, there's also the question of whether or not some of the highly enriched uranium could have been moved from these sites in advance of the U.S. strikes.

We know the secretary of defense has said there's no evidence of that.

Is there any way to know that?

And if it was true and uranium was moved, what does that mean?

DAVID ALBRIGHT: Well, the Iranians said to the International Atomic Energy and see that they were planning to move it before the attack.

And in Isfahan, one of the buildings that historically held 60 percent and 20 percent was hit once, and then but not building wasn't destroyed.

Israel came back a couple of days later and did much more damage.

But that -- you would expect that buildings hit lightly,in a sense, they're going to move the enriched uranium out, just as a matter of course.

So I think we cannot ignore the existence of these stocks not being destroyed.

This issue has to be addressed, because the 60 percent can be turned into weapon-grade uranium quickly.

And we don't want to have to face this kind of potential threat six months a year, two years from now, whenever Iran may decide to try to break out again and make nuclear weapons.

AMNA NAWAZ: But, so, David, if some of those stockpiles either survived underground, can be recovered or removed, doesn't that undermine the argument that the program was completely destroyed?

DAVID ALBRIGHT: I interpret these things as political statements.

But I think, in this case, they have to make sure they're not blinding themselves, that they don't think they don't need a deal, because that's really -- you can solve this problem very directly with a nuclear deal with Iran that -- and you can be tough.

We want those stocks removed from Iran.

And we want to go back, we want to go back, U.S. contractors go back and drill into Fordow and find that - - those canisters under the rubble.

AMNA NAWAZ: David Albright, always great to have you and your expertise and insights on the show.

Thank you so much.

DAVID ALBRIGHT: No, thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota sits on both the Senate Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.

He and other senators were briefed a short time ago by CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Senator Rounds, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thanks for being with us.

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): Thank you.

Appreciate the opportunity to visit with you.

AMNA NAWAZ: I just want to play for you the takeaway that your Democratic colleague Senator Chris Murphy had after that briefing you were at as well and then get your reaction.

Here's what Senator Murphy had to say.

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): I just do not think the president was selling the truth when he said this program was obliterated.

There was certainly damage done to the program, but there is the significant -- there's still significant remaining capability.

AMNA NAWAZ: Senator Rounds, do you believe that that is true, there's still significant remaining capability?

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS: It's not the way that I would phrase it.

I think you would have to break it down into the different components that make up the threat.

I do think that the threat has been very seriously eliminated.

I think the vast majority of it has been, as I would say, targeted and correctly hit.

The guys that did the mission did it exactly as they were supposed to.

And I think what they wanted to accomplish with their mission, they did accomplish.

But I think the question in the hard part for us is sharing with the American people what that means in terms of what we needed to get done.

And I think Mr. Albright did a really good job of explaining just exactly what we did with the attacks that we had.

There's still uranium there.

There's no question about that, but that wasn't our target.

What we wanted to do was to hit the bottleneck that would allow them -- or the areas there in which it would allow them to continue to expedite the creation of a nuclear weapon.

We did stop that in its tracks.

We're certain of that.

The question then is, can they rebuild?

Can they start over?

Can they find ways to pick up the pieces?

And the answer to that is, depending upon their political will and whether or not they want to put their people through this again, sure they could.

But now it's kind of up to them as to whether or not they want to have a peaceful resolution to this, or do they want to see the same thing happen perhaps years from now?

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Senator, if you agree with the assessment we just heard from David Albright that there could very well be enriched uranium stockpiles either having been moved from a facility or being recovered from underneath the rubble, does that say to you that there still exists a capability for Iran's nuclear program?

The idea that it's completely destroyed is not necessarily true; is that right?

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS: No, I wouldn't go that far.

What I thought he had said was that there is enriched uranium, which we all agree was there.

They had it up to a point which it could be easily turned into nuclear-grade or weapons-grade uranium that would be used for a bomb.

But they weren't there yet.

They had not pulled that trigger, but they could do so in a very short period of time.

What we do know is that they had talked about moving some of it, but there is no evidence that they did move any of it.

And so, as near as we can tell, enriched uranium, which was there to begin with in certain locations, would still be there, but it would be very inaccessible.

But the more important part is, the capability to actually turn it into weapons-grade has been significantly eroded.

It would take a long time for them to rebuild the parts and pieces to actually take that enriched uranium now and turn it into bomb-grade uranium.

And I think that's the part that -- if there was any misunderstanding on any parts of it, I think that would be where it would be at.

AMNA NAWAZ: You heard our reporting there about Secretary of Defense Hegseth talking about that initial assessment from the DIA that basically said the program had only been set back a few months, not destroyed.

And we saw after that report was leaked the White House said it's now going to limit intelligence sharing with Congress.

What's your reaction to that?

Do you have concerns about that?

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS: Two parts.

Let me answer the second part first.

We have now talked with folks from the CIA and other entities that have three-letter alphabet names.

We have no evidence that there has been any movement on the part of any organization nor has any part of any one of these organizations been told to limit that information.

So, while there may have been public discussions about that, there has been no movement to do so.

And those entities would be responsible... AMNA NAWAZ: So, you don't believe the White House when they said they would limit that sharing; is that right?

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS: What I'm saying is, is, regardless of what they said, there is no evidence that it has occurred.

And those entities who would be responsible for limiting it have a responsibility to come and advise us if such a direction were to be requested of them.

There is no evidence -- as of today, there's no evidence of that occurring.

But the other piece on this - - and let me go back to this.

I saw those preliminary reports.

I have the opportunity to go into a classified session, and I get those reports.

I saw the report that I believe was the one that was leaked.

And I can tell you that it was part of other reports as well.

And just as you read all of those reports, each of them will give you an assessment and the probability of whether or not they are correct.

The probability in this same report indicated that they had a very low probability of confidence in what they were saying, because they were so early in the process or discussion of actually getting the assessments completed.

But the other part of that, which we can talk about now, which was how -- and this is just an absolute recommendation or a commendation to the folks that actually executed this mission.

What they did in terms of planning over a period of time, executing flawlessly the delivery of multiple weapons into exactly the same spot, in a perfect timing position, was phenomenal and no other country in the world could do it.

They executed and their expectation is, is that the results were exactly what they hoped it would be.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Senator Rounds, there's clearly a lot more to talk about this.

We hope you come back and join us again.

We thank you for your time tonight.

That is Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota joining us tonight.

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: We start today's other headlines in Central Gaza, where hospital officials and witnesses say an Israeli airstrike killed at least 18 people as they waited for flour.

Survivors were rushed to a nearby hospital as family members searched for their loved ones.

Witnesses say the strike came as a crowd was getting aid from a Palestinian police unit that had confiscated the goods from gangs.

Speaking in Sri Lanka, the U.N.'s human rights chief said today nearly 600 people have been killed trying to access desperately needed food in Gaza.

VOLKER TURK, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights: It's heartbreaking to know that people who need humanitarian assistance almost risk their lives in order to get food.

What we need, again, is a cease-fire, release of hostages and an all-out effort to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

GEOFF BENNETT: There was no immediate comment from the Israeli military on today's violence, but in past incidents, it claims troops have fired warning shots at people they described as suspects.

This week's dangerous summer heat is finally easing across much of the Eastern U.S.

Some 72 million Americans from the Ohio Valley to the Deep South and the mid-Atlantic remained under heat alerts today, but that's less than half the number from just a few days ago.

In the Northeast, the cool down has been dramatic.

In places like Boston and New York, temperatures have fallen from the triple digits down to the 60s and 70s in some places.

Meantime, a series of severe storms are hitting the Southeast, leading to scenes like this west of Tampa, Florida, yesterday.

The elderly woman who was inside this home at the time survived the storm.

In France, violent thunderstorms overnight killed at least two people and injured 17 more.

On the streets of Paris, the torrential storms flooded streets and sent residents ducking for cover.

French media is reporting that toppled trees were to blame for the two fatalities, one each in Southwest and Northwest France.

The storm also damaged this 11th century church in Normandy.

Its roof and bell tower crashed down into the nave and the downpours even leaked onto the floors of Parliament, with lawmakers pausing their debate to look up at the water dripping down.

And on Wall Street today, stocks posted solid gains.

The Dow Jones industrial average added 400 points on the day.

The Nasdaq rose nearly 200 points.

The S&P 500 closed just a touch below its all-time high.

And former Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy has died.

As a Democrat from New York's Fourth Congressional District, she was known as the doyen of anti-gun advocates in the House.

McCarthy's activism on the issue began after her husband was shot and killed in a mass shooting back in 1993.

That led to a congressional run in 1996, which she won.

She served in the House for 18 years.

In 2013, McCarthy announced that she was being treated for lung cancer after she retired from Congress soon after.

Carolyn McCarthy was 81 years old.

Still to come on the "News Hour": a CDC panel that was overhauled to include vaccine skeptics reassesses childhood immunizations; Republicans' massive budget legislation faces new hurdles over health care and immigration; and we remember the life of White House press secretary turned journalist Bill Moyers.

The U.S. Supreme Court today sided with South Carolina, ruling Planned Parenthood and one of its patients could not sue over that state's effort to deny it Medicaid funds.

The 6-3 decision split along ideological lines.

And the ruling paves the way for other states to more easily cut off funding to abortion care providers.

To help us break down the case and its implications, we're joined now by Amy Howe, PBS News Supreme Court analyst and co-founder of SCOTUSblog.

Always good to see you.

AMY HOWE: Good to see you too.

Thanks.

GEOFF BENNETT: So this case has big implications, of course, for Planned Parenthood and ultimately abortion access.

But the issue in front of the judges was more technical.

Tell us about that and the broader impact here.

AMY HOWE: Yes, so it is a very technical case.

So Medicaid contains what's known as the any qualified provider provision, which allows Medicaid patients to seek care from any qualified provider.

But it's not enough to just point to a violation of a law.

And we're talking sort of generally.

When you want to go to court, you have to also point to something that gives you a right to sue.

And so the plaintiffs in this case, a private patient and then Planned Parenthood of South Carolina, were relying on a federal civil rights law known as Section 1983 that allows private lawsuits against state and local officials for the violation of rights under the Constitution or U.S. laws.

And the Supreme Court today by a vote of 6-3 said that the plaintiffs can't rely on this federal civil rights law Section 1983, and, therefore, their case can't go forward.

This was an opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by the court's other conservative justices.

And he said, particularly when you're talking about a case like the Medicaid Act, in which Congress gives the state's money and, in return for getting the money, the states agree to comply with particular conditions that are outlined in the law, you need to be crystal clear about what the conditions are and the possibility that states could be sued by private individuals.

And, in this case, he said Congress was not clear.

There's no clear and unambiguous right to sue for private plaintiffs.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent said that the ruling was the latest in a series of decisions that weakened civil rights protections and that it was -- quote -- "likely to result in tangible harm to real people."

What kind of harm is she alluding to here?

AMY HOWE: So she had a couple of things that she was thinking of.

And, I mean, first she was making a big picture point, which is that this provision, Section 1983, was enacted back in 1871 as part of a Civil Rights Act that was intended -- that was passed because, in the wake of the Civil War, Congress felt that states weren't protecting people's rights and it wanted to give them the right to go to federal court.

And she said, with its decision today, the majority on the Supreme Court was effectively taking away the only meaningful way that Medicaid patients can vindicate their right to choose their provider.

And she said, in doing so, there's a deeply personal freedom to being able to choose your own provider.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, on that issue, our team spoke with Mary Ziegler, a professor of law at U.C.

Davis.

She's a historian of abortion law in the U.S. And she said that this ruling is an existential threat to red state providers, but that, if the provisions seeking to cut Planned Parenthood funding in President Trump's budget proposal come to pass, that clinics across the country could be at risk.

MARY ZIEGLER, University of California, Davis, School of Law: It's not going to defund Planned Parenthood's advocacy or political activity.

It's going primarily to hurt affiliates in red states that are going to lose - - potentially lose the ability to stay open.

The impact on Planned Parenthood could be even more sweeping if President Trump's big, beautiful bill passes, because the defunding provisions in it would sweep nationwide.

So it would have a similar effect, potentially shutting down affiliates of groups like Planned Parenthood in blue and purple states, as well as red states.

GEOFF BENNETT: And for a different perspective, here's White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who hailed this ruling as a win for religious freedom.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, White House Press Secretary: As for the Supreme Court ruling, the president has always maintained that Americans should not be forced to violate their conscience and their religious liberty by having their tax dollars fund abortions, and we're glad the Supreme Court ruled on that side today.

GEOFF BENNETT: How does today's ruling fit within the broader conservative project of rolling back abortion rights at the federal level?

AMY HOWE: Yes, so this was not a case that was specifically about abortion.

The individual patient in this case was not seeking an abortion.

She was seeking other kinds of care from Planned Parenthood.

But, as Professor Ziegler suggests, states can cut Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

And, if they can do that, it makes it less likely that some Planned Parenthood clinics will be open and that they will be able to provide care like the kind that Julie Edwards, the plaintiff in this case, was seeking, but also abortions.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Amy, we will see you back here at this desk tomorrow, because tomorrow's the last day of the Supreme Court term and we're expecting six big cases.

AMY HOWE: Right.

GEOFF BENNETT: What are they?

AMY HOWE: That's right.

The biggest one that we're watching, of course, is the challenge to President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship.

So they won't -- are not expected to decide the order of whether or not - - whether or not the order is constitutional, but whether or not a district judge can block the order nationwide.

But they also have a case involving whether or not parents can opt their children out of instruction in school using LGBTQ-themed storybooks.

There's a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map.

There's a challenge to Texas' age verification requirement for porn Web sites.

There's a case involving the structure of a panel, a task force that makes recommendations about preventive care.

And so it's going to be a really big day at the Supreme Court.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, we are grateful to have you here walking us through all of it.

Amy Howe, thanks, as always.

AMY HOWE: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: We're in a crucial 24 hours for President Trump's big budget bill, as the Senate prepares to start voting as soon as tomorrow.

A key official, the parliamentarian, ruled that some major Medicaid changes in it do not qualify for the budget process Republicans are using.

But President Trump today pushed forward.

At the White House, he brought together Americans whose stories highlight what Republicans like in the bill, including farmers, autoworkers, and employees who rely on tips.

Lisa Desjardins joins us now from the super screen to update us on where the bill stands and who could gain or lose from it.

Lisa, good to see you.

LISA DESJARDINS: Good to see you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So walk us through this decision from the parliamentarian.

What was that about?

The parliamentarian has to decide, does each provision in the bill meet Senate rules for so-called budget reconciliation, which is how this bill is moving?

And she made some very significant rulings about the Medicaid portion in particular.

So let's break down what's in and what's out of the bill on Medicaid.

This happened just in the last 24 hours.

Cuts to state provider taxes, this is a major method of funding for many states.

The parliamentarian ruled that that does not meet the requirements for the bill.

The penalty for states, which use their own money to cover undocumented immigrant in the bill right now, but the parliamentarian ruled, no, that's more policy than it is actually budget maneuver.

There's a ban on transgender care in Medicaid in this bill in the House version and Senate version.

She ruled that cannot stay in the bill.

But some major Medicaid provisions did stay in.

This is new work requirements pass muster, and also checking eligibility every six months so everyone on Medicaid would have to do this.

These are significant reforms.

They would also, according to the Congressional Budget Office, mean millions of people would fall off of Medicaid.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Lisa, I know you have been taking a closer look at how this bill actually impacts Americans, specifically based on their income.

What can you tell us?

LISA DESJARDINS: I'm so eager to talk about this.

It's such a major bill.

And to look at how the bill affects Americans, you really have to understand its basic structure.

So let's start right there.

First of all, as a lot of folks know, the biggest dollars in this bill, the largest amount are in tax cuts.

These largely actually keep tax rates the same, but, without this bill, taxes would go up, the individual rates, for most Americans.

However, also historic amounts of cuts in this bill, particularly to health care, the circle represents that proportion, that's where most of the cuts are.

So whether you benefit or lose depends on whether you gain more from the tax cuts than you lose from the health care cuts.

We found some data, again, from the Congressional Budget Office that breaks down by income level whether you gain or lose.

So let's take a look at that really quickly.

First, on the tax cuts, you can see most Americans generally gain from these tax cuts, but the bottom 10 percent, look at this, technically lose $40 on average.

These are folks who really may not pay much in taxes, but they're losing some deductions here.

Now, add in the deduct -- the health care changes and the cuts, you see something dramatic.

The bottom 30 percent of Americans on net lose under this bill, according to CBO, mainly because they may be losing their health insurance altogether.

They're losing benefits far more than they are gaining in taxes.

Who gains?

It goes up by income.

And that top 10 percent gain the most.

What's this mean percentage wise?

Well, I have got those numbers too.

This is about a 2 percent gain for the top 10 percent of Americans.

It's about a minus-4 percent loss for those who are the most poor in this country.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Lisa, it's striking to see the numbers laid out like that.

We already know that there's an existing wealth gap in this country.

What does the bill mean for that?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

We can do layers here at "News Hour," and that's an important one.

How much wealth does each group control?

So we wanted to look at this visually in a little different way to give us a different perspective.

This, again, is Americans.

I wanted to map up the whole group again, top bottom 10 percent here, top 10 percent there.

We added sort of a color coding map.

So, again, you see what's happening here is the bottom 10 percent losing the most on net and the top 10 percent gaining the most.

For Americans in the middle, you can see here it's neutral.

Mainly, they don't really gain or lose on net in this bill.

But we wanted to get at this layer where not every group in this map controls the same amount of wealth.

So what we did is, we took this and we made groups larger or smaller based on how much wealth they control.

So a larger group controls more wealth.

I want you to watch that top 10 percent.

Look at this.

What happens?

They control in America right now the top 10 percent, according to the Tax Foundation, 50 percent of the wealth, a little bit more, about 50 percent.

Here, you see four, one, two, three, four rows, 40 percent in the middle, that's about 37 percent of the wealth.

But now look at these five rows here, each one representing 10 percent of America.

That's 50 percent of our country right there.

They control how much?

Ten percent of the wealth.

Why does this matter?

This group right here, the top 10 percent, paying the most in taxes for sure, but they're gaining the most in this bill.

This group that has the least power, the least wealth in this country, losing the most.

Essentially, the conclusion here from the CBO data, Amna, is that the wealth gap would increase under this bill.

AMNA NAWAZ: Lisa Desjardins, incredibly clarifying look at what this bill means for Americans.

Thank you.

LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.

GEOFF BENNETT: A major shift in a key vaccine advisory committee has raised alarms among some public health experts about its potential impact on access and guidance.

ACIP, as the committee is known, routinely makes recommendations to the CDC, but Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired every prior member of the panel and appointed seven new ones.

The committee just finished a two-day meeting pushing for a new direction, including a new review of the entire cumulative childhood vaccination schedule, a reevaluation of universal hepatitis B vaccinations for babies, which most experts say should be maintained, and it no longer recommends multidose flu vaccines containing thimerosal.

Joining us now to discuss this is Dr. Jerome Adams, former surgeon general during the first Trump administration.

Thanks for being with us, sir.

DR. JEROME ADAMS, Former U.S.

Surgeon General: Hey, thanks for having me today.

GEOFF BENNETT: So let's start with the makeup of this committee.

One of the co-chairs is Dr. Robert Malone, who says he helped invent the mRNA vaccine technology, but is now widely known for promoting skepticism about those same vaccines.

What are your concerns about some of the new folks who were appointed to this committee by the health secretary?

DR. JEROME ADAMS: Well, that's a great place to start.

And there's so much going on.

I want to try to help people compartmentalize it.

I think about people, policies, and priorities.

And, as you mentioned, very troubling that there was the abrupt dismissal of all of the 17 prior ACIP members, that they were replaced by seven.

And you may have heard this week that the head of the Health Committee, Senator Cassidy, actually called on this ACIP meeting to be postponed until it was fully staffed and staffed with appropriate individuals.

The people who were put on this committee by RFK Jr., many of them have conflicts of interest that weren't disclosed.

They have made money off of vaccine litigation.

They don't have the expertise that other members do.

So the people are concerning.

The policies and procedures are concerning.

This is unprecedented.

The chair of the committee for the first time ever is someone who doesn't have any experience serving on the committee and, as I mentioned, was involved in an anti-vaccine litigation, which was not disclosed.

The fact that you had for the first time ever groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics choosing not to participate in this meeting, unprecedented.

And then, finally, the priorities.

So, people, policies, priorities, we saw a lot of time spent in the last two days discussing long-debunked theories and really not as much time as you would have hoped focused on things like, should we be getting a COVID vaccine this fall?

GEOFF BENNETT: The committee is now reviewing vaccines like MMR and hepatitis B, long considered safe by the medical community.

You mentioned the committee's chair, Martin Kulldorff.

Here's what he had to say.

DR. MARTIN KULLDORFF, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices: We will also be convening a new work group to look at vaccines that have not been subject to review in more than seven years.

This was supposed to be a regular practice of the ACIP, but it has not been done in a thorough and systematic way.

We will change that.

GEOFF BENNETT: So is there any merit to his claim that these vaccines haven't been reviewed in a thorough and systematic way?

DR. JEROME ADAMS: Well, the thorough and systematic way these vaccines were reviewed was through the VRBPAC, which is the FDA committee that the secretary did an end-around on, and the CDC ACIP.

So one of the big problems here is trust.

The way they have gone about this, even if they come up with recommendations that make sense -- we will probably talk about this hopefully before the end of this interview, the thimerosal debate, today -- things that people can in many ways agree upon, they're not going to be trusted.

And I have a lot of fear, concern, and, quite frankly, confidence that far more people are going to be unlikely to be vaccinated moving forward, again, because we're spending so much time talking about debunked theories and baseless claims, instead of focusing on facts and timely things like the measles outbreak in Texas, where we have got two children who died, and the outbreak of whooping cough in Louisiana, where two children have died.

And we're talking about long-settled science.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yes.

Well, you mentioned thimerosal.

Let's talk about that briefly.

This is a mercury-based preservative that's been extensively studied, found not to cause autism.

That's the concern among some of these folks who want to bring it up now.

It's no longer used in the vast majority of flu vaccines.

What should we know about it?

The CDC has long said it's safe.

DR. JEROME ADAMS: Well, the newly restructured ACIP voted 5-1, with one abstention, to recommend against use of any thimerosal-containing flu vaccines.

This is symbolic, but it's impactful.

Thimerosal is only found in about 5 percent of currently available flu shots.

So, this signals a major shift towards legitimizing long-discredited vaccine fears.

It's going to fuel public mistrust.

Experts fear that this could escalate vaccine hesitancy, add extra cost, and reduce access.

The panel member Dr. Meissner pointed out at the end when this vote was going on, and he voted against it, that there are concerns that getting rid of the multidose vials of flu vaccine, that small percentage, would decrease access to some individuals.

And, finally, this vote proceeded without comprehensive CDC analysis or peer-reviewed data, and featured presentations from individuals who lack medical credentials, so, again, not a process that is engendering trust.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, the new chair of this committee, Martin Kulldorff, who we mentioned, said the goal of this new effort is, in his words, to rebuild integrity and trust after missteps during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There were objectively some mistakes, some public health mistakes during the pandemic.

What, in your view, is the best way to rebuild trust?

DR. JEROME ADAMS: There were absolutely mistakes made during the pandemic.

We have to separate a careful litigation and appraisal of what happened during the pandemic from what's going on with vaccines.

And that's important because we're conflating the two, and you're seeing measles, mumps, rubella, vaccination rates fall, and people are blaming it on COVID, which is going to harm us all.

I think it's important that we don't shame and blame individuals who were unvaccinated or undervaccinated.

I would never shame a parent for asking questions.

Yet we also need to make sure we are supporting the long-held and trusted processes that allow scientists, that allow pediatricians, that allow individuals who understand vaccines to debate these issues publicly.

What you're seeing right now is that, instead of advancing science, it really seems to be advancing a political narrative, and that's going to erode confidence, restrict access, and inflate costs for vaccines, all while ignoring pressing disease burdens like flu, COVID-19, and, as I mentioned again, measles, which is spreading like wildfire across our country.

GEOFF BENNETT: Former U.S.

Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams, thank you for your insights this evening.

We appreciate it.

DR. JEROME ADAMS: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ksenia Karelina thought she was going to visit family in Central Russia in January of 2024, but Russian authorities had other ideas.

They detained the 32-year-old because of a small donation she made to support Ukraine.

The Russians charged her with treason and gave her a 12-year sentence in a work camp.

But, just over two months ago, she was released in a swap for a Russian held by the U.S. She told me her story earlier today in her first interview since being released.

For Russian-born-and-raised Ksenia Karelina, dance was always her first love.

KSENIA KARELINA, Freed Russian-American Prisoner: I danced since I was 4 years old.

And that was my choice, because I saw ballet at 4 years old, and I begged my mom to send me to do ballet.

And I fell in love with that, and that's what I'm feeling the best doing.

And it's kind of my personal meditation and nothing else exists while I'm dancing.

AMNA NAWAZ: A summer college program brought her to the U.S.

Her new country became her new love.

KSENIA KARELINA: I studied in university in Russia.

And then, for the summer time, I came here to learn English and to see America.

And then I just fell in love with that and decided to stay that year.

AMNA NAWAZ: Why did you fall in love with it?

What did you like about the U.S.?

KSENIA KARELINA: Everything was new.

And it was -- first of all, it was challenging and I'm an adventurous person myself.

Second of all, I like people and culture.

Everyone were pretty open and very welcoming.

And I like the diversity of America, because, in every state, you can go and you can see something new.

And it's absolutely different from what you have seen before.

AMNA NAWAZ: She built a life with work, friends and another love in boyfriend Chris Van Heerden.

But in 2022, as the country of her birth launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, she felt moved to act, a small donation online for $51.80 to a charity supporting Ukraine.

Tell me about that moment.

Why did you decide to do that?

KSENIA KARELINA: I remember I was overwhelmed with many feelings, because I also have a lot of Ukrainians around me, same people who -- who moved to the U.S. at some point and who built their life here, but they all have families back in Ukraine.

And I would hear all these stories how their family have to drag through that there.

And I could imagine.

My family is afar too.

So I felt for people there, because they are in that situation all out of the sudden.

They lost their homes.

They lost their regular life.

They cannot feel safe anymore.

And it felt overwhelming for me that someone have to feel that.

I felt it's so unfair.

AMNA NAWAZ: Years go by.

In early 2024, Karelina returns to Russia to see her family.

As soon as she arrives, she's pulled for questioning.

What did they ask you about?

KSENIA KARELINA: So, first, they asked how I'm feeling about this Russian-Ukrainian war, which at that point we couldn't name it war.

We could name it special military operation.

So -- and if I participated somehow, and if I know that America and Russia are now not in the best relationships between each other.

And then they asked to search my phone.

And I gave them the phone because I didn't think I have something to worry about.

AMNA NAWAZ: So they end up charging you with state treason for a donation of $51.80 that you made two years earlier.

When you learn that, that you're going to be charged with this, what do you think?

KSENIA KARELINA: First, I probably couldn't believe that it's real.

Everything seemed so surreal, that I wouldn't be able to capture this idea in my mind that you could be charged for 12 to 25 years in prison for a donation of $51.

AMNA NAWAZ: Karelina pleads guilty on advice of her lawyers, is convicted of treason, and sentenced to 12 years.

In the country she once called home, the ballerina now finds herself behind bars and in a new world.

KSENIA KARELINA: It's constant yelling.

It's constant pointing where you did something wrong by yelling, cursing you, and trying to humiliate you as much as possible.

But no one explains you what to do.

Everyone just punish you when you did something wrong.

All of your world, all out of the sudden just flip upside down, and you don't have anything that you're used to anymore.

You don't have your loved ones.

You don't have your freedom.

It's really scary at first, and your mind going to scary places, and everything that you worked on for 31 years before to build your life of your dream.

And I loved my life a lot.

And it's all just taken away from you.

And at first, you don't see the point why you even have to wake up in the morning now.

Why do you even have to do anything now?

Because you don't have your life anymore.

AMNA NAWAZ: As the months pass, Karelina searches for light in the darkest of places, studying stories of survival through history, reading cards from supporters that tell her she's not forgotten, and filling page after page of journals with Russian poetry and messages to herself like this.

KSENIA KARELINA: "Now I know for sure that love is the biggest power of this world.

While you grow love inside you, you're able to get through anything."

AMNA NAWAZ: You had been detained for nine months at that point.

You're facing down years in prison ahead of you.

How did you write that?

Where did that come from?

KSENIA KARELINA: I feel, the more darkness you overcome, and at this highest point of this darkness, when you feel like you're about to break, if you have enough strength, and if you still stick to your values and you still believe in that, believe in love, believe in light, you're finding it in the small details everywhere around you, and you drag through this time, it helps you to get stronger.

AMNA NAWAZ: On the other side of the world, her boyfriend, Chris, has been receiving letters snuck out of Karelina's prison and fighting for her freedom.

A boxer, he brings on board director Peter Berg, who also runs a boxing gym.

Berg makes the case to Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White, who then pleads directly with President Trump for Karelina's release.

A prisoner swap for German-Russian citizen Arthur Petrov means that, in April of 2025, Karelina finds herself on a plane to Abu Dhabi.

KSENIA KARELINA: There was a man who comes to me and who says he is John Ratcliffe, director of the CIA, and he shake my hand and he congratulates me and he say: "Welcome back.

Welcome home."

And I remember this wave of warmth through my body, and it's genuinely making me happy.

And I think that's when I was like, that's all.

I'm safe now.

I'm home now.

AMNA NAWAZ: Safely on U.S. soil, her first hug with Chris in 15 months, and a more rambunctious reunion with her dog back home in L.A. You're back at home in Los Angeles.

You're rebuilding a life there.

What is that like for you day to day?

I mean, does this all feel like you're talking about someone else when you share your stories about time and detention?

What's it like day to day right now?

KSENIA KARELINA: So I'm just taking it little by little.

First need to get Chris back to his skincare routine... KSENIA KARELINA: ... which he abandoned while I'm away.

But to tell you seriously, then, yes, it feels like starting the new life now.

And it's a new chapter, for sure.

And I'm now trying to figure out who I'm going to be when I grow up.

AMNA NAWAZ: The light within she fought to hold on to, Karelina now says she's determined to share with others.

KSENIA KARELINA: I feel like I overcame these dark circumstances, and people going through their old darkness.

And I would love to be able to help people to go through that.

I would never want to be in this kind of circumstances.

I would never want to get into prison.

But I feel it gave me more than it took from me.

AMNA NAWAZ: What do you mean by that?

KSENIA KARELINA: It gave me a lot of strength.

It gave me a lot of confidence in my -- again in my values, or it gave me a lot to digest in a way of -- it gave me a lot of growth.

And as it already happened, we just have to make lemonade from lemon which life gives us, right?

And I feel like that's what it was.

I just want everyone to know, whoever is going through hard times, that there will be other days, and it's going to be better.

You just have to fight for yourself and you just have to find the light and small things, which will help to drag you through hard times.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ksenia Karelina, thank you so much.

Such a pleasure to talk with you.

KSENIA KARELINA: Thank you so much for having me, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: And you can watch the full unedited interview with Ksenia Karelina on our YouTube page.

Finally tonight, we remember a legend in the world of journalism and a longtime member of the PBS family.

Bill Moyers died today at the age of 91.

He was perhaps best known for the long-running programs and documentaries he produced at PBS.

Some of those included the weekly "Bill Moyers Journal," along with "NOW" and special series, including "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth," which drew 30 million viewers at the time.

GEOFF BENNETT: Moyers covered stories in depth, frequently devoting whole episodes to a single issue such as Watergate, the Iran-Contra scandal or poverty and racial justice.

An ordained Baptist minister, Moyers was also a bestselling author of books on topics as wide-ranging as politics and poetry.

He rose to prominence as a close aide and eventual press secretary to President Lyndon B. Johnson.

He moved into journalism, also doing stints at CBS News over the course of his long career.

And he became known for sharp and stinging insights into how money and politics are interwoven.

Here he is warning about dangers to American democracy on his own program "Moyers & Company" back in 2013.

BILL MOYERS, Host, "Moyers & Company": We are so close to losing our democracy to the mercenary class, it's as if we're leaning way over the rim of the Grand Canyon and all that's needed is a swift kick in the pants.

Look out below.

The predators in Washington are only this far from monopoly control over government.

They have bought the political system lock, stock and pork barrel, making change from within impossible.

That's the real joke.

GEOFF BENNETT: Joining us now are two "News Hour" colleagues who worked closely with Bill Moyers over the years, special correspondent Tom Casciato and our own William Brangham.

William, we will start with you.

I know you had a close decades-long working relationship with Bill Moyers.

What do you remember most about working with him and what made that partnership so meaningful?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Bill was just an incredibly generous and passionate and funny man.

His humor didn't always convey on TV, but he was a very, very funny person as well.

He was my first job right out of college 34 years ago, and I became a journalist because of him.

And I just -- I learned that a journalist, yes, you cover the company that spills the chemicals in the river and the people that were hurt by that and who wrote the legislation that allowed that and who funded their campaign, but that a journalist also covers poetry and the arts and science.

I remember Bill, I think it was in 1990, did a documentary about one song, about "Amazing Grace."

We did a documentary series about how we care for people at the end of their lives in America and how we can do a better job of that.

So he just had this incredibly huge, omnivorous and curious.

Mind and I feel, as so many of his colleagues did, incredibly lucky to have worked with him.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Tom, you're en route to the Emmy Awards tonight, where you could actually win for a powerful long-running project that you and your wife did with Bill Moyers chronicling the lives of two families in Milwaukee.

What did it mean to do that work with him?

TOM CASCIATO: Well, it meant the world.

We started in 1991.

We have made a series of five films, Kathleen Hughes, and Bill and I.

The most recent one was last year, 2024.

We asked Bill to work with us on that, and he said: "Oh, no, Tom.

I'm too old.

You and Kathy can do this without me.

Don't worry about it."

And then, as soon as we showed him a rough cut of the film, he said: "I want to do it.

I want to do it."

So we said: "OK, you will narrate it.

We will just bring a sound person to your apartment.

Don't worry about a thing."

He said: "No, no, I want to go to the studio."

So he and his walker and his full-time health attendant and Kathy and I went down, picked him up, went down to WNET studio, PBS studio in New York, and did the narration.

And he was -- I have never seen him as happy.

He was so glad to be in the game again, working on the film, making contributions to the script, significant ones, and still being Bill, still working until the end.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, William, Bill Moyers was one of public media's fiercest advocates.

Why did he fight so hard for it?

What did he think made public media so special?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's right, Geoff.

He was an enormous champion of public media, often said we need to keep reminding ourselves to put the public in public media.

He sometimes took public media to task and journalists more broadly when he felt like we fell down on our essential mission.

He also endured a fair amount of criticism for his own work.

I mean, there were several Republican administrations that criticized him and attacked him for the way he covered their policies.

And, again, we are now seeing again a pronounced attack on public media in this country.

But Bill's mantra always was, the only way that we're going to keep this democracy that we have got going is to have a feisty, free, and robust core of journalists continuing to do their work day in and day out.

I will always remember that from him.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Tom, in the minute we have left, how did Bill Moyers' work in public service, how did that inform his journalism?

TOM CASCIATO: You know, Bill was known as someone who talked -- interviewed everyone, presidents, prime ministers, artists.

But what he really was, was someone who cared about regular Americans.

I think he will go down as history -- I think he will go down in history as someone who talked to America maybe better than anybody ever did for longer than anybody did on television.

But I hope mostly he will be remembered as someone who listened to America on television.

And that was the most special thing about his work, and it will always remain so.

GEOFF BENNETT: Certainly a voice of clarity and conscience in American life.

Our condolences to his family and friends and our thanks to the both of you, Tom Casciato and William Brangham.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Thanks, Geoff.

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

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

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