AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Geoff Bennett is on assignment.

On the "News Hour" tonight: The jobs market once again defies expectations, despite fears that tariffs could soon spur an economic downturn.

President Trump signs an executive order to cut federal funding for PBS and NPR -- the legal fight that lies ahead.

Plus, as the U.S. extends its military campaign to stop Houthi rebels from attacking ships in the Red Sea, Yemen's vice foreign minister comes to Washington to seek more support for his nation's broader fight.

MUSTAPHA NOMAN, Yemeni Vice Minister Foreign Affairs: I came here with many questions, and I will be leaving with more of them.

(BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "News Hour."

The U.S. labor market beat expectations last month, adding 177,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate held steady at 4.2 percent.

But the April jobs number was lower than the March tally.

And some economists are concerned that cracks in the economy are beginning to show, as the effects of President Trump's tariffs become clearer.

The parse the latest report, were joined by Julia Coronado, president and founder of MacroPolicy Perspectives.

That's an independent economic research and consulting firm.

She's also a professor at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin.

Julia, welcome back to the "News Hour."

So, a stronger-than-expected jobs report here.

What does that say to you about how employers are viewing these tariffs and trade wars?

JULIA CORONADO, MacroPolicy Perspectives: So you're right.

It's a still-healthy job market.

We had a solid number of job gains for April.

We did see a few warning signs.

So we saw some downward revisions to the job gains of prior months.

And we also know that the federal job cuts that have been announced to date have not fully been reflected.

Many of these employees are still on paid leave.

And so they did not show up as job losses.

We also saw a boost from the trade, from that surge of imports we saw that was ahead of the tariffs.

We saw a lot of transportation and warehousing.

That sector may feel some pain in coming months.

So, still healthy, still a decent number of job gains, but still concern about the trend, which is sort of on a cooling trend.

AMNA NAWAZ: And we know the Trump administration says that they expect trade deals to start to close soon and announce them.

But, in this era of uncertainty, what does that mean for how employers are able to plan, how they're able to make plans for both staffing and hiring, but also layoffs if needed?

JULIA CORONADO: That's right.

I mean, you're touching that there's two challenges for firms right now.

One is the trade war itself.

They have to pay higher tariffs.

There are supply chain frictions that may come along with that.

There's some retaliatory measures in other countries.

That creates actual increased costs and difficulties doing business.

The second challenge is just not knowing where this ends.

Not knowing what the landing place is or sort of what the strategy is for the next few months leaves companies with a lot of uncertainty.

They just don't know when sort of the clouds will lift and they will know what the world looks like.

And that makes it difficult to commit to hiring and investing and spending.

So we hear a lot from companies about wait and see, about just holding off.

And that's a dangerous dynamic for the macroeconomy.

The more companies do that, the fewer job gains we might see, and then the whole feedback loop between hiring and spending and growth grinds to a halt.

AMNA NAWAZ: Julia, as you know, there's been a lot of headlines about concerning data points in the economy, consumer confidence slipping and market losses and so on.

But we should point out, for the past couple of months, the job market has beat expectations.

You have now seen the market losses that we saw in the last several weeks now wiped away.

Does this all say something to you about the resilience of the economy or is it too soon to tell?

JULIA CORONADO: Probably a little of both.

The U.S. economy often surprises us with its resilience.

It is a gigantic ocean liner.

We have the largest, most diversified economy in the world.

So tipping it over is not easy.

It doesn't happen very frequently.

And it really takes a lot of bad news and shocks to actually tip the economy into a recession.

So I would say, yes, it's a relief that we see the job market still healthy overall.

But it is too soon to draw strong conclusions.

We have just experienced this shock.

There's a lot of -- if you think about businesses, there's a lot of activity that's still in the pipeline that's moving forward.

It's really kind of that next wave of plans that we need to keep an eye on.

So business sentiment has taken a hit.

Consumer sentiment has taken a hit.

We need to watch for whether that sort of gloomy sentiment actually translates into decision-making really in the next three to six months.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, Julia Coronado, president and founder of MacroPolicy Perspectives, thank you so much for joining us.

Really appreciate your time.

JULIA CORONADO: My pleasure.

AMNA NAWAZ: We start the day's other headlines with plans by the U.S. army to host a massive parade this summer for its 250th anniversary.

According to a statement from the Pentagon out late today, the event would include approximately 6,600 soldiers, 150 vehicles and 50 aircraft, plus musical performances and other events.

The date is set for June 14, which happens to be President Trump's birthday.

The statement does not include price estimates, though such events typically cost tens of millions of dollars.

High costs played a role in halting Trump's push for parade in his first term.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney says he will meet with President Trump at the White House on Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters for the first time since his election went earlier this week, Carney said voters want his government to stand up to Trump and build a strong economy.

The former central banker enjoyed a late surge in the polls as Trump pursued a trade war with Canada and said the nation should become the 51st state.

Carney told reporters he's well aware of the challenges of next week's high-stakes meeting.

MARK CARNEY, Canadian Prime Minister: I'm not pretending those discussions will be easier.

They won't proceed in a straight line.

There will be zigs and zags ups and downs.

But as I said in my remarks, I will fight for the best deal for Canada and only accept the best deal for Canada and take as much time as it's necessary.

AMNA NAWAZ: Carney also announced that King Charles III will deliver a speech to Parliament at the end of the month.

The British monarch is the head of state in Canada.

The country's part of the British Commonwealth of former colonies.

Turning overseas, organizers of an aid shipment bound for Gaza say drones attacked their vessel.

The group says the ship was in international waters off the coast of Malta, carrying 12 crew members and four civilians.

Cell phone video showed an explosion on the ship, which caused a fire to.

Malta's government as no injuries were reported.

The organizers said, without evidence, that Israel carried out the attack.

Israel has not commented.

Here at home, a judge sentenced an Illinois landlord to 53 years in prison today for a hate crime attack that killed a Palestinian-American boy.

Joseph Czuba was found guilty on murder, attempted murder, and hate crime charges earlier this year.

He fatally stabbed 6-year-old Wadee Alfayoumi and seriously injured the boy's mother in 2023.

The family were Czuba's tenants at the time.

And authorities say he attacked them because of their Muslim faith and in response to the Israel-Hamas war.

Final preparations are taking place at the Vatican ahead of next week's conclave to select a new pope.

This morning, workers installed a chimney to the roof of the Sistine Chapel.

It'll be used in the burning of the ballots as cardinals vote for a successor to Pope Francis, who died last month.

Black smoke, of course, means no decision has been made.

White smoke will signal that the 267th pope has been elected.

It took five rounds of voting in 2013 before the white smoke emerged to announce the selection of Pope Francis.

The secret conclave begins next Wednesday.

Prince Harry says he would love to reconcile with Britain's royal family, saying he doesn't know how long his father, King Charles, has to live.

He made the comments to the BBC just hours after losing a legal bid in the U.K. to restore police protection when visiting the country.

The duke of Sussex was stripped of his publicly funded security after he stepped down from his royal duties in 2020.

He says the issue has been a source of friction between him and his 76-year-old father, who's battling an undisclosed form of cancer.

The NBA's all-time wins leader is stepping down as coach of the San Antonio Spurs.

Gregg Popovich won five championships with the team over a three-decade career.

He also led the U.S. men's squad to a gold medal at the Tokyo Olympics.

And he coached six Hall of Famers en route to his own inclusion in the hall in 2023.

The 76-year-old missed all but five games this season after suffering a stroke last November.

Popovich will stay on with the Spurs as team president.

On Wall Street, that reassuring jobs data helped drive stocks higher to end the week.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained more than 500 points on the day.

The Nasdaq jumped 266 points, or 1.5 percent.

The S&P 500 also ended higher, erasing all its losses from Trump's chaotic tariff rollout last month.

And we have two passings of note.

Singer and songwriter Jill Sobule has died.

(MUSIC) AMNA NAWAZ: She gained national attention in 1995 with the song "I Kissed a Girl" that became an LGBTQ anthem and was banned on several Southern radio stations.

That same year, she enjoyed success with "Supermodel," which was featured in the hit film "Clueless."

Sobule released 12 albums over a three-decade career with songs that touched on complex issues like the death penalty, anorexia and reproductive rights.

She died in a house fire in the Minneapolis area yesterday.

She was 66 years old.

And comedian Ruth Buzzi has died.

She was a fixture on the groundbreaking sketch comedy series "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In," which ran from 1968 to 1973.

RUTH BUZZI, Actress: Kiss me, you Latin lovely.

(LAUGHTER) RUTH BUZZI: Oh.

(LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: Her most famous role was Gladys Ormphby, clad in her hairnet and armed with her handbag.

She earned two Emmy nominations and won a Golden Globe during her six years on the show.

Buzzi later grabbed another Emmy nod for playing shopkeeper Ruthie on "Sesame Street."

All told, she made over 200 TV appearances over 45 years in the business.

Buzzi had suffered from Alzheimer's and died at her home in Texas yesterday.

Ruth Buzzi was 88 years old.

Still to come on the "News Hour": we look at how effective Elon Musk and DOGE have been at cutting government spending over 100 days into the Trump administration; a conservative perspective on President Trump's effort to exert more authority over history and the arts; and David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart break down this week's political headlines.

President Trump issued an executive order overnight instructing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to halt all funding for PBS and NPR, which would impact those two networks, the roughly 1,500 public media stations nationwide, as well as national programs like the "News Hour."

William Brangham is here now to explain the latest.

So, William, the president has long said that he wants to cut funding for public media.

This is another approach to doing just that.

So what exactly does the executive order say?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's right, Amna.

This has been a long on the president's wish list.

I mean, many GOP administrations have wanted to do this.

His administration, though, has been much more forceful about pushing for these cuts.

This executive order, as you noted, directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop all direct federal taxpayer funds from going to NPR and to PBS.

And, as we have reported in the past, that would have quite a few impacts across the network all over this country.

The president argues that public media in general has a liberal bias and that taxpayers should not be supporting that.

Last month, the president wrote this -- quote -- "Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR and PBS, the radical left monsters that so badly hurt our country."

We should say, as we have before, the heads of PBS and NPR reject that categorization.

But, again, this executive order tries to zero out funding for those organizations.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, William, what about, though, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the CPB, which we should reiterate is a congressionally created corporation that directs about $500 million to both PBS and NPR every year?

What have they said in response?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Pat Harrison, cited that fact that you just stated, which is that CPB was created by Congress, not by the White House, and so the executive office has no authority over their governance.

In her statement, she went on to say -- quote -- "In creating CPB, Congress expressly forbade any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision or control over educational television or radio broadcasting or over CPB or any of its grantees or contractors."

So she's saying that Congress is in the driver's seat, not the White House.

The heads of PBS and NPR argued much the same.

Paula Kerger, the head of PBS, called this E.O.

-- quote -- "blatantly unlawful."

Katherine Maher, the head of NPR, said it will -- quote -- "challenge this executive order using all means available."

Of course, this also comes after the Trump administration this week tried to push out three members, all Democrats, from the board of CPB.

And CPB is now suing over that.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, William, last month you reported on a different possible means of cutting public media funding that was not an executive order.

What changed?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's right.

In the past, the administration had tried this process called rescission.

They said they were going to send a memo to Congress asking Congress to approve or deny clawing back the money that had been appropriated for the CPB.

But Lisa Desjardins told us the -- that the White House got nervous because they started to hear from some Republicans, not all, but that some were resistant to cutting public media because they liked the public media stations in their communities and they didn't want to cut it.

So, because of the GOP's tight margins and because they were going to have this big negotiation over this spending, immigration, tax bill, the White House tried this approach instead.

Again, it is unclear if this will work.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, William, just pull back for a little bit here.

How does this fit into the larger campaign by the Trump administration that they're waging against the press?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, this is definitely part of a much larger strategy, that the president is pushing back on all of the organizations and institutions that he believes are against him and his agenda.

I mean, as we well know, most presidents have a fraught relationship with the press.

But few take it to the extreme that this president has, either rhetorically or legally.

I mean, he's repeatedly called the press the enemy of the people.

He has sued ABC and CBS and "60 Minutes."

He pushed the Associated Press out of the pool.

He's called pollsters very recently from major media institutions criminals who should be investigated for election fraud because they published polls showing that his current policies are unpopular.

There's an organization that's called Reporters Without Borders.

And, every year, they put out an annual measure of world press freedom.

We should put up this chart.

They just issued their most recent report, and it says that press freedoms in the United States have fallen to historical lows.

AMNA NAWAZ: William Brangham.

William, thank you, as always, for your reporting.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Thanks, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: And you can stay up to date on the efforts to cut public media funding and find all of our coverage by signing up for our newsletters.

That's at PBS.org/NewsHour/email.

Well, the White House unveiled a budget proposal today that would cut billions from non-defense programs across the government for the next fiscal year.

Our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, has more on the president's wish list as part of our coverage this week of the first 100 days of this Trump administration.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Amna, the president wants to slash $163 billion in federal spending, to be exact.

The dramatic cuts would hit health, housing, education and climate programs.

President Trump, with the help of Elon Musk, has already frozen funding for many of these programs without congressional approval.

Musk's team, known as DOGE, has led the firings of tens of thousands of federal workers, and they have hollowed out nearly a dozen agencies in their efforts to dismantle parts of the federal government.

For more on all of this, I'm joined by Jessica Riedl.

She's a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

She was also chief economist for former Republican Senator Rob Portman.

Jessica, thanks so much for joining us.

JESSICA RIEDL, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute: Thank you very much.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, first on the news of the day.

Presidential budgets don't have the force of law, so they're often considered a guide to the president's governing philosophy.

Reading through Trump's budget, what do you think is the governing philosophy here?

JESSICA RIEDL: Well, the governing philosophy is ultimately what they call a war on woke.

The word woke appears 12 times.

DEI appears 31 times.

Gender appears 14 times.

Generally, there's a lot of spending cuts that are based on a very exaggerated definition of woke.

The largest cuts that I have seen are the NIH, housing, transportation, United Nations, and international spending.

But, overall, the vision the president is putting out is $163 billion in savings from traditional domestic programs, of which the entire $163 billion would be reprogrammed into increases for defense and Border Patrol.

So there's not really any cuts here.

It's just a movement from domestic programs to border and defense spending.

In fact, it could actually increase deficits, because the budget also reduces funding for IRS enforcement, which will hit the revenue side.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, ultimately, can President Trump and Republicans achieve the spending cuts that they're talking about without cutting things like Medicaid?

JESSICA RIEDL: Not really.

The Republican budget envisioned about $1.2 trillion in spending cuts to partially pay for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

Well, even those cuts are increasingly unlikely to pass, and they're not going to get any help on the discretionary side, when, again, all the cuts go into new spending on the discretionary side.

Really, I think where a lot of ways this budget matters is not what they can pass through Congress, because most of these spending cuts can't pass Congress.

But it is a signal of perhaps what they're going to try to do outside of Congress, what they're going to try to do through executive order and by DOGE in trying to achieve savings that way.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: I want to ask you about DOGE, because they play a role here.

So, Elon Musk says that he's taking a step back soon from his job inside the White House.

How effective has his team been when it comes to cutting government spending?

JESSICA RIEDL: DOGE has been really effective generating headlines and creating chaos.

But despite promises to save $2 trillion, then downscaled to $1 trillion, then $150 billion, and they claim they have already saved $160 billion, the actual verified savings have been closer to about $5 or $6 billion, which is one-tenth of 1 percent of federal spending.

That's all, because they have really focused on cultural totems, like DEI grants, foreign aid, government employees.

That's not really where the money is.

It creates a lot of excitement among MAGA voters, but they have truly only saved one-tenth of 1 percent of federal spending.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Right.

They haven't touched defense or other big-ticket items.

And Musk promised some $2 trillion initially worth of cuts to government spending.

And DOGE claims on its Web site that it saved about $160 billion.

But many of these cuts have either been halted by the courts or Republicans are now saying that they may not want to enshrine them into law.

So, if Republicans don't make these cuts law, are they actually legal?

JESSICA RIEDL: Many of them are not legal.

Trying to eliminate many of the programs in USAID, which is a lot of the foreign aid programs, is not legal unless Congress blesses it.

Eliminating the Department of Education is not legal unless Congress blesses it.

What DOGE can do is reallocate spending across different programs.

They can move money from one grant to another, but it is not legal or constitutional for DOGE to unilaterally eliminate entire government programs or agencies that were created by Congress and signed into law.

Unless Congress passes new legislation removing that spending, the courts are going to order it reopened as an illegal termination known as an impoundment.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, some of those cuts could end up being reversed?

JESSICA RIEDL: Absolutely.

In fact, I would expect a healthy dose of these cuts to be reversed by the courts, unless Congress passes what's called a rescission bill to cancel spending that's already been enacted.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: One of the other things Elon Musk has claimed repeatedly is that he's rooting out fraud.

In your analysis of their wall of receipts, have you seen any fraudulent programs that are being cut?

JESSICA RIEDL: I have not seen examples of fraud.

In fact, the wall of receipts has mostly consisted of mathematical and accounting errors.

There was things like mistaking an $8 million cut for an $8 billion cut, triple-counting the same savings, counting the termination of a grant from 20 years ago as new savings.

There's a lot of ideological decisions to cancel contracts, but true fraud, the kind of thing that would lead to indictments or people being arrested, DOGE really hasn't uncovered it.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Jessica Riedl, conservative economist with the Manhattan Institute, thank you for your time.

JESSICA RIEDL: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, the Defense Department ordered an aircraft carrier to remain in the Middle East.

That means the U.S. will maintain two carriers in the region, in part because of the ongoing war against the Houthis in Yemen.

For seven weeks, the U.S. has been bombing the group that it labels as terrorist in response to its attacks on commercial and U.S. ships.

Nick Schifrin speaks to a senior member of Yemen's internationally recognized government.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The Houthis are an Iranian-backed rebel group that in 2014 seized the capital, Sanaa, and much of the country's northern highlands and coast along the Red Sea.

Most of the rest of Yemen is controlled by the internationally recognized government, which has fought the Houthis with the support of a Saudi-led coalition that failed to defeat the Houthis with seven years of U.S.-backed airstrikes.

Beginning in November 2023, Houthi rebels launched more than 100 attacks on commercial vessels and U.S. Navy ships.

The Houthis claimed to attack ships linked to Israel in solidarity with the war in Gaza, but their targets were much wider.

Earlier this year, during a Gaza cease-fire, the Houthis paused their attacks.

But when Israel blocked humanitarian aid to Gaza and restarted the war, the Houthis started targeting Israel again and vowed to target ships.

In mid-March, the U.S. started a new bombing campaign that for the first time targeted Houthi leadership, vowing to continue it until the Houthis stopped their attacks in the Red Sea, a vital trade corridor.

To discuss this, I am joined by Mustapha Noman, the vice foreign minister of the internationally recognized Yemeni government.

Mustapha Noman, thank you very much.

Welcome.

MUSTAPHA NOMAN, Yemeni Vice Minister Foreign Affairs: It's an honor to be with you.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you believe the U.S. bombing campaign so far has been effective?

And can it achieve what the U.S. says is the goal, to stop these Houthi attacks on ships?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: Nobody has an assessment or a conclusive figure of what's happening, what are the losses, how much are the Houthis weakened?

And if you don't have all these parameters, you will not be able to decide if the campaign has achieved its goals, which the Yemeni government does not have an idea what they are.

We have seen so many statements, official statements, either by the president or vice president, the secretary, and they are talking about the security in the Red Sea.

And my question is, what if the Houthis decide now that they are -- they will not attack anymore vessels, no commercial vessels or no military vessels?

What would be the response of the administration?

This is what my government is seeking to understand.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And, to this moment, you're here in Washington.

You still do not understand it?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: I came here with many questions and I will be leaving with more of them.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Let me play one version of what the U.S. goal is, stated by Vice President Vance last night on FOX News, making it clear the mission was restricted and making it clear he was OK with the Houthis so long as they weren't attacking ships.

J.D.

VANCE, Vice President of the United States: I actually think we're at a good place for the Houthis to stop attacking civilian vessels, to go back to doing whatever it is they were doing before they were attacking civilian vessels.

And I think that, if that were happening, then this bombing campaign would be over the next day.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Do you support the U.S. having that kind of restricted mission?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: Whether I approve it or not would make any difference.

But if the Houthis said we're done, for me, as the Yemeni government, that would not solve the problem in Yemen.

That would create more problems.

That would create a vacuum that nobody can fill.

The only guys who can fill this vacuum are the al-Qaida or ISIS.

If the Houthis are weakened to the point that they relinquish the territories they are now controlling, now you will need the government to come and fill in this vacuum.

But the government at this moment is seeking the assistance of the United States, either by arms or by the logistical assistance or by funding the army to go into this war, which is not happening until this moment.

NICK SCHIFRIN: OK, so let's zoom in on that.

What you're saying is, the U.S. cannot achieve its goals without some kind of ground operation.

Is that right?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: Absolutely.

Absolutely.

I mean, the air campaign has never succeeded anywhere.

You have to have a ground offensive.

You have to have an organized, disciplined army on the other side or armed forces on the other side that can help you in achieving, so you can bomb an area, and you let your partner on the other side to come and fill it.

Until this moment, it's not happening.

We are just seeing an air campaign that is definitely weakening the Houthis.

But the question would be, is it weakening them to the point that will allow the government forces to come in and help?

And if that is the case, is the national army well-equipped to do that?

And the other question is, is the United States willing to arm the national army to go into this war?

NICK SCHIFRIN: And do you know the answer of whether the United States is willing to?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: No one has a conclusive answer.

What my fear is, what if the administration gets impatient?

Because we know that there are increasing expenses on this -- for this campaign.

So what if the administration says, well, we have done enough, we have weakened the Houthis enough, so it's now for the Yemenis to decide what they want to do next?

The administration has been very clear.

The goal of this campaign is not regime change.

It's not to solve the Yemenis' problem.

It's just to secure the safety and security in the Red Sea.

For me as a Yemeni, I care about Yemen, the land, the territory, the borders, more than I care about what's happening in the Red Sea.

NICK SCHIFRIN: So answer your own question.

What happens if the U.S. keeps this mission restricted, does not support ground troops, and therefore at one point does say, OK, the Houthis stopped, so we're going to stop?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: The Houthis will be -- will not disappear.

And then we can start this whole cycle again over and over and over.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Regardless of what the U.S. decides, are you today capable of mobilizing anti-Houthi forces?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: The government has not enough arms.

Like, the government doesn't have an air force.

It doesn't have helicopters, no air fighters, no cannons, no tanks.

So with all this deficiency within the government power, it's very hard to see how we can help.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But, as we say, there's a bit of a chicken-and-egg question here.

Regardless of whether the U.S. is ready... are you ready if the U.S. and coalition allies were to make this decision to help you?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: Yes, we are emotionally ready... but not equipped enough to do that.

Don't forget that the Houthis have enough weapons to go after all the infrastructure... NICK SCHIFRIN: Iranian-backed?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: Yes, of course.

And they have enough arms, missiles, drones.

They can go after all the infrastructure under the government - - in the government territories.

NICK SCHIFRIN: There's another narrative that skeptics of any kind of plan of doing any kind of ground operation in Yemen have right now, which is that these anti-Houthi forces are fragmented, that they fight each other, and then they're not capable of coordinating in efforts.

Is that true?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: It's not yet, until this moment, unified.

What the government is trying to do is to have an operations room for all these forces to start to coordinate between them.

And if that happens and if it's established on the ground, then they can go after the Houthis.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Let me switch to the humanitarian situation.

An estimated 19.5 million people, over half the population, is dependent on aid, nearly five million displaced.

And over the last five years, the U.S. has been consistently Yemen's largest donor.

But our sources tell us many humanitarian projects in Southern Yemen have been forced to shut down due to recent USAID funding cuts.

What's the impact on civilians of those cuts?

And are you in negotiations with the Trump administration to try and get some of those humanitarian funds back?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: I will give you an example.

The World Food Program, the WFP, has announced that they were feeding 9.5 million Yemenis.

With the funding reduced now, they are capable of just feeding 2.2 million.

And by the end of this year, it will be zero.

The population is not going to go into hunger.

It's going to go into famine because of this cut of the USAID.

And even at that time, if the United States decided to resume, I'm sure they are not going to do what they used to do, not the full budget, not the full volume of the money that they use in Yemen.

And... NICK SCHIFRIN: And so people will die?

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: Absolutely.

And if that happens, the air campaign will never achieve its goals.

You -- we have to combine them both.

If you want to win this war in the Houthi areas, you have to make the other side, the other -- the population that's living out of the Houthi areas, to feel that they are fed, that somebody cares about, and that they are -- the United States, as the major donor to all the humanitarian assistance in Yemen, will resume its activities.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Mustapha Noman, the vice foreign minister of the internationally recognized government, thank you very much.

MUSTAPHA NOMAN: Thank you very much.

AMNA NAWAZ: Restoring truth and sanity to American history, that is what President Trump says he wants to do.

And an executive order with that title accuses the Smithsonian Institution and other museums of promoting -- quote -- "narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive."

It's one of several recent actions targeting the arts and agencies like the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Last night, senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown spoke to Yale historian David Blight, a critic of the president's moves.

Tonight, he gets a different view for our series Art in Action, exploring the intersection of art and democracy and part of our Canvas coverage.

JEFFREY BROWN: Joining me now is Christopher Scalia.

He's senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on culture, literature and higher education.

A former English professor, he's author of the upcoming book "13 Novels Conservatives Will Love (But Probably Haven't Read)."

Thank you so much for joining us.

So, the president has been critical of what he calls a revisionist movement in how American history and culture are portrayed.

Do you agree with that?

And where do you see it?

CHRISTOPHER SCALIA, American Enterprise Institute: Thanks for having me, Geoff.

It's great to talk to you.

I think that the president has a point.

The point isn't that historians can't revise how we understand America's past, but really the point is to push back against this movement in museums and elsewhere that focuses on the shortcomings, flaws and mistakes of America and its past.

Certainly, there are some.

But I think the president is trying to get museums and educators to focus -- not ignore those, but to focus on the virtues and greatness of the United States.

JEFFREY BROWN: We had Yale historian David Blight on the program.

He said: DAVID BLIGHT, Yale University: We want our doctors to be trained and we want them to revise what they know based on new evidence and new techniques.

We also want our historians to revise the past.

JEFFREY BROWN: So what's your response to something like that?

CHRISTOPHER SCALIA: It is not about ignoring new historical discoveries, and, for example, our understanding of slavery and exactly how inhumane slavery was, but the focus tends -- in Trump's telling, and I think a lot of conservatives feel this way, is that that gets so much emphasis.

Americans -- the constant emphasis on that makes Americans feel ashamed of their past.

There are things about our past that should embarrass us and shame us, but those aren't the only things we should be hearing about.

And I think the president's right to say that, in institutions that are funded by the federal government and that are open to all Americans, especially as we approach the 250th anniversary of our founding, it's a good idea to really put the emphasis on celebrating America's history, including new discoveries historians have made through new methods.

JEFFREY BROWN: How does that happen, though, without erasing or covering up important parts of American history?

I mean, we have already, even in the last month or so, seen some moves targeting DEI efforts that then leave out the accomplishments of women or African Americans or others in history.

CHRISTOPHER SCALIA: No museum can capture all of American history or all of American art.

And so there has to be some selection.

And that's what curators do.

Again, I don't think that's the same as erasing the past.

I think that's choosing what elements of the past to focus on in specific museums that are funded by taxpayers.

Nobody is telling Dr. Blight that he can't study these things, that he can't teach these things to his students, that university or popular presses can't publish his findings and the findings of his peers.

But the point more is about what -- if the federal government is going to be funding museums and other institutions, what should they be focusing on?

JEFFREY BROWN: Where do you draw the line and where does it become a form of censorship?

CHRISTOPHER SCALIA: Well, I don't think it's censorship for the government to say, we're not funding that.

That's just a basic role that the government needs to do.

What you're hitting on is a question that's really kind of central to the conservative movement itself historically.

There is a debate over whether the federal government should be involved in these things at all.

And the more libertarian-minded conservative says, no, these are good things, but they're not central to the purpose of a federal government, and instead these things should be funded by private institutions.

And other conservatives say, well, this is actually a great opportunity for President Trump to reframe the debate of what America is, especially as we approach our 250th anniversary or birthday.

And it's totally within the purview of the federal government to say, taxpayers are paying for this museum.

It is under the auspices of the federal government, so the federal government should have some say in what those museums do.

JEFFREY BROWN: You're arguing that progressives have gone too far in the presentation of art and history.

Do you worry about your fellow conservatives going too far in the other direction?

CHRISTOPHER SCALIA: I don't worry about it, but I certainly think it's possible.

It would be a mistake, for example, for conservatives to say that because they don't like what the National Endowment for the Arts is doing, that the arts in general aren't worth celebrating and aren't worth engaging with and appreciating.

And I think that would be a huge mistake.

The arts -- in the context, for example, of American identity, the arts are such an important part of understanding what America is, who Americans are.

And I hope that, no matter what Trump decides about the NEA, conservatives embrace the arts and the American vision they present.

JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Christopher Scalia, thank you very much.

CHRISTOPHER SCALIA: Thank you, Jeffrey.

AMNA NAWAZ: The week began with President Trump marking 100 days in office and closed with his calling for an end to federal funds for public media.

To discuss those events and more from the week, we're joined once again by our friends Brooks and Capehart.

That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Man, is it good to see you both at the end of this week.

(LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: Let's jump right in.

Guys, in the first 100 days, we have now seen the first major shakeup in the administration with the ouster of Mike Waltz.

He's been moved from national security adviser to the United Nations.

But, before that, we had a PBS News/NPR/Marist poll that took the temperature of Americans.

They had to say this.

On President Trump's job performance overall, they gave him a 42 percent approval, 53 percent disapproval.

On his two biggest issues, on immigration, he's underwater, 44 percent approving, 52 percent disapproving, and on the economy, 39 percent approving, 55 percent disapproving.

More importantly, when people were asked to give him a report card, they give him a grade, more than half, half of respondents, responded with an F. Jonathan, this is a president who moved fast, got a lot done.

What do you make of how Americans are taking it all in?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, that last chart you showed shows that the American people -- I mean, F, that's serious.

People are not happy.

The PBS poll shows it, and the raft of other polls that came out last week also show it.

The American people are not happy with the president.

They're not happy with what he's doing, how he's doing it.

The one thing -- the one thing caution, though, is that from Trump's first time as president, I learned he couldn't care less about the overall numbers.

He cares about the Republicans.

Where do Republicans stand when it comes to him?

And I will admit, I did not look for that crosstab in the PBS/Marist poll, but I did in the other polls last week, and his support among Republicans remains strong.

And so, if you take that, he looks for their support.

Plus, a president in his second term, who feels like he has the power and is exercising the power to do whatever he wants, who cares about the American people?

I think we're -- he's not going to pay attention to these horrible poll numbers.

I think he's just going to keep plowing ahead.

AMNA NAWAZ: I just want to clarify too, it's 45 percent gave him an F, just in the way of getting the numbers right there.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: It's still a lot.

AMNA NAWAZ: It is a lot.

David, your reaction?

DAVID BROOKS: I had a lot of C's, D's, and F's in school, and I did fine.

AMNA NAWAZ: You turned out OK. (LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: What's striking about those numbers is his economic rating is underneath his overall rating, when the economy was generally his strong thing.

So that's -- and the same with immigration.

So that's kind of telling.

Among the Trump supporters that I have spoken to in the last three or four weeks, I would say there's some group who think, I'm taking hit on my retirement money, this is disrupting me, but I love my country and I'm willing to pay the price for the long-term benefit of this country.

So that's a chunk.

Then there's a chunk who are still Trump supporters, but who are now filled with a lot of ambivalence.

And so this is really messing up my business as an electrician.

This is really messing up my supply chain.

This is my small business, I don't know.

I wish he had gone after China, but not after Europe on tariffs.

So they're still supportive, but they're super ambivalent.

And then there's another group of people who are more swingy and a little more independent.

And some of them are saying, I don't know about this.

But then if you go down the income scale, there are a lot of people who are Trump voters who are, like, panicked.

Like, when they see a $9 carton of eggs, that's like -- that's a reality.

And so those people are flaking off big time.

And so when you look at the where the Trump is losing the support, it's among those independents and especially a little lower down the income stream.

But the rest are - - there are a lot of waverers, and they're like, I don't know, this doesn't look good, but they haven't made a decision yet.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, let's talk about how the Democrats are responding in these first 100 days as the opposition party.

We did see Kamala Harris come out.

And deliver her first major speech since leaving the White House, warning of what's to come for the rest of the Trump administration.

She also praised Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for speaking out against their president in this continuing Fighting Oligarchy Tour.

And I should note that Geoff Bennett, who's not here with us now, he's out with our partner local member station KQED in the Bay Area for a Reframe Festival.

He sat down with Nancy Pelosi earlier today and asked her about Democrats' messaging, which should change from their 2024 message.

Here's part of what she had to say.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): When somebody doesn't get a message, it's not because of them.

It's because of us who are delivering the message, that we did not deliver it clearly enough.

This guy comes along and says he's going to lower prices.

He hasn't.

He's going to do this.

He's going to do that.

All a smokescreen.

But we have to make sure the public knows what is in their interest.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Jonathan, are Democrats leaning into the issues they should be at this moment?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I think they are, now that they have, like, shaken off the stunned nature since the election and certainly after the inauguration.

I think the issue here is, there's no one thing to focus on.

There is no one thing, one message.

There's the economy.

There's immigration.

There's civil liberties.

There's due process.

There are a whole host of issues that Democrats have to talk about.

And they don't all have to talk about the same thing at the same time.

I think Democrats need to be out there talking -- hitting on the issues that those individual lawmakers really care about, where they can speak to those issues with authenticity that speak to where people's concerns are.

And I do want to point something out, that Vice President Harris didn't just mention AOC and Bernie Sanders.

She talked about the breadth of Democrats who are out there speaking out, from Cory Booker and Senator Chris Murphy, Congressman Maxwell Frost.

These are all Democrats who are out there talking about any number of issues all at once, all at the same time, really highlighting what their concerns are about this president and his administration.

AMNA NAWAZ: David, what do you make of that approach?

DAVID BROOKS: You know, the Democrats are off the mat, so they feel good that they have had people speaking.

I think they're doing it in a pretty poor way, frankly.

The polling is bad for Trump.

But when they ask voters who would you vote for if you had rerun the 2024 election, Trump still wins over Harris by two.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.

DAVID BROOKS: And so -- and then I think it's a mistake to have, frankly, AOC and Sanders out there doing the rallies.

AOC has a approval rating of 30.

And so why are you leading with someone who is going to turn off a lot -- is going to rally the base, for sure, but turn off a lot of the voters who you need to win?

And so what I think this is not the -- this should not be fought right now as a left-right conventional Democrat, Republican.

Donald Trump is attacking institutions.

And this should be -- opposition to Donald Trump should be of nonpartisan defense of institutions, of the courts, of rule of law, of NIH.

And the more you make it partisan, the more you're cutting yourself off from at least half the country.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, you want to quickly respond?

I saw a look of skepticism.

Go ahead.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes, it's not like the Democratic Party is pushing Sanders and AOC out there.

They decided to go out on their own.

And that speaks to a bigger issue within the Democratic Party.

And, also, remember, Sanders and AOC were going to red states.

They weren't rallying the base in Virginia, New Jersey.

AMNA NAWAZ: Right.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: They were in Montana and Idaho.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, David, I want to come to you on this other topic, because I know you're obviously both here because you are believers in the power of public media.

We did see President Trump issue this executive order directing that federal funding should be cut for NPR and PBS.

He's alleging bias in the reporting.

And it is, as we have seen, the latest move by the president to use executive power and the levers of government to target institutions, media, cultural, academic, that he disagrees with.

At its core, what do you believe this is about?

DAVID BROOKS: At its core, the Trump administration is based on one them, which is, they think progressive elites have destroyed the country, we need to take progressive elites down.

And that's whether they're in museums and sciences and universities, whatever.

And so, in some sense, they have some case to be made that the elites have become a little more progressive.

But as they go after CPB, I'm reminded of the call I got 23 years ago from Jim Lehrer offering me this job.

And I'm sitting there, of course, in a little league dugout.

And Jim said: "You're going to be on the show on Fridays.

We want you out and do a lot of reporting.

You got to bring something to the game.

This is about journalism."

And I would say, if you think the PBS is biased, compared to who?

Name one news organization in America -- and I shouldn't be defending us.

I get paid by PBS.

But I'm going to do it -- who's more straight down the line than we are.

Is it MSNBC?

Is it FOX?

Is it CNN?

Lisa Desjardins, like, one of the great journalists of our time?

And so I will defend PBS, A, because I know how good we do in relative terms, but, B, because we travel around the country.

We see the local affiliates where they're not doing some ideological thing.

They are the voice of their community.

And so that's one of the reasons I'm violating my normal principle of never defending somebody I work for... (LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: ... and trying to say, this is how I was hired, to be a journalist.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, what do you make of the president's moves at this time, not just about PBS?

This is not just about us.

It's part of a larger campaign here.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right.

And I was going to say, well, what can I say after that passionate defense of PBS and CPB?

But I think what the president is doing, it is a fundamental attack on our Constitution, on the foundation of this country.

People need to understand and remember, there is only one profession that is protected in the Constitution, and it is the free press.

It is the press.

And why?

Because the founders understood that the survival of a democracy depends on an informed citizenry.

And the citizenry can only be informed by a press that can report and do -- report on the affairs of the republic free and unfettered.

And whether they are -- come from the left or from the right, the government should not interfere with that reporting.

And so, when you have a president of the United States who is making it his mission to attack the free press, we should all be concerned, whether we are at PBS or whether we are at MSNBC, because he's focused on us too.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, I know we will all continue to do our work without fear or favor.

David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, always great to see you at the end of the week.

Thank you.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: As always, there is much more online.

That includes a look at today's Reframe Festival that's presented by PBS News and KQED, featuring the full interview with Nancy Pelosi and other thought leaders.

You can see that at PBS.org/NewsHour.

And be sure to tune into "Washington Week With The Atlantic" tonight for a look at President Trump's Cabinet shakeup.

And, tomorrow, on "PBS News Weekend": how job cuts and vacancies at the National Weather Service may put lives at risk.

And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "News Hour" team, thank you for joining us and have a great weekend.