WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening.
I'm William Brangham, Geoff Bennett, and Amna Nawaz are away.
On the "NewsHour" tonight: Israel allegedly strikes back at Iran, retaliating for last weekend's unprecedented drone and missile attack.
The House advances spending bills on foreign aid with bipartisan votes, but Speaker Mike Johnson's cooperation with Democrats could cost him his job.
And how people in recovery are helping a small town in Kentucky bounce back from economic decline and the opioid epidemic.
MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL, Owner, Read Spotted Newt: It was like I finally had found my purpose in my community.
And when that happened, just doors opened that I didn't even know I was knocking on.
(BREAK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Welcome to the "NewsHour."
There is an uneasy calm tonight across the Middle East after both Israeli and Iranian officials had muted responses to Israel's apparent retaliatory strike in Central Iran.
The region had been on edge since an unprecedented Iranian attack on Israel and Israeli vows of revenge.
Nick Schifrin has more -- Nick.
NICK SCHIFRIN: William, it is not every day that something explodes near an Iranian military base during a time of intense regional tension.
But, today, that is exactly what happened, and all sides are trying to downplay it.
Near the central city of Isfahan this morning, Iran's air defense targeted what Iran called small drones.
But former military and intelligence officials tell "PBS NewsHour" this was an Israeli strike near an Islamic Revolutionary Guard base and Iran's nuclear technology center.
By day, Iranian state TV showed Isfahan quiet.
WOMAN: Life is going on according to normal.
NICK SCHIFRIN: And a local Iranian military commander said there's nothing much to see here.
BRIG.
GEN. SIAVASH MIHANDOOST, Iranian Senior Commander (through translator): The sound heard early in the morning today in Isfahan was not an explosion.
It was our powerful air defense firing at a suspicious object.
It caused no damage or incident at all.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Which apparently is how both Iran and Israel wanted it.
Iranian officials did not blame Israel.
Israeli officials refused to claim credit.
The only exception was an indirect criticism.
Far right national Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir tweeted one word that best translates to "lame."
But, in Italy, after meeting Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani revealed this: ANTONIO TAJANI, Iranian Foreign Minister (through translator): The U.S. was informed at the last minute, but there was no sharing by the U.S.
It was mere information.
But I think that what happened was also the result of the work of the G7.
NICK SCHIFRIN: For six days, President Biden and the Group of 7 industrialized countries urged Israel to show restraint to Iran's unprecedented April 14 attack, with more than 300 missiles and drones, launched from Iran toward Israel.
That was a response to Israel's killing seven senior Iranian generals in an Iranian consulate building in Syria.
In public, all U.S. officials would say today, the U.S. didn't play any part.
ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. Secretary of State: I'm not going to speak to that, except to say that the United States has not been involved in any offensive operations.
NICK SCHIFRIN: And European leaders today urged more restraint.
URSULA VON DER LEYEN, President, European Commission: It is absolutely necessary that the region stays stable and that all sides refrain from further action.
NICK SCHIFRIN: At one point last night, the U.S. was so concerned about further violence, it restricted the movement of U.S. officials inside of Israel.
For perspective, we now turn to Suzanne Maloney, vice president and director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank whose work focuses on Iran and the Middle East.
Suzanne Maloney, thanks very much.
Welcome back to the "NewsHour."
What do you think the message is that Israel is sending to Iran with this strike?
SUZANNE MALONEY, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution: Thanks so much, Nick.
I'm glad to be here.
I think the Israelis were trying to demonstrate to Iran that they can penetrate Iran's air defense system.
Obviously, the Iranians weren't able to do the same in their strike on Israel.
And they're also, I think, trying to demonstrate the capabilities that the Israeli military can bring to bear.
It did so in a very calibrated and, I think, focused way in this attack last night.
But the message from the level of sophistication of this operation, from what we're learning from the press and some of the reporting that's being done, suggests that this is something that would pose a real threat to Iran if, in fact, Israel chose to attack Iran's nuclear sites or other key elements of its military industrial complex.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Why pose a threat to Iran?
I pointed out that this location is near a major IRGC base, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps base, and some nuclear facilities.
So why does that particular message land well in Iran?
SUZANNE MALONEY: Well, because I think, for a very long time the Iranians have been quite concerned about a potential Israeli strike on their nuclear infrastructure.
They have taken a lot of steps, including the air defense system, to try to ensure that the Israelis could not succeed in doing so.
I believe that the strike last night demonstrated that the Israelis in fact could, if they chose, take out key nodes of the Iranian nuclear program.
Obviously, to destroy the program as a whole would take quite a bit more capacity and probably necessitate the involvement of the United States.
But, still, this strike sent a message to Iran, and I think the message was received.
NICK SCHIFRIN: And yet, at the same time, we saw a little bit of criticism implicit from the Israeli far right that this didn't go far enough.
This was not a direct mirroring of the attack by Iran on Israel, of course, more than 300 drones and missiles fired from Iran toward Israel.
This is not the same scale, nor did Israel claim credit for this attack.
Why?
SUZANNE MALONEY: Well, I think the Israelis are reacting in a way that's responsible and calibrated.
And that is actually important to ensuring that they don't find themselves spiraling up in an escalatory way out of control.
I think the United States and the G7 leaders, as you suggested in your report, have also been influential on helping to persuade the Israelis that they have time and space to demonstrate to the Iranians that there will be a price to be paid for the attacks that took place last weekend.
The Iranian attack, as you note, was completely disproportionate to anything we have ever seen.
It was absolutely unprecedented.
And I suspect what we saw last night was just the first of a number of steps that the Israelis will take to make sure that Iran does not repeat that kind of attack again.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Why is Iran downplaying this attack, practically suggesting that it never even happened?
SUZANNE MALONEY: That's actually par for the course for the Islamic Republic.
There have been a number of other incidents over the years, whether it's assassinations of nuclear scientists that have been attributed to Israel, the spiriting away of the Iranian nuclear archives that was also done by Mossad.
The Iranians have never, in fact, acknowledged that these incidents took place.
They usually try to blame them on other terrorists or other types of incidents.
They want to reassure their own population that they're fully in control.
And I think that there is a desire to avoid any sense that there is the potential of a larger military conflict.
NICK SCHIFRIN: We saw yesterday a mid-level Iranian commander suggesting that any further violence could change Iran's nuclear posture.
Of course, Iran claims that its nuclear program is entirely civilian.
What impact do you think this latest violence could have on the thinking of Iran's leadership about possibly pursuing nuclear weapons?
SUZANNE MALONEY: Well, I think it's quite clear that the long commitment and the amount that the Iranians have invested and what they have paid in terms of their international isolation and sanctions suggests that this isn't simply a civil nuclear objective that they have with respect to their nuclear program.
Everything that we know from the archives and other sources suggests that it's very clearly designed for military purposes.
They have not yet, of course, taken the final steps.
They haven't weaponized.
There are other things that the Iranians could do that could move them even closer than they are today, which is closer than any point in history, to nuclear weapons capability, such as leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty or fully kicking out the International Atomic Energy Agency.
And I think there's a lot of trepidation in the international community about those kinds of moves.
It would be a very serious step by the Iranian government.
And I think nobody wants to precipitate that kind of an outcome.
NICK SCHIFRIN: And, finally, you have pointed out that the current generation of Iranian leaders is different than the previous generation of leaders that came to power in 1979, when the shah was overthrown.
And that new generation, you have said, is more dangerous and unpredictable.
Why?
How important is that?
SUZANNE MALONEY: I think what we have seen over the course of the past decade or so is an increasingly risk-tolerant Iranian leadership.
Those who've served on the front lines and who've been deeply involved with Iran's development of a proxy network across the broader Middle East who want to use force, prepared to use it.
They have engaged in the kind of behavior we have seen that's targeted former senior U.S. government officials, so that such that some of them are still under protective custody.
They have also, of course, jumped on board with the Russian war in Ukraine in a way that no other country in the world has by supplying drones that have made a major difference in Russia's effort there.
So, I think what you see is a leadership that is more prepared to engage in malign behavior and feels insulated by its relationships with Russia and China.
NICK SCHIFRIN: Suzanne Maloney of Brookings, thank you very much.
SUZANNE MALONEY: Thank you.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In the day's other headlines: A full jury has now been seated for former President Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial in New York City.
Opening statements are set to start on Monday.
And a man is in critical condition after setting himself on fire this afternoon in the park directly opposite the courthouse.
Emergency crews extinguished the flames and rushed him away on a stretcher.
Police officials describe the scene.
JEFFREY MADDREY (New York City Police Chief): Court officers, members of the police department, they run into the park.
They make efforts to put him out.
They use their coats.
They use fire extinguishers.
Eventually, FDNY responds.
We're able to put the male -- extinguish the on fire.
And from that point, we remove him to Cornell Burn Unit, where right now he's there in a critical condition.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Authorities said the man threw pamphlets with various conspiracy theories into the air before setting himself on fire.
Police in Paris arrested a man at the Iranian consulate today after he threatened to blow himself up.
Officers swarmed the building and cordoned off the site.
They found no explosives.
The unnamed suspect was convicted last year of trying to set a fire at the same location.
Paris is on high alert as it gears up to host the Summer Olympics.
The Biden administration added new sanctions today on groups accused of raising money for extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank.
The action also targets the leader of a far right group known for violence against Palestinians.
The Treasury Department said those sanctioned -- quote -- "undermine the peace, security and stability of the West Bank."
Attacks on Palestinians have increased there since the war in Gaza began.
The White House also announced today newest new restrictions on oil and gas drilling in the Alaskan wilderness.
The rule limits development across more than 13 million acres, or roughly half of what's known as the National Petroleum Reserve.
It also blocks plans for a road that would have cut through a national park to reach a copper mine.
White House officials spoke about the measure today.
KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, White House Press Secretary: This administration will continue to take ambitious action to meet the urgency of the climate crisis, protect America's lands and waters and fulfill our responsibility to the next generations of Americans.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Environmentalists welcomed the move, but fossil fuel companies and Alaskan lawmakers warn it will have a negative economic impact.
The Environmental Protection Agency has designated two so-called forever chemicals as hazardous substances.
The compounds are used in many products, including cookware, carpets, and firefighting foams.
The designation doesn't ban them, but it requires that their release into nature be reported to authorities, that the spill be cleaned up, and that those responsible pay for their removal.
The announcement follows the EPA's decision last week to require water utilities to cut similar chemicals, which are also known as PFAS, in drinking water to near-zero levels.
The Federal Aviation Administration is requiring longer rest times between shifts for air traffic controllers.
The change comes amid growing concern over fatigue following a series of close calls at airports.
The FAA is investigating one such incident at Reagan National Airport in Washington yesterday.
Two passenger jets came within 400 feet of each other on the tarmac before controllers told the pilots to stop.
Ukraine's air force says it's shot down a Russian strategic bomber in a remote area of Southern Russia, but Moscow insists the plane crashed due to a malfunction.
Neither claim could be verified.
Meanwhile, Russian missiles pounded the Dnipro region in Central Ukraine.
At least eight people died, and nearly 30 others were injured.
ELENA, Dnipro Resident (through translator): The house was burning.
Everything was falling down from the entrance, from the roof.
It was dangerous to run out from the house.
That's why many did not leave and stayed at home, in hope that this will finish soon.
But, unfortunately, this did not happen.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: To help counter such strikes, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy appealed to a special meeting of NATO defense ministers today for at least seven air defense systems.
NATO allies agreed to provide more such systems, but Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stopped short of saying how many they would send.
Elections in the world's largest democracy got under way today.
Hundreds of millions of voters across India will head to the polls over the next six weeks they will choose 543 members of Parliament and decide whether to give Prime Minister Narendra Modi a third term.
In Chennai, lines formed hours before polling stations opened.
Some voters are hoping for a change from Modi's Hindu nationalist government.
MARY DAS, Chennai, India Resident (through translator): The first thing I came to vote for is to have a country without any religious disharmony.
We have all come to vote.
In Tamil Nadu, we're all together.
Hindus, Muslims, Christians, we're all together.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Most polls predict a victory for Mr. Modi.
If so, he would be only the second leader in India's history to win a third term.
And on Wall Street today stocks ended the week mixed.
The Dow Jones industrial average gained more than 200 points to close at 37986.
The Nasdaq fell for a sixth straight session, dropping 319 points.
The S&P 500 slipped 43.
Still to come on the "NewsHour": the Biden administration releases updated Title IX protections against harassment, discrimination and sexual assault on college campuses; and David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on the week's political headlines.
On Capitol Hill today, one of the most significant votes of the year.
In the House, the leaders of both parties worked together to oppose the most fiery voices in their own caucuses, pushing aid for Ukraine and other allies over a key hurdle.
Lisa Desjardins is here, and she joins me now.
LISA DESJARDINS: William, this was a massive win for Ukraine.
It was a loss for those who fear more involvement there.
But it was also a day where we saw the House move away from the most conservative and liberal voices, a rare day to see that action at the Capitol is not always about the shouting.
You could have missed it looking at the silent Capitol steps and gray sky this morning, but, inside, a defining day for this Congress and U.S. allies.
WOMAN: Now is the moment.
History has its eyes on this chamber.
MAN: Today, we are at an inflection point.
MAN: There's a lot at stake at this moment.
LISA DESJARDINS: The high-stakes vote was procedural, whether to tee up the four foreign aid bills.
As dozens of Republicans voted against their own party-led process, watch the Democratic column on the left for a rare shift.
Democrats moved en masse to vote yes, saving the bills and potentially Speaker Johnson.
His political gamble brought a win.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Even though it's not the perfect legislation, it's not the legislation that we would write if Republicans were in charge of both the House the Senate and the White House, this is the best possible product that we can get under these circumstances to take care of these really important obligations.
LISA DESJARDINS: But, within minutes, signs of possible trouble ahead for Johnson.
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Basically, Steve, a Civil War has broken out in the House of Representatives.
LISA DESJARDINS: Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene went online to say she is working to get more votes to oust him.
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: If you're a Republican voter or Republican donor, this should really give you pause to ask what exactly is happening to the Republican Party right now.
LISA DESJARDINS: The package of four bills at the heart of this is big dollars, $95 billion, with far reach.
The most muscle goes to two countries.
Ukraine, the piece that divides Republicans the most, accounts for nearly $61 billion.
That includes over 20 billion to replenish U.S. stockpiles and $14 billion for weapons.
About $9 billion is loans, which could be forgiven.
For Israel, $26.4 billion, a large increase over the original Senate bill, it contains no additional conditions on Israel aid, a raw issue for many on the left.
Back on the Capitol steps, some hard-liners are considering ousting Johnson now.
REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA (R-FL): I'm not going to comment on that unless it's called out.
But what I can tell you is, we have to turn this around immediately.
REP. ELI CRANE (R-AZ): My position is that I'm open.
And I'm not going to tell you guys what I'm going to do.
And we will see if that materializes.
We will see if the trigger's pulled on this.
That won't be up to me.
But I'm definitely frustrated, like a lot of the conference.
LISA DESJARDINS: Others point to a new push, vote on Johnson in the fall.
REP. RALPH NORMAN (R-SC): I don't know that Mike will want it after what he's been through.
He's taken a lot of heat.
And, to his credit, he stepped up.
REP. BOB GOOD (R-VA): I think we ought to have a contest in November, a deliberative process, to select, hopefully, the speaker of the House majority.
But I don't think it would be a wise course of action to do that now.
LISA DESJARDINS: But still others pushed back.
REP. DERRICK VAN ORDEN (R-WI): Bob Good is a bully.
Chip Roy is a bully.
And the vast majority of the majority are sick and tired of it.
REP.
TROY NEHLS (R-TX): Schumer seems to be in charge right now, and that's frustrating for me.
LISA DESJARDINS: But you want Mike Johnson to stay?
REP.
TROY NEHLS: I just -- Mike - - if it's not Mike Johnson, then who?
We got deep into the bench.
LISA DESJARDINS: Many Democrats defended their move as an easy choice.
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL): We have to make sure that the chaos caucus cannot -- which is the Republican Party, cannot continue to stand in the way of absolutely vital Ukraine -- Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan military assistance.
LISA DESJARDINS: Whatever happens to Johnson, Democrats see someone else involved.
REP. STENY HOYER (D-MD): I think Trump plays a big role in this.
Trump is somewhat of an isolationist, a nationalist, has sent negative messages to the international community since 2016.
LISA DESJARDINS: Those four foreign aid bills are on track for passage tomorrow in the House.
They will go to the Senate as one package together.
They are expected to pass there, William, but we don't know the timing.
It's the Senate.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Really remarkable development today.
So this was, as you say, a procedural vote, but can you remind us why this was so pivotal across all these different issues?
LISA DESJARDINS: In the Trump era, there have been many questions of American identity, including the identity of the Republican Party.
I think you can look at what happened today as something that could set the direction for existential questions about political and global direction.
Here's exactly what I mean.
Let's look at some of the things that were involved in this procedural vote today that it told us.
This keeps us on track for current policy in Ukraine and Israel, major issues of public debate.
In addition, one of these bills does contain what would amount to either a TikTok ban or forcing that company to sell.
Here, we have a major digital impact across social media.
There also happened today a loss for the Republican hard-liners.
We have told our audience and everyone knows, again and again, those are the group that have spent this entire Congress saying we will not compromise.
We think compromise is wrong and we are going to get our way.
Today was almost one of their last real stands this time in Congress.
There's not a lot of time left for this Congress to do business.
These votes this weekend are sort of one of the last big items on the agenda.
One other thing.
This was a victory for Speaker Johnson.
We will see how long it lasts.
And his approach has been slower and quieter.
And yet he emerged today, with Democrats' help, as the winner.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You mentioned to me earlier that you couldn't find another example in modern congressional history where the minority party saved the majority party in this case.
Why did the Democrats do this?
LISA DESJARDINS: Well, part of it is what's obvious, issues of Ukraine and Israel.
There are members, many members in the Democratic Caucus that support one or the other or both.
In fact, it's interesting.
The party has become more of the kind of foreign security hawks than the Republicans.
But I can also report from sources involved, sources aware that there was high-level talks from Democrats to Republicans saying over the past week and two that if, indeed you bring this full Ukraine aid, all the foreign aid built to the floor, Speaker Johnson, we will support you.
We will make sure you're not ousted.
And while I don't have the reporting that he tacitly accepted the deal, that's what we see on the floor.
That's what we see in operation here.
Another thing for Democrats, think about this politically.
It really was a win-win for them.
It showed that Republicans need them to govern.
And also the Republican base is very concerned, very upset about this happening.
They're getting phone calls already.
Many of these Republicans will go home to their base and have to explain what happened.
And Speaker Johnson's position with his own base is weakened.
That's a story we will probably keep covering.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lisa Desjardins, thank you so much for all this great reporting.
LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Biden administration put out new Title IX rules today that will increase protections for LGBTQ+ students and change how schools handle cases of campus sexual assault.
These moves reverse several changes made by the Trump administration.
Among them, sex discrimination will now clearly include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
They fundamentally change the way schools conduct assault investigations, removing the Trump era requirement that victims be cross-examined and that they hold in-person hearings.
The new rules sidestep the controversial issue of transgender athletes, saying that that was still under review.
For more on these changes, I am joined by The Washington Post's Laura Meckler, who has been following all of this closely.
Laura, thank you so much for being here.
So these rules go into effect starting in August.
On this issue of LGBTQ+ students, it now says that it is illegal, very specifically, to discriminate against those students.
That was not the case before?
LAURA MECKLER, The Washington Post: Well, actually, the Biden administration has long held that it was the case before.
They say that Title IX, which bars discrimination the basis of sex, has always also included sexual orientation and gender identity as part of that.
That is a way, essentially, to discriminate on the basis of sex.
So that's how they have been acting, and that's how they have been adjudicating cases.
But what this regulation does is essentially gives that more heft by putting it into a formal regulation that has gone through the full rulemaking process that says this is the official federal government's interpretation of what Title IX says.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And so on this issue of changing the rules with regards to how investigations are handled about sexual assault, explain to me what the situation was and now what these new rules do.
LAURA MECKLER: So, the question of sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus has been a huge one for many years now.
Well over a decade has this been a hot topic?
And, in fact, the Obama administration tried to address this with its own set of guidelines.
And then the Trump administration came, tossed out the Obama rules, and wrote their own regulations.
And they set out a system that was sort of a court-like type procedure, where there would be a separate investigator who would be different from the person who made the judgment.
And you would have sort of a cross-examination opportunity and a hearing.
And it was a very high, higher burden of proof for what exactly would be considered sexual discrimination or sexual harassment under the law.
So they had this system that was different in a couple ways.
It was both sort of a more formal court-like system, and it was also a higher bar for proving your case.
And so now what this Biden administration rule does is essentially revises that system with one of its own and makes tweaks in both of those, sort of gives schools more flexibility.
They don't have to use these hearings.
They don't have to have cross-examination if they don't want to, as a good example.
And it also has a broader definition of what sexual harassment actually is under the law.
So it would be easier to prove your case.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Help me understand what the Biden administration is trying to solve there.
What was the concern with the previous regime?
LAURA MECKLER: Well, there were a number of concerns.
From the point of view of sexual assault survivors, they were concerned that if you mandate a cross-examination-type situation, that it would be essentially re-traumatizing for them.
Of course, people on the other side would say that this is how you get at the truth.
But that's what they said.
The other issue is that colleges themselves did not like being put into the position where they were essentially becoming a de facto court.
They said, that's not what we do.
That's not our job.
We don't feel comfortable with it.
So that was another problem.
And then, in terms of the burden of proof and how difficult it is to prove your case, that's really about sort of where do you want those sort of scales of justice to hang.
Are you going to make it a little bit easier for people who are alleging these incidents happen, these cases of harassment, or do you want to make it a little bit harder to prove your case?
And the Biden rules come down on making it a little bit easier to prove your case.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There has been, as you know, a good deal of pushback on this.
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, who heads the House Education Committee, conservative, has said that some of these rules are basically redefining sex and gender in America.
What is the argument that they're making there?
LAURA MECKLER: Well, this is an argument that conservatives are making all over the country, and in fact, legislating based on that.
They essentially do not accept the idea that you can change your gender, that you can be born a boy and then decide you're a girl, is how they would put it.
Of course, other people would say that, no, there are people who internally really feel like they are in fact the other gender, and that acknowledging that and accommodating that is the right thing to do.
But from a conservative point of view - - and this is -- there's, like I said, legislation dealing with this all over the place in conservative states -- what they're really trying to say is that, this is a threat to essentially other girls and women.
They don't want somebody who was born a boy showing up in the girls locker room, for instance.
So they take great issue -- and I got a lot of response today from conservatives saying essentially that the administration was going too far and taking what they view as a radical position gender.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lastly, as I mentioned, this does not address this very controversial issue of transgender athletes.
Why did the administration say that they pushed off that decision?
LAURA MECKLER: Well, what they officially say is that that regulation, a separate regulation that addresses sports, is not ready yet.
But what people tell me who are familiar with the administration's thinking is that really it's the politics and that they don't want to be talking about this question of trans women competing on girls and women's sports teams in the middle of an election year.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Laura Meckler of The Washington Post, thank you so much for being here.
LAURA MECKLER: Thank you so much for having me.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As Lisa just reported, Democrats helped Speaker Johnson get a foreign aid package over a key hurdle, but he still faces backlash from far right members in his own conference.
On that and the other political stories shaping this week, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.
That is New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.
Gentlemen, so nice to see you both.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hey, William.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Thanks for being here.
David, if someone had arrived in Washington today from outside the Beltway and they had seen what went down, which is a bipartisan group of people voting on something that they all agreed upon and that thing moving forward, they would think that's ostensibly what governing looks like.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But, here, it's viewed as this unbelievably unusual thing.
Like, what do you make of what happened today?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, well, first kudos to Speaker Johnson.
I mean, to his credit, he's hung in there and he's waffled and wavered and bobbed and weaved to try to stay keep his job.
But, in the end, I think he did the right thing for the country and the right thing for the world.
And it was a test, as others said, that it's important to respect democracy more than just the power of some angry minority.
And when you have a broad majority of people, not only in the House, but also in the country, and including 69 percent of Republicans, who think Putin should not be allowed to take more land in Ukraine, and this broad majority in a democracy that's structured well, it should prevail over a long-angry minority.
The problem with our country has been over the last multiple years, increasingly, angry minorities have ruled and reasonable majorities have kept their head down.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jonathan, on this issue of this angry minority, that has always been the talk about Speaker Johnson, that he is beholden to them.
He cannot dare cross them.
And yet, today, he did, as, again, it sounds like governing.
Do you think that this development today reduces that - - the sword of Damocles over his head, otherwise known as Marjorie Taylor Greene, over -- the pressure has let off a little?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: No, because, what, three weeks ago we talked about Marjorie Taylor Greene submitting a motion to vacate.
She just didn't bring it up for a vote.
Then, this week, Congressman Tom Massie comes forward and says, I have got a motion to vacate.
And then I believe, today, another member of Congress, another Republican, said -- excuse me -- I have a motion to vacate.
So, no, that sword of Damocles is this hanging over his head.
It's even gotten a little lower.
But I agree with David that it is fantastic.
Finally, Speaker Johnson has put aside his own professional considerations, whether he will hold on to the gavel, in favor of the broad national interests, national security interests.
But the key question for me is, once they vote on this thing, because we're still not there yet, they vote on it tomorrow, once that's done and these motions to vacate are acted upon, assuming that they are any one of the three, what do Democrats do?
And if they do save Speaker Johnson, is he literally a Republican?
Is he a RINO speaker, Republican in name only speaker?
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The ultimate slur.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: But I don't mean it in terms of the slur that Republicans use it.
It's just, he would be speaker.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: He would be speaker and a Republican, but the Democrats would be the one running the chamber.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Lisa was just reporting that she's got some off-the-record scuttlebutt that Johnson was offered some -- if you bring these, we will protect you if it comes to that.
Do you think that will actually materialize?
DAVID BROOKS: It absolutely should, because when Johnson got the speakership, he had to make concessions to the further right.
He had to put some of those people on the Rules Committee, which determines what comes up to a vote.
And so if I'm a Democrat, I'm thinking, well, the Republicans still do have the majority.
So if it's not going to be Johnson, it's going to be somebody else.
And it's going to be somebody else who makes even more concessions to the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world, and that will make my life worse as a Democrat.
And so I think it's very much in the Democrats interest to say, Johnson's our best shot right now at having a reasonable Congress for the rest of the rest of this year.
I'm looking at Chip Roy, who's on the Rules Committee, who voted against the Ukraine aid and who's one of the -- I would say, one of the smartest people in House, and -- but certainly on that far right faction, one of the smartest people, I'm looking to see which way he goes.
Because I think he would carry a lot of votes, and that could threaten him.
But if the Democrats don't hold up Johnson, I think they would be betraying the House, betraying the kind of thing that was accomplished today.
And I think it would just be a gross mistake.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: I mean, sure, but I don't think it's going to get to that point.
And I think the reason why Speaker Johnson is bringing up these bills right now, I think it's also because of Democratic insistence that, if you do this, we will come to your rescue, but not until after you get Ukraine aid over the finish line, until after you get these foreign aid bills over the finish line.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Let's turn to what's happening in the Middle East.
Since you were both last here at this table, Iran shocked everyone with the extent of that attack on Israel.
Iran -- I mean, Israel, even though they don't admit it, retaliated against that.
Do you believe that we have -- that this tit for tat has now stopped temporarily?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think it's -- well, I think, before the Iran attack -- and Iran is its own worst enemy.
Before the Iran attack, Israel's reputation was in freefall around the world.
And now, A, you see that Israel is actually kind of effective at things, the Iron Dome.
B, you see that all sorts of countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia, are rallying around Israel, in defense of Israel, but not only them, but France, U.K., U.S.
So, suddenly, world opinions back on Israel's side.
And then, to me, one of the best things that happened this week was that Iran and Israel had to respond in some way.
They have to -- have reestablished some deterrent power.
And so they said, they had to prove that they can reach right in the middle of Iran and do an attack if they want to.
But they did it in a very restrained way.
And I have to probably give credit to the Biden administration for a lot of pressure, because there were certainly a lot of voices in the Netanyahu cabinet, let alone in Israel, who wanted massive retaliation.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.
Right.
DAVID BROOKS: And I thought they did a very effective retaliation.
And Iran's response was pretty muted.
So who knows what's going to happen.
But it leads you to believe there's a bit of a week of de-escalation.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: How do you see President Biden's hand and the use of American soft and hard power here?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, I mean, I want to amplify what David said.
I don't want to probably give the Biden administration credit.
I will give the Biden administration credit.
Remember, how many times have we sat at this table where we talked about the fact that the Biden administration from the president on down counseling the prime minister to not do this, not do that, to do this or do that, and have the prime minister basically laugh in the president's face?
Well, ever since -- well, over the last month now, it seems as though that the come to Jesus phone call that the president and the prime minister had, ever since then, it appears that the prime minister has been listening and heeding the counsel and the warning coming from the administration about all sorts of things that it was going to do, whether it's the invasion of Rafah or pleading with them not to respond in a massive way against that Iranian attack.
And so I think that the fruit is bearing out on the president's very painstaking and patient quiet diplomacy and public diplomacy.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you agree that that's what's happening here, that we are seeing a shift now, that Biden is able to speak to Netanyahu in a way?
DAVID BROOKS: You don't know.
(LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: I mean, Israel's going to do what's in its interest.
And it thinks its absolutely its interest, and it would be a disaster for Israel and for the region long term if Hamas were allowed to survive.
So I'm still reasonably confident they will go into Rafah.
The question is how they do it.
But it's not in Israel's interest, in my view, and I think probably in a lot of -- and certainly in a lot of Israelis' views, to have a multifront war right now.
And doing a massive retaliation on Iran, suddenly, you're looking at a Hezbollah massive assault.
DAVID BROOKS: And suddenly you're facing a multifront war.
And that just is not in Israel's interest.
So I think they were certainly influenced by President Biden, and they need to keep the U.S., its most important ally but they're still going to do the things they need to do.
So this was a case where, in the Iran case, where U.S. and Israelis just were perfectly aligned.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Biden, as you well know, is in this -- he's on this political tightrope here, because he has said we stand steadfastly behind Israel, and that if they need to go after Hamas in all the ways they need to go after it, we are with them.
How much they really are against the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Gaza is a problem.
There's a clear political problem for them here, not just Columbia University students protesting, but Democratic base voters all across the country turning against that policy and do not like the president's stance for Israel.
I mean, how do you see him navigating that as this election gets closer and closer?
JONATHAN CAPEHART: Look, it's tough, because what you have is a situation where you have a president who has massive foreign policy experience and credentials dealing with a prime minister he's known for about 50 years who's running a country that -- where the president says there is no daylight between Israeli and the United States; however, between me and the prime minister, there might be a lot.
And he's doing everything he can to solve all the crises on the ground over there.
At the same time, all his work over here is not inuring to his benefit here at home.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: And you have, as you were just describing, lots of Democratic constituencies who are angry with the president.
And I take the administration at its word.
I believe the administration when they say, from the president on down, their considerations about how they're handling the Israel-Hamas war and dealing with Israel, there are no political considerations involved in that.
And I think that is one of the reasons why so many people are upset.
If the president were playing politics with this situation, he would be doing all sorts of things to try to please the people who are demonstrating, who are doing encampments at universities.
But I would say to the people who are protesting and the young people who are upset, and all of the folks who are upset at the president and the administration for what they're doing, I keep thinking about the thing that President Obama used to say to criminal justice activists and others who were put -- who were really upset with him for not doing lots -- more things on criminal justice or racial issues.
And he would say to them, I need you to keep protesting on the outside, because that puts pressure on me on the inside to get something done.
And I think that is what's happening.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Which is famously what LBJ was being told by MLK, which is that he told him, keep the fire under my feet and thus I will deliver for you.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you think Biden -- I mean, again, do you believe that the politics are not getting into this, that this is just Biden's core belief and that he's not going to let politics intrude?
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, he's a lifelong politician.
I don't -- he may tell himself that story, but no human being acts that way.
Like, people look at their self-interest and they're influenced by their self-interest.
So I don't totally believe that.
I think the American people believe a couple things in a complicated way.
One, they agree with what Joe Biden said.
Israel has sometimes been over the top.
I think there's pretty clear majorities in the -- especially among younger generations.
They're also very pro-Israel.
And so if you look at John Fetterman, the senator in Pennsylvania, who has been the most pro-Israel member... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Yes, interestingly so.
DAVID BROOKS: ... like more than Golda Meir, and he's doing well in Pennsylvania.
And so... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: With a very strong, Israel must defend itself at all costs.
DAVID BROOKS: Yes, almost unabashed.
And so I think there's a market for saying Israel is maybe over the top, but also what Joe Biden is saying, we have Israel's back.
So you can say both those things.
And as for the protests, I would distinguish between people who have -- who are honestly appalled by what's going on there, and I have total respect for that.
But there are fringes, and I think the Columbia -- some of the Columbia protests are part of it, whereas Eric Adams, the New York mayor, or as the president of Columbia said, are hate-filled and bigoted.
And when I saw some of the pictures coming out of Columbia, I thought of Chicago this summer, that we're going to all go to the convention.
And, just like in 1968, there's going to be a lot of rioting, and it's going to get ugly.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Well, let's hope it doesn't turn quite that way, but, yes, that's -- history is certainly leading us in that direction.
David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, nice to see you both.
Thank you.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For years, the stories coming out of Appalachian coal country have been grim, addiction, black lung disease, and economic decline.
But a new story is now emerging, one where people in recovery are helping their communities recover.
Jeffrey Brown reports from Hazard, Kentucky.
MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL, Owner, Read Spotted Newt: I love an actual book, obviously.
JEFFREY BROWN: Forty-three-year-old Mandi Fugate Sheffel has long dreamed of having a place where she and fellow readers could gather to discuss books in her small town of Hazard, Kentucky.
MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL: It's just so out of what I typically read.
JEFFREY BROWN: But it wasn't until January of 2020 that her dream became a reality, when she opened this small bookstore in downtown Hazard.
MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL: Access to a bookstore was two hours away.
So I knew there were other people here that would buy into this idea.
JEFFREY BROWN: What made you think you could make it work?
(LAUGHTER) MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL: Well, that's a lot of people asked that.
JEFFREY BROWN: Yes?
What kind of things did you hear?
MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL: That's exactly what my husband said.
MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL: And he said: "People don't even read physical books anymore, Mandi."
And I'm like, well, I do.
And I know a community of people who do.
And I think this will work.
JEFFREY BROWN: Called Read Spotted Newt, her bookstore has not only survived, but thrived, first through a major flood, and then the pandemic.
MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL: You know, as far as Appalachian literature, which is the bestselling section of the store, Silas House, Robert Gipe.
Gurney Norman, who's originally from Hazard, he sells well.
JEFFREY BROWN: It's an unlikely success story, made more remarkable by Fugate Sheffel's own story.
MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL: I guess I was probably a junior in high school the first time I saw OxyContin.
And from that point on, I mean, from the very first one, I knew that this is what I needed.
JEFFREY BROWN: After several years of daily opioid use, she kicked her addiction in 2005.
And opening the bookstore has given her life a new meaning.
MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL: It was like I finally had found my purpose and my community.
And when that happened, just doors opened that that I didn't even know I was knocking on.
SAM QUINONES, Author, "The Least of Us": I couldn't believe that there was a bookstore in Hazard, Kentucky.
JEFFREY BROWN: It's a story that's becoming more common here, says author and journalist Sam Quinones, who's written two books about the nation's ongoing opioid crisis.
He also recently reported on Hazard, a town of about 5,000, for the online publication The Free Press.
SAM QUINONES: I knew of Hazard, Kentucky only, as a place of terrible devastation due to the opioid epidemic.
JEFFREY BROWN: More than 100,000 Americans are still dying every year from drug overdose, fueled largely by the synthetic opioid fentanyl.
It's a problem that continues to plague towns like Hazard across Kentucky, a state with some of the highest overdose death rates in the nation.
Coupled with the collapse of coal mining, Quinones says he was expecting to write a different story when he came to town, but: SAM QUINONES: I began to see some things that I just didn't expect really to see, which is tiny, tiny businesses starting up started by local people.
A lot of business owners are in recovery from pain pill, usually pain pill addiction.
And a lot of employees are also in recovery.
JEFFREY BROWN: Did it feel counterintuitive to you, in a way?
SAM QUINONES: It did not feel counterintuitive to me at all.
Recovering addicts, they're very much like fossil fuels, like energy rising from decay.
And if you find ways of utilizing that energy, it can really benefit your business, but also your town and your community.
And that's exactly the story of Hazard, Kentucky.
BAILEY RICHARDS, Coordinator of Downtown Development, Hazard, Kentucky: We have had 68 businesses open over the last five years.
JEFFREY BROWN: Bailey Richards is Hazard's coordinator of downtown development.
She says many buildings here that had once sat empty have been filled.
Today, clothing stores, local coffee and candle shops, and new restaurants line Main Street.
It's growth that's been spurred in part by people in recovery, who hold about a quarter of all new jobs here.
BAILEY RICHARDS: I mean, when you have this whole population that for 20 years, during kind of the really bulk of the opioid epidemic that were just kind of like locked out of being able to do these things, and now as they get clean and they start having these opportunities, they're taking it and they're running with it.
That includes 45-year-old Stephanie Callahan, the owner of Hot Mess Express 606.
STEPHANIE CALLAHAN, Owner, Hot Mess Express 606: Hot Mess.
JEFFREY BROWN: Where does that come from?
STEPHANIE CALLAHAN: Because I'm a mess.
(LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: Callahan also says it's a nickname she picked up from friends and family dating back to her days battling opioid addiction in her 20s.
She kicked that addiction 14 years ago, when her son was born.
And in 2021, her life changed again when she quit her full-time job and opened this clothing and fashion store catering to plus-sized women.
STEPHANIE CALLAHAN: I'm like, OK, there is nowhere in Hazard to shop.
I'm a big girl.
So I needed a place, because we're -- after the coal left, we kind of lost all of our stores.
And I was like, OK, we got to have some clothes because I can't go to church looking like this.
JEFFREY BROWN: What did people say to you when you said, I'm going to start a clothing store?
STEPHANIE CALLAHAN: Told me I was crazy.
STEPHANIE CALLAHAN: People was like, you're crazy.
And I'm like, yes, I probably am.
I had three men tell me in one day that I'd never make it.
So I'm like, I will show you.
JEFFREY BROWN: Three years later, Callahan has shown them.
Hot Mess Express is often packed with customers.
And a few weeks ago, she opened a second store offering men's clothing.
It's all a testament, she says, to how far both she and her hometown have come.
STEPHANIE CALLAHAN: People just started coming in and it just took off.
But I think people are just tired of nothing being here, because, in my addiction, I would just get bored and be like, OK, let's just go get high.
There was nothing to do, but now, like, we can come downtown, we can shop, we can eat.
JEFFREY BROWN: Not only is business slowly coming back.
So are some former residents.
LUKE DAVIS, Appalachian Arts Alliance: So let's skip and go down to the G string and do that.
JEFFREY BROWN: Today, Luke Davis teaches guitar and serves as director of operations at an art center in downtown Hazard, itself a sign of the new times.
For several years, he toured across the nation as a professional country musician based in Nashville.
But, in 2017, after heavy drinking and drug use derailed his career, Davis says he knew he needed a change.
LUKE DAVIS: My life was completely unmanageable.
I couldn't stand me.
People couldn't stand me.
I couldn't function at all.
And the idea was to come home and figure out a way to get clean.
JEFFREY BROWN: Davis says Hazard's recovery community has been crucial to him staying sober, and he now wants to stay to help rebuild what's been lost.
LUKE DAVIS: I spent so much time a drain on the community, that it's very, very gratifying to be able to contribute something and to be of value to my community.
JEFFREY BROWN: Still, economic progress in Hazard and across Appalachia remains uneven, as drug addiction rages on.
Even still, Sam Quinones believes Hazard now has a fighting chance and offers a model for other small towns.
SAM QUINONES: This attitude that we need to find some big solution, some big factory with 250 jobs, whatever, those factories aren't coming here.
If they come here, they will be mostly robots anyway, right?
So it's this idea that you can find a path forward using local energies, local creativity and finding ways to nurture that.
JEFFREY BROWN: But how far can self-reliance or small really take you?
SAM QUINONES: It's a great question.
I'm not sure I know the answer to how far it can go.
I do think that what's happening here and other towns opens up a pathway towards the future that they never imagined.
JEFFREY BROWN: Mandi Fugate Sheffel hopes the books in her store can help Hazard's next generation find that path.
MANDI FUGATE SHEFFEL: If there are kids that can see their worth through these books and through literature, and maybe that keeps them from using, that's it for me.
That's what drives me every day.
JEFFREY BROWN: For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jeffrey Brown in Hazard, Kentucky.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Late tonight, there are reports of a major explosion at a base south of Baghdad that's used by Iranian-backed forces known as the PMF.
The PMF is believed to have participated in Iran's April 14 attack on Israel and have also in the past attacked U.S. troops.
A senior Iraqi official says tonight's explosion is believed to be an Israeli strike, but that hasn't been confirmed.
Iraqi officials say they will investigate.
And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.
I'm William Brangham.
On behalf of the entire "NewsHour" team, thank you so much for joining us.
