AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Geoff Bennett is away.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Kilmar Abrego Garcia is arrested by immigration authorities again after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador and then returned to the United States.

The unique history of how Washington, D.C., has been governed, as now armed National Guard troops patrol the streets of the Capitol.

And we speak with a Democratic congressman who plans to retire if courts uphold Republicans' gerrymandering of Texas districts.

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX): This is much bigger than Texas and it's certainly much bigger than the individual future of any elected official.

This is really about what happens to our democracy.

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

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident whose deportation sparked scrutiny of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, was arrested again this morning during a meeting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Baltimore.

Back in March, Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador and held in the notorious CECOT prison for months.

Under judges' orders, he was returned to the U.S. in June, then immediately jailed by federal officials on human smuggling charges.

Three days ago, he was released again under judges' orders.

And, this morning, complying with the conditions of his release, he reported to an immigration check-in in Baltimore and was again arrested by ICE.

Before his arrest, Abrego Garcia spoke to a crowd of reporters.

KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA, Detained By ICE (through translator): To all the families who have suffered separations and who live constantly under the threat of being separated, I want to tell you, even though injustice is hitting us hard, we do not lose faith.

AMNA NAWAZ: The administration now says he's being processed for deportation to Uganda, a country he has no connection to.

But a federal judge in Maryland today ruled that the administration could not deport him without prior approval and must keep him in the U.S.

Joining me now to discuss Abrego Garcia's case is his attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg.

Simon, thanks for joining us.

What can you tell us about where your client is right now and how he and his family are doing?

SIMON SANDOVAL-MOSHENBERG, Attorney For Kilmar Abrego Garcia: Mr. Abrego Garcia was taken back into ICE custody at a ICE check-in, which the supposed purpose was an interview.

That was clearly false, because, as soon as we got up there, within -- they had the whole floor shut off and within one minute they took him into custody.

He's currently at a detention center in Virginia.

The district judge ordered that he not be removed from that detention center in the meanwhile.

So they're prohibited, at least for the moment, to sending him to one of the detention centers in Louisiana or South Texas or what have you.

AMNA NAWAZ: It was reported earlier, Simon, that there was a plea deal put before your client, that, if he pled guilty, he would serve his time and then be deported to Costa Rica.

And if he wouldn't plead guilty, he might otherwise be deported to Uganda, which the administration now says it's working on.

So can you confirm that offer was made, and did Abrego Garcia reject that deal?

SIMON SANDOVAL-MOSHENBERG: So I don't represent him in his criminal matters.

I'm his immigration counsel.

But the notion that they're using the immigration system and, even more specifically, the decision of which country someone is going to be deported to, to sort of try to weaponize and gain leverage in a criminal prosecution is just flatly unconstitutional.

It's very punitive.

They say that their goal is to get him out of the country as quickly as possible.

There's already an offer on the table from Costa Rica for refugee status in that country and a guarantee that Costa Rica will not deport him on to El Salvador.

If they wanted to get him out of the country as quickly as possible, we could work that out tomorrow.

AMNA NAWAZ: I want to ask you about that judge's ruling this afternoon that we just reported on.

Do you believe that ruling does deport him -- or, rather, does protect him from deportation?

Is he safe from being deported right now, in your view?

SIMON SANDOVAL-MOSHENBERG: In the very short term, he's safe from being deported until we're going to have an in-person evidentiary hearing in front of the judge.

But really ultimately what has to be decided is, can they send him to any country, whether it's Uganda, whether it's Spain, if that country hasn't assured that he's going to be able to stay there, right?

Because, otherwise, it just becomes essentially a very inconvenient layover on a trip right back to El Salvador, which is the one country where it's illegal for them to send him.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned the criminal charges he's facing.

I know you're not representing him in those, but I do want to get your response to this, because he is -- he is facing those federal human trafficking charges.

He's accused of transporting people within the U.S. who weren't here legally.

I just want to put to you what the attorney general, Pam Bondi, said about your client earlier today when she was asked about him in the Oval Office.

PAM BONDI, U.S. Attorney General: We have got him under control.

He will no longer terrorize our country.

He's currently charged with human smuggling, and including children.

The guy needs to be in prison.

He doesn't need to be on the streets, like all these liberals want him to be.

AMNA NAWAZ: Simon, at the heart of all of this is this issue of due process.

Do you believe that he can get a fair trial?

Will there be due process here?

SIMON SANDOVAL-MOSHENBERG: Mr. Abrego Garcia has already had significant due process in front of I think it's now five different judges and courts, from the initial 2019 immigration judge that granted him withholding of removal protection from removal to El Salvador, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, and now two judges in Tennessee.

And every single one of those, when they actually look at the evidence and the record, have completely disagreed with what Attorney General Bondi is saying, is that there's no evidence in the record that he's this major gang leader, human trafficker, what have you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, let me put to you as well why the administration continues to message on this, that we heard from the attorney general, Pam Bondi there, but there's also allegations repeatedly made by people like the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, who today put out the statement calling him explicitly in the headline of the message an MS-13 gang member, a wife beater, a child predator, a criminal illegal alien.

We should note one of -- none of the charges he's facing are related to anything that she alleged there.

But why do you believe that the government has become so focused on Kilmar Abrego Garcia?

SIMON SANDOVAL-MOSHENBERG: Their message has been completely incoherent.

Are they trying to prosecute him in the United States or are they trying to get him out of the United States before his trial, which would frustrate the trial from even happening?

Are they trying to deport him as quickly as possible, which can be done to Costa Rica this week, or are they trying to deport him to a country that would punishment for him, like Uganda, which will be a huge, knockdown, drag-out fight, a lengthy fight, right?

And so the reason for all of this is that, when push comes to shove, they're far more concerned with throwing their weight around and preserving what they think is their ability to do whatever they want whenever they want to whoever they want.

That's far more important to them than any particular outcome in this particular case.

AMNA NAWAZ: Simon, in the 30 seconds or so I have left, can I just ask you, is it your view now that he will ultimately be deported, it's just a matter of to which country, or could his deportation be prevented?

SIMON SANDOVAL-MOSHENBERG: I don't know how this process is all going to play out, but we are certainly going to prevent -- we're certainly going to fight tooth and nail to prevent deportation to any country that has not given credible assurances that it won't re-deport him on to El Salvador, where he was already tortured earlier this year.

AMNA NAWAZ: The attorney for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, joining us tonight.

Simon, thank you we appreciate your time.

Good to be with you.

In the day's other headlines: President Trump signed a series of executive orders this morning, including one aimed at punishing anyone who burns the American flag.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: The people in this country don't want to see our American flag burned and spit on.

AMNA NAWAZ: The president said that flag burning incites riots and that those who do so would face a year in jail.

A 1989 Supreme Court ruling found that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment.

Trump also signed an order aimed at eliminating cashless bail.

That's the practice of releasing criminal suspects without a monetary payment.

Also today... DONALD TRUMP: Well, thank you very much.

It's an honor to be with you.

AMNA NAWAZ: ... the president welcomed South Korea's president, Lee Jae Myung, to the White House.

The pair were due to discuss trade, relations with China and the status of American troops in South Korea.

During the meeting, Trump spoke of his warm relationship with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, saying he looks forward to meeting him again, as he did in his first term, adding that North Korea has - - quote -- "great potential."

The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the estate of the late Jeffrey Epstein today.

The panel led by Republican Chair James Comer is seeking documents like Epstein's will and anything resembling a -- quote -- "list of clients."

They're also seeking a book of letters reportedly compiled by his former partner Ghislaine Maxwell that was given to Epstein for his 50th birthday.

It's the latest in a broader bipartisan effort to address public calls for more information about the handling of Epstein's case.

His estate's attorneys have until September 8 to respond.

In the Pacific Northwest, a dangerous heat wave is refusing to let up after residents endured triple-digit temperatures in some places over the weekend.

Various heat advisories are in place today in parts of Washington, Oregon, and Northern California.

Dry conditions paired with lightning and heavy winds prompted red flag warnings for wildfires across the Cascades.

Blazes burned through the weekend, especially in Central Oregon, where the so-called Flat Fire has scorched some 29 square miles and some 4,000 homes remain under evacuation orders.

In the meantime, severe weather is brewing offshore too.

Tropical Storm Juliette formed in the Pacific today, while Tropical Storm Fernand churns in the Atlantic.

Officials say neither storm poses an immediate threat to the coastlines.

Nearly 200 current and former FEMA employees are warning that changes by the Trump administration could result in a Hurricane Katrina-level disaster.

In a letter to Congress, they have warned of the -- quote -- "cascading effects" of the government's actions on FEMA, which include deep cuts and a controversial new expenditure approval policy.

They write that they hope to -- quote -- "prevent not only another national catastrophe like Hurricane Katrina, but the effective disillusion of FEMA itself."

Twenty years ago this week, Katrina slammed into the U.S. Gulf Coast, killing more than 1,800 people due in part to a poor federal response.

Several global mail carriers suspended deliveries to the U.S. today amid confusion over new import duties.

France, Japan, and Taiwan join countries like Germany and Spain in halting shipments to the U.S. over the Trump administration's upcoming expiration of what's called the de minimis exemption.

The policy allows packages worth less than $800 into the U.S. duty-free.

Customs data shows that roughly 1.3 billion packages were sent under the exemption last year that amounted to more than $64 billion worth of goods.

The U.K.'s Royal Mail is set to suspend its services to the U.S. tomorrow.

On Wall Street today, stocks cooled off a bit after last week's rally.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell roughly 350 points.

The Nasdaq slipped nearly 50 points on the day, and the S&P 500 also ended lower.

And Netflix reportedly scored its first box office win this weekend, thanks to a trio of demon-hunting pop stars.

"KPop Demon Hunters" took it an estimated $18 million in the U.S. and Canada, more than any other film, thanks to catchy tracks like "Golden."

That is according to industry estimates since Netflix doesn't report its ticket sales.

The limited theatrical release of the sing-along version of the film comes two months after it began streaming, and since then it has dominated the streaming charts.

Still to come on the "News Hour": Israeli forces strike another hospital in Gaza, killing several journalists; Tamara Keith and Amy Walter break down the latest political headlines; and how investments in artificial intelligence are playing an outsized role in the nation's economic growth.

Some of the more than 2000 National Guard troops on duty in Washington, D.C., are now armed, part of a crackdown President Trump claimed again today was needed to help curb crime in the city.

While he threatens similar actions in other cities, including Chicago and New York, his power to consolidate law enforcement in the nation's capital is unique.

Deema Zein takes a look at why.

DEEMA ZEIN: These last few weeks in Washington, D.C., have been like few others in its history.

PAM BONDI, U.S. Attorney General: Under Donald Trump's directive, D.C., will become safe again and it will become clean again.

MAN: The first of 800 troops arriving in Hummers and dressed in combat camo posted along the National Mall Tuesday.

MAURICE DUBOIS, CBS News: Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit today challenging the Trump administration's takeover of its police department.

DEEMA ZEIN: President Trump's actions have sparked protests... PROTESTER: Trump must go now!

DEEMA ZEIN: ... and raised questions for many about why he's able to wield control of law enforcement in D.C.

The reasons for that can be traced all the way back to the earliest days of our nation.

J.D.

DICKEY, Author, "Empire of Mud: The Secret History of Washington, D.C.": In the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, it is called the Enclave Clause that talks about how a district of no more than 10 square miles should be created by Congress, which will have exclusive legislation over it.

DEEMA ZEIN: President George Washington selected the final location for the Capitol on the Potomac River.

The result was a federal district that would remain entirely separate from any state, a decision driven in part by fear.

J.D.

DICKEY: The founders of the country were also wary about the mob attacking Congress, because it had happened once before near the end of the Revolutionary War, in which a mutiny of Pennsylvania militia against the Pennsylvania Statehouse occurred, and that happened to be in the same building Congress was meeting in.

So that was interpreted as an attack on Congress and they had to relocate.

STEVE VLADECK, Georgetown University Law Center: And by 1800, the entire national capital had been relocated first from New York, then Philadelphia, and finally to present-day Washington, D.C. DEEMA ZEIN: Residents of the newly created District of Columbia lost their voting rights, even though they pay taxes.

Still, the city rapidly expanded with the growth of the federal government, especially during the Civil War.

J.D.

DICKEY: The city had grown from 75,000 people to 150,000 people, from kind of a Southern backwater to a multiracial cosmopolitan big city.

At the same time, the racial composition was changing as well to about a third of African Americans made up the population.

DEEMA ZEIN: The district made history in 1867, when Congress granted some voting rights to all men over 21, including for the first time African Americans.

But that effort to allow the city's growing Black population a say in how they'd be governed led to backlash.

J.D.

DICKEY: There was a push to disenfranchise the citizenry completely, in other words, not letting them vote for mayor, not letting them vote for their city counselors, and instead have the District completely under the control of Congress.

DEEMA ZEIN: And, by 1874, Congress did just that, leaving D.C. residents without voting rights for almost a century.

GEORGE DEREK MUSGROVE, University of Maryland: Eight hundred thousand residents of the District of Columbia did not have a local government, didn't have a vote in Congress, in fact, until the early 1960s, didn't even vote for president.

(SINGING) DEEMA ZEIN: After years of pressure, which intensified during the civil rights era, Congress began considering how to hand over responsibility of local government to its citizens.

But again racism would shape the debate.

GEORGE DEREK MUSGROVE: Large numbers of people in Congress would talk at length about crime and how they were going to deal with issues of crime in the nation's capital.

They basically kept that law enforcement function in federal hands and away from the city government, which they knew was going to be disproportionately African American because the population was disproportionately African American.

DEEMA ZEIN: A pivotal moment came in 1973.

President Nixon signed the D.C. Home Rule Act into law, allowing citizens here the opportunity to elect both a mayor and a city council.

But both Congress and future presidents kept an enormous amount of power.

GEORGE DEREK MUSGROVE: What it keeps for Congress is oversight of the city's passage of laws, oversight of the city's budget.

The president already had control of the National Guard.

The Home Rule Act maintains that.

The president, of course, appoints the U.S. attorney, who is a chief law enforcement officer in the District.

And then, of course, the president is capable, as he did the other day, to declare an emergency that threatens the federal interest and then take over the Metropolitan Police Department for a period of up to 30 days.

And so the president has -- really has the lion's share of the law enforcement powers in the District.

DEEMA ZEIN: Presidents from both parties have done it throughout history, including Lincoln during the Civil War.

J.D.

DICKEY: The whole city was basically turned into an armed camp and the government was running it, despite local laws about local leaders and things like that.

DEEMA ZEIN: And, in 1968, after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.

STEVE VLADECK: It was president Johnson who used federal troops to help restore order.

As recently as five years ago, it was President Trump who used National Guard units both from within D.C. and outside of D.C. to, at least from his claim, preserve order during and after the George Floyd protests.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I'm officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.

You know what that is.

DEEMA ZEIN: But this is the first time a president has used the law to exert control of the city's police.

And some worry about what it could mean going forward.

STEVE VLADECK: I worry about the circumstances in which presidents might do it in the future, not just during a random stretch of August, but maybe in the run-up to or aftermath of an election.

And that's why I think folks should be especially vigilant and especially concerned any time we see a president relying upon the premise of an emergency to use military force and to use federal control of local law enforcement in our cities.

DEEMA ZEIN: President Trump's takeover of D.C.'s police is due to expire mid-September, but he wants that extended.

And his lawyers are now looking into overturning the 1973 Home Rule Act, meaning the future of how our nation's capital is governed still remains up for debate 235 years after its founding.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Deema Zein.

AMNA NAWAZ: A pair of Israeli strikes on a hospital in Gaza this morning killed five journalists, along with more than a dozen others, including first responders.

Some of their deaths occurred on live television in what Israel called a -- quote -- "tragic mishap."

This incident follows Israeli strikes that killed six journalists in Gaza City just two weeks ago, the single deadliest day of the war for those covering it on the ground.

Stephanie Sy has our report.

STEPHANIE SY: From the rubble of a stairwell at Nasser Hospital, Gaza's largest medical facility, news crews cover the aftermath of a deadly Israeli airstrike.

A witness holds up camera equipment coated in blood and dust.

"Journalism, journalism," he shouts.

First responders crammed into a stairwell try to reach the wounded.

Three more journalists circled in this freeze frame arrived on the scene, and then a second deadly strike.

The journalists were killed, along with more than a dozen civilians and first responders, in the back-to-back strikes on Nasser Hospital.

Colleagues and families sought comfort.

ADLI ABU TAHA, Brother of Moaz Abu Taha (through translator): Take a picture of me, guys.

We worked together so much, yet I never even took one picture with him.

STEPHANIE SY: Palestinian reporters and camera men and women tell the stories of violence and suffering in Gaza and have often become the story themselves.

Mariam Dagga, 33 years old, was a visual journalist who freelanced for several news organizations, including the Associated Press.

She and others often reported from Nasser Hospital to cover Gazans injured in the war.

Recently, her lens had shifted more towards Gaza's growing starvation.

Dagga was killed in the second strike, along with fellow freelancer Moaz Abu Taha and Al-Jazeera's Mohammed Salama.

Reuters confirmed cameraman Hussam al-Masri was killed apparently in the first strike.

A fifth journalist, Ahmed Aziz, died later of his wounds.

The Israeli prime minister's office issued a statement, calling it a tragic mishap, saying it values the work of journalists and medical staff.

Israel's military expressed regret and said it would investigate.

BRIG.

GEN. EFFIE DEFRIN, Israeli Defense Forces Spokesperson: We are aware of reports that harm was caused to civilians, including journalists.

Reporting from an active war zone carries immense risk, especially in a war with a terrorist organization such as Hamas, who cynically hides behind the civilian population.

STEPHANIE SY: At least 192 journalists have lost their lives in Gaza since the war began, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

By comparison, only 18 journalists have been killed in Russia's 3.5-year war in Ukraine.

The world relies on local Palestinian journalists for information, since Israel has banned international news professionals from covering the war in Gaza.

News organizations, including PBS News, obtained footage and reporting by contracting with Palestinian journalists who live in Gaza.

At a funeral for their colleagues today, those very journalists vowed to keep documenting and bearing witness to the war.

IZZ EL-DIN AL-MASRI, Brother of Hussam al-Masri (through translator): The cameras will not be turned off.

God willing, the cameras won't turn off.

They will not be absent from the public scene.

We will continue to pursue the image everywhere.

STEPHANIE SY: Joining me now to discuss the continued threats to journalists in Gaza is Azmat Khan, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter herself.

She is also the head of the Li Center for Global Journalism at Columbia University and joins us tonight from Ramallah in the occupied West Bank.

Azmat, it's good to have you on the "News Hour."

Gaza, as you know, has seen one of the deadliest periods for journalists in modern history, but it is just one of the deadliest places on the planet as well right now.

Officials say some 60,000 people have been killed in Gaza.

You have researched civilian deaths by airstrikes.

Put these journalists' deaths into context for us.

AZMAT KHAN, Investigative Reporter: Right.

We have never seen numbers like this in terms of journalists killed in airstrikes, in targeted attacks, in ways that have gone unexplained and underinvestigated.

But, at the end of the day, we have seen this from the very beginning of this war.

Since November 3, 2023, CPJ's numbers showed that, in that time period since the war started, they had never seen such a deadly period for journalists.

And this has been a pattern over and over and over.

On October 13, 2023, another Reuters journalist was killed, Issam Abdallah, while he was running a live feed for Reuters.

Today, we saw the exact same thing happen.

And this has been a case after case after case where we have seen a pattern of killing unlike anything else.

It surpasses anything I have ever seen in any war zone.

And, at the end of the day, it is the journalists that we rely on to tell us this story, to be our eyes and ears on the ground when we cannot get in, people who are risking their lives every day who've gone unprotected.

And we have failed to prevent this.

It's a failure by our industry.

STEPHANIE SY: Israel denies, Azmat, that it targets journalists on purpose.

You called it a pattern.

And just two weeks ago, an Al-Jazeera correspondent, Anas Al-Sharif, was killed.

The Israeli military, in that case, released some screenshots of documents showing he had worked for Hamas in the past.

Azmat, what do you think of that type of justification, which Israel has given on other occasions as well?

AZMAT KHAN: So there's a great deal of evidence of Anas' work as a journalist.

And in this case, you can see that he was working as a journalist, and Israel targeted him.

That is targeting a journalist.

They claim he has had prior affiliations.

But by that same logic, that would make anyone, if true, right, which this evidence, we have yet to see it for ourselves -- they also made new claims about promoting Hamas rockets, again, evidence we have yet to see.

But if this is the logic that we are supposed to be using in how people are targeted, by that same logic, you could target somebody who had previously worked for or had previously been in a military and became a journalist.

And I think that's a really, really dangerous precedent to set.

it endangers all of us.

More than that, I think it's really important to know the very savvy network that Israel has relied upon.

It includes its own so-called legitimization cell, a cell that's intentionally been created to contrive allegations against journalists and deflect from its killing of journalists and, in essence, its killing of truths.

Now, there are cases where -- there are at least 26 cases that CPJ has tracked where it has identified instances in which it believes that journalists were explicitly targeted.

We have seen cases where journalists who were flying drones, an essential part of their operations, were targeted for that very reason, for using drones to capture video footage.

All of this really, really requires us to ask ourselves, how did we get to a place where such numbers have become acceptable?

It is no longer surprising.

How did we get to a place where allegations about links to Hamas are able to circulate so effectively that they make the entire conversation about an unprecedented number of journalists and journalists who work for outlets that we rely upon for news coverage that we use every day, how is that not the story?

And we really need to ensure that killing journalists doesn't kill the story.

AMNA NAWAZ: Democratic Party leaders from across the country are meeting today in Minneapolis.

They're reckoning with their 2024 losses, as well as Republican redistricting efforts in Texas and possibly elsewhere, that could make victory in the 2026 midterms even more difficult.

Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins has more.

LISA DESJARDINS: Over the weekend, the Texas state Senate sent Republican-drawn maps to the governors desk, where they await signature.

Among the key areas affected, Austin, where two Democrats, Congressman Lloyd Doggett and Greg Casar, now represent neighboring districts, but in the Republican-proposed map, the shapes would change so that one is much harder for them to win.

As a result, Casar announced today he's switching into Doggett's district.

The veteran Congressman Doggett says, if this map stands, he will reluctantly retire.

And Congressman Doggett joins me now to discuss this significant moment for him and for the Democratic Party.

First of all, Congressman, the big question, why decide to retire if these maps stand?

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX): I think this is much bigger than Texas and it's certainly much bigger than the individual future of any elected official.

This is really about what happens to our democracy.

Trump is taking a big step here in Texas to protect himself from any accountability, to assure that he has a Congress that is as compliant as the one that he has today that will basically allow him to do whatever he wants.

He knows the midterm elections don't favor him, and so he's trying to fix those elections this year by redesigning districts, grabbing them and marching from Texas across the country to assure himself an un -- that he faces no accountability.

For me personally, yes, it's been a tough decision because I represent more than two-thirds of the district that I would defer to Congressman Casar on, and I'd really hope that he would not surrender his district in San Antonio, the end of his district in San Antonio to Trump.

I think it's a district that we must win to keep Trump from going out of Texas with five new seats.

LISA DESJARDINS: There are a lot of dynamics here.

I see you in Congress all the time.

I know you're a workhorse.

You're also among the most senior members of Congress.

And you were one of the -- you were the first Democrat to call on Joe Biden to step out of the presidential race last year.

On the other hand, Greg Casar, leader of the Progressive Caucus, he is 40 years your junior.

What do you think this decision tells people, if anything, about who can win or who should win going ahead in the Democratic Party?

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT: Well, I think it says several things.

It's important that we have a new generation of leaders.

That's one of the reasons I went out and campaigned for Congressman Casar when he was seeking his first elective office here in Austin.

And he, in turn, this year, recruited me to be a vice chair of the Progressive Caucus as part of his new leadership there.

We have been allies on matters.

I think that my call for President Biden to step aside has been pointed to by some who say, hey, you're an old guy too.

Why doesn't this mean you need to step aside?

And I think it's an indication of my willingness to step out, take a risk against the president of my own party, because not that he was too old, but that he was too ineffective and that he was not demonstrating an ability to get reelected.

I wish more of my colleagues, young and old, had joined in that early call, and we might have had a different result in the last election.

LISA DESJARDINS: I know you're watching the party overall.

Today, DNC Chairman Ken Martin called the president dictator in chief, and he also said this to Democrats in general: KEN MARTIN, Chairman, Democratic National Committee: We need to fight harder.

We need to organize smarter, and we need to make sure that people everywhere, no matter where they live, understand that the Democratic Party is their party.

The time to act is now.

The time to change is now.

The time to win real, lasting, transformative victories is right now.

LISA DESJARDINS: Kamala Harris repeatedly said, when we fight, we win.

That did not work.

Do you sense there is a specific plan from Democrats?

Are you satisfied with the message right now?

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT: I think there's more work to be done.

I would call the president the intimidator in chief, because he does not point only to party, as with his recent attacks on Chris Christie and on John Bolton.

It's anyone that challenges him in the slightest.

His intimidation, his step-by-step move to tyranny in this country places this in greater peril than at any time in my political life.

I think we refine the message by listening to people all over the country and trying to address the economic issues that they struggle with and make it clear that we're leaving no one out.

LISA DESJARDINS: Some Democratic viewers have asked me -- we have viewers across the spectrum, but Democrats have asked me, why aren't we seeing more marches, more rallies?

I know there are some in Texas, but what is your answer to that?

Why do you think there is not more action, but there seems to be a lot of talk from Democrats?

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT: Well, I can speak about my hometown here in Austin, and we have had one rally after another.

I organized one of the first ones.

We had them repeatedly over the last week about redistricting.

I think there is a need eventually to have national coordination, because this is really a national attempt by the president to militarize.

He'd take over the military, law enforcement, and be ready to use them not to fight crime, but to fight those who disagree with him.

And I'm very concerned that he begins in the nation capital, taking over the capital with his military forces, snatching students off the street with masked agents.

These are the tools of the dictator.

And we may not have achieved full dictatorship yet, but if we wait until that time, we may not be able to have the power to stop him.

LISA DESJARDINS: In our final seconds here, Governor Gavin Newsom of California is going about the sort of a different way, being very vocal on social media, very confrontational with President Trump.

My question to you is, who do you think is showing leadership in the Democratic Party right now?

Who are you listening to?

A lot of folks are looking for who that leader will be.

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT: I think we have several people.

Governor Pritzker was so helpful to our Texas representatives when they were in Illinois.

Chris Murphy is a great United States senator, speaking out especially on foreign policy issues.

But I applaud Governor Newsom for being the one governor who stood up, working with Speaker Pelosi and our California congressional colleagues, to put this referendum item on the ballot on November 4.

And that is going to be so important to whether we have the ability to take back the House next year, have the subpoena power to demand accountability, and push back and have a real check and balance on a president determined to have only one-man rule.

LISA DESJARDINS: Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Texas, thank you for joining us.

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT: Thank you, Lisa.

AMNA NAWAZ: There has been a flurry of political news already for a Monday, and it certainly doesn't feel like the usually slow August in Washington, D.C.

Here with us to take a closer look is Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR.

It's great to see you both.

This Monday has felt like a busy week already.

Let's jump right in.

Tam, you heard what Lisa was asking Congressman Doggett there about Democrats meeting this moment, about frustration in the base, their lack of fight perceived in their base, at least.

And I should point out too, in terms of fund-raising numbers, there's a big gap between the DNC and the RNC.

The numbers at the end of June showed the DNC reportedly had $15 million on hand.

The RNC had $80 million.

There's another sign of that frustration among Democrats.

But what did you make of Congressman Doggett's response and the larger Democratic approach right now?

TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Right.

And he talked about how there are multiple Democrats who are trying to push back on Trump.

And I think that that is where Democrats are right now, which is that there isn't one voice.

There isn't sort of one top-down marching order on how to proceed.

Democrats are trying to figure themselves out.

And they are struggling.

I think that over time you will see eventually a coalescing around a candidate.

And that candidate will give voice to what Democrats want.

I mean, we have seen this cycle after cycle.

In 2020, the only thing that Democrats wanted was someone who could beat Trump.

And they ended up with Joe Biden.

That sort of thing, that sort of coalescing just hasn't happened yet.

It's still really early.

And they are definitely still in the wilderness.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's still a lot of time, yes, Amy, but what do you make of someone who's getting a lot of attention right now?

It's California Governor Gavin Newsom, who sort of adopted Trump's approach and is taking it right back to him?

Is it working?

Do you see other Democrats taking that tack?

AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Right.

Well, it's working in his home state.

In fact, there was a poll out just the other week that showed that Governor Newsom's approval rating in the state is actually now up eight points since April.

So he has definitely coalesced that anger about Trump or that frustration among many who don't like Donald Trump that there wasn't enough pushback from Democratic elected officials.

I think he's benefited from that, both in his style and then, of course, going on the offense when it comes to the redistricting.

But what I think is also a challenge and part of the reason why Democrats do feel like this, I think you said, lost in the wilderness is that while every one of these high-profile Democrats, whether it's Governor Pritzker or Governor Newsom, is showing themselves as bulwarks against Donald Trump, ways in which they're going to -- quote -- "fight fire with fire," very few of them are really showing a new or different path forward for the Democratic Party.

Who are they outside of being against Trump or anti-Trump?

And, also, you have a Democratic Party, much like where the Republican Party was in 2015, feeling as if the norms and the systems and the status quo just isn't working in a way.

They don't want those same kinds of voices, or at least they're looking for some voices that are going to be outside of the sort of traditional status quo kind of language and policies that they have -- that Democratic voters have heard before.

So I think that's an opportunity for somebody who maybe we haven't been hearing from right now or an opportunity for some of these Democrats who are not currently on the front lines against Donald Trump, but who can come up with some ways in which they can define the party as being more than just the anti-Trump coalition.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, we know the immigration debate, Tam, obviously was a big part of what helped to propel President Trump back into office.

We reported earlier on Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who is now facing a second deportation, this time to Uganda, a country to which he has no connection.

And this one case has become sort of emblematic of the entire Trump administration's approach.

But when you look at how people are viewing that approach, there's a new Economist/YouGov poll that shows, on immigration, president has a 43 percent approval rating and a 53 percent disapproval rating.

Do those numbers say to you that people feel like he's gone too far?

TAMARA KEITH: You know, when President Trump sat down with "Meet the Press" with Kristen Welker before he even took office, he talked about his immigration policy and he said that there was a risk that there were going to be stories of families or people that were sob stories that get put on television and those stories are going to affect the perception that people have of his immigration policies.

Well, those stories are all over the place now and they are affecting the perception that people have of mass deportation.

What I will say about the Abrego Garcia is, it really does exemplify the Trump administration approach, which includes, among other things, trying to make it really uncomfortable for people who are in the country without legal status or who have sort of questions about their status, making it really uncomfortable for them to stay in the United States.

They don't have enough capacity in detention facilities for all the people that they would like to remove from the country.

And so they are working really hard to get people to self-deport.

The risk of being deported to Uganda or to being put in a detention facility that is scary is something that they are actively promoting to try to get people to do the work for them to leave the country.

And you will see at immigration court signs that say self-deport.

Here's how.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, Amy, there's a difference here, we should point out, between the mass deportation campaign, which is enforcement of immigration violations within the country and across the country, but there's also the crackdown at the U.S. southern border, which is where there was a lot of dissatisfaction among both Republicans and Democrats who saw record high numbers under the Biden administration.

And to President Trump's credit, those numbers have now come down to historic lows.

So why do you think there's still such high disapproval on this issue?

AMY WALTER: Well, Amna, that's a really good point.

And how you ask the question is also incredibly important, especially when it comes to polling.

And, in fact, there was a poll out in the last week by a group called Equis that just looked at Latino voters and, more specifically, Latino voters in these congressional districts that have a significant Latino population.

What the poll found was that, in those competitive districts, Trump's approval rating on handling the border issue was positive.

More people thought of it positively than negatively.

On the issue of immigration, he was very deeply unpopular.

The other thing that was fascinating about this poll, Amna, is that, even as Latino voters are sour on Donald Trump right now, his overall approval rating is just about 31 percent, they dislike what he's doing on immigration, it is the economy where he's seen more unpopularly with these voters.

In fact, it's almost -- I think it's like a 15-point difference between their disapproval of Donald Trump's handling of the cost of living versus his handling of immigration.

In other words, while immigration still is a very important issue for these voters, it's the fact that stuff still costs too much that has really soured so many Latino voters on Donald Trump, at least at this point.

AMNA NAWAZ: Before we go on, I want to ask both of you briefly just to respond to what we have seen in the last few days, which is a number of vocal critics of the president, from John Bolton to Adam Schiff to Chris Christie, being targeted either by federal action of some kind or online with threats from the president.

Tam, how do you look at this?

Is this the retribution presidency that John Bolton said we'd see?

TAMARA KEITH: Well, it's in fact the retribution presidency that President Trump said we would see.

When he was campaigning, he said, "I will be your retribution."

Then there was a lot of pushback from critics who said, whoa, that sounds like dangerous territory.

And he said, no, no, no, no, no, no, my success will be my retribution.

No, retribution is retribution.

We have seen time and time again not just these investigations now that are with the Justice Department, but also security clearances being taken away, protection from the Secret Service being stripped of people who are under threat, any number of firings up and down the Justice Department and other agencies.

There's a lot of retribution going on.

AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, you have got 30 seconds left.

What's your take?

AMY WALTER: Yes.

And it's working.

Amna, I mean, you have seen now, whether it's law firms or universities or individuals who are deciding to try to negotiate or to step away, rather than taking the fight to Donald Trump.

This is what he did not just in political office, but obviously this was how he also operated when he was in business.

He often would just grind folks down with lawsuits until they essentially just threw up their hands.

And, as president, he's been able to really get more with this intimidation than getting pushback from those who are the victims of it.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, we will have to leave it there, but I feel like we have a busy week ahead, ladies.

So thank you very, very much.

Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, great to see you.

TAMARA KEITH: You're welcome.

AMNA NAWAZ: Tech companies are pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into infrastructure to ramp up artificial intelligence.

Some projections show that spending may be fueling nearly half of this year's estimated GDP growth.

A.I.

is having a disproportionate impact on the markets, too, especially in recent months.

Economics correspondent Paul Solman looks at how A.I.

is already impacting the economy and whether a new risky bubble could be forming at the same time.

PAUL SOLMAN: In red clay West Texas, one piece of a half-trillion-dollar bet, a ginormous data center complex from the folks who brought you ChatGPT, one of hundreds of A.I.

data centers sprouting nationwide, extravagant bets that, if they hit, could pay off big time.

VIVEK WADHWA, Tech Entrepreneur: Imagine going back to the days when electricity was first invented and making things happen 10 times faster.

We could now have automatic washing machines.

We could have refrigerators.

A lot of things became possible with electricity.

PAUL SOLMAN: A.I.

is the electricity revolution on steroids, says Silicon Valley entrepreneur and techno optimist Vivek Wadhwa.

VIVEK WADHWA: We're adding intelligence to everything and it's making our business processes smarter.

It's making data analysis for the government smarter.

Everything we do is becoming smarter because we have so much data and artificial intelligence helps us to understand that.

PAUL SOLMAN: You hear such starry-eyed enthusiasm from tech moguls far and wide.

DEAN CARIGNAN, A.I.

Innovation Lead, Microsoft: A.I.

can take away the drudgery of the work and allow the human to provide the things that only a person can do, creativity, innovation, coalition-building.

JOSEPH TSAI, Chair, Alibaba Group: We want to invest over 50 billion U.S. dollars in compute infrastructure and A.I.

SUNDAR PICHAI, CEO, Google: I think A.I.

is going to be bigger than the Internet.

PAUL SOLMAN: Which is why, since the release of the ubiquitous A.I.

ChatGPT in 2022, real and pledged spending by big tech has exploded.

ASWATH DAMODARAN, New York University: Right now, we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on A.I.

architecture.

PAUL SOLMAN: Aswath Damodaran teaches finance at NYU's Business School.

ASWATH DAMODARAN: Why?

Because there is this hope, this prayer that there is this big market out there for A.I.

products and services.

PAUL SOLMAN: And just a prayer, say some folks.

JERRY KAPLAN, Stanford University: We're in the middle of an A.I.

bubble.

There is no need for dozens of companies to have what are called foundation models, and each of them are raising tens of billions of dollars in training these large so-called foundation models.

PAUL SOLMAN: The A.I.

boom reminds longtime A.I.

entrepreneur Jerry Kaplan of autos, dawn of the 20th century.

JERRY KAPLAN: There were dozens of car companies, eventually consolidated down to a few.

PAUL SOLMAN: And at the century's dusk: JERRY KAPLAN: There wasn't a need for dozens and dozens of browsers or search engines.

There's only a need for a small number.

We're in exactly that same situation today with respect to A.I.

There's only a need for a handful of the basic low-level foundation models to require all this investment to build.

So what's going to happen?

Well, it's all going to consolidate, obviously, and there will be only a few survivors left.

PAUL SOLMAN: So it's all a dream?

ASWATH DAMODARAN: There's this dream, at least, that maybe one day we can make money from selling A.I.

products and services.

Just as we overinvested for the Internet at the start of the dot-com boom, we overinvested in the P.C.

architecture business before the P.C.

boom, we overinvested in social media at the start of the social media boom, I think we're overestimating how much money can be made from A.I.

products and services.

PAUL SOLMAN: But, hey, he asks his classes: ASWATH DAMODARAN: What's so wrong with a bubble?

They said, bubbles are terrible.

They create pain.

People lose money.

I said, would you want to live in a world run by actuaries where it says, we'd still be in caves because they'd be looking at fire is a dangerous thing, let's have a few more thousand years of testing things out?

Every advance in humankind has come from overreaching.

PAUL SOLMAN: Yes, OK, but at what cost, if A.I.

is, at the moment, driving economic growth overall, estimates as high as 50 percent of GDP this year?

So that, if the bubble bursts, it'll be a real downturn for the U.S. economy.

ASWATH DAMODARAN: The real economy not that much, because if you think about the size of the real economy, even if you take all of the A.I.

architecture investments, it is a small percentage of a huge economy, but the market, very different story.

PAUL SOLMAN: The S&P 500, for example, is up 10 percent this year, largely thanks to tech stocks and investments in A.I.

ASWATH DAMODARAN: This is a market that has ridden on the back of A.I.

for the last couple of years.

The economy might do fine.

Stocks might be down 40 percent.

And that does have ripple effects in the economy.

I mean, losing $10 trillion in market cap just in five companies can have huge consequences for people's 401(k)s, their spending.

PAUL SOLMAN: Moreover, A.I.

's impact nearer term is proving way scary.

Many booming companies are not adding workers, as they usually do.

They're shedding them, both here and abroad.

SEBASTIAN SIEMIATKOWSKI, CEO, Klarna: The company have shrunk from about 5,000 to almost now 3,000 employees.

And if you go to LinkedIn and look at the jobs, you will see how we're shrinking.

PAUL SOLMAN: That was CEO of the hot buy-now, pay-later firm Klarna this spring.

Ten years ago, I did a story on coding academies.

It was the way to move up in the economy.

And now profitable companies, very profitable, are laying off those very people, no?

JERRY KAPLAN: I'm actually seeing that in microcosm in my work at Stanford.

A lot of the students are having considerable difficulty getting jobs.

And I'm talking about the students graduating with master's degrees in computer science.

That's a tremendous surprise for me.

I haven't seen that in my lifetime.

PAUL SOLMAN: And it's not just in techy Silicon Valley.

JIM FARLEY, CEO, Ford Motor Company: Artificial intelligence is going to replace literally half of all white-collar workers in the U.S. PAUL SOLMAN: That's Ford CEO Jim Farley in Rust Belt, Michigan.

JIM FARLEY: A.I.

will leave a lot of white-collar people behind.

PAUL SOLMAN: Other estimates are not quite as dire, but even as A.I.

displaces workers, it will improve the world immeasurably, Vivek Wadhwa is betting.

VIVEK WADHWA: My A.I.

can do what human beings can't do in analyzing patterns.

And, with it, I'm going to revolutionize the entire medical diagnostics industry.

My goal is to be able to provide full comprehensive medical testing for less than a cost of a meal.

PAUL SOLMAN: But even Wadhwa sees a downside he can't deny.

VIVEK WADHWA: A.I.

is going to take jobs on a scale that we haven't imagined before.

It's not that all jobs will disappear.

Many new jobs will appear.

But a lot of existing jobs that do grunt work, that do manual analysis of stuff, that do manual labor will be eliminated because of what A.I.

makes possible.

This is unstoppable.

PAUL SOLMAN: Unstoppable as A.I.

makes utopian dreams possible and dystopian dreams, well, at least as likely.

VIVEK WADHWA: I talk about its good side, the fact that I can use it now to solve the problem of the medical diagnostics, to help reduce suffering.

At the same time, it's going to take jobs away and create all sorts of new nightmares, security issues, deepfakes, God knows what.

None of us really understand how fast things are moving and where we're going to be even five years from now.

PAUL SOLMAN: And we're not even talking about rogue A.I.

that operates on its own, nightmare scenario of the "Terminator" movies, not talking about it in this story, anyway.

So, want a closing thought?

Mine may well be the same as yours.

The lord giveth and the lord taketh away.

For the "PBS News Hour," Paul Solman.

AMNA NAWAZ: 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.