GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Border officials prepare for a surge of migrants, as the controversial Title 42 immigration restrictions expire.

We discuss the issue with Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

GEOFF BENNETT: The EPA proposes new rules that would force power plants to slash carbon emissions.

AMNA NAWAZ: And Ukraine awaits the arrival of American tanks that could be a game-changer in its fight against Russia, but using the weaponry brings its own challenges.

STAFF SGT.

PAUL CLOCK (RET.

), U.S. Army: It's like owning a Ducati.

It's got a lot of expensive parts.

It is a gas turbine engine and a lot of proprietary systems.

(BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

A deadline is at hand tonight for migrants hoping to enter the U.S. from Mexico.

The hours are counting down to the end of COVID-19 curbs on asylum seekers.

GEOFF BENNETT: In its place, the Biden administration is promising a crackdown on illegal crossings.

That, in turn, made this a day of desperation for many.

Lisa Desjardins has our report.

LISA DESJARDINS: Massive lines and increasing tension at the southern U.S. border today, as both migrants and Border Patrol prepare for a major policy shift.

The pandemic era restrictions known as Title 42 have been used to deny asylum seekers for the past three years on the grounds of protecting public health.

Those restrictions expire at midnight tonight.

Amid confusion, some migrants fear what that could mean.

NESTOR VILLALOBOS, Venezuelan Migrant (through translator): We don't know how it's going to be.

Maybe it's easier to enter here or maybe it's more complicated.

In truth, we have uncertainty.

We are here, and we do not know what will happen.

Hopefully it will be easier for the migrant, because, at the moment, it is very difficult.

LISA DESJARDINS: For months, concern has mounted, as migrants have rushed to the border in record droves.

Across from Brownsville, Texas, crowds hoisted belongings overhead as they traversed the Rio Grande and stood face to face with U.S. troops separated by razor wire.

Yesterday, overwhelmed holding facilities near the border began releasing detainees, telling them to return for processing within 60 days.

The Biden administration says its replacement policy, known as Title 8, will both crack down on illegal crossings and foster legal pathways for migrants.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas spoke at the White House.

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security: We prepared for this moment for almost two years, and our plan will deliver results.

It will take time for those results to be fully realized, and it is essential that we all take this into account.

LISA DESJARDINS: No coincidence, on Capitol Hill... REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): On this about, vote, the yeas are 219, the nays are 213.

LISA DESJARDINS: ... House Republicans narrowly passed a sweeping Secure the Border bill.

Numbered H.R.2, it would resume building a border wall, add more Border Patrol agents, allow for indefinite family detention, and insist most asylum seekers remain in their home country or be detained while their claims are reviewed.

Debate was substantive and sharp.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL): I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.

It would brutally harm children for the sake of cheap political points.

Our border should be governed by laws upholding argumentative, not by demagogues promoting bigotry.

REP. JUAN CISCOMANI (R-AZ): H.R.2 gives our agents and officers the resources they desperately need, closes loopholes in an abused asylum system and protects innocent children from harm.

This bill is a step away from the chaos we are seeing and a step closer to helping others achieve the American dream I have been so blessed to live.

LISA DESJARDINS: The bill is not expected to get a vote in the Senate.

But the issue is expected to remain heated in Washington and across the country.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I am Lisa Desjardins.

AMNA NAWAZ: For more on U.S. immigration policy, I spoke earlier today with Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Secretary Blinken, welcome to the "NewsHour."

Thank you for joining us.

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. Secretary of State: Good to be with you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, we are speaking at a time of unprecedented global migration, as you well know.

Our Southern border is no exception.

As Title 42 goes into ending tonight, we're already seeing, what, some 8,000 or 9,000 apprehensions a day at the U.S. Southern border.

Officials are saying some 65,000 people are waiting in Northern Mexico to try and cross after it ends.

We are facing an unprecedented test of our system.

What are you worried about at this moment in time?

ANTONY BLINKEN: Well, first, it is important to emphasize that this is unprecedented, because we are facing around the world more people on the move than at any time in recorded history, displaced from their homes for one reason or another.

And that is powerfully true in our own atmosphere.

And, of course, that brings them in our direction.

We had been working on this for literally day one of this administration.

And the most important thing is this.

It is getting a shared sense of responsibility across this hemisphere for the challenge of migration.

And we have been doing that.

President Biden has been leading that effort.

We brought countries together in Los Angeles at the Summit of the Americas.

And out of that came the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration where countries are stepping up to do things that they weren't doing before to help all of us get control of migration in the hemisphere.

AMNA NAWAZ: Those are long-term solutions, Mr. Secretary.

What are you -- what are you worried about in the immediate term?

When this rule ends tonight, what worries you?

ANTONY BLINKEN: Some is long-term, but of course, many other things are immediate.

For example, just in recent months, we struck an agreement with Mexico that's very important, where Mexico has agreed to take 1,000 people a day who come across and don't have lawful status in the United States from four countries, from Venezuela, from Nicaragua, from Haiti, and from Cuba.

At the same time, we're working very closely with other countries to be able to repatriate people who come across unlawfully, sending them back on flights.

And we're also sending the message out that, no, that the border is not open.

And, on the contrary, do not put yourself in the hands of smugglers.

Don't pay the exorbitant costs that come with trying to get here.

Don't risk your lives, because it won't work.

And, finally, one of the new programs that we're instituting and that you will see come to fruition in the weeks ahead are something we're calling regional processing centers.

This gives people an opportunity in their own countries to make a determination about whether they are eligible legally to come to the United States by one of the various lawful pathways that exist, for example, to get a work visa, to be reunited with family, to qualify as a refugee.

And making that accessible, making that available to people gives them an opportunity in their own countries to find out if they can come to the United States lawfully, instead, again, of making the incredibly hazardous journey all the way to our border, with all the dangers and all the costs that come with that, only to find out that, no, they can't get in.

AMNA NAWAZ: There is a new transit rule, an asylum rule going into effect I want to ask you about.

It basically bars anyone from seeking asylum here in the United States if they didn't first seek protection in another country that they pass through on their way to the U.S. As you know, immigration advocates say this basically mirrors a rule that the Trump administration put into place that was later struck down in the courts.

But I'm curious, from your perspective, what is -- what is the safe third option for people making this dangerous trek where you would have to seek protection first before they get to the U.S.?

ANTONY BLINKEN: Well, this does go to the shared sense of responsibility that we're trying to build across the hemisphere.

And to the extent someone is going through a country whether there's an opportunity to seek asylum, and they haven't availed themselves of that opportunity, we're saying, you need to do that.

But we're not just saying that.

We're also working with these countries to strengthen their own asylum systems, to strengthen the protections that they offer to migrants, as well as to strengthen opportunity, so that people who may choose to avail themselves of asylum in a third country have something to go to and something to look toward.

So... (CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: To that point, Mr. Secretary, though -- pardon the interruption.

I know your time is limited.

ANTONY BLINKEN: No, please.

AMNA NAWAZ: What countries would you consider safe options?

I know you're working toward that, but today... ANTONY BLINKEN: Well, I don't want to get into -- I don't want to get into a list of countries.

But I can say for example, that, with Mexico, we're working very closely -- and we have been for some period of time -- in helping them to strengthen their own asylum system.

In Mexico, for example, right now, there are in parts of the country labor shortages that they're interested in meeting through migration done lawfully.

So, if we can support that may be one opportunity for people.

AMNA NAWAZ: Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, Mexico's murder rate is four times that of the United States.

Your own State Department has issued several travel warnings, do-not-travel warnings for a number of states across Mexico for U.S. citizens.

Why would that be considered a safe option for anyone making that journey?

ANTONY BLINKEN: It's a -- it's, as you know, a vast country with big differences depending on where you are in the country.

So a lot depends on what part of the country we're talking about.

But I cite that simply as one example of work that we're doing with countries across the hemisphere to strengthen the protections that they offer, to strengthen their own asylum systems, as well as to cooperate with us as necessary on repatriations, even as we are working to expand legal pathways to this country.

AMNA NAWAZ: I'd like to ask you about Ukraine, if I may.

Just today, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that the West had not delivered enough armored vehicles for them to launch a counteroffensive.

Just a couple of days ago, you said that you believe they do have in place what they need to continue to be successful in regaining territory.

So how should we understand that?

Who's right?

ANTONY BLINKEN: Well, from day one, and as I -- even before day one, we have been working overtime to try to make sure that Ukraine had in its hands what it needs to defend itself against the Russian aggression.

First, when we saw it coming, we wanted to make sure that they had what they needed if it came, and, indeed, with the Stingers and Javelins that we provided going back to before the Russian aggression, they were able to repel the efforts to take Kyiv and take the whole country.

At every step along the way ever since, we have worked with now more than 50 countries to adjust, to adapt, depending on the nature of the fight, where it was, what was needed, to make sure that, again, they had what they - - what they needed.

And it's a process.

And we're working literally every single day with the Ukrainians and with this coalition of countries to make sure they have support.

If there are gaps, if there are shortages, they will tell us, and we will make every effort to make good on them.

AMNA NAWAZ: They have been asking, requesting these longer-range missiles from the U.S. up to 185-mile range.

The U.S. has so far refused those requests.

But British officials say they will send to Ukraine missiles with 180-mile range, which is basically the same.

What's the U.S. argument right now for refusing to send those to Ukraine?

ANTONY BLINKEN: That's precisely why we have a coalition of countries that are supporting Ukraine.

Different countries will do different things, depending on their own capacities, depending on their own technology, depending on what makes the most sense.

So we have provided some things uniquely to Ukraine through this process.

Other countries may do things different than what we're doing.

The question is, does the whole thing add up to what Ukraine needs?

And we're determined that it do so.

And, again, it's also... AMNA NAWAZ: So, you support the British decision, then?

There's no fear of escalation with the British providing those longer-range missiles?

ANTONY BLINKEN: All of this, again, is done through a coalition and coordinated process.

Secretary Austin's been leading that for many months now.

And, as I said before, it's not only the weapons systems.

It's the training, because you can give someone a great weapons system.

If they don't know how to use it, it's not going to do much good.

It's the maintenance, because, if they don't know how to maintain it, you give it to them, it falls apart in seven days, it's not going to do you much good.

And, of course, it's understanding how to use all of these things in a cohesive and effective plan, combined arms, as it's called in the business.

All of these things are what we have been working on, and we're doing it in a coordinated way.

Different countries take different pieces of this.

AMNA NAWAZ: As you know, President Zelenskyy criticized the U.S. after those intelligence leaks by the junior airman Jack Teixeira in Massachusetts, calling them not beneficial to the reputation of the United States.

Do you believe that the U.S. intelligence community fully has its arms around the extent of that leak?

ANTONY BLINKEN: We are, as always, working overtime to make sure that we're protecting the information that needs to be protected, including in this instance and also more broadly.

And we have had conversations with partners around the world about this, making clear to them the importance that we attach to it.

I have got to say, in the many, many meetings, engagements, trips I have been on since this - - this incident, it's almost never come up from one of our partners.

In fact, I brought it up just to reassure people that we're intensely focused on this and making sure that the information that we have is protected.

But the other side of the equation is this.

Allies and partners around the world know the extraordinary value of the information that we're able to develop.

They know how important it's been to them.

And, of course, they want to make sure that we preserve it.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken joining us tonight.

Secretary Blinken, thank you very much.

Please come back soon.

ANTONY BLINKEN: Thanks.

Good to be with you.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other headlines: The end of the COVID health emergency also put an end to vaccine mandates for federal employers and contractors.

Extra food aid and automatic reenrollment in Medicaid are expiring as well.

The nation's COVID death toll has stopped 1.1 one million, and the virus is still killing about 1,000 Americans each week.

A second debt limit meeting between President Biden and congressional leaders has been postponed from tomorrow to next week.

The White House announced that late today.

The president hosted an initial meeting on Tuesday, but there was no immediate sign of progress toward averting default.

Now both sides say the delay is a sign that staff negotiators are making progress.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ordered Imran Khan's release.

It declared the former prime minister's arrest Tuesday on corruption charges was illegal.

His detention sparked some of Pakistan's most violent unrest in years.

At least 10 people were killed, with more than 2,000 arrested.

Khan's supporters cheered the courts ruling today.

They said it corrected a mistake that never should have happened.

MOHAMMAD AFTAB, Imran Khan Supporter (through translator): Imran Khan's release proves we knew the truth.

We are pleased with the court's decision.

If they hadn't released Khan, we would have spilled the last drop of our blood for him.

Now we will continue to stand firm.

AMNA NAWAZ: There was no word on exactly when Khan will be released, but Pakistan's interior minister vowed to arrest him again.

The fighting between Israel and Islamic Jihad shows no sign of ending.

Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza claimed its first Israeli victim this week, a 70-year-old man.

In Gaza, Israeli airstrikes killed two more Islamic Jihad commanders.

All told, 29 Palestinians have died.

Israel says several were killed by failed rocket launches.

Palestinians have fired more than 600 rockets this week.

Back in this country, prosecutors in New York say they are charging a man with second-degree manslaughter in the choke hold death of Jordan Neely.

The case gained national attention after Daniel Penny use the choke hold on Neely, who had been screaming during a subway ride.

Penny will be arraigned tomorrow.

In economic news: more signs today that inflationary pressures may be easing.

The Labor Department reports wholesale prices in April were up 2.3 percent from a year earlier.

That's the smallest annual increase in two years.

A report on Wednesday showed retail inflation is also slowing.

And on Wall Street, stocks had a mostly down day.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 221 points to close at 33309.

The Nasdaq rose 22 points.

The S&P 500 slipped seven.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": how new regulations could force power plants to drastically cut emissions; a CNN town hall highlights the media's struggle with how to cover former President Trump and his repeated lies; state Republicans work to stymie constitutional amendments that aim to protect reproductive rights; plus much more.

GEOFF BENNETT: As we have been reporting, Title 42, the pandemic error rule that served two presidents as a border policy Band-Aid, will expire one minute before midnight Eastern time.

That is as Congress is up against another ticking clock, with the debt limit impasse threatening the national and global economies.

Texas Republican Congressman Chip Roy is an influential voice in the House Freedom Caucus and these debates, and he joins us now from Capitol Hill.

Welcome back to the "NewsHour," sir.

REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): Thanks.

Great to be on.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, House Republicans passed their immigration bill today called the Secure the Border Act.

It's heavily focused on enforcement.

Not expected to get a vote in the Senate, which Democrats control.

But it does reflect Republican immigration priorities.

How would this bill alleviate the pressure that border communities are facing right now and strengthen border protection?

REP. CHIP ROY: Yes, thanks.

So, first of all, I wouldn't say that addresses immigration.

It is in fact designed to be a border security-focused piece of legislation.

It is designed to, frankly, force the administration's to do what current law actually requires the president to do, which is to maintain operational control of the border.

And, in fact, they are losing control.

I have gotten text messages today from Border Patrol agents and members of the Texas Department of Public Safety, DPS, telling me that they are effectively at a broken arrow situation.

They have got overrun facilities, that they have got Chinese nationals coming across, that they have lost complete control of being able to maintain it.

You have got El Paso has declared a state of emergency.

You have got Brownsville that has declared a state of emergency.

Laredo has declared a state of emergency.

San Antonio is preparing for overwhelming amounts of migrants in their centers in San Antonio.

The reality is, we have a crisis at the border that is getting worse.

And it is because the president and because Secretary Mayorkas has basically been using loopholes to force the releases of people into the United States, which is causing the flood at the border.

And our legislation would end those loopholes.

It would stop the abuse of asylum and it would stop the abuse of other provisions of law from unaccompanied children and so forth to cause releases in the United States, which is actually endangering the migrants in question, 856 dead migrants along South Texas in the Rio Grande found on ranches, 856, 53 cooked in a tractor trailer in San Antonio, Texas, last summer, millions of immigrants coming up to our border.

And you got 72,000 dead Americans from fentanyl pouring into our communities because we're not policing the border.

GEOFF BENNETT: Let me ask you this.

Can... REP. CHIP ROY: We need to do something about it.

And this bill would do that.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, can anything short of comprehensive immigration reform solve this problem?

We heard from the DHS Secretary Mayorkas today say that there are 20 million displaced people across the Western Hemisphere.

Suggests to me that there's no end in sight to this immigration problem.

REP. CHIP ROY: Of course there is.

We're a sovereign nation.

This is the problem.

My Democratic colleagues do not believe that we're a sovereign nation.

We do have laws.

We do have doors that are open for people to come here legally.

We do have asylum protections.

And the bill that we passed today allows for asylum to be claimed and processed.

What it doesn't allow is for people to bum-rush our border and get released into the United States.

The fact that there are lots of people in the world who would like to have a better job and come to this country, God bless them.

I do not begrudge them.

But we are undermining the rule of law that causes people to want to come to this country.

We are undermining the Western Hemisphere.

We are empowering China.

Talk to the moms, the three moms, the fentanyl moms who lost their kids that I had breakfast with in Austin last Friday morning.

Talk to the parents of the four dead children in my school district where my kids live, where we live in, Hays County, Texas, and who have lost their kids to fentanyl.

Talk to them.

Talk to the thousands of grieving families that have lost their loved ones to fentanyl, because we're allowing China to have control of our border, because the cartels have control of our border.

That's the reality.

You could stop it right now with our legislation.

There are 12 people that stand between chaos and security.

And it's 11 Democrats in the Senate and the Democratic president in the White House.

GEOFF BENNETT: While we have you, I want to ask you about the debt ceiling impasse.

That meeting that was planned at the White House on Friday, as we have reported, has now been punted to next week.

REP. CHIP ROY: Yes.

GEOFF BENNETT: I spoke with the Democratic House leader, Hakeem Jeffries, on this program yesterday, and asked if Congress can raise the debt ceiling while Democrats and Republicans arrive at a budget agreement on parallel tracks.

That way, the two aren't directly linked, everybody gets what they want, and everybody can claim victory.

He says that Democrats are ready to have that discussion.

Are House Republicans?

REP. CHIP ROY: Well, look, I'd love to talk to Hakeem and see what he actually means by that.

I mean, if you get to the end result where we actually reduce spending, and do what we need to do to stop the fiscal insanity, while we manage and go through and figure out the debt ceiling along the terms of the deal that we throw out, certainly happy to have whatever conversation gets us to that end result.

But what we're not going to do is negotiate against ourselves.

We're not going to be saying, well, we will give you this and give you this.

They need to come forward with a proposal and figure out how we're going to get there.

You want to have a short-term debt ceiling increase to try to do it, well, then that's going to cost something too.

We're not just going to do a three-month extension, which would also be a clean extension, borrowing more money, without some fiscal reforms.

But we can maybe buy some time and get there.

I'm open to ideas.

But what we're not going to do is back away from what we have already put out as our proposal.

The president needs to step up to the plate, as he did when he was vice president and he negotiated a deal in 2011, as he did when he was a senator in '94, '84, and other times.

He's been very clear that you need to come to the table without just raising the debt ceiling with a blank check and not actually getting fundamental fiscal reforms, which is what we're trying to do.

GEOFF BENNETT: You were a leading opponent early on of Kevin McCarthy's bid for the House speakership and led a group of House Republicans who basically extracted concessions from him, among them, deep spending cuts.

Can Kevin McCarthy, could he ever, is there a universe where he could bring a clean bill to the floor to raise the debt ceiling with no concessions and keep his speakership?

REP. CHIP ROY: We -- he's not going to bring a clean debt ceiling bill to the floor, because that is not something that Republicans got elected to do.

He's not going to do that.

GEOFF BENNETT: All right.

Chip Roy, Congressman from Texas, Republican, thanks for being with us.

REP. CHIP ROY: Hey, thank you all.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made a surprise statement today, that his country had not yet received enough Western armored vehicles to launch a counteroffensive.

U.S. and other allies have said repeatedly in recent days that Ukraine has what it needs, including 98 percent of promised armored vehicles.

Nick Schifrin examines what the West says it's provided and what it still plans to deliver in the near future, including the most advanced tank in the world, the Abrams, to help Ukraine recapture occupied territory.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The tank is described as a steel beast.

More than any other military vehicle, it provides firepower, protection, and speed.

Ukraine didn't have Western tanks a year ago.

It does now.

MAN: Thank you very much from Ukraine.

NICK SCHIFRIN: British Challenger tanks and more than 1,550 French, German, Polish, and other Western armored vehicles, enough for more than nine armored combat brigades with some 30,000 soldiers.

The U.S. has provided more than 1,300 armored vehicles, including Bradleys, Strykers, and mine-resistant troop vehicles, and it will provide 31 M1A1 Abrams tanks set for delivery by the end of the year.

LT. COL. MICHAEL PURCELL (RET.

), U.S. Marines: I think it's clear that it's sort of the engineering marvel of the tank world, if you will.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel Michael Purcell has extensive combat experience with Abrams tanks.

He's also a Russia expert who's helped U.S. efforts to transform Ukraine's military from its Soviet origins to Western-trained and - equipped that will culminate in Ukraine's upcoming counteroffensive using what the U.S. calls combined arms.

LT. COL. MICHAEL PURCELL: It's the integration of all arms, right, so aviation, ideally, armor in this case.

A tank is hard to replace.

And then, of course, infantry along with what they call the king of the battlefield, artillery.

When we talk about combined arms, we think hard about putting the enemy or the opposing force into a dilemma, in the sense that, if they move, they're going to be exposed to artillery fires or aviation fires.

If they stay put, we're pushing forward closer to their location in order to gain an advantage.

Easier said than done.

1ST.

SGT.

DAVID GONZALES (RET.

), U.S. Army: The Abrams, to me, is one of the greatest, if not the greatest tank on the battlefield, and, to me, has saved my butt more time than once.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Retired Master Gunner 1st Sergeant David Gonzales has 23 years of experience in the Abrams, from tank driver, to tank commander, to master gunner and subject matter expert.

He fought in Iraq in 1991 and again in 2003 and 2004.

He says, compared to Russia's best tanks currently in Ukraine, the Abrams offers a gun that is stabilized, providing greater firepower on the move and better optics, especially at night.

1ST.

SGT.

DAVID GONZALES: You could see a cigarette several miles away, and we could see how many people or how many enemy would come out of their trenches at night to smoke.

And that's when we would then pinpoint and maneuver against the enemy to capture them in large amounts.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The Abrams ammunition is stored in a locker behind a sliding door, as seen in these videos posted by tankers.

If hit, the ammunition is designed to explode upward through panels to channel the blast outside.

Meanwhile, it can be loaded in seconds, although not always.

And the Abrams has faster acceleration and reverse speed than most other tanks, but its engine is both asset and liability.

It gets one-quarter-of-a-mile per gallon.

And as seen in this professional animation, the turbine engine in the rear is similar to a jet engine and runs best off jet fuel.

1ST.

SGT.

DAVID GONZALES: It's going to be a huge team effort to keep that thing functional on the battlefield and make sure that it is successful.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In fact, the Abrams can be so difficult to maintain, senior U.S. defense officials opposed sending them, including Colin Kahl, undersecretary of defense for policy, in January.

COLIN KAHL, U.S.

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy: And the challenge with the Abrams is, it's expensive.

It's difficult to train on.

It is very difficult to sustain.

It has a huge, complicated turbine engine that requires jet fuel.

And, frankly, our assessment is just that the -- that the Abrams is not the right capability at this time.

NICK SCHIFRIN: At least until five days later.

JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: Today, I'm announcing that the United States will be sending 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, because it will enhance the Ukraine's capacity to defend its territory and achieve its strategic objectives.

STAFF SGT.

PAUL CLOCK (RET.

), U.S. Army: It's like owning a Ducati.

It's got a lot of expensive parts.

It is a gas turbine engine and a lot of proprietary systems that are inherent specifically into the Abrams.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Former Staff Sergeant Paul Clock was a tank driver, gunner, loader, and commander during an eight-year Army career and created a defense analysis organization called Tankers.

STAFF SGT.

PAUL CLOCK: The turbine engine is going to be one of the most complicated parts of this thing.

It's going to have special seals.

It's going to need to be serviced continuously.

It's one of those things that's going to require a specialized facility to maintain some of the certain parts of it.

So it's got a phenomenal optics package, but that optics package, if something goes wrong with it, it is expensive to replace.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And it sounds like you're worried about whether it's going to be sustainable for the Ukrainians.

STAFF SGT.

PAUL CLOCK: Indeed, there are a lot of different sensors and proprietary systems that can fail.

It's a robust tank, but it's -- it needs maintenance.

NARRATOR: You go onto battlefield, you need horsepower.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The Abrams tank was produced in the late '70s and early '80s and appeared in Army recruiting ads.

It was designed to counter the Soviet Union.

But its first real test came in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, when the United States kick the Iraqi military out of Kuwait.

Now the Abrams will supplement Ukraine's mostly Soviet era tanks that are more than twice the age of some of their tankers, as we saw in February.

JUNIOR SGT.

YEHOR, 1st Tank Brigade (through translator): They are old.

And because they are old, they break all the time.

You don't have confidence that your tank is going to work tomorrow.

For us to advance, we need new weaponry.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And with their new weaponry, Ukraine's military will have to achieve its most difficult task yet, overrunning well-fortified Russian soldiers across a huge front.

LT. COL. MICHAEL PURCELL: Napoleon supposedly said, the moral is the physical as three is to one.

So, the idea, if you're Ukrainian fighting for your life and your family and your homeland, that you have got the American flag, you have got the Swedish flag, you have got the German flag, represented by the equipment you're operating.

And that is a significant psychological boost, in my mind.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Whether that boost translates into physical gains could help determine the war's fate.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Nick Schifrin.

GEOFF BENNETT: Today, the Environmental Protection Agency laid out its latest move to cut the greenhouse gases that are driving climate change, unveiling a sweeping new set of guidelines for the power plants that generate America's electricity.

William Brangham has been covering this, and he joins us now.

Thanks for being here.

So, tell us more about this move today by the EPA.

What are they asking utilities to do?

And how does this fit within President Biden's climate agenda?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, Geoff, this is the third major move that the administration has made to cut the greenhouse gas emissions, as you said, that are heating this planet to a dangerous degree.

The first was, last year, the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Then, last month, the EPA issued these very strict rules on auto emissions.

And now, today, we have power plants.

The issue with generating electricity in this country is that that creates about a quarter of all of America's pollution.

So it's a big chunk.

And the EPA is saying to these power plants and utilities around the country, you have got to cut those emissions, and you have got to use existing technology.

And you have got to do it quickly by as up to 90 percent in the near future.

And the EPA says, if we do this, the air that we all breathe is going to be cleaner, and we're going to make a significant dent in the emissions that we're putting out that are causing climate change.

So, some environmentalists said the EPA needs to do more.

But many environmentalists today are cheering this move.

Earlier today, I talked to Manish Bapna.

He's the president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Here's what he had to say.

MANISH BAPNA, President and CEO, Natural Resources Defense Council: I mean, the urgency of the climate crisis cannot be overstated.

But what we have seen in the past year finally positions the United States to take a leadership role in tackling the climate crisis.

We have seen, truly, a historic triple play for climate action.

GEOFF BENNETT: So he's talking about the urgency, but how will these plants actually do that work, clean up their emissions?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There's several different ways.

The EPA is not saying, you have to use this particular type of technology.

In this conversation, it is worth noting that there is a true revolution going on in clean energy technology.

The costs of wind and solar and geothermal are just falling.

The venerable Wall Street firm Lazard just did an analysis recently, and they said that large-scale solar and wind utilities can go toe to toe economically now with the dirtiest, cheapest energy sources.

So, the economic argument is already being made.

For power plants, there's a couple of ways that they could do this, though.

They can mix in cleaner fuels.

They can burn clean hydrogen.

They can -- if the plant is really old, they can retire that plant.

Or they can use what's called carbon capture and sequestration, which is kind of a fancy way of saying, you just grab the carbon and stick it underground, where it doesn't cause any problems.

The tricky part is that CCS, as it's known, is not really being utilized anywhere in the United States.

GEOFF BENNETT: Really?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And so this is what the industry says is, look, EPA, you're asking us to use this very aggressive rule based in part on a technology that we think is not ready for prime time.

Earlier today, I talked to Scott Segal.

He's a lawyer who represents a lot of industry and power associates.

Here's what he said about this.

SCOTT SEGAL, Partner, Bracewell LLP: There is a very bright future for carbon capture and sequestration.

There are some big industrial projects, multibillion-dollar projects, being constructed, for example, in the Midwest, to deal with the emissions that come from biofuel production.

But in the power sector, there are very few examples of commercial scale application of CCS.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, that is the industry's argument.

The EPA points to a working CCS factory in Canada that's been operating for 10 years very successfully.

They say this technology is ready.

GEOFF BENNETT: The EPA's climate moves have previously been challenged in court.

Do we expect that this time around?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: A hundred percent.

It's a virtual lock that there will be legal challenges.

Most of those will be driven by industry and/or the Republican attorneys general, who very successfully sued the Obama Clean Power Plan several years ago and blocked that from happening.

So that will definitely happen.

You're also seeing a lot of industry critics coming out and saying this is going to be too costly for us, it's going to be too costly for consumers who want to plug in everything in their homes.

And there are also some criticisms within the Democratic Party itself.

Joe Manchin, the senator from West Virginia, whose state and whose own personal fortune is very dependent upon coal, called this a radical climate agenda.

Manchin said that these rules are trying to regulate the coal and gas plants out of existence.

So, lots of critics that are out there.

I think it is worth saying in this conversation, though, that the EPA didn't just capriciously decide to do this.

This is their mandate.

It is clearly -- the courts have held this up.

Legislation has held this up to say it is their duty to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

How they do that, how aggressively they do that is definitely what's going to be fought over.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yes, that's interesting.

William Brangham, thanks so much for that reporting.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Thanks, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: A fierce debate over how journalists should question and cover former President Donald Trump is unfolding as he seeks another term in the White House and after a freewheeling and unruly CNN town hall last night, where Mr. Trump spouted lies about the 2020 election, mocked the woman he was found liable of sexually abusing, and dodged policy questions, all before a lively and supportive audience of New Hampshire voters.

Joining us now for perspective is James Fallows, a former presidential speechwriter and author of the "Breaking the News" newsletter on Substack.

And Mark Lukasiewicz, he's a veteran television producer at NBC News and ABC News, and is now the dean of the Communication School at Hofstra University.

Thank you both for being with us.

And, Mark, I will start with you because you wrote last night that Donald Trump is demonstrably unworthy of the risk that CNN chose to take with their live town hall.

Why?

Why was that apparent to you well, ahead of time?

MARK LUKASIEWICZ, Hofstra University: When you stage a live event, you're taking a risk, because you're turning over a platform, as a network, as a news organization, that you have built, a relationship of trust with an audience.

And, at least partly, you're turning over that platform to the live guest who is going to say whatever they're going to say.

It was completely predictable, completely 100 percent predictable, that Donald Trump was going to lie, was going to mislead, was going to obfuscate, and was going to try to railroad the moderator.

And that's what he did.

And CNN gave Donald Trump a platform to do that.

I think that is really not a transaction news organizations should be making any more, particularly with this candidate.

If somebody comes in front of your cameras, and you're going to deliver your audience to them for uninterrupted, lengthy fire hoses of lies and deception and, in this case, misogyny and worse, I don't think that's something that a news organization should do if they're trying to serve an audience.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jim, taking Mark's point, Donald Trump is, of course, the Republican front-runner.

He is among the few people who have a clear route to winning the White House again.

And the media has to cover him.

So, how do we do it smartly and responsibly?

JAMES FALLOWS, Substack Columnist: Well, I will start by saying that, even though Mark and I did not coordinate this at all, I see it just the way he has laid out, that the problem there was the kind of event it was, which was a gladiatorial, kind of pro wrestling event, and the fact that it was live.

So there was no chance to really catch up with the stream of falsehoods that Donald Trump was putting out, even though Kaitlan Collins, I think, did her best to try to be a fact-checker, but just the circumstances did not allow it.

So I think we have seen the one bright spot side of the CNN event last night is that it shows us what not to do, that nobody should replicate that, and that if Donald Trump is going to be on the stage with other Republican candidates, and perhaps eventually with the Democratic candidate, it needs to be under circumstances where there is some rule of reason, some rule of fact, where there is somebody who is in charge who can say, here are the rules of our discussion.

Here are the questions we're going to ask you.

Here are the ways in which people will answer.

Here's the time people will be allotted.

So I think that's the only bright side I see.

Everybody now knows what not to do.

GEOFF BENNETT: Mark, you have the experience of being a former TV news executive, who is now a dean at a journalism school.

Are the conventions of traditional journalism, are they good enough for the moment in which we live, where you have a candidate who seeks to exploit those conventions, those journalistic standards, for his own purposes?

MARK LUKASIEWICZ: No, they're not good enough.

And, listen, the -- I agree with Jim.

But I think, if we're honest with ourselves, we knew what we learned last night four years ago, and, arguably, even eight years ago.

I had the misfortune of being a producer of a forum that involved Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

And we were pilloried in the press after that event for not confronting Donald Trump live for his stream of lies.

This has been going on for a long time.

Donald Trump is more than just an unconventional candidate.

He is a candidate who doesn't play by the rules of the democracy, doesn't play by the rules of the Constitution, as everyone saw on January 6.

So, for journalists to play by the traditional rules and think all of that is going to be fine is a problem.

It's a real challenge.

Let's be clear.

You pointed out, Geoff, he's likely to be the nominee.

When he becomes the nominee, journalists, we all have a responsibility to cover him.

But do we turn over our platforms when we know what the result is going to be?

Or do we say, no, you have disqualified yourself by repeatedly abusing our relationship of trust with our audience, so we will put your interview on tape, Mr. Trump, and then we will see what we do with it?

GEOFF BENNETT: Jim, I see you shaking your head there.

How should we in the media cover not just Donald Trump, but any candidate who displays openly anti-democratic tendencies and says things that are demonstrably false?

JAMES FALLOWS: I think it's worth recognizing that Donald Trump really is a case of one.

There are other people who are having what I might personally view as anti-democratic policies in this or that state.

But Trump is -- I think Trump is unique and a unique problem for these journalistic settings in two ways.

One is the stream of lies.

The other is what we saw in Trump's dealings with the crowd last night, when he was intentionally revving them up, appealing to the worst in them, having them laugh at E. Jean Carroll, having them just laugh when he was mugging at Kaitlan Collins.

And so there aren't other politicians who as freely do that when they're on the big stage.

So I think that most forum -- I think that dealing with Trump is a problem for dealing with Trump.

And dealing with the rest of the candidates we're going to have over this next year-and-a-half, I think a robust -- a robustified version of our normal rules can apply.

Then Trump has his own set of rules, which he has earned.

GEOFF BENNETT: Donald Trump so often casts the pursuit of truth as a partisan enterprise.

And one of the things we saw back in 2016 and the years that followed, particularly from legacy media organizations, was this effort to play down his radicalism, to find euphemisms to describe his behavior, to appear, so that the organizations appeared neutral and objective.

What are some best practices to guard against that, Mark?

MARK LUKASIEWICZ: It's a tough question.

Look, what you're talking about, I think, is normalizing, right, is looking at things that are, in our whole history, abnormal, out of the norm, out of the realm of expected behavior.

And we in the press start to recognize those as just regular features of the game.

I think journalism does have a responsibility to democracy.

We exist in a liberal democracy, because of the rules and the understandings and the norms of a liberal democracy.

And I think journalists -- these are not easy questions.

And I'm not sitting here saying I have every answer to these, because I certainly don't.

But I think these are questions newsrooms have to wrestle with.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jim?

JAMES FALLOWS: Yes.

And I think there's -- this is something where I will say a case that applies to Trump could also apply more broadly.

It is comfortable for journalists, especially the more mainstream the organization, the more comfortable it is to be in a central position, to say, one side says this, the other side says that, the so -- the famous both-sides-ism.

And there are certain things going on originated by Trump, but we see other places, that are - - can't be fairly described as an other side standoff.

I would put the current threat to have the U.S. default on its sovereign debt be in that category.

And the more that is portrayed as a partisan gridlock, as where each side -- one side says this, the other side says that, the less clearly it is presented as a threat to the financial integrity of the United States.

I think that is the kind of thing that's not just about Trump, but about other aspects of our politics.

GEOFF BENNETT: James Fallows and Mark Lukasiewicz, thank you both for the thoughtful conversation.

I appreciate it.

MARK LUKASIEWICZ: Thank you.

JAMES FALLOWS: Thank you, Geoff.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the year since the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, voters in several states have shown up to overwhelmingly support abortion rights in ballot measures.

Future efforts to enshrine abortion access in state constitutions could soon face higher hurdles.

Our Laura Barron-Lopez takes a look at the battle over what appears on the ballot.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Republican legislators in multiple states have proposed measures that would make it harder for voters to change state constitutions.

That includes Ohio, where, last night, lawmakers scheduled an August special election for a resolution that would require future amendments to receive 60 percent of the vote to be adopted.

That's ahead of a pro-abortion rights effort heading to the November ballot.

A similar bill is moving through Missouri's legislature.

To discuss, I'm joined by Karen Kasler of the Ohio State House News Bureau and "NewsHour" communities reporter Gabrielle Hays, who is based in Missouri.

Ladies, thanks for joining.

Karen, I want to start with you.

Currently, Ohio requires 50 percent of the vote for ballot initiatives to be reached.

This measure would change that to 60 percent of the vote for the state Constitution to be changed.

It also requires a number of other things, like increasing the signatures from 88 counties - - excuse me -- from 44 counties to 88 counties.

Why are Republicans doing this right now and why an August special election?

KAREN KASLER, Ohio Public Radio and Television: Well, they say that they're doing this, first of all, to protect Ohio's Constitution from big money out-of-state special interests.

That's the line that we have been hearing since this discussion started.

But one of the sponsors of the House version of the resolution made it clear in a memo to his fellow Republican lawmakers that this was about possible amendments coming forward on abortion and gerrymandering, gerrymandering relating to Ohio's congressional and legislative map being ruled unconstitutionally gerrymandered last year.

This November election that reproductive rights amendment is definitely something that they're looking toward, and they want to get a vote and that 60 percent threshold in place before voters see that -- that amendment in November.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And, Gabrielle, Missouri is also pushing through a similar measure that would raise the threshold for ballot initiatives to 57 percent of the vote that would have to gain support to make it into the Constitution.

Republicans say that the state Constitution should not be malleable.

STATE REP. MIKE HENDERSON (R-MO): And I just hold the Constitution as something sacred.

I think it's a living document.

But I don't believe it should be an ever-growing document.

And Missouri's right now is an ever-growing document.

And I personally think statute is a good place to put a lot of things, but I think our Constitution is pretty sacred.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: How likely is this effort going to make it onto the November ballot?

GABRIELLE HAYS: That's a good question, Laura.

I think that voters have voted on ballot measures in the last couple of years, right?

So we have seen voters use their voices to pass certain pieces of legislation or policy that did not make it through the legislature.

So, on one hand, we do have voters who maybe voted against those ballot measures that have passed in previous years.

So we're talking about marijuana, whether it was medical or recreational, among other issues.

However, there are also plenty of voters who are not very happy about this being something that the legislature is looking at.

Critics argue that it is anti-democratic, that it is taking away the people's ability to share their voices to participate in the democratic system.

And so it is not something that Missouri's voters are taking lightly.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Karen, Republicans have admitted in Ohio that this goes beyond abortion to redistricting.

Democrats in the state say that this is much bigger than that.

STATE REP. BRIDE ROSE SWEENEY (D-OH): This is not about Democrats or Republicans.

It's not just about being pro-choice or anti-abortion.

This vote is about democracy, those that respect it and those that do not.

It's about whether or not you truly want the people of Ohio to have power.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: What are voters in Ohio saying about this?

KAREN KASLER: Well, it depends on which side they're on.

The number of supporters tend to be aligned with conservative groups, evangelical Christian groups, anti-abortion organizations, gun rights groups.

They say that the Constitution is -- kind of the arguments that you heard in Missouri, that it's sacred and it should be difficult to amend the Constitution.

But Democrats have been saying that this is about these big money special interests, because it's actually Republicans who have been using that big money out-of-state special interest money from a Republican billionaire from Illinois to push forward this vote.

And they said, this really takes away voters' voice, that 60 percent means that 40 percent of voters can actually dictate what's going to happen for the rest of the state.

And so they're very concerned about how this takes away essentially the voice of each person for each vote.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And are you expecting any legal challenges in Ohio, Karen?

KAREN KASLER: It's Ohio, and it's an election, so there's always the possibility of a legal challenge.

And so we are -- because in -- last month, there was a law that took effect that eliminated most August special elections.

So there -- the argument is that there had to be a law to create a new August special election for this to be voted on.

And that's not exactly what happened.

So I imagine that there probably will be litigation,because it seems like there almost always is.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Gabrielle, you mentioned that, previously, voters through a ballot initiative legalized recreational marijuana, they expanded Medicaid coverage.

I mean, does your reporting show that a majority of voters may be opposed to this initiative, this new one?

GABRIELLE HAYS: Well, I can definitely say that it seems that voters are concerned about it.

Listen, when recreational marijuana passed last year, that garnered 53 percent of the vote.

That was more than a million Missourians who voted for that, right?

These three things you mentioned, whether we're talking about recreational marijuana, like the expansion of Medicaid, medical marijuana, all of these things were passed by ballot in Michigan initiative in the recent couple of years.

And so, with that said, I mean, voters are concerned that they will not have the ability not only to participate in a democratic system, right, but also further to essentially be a check on their own General Assembly, if they feel as though they are not passing laws that they want to see past.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And, Karen, very quickly since the fall of Roe, we have seen that a number of voters have supported abortion initiatives that increase access to abortion, while Republicans are restricting access.

Are Republicans aligned with their base here?

KAREN KASLER: Oh, I think Republicans really believe that this is going to happen, but the outgoing support on this, hundreds of groups are opposed to this idea.

So there's certainly a prediction that this might not go as well as Republicans think it might.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Karen Kasler and Gabrielle Hays, thank you so much for your time.

KAREN KASLER: Great to be here.

AMNA NAWAZ: Remember, there's a lot more online at PBS.org/NewsHour, including a look at a global challenge for citizen scientists to document and share the nature in their cities.

GEOFF BENNETT: And join us again here tomorrow night, where we will have a conversation with actor Tom Hanks about his debut novel.

And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "NewsHour" team, thank you for joining us.