AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: President Biden signs an executive action protecting undocumented spouses and the children of U.S. citizens.

AMNA NAWAZ: The outgoing CEO of Boeing is grilled by Congress over the company's workplace culture and safety record.

GEOFF BENNETT: And Dr. Anthony Fauci discusses his new memoir chronicling a six-decade career in public health, from the AIDS crisis to COVID and more.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, Former Chief Medical Adviser to President Biden: If ever there was a time when you didn't want to have a public health crisis was at a time of profound divisiveness within our country.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

President Biden today unveiled an executive action that offers deportation protections to undocumented spouses and children of U.S. citizens.

The "NewsHour" first reported last week that the White House was expected to make the announcement.

At a White House event marking the 12 anniversary of DACA -- that's the Obama era action that protects young undocumented immigrants -- President Biden laid out his plans.

JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: For those wives or husbands and their children who have lived in America for a decade or more, but are undocumented, this action will allow them to file a paperwork for legal status in the United States, allow them to work while they remain with their families in the United States.

Let's be clear.

This action still requires undocumented spouses to file all required legal paperwork to remain in the United States.

It requires them to pass criminal background checks.

And it doesn't apply to anyone trying to come here today.

AMNA NAWAZ: The move comes after President Biden implemented a crackdown on migrants seeking asylum when border encounters cross a certain threshold.

Our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, has been covering this and joins me now.

So, Laura, you first broke the news last week that this executive action would be coming.

It's now here.

Tell us a little bit more about what exactly this does for undocumented people in the U.S. LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: President Biden said today that ultimately this is about keeping families together.

And this is the biggest relief action by a president, Amna, since the DACA program, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, from 2012.

And this uses a process called parole in place.

And so here's what key parts of the executive action do.

It provides deportation protections for undocumented spouses and their children.

It allows those undocumented spouses to obtain work permits.

These spouses can then apply for permanent residence status without leaving the United States.

And it also eases work visa processes for DACA recipients and dreamers.

Now, the crucial part of this, Amna, is that, previously, these undocumented spouses would have had to leave the country to obtain U.S. citizenship, and sometimes for a lengthy amount of time, as much as 10 years, separating themselves from their family.

Now they're able to stay in the United States and legally work as they go on the process to legal citizenship.

AMNA NAWAZ: We know the president has announced some eligibility requirements as well, so who exactly is eligible for these protections?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: When it comes to the undocumented spouses, they will be eligible if they meet the following requirements, living in the -- they have lived in the United States for at least 10 years, if they are legally married by June 17 of 2024, and they have three years to apply for that permanent residency.

Then, when it comes to the dreamers, they are eligible if they have earned a degree from an accredited university and if they have received a high-skilled job offer in a field aligned with their degree.

Now, unfortunately, some of the U.S. citizens that I spoke to who have spouses who are undocumented don't think that their spouses are going to be eligible, because a White House official said that some undocumented spouses will not be eligible if that spouse was deported even once.

So they may be -- have been living in the United States for 10 years, but if they were deported once and returned, then they won't be eligible for this relief.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, given all of those requirements, do we have any idea of how many people could be impacted by this executive action?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: We do.

The White House gave some estimates for those who will be affected.

So, for the number of eligible affected, 500,000 undocumented spouses could be eligible for this benefit, 50,000 children under the age of 21 whose parent married a United States citizen, and then 90,000 dreamers could receive this benefit.

That one is according to immigrant advocates' estimates, because the White House didn't provide estimates on how many dreamers could be affected.

This -- now, it's important to understand that this doesn't immediately grant citizenship for these undocumented spouses.

It could still take up to about five years for them to get citizenship.

But I spoke to Foday Turay, who's an undocumented lawyer.

He's a DACA recipient who's been living in the United States for more than 20 years, married with a young son, and he would be eligible for this undocumented spouses benefit.

And he said that, when he found that out, that his family, his wife and his mother screamed with joy.

FODAY TURAY, DACA Recipient: Being undocumented, it's been very challenging.

The emotional toll it has taken on my immediate family members that are a U.S. citizen, my mom currently, as of right now, my wife, my son, who's young.

And I want to be there to watch him grow and see him take his first steps.

He's 10 months old.

I want to be here to see him graduate from high school, just like any parent wishes.

And this announcement today will allow me to take such a huge weight over my shoulder and be able to -- for me to be able to adjust my status without facing the 10-year bar if I leave the country.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Foday Turay told me that today's announcement was an answered prayer, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura, I know, since the executive action was signed, you have been talking to your sources, tracking the reactions.

What has been the response so far?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So the administration expects a number of legal challenges, but they say that they think they're on strong legal footing.

And I spoke to Lee Gelernt, who is an immigration lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, and he praised the administration's action today, saying that there's been too much demonization of immigrants.

But he also said that the ACLU is still going to stick to its path of suing the administration when it comes to that other executive action that restricted asylum seekers.

Now, the Republican response, on the other hand, Amna, has been very swift.

And Donald Trump's campaign was quick to call this a -- quote -- "amnesty program" and issued a statement that said: "Biden only cares about one thing, power.

And that's why he is giving mass amnesty and citizenship to hundreds of thousands of illegals who he knows will ultimately vote for him and the open border Democrat Party."

Amna, their -- Trump's campaign is repeating essentially a lie that these undocumented immigrants are going to be able to vote by this election cycle, which is not possible, as I laid out before.

AMNA NAWAZ: As we know, though, immigration and related issues are a top issue for Americans this election year.

What do we know that this could mean for President Biden politically?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Immigration has been a balancing act for President Biden, Amna.

On one hand, he issued that executive action that severely restricted asylum at the border and then two weeks later issued this new executive action that is being widely praised by Democrats within his own party.

And despite the fact that even our own polling with NPR and Marist shows that a majority of Americans think that Donald Trump would be better at handling immigration, there is some polling from Latino pollsters, like Equis Research, that shows that Latino voters in battleground states like Arizona and Nevada, that, when they were told about this potential action for undocumented spouses that Biden could take, they moved towards Biden by nine points.

And so, ultimately, this is something that Democrats across the board seem to think that could be a political boon for President Biden come November.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura Barron-Lopez, first to break the news on this executive action last week, continuing to report on it today.

Laura, thank you.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims he was told that the U.S. is seeking to lift its restrictions on certain arms deliveries to Israel.

In a video statement, the prime minister said the U.S. has been withholding weapons shipments for months, but he said that Secretary of State Antony Blinken assured him last week that the Biden administration is working to remove what he called bottlenecks in the deliveries.

During a press conference with the NATO secretary-general today, Blinken would not confirm whether he made those remarks and he said that only one shipment has been withheld.

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. Secretary of State: We, as you know, are continuing to review one shipment that President Biden has talked about with regard to 2,000-pound bombs.

But everything else is moving as it normally would move, and, again, with the perspective of making sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself against this multiplicity of challenges.

GEOFF BENNETT: The shipment in question was held back in May amid concerns that large bombs would be used on densely populated areas in Gaza.

At that same press conference, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg expressed concern over growing military ties between Russia and North Korea.

He pointed to Moscow's support for North Korea's missile and nuclear programs.

Muslims from around the world have been wrapping up the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, which was marked this year by deadly heat.

Saudi officials say temperatures in Mecca today hit 118 degrees Fahrenheit.

Dozens have reportedly died of sunstroke during the pilgrimage, including at least 41 people from Jordan.

Still, throngs of people gathered today to participate in closing rituals.

More than 1.8 million people performed Hajj this year, according to Saudi officials.

Meantime, tens of millions of people across the U.S. are under extreme heat alerts.

The National Weather Service says the conditions will affect areas from Iowa to Maine until at least Friday.

Chicago broke a heat record dating from the 1950s to start the week.

Temperatures there will stay close to 100 degrees in the days ahead.

In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has activated the National Guard.

GOV.

KATHY HOCHUL (D-NY): This is going to be one for the ages, when you think about the fact that places normally very pleasant this time of year like Syracuse and Ithaca are going to have an excess of 106 reel-feel degrees on their skin and how it feels to your body today.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the West, firefighters are battling multiple blazes including this one in Colusa County, California, while, in New Mexico, thousands of residents fled from wildfires.

The governor there declared a state of emergency after more than 500 structures were damaged.

That's as the first potential tropical storm of the season is expected to make landfall near Texas by Wednesday with heavy rain and potential flooding.

Former President Donald Trump will stay under a gag order in his criminal hush money case following his felony conviction last month.

The New York Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal, saying -- quote -- "No substantial constitutional question is directly involved."

The judge in the case imposed the gag order in March before the trial started.

Mr. Trump was found in contempt of court for violating that order and was threatened with jail time.

A Trump campaign spokesperson said today that his legal team will continue to fight the order, calling it unconstitutional.

Los Angeles schools will ban smartphones in a push to remove distractions and limit the negative impact of social media.

With 429,000 students, L.A. is the second largest public school system in the country and the biggest to take such a step.

Officials now have 120 days to work out the details, including whether phones can be kept in lockers and whether exemptions will be made for certain students or age groups.

The policy is set to take effect in January 2025.

And on Wall Street today, stocks inched higher as A.I.

giant Nvidia became the world's most valuable public company, topping Microsoft.

The Dow Jones industrial average added 56 points, creeping closer toward the 39000 level.

The Nasdaq notched another new record, adding five points.

The S&P 500 also ended at a new high.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": the U.N. Security Council demands Sudan's paramilitary force halt its siege of a city that threatens the safety of more than a million people; with less than five months to the presidential election, we take a look at the results of the latest PBS News/NPR/Marist poll; and a new investigation reveals how some universities profit from land taken from indigenous people.

Outgoing Boeing CEO David Calhoun faced tough questioning on Capitol Hill today, as lawmakers raised concerns about the company's safety culture and quality control practices.

He spoke to Congress for the first time since January, when the door plug panel of an Alaska Airlines 737 MAX 9 blew out mid-flight, one in a series of safety incidents involving a Boeing aircraft.

Our aviation correspondent, Miles O'Brien, has been watching all of this.

And he joins us now.

So, Miles, fill us in on the basics of what Calhoun came to do and say today.

What was he trying to accomplish?

MILES O'BRIEN: Well, Geoff, Dave Calhoun probably knew, as most everybody did, that he wasn't going to score a win today.

So a lot of this was about the tone and tenor and how he characterized the overall situation.

He began with an act of contrition.

He turned his back to the committee and faced several family members of those who lost their lives in those two 737 MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019.

Then he turned back around and told the committee, Boeing is doing better.

DAVE CALHOUN, CEO, Boeing: Much has been said about Boeing's culture.

We have heard those concerns loud and clear.

Our culture is far from perfect, but we are taking action and we are making progress.

We understand the gravity, and we're committed to moving forward with transparency and accountability.

MILES O'BRIEN: He spoke broadly about Boeing doing better.

He said the company is inculcating safety in the work force, revamping its engineering, and, most importantly, he repeated it several times, the company is set to reacquire Spirit AeroSystems, now a subsidiary, but was once a part of Boeing, which builds the 737 fuselages.

None of this did much to resonate with the committee, frankly.

And it certainly didn't do much for those families who were in the gallery there listening to the hearing testimony.

Before the hearing began, they held a news conference, and there was a lot of anger.

ADNAAN STUMO, Brother of Victim: Strengthening the safety of the flying public is important, but there needs to be criminal charges for the people at the top, the people in the driver's seat who are responsible for 346 deaths, including that of my sister and every single face that you see here.

ZIPPORAH KURIA, Daughter of Victim: My question to Congress even today is, why pay attention now?

Why pay attention now?

Why not for the last five years that we have continually fought?

We have been a muffled scream that has been screaming, and no one has been paying attention.

GEOFF BENNETT: Hmm.

Miles, when the victims' family members speak of criminal charges, what exactly are they talking about?

How would that work?

MILES O'BRIEN: Well, these are criminal charges which evolve from those two crashes.

Essentially, the charges are conspiracy to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration.

Boeing cut a deal with the Department of Justice, paid $2.5 billion, and for a period of time of amnesty promised to clean up its act.

And now the Department of Justice is indicating that it has not lived up to its bargain.

Boeing says it has, however, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, you have got lawmakers on that panel, both Democrat and Republican, who say that they're really troubled by what they see as a continuing pattern of problems.

Tell us about that.

MILES O'BRIEN: Yes, it was really bipartisan in the criticism he received.

Let's hear a little bit from Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire.

SEN. MAGGIE HASSAN (D-NH): I hear you talking about it.

But what we have been trying to get to is, how is it that you had a 2020 failure, a 2024 failure, the failures I have just read about?

So there were 737 failures, now these 787 ones.

You talk about safety and culture, but you aren't answering the question about what the root causes are here.

GEOFF BENNETT: When Senator Hassan speaks of root causes, what is she addressing directly?

MILES O'BRIEN: Well, the allegations from the committee and elsewhere are that, in Boeing's pursuit of competition with Airbus, that the company sacrificed safety for profits, that it cut a lot of corners.

Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri really laid into Calhoun on top of that, specifically pointing out his $33 million salary.

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): You're focused on exactly what you were hired to do, which is that you're cutting corners, you are eliminating safety procedures, you are sticking it to your employees, you are cutting back jobs, because you're trying to squeeze every piece of profit you can out of this country -- this company.

You're strip-mining it.

I don't think the problem is with the employees, actually.

DAVE CALHOUN: Oh, it's not.

It is not.

I agree.

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY: No, I think the problem is with you.

You.

It's the C-suite.

It's the management.

It's what you have done to this company.

That's where the problem is.

The problem's at the top.

MILES O'BRIEN: So, Geoff, Hawley asked Calhoun why he hasn't outright resigned from his job as CEO.

And Calhoun said he was very proud of his tenure.

He's proud of the safety record of Boeing.

And he said he was proud of every action we have taken.

There was a lot of skepticism among Senator Hawley when that statement came across.

Calhoun is leaving his job as CEO of Boeing at the end of the year -- Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what comes next for this company, then, Miles?

MILES O'BRIEN: Well, it's not an easy path, is it?

We don't know who is going to succeed Calhoun in that position.

And many of the problems which have been laid out there will take quite some time to improve.

It's difficult to change the culture of a giant corporation such as Boeing.

And this is a company that had a culture for many, many years built around the core of engineering, where safety was first.

And, somehow, it has lost its way.

And turning that around is not going to be easy.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the minute-and-a-half we have left, Miles, Dave Calhoun stays on the job through the end of the year.

Is Boeing or anybody else, any sort of aviation observers, do they have their eye on somebody who could succeed him?

MILES O'BRIEN: No names have surfaced.

What's interesting to think about as well, Geoff, is, could there be a competitor that emerges from this duopoly of Airbus and Boeing?

It does seem as if there might be an opportunity there for another corporation to step in and build large airliners.

Could it come from Bombardier in Canada, perhaps the Embraer in Brazil?

And, of course, the Chinese are building airliners and there's a huge opportunity for them on the world stage to step into this gap.

Now, whether those airliners would ever be approved to fly in the United States is an open question, but it's a very dynamic situation marching forward.

And there may be an opportunity for another company to step in and meet demand.

GEOFF BENNETT: That is our aviation correspondent, Miles O'Brien.

Miles, thanks so much.

We appreciate it.

MILES O'BRIEN: You're welcome, Geoff.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, in the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. said that famine has -- quote - - "likely descended in Sudan" and warned that indiscriminate attacks in the capital of Sudan's North Darfur region must stop.

El Fasher was home to more than 800,000 internally displaced people before it came under siege by rebel paramilitaries.

Already, Sudan was home to the world's largest displacement and hunger crises.

And, as Nick Schifrin reports, El Fasher has become a symbol of the country's suffering.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In Sudan's north, what was once a sanctuary is now under siege.

The road to El Fasher, Sudan's last major city that hasn't fallen, is a battleground, targeted by the rebel paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, or RSF, who've been accused of ethnic cleansing, on the other side, Sudan's Armed Forces and its allies also accused of war crimes for bombing villages.

And the fight tightens the noose around the most vulnerable.

El Fasher was home to one of Sudan's final safe havens.

And, today, the country's largest group of the displaced are at threat again.

NATHANIEL RAYMOND, Yale School of Public Health: In approximately one month of fighting, we have seen absolute catastrophe in El Fasher.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Nathaniel Raymond is the executive director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at the Yale School of Public Health.

His team documents war crimes evidence through videos, open-source data, and satellite imagery.

He says El Fasher is dying.

NATHANIEL RAYMOND: In one-nine day period alone, almost 200 football fields' worth of damage to civilian infrastructure was recorded.

I can't overemphasize for those watching this broadcast that the speed of destruction by fighters on the ground is almost unparalleled.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Satellite images show dozens of villages on El Fasher's outskirts burned, refugee camps devastated.

And the U.N. says El Fasher's sole hospital that could perform surgeries has been looted and is shut down.

The main targets are non-Arabs, as they were during Darfur's genocide in the '90s by the Rapid Support Forces precursor, the Janjaweed.

NATHANIEL RAYMOND: Dr.

Rapid Support Forces are already engaged in ethnically targeted attacks within El Fasher.

If the Rapid Support Forces capture El Fasher, they will be able to make Darfur their home base of operations to fight for control of Sudan for years to come.

EDEM WOSORNU, U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Forty hundred and thirty days into this conflict, the level of human suffering in Sudan is intolerable.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Today, at the Security Council, the U.N. warned that two million Sudanese are at risk of slipping into catastrophic hunger.

EDEM WOSORNU: Every day that we wait for funding to come, more lives are at risk.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Outside countries have ignored U.S. and U.N. demands and sent both sides weapons.

NATHANIEL RAYMOND: Without these foreign backers, the war would have ended quickly.

The war is now into its second year because of arms shipments from multiple outside actors.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Last week, the Security Council passed a resolution demanding the end of the siege of El Fasher, called on countries to respect arms embargoes, and not fuel the conflict by providing weapons.

But the resolution has no enforcement mechanism.

We now turn to Dr. Yasir Elamin, president of the Sudanese American Physicians Association, who just left Sudan last week and joins us now from Cairo.

Dr. Yasir Elamin, thank you very much.

Welcome back to the "NewsHour."

What did you see when you were there?

How dire is the humanitarian crisis?

DR. YASIR ELAMIN, President, Sudanese American Physicians Association: I visited a hospital in Omdurman, west of Khartoum, where patients with -- or children with malnutrition are being treated.

And I saw three children sharing bed.

Those children are being treated for malnutrition.

They are skin and bone.

They are just a testimony to the acute hunger that Sudan faces now.

I have also witnessed the extreme limited resources that hospitals suffer from.

And please remember that almost 60 percent of Sudan hospitals are nonoperational at the moment.

NICK SCHIFRIN: So what you're seeing, what you're highlighting is two aspects, as you said, both the hunger and also the inability for doctors and hospitals to provide the medicine that's needed.

Each of those cases, you and I talked about when you were on the broadcast last year.

Has it gotten much worse?

DR. YASIR ELAMIN: I think it has.

Again, make no mistake, this is a manmade crisis.

This is not due to a natural disaster.

This is a decision by the SAF and by the RSF.

(CROSSTALK) NICK SCHIFRIN: SAF, the Sudanese Armed Forces, and RSF, Rapid Support Forces, the rebel paramilitary group.

DR. YASIR ELAMIN: Correct.

This is my second time that I have been to Sudan since the war erupted.

And I could notice the worsening of the humanitarian crisis.

And, also, I could witness the extreme sense of lawlessness.

One of the things that I witnessed is that a lot of civilians are now carrying guns, carrying Kalashnikovs.

When I went last year, there was a sense that there was still some sort of law, some sort of order, some sort of army being so strong and being able to control things.

I have lost that sense when I visited Sudan last week.

NICK SCHIFRIN: One of the hot spots that we have highlighted today is El Fasher in Darfur.

What is the impact of the fact that there's really only one health care facility available?

DR. YASIR ELAMIN: Well, it's clearly a complete disaster, for a simple reason this is a war zone.

So -- and there is indiscriminate bombing both by SAF and by the RSF.

So, there is great need for hospital services, let alone the other normal, ordinary disease that the population would have.

El Fasher has been a safe haven for hundreds of thousands of people who fled RSF.

And the worry is, if RSF will take -- were to take the city, that there may be an ethnic cleansing there, or there may be widespread violence and massacres happening inside El Fasher.

So that's why El Fasher is particularly worrying.

And the lack of health services there is even more worrying, especially when we may be faced by a crisis very soon.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And, finally, Dr. Elamin, how much has this war been defined by gender-based violence?

DR. YASIR ELAMIN: You know, Sudan has known gender-based violence, but the scale of the gender-based violence in this war has been unprecedented.

One of the very brutal aspects of this war is the amount of women, young girls in some cases, that were raped.

When I was in Omdurman, I have heard horrible stories from physicians who've treated rape victims.

We're talking about victims who are 16 years old, 15 years old.

It's now something that's very routine when the RSF, in particular, takes over a place, that mothers and elderly try to hide their younger sisters and daughters.

Clearly, the majority of reported cases by credible sources and, certainly, from talking to the physicians that I met in person in Omdurman now, most of the cases have been committed by RSF.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Dr. Yasir Elamin, president of the Sudanese American Physicians Association, thank you very much.

DR. YASIR ELAMIN: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: The race for the White House remains in a dead heat with just months to go before Election Day.

Joining me now is Lisa Desjardins and to take a look at our latest PBS News/NPR/Marist polls.

Lisa, as you well know, we are just about a week away from the first presidential debate, about a month for the first political convention.

What did the polls show us right now?

LISA DESJARDINS: First of all, a word about polling.

I know this isn't everyone's favorite topic.

And we at "NewsHour," we're not saying that these numbers are definitive.

You're not meant to be looked at in absolute terms.

They're meant to give context, and we like to give context to them.

So that's what we're going to do tonight.

They do tell us some important things.

First, that top-line number.

Where are we, according to the survey that Marist took in the last week with NPR and "PBS NewsHour"?

-- 49-49, if the election were held today.

Now, the margin of error there is 4.2 percent.

That's important, because I want to add this context.

Let's look at how that number tracks with over the last year or so of this same question.

Look at this.

Really, it has been within the margin of error, essentially a statistical dead heat, for over a year now, which is rather extraordinary.

Obviously, there is a partisan divide here.

There are Republicans more for Trump, Democrats more for Biden.

Independents remain a key question mark.

You see a gender divide among them sometimes, but, otherwise, the electorate is barely moving at all.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's striking to see how those numbers haven't really changed almost a year.

Why are voters so locked in?

LISA DESJARDINS: In a few words, they are unhappy, they are discontented, they are on the way to being miserable.

And you can see that in our poll.

We asked, are you satisfied with the two major-party candidates?

-- 42 percent of those responding said they are satisfied, but 55 percent said they are unsatisfied.

Now, if you take that data, look down a little bit more deeply, you see, in general, that Republicans are a little bit more satisfied than Democrats.

But if you look at independents, 70 percent of them are unsatisfied with both candidates on the ballot.

Now, we're doing a project right now where we are calling voters who have told us that they are unhappy.

We asked for people to respond in our newsletter and in other places.

So, I have been spending the day talking to voters around the country who feel this way.

I spoke to a Republican in Pennsylvania, a former military colonel, who said he's frustrated.

He said he is ticked off, in his words.

I talked to a mother in Wisconsin who said she's frightened.

I talked to a 24-year-old in North Carolina just beginning her political life.

She told me she's jaded.

AMNA NAWAZ: So people are clearly disillusioned with the candidates.

What about on the issues?

Where do people stand on the issues right now?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

This is the golden question here.

This is what campaigns want to pay the most attention to.

What is going to work with voters?

What do they care about?

So, here's what we asked.

These were the top three issues that we saw in our poll, preserving democracy, the top issue, 30 percent, inflation, 29 percent, immigration, 19 percent.

So, those top two very close, essentially.

What does this mean?

Again, the layer of context.

Let's look at what the numbers were in February.

Preserving democracy was also number one then with 31 percent.

But I want to call everyone's attention, especially, to that inflation number right there.

Look at that.

That's a big change.

While preserving democracy is where it has been for a while, the concern about inflation actually has jumped up six points.

That is above the margin of error.

So, that indicates there is actually rising concern about inflation right now.

So, we often ask about the economy, about jobs.

But it's not jobs right now.

We know we have a booming job market.

It's inflation.

And we can talk about and we have talked about on air that, in general, in the United States right now, the truth is that inflation has been going down.

The Fed still has some concern, but we are way down from the record inflation that we saw last year and the year before.

But voters in their lives are feeling it still.

They are still concerned about inflation where they live.

AMNA NAWAZ: Interesting to see that concern going up, even as inflation does start to cool a bit over time.

Well, let's talk about how those issues are showing up on the campaign trail specifically.

We know former President Trump was in Wisconsin today at a rally.

Are you seeing these kinds of issues make their way into the message the candidates are delivering on the road?

LISA DESJARDINS: Yes, I love this idea.

Let's look at the debate and the candidates in terms of the knowledge that we have and what voters are saying.

So, the former president, as you said today, was in Racine, Wisconsin.

A reminder that that is one of the key swing states in this election, 10 electoral votes up for grabs there.

And, no surprise, he was talking about the economy there today.

DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: Biden's inflation price hikes and energy destruction have cost the average American family an astonishing $28,000.

Think of that, $28,000.

And on day one of my new administration, we will throw out Bidenomics and replace it with MAGAnomics, MAGAnomics.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) LISA DESJARDINS: MAGAnomics.

It's is all about the nomics, whatever kind of nomics you want.

What's interesting here is that Biden says Bidenomics has actually helped Wisconsin far more.

And if you look at it, this is the exact same area where President Trump, when he was president, promised thousands of jobs through Foxconn development.

That development actually was anemic.

It did not come through.

His pledge was not made.

It was just something like over 1,000 jobs that came through there.

And, in fact, that whole development was sold, now being redeveloped by Microsoft, which Biden says he helped bring.

So, I want to remind folks, this is what President Biden said about this when he was in Wisconsin in May: JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: He came here with your Senator Ron Johnson literally holding a golden shovel promising to build the eighth wonder of the world.

Are you kidding me?

(LAUGHTER) JOE BIDEN: Look what happened.

They dug a hole for those golden shovels, and then they fell into it.

(LAUGHTER) LISA DESJARDINS: So, this is the economy, which, usually, we see as the top issue, and Biden saying, hey, I have been better for this state than former President Trump.

When you look down at the details, Biden says he's bringing about 4,300 jobs, permanent and temporary.

Wisconsin itself, Amna, is setting records for job growth.

Inflation actually is way down there.

It's something like 1.2 -- 2.7 percent in the Midwest.

So, this is a place that is doing better on all economic indicators.

But, even as I talk to voters today from Wisconsin, they are feeling the pinch when it comes to housing, and when they look at their bag of groceries, perhaps they're comparing it to four years ago.

It's better over last year, but they still think it's off-kilter from what they can afford.

AMNA NAWAZ: Lisa Desjardins, with a look at where we are today in this race for the White House.

Lisa, thank you.

LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.

GEOFF BENNETT: Dr. Anthony Fauci is arguably the world's most famous doctor, and, of course, best known for guiding the country through the COVID-19 pandemic.

But he has also faced right-wing criticism for his assessments and recommendations throughout that period, including some difficult clashes with former President Donald Trump.

Now, after a nearly-six-decade journey, he reflects on his expansive career in a memoir, "On Call: A Doctor's Journey in Public Service."

I sat down with Dr. Fauci last week.

Here's the first part of our interview.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, welcome back to the "NewsHour."

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, Former Chief Medical Adviser to President Biden: Thank you so much, Geoff.

Good to be here.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, let's start our conversation where you start the book, your Brooklyn upbringing.

Your parents were first-generation Italian-Americans.

Your dad was a pharmacist who actually bought a drugstore.

And it struck me.

You wrote in the book that over the years, his pharmacy became a combination doctor's office, pharmacy and psychiatrist's couch.

He cared for people.

He cared about people.

How much did that influence your career choice?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: I think that was foundational in my career choice, because, ever since I was a child, literally, 8, 9 years old, in pharm -- in the drugstore, delivering prescriptions with my father, the thing that came through with him is that, at that time, as I mentioned in the book, it was kind of a core part of the neighborhood, where people would come for marriage counseling.

Children that are in trouble, they - - do they want to go to the doctor?

Should they go to a physician or not?

And he really cared for the people in the neighborhood.

And I had that kind of DNA of caring for people.

And then that was compounded when I went in my further education of caring for people.

I think that had a major impact in my wanting to go into medicine.

GEOFF BENNETT: And much of the memoir focuses on your role in the early 1980s leading the response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

And I didn't realize, until you wrote about it so extensively here, about the ways in which you were heavily criticized, in large part because activists at the time held you responsible for what they saw as the government's slow response to that crisis.

How searing of an experience was that for you?

And what did you learn from it?

What did you take away from it?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, it was an enlightening experience because the activists were right.

The rigidity of the scientific approach, the clinical trials process of inclusion and exclusion criteria in the clinical trial, the understandable rigidity of the regulatory process taking so long to get an intervention approved, it worked really well for decades and decades for diseases that were not the way HIV/AIDS was, which was a group of predominantly young gay men who had a disease or were at risk for a disease that was killing all of their friends in a period of 10 months to 12 months from the time they developed symptoms.

They wanted a seat at the table.

They wanted to say, we want some input into the design of the trials, so that we could have greater access.

And we don't want to wait seven years for a drug to get approved.

Understandably, but unacceptably, the scientific community and the regulatory community just said, we know best for you.

We're the scientists.

We're the ones with the experience.

And they kept saying, no, no, no.

We really want a seat at the table.

When we didn't listen, then they started becoming theatrical, iconoclastic, disruptive and confrontative.

As John Lewis used to say, there's trouble and there's good trouble.

They were making good trouble in the field of health in wanting to have a seat at the table.

One of the best things I think I have done in my career was to put aside the theatrics and listen to what they were saying, because what they were saying made absolutely perfect sense.

And I remember saying to myself that, if I were in their shoes, I'd be doing exactly what they were doing.

GEOFF BENNETT: When you describe that experience as enlightening, how did it inform your approach moving forward to confront other epidemics?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Yes.

Yes, listen to the patients.

Listen.

And don't think that everything comes from the top down.

Listen to the community.

Listen to what they're experiencing.

And you're going to make a much better and more appropriate response to whatever the disease challenge is.

That was a lesson that was very well-learned from the activists.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, over your career, you confronted a long procession of epidemics, HIV, SARS, avian flu, swine flu, Zika, Ebola.

Drawing on the wealth of experience and some post-pandemic hindsight, do you have any sort of fresh insights into why the U.S. was so unprepared for COVID-19?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Yes, I -- there's preparedness and response at a scientific level and at a public health level, as I describe in the book.

From a scientific preparedness and response, we get an A-plus, because the work that we did in investing in basic and clinical research for decades before COVID and the work that we did in all of the things that were medical and scientific allowed us to do something that was completely unprecedented, in collaboration with the pharmaceutical companies, to develop a vaccine from the time the pathogen was identified to the time you were having a safe and effective vaccine going into the arms of people, which was lifesaving, was less than a year.

Completely unprecedented.

That was good.

What was not so good was the public health preparedness, where we had let our local public health system and the interaction between the local public health and the CDC and the federal response, it wasn't always connected as well as it should have been.

And, also, I think it's important to say, because it's the truth, that if ever there was a time when you didn't want to have a public health crisis was at a time of profound divisiveness within our country, where you were having people making decisions about health based on political ideology.

That is the worst possible circumstance.

GEOFF BENNETT: Is there a way to insulate public health messaging and a public health response from partisanship and partisan politics?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Gee, I would hope that there would be.

It would have been really nice if we had a uniform message: Masks work.

Use them.

Vaccines are good and save lives.

Let's do it.

But there was a lot of, as I said, ideological stuff that got mixed up in there that I think confused the issue.

GEOFF BENNETT: Most of the country knows you based on their experience with the pandemic and seeing you at those hourslong White House press briefings, where in some cases you had to correct the information that was being put out by the White House and by the president himself.

How did you navigate that?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: It was not comfortable.

I had to make a decision when I saw things being said that were clearly untrue, like it's going to go away like magic, or this drug hydroxychloroquine or what have you worked.

So I just examined within myself and I said, I have a responsibility to preserve my own personal integrity.

And I have a responsibility to the American public.

I felt that very strongly as a physician and a scientist and a public health person.

I have a responsibility to give them the correct information.

It was very tough, because I have a great deal of respect for the presidency of the United States, the office of the presidency.

And I had no antipathy at all towards President Trump.

But when he was saying those things, I had to, when asked, say, no, it's not going to disappear like magic.

No, hydroxychloroquine not only doesn't work, but, in fact, it could harm you.

And that obviously set up a lot of blowback to me from the White House and the White House staff.

GEOFF BENNETT: And you write about that in the book, the ways in which you were undermined and attacked by top aides to then-President Trump, to include Peter Navarro, who is now in prison on a contempt of Congress charge.

What effect did that have on your ability to effectively communicate public health messaging during a pandemic?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, it interfered with, because, there were times when I did want to, since I feel I can communicate well with the public, to get out there and continue to tell them what they knew to keep safe, what they must do to keep safe, as things were going on in the epidemic.

And there was a time when, all of a sudden, I got cut off.

You can't just go on PBS or go on any of the major networks or cable without permission from the people in the communications department.

And then there reached the time when they got upset with me because what I was saying was contradictory to the message that the White House wanted to get out, that I got cut off.

And that made it very difficult for me through the easy way to get to the public, through the media.

I mean, they didn't cut me off completely.

I could talk to the press, the print press, and I could talk to the lesser of the communications.

But the big players, they just wouldn't let me on anymore.

GEOFF BENNETT: Tomorrow night, part two of our interview with Dr. Anthony Fauci.

We talk more about his working relationship with Donald Trump, the threats he's faced, and how he views his legacy.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's a new spotlight on some universities and whether they should be helping Native American students more than they are now.

That follows a new investigation that found some schools have long profited from land essentially taken from Native American tribes and leased to industries like oil and gas.

Stephanie Sy takes a look at the impact of this legacy on Native American students as part of our series Rethinking College.

STEPHANIE SY: Nineteen-year-old Alina Sierra long hoped to attend the University of Arizona.

Her elders, including her beloved grandfather, told her, knowledge was power and an education could never be stolen.

ALINA SIERRA, College Student: Before he passed away, he made me promise, like, you're going to make it.

You're going to continue education.

So I said, yes, I promise.

So, ever since then, I just -- like, the school was always like, I'm going to do it, I'm going to get a degree, I'm going to do it for him.

STEPHANIE SY: But soon after she began attending the Tucson-based college, the bills started coming due.

ALINA SIERRA: So I ended up getting like really nervous and I started like freaking out with, how am I going to pay for it?

STEPHANIE SY: She had gotten a Pell Grant, and the U-of-A awarded her an Arizona Native Scholars Grant, which ensures mandatory fees and tuition are covered for the state's Native undergraduate students.

Alina is to Tohono O'odham.

But she says her meal plans weren't covered, nor was transportation or housing.

She had an hour-long bus commute to campus and initially struggled to get Internet access.

ALINA SIERRA: I would say there was just barrier after barrier.

I ended up going on academic probation because of everything, like, I was going through.

And I couldn't really focus on school.

And it was just, like, really hard.

STEPHANIE SY: She eventually dropped out.

U-of-A officials did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

But Felisia Tagaban Gaskin is a graduate student who runs a program for Native students there.

She says the university has not done enough.

FELISIA TAGABAN GASKIN, University of Arizona: Unfortunately a lot of what we do around representation is performative.

I mean, we're great at renaming buildings with Native language, or we provide big events like land acknowledgement football games, for example.

But, really, when you peel back all of those external layers for publicity, you look at each individual story, and you say, well, where is the support for these students?

Where are they supposed to go.

STEPHANIE SY: The layers were peeled back four years ago, when High Country News published a bombshell investigation about what it called land-grab universities.

The report laid out that expropriated indigenous land is the foundation of the land grant university system and that 10.7 million acres were taken from nearly 250 tribes.

The land grant university system was established under the Morrill Act and signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln.

The act enabled states to establish public colleges through the development or sale of lands granted to them by the federal government; 14 universities continue to generate revenue from lands retained under the Morrill Act.

Most of them offer funding for Native American undergraduates, including free tuition, but it may not be enough.

The majority of Native students have reported running out of money while attending college.

AMANDA TACHINE, University of Arizona: Where are the Native students, and are they getting supported?

Because the university is receiving millions and billions of dollars in revenue yearly.

And how much of that support is given to the Native peoples, the first peoples of this place and the peoples that the institutions are benefiting from?

STEPHANIE SY: Amanda Tachine teaches about issues in indigenous higher education at Arizona State university.

AMANDA TACHINE: Since the Great Recession, Native students' enrollment has drastically decreased by 40 percent.

That's 15 years of ongoing decrease of college enrollment of our Native peoples.

That scares me.

STEPHANIE SY: Washington State University is another land grant institution.

Native students make up a minute percentage of the student population.

And Vice Provost Zoe Higheagle Strong is trying to change that.

ZOE HIGHEAGLE STRONG, Vice Provost, Washington State University: They need that home away from home when they come to campus.

Some call it rez away from rez, but it's important that they see Native faces, Native faculty, Native staff, and that they have food supports and even just supports for fees and things that they wrestle with.

Some students prior had dropped out for a simple $200 fee.

STEPHANIE SY: What do you personally feel is owed to Native prospective students at WSU?

ZOE HIGHEAGLE STRONG: Tuition, I think coming to our institution without cost and getting the adequate support for recruitment, retention.

STEPHANIE SY: Calls for reparations have recently been renewed with a new analysis by, revealing that universities that retain their land grant rights are profiting from leasing land for oil and gas extraction, logging, mining and fracking.

Tachine was one of the investigation's co-authors.

AMANDA TACHINE: The receipts are just adding up more and more.

STEPHANIE SY: Between 2018 and 2022, the lands generated almost $6.7 billion.

The University of Arizona received $7.7 million from these leases in 2022 alone.

Maria Parazo Rose is a spatial data analyst at grist.

MARIA PARAZO ROSE, Spatial Data Analyst, Grist: So not only were they sort of robbed of that land in the first place.

They have also been sort of prevented from having any access to whatever kind of revenue can be generated, because they no longer have claim on those lands.

STEPHANIE SY: The loss of land means a lack of generational wealth, preventing Native communities from not only thriving, but surviving, says Amanda Tachine.

Isn't all of the United States previously tribal land?

AMANDA TACHINE: All land in this nation-state is tribal nations, but people are not acknowledging that or recognizing the ongoing ways that that - - those policies continue to maintain Natives to a status quo of being not provided the support and the services that they need for us to survive.

STEPHANIE SY: The University of Arizona is literally built on the land of Alina Sierra's ancestors, Tohono O'odham land she considers stolen.

ALINA SIERRA: They were taken advantage of.

And I feel like, especially Natives, they should get, like, free education no matter what, because it's on their land.

STEPHANIE SY: Since the publication of the Grist article, Alina's debt was forgiven by the U-of-A and a private donor paid off the remainder of her loans.

She is now enrolled at Tohono O'odham Community College, a nearby tribal college that is actually free.

She hopes to one day complete her four-year degree.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Stephanie Sy in Tucson, Arizona.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there is much more online right now, including a look at a new bump in teacher pay in Missouri and why advocates are worried about how the raise will be funded.

That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.

AMNA NAWAZ: And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

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