WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening.

I'm William Brangham.

Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett are away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: A slight uptick in inflation muddies the economic waters, as the Fed chair faces White House pressure to lower interest rates.

The president's reversal on arming Ukraine sparks debate about the best way to end the war.

And we travel to Kenya to see how USAID projects to bring water and hope to a drought-ridden land are now in peril.

MANSUR SHABAN, Agricultural Director, Isiolo County: With the pullout of USAID, there will be a lot of dire consequences in terms of health.

People will even die.

(BREAK) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Welcome to the "News Hour."

New data show inflation picked up last month, and analysts believe the prices of many goods increased in part because of President Trump's tariffs.

Inflation rose 2.7 percent compared to a year ago and prices increased broadly by three-tenths of a percent last month.

While that's not a huge hike, it is the largest monthly increase since January and it will play into decisions by the Federal Reserve about when and whether to finally cut interest rates.

This comes as the president and his team have ramped up their pressure campaign on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to lower those rates.

They have also openly speculated about firing him.

Earlier today, the president was asked about Powell and when the two had last spoken.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I told him he's doing a very bad job.

He's way late.

That's why I call him too late.

Jerome Powell is too late.

He's way late.

Interest rates should be coming down.

We have a very, very successful country.

We should have the lowest interest rate anywhere in the world.And we don't.

Jerome Powell has done a terrible job.

And, frankly, I don't think he could do a worse job.

He's called everything wrong.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For more, we are joined again by David Wessel.

He's director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution.

David, nice to have you back again.

Before we get to Powell, help us understand these inflation numbers and the price hikes.

Is it because of the tariffs?

DAVID WESSEL, Brookings Institution: Well, when we get these measures of inflation, some things have gone up and some things have gone down.

Airfares are down, for instance, in the last -- in June.

But what analysts are picking up is a number of prices of goods that are imported, apparel, appliances, toys, went up in June.

Women's dresses were up 3.9 percent in June alone.

And so many analysts are saying that this is the beginning of a sign that tariffs are pushing up prices, just as economists had been predicting.

Hasn't happened as quickly as they had anticipated, in part because the tariffs are on again and off again.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So how is that information going to be perceived by the Fed as they weigh this issue of when to raise rates?

DAVID WESSEL: Well, the Fed will be meeting later this month, and they have pretty much signaled they're in wait-and-see mode.

This will reinforce the wait-and-see.

The problem with these price numbers is, it's like looking in the rearview mirror.

And the Fed has to look through the windshield.

And if they weren't for the tariffs, I think the Fed probably would be cutting interest rates now.

Inflation has drifted down.

There are a few signs of cracks in the labor market.

But they look ahead and they're afraid that more tariffs will mean more price increases and, even more serious, that businesses and households will expect inflation to remain high.

And that's the one thing they want to avoid.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And we should say there are people, even within the Fed, who think we should have cut the rates already.

DAVID WESSEL: Exactly.

Sometimes, the decisions that the Fed makes are pretty straightforward.

When we had the COVID crisis, it was clear they had to lower rates.

When inflation went much higher than they expected, the obvious thing to do was to raise interest rates.

Now they're at the point where they have to make a judgment call.

And at least two members of the seven-member Board of Governors at the Fed -- both happen to be Trump appointees -- have been publicly calling for lower rates.

So I'm sure they will have a discussion.

But the most likely outcome is that they will cut rates maybe in September and October, but not in July.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As we just heard, the president keeps ripping into Jay Powell, saying he's done a terrible job and should have been bringing these rates down already.

Has Trump's reasoning about this changed?

I mean, he's asking for a very big rate cut.

DAVID WESSEL: Well, I think the president is trying to make clear that if we have a bad economy later this year or early next, it's Jay Powell's fault, not his.

Presidents often want lower interest rates.

He's not the first president to be frustrated.

George Bush was frustrated.

Harry Truman was frustrated.

Lyndon Johnson was frustrated that the Fed didn't move more quickly.

What is striking in the last few days is the president has been saying they should cut interest rates, not because that's what the economy needs, not to fulfill their mandate of maximum employment and price stability, but instead they should make it cheaper for the government to borrow, make it easier for the government to run deficits.

And that really is unusual.

In fact, the whole reason we have independent central banks is because politicians decided, if they set interest rates, they would tend to set them too low.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

DAVID WESSEL: We would get more inflation just to make it easier.

This is the kind of stuff that the leaders of Hungary and Turkey do.

It's very unusual in the United States.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: On this campaign that the president and the White House have been waging against Jay Powell, they have cited this piece of evidence about an allegedly elaborate renovation of the Fed offices.

And apparently there's some cost overruns and Jay Powell has now said, yes, we should have the inspector general look into this.

The president says this is evidence of financial mismanagement.

Do you think that this renovation issue is going to be the card that the president uses to fire Powell?

DAVID WESSEL: Well, the president has is frustrated that he can't fire Powell because the law says you can only fire the Fed chair for a cause.

So he needs a cause.

And I think some of his aides have been feeling pressure for him.

He said to them, find me a cause.

And they're using this.

Look, the expansion of the Fed, the renovation of their old building is extensive.

And it may very well be over the top.

The fact that there were cost overruns was no secret.

The Wall Street Journal had a story about this on the front page two years ago.

I think it's a very thin argument to say this is cause to justify the Fed share.

I think they seem to be just determined to make Jay Powell's life miserable.

His term is up in May.

He's made it pretty clear he's not quitting.

And if they try and fire him, which the president now says he doesn't want to do, except now maybe he does, Jay Powell has lawyers ready to defend him.

So I think it's more of an annoyance.

But it's alarming because it makes people wonder whether the next Fed chair will be someone who Trump thinks will take orders from him.

And that's not something that we want to see or that the markets want to see.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: David Wessel, always great to hear from you.

Thank you very much.

DAVID WESSEL: You're welcome.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The day's other headlines start in New Jersey, where authorities say a severe storm killed two people when their vehicle was swept away in floodwaters.

Rain and wind blasted the Northeast overnight, soaking streets and stranding passengers.

Parts of New Jersey recorded at least six inches of rain, while, in New York City: MAN: Attention, passengers, I'm going to call this one in.

I can't open the doors.

It's not safe.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Water overwhelmed the sewer system and gushed into subway stations.

Some riders stood on their seats as train cars flooded.

New York City's chief climate officer says these types of storms are becoming more frequent.

ROHIT AGGARWALA, Chief Climate Officer of New York City: It is now the case that five of the most intense rainstorms New York City's history have taken place in the last four years.

We have an infrastructure that was designed for an environment we no longer live in.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: As residents clean up from the storms, forecasters say the weather is set to improve across much of the region, though more storms are possible in parts of the Northeast and mid-Atlantic through the end of the week.

In Texas, search efforts are ongoing for those still missing after the deadly Fourth of July flooding.

At least 132 people are known to have died, with the vast majority of those in Kerr County.

Officials say 101 people are still unaccounted for as officials look to drain reservoirs to search for victims.

Rainfall this week has hampered recovery operations and a flood watch remains in effect for parts of South Central Texas, which includes Kerr County.

Turning to Gaza, health officials say Israeli airstrikes overnight killed at least 93 people, including dozens of women and children.

One strike hit the Shati refugee camp in the north.

Hospital officials there say a Hamas politician was killed along with a couple and their six children.

Israel did not comment on that attack, but it frequently blames Hamas for civilian deaths, saying its militants hide in populated areas.

Syria's defense minister announced a cease-fire today after sectarian clashes killed dozens of people in the country's south.

The truce came shortly after government forces entered a vital city in the southern Suwayda province.

The fighting began with kidnappings and attacks between local bedouin tribes and fighters from the Druze minority group.

Officials say more than 30 people were killed yesterday.

A U.K.-based monitor says at least 135 people died over two days.

Neighboring Israel had launched strikes on the area, saying they were aimed at supporting the Druze and preventing further fighting near its own border.

A judge in the U.K. sentenced two men today to more than four years in prison for cutting down England's iconic Sycamore Gap Tree.

Daniel Graham and Adam Carruthers were convicted of two counts each of criminal damage, one for cutting down the tree, as seen in this grainy video that was used as evidence, and the other for damaging the ancient Hadrian's Wall, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The tree stood for nearly 150 years before it was chopped down in 2023 in what prosecutors called a moronic mission.

A team of private astronauts is safely back on earth after a nearly three-week visit to the International Space Station.

WOMAN: And we have splashdown of the AX-4 crew back on planet Earth.

MAN: Welcome home.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Nighttime footage shows the SpaceX capsule landing in the Pacific Ocean in the early hours of this morning.

The crew included the first astronauts from India, Poland and Hungary in more than four decades.

Each country paid more than $65 million for the trip.

And mission lead Peggy Whitson broke her own record for time spent in space, now at 695 days over five missions.

That's more than any other American or woman from any nation.

On Wall Street today, stocks largely dipped after that report showing a rise in inflation.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 400 points on the day.

The Nasdaq managed a slight gain, thanks largely to A.I.

giant Nvidia, but the S&P 500 eased back from its recent highs.

And the man believed to be the oldest marathon runner has died.

Fauja Singh was known as the Turbaned Torpedo.

He began running at age 89 after losing his wife and son.

Singh became the oldest man to run a full marathon at age 100, though his feat was not recognized by Guinness World Records because they could not certify his age.

Local media says Singh died from injuries after being hit by a car in his native village in Punjab.

Fauja Singh was believed to be 114 years old.

Still to come on the "News Hour": why a highly successful HIV/AIDS program the president wants to cut may be off the chopping block; a preliminary report into last month's deadly Air India crash raises new questions; and a Palestinian comedian uses humor to process the ongoing war in Gaza.

In announcing a new weapons package for Ukraine yesterday and a 50-day deadline for Russia to agree to a cease-fire, President Trump reversed his previous stance towards Russia's invasion.

Today, he reiterated the economic pain Russia would face if it violated his deadline, but also cautioned Ukraine not to go too far.

QUESTION: What happens now?

Do you talk to Vladimir Putin?

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: Well, at the end of 50 days, if we don't have a deal, it's going to be too bad.

QUESTION: Should Zelenskyy target Moscow or deeper into Russia?

DONALD TRUMP: No, he shouldn't target Moscow.

Oh, I don't think 50 days is very long, and it could be sooner than that.

I don't think 50 days is very long.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But will yesterday's announcement of new weapons have the intended effect, or does this new deadline give Russian President Vladimir Putin weeks more to continue his onslaught?

For perspective on all this, we get two views.

Kimberly Kagan is the president of the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank.

And Jennifer Kavanagh is a senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, which advocates for restraint in U.S. foreign policy Kimberly Kagan and Jennifer Kavanagh, great to have you back on the program.

Kim Kagan, to you first.

The president and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte yesterday made this announcement, and the president has presented this as a real boost for Ukraine and a real threat to Russia.

Do you see it that way?

KIMBERLY KAGAN, President, Institute for the Study of War: President Trump's decision to allow Europeans to buy American weapons and thus support Ukraine on the battlefield is fundamental and important.

It's important to Ukraine's ability to plan and sustain its battlefield campaigns, and it's extremely important in telling Putin that the United States will stand behind its allies and partners and that the United States will in fact use force or help with the use of force to bring Putin to the negotiating table.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jennifer Kavanaugh, how do you see this?

Do you think this will be a real lever to bring Putin to the negotiating table?

JENNIFER KAVANAGH, Defense Priorities: I don't.

Militarily, I see yesterday's announcement as a lot more show than substance.

U.S. and European stockpiles are very low right now.

There is not that much in them.

So the aid that can arrive quickly is very limited in quantity and types of weapons.

So the bottom line is that the military balance isn't going to change that much.

There's also been a lot of focus here on defensive weapons, Patriots, interceptor missiles.

Those are great for defending Ukrainian cities.

They're not going to change things for front-line soldiers.

So in my view this announcement may seem like a big step forward.

It certainly is a politically significant move for President Trump, but militarily it makes very little difference for the Ukrainians and won't change the trajectory of the war.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Kim Kagan, what do you make of that, that this, it does seem to be a big reversal for Trump, but may not move the needle too much on the battlefield?

KIMBERLY KAGAN: First of all, it is important that Ukraine be able to defend its cities.

It is also important that Ukraine be able to defend its defense industry and its defense industrial base, which is actually extremely productive and very important to Ukraine's war-waging and war-fighting capacity.

The Russians are not making material gains on the battlefield right now.

Since the beginning of 2025, they have advanced really a distance that is about three-fifths the size of Rhode Island.

And they have lost 100,000 soldiers in doing so.

That's a huge loss for very little game.

Finally, Putin needs to know that he cannot win on the battlefield.

And the best way to do that is to show him that his advances are slowing and that the Ukrainians can retake territory.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jennifer Kavanaugh, we heard the president just a few moments ago say, I'm giving these weapons to Ukraine, but I don't want them to direct those weapons at Moscow or deeper into Russia itself.

Is that wise for him to say that, given that Russia, who's the invader in this circumstance, has shown no hesitancy about doing exactly that to Ukraine?

JENNIFER KAVANAGH: I do think it's the right statement and guidance for the president to give here.

The reality is that Ukraine does not have that many missiles left right now that can fire deep into Moscow.

I think they have less than 20 of the ATACMS, which are the longest-range missile that the United States has provided for them.

So that's not a lot.

And they can't even reach to Moscow.

Their range is more limited, under 200 miles.

So their capabilities are limited.

But the bigger issue here is the escalation risk.

Firing deep into Moscow runs a significant escalation risk.

Russia still has a powerful nuclear arsenal and a lot of conventional weapons that they have not used on the battlefield in Ukraine.

For the United States, which has limited interest set stake in Ukraine, it makes zero sense to run any sort of escalation risk by encouraging Ukraine to strike deep into Russia.

So I do agree with the president's guidance here.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Kim Kagan, what about that, fear of legitimate escalation by Russia if Ukraine shoots deep into Russia?

KIMBERLY KAGAN: First of all, Ukraine has been conducting strikes in Russia, including through its exquisite drone program, as we saw over the summer.

Putin has not escalated with nuclear weapons.

So the president is right to be concerned about that, but I think we have learned a lot about Putin's unwillingness to risk his -- the credibility of his nuclear deterrent by using it, and instead just try to exercise his nuclear capability by saber-rattling.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I want to ask you both one final question.

Jennifer, to you first.

The president has established this 50-day deadline and says, Putin, if you don't get to the negotiating table by then, here comes the economic pain.

The flip side of that is that that's 50 days of carte blanche for Putin to do whatever he wants.

We know some in Russia are actually celebrating this extra 50 days.

Do you think that's a fair criticism?

JENNIFER KAVANAGH: Well, I think the 50-day deadline is counterproductive for a number of reasons, the first being that it does get Putin an incentive to try to push as hard as he can, maybe not do whatever he wants, but try to push as hard as he can and consolidate his gains.

The second issue here is that it puts President Trump in a corner.

Now, at the end of 50 days, if Putin doesn't come to the table, he's forced to make a tough decision.

Does he want to impose economic penalties on close partners like India and Europe that will reverberate on the United States?

Or does he want to back down and look weak in Putin's eyes?

So he's placed himself in a really tough position that call his own credibility to account.

And, ultimately, I don't think that Putin cares that much about artificial deadlines.

He has a set of goals that he aims to achieve and he will keep pushing until he achieves them.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Kim Kagan, what's your response to that?

KIMBERLY KAGAN: Putin has already been using everything that he has against Ukraine.

We see that in the way that he uses his drones, his missiles every night against Ukrainian cities and the way he wastes men on the front lines to try to move the front lines forward.

So Putin's already giving everything he's got.

And so the 50 days are perhaps a constraint on President Trump, but they are not material for the way that Putin is waging the war.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Kimberly Kagan and Jennifer Kavanagh, thank you both so much for being here.

JENNIFER KAVANAGH: Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There was some significant news out of the U.S. Senate today, especially for the global fight against HIV and AIDS.

The White House has backed off $400 billion in immediate cuts to global health programs.

And "News Hour" has learned it pledged to protect others from the chopping block.

This is part of the package of cuts being debated in the Senate this week.

Our Lisa Desjardins was on the Hill today and joins me with more.

Lisa, what happened today?

LISA DESJARDINS: Quite a lot.

We're talking about that rescissions package that is over $9 million -- billion dollars right now.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Oh, I mistakenly said $400 billion.

LISA DESJARDINS: I know.

That's right.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Excuse me.

I meant $400 million.

LISA DESJARDINS: And now it's in my head too.

I know, exactly.

Well, we're going to lay this out exactly, make it all very clear.

So let's look at where this rescissions package we have been talking about stands right now.

So originally the proposal was for $9.4 billion with a B cuts overall.

But now senators have drawn a line and it has been reduced.

Now the cut proposal is expected to be $9 billion.

What has changed?

Well, cuts have been restored, $400 million with an M in health, global health funding, and especially that includes PEPFAR, which, of course, is a global AIDS/HIV prevention and treatment program.

Now, in addition to this, I want to make one smaller note.

The White House also pledged a very small amount, relatively $9 million, for Native American radio stations.

Why does that matter?

They did that to win a vote.

It is the vote of this man, Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota.

He's someone who didn't like this rescissions package and, frankly, was one of the people who probably could have killed it.

But he said he got a deal for this $9 million.

It's said to affect some 28 radio stations, he told the press, across the country.

We are waiting for the first votes as soon as tonight, next few hours.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Let's talk a bit more about PEPFAR that you mentioned.

This is not a president who is known for backing down.

So what was it about PEPFAR particularly that made senators want to fight so hard for it?

LISA DESJARDINS: That's right.

These Republican senators chose their battles and they chose this one.

One reason is, this is seen as one of the great bipartisan accomplishments of the modern Congress and modern presidency, the George W. Bush program from 2003.

But it is also a global success.

I want to show you in this map just how far PEPFAR reaches all around the world.

We're talking about 20 million people who get antiviral treatment, five million babies born without HIV because of the protections from PEPFAR.

And this has been just an incredible force for saying America wants to do good in the world and has helped our alliances with many countries.

Now, at the same time, the Trump administration's freezes that they had earlier this year and some of their cuts to programs have directly affected already some HIV programs, as you have been reporting, from Africa so well.

And those -- that damage is something that senators paid attention to.

They didn't believe the line from the White House that there was no damage being done at all.

So, in all, you can see that people, they're in the AIDS/HIV realm right now, this -- I'm sorry -- I'm losing my train of thought.

But right now there is a conference going on in Rwanda about this.

And we spoke to one of the American advocates, Mitchell Warren of AVAC, who says, yes, this has been a real serious situation and they have seen real damage there.

MITCHELL WARREN, Executive Director, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition: There has been disruption and chaos around PEPFAR programs since January 21, when the executive order was made public, when pauses and then terminations began to roll out.

The implications are huge for people living with HIV, who -- tens of millions of whom have benefited from PEPFAR as a lifesaving program.

LISA DESJARDINS: And that's something that's not Republicans really felt.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So this is not just about HIV and AIDS.

It would still cut other global health programs.

But you have learned that there might be a deal about that as well?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

So still in cuts are $500 million for global health -- other global health programs.

There was real concern, but I have been told by multiple sources that senators were given a guarantee by the White House that that would not include malaria programs, nutrition programs, T.B.

programs, or maternal health.

Those are all very big deals.

I asked Senator John Thune, though, what about the pushback, the concern about other global health cuts?

Here's what he said.

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): A lot of these recommendations now are an implementation of what DOGE found in areas of the budget that they thought we could achieve savings, but not undermine the critical mission aspects of a lot of these -- what some of these programs do.

LISA DESJARDINS: But if you ask some nonpartisan health experts, even if you leave all of those programs, malaria, there are those things intact, they say there are still real problems.

We talked to Jen Kates at KFF, and she said this will still affect lives around the world.

JEN KATES, KFF: It just would leave quite a big gap globally because the U.S. was such a main supporter of contraceptives, commodities for low and -- for women in low- and middle-income countries.

It is not clear that there's anyone, any other government that's going real step in and make up that gap.

LISA DESJARDINS: And, of course, that family planning aspect is something conservatives oppose as well.

One other thing, what's going to happen now?

Well, it takes four votes to block this bill, four Republican votes.

Let's look at where we see -- what we see right now.

I know of two likely no's, not firm, but likely Senator Collins and Murkowski.

And now because of the events of today, about a dozen people that I was watching as possible no's have disappeared.

Right now, it looks like this rescissions package without those cuts to PEPFAR and that global health stuff, it looks like it's on track to pass, but we will watch it closely.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lisa Desjardins, thank you so much.

LISA DESJARDINS: Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We return now to our periodic look at the consequences of the Trump administration's dismantling of USAID.

In previous reports, we looked at how these cuts are impacting the fight against HIV, malaria and maternal health.

As America's work abroad contracts, which of USAID's investments and projects can live on without American support?

In partnership with the Pulitzer Center, producer Molly Knight Raskin and I traveled to a community in Central Kenya to look at the legacy of two American aid projects.

For the millions of herders across Africa, livestock is their source of wealth and survival.

And that survival depends on water.

While the rainy season just ended in Isiolo County in Northeastern Kenya, the land here is normally arid and dry.

Water is scarce and competition for it can be fierce.

ESTHER LOJOKIN, Farmer (through translator): We have had an bad water shortage here for a long time.

It's led to a lot of fights with our neighbors.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Those fights have been made worse by increasing droughts, driven in part by climate change.

During the last one, no meaningful rain fell for five consecutive growing seasons.

Tens of thousands of cattle died.

Food ran short.

And violence broke out when herders fought and killed each other, and nearby farmers.

MAN: Enough is enough.

They have crossed the red line.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The government sent soldiers to quell the violence.

It was in these circumstances, and in these areas, like the little village of Attan in Isiolo, where America targeted its help.

So, USAID, after working in close consultation with this community, had an idea, which was to build a system to guarantee more regular access to water, and thereby improve the quality of these herder communities' lives.

Last year, the regional head of USAID celebrated with community members and local officials the opening of a pilot project which dug a large well, filled a solar-powered water tower, and then sent water into troughs for cattle, nearby fields, and this water station.

They also taught people, including young herders, farming skills, and gave them start-up supplies.

The project gave this parched village new hope.

JULIUS EIRA, Farmer (through translator): We embraced crop farming.

The foreign aid from America chipped in to save us, by improving our farming techniques and giving us seeds.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Julius Eira is one of those men who started planting.

JULIUS EIRA (through translator): Our young men used to steal livestock from our neighbors, but when farming started, our young men embraced it, and stopped stealing.

And everyone was peaceful, all because of the American support.

ESTHER LOJOKIN (through translator): No one knew how to farm crops in this village.

I never dreamt of becoming a farmer.

I was raised to make charcoal.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Like most women here, Esther Lojokin used to make and sell charcoal for money, a practice that's destructive to forests and people's lungs.

But with support from this project, she walked away from that life and started farming ESTHER LOJOKIN (through translator): We can grow food from our soil, like maize, beans, and even sweet potatoes.

And our children appear healthy and strong.

MANSUR SHABAN, Agricultural Director, Isiolo County: It has given them a change of mind-set.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Mansur Shaban is the local government's agricultural director.

MANSUR SHABAN: They had very, like, little to none ways of making a livelihood.

And that would mean that they have to compete for the small resources they have with other people.

And that would mean life or death, because they were fighting for resources.

Let no one lie to you, highly impactful, lifesaving, because everybody knows that water is life, basically.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This project serves an unstated, but secondary purpose.

This region is a known recruiting ground for Al-Shabaab, the Somalia-based insurgency responsible for multiple terrorist attacks inside Kenya.

WOMAN: This father remembers the day his son went to Somalia to join Al-Shabaab.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Any project that helps support and anchor young men to their community is, according to the U.N., an important part of counterterrorism.

USAID's and other donors' plan was to considerably expand the project to pipe well water further, so triple the acreage could be farmed.

More training and supplies were to come, along with a large dammed basin to capture and store rainwater.

But then, only two years into the project, USAID's work was stopped.

So what this community was left with is a project that was showing tremendous promise, was benefiting dozens of families in this area.

But now, because of these cuts, this project will likely never be finished.

Contrast that with this.

The Isiolo Livestock Market was started over 10 years ago with large support from USAID.

Today, it's a bustling, thriving monument to economic empowerment and organization.

Two days a week, herders from across the region come here to sell their livestock.

Different tribes of different faiths haggle and negotiate in a free, secure, and open marketplace.

Mohammed Wario oversees the market.

He says that, for many years, herders would often get taken advantage of by dishonest brokers who would lie to them about market prices.

But, here, with so many customers bidding, herders get the best, fairest prices.

People can change money through a supervised system.

And because of the guaranteed crowds, a perimeter marketplace was built for local women to sell products.

MOHAMMED WARIO, Chairman, Isiolo Livestock Market: More than 5,000 households benefit every day through this market.

So this is a sustainability project, through USAID, which changed the livelihoods of our people.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Seeing this remarkable growth, the local government then helped fund the construction of a soon-to-open multimillion-dollar slaughterhouse, so buyers can butcher their meat on the spot, have it packed up, and shipped from the local airport.

So it's this kind of process that USAID starts, but hen the local government and local community picks up, that gives people hope that this kind of a project could sustain even if America's support never returns.

But just 15 miles away, in Attan, it's a different story.

Locals say the well isn't generating enough water anymore, and USAID has left.

Residents hand-dug this long channel from a nearby river, but they fear its only a temporary fix.

JULIUS EIRA (through translator): The American withdrawal came as a big shock.

We never expected it.

We were hoping for a dam, but our expectations died instantly.

Other people lost hope and stopped farming.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Esther Lojokin fears that the fledgling progress they have made will be lost.

ESTHER LOJOKIN (through translator): We're worried about what will happen in the future.

Even the crops in the ground will not mature.

The river is drying up, and there's not enough water in the well.

I can't imagine going back to charcoal.

MANSUR SHABAN: With the pullout of USAID, there will be a lot of dire consequences, in terms of health, in terms of livelihoods.

There will be a lot of consequences.

People will even die because... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you believe people will die because of these cuts?

MANSUR SHABAN: Of course, because these projects had not become sustainable by the time USAID pulled out.

They were... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: They were getting close.

MANSUR SHABAN: Yes, the journey was there, but the pullout was so sudden that people were not ready for self-reliance yet.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Two USAID projects, two different outcomes.

In one, American aid was a seed, one that was given time and grew into a sustainable, thriving enterprise, the other a promising start that was interrupted, leaving more despair than hope in its wake.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm William Brangham in Isiolo County, Kenya.

New and troubling questions are emerging about what caused last month's Air India crash in Ahmedabad, which killed 260 people.

A preliminary investigation, released this weekend ruled out mechanical or maintenance issues.

The 15-page report found that the Boeing 78 Dreamliner's fuel cutoff switches, which stop fuel from flowing to the engines, had both been flipped, in sequence, just seconds after the plane took off, and not long before it crashed.

Experts believe it's most likely that one of the pilots was responsible.

For more on the latest in this report, we're joined by our aviation correspondent, Miles O'Brien.

Miles, so good to see you.

Let's talk about those fuel switches and how they seem to have been shut off right after takeoff.

How do they work?

Is it possible that someone bumps it with their elbow and switches it off?

Is it possible there's some mechanical issue with those switches?

What do we know about that?

MILES O'BRIEN: Those switches, William, are designed to be readily available to the flight crew in the event that they need to cut off the fuel because of, say, an engine fire.

But because they need to be readily available and they're so crucial, they are guarded in two ways.

They are spring-loaded.

You have to pull up on the switch.

And then when, you put it in place, it latches in place, so it's actually secured in two separate fashions.

Its, dare I say, impossible to just brush aside it and move that switch.

It's not something that could be done casually, and it points very strongly to deliberate intent.

In addition to that, William, there was no evidence of any sort of mechanical problem with the engines, whether the engines might have failed in some fashion and there was an incorrect procedure to restart the engines.

That was one of the early speculations, but there's zero evidence that occurred.

The flight data recorder simply records the fact that those switches were absolutely, inexplicably turned off.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: There was this in the report a mention of a very odd conversation between the two pilots about these switches and who turned them off or what happened.

What did the investigators find out?

MILES O'BRIEN: The flight data recorder, we don't know who is talking to whom at this stage of the game.

They haven't released that, but one of the pilots says to the other: "Why did you just do that?"

And the response was: "I didn't do that."

So there was a recognition that something very drastically wrong happened and on the other end of the equation, a denial.

So, again, that points toward some sort of deliberate action and, for some reason, no recognition of the fact of what just happened.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Given that there is still a lot that we don't know, but let's for the sake of conversation assume that this was an intentional act, is it -- I'm correct that this is not the first time that this has happened with a flight?

MILES O'BRIEN: William, it isn't.

I have taken a look back.

And going back to 1982, that's the first case I can find, it occurred with the Japan Airlines flight in Tokyo.

There have been nine separate occurrences that could be attributed to the flight crew taking some sort of deliberate action, in other words, suicide and homicide.

Now, I am including the missing Malaysian Airliner MH370, and that's a controversial statement there, but most of the thinking right now is that that is what happened there.

And that also includes this case in Air India.

So nine separate incidents, more than 1,100 people dead throughout all of those incidents.

So you couldn't say this is a common thing, but it's not something that is unprecedented either.

It's a rare occurrence, not something that I think people should worry about too terribly, but to the extent that it is very difficult to get at ways to solve it, it's something that the aviation community is grappling with.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, obviously mental health is spread all the way across society, but, as you're indicating, when it comes to pilots, by nature of their job, they have so many people's lives in their hands.

What is the screening mental health wise for pilots?

And do the people that you have been talking with believe that it is enough?

MILES O'BRIEN: Well, it's interesting, William, because the pilot who's flying your airliner has a physical exam every six months, and - - but there is no specific psychological evaluation.

The doctors say, hey, how are you feeling?

You depressed?

And they say, I'm fine.

The problem is that there's a trap here for pilots.

If they self-report a problem that they're depressed or whatever, it's likely they will be grounded.

And this gets right to their livelihood.

And so there is no incentive for them to self-report if they're dealing with mental health issues.

So it's a real trap, and the system has to sort of rethink how it approaches this, I think, and be more proactive in ensuring that pilots are not grappling with mental health issues.

Some of the things we could look at is a more formalized approach to dealing with mental health issues, making those psychological exams more part of the routine.

Another thing I would advocate for are video recorders on the flight deck so we can see more of what's going on.

Any time you get into coming up with systems to prevent this, though, you might put a flight crew into a situation where a system inhibits their ability to respond for an emergency.

So, at the end of the day, we have to trust the individuals who are at the pointy end of these airliners.

And that leads us to kind of the inscrutable area of the human mind.

And it's -- for aviation people, it's more about psychology, whereas we're more accustomed to dealing with changing procedures.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Miles O'Brien, always great to talk to you.

Thank you very much.

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

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Comedy has long been a way to bring a different lighter lens to heavy topics.

That holds true for Palestinian-American comedian Sammy Obeid who has taken to the stage to spotlight the pain of the war in Gaza.

Amna Nawaz has the story for our arts and culture series, Canvas.

AMNA NAWAZ: Comedian Sammy Obeid has built his career tackling the tough stuff, from politics to war.

SAMMY OBEID, Comedian: The night that Israel attacked Iran, there was a spike in pizza sales right next to the Pentagon.

AMNA NAWAZ: The former high school math teacher even jokes about that.

SAMMY OBEID: America is ranked 33rd in math in the world.

Japan had to count that for us.

It's pretty bad.

(LAUGHTER) SAMMY OBEID: I think, once I started doing math jokes, it just seemed like I can pretty much make any painful subject very funny.

And so I have never had a problem with that.

AMNA NAWAZ: At Mama Ayesha's, a Palestinian restaurant in Washington, D.C., Obeid said his work is often fueled by what others aren't saying or won't say.

SAMMY OBEID: There is certainly a void in stand-up on certain topics, specifically Palestine.

The fact that that void is there is very motivating for me to be like, oh, nobody's talking about it.

I will.

And I feel that way about any subject that people don't really touch.

AMNA NAWAZ: The Palestinian-American comedian grew up in Northern California, where his interest in politics took root.

SAMMY OBEID: I love being Palestinian because it's the one identity you bring up and it's instantly controversial.

(LAUGHTER) SAMMY OBEID: Growing up, I kind of -- I had to learn gradually that I was Palestinian, because... AMNA NAWAZ: What do you mean?

SAMMY OBEID: Like, I don't think I asked what ethnicity I was to my parents until I was maybe like 10 or 11.

My parents started inviting me to like pro-Palestine protests and vigils.

So I became more aware of it in my 20s, and then I started stand-up.

And at that point it was already kind of my identity.

AMNA NAWAZ: He was drawn to the voices willing to lean into the uncomfortable.

SAMMY OBEID: I think the first one that really inspired me was Chris Rock.

I watched a special of his when I was 15, and this is when I became tangentially aware of politics.

CHRIS ROCK, Comedian: So, when you white, the sky is the limit.

When you black, the limit is the sky.

(LAUGHTER) SAMMY OBEID: Just learning about what politics were and what was going on in the world, and then seeing him make it funny, I was like, whoa, that's so cool.

AMNA NAWAZ: Obeid first got national attention for a 1,000-day streak of consecutive comedy performances in 2013, culminating in a late-night booking on "Conan."

SAMMY OBEID: Crazy, because I'm Palestinian, my roommate is Jewish, so we're always fighting over where his room starts and mine ends.

(LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: But millions of people have seen Obeid's work in a new surge of interest fueled by his jokes about Palestine and a string of viral moments this one: WOMAN: The Palestinians or the Gazans there voted for Hamas.

SAMMY OBEID: Let's say 80 percent of the voting population showed up, so that's 20 percent of the total population now.

And 40 percent, what's 40 percent of 20 percent?

(LAUGHTER) SAMMY OBEID: Come on.

You may not be on a side.

You got to be on the side of math, right?

It's 8 percent.

At most, 8 percent of the people living in Gaza voted for Hamas.

AMNA NAWAZ: You detoured your show for an hour to engage with this person.

SAMMY OBEID: Yes.

Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: Why?

SAMMY OBEID: Well, because it was really hard to not address the elephant in the room, which was that she was making some very bold claims that were arguing against some of the basic premises that I was setting up for my jokes.

And so I wasn't just going to let that sit there.

I had to say something.

Really, I treat comedy about Palestine like an illegal settler does land in the West Bank.

(LAUGHTER) SAMMY OBEID: Like, if I don't take this, someone else will.

(LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: You also joke sometimes about Palestinians having what you call a dark sense of humor.

SAMMY OBEID: Very much.

AMNA NAWAZ: Is that true?

SAMMY OBEID: I still think people don't understand how dark of a sense of humor Palestinians have and how necessary it is for us to deal with what we see on a daily basis.

Sometimes, during my show, I will tell a dark joke and people will be like, oh, do I laugh at this?

And I'm like, look at the Palestinians.

And they look at the Palestinians and they're just busting up laughing.

I'm like, it's OK.

This is how we cope.

Say hi to everybody here.

AMNA NAWAZ: His fans in Gaza are watching.

One even FaceTimed in during his D.C. show.

MAN: We are appreciating everything you do for Palestine and for Gaza.

SAMMY OBEID: Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

AMNA NAWAZ: But it's another fan in Gaza who Obeid says he's in touch with almost every day and whose family he's been helping after connecting online.

SAMMY OBEID: His house was bombed in November 2023 and him and his family of 18 who lived in that house had to evacuate.

They recently had to evacuate from their tent.

And so now they're living under a piece of nylon on the beach.

Now they're just living day by day on the little food they have.

I have watched him grow thin.

I mean, it's just -- it's insane.

It's insane that they are the lucky ones and they are living a life that anyone here in America would go (EXPLETIVE DELETED) crazy just experiencing for one day.

AMNA NAWAZ: That connection inspired Obeid to launch a platform called Pal Collective allowing people to link with and support a family in Gaza however they can.

SAMMY OBEID: They can essentially be your adopted family.

You can basically talk to them on a daily basis, send them money, whatever you feel comfortable doing.

Or if you want to provide therapy services, or if you're a doctor, you want to give free medical consultations, you can basically sign up to do that.

AMNA NAWAZ: On stage, Obeid somehow continues to find a way to make light of dark topics.

SAMMY OBEID: I wish I could be telling people about A squared plus B squared equals C squared.

But I'm here trying to put out A's fire, I'm trying to put out B's fire, and that requires cease-fire.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

AMNA NAWAZ: Do you ever reach a point where you're like, OK, this is too much, there's no way to make people laugh about what's going on here?

SAMMY OBEID: Yes, I mean, there's definitely days where it's just so dark, what happens is so dark, the news that comes out of Gaza is so dark.

But I will say, to be honest, most things, I can kind of find a way to talk about it while also making humor.

AMNA NAWAZ: And that's a lot of pressure to try to make people laugh about very heavy topics.

SAMMY OBEID: I definitely have felt the toll from this just emotionally as a person.

I have these people who come to my shows and will listen to what I say every night.

And so I feel I have my form of therapy.

So, as long as the world is functioning the way it is, yes, unfortunately, I'm going to have to be talking about it for a while.

I would love it to stop immediately.

But when it stops, you better believe I will be doing math theorems.

(LAUGHTER) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Tonight's Brief But Spectacular features Byron Kominek, who's returned to his family's Colorado farm with a bold idea, grow crops and harvest solar energy.

At Jack's Solar Garden, Byron has transformed hayfields into a thriving hub, demonstrating how farming and clean energy can grow side by side.

BYRON KOMINEK, Farmer: Climate change is happening.

I don't really see a way that we can stop it.

So we need to learn to adapt to it.

Agrivoltaics is a way to help agriculture adapt to our hotter temperatures.

Continuing to do the same type of agriculture 20 years from now as we did back in the '80s and prior is not going to work because it's going to be too hot for a lot of crops.

We're already seeing that on our farm of my hay grass browning earlier.

I'm getting less production out of it and that's happening with plenty of other people too.

When I moved to the farm in 2016, I didn't really have a lot of connection to it.

Jack was my grandfather.

Never met the fellow.

Born in 1895, he was a carpenter the first half of his life, a farmer the second half.

He had a 120-acre farm in Westminster in Colorado, where my mother grew up.

I did five years with USAID in Zambia a couple years, in Mozambique.

I wanted to see what it would be to do something in my own culture.

The farm was there with nobody living on it for at least eight years.

And I learned about how we were losing money haying the fields.

It wasn't anything that was looking towards the future of what our farm could be for our family.

And the idea of solar came about because it was something that could be passive income for the land.

Dual land use is taking two different things and just doing it together.

With solar it could be a tennis court underneath solar panels.

It could be a beer garden, a bowling alley, whereas agrivoltaics is a subset of that where you're specifically integrating agricultural activities.

The dumbest thing I hear is that things can't grow in the shade.

I tell people go look in the forest.

There's plenty of things that grow underneath the trees.

The shade from the solar panels reduces the overall temperature on the property over the course of the day.

It reduces stresses on the various types of vegetation and shade keeps moisture in the ground longer.

And the hotter it is, the drier the land is.

So the more shade that's there, the more moisture can stay in the ground longer.

Dual use for landowners provides multiple streams of income and it -- oftentimes, for farmers and ranchers, it keeps the purpose of the land there.

For our land, it's really nice having people on the land.

I have a couple thousand people that come out to visit my land every year.

It makes me feel more part of the community.

It feels like I can be a better contributor to the community that I live in.

My name is Byron Kominek.

This is my Brief But Spectacular take on agrivoltaics.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You can watch more Brief But Spectacular videos at PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief.

A news update before we go.

The Trump administration says it's ending the deployment of half of the 4,000 National Guard troops who were sent to Los Angeles to protect federal property during immigration protests last month; 2,000 Guardsmen will remain in the city, along with 700 Marines.

And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm William Brangham.

Thank you so much for joining us.