AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Geoff Bennett is away.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: President Trump's envoy visits Russia, as the Kremlin makes its own demands for a cease-fire proposal from the U.S. and Ukraine.

As the clock ticks down to a government shutdown, Senate Democrats debate whether to support a Republican funding bill.

And after a Palestinian activist is detained and threatened with removal from the U.S., we take a look at the Trump administration's deportation policies.

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

Russian President Vladimir Putin today responded to a U.S.-Ukraine offer for a temporary cease-fire with his own demands and questions about what a 30-day pause in the war would mean for his long-term ambitions in Ukraine and Europe.

Putin is meeting with President Trump's envoy, as Ukraine says that Putin's words show he is not ready for peace.

Nick Schifrin begins our coverage.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Tonight, a high-stakes negotiation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, after Putin today said a cease-fire must answer his demands.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russian President (through translator): We agree with the proposals to stop the fighting, but we believe this cessation should be one that would lead to long-term peace and eliminate the initial causes of this crisis.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The Kremlin has long translated initial causes as the presence of U.S. and NATO troops in Eastern Europe.

Congressional officials tell "PBS News Hour" the Trump administration had already been considering reducing U.S. troops in Europe.

The Kremlin has also demanded Ukraine refuse NATO weapons, cap its military size and abandon NATO membership.

Those are red lines for Ukraine, but the Trump administration appears willing, at the very least, to block Ukraine's NATO ambitions.

Today, Putin also disparaged the very idea of a temporary pause.

VLADIMIR PUTIN (through translator): How will these 30 days be used, for Ukraine to continue forced mobilization, so that the mobilized units are trained?

How can we be guaranteed that nothing like this happens?

NICK SCHIFRIN: Today, Russian troops regain the largest town in the Russian region of Kursk, parts of which have been occupied by Ukraine since last summer.

Putin said any cease-fire would first have to answer Kursk's fate.

VLADIMIR PUTIN (through translator): If we stop fighting for 30 days, what does this mean, that everyone who's there will go out without a fight, that we must release them from there, or the Ukrainian leadership will give them a command to lay down their arms, to surrender themselves?

How will this be?

It's unclear.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In the White House with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte today, President Trump described Putin's initial reply as positive.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: We are getting good signals outside of Russia as to where we are with Russia, and hopefully they will do the right thing.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And President Trump reiterated his desire to stop the war as quickly as possible.

DONALD TRUMP: He put out a very promising statement, but it wasn't complete.

And, yes, I'd love to meet with him or talk to him.

But we have to get it over with fast.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But, today, Putin demanded more answers and appeared in no rush.

VLADIMIR PUTIN (through translator): Who is going to give orders for the cessation of hostilities?

Who will determine where and who has committed a violation of the cease-fire?

These are all questions that require painstaking research on both sides.

There are some issues we should discuss, maybe with President Trump.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Tonight, Zelenskyy said Putin was not ready for peace.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President (through translator): That's why in Moscow, they are surrounding the cease-fire idea with such preconditions that it either fails or gets dragged out for as long as possible.

Now is the time to increase pressure on him.

Sanctions must be applied.

DONALD TRUMP: You don't have the cards right now.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But, publicly, President Trump's pressure has been on Zelenskyy personally and on Ukraine by halting military aid and pausing intelligence sharing for six days.

In private, administration officials tell "PBS News Hour" that president ordered sanctions on Russia to be more tightly enforced.

And he has, at times threatened more sanctions.

But, today, he held back.

DONALD TRUMP: I do have leverage, but I don't want to talk about leverage now, because right now we're talking to him.

And based on the statements he made today, they were pretty positive, I think.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But the man who started this war also made it clear today there is no deal until his questions are answered and his demands are met.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Nick Schifrin.

AMNA NAWAZ: To decode what President Putin had to say today and assess the state of play of all this diplomacy, we turn now to two longtime Russia watchers.

Thomas Graham served on the National Security Council staff during the George W. Bush administration and at the state and Defense Departments.

He's now a distinguished fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

And Andrew Weiss is a former State Department official who served in the George H.W.

Bush and Clinton administrations.

He's now the vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Welcome to you both gentlemen.

Andrew, I will start with you.

You heard President Putin say he's open to proposals to stop the cease-fire, but he has questions.

What's your read on what he's doing here?

Does he actually want a cease-fire?

ANDREW WEISS, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: I think Vladimir Putin is going out of his way not to taunt the West, he's trying to look reasonable.

He's trying to avoid irritating Donald Trump, who's obviously invested his own personal prestige in trying to bring about the cease-fire.

But Vladimir Putin is in an uncomfortable position.

He's essentially been wrong-footed by the diplomacy that we saw in Saudi Arabia earlier this week.

And now he's the one who looks like he doesn't want peace.

He's the one who wants to impose conditions on any cease-fire.

AMNA NAWAZ: Thomas Graham, what's your take on this?

We should note you were in Moscow recently.

So how are you decoding what President Putin had to say?

THOMAS GRAHAM, Council on Foreign Relations: Well, I pretty much agree with what Andrew has just said.

Putin is under -- feels under no pressure to bring this war to an early settlement.

He has his demands.

He thinks that he is winning on the battlefield.

He sees the problems that Ukraine has.

So he's prepared to drag these out with discussions about his conditions.

The only thing that gives him pause is that he does want to develop a broader relationship with the United States.

So the question in his mind is, how far can he push President Trump?

How far can he resist an early settlement to this conflict and still maintain the possibility of a much broader working relationship with the United States?

AMNA NAWAZ: Andrew, what's your take on this?

Does Putin want more of a reset like we have heard from the Trump administration they want with Russia?

Does Russia want the same with the U.S. in terms of relations?

ANDREW WEISS: We don't know for sure what Vladimir Putin's thinking.

And I'm not going to try to do any mind reading here.

But we do know what the U.S. president is thinking.

And he's been remarkably consistent going back to his first moments as a candidate in 2016.

He has portrayed U.S.-Russia relations as an end in themselves.

He thinks that getting along with Russia can be an end in itself.

And then the justification for that shifts over time.

Right now, the Russians are suggesting maybe they won't work as closely with China.

Maybe they can help the United States deal with Iran's nuclear weapons program.

I'm abundantly skeptical that there's a "there" there.

But the opportunities that the Russians are dangling in front of the new administration look captivating to the team that's in place.

AMNA NAWAZ: Thomas, what's your take on that, especially with a view towards China and how Russia is viewing that right now?

THOMAS GRAHAM: Well, there are a couple of up points to make here.

First is that Russia thinks of itself as a great power and it wants to be validated as a great power.

And despite the very good relationships they have with China, the fact is, in the Kremlin's mind, there's only one country that can really validate them as a great power.

And that's the United States.

And talking to the United States is important in and of itself.

Second, I do think that Putin does have a broader strategy here.

Opening up relations with the United States, developing more constructive relations does give him greater leverage in his relationship with China.

Iran, and some of the other countries that he's relied on in the past.

It doesn't mean he's going to break with these countries, but he would like to balance the relationship more in Russia's favor than the current Sino-Russia relationship is at the moment.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Thomas, given all of that and knowing that Ukraine wants to see some security guarantees here, is this an opportunity for the U.S. to push harder for Russia to take more actions or to get -- offer more security guarantees to Ukraine?

THOMAS GRAHAM: Yes, I think absolutely.

The United States does have leverage, and it's not so much in the sanctions and tariffs that President Trump has talked about.

It is in unity with the West.

It is in unity with the Ukrainians.

And it is, in a sense, playing on that desire that the Russians have to maintain a broader relationship, and using that some way in the negotiations to get Putin to make concessions and also to get Putin to agree to allow the West, the United States to provide some serious security guarantees to Ukraine going forward.

AMNA NAWAZ: Andrew, do you see this leading to a cease-fire and to some long-term deal in the wars?

ANDREW WEISS: Donald Trump seems determined to bring about some form of a cease-fire within his first 100 days, and that 100-day mark is reached on April 29.

So, he's in a tearing hurry.

I think he's eager to meet one-on-one with President Putin in coming weeks.

The real challenge is, you can't go into a negotiation without leverage, as Tom just said, and you can't look like you want the deal more than the other side wants it.

And so, instead of throwing cold water on this extensive relationship that the United States has with Ukraine and with Europe, the United States should be trying to find ways to demonstrate to Putin that he can't wait us out and that the longer this war goes on, the worse it's going to be for him.

It's not clear yet that the administration has figured out that they -- as Tom said, they can exploit that leverage and they can also enable Ukraine's lethality to hold at risk things inside Russia that Putin cares very much about.

AMNA NAWAZ: Thomas Graham, this is a Trump administration that prides itself on a very unconventional approach.

When you look at the team on the front lines of these negotiations, at the way these talks are unfolding, do you think they have the ability to negotiate and see through a cease-fire?

THOMAS GRAHAM: Well, look, I think quite frankly, there is a lack of Russia and Ukraine and European expertise at the highest levels of government.

And I think there is some pause as to whether they're going to be able to push this negotiation forward to a resolution that is satisfactory from the standpoints of American national interest.

I would note that the -- when I was in Moscow, the Russians also expressed concern about the lack of expertise, that they weren't confident that the that the administration clearly understood what Russia's position was and therefore were concerned that their -- that the president, Donald Trump, would come to some conclusions about what Putin was prepared to do or not prepared to do, and Putin pushing back against that could lead to a dust-up and then create a complication of this broader effort on the Russian part to build a much more constructive relationship with the United States.

AMNA NAWAZ: Andrew, we have got about 40 seconds left.

Do you agree with that?

ANDREW WEISS: I do.

And I think that, in a normal period, we would see the Trump team wait to get their senior officials in place, to get people through the Senate confirmation process, to put an ambassador in Moscow to conduct a policy review.

And I think it's legitimate to say that the previous administration's position, which they handed off to the Trump people, like, did need to be reviewed.

Russia has been winning on the battlefield for the past year.

That's unfortunate.

U.S. ability to sustain military support for Ukraine at the previous levels is going to be very difficult.

So the question is, is, what's the next phase?

And it shouldn't be ramming a cease-fire deal laden with conditions down Ukraine's throat.

That would be a big mistake.

AMNA NAWAZ: Andrew Weiss and Thomas Graham, our thanks to you both.

We appreciate your time.

ANDREW WEISS: Thank you.

THOMAS GRAHAM: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: We begin the day's other headlines with the latest on the firings of federal workers.

A judge in San Francisco ordered the Trump administration to rehire thousands of employees let go in mass firings last month.

Today's directive applies to the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, Interior, Agriculture and the Treasury.

It affects probationary employees, typically those with less than one year of service.

They can usually only be fired for performance-related issues.

The judge said -- quote -- "It is sad, a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance, when they know good and well, that's a lie."

The Trump administration says it will fight the order.

That comes as a group of Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit today to try to stop the Department of Education's plans to cut 1,300 staff members.

The 20 states, plus the District of Columbia, say it amounts to an illegal dismantling of the agency.

In particular, they argue that the cuts are so severe that the department -- quote -- "can no longer function and cannot comply with its statutory requirements."

President Trump has repeatedly said he wants to shut the agency down, but doing so would require an act of Congress.

The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow it to move forward with restrictions on birthright citizenship.

The filing asked the justices to narrow court orders from judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that halted an executive order by President Trump nationwide.

That order would deny citizenship to anyone born after February 19 to parents in the country illegally.

Two dozen states, several individuals and a group sued, saying that the order violates the 14th Amendment.

The administration argues that states lack the standing to sue and want the order to take effect in some parts of the country.

Turning to the ongoing trade wars, today, President Trump proposed a new tariff on European alcohol.

That was in response to the E.U.

's plan for a 50 percent import tax on American whiskey.

He wrote on social media that if the E.U.

tariff is implemented, he will -- quote -- "place a 200 percent tariff on all wines, champagne and alcoholic products coming out of France and other E.U.-represented countries."

In Belgium today, a spokesperson for the European Commission said such tariffs only produce lose-lose outcomes.

OLOF GILL, Spokesperson, European Commission: We deeply regret the introduction of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports yesterday, and we would feel the very same about any future measures.

We call on the U.S. to immediately revoke the tariffs imposed yesterday, and we want to negotiate to avoid tariffs in the future.

AMNA NAWAZ: President Trump stood firm on his policy this afternoon in the Oval Office, saying he won't change his mind on the rollout of so-called reciprocal tariffs set to take effect on April 2.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg says he is not running for an open Senate seat in Michigan next year.

He also won't seek the governor's office.

It's the clearest sign yet that the Democrat is eying another presidential bid in 2028.

In a blog post today, the 43-year-old alluded to his future plans, writing -- quote -- "I am simultaneously thankful to be away from Washington and yet also more motivated than ever to contribute to the future of this country."

His decision further clouds the outlook for Democrats hoping to reclaim the Senate next year.

Just yesterday, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire said she would not seek reelection in 2026.

Pope Francis marked the 12 anniversary of his papacy today from the hospital, where he's been treated for nearly a month with pneumonia in both lungs.

Supporters gathered outside to pray for his recovery.

Doctors have said his life is no longer in imminent danger.

In fact, the Vatican said today that the 88-year-old pontiff was able to participate in physiotherapy and stopped to pray in the hospital chapel.

Francis was elected as the 266th pope on this day in 2013.

He was also the first non-European pope in more than 1,200 years.

On Wall Street today, stocks tumbled once again, as investors remain concerned about President Trump's tariffs.

The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 500 points.

The Nasdaq dropped nearly 350 points or almost 2 percent.

The S&P 500 slipped into what's known as a correction after giving back 77 points today.

And Congressman Raul Grijalva has died.

The Democrat represented southern Arizona for more than 20 years.

In a statement, his office said - - quote -- "Driven by his community values and spirit, he worked tirelessly and accomplished so much for Arizona and for the country."

That included his activism efforts on behalf of Native communities, immigrant families and the environment.

His office says he passed away this morning due to complications from cancer treatments.

Raul Grijalva was 77 years old.

Still to come on the "News Hour": the Trump administration announces an aggressive rollback of environmental protections; and why President Trump and Elon Musk want to audit U.S. gold reserves held at Fort Knox.

There are signs of hope from the U.S. Senate tonight on a potential way to avoid a federal government shutdown tomorrow night; 60 votes are needed to move anything forward, and it's still unclear if enough Democrats will join Republicans to pass a stopgap deal and what they may get in return.

Our Lisa Desjardins is tracking the latest on Capitol Hill and she joins me now.

So, Lisa, just let's talk with us, this potential government shutdown.

What is the latest?

Where do things stand?

LISA DESJARDINS: We have had another long, strange couple of days here on Capitol Hill, but I can report now from sources familiar that there is potentially a break in the impasse right now.

They need about eight Senate Democratic votes.

This morning, it didn't look like those votes were there, but now I can report that the Senate Democratic leader himself, Chuck Schumer, has told Democrats that he plans to vote yes on that critical 60-margin vote.

Now, with that, we expect other Democrats to come on board.

This, of course, is the House measure that was passed, would fund government all the way until September 30.

Democrats, by and large, do not like it because it would continue to allow Donald Trump and Elon Musk to cut government as they like.

There's no guardrails in here, as Democrats would want.

But, of course, Democrats don't control either chamber.

This is a real test for Chuck Schumer.

It's been unclear as Democrats were divided what to do how he would approach this.

But now it looks like he's trying to split the atom here, with most Democrats voting against this, he himself leading a few that could allow the government to stay open.

The only Democrat officially voting yes right now is John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.

He is someone who has said openly the idea of Democrats pushing for a shutdown or allowing a shutdown is something that he thinks is beyond Democratic strategy and is something that would really hurt the country.

So he is a yes.

And now we are reporting tonight that Senator Schumer will be a yes as well, likely opening up enough votes to get a spending bill through tomorrow.

AMNA NAWAZ: Lisa, tell us more about what Senator Fetterman said there, because so many Democrats have strongly opposed government shutdowns in the past.

Why are many of them digging in on this now?

LISA DESJARDINS: When you talk to these senators, there's one reason.

They say they are being overwhelmed by calls and pressure from their constituents.

That is not just federal workers, but some Trump voters as well.

In fact, I talked to a Trump voter who said, yes, they're having such a huge problem with what Musk is doing and what Trump is doing that they want Democrats to take a stand.

Also, House Democrats were nearly unanimous in opposing this bill.

It was easier for them because that wasn't going to risk a shutdown.

Still, Senate Democrats have been under pressure to figure out their message responding to Trump.

They wanted to take a stand here.

Most of them will.

So this is about what's happening with Trump, Musk, but also internally some Democratic divide over how to deal with it.

AMNA NAWAZ: Lisa, also today, we know the Senate called off a hearing for a high-profile Trump nominee.

That was his pick to run the CDC, or the Centers for Disease Control.

We have now learned that the White House has pulled that nomination.

What should we understand about that?

LISA DESJARDINS: This is a critical health position in the U.S. government.

The White House did confirm to me and others that David Weldon has been pulled as the nomination to run the CDC.

Now, Weldon is an Army veteran.

He served in Congress in the late 1990s, early 2000s.

He is himself a doctor of internal medicine, but he is known here in the controversies around his push for research on autism, and particularly when he was in Congress rejecting studies that debunked the idea that autism could be caused by vaccines.

We know now there is a lot of academics that show there is no link there.

He is someone who has raised doubts about that very openly in a controversial way.

Now, Weldon's sent out a statement saying that he was caught by surprise today.

He pointed a finger of blame at two senators in particular Republicans, the chairman of the Health Committee, Cassidy, and also Senator Susan Collins of Maine.

He said they're the ones that sort of kind of blindsided him.

I spoke to both of those senators, Amna.

They said, no, not true, they wanted his hearing to go forward, that they still had not made up their minds, while they may have had reservations.

So there is an interesting disconnect here, but one bottom line is the White House seemed to make this decision themselves that they didn't want this nominee in the job.

AMNA NAWAZ: That's Lisa Desjardins on Capitol Hill with the very latest for us tonight.

Lisa, thank you.

LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.

AMNA NAWAZ: Now, for perspective on two big stories of the day, the possible cease-fire in Ukraine and the potential shutdown here in the U.S., I spoke a short time ago to Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, who serves on both the Budget and Intelligence committees.

Senator Warner, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thanks for being with us.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Thank you, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, before we get to the funding of the government, I just want to ask you because you also sit on the Intelligence Committee, to get your reaction to news today from Russia, where we heard President Vladimir Putin say that he is open to the idea of a 30-day cease-fire plan as proposed by the U.S. and Ukraine, but he says he has questions about that.

What do you take his remarks to mean, and could there be a cease-fire in this war?

SEN. MARK WARNER: Listen, it would be great if there was a cease-fire, but it can't be entirely on Russia's terms.

And my concern is that Putin was just yesterday in Kursk, which is the part of Russia that Ukraine has actually gained some foothold in, and I took that as thinking that the Russians were going to push the Ukrainians out.

And the devil in a 30-day cease-fire will be in the details, and my understanding was that Putin had asked for like 80 different conditions.

What we can't do is allow Putin to claim a win out of this, because that is not only bad for the Ukrainians, after they were brutally invaded, but it's also bad for all of our NATO partners in the Baltic countries or Poland, because a victorious Putin means there's not going to be any safety in Eastern Europe for the foreseeable future.

AMNA NAWAZ: Do you take it as a progress -- a sign of progress that he says he's open to it?

I mean, should President Trump get some credit for even getting a proposal on the table here?

SEN. MARK WARNER: The fact that they're at least talking, I think is a good sign, although I have got to tell you, Vladimir Putin, trusting him has not proven very well.

You can ask the country of Georgia.

You can ask Ukrainians.

You can ask Moldova.

You can ask a series of countries that have tried to do a deal with Putin, and then he reneges.

And the fact that we -- I think it was a travesty when the United States recently sided with Ukraine, Iran, North Korea, Nicaragua, all the bad guys to say that -- couldn't even acknowledge that Russia invaded Ukraine.

So let's see what happens.

Let's see what conditions there are.

Obviously, if we can get a cessation of the firing, the fighting, that would be good.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, back to Capitol Hill now.

And you have said that you are a no on the Republicans' funding plan.

We know Senate Democrats met today behind closed doors, and reporters heard very loud voices unfolding inside during that meeting.

Where is the disagreement right now within Senate Democrats, and do you have a plan?

SEN. MARK WARNER: Listen, these are both awful options.

We all know the downturn of a government shutdown, particularly from a Trump and a Musk that may not even want to reopen the government, only selectively reopen.

We also know that the C.R., where Republicans completely gave in to the Trump requests is just brutal.

It's brutal of federal workers.

It's brutal to our vets, where the plan is already to lay off 40,000 people in the VA. And I have been amazed the number of federal workers and government contractors, almost 100 percent, have said vote against this C.R.

We just can't abide this kind of chaos.

But let me acknowledge, there may be Democrats who vote for it.

I'm not going to criticize -- or vote for the C.R.

I'm not going to criticize them.

These are both bad options, and we shouldn't be here.

AMNA NAWAZ: We know it's a busy day for you, sir.

We appreciate you making the time to speak with us.

That is Democratic Senator Mark Warner from Virginia joining us tonight.

Thank you, sir.

SEN. MARK WARNER: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: This week, Homeland Security officials said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement carried out more than 32,000 arrests in the first 50 days of the Trump administration.

According to data released by Customs and Border Protection, that includes over 14,000 migrants with criminal convictions, nearly 10,000 with pending criminal charges, and over 8,700 they call immigration violators.

Those numbers include the deportation of a 10-year-old U.S. citizen girl recovering from brain cancer after her undocumented parents were arrested last month.

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

So, Laura, let's take a look at those arrest numbers, those deportation numbers, and put them in context for us.

What should we understand?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Right.

So, first on the arrests, they have increased, especially in the interior of the United States, compared to under President Biden.

And of the more than 32,000 arrests made within those first 50 days, 100 and -- oh, sorry, excuse me -- 1,155 were suspected gang members, 39 were known or suspected terrorists.

And I want to hit on that number again, Amna, the 8,718.

They were non-criminal migrants.

That means that those migrants have not been charged with a crime at all.

Now, when it comes to deportations, President Trump has not deported as many migrants as Biden compared to this time last year.

So, when you break it down, under President Trump, the deportations are lower at an average of 600 per day.

And under President Biden, the deportations in 2024 averaged about 750 per day.

Now, part of the reason that they're lower is due to the fact that border activity is lower.

There's fewer crossings right now, given the policies that the Trump administration has put in effect.

And there aren't as many immigration judges, and it appears as though the Trump administration is not necessarily going to add more immigration judges any time soon, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: We know that the Trump administration said they were going to prioritize for deportation people who were public safety threats, national security threats.

That seems not to be the case here.

How are they explaining that and who's being deported?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Much of this is a P.R.

blitz right now.

And the White House -- that includes posts to social media, including from the White House account, an ASMR video which isolates specific audio of a deportation flight that includes the sound of chains.

This also -- this P.R.

blitz includes the fact that the DHS launched a $200 million ad campaign where they are attempting to sell the idea of mass deportations as something that is necessary for public safety.

And in that ad, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem talked straight to the camera, telling people to self-deport immediately.

Now, the White House and the Trump administration have repeatedly referred to all undocumented migrants as -- quote -- "criminals."

But that's not accurate, Amna, because many of the people that are being deported are not criminals.

They have no criminal history or record.

And a growing number -- that includes a growing number of those being deported.

And I spoke to Danny Woodward, who is the lawyer representing that 10-year-old girl who is recovering from brain cancer and her family, who were deported to a rural part of Mexico last month.

And he told me what happened, that, on February 3, that 10-year-old U.S. citizen girl woke up feeling dizzy, her head was hurting, and that her parents wanted to rush her to the hospital that had been treating her in Houston.

Her parents are Mexican nationals.

They're undocumented.

They had made this trip many times before, but this time they were stopped by CBP.

And despite the fact that they repeatedly told officers that their daughter was a U.S. citizen, they had hospital documentation, that many of their other children in the car with them were also U.S. citizens, that was not taken into account at all, and they were ultimately deported to what is considered a pretty dangerous part of rural Mexico.

And we should also note, Amna, that those parents have no criminal record as well.

So, again, despite a lot of the claims made by the administration that many of these are public safety threats, the deportation numbers suggest otherwise.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura, you and I have spoken about this before.

You have been reporting on this.

We know that the immigration agenda of this administration isn't just about deportations of people who are here without legal status.

What are his plans for legal immigration as well?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So I spoke to David Bier.

He is the director of immigration studies at Cato Institute, and he said that the president's immigration agenda is just as much about legal immigration as it is about illegal immigration.

DAVID BIER, Cato Institute: One of the first actions they did was eliminate the parole programs that let people come in legally and apply and get vetted abroad and travel legally to the United States.

They got rid of the refugee program, which allows people who face persecution abroad who are coming - - again, coming into the country legally.

That's all types of immigration are under threat by this new administration, and it's looking to cut legal immigration significantly.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: In addition to closing most legal immigration pathways, the Trump administration has also revoked protected status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans and Haitians.

And the president may soon have more authority to detain and deport legal immigrants.

According to reports, the president could invoke the Alien Enemies Act as early as tomorrow.

And we have previously reported that the president was considering this.

He has mentioned this repeatedly that he wanted to invoke this wartime authority, which would give him sweeping powers to detain and deport undocumented migrants, but, again, also legal noncitizen immigrants, including people ages 14 or older.

And so it only -- it would apply to any citizen of a country that the president declares is an enemy of this nation.

AMNA NAWAZ: I know one of the recent examples that's fallen under this is the case of Mahmoud Khalil, right?

He was a legal permanent resident here.

How is that case fitting into the approach that the Trump administration has on immigration?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Today, we saw a protest breakout inside of Trump Tower in New York City in response to Khalil's ongoing detention at an ICE facility in Louisiana.

And, as you noted, Khalil is a green card holder.

He's a legal permanent resident.

And so far he has not been charged with any kind of crime.

And in the court filings this week, the administration only cited this immigration provision that's considered obscure by some that says that the secretary of state can deport someone if they pose -- quote -- "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences" for the United States.

Now, David Bier of Cato Institute added that the immigration law is expansive.

It gives a lot of authority to the executive branch.

And he warned that noncitizens should be concerned that this administration could target them if they disagree with this administration's political agenda and that ultimately this administration could carry out potential deportation cases against legal immigrants.

AMNA NAWAZ: That's our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez.

Laura, thank you.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yesterday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced what it called the biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

The proposed rollbacks would impact dozens of rules, from emissions limits for power plants and vehicles to wastewater regulations and air quality standards.

Stephanie Sy has more.

STEPHANIE SY: Amna, the EPA was created by President Nixon in 1970 in essence to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink.

Under later presidents, that mission expanded to addressing greenhouse gases, which contribute to global warming.

Now EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin says his agency wants to drive a dagger straight into the heart of what he calls climate change religion.

With the stated goal of unleashing energy, Zeldin's proposals include a call to upend the basis for all the EPA's climate change actions.

To help us unpack some of this, we're joined by Zack Colman, who covers the topic for Politico.

Zack, just describe the scope and scale of these proposed changes.

ZACK COLMAN, Politico: This is the most sweeping rollback of environmental rules in the nation's history.

We're talking about going back to the 1970s era, where these rules didn't even exist yet.

So this is erasing decades of -- potentially erasing decades of climate and air pollution rules.

But, again, this is also going to be something that's litigated in the courts.

So we don't quite yet know exactly where this will end up.

STEPHANIE SY: So among the dozens of rules proposed that would roll back environmental protections, Zeldin also made it clear that he wants to revise the conclusion that greenhouse gases endanger public health.

That was a scientific finding reached by Obama's EPA in 2009.

Here's what Zeldin said yesterday.

LEE ZELDIN, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator: I have been told the endangerment finding is considered the Holy Grail of the climate change religion.

For me, the U.S. Constitution and the laws of this nation will be strictly interpreted and followed, no exceptions.

Today, the green new scam ends.

STEPHANIE SY: And indeed, this finding, as I understand is, Zack, is foundational to all the EPA's climate change regulations.

What would it take for the Trump administration to overturn that?

ZACK COLMAN: It would take a lot.

I mean, you have to come up with science that says the thing that we know is not true, that global warming isn't happening and that humans are not contributing to it and that climate change isn't a problem for public health and the environment.

It doesn't seem clear how exactly they would be able to accomplish that.

The other potential avenue is a legal avenue, and it's not yet clear exactly how the Trump administration would pursue that.

Again, the Trump administration tried to roll back a lot of environmental laws in its first term and it lost a lot.

It did not succeed in many of those cases.

So a lot of this is up in the air, but it's very clear that these are enormous strikes against foundational climate law and science.

STEPHANIE SY: I just want to follow up on that.

If the end goal is for the Trump administration to get this back to the Supreme Court, is there a world in which you envision a conservative-leaning court actually relitigating the case that brought us to the endangerment finding?

ZACK COLMAN: I think that's one of the big questions and it's certainly something that the Trump administration is willing to try.

This is a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, and there has been a lot of disdain in the Republican circles about the decision that led to the endangerment finding.

There's a lot of people who think that that decision never should have been made.

So I think there is very much an interest in testing whether this court would pick that up.

And I think a lot of conservatives feel like they would be on pretty decent footing, at least compared to that 2007 decision that led to the endangerment finding.

STEPHANIE SY: Environmentalists and Democrats are slamming this announcement, saying it's about -- quote -- "lining the pockets of billionaire corporate polluters."

The Trump administration argues this deregulation will kick-start the economy and lower costs for everyday Americans.

How are relevant industries responding, Zack?

ZACK COLMAN: Well, industries are responding positively to the idea of rolling back climate and air pollution regulations.

A lot of them thought that the Biden administration policies were taking the markets to an unrealistic place.

You look at auto sector in particular, where there are a lot of companies that said, look, we agree that we need to transition to electric vehicles, but the marks that you're putting down are a little too aggressive and they're not based on consumer preference.

They're not -- people aren't buying these cars at the rate that we would need to actually produce them to meet these rules.

So there is a lot of applause from industry.

However, there is some concern from industry circles and even some Republicans about going after the endangerment finding, which they think could be a distraction and actually could be politically demotivating to getting some of these regulations done.

STEPHANIE SY: I want to ask you one quick question.

The EPA also announced it is shuttering its environmental justice offices.

What could the immediate impact be there?

ZACK COLMAN: When you think about environmental justice, this is about helping communities that have been disproportionately burdened with pollution.

They're often located near heavy-emitting facilities because of political disenfranchisement, where people didn't get a chance to push back against things that they didn't want in their backyard.

And if you get rid of those offices while at the same time lowering the floor of environmental standards for the entire country, it's really a double hit to those communities that have always taken a brunt of our nation's pollution and have the least ability to resist that being thrust upon them again.

STEPHANIE SY: Zack Colman, climate change reporter at Politico.

Thank you, Zack.

ZACK COLMAN: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: And we will be back shortly with a look at why President Trump and Elon Musk want to audit America's gold reserves.

But, first, take a moment to hear from your local PBS station.

It's a chance to offer your support, which helps to keep programs like this one on the air.

For those of you staying with us, we turn now to the opioid crisis in America.

More than 74,000 people still die from overdoses every year in the U.S., and very few people struggling with addiction get treatment.

In this encore report, William Brangham looks at the renewed focus on methadone, one of the oldest and most effective medications in this fight.

NATALIE KNIGHT, Methadone Patient: They give me 27 days at a time.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For Natalie Knight, what's in these little white bottles has turned her life around.

NATALIE KNIGHT: It's nasty.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That pink liquid is methadone, and it's helped her tame an opioid addiction that she has struggled with for close to a decade.

NATALIE KNIGHT: Actually, such a small amount, but it really is -- it's amazing that I don't get the highs, I don't get the lows, I don't get anything that I would get on a normal opiate.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Her path to addiction was like millions of others, a legal opioid prescription to help with chronic pain caused by an autoimmune disorder and a difficult pregnancy.

At first, it really helped, but, within a few years, she could not stop, and her life began to unravel.

NATALIE KNIGHT: I was still trying to be a wife and a mother, which I was failing at both, and I was not able to hold a job, because, when you run out of pills every three days, opiate withdrawal is excruciating.

It's excruciating, and you're sweating and freezing at the same time.

Every single day revolved around finding what I needed.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: She tried several other treatments, including Suboxone, a medication that helps curb the cravings for opioids, but it wasn't enough.

So, last year, she was prescribed methadone.

It's a potent opioid itself, first approved for drug treatment in the U.S. in the 1970s.

NATALIE KNIGHT: If I hadn't made the move when I did, I don't think I would have been living much longer.

I don't think I would have lived today.

I should have died 100 times over.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But for many Americans battling opioid addiction, getting methadone isn't easy.

It can only be prescribed in federally regulated methadone clinics.

And, nationwide, there are only about 2,000 of them.

Eighty percent of U.S. counties have none.

DR. PAULA COOK, Moab Regional Recovery Center: OK, well, because you're still working two jobs?

NATALIE KNIGHT: Yes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, once a month, Knight makes the trip from her home in rural Utah to see Dr. Paula Cook.

She's the medical director at the Moab Regional Recovery Center.

DR. PAULA COOK: We're unique.

Very few rural towns have a methadone clinic.

Some states don't have a methadone clinic.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In these clinics, patients often get other services, like counseling and behavioral therapy.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And decades of research has shown that methadone can cut the risk of overdose death by nearly 60 percent and that people on it are four times more likely to stay in treatment.

Given all of that, why is methadone still so hard to access?

DR. PAULA COOK: Because it is an opioid, so we're giving someone a substitute therapy, which in essence is somewhat true.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: David Frank has taken methadone for nearly 20 years after he became addicted to heroin in the 1990s.

Today, Frank is a research scientist at New York University who studies opioid use and drug policy.

He credits methadone with helping him get his Ph.D. and turning his life around.

What about the argument that you often hear that you're simply substituting the addiction of one drug with the addiction to another drug?

DAVID FRANK: It's almost like, so what?

When I got on methadone, I swapped taking an illegal criminalized, stigmatized drug that was very difficult to access and could only be obtained on an illegal market and never with any kind of knowledge about what your dose would be for a consistent, stable, legal drug that I could access every single day at my methadone clinic or for my take-home doses.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For decades, because of fears that people would take too much or sell their doses, most patients were required to show up every day at a clinic to take their methadone under close supervision.

DR. KENNETH STOLLER, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine: People who are just starting on methadone are actually at a higher risk of overdose for the first couple of weeks than before they even started on this medication.

So the initiation of this medication can be quite tricky.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Dr. Kenneth Stoller is an addiction psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins University and he directs an opioid treatment program in Baltimore that prescribes methadone.

He says it is not a silver bullet on its own, that people battling opioid addiction really benefit from the additional support clinics often provide.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You also hear concerns about methadone from within the recovery community.

They argue abstinence through programs like Narcotics Anonymous is the better path.

Some others who've used methadone paint a more complicated picture.

Getting on methadone saved my life.

Getting off of it gave me a life.

RYAN DUXBURY: I had to go to the methadone clinic in a fairly seedy neighborhood, and I had to be there every day.

Still, I'm trying to find recovery and I'm trying to change my environment a little bit.

And still standing in line outside in the cold with people that I used with wasn't very helpful.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you think if you would been given 30 days' worth of doses to take home, that that would have helped?

RYAN DUXBURY: I do think that would have been better for me, but I wish that there were more support in terms of me being able to become more productive as a member of society.

DR. PAULA COOK: So, today, I'm going to send her with some medication.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Back in Utah, Dr. Paula Cook says, today, because fentanyl is so prevalent and so potent, increasing access to methadone is critical.

It's why she supports allowing it to be prescribed outside of clinics like hers.

DR. PAULA COOK: Come in.

Have a seat.

Is there a risk?

Of course there's a risk.

That's why it requires good stewardship.

But I'm 100 percent sure it's the right path, because that's what the evidence shows.

And that's what people who have opioid use disorder have demonstrated.

And improving access will reduce loss of lives.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Natalie Knight says methadone is slowly helping her rebuild her life.

Could you have envisioned who you are today and how you're living today?

NATALIE KNIGHT: No, I never envisioned that I could have a life like everybody else has.

I'm able to work two jobs and not go through withdrawal, but also not be in pain.

I am able to be a mother.

I am able to be a sister again.

It's changed my whole life.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For the "PBS News Hour," I'm William Brangham in Moab, Utah.

AMNA NAWAZ: President Trump and Elon Musk have cast doubt on whether the U.S. gold reserves stored at Fort Knox still exist.

Trump's Treasury secretary insists that the gold is safe.

But the conversation led our digital anchor, Deema Zein, to dig a little deeper with economics correspondent Paul Solman.

DEEMA ZEIN: Paul, there's been a lot of suspicion about Fort Knox, as we have seen in President Trump and Elon Musk's comments.

PAUL SOLMAN: Yes.

DEEMA ZEIN: Why do you think they want to audit the gold?

PAUL SOLMAN: People start a rumor.

A rumor becomes a conspiracy theory.

There must be something.

And, I mean, anybody who's ever played the game telephone, by the time you get to the end of the circle, it's different than when it started, right?

That's got to be the explanation here.

Certainly, no one has come forth with evidence that somebody, hey, Uncle Harry has a gold bar in his freezer and it says Fort Knox on it.

Now, you ask, why now?

What's the reason they're going in?

Well, one possibility is they're trying to satisfy the conspiracy theorists.

So it might be just that, hey, don't worry.

It's all there.

President Trump or Elon Musk might say, here we are worried about the debt ceiling and how we don't have enough money to pay our debts unless Congress raises the debt ceiling.

But we have enough money.

And so we don't have to worry about the debt ceiling.

And that then could be prelude to some maneuvers by what's called monetizing the gold, which is to say claiming it for ourselves at its true value, which is what's called mark to market.

You mark it up to the current market price.

DEEMA ZEIN: And has that ever happened before?

PAUL SOLMAN: Franklin Roosevelt did it.

He did it in order to lower the value of the dollar in order to stimulate the economy by putting more money into the economy and The New Deal, Social Security and all the things that were introduced under the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s to get us out of the Great Depression.

It wasn't anything at this sort of magnitude.

It was not for the purpose of avoiding the debt ceiling.

DEEMA ZEIN: So some commentators online are asking, if the gold were to disappear, not be at Fort Knox, would that impact our economy?

PAUL SOLMAN: The United States has a lot more assets, the U.S. government, than gold.

We have a fantastic amount of assets.

If we actually wanted to try to monetize the assets of the United States government, it's way more.

But symbolically, oh, my God, Fort Knox, the gold isn't there?

What else isn't there?

What else are we missing?

What -- who stole what?

I mean, so I can imagine the psychological effect would be -- might be substantial, enormous.

People are scared enough as it is, scared of what's happening in the world, scared of what's happening politically in the United States, whatever.

DEEMA ZEIN: If the gold wasn't there, would it undermine the U.S. dollar, or would the U.S. dollar lose its value?

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, it's all psychological, right?

All repositories of value are only as valuable as people think they are.

It's because enough people believe in it as a repository of value.

And the same thing is true of the U.S. dollar.

It's just what we all agree.

And if you go back in history, cows were currency, cigarettes have been currency, cowrie shells have been currency.

This was currency in somewhere in Africa, just a piece of twisted metal.

So it's all a question of just what you agree to believe and how many people believe it and how much they believe it.

And that determines the price.

I think every one of the bars is there.

For somebody to be blowing the whistle on that, that seems like that would be awfully hard to pull off.

That's all.

AMNA NAWAZ: Before we go, we want to take a moment to remember author, sportswriter and a frequent guest on our program, John Feinstein, who died just today.

John wrote about basketball, football, golf, and other sports, much of the time as a columnist for The Washington Post.

He also wrote more than 40 books, including "A Good Walk Spoiled," "A Civil War," novels for young readers, and his breakthrough in 1986, "A Season on the Brink."

That chronicled a tough season for the Indiana Hoosiers and their explosive coach, Bobby Knight.

John was incisive, he was funny, and he could be biting too, whether he was criticizing the NCAA or the NFL, as he did in his 2021 conversation with Judy Woodruff about his book "Raise a Fist, Take a Knee."

JOHN FEINSTEIN, Sportswriter/Author: Race plays a role in our entire society, as we see all the time nowadays, but very much in sports.

It's not hard if you're a player to get a chance to play, because playing is a meritocracy.

But getting a job as a head coach in the NFL, getting a job as a head coach in college football or basketball, general managers jobs, CEO jobs, those are much harder.

And there are numbers that back up those facts.

In fact, the last 20 NFL jobs that have opened, 75 percent of the players are Black.

Two Black coaches have been hired.

And believe me when I tell you there are plenty of qualified candidates for these jobs, and they're not getting them.

AMNA NAWAZ: Our friend John Feinstein was 69 years old, and he will be missed.

And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

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