AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Fighting intensifies around Gaza City, as civilians still there continue to bear the brunt of heavy bombardment one month after the Hamas attacks.

AMNA NAWAZ: The Supreme Court hears a challenge to a law preventing domestic abusers from having guns.

GEOFF BENNETT: And as colleges and universities rework their admissions policies, one Kentucky school stands by free tuition.

CHERYL NIXON, President, Berea College: More innovative, creative thinking is what higher ed needs right now, when people are really questioning, what's the return on investment in higher ed?

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

Today marks one month since the Hamas terror attacks of October 7.

In Israel, there were vigils of remembrance.

And, in Gaza, the fighting and killing continues.

Late today, President Biden said he had asked Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for a pause in fighting.

AMNA NAWAZ: The Israeli army has now encircled Gaza City in its pursuit of Hamas, as tens of thousands of terrified civilians stream toward Southern Gaza, a fraught and dangerous path amid ongoing Israeli bombardment.

Once again this evening, Leila Molana-Allen begins our coverage.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Along the southbound road of the Gaza Strip, Palestinians flee from the north in droves, some waving white flags, many of them children, making the long walk without shoes.

In the distance, smoke rises over the city Naseem left behind, his home under siege.

NASEEM AL-DADA, Displaced Gazan (through translator): We are heading south, as they told us to do.

We are walking and don't know to don't know where we will go.

To schools, to sleep on the streets, to sleep at people's places?

Only God knows.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: The exodus in Gaza follows new evacuation orders from Israel.

Ground forces have surrounded Gaza City.

And the military claims it has already destroyed Hamas strongholds, including those hidden underground.

MAJ. GEN. YARON FINKELMAN, Israeli Defense Forces (through translator): For the first time in decades, the Israeli Defense Forces are fighting in the heart of Gaza City, at the heart of terrorism.

This is a complex and difficult war.

And, to my sorrow, it also comes at a price.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: For many, leaving the city center isn't an option.

Gaza's largest hospital, Al Shifa, has looked like this for the past month, crammed inside and out with thousands of civilians, some of them patients, others homeless.

Lama now has nowhere else to sleep but on the floors of these hallways.

LAMA, Displaced Gazan (through translator): Look at our situation.

Is this a life that we are living?

We have no food, no electricity or water.

We sleep in the corridors, without any blankets.

My daughter died last Friday at Al Shifa.

My daughter died a martyr, and I remain a patient.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Today, U.S. officials said more than 400 American citizens have now been safely evacuated from the strip.

And the State Department said the U.S. will not support any forced relocation of Palestinians outside of Gaza.

One month on, Israelis commemorated the victims of the October 7 Hamas terror attacks and prayed for those still held hostage in Gaza in candlelit vigils across the country.

Earlier today, crowds gathered for a moment of silence.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israeli Prime Minister: As far as tactical little pauses, an hour here, an hour there.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: In an ABC interview last night, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu maintained his opposition to a cease-fire and hinted at his intentions for the Gaza Strip in the long term.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: I think Israel will -- for an indefinite period will have the overall security responsibility, because we have seen what happens when we don't have it.

When we don't have that security responsibility, what we have is the eruption of Hamas terror on a scale that we couldn't imagine.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: But back in Gaza, what happens after the war, who wins, who loses, who governs whom, is the last thing on people's minds.

Most urgent here is survival.

This neighborhood in Khan Yunis was jolted awake by a nighttime airstrike.

Abu Jihad says the chances of narrowly dodging strike after strike are growing slimmer by the day.

ABU JIHAD, Gaza Resident (through translator): Thank God we are safe, but I swear we are waiting for death in each moment.

It's a suspended death.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: One brutal month of war gone by, but no hope for an end in sight.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Leila Molana-Allen in Tel Aviv, Israel.

AMNA NAWAZ: Last night, we brought you Leila's interview with the Palestinian Authority prime minister, Mohammad Shtayyeh.

Tonight, Nick Schifrin gets the perspective of a top adviser to the Israeli government.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The Biden administration has been pressing Israel to limit Palestinian casualties, have a plan for the future of Gaza, and President Biden confirmed tonight the request of pausing Israel's military operation in order to release hostages.

To discuss those requests and the Israeli operation, we turn to Mark Regev, senior adviser to the Israeli prime minister and a former Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom.

Thank you very much, Mark Regev.

Always a pleasure.

Welcome back to the "NewsHour."

As I said, this evening, President Biden confirmed he had asked Prime Minister Netanyahu for pauses in order to release hostages.

The prime minister has confirmed -- quote - - "tactical little pauses, an hour here, an hour there."

But are you willing to consider what the president is requesting, a more significant pause in order to release hostages?

MARK REGEV, Senior Adviser to Israeli Prime Minister: Well, as you said in your question, Nick -- and thank you for having me -- we're open to pauses.

We have done so in the past and we're willing to do so in the future.

Obviously, for example, we had two pairs of hostages that were released, a pair of American women and a pair of elderly Israeli women, separately.

And they were released in the framework of a local and time-limited pause in operations.

We did that also to facilitate the trend, people moving out of harm's way, Gazan civilians moving from the north to the south.

We have done it to facilitate the entrance of humanitarian material into the Gaza Strip, food, medicine, water.

So we have done it in the past.

We can do it in the future.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The pause to release those two hostages were to allow the ICRC to physically move them.

But this pause request is more detailed than that.

Axios' Barak Ravid is reporting the deal on the table is a three-day pause for 10 to 15 hostages, as well as a list of all 240 hostages.

Can you confirm that?

MARK REGEV: I'm not in a position to confirm that.

I can tell you that we are willing to do -- of course, for us, the number one humanitarian issue is getting hostages out.

And so, of course, to do that, we will be willing to do a pause.

That's a given.

NICK SCHIFRIN: How far are you willing to go?

MARK REGEV: Well, obviously, it's a number one priority for us.

The hostages, 240 people are being held, of them, 30 children, of them, a baby 9 months old, an infant under the age of 3.

It just shows you what we're dealing with, Nick.

Who -- what sort of barbarians kidnap babies?

What sort of barbarians kidnap toddlers?

Yes, we're dealing with a very, very dangerous terrorist group who has no qualms whatsoever about kidnapping children.

Of course, we saw how many children they killed when they invaded Israel.

We're dealing with difficult people.

We hope we can get our people out.

We believe the military pressure on them at the moment will facilitate and expedite release of hostages.

NICK SCHIFRIN: You have said, that the military operation, you hope, pressures them to release hostages.

Are you also providing any carrots to Hamas to convince them to release hostages?

MARK REGEV: The military pressure, we think, is what needs to be done.

There are, of course, in parallel, these talks that Qatar is conducting.

Qatar has a relationship with Hamas.

The Hamas leadership is -- lives in Qatar.

They're hosted there by the government of Qatar.

And Qatar tells the world, well, we have a relationship with these people, and that's good for the West.

I mean, they have a relationship with people who committed the atrocities of a month ago, October 7, the massacre, people who raped, who murdered, who massacred, who burnt people alive, terrible, terrible things.

Now, they are saying, the people of the government of Qatar, they say, well, this relationship serves the interests of the West.

OK, we're waiting to see.

Can you leverage your relationship to expedite the release of hostages?

Let's see.

I hope they succeed.

But we're waiting to see if there are results.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And Qatar, of course, is right in the middle of that hostage negotiation, as you say.

Let me move you on to the day after the war in Gaza.

Yesterday, the prime minister told ABC's David Muir that Israel planned -- quote -- "indefinite security control" over Gaza.

Can you explain that?

Does that include controlling any territory inside Gaza?

MARK REGEV: So, we're not talking about any sort of long-term Israeli occupation.

We have no desire to rule over the people of Gaza.

And we have no desire to govern the Gaza Strip.

We have to make a distinction between political control and security presence.

Ultimately, we don't want to defeat Hamas and destroy them just to see another group of terrorists come on and threaten us from the Gaza Strip again.

So, I think, at least at the beginning, following this operation, to prevent resurgent terrorist groups, we will need an Israeli polit -- security presence.

That doesn't necessarily have to be static.

That could be fluid.

That could be going in and out, as is needed be, to deal with possible threats.

NICK SCHIFRIN: You just... MARK REGEV: Ultimately, we want the people of Gaza to govern themselves.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Sorry to interrupt, Mark.

You just slipped and almost said political presence.

Just to confirm, you are not talking about any kind of governance offering Gaza.

You are only talking about a security presence.

Could that include a buffer zone?

MARK REGEV: Yes, I believe there will be a buffer zone.

There needs to be, after what we have been through, yes.

But I think the idea is, look, Hamas has been ruling the Gaza Strip for 16 years.

They have produced nothing for the Palestinians of Gaza, nothing but pain, nothing but bloodshed, nothing but suffering, and nothing but impoverishment.

Whoever comes after Hamas will be better for Israel, because our citizens in the southern part of my country will be able to live without fear of having their children butchered in the middle of the night by terrorists coming from across the frontier.

And it ultimately will be better for the people of Gaza, who deserve better than this terrorist regime that doesn't give a hoot about the interests and the well-being of the Gazan civilian population.

We see that in the way they're acting in this conflict.

NICK SCHIFRIN: To have that peace in Southern Israel, of course, there will have to be governance in Gaza.

The U.S. has suggested that governments could be taken over by the Palestinian Authority, which currently is in charge of the West Bank.

The prime minister of the Palestinian Authority was asked by my colleague Leila Molana-Allen about this, and he said -- quote -- "The P.A.

will not go into Gaza on an Israeli military tank" and the only way the P.A.

would participate in the governance of Gaza was -- quote -- "as a part of a solution that deals with the question of Palestine, that deals with question of occupation."

So will the Israeli government consider to pursue a two-state solution, if that is what the P.A.

requires to take over Gaza?

MARK REGEV: Well, if we were having a discussion about the P.A., we're a month after the horrific attacks of October 7, and the P.A.

has yet to condemn those attacks.

And if the P.A.

wants to be considered a partner in peace, one has to ask why they refuse to condemn Hamas' atrocities.

Why can't they condemn the rapes, the murders, the beheadings?

You have seen, we have all seen the atrocities committed by Hamas.

If they can't condemn that, what sort of partner in peace are they?

NICK SCHIFRIN: Let me move to the air campaign and the ground campaign in Gaza.

And let me show you some video over the last few days, aftermath of an attack on the Jabalia refugee camp.

The target was Hamas commanders and a Hamas tunnel under that camp.

And when the tunnel collapsed, an entire city block collapsed, an unknown number.

So, let me ask you, how many Gazans are you willing to kill inadvertently in order to kill Hamas' leaders and collapse that tunnel?

MARK REGEV: So, we have been calling, as you have been -- reported on the "NewsHour," for weeks now, we have been urging Palestinians in the Northern Gaza Strip to relocate south, because we knew there would be intense fighting in the north.

And we asked people, please move out of danger.

We don't want to see you caught up in the crossfire between us, between the Israel Defense Forces, and the Hamas terrorists.

And the truth is, the overwhelming majority of the population did move south.

They did vote with their feet, and they exited the area.

Now, Hamas tried to stop them.

Hamas ordered people to stay.

Hamas actually presented -- created physical barriers and, at gunpoint, kept people in.

But our goal was to get most people out of the combat area to keep them safe, and most of them did leave.

(CROSSTALK) NICK SCHIFRIN: But, as you know, there are still 200 -- so sorry to interrupt.

Sorry to interrupt.

But there are still 200,000, 300,000 people in Northern Gaza.

Do you -- if Israel could kill one Hamas commander or take out one tunnel and, for example, know that 100 civilians could be killed, would you take that shot?

MARK REGEV: Well, first of all, we don't know that 100 civilians were killed, yes?

Let's be clear.

We don't know.

I saw some of those pictures from the bombing on the bomb site.

They all look like men of military age.

And, of course, you know that the Hamas terrorists don't wear uniforms.

And we have to understand that.

It also has to be said, all the information coming out of Gaza is supplied by the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health, and they're giving out Hamas' numbers, and they have to be taken with a grain of salt.

And I even dare say that even the pictures coming out of Gaza are controlled by Hamas.

We have not seen -- and I challenge you, have we seen a single picture of one Hamas terrorist killed by the Israelis in our strikes?

No.

They only show you pictures of civilians.

So, either you can presume we're only killing civilians, which is obviously illogical, or that Hamas is managing to control the pictures.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But there are, of course, women and children dying.

And I only have about 30 seconds, Mark.

So let me just ask this question.

Do you worry that Israel is creating a new generation of Palestinians who will join Hamas or whatever comes after with these bombings, or do you worry that these bombings will create more pressure on your campaign before it's finally over, before you can get your goals completed?

MARK REGEV: Nick, I hope that, at the end of this operation, first of all, that Hamas will be gone.

And they will be gone.

We will succeed in doing that.

But I think we will have discredited the sort of extremism, the sort of fanaticism and the sort of barbarism that Hamas has shown.

Palestinians need to understand that Hamas is a dead end.

Hamas only promises a future of blood and suffering, while the past -- path of cooperation, the path of negotiation, the path of living with Israel in peace, that offers so much more.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Yes.

MARK REGEV: And the Arab world has opened up to Israel over the last few years in ways like never before.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Yes.

MARK REGEV: We have seen new relationships formed with countries across the Gulf.

As you know, just before this crisis, there was talk of Israel and Saudi Arabia normalizing ties.

It's time the Palestinians also joined the circle of peace.

NICK SCHIFRIN: All right, we will have to finish it there.

Mark Regev, senior adviser to the prime minister of Israel, thank you very much.

MARK REGEV: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Israeli communities attacked on October 7 were scenes of extreme horror and inhumanity.

Now, one month later, Leila Molana-Allen and her team were granted access to a kibbutz that perhaps suffered the most grievously.

A warning that some images and accounts in this story are disturbing.

(LAUGHTER) VIVIAN SILVER, Peace Activist: I'm on kibbutz Be'eri, which is my home.

I am sitting in my backyard.

My home is three minutes from the Gaza Strip.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: On October 7, a 74-year-old Israeli peace activist Vivian Silver was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists from kibbutz Be'eri.

along with her neighbors, young and old.

Many more were slaughtered in their homes.

This once-peaceful agricultural commune has now become a makeshift military base.

You still see bullets all over the floor here.

Combat officer Ronnie Weiner used to work at Tel Aviv's art museum.

For the past month, he has been running the operation to clear the devastation here.

RONNIE WEINER, Combat Officer, Israeli Defense Forces: We are still finding burnt bodies around the house.

Two days ago, we just found, like, a hand of a person.

We found the jaw of a person here.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: First, the rampaging militants attacked homes with hand grenades, RPGs and gunfire.

Then, they set them ablaze, hoping to smoke out families hiding inside.

Many were burned alive.

RONNIE WEINER: This is one house, but there is 30 like it only in this neighborhood.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: In homes that weren't set ablaze, the full horror remains.

An entire family was murdered in this house, in this bedroom, bullet holes across the walls and the mattress covered in blood, where one member was killed in their bed.

By the front door, everyday tools that became weapons of slaughter, behind it, signs of a struggle, a desperate attempt to escape.

Dark red footprints lead from a pool of blood, the knife lying where it fell.

Hamas brought some of its worst destruction here in Be'eri, the largest village along the Gaza border, more than 100 people killed, dozens kidnapped, some of their fates still unknown.

It's almost unimaginable that people could still want to live here after the horrors they endured, but a small group are determined to try.

A dozen young residents have returned, armed and assisted by the soldiers stationed here.

They're here to try to rebuild, to help grieving families retrieve mementos, to protect what's left of the streets they grew up on.

Roe moved to Tel Aviv six months ago.

On October 7, he watched in disbelief as his childhood home was destroyed.

ROEE MAJZNER, Kibbutz Be'eri Resident: It was terrifying, above all my nightmares as a child living next to the Gaza Strip.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: No army came to help, no police.

A few locals did their best with the weapons they had.

And, hours away, Roee could do nothing.

ROEE MAJZNER: There was like 12, 11 guys.

They fought against 300 terrorists.

I was useless.

I felt useless.

You see in the news and in the WhatsApp groups and the phones, in the local group, like, people are saying, we're -- they're killing us.

They're burning us alive.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Roee lost his faith in humanity that day.

He's given up his job.

His only mission for now, he says, is to be here.

Roee's friend Sa'ar was here that morning.

At 7:00 a.m., Sa'ar was taking shelter from incoming Hamas rocket fire, not unusual so close to Gaza, but a sudden call from his parents away on holiday told him something was very wrong.

And his 18-year-old sister, Shaqqad (ph), was all alone.

Then Shaqqad messaged: "Sa'ar, I'm afraid.

Terrorists have got in."

SA'AR ROHUM, Kibbutz Be'eri Resident (through translator): So I grabbed my bike and rode to my parents' house nearby.

There were already terrorists roaming around the kibbutz.

I didn't know that at the time.

All I wanted was to save my sister.

I take the gun from here from my sister in this room.

(through translator): The army didn't come.

Nobody came.

We heard gunshots.

It was chaos across the whole kibbutz.

There were hundreds of terrorists here.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Over and over again, the terrorists came back.

Sa'ar held the door for nearly 12 hours.

SA'AR ROHUM: I think my life is, you know... LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Over.

SA'AR ROHUM: Over, yes.

(through translator): My little sister started crying, trembling.

She said to me: "Sa'ar, do something."

They were very close to opening the shelter door.

At the last second, I managed to pull it closed again.

At last, they fled, apparently due to the gunfire from the IDF that surrounded them.

And around 7:00 in the evening, the army arrived and rescued us.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: Now Shaqqad, like most of the survivors here, has been evacuated to relative safety on the border with Jordan.

But Sa'ar isn't going anywhere.

SA'AR ROHUM (through translator): Our vision, together with the young members of the kibbutz, is to rebuild it.

We want to live here.

We don't feel fear.

We heal ourselves by being here, by fighting for our home.

LEILA MOLANA-ALLEN: A way of life has been shattered here.

Many survivors say they can never go home again.

But for those who do, life in these once-tranquil farming communities will never be the same.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Leila Molana-Allen in kibbutz Be'eri on the Israel-Gaza border.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines: Major races are being decided as polls start closing on this off-year Election Day.

Governor's contests are the marquee match-ups, with two incumbents, Kentucky Democrat Andy Beshear and Mississippi Republican Tate Reeves, defending their seats.

In Ohio, voters are deciding whether to add an abortion rights amendment to the state constitution and control of the Virginia legislature is at stake.

The special prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden denied any political interference in his probe today.

David Weiss appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, the first time a special counsel has done so during an investigation.

In prepared remarks behind closed doors, Weiss said -- quote -- "Political considerations played no part in our decision-making."

Weiss testified to address concerns raised by whistle-blowers and some House Republicans about the pace of the investigation.

In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and 16 state governors reached an agreement today on curbing a surge of migrants into that country.

That came as shelters have filled up and applications for asylum have jumped 70 percent over last year.

Scholz had come under growing pressure to take action.

He announced the agreement at a news conference in Berlin.

OLAF SCHOLZ, German Chancellor (through translator): I believe this is a historic moment.

In light of an unquestionably huge challenge with very large numbers of migrants and irregular migration, all levels of the state have managed to closely cooperate.

People expect this of us.

GEOFF BENNETT: Bangladesh will raise its minimum wage for garment workers by 56 percent to $113 a month.

The country is the second largest garment producer in the world.

Today's decision followed weeks of protests and clashes with police that killed two workers and wounded dozens.

But some workers groups said the hike is not enough.

The office-sharing company WeWork has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The firm was once valued at $47 billion, but struggled throughout the pandemic.

Many corporate clients canceled leases as millions of employees worked from home.

And on Wall Street, stocks ticked a little higher today.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 56 points to close at 34152.

The Nasdaq rose 121 points.

The S&P 500 added 12.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": a conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about his presidential bid; we examine what a potential President Trump's second term would look like; and as universities rework admissions policies, one Kentucky school stands by free tuition.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a major case looking at whether people with domestic violence court orders should be barred by a federal law from owning guns.

The case, U.S. v. Rahimi, is the first involving gun rights to come before the nation's highest court since a ruling it issued last year loosening gun restrictions.

Demonstrators gathered outside the court today, stressing the impact the ruling could have on protections for victims of domestic abuse.

We're joined now by our Supreme Court legal analyst, Marcia Coyle.

Marcia, the justices today talked about the history and tradition of gun rights.

How did the two sides navigate that test during the arguments today?

MARCIA COYLE: OK, as you recall, Geoff, in 2022, the court not only -- the conservative majority not only OKed open carry, but did announce this new test.

And the test says that, in order to be constitutional, gun regulations have to be consistent with the historical tradition of gun regulation.

So they're really looking at pre-1900 for either a comparable regulation, not -- doesn't have to be a twin, or a regulation that's a close analog to the regulation that's being challenged.

GEOFF BENNETT: Before the 1900s?

MARCIA COYLE: Yes, history and tradition, yes.

(LAUGHTER) MARCIA COYLE: So we heard a lot about history and tradition today.

The Biden administration has brought this appeal because they lost in the lower court.

And the solicitor general of the United States argued that history and tradition supports the government disarming individuals who are dangerous, although she first used a broader term supports disarming of individuals who are not responsible or not law-abiding.

And she was pressed on the meaning of responsible, because she said that's what's that issue in this particular case.

And she equated it with dangerousness.

And the court did seem to be open to that a bit, because she was able to give some examples from history and tradition of the disarming of people who are mentally ill and committed to institutions, even intoxicated individuals who could be dangerous.

So I think, in general, my sense here is, after the arguments and the justices comments, is that they will uphold the federal law, the federal ban here.

But -- and there will be a focus on dangerousness, the government being able to prove that the individual is dangerous.

But you're not going to see a rewriting of the new test.

They seem to -- the six conservatives still seem quite beholden to it.

So I think it'll be very important exactly what the court says when it writes the opinion as to the effect on other gun laws and also on court cases that are in the pipeline.

GEOFF BENNETT: One concern the conservative justices raised was whether this process of determining whether someone is dangerous, whether that process is fair.

And our team spoke with Clark Neily.

He's with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

And he actually wrote an amicus brief for Rahimi outlining some of these concerns.

Here's what he said.

CLARK NEILY, Cato Institute: Of course, somebody who really is a domestic abuser should be have their guns taken away, but be kept away from the from their victim, no question about that.

But this law was really poorly written.

The federal law that is being challenged in the Rahimi case allows the federal government to suspend somebody's fundamental right of armed self-defense without any showing ever having been actually made that they are in fact dangerous.

And I think that's a problem.

GEOFF BENNETT: So how did the two sides navigate that specific question?

MARCIA COYLE: Well, the government says that you can show dangerousness.

In fact, Justice Barrett asked her, how do you prove dangerousness?

And she said, well, one of the ways you have is the court order, a judge -- a judicial court order, or there is the legislature.

They have passed laws that define categories of people who may be dangerous and shouldn't have guns, and also consensus; 48 states and territories, she, the solicitor general, said do have these laws.

What Professor Neily was talking about also goes to the issue of fairness and due process.

Some of the justices had questions about the protective orders themselves.

Did they -- were they really temporary?

And Rahimi's lawyer said they're often permanent by default.

And what do you do, one of the justices asked, if you have a, he said/she said situation?

What do you with mutual protection orders?

Those sort of comments were going to the due process issue, fairness and notice.

And, really, that's not an issue in this particular case, although Rahimi's lawyer said it's important to keep that in mind, because his argument is, well, one, there's nothing in history and tradition like this federal ban.

And, two, he said what Congress did here is it bootstrapped a one-sided process, the protective orders, onto a complete denial of a constitutional right.

Geoff, there are other consequences.

Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that background checks do consider protective orders.

And he noted that, in one of the friend of the court briefs, that it was pointed out that, over a 25-year span, 75,000 licenses were denied because the protective order was in the background check.

And the solicitor general also sort of said to the court, we have got to be careful with the language here, because there are courts below that have already struck down the federal ban on possession of guns by felons and the possession of guns that have no serial numbers.

So, there's a lot going on in the lower courts that will eventually come to the Supreme Court.

GEOFF BENNETT: Marcia Coyle, thank you for your insights.

We appreciate it.

MARCIA COYLE: Pleasure, Geoff.

AMNA NAWAZ: This election season, we have seen a handful of outsiders seeking to challenge President Biden and his likely opponent, former President Donald Trump, as third-party or independent candidates.

One is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and a longtime environmental lawyer.

A recent national poll shows, in a three-way matchup with Biden and Trump, Kennedy has support from 22 percent of registered voters.

I sat down with him earlier this week to discuss his campaign, and I asked him why he thinks he's connecting with voters.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., Presidential Candidate: I think people are ready to -- people are tired of the vitriol.

They're tired of the polarization.

We have made a big effort at trying to talk about issues, about the values that Americans hold in common, rather than the culture war issues that drive everybody apart.

I have been focused on being civil, but I think, most important, people really want to hear the truth, and they want to hear the truth about a lot of different issues, and they feel -- Americans feel that they're being lied to by the media, by government agencies that are supposed to be honest with the American people.

And they're feeling that the system is rigged against them, that the middle class is disintegrating in this country, and that nobody is hearing them, that they're not that -- that the government and the system are rigged against them.

AMNA NAWAZ: How do you translate that polling support, which is, to be clear, a year out, right -- a lot can happen in the next year.

How do you translate that into electoral support, though?

I mean, because independent campaigns, especially ones as large as yours, they have faced legal challenges in the past, external pressure.

You look at Ralph Nader in 2004.

What's your path to 270?

Are you targeting specific states, for example?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Yes, we're targeting specific states.

And you're right.

AMNA NAWAZ: Which states are you targeting?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: We're targeting -- I mean, all of the traditional battleground states are states that we think we can do really well in.

All I need to do... AMNA NAWAZ: But you're talking Wisconsin, Pennsylvania?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: And all I need to do in those states, Arizona... AMNA NAWAZ: Arizona.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: ... Michigan, Ohio, Georgia, all I need to do in those states is get 34 percent of the vote, and I can walk away with 270 electors, because it's a -- the electors are winner-take-all, and it's signed by plurality, rather than majority.

AMNA NAWAZ: But are you near 34 in any of those states?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Well, I'm at 22 now, a year out.

Nobody's ever been that.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is nationally, though, right?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Nationally, nobody has ever been in -- that I know of in our history has ever been, except for George Washington, who was the last independent president, has ever been this high in the polls this far out, and among -- particularly among key constituencies, young people and independents.

So I don't know what will happen.

And I'm not a good spin person, but I feel pretty good about where I am today.

I think I'd rather be in my position than I would in President Trump's position or President Biden.

AMNA NAWAZ: Can I ask you another question about your candidacy?

Because a number of your own family members have spoken out against it.

Four of your siblings issued a statement denouncing your candidacy, saying it's dangerous for the country.

They wrote in a statement: "Bobby might share the same name as our father.

He doesn't share the same values, vision or judgment."

Your family are icons of the Democratic Party.

They do not typically speak out against their own, but they are in this case.

Why?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Well, I have 105 family members, living family members.

AMNA NAWAZ: But these are your siblings.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: And a lot of them are supporting me.

But let me ask you this.

Does your family always agree with everything that you do?

AMNA NAWAZ: They don't always agree with me, but I think they would vote for me if I ran for president.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Well, a lot of them are going to vote for me, but not all of them.

AMNA NAWAZ: Your siblings, though... (CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: ... who know you better.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Listen, my family has a long history with President Biden.

There's five members of my family that are working for the administration.

And President Biden has a statue, a bust of my father behind him at the Oval Office.

We have known -- I have known President Biden virtually my entire life.

All the people in my family or many of the people, including all the people that you mentioned there, the four members of my family you mentioned there, have strong, long friendships with President Biden.

And I understand that they're disappointed with the fact that I would run against him, but... AMNA NAWAZ: They're more than disappointed, sir.

They're saying that it's dangerous for the country.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Well, you would have to ask them.

Why don't you have them on this show, and you can ask them why they said that.

My understanding is that -- and this is, I think, one of the problems is with the Democratic Party right now -- is that nobody is saying about President Biden that we want him for president because he is going to give us a vigorous leadership, that he has the energy, that he has the cognitive ability, that he has the vision to inspire Americans.

Instead, what they're saying is, you have got to vote for him, despite all of the defects that are clear to everybody, because, if you don't vote for him, somebody worse is going to get in there.

And that's what they mean by the word dangerous.

I think that the Democratic Party has to offer Americans a better, more positive vision for this country than just, do what we say, or President Trump is going to endanger our democracy.

We should be able to do more than that.

We should be able to inspire people.

And I think that's why so many young people and independents are supporting me, because they're tired of the fear tactics.

They're tired of being manipulated through orchestrated fear.

And they want something to inspire them.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: Let me ask you, if I may, let me ask you about a specific concern your family has expressed in the past, which is your controversial views on vaccines and being part of the anti-vaccine movement.

(CROSSTALK) ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Well, what are my views on vaccines?

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, you have said previously that no vaccine is safe or effective, which is... (CROSSTALK) ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: I have never said that.

AMNA NAWAZ: You did say that in a podcast interview in July.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: No, I never said that.

AMNA NAWAZ: You did say that.

There are quotes, and that recording is there.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: You are wrong.

And you're making something up.

AMNA NAWAZ: On FOX News, you said that you still believe in this idea that vaccines can cause autism, which has long been debunked.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: But now you're changing the subject.

What you said was a lie.

AMNA NAWAZ: No, sir.

I'm asking about your views on vaccines.

(CROSSTALK) ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: And what I -- well, that's why I'm happy to say that my views are that vaccines should be tested, like all other medications are tested.

They should have placebo-controlled trials prior to licensure.

It's the only medical product, the only medical product or medical device that is allowed to get a license without engaging in safety tests.

AMNA NAWAZ: So you do not believe the statement that no vaccine is safe and effective?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: I never said that.

AMNA NAWAZ: According to these reports and the recordings, you have, in a podcast interview in July.

(CROSSTALK) ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: That's the problem.

If you are reading reports about me in the mainstream media, including this network, they're almost all inaccurate.

I'm not anti-vax.

I have never been anti-vax.

AMNA NAWAZ: You just spoke before one of the largest anti-vaccine groups in the country a few days ago.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: That's not what they call themselves.

AMNA NAWAZ: That's not what they call themselves, but that's what they advocate for.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Oh, you know what?

I speak to a lot of people, and I don't agree and I don't pretend to agree with everything that everybody in the audience says.

AMNA NAWAZ: Can I ask you very... ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: I can agree -- I have said from the beginning -- listen, I fought against mercury in fish for 40 years.

Nobody called me anti-fish.

I fought -- I like the idea that we have seat belts in cars.

Nobody calls me anti-automobile.

I want vaccines that are safe, just like every other medicine, and that are adequately tested.

It doesn't mean I'm anti-vaccine.

It just means that I'm sensible.

And I have gotten the sense, I think, that most Americans, if they understood my views, my real views, rather than the distortions of my views and the mischaracterizations that they hear from the mainstream media, including this network, that they would agree with me.

AMNA NAWAZ: I will just say, there's evidence of these statements on the record.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Show me a statement, not evidence of a statement.

AMNA NAWAZ: I will be happy to.

Let me ask you about... ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Show me a statement, rather than evidence, what you call it evidence of a statement.

AMNA NAWAZ: Let me ask you more broadly about 2024 and where we are right now, a year away from the date people will cast ballots.

We know, in their respective parties, Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden are still leading by wide margins, regardless of how high you are polling, right?

The latest numbers from Quinnipiac show 64 percent of Republican and leaning voters supporting Mr. Trump, 77 percent of Democrats and Dem-leaning voters supporting Mr. Biden.

If those numbers do not shift, how do you decide if and when you should end your candidacy?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: I have no intention of ending my candidacy.

I have an intention to win.

I'm way ahead of any independent candidate in history right now, and I intend to win the election.

AMNA NAWAZ: Robert F. Kennedy, candidate for president, as an independent candidate, we thank you for coming by.

I appreciate you being here.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Thank you for having me, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: And you can watch more of our interview with Mr. Kennedy on our Web site, including questions on immigration and abortion.

GEOFF BENNETT: While the presidential election is still a year away, former president and current Republican front-runner Donald Trump is already preparing for what he'd do if he returns to the White House.

The Washington Post reports, Donald Trump and his allies are drafting plans to potentially deploy the military against domestic protesters and use the Department of Justice to investigate and punish his critics.

Devlin Barrett is one of the Washington Post reporters looking into this.

And he joins us here in the studio.

Thanks for coming in.

DEVLIN BARRETT, The Washington Post: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: And you report that much of the planning for a second Trump term has been outsourced to this group of right-wing think tanks dubbed Project 2025. Who's involved and what are they planning?

DEVLIN BARRETT: So, it's dozens of groups, and they're all lending a certain number of folks to sort of map out what a second Trump administration would look like, particularly from a legal perspective, what sort of legal goals would you have for a second Trump administration.

And a lot of what they're planning, a lot of what they're talking about is ways to consolidate control and authority and power of the entire federal government within the White House, so, essentially, reducing the independence of Cabinet secretaries and increasing the ability of people around Trump in his inner circle to control those agencies.

GEOFF BENNETT: I have talked to people close to Donald Trump who say that he says that, in a second term, he wants lawyers who are more loyal to him.

And what he means by that is that he's looking for lawyers who will push the boundaries of the sort of acceptable understanding of the law.

Your reporting goes beyond that to say that he's also looking to harness the power of the DOJ to punish his perceived enemies and critics.

In what ways?

DEVLIN BARRETT: So, he has talked privately, as we report in this story, about going after the people who have criticized him.

And that's not really -- let's be honest.

That's not really a new behavior for Donald Trump.

But I think what's really telling about the people he tends to talk about now, in terms of the ones he wants to punish via the Justice Department, they're his own former aides.

They're people like Bill Barr, his former attorney general, Ty Cobb, his former White House lawyer, John Kelly, his former chief of staff.

These are folks who once worked very closely with him and for him that he once had faith in and confidence in, and now he views them as having betrayed him and he wants the Justice Department to go after them.

GEOFF BENNETT: Your team talked to John Kelly and Ty Cobb about this.

What did they have to say?

DEVLIN BARRETT: They -- obviously, they're very public critics of Donald Trump.

So this, to them, is of a piece with why he should not be the next president.

But one of the things they said is that John Kelly, in particular, made the argument that a second Trump administration is not going to have people like John Kelly in it, because people like John Kelly would say no to Donald Trump.

And the second administration is much more likely to have people to say yes to Donald Trump, no matter what the ask is.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, let's talk more about that.

What would a second Trump term look like, as compared to the first, now that Donald Trump knows how to utilize the levers of power available to him?

DEVLIN BARRETT: Right.

One of the things that came out in our reporting is that one of the lessons Trump took from his first administration is that he had too many people -- he often uses the expression, Federalist Society lawyers to refer to a type of conservative lawyer who wouldn't go as far as he wanted them to go.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, the Federalist Society is not conservative enough for Donald Trump.

DEVLIN BARRETT: Right.

That's the point.

And, almost more importantly, they would not do enough of what he wanted them to do.

I think, to your -- the point you made earlier, so much of this conversation so far -- and let's be fair.

This is an early stage of this conversation.

This is a lot of people kicking around ideas in private.

But so much of those conversations are about, how do you get people to do everything, or as close to everything as you can, that the president wants them to do?

GEOFF BENNETT: To include invoking the Insurrection Act to put down protests on Inauguration Day if he's elected.

DEVLIN BARRETT: Right.

So one of -- the Insurrection Act became this kind of fantasy scenario for a lot of Trump supporters in 2020.

And what you're seeing now in some of these private conversations about Project 2025 is, there is a group of people who are talking about, well, can we invoke the Insurrection Act right out of the gate to essentially put down any protests?

And that is very alarming to a different sort of group of conservative lawyers who see that and hear that and think, like, that is not a great idea.

GEOFF BENNETT: How is any of this different than what Donald Trump would say at a rally?

I mean, he talks about this stuff all the time.

Is what's different is that people are actually putting plans together?

DEVLIN BARRETT: I think two things are different.

One, he does talk in general terms at rallies about how he wants to get even, how he wants to take control, and how he wants to sort of quell any sort of disagreement or dissent, even within his own government, should he become elected president.

I think what's different is that they are working on more specific concepts and more specific actions, for example, a host of executive orders, which is something he's always believed in and liked the idea of an executive order, even if it's oftentimes, like, a little more show than substance.

I think you're seeing those conversations happen, because what's going on in a lot of these circles and these conversations is that there is a growing realization among conservative lawyers that Donald Trump will almost certainly be the GOP nominee.

And if that's going to be true, all of these conservative groups, all of these conservative activists, all of these conservative lawyers are making decisions about where they want to fit into that picture if he becomes president.

GEOFF BENNETT: Devlin Barrett, such important reporting.

Great speaking with you.

DEVLIN BARRETT: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: We have brought you stories over the past several weeks on how schools are adapting to changing admissions policies.

Tonight, we focus on a college that's thinking differently about who's admitted and their family income level.

Special correspondent Hari Sreenivasan reports on a school in Berea, Kentucky, where tuition is free.

It is for our series Rethinking College.

HARI SREENIVASAN: These students are weaving, woodworking, and making brooms.

It is part of Berea College's labor program, something every student must participate in.

ALEX NETHERTON, College Student: So, we're - - expected to be part of our labor program is working 10 hours a week.

HARI SREENIVASAN: The crafts are sold in local stores and online.

Each student works throughout their four years at the college.

BRITTANY ASH, Association Dean of Labor, Berea College: Every office on campus, every department on campus has student employment there.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Brittany Ash and Collis Robinson run the labor program.

COLLIS ROBINSON, Dean of Student Labor, Berea College: It's the work, it's the learning, and it's the service, and it's when you combine those things together we get the unique program that we have at Berea.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Students receive a small salary, which typically goes toward room and board, no fancy dorms here.

So how's your football team do?

(LAUGHTER) CHERYL NIXON, President, Berea College: We don't have a football team.

HARI SREENIVASAN: How about the stadium for your basketball players?

CHERYL NIXON: We don't have a stadium.

(LAUGHTER) HARI SREENIVASAN: That's president Cheryl Nixon.

What they do have is free laptops for every incoming student and medical and dental care on campus, after a small initial fee and, most importantly, free tuition.

Cheryl Nixon says, while Berea is unique, it should not be.

CHERYL NIXON: I think that more innovative, creative thinking is what higher ed needs right now, when people are really questioning, what's the return on investment in higher ed?

And I think, again, Berea, just because of a very innovative founding vision, we have been working on this model for over 165 years and have come up with pieces that come together that allow us to say we can take students that can't afford college and we can fund it for them.

HARI SREENIVASAN: The roots of free tuition and the labor program go back to Berea's inception.

An abolitionist minister founded it in 1855 to give all people in the Appalachian area opportunities, to educate male and female students, black and white, all together.

CHERYL NIXON: We are very lucky that we have a very I would call it a courageous, brave history behind us.

Pre-Civil War, when Kentucky was still a slave-owning state, that emerged and was successful and also said we need to serve students in the region.

HARI SREENIVASAN: But, in 1904, the school's integration was outlawed.

CHERYL NIXON: We fought that battle all the way to the Supreme Court, and we lost.

We had to remain segregated.

Fortunately, when we -- when Brown v. Board of Education was won, we were able to reintegrate and then become what we are today, which is an integrated institution, like much of higher ed.

HARI SREENIVASAN: But higher ed costs money.

Berea is able to offer an education without burdening students or their families with the costs.

CHERYL NIXON: Our no tuition promise became our promise that you will have a four-year job on campus, receive an income that will then -- you can then use that to help defray your costs, so our students can graduate debt-free.

HARI SREENIVASAN: What percentage of your students today are eligible for Pell Grants?

CHERYL NIXON: It's around 95 percent.

HARI SREENIVASAN: In fact, Berea topped the list of the recent New York Times College-Access Index, with the highest number of students receiving Pell Grants, which are federal grants earmarked for lower-income students.

Is there a financial criteria of -- before you even apply to say you might be too rich to apply here?

LUKE HODSON, Associate Vice President of Admissions, Berea College: Absolutely.

And we turn students away every year because their family's financial picture is greater than what we would consider eligible to attend Berea.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Luke Hodson is the associate vice president of admissions and a 2002 graduate.

LUKE HODSON: We see students every year who fall into our applicant pool, and we introduce the financial eligibility requirement.

They become highly disappointed, because they saw this as a great opportunity and great things to pursue.

But, financially, we're not even going to be able to consider their application.

HARI SREENIVASAN: But while an applicant's family income may be low, the students grade-point average may not.

LUKE HODSON: From a financial standpoint, the average income of our student body is $32,000 a year.

From an academic standpoint, most of our students, on average, will have around a 3.5 high school GPA.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Hodson says they look for a candidates grit.

LUKE HODSON: So, grit is oftentimes a lot of these kind of academic readiness, the core about that student's ability to be successful in a rigorous academic setting that Berea offers.

HARI SREENIVASAN: What kind of degrees do you offer?

LUKE HODSON: When you think of a small private institution like Berea categorized as a liberal arts institution, you make the assumptions, well, they are not going to offer professional degrees like in nursing or business or computer science, but we do.

But on the flip of that, you have got your traditional liberal arts, your languages.

HARI SREENIVASAN: It also offers classes based on the region, like this one on health in Appalachia, today's lesson, cancer in the area.

WOMAN: So, I will give you guys -- set a timer for five minutes.

Talk to your group members.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Tennessee native Patience Martin just graduated from Berea and fulfilled her dream of going overseas.

PATIENCE MARTIN (Berea College Graduate): I studied abroad in Costa Rica in the summer of 2022.

HARI SREENIVASAN: She is the first person to graduate high school in her family, and her horizons are wider now.

PATIENCE MARTIN: I'm interested in public policy analysis.

HARI SREENIVASAN: If shed had to pay tuition, she says, grad school would have been unlikely.

PATIENCE MARTIN: I'm not sure what that would have looked like.

It would have been loans on top of loans.

HARI SREENIVASAN: A critical component of Berea's model is giving back to the area.

Although students do come from all over, 67 percent of students are from Appalachia.

COLLIS ROBINSON: We have students working out in the community with some of the local schools.

We have students working in nursing homes.

The service piece is about serving the greater community, something bigger than you, if you will.

HARI SREENIVASAN: But while there might be an emphasis on Berea honoring its ties to the region, Cheryl Nixon thinks the school can be an example for others around the country.

CHERYL NIXON: I think that, if higher ed could, again, be a bit courageous, a bit brave, it could take pieces of this model and replicate it, again, looking at how it spends its endowment and putting more of that towards student care and student support.

HARI SREENIVASAN: Support that helps students get an education in music, the arts, or the sciences, all without going into debt.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I am Hari Sreenivasan in Berea, Kentucky.

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

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

Thanks for spending part of your evening with us.