WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Good evening.

I'm William Brangham.

Amna Nawaz and Geoff Bennett are away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: The ongoing federal shutdown threatens critical funding for Head Start, which serves children and families nationwide.

The civil war in Sudan escalates into a brutal new phase after a paramilitary force captures a key stronghold.

And an Afghan man is detained by immigration authorities, despite following the legal asylum procedure.

We talk to his sister about their ordeal.

SAIDA FAQIRZADA, Sister of Detained Asylum Seeker: Well, he still believe, our family still believe in justice, and we are hopeful.

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

Two federal judges ruled today that the Trump administration must continue to pay for SNAP benefits during the government shutdown using emergency funds that were set aside earlier by Congress.

It comes one day before a freeze was set to take effect for the nation's biggest food aid program, which is also known as food stamps.

Before the judges' rulings came down, House Speaker Mike Johnson gave a news conference, along with Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

They warned that her department's $5 billion contingency fund cannot cover SNAP for long if the shutdown continues.

BROOKE ROLLINS, U.S.

Secretary of Agriculture: It is a contingency fund that can only flow if the underlying appropriation is approved.

And, listen, even if it could flow, it doesn't even cover half of the month of November.

So here we are again in two weeks having the exact same conversation.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Democrats have argued that a separate fund with about $23 billion could be tapped to keep the food stamp program running.

SNAP pays out about $8 billion per month and goes to roughly one in eight Americans.

Another social safety net program that is potentially at risk with this shutdown is Head Start, the federal program that provides early childhood education, health, and food support for low-income families.

Without funding, hundreds of Head Start programs across the country will have to close their doors, which could impact tens of thousands of children across the country.

Here's how Rekah Strong, who runs some Head Start programs in Vancouver, Washington, described it.

REKAH STRONG, CEO, Educational Opportunities for Children and Families: When I look at our families, when I look at our babies and I walk into that classroom -- and I'm sorry it makes me emotional.

Because I know the support and the impact that our programs have both on our children and families, and knowing that there are some classrooms that come Monday, when I go out to check on them and see how folks are doing, our families won't be there.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So joining us now is Tommy Sheridan.

He is the deputy director of the National Head Start Association, which is a nonprofit organization.

Tommy, thanks for being here.

Without this funding, how many programs, how many kids are we talking about losing this?

TOMMY SHERIDAN, Deputy Director, National Head Start Association: Yes, well, William, thank you so much for having me and telling this important story.

As of Monday of this coming week, if the government does not reopen before then, we are going to see approximately 140 -- that's out of 100 -- 1,600 Head Start grant recipients nationwide -- 140 of them will be at risk of losing access to their federal resources.

That is a total of 65,000 children and families that Head Start, that those programs serve.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Can you remind us, for people who are not familiar with the program, what Head Start does for families and kids?

TOMMY SHERIDAN: Yes, a lot of folks think of Head Start as a preschool program, which it is.

But it's so much more than that.

Head Start truly is a place where some children, it's the place that they are able to access nutritious meals.

It's where they get connected to health services, dental services.

It's where children who might have developmental delays are able to be connected to the support services that they need to be successful in school and in life.

And it also provides family support.

So it is much more of a comprehensive program than just a regular preschool program, which is so incredibly important as well.

But this is really one of the most critical programs for so many Americans across the country.

Children and families who are in Head Start, they are some of the most at-risk children and families in our communities.

We're talking about families who are income-eligible, meaning below the federal poverty guidelines, or experiencing homelessness, in the foster care system or eligible for food benefits.

Head Start truly is the launchpad to success for millions of children and families across America over its 60 years.

And we're terrified about what is going to come if the government shutdown continues.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And is this pain going to be spread equally across the country?

Are certain states going to feel it, see it impacts more than others?

TOMMY SHERIDAN: So, no, the beauty of Head Start is, it actually is a federal-to-local program.

So the federal government, Department of Health and Human Services, provides grant funds to community-based programs.

Could be a school district, could be a nonprofit agency, a faith-based organization, a city or county government.

And the way that Head Start is structured, each of these individual grants have different start dates.

So that's why we're only talking about 140 out of the 1,600 that are nationwide.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I see.

And has this ever occurred in previous shutdowns?

TOMMY SHERIDAN: Yes, the last shutdown that's comparable was during the Obama administration back in 2013.

And that's because of the timing.

This shutdown occurred at the start of the federal fiscal year, starting on October 1.

That's why programs are in such a difficult position.

There has been no funds appropriated by Congress or the president to date in this fiscal year.

That was the same back in 2013.

There was at that time a number of programs that were forced to close.

And, similarly, we're very concerned that we are on track for doing that exact same thing.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, from that previous experience, what does your understanding -- what is your understanding about what the downstream consequences would be for those kids and families?

TOMMY SHERIDAN: Yes, so the good part about the past shutdown is that it was really only a short period of time that there was a shutdown, just a couple of weeks.

Unfortunately, with this shutdown, we're looking much longer at the impact here.

The impact is really on four different groups.

It's on children who rely on Head Start for their health services, nutritious meals, things of that kind.

It's on families who rely on Head Start to be able to work their multiple jobs or go to school, be in a trade school, whatever that may be.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Because it's like a -- in some ways childcare of sorts.

TOMMY SHERIDAN: It is childcare for a lot of these families.

And it's a reliable childcare that provides these extra services that a lot of families really rely on.

There's also, of course, the staff that work in Head Start programs, who are highly trained professional individuals who oftentimes are at the lowest of our -- of salaries across the United States of America.

Early childhood sector is one of the lowest paid... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Professions.

TOMMY SHERIDAN: Professions, thank you.

And then, of course, also there will be ripple effects on communities.

Head Start, given that it's federal to local, we have local businesses, we have small businesses, vendors, contractors that we rely on to be able to provide the local launchpad to success that Head Start provides.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Tommy Sheridan of the National Head Start Association, thank you so much for being here.

TOMMY SHERIDAN: Thank you for having me.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In the day's other headlines: A federal judge is blocking the Trump administration from requiring that voters prove their citizenship.

President Trump had requested that federal voter registration forms require documentary proof of citizenship, like a passport.

But District Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found that to be a violation of the separation of powers, writing that -- quote -- "The president lacks the authority to direct such changes."

The decision is a blow to President Trump and his allies, who argue that such a requirement is necessary to ensure trust in the nation's elections.

Ohio and Virginia are both moving closer to new redistricting plans ahead of next year's midterm elections.

A Republican-led panel in Ohio adopted new House districts today that would help the GOP party gain two additional seats in Congress, and Virginia's General Assembly, led by Democrats, advanced a constitutional amendment to allow for redistricting ahead of next year's vote.

That measure requires one more legislative step before it can go to voters.

They join a growing list of states pursuing redistricting efforts in a nationwide battle over control of Congress.

The FBI says it thwarted a potential terrorist attack in Michigan this morning.

Director Kash Patel announced on social media that multiple people were arrested for allegedly plotting a violent attack for the Halloween weekend, but he provided few other details.

FBI agents were seen carrying evidence out of a home this morning in Dearborn, which is a suburb of Detroit.

Local police say they knew about the operation and assured residents there was no immediate threat to the community.

Turning now to the aftermath of Hurricane Melissa, the death toll from that devastating storm has climbed to at least 50 people across Haiti and Jamaica.

At least 10 of the dead in Haiti were children, swept away when a river overflowed its banks the southern town of Petit Goave.

Some residents lost entire families.

JEAN DEROCHE, Petit Goave Resident (through translator): The water suddenly came rushing down on us.

There were seven of us at home and only two survived.

We had three young children and two elderly relatives we couldn't save.

The flood swept them away.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In Jamaica, views from above the southwestern town of Black River show nearly all the buildings destroyed or flooded, including the area's hospital.

More than 60 percent of the island is still without power today.

People crowded supermarkets and gas stations to fill up on supplies.

Many roads to the west remain impassable, making it difficult to transport urgently needed aid into the area.

What's left of Hurricane Melissa grazed Bermuda last night and is losing strength as it makes its way across the North Atlantic.

In the Middle East, the Red Cross says it transferred the remains of three people to Israel today, but it was unclear if they are deceased hostages.

Also, hospital officials in Gaza say that Israel returned the bodies of 30 Palestinians today.

Doctors at Nasser Hospital in Southern Gaza confirmed the transfer, but say they're struggling to identify the remains without proper DNA kits.

The handover is the latest sign of progress in the otherwise fragile cease-fire.

Radio Free Asia is suspending its news operations today.

The nonprofit broadcaster is also closing overseas bureaus and laying off employees.

RFA had been operating with the skeleton staff since President Trump moved to cut its federal funding earlier this year.

The ongoing government shutdown has only added to its budget problems.

Radio Free Asia was founded in 1996 and has been one of the few independent news sources in that region.

Its president today held out hope that it could return in the future.

Starting today, YouTube TV subscribers are no longer able to view any Disney content on that Google-owned streaming platform.

That includes major networks like ABC, ESPN, Nat Geo and others.

The blackout is due to a failure by Disney and Google to reach a new licensing deal.

In a statement, YouTube acknowledged viewers' disappointment, saying -- quote -- "We continue to urge Disney to work with us constructively to reach a fair agreement that restores their networks to YouTube TV."

For now, though, consumers who want to watch those channels will have to do so on Disney's own platforms.

On Wall Street today, the market closed out for the month of October on solid footing.

The Dow Jones industrial average added about 40 points on the day.

The Nasdaq rose more than 140 points.

The S&P 500 posted a modest gain to close out six straight winning months.

Still to come on the "News Hour": David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on the government shutdown and the week's political headlines; the latest on the jewelry heist at Paris' Louvre Museum; and how horror movies might help us psychologically prepare for real-world threats.

Sudan's civil war has entered a new, horrific phase.

The paramilitary Rapid Support Forces have gone on a killing rampage after taking over the key city of El Fasher in Western Darfur after over a year-and-a-half of siege.

Hundreds of thousands have fled to neighboring Tawila, escaping famine and mass executions.

Nick Schifrin has this report.

But a warning: Images and accounts in this story are disturbing.

NICK SCHIFRIN: This week, the people of El Fasher, beaten and threatened, attacked and hunted, fled for their lives from a murderous militia that films itself unleashing ferocious violence.

A fighter shows off his work.

"We have burned them," he says.

"We have burned them."

They show off their horror and document their own war crimes with videos too graphic to show.

The paramilitary Rapid Support Forces turned an El Fasher convoy trying to escape into a killing field, a ditch into a mass grave, and a home for healing into a death trap.

The U.N.

and international humanitarian groups accuse the RSF of entering El Fasher's Saudi Maternity Hospital and killing everyone inside.

At least 450 people are dead.

Survivor Fatma Abdulrahman tries to smile, but is burdened by unimaginable loss and trauma.

FATMA ABDULRAHMAN, Displaced from El Fasher (through translator): Shelling killed my daughter, injured my other daughter's eye and paralyzed my son.

I was hit by shelling.

My body is full of wounds.

NICK SCHIFRIN: El Fasher was the last holdout in Darfur of the Sudanese Armed Forces, which has fought the RSF in a brutal three-year civil war.

Sudanese cities have become battlegrounds.

Both sides are accused of war crimes.

But, in Darfur, the RSF is accused of genocide.

The rebels descend from government-backed Janjaweed militias that in the 2000s brutally crushed and uprising and killed hundreds of thousands of non-Arab.

Then too the U.S.

labeled their actions genocide.

For the last 18 months, the RSF surrounded El Fasher, forcing residents to starve.

It was a famine inside a siege that became a slaughter.

Many fled here, Tawila, the closest city to El Fasher.

Ikram Abdelhamed's daughter and son-in-law were both killed, and so she is now raising her 2-month-old grandson with almost no food.

For two weeks, she's fed him only moldy grain and rehydration salts, surrounded by a family that is shocked and shattered, as she told a local journalist.

IKRAM ABDELHAMED, Family Member of Victims (through translator): We came running.

They were chasing us, firing rockets over our heads.

They took the men out and lined them up, and they shot them in front of us.

They lined them up and shot them in the street and left them.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Another man fled alongside 200 people.

Only four survived, as he told the U.N.

's Population Fund anonymously.

MAN (through translator): My head was on the ground, and I could see to my right two women, my neighbors lying dead, blood flowing from their heads.

Then the RSF got into their vehicles and started running us over.

After they left, those of us who survived continued walking.

Another RSF group caught us and demanded a $2,800 ransom from each of us.

Only four of us managed to pay.

The rest were killed.

They killed children, the elderly, and women.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Inside El Fasher, the RSF left behind pools of blood large enough to be seen from space, massacres across the city, as documented by Yale's Humanitarian Research Lab.

And the killing was targeted.

The RSF murdered activist and former lawmaker Siham Hassan Hasaballah, the youngest person ever elected to Sudan's Parliament, back in her hometown of El Fasher helping the hungry.

And Mohammed Eldouda, who was the spokesperson for the nearby Zamzam refugee camp, he filmed these scenes of a people facing famine.

MOHAMMED ELDOUDA, Slain Spokesperson, Zamzam Camp: We are now in acute starving and acute hunger.

NICK SCHIFRIN: He was murdered this week for transmitting the truth.

SYLVAIN PENICAUD, Doctors Without Borders: It's some kind of blind violence.

It's not only about taking the city, but it really looks now like some kind of revenge.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Sylvain Penicaud is the project coordinator in Tawila for Doctors Without Borders.

He and MSF doctors are treating a population that's fled to Tawila after being targeted for their ethnicity.

SYLVAIN PENICAUD: The civilians are being massively targeted.

They are not so-called collateral damages, but they are being targeted as people living in El Fasher and people who dare to resist.

Women, are on an extreme level of pain, extremely exposed to sexual violence.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And in Tawila, children arrive on the verge of starvation, and some of them orphaned.

SYLVAIN PENICAUD: There are children that are seeing probably their parents die under their very eyes.

So, yes, this war, as any war, is quite dirty and will have consequences for years and years.

That's for sure.

NICK SCHIFRIN: International aid organizations have been warning about an attack on El Fasher for more than a year and say its residents were let down by the international community.

For more, I turn to Anmar Homeida, the executive director of the Sudanese American Physicians Association, or SAPA, which is still operating in Tawila near El Fasher.

Dr.

Anmar, thanks very much.

Welcome to the "News Hour."

As I just said, your organization is still operating in Tawila and you were operating just until this week in El Fasher itself.

Do you know what's happened to your teams there?

DR.

ANMAR HOMEIDA, Executive Director, Sudanese American Physicians Association: It's really devastating the amount of violence that happened against people, against civilians, against women and children, against even like humanitarian actors and medical providers.

Current, we have them in our guesthouse in Tawila.

The amount of killing specifically against, like, humanitarian actors and medical providers is quite painful for all of us to hear.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And what is the state of people who have fled El Fasher to arrive in Tawila?

DR.

ANMAR HOMEIDA: Most of them are women and children.

They don't have any place to go to.

Right now, the shelters are very limited.

Even the basic dignifying services, they are not able to get it.

Adding to that, the different kind of trauma.

And the most sad part right now, they don't even know the situation of whom they left behind inside El Fasher yet.

NICK SCHIFRIN: As I mentioned in the package, El Fasher was the last stronghold of the Sudanese Armed Forces, which, of course, is the organization running the country that's been fighting the RSF.

What is the impact of that on Darfur and in fact all of Sudan?

DR.

ANMAR HOMEIDA: This war started in the center of the capital of Sudan, Khartoum, which left most of the health care system destroyed.

And more than 14 million people have been displaced, adding to that also more than 25 million people on the verge of food insecurity.

So the disastrous consequences of this war are quite heinous.

But Darfur specifically suffer more because of the continuous complex situation that is currently happening there since like the early 2000s.

So, the basic infrastructure is fully destroyed, including access to safe shelter or basic health needs, specifically for women and children.

It's kind of, like, disastrous.

Yet the local actors are still trying to access to food, basic nutrition services and, of course, secure health care interventions and safe water and shelter.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Dr.

Anmar Homeida, thank you very much.

DR.

ANMAR HOMEIDA: Thank you.

Thank you for having me.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Trump administration's immigration agenda has included efforts to cut back on both illegal and legal pathways into the country.

Yesterday, the president set the lowest ever cap on refugee entries, 7,500 per year.

And at the same time, more than 2.2 million migrants are awaiting asylum hearings here in the United States.

Amna Nawaz sat down with the family member of one asylum seeker caught up in these immigration restrictions.

AMNA NAWAZ: Officials carrying out President Trump's immigration crackdown have detained and deported thousands of undocumented people with criminal records.

But many with no criminal history who were following legal pathways to remain are also being detained.

One of them is 31-year-old Ali Sajad Faqirzada from Afghanistan, who crossed the U.S.

southern border in 2022 without authorization to make an asylum claim, which he and his family did, turning themselves into Border Patrol.

As their asylum cases moved through the courts, Ali went to a routine immigration check-in earlier this month and was detained by ICE.

For more on his case, we're joined now by his sister, Saida Faqirzada, and their family lawyer Anwen Hughes.

Welcome to you both, and thank you for joining us.

And, Saida, I will just begin with you, because you and other members of your family have been through this asylum process.

What did you expect to happen the day that Ali went in for this routine check-in?

SAIDA FAQIRZADA, Sister of Detained Asylum Seeker: We were expecting the process to be the same as the rest of the family member who already seek their asylum for him as well to be a smooth process.

And, actually, it was.

So he went in for his interview and he actually answered all the questions that he was asked.

And he was texting me and said: "Yes, Saida, I passed the interview and I'm so happy."

Then he also, like, immediately texted me saying that: "They are taking me."

AMNA NAWAZ: And was that the last time you heard from him?

SAIDA FAQIRZADA: Yes, when they detain him, yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Anwen, let me turn to you here because I do want to put to you what the Department of Homeland Security said in response to our request for more information about the case.

They sent us a statement confirming that Ali did enter the U.S.

in February of 2022, and they also said, back, then he "was arrested by Border Patrol, released by the Biden administration into the country.

This poses serious national security risk for the United States and his citizens."

Anwen, what is your understanding of their statement there, why they believe he's a national security risk or why he was detained?

ANWEN HUGHES, Attorney For Detained Asylum Seeker: Well, it's unclear to me from that statement whether the -- what DHS is saying is that Ali poses a national security risk or that simply they disagree with the Biden administration's approach to arriving asylum seekers.

With respect to Ali himself, obviously, he doesn't pose a threat to the United States.

If we did, we would know by now.

He's been here for 3.5 years.

Ali as an asylum seeker is not responsible for these differences in policies, any more than he was responsible for the U.S.

decision to withdraw from Afghanistan.

He has been trying to cope with these various policy changes and abide by the instructions that he was given.

And so -- and, as a result, he's now been detained.

AMNA NAWAZ: Anwen, do you know why he was detained?

Have you been given a reason by the government?

ANWEN HUGHES: The government's general explanation as to why it has been detaining most people is that they -- essentially, that they lack lasting immigration status in the United States.

I haven't seen any articulation of any person-specific reason for them to do that.

AMNA NAWAZ: Saida, let me back it up here so people can sort of understand how we arrived at this point, because, after the Taliban reclaimed power in 2021 in Afghanistan, we increasingly saw people from Afghanistan making their way to the United States through South America, Central America, arriving at the U.S.

southern border.

Tell me why you and your family left and what that journey was like.

SAIDA FAQIRZADA: So, my family, due to the reasons that they had at that time or we still have, that we believe in human rights and woman rights and democracy and freedom, my family couldn't stay and live under Taliban control and to live in Afghanistan.

So they left the country, and they arrived to the United States hoping that they will rebuild the life that they really wanted from the day first.

And they really worked on it.

Specifically, Sajad was also working towards that and follow the laws of this country, and gave it back to the community that gave us safety and hope in the United States.

AMNA NAWAZ: Was it a general sense of not being able to stay in Afghanistan?

Had you been specifically targeted in any way?

SAIDA FAQIRZADA: Due to our ethnicity and minorities that we are coming from, we are one of those minorities in Afghanistan, and also due to our activities, my mom's job with the government and my job with the government and also Ali's job with the government.

And we faced discrimination.

We faced life-threatening messages, phone calls.

We received all these phone calls and messages.

It was not only opposing to me.

It was always opposing to the whole family, mentioning their names, mentioning our names.

So this was difficult for us to remain in Afghanistan and live our -- the rest of our life there.

AMNA NAWAZ: Saida, people will also wonder, was there another way that Ali could have entered the United States?

Could he have presented at a legal port of entry, for example, to make an asylum claim?

SAIDA FAQIRZADA: As far as my family concern is, or Ali's, I can clearly say, Amna, when you are running away from something, when you are in search of safety and you are just looking for something -- so let me just give you an example.

If our kid is really, like, seriously injured, are we going to the doctor's appointment and calling the secretary to book an appointment with a specific doctor regarding that situation, or we just run to the emergency?

For asylum seekers, I can compare that with that situation as well, specifically for Afghans who were running away from something and to save their life.

So they had to run and they had to seek asylum.

AMNA NAWAZ: Anwen, let me bring you in here, because there's obviously been a number of reports of other people from Afghanistan in not dissimilar circumstances who have been deported to a number of other countries, to Panama and to Costa Rica and to the United Arab Emirates.

What happens now in Ali's case?

ANWEN HUGHES: His lawyers have made a request for parole to the ICE field office responsible for his case.

And this is basically asking ICE to release him while his case goes on.

Given that he has passed this credible fear interview, what happens from here is going to be the same procedurally, regardless of whether or not he's released, which is to say that he's going to have a series of hearings in front of the immigration court and an immigration judge is then going to make a decision on his asylum claim.

After suffering already the upheaval of forced migration from Afghanistan to the United States and now the additional trauma of detention, we very much hope that he can be released, so that his case can move forward before the immigration court.

AMNA NAWAZ: Since he was taken into detention into custody, have you been able to speak with him?

Do you know anything about where he's being held or how he's doing?

SAIDA FAQIRZADA: Yes.

Yes.

We are in contact with him.

He can call us and we can also visit him.

AMNA NAWAZ: And what can you tell us about how he's doing?

What has he shared with you?

SAIDA FAQIRZADA: He's still hopeful.

He still believe in the system of the United States and policies of the immigration.

And, also, he still believe, our family still believe in justice.

And we are hopeful.

AMNA NAWAZ: Saida Faqirzada and family lawyer Anwen Hughes, thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us.

We appreciate it.

ANWEN HUGHES: Thank you.

SAIDA FAQIRZADA: Thank you, Amna, for having us.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The government shutdown is barreling towards November 1, when funding begins to lapse on some key government benefit programs.

And both parties are watching key off-year races happening next week.

Here to help us break it all down, we are joined by Brooks and Capehart.

That's New York Times columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MSNBC.

Happy Halloween to you both.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: No representation, no costumes, no orange, no nothing, no pumpkins.

(LAUGHTER) JONATHAN CAPEHART: We do not believe.

DAVID BROOKS: We are dressed as pundits.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Yes, exactly.

Two judges today, Jonathan, said that the administration has to use this reserve fund to pay for SNAP benefits, which, to back up a little bit, SNAP benefits and the expiration of those benefits was one of the ways the GOP was trying to pressure Democrats to end the shutdown.

Do you think this ruling, these rulings, takes any pressure off of them to -- and then maybe the shutdown does come to an end?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I don't think these rulings take any pressure off Democrats, for two reasons.

One, I have always believed that tomorrow, November 1, was one of the dates that that the Democrats were looking at.

That's the date when people start getting the -- open enrollment starts and they start to find out how much their premiums are going to cost.

This is what Democrats have been talking about for a few months now and why they won't provide the votes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: These are the subsidies for Obamacare that will now go through the roof.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right.

Right.

And so that's why they're not providing the votes for -- to reopen the government.

The other thing, the other date that we should pay attention to is the elections on Tuesday.

These will be, whether we like it or not, bellwether.

And I suspect that, depending on the outcome on Tuesday, we could see some shifting, people getting together, talking and coming to some resolution over the shutdown.

But the other that's hanging out there that people forget, it's not just the subsidies that Democrats have a problem with.

It is also that the whole thing of rescissions and that they could come to some -- any kind of agreement.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This is the Trump administration saying -- basically taking Congress' spending authority away... JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: ... say, I know you appropriated this money.

It's coming back.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Right, exactly.

We don't care what you decided, what you authorize.

We will do -- we will spend the money the way we want to spend it, or we won't spend it at all.

And so if you're a Democrat and you are a part of some gang, I don't know if they still do gangs like they used to in the past, but even if they provide the votes and they come to some agreement, the president and Russell Vought, the OMB director, could just step out there and say, we don't care what you think.

So I don't think -- all the way back to your original part of the question, I do not think the two judges, their ruling takes any pressure off Democrats.

If anything, as we get beyond tomorrow and certainly beyond the elections on Tuesday, I think pressure could grow on Republicans, the Republican leaders, particularly Senator Thune, Majority Leader Thune, to come up -- let's come up with something so we can get the government reopened.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: David, do you think that the Democrats are making a coherent, resonant argument as to why they are holding the line here?

DAVID BROOKS: I think it's OK.

I mean, they're emphasizing the subsidies.

Frankly, if it was up to me.

I might have mentioned a once-in-a-nation's-history threat to democracy as the core problem here.

But they're making coherent case on the health subsidies.

I think it's not the legitimate case that should be made at this moment in American history.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Do you think if they had pivoted, though, to that argument to say, we will not fund what they argue is an unlawful administration, that that would be more resonant?

DAVID BROOKS: I don't know.

Clearly, their pollsters said nobody cares about democracy, because they would be making that case.

The pollsters said, we're good on health care.

And if you look at the issue list, which party do you trust on which issue, Republicans tend to have advantage to almost every issue except for health care.

So they picked the one issue.

I think we're at the glide path down toward a government reopening.

And I say that because last time this happened at this length in 2018, it's when the air traffic controllers began to not show up at work.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: It's -- when the benefits began to really get cut and people began to feel it, then they reopened the government.

And I don't know which way they will go, like, who -- how they will cut some sort of deal.

But you got SNAP.

You got the -- as we saw earlier, the Head Start.

There's just a lot of things where people are really beginning to feel it.

And so I think they will begin.

I just -- before, if -- hopefully the next time we meet, though, the government will be open.

But we should not be running government by shutdown.

You should go to the voters.

If you want a policy change, go to the voters.

Don't shut down the government.

And, frankly, somebody should ask the Democrats, why did you schedule the subsidies to expire a year before an election?

Why didn't you just make the subsidies forever?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: And the reason they didn't want to do that is because they wanted to hide the cost, because what the Democrats are proposing would increase the national debt by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

But we should -- I'm upset that not everybody's upset.

Like, so -- our democracy is deteriorating to such a degree, there should be howling outrage that, why are you shutting down the government?

Why are we hurting SNAP moms, food stamps, the poorest people among us?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

DAVID BROOKS: And there should be more outrage about that.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, the -- one of the things that the Democrats have argued, to your point, David, that does outrage them is the ongoing masked agents that are all over the cities.

The president was just in Asia, successfully had this meeting with President Xi and seemed to lessen some of the trade tensions a bit, but also refloated this idea that he's going to send more troops into the cities, in different cities.

What do you make of all of that?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Look, this is the president's fantasy, a fantasy that he is exercising on cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, trying to in Portland, here in Washington, making noises about doing the same thing in New York City.

Last week -- two weeks ago, I did an event at Aspen Ideas: Economy in Newark, New Jersey and did a Q&A with the mayor of Newark, Mayor Ras Baraka.

And I asked him, now, you don't have National Guard troops in Newark.

But what would you do?

What would you say if the president put -- turned his attention on you?

And he gave a terrific answer that ended with, you can't scare people into safety.

This idea that you are going to stop all crime, all crime, I mean, people -- human beings have been killing each other since at least Cain and Abel.

And so the idea that the president of the United States, Donald Trump, thinks that he's going to stop crime by putting -- all crime by putting troops on the streets of American cities, it is lunacy.

It's not that mayors, local officials and governors don't want federal government help in solving whatever crime issues they have.

But the way the administration is going about it, it's either you take troops or we're going to send them anyway.

And what local officials have always wanted was a willing partner, a smart partner in the federal government to help them.

And that's not what they're getting from this particular administration.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, how do you... DAVID BROOKS: I distinguish between a bunch of these different things.

The ICE thing, I think what ICE is doing is terrible.

What we're doing to those ships coming out of Venezuela is an atrocity.

The National Guard doesn't really bother me.

I mean, I live in Washington, D.C.

I have got National Guardsmen walking around everywhere.

They're nice, pleasant people and they're bored out of their minds.

And are they doing any good?

I don't know.

Empirically, I would love to see studies.

It is absolutely true, the more cops you have on the street, the less crime you get.

And so it's absolutely true that law enforcement -- is it true that, if you have National Guardsmen on the street, it cuts down on crime?

I saw a study only after two weeks in D.C.

and there was a drop in crime that was noticeable.

But the point I would make -- and so I think it's just an empirical matter, but we can figure out, does it work?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: But the -- I think some of the problem the Democrats have been making is saying, well, crime is coming down.

Crime is coming down.

That is bad messaging because there are a lot of people, including in D.C.

and in Chicago and the cities I know, where people know crime is coming down, but it's still pretty bad.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And it feels that way.

DAVID BROOKS: It feels -- I mean, I ran into some time over the last two weeks who said, I had to shut my business because the crime was so bad.

And so she lost her business.

And she said to me, I know crime is coming down, but it doesn't feel that way to me.

And when I can't go into the CVS and I can't buy a razor because they're locked up, then it doesn't feel that way to me.

And so I think the Democrats are making a mistake by saying, oh, crime is coming down.

They should say crime is a real issue, which it is.

It's a real issue for people.

Whether the National Guard will help, we can just experiment and figure that one out.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Can I just say something William, though?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Please.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Because in listening to David's answer, I mean, on the one hand a moment ago, David, you said where's the howling outrage about threats to democracy?

And, to my mind and to a lot of people's minds, putting National Guard troops and even Marines on the streets of Los Angeles, that is, to a lot of people, and to me especially, a harbinger of what could come.

And so troops on the streets of... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This is a threat to democracy that you -- in your mind.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes.

Yes.

So they might be here under the guise of fighting crime, but then that doesn't stop the president from changing their orders and having them do something that the American people definitely do not want.

And so I think when people say we don't want National Guard troops, it's not that they're saying that there's no crime and that we don't have problems.

It's that they're looking five, 10 steps ahead of what could possibly happen.

And I think National Guard troops in L.A., Portland, Chicago, and threatening to use them in New York City if Zohran Mamdani wins the election on Tuesday, that sends a different kind of message.

That is a threat to democracy message that a lot of people take.

DAVID BROOKS: I don't really agree with that.

I mean, I have just total faith in the culture of the U.S.

military.

For 200-odd years, they have wanted to stay out of politics.

If you saw when Trump gave a speech to the senior brass in Quantico, you could see those and women wanted to stay out of politics.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Silence.

DAVID BROOKS: And occasionally you get a younger serviceman who will be cheering in a political rally.

But I think the desire not to do anything that's authoritarian runs so strongly through the U.S.

military that I put faith in that.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I wanted to turn to the elections.

We have about 30 seconds left.

So -- no, no, no, this is an important conversation to be having,three big races, the New Jersey governor, the Virginia governor and New York City, as you mentioned.

Democrats seem to be doing well in Virginia.

A socialist Democrat is going to most likely win in New York City.

Virginia is not sure.

What do you think the Democrats ought to take from this?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, I think you mean New Jersey is not sure.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: New Jersey not sure, yes.

Thank you.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: New Jersey is not sure.

Look, these off-year elections, especially the Virginia governor's race, are viewed as canary in the coal mine, harbinger.

Look, the mood of the country.

I think if Democrats win the governorships in New Jersey, Virginia and the mayor's race, I think that's what I think will be -- sort of like change the tenor and tone of what's happening here in Washington.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Gentlemen, sorry to cut you off.

Jonathan, David, so good to see you.

Thanks.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: You too.

DAVID BROOKS: Thank you.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Three of the four members of the so-called commando team, allegedly behind the brazen heist of the French crown jewels from the Louvre Museum in Paris are now in custody.

Seven people in all have been arrested after thieves posing as construction workers broke through a balcony window at the museum last Sunday morning, ransacked two cases of royal jewels and zipped off into the streets of Paris on motor scooters.

Despite the investigation's progress, there is still no sign of the stolen jewels themselves.

French President Emmanuel Macron has called the robbery and attack on France's history.

So, to help make sense of the investigation so far, we are joined now from Amsterdam by art crime investigator Arthur Brand.

Arthur, thank you so much for being here.

French authorities say they have got seven in custody, four of whom they say are actively involved in this heist.

But the jewels are still missing.

From your perspective, how would you rate the progress of this investigation?

ARTHUR BRAND, Art Crime Investigator: Well, the French police is doing a great job.

These pieces were stolen not to sell intact, because they are known in the whole world.

So their plan is or was to dismantle these crowns, these necklaces and sell the diamonds separately.

So it was a race against time for the French police.

And within a week, they got the first two.

And now within 10 days, they got seven behind bars.

And two of them even already admitted that they were involved, which is a good sign.

So I think the French police is doing a very, very good job.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: From the details of the crime, does it tell us something about these suspects?

I mean, from your experience, are these professionals?

Are they semiprofessionals?

Are these clever amateurs?

ARTHUR BRAND: These are professional thieves.

You don't wake up in the morning as a normal citizen thinking, let's become a thief and let's start with the Louvre.

These guys have done burglaries before.

They have been caught before for other burglaries.

Their DNA was probably in the systems, as what we know now.

So they were professionals, but they made some mistakes.

They left a few items behind, like a car, a helmet, and on those pieces they found DNA.

So, in general, we can say they have done this before.

They are professionals, but in these days, if you sneeze, you leave DNA.

(LAUGHTER) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Exactly.

On those missing jewels themselves, from a criminal perspective, you said that there's no way they could sell the jewels themselves intact.

So what are their options?

ARTHUR BRAND: Yes, well, their plan was to dismantle all these objects, to take off the diamonds and other gems and sell them separately.

And there are thousands of small diamonds in these objects, and they are pretty common.

So you can sell them easily on the legal market, because they cannot be traced back to this robbery.

There are also some bigger gems.

They should be reshaped or cut into smaller diamonds, and they probably would go far away from France to countries like India or Israel or Qatar.

But, apparently, the French police has caught them in time, and probably these pieces are still stashed somewhere in a hiding place.

And the French police is now putting pressure during the interrogations on these seven guys, telling them, look, you're going to go to jail, but if you tell us where all these objects are, we will reduce your sentence by half, at least.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Louvre itself has been under a lot of criticism for its lax security.

Do you think that's a fair criticism?

And I imagine major institutions around the world, in light of this, must all be going through a review of their security practices.

ARTHUR BRAND: Well, there isn't a museum in the world that has not been a victim of theft.

Even the Louvre, in 1911, the Mona Lisa was stolen.

So they have all been there.

And it is difficult, because you don't want to turn a museum into a fortress.

The public should go and see all these treasures.

They are often based in old or big buildings.

We don't have armed guards in Europe.

We don't want to have shootings.

So, of course, we should criticize the Louvre, because, in seven minutes, entering and leaving with the French crown jewels, that doesn't sound good.

But it's difficult to protect a museum.

And every museum in the world has been victim of this.

And now the problem is, for all the other museums in the world, they have seen that the Louvre can be victim.

And they are all now a little bit nervous.

They think, we have local thieves.

They might think, if they can target the Louvre, don't we have a local museum, whether it's gold, silver or diamonds?

So the panic is quite great at this moment.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Arthur Brand, art crime investigator, thank you so much for being here.

On Halloween night, after the ghosts and goblins are done trick-or-treating, chances are you will be watching something spooky.

And you're far from alone.

Horror is the fastest rising film genre in the U.S., more than quadrupling its market share in the past decade.

A new book delves into our fascination with the macabre, arguing that a little fright might just be good for us.

Stephanie Sy spoke with its author.

STEPHANIE SY: That new book is called "Morbidly Curious."

And its author is a psychologist and a researcher at Arizona State University.

Coltan Scrivner joins us now to try and convince me, I guess, to like horror movies, because I'm one of the people, maybe a few people, that hates them.

Give us a little history, Coltan, of horror.

How long does it date back in human history?

COLTAN SCRIVNER, Author, "Morbidly Curious: A Scientist Explains Why We Can't Look Away": Probably about as long as language.

As soon as we were telling stories, we were telling scary stories.

And that kind of makes sense, right?

Ancient humans in particular lived in a very dangerous world with a lot of real threats around them.

And so telling stories about those threats would have been a useful thing for our ancestors.

STEPHANIE SY: Of course, that's become much more elaborate with the introduction of film.

And we had horror in early literature, sure, but now you have very, very scary movies.

But you say in your book that there is a reason our brains, at least some of our brains, evolved to be attracted to this type of entertainment.

Explain that.

COLTAN SCRIVNER: Yes, so we see morbid curiosity actually in many animals, not just in humans.

So this could be a very old drive that many animals who have been preyed upon have.

So, if you look at zebras, for example, in the savanna or gazelles, they have a drive or an inclination to actually pay attention to and even sometimes approach and inspect their predators under the right circumstances.

And so it's useful to gather information about them, what they look like, how they behave, where they might be found.

And the same can be true for humans.

We face all sorts of dangers, from predators to other people to sort of apocalyptic environmental disasters that we may want to simulate and explore through stories.

STEPHANIE SY: OK, but what's the difference between, like, watching the news, where you see a lot of actual horror... COLTAN SCRIVNER: Yes.

STEPHANIE SY: ... and watching a Stephen King movie in the movie theater?

JACK NICHOLSON, Actor: Here's Johnny.

COLTAN SCRIVNER: Well, there are a few differences.

One would be that fiction can provide you with scenarios that maybe nobody has news coverage of, for example, or events that haven't happened yet, so, for example, the movie "Contagion" that came out in 2011.

ACTRESS: Don't talk to anyone.

Don't touch anyone.

Stay away from other people.

COLTAN SCRIVNER: It was fairly popular when it came out, and then it kind of faded away from the public eye, and then in March of 2020 it became the most popular movie in America again, because it was a great simulation of something that many people were frightened of, but were going through.

STEPHANIE SY: I think what's interesting is, your book sort of argues that there are not necessarily harms in consuming this type of content.

In fact, you seem to argue that there is benefit to it psychologically.

COLTAN SCRIVNER: There can be, yes.

In particular, I think playing with the emotions of fear and anxiety in safe contexts can be very useful for people.

So, for example, if you go through life and you have shielded yourself entirely from feeling anxious and feeling afraid, when you become an adult, you are inevitably going to face some situations that elicit fear or elicit anxiety or both in your life.

And you may not be very well equipped to handle those emotions if you haven't experienced them before.

In 2020, I did do a study with some colleagues, that we collected data in April and May, so right after COVID kind of peaked in March.

And what we found is that, when we control for demographics and general personality traits, we still find that people who were horror fans and people who scored higher in morbid curiosity were more likely to score better on measures of psychological resilience in those early months of the pandemic.

STEPHANIE SY: I find it interesting that horror movies are at an all-time high in popularity.

Does it say anything to you about the times we live in that these have become very popular?

COLTAN SCRIVNER: Yes, it's maybe not a coincidence that, since 2020, horror has really been on the rise.

When COVID hit, horror had its highest share of the box office in recorded history.

If you're experiencing anxiety, and particularly generalized anxiety, where you don't really have a source for what's making you feel stressed or uncomfortable, it's really difficult to get out of a cycle of rumination.

And one thing that many horror fans have found is that horror movies are actually really good at providing kind of an off-ramp for those feelings of anxiety.

And what's probably going on here is that they're kind of fighting fire with fire in their mind.

So if you're feeling anxious, about the only thing that can consume your attention is something else threatening.

And so if you turn on a scary movie or read a scary book, it can actually draw your attention away from generalized feelings of anxiety and give it a source.

STEPHANIE SY: Fascinating.

That is Coltan Scrivner, the author of "Morbidly Curious."

Thank you so much for joining the "News Hour."

COLTAN SCRIVNER: Yes, thank you for having me on.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Be sure to tune into "Washington Week With The Atlantic" tonight on PBS for a conversation about whether President Trump will get directly involved in the shutdown fight as it enters its second month.

And then "PBS News Weekend" tomorrow looks at how China has become an engineering powerhouse with its relentless pursuit of infrastructure projects.

That is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm William Brangham.

For all of us at the "PBS News Hour," thank you for joining us and have a happy Halloween.