GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

Amna Nawaz is on assignment.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: President Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

claim a link between autism and Tylenol use in pregnancy, but many health experts remain skeptical.

President Trump escalates his promises of political retribution against his perceived enemies.

And Brazil's president discusses the controversial conviction of the country's former leader and increasingly tense relations with the U.S.

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, Brazilian President (through translator): So the explanation of a tariff of 50 percent due to the trial of former president, this is no explanation for the world's public opinion.

And Brazil wants to have a civilized relationship with the U.S.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "News Hour."

President Trump today tied the use of the drug acetaminophen during pregnancy to autism and made several other claims about vaccines this evening without strong scientific evidence.

The president said the FDA will start advising women that acetaminophen, which is used in Tylenol, can be associated with autism.

During an event at the White House, the president said that that was his opinion and said most pregnant women should cope without it.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: taking Tylenol is not good.

All right, I will say it.

It's not good.

For this reason, they are strongly recommending that women limit Tylenol used during pregnancy unless medically necessary.

That's, for instance, in cases of extremely high fever that you feel you can't tough it out.

You can't do it.

I guess there's that.

It's a small number of cases I think.

But if you can't tough it out, if you can't do it, that's what you're going to have to do.

You will take a Tylenol, but it'll be very sparingly.

GEOFF BENNETT: In addition to those comments, the president and his health team also suggested a cancer drug called leucovorin as a potential treatment for autism.

The FDA says it will now make leucovorin tablets available for some autistic patients with a specific neurological condition.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., U.S.

Health and Human Services Secretary: We have also identified an exciting therapy that may benefit large numbers of children who suffer from autism.

Peer-reviewed literature has documented that up to 60 percent of folate-deficient children with ASD can have improved verbal communications if given leucovorin.

I have instructed NIH, FDA and CMS doctors to treat children appropriately.

GEOFF BENNETT: William Brangham has more on these claims and concerns about what the president and his team have said -- William.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For more on these questions and what we know about autism, I am joined by Alycia Halladay -- she's the chief science officer at the Autism Science Foundation -- and also by Jennifer Nuzzo.

She's an epidemiologist at Brown University's School of Public Health.

Thank you both so much for being here.

Alycia Halladay, to you first.

I just would love to get your initial response to this with regards to Tylenol.

The president made it quite clear that he believes the evidence is crystal clear that taking Tylenol when you're pregnant causes autism in the unborn child.

What does the evidence tell us about that?

DR.

ALYCIA HALLADAY, Chief Science Officer, Autism Science Foundation: Thank you for asking that question.

The evidence does not say that.

The scientific studies that have been conducted so far do not support the idea that Tylenol causes autism.

In fact, there were two very, very large studies that were conducted that use what is known as a sibling control, which controls or eliminates any sort of or most of the variability because of genetic background, and they did not see an association.

So his warnings for women to tough it out to prevent autism in their unborn children are completely unwarranted.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Listening to what he cited and what Kennedy and Marty Makary of the FDA said, did you get any sense as to what evidence they're looking at that seems to convince them that this is the case?

DR.

ALYCIA HALLADAY: They did mention in the press conference a study called the Boston -- a study out of Johns Hopkins that involved children in Boston.

That study was very small, and it actually didn't even measure acetaminophen exposure during pregnancy.

It only looked at acetaminophen exposure at the time of the birth.

So I'm not entirely swayed by that being the source of evidence for which they're claiming that vaccines cause autism -- I'm sorry -- acetaminophen causes autism.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Jennifer Nuzzo, we know that acetaminophen is prescribed for pain, but it's also prescribed to bring down fevers.

What do we know about the risk of not knocking a fever down when you're pregnant?

DR.

JENNIFER NUZZO, Brown University School of Public Health: Well, I mean, I think pediatricians generally -- sorry - - when you're talking about when pregnant, yes, I mean, certainly, fever can be detrimental.

And just simply telling women to avoid it is just not the kind of nuanced, evidence-based advice that pregnant women deserve.

I'm really reminded of comments that Secretary Kennedy made at a hearing in May when he said, I don't think people should be taking medical advice from me.

And based on what we heard today, I would very much reiterate that statement.

Nothing that I heard should be interpreted as medical advice.

And, certainly, pregnant women should be talking to their providers about how to manage fever.

But leaving it untreated might be detrimental.

And just blanket statements about don't use it is just really not based on evidence and also not the kind of nuanced, expert advice that pregnant women deserve.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But yet it is very hard to overlook the fact that this is the president of the United States and all of his senior health officials coming out and basically endorsing the idea that one of the most commonly used medications in the country, in the world, I believe, is potentially complicit in autism.

I mean, as a someone who really focuses on communication in public health, what is your response to seeing that tableau today?

DR.

JENNIFER NUZZO: Yes, I mean, this was really irresponsible today.

I mean, first of all, pregnancy, autism, these are all very serious medical issues that require evidence.

And nothing that's been done by this administration has been done to kind of produce the sort of evidence that would be required to answer these questions, to establish these links.

We saw an earlier report that came out of HHS in which it was clear that some A.I.

tool was used to kind of falsely summarize the evidence.

And I really fear that that's the level of care and concern that's gone into these conclusions.

There have been larger, more rigorous studies done looking at the relationship between Tylenol exposure during pregnancy and autism.

And that study basically said, no, that was not something that there was a strong link between.

And so it's just really strange and disheartening that we might be sort of cherry-picking really low-quality evidence and not just looking at it further and doing additional studies to look at it further, but holding a national presidential press conference.

I mean, that is so beyond what people deserve.

And it's just -- it's really quite stunning.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Alycia Halladay, back to you on this issue of vaccines.

We saw the president again liken the amount of vaccines we give to children equivalent to what we give to a horse.

He also made the connection again that communities that don't have vaccines or don't take Tylenol have no instances of autism.

I feel like we have talked about this so many times, debunking the idea that there is a connection between vaccines and autism.

But, again, can you just remind us of what we know?

Is there a linkage?

Is there any connection, as was suggested today?

DR.

ALYCIA HALLADAY: Vaccines have actually been the number one most studied environmental factor in the causes of autism.

It has been studied dozens of times across the world in different populations.

And there has been no credible evidence to link vaccine administration to autism in different subgroups of people, different timings of the vaccine administration.

He said something about getting all 80 vaccines at once and wanting to separate them out over the course of four to five years.

That's what the vaccine schedule does.

It separates out, it spreads out those 80 different antigens over the course of four to five years.

He also talked about different vaccine blends, which is actually not what -- how vaccines are made.

So I'm not entirely sure if there -- if people walked away from that feeling clearer about what happens in the childhood vaccination schedule or more confused.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Can I just ask you in the 30 seconds or so we have left about this drug leucovorin that was mentioned as a possible treatment for children who have been diagnosed with autism what we know about that drug and whether it might be actually useful?

DR.

ALYCIA HALLADAY: We have absolutely no safety data on this drug in children with autism.

And there have been conflicting reports about possible side effects.

So we absolutely need to do the research to get the knowledge to be able to make a suggestion about whether or not leucovorin could be helpful.

So far, it's been shown in a couple of studies that haven't been replicated, small studies, with just a couple of dozen people that it could be helpful in some situations.

Those studies obviously need to be replicated and expanded and probably quadrupled in size before we think about making a blanket recommendation about treating such a complex condition as autism with just one single thing, which we also don't know what the drug interactions are with this drug.

We don't know what people should -- and other sorts of interventions they should or shouldn't be doing, if there's any restrictions on that.

So I think there's a lot of questions to be answered about this drug before anyone recommends that it be rubber-stamped or that it be prescribed for children with autism with no qualifiers.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, that is Alycia Halladay and Jennifer Nuzzo.

Thank you both so much for being here.

DR.

ALYCIA HALLADAY: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines: ABC is reinstating Jimmy Kimmel's late-night show.

The network had suspended the comedian indefinitely after comments he made following the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

In a statement, ABC's parent company, the Walt Disney Company, said -- quote -- "We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy and, after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday."

Kimmel's suspension had sparked protests and concerns about free speech in the aftermath of Kirk's killing, with a number of celebrities and Kimmel's fellow late night comedians among those who rallied to his defense.

Kimmel has hosted "Jimmy Kimmel Live" since 2003.

His contract is set to expire in May of next year.

At a U.N.

summit today, France joined a growing list of countries in recognizing a Palestinian state.

EMMANUEL MACRON, French President (through translator): I declare that today, France recognizes the state of Palestine.

GEOFF BENNETT: French President Emmanuel Macron's announcement follows similar moves by the U.K., Canada and others over the weekend and was followed soon after by Belgium.

Israel and the U.S.

boycotted today's event, with Israel's U.N.

ambassador dismissing it as theater.

Meantime, Israel is continuing its offensive in Gaza City, which it considers one of the last strongholds for Hamas.

Some Gazans say the recognition of a Palestinian state does little to help the situation on the ground.

MOHAMMED AL-YAZIGI, Displaced Palestinian (through translator): Where is the state, in the street, or in the tents?

What state is this that they recognize?

Are we able to find something to eat or a place to stay?

Leave it to God.

GEOFF BENNETT: Even before today's summit, roughly 150 of the U.N.

's 193 member states considered Palestine a sovereign nation, though, in many cases, such recognition is largely symbolic.

In Egypt, authorities announced a presidential pardon today for activist Alaa Abd El-Fattah.

The British Egyptian dual citizen was a leading voice during Egypt's Arab Spring uprising back in 2011.

He went on to play an active role in protests against human rights abuses, among other causes.

That activism led to multiple arrests in more than a decade behind bars.

Both Abd El-Fattah and his mother have gone on hunger strikes in the past to press for his release.

A lawyer tells the Associated Press that he could be released within days.

Russia and Ukraine traded deadly drone strikes today as world leaders get ready to discuss the ongoing war at the U.N.

General Assembly.

Local Ukrainian officials say Russian drone strikes killed three people in Zaporizhzhia overnight, while Russia says Ukrainian drones killed three in occupied Crimea.

The strikes come as Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says he's preparing for a very intense week of diplomacy at the U.N.

Meantime, the U.N.

Security Council held an emergency meeting today to address Russia's violation of Estonia's airspace last week.

Estonia is a NATO member.

And, in his first appearance as U.S.

ambassador to the U.N., Michael Waltz pledged American support for the security alliance.

MICHAEL WALTZ, U.S.

Ambassador to the United Nations: I want to take this first opportunity to repeat and to emphasize the United States and our allies will defend every inch of NATO territory.

Russia must urgently stop such dangerous behavior.

GEOFF BENNETT: Russia's Defense Ministry denied any violation of Estonian airspace by its planes, but the incident has only added to concerns that the fighting could spread beyond Ukraine's borders.

Here in the U.S., a 4.3-magnitude earthquake rattled the San Francisco area early this morning, with more than 20,000 people saying they felt the quake.

It struck around 3:00 a.m.

to the southeast of Berkeley, where some stores reported minor damage.

Local media reported the effects could be felt as far south as Salinas about 100 miles away.

City officials say there have been no injuries reported so far.

And an update to a story we told you about last week.

A federal judge ruled today that a massive offshore wind project can move forward after it was abruptly halted by the Trump administration last month.

The $6 billion wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut known as Revolution Wind was 80 percent complete.

The Department of the Interior had called the project a national security concern.

Today's ruling marks a setback for President Trump, who has long opposed and sought to restrict the wind industry.

The Trump administration can still appeal the decision.

On Wall Street today, stocks edged higher to start the week.

The Dow Jones industrial average added 66 points on the day.

The Nasdaq rose more than 150 points.

The S&P 500 also ended in positive territory.

And NASA announced its newest astronauts today.

MAN: These 10 men and women are your 24th astronaut candidate class.

(CHEERING) GEOFF BENNETT: The group includes engineers, earth scientists, military veterans and more.

They were selected from a pool of more than 8,000 applicants and, for the first time ever, women outnumbered the men.

Only 370 people have ever been selected to serve as NASA astronauts, making it a very exclusive group.

And this class must now complete two years of training before they're eligible for flight missions to the International Space Station, the moon or perhaps even Mars.

Still to come on the "News Hour": Brazil's president discusses increasingly tense relations with the U.S.

; we speak with the head of the U.N.

's nuclear watchdog about Iran's program; and Tamara Keith and Amy Walter break down the latest political headlines.

The country is remembering the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk after tens of thousands of people attended his memorial on Sunday.

President Trump headlined the event, delivering a eulogy for Kirk that was infused with his own political agenda.

Our White House correspondent, Liz Landers, has this report.

LIZ LANDERS: A Sunday memorial service in an Arizona arena for slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk included President Trump and much of his senior Cabinet, who joined Kirk's widow, Erika.

ERIKA KIRK, Widow of Charlie Kirk: That young man, I forgive him.

(CHEERING) ERIKA KIRK: I forgive him, because it was what Christ did and is what Charlie would do.

LIZ LANDERS: Erika Kirk, now taking up the mantle of her late husband's political organization Turning Point USA, offering her forgiveness to the suspect in her husband's assassination, but the president and his administration striking a different tone.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: That's where I disagreed with Charlie.

I hate my opponent.

(LAUGHTER) DONALD TRUMP: And I don't want the best for them.

I'm sorry.

I am sorry, Erika.

But now Erika can talk to me and the whole group, and maybe they can convince me that that's not right.

But I can't stand my opponent.

LIZ LANDERS: Trump broadening the attack on Kirk to an attack on the conservative movement.

DONALD TRUMP: That bullet was aimed at every one of us.

Indeed, Charlie was killed for expressing the very ideas that virtually everyone in this arena and most other places throughout our country deeply believed in.

LIZ LANDERS: The president, who ran on political retribution in the 2024 election... STEPHEN MILLER, White House Deputy Chief of Staff: Hello, patriots.

LIZ LANDERS: ... echoed by his top advisers like Stephen Miller.

STEPHEN MILLER: We will prevail over the forces of wickedness and evil.

And to those trying to incite violence against us, those trying to foment hatred against us, what do you have?

You have nothing.

You are nothing.

LIZ LANDERS: The memorial service lasted more than five hours and comes as the nation debates the issue of the First Amendment and the limits of free speech.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard nodding to the frequent and sometimes controversial college campus debates that Kirk engaged in, saying that Kirk lived with the founders of the country envisioned.

TULSI GABBARD, U.S.

Director of National Intelligence: Free speech is the foundation of our democratic republic.

We must protect it at all costs, because, without it, we will be lost.

Charlie knew this.

LIZ LANDERS: At the White House today, I asked Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt about the memorial's tone.

We heard from Erika Kirk.

She said she forgives the man who shot and killed her husband.

And then, right after that, we heard from the president who said, "I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them."

How does that square with bringing down the temperature of political violence in this country?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, White House Press Secretary: The president is authentically himself.

I think that's why millions of Americans across the country love him and support him, including Erika Kirk, who you saw so beautifully was on stage with the president in an unthinkable moment, in the midst of an unthinkable tragedy, and was leaning on the president for support during that time.

LIZ LANDERS: Over the weekend, the president doubling down on the theme of political retribution in a blunt social media post addressed to the attorney general, Pam Bondi, complaining about a lack of prosecution of his opponents, writing in part -- quote -- "Nothing is being done.

What about Comey, Adam "Shifty" Schiff, Letitia?

They're all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done."

Then, in another post later that day, the president announcing his appointment of White House aide Lindsey Halligan to serve as the U.S.

attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The former top federal prosecutor for that office was pushed out last week amid pressure from the White House to criminally indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the president's political foes.

The Justice Department began investigating James for mortgage fraud months ago, and there's no indication prosecutors have found enough evidence to bring charges.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Liz Landers.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, for more now, we're joined by Mary McCord.

She's a former acting assistant attorney general for national security and was a longtime prosecutor.

She's now executive director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law.

Thank you so much for being here.

MARY MCCORD, Former Justice Department Official: My pleasure.

GEOFF BENNETT: So the president publicly calling on Attorney General Pam Bondi to take more aggressive action in prosecuting his political opponents, what does that signal about the extraordinary pressures on the DOJ right now?

And how should we understand the moment that we're in?

MARY MCCORD: Yes, so I actually testified on the second day of Pam Bondi's confirmation hearings to make three points.

I didn't know her personally, but the points were, your oath is to the Constitution and not to a person, and that means your decisions should be made based on the facts and the law and not based on what Donald Trump is telling you or wants you to do, that you should recuse yourself if there's ever a conflict, and that there needs to be independence between the Department of Justice and the White House.

And that's been something that every single president and attorney general have believed in since Watergate.

There have been policies through every single president, including under Mr.

Trump the first time around, that says the White House is not going to give directions about criminal and civil enforcement actions to the attorney general, and not going to reach out and try to tell prosecutors or U.S.

attorneys like Mr.

Siebert what to do.

And so this is the time for Attorney General Bondi to stand strong and stick with these principles of independence.

That's how we would have confidence as the American public that the department is not being misused for political purposes.

GEOFF BENNETT: And President Trump is nothing if not transparent.

Is it significant that this is happening all out in the open, as opposed to behind closed doors?

Does that change the way we should understand the degree to which he's applying pressure here?

MARY MCCORD: So that's such an interesting question, because, in the past, like, in the cases that were brought against him, that was one of the points he tried to make.

How could I ever be doing anything sort of corruptly when I was doing it so publicly?

But that just doesn't really work here.

And what we saw with him directing his attorney general to do something, these people are guilty as heck, how can he say that, right?

We have a presumption of innocence.

There's only allegations.

And so this is not some time where I think he can say, look, I'm being transparent, because the transparency shows how much he is in fact trying or attempting to use his Department of Justice for strictly political and retaliatory purposes.

GEOFF BENNETT: Let's talk about Lindsey Halligan.

This is the Trump White House aide, loyal ally.

She's just taken over as the top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia after her predecessor, as we mentioned, was forced out under pressure to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James.

We should say Halligan has no experience as a prosecutor.

What's your reaction to this move to install her?

MARY MCCORD: Well, this looks like somebody - - and you can see it from Donald Trump's message to Attorney General Bondi in that longer piece that the whole thing wasn't read earlier.

He's like, Halligan likes you.

We're going to put her in there.

He clearly thinks she's somebody who is going to do what he wants.

And you know what?

She doesn't have the experience.

Erik Siebert has years of experience.

Other prosecutors who get appointed those positions, first of all, are probably concerned about their ethics, professional responsibility, their careers, their oath to the Constitution, not to a person.

But they also know criminal law and they know what they can prove in court and what they can't.

And by all accounts, what's been publicly reported, Mr.

Siebert's decision-making here that there was no "there" there when it came to prosecutions of Letitia James or James Comey was, we don't have a criminal case.

We cannot meet every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't know that Lindsey Halligan even knows how to weigh those things.

GEOFF BENNETT: There is so much news to cover, including what MSNBC first reported, that, in this undercover operation last year, the FBI recorded Tom Homan, who's now the White House immigration czar, accepting $50,000 in cash after suggesting he could help these undercover government -- undercover agents posing as business executives to secure government contracts in a second Trump administration.

The Justice Department shut down the case earlier this year.

The White House today said, well, Homan never accepted the cash.

How unusual is it for a case like this not to be prosecuted?

MARY MCCORD: So, with respect to the explanation that he never accepted the cash, I will note that the reporters who reported the story say that they have got documentation that shows he did accept that cash, so that's a factual issue.

And I think what's unusual here is not so much whether it would be prosecuted, but whether it would be continued to be investigated, because at the time he accepted this money or allegedly accepted this money, he was not yet a public official.

So, like, the bribery statutes, the gratuity statutes require the person to either be the public official or have been selected to be the official and not yet be the official.

Now, I will note, even the White House is saying the FBI knew he was going to be a public official under the Trump administration.

So, question if we aren't at that point of selected, but not yet the public official.

But so, ordinarily, I think what you would see happening here is what I think the FBI was doing, which is, OK, now let's wait and see if, when he becomes a public official, he's going to continue this behavior.

And that's when it got squashed.

There are possible criminal charges that could have been brought even before that, including conspiracy and wire fraud and those kind of things.

But I can -- if I were in the position of the FBI or the prosecutor working with them in -- last September, I would have also said, OK, let's see how this plays out.

But, of course, we're not going to see how that plays out.

GEOFF BENNETT: Indeed.

Mary McCord, thanks, as always.

Good to see you.

MARY MCCORD: My pleasure.

Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: It is the World Cup of global diplomacy at the United Nations in New York.

Hundreds of dignitaries are gathered this week for the U.N.

General Assembly.

Tomorrow's first speech to begin the proceedings will come from Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, known to everyone simply as Lula.

The fate of his predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, who attempted a coup against Lula two years ago, has become an explosive issue in U.S.-Brazilian relations.

President Trump levied a 50 percent tariff on many Brazilian goods as a penalty for the prosecution of Bolsonaro.

He was convicted earlier this month and sentenced to 27 years in prison.

Amna Nawaz sat down with Brazil's president this morning in New York.

AMNA NAWAZ: President Lula, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thank you for joining us.

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, Brazilian President (through translator): It's a great pleasure to be here to talk with you again.

AMNA NAWAZ: I'd love to start with the U.S.

tariffs on your country right now, which at 50 percent are among the highest of any level on any country.

You have called them misguided and illogical.

How much do you believe that President Trump's anger with the trial and conviction of the former President Jair Bolsonaro, how much did that inform the tariff level on your country?

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA (through translator): Well, first of all, Amna, it's unbelievable that President Trump would have this kind of behavior with Brazil due to the judgment of a former president that tried to attempt a coup d'etat against the democratic rule of law, that networked and plotted my death and the assassination of myself, the vice president, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

So, the explanation of a tariff of 50 percent due to the trial of a former president, this is no explanation for the world's public opinion.

And Brazil wants to have a civilized relationship with the U.S.

People ask me, do you like President Trump or not?

I have never met President Trump, so it's not an issue of whether I like him or not.

He doesn't know me either.

What matters is that he's the head of state of the United States, and I'm the head of state in Brazil.

And as two heads of state, we have to respect each other, because we were elected democratically by the people of our countries, and we need to give support to these people and to govern them the best way possible.

This is how I expect to keep our relationship with the U.S.

And that's why I think it's absurd.

I think this tariff is absurd vis-a-vis Brazil.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have said that you have no relationship with President Trump.

Do I take that to mean you have never spoken to the man?

Is that correct?

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA (through translator): We never talked.

We never talked before.

We never talked before because he made a choice.

In my opinion, that was a mistake.

He made a choice of a relationship, building a relationship with Bolsonaro, but not building a friendship with the Brazilian people.

A head of state has to have a relationship with another head of the state, regardless of his political positions.

These are two important states, the largest democracies in the Americas, the largest economies in the Americas.

And so it's very important for us to have a relationship that would be a civilized relationship.

AMNA NAWAZ: If there's no relationship with the U.S.

president, I take that to mean there's no negotiation over the tariffs.

So what will Brazil do?

Will you retaliate with your own tariffs?

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA (through translator): I can assure you something.

We are trying to do things with the most tranquility possible.

I don't make decisions with rage.

And at a moment when the United States wishes to negotiate, we will be ready to negotiate.

The people I have ready to negotiate are my vice president of the republic, who is also the minister of industry and commerce, my finance minister, my foreign affairs minister.

They're all ready to negotiate.

But there's no one on the U.S.

side.

Every time we try to talk about trade with someone from the U.S., they say, this is not with me.

No, this is not a trade issue.

This is a political issue.

And so the moment that President Trump wishes to talk politics, I can also talk about politics.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have made clear you believe that this is a political issue, not an economic issue, and President Trump has made it clear that he believes Jair Bolsonaro is being politically persecuted in Brazil.

He said publicly he was very unhappy with the conviction.

We saw the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, then say that the U.S.

government would respond accordingly.

The judge who oversaw the case was sanctioned.

Are you concerned that the U.S.

will take more steps, that you yourself could be sanctioned?

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA (through translator): First of all, Amna, I doubt that any other country in the world has had a more democratic judicial case that guaranteed to the person that was being charged the presumption of innocence as we did in Brazil.

It's an extraordinary process and one that was respected around the world.

There's no court in the world that did not praise the Brazilian judicial system, because there's a rightful defense for all those that are being charged.

So, President Trump cannot put on the table a political issue when we're dealing with heads of state.

And I said to President Trump, if he had done what he did in Brazil what happened on the Capitol Hill, he would also be on trial, because the Brazilian law is for all.

AMNA NAWAZ: President Lula, I want to make sure I understand what you said?

Are you saying you believe that President Trump should have been prosecuted after the attack on the U.S.

Capitol after his loss in the 2020 election?

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA (through translator): I'm not saying that he should have been on judgment, because I do not know the judicial system in the U.S.

I said, if it was in Brazil, if it had happened in Brazil what happened in the Capitol, then he would also go on trial in Brazil.

AMNA NAWAZ: We have also seen President Trump go further.

He believes that what's happening with Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil will have an impact on your next election.

He says that it undermines the ability of Brazil to hold a free and fair election of the presidency in 2026.

I look to get your reaction to that and also if you have decided if you will run again in 2026.

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA (through translator): Brazil has an electoral justice system that is extraordinary, strong and democratic.

Brazil has electronic ballot boxes that are the most perfect system in the world, electronic voting systems.

If we could do any fraud in an electronic ballot, Lula would never have been elected president three times in Brazil.

I would never have won the presidential elections because the Brazilian ruling class never wanted me to reach the presidency.

I just won the elections because the electronic voting system doesn't allow frauds.

It does not allow for you to steal the election.

That's why I was elected president of the republic.

Now, if I'm going to be president again, I don't know if I'm going to run again.

I'm going to be 80 on October the 27th.

I will be 80, and I hope that I have good health that I enjoy today.

I wake up every day at 5:30 in the morning and go to the gym and the fitness center for two hours a day because I want to live to 120.

If I'm well physically with the same mind-set that I have today, I will run for the presidency, because I will not allow and neither will the Brazilian people allow the fascist far right to return and govern Brazil again.

AMNA NAWAZ: I want to ask you about some very serious concerns that you raised in a recent piece that you wrote for The New York Times about weakening democracy around the world.

You said, multilateralism, respect for diversity, nation sovereignty and, "as you wrote, "and the U.S., having appointed itself as the greatest representative of it, this is now fading."

So if the U.S., you believe, is not leading on these fronts, who is?

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA (through translator): Well, one thing that concerns me, Amna, is that the U.S.

for a long time conveyed the message to humanity that it was the symbol of world democracy, it was the guardian of democracy, it was a guardian of freedom.

He puts himself as the emperor, the owner of the world.

And he says, President Trump, he says that to protect, the American people, he will tax everybody.

But he says this with some untruth.

In the Brazilian case, it's important for you to know that the U.S.

has a $410 billion trade surplus in the last 15 years, $410 billion.

They don't have any trade deficit with us.

Now, in the case of the justice system, he has to know, in Brazil, our justice system is free.

The president of the republic cannot interfere in judicial cases.

It's an autonomous branch of power, the judicial system.

And our democracy, our Constitution says that we should have the independence and harmony between the three branches of power.

And so President Lula cannot interfere in the judgment of the Supreme Court.

On Sunday, the Brazilian people went to the streets to demonstrate against amnesty for Bolsonaro, against other inappropriate measures in Congress.

The people are paying attention.

If the far right parties want to run for elections, they can do that, of course.

They're free to do it.

I have run for many elections in the past.

I have won elections.

I have lost many elections in the past.

And that's part of the democratic game.

We suffered to get rid of military dictatorship.

We don't want any dictatorships anymore.

AMNA NAWAZ: President Lula, why do you believe President Trump is so invested in Brazilian politics?

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA (through translator): I think President Trump needs to have the behavior of a head of state, of a statesman of the largest economy in the world, of the biggest military power in the world, the most technological country in the world.

So I think a country with such greatness and such might has to have much more responsibility.

We want to have relations with everybody under equal terms.

But what we do not accept is that nobody, nobody, no country in the world interferes in our democracy and our sovereignty.

The moment that the U.S.

government is willing to talk with the Brazilian government, I can reassure you that we are ready to talk.

Everything can be resolved in a negotiating table.

A negotiating table doesn't cost anything.

It doesn't destroy a bridge.

It doesn't destroy a boat.

It doesn't kill a single person.

It takes time, but it's better.

It's healthier, and it's humanly understood by the whole of society.

AMNA NAWAZ: Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the president of Brazil.

Thank you very much for your time, Mr.

President.

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA (through translator): Thank you very much, Amna.

And I hope that, after this interview, the U.S.

will open its heart to negotiate with all the countries in the world.

GEOFF BENNETT: Also at the U.N.

this week is a series of diplomatic meetings over at Iran.

Iran and the International Atomic Energy administration, or IAEA, have gone back and forth over whether U.N.

inspectors will be allowed to examine Iran's nuclear sites, including those Israel and the U.S.

attacked back in June.

Nick Schifrin spoke earlier today to the head of the U.N.

's nuclear watchdog.

NICK SCHIFRIN: On Friday afternoon, the vote was clear.

MAN: Nine votes against.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The Security Council reimposed on Iran sanctions that had been frozen for a decade.

Barring any last-minute change, they go into effect this Sunday, sanctions that had been lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal, when Iran agreed to limits on its nuclear program.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In 2018, President Trump pulled the U.S.

out of the deal.

In the years since, Iran restarted prohibited enrichment and exceeded the deal's caps on its nuclear fuel stockpile.

This summer, Israel launched a 12-day war against Iran, capped by U.S.

strikes on Iran's most important nuclear facilities, targeting its uranium enrichment and stockpile, which Iran says is now buried under the rubble.

In response, at first, Iran blocked access to U.N.

nuclear inspectors.

Just two weeks ago, Iran's foreign minister and IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi agreed to allow those inspectors back in.

But, this weekend, Iran said the reimposition of sanctions had -- quote -- "practically resulted in the suspension of cooperation with the IAEA."

And now I'm joined by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi.

Rafael Grossi, thanks very much, welcome back to the "News Hour."

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI, Director General, IAEA: Thank you.

It's a great pleasure.

NICK SCHIFRIN: This weekend, Iran's supreme National Security Council said it had suspended cooperation with the IAEA.

What have they actually communicated to you, if anything?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Nothing of the sort.

But we are -- at this time, there are lots of messages, some of them contradictory.

We have a constant line of communication.

We have been in Cairo just a few days ago, where we agreed on a new framework for cooperation to resume our inspection work in Iran, which was suspended, of course, after the attacks last June.

NICK SCHIFRIN: So, as of now, do you know if this is real?

Are they actually suspending the deal that they signed with you in Cairo?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Well, we haven't heard of any official communication to that effect.

And we know that, in Iran, there are different voices, sometimes in Parliament, sometimes politicians, sometimes indicating that they suspend or that they want to suspend.

At the same time, there are obligations, because they are party to the nonproliferation treaty.

So, this, of course, is the basis for our inspection work.

So all of this needs to be clarified.

But, for the moment, there is no suspension as such.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But let me just make sure.

The deal that you signed in Cairo would allow inspectors back to -- quote -- "all facilities and installations and contemplates the required reporting on all the attacked facilities."

That's a reference to the U.S.

attack... on everything, right, as well as the nuclear material present at those sites.

So, as of now, you believe that you still have that deal with Iran?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: We do.

We do.

And we hope it will be maintained.

There is no automaticity.

But this is the same for any country.

Countries get notifications to be inspected.

But the inspections must proceed.

This is important.

NICK SCHIFRIN: OK, so let's talk about the three sites the United States attack, Fordow, Natanz, Isfahan.

How will it work?

Will your inspectors be able to go to these three sites themselves or will they rely on some kind of Iranian report for the sites?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: No, there must be a report to begin with where they tell us what the situation is.

Then we will evaluate it.

At the end of that, we will need to visit or inspect those places.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And you have an agreement to visit these three sites?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Yes, but it's not automatic.

And this is where the -- if you want, a process will occur.

There are those in Iran who say nothing has been agreed, you cannot come here.

It's, of course, a political statement.

The reality is that, when we notify an inspection, an inspection must proceed.

NICK SCHIFRIN: You can understand from the outside these different statements that you call political make it seem like Iran is not cooperating.

From your perspective, is Iran cooperating?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: I think Iran is cooperating, although they have their own interpretation of what cooperation is.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But forgive me.

You're in charge of an agency whose technical requirements are pretty specific, are they not?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Yes.

NICK SCHIFRIN: I mean, Iran might feel aggrieved, but, at the end of the day, are they giving you what you need?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: We have started.

There has been inspections in the nuclear power plant they have in Bushehr in the south of the country.

Now we are in the process of visiting a research reactor.

Of course, the crux of the matter, because I don't like to avoid questions, is the nuclear material.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Right.

So this is the nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium.

Do you have any new information to suggest that it was destroyed or was not destroyed?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: No, there is no information as to the status of the material.

We think that most of the material is still there and... NICK SCHIFRIN: Meaning buried underground.

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Yes, yes.

And this is the general consensus of many, including in Iran, that the material is still there.

So, when we receive their report, then we will be able to start this process of interaction and perhaps inspections.

NICK SCHIFRIN: As you know, the U.S.

and Europe have demanded three very specific things... working with the IAEA, direct talks with the United States and accounting for all of that nuclear material that we have been talking about.

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: To a certain extent, all of that is happening.

NICK SCHIFRIN: OK, so that's my question.

So, from your perspective, is Iran doing all those three things?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Well, it depends on what kind of metric you put to determine whether that is enough or not.

NICK SCHIFRIN: For the Americans, it's yes or no.

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: First of all, well, the Americans, at the end -- you can ask them.

And I am in very close contact with special envoy Ambassador Witkoff, for whom I have great respect.

Their position is a position that I must respect.

What I do is something different.

So, by the three parameters that you're mentioning, Iran is working with the agency.

Have we gotten everything we want?

Not yet.

Have we checked on the material?

Not yet, but we are working on that.

On the contacts with the United States, I think there have been some.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And, finally, you are under enhanced security because of Iranian threats.

Does that security still exist, without giving away any specifics, obviously?

And will that stop you from doing your job?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: It does, and no.

NICK SCHIFRIN: It does still exist, and, no, it won't stop?

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: It does still exist, and no.

And that is -- I mean, you have to transcend that.

It's not easy to engage in a diplomatic conversation where certain things are said and threats are made.

But it's part of our obligation to continue the work.

We cannot afford to have another crisis in the Middle East at this point.

We have to avert it.

We have to move to a durable, sustainable situation that, in my view, only goes through diplomacy.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Rafael Grossi, director general of the IAEA, thank you very much.

RAFAEL MARIANO GROSSI: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: It has been eight months since President Trump returned to the White House, and the pace of actions coming from his administration continues to accelerate.

To help sort through a busy few days, we are joined now by our Politics Monday duo.

That's Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR.

It's always great to see you both.

And, look, if folks are overwhelmed by the news and recent developments out of Washington, they have good reason to be.

Our team put together a list of just what has transpired since this past weekend.

You see it all there.

Tam -- and this, we should say, is not the entirety of it.

But let's talk about the president being unusually explicit in directing his attorney general to pursue criminal cases against his political opponents, something that past presidents even avoided hinting at.

How should we understand the way President Trump is wielding power right now?

TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: And I think that we have to remind people that President Trump very early in this term went to the Justice Department and delivered an explicitly political speech at the Department of Justice, which is also something that wouldn't normally happen.

The president has made no secret of his desire to get retribution against those who he believes wronged him while he was out of office or even when he was in office last time, and truly some remarkable social media posts over the weekend directed at his attorney general saying, I'm hearing from a lot of people and they're wondering why you haven't yet indicted Adam Schiff or James Comey or Letitia James.

It's just not even remotely subtle.

And it is one of many ways that President Trump is exerting power.

Another way he exerts power, and this I guess is part and parcel of that, is through intimidation.

What you saw happen with Jimmy Kimmel and the FCC, that wasn't actually using any real levers of power.

It was just using the threat of the use of levers of power.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Amy, we speak so often about the politics of all this.

What's the political calculation here?

I mean, is he shoring up his MAGA base or does he risk alienating parts of the broader electorate that voted for him?

AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: Right.

Well, he made it very clear when he ran for office both in 2016 and 2024.

And he said, I alone can fix this and I am your retribution.

And he is following through on all of that.

If you liked that, you said, I believe he can fix it all, or I like the idea that he's our retribution, then he is delivering on his promises.

If you didn't take that seriously or maybe you didn't believe it was true or you didn't like it, well, this is where we sit right now.

Regardless of how you feel about the president, I think there has been no president in our lifetimes who has been able to wield the executive office in the way he's been able to, both, as Tam pointed out, with just pure intimidation.

He has gotten most institutions to bend to his will.

He has gotten Congress.

They are completely without any pushback.

They give no pushback at all to him.

No members of his own party do, and the way in which he has also been able to do all this, even as there are something like 300 cases still in the system.

So where this ultimately lands, Geoff, is really the fascinating question, right?

There's the historical piece of, what is the Supreme Court going to do that's going to set precedent for future presidents?

But then there's the immediate, which is, even as these cases are in court, he's still going along and pushing the boundaries until potentially those boundaries get set by the Supreme Court.

TAMARA KEITH: It's a real act first, worry about the legal consequences later, and then... AMY WALTER: Yes, which is very different than most of how Washington works.

TAMARA KEITH: And even how he worked in the first term.

AMY WALTER: Yes.

GEOFF BENNETT: That's true.

Let's talk about the future of the MAGA movement.

Tam, you attended, you covered Charlie Kirk's memorial service.

What messages did that gathering send, both intentionally and otherwise, about the direction of the MAGA movement?

What symbolism struck you as most powerful?

TAMARA KEITH: Yes, it was a real combination event.

And it was a huge event.

It took place in an NFL stadium.

As President Trump said, look at this crowd.

This isn't an arena.

This is a stadium.

And it was packed to the rafters with people wearing red, white, and blue, really just claiming hold on the idea of patriotism.

It was part political rally, part memorial service, part evangelical worship service.

There were pyrotechnics.

And there were a lot of political speeches because Charlie Kirk was a political figure.

And I think that, in terms of his organization, his wife has been named the new head.

There are real questions about whether anyone can do what Kirk did because he was this singular charismatic leader that had all of these relationships in the party and also could speak to young people.

But certainly the message that came out of it was that he was a martyr and that his death is going to strengthen the conservative movement, rather than weaken it.

That is the resolve that everyone from President Trump on down articulated.

GEOFF BENNETT: And, Amy, what does the service and the aftermath of Kirk's killing tell you about the broader trajectory of MAGA politics?

AMY WALTER: Yes, well, it was interesting to see the dichotomy in messages, Kirk's widow saying, I forgive the man who killed my husband because that is what my religion teaches me, that we forgive and we go out in love, not in hate.

Hate just magnifies itself.

Donald Trump came out and said, sorry, Erika, but I disagree, you should really hate your enemy, right?

So that dichotomy is really important.

I think the real question politically going forward is what Charlie Kirk helped to do politically was to motivate and activate a group of voters who normally hadn't been that engaged in politics, specifically younger men.

We know a lot of them voted for Trump in 2024.

Will they continue to turn out for Republicans without Trump on the ticket and without Charlie Kirk as somebody who is a voice in their feeds?

That's where most people saw him was on their social media feeds or YouTube or that sort of thing.

GEOFF BENNETT: Amy Walter, Tamara Keith, thanks, as always.

AMY WALTER: You're welcome.

TAMARA KEITH: You're welcome.

GEOFF BENNETT: And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

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