AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: A government shutdown and all its economic consequences draw closer, as Republicans remain divided on various funding bills.

AMNA NAWAZ: Amazon faces a monopoly lawsuit resulting from its practices that allegedly hurt consumers and small businesses.

GEOFF BENNETT: And former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson speaks out about the chaotic end of the Trump presidency and the January 6 insurrection.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, Former Aide to Mark Meadows: We are in a very consequential moment in American history.

And, I think the more voices we can have in this sphere, the more beneficial it is going to be in the long run.

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

The federal government is edging closer this evening to a Saturday night shutdown, with still no sign of a way out.

AMNA NAWAZ: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy called today for trying again on a stopgap measure with spending cuts and tougher border security.

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): The House is working on passing 73 percent of all the appropriation bills for the job we are supposed to do by Thursday.

We are bringing up on Friday ability to fund the government, but at the same time secure our borders.

So, yes, we are doing our job.

AMNA NAWAZ: Hard right Republicans already refused an earlier short-term measure, and it's still unclear if they will back McCarthy's play.

GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, the Senate's Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pushed a bipartisan continuing resolution today to fund operations into November.

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): We cannot have members trying last-minute delay tactics and risk a shutdown.

The C.R.

agreement the Senate has released is a good, sensible and bipartisan -- let me emphasize bipartisan -- bill.

AMNA NAWAZ: Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also supported the resolution.

He said closing the government will achieve nothing.

GEOFF BENNETT: Seven candidates for the Republican presidential nomination hold their second debate tonight.

They will meet at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.

But, as with the first debate, former President Trump won't be there.

Instead, he will be speaking to striking autoworkers and others just outside Detroit at a non-union auto supplier.

A federal judge in Washington today rejected former President Trump's request that she recuse herself from his election subversion case.

Mr. Trump had accused Judge Tanya Chutkan of making biased statements against him.

He is accused of illegally trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

Senator Bob Menendez and his wife pleaded not guilty today to federal corruption charges.

The New Jersey Democrat said nothing as he left a courthouse in New York after the arraignment.

He's accused of taking bribes of cash and gold to aid Egyptian interests and local businessmen.

More than half of all Senate Democrats are now calling for Menendez to step down.

An American soldier who fled to North Korea in July is now back in U.S. custody.

Army Private Travis King was taken to China today and transferred to American officials.

In Washington, a State Department spokesman said Sweden helped arrange King's release, but he played down any talk of a thaw in relations with North Korea.

MATTHEW MILLER, State Department Spokesman: I would not see this as the sign of some breakthrough.

I think it's a one-off.

We did not give them anything.

We made no concessions as a part of securing his return.

GEOFF BENNETT: King was flown to a U.S. military base in South Korea and was headed back to the U.S. mainland.

He had been convicted of assault before bolting across the border between the Koreas.

Now he faces military punishment for going AWOL.

The mass exodus of ethnic Armenians out of Nagorno-Karabakh is still accelerating tonight after Azerbaijan recaptured the region.

Armenian officials estimate more than 50,000 people have fled into Armenia since the weekend.

Many endured hours-long traffic jams on the road.

In Northern Iraq, authorities are investigating whether indoor fireworks caused an inferno that killed some 100 people at a wedding hall last night.

Mourners gathered today at funerals for several of the victims.

Meantime, the search for bodies continued, with a number of people still missing.

MAN (through translator): My brother and my wife are dead, but two of my daughters are missing.

We searched all of Mosul, but nothing.

We were all sitting here, and my wife went to the bathroom.

She and my brother weren't burned at all.

They suffocated, just suffocated, in the bathroom.

GEOFF BENNETT: State media reported that an arrest warrant has been issued for the wedding hall's owners.

President Biden announced a $100 million research effort today against drug-resistant bacteria.

The so-called superbugs kill more than a million people worldwide each year.

The new initiative came as the president met with science and technology advisers in San Francisco.

Data suggests the problem of drug-resistant bacteria worsened during the pandemic.

South Korean automakers Hyundai and Kia are recalling more than three million vehicles across the U.S.

They say a brake fluid leak could touch off fires in the engine compartments.

The affected models are cars and SUVs from 2010 through 2019.

Owners are advised to park outdoors until repairs are complete.

And on Wall Street, stocks struggle to find direction as investors worried about rising oil prices and interest rates.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 68 points to close at 33550.

The Nasdaq rose 29 points.

The S&P 500 was virtually unchanged.

And still to come on the "NewsHour": former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson speaks out about her time in the Trump administration; Judy Woodruff talks with a political theorist calling for sweeping changes to how the government operates; and the war in Ukraine reshapes Russian influence in Slovakia ahead of its election.

AMNA NAWAZ: As the nation moves closer to a government shutdown, there's still no clear path for funding the government either ahead of or following the deadline this weekend.

Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins has more.

LISA DESJARDINS: Whenever a deal is ultimately struck to avoid a shutdown or reopen the government, it's highly likely that moderate Republicans will feature prominently.

New York Congressman Mike Lawler is one of them.

He represents parts of the Hudson Valley, where he grew up and where he worked in government and politics for years before flipping a seat for Republicans and entering Congress this year.

Congressman, thank you for joining us.

I don't have to tell you this is a baffling situation for many Americans.

Now, I wonder, how do you think House Republicans, I know you can be blunt about this, look to Americans right now?

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Right now, some of my colleagues have created a situation that has undermined our ability to govern.

And people are frustrated, including many of my colleagues and myself.

But we are working through it, as responsible people do, and try to get us to a place where we can pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded and open while we negotiate through the appropriations process.

My colleagues and I have not disagreed about the need to cut spending.

This administration increased spending by $5 trillion in two years in new spending, totally unsustainable.

So, we have to rein in spending.

We all agree on that.

We also agreed that we need to do single-subject appropriations bills and that we need to get back to the regular practice of budgeting, which hasn't been done in nearly 30 years.

So there's not disagreement there.

But the challenge is, when you're trying to make these changes in the process, when you're trying to get people to recognize the need to go line by line, agency by agency, department by department, it takes time.

And so it's just not realistic to think that we're going to pass all 12 appropriations bills by September 30 in both the House and the Senate, go to conference, come to an agreement, repass them, and then have it signed into law by the president.

And so the only responsible thing to do is pass a C.R.

and keep the government funded while we work through that process.

LISA DESJARDINS: Yet I know that there are right now a dozen House Republicans -- I spoke to someone this morning who said they will not support a C.R., that the votes right now are not there for that kind of solution.

You, and for moderates, should you choose to, could force through that kind of a bill, joining with Democrats if you want to.

This morning, Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar said that you are just letting this continue.

Here's what he said.

REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): It's incredibly frustrating that so-called moderates time and time again have an inability to stand up to their leadership.

We lack the will of so-called moderates.

So we don't lack legislative options.

LISA DESJARDINS: The will of moderates.

I know you have heard this from all sides.

But I wonder, at what point do you seriously consider having to get on board any sort of vehicle to end a possible shutdown?

REP. MIKE LAWLER: I think it's rich coming from anybody in the Democratic leadership who allowed Nancy Pelosi to rule with an iron fist and never stood up to either leadership or the left wing of their party.

I will continue to speak out, and within -- both within the conference and publicly about the need to come to an agreement on a continuing resolution.

And as I have said repeatedly, if my colleagues within the House Republican majority are unwilling or refuse to compromise within the conference, then they will leave folks like me with no choice but to advance forward a bipartisan C.R.

through the House.

Any final C.R.

obviously is going to be bipartisan, given the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and the White House is controlled by President Biden.

But a refusal on the part of House Republicans to pass a C.R., at least as an initial offering, weakens our hand, weakens the hand of the speaker when it comes to negotiation.

And the reality is, if a shutdown occurs, President Biden will make it as painful as possible to exert as much political pressure on House Republicans.

So, to me, this is not the way to negotiate.

It's not the way to rein in spending.

It's not the way to deal with the crisis at the border.

And we need to be able to pass things through the House.

And so I have said repeatedly that I will do everything I can to avoid a shutdown and minimize any potential damage to my constituents.

And I have no problem crossing the aisle to do that.

But as the Democrats sit here and say, oh, these moderates aren't doing anything, they're actively campaigning in my district, spending millions of dollars attacking me and others about the shutdown before it even begins.

And that speaks volumes to where their head is at.

They frankly would like nothing more than to have a shutdown.

LISA DESJARDINS: The Congressional Research Service estimates that there are about 6,000 federal civilian employees in your district.

I know that you probably will hear from them on plans for a shutdown.

How frustrating is this for you at this point?

REP. MIKE LAWLER: At the end of the day, you have to be smart strategically when you're dealing with negotiations.

We are a divided government.

There is a difference of opinion between House Republicans, Senate Democrats, and the White House when it comes to spending, when it comes to border security.

And the American people elected us to serve as a check and balance.

But if you can't pass things through the House, it makes it very difficult to negotiate.

And so the frustration lies with the fact that a handful of my colleagues would rather grind the place to a halt than govern.

And that obviously complicates things for the speaker, who's done a very good job leading and giving us the ability as a conference to advance our priorities.

But when you have some folks like Matt Gaetz who refuse to work as a team, it certainly makes it very difficult.

LISA DESJARDINS: Congressman Mike Lawler of New York, we will stay in close touch in coming days.

Thank you.

REP. MIKE LAWLER: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Federal Trade Commission and 17 states have brought a sweeping lawsuit against Amazon, accusing it of violating antitrust laws.

It's the federal government's latest suit aimed at curbing the power of big tech.

The FTC and the states allege Amazon has illegally built and maintained a monopoly that harms its customers and competitors.

Amazon does this, in large part, the FTC says, by essentially punishing and strong-arming third-party sellers if they offer lower prices elsewhere or don't use Amazon's add-on services.

More than 160 million Americans have a Prime membership, and the company's net revenue last year was half-a-trillion dollars.

To explain more about the case, we're joined by John Newman, deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, who is leading this case.

Welcome to the "NewsHour."

JOHN NEWMAN, Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission: Thank you so much, Geoff.

It's great to be here.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, as we said, the FTC alleges that Amazon illegally wields monopoly power by maintaining higher prices, harming customers, weakening competition.

How exactly does it do that, in your view?

JOHN NEWMAN: Well, in the view of the commission, and not just the commission, but 17 state attorneys general joined with us in this case, Amazon has engaged in a set of tactics.

It's not just one thing, and it's not just two things.

It's really a set of tactics, and they all work together.

Now, they have different facets.

They have slightly different aspects.

They have somewhat different effects on different people, but the upshot is all the same.

They all prevent any rivals from threatening Amazon's power by competing on the merits, by offering lower prices, by offering better service.

All the things that we want companies to do in a free enterprise system, Amazon has taken great pains and engaged in an interconnected set of tactics to stamp out.

And what that does is keep Amazon really, really big and powerful and prevent anyone else from gaining the scale that would be needed to actually meaningfully compete against Amazon.

GEOFF BENNETT: Amazon calls this lawsuit -- quote - - "wrong on the facts and the law."

In a statement, it further says: "If the FTC gets its way, the result would be fewer products to choose from, higher prices, slower deliveries for consumers, and reduced options for small businesses, the opposite of what antitrust law is designed to do."

How does the FTC characterize Amazon as a monopoly when, according to government data, the company accounts for less than a third of total e-commerce sales in the U.S. over the last four quarters, and has the thinnest operating margins of its big-tech peers?

JOHN NEWMAN: Well, what you have to do to really understand the way that Amazon competes and the way that Amazon stamps out competition, Geoff, is to look at who Amazon competes closest against.

So, in some vague sense, it may be true that everybody competes with everybody, but that's really not what you would want to understand if you wanted to understand how these markets work.

And how these markets work is that Amazon competes closest against other online superstores.

Big online superstores offer a variety of products, not just one thing, not just a few things, but a variety of products that consumers want.

And in that market, Amazon is a big, dominant monopoly.

They have, our complaint alleges this, as high as 82 percent of that market.

And that makes Amazon extremely important, crucial, critical for sellers, because so many people are shopping on Amazon's online superstore, sellers need to reach those people, and they end up needing to use Amazon's marketplace.

And so we also allege that Amazon is a monopolist over sellers in a different market called the online marketplace services market.

So, in our view, it's wrong on the facts and the law to set Amazon up as competing against literally everybody else in the world.

That's just not how the law works.

It's not how the economics work either.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what's the proper remedy then?

Does the FTC want to see Amazon broken up into smaller companies?

JOHN NEWMAN: So, Geoff, this complaint, which the commission voted out unanimously and is joined by 17 states, is really about describing the facts that could give a court reason to find liability.

This complaint takes great pains and does so in great detail.

It describes Amazon's conduct.

And that's really the purpose of a complaint, is to really set forth facts that can give rise to liability, so a court could find that the law is violated.

And the complaint does ask for relief.

And it's in keeping with the great traditions of antitrust law that relief for a violation of the antitrust laws does include stopping the illegal conduct.

It also includes restoring the lost competition.

And we look out and we see, and a lot of sellers see, and a lot of Americans see a competitive landscape that has been really badly distorted in favor of one dominant player.

So, if we have done our job at the end of all this -- and this will be a lengthy proceeding - - there will be a trial at the end of it.

But at the end of all of this, a judge should, if we have done our job correctly, order relief that will restore the lost competition.

GEOFF BENNETT: The FTC has lost several high-profile battles against big businesses, including Microsoft's purchase of Activision and Meta's takeover of a V.R.

start-up.

What are the stakes as you see them, not just for the marketplace, but also for the FTC?

JOHN NEWMAN: I think the stakes are very high, but it's not so much because of the FTC's win-loss record, although I will stack our record up against any past administration's.

The stakes are high here because this case affects so many people.

I'm a student of antitrust history, as are most of us here at the Federal Trade Commission.

And I can say that very, very seldom in the history of the U.S. antitrust laws, which goes back over 100 years, has there been one case that could do so much good for so many people.

And that's why the stakes are high here.

GEOFF BENNETT: We should say we have also invited Amazon to sit down with us as well.

John Newman is deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition.

Thanks so much for your time and for your insights this evening.

JOHN NEWMAN: Thank you, Geoff.

AMNA NAWAZ: Cassidy Hutchinson made history last summer, delivering explosive testimony before the January 6 Committee.

As a top aide to President Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows, Hutchinson had a front-row seat to the final months of the Trump White House.

She details what it was like to break with Trump world in her new book, "Enough."

I sat down with her earlier today.

Cassidy, thank you so much for joining us.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, Former Aide to Mark Meadows: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: Your life changed dramatically over a year ago, and it has been over a year, but just big picture, how are you doing today?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I'm doing pretty well today.

I have spent the last year, 15 months-ish in pretty much very private.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: So, I sort of went off kind of overnight from living privately with my dog, George, to being on national television, which that was a little bit of an abrupt adjustment.

But I feel good about it, and I feel good about what we're doing and what the larger conversation at hand too.

AMNA NAWAZ: Life in the White House, I think it's fair to say, was a world away from where you grew up, right, a kid from Pennington, New Jersey, for a 20-something to suddenly be in the halls of power with some of the most powerful people.

You eventually join Mark Meadows' team when he becomes chief of staff to then-President Trump.

And you're really -- it's fair to say you're in the inner circle.

And I wonder how that kind of contributed to your sense of this idea of loyalty we hear again and again.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I took the job in legislative affairs knowing that I wanted to pursue a career in public service and that my loyalty was to my country.

When I took the job with Mark Meadows, I still had that mind-set.

I had that conversation with him, that my loyalty and my duty and obligations were to the office of the chief of staff, not Mark Meadows as an individual.

And I still felt that loyalty, but I also felt it towards the principles that I served.

And that is a notion that's expected in Trump world.

And when you falter from that, you're seen as somebody that you have a target on your back.

You become subjected to either Donald Trump attacking you, or you get exiled from that world.

AMNA NAWAZ: It sounds like a really oppressive environment.

Is that the right word?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: In hindsight, looking back now, looking back now with the perspective that I have, I would say suffocating, in a way, because I found myself in a position where I was just in very staunch, just staunch disagreement for what happened on January 6.

And I was fairly vocal about that.

Actually, I was very vocal about that after January 6.

And -- but I also still felt that lingering senses of loyalty to Donald Trump, to the administration.

But I spent really a year-and-a-half overcoming that.

And that's how I ultimately -- and that's really why I decided to write the book, is because I wanted people to understand that I didn't just magically appear in that chair on June 20.

And it wasn't -- and it's not -- I'm not saying this to be flattering or pat myself on the back.

It's not -- a lot of this isn't flattering for me.

And there are a lot of things looking back now that I have this perspective that I wish I had at the time.

But I'm happy with where I'm at now.

AMNA NAWAZ: I mean, as you say, look, hindsight is 20/20, right?

But there are -- you do touch on a number of times when you're in the White House and you see things that give you pause.

And you think, what's going on here?

Like, the one that stuck out to me was Mark Meadows repeatedly burning documents in his office.

You said, you would walk in to hand him lunch or something else.

He always had a fire going.

And you didn't know what he was burning.

Did you ever think, I should tell someone about this?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: In the moment, no.

AMNA NAWAZ: And why not?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: On one hand, yes, it was abnormal.

And, yes, I was aware that that was not what he should be doing.

But what I think it's difficult for people to understand, and rightfully so, almost every moment of every day was sort of a hair-on-fire moment.

So, I was going in there sometimes delivering him lunch, but I also had a list of things to talk to him about.

So I would see this.

I would know that there were things that were wrong.

It gave me an unsettling feeling.

It caused me pause.

The person that I would have talked to about that naturally would have been Mark Meadows, but, at that time, it wasn't something that I was going to raise, because I also didn't feel that I would either get an honest answer, or it wouldn't be something that would be a productive conversation.

AMNA NAWAZ: You didn't feel like it would go anywhere.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Mark Meadows was a grown man, and I had a job, and my job had a purpose, but my -- the purpose of my job was not to police and control every single one of his actions.

Looking back now, should I have said something?

Possibly.

But would that have changed anything?

I don't know.

But what I do know is, I came forward truthfully and honestly, and I have been candid and honest.

I don't know what those documents were.

But, bigger picture here too, these are the same people that are avoiding subpoenas or avoiding testifying.

They're also the same people that have all this information.

I came forward with what I know, hopefully to give other people the opportunity to come forward with their stories and what they know.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have just gotten a subpoena to testify before the committee investigating January 6, and you can't find or afford a lawyer at that point.

So you end up relying on so-called Trump world to pay for one.

And until you free yourself from that lawyer, you're basically told, the less you know, the better.

But then you change your testimony when you get a new lawyer, right?

Tell me about that.

Why?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I ultimately -- I spoke with hundreds of attorneys.

I could not find someone that was willing to work pro bono or work out a reasonable cost structure, because I wasn't working at the time.

I was relying off of my savings account.

Then I was served as a subpoena, ultimately turned to Trump world.

And I was very candid with Trump world about my situation.

And I was desperate.

Yes, I was given counsel that I followed in the first few interviews with the committee.

But I also knew, because I was on the inside, that there is a sense and an expectation of, when you take something from Donald Trump, in this case specifically legal counsel, there's an expectation that you are also protecting somebody else.

That somebody else is Donald Trump.

AMNA NAWAZ: You did vote for him before, right?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I did.

AMNA NAWAZ: If he's the nominee again, would you vote for him?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I would not vote for Donald Trump in 2024.

But I also do not want to sit here and catastrophize the scenario where he is actually the Republican nominee.

I think it is the responsibility of all Americans right now to have a national conversation and to provoke difficult conversations about the dangers of Donald Trump as an individual.

And what I would fear most about a second Trump term is, we saw how it ended.

We saw that the people who were surrounding him were not only offering bad advice, but were offering dangerous advice.

He was and continues to be surrounded by people who believe and proliferate poisonous conspiracy theories that is becoming the bedrock of the Republican Party.

And I think that, in this next year, we need to do everything we can to make sure that the man who is now facing four criminal indictments is not the Republican nominee on that ticket, that we can help restore normalcy and decency and ethics to our politics.

AMNA NAWAZ: Cassidy, one of the most explosive moments from your testimony was when you shared the story about, on January 6, Mr. Trump insisting he wanted to go to the Capitol, then trying to grab the steering wheel to get Secret Service to take him there.

What do you think he wanted to do there?

What do you think he would have done if he made it to the Capitol?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I could speculate.

And I just -- and I don't believe it's the most responsible thing for me to do, be to sit here and speculate.

But what I will say is, Donald Trump knows the effect that his words have on people.

He knows that he -- his words have power to rile people up, that his words have power to stroke violence.

He knows that his words have power to turn a massive portion of the population against a single individual.

It is not lost on me that there was a reason that Donald Trump wanted to go to the Capitol.

He summoned those people to Washington, D.C., on January 6 for a reason.

He knew what was happening on January 6, the certification of the election, of the Electoral College votes.

I believe that Donald Trump wanted to go to the Capitol, not just to make another little speech.

He knows what the impact that his presence would have at the Capitol that day.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have your whole life ahead of you.

This was the first few years of your professional career, right?

What do you want to do?

Do you still want to stay in politics?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: In the immediate, no.

And what I mean by that, though, is, I don't see myself right now wanting to go work on Capitol Hill.

I think that the most effective use of my time right now is contributing to a national conversation about the state of our democracy, which is in -- it's -- I mean, our democracy is fragile.

And I don't want to say, no, I would never return to politics, because I do still feel that passion.

I still feel that dedication to -- that politics is the better -- about bettering our nation and our institutions.

AMNA NAWAZ: Even after what you lived through?

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Even after what I lived through.

AMNA NAWAZ: Cassidy Hutchinson, thank you so much for your time.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: Thank you for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: A new Pew Research study has confirmed what you might already suspect.

Americans feel intense dissatisfaction with the way our government currently works and a growing distaste for both political parties.

One of the main voices calling for sweeping change is Danielle Allen, a political theorist at Harvard.

Judy Woodruff followed her to Tennessee to explore some of her ideas for our ongoing series America at a Crossroads.

DANIELLE ALLEN, Harvard University: But we don't really seem like we can actually address real problems that we have in our society.

So there's real basis for people's frustration with where democracy is.

JUDY WOODRUFF: These days, Danielle Allen is on a mission, crisscrossing the country to talk about how our democracy isn't doing what it was designed to do and needs radical change.

DANIELLE ALLEN: We have to redesign our institutions so that they are responsive and accountable at the same time that we are also reconnecting people to their own civic experience, power and responsibility.

JUDY WOODRUFF: A political theorist at Harvard, Allen was pushed into action by what she calls red alerts, single-digit approval ratings for Congress, record distrust of the federal government, declining voter participation, falling support for democracy among younger generations, and a very personal sense of frustration with government in action.

DANIELLE ALLEN: I lost my youngest cousin, Michael, shot and killed.

And his life journey is a -- really was a difficult one and it's a hard story.

He spent about 12 years in prison and then was shot and killed by somebody that he had met while he was in prison.

And losing Michael was a real sort of wakeup call moment for me.

So my first effort was to dig into specific policy domains, for example, criminal justice reform.

But I soon realized that, even where we had bipartisan solutions, you couldn't get them through, especially at the federal level, because of governance dysfunction.

JUDY WOODRUFF: From 2018 to 2020, she co-chaired a bipartisan commission for the American Academy of Arts and sciences that produced our common purpose, a report detailing 31 recommendations on how to reinvent American democracy in the 21st century.

They included an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices, a constitutional amendment on campaign finance laws, holding federal elections on Veterans Day, a holiday, and dramatically expanding the House of Representatives.

To do that, Allen adds, she would end partisan primaries.

And a personal note: I served on that commission, but did not advocate for any policy changes.

DANIELLE ALLEN: Our constitutional democracy is, in effect, a house that our forefathers and foremothers have built and that we have inherited and live in.

Doesn't exactly fit all of our needs in the 21st century.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Allen highlighted some of these ideas last week during lectures at the Institute of American Civics at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville.

DANIELLE ALLEN: We're a lot bigger people.

We're a lot more complex.

The house wasn't really built for everybody in the first place, so there's a need to renovate to address all of those features of our current situation.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Following her class, we sat down to talk through some of those recommendations in the office of former Tennessee Senator Howard Baker, the institute's namesake.

One of the recommendations that you have talked about a lot is increasing the size of the House of Representatives.

Why is it necessary?

DANIELLE ALLEN: When the Constitution was ratified, the expectation was that the House of Representatives would grow continuously, decade to decade, with each census.

That's what happened up until 1929.

In 1929, there were some tough politics about exactly how to do reapportionment, and they just kind of gave up and decided to cap the size of the House as it was then at 435.

So at that point, we stopped growing.

Originally, the hope was for a ratio of about 30,000 constituents to every representative.

We're up to 750,000.

And so that sort of tight bond that connects a representative to the practical realities of their district is just not where it was and not what we need.

There's also issues of money in politics.

The bigger the district, the more expensive it is to run for office, and the more influence money has on the behavior of our elected representatives.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In her ongoing opinion series on constitutional democracy for The Washington Post, Allen worked with architect Michael Murphy to figure out if it was physically possible to expand the House chamber to accommodate more members.

They found they could nearly quadruple the number of representatives without having to construct a new building.

How do you get members of Congress to vote to dilute their own power?

DANIELLE ALLEN: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Because, essentially, that's what they'd be doing.

DANIELLE ALLEN: Well, I don't think the path to this change goes through Congress as we know it now.

That's the trick.

So the question is, how do you deliver a Congress that might potentially make decisions of this kind about itself?

I think that actually requires work at the state level.

And, in particular, I think we really need to shift away from our reliance on party primaries.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Allen suggests what she calls all-comers preliminaries, which would be open to candidates from any party or no party, with the top finalists advancing to the general election regardless of party affiliation.

These types of races already exist in some form in five states, Louisiana, California, Washington, Alaska, and Nebraska.

So you would first, in order to begin to even think about enlarging the size of the House, you would first change the partisan primary?

DANIELLE ALLEN: That's right.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And is there an appetite, you think, in American politics to do that?

You're asking our political parties to give up some of the clout, a lot of the clout that they have right now.

DANIELLE ALLEN: Yes, I am.

I'm asking the American people, though, to claim their power.

That's where we get into the real conundrum of our current circumstances.

If you look at our current political situation, I think it's fair to say that a supermajority of Americans share the view that they don't actually like the upcoming choices for our election that the two parties are delivering.

So we actually have a supermajority of Americans that doesn't want what look like our likely choices.

Yet that supermajority is trapped by the party system.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And that points to a critical part of Allen's push to update our structure of government, getting more Americans civically educated and engaged, work we witnessed firsthand in Knoxville.

STUDENT: The 70-year-olds, 80-year-olds that are in office currently, I feel like that doesn't accurately represent what I'm looking for in my life.

DANIELLE ALLEN: The average age, for example, of senators just has really climbed precipitously in the 20th century and obviously in our presidential candidates.

So there is a sense of disconnection there across generations as well.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Changing the partisan primary appealed to students we spoke to, who blame partisanship for the level of apathy among their peers.

OWEN LINVILLE, College Student: That's a big problem for my generation, because we have only really known the more partisan politics with the less cooperation.

JACKSON SCOTT, College Student: Many of people my age have really -- are beginning to lose hope in our democracy.

Our vote doesn't count.

Supreme Court justices aren't even elected.

We have career politicians.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Allen's main recommendation for the Supreme Court is to do away with life terms.

DANIELLE ALLEN: It's become clear that the Supreme Court is exceptionally powerful.

It's become more politicized.

What do we do about that?

I am a supporter of term limits on a schedule of everybody serving for 18 years, so that every presidential term would bring two appointments to the judiciary.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Two practitioners of politics, former Tennessee Governors Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, and Bill Haslam, a Republican who refused to back President Trump, served with Allen on the board here at the Institute of American Civics, where they also co-host a podcast that encourages bipartisan civic dialogue.

FMR.

GOV.

PHIL BREDESEN (D-TN): I think any institution like democracy needs kind of a constant renewal and renovation.

And it doesn't do this in its own way.

FMR.

GOV.

BILL HASLAM (R-TN): One of the things I'm increasingly concerned about is how many normal people are saying, I have had enough.

Our democracy won't work if people just check out.

JUDY WOODRUFF: They question whether some of Allen's and the commission's solutions are the right ones, but believe our system isn't working as is.

FMR.

GOV.

BILL HASLAM: I'm not so certain about expanding the size of Congress, but it's worth the debate, if nothing else, for us as a country to recognize, the path we're on right now has not been fruitful in terms of producing actual results lately.

FMR.

GOV.

PHIL BREDESEN: We got there not through some big action, but all sorts of little things that have happened.

I think the solutions are going to be similarly diffuse, and then what it's going to take is a lot of good people like Danielle Allen and what she's doing who are willing to step forward and try to say, I'm going to pull an oar on trying to solve this problem.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Allen acknowledges that all of this work is difficult and will take time, but she finds hope in her own family's story and in this country's history.

DANIELLE ALLEN: I think of my great-grandparents, who I'm sure we're told women having the right to vote is just not realistic.

We have the right to vote.

I think of my grandfather, who I am sure, I know was told social equality for African Americans in the South is not going to happen.

We don't have a perfect world, but we have made a heck of a lot of progress on that dimension, for sure.

So, that's how I see this too.

When people tell me it's not realistic, I just think, hah, hah, hah, you will see.

You will see, because it's necessary, because too many of us feel trapped.

So, I know the appetite for something different is out there.

So, the only question is going to be how we get there.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So it's not Don Quixote?

(LAUGHTER) DANIELLE ALLEN: No, it's not.

It's going to change.

It's going to change.

The only question is how and when.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Big questions and big solutions from someone fighting for change one mind at a time.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Judy Woodruff in Knoxville, Tennessee.

AMNA NAWAZ: When the war in Ukraine first began, its Western neighbor Slovakia was one of the first European Union countries to provide military aid.

That support, as well as Slovakia's Westward orientation, could soon be coming to an end.

The small nation of 5.5 million is slated for snap elections on Saturday, and the party predicted to win is advocating for a more pro-Russian stance.

Special correspondent Simona Foltyn reports from Slovakia.

SIMONA FOLTYN: The election campaign in Slovakia is in full swing.

We're in the small town of Nitra at a rally of SMER, a conservative right-wing party that is leading the polls.

Many of its supporters are disillusioned with Slovakia's progressive Western-leaning governments.

IVAN KOLLAR, SMER Supporter (through translator): It's understandable that there is a pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Fine.

But the current and previous governments were both dysfunctional, and they shouldn't have sent so much support to Ukraine.

JOZEF SEDLARIK, SMER Supporter (through translator): For three years, this government has been destroying the people.

They have nothing to eat.

The pensions are too small.

SIMONA FOLTYN: Many here are retired and struggle to get by on a few hundred euros per month amid rising energy and food prices.

Some tell us the main reason they have come is to enjoy a warm meal.

Economic hardship has offered fertile ground for the populist policies of SMER's leader.

The word SMER means direction, and the direction that Robert Fico wants to take Slovakia has the European Union worried.

He's against migration.

ROBERT FICO, SMER Leader (through translator): We reject any obligatory migration quotas.

SIMONA FOLTYN: And against liberalism.

ROBERT FICO (through translator): We reject the introduction of gender ideologies into our schools.

Marriage is a unique union between a man and a woman, period.

Goodbye.

SIMONA FOLTYN: And, perhaps most significantly, he wants to reshape Slovakia's geopolitical alignment.

ROBERT FICO (through translator): These will be politicians who don't have a problem to tell Brussels no, who won't have to tell Ukraine that, no, we won't give you weapons.

You will only get humanitarian aid.

SIMONA FOLTYN: Long forgotten seems 2018, when the two-time former prime minister resigned following the murder of a Slovak journalist who was investigating his government's links to organized crime.

Robert Fico has managed to stage quite the political comeback by capitalizing on internal divisions within Slovakia that have grown since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

One of his main campaign promises has been to halt Slovakia's military support to the Ukrainian government.

Slovakia was one of the first countries to send weapons to Ukraine, including fighter jets.

It even gave away its air defense system.

In the capital, Bratislava, we meet acting Defense Minister Martin Sklenar.

MARTIN SKLENAR, Acting Defense Minister of Slovakia: We are really doing our utmost to support them.

We are a neighboring country.

Whatever happens in Ukraine right now has direct influence.

For us, for our security and our defense, it is important that Ukraine prevails.

SIMONA FOLTYN: Slovakia has been a member of NATO since 2004, but the partnership deepened after Russia invaded Ukraine.

MARTIN SKLENAR: We have four countries who are actually flying over Slovakia if necessary and protecting our airspace, really, another level of engagement which we haven't seen since, well, our infamous history in 1968.

SIMONA FOLTYN: 1968 is when Soviet troops invaded what was then Czechoslovakia to crush the Prague spring.

Vladimir Holcik and Marian Trnik, two retired water engineers, were in their 20s back then.

VLADIMIR HOLCIK, Retired Water Engineer (through translator): They marched in.

Imagine that there were tanks right here, armored vehicles, everything destroyed, looted.

MARIAN TRNIK, Retired Water Engineer (through translator): They came up with some pretext that there were counter-revolutionaries here, just like they came up with a pretext that there were fascists in Ukraine.

SIMONA FOLTYN: For them, the parallels between the two invasions are plain to see.

VLADIMIR HOLCIK (through translator): It's exactly the same thing.

Russia is an aggressive state, an evil empire that wants to expand.

SIMONA FOLTYN: I ask them if the Slovak government should keep supplying military aid to Ukraine.

VLADIMIR HOLCIK (through translator): Of course we should.

All of Europe should help, however they can, with planes, tanks, whatever we can provide, so that Ukraine's democracy is preserved, even if they have oligarchs, bribery and corruption.

But, in the end, the Ukrainian state is a democratic one.

SIMONA FOLTYN: But fewer and fewer Slovaks share that attitude, says DOMINIKA HAJDU hat GLOBSEC, a Bratislava-based think tank.

DOMINIKA HAJDU, GLOBSEC: For example, the support for NATO has declined.

Also, when it comes to the narratives about the war in Ukraine, the support for the narratives in line with the Kremlin's propaganda have increased.

SIMONA FOLTYN: Hajdu says that Slovakia's susceptibility to disinformation is rooted in both poor education and media literacy, but also the country's history.

DOMINIKA HAJDU: So there's this narrative that Slovakia has always been under the oppression of Hungarians and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Germans, then the Czechs.

You know, you name it.

SIMONA FOLTYN: This is something that's very easy for populists to tap into, this kind of sentiment.

DOMINIKA HAJDU: Absolutely.

And just this notion that you actually cannot influence anything because there's always some other force behind everything really leads into this conspiratorial thinking.

SIMONA FOLTYN: Disinformation has become enough of a problem that a special unit has been set up in the Ministry of Interior to counter it.

David Puchovsky and his small team monitor social media and debunk hoaxes.

DAVID PUCHOVSKY, Ministry of Interior, Slovakia (through translator): There's a big base of people who believe disinformation.

It's between 40 and 50 percent.

SIMONA FOLTYN: And the disinformants seem to have taken a cue from Donald Trump after the 2020 U.S. election.

DAVID PUCHOVSKY (through translator): With regard to elections, we warned this spring that a narrative emerged about forged elections.

SIMONA FOLTYN: The aim of such narratives, Puchovsky warns, is to subvert the state.

This election isn't just a fight over votes and political agendas.

It has turned into a battleground in an information war that is challenging mainstream narratives, not just about current affairs, but also about Slovakia's history, and specifically the role Russia has played here in the past.

Slovakia is peppered with memorials like this one that commemorate the Soviet Union and Russian soldiers who died fighting Nazi Germany on Slovak soil.

But the liberators turned into occupiers, and Slovakia remained under the yoke of the Soviet Union for almost half-a-century.

Now some are trying to overhaul Russia's legacy.

This group is called Brat Za Brata, which roughly translates into Brothers For One Another.

They honor Soviet era memorials and veterans as part of what they call a fight for the truth.

The leader, Matus Alexa, tells me the group has 70,000 registered supporters in Slovakia.

MATUS ALEXA, Leader, Brat Za Brata (through translator): The objective of these activities is to not forget about the atrocities committed during World War II and to honor the heroes of the war.

SIMONA FOLTYN: Their affinity for Russia is plain to see and hear, but Alexa says their activities are purely cultural and unfairly politicized.

MATUS ALEXA (through translator): We always try to stay away from politics.

No political subject can dictate whether I should bow down when I want to honor my forefathers.

SIMONA FOLTYN: But the group has long been on the radar of the Ministry of Interior.

Puchovsky says that they act in concert with Russian authorities.

DAVID PUCHOVSKY (through translator): They put it in the context of the present, that just like those who fell here for the sake of Slovakia were heroes, the present-day Russian army is also heroic, so we have to be proud and have good relations with Russia.

SIMONA FOLTYN: It's an attempt to harness pan-Slavic sentiment in a divided nation that could soon turn into a problem child for the European Union.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Simona Foltyn in Slovakia.

GEOFF BENNETT: A student research project in Boston is drawing attention to price disparities between grocery stores and high and low-income neighborhoods.

Student journalist Sriya Tallapragada reports on this story produced during "NewsHour"'s Student Reporting Labs' Summer Academy, where teens from around the country come together to hone their journalism, film and storytelling skills.

EUNISS YOYO, Hyde Square Task Force: It's kind of like something that you put off to the side and you just kind of underestimate yourself and your gut feelings, but then, when you really do the research and you find all the facts, it's an injustice.

SRIYA TALLAPRAGADA: Meet Euniss and Dereck, two 15-year-old members of the Hyde Square Task Force, a Boston-based nonprofit working to amplify the voices of youth.

DERECK MEDINA, Hyde Square Task Force: So Ken Tangvik, he's our teacher.

He has been involved with us since the start of this project.

KEN TANGVIK, Hyde Square Task Force: So I definitely tried to go in and see what their interests are.

And so we had a brainstorming session in January of 2023.

EUNISS YOYO: They wanted to find out more about the effects of inflation on their community, and they came across an article that stated that low-income communities pay more for groceries than higher-income communities.

They wanted to put that to the test, so they went to our local Stop & Shop.

Later, another group of youth went down to the Stop & Shop in a more affluent neighborhood.

And we bought the exact same products, down to the same brand.

And we found that the total amount that we spent at the Stop & Shop in Jamaica Plain was significantly higher than the Stop & Shop in Dedham.

KEN TANGVIK: We all thought it was interesting and could be valuable to Stop & Shop.

And so I thought for sure, they'd say, wow, a group of students.

This will be good public relations.

We can talk to them about it.

We can learn together.

DERECK MEDINA: Then they answered back to us.

They basically said, good luck with your project.

KEN TANGVIK: We got a consensus within our organization, like, yes, we should go to the media.

Stop & Shop was being followed by reporters from all over the city and reporters saying, are you going to meet with the youth?

And they kept saying, we can't comment on that.

We can't comment on that.

Then the attorney general called us and said, we want to meet with you.

SRIYA TALLAPRAGADA: When asked for comment, Stop & Shop said there are many factors that contribute to different prices, such as rent, labor costs, store size, and selection.

They then referenced their history of opening community initiatives throughout the Boston area, including 20 school-based food pantries.

KEN TANGVIK: Interestingly enough, the day after the Boston Globe story came out, and it was a big front-page headline, they opened up a food pantry and tried to call in the citywide media to cover them that just happened to be in our neighborhood, just happened to be a couple days after the Globe story came out.

SRIYA TALLAPRAGADA: Stop & Shop says the food pantry was planned long before the student report.

They also highlighted the small tract of land surrounding the Jamaica Plain store that you had selected to determine median income as being misleading.

After the media coverage, Stop & Shop agreed to meet with the task force.

EUNISS YOYO: We don't want to assume anything, because we don't want to, like, throw any accusations around or make any uneducated assumptions about Stop & Shop, which is why we're going to that meeting to hear them out.

SRIYA TALLAPRAGADA: In a statement after the meeting, Stop & Shop says they toured the newly opened food pantry and shared their concerns with the task force report.

They say the 20 products the student purchased represent 1 percent of the 10,000 items available in the two stores, and the overall difference in price between the stores is much lower than reported.

The Hyde Square Task Force students are reviewing this information to respond.

DERECK MEDINA: This issue can affect not just Boston or these two small communities.

It can affect everywhere, because food equity is an issue that is all -- is an all-around world thing.

EUNISS YOYO: Being part of Hyde Square Task Force has helped me see community issues in a way that I haven't seen before and helped me believe that I myself can help make those changes that I want to see in the community.

SRIYA TALLAPRAGADA: For the "PBS NewsHour" Student Reporting Labs, I'm Sriya Tallapragada in Boston, Massachusetts.

GEOFF BENNETT: Student journalists making a difference.

AMNA NAWAZ: Good for them.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there is a lot more online, including a story about the reopening of a famous deli in New Orleans that serves a world-renowned muffuletta sandwich, and how the restaurant's difficult journey exemplifies the struggle to rebuild after hurricanes.

That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.

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

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

Thanks for spending part of your evening with us.