AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Geoff Bennett is away.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Israel and Hezbollah agreed to a cease-fire, but not before a heavy bombardment killed dozens in Lebanon and delayed negotiations between the U.S.

and Iran.

Why breakthrough weight loss drugs might have other potential health benefits, including a reduction in cancer risks.

DR.

NEIL IYENGAR, Emory University School of Medicine: I think that we are standing really at the precipice of a massive possible shift in the global health burden, not only of obesity, but obesity-related cancers.

AMNA NAWAZ: And the Obama Center opens to the public and offers a new vision for presidential legacies.

BARACK OBAMA, Former President of the United States: The exhibits here focus not just on policies, but on the shared values that make democracy possible.

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

Heavy overnight fighting in Southern Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah militants threatened today to derail the initial U.S.-Iran agreement to end the war.

But a last-ditch effort to secure another cease-fire succeeded, for now.

And the Americans and Iranians plan to meet soon to begin to hammer out a longer-term accord.

Our White House correspondent, Liz Landers, starts off our coverage again tonight.

LIZ LANDERS: From dusk until dawn, Israeli missiles rained down on more than 100 targets, rocking Southern Lebanon and clouding the horizon with smoke, more city blocks reduced to rubble.

Lebanese health officials reported nearly 50 people killed.

They did not say how many were militants.

The strikes appeared to be the last shots against Hezbollah before a commitment to calm.

A U.S.

official confirms to the "News Hour" that Israel and the Iran-backed militant group agreed to a conditional cease-fire facilitated by Qatar and the U.S.

But Israel says that it's keeping its forces inside Lebanon and, after reasserting its right to self-defense, appeared to hit Hezbollah after the cease-fire began.

BRIG.

GEN.

EFFIE DEFRIN, Israeli Defense Forces Spokesperson (through translator): We are maintaining a forward defensive presence as long as there's a threat.

As long as Hezbollah remains a threat, we will remain forward-positioned.

LIZ LANDERS: Israel says its latest strikes were to avenge four of its soldiers who they say were killed in a Hezbollah attack inside Lebanon.

Israel's ramped-up fighting in Lebanon and its rhetoric has threatened to unravel a new round of talks between the U.S.

and Iran.

Both Washington and Tehran reached an agreement to stop the war on -- quote - - "all fronts, including in Lebanon."

A war of words spilled out across social media earlier today.

Israel's hard-line national security minister, himself convicted of terror offenses in Israeli court, wrote -- quote -- "With all due respect to the Americans, the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not forfeit.

All of Lebanon must burn."

Iran's top diplomat replied, calling the Israeli government a -- quote -- "genocidal death cult" whose -- quote -- "only interest is permanent war."

Far from the battlefront to a placid lakeside in Switzerland, heavy security remains in place.

And mediators from Qatar wait at the lavish resort that's set to host the next round of peace talks between U.S.

and Iranian negotiators.

J.D.

VANCE, Vice President of the United States: All right, good morning, everybody.

LIZ LANDERS: Vice President J.D.

Vance delayed his trip for today's scheduled meeting near Lucerne, the White House citing logistics that have -- quote -- "never been simple or predictable."

No word on when the direct talks will begin.

That abrupt postponement comes just days after President Trump signed the preliminary deal to try and end the war.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: It's 60 days, have to make a deal.

Otherwise, we will do things that won't make them happy, but I don't think it's going to get to that.

I think it's going to be very good.

LIZ LANDERS: The president showed little concern about the talks as he unveiled a new Air Force One Boeing 747 today, a refitted $400 million jet gifted to him by Qatar.

And in a new interview with Axios taped before last night's violence, Mr.

Trump defended that deal and said the fighting exacted total surrender from Iran.

QUESTION: And it certainly brought Iran to the table more than before.

However, beginning of the conflict, you had talked about you only wanted unconditional surrender.

And... DONALD TRUMP: Well... QUESTION: ... the MOU doesn't look like unconditional surrender.

DONALD TRUMP: Well, it really probably is unconditional surrender.

QUESTION: It is?

DONALD TRUMP: I think so.

LIZ LANDERS: Speaking on "The Today Show," former President Barack Obama criticized the conflict and lamented the U.S.

withdrawal from his own nuclear deal, the JCPOA, which President Trump scrapped in his first term.

BARACK OBAMA, Former President of the United States: We have now fought a war, spent billions and billions of dollars, put an enormous strain on our military.

A lot of people have died.

And it feels like we're back where we were before we started the war, except maybe a little bit worse.

LIZ LANDERS: As for the state of the talks, Iran's Foreign Ministry says plans are still under way to host a meeting with the U.S.

in the coming days.

But that's only if fighting does not return to Lebanon.

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

AMNA NAWAZ: So what are the prospects that the Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire will hold, and for how long?

For insights, we turn now to Rob Malley.

He was the U.S.

special envoy for Iran during the Biden administration and was also part of the team that negotiated the 2015 Iran nuclear deal during the Obama administration.

He's now a senior fellow at Yale and president emeritus of the International Crisis Group, where he directs their Middle East Program.

He joins us tonight from Abu Dhabi.

Rob, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Let's start with that first question here.

In your view, how real is the possibility that the fighting in Lebanon, Israel and Hezbollah, neither backing off, how real is the possibility it could derail the entire process moving forward?

ROBERT MALLEY, Former U.S.

Special Envoy to Iran: Well, this is a deal that is brimming with ambiguity, with discrepant interpretations, room for discord, nowhere and nowhere more violently than when it comes to Lebanon.

And that's because, in that case, Israel's position is, we should have a free hand to take the action that we believe is necessary for our self-defense, for our security, and we're certainly not going to withdraw from Southern Lebanon.

Iran takes the view that the deal provides for a comprehensive cease-fire, which they interpret as meaning respect for Lebanese sovereignty and therefore an end to the occupation.

And the U.S.

doesn't really seem to know what it wants, other than to scramble repeatedly to salvage the deal.

So it probably is the most delicate piece of the deal at this point.

And the question is going to be, does the U.S.

put enough pressure on Netanyahu?

Is Netanyahu prepared to alienate his political base, which is not happy about an imposed cease-fire?

And is Iran prepared to turn a blind eye to some violations of the cease-fire so long as they don't cross a threshold?

And that's a delicate balancing act we have seen play out today.

And I suspect we're going to see it playing out over the days to come.

AMNA NAWAZ: As I mentioned, you're joining us from Abu Dhabi.

Tell us how this deal, the news events of the last few days, the framework deal, the details that have come out, the limited, now tenuous cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, how is all of that resonating in the Gulf region?

ROBERT MALLEY: So I just heard Vice President Vance saying the difference between this deal and the JCPOA is that whereas, in 2015, the Gulf countries were apoplectic about the deal, now they're enthusiastic.

I'd say that's overstated.

It is true that they are much happier today than they were in 2015, but that's not because they love this deal.

It's because they wanted to enter this war.

This war was costing them economically.

It was costing them in terms of their image of stability, security, the financial hub that is Dubai, right near where I am today.

So they're relieved that it's over.

They are quite skeptical that this deal is going to come to fruition in terms of the greater, broader deal that's supposed to occur in 60 days.

But at this point, what they want to do is make sure that the fighting doesn't resume and get to negotiations.

AMNA NAWAZ: How do you see this deal and negotiations moving forward?

Because I should point out, when the details first came out, there was a lot of criticism about what Iran got from the deal versus what the U.S.

got.

You supported the agreement.

You said that it was preferable to any of the alternatives on offer, period.

Why?

Where do you think it leads next?

ROBERT MALLEY: So, the first thing, for me, what is the target right now, what is the real object of criticism is the war, not this deal, this memorandum of understanding, which is necessary to end it.

And so, yes, when you have a war that is catastrophic, that leads to strategic failure, strategic defeat by the U.S., you don't - - you can't get the ideal deal that you would want.

You get a deal that at a minimum does two things, ends the war, opens the Strait of Hormuz.

That's what it does.

And that's what I say, we should welcome it.

By the way, when people say that it surrenders so much for Iran, let's not forget how much Iran has lost as a result of this illegal - - illegal unnecessary unjustified war, hundreds of billions of dollars of losses.

A 10 percent drop in their GDP is what the estimate is at this point.

So the benefits they're going to get in terms of some oil sales, perhaps some access to the frozen assets, that's peanuts compared to what they lost.

When the critics are talking about the big deal, the big amounts of money that Iran might get, that's if they get the nuclear deal, which we're far from achieving at this point, and I think there's every reason to be skeptical that they will get there.

So, at this point, they're not getting that much.

They still suffered far more than they're going to receive.

I'm not sure why people should look at that and say that Iran has somehow plundered the U.S.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, this leads me to what we have heard from Vice President J.D.

Vance as well, which is that Iran is somehow economically incentivized to change their behavior.

Do you agree with that?

I mean, what have you seen from this regime, from Mojtaba Khamenei in particular, that says Iran could change its behavior because of economic incentives?

ROBERT MALLEY: It's a great question.

Obviously, there's going to be a debate in Iran between the leadership, between those who say we now have this opportunity.

Let's make some concessions, not the grand transformation that the Trump administration is talking about, but some serious concessions, in order to get genuine economic relief, and others who are going to say, we can't trust the United States.

They have betrayed us more than once, and this president twice in the last year, we can't trust their promises.

We have shown that we can -- we have more leverage by closing the Strait of Hormuz than anywhere else.

So let's not accept this and let's not give up our ideological creed for the sake of an unreliable president.

So I think there's going to be a debate.

My hope is that some economic incentives are going to be enough to get Iran to move from where they are now.

I'm not somebody who believes that this is going to happen overnight, that it's going to be a 180 degree transformation.

But I do think that what is needed is real economic incentives with the Gulf countries I'm in right now are prepared to give in exchange for concessions by Iran.

AMNA NAWAZ: So I have less than a minute left.

I have to ask the big question here, which is, now the 60-day clock has begun.

Do you see this leading to some kind of lasting nuclear deal?

ROBERT MALLEY: I think the notion that, in 60 days, they're going to be able to resolve all of the issues pertaining to sanctions, all other issues pertaining to the nuclear program is virtually impossible.

What I think is possible is either progress that incentivize both to get an extension, which is contemplated by the deal, or mini-deals, small nuclear steps, small sanctions relief, something better than breaking -- than a breakdown, which would lead to resumption of war, closure of the Strait of Hormuz, with all the damage that we have already witnessed.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, Robert Malley, president emeritus of the International Crisis Center, joining us tonight from Abu Dhabi, thank you so much for your time.

ROBERT MALLEY: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other headlines: National weather officials are warning of significant and potentially life-threatening flash flooding across the Gulf Coast and Southeastern U.S.

as the remnants of Tropical Storm Arthur sweep across the region.

In Mississippi, strong winds dislodged this storage trailer and some areas in the state have seen about a foot of rain.

The governor says there's been at least one storm-related death.

Also today: MAN: Unbelievable.

AMNA NAWAZ: Louisiana is under a state of emergency, as floods destroy homes and threaten lives and even livestock.

These pigs were plunged into a powerful current.

Their owner says they are now safe.

In the U.K., at least one person has died after two trains collided north of London this evening.

Aerial footage shows what looks to be the front of one train entangled with the back of another with emergency personnel attending to the scene.

Police say that a number of people have been injured, but at last check provided no further details on casualties.

According to rail tracking Web sites, both trains were traveling south when they collided outside the town of Bedford about 60 miles north of London.

Also today, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he would not -- quote -- "walk away" from any threat to his leadership after his chief rival within the Labor Party won a seat in Parliament.

(CHEERING) AMNA NAWAZ: Andy Burnham's victory alongside some festively dressed fellow candidates is a major step towards challenging Starmer as head of the party and leader of the country.

Burnham has been the mayor of Greater Manchester and is known as the King of the North.

At a victory rally today, Burnham told supporters about his plans to address the nation's affordability crisis and to alter the nation's politics.

ANDY BURNHAM, U.K.

Parliament Member: It is our last chance to change but we're going to take it, aren't we?

We are going to take that opportunity and we are going to lay out a new path for Britain.

AMNA NAWAZ: Starmer congratulated Burnham on his win, but told the BBC that an intraparty contest would plunge Britain into what he called chaos.

The prime minister's future has been in question since his party suffered bruising losses in local elections last month.

Italy's foreign minister has canceled a trip to the U.S.

amid a broader pushback against President Trump's comments about the country's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

In an interview with an Italian broadcaster, Trump claimed that Meloni begged him for a photo-op at the recent G7 summit in France and that he felt sorry for her.

Meloni fired back on social media, saying: "Italy and I do not beg."

GIORGIA MELONI, Italian Prime Minister (through translator): Some things deserve an immediate response.

Donald Trump's statements are completely made up.

I am, frankly, astonished.

I don't know why the president of the United States behaves like this towards his allies.

It is not the first time.

AMNA NAWAZ: The right-wing Meloni had been considered one of Trump's closest political allies in Europe, but their relationship has been strained by Meloni's refusal to back Trump's war in Iran.

There's been a flu outbreak at an Air Force base in Texas just weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ended mandatory vaccines for service members.

Multiple media outlets are reporting there are more than 150 cases at Lackland Air Force Base at Joint Base San Antonio.

An Air Force spokesperson is cited as calling the outbreak localized and saying mitigation measures are in place.

In April, Hegseth announced that he was rolling back a decades-old mandate requiring that U.S.

military personnel get an annual flu shot, saying the mandate was -- quote -- "overly broad."

In New York City, the union representing horse-drawn carriage drivers says rides are on hold until at least Tuesday after a young tourist was killed.

The pause is intended to allow time to review safety protocols after 18-year-old Romanch Mahajan died this week after hitting his head when the horse of the carriage he was riding in bolted.

Authorities believe he's the first person to die in such an accident since the rides were introduced more than 150 years ago.

But it is the eighth horse-related incident in the park in just over a year, and it's raised new calls to ban the practice.

Financial markets were closed today in honor of the Juneteenth holiday.

It marks the date in 1865 when Union troops arrived in Texas with an order declaring that the state's enslaved people were free more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Former President Joe Biden signed a bill making it a national holiday five years ago, and it's often marked with parades, music and fireworks at events across the country.

And legendary TV director James Burrows has died.

Over a five-decade career he brought us some of the most iconic sitcoms in history.

On shows like "Cheers," which he co-created, Burrows set a tone of humor and heart, giving viewers quick one-liners, memorable characters and places where, yes, everybody knows your name.

The 11-time Emmy winner also directed every episode of "Will & Grace" during its original run, plus shows like "Taxi," "Frasier," and "Friends," among others.

In a statement, his family said Burrows -- quote -- "helped shape generations of comedy and brought immeasurable joy to audiences around the world."

James Burrows was 85 years old.

Still to come on the "News Hour": David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on the week's news; a look at one artist's mission to capture the joy of the Black American experience; the U.S.

sets its sights on World Cup success after today's win against Australia.

A growing body of research suggests popular weight loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy may also help treat or prevent certain cancers.

It's the latest unexpected benefit to be associated with GLP-1s, which are now taken by one in eight American adults.

William Brangham has more.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The results in these cases come from what are known as observational studies, not more rigorous clinical trials, and researchers say there are still many open questions.

That said, this was the hot topic at a recent conference of America's top cancer doctors, where a number of observations all pointed in the same direction, that GLP-1s appeared to help fight cancer above and beyond the benefits that you would expect from weight loss alone.

So, to understand these implications and the limitations of these studies, we turn to Dr.

Neil Iyengar.

He's director of breast oncology and cancer survivorship at the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University.

Dr.

Iyengar, thank you for being here.

There is this growing body of observational evidence that GLP-1s do seem to help with regards to cancer.

Big picture, what have those studies found?

DR.

NEIL IYENGAR, Emory University School of Medicine: Well, thanks for having me.

I think this is really exciting and important data.

We have known for a very long time that obesity is associated with an increased risk of at least 13 different cancers, possibly 20 different cancers.

And so reversing obesity has been a key area of research.

Up until now, we haven't had powerful methods for weight loss as we do with the GLP-1 receptor agonists.

These studies that you have pointed out really identify an exciting hypothesis or theory.

And I say that because, as you mentioned, these are observational studies.

But the data really support the idea that weight loss through a GLP-1 receptor agonist cannot only help to prevent many of the obesity-related cancers, but may actually help to prevent a recurrence of some of these cancers even after a cancer diagnosis.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, it's quite striking.

I just want to read some of the details from some of these studies.

One analysis from the University of Pennsylvania found women between the ages of 45 and 80 who were taking these drugs were about 30 percent less likely to develop breast cancer than those who were not.

Another surveyed patients identified with seven types of early-stage cancer and found GLP-1s significantly reduced the risk of spread in four of them, lung, breast, colon, and liver cancers.

Again, do you believe that this is principally a function of weight loss being the real actor here?

DR.

NEIL IYENGAR: I do.

It's been clear from prior studies where we have used methods like diet or exercise, which induce lower amounts of weight loss.

But even at those lower-levels of weight loss, we see some reduction, not as profound as what you have just read, but we see some reduction in the risk of obesity-related cancers.

What we do know from studies that have looked at larger weight loss procedures, like bariatric surgery, for example, is that the more weight loss we can induce in people who are struggling with obesity, the lower the risk of developing cancer or cancer recurrence.

So it's not surprising that, when we look at these large observational data sets, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, which can typically induce 15 to 20 percent or even greater weight loss, similar to what bariatric surgeries do, that these drugs can also reduce the risk of cancer.

And it does seem that it's primarily through the weight loss function.

We also know that GLP-1s have some anti-inflammatory effects as well.

And we're learning about some possible immune-related effects as well.

But I think it's really driven through the large amounts of weight loss that these drugs can induce, as opposed to prior or other diabetes drugs.

And that's where we're probably likely to see success with the GLP-1s and cancer risk reduction.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So let's say those studies go forward and they do show this real effect.

How much of a shift would this be in your field of cancer, in oncology?

DR.

NEIL IYENGAR: I think that we are standing really at the precipice of a massive possible shift in the global health burden, not only of obesity, but obesity-related cancers.

We know that one in seven male cancer-related deaths and one in six female cancer-related deaths are related to obesity.

If we can reduce the obesity problem, which we know we can do with the GLP-1s, this really stands to remarkably shift the global burden of obesity-related cancers.

But we have to do this cautiously, because there are mixed data for the effects on various types of cancers, interactions with different types of cancer therapies.

This is why it is so essential that we continue studying these drugs in a prospective, rigorous way, so we can optimally and safely use them to reduce cancer burden.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, given what we know now - - you're a specialist in treating breast cancer.

Again, with the data that we have currently, would you suggest to your patients that they take a GLP-1 either for current cancer patients or as a preventative?

DR.

NEIL IYENGAR: I think this is a tricky question right now, because this is where we have to rely on the available data, which is observational, as we've been discussing.

And so where I worry is, we don't have data on how the GLP-1s may or may not interact with cancer therapies.

So, for a patient who has completed their cancer therapy and is cancer-free, I think, if they are dealing with obesity, then this could be a successful approach for, A, reducing obesity, and, B, reducing the risk of cancer recurrence due to obesity.

But for patients who are currently on treatment, especially chemotherapy or immune therapy, we don't know yet precisely how these drugs may interact.

They may possibly make side effects worse.

They may possibly make some treatments like immunotherapy less effective for cancer treatment.

That's really where we don't know enough to recommend the use of a GLP-1 in that setting.

So, ultimately, I would say, for a cancer survivor who has completed their therapy and is struggling with obesity, it is worth having that discussion with your oncologist and with your doctors about whether it is safe to use a GLP.

But if you're on active therapy, certainly, have that conversation with your oncologist.

I would caution against it until we generate more data.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, that is Dr.

Neil Iyengar of Emory University.

Thank you so much for being here.

DR.

NEIL IYENGAR: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, the Obama Presidential Center opens to the public.

It follows a celebration yesterday that featured VIPs, members of the Obama administration, and longtime residents of South Side, Chicago, where the center is located.

Ali Rogin takes a look at what this new center tells us about the sort of legacy former President Barack Obama wants to leave.

ALI ROGIN: Former President Obama said he did not want the center to feel like a shrine or a museum, but, rather, like a representation of an American story still being written, in which his is one chapter.

BARACK OBAMA, Former President of the United States: If you come for a day, and you don't have time to see everything, I would urge you to skip the clips of my speeches -- you have heard them all before -- in favor of the stories of those ordinary citizens who helped make that change happen.

ALI ROGIN: Mr.

Obama did not mention President Donald Trump, who was not invited, but he did talk about the political divisiveness that's been a hallmark of Trump's two terms.

And Obama urged people not to give in to cynicism and despair.

For more on what the former president is seeking to communicate through this new institution, I'm joined by Yale University historian Beverly Gage.

Beverly, thank you so much for joining us.

Welcome back to the "News Hour."

BEVERLY GAGE, Yale University: Thanks for having me.

ALI ROGIN: And I want to take a step back first by asking you, what service do presidential libraries historically play?

What purpose do they serve?

BEVERLY GAGE: Presidential libraries have been a really important part of our presidential history.

Franklin Roosevelt was the first one to kind of come up with the idea.

And they typically have the museum piece which you see at the Obama Center, but they're also these enormously important research repositories run by the National Archives.

That's where historians go to write about all of these presidential administrations.

ALI ROGIN: And President Obama specifically said that he wanted his center -- he doesn't call it a library -- to be something different.

In what ways is this different.

You mentioned how institutions like these typically are repository of research information.

But this one is different, right?

BEVERLY GAGE: That's right.

He said from the very beginning that he wanted this to be different.

First, he wants all of the records of his administration to be digitized.

And so it's possible that there will never be a research room that historians go to write about the Obama administration.

And so I think some historians are a little nervous about that piece.

But the other thing that he really wanted to do differently was not to just make it a kind of stand-alone museum or shrine that's just about history, but to make it this living, breathing community place.

And that seems to be what they have really tried to do.

ALI ROGIN: And, as we noted, President Obama did not mention President Trump's name during the speech, but during his and first lady Michelle Obama's addresses, there did seem to be some subtle, but deliberate counterprogramming to President Trump's vision for America.

What sort of message do you think they wanted to convey?

BEVERLY GAGE: Well, the fact that Trump was not only not mentioned, but was not there, is pretty significant, because these presidential library openings, they tend to be these moments of bipartisan unity.

And we saw that with, of course, the Bushes there, but not Trump.

And to some degree, it's no surprise.

Trump has been heaping abuse on not only Barack Obama, but Michelle Obama and all that they stood for, for years.

And I think it's also true that, when Trump shows up just about anywhere, he sort of sucks all the oxygen out of the room.

And so that may be also a part of what they were thinking.

ALI ROGIN: It also seemed very intentional that the former president mentioned his former rivals for the White House.

He mentioned John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Why do you think he went out of his way to mention them?

BEVERLY GAGE: Well, I think that was always part of what Barack Obama stood for.

And, in this moment, it can seem like a long time ago that such things were possible, but he tried his very best to stand for a kind of reaching across the aisle, a faith in the American political process, a dignity of the office.

And a lot of that, Trump has dismissed or run against.

But I think Obama is trying to be part of that much longer tradition.

ALI ROGIN: The Obamas have largely stayed out of the political fray since they left the White House.

But yesterday's events seem to give us a hint of how this president is thinking about his legacy.

How, so far, is he similar and different from those other members of this very small club of former presidents?

BEVERLY GAGE: It is a small club.

And lots of different presidents have done this differently.

A lot of it has to do with age.

So, Barack Obama was a young ex-president.

And so he had these decades stretching out in front of him to think about what to do with, in contrast to someone like, say, Ronald Reagan or now Joe Biden.

It's true that he has been pretty recessive up to this point, has taken that step back that it's often expected that ex-presidents will take.

But I think there are a couple of signals here.

First of all, you can see him coming into his own a little bit as the community activist of his youth.

A lot of this center has that vibe.

It's trying to draw upon that history.

And then I think he's also trying to recover something of a sense of progress, a sense of optimism, a sense of hope that was always so central to his message that has been just so battered over the past decade.

And you can sort of see him coming forth to play that role and try to revive that message once again.

ALI ROGIN: Beverly Gage with Yale University, thank you so much for joining us.

BEVERLY GAGE: Thanks.

AMNA NAWAZ: To further discuss the preliminary deal with Iran, President Trump's record low approval rating on the economy and more, we turn now to Brooks and Capehart.

That's "The Atlantic"'s David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.

Great to see you both.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hey, Amna.

DAVID BROOKS: Good to see you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Let's start off with this memorandum of understanding between the U.S.

and Iran that was signed this week.

You have both seen a lot of criticism for how much Iran gets versus the U.S.

out of this deal.

You also may have heard a guest at the top of the show say, look, the war had to come to an end, so that makes it a good deal.

We will see what happens next.

David, is the U.S.

better off today than it was before the war?

DAVID BROOKS: No, it's significantly worse off.

I'm glad the war's over.

I mean, it's good for all of our economy and people stopped dying.

But, listen, in 60 days, Iran may have control of the Straits of Hormuz.

In 60 days, they may be able to restart their nuclear program.

I'm highly dubious they're going to give that up.

And so -- and, plus, they have shown they can stand up to the world's greatest military, survive it, and sort of outsmart it.

And I'm really struck by -- Napoleon has this famous phrase that, when it comes to war, the moral is to the material as 3-1.

Meaning the moral is three times more important than the material.

And how did the United States, with our military, our economy, our alleged power, lose a war to Iran with their military and their alleged power?

And it's because they wanted it more.

And they had leadership that was willing to do whatever it took to win the war.

And we didn't.

We had a president who I don't want to say chicken out, but he wasn't tough enough to fight this war.

And you shouldn't start a war you're not tough enough to fight, especially when their response, closing the strait, is the most obvious thing that we were -- allegedly was seemingly unprepared for.

And so it's a debacle for America.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, the other point here is, though, what other option does President Trump have, keep fighting the war, let the strait stay closed?

He's under domestic pressure, economic pressure.

Was at least ending the war a good first step to move forward?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: OK, well, first, I -- is the war truly over?

I mean, at least right now, it is as we're talking.

But we don't know.

Look, the president needed an off-ramp.

People have been saying that to him and about him for at least a few weeks now.

So, finally, he's taken the off-ramp.

But I hesitate to call this a deal.

You used the right phrasing, memorandum of understanding.

The hard part comes now in these 60 days, these technical negotiations that the Obama solid painstaking years -- Wendy Sherman, I think she was assistant secretary of state -- basically moved to Switzerland to help negotiate this.

The secretary of energy was involved.

Five other countries were involved in the negotiation of the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal.

And President Trump ripped it up.

Does anyone believe he is going to be able to come up with a suitable alternative, from their perspective, in 60 days?

I just do not see it happening.

AMNA NAWAZ: We will see what happens and we continue to follow it.

Meanwhile, we know that war was leading to higher gas prices here, those gas prices a big concern for Americans, whose number one concern remains the economy.

I want to turn to our latest poll numbers here, because our PBS News/NPR/Marist poll has now found that 33 percent of Americans say they approve of the way President Trump is handling the economy.

That is the lowest since Marist began asking the question back in 2019.

The poll also found 78 percent of Americans say high gas prices have affected their household budget.

David, Mr.

Trump is not on the ballot this November, but this is certainly not the message that Republicans wanted to be running on.

How do you look at this?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I sort of struck.

One of the things in the NPR/PBS poll was, 45 percent of Americans say they are not going to take a summer vacation, in part because of costs.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.

DAVID BROOKS: And so that really affects people.

And the American people are really good at understanding when their real wages are going down.

They may see their pay going up, but if it's going up slower than inflation, they know right away.

And they punished Joe Biden for it.

I imagine they're going to punish the Republicans for it.

And this was obviously completely avoidable.

We didn't need to go to this war.

We didn't achieve much at the war.

And we boosted inflation.

And that's not going to come down any time soon.

And gas prices are going to come down, but not any time soon.

And the normal rule in politics is how the how the economy is six months before Election Day determines how people are thinking about it.

I can't do the math, because that's too hard for me, 11 minus six, but that's somewhere around six, five months.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Five.

Yes, we're within that margin in error.

We're within.

(LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: So, somewhere around now where, people are reflecting on... AMNA NAWAZ: I was told there would be no math in this job.

(LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: But from Republicans' perspective, how do they manage this?

What is the message now going forward?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it's super hard to distance yourself from Trump.

You can't really run away.

You can talk about tax cuts and things like that.

It's hard to have an economic message when you don't have an agenda anymore.

And they don't have much of an agenda right now.

And they can try to play the social issues.

I just don't think that's going to fly.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, Democrats now find themselves in the position they don't often, which is the more trusted party when it comes to the issue of the economy.

Are they making the most of this moment, in your view?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Yes, I think they are.

And I think they will make even more of it if the situation doesn't change by certainly through the summer, but definitely by the fall.

I think the problem that Republicans have -- this is more of a Republican problem, because they are saddled with an unpopular president who has no message discipline.

So, Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, in some story that I read a couple of weeks ago where she said in a meeting, let Trump be Trump, and everyone else in the administration hammer away at costs and affordability and things like that.

That is impossible, absolutely impossible, in an administration where the president of the United States, particularly this one, commands the attention of the American people at all times.

And what have we seen over all these weeks?

The event might be about affordability, but he will venture off into talking about the ballroom and other things that the American people don't care about.

They want to know how you're going to bring prices down.

And so, as long as the president is doing that and Democrats keep hammering away at affordability, which I think is a part two of what they were doing last year when it came to talking about health care and the danger that was coming to health care, they have been on a pretty -- Democrats have been on a pretty good run of showing the American people that things economically just aren't where they should be.

DAVID BROOKS: One quick thing that could help Republicans is, it used to be you would have swings of like 60 seats, 40 seats, 26 seats.

Those days are long gone because of redistricting.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.

DAVID BROOKS: And so now a swing of seven seats to the Democrats would give them majority, but that would be a big deal.

And we're just not in a world where you have these -- a lot of swing districts.

We are in a world where there's another problem that Republicans are dealing with I want to ask you about.

And stay with me as I lay this out, because we have seen tension between President Trump and his party before, but not like this week.

We saw GOP senators openly slam the Iran deal.

But, earlier, the president essentially blindsided Senate Republicans when he basically said that his pick to be director of national intelligence, a man named Jay Clayton, would not show up to his confirmation hearing hours before it was scheduled to start.

And then President Trump demanded that the Republicans attach a stalled election restriction legislation, which doesn't have the votes to pass, to a powerful surveillance bill that needs to be reauthorized the Democrats said they would vote for if Clayton was confirmed.

David, if you are Senate Majority Leader John Thune, what do you do right now?

DAVID BROOKS: I'm trying to think of the last time a president put the kibosh or the slowdown on one of his own nominees.

Usually, it's the other party that tries to slow down nominees.

If you're John Thune, you wake up, you thought, you had something going.

You got rid of this guy Bill Pulte.

You got a responsible adult in there.

AMNA NAWAZ: Bill Pulte is the acting DNI, we should say.

DAVID BROOKS: The acting DNI.

And you got Jay Clayton.

You got a responsible, kind of good nominee.

And then you -- I'm sure he's on social media.

I'm sure he's on TRUTH Social when he gets up in the morning.

And poor John Thune, he's going, oh, no.

And I think it was Senator Kennedy said, who doesn't like John Thune?

It's like not liking a golden retriever.

He's the nicest guy and a very good leader.

And he's doing the best he can in hard circumstances without blowing up at Trump, without totally kowtowing to Trump.

DAVID BROOKS: And Trump is just making his life miserable.

And I think everybody -- Republican in the Senate sympathizes with Thune right now.

AMNA NAWAZ: Can I just say, making this happen would require that they scrap the filibuster, which Thune has said he would preserve.

Do you see him changing his mind?

DAVID BROOKS: No.

But even if he individually changes his mind, there are a bunch of Republicans who want to keep the filibuster because they value the Senate.

They don't think it should be like the House.

And the filibuster keeps the Senate a separate body, a little more bipartisan.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, how do you look at this?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Which part of it?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I mean, in the case that you laid out, and listening to David, that I scribbled down, can't trust the president.

The president, we have long known, he values loyalty.

But for President Trump, loyalty is a one-way street, which means that you -- if he tells you one day, this is what I want to do, you have to be prepared for the rug to be pulled out from under you.

And John Thune has had the rug pulled out from under him so many times this year that I am looking forward to the moment when Majority Leader Thune just blows his top and stands up for his caucus, for the chamber, and also for the Article I branch of the government.

I mean, they have long been now, I keep saying this, the staffing arm of the executive.

At some point, someone in that Republican majority is going to have to say, enough of this.

And maybe that will come once all the Republican primaries are over and everyone knows where the ground is, and then maybe they will show some independence, but, by then, it might be too late.

AMNA NAWAZ: We will see.

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, always great to see you both.

Thank you so much.

DAVID BROOKS: Thank you, Amna.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: As the rainbow array outside Boston's Institute of Contemporary Art right now suggests, artist Derrick Adams is accentuating the positive.

He celebrates contemporary Black life and culture, depicting leisure, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness.

Jared Bowen from GBH Boston recently sat down with him on the occasion of his first museum survey.

It's part of our arts and culture series, Canvas.

JARED BOWEN: The work of artist Derrick Adams sparkles with unmitigated joy.

Who wouldn't want to take a breather atop an ice pop or delight in dreams of Tootsie Rolls or be held by family?

DERRICK ADAMS, Artist: The attitude of my work is essential and an extension of me as a person.

Even when images aren't smiling in my work, people still feel some sense of happiness or peace.

JARED BOWEN: That radiance is now felt and full at Boston's Institute of Contemporary Art all in the new exhibition Derrick Adams: View Master.

It's the artist's first ever museum survey and features more than 20 years of painting, sculpture, and performance art.

Here, you will find unicorns prance, Beyonce performs, and one blissed-out dessert lover luxuriates in pie.

DERRICK ADAMS: It just shows this expensive experience that an artist can have when they're driven and focused on trying to create an alternative viewpoint and looking at Black American experience.

I'm from Baltimore, and I have a lot of great stories and memories of growing up in Baltimore.

JARED BOWEN: Where Adams, who would one day become a teacher himself, says his first classroom was television, in particular, PBS, and shows like "Sesame Street" and "The Electric Company."

DERRICK ADAMS: I was a real big TV kid, mainly because I had asthma growing up, and so a lot of the time I spent was at home.

Like, I grew up feeling represented.

So a lot of things that I'm making in my work are what I felt as a younger person being seen and being focused on, being appreciated, educated.

JARED BOWEN: It also made his a colorful world.

His work is resplendent in rainbow hues.

And, under his design, the museum's exterior is now adorned in color bars, the television programming that once populated airwaves after broadcasting ended each night.

DERRICK ADAMS: And I always thought of the color bars being like a curtain, and there were people behind it.

And so color for me became more strategic, more psychological, thinking about how people respond to color.

TESSA BACHI HAAS, Assistant Curator, Institute of Contemporary Art/Boston: As you can see in the space, he's a maximalist in every way.

JARED BOWEN: ICA assistant curator Tessa Bachi Haas says the exhibition is like visiting Adams' own New York studio.

It's an explosion of ideas, color, and people gathering, and, as the show's title suggests, it evokes the nostalgic View-Master, the 1939 invention turned childhood staple, offering both entry into myriad worlds and how we see them.

Why this moment for the survey?

TESSA BACHI HAAS: I love that question.

We're reflecting on 250 years of the United States as we know it today, and American history is Black history, and American history is the history that Derrick has explored throughout his lifetime.

JARED BOWEN: One genre to which he's repeatedly returned is portraiture, images of strangers, friends, and his own deeply connected family.

TESSA BACHI HAAS: So that idea of tracing family over time and tracing what it means to build a home and to build community and to build family over time is so intrinsic to Derrick's work.

DERRICK ADAMS: You get to understand how people form images of dignity, images of pride through their posturing, through the way that they hold that chin, the way that they look forward or look down or up.

JARED BOWEN: Or how they chill.

This glimpse of a pool party is one of Adams newest works.

It's a moment among friends that rang out to the artist like a clarion call that it had to be captured.

DERRICK ADAMS: You can feel the experience of the floatie, and how does that feel to be on something that's levitated?

And it's like looking at a Renaissance painting of someone on like a chaise lounge.

It's like a new way of looking at a subject in leisure.

I think that's the way to kind of really educate people, especially the new generation of artists, of how to reexamine history and how to tell it the way that you want to tell it.

JARED BOWEN: Or mastering the view anew.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Jared Bowen in Boston.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Team USA secured its spot in the World Cup's knockout round with a 2-0 win against Australia this afternoon.

It's the first time since 1930 that the American men have won consecutive World Cup matches.

It's been a big week as the world watches legends of the sport compete for their countries.

Tournament favorites are meeting the moment and underdogs are rising to the occasion.

For more, we turn now to Leander Schaerlaeckens, who's been covering the cup for ESPN and The Guardian.

He's the author of the book "The Long Game: U.S.

Men's Soccer and Its Savage, Four-Decade Journey to the Top or Thereabouts."

Leander, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

LEANDER SCHAERLAECKENS, ESPN: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So let's talk about that big win for Team USA against Australia today.

What stood out to you and who in particular on the team stood out to you in that game?

LEANDER SCHAERLAECKENS: I have these moments during this early run at this World Cup where I think to myself, what is going on?

Because, for my book, I went back and watched every U.S.

game they have played at the World Cup back to 1990, and they have never played this well.

They have never looked this good.

And as you mentioned, they have not won consecutive World Cup games going back to 1930, which was the first World Cup that was ever played.

This is only the Third World Cup where the U.S.

has even had two wins in the entire tournament.

The other time was in 2002, when they made the quarterfinals.

And what's really striking me in this team right now is that they aren't just still offering that feistiness and that fitness and that physicality that historically allowed this team to compete with more talented opponents, but that they're also combining it with good soccer.

It's creative.

It's tactically astute.

They're really, like, playing through opponents.

The second half against Australia was a bit of a slog and a bit of an attritional war.

But there's so many players playing well right now, Chris Richards in the back, Weston McKennie in the middle, Tyler Adams in the middle, Folarin Balogun, the striker who forced the own goal that put the U.S.

ahead early on for a second time in a row.

I believe this is the first World Cup where a team has ever benefited from two own goals, that being the U.S.

this time around.

So there's a lot of players doing their job super well at the moment.

AMNA NAWAZ: Own goals are still goals.

We will take them either way.

I do want to ask you about some of the biggest names who are playing in this tournament, though.

We have seen incredible performances from the likes of Lionel Messi, who scored a hat trick in Argentina's opener.

That means he has now tied the all-time men's World Cup scoring record.

Kylian Mbappe from France, Norway's Erling Haaland, both scored twice to help leave their teams to wins in the early matches.

So on soccer's biggest stage, how are its biggest stars performing?

LEANDER SCHAERLAECKENS: So, far everybody has come out to play, other than Cristiano Ronaldo, who is 41 and who looked very static for Portugal.

And there's a rising chorus of critics suggesting that that team would be much better off if they left him off the field.

But everybody else has been really good so far.

This World Cup is off to a really hot start.

Lionel Messi, who's about to turn 39 in a few days, had never scored a hat trick at a World Cup before, and he just did it for the first time the other day.

And that's ultimately the thing that winds up redeeming the World Cup and that bails out the people who are in charge of putting it on, and who present us with these issues every four years.

And there's always all this discourse about the problems going into the World Cup.

And we certainly shouldn't look away from them.

But this is why it works so well as a sports-washing project, as kind of this redeeming thing is, because, once the soccer starts, it's still really great, and we get all the folklore and we get all the fun stories of Boston falling in love with the Scottish fans.

And suddenly Lawrence, Kansas, is Algerian territory, and they're having a great time.

It's just really fun, this tournament.

AMNA NAWAZ: There was also some concern about the quality of play, with this being the first 48-team World Cup.

But I wanted to ask you about some of these underdogs that we have seen performing really well against some of the world's top teams, the Democratic Republic of Congo holding Portugal to a draw, Cape Verde tying Spain.

How are you looking at that?

LEANDER SCHAERLAECKENS: Well, what's so funny is that we have only had one 0-0 tie at this World Cup so far, which is the scourge of the soccer hater, right?

And that actually turned out to be the biggest upset at the tournament, because that was Cape Verde at its first ever World Cup, in its first ever World Cup game, second smallest country to ever qualify after Curacao, which is also here, holding the Spain -- the European champion Spain to a 0-0 draw.

So there was concern when the World Cup expanded from 32 teams to 48 that that would dilute the product and that there'd be a lot of walkovers, a lot of slaughters.

And we really haven't seen that so far.

Now, mind you, it's an awfully long tournament, right?

The World Cup from the first game to the last one is going to run 39 days.

So you do want to kind of pace yourself a little bit if you have any sort of aspiration of still playing in the last week of the tournament.

AMNA NAWAZ: I got about 10 seconds left.

I have to ask you, can Team USA win in their next match?

LEANDER SCHAERLAECKENS: Against Turkey?

Yes, absolutely, they can, and then they seat themselves really well for the knockout stages.

AMNA NAWAZ: We will be watching and waiting and cheering them on.

Leander Schaerlaeckens, such a pleasure to talk to you.

Thank you so much for your time.

LEANDER SCHAERLAECKENS: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: And you can find more of our World Cup coverage online, including a video explaining three ways that this year's competition is different from years past.

That is on our YouTube page.

Coming up tonight on "Washington Week," moderator Jeffrey Goldberg and his panel discuss the U.S.-Iran agreement and whether the world is now a safer or more dangerous place.

And watch "Horizons" this Father's Day weekend.

William Brangham sits down with the author of "Dad Brain," a new book focused on dads and how their brains transform during parenthood.

And on "Compass Points" this weekend, a look at how the Ukraine war has embarrassed Russia's President Vladimir Putin at home and the growing criticism he's facing from his country's powerful elite.

You can watch both "Horizons" and "Compass Points" on our YouTube channel or wherever you get your podcasts and on your local PBS station.

Check your local listings.

And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "News Hour" team, thank you for joining us, and have a great weekend.