GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "News Hour" tonight: U.S. officials meet with their Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia to discuss the end of the war in Ukraine without European or Ukrainian representatives at the table.

GEOFF BENNETT: Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency group faces fresh criticism for seeking access to sensitive taxpayer data from the IRS.

AMNA NAWAZ: And amid unsubstantiated claims about water management, we examine the truth about fighting fires in Southern California after last month's devastating blazes.

PETER GLEICK, Co-Founder, Pacific Institute: Our urban water systems are designed to help us put out a house fire or a couple of house fires.

They're not designed to deal with the massive kinds of wildfires that swept through the Los Angeles area.

AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "News Hour."

Today, top Russian and U.S. officials met in person for the first time since Russia invaded Ukraine more than 1,000 days ago.

The goal, they said, was to chart a path towards peace.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there was more.

The U.S. and Russia raised the possibility of lifting the sanctions they have aimed at each other.

They also agreed to work toward restoring staffing at their embassies.

But there was one glaring omission.

Ukrainian officials were not in the room.

It was a face-to-face not seen in almost three years, U.S. officials led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio meeting with their Russian counterparts in Saudi Arabia to discuss an end to the war in Ukraine and chart a path toward improving bilateral relations.

After more than four hours behind closed doors, the U.S. delegation said it saw hints of progress.

STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East: We couldn't have imagined a better result after this session.

It was very, very solid.

MARCO RUBIO, U.S. Secretary of State: I came away today convinced that they are willing to begin to engage in a serious process.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President: Thank you so much.

GEOFF BENNETT: But just as notable as the talks themselves was a particular absence.

Ukraine was not invited.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy postponed his own visit to Saudi Arabia, meeting today instead with Turkey's President Erdogan.

Turkey is both friendly with Russia and a member of NATO.

Zelenskyy reiterated that there could be no peace deal without a seat for Ukraine at the table.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: This Russian-American meeting in Saudi Arabia was a surprise for us.

For Ukraine and for our region, for Europe, it is critical that any negotiations to end the war are not happening behind the backs of the key parties affected by the Russian aggression.

GEOFF BENNETT: Today, the U.S. dismissed any notion that Ukraine was being left out.

MIKE WALTZ, U.S. National Security Adviser: Shuttle diplomacy has happened throughout history.

It's happened all over the world.

We are absolutely talking to both sides.

GEOFF BENNETT: For Russia, today's sit-down was a chance to lay the groundwork to talk with the U.S. on a wide range of issues, not just about Ukraine.

SERGEY LAVROV, Russian Foreign Minister: There was a great interest to which we share in resuming consultations on geopolitical problems, where both the United States and Russia have interests.

And there was a great interest in removing artificial obstacles to the development of mutually beneficial economic cooperation.

GEOFF BENNETT: After the Biden administration cut nearly all ties with Russia when it invaded Ukraine, today, steps were taken toward renewing relations and rebuilding economic ties.

MARCO RUBIO: We need to have diplomatic facilities that are operating and functioning normally.

GEOFF BENNETT: That's renewed concerns among allies who held their own meetings yesterday and again today in Paris that the new U.S. administration is already too open to items on Vladimir Putin's wish list, namely easing sanctions and letting Russia keep its battlefield gains.

MIKE WALTZ: We know just the practical reality is that there is going to be some discussion of territory, and there's going to be discussion of security guarantees.

GEOFF BENNETT: Today marked only the beginning of the conversations.

The administration says the talks were meant to pave the way for a meeting between President Trump and Putin, but no date announced yet.

For perspective on today's meeting between the U.S. and Russia, we get two views.

Andrea Kendall-Taylor is a former senior intelligence official who focused on Russia and Eurasia.

She's now at the bipartisan think tank Center For a New American security.

And Paul Saunders is executive director of the bipartisan Center for the National Interest.

He served in the State Department during the George W. Bush administration.

Thank you both for being here.

PAUL SAUNDERS, Center for the National Interest: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we should say that, late today President Trump, while speaking to reporters at Mar-a-Lago, he was asked for his message to Ukrainians who might feel betrayed or disappointed by not having a seat at the table.

And here's what he said.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: They're upset about not having a seat.

Well, they have had a seat for three years, and a long time before that.

This could have been settled very easily.

GEOFF BENNETT: He also falsely suggested that Ukraine started this war.

But Paul, the U.S. approach has provoked a deep alarm among European allies.

Is that alarm warranted?

Should Kyiv have had a seat at today's meeting?

PAUL SAUNDERS: Look, I don't think that the Ukrainian government needs to be present in every single meeting that occurs.

I think that's not realistic, actually.

As a practical matter, as the national security adviser suggested, I think implied, it's going to be a very complicated negotiation.

There are pieces that need to be addressed with the Ukrainians.

There are pieces that need to be addressed with the Europeans.

There are pieces that need to be addressed with the Russians.

And if we try to have 30 European governments and the Ukrainian government and the Russian government all in a room together with American negotiators, I don't think it would be very productive.

So, I think it's very appropriate to meet individually with other parties.

In totality, we have to meet with the Ukrainians.

And, certainly, the Ukrainians have to be part of any agreement.

The war is on their territory and they have to stop fighting for the war to end.

So, they need to be part of the deal.

They don't need to be in every meeting.

GEOFF BENNETT: Andrea, how do you see it?

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR, Center For a New American Security: Well, I think the problem is that, through this bilateral channel between the United States and Russia, the United States seems to be giving away major concessions before Ukraine is really made a part of the negotiation.

So we have heard from senior Trump administration officials that Ukraine will have to concede significant parts of its territory, that Ukraine will not have a place in NATO.

The United States has already indicated that it won't play a role with boots on the ground in sustaining any peace in Ukraine or that any peacekeeping force would fall under a NATO umbrella.

So these are really major concessions that the United States is giving away in this bilateral format.

And that has real implications for Ukraine.

So once Ukraine gets to the negotiating table, we have basically taken their knees out from under them and put them in a far weaker position.

So if we were going into these discussions with Russia, it should have been the case that the United States had had some coordinated position with Kyiv and with its European allies before going into that meeting.

GEOFF BENNETT: Add to that, Paul, the U.S. approach and attitude suggests that the administration is already looking beyond this war and looking toward meeting President Trump's long-held goal of boosting ties with Vladimir Putin.

Is there any concern about, one, the U.S. robbing Ukraine of its agency, of its decision-making in this entire process, or two, of capitulating to Moscow?

PAUL SAUNDERS: Well, look, I think first of all, to the extent that Ukraine has agency, it has it in no small part because of the American assistance that's already occurred over the last three years.

So I don't think we should have any illusions about that.

And for Ukraine to expect the United States and the American people to do what had been down over the last three years indefinitely, I think, is unrealistic.

So, first of all, I think we should be quite clear about that.

Now, I certainly agree that I think it's a mistake to look like you're making concessions before a negotiation starts.

And I think some of the things that some administration officials said may have been ill-advised and could have waited.

But, ultimately, the United States has a very large stake in this conflict.

And the United States is a sovereign country.

And the leaders of the United States get to decide how long we're prepared as a country to stick with it.

And, certainly, there are good reasons, when one thinks about all of the other challenges that the United States faces in the world, not to mention our rapidly diminishing stocks of the weapons that we have been providing to Ukraine, there are good reasons for the United States to think long and hard about how long we want to continue what we have been doing.

GEOFF BENNETT: What about that, Andrea?

I think President Trump's view could be summed up as, why not try another way?

That the strategy during the Biden administration was aimed at assisting Ukraine while preventing escalation.

And that led to what you could argue was a cautious and in many ways delayed military response.

Despite the U.S. spending more than $65 billion, the war is now stalemated.

Why not try another way? '

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR: Well, I think the other way really should be from a position of strength.

And to do that, the United States does have a lot of agency and a lot of opportunity to help Ukraine achieve a just peace.

I think that's something that President Trump has said that he wants to accomplish.

And the best path to getting to a just and durable piece is to negotiate from a position of strength.

And so, really, if President Trump could come in and renew military aid and assistance to Ukraine, it would go an exceptionally long way in demonstrating to President Putin that he cannot achieve his aims on the battlefield.

And that would get him into a position where he would have to enter into negotiations from a more genuine position than he currently is.

And so there is this other way, which is to try to convince Putin that he can't continue.

And then that would allow us to bring an end to the war.

I think we all agree that we want to bring an end to the war.

But in order to have a durable peace, the United States cannot make all of these major concessions, because the risk is that, yes, we could get to a cease-fire, but if we're allowing Russia to get sanctions relief, to keep Ukraine out of NATO, to limit the size of the Ukrainian military, so that it can't defend itself in the future, the key issue will be, we might get peace now, but it will just enable Russia to pocket these concessions and strengthen its position to attack Ukraine again in the future and potentially to broaden its ambitions to other parts of Europe.

GEOFF BENNETT: Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Paul Saunders, thank you both for sharing your perspectives with us this evening.

PAUL SAUNDERS: Thank you.

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR: Thanks.

AMNA NAWAZ: We start the day's other headlines with the growing pressure on New York City's Mayor Eric Adams.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul met with political leaders in Manhattan today as she weighs whether to remove him from office.

Four of Mayor Adams' top deputies resigned last night amid growing questions over his ability to govern the city.

It followed a decision by the Justice Department to drop its corruption case against Adams on the grounds that it would allow him to focus on President Trump's immigration crackdown.

Federal Judge Dale Ho ordered a hearing tomorrow that will look into that Justice Department decision.

Weather officials are warning of record cold across the Central U.S. as the season's 10th and most severe polar vortex blankets the region.

States in the Rockies and Northern Plains are experiencing temperatures as low as minus-60 degrees in some areas, when factoring in windchill.

Further south, a band of states from Kansas to Virginia are facing snowstorms.

That comes as Kentucky and other parts of Appalachia are still cleaning up from recent flooding.

Governor Andy Beshear told reporters today that the death toll there has risen to 14, as officials pivot to what comes next.

GOV.

ANDY BESHEAR (D-KY): The Kentucky National Guard is transitioning from lifesaving missions to recovery efforts focused on debris removal, restoring access and transporting supplies to affected communities.

And we're going to be prepositioning Guard assets for the coming snowstorm.

AMNA NAWAZ: At last check, more than 50 million people were under winter weather alerts from the Central Plains to the coast of the Carolinas, as heavy snow and wind are set to sweep through the region.

In the Middle East, Hamas says it will release six living Israeli hostages on Saturday, instead of three.

That accounts for all living hostages set to be freed under phase one of the cease-fire deal in Gaza.

The surprise increase comes after Israel agreed to allow mobile homes and construction machinery into Gaza.

Hamas also agreed to return four bodies to Israel on Thursday.

They include the remains of the Bibas family, two young boys, Ariel and Kfir, and their mother, Shiri.

Their father, Yarden, was released alive earlier this month.

In the meantime, the U.N. Agency for Palestinian Refugees, or UNRWA, says that Israeli forces raided four of its schools in East Jerusalem today and ordered them closed.

At least 600 students and 30 staff were affected.

Back in this country, Native American activist Leonard Peltier was released from prison today after former President Joe Biden commuted his life sentence.

Peltier was convicted of killing two FBI agents in 1975, and the agency has long opposed his commutation.

The 80-year-old has always maintained his innocence, and Native Americans widely believe he was a political prisoner.

Peltier left a federal prison in Florida today and is heading back to his reservation in North Dakota to live under home confinement.

His supporters described him as a global symbol for human rights.

TRACKER GINA MARIE RANGEL QUINONES, Supporter of Leonard Peltier: His incarceration represented not only other political prisoners, but people who stand for -- in solidarity for all humankind and humanity.

AMNA NAWAZ: In a statement, Peltier said -- quote -- "Today, I am finally free.

They may have imprisoned me, but they never took my spirit."

U.S. officials say that arrests at the southern border with Mexico dropped sharply last month.

Data out today shows that 29,000 people were arrested in January.

That is down from 47,000 the previous month, and it's the lowest reading since May of 2020.

This downward trend began under the Biden administration after arrests peaked at 250,000 back in 2023.

Today's figures also come as President Trump issued a flurry of executive orders targeting immigration.

They included a surge of troops to the border and efforts to block migrants from seeking asylum.

The Vatican said today that Pope Francis has developed pneumonia in both of his lungs.

It's the latest medical complication for the 88-year-old pontiff, who'd been admitted to the hospital on Friday with bronchitis.

In a statement, the Vatican said his -- quote -- "laboratory tests, chest X-ray, and the Holy Father's clinical condition continue to present a complex picture."

This latest diagnosis comes as dozens of supporters gathered outside of Rome's Gemelli Hospital to pray for his recovery.

A Vatican spokesman says the pope remains in good spirits and is grateful for such prayers.

On Wall Street today, stocks ended little changed following the holiday weekend.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained just 10 points, so virtually flat.

The Nasdaq added nearly 15 points, so a small gain there.

The S&P 500 added about 15 points to close at a new all-time high.

Still to come on the "News Hour": questions intensify about the authority of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency; the accident at Toronto's airport and a wave of layoffs at the FAA highlight concerns for air safety; and former U.S.

Ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young looks back on his long career fighting for civil rights.

This evening, a federal district judge ruled against a lawsuit brought by 14 attorneys general alleging that Trump violated the Constitution by granting Elon Musk what they called unchecked power.

In the ruling, Judge Tanya Chutkan said -- quote -- "The court finds that plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing that they will suffer imminent irreparable harm absent a temporary restraining order."

For more on this, I'm joined now by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, one of the plaintiffs of the suit.

Attorney General, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thanks for being with us.

KRIS MAYES (D), Arizona Attorney General: Thanks, Amna.

Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: Let's just begin with your reaction to the ruling this evening.

KRIS MAYES: Well, listen, basically the ruling that the judge made in this case essentially had a lot of great language for us, and this is just the first step in what will be a long process.

She did, as you said, as you noted, deny the TRO, the temporary restraining order, but the lawsuit moves forward.

And we now have the opportunity to do what she has asked us to do, which is to provide additional evidence that Elon Musk is and Donald Trump are violating the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution, that he is essentially running amuck in the federal government, and he is doing great harm to Americans.

And I would just read from her order, which says that plaintiffs, that means the states, legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected official and an entity that was not created by Congress.

And that is what -- that's actually exactly what we are stating, that the Appointments Clause has been violated, it is being violated and that this is another example of a violation of the separation of powers.

AMNA NAWAZ: So you are arguing in your lawsuit, we should say, as you mentioned, the violation of the Appointments Clause, saying that Musk is wielding power he doesn't have, as someone who wasn't Senate-confirmed, nominated officially by the president.

And the judge, as you note, did say in the ruling you're legitimately calling that into question.

So what does that mean for your next steps?

KRIS MAYES: Well, basically what it means is, we now have a couple of weeks to do a lot of digging.

And we're going to be asking for a lot of documents of the government, of the Trump administration.

We're going to be interviewing a lot of witnesses.

We're inviting people who have been harmed by the actions of Elon Musk to contact my office and the office of the other A.G.s.

And then we're going to have an opportunity down the road very soon to present that evidence to this very same judge.

And, frankly, given the language that she used in this order, we feel pretty good about this case.

We have always felt good about this case.

So for the attorneys general, Democratic A.G.s, this is about upholding our Constitution protecting Americans against these harms, and making sure that we uphold the rule of law.

AMNA NAWAZ: Let me ask you, of course, about what the White House has to say, which is that Donald Trump is a duly elected president,who -- it's within his purview to appoint people to these positions to carry out his agenda.

We should also note in their latest filing that the White House stipulated Elon Musk isn't technically an employee of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency.

And, actually, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, was asked to clarify what his role and authority is on FOX earlier today.

Here's what she had to say.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, White House Press Secretary: Elon Musk has been tasked with overseeing DOGE on behalf of the president.

And DOGE employees, DOGE folks have been onboarding at respective agencies across our federal bureaucracy as political appointees, just like any other political appointee gets on board with the new administration with the changing of hands.

And those individuals are helping the secretaries at all of our agencies that have been nominated and confirmed by President Trump and the United States Senate to cut waste, fraud and abuse at these respective agencies.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Attorney General Mayes, you heard there they're saying that Elon Musk isn't the one firing people, that he's working with presidentially nominated Senate-confirmed secretaries of the agency, who do the firing.

Does that undermine your argument?

KRIS MAYES: No, because we have all of Elon Musk and Donald Trump's previous statements, which completely contradict what the White House press secretary just said today.

I mean, Elon Musk has bragged about firing thousands of federal workers.

Elon Musk has bragged about slashing and eliminating entire agencies like USAID, as has Donald Trump.

So the record is clear.

And I think it's important also, Amna, to note, that the judge in our case had to remind the government's lawyers not to lie to her court.

That is in a footnote of this decision.

So I think it's important for the White House to tell the truth.

Obviously, Elon Musk is acting in a way that violates the Appointments Clause.

He is acting with great and significant authority.

And all of the evidence demonstrates that.

And I would add to that, if the president wants to take these actions, he can do that by going to Congress and working with Congress in the way that our Constitution sets out.

But the problem is Americans don't want him to do what he's doing.

Americans don't want the elimination of the Department of Education.

Americans don't want employees of the -- of our nuclear work force eliminated.

Americans don't want... AMNA NAWAZ: Attorney General, if I may, the majority of Americans who voted did vote for Donald Trump and this agenda.

So they might disagree with you on that.

KRIS MAYES: Well, I don't really believe that the majority of Americans thought that they were going to get this kind of chaos and this kind of unconstitutional behavior.

Americans didn't vote for a dictator and they did not vote for a coup.

And that is exactly what is going on right now, when you have a president who is repeatedly violating federal court orders and is repeatedly violating the separation of powers.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes joining us tonight.

Attorney General Mayes, thank you for your time.

We appreciate it.

KRIS MAYES: Thanks, Amna.

GEOFF BENNETT: As we just heard, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency group is seeking access to data systems within the Internal Revenue Service that house personal information, detailed financial information about every taxpayer, business, and nonprofit in the country.

According to The Washington Post, the IRS is considering a memorandum of understanding that would give DOGE staff members broad access to its systems.

And that is raising concern about how the sensitive information is accessed and how it might be used.

For more on the risks and implications, we turn now to Natasha Sarin, professor at Yale Law School and a former tax policy adviser at the Treasury Department.

Thanks for being here.

NATASHA SARIN, Former Treasury Department Appointee: Thanks for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: So I want to draw on your experience at Treasury.

Help us understand what systems and what specific information these DOGE staff members could potentially access.

NATASHA SARIN: So what we're talking about here is something called the Integrated Data Retrieval System, or IDRS.

And what that data system is, is, for IRS employees, it's almost like an index of tax histories.

It is every single person, every single business in this country, their history with the agency.

So think about all the information that must be entailed in IDRS.

It is Social Security numbers.

It is personal bank account information.

It is your tax history, so how much you made and the ways in which you accrued income.

And all of that information is available to the IRS because, for example, if, during filing season, a taxpayer calls and asks the agency a question about a particular balance due or notice they have received, it's really easy for the IRS' customer service representative to pull up on the system and understand exactly what they should be telling that taxpayer.

But this data is incredibly safeguarded within the agency.

It is only accessible to people who have a specific reason for needing access to it.

They're going to interact with taxpayers and they need to be able to answer their questions.

I worked at the Treasury Department for two years.

I worked on issues related to tax credits and tax administration.

And I was nowhere near this data system.

I have polled former and current Treasury and IRS officials.

Political appointees are never near this data.

This data is so safeguarded, the IRS commissioner doesn't have access to it.

So I think it raises a lot of questions about why exactly we're even entertaining the notion of political actors from DOGE being able to have access to this type of information.

GEOFF BENNETT: So let's talk more about that.

What questions does this raise for you in terms of why these DOGE staffers want access to this information and how they might use it?

NATASHA SARIN: If you look at what the administration has been saying, there's this purported claim about waste, fraud, and abuse and wanting to make sure that fraudulent payments don't leave the government.

And I'm super sympathetic to that objective.

I think it's important for us to do more about fraud and mistaken payments.

The challenge is, I genuinely cannot come up with a reason why you might want access to IDRS that is related to fraud or some sense of mistaken payments.

The thing that I'm very worried about is, this is data that poses very significant data privacy risks to the American people.

It also -- the IRS experiences 1.4 billion cyberattacks each year, so there are real concerns about this type of data being accessed by our adversaries and being used against us.

And there are also concerns about the stability of the tax system.

We're in the middle of filing season.

Tax Day is about two months away.

What happens when one particular change in the IRS system that cascades through and means hundreds of millions of refunds aren't issued on time?

Those are the type of risks that IRS employees are worried about each day, and any potential mishandling or misuse of this data and this ecosystem really raises those risks quite significantly.

GEOFF BENNETT: What legal protections exist for people who are concerned about the very thing that you raise, that their personal, sensitive information might be improperly accessed or improperly used?

I know taxpayers who've had their information wrongfully disclosed are entitled to monetary damages.

Is that right?

NATASHA SARIN: That's absolutely right.

And what's so interesting and important to understand here is, in a bipartisan way, Congress passed very significant protections for taxpayers and protecting taxpayer privacy and taxpayer information.

That means that mishandling this data or making this data public intentionally or unintentionally can subject you to criminal fines, but also potential imprisonment.

And there is an actual private right of action that exists, that individuals whose data is disclosed can actually sue the government or sue individuals and say, I deserve compensation for the fact that my data is out there in the world in a way that I don't want it to be.

GEOFF BENNETT: You mentioned the legal challenges.

Late yesterday, a coalition of unions and tax and small business groups, they filed suit in an effort to block DOGE access to these systems that we have been discussing.

And the plaintiffs point out a conflict of interest that this affords Elon Musk.

They write: "DOGE will also have access to records of Mr. Musk's business competitors which are held by the IRS.

No other business owner on the planet has access to this kind of information on his competitors, and for good reason."

We heard Elon Musk in the Oval Office, I think it was last week, where he said that he would be the arbiter of his own conflicts of interest.

What questions does this raise for you?

NATASHA SARIN: I'm so concerned about how we think about the importance of the separation of any sense of political involvement from our payment system and from our tax system.

Another thing that is illegal in the tax system is for the executive or anyone affiliated with the executive to direct the IRS to do anything.

You can't say, I want you to audit this type of person or I want you to not send refunds to this category of people.

And so I really am quite concerned about what we're doing and what we're saying with respect to eroding some of those very strong safeguards that exist to make sure that the stability of the system and the proper role of politics and political influence and some of these conflicts of interest that you speak to are really respected.

GEOFF BENNETT: Are those safeguards, are they norms, or are they established laws?

NATASHA SARIN: They are literally established laws.

So, Section 7217 of the code says the executive cannot direct the IRS to do any auditing of particular individuals.

No enforcement decisions can be made by anyone who has a political affiliation in the administration.

And, again, those rules exist for good reason.

We have lived through the history of having our tax system and more generally our law enforcement system weaponized in ways that are disruptive to the rule of law and that are disruptive to our democracy.

And I just hope we're not at such a moment again.

GEOFF BENNETT: Natasha Sarin, thanks so much for sharing your insights with us.

NATASHA SARIN: Thanks so much for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: Investigators are still trying to determine what caused a dramatic Delta Air Lines regional jet crash in Toronto yesterday.

Stunning new video shows how the plane flipped over and caught on fire at Pearson Airport.

All 80 passengers survived; 21 people were injured, including two who remain hospitalized.

Air traffic controllers warned pilots of winds up to 38 miles per hour just before the plane attempted to land.

It is the latest in a string of significant accidents this year, four in less than a month, including that fatal midair collision in Washington, D.C., between a Black Hawk helicopter and a jet that killed 67 people.

For more on all of this, I'm joined by David Shepardson of Reuters.

David, good to see you.

Thanks for being here.

DAVID SHEPARDSON, Reuters: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So let's just start with this Toronto crash.

What do you take away from the latest information we have gotten from officials?

Do they have any idea about the cause?

DAVID SHEPARDSON: So we do know that the investigators from Canada have recovered the flight data recorder, the cockpit voice recorder.

Those are going to be read and analyzed.

We should get more information about what happened in those final moments.

But it's clear investigators are going to focus on the actions of the pilot, not that they necessarily did anything wrong, but, as you said, we're dealing with severe crosswinds.

And the one question that is certainly in the minds of experts is, was the plane flaring?

That means, when you land, there's a little bit of a pitch up, right, sort of gently land on the ground.

And from the videos, it appears the plane was not flaring like a normal plane would.

Now, that could have been because of the pilot trying to deal with these winds, or perhaps the wind wasn't there at the moment of landing that they thought.

So that's one key question.

What happened and why did it appear that the plane landed at such a high rate of speed?

AMNA NAWAZ: The video is just so remarkable.

I know people are taking notice of it, how it landed upside down... DAVID SHEPARDSON: Yes.

Sure.

AMNA NAWAZ: ... but also the fact that everyone on board survived.

What should we take away from that?

DAVID SHEPARDSON: Just remarkable, right?

And, first, you have to recognize the actions of the flight crew, the flight attendants getting everybody off that plane safely.

And, as you said, there are two people hospitalized.

They are expected to recover.

And, also, let's remember there's a lot of regulations that require the seats to be able to withstand up to 16g of gravitational forces when that plane lands.

The structural requirements of that plane, when it tipped over, it didn't collapse on itself.

So between the air traffic controllers and all the parts of the system, is this still a very safe system.

AMNA NAWAZ: We mentioned there's other significant accidents over the last few weeks.

People will remember seeing these headlines.

Here's a quick listing here.

We saw, of course, that Washington, D.C., midair crash.

There were also crashes in Pennsylvania and in Alaska, the private planes colliding in Arizona.

And, David, as you know, it's worth pointing out, as of today, there have actually been 88 reported aviation accidents in 2025.

Just put that into context for us.

Is that a low number?

Should people be worried?

What does that mean?

DAVID SHEPARDSON: So I looked at the NTSB data before this, and it's actually lower -- I think it was around 130 or something in the first six or seven weeks of this year -- or sorry -- last year, the two months versus the first six or seven weeks of this year.

However, that doesn't mean -- and most of those are -- nearly all are small planes, single -- private planes involved in accidents.

It's worth noting that before that collision outside of Reagan National, we had gone 16 years in the United States without a U.S. pasture airline fatal crash, since 2009.

So the system is very safe.

Now, that is not to say we have not had a series of very troubling near miss incidents.

And it raises questions about, is the system overstressed?

We have air traffic controllers in many places working six-day weeks, mandatory overtime.

We're about 3,500 controllers short of where the standard -- the ideal staffing should be.

And, remember, the airlines, there's more and more flights being added.

There's more demand.

So the system is under some level of stress.

And I think one question is, how do we ensure that, as we add more demand, that the system can perform safely, despite areas where we clearly don't have enough staffing?

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, in that context, let me ask you about this.

This week, we have learned the Trump administration has begun firing several hundred FAA employees as part of this larger cost and staff-cutting effort across the government.

Late last night, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy tweeted this.

He said that fewer than 400 employees were fired.

And he also said zero air traffic controllers and critical safety personnel were let go.

David, you talked to a lot of these folks.

Is there any concern that these mass firings could impact air safety in some way?

DAVID SHEPARDSON: So the secretary is right.

They did not fire any air traffic controllers.

It is worth noting, however, that they did initially get those offers to quit, and then, after some concern was raised by airlines and others, that the administration clarified that these safety employees, transportation security officers, air traffic controllers, air safety inspectors, were not eligible for this retirement offer.

Now, some of those individuals who've been let go, these probationary employees, are people, as Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state said, are people who maintain ground-based radar systems for the FAA, at least jobs that are safety related or safety -- but not necessarily safety-critical.

And there's certainly a debate, what does it mean to be safety-critical, as to have some sort of safety function?

It's clear that Democrats and the union and others say none of those safety-related positions should be eliminated.

And that's going to be the topic of a lot of debate on Capitol Hill about, do these cuts make sense in light of all the other safety issues facing the U.S.?

AMNA NAWAZ: In about 30 seconds left, give me a sense of what you're hearing from folks on the inside amid all of these cuts and concerns.

DAVID SHEPARDSON: Right.

So, look, I think everybody in the aviation industry and the government is very concerned about these incidents, right?

There's no pattern so far, except, is the system -- are people under stress?

Are there ways to de-stress the system and ensure that people continue to get all the equipment and the support they need?

And do we have -- and are the flights properly maintained?

And do the airlines -- are they flying too many flights?

AMNA NAWAZ: David Shepardson from Reuters, always good to see you.

Thank you so much.

DAVID SHEPARDSON: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Last month's deadly wildfires in California destroyed thousands of homes, killed at least 29 people, and will likely cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

President Trump has repeatedly claimed that state officials made this disaster worse by how they manage the state's complex water system.

William Brangham looks at those allegations and the realities of water management in the nation's most populous state.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: While fires were still burning in Southern California and crews were trying to save lives and property, then-president-elect Trump took aim at California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: It's very sad, because I have been trying to get Gavin Newsom to allow water to come.

You would have tremendous water up there.

They sent it out to the Pacific.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And after he took office, he kept coming back to how California officials managed their water, blaming them for making the fires worse.

DONALD TRUMP: We're demanding that they turn the valve back toward Los Angeles.

Millions of gallons of water are waiting to be poured down.

A fire that could have been put out if they let the water flow.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But is it true that more water from Northern California could have helped Los Angeles?

PETER GLEICK, Co-Founder, Pacific Institute: There's no truth to that.

Donald Trump has a strange fixation with California water policy.

He has for many, many years.

He comes out here.

He talks about some imaginary valve or some imaginary faucet that he or someone else could turn to increase the amount of water that flows from Northern California to Southern California.

It's sort of an odd fixation.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Let's start with some context.

California has one of the largest and most complex water systems in the world.

It's responsible for delivering drinking water to almost 40 million people and irrigating farms that grow three-quarters of the nation's fruits and nuts.

That enormous task is complicated by an increasingly hot and dry climate, growing demands for that water and geography.

So where does the state's water come from?

About a third of Southern California's supply comes from the Colorado River.

And then there's precipitation.

Even though 75 percent of the state's rain and snow falls north of the state capital, Sacramento, 80 percent of the demand comes from areas further south, in cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles and the vast farmlands of the San Joaquin Valley.

When rain and snow fall in the north, whatever doesn't evaporate can seep into the ground to be pumped or travel through massive networks of dams, reservoirs, canals and aqueducts across the state.

And how all that water is allotted and to whom has been a source of friction in California for decades.

NARRATOR: Presently, it will be used by thousands of farmers who will transform the arid desert into fields of green crops.

PETER GLEICK: The disputes are who gets to use how much water for what purposes.

We fight between cities and farms and we fight over how much water belongs to the ecosystems.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But President Trump's accusations have driven renewed attention to this issue.

During the blazes, firefighters reported that hydrants had low pressure or rain completely dry.

Despite the president's claims that water being held up north was to blame, experts say supply wasn't the issue.

In fact, most key reservoirs serving Los Angeles County had more water than normal.

The problem was infrastructure.

PETER GLEICK: Our urban water systems are designed to help us put out a house fire or a couple of house fires.

They're not designed to deal with the massive kinds of wildfires that swept through the Los Angeles area.

If you have a glass of water and you have one straw, you can drink that water and there's no real problem.

But when you have 1,000 straws in that same glass of water, the glass gets drained immediately.

And no matter how fast you try to refill it, you can't refill it.

And that's what happened here.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Trump also keeps coming back to something else, that the fires were made worse by California's protection of an endangered fish known as the delta smelt.

Again, analysts say there is no connection.

LETITIA GRENIER, Public Policy Institute of California: As far as we can tell, there's no relationship between the fires in Southern California and leaving some water in the rivers for delta smelt and other endangered fish.

The reservoirs in Southern California are full, and there's not a limitation water supply there.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Even so, on January 24, Trump signed an executive order to override state policies and maximize water delivery.

Days later, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which controls some water systems in the state, released over two billion gallons of water from two dams in the San Joaquin Valley.

The president posted this photo saying: "Beautiful water flow that I just opened in California.

I only wish they'd listened to me six years ago.

There would have been no fire."

PETER GLEICK: There's no ability physically to move the water in those reservoirs to the Los Angeles area.

There are mountains in between.

There's no aqueduct, no pipelines, no systems of water transfer.

The loss of that water from those reservoirs, some of it evaporated.

Some of it may have gone back into groundwater, but it certainly never reached Los Angeles.

The water that was dumped belonged to farmers in Southern California and now will not be available to those farmers who are going to need that water in the hot dry season that's coming.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Now, we should note, we spoke to a farmer in the region who said, while it'd be better to have that water later in the year, the release was relatively small and won't have a huge impact.

And in the long term, many farmers would be supportive of the president's push to increase water flow there.

But, again, that had no bearing on the fires or the devastating toll they took on Southern California.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm William Brangham.

GEOFF BENNETT: Now a conversation with Ambassador Andrew Young, a pivotal figure in the civil rights movement, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a two-term mayor of Atlanta.

The country last saw him as he delivered a heartfelt homily at the funeral of former President Jimmy Carter last month.

I spoke with Ambassador Young in Atlanta last week to get his insights on the current political moment and his reflections on his extraordinary life of service.

Few lives have so clearly traced the arc of the civil rights movement as that of Ambassador Andrew Young.

Activist, diplomat, mayor, and statesman, his journey has both shaped and been shaped by the fight for equality.

Your life is a chronicle of civil rights progress in this country.

What does this current moment feel like to you?

ANDREW YOUNG, Former U.S.

Ambassador to the United Nations: You know, I don't know.

But the first thing that popped into my mind was the spiritual, lord, I don't feel no ways tired.

We have come too far from where we started from.

And nobody ever told us that the way would be easy, but I don't believe he brought us this far to leave us.

And I'm not worried.

I'm not anxious.

It's just another struggle.

My parents taught me to deal with the slights and oppression.

My father's mantra was, don't get mad, get smart.

He said, if you lose your temper in a fight, you lose the fight, and that your mind is the most powerful thing you have.

GEOFF BENNETT: Your father's advice to get smart, what does getting smart look like today?

ANDREW YOUNG: Well, never let your adversary define the problem, because the things that President Trump considers problems, I consider blessings.

GEOFF BENNETT: Like what?

ANDREW YOUNG: Well, I always have thought that my Christianity says this is my father's world.

And this hunger and starvation of God's children anywhere is a responsibility that I should assume if I can.

Nationalism went out in the 1900s.

In fact, that's probably what the Second World War was about, to say that we can't make it as a single nation this planet, and that we have got to learn to live together as brothers and sisters, or we will perish together as fools.

GEOFF BENNETT: Andrew Young got his start in the civil rights movement in the 1950s as a pastor.

He joined the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, becoming a key lieutenant to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., often responding to the many letters Dr. King received from politicians, activists and supporters seeking guidance.

Young says he and Dr. King ultimately bonded over their shared experiences and values.

ANDREW YOUNG: We had a similar background.

Both parents had been to college.

He was a privileged kid from Atlanta.

And I was in some ways a privileged kid from New Orleans, who we both just happened to be Black.

And he liked the way I would answer his letters.

But he never asked me to write a speech.

He would ask me to do some research on a speech that he had to give.

But, for one, he didn't read speeches and he didn't need anybody to write them for him.

And the ones that he wrote for himself were not his greatest speeches.

GEOFF BENNETT: Wow.

His greatest speeches were?

ANDREW YOUNG: The ones that got written up after he preached them.

Somebody recorded them and transcribed them.

But he didn't speak from paper at all.

GEOFF BENNETT: That was his process?

He would preach and whatever came to mind he would say and it would be recorded and transcribed?

ANDREW YOUNG: Pretty much.

GEOFF BENNETT: Wow.

ANDREW YOUNG: He did some writing.

He wrote his books.

But that was the way we did it in the Black church.

And then when I went to the tiny church in South Georgia, that's the first thing they said.

We know you have been up North, and the white folks up there have the same Bible we have, but we don't want you to come down here reading nothing from that Bible.

If it comes from your heart, and said, we don't like no paper in the pulpit.

He said, if you bring paper in the pulpit and start reading to people, he said, you're not going to have a church in three weeks.

GEOFF BENNETT: Wow.

No paper in the pulpit.

Yes.

What was Dr. King like?

ANDREW YOUNG: He was a lot of fun, for one thing, had a great sense of humor.

And you have to remember that he never made it to 40, that he was a very Young man.

He had a big, healthy laugh, liked to tell jokes.

He had the same kind of education that you have.

And his favorite -- I was his favorite, well, football, because he loved to kick me around.

ANDREW YOUNG: Any time I made a mistake or said something, he said: "Now, if you had gone to Morehouse instead of Howard, you would know better than that."

GEOFF BENNETT: It was Dr. King who steered Young toward a career in public service.

When we spoke years ago, you told me about the last conversation you had with Dr. King.

It was right before he went to Memphis.

And he was talking about bringing the energy of the civil rights movement and transferring that energy, that vitality into politics.

Tell me about that.

ANDREW YOUNG: Well, it was just before he went to Memphis.

And he'd been preaching in New York.

And Harry Belafonte dropped by, and John Conyers from Michigan, and Tom Bradley.

I mean, there was a collection of political leaders, and they were talking about, where does the movement go from here?

And the general agreement was that we shouldn't have to have 1,000 people march to get a seat at the table, see, that if we want to change the books in our schools, if we want to improve the opportunities, we should have representatives that we elect.

And everybody agreed.

And that's why I ended up running for Congress, not because I wanted to, but because nobody else wanted to.

GEOFF BENNETT: He ran and won.

In 1972, Young was elected Georgia's first Black congressman since Reconstruction.

His ambitions reached beyond Washington.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed him as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, making him the first African American to hold that role.

Returning to Georgia years later, he continued to shape history.

As mayor of Atlanta in the 1980s, he helped transform the city into a global hub, laying the groundwork for the 1996 Olympics.

He championed economic development, ensuring that civil rights progress translated into real opportunities.

These days, his nonprofit foundation is the outlet for his civil rights and humanitarian work.

Looking back on your life of service, all that you have accomplished, what do you want your legacy to be?

How do you want folks to remember you?

ANDREW YOUNG: First thing I thought of is, he tried to feed the hungry, because that's what we have been doing.

I mean, we called it minimum wage, and we called it equal opportunity employment, and we called it affirmative action, but it was really just trying to get all of God's children to have enough to eat, really structuring a society that is fair and gives everybody an equal opportunity to be the best that they can be.

AMNA NAWAZ: And remember, there's a lot more online, including conversations with oil workers in Oklahoma about what they're expecting from President Donald Trump's oil and gas policies.

That is at PBS.org/NewsHour.

GEOFF BENNETT: And join us again here tomorrow night, as Judy Woodruff speaks with political scientist Robert Putnam about the possibility of a more unified nation.

And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "News Hour" team, thank you for joining us.