GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "News Hour" tonight: DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: You're not in a good position.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President: I was... DONALD TRUMP: You don't have the cards right now.

With us, you start having cards.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: We are not playing cards.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ukrainian President Zelenskyy spars with President Trump in the Oval Office, a stunning public display of devolving relations over U.S. efforts to negotiate an end to the war that Russia started.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Trump administration slashes more federal government jobs, including weather forecasters, as judges put a halt to some of the mass firings, but not all.

AMNA NAWAZ: And David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart give their analysis on another turbulent week in the nation's capital.

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

An extraordinary scene in the Oval Office today, as President Donald Trump made a public break with Ukrainian President Donald Trump.

GEOFF BENNETT: The two presidents, as well as Vice President Vance, argued for nearly five minutes with the cameras rolling, a spectacle that could have profound effects on Ukraine and the U.S. relationship with Europe.

Here's Nick Schifrin.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In the Oval Office today, an unprecedented, unmitigated train wreck.

J.D.

VANCE, Vice President of the United States: The path to peace and the path to prosperity is maybe engaging in diplomacy.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President: Can I ask you?

J.D.

VANCE: Sure, yeah, yeah.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: OK. NICK SCHIFRIN: What follows is the majority of the war of words over a country at war, beginning with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy doubting any diplomacy with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: He broken the cease-fire, he killed our people, and he didn't exchange prisoners.

We signed the exchange of prisoners but he didn't do it.

What kind of diplomacy, J.D., you are speaking about?

What do you have -- what do you -- what do you mean?

J.D.

VANCE: I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction of your country.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: Yeah, but he... J.D.

VANCE: Mr. President -- Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.

Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems.

You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict... VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: Have you ever been to Ukraine?

That you say what problems we have.

J.D.

VANCE: I have been to... VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: Then come once.

J.D.

VANCE: I have actually -- I have actually watched and seen the stories, and I know what happens, is you bring people -- you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President.

Are -- do you disagree that you've had problems... VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: What?

J.D.

VANCE: ... bringing people into your military?

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: We have problems... J.D.

VANCE: And do you think that it's respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to -- trying to prevent the destruction of your country?

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: I will answer.

A lot of -- a lot of questions.

Let's start from the beginning.

J.D.

VANCE: Sure.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: First of all, during the war, everybody has problems.

Even you, but you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but you will feel it in the future.

God bless... DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: You don't know that.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: God bless... DONALD TRUMP: Don't tell us what we're going to feel.

We're trying to solve a problem.

Don't tell us what we're going to feel.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: I'm not telling you.

I'm answering... DONALD TRUMP: You're in no position to dictate that.

Remember that.

You're in no position to dictate what we're going to feel.

You've allowed yourself to be in a very bad position, and he's - - happens to be right about it.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: ... from the very beginning of the war... DONALD TRUMP: You're not in a good position.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: I was... DONALD TRUMP: You don't have the cards right now.

With us, you start having cards, but right now, you don't... VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: We are not playing cards.

I am very serious, Mr. President, I'm very serious.

DONALD TRUMP: You're gambling with the lives of millions of people.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: You think... DONALD TRUMP: You're gambling with World War III.

And what you're doing is very disrespectful to the country, this country.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: I'm... (CROSSTALK) DONALD TRUMP: Far more than a lot of people said they should have.

J.D.

VANCE: Have you said "Thank you" once this entire meeting?

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: A lot of times.

J.D.

VANCE: No, in this entire meeting, have you said "thank you"?

You went to Pennsylvania and campaigned for the opposition in October.

Offer some words of appreciation for the United States of America and the president who's trying to save your country.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: Please, you think that if you will speak very loudly about the war, you can... DONALD TRUMP: He's not speaking loudly.

He's not speaking loudly.

Your country's in big trouble.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: Can I answer?

DONALD TRUMP: We gave you... DONALD TRUMP: ... through the stupid president $350 billion... VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: You voted... DONALD TRUMP: Your men are brave, but they had to use our military... DONALD TRUMP: If you didn't have our military equipment... VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: You invited me to speak... (CROSSTALK) DONALD TRUMP: If you didn't have our military equipment, this war would have been over in two weeks.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: In three days.

I heard it from Putin, in three days.

This is something... DONALD TRUMP: Maybe less.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: In two weeks.

Of course he has.

DONALD TRUMP: It's going to be a very hard thing to do business like this.

You have to be thankful.

You don't have the cards.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY: I'm thankful.

DONALD TRUMP: You're buried there.

Your people are dying.

You're running low on soldiers.

Listen, it's going to be a tough deal to make because the attitudes have to change.

And your people are very brave, but you're either going to make a deal or we're out.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And that's exactly what President Trump did.

After the meeting, he wrote on TRUTH Social: "I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for peace if America is involved.

He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office.

He can come back when he's ready for peace."

Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian delegation left without the economic deal that he came here to sign.

Moscow responded with glee.

Former Russian President and deputy chair of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev tweeted: "The insolent pig finally got a proper slap-down in the Oval Office, and Donald Trump is right.

The Kyiv regime is gambling with World War III."

For weeks, European leaders have been trying to prevent a U.S.-Ukraine break.

This week, they thought they made progress, with Trump suggesting just yesterday Ukraine could gain back occupied territory.

DONALD TRUMP: We're going to see if we can get it back.

We will get a lot of it back for Ukraine, if that's possible.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But what a difference a day makes.

DONALD TRUMP: But you're not acting at all thankful, and that's not a nice thing.

I will be honest.

That's not a nice thing.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Today, Europe rallied to Zelenskyy's defense.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote: "Your dignity honors the bravery of the Ukrainian people."

The European Union's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, wrote: "Today, it became clear that the free world needs a new leader.

It's up to us Europeans to take this challenge."

And French President Emmanuel Macron: EMMANUEL MACRON, French President (through translator): We have to thank all those who have helped and respect all those who, from the beginning, have done the fighting, because they're fighting for their dignity, their independence, for their children, and for the security of Europe.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): What do I think?

Complete, utter disaster.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But, back at the White House, Trump and Ukraine ally South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham said diplomacy with Zelenskyy was all but dead.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I talked to Zelenskyy this morning.

Don't take the bait.

What I saw in the Oval Office was disrespectful.

And I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelenskyy again.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In the last hour, President Trump repeated that message, saying that Zelenskyy wanted to come back to the White House tonight, but that the president was leaving for Mar-a-Lago.

And the president also said that, in order to restart U.S.-Ukrainian talks, Zelenskyy would have to say -- quote -- "I want to make peace.

I don't want to fight a war any longer."

That is not something, Geoff, he's been willing to say.

And, right now it's not clear how or if U.S. support for Ukraine will continue.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, Nick, beyond their public comments, what are European leaders telling you about how they're viewing all of this?

NICK SCHIFRIN: Multiple officials told me tonight that this feels like a fundamental transatlantic break.

As we just reported, all of them came to Zelenskyy's defense tonight, and today's meeting came after Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth traveled to Europe in the last few weeks and made it clear that it was not the Trump administration's priority to defend Europe.

So, the incoming German chancellor is saying that Europe needs strategic independence from the U.S. and a senior U.S. -- senior European, rather, official tells me tonight that, over the next week, Europe will, one, draw up its own security guarantees for Ukraine and send more financing and equipment to Ukraine directly.

Geoff, European officials have said this in the past, but they seem to mean it more than ever.

But we know that nothing can replace U.S. military support for Ukraine.

GEOFF BENNETT: Nick Schifrin at the White House for us tonight.

Nick, thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, as we reported, some of the president's staunchest allies stood behind his actions in the Oval Office today.

But Ukraine supporters within the Republican Party have expressed concerns about how that meeting played out.

Joining me now to discuss is Republican Congressman Mike Lawler.

He's a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Congressman, welcome back to the "News Hour."

You said in a statement after that White House meeting that it was a missed opportunity for both countries.

What did you mean by that?

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Well, this was an inflection point, certainly today, and an opportunity for greater economic cooperation between the United States and Ukraine.

And ultimately with that would have come greater security cooperation, because you would have had U.S. investment on the ground moving forward.

You would have had U.S. personnel there.

And ultimately, obviously, I think once a cease-fire agreement reached, it would have been extremely difficult for Vladimir Putin to go back on that.

We can still salvage this, and it needs to be salvaged, because, obviously, failure here would be catastrophic for Europe and the free world.

If Vladimir Putin is successful and does in fact ultimately seize control of Ukraine, that would have devastating consequences for years to come, but especially for Eastern Europe.

So, from my vantage point, this was a missed opportunity.

Diplomacy is tough, and sometimes there's going to be tension and disagreement, and the sausage-making is ugly.

But this was just unfortunate that it spilled out into public view as they work through some of the disagreement.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, for it to play out so publicly and on live television, we know everyone, including the Russians, were watching, and many of them are very happy, expressing real pleasure after that whole incident.

Why do you think they're so happy?

What message do they receive from that meeting today?

REP. MIKE LAWLER: Well, because a deal wasn't reached.

A deal between the United States and Ukraine is most certainly not in Russia's best interest.

And so the only winner here today was Vladimir Putin and Russia because a deal did not come to be, which is also why I believe it's critically important for President Zelenskyy and President Trump to get back together and work towards finalizing an agreement, because when this conflict does come to an end, and it will at some point, when it comes to an end, Ukraine is going to need significant U.S. and European investment to rebuild.

And this agreement starts to put that framework together.

And that obviously is vital to ensure their structural sovereignty moving forward.

AMNA NAWAZ: You seem to be saying we're further away from a deal now than we were before that meeting, for sure.

And I should point out that President Trump repeated this false claim in that meeting.

He said other places about the amount of aid that's been given to Ukraine by the U.S. We have heard him repeat the Russian propaganda that Ukraine started the war.

Are you concerned that his views, that U.S. policy is now being based on disinformation?

And if so, how does that get you back to a deal?

REP. MIKE LAWLER: Look, I have been very clear that Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.

This was an unprovoked war of aggression by Putin, who has committed numerous war crimes.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes, sir, but that's not what President Trump has been saying, correct?

REP. MIKE LAWLER: And -- well, respectfully, who has committed numerous war crimes throughout.

What President Trump is seeking to do is ultimately reach a cease-fire and bring this conflict to an end.

I think it's very clear that, the longer this conflict continues, the more precarious place that Ukraine is in.

Getting Putin to the table is no small task.

And, obviously, given the last three years and the lack of communication with the United States and many of our allies, getting him to the table is paramount if you're going to get an actual cease-fire and get a long-term agreement.

I think that's President Trump's objective as he works to bring this conflict to an end, while supporting Ukraine economically and having an agreement that, frankly, is in both our nations' interests.

This is not easy in terms of both the diplomatic effort, but also, obviously, ending a conflict in which you're dealing with Vladimir Putin, who has proven himself to be a vile dictator and thug for decades.

So, there's a lot of work ahead, and I think it is imperative that we get President Zelenskyy back to the table with President Trump and finalize this agreement.

AMNA NAWAZ: Republican Congressman Mike Lawler, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Congressman, thank you for being with us.

Appreciate your time.

REP. MIKE LAWLER: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Let's turn now to one of the country's leading historians on Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, who has written widely on Ukraine, Russia, and this war.

Timothy Snyder is the Richard C. Levin professor of history at Yale University.

Thank you for being with us.

From your perspective, as one who has written extensively on Ukraine, its struggle for independence, its role in European geopolitics, what did you see in that spectacle in the Oval Office earlier today?

TIMOTHY SNYDER, Yale Historian: Well, what you see is that the president of the United States has a little bit of trouble controlling political reality once he gets beyond the United States.

The premise was that we are working towards a peace arrangement between Russia and Ukraine.

But, thus far, all we have done is make concessions to Russia.

That's all we have done.

And then the second thing we have done now is, we brought the Ukrainian president to the White House and tried to humiliate him.

So we have created a situation where we have favored the aggressor and weakened the defender.

You can't really get to peace on that logic.

You have to do exactly the opposite.

There's a lot of wisdom in what Representative Lawler just said, but in order to have the right people at the table, though, you have to have the right balance of strength.

And encouraging the aggressor and attacking the country that's trying to defend itself is not going to get you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, after the meeting, the White House put out a press release with the subject line: "President Trump and V.P.

Vance are standing up for Americans."

To hear White House officials tell it, they got what they wanted out of this meeting.

From their view, it was a projection of strength and that Trump and Vance castigating Zelenskyy is what it looks like to stand up for American interests.

I know you have a different view.

How do you see it?

TIMOTHY SNYDER: Well, I mean, I think you're setting a pretty low bar for yourself when you think that yelling across the room at your guest is a show of strength, regardless of whether it's the Oval Office or not.

And I think you're setting a pretty low bar for yourself internationally if you think that doing things that please countries that wish to destroy you is a show of strength, which is, of course, what just happened.

Strategically, what we are doing, what the United States is doing, is trading a set of Western alliances for an alliance with Russia.

Now, the main way Russia engages with us is by stealing our technology and by hacking into our infrastructure.

The Russian economy is smaller than Canada's, but we are nevertheless going to trade 80 years of alliance with reliable partners that are 15, 16, 17 times bigger than Russia as an economy for an alliance with Russia.

There is no way that that is a show of strength, in any other than perhaps some kind of distant psychological way that I'm afraid I can't really understand.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, let's talk more about that, because we saw European leaders today side with Ukraine in tweets and written statements.

Our Nick Schifrin reports that European leaders are coming up now with security guarantees.

What are the real-world implications for the U.S. if Europe no longer sees us as a reliable partner?

TIMOTHY SNYDER: I think there's a sort of mode here, which is very important to understand.

In domestic politics, Trump has gone a long way by bullying people and by bluffing.

And that when it comes to our allies only works negatively.

They just draw the conclusion that we can't be trusted.

And then, when it comes to our enemies, like Russia and China, or countries within which we're in a rivalry, it doesn't work at all.

It simply has no effect on them because they are not afraid of Trump.

They have no reason to be afraid of Trump until he can marshal some kind of American policy instrument, which he doesn't seem to be able to do with respect to them.

So, where we are now is that we have created the world very quickly, four or five weeks, in which the level of American strength is incomparably lower than it was in late 2024, and in which it's hard to imagine how we would get that level of strength back up.

Because it's very easy to have -- it's very easy to break relationships, but it's very hard to build them back up again.

And it's very easy to fantasize about some kind of wonderful relationship with a country like Russia, but it's very hard to imagine how that relationship, in fact could benefit the United States as a whole.

GEOFF BENNETT: Let's talk about what might come next, because, after the meeting, President Trump posted on social media that Zelenskyy can come back when he is ready for peace.

The president, when he was leaving for Florida earlier tonight, he told reporters: "I want anybody that's going to make peace."

Is it possible that cooler heads could prevail and that Trump and Zelenskyy could arrive at some sort of wary agreement, or is the damage done here?

TIMOTHY SNYDER: Well, I mean, I would like to - - I would disagree with Representative Lawler, I'm sure, about many, many things, but there was something important about what he said.

The only way you can get to peace is to have the Ukrainians at the table, because they're the country that is being attacked.

You have to create a situation in which the Ukrainians believe that Russia might, in fact, stop killing them.

That can be done.

American power could be applied.

European power could be applied.

We could change the structure of the situation such that Russia wouldn't just pretend, which they have done numerous times already, as President Zelenskyy, by the way, quite rightly said in the White House to J.D.

Vance, who I'm afraid just doesn't know his history of these things.

We could do that, and it would be the right thing to do, and it's, of course, not unimaginable.

But I'm afraid what it requires is that the leadership of our country, of the United States, get away from these very predictable psychological vulnerabilities, where we can be goaded on and prodded and provoked by one another, or by the Russians, or whatever it might be into doing things that don't make sense for us, let alone for the world as a whole.

And that's what we saw today.

We saw a lot of psychological vulnerability.

We saw a lot of people not able to maintain any kind of poise.

We saw people who were representing their momentary impulses or their feelings of strength, rather than the interests of the United States of America.

And it's easy to criticize other countries and other people, but, frankly, we're going to have to have a much better game if we're going to do the sorts of things that you're talking about, like bringing about peace.

GEOFF BENNETT: A final question about President Zelenskyy's role and responsibility in all of this, because Lindsey Graham, who has spoken in support of Ukraine in the past, said that he spoke to Zelenskyy this morning, told him, don't take the bait.

Donald Trump is in a mood to do a deal.

President Zelenskyy is a wartime leader who clearly did not take kindly to being lectured and lied to in the Oval Office.

But what responsibility does he have to make sure that future meetings don't go off the rails?

Donald Trump is a known quantity.

It's clear to many people what angers him and what animates him.

TIMOTHY SNYDER: A deal which is a result of being intimidated and the precedent of being publicly humiliated can't be in the interest, not only of the president, but of the country.

Of course, President Zelenskyy should be open to peace process led by the United States, but if we are leading it by openly humiliating him, that is a bad sign, which a wise leader can't fail to recognize.

GEOFF BENNETT: Timothy Snyder, our thanks to you for joining us this evening.

We appreciate it.

AMNA NAWAZ: We start the day's other headlines in the Middle East, where the first phase of the fragile cease-fire deal between Israel and Hamas is set to expire tomorrow.

An Israeli delegation returned from Cairo today with gaps reportedly remaining in negotiations.

Egyptian security sources are cited as saying that Israel is pushing to extend the first phase of the deal.

Hamas said today it's ready to move on to the second stage, which would entail negotiating a permanent end to the war.

In the meantime, in Israel, mourners gathered at a stadium for the memorial ceremony of hostage Tsachi Idan, whose remains were returned this week along with three others.

And, in Gaza, Palestinians prepared for the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, even as their homes and communities lie in ruins.

Back in this country, a jury in Illinois found a 73-year-old landlord guilty of murder and hate crimes today for killing a Palestinian-American boy and seriously injuring his mother.

The mother testified that Joseph Czuba attacked her with a knife in 2023 before stabbing her 6-year-old son, Wadee Alfayoumi, to death in another room.

Authorities say that Czuba attacked them because they are Muslim and as a response to the Israel-Hamas war.

He pleaded not guilty.

Pope Francis suffered an isolated breathing crisis this afternoon.

The Vatican said a bronchial spasm led to a -- quote -- "episode of vomiting with inhalation and sudden worsening of the respiratory condition."

The scare required the use of supplemental oxygen.

Doctors at Gemelli Hospital in Rome say the pope responded well and remained conscious throughout.

Today's setback came after two relatively upbeat days for the 88-year-old pontiff.

The Vatican has already made alternative plans for Ash Wednesday next week to account for the pope's condition.

A so-called economic blackout called for today has been getting plenty of attention online, but its impact is still unclear.

PROTESTER: We spend money and make people rich without even realizing we're doing it.

AMNA NAWAZ: An activist group called The People's Union called on Americans not to spend any money for 24 hours.

They say it's a way to protest the influence of billionaires, big corporations and both major political parties.

One Atlanta resident said she's taking part because she's tired of corporate greed.

BROOKLYN KIMMEL, Clark Atlanta University Student: I have locked my cards up already.

I'm not spending any money at all.

I feel like our voices aren't being heard, but they're still receiving our money.

They won't stop.

They won't actually listen to us until we stop giving them our money.

AMNA NAWAZ: Experts say today's economic blackout is relatively uncoordinated compared to other such protests, and it's unclear whether it will have much impact on the companies it targets.

The same group plans another broad economic blackout on March 28.

The Internet calling service Skype is shutting down.

Owner Microsoft is directing users to the company's Team service instead.

Skype launched in 2003 and quickly became a go-to for audio and video calls worldwide.

When Microsoft bought Skype in 2011, it had roughly 170 million users each month.

But the rise of smartphones and competition from apps like WhatsApp and Zoom have cut into Skype's market share.

Skype will officially go out of service on May 5.

On Wall Street today, stocks closed out the month on an upbeat note.

The Dow Jones industrial average jumped about 600 points on the day.

The Nasdaq added roughly 300 points.

The S&P 500 also ended firmly in positive territory.

And for space lovers and amateurs alike, tonight is the best chance to get a glimpse of what's known as a planetary parade.

It's a rare event when seven planets all share the night sky, and many of them visible to the naked eye.

Mars, Jupiter, Uranus, Venus, Neptune, Mercury, and Saturn will align in an arc to the south before Mercury and Saturn drop too low on the horizon.

The phenomenon won't happen again for at least a decade.

For the best viewing experience, you will want to find a place with a clear sky and minimal light pollution.

Two of the planets, Uranus and Neptune, won't be visible without binoculars or a telescope.

Still to come on the "News Hour": the National Weather Service faces drastic cuts from the Trump administration; David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on the week's political headlines; and Oscar nominee Fernanda Torres on her role in the Brazilian film "I'm Still Here."

GEOFF BENNETT: The Trump administration continues to hollow out the federal work force, and more cuts are in the forecast, despite courts largely siding with fired employees so far.

Let's bring in our Lisa Desjardins.

So, Lisa, let's start with the latest mass firings, now including the National Weather Service?

Bring us up to speed.

LISA DESJARDINS: That's correct.

This is in the past two days.

We have seen more firings.

That includes the National Weather forest -- sorry -- Service forecasters that work as part of NOAA.

So let's take a look at what is new here at the National Weather Service and NOAA, some 1,200 new firings just in the past few days.

That includes forecasters.

Also, I have confirmed that the IRS, at least 1,000 to 5,000 firings have been happening across the last week.

The current total, I have looked at every known mass fire in the last couple of weeks.

I have by my spreadsheet; 30,000-plus people have been fired by the Trump... GEOFF BENNETT: Thirty thousand people?

LISA DESJARDINS: That's correct, at least.

It's probably much more than that.

That's what's known.

Now, that does not include 7,000 people at the Social Security Administration who have been -- we have heard from them that they intend to fire those people.

That's not even in that total.

This is just the beginning.

Now, I also want to say that this is part of Elon Musk and President Trump saying that government needs to be downsized.

It needs to be more efficient.

But what they're doing here is instead sort of haphazardly targeting very wide groups of workers without clear reviews.

And it is leading to some protests around the country.

For example, this video was sent to me by a fired worker in West Virginia in Parkersburg, where they had a protest today.

If you want to take -- there you go.

PROTESTERS: Vote them out!

Vote them out!

Vote them out!

LISA DESJARDINS: So you heard them, "Vote them out, vote them out."

And in that crowd, Trump supporters who have been fired.

One person there told me they were denied unemployment after being fired from Treasury because they were fired supposedly for cause in those e-mails, even though they had high performance records.

GEOFF BENNETT: And Elon Musk's DOGE group is trying to find new ways to terminate federal workers.

Tell me more about that, because you have done a lot of reporting there.

LISA DESJARDINS: We have learned of two today.

One, there will be another e-mail asking federal workers, basically, what did you do last week?

This is a memorandum that went out to the Department of Defense that I obtained today saying that, on Monday, workers will get an e-mail saying, within 48 hours, they must respond next week on what they did this week.

You may remember, we reported there was mass confusion the last time this happened.

It's not clear if this e-mail will lead to firings for people who don't return it, but that is happening next week.

The other thing, the Department of Education, an agency that President Trump has said he wants to shut down, they sent out something interesting, an actual buyout offer today, offering employees $25,000, up to that amount, to leave their jobs.

They warned, if they don't, there will be mass firing soon.

They also -- if you read the fine print here though, they said if you take this offer, you cannot work for the federal government for five years.

And one worker who would otherwise consider it said it just looks sketchy to them and they're trying to take it in.

GEOFF BENNETT: So where does all of this stand with the courts?

LISA DESJARDINS: Well, there are dozens of lawsuits working through the courts, but I want to focus on one opinion that we heard last night from a federal judge in California.

This is District Northern California District Judge William Alsup.

He gave an opinion that said these mass firings of these probationary workers is not lawful, in his opinion.

However, he's not blocking it yet.

But when you talk to employment lawyers, they say this is a significant development.

MICHELLE BERCOVICI, Alden Law Group: It's really the first time where we've seen a court very clearly say that OPM is just acting aside of -- there's no authority in the universe that gives OPM to be directing agencies to fire employees.

And I think that determination is critical.

LISA DESJARDINS: Trump sees this as executive power, OPM, the Office of Personnel Management.

GEOFF BENNETT: And lastly, Lisa, I know you have been speaking with people, federal workers, who've lost their jobs in just this past week.

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

GEOFF BENNETT: What have they told you?

LISA DESJARDINS: Right.

For workers, they are feeling obviously a lot of things.

But the number one thing I heard from them is that they see this as bringing down a system that has taken generations to build up of merit-based experts across government who really just want to do their job and help America around the world.

Now, when I talked to USAID workers yesterday as they were taking their belongings out of the office, you could see, collecting things from the headquarters, but there was a lot of emotion there.

So when you watch people there, the scene I witnessed there you see yesterday were people who've served around the world, some of them very emotional, some of them angry.

You saw a lot of hugs, as you see there.

Others were more a matter of fact about this and about what they think the United States is losing.

I talked to this couple who's getting ready to get married.

They both lost their jobs.

And they say that this is a loss for them and the country.

BEN THOMPSON, Fired USAID Worker: What a lot of people are going to respond to your questions about are very wide-scale policy things.

They're going to talk about DOGE and limits of power and all of that.

But, at the end of the day, there are people in the building that are crying and very good people trying to do the right thing and were punished for it.

And that's what's really hard about today.

LISA DESJARDINS: Workers I'm talking to are kind of tough.

They're not whiny people, but one said they feel harassed and hunted.

GEOFF BENNETT: Lisa Desjardins, thanks so much for this important reporting.

LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.

AMNA NAWAZ: As Lisa mentioned, hundreds of staff have been laid off at NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

That includes employees of the National Weather Service.

That's behind forecasts and severe weather alerts across the country.

It also provides crucial data for scientists and meteorologists.

To help us understand the potential impact, we're joined now by science correspondent Miles O'Brien.

Miles, it's always great to see you.

I have to say, the National Weather Service, it's one of those things we almost take for granted.

And there are other weather services out there.

So why is this one so important?

MILES O'BRIEN: It is easy to take for granted, Amna, almost invisible in some ways, but it is truly the backbone of all weather forecasting in this country.

It's freely available to all.

Airlines, first responders, farmers, fishermen all depend on these forecasts.

They also issue crucial warnings for hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, even tsunamis.

And there are many services out there that add bells and whistles to this raw data, but they would be lost without the National Weather Service.

Matthew Cappucci is a senior meteorologist for one of those private services, MyRadar.

MATTHEW CAPPUCCI, Senior Meteorologist, MyRadar: Any time your phone buzzes with a watch, a warning, a tornado warning, a flash flood warning, that comes from the National Weather Service, people sitting there watching the radar nonstop and producing forecasts as well.

It's estimated that the Weather Service cost taxpayers about $1.3-$1.4 billion, but gives a 50-plus fold return on investment, given how much of the economy is tied to weather forecasts.

AMNA NAWAZ: Miles, there are already cuts in personnel and expertise being made.

There's some people posting about a routine weather balloon in Alaska, for example, that's not going up.

How important is that?

MILES O'BRIEN: The weather balloon in Alaska story is an interesting one.

It seems sort of inconsequential, but it's crucial.

That's an important part of the world for the weather.

It's where cold air and warm air combine.

Satellites are eliminated there because of the cloud cover.

And balloons provide data, which satellites can't.

They do temperature, humidity and pressure as they rise up.

And everything they learn there feeds the forecast for the rest of North America.

Here's more from Matthew Cappucci.

MATTHEW CAPPUCCI: Imagine going to bed not knowing if a tornado is coming your direction, but you're relying on these warnings that come from the National Weather Service.

Now imagine that office is short-staffed.

They might not have enough people watching enough things all at once and suddenly warning quality is degraded.

That has real-life implications that could, of course, in some cases be very dire.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Miles, these firings are all part of the government's efforts, it says, to cut bloat.

Is there bloat to cut at the National Weather Service?

MILES O'BRIEN: Sure.

The National Weather Service has 122 forecast offices, 13 regional centers, nine national centers.

They're all looking at the weather.

There's a lot of duplication in all of that.

But this is something that cries out for more of a scalpel than a sledgehammer in this case.

And particularly in this case, the probationary workers, in some cases, these are workers who are -- have a lot of experience and are transitioning to a new job in a probationary mode.

But also importantly, young people, which are the lifeblood of these organizations, are obviously the probationary workers.

And as you look toward a weather forecasting system that requires fewer people using artificial intelligence and other technology, it's precisely these young people that you want to have working for you, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: Science correspondent Miles O'Brien.

Miles, it's always great to see you.

Thank you so much.

MILES O'BRIEN: You're welcome, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: From visits with heads of states to further restrictions on the press corps, we now turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Great to see you both.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hey, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: So you were both watching, of course, everything at the White House today in the meeting between Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy.

We have talked about it a lot today, but I do want to play for you a little bit of the interview we know President Zelenskyy gave soon after that meeting.

He sat down with FOX News and Bret Baier, and Baier asked him if Zelenskyy thought that the public spat there served Ukraine in any way.

Here's what Zelenskyy said.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President: I mean, this is not good for both sides anyway.

And I will -- I will -- very open, but I can't change our Ukrainian attitude to Russian.

And I don't want -- they are killers, for us.

This is very, very clear that Americans are the best of our friends.

Europeans are the best of our friends.

And Putin, with Russian, they are enemies.

And it doesn't mean that we don't want peace.

We just want to recognize the reality.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, what did you think when you were watching this unfold in the White House and what do you make of the way Zelenskyy is talking about it now?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I thought the low point for America on the world stage was the Trump-Putin press conference in Helsinki in 2017, when the president of the United States sided with the president of Russia against his own national intelligence apparatus.

What we saw in the Oval Office was a travesty, horrendous, despicable.

I -- there aren't any words to describe what we watched, where we saw a vice president who's never been to Ukraine lecture a wartime president who was clearly summoned to the White House to humiliate him on the world stage either on behalf of or for the benefit of Vladimir Putin in Russia.

And, look, I give President Zelenskyy major points for standing up for himself, for standing up for his nation and standing up for his people.

He is in there fighting for America's backing, which, I'm sorry, it should not even be in doubt, given the stakes that are involved and who he is trying to protect his people from.

AMNA NAWAZ: David, from that Helsinki meeting in 2018 to this meeting today, what do you make of it?

DAVID BROOKS: I will stick with today.

(LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: I have enough to say about today.

I was nauseated, just nauseated.

All my life, I have had a certain idea of about America, that we're a flawed country, but we're fundamentally a force for good in the world, that we defeated Soviet Union, we defeated fascism, we did the Marshall Plan, we did PEPFAR to help people live in Africa.

And we make mistakes, Iraq, Vietnam, but they're usually mistakes out of stupidity, naivete and arrogance.

They're not because we're ill-intentioned.

What I have seen over the last six weeks is the United States behaving vilely, vilely to our friends in Canada and Mexico, vilely to our friends in Europe.

And today was the bottom of the barrel, vilely to a man who is defending Western values, at great personal risk to him and his countrymen.

Donald Trump believes in one thing.

He believes that might makes right.

And, in that, he agrees with Vladimir Putin that they are birds of a feather.

And he and Vladimir Putin together are trying to create a world that's safe for gangsters, where ruthless people can thrive.

And we saw the product of that effort today in the Oval Office.

And I have -- I first started thinking, is it -- am I feeling grief?

Am I feeling shock, like I'm in a hallucination?

But I just think shame, moral shame.

It's a moral injury to see the country you love behave in this way.

AMNA NAWAZ: You heard Congressman Lawler, who would not criticize the president necessarily, but is a Ukraine supporter, say, we're further away from a deal, they have to get back to a deal, the war has to end.

You also heard Nick Schifrin report earlier, his European sources are saying there's a fundamental transatlantic break now.

Is this the realignment, Jonathan?

Has this happened?

The U.S. is now closer to Russia than to its European allies?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Undisputed.

Yes.

Yes.

And the fact that the Europeans are already looking at it as a break, I think they have to do that.

They can't depend on the United States now.

After what happened to President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, what happens to the Baltic states, what happens to Estonia if Russia rolls over the border?

What happens to Poland if Russia rolls over the border?

What happens if any of the NATO countries are attacked by Russia after what we just saw?

They cannot depend on the United States anymore, after more than seven decades.

I'm sure the Europeans are probably even more in shock than we are at this table.

And I'm glad you used the word gangster, because that was the thing.

When the - - when President Trump got into it with President Zelenskyy, you don't have any cards.

Without us, you have no deal.

It -- that was gangster rule there.

And between him and the vice president, it also felt like watching a wrestling match, where Vance jumps in the ring and then taps in the president, and then they gang up on a man who is literally fighting for the survival of his country.

AMNA NAWAZ: David, is there a way to get any kind of deal back on track?

Is there a way to repair what was clearly broken today?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think so.

I mean, Trump is transactional.

He will bash people.

He will hate people.

And then he will do a deal.

We have seen that in the past.

I just wonder where his values are.

If he -- he clearly has a thing for Vladimir Putin.

We have seen that for eight years.

And he's not going to lean on Putin.

He's going to side with Putin, as Timothy Snyder said today.

And so maybe that's just his belief system.

And J.D.

Vance has a value system, which is a belief in performance art.

What he did was not the act of someone who is a diplomat.

It was not the act of someone who's a statesman.

It was not the act of someone who has the faintest hint of responsibility to edge on his president, to just try to do a mano a mano against a man who's 10 times the man he is, frankly.

So there's a lot to overcome.

But I do think it's got to be in America's interest not to let Vladimir Putin take over Ukraine.

Surely everybody sees that.

And so I have some hope there will still be a possibility for a deal somehow.

AMNA NAWAZ: We did hear in that exchange at the end, President Trump, as it was sort of coming to a close, he said, well, this is going to be great television, sort of acknowledge this has all unfolded on live television for the entire world to see.

And, for better or worse, this is a president who really understands the power of the media and how to harness it and how to leverage it.

And I know we have talked about some of the changes before.

He's continued attacks on the press, blocking the AP's access from some White House coverage as well.

You saw him take control, the White House take control of the press pool that covers the president full time, makes sure everyone else knows what's happening with the president.

Peter Baker, of course, longtime Russia correspondent, said it reminded him of the Kremlin press pool takeover.

And I just want to get your takes on where that sort of attack on the press stands and whether we're in much more sinister territory now.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I do think we are in more sinister territory because you have got to look at what's happening with AP, in light of his lawsuits against CBS, against ABC, threats, threatening the licenses of other broadcast entities.

This is all part of a pattern of roughing up anyone he views as not either insufficiently loyal or people who have wronged him.

And he looks at the press as an entity that has wronged him.

But what I would say is, it's sort of inside baseball that AP is not allowed in the pool, which means it can't get into all these places.

To me, it just says that the White House press corps, which already does hard work, they're just going to have to work a little bit harder reporting on an administration that already leaks like a sieve.

AMNA NAWAZ: David?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I mean, Donald Trump does everything he can to destroy things that would restrain his power.

And so that's the attorney generals he fires.

That's the inspector generals.

That's the JAG officers.

That's the leadership of the military who doesn't like.

And the press is a potential restraint on his power.

And so he is trying to dismantle the idea of the press.

And if I could bash the press a little, or at least the owner of Jonathan's newspaper, we're helping.

Jeff Bezos, when he says, not going to -- we're going to have an opinion section in The Washington Post that does not brook dissent, that's just not journalism.

And I have seen this again from entrepreneurs who say, why would you publish something you disagree with?

They just don't get it, some people.

That's what we do.

That's what democracy is.

Your loyalty to democracy is higher than your loyalty to one ideology or another.

And so the idea that we're not -- we have a major newspaper that doesn't publish dissent, that can't be.

AMNA NAWAZ: David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both for being here, for engaging always.

We appreciate you.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Amna.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Brazilian film "I'm Still Here" will be vying this weekend for Oscars for best international film and best picture.

And its star, Fernanda Torres, already the winner in the best actress category at the Golden Globes, is also competing for an Oscar.

Senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown talks with Torres for our arts and culture series.

ACTOR (through translator): Eunice.

I'll take it.

You have to be in the photo JEFFREY BROWN: In the drama "I'm Still Here," we meet the large and loving Paiva family living what appears to be a blissful domestic life near the beach in Rio de Janeiro.

But this is 1970s Brazil, under a military dictatorship.

And their world is about to be upended by the arrest and disappearance of husband and father Rubens, a former congressman.

ACTOR (through translator): Anyone else at home?

FERNANDA TORRES, Actress (through translator): No, just my children.

They're upstairs.

There's no need for weapons.

JEFFREY BROWN: Fernanda Torres plays Eunice, his wife and mother of their five children.

FERNANDA TORRES: I think the essence of this film is endurance.

They tried to erase this family, to say that they never existed.

And this woman with five children, she endured in time.

So I like to think that literature and cinema were not only to preserve memory, but to make this family forever remembered.

And this is quite a thing for art.

JEFFREY BROWN: The film, directed by Brazilian Walter Salles, is based on the real-life Paiva family, whose story was told in a memoir by only son Marcelo in 2015, long after the end of military rule in 1985, and after the family learned officially what they already knew in reality, that Rubens had been tortured and murdered by the military authorities.

His body was never recovered.

ACTOR (through translator): Who is this here?

FERNANDA TORRES: Rubens.

ACTOR (through translator): See?

It's not hard.

JEFFREY BROWN: In the film, we see Torres' character, detained herself for days, fearing and fighting that reality, intent on finding her husband and keeping her family together.

FERNANDA TORRES: I think Eunice was a woman raised to be the perfect wife of the '50s, and her utopian life, it's over in a tragic and awful way.

And it's a woman that, after such a tragedy, in a very difficult time, she becomes herself.

JEFFREY BROWN: What's really striking in watching you is that so much of the emotion of this character has to be internal.

How do you think about showing the emotion, but holding it back?

FERNANDA TORRES: I never thought it could be so powerful, you see, because, normally, as an actor, you want to show how well you can feel, how well you cry, how well you scream, but, suddenly, you had this character that everything in her was about self-control, because she had five children, and she could not panic, she could not have like the Oscar scene where you cry and you scream.

And I never thought it could be so powerful.

You see, it teach me a lot about acting.

JEFFREY BROWN: Torres says she learned in part by studying the real Eunice Paiva, watching her in interviews throughout her life before she died in 2018.

But Torres also had another example close by.

Her mother, Fernanda Montenegro, is a legendary figure in Brazilian theater and film, the first and, before her daughter, only Brazilian to receive an Oscar nomination for acting for her performance in the 1998 film "Central Station" also directed by Walter Salles.

And her mother, now 95, appears in "I'm Still Here," playing her daughter's character in the last years of her life.

So what is the most important lesson about acting you learned from your mother?

FERNANDA TORRES: Many years ago she told me that you cannot play a tragic character and start to cry in the first bad news, she told me.

When you do a tragic character, you have to swallow and endure, swallow and endure.

And I remembered that vividly when I had to do Eunice Paiva.

I said, that's the key.

JEFFREY BROWN: When it was released in Brazil in November, far right groups there called for a boycott of the film.

But it's become a major hit, raising questions about the country's historic amnesia and the film's continuing resonance.

Just this month, former President Jair Bolsonaro was charged with plotting a coup to overthrow his loss in the 2022 election.

What is your sense of how much or how little Brazilians have grappled with this painful past?

FERNANDA TORRES: You know, it lasted so long and it ended with an economical crisis and also with an arrangement that we all would forget what happened.

And, in Brazil, it was called the amnesty.

So Brazil never dealt with the crimes that happened during the dictatorship.

And we thought it was all over.

But then, now, when the film was being released, we just discovered that there was a real attempt of a coup d'etat, military coup d'etat in Brazil.

JEFFREY BROWN: The director, Walter Salles, said, that films like "I'm Still Here" can serve as - - quote -- "instruments against forgetting."

FERNANDA TORRES: Because it has happened with this film and with this book.

And, suddenly, this film in Brazil became a phenomenon of people from all kinds of beliefs.

They all started to go to the movie theater and talk about the dictatorship and talk about, this is not right, I mean, to kill a family like this.

As it's the story of a family, everybody can relate to that people, if you are young, to the young children, if you are a mother, to my character, if you are a father, to Rubens Paiva's character.

So something very special happened with this movie.

JEFFREY BROWN: I mean, it's got to be very fulfilling for you personally.

It can't happen very often in the life of an actor.

FERNANDA TORRES: No, this is a very special moment.

I don't know in Brazil, and with the Oscars and the fact that my mother was nominated and now me.

In a way, we are like -- we are put in the place that Brazil normally dedicates to the soccer team.

(LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: You're bigger than soccer in Brazil right now?

That's big.

FERNANDA TORRES: That's big.

I cannot be bigger, but we are facing difficulties.

So all the passion was put now in this movie and in this character and in this family.

It's very touching.

Go away!

Where's my husband?

Go away!

JEFFREY BROWN: Fernanda Torres and the film "I'm Still Here" compete for Oscars this Sunday night.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Jeffrey Brown.

GEOFF BENNETT: And for more coverage of all the Oscar nominated movies, as well as the actors and directors who made them, check out our Web site at PBS.org/NewsHour.

And don't forget to tune into "Washington Week" later tonight and "PBS News Weekend" tomorrow.

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, and have a great weekend.