GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "News Hour" tonight: Global financial markets sink in the wake of President Trump's decision to impose tariffs on practically all goods being imported to the U.S. GEOFF BENNETT: How the Trump administration has restarted the practice of family detention as part of its hard-line immigration policies.

AMNA NAWAZ: And Taiwan builds up its military as the threat of a Chinese takeover looms larger.

BAO WEIZHONG, 99th Marine Brigade (through translator): I think the Russia-Ukraine war is a wake-up call for Taiwan.

Like Ukraine, we have a powerful adversary nearby.

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

U.S. markets plunged today in the wake of President Trump's announcement of new tariffs.

Many stocks had their worst single day since the pandemic in 2020, losing approximately $3 trillion of value.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Dow dropped more than 1,600 points, or about 4 percent.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq, which helped fuel a market boom over the past year, fell by almost 6 percent.

And the S&P 500, which has fallen for five of the last six weeks, dropped 4.8 percent.

Foreign leaders around the world denounced the tariffs, and some warned of retaliation and trade wars.

A number of leading business groups and experts said the president's action could risk more inflation, stall growth, and even trigger a recession.

Our Lisa Desjardins begins our coverage with this report.

LISA DESJARDINS: On Wall Street, stocks plunged moments after the opening bell, part of a global decline.

Foreign markets tumbled overnight in reaction to President Trump's sweeping new tariffs.

But the president this afternoon said he wasn't worried, raising the tariffs as a chance to negotiate.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: I think it's going very well.

The markets are going to boom.

The stocks are going to boom.

The country is going to boom.

And the rest of the world wants to see, is there any way they can make a deal?

LISA DESJARDINS: But from another high-ranking White House adviser, a different take.

Senior counselor for trade Peter Navarro told CNBC the tariffs are long-term and not going away tomorrow.

PETER NAVARRO, Director, White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy: This is not a negotiation.

This is not that.

LISA DESJARDINS: This as headlines across time zones blared immediate reaction, "Deeply unreasonable," "Worse than the worst-case scenario," and warning of a global trade war.

World leaders, meanwhile, blasted the Trump tariffs from Europe.

URSULA VON DER LEYEN, President, European Commission: President Trump's announcement of universal tariffs on the whole world, including the European Union, is a major blow to the world economy.

LISA DESJARDINS: To allies in Asia.

SHIGERU ISHIBA, Japanese Prime Minister (through translator): We'd requested the U.S. government review its unilateral tariffs.

We are extremely disappointed and regret that they have been implemented.

LISA DESJARDINS: To a prominent competitor.

GUO JIAKUN, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson (through translator): China firmly opposes this and will take necessary measures to resolutely safeguard its legitimate interests.

DONALD TRUMP: This is liberation day.

LISA DESJARDINS: President Trump declared a national economic emergency when he introduced the tariffs in the Rose Garden just after the markets closed yesterday, insisting time would prove him right.

DONALD TRUMP: Every prediction our opponents made about trade for the last 30 years has been proven totally wrong.

In my first term, they said tariffs would crash the economy.

Instead, we built the greatest economy in the history of the world.

LISA DESJARDINS: The plan includes blanket tariffs of 10 percent on all countries that take effect Saturday, as well as what he called reciprocal tariffs, tariffs imposed in response to what Trump sees as a variety of unfair trade practices.

Those would take effect next Wednesday.

Some of the U.S.' largest trading partners are on the list, including China, hit with a new 34 percent tariff, and the E.U., hit with 20 percent.

One of the highest tariffs listed was for Vietnam at 46 percent.

Many retailers and brands have moved production to that country in recent years after U.S. efforts to discourage trade with China.

Today, stock prices for some of those companies plunged.

And some of the tariffs left economists scratching their heads.

Example, those imposed on the Antarctic Heard Island and McDonald Islands, which are uninhabited.

Notably left off the list, two of the U.S.' largest trading partners, Canada and Mexico.

The White House says they're exempt from this round for now, but are still subject to other previous Trump tariffs.

On Capitol Hill, some Republicans defended the moves.

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): I want more jobs in our state.

I want higher wages for our workers.

I want industry that's there to be protected.

I want a better deal for my farmers.

So if we can get that out of these tariffs, that's great.

I don't care what the banks fuss about.

LISA DESJARDINS: While Democrats universally blasted them.

SEN. PETER WELCH (D-VT): It's a disaster.

There's no economic intellectual foundation.

This is a weird digression by Trump.

That's number one.

Number two, it's going to do nothing but harm to the economy.

LISA DESJARDINS: This has left many businesses big and small to try to figure out the math.

MARC FRANKEL, Founder, Long Island Watch: The new tariffs that were imposed, I don't see how they just can't sink the entire industry.

LISA DESJARDINS: Like this Long Island watchmaker with an online business who concluded it's not good for him, running the numbers on YouTube.

MARC FRANKEL: Japan is being hit with an additional 24 percent of total value tariff.

So, on $28,200, I will be hit with a tariff of $6,768.

LISA DESJARDINS: Companies, countries and politicians are now quickly making their own calculations.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Lisa Desjardins.

GEOFF BENNETT: For some perspective on the tariffs, the reaction and their potential impact, let's turn now to longtime financial journalist and CNBC contributor Ron Insana.

Ron, it's great to have you here.

RON INSANA, CNBC Senior Analyst: Thanks for having me, Geoff.

GEOFF BENNETT: So I want to start with your assessment of the market reaction.

The Dow saw its biggest wipeout since 2020.

What does that say about the capacity of businesses and investors to absorb this uncertainty?

RON INSANA: Well, it was so outside the bounds of what was expected.

Most yesterday before the tariffs were announced expected, at worst-case scenario, a 20 percent across-the-board tariff, which would still be the worst-case scenario.

This was worse than the worst-case scenario with tariffs, again, against China, for instance, reaching as high as 54 percent and baseline tariffs at 10 percent.

All of this really shook confidence that the economy could avoid both higher inflation and a recession down the road if these tariffs were to be persistent.

And to complicate things, if other countries retaliated, it would even deepen what could be a global recession.

So the market responded swiftly, and it did so in no uncertain terms, sending a warning to the Trump administration that this idea as it is currently constructed is certainly not good for the economy, nor for business.

GEOFF BENNETT: Vice President Vance on FOX this morning acknowledged that this is a big change, but he said a big change is what is called for after decades of a U.S. approach that resulted in shuttered factories and manufacturing losses.

President Trump says he wants to reshore American jobs.

That's a worthy goal.

But are sweeping tariffs the way to achieve that goal?

RON INSANA: Well, many economists doubt it, because -- for a couple of different reasons.

Number one, no one knows how long the tariffs will be in effect, and if President Trump does not run for a third term, as he has at least joked or hinted in recent days, the next president could unwind those tariffs, and then businesses could end up making very expensive investments in the United States, only to have the tariffs unwound, leaving them with higher-cost production in the United States than might otherwise have been.

And so with these tariffs and the confusion around their implementation, it's very hard for businesses, either domestic or foreign, to make decisions that they can live with for the next several years.

So it adds to the confusion.

Domestic manufacturing clearly costs more than the manufacturing of certain products overseas.

And some countries quite simply will do things better or cheaper than we can here, given technological changes and other changes to the global economy that have taken place over the years.

And just another thing to add is that this was not all a function of trade policy, the so-called hollowing out of the middle class.

There were major management mistakes made in the '70s and '80s and other factors that caused the manufacturing sector in the United States in particular to lose share to foreign rivals.

And so it's not so simple as just slapping on tariffs and having companies move their production to the United States again.

GEOFF BENNETT: What does the Trump administration's approach mean for the global economic system that the U.S. has shaped and steered for nearly a century now?

RON INSANA: Well, I mean, it is a major reversion to a period which President Trump seems to be fixated on, which is the period from 1870 to 1913, when we had no income tax, relied solely on tariffs and other sorts of taxes for government revenues.

And he seems to think that was the most, one, powerful and, two, most economically prosperous time in U.S. history.

Certainly not true after.

World War II, the U.S. became the biggest economic and military power in the world.

And so it strains credulity to believe that that's a period that we should be looking back to and formulate policy around.

And I think most economists and in fact other countries would certainly agree globalization has had its drawbacks, but it's also had its benefits.

And the economy today is vastly different than in any other period.

We're heading a lot of different industries, like advanced technology.

Certainly, we'd like to see more advanced manufacturing in the United States, but broad tariffs of this magnitude in most economists' mind are simply not the way to achieve those goals.

If you have specific grievances with other countries, you negotiate first and then impose tariffs later.

That is not the way this administration is approaching trade imbalances around the world.

GEOFF BENNETT: You pointed out on social media that looking at these tariffs as economic policy alone misses an important aspect, and that is of political control, that these sweeping tariffs set up the president to be the decider of winners and losers, instead of economic competition.

Tell me more about that, the degree to which this sets up a pay-to-play dynamic that distorts the free market.

RON INSANA: Yes, well, it's interesting that you bring that up.

So Amazon, for instance, Jeff Bezos reportedly wants to buy TikTok, and so the president this afternoon suggested that they could get a great deal on TikTok from the Chinese company that owns it, ByteDance, that he might roll back tariffs on China.

That would benefit any domestic purchaser of TikTok, whether it's AppLovin, which is a company that has recently become popular on Wall Street, Amazon, or any other.

And, yes, he can pick those companies, those industries that are exempted from the tariffs, and, effectively, those who play ball with the president might get favorable treatment, and those who don't would get unfavorable treatment.

So it sets up almost, if you will, a crony capitalism-type situation in which those in favor benefit, those out of favor lose.

And not only that.

That's true with other countries as well.

Whoever capitulates first will get a break, and whoever retaliates first will get hit even harder.

In fact, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said early this morning, and I believe yesterday afternoon, that other countries shouldn't retaliate.

Well, we already heard that many countries will, and so that could just escalate the trade war further and complicate what is already, I would argue, a chaotic situation.

GEOFF BENNETT: Ron Insana, great to speak with you.

Thanks for being here.

RON INSANA: Thanks for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: Senator Ron Johnson is a member of the Senate Budget and Finance committees.

He's a Republican from the state of Wisconsin, which exports more than $27 billion in goods to international markets.

And I spoke with him earlier today.

Senator Johnson, welcome back to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

SEN. RON JOHNSON (R-WI): Hope you're doing well.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, as you have probably seen right now, we're speaking as the markets have closed.

They all closed between 4 and 5 percent down.

I know you have called tariffs a double-edged sword before, and you said this morning you have some concerns about these latest tariffs.

Are you more or less concerned seeing what you have seen over this last day now when it comes to these tariffs?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: Well, obviously a 5 percent decrease in the markets would heighten my concern.

I would assume that got the president and his advisers' attention as well.

But at the same time, it's interesting as I talk to manufacturers and farmers in Wisconsin that they agree with what President Trump is trying to accomplish here.

They realize that we have not been treated fairly by our trading partners.

They realize that there are many crucial and vital products that are vital to our national security that we don't manufacture here, and in some way, shape, or form, we're going to have to reshore them.

So they agree with what President Trump's trying to accomplish, but I think everybody's kind of bracing to see what the fallout and really how painful this experience is going to be.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, I guess we have seen the fallout in these first 24 hours now.

How long do you expect you will allow to pass or your constituents in Wisconsin will allow to pass before you feel like you get a sense if this is working or not?

Is it a matter of weeks or a quarter?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: That's a hypothetical I can't really speak to.

The president's already pointing to some success in terms of the number of -- the trillions of dollars of investment being committed.

Some countries are lowering, if not eliminating, their tariffs.

So again, it is a double-edged sword.

There's going to be benefit, there's going to be cost.

I just can't predict it.

All I can really do is monitor it, make sure that the -- Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Department, the president's well aware of the collateral damage here.

AMNA NAWAZ: What about inflation concerns?

I mean, there are some estimates now that some of this price increase that we might see from the tariffs will start to feed into inflation data within about six weeks or so.

If you see inflation start to tick up, would that worry you more?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: I think the president's well aware that one of the main reasons he was elected, in addition to the open border policy of Biden, was the fact that inflation reached a 40-year high and people weren't happy about that.

So, again, he's got very smart economic advisers.

This is a long-held belief on his part that we have to impose discipline on our trading partners.

And my guess is, he's going to have to judge at what point he's going to have to change course, if at all.

(CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: I want to know more about your perspective too, because I'm curious if any of those major manufacturers in Wisconsin that you have headquartered there, like Kohler and Harley-Davidson and others -- manufacturing is such a driver of the Wisconsin economy.

Are there any concerns there about the impact and what they will have to face in terms of this short-term pain that the president's mentioned?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: Yes, there are all kinds of concerns.

And, again, I view myself as a free but fair trader.

And, again, we haven't been treated fairly.

Exactly how do you address that problem?

That's the $64,000 question here.

But, no, I'm monitoring the situation.

We're meeting with people and I will be providing that input to the administration.

AMNA NAWAZ: So can you tell us more about what those manufacturer leaders are telling you?

I mean, I know you said you will monitor it, but they have to have some sort of calculation or sense of how long they're willing to bear, how much pain they can bear moving forward.

SEN. RON JOHNSON: Well, each business is different.

To what extent are the importing components?

What is their exposure in terms of export markets?

So every situation is completely different.

But there's no doubt about it.

When you slap tariffs on imported goods and people are using imported components to manufacture and then try and export, that's going to make you less competitive overseas.

It'll drive up costs.

Listen, when prices rise, demand falls.

That could dampen our economy as well.

So, again, this is a bold but risky action the president has taken.

I for one hope he is correct.

I want him to succeed.

I want the American consumers to succeed.

I want Wisconsin manufacturers and farmers to succeed.

AMNA NAWAZ: What about the other tariffs?

We know Canada and Mexico didn't face any additional tariffs in yesterday's announcement, that there were existing tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

And Canada's been your state's top trading partner.

Wisconsin exports some $8 billion in goods.

You import over $6 billion.

And we saw the Canadian prime minister vow to retaliate to those U.S. tariffs.

What kind of impact could that have on Wisconsin?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: You know, the same impact that just putting the tariffs on to begin with was.

So any kind of retaliation will increase the pain level.

There's no doubt about that.

AMNA NAWAZ: And when you say the pain level, who's going to feel that?

I mean, what industries and sectors are you most worried about in your home state?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: Well, again, manufacturers that export, manufacturers that import products that aren't, for example, made in America anymore, it's going to take a long time to onshore some of those products.

So we will certainly be talking to the president as this thing continues to drag out in terms of exemptions to make sure that businesses can survive.

AMNA NAWAZ: And if there aren't exemptions, I mean, in these conversations, if you can give us some insight, for the companies that are going to have to bear some short-term pain, would you suggest that the government come up with some kind of subsidies or something to help mitigate some of that in the short term?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: Subsidies are very difficult to design to really allocate fairly.

I know President Trump, there will be revenue brought in.

He certainly allocated that amongst farmers in the first round of increasing tariffs in his first administration.

So my guess is that might be one of the solutions they might have for some of the dislocations and some of the pain.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, just to be clear about this, your message right now to the leaders of manufacturing and dairy and others in your state is, there's going to be pain, and you're going to have to navigate it on your own?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: No,my message is to make sure that I'm aware of it, so I can pass it along to the administration so they can make good decisions.

AMNA NAWAZ: And what have your conversations with President Trump been like about this?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: Well, I have been primarily focusing on getting his commitment to commit to a pre-pandemic level of spending, which is a whole 'nother issue.

But from my standpoint, that is the most significant one.

We went from $4.43 -- $4.4 trillion in 2019 to 7.3.

Can't justify that level of spending, can't sustain that level of spending.

So that's been my primary concentration with the time I have had with the president.

AMNA NAWAZ: Have you not spoken with him about your... (CROSSTALK) AMNA NAWAZ: I apologize.

SEN. RON JOHNSON: No, he just unveiled these things last night, I have not spoken to him since.

But we will be in touch with the Commerce Department and him as this thing progresses.

AMNA NAWAZ: And what's going to your message to them in terms of your constituents?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: I will tell them the reality.

I will give them the facts.

AMNA NAWAZ: You did say this morning that Congress has already granted a lot of its congressional authority to the president.

We see him using that now on trade.

We just saw this afternoon also Senators Grassley and Cantwell introduce a bipartisan bill that would require the president to notify lawmakers of any new tariffs within 48 hours.

I just wanted to get your reaction to that bill.

Do you support it?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: Well, again, in general, what I was saying is that prior Congresses have willingly given up an awful lot of their constitutional authority to the executive branch.

We haven't done anything specifically for President Trump.

He's just come into office with all that authority.

Whether we can claw that back, whether we should claw that back, that's open for discussion.

AMNA NAWAZ: Specific to how it would work in this bill, though, is that something you would support?

SEN. RON JOHNSON: I have got to take a look at the bill.

AMNA NAWAZ: That is Wisconsin Republican Senator Ron Johnson joining us tonight.

Senator Johnson, thank you for your time.

We appreciate it.

SEN. RON JOHNSON: Have a good evening.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other headlines: President Trump will fire several members of his National Security Council, according to people familiar.

The firings involve at least three unnamed senior NSC officials and several other lower-ranking aides.

National Security Adviser Mike Waltz is not among them.

The dismissals come after Trump met in the Oval Office yesterday with conservative activist and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer.

She reportedly brought a list of staff she deemed insufficiently loyal to the Trump agenda and urged the president to remove them.

The president, on Air Force One today, denied Loomer had anything to do with the ousters.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: She is a very strong person.

And I saw her yesterday for a little while.

She has -- she makes recommendations on things and people.

And, sometimes, I listen to those recommendations, like I do with everybody.

I listen to everybody.

And then I make a decision.

AMNA NAWAZ: Also tonight, the Pentagon's acting inspector general says he will review Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's use of the Signal messaging app.

He will look to determine whether Hegseth and other defense officials complied with DOD policies and procedures when they used the app to discuss attack plans against Houthi militants in Yemen.

The Senate has confirmed Dr. Mehmet Oz to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after a vote along party lines.

The agency he's stepping into provides health insurance to more than half of all Americans through Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare exchanges.

He will oversee annual spending of more than $2.5 trillion .

Dr. Oz, a former surgeon, TV personality and Senate candidate, sidestepped questions in his confirmation hearing about whether he would cut Medicaid to accommodate Republican plans to cut spending.

President Trump has been adamant he will not do so.

A string of violent storms across the Midwest and South has killed at least six people, and there's more weather on the way.

WOMAN: Oh, my God.

Somebody is losing all -- everything right now.

AMNA NAWAZ: Tornadoes tore across Arkansas yesterday, some of them with flashes of bright light as they ripped through power lines.

This morning, in places like Indiana, the damage was in full view.

Trees crashed through roofs and splayed across front yards.

Elsewhere, like in Southeast Michigan, lingering floodwaters left cars partly submerged.

The National Weather Service says more than 40 million Americans from Texas to Ohio could see catastrophic, potentially historic flash floods through the weekend.

Some areas could see well over a foot of rain.

Turning overseas now, the death toll in Myanmar from last week's deadly earthquake has climbed to more than 3,100 today, according to the military-run government.

Officials say that hundreds of people remain missing, though the number is feared to be much higher, this as the head of Myanmar's military regime made a rare visit to neighboring Thailand today, which is also reeling from Friday's quake.

General Min Aung Hlaing, who has been shunned by the West for overthrowing his country's democratically elected government in 2021, will try to garner international support.

The U.N. says more than three million people in Myanmar had been displaced due to armed conflict even before the quake hit.

Now to the Middle East, where over 100 more Palestinians across the Gaza Strip are dead tonight in one of the deadliest single days since fighting resumed between Israel and Hamas.

At least 27 of those killed were sheltering at a school in Northern Gaza when Israeli strikes rained down.

Our producer on the ground reports that family members of Hamas leaders appeared to be the intended targets.

Overnight, airstrikes killed at least 55 more people, mostly in the south.

Meanwhile, all of this happened as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received red carpet treatment with full military honors in Hungary.

Netanyahu, who faces allegations of war crimes in Gaza, traveled in defiance of an International Criminal Court warrant for his arrest.

Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban says his country, once a party to the ICC, will no longer recognize it.

He called it a political tool.

And the court criticized the move.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in Brussels tonight attending a NATO meeting where he hoped to dispel any doubts about the U.S. commitment to the alliance.

Before meeting with other foreign ministers, he stood alongside Secretary-General Mark Rutte and was crystal clear about NATO, despite criticism and mixed signals from President Trump.

MARCO RUBIO, U.S. Secretary of State: The United States is as active in NATO as it has ever been.

And some of this hysteria and hyperbole that I see in the global media and some domestic media in the United States about NATO is unwarranted.

The United States -- President Trump has made clear he supports NATO.

We're going to remain in NATO.

AMNA NAWAZ: The meeting comes one day after President Trump announced sweeping new tariffs, causing global unease.

Trump's desire to reset relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as his intentions to control Greenland as U.S. territory, have also given NATO allies pause.

Thousands in Lithuania gathered today to send off the bodies of four U.S. soldiers who died during a training exercise in the Baltic nation last week.

A bugle sounded during the solemn farewell ceremony as four hearses carrying the soldiers left the capital of Vilnius before being flown to the United States for burial.

The U.S. Army has identified the soldiers.

They are Sergeant Troy Smith Knutson-Collins, Sergeant Jose Duenez Jr., Sergeant Edvin Franco, and Private 1st Class Dante Taitano.

Three of the soldiers were posthumously promoted to the rank of staff sergeant.

And, as they say, good things come in threes.

The Women's World Cup is poised to come back to the United States for the third time.

The decision isn't yet final, but today FIFA announced that the U.S. is uncontested to host the global tournament in 2031, possibly with Mexico's help, and the U.K. would then host in 2035.

Now, the U.S. has hosted before back-to-back tournaments in 1999 and 2003, but this time the competition will look different.

Beginning with the 2031 World Cup, the competition will expand from 32 teams to 48 teams.

Still to come on the "News Hour": how Taiwan is boosting its defenses against Chinese aggression; and a conservative constitutional lawyer on President Trump's controversial executive actions.

GEOFF BENNETT: Tonight, we begin a series of reports from Taiwan.

The leader of the self-governing democracy of more than 23 million people argues the island is already sovereign and independent.

But Beijing calls it a renegade province and vows to one day unite it with the mainland either peacefully or by force.

Nick Schifrin recently traveled to Taiwan and joins us now.

So, Nick, what did you find?

NICK SCHIFRIN: Geoff, Taiwan has long been the most tense flash point between Washington and Beijing.

By law, the U.S. is required to help Taiwan defend its democracy, which also produces the vast majority of the world's most advanced computer chips.

This week, China's People's Liberation Army launched new drills and sent ships that ringed around Taiwan.

The U.S. said the moves -- quote -- "put the region's security and the world's prosperity at risk."

Tonight, we look at Taiwan's military, the steps it's taking to boost the island's defenses and the debate in Washington over whether it's doing enough, the beginning of our series, Taiwan: Risk and Resistance.

In Western Taiwan, the army is training for war.

The 584th Brigade headquarters is assaulting its own base captured by a red-hatted enemy commanders identify as China that doesn't put up much of a fight.

It's a simulation with tanks whose parts date back 70 years and a drone that couldn't fly because it was too windy.

Privately, Taiwanese officials admit they're not ready for the Chinese army.

But under the steady eye of forefather Sun Yat-sen, Commander Lt. Col. Gong Shu Wei says they're getting there.

Are Taiwanese soldiers ready to defend Taiwan?

LT. COL. GONG SHU WEI, Battalion Commander, Army Armored 584th Brigade (through translator): Yes, we are always on the front lines, ready to defend the country and resist any enemy attack.

NICK SCHIFRIN: For years, the U.S. has urged Taiwan to focus less on big expensive weapon systems that are unlikely to survive a Chinese invasion, and instead fight like Ukraine.

Ukrainian soldiers use mobile weapons like the Javelin to disable Russian tanks.

After years of debate, Taiwan has largely embraced some of the same weapons, the idea of fighting like a porcupine, making itself impossible or fatal to swallow, including with the Javelin that Marine Sergeant Wang Zhi Han trains to set up quickly.

SGT.

WANG ZHI HAN, 99th Marine Brigade (through translator): When we prepare for war, we train with the Javelin.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Taiwan is also more than quadrupling its inventory of the Stinger that allows a smaller military to target a larger military's helicopters and jets.

BAO WEIZHONG, 99th Marine Brigade (through translator): I think the Russia-Ukraine war is a wake-up call for Taiwan.

Like Ukraine, we have a powerful adversary nearby.

Its that's why we need more asymmetric weapons to strengthen both our air defense and ground forces and counter a powerful air force, such as China.

NICK SCHIFRIN: China's People's Liberation Army has launched one of the fastest military modernizations in world history.

The U.S. says the builder buildup is custom-designed to prevent U.S. forces to come to Taiwan's rescue, as demonstrated in these propaganda videos, and to be able to invade Taiwan by 2027.

The U.S. says this week's exercises are practice for a blockade of Taiwan.

Part of those exercises, this cartoon.

Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te is a parasite who will be barbecued as Chinese weapons strangle Taiwan.

One of the keys to defending Taiwan is this water, the Taiwan Strait.

If Beijing were to ever decide to invade, it would need to launch a massive amphibious assault.

And Taiwanese and U.S. officials hope that Taiwan can develop the capability to turn strait into the Chinese navy's graveyard.

To do that, the U.S. has pushed Taiwan towards new asymmetric weapons that can target Chinese ships, such as this missile launched from the back of a truck.

The unit is commended by Lt. Col. Zhuang Guanghao.

LT. COL. ZHUANG GUANGHAO, Mobile Missile Launcher Group (through translator): Because the mobile missile launcher has high mobility, high concealment, and highly effective firepower, we can use a single mobile missile launcher to inflict significant damage on the enemy.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And against that Chinese enemy, Taiwan would also use a new fast boat that lays mines.

We get a tour.

The ship is designed to protect Taiwan from Chinese assaults.

ANDREW YANG, Former Taiwanese Defense Minister: The problem for us right now is that we still are short of manpower for the armed forces.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Andrew Yang is Taiwan's defense minister.

He and other analysts worry that Taiwan's government hasn't spent enough on defense and the army doesn't have enough well-trained troops.

ANDREW YANG: The retention rate is still very low.

So we have to find ways to keep the well-trained officers, NCOs and men in the armed forces.

We have to improve our defense capability for the wartime.

NICK SCHIFRIN: That requires lots of weapons, many of them American, one of the most expensive, F-16s.

The first Trump administration approved an $18 billion sale of F-16s to Taiwan.

Once they actually arrive, Taiwan would have 200 F-16s, the largest number of F-16s in Asia.

But the deliveries of F-16s and many American weapons, are often delayed.

Pilot Lieutenant Colonel Liu Yong-Cheng says Taiwan needs them quickly.

He's been a pilot for 12 years and has never been busier.

Chinese planes have flown closer to Taiwan more often than ever before.

What do you think the F-16s can do against Chinese jets that are more modern and they have a larger fleet?

LT. COL. LIU YONG-CHENG, 4th Tactical Fighter Wing, 24th Squadron (through translator): Taiwan has upgraded the F-16s' capabilities and acquired new equipment, but I believe training the operators is just as important as having advanced equipment.

We are always prepared to take off at any time.

NICK SCHIFRIN: To be more prepared and deter a Chinese invasion, last summer, before his second election, President Trump demanded Taiwan spend 10 percent of its GDP on defense.

SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. Treasury Secretary: I follow President Trump's lead, and he is confident that President Xi will not make that move during his presidency.

NICK SCHIFRIN: That confidence is reflected in the Trump administrations new interim national defense strategy, which has unprecedented language about Taiwan -- quote -- "Denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan, while simultaneously holding the U.S. homeland, is the department's sole pacing scenario."

To achieve that, it allows for greater risk in other theaters, including Europe and it calls for pressure on Taiwan to increase defense spending, two defense officials tell "PBS News Hour."

MAJ. GEN. SUN LI-FANG, Taiwanese National Defense Ministry Spokesperson: When we talk about defend our country, we mean defend my -- our home, our family, our loved one, and our democracy.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Major General Sun Li-Fang is Taiwan's top military spokesperson.

He says China's goal is to present overwhelming force to undermine Taiwan's will to resist and use other efforts, like this deepfake, to undermine Taiwan's democracy.

MAJ. GEN. SUN LI-FANG: Win without fight, actually, is the most important principle, according to Sun Tzu "Art of War" to try to influence the perception of people in Taiwan.

NICK SCHIFRIN: They're trying to reduce people's willingness to fight.

MAJ. GEN. SUN LI-FANG: You are right.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And what are the main lessons that Taiwan is taking from Ukraine?

Here, he switches to mandarin.

MAJ. GEN. SUN LI-FANG (through translator): The first aspect is demonstrating our determination to defend ourselves and ensuring we are fully prepared.

That might be the most important.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The battlefield lessons from Ukraine, Taiwan needs lots more cheap drones, with technology to repel jamming, secure satellite communications like Ukraine uses Starlink.

And Taiwan has watched attacks on Russian and Ukrainian logistics.

So it needs to better disperse and protect its own munitions.

Overall, Sun cites two major recent steps.

Mandatory military service has been extended to one year from four months, with more intense training.

And President Lai wants to boost military spending from 2.5 percent to more than 3 percent of Taiwan's GDP.

LAI CHING-TE, Taiwanese President (through translator): China's ambition over the past several decades to annex Taiwan has not changed for even a day.

By its actions, China already satisfies the definition of a foreign hostile force.

We have no choice but to take even more proactive measures.

ELBRIDGE COLBY, U.S.

Undersecretary of Defense Nominee: I agree with President Trump that they should be more like 10 percent.

NICK SCHIFRIN: At his nomination hearing last month to become the top Defense Department policy official, Elbridge Colby urged Taiwan to spend more, and bipartisan senators accused Taiwan's legislature of recently voting to reduce defense spending.

SEN. DAN SULLIVAN (R-AK): They need to realize they're playing a dangerous game, OK?

Cutting defense spending right now is not the right signal.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): How are we to be expected to think about sending Americans into harm's way on behalf of a of an entity that doesn't seem all that interested in protecting itself?

ELBRIDGE COLBY: Not only do I don't think its fair to Americans to ask Americans and our service men and women to suffer at great - - if our allies are not pulling their weight, but also that it won't even be viable.

ALEXANDER CHIEH-CHENG HUANG, International Affairs Director, Kuomintang: There is no way that we will accept the accusation that we cut defense budget.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Alexander Huang is the director of international affairs for the Kuomintang, the party that leads the coalition in charge of Taiwan's legislature.

He says their lawmakers lowered all government spending and didn't target defense and they will support an upcoming vote to increase military spending.

ALEXANDER CHIEH-CHENG HUANG: We will support the U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, no matter it's foreign military sales or direct commercial sales.

We support that 120 percent.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And he says Ukraine has woken up all Taiwanese to a stark reality.

ALEXANDER CHIEH-CHENG HUANG; The United States will not put the boots on the ground in Ukraine.

That clears some of the illusions that Taiwan had in the past that the United States G.I.

will come and fight for us.

We need to defend our homeland by ourselves.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In our next story, we will look at Taiwan's efforts to try and make its society and its people, not just its military, more willing to talk about the threat of war and more prepared to face an invasion.

AMNA NAWAZ: One of the most contentious immigration policies in recent decades has been the detention of undocumented immigrant families.

Now the Trump administration plans to detain thousands more in an effort to crack down on border crossings, as well as legal pathways to asylum.

John Yang has more -- John.

JOHN YANG: Amna, the Biden administration largely ended the practice of detaining families, but President Trump is bringing it back.

In recent weeks, the Department of Homeland Security has prepared facilities near the southern border to detain families.

Advocates have raised concerns about the living conditions and how long families will be held in detention.

Caitlin Dickerson is a staff writer at "The Atlantic" where she covers immigration policy.

Caitlin, how big a role is family detention going to play in the Trump policy?

CAITLIN DICKERSON, "The Atlantic": I think this expansion of family detention is pretty significant, but certainly it's one of myriad tools that the administration is using to kind of attack, if you will, this issue of immigration from every direction.

So detaining families for a prolonged period of time is something that Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, has indicated he thinks is important to try to end this practice that he calls catch-and-release, where immigrants and immigrant families are allowed to roam freely as their cases are processed.

I want to point out, though, that's not the only goal of expanding family detention, right?

ICE has other tools for that.

They use a cell phone app that they can track people's whereabouts with.

They also use GPS ankle monitors, and that helps to ensure that they can carry out deportations if ordered by a judge.

But I think this expansion of family detention is also part of a publicity campaign that the administration has been very forthright about.

You have had Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Homan himself talk about trying to convince immigrant families in the United States to self-deport, to leave on their own.

So you're seeing them use memes on the Internet that sort of poke fun at the harsh measures they're taking to crack down on immigration enforcement.

Obviously, Secretary Noem did a press appearance at the mega-prison in El Salvador that the administration has deported several hundred people to.

And I think that the expansion of family detention is really part and parcel here, right?

Their calculation is that more families knowing that they could be detained with their children in the United States might decide to leave the country of their own volition.

JOHN YANG: Family detention, of course, did not begin with the Trump administration.

It went back some years.

Tell us the history of this and what's the reaction has been over the years.

CAITLIN DICKERSON: It's been contentious from the beginning.

Family detention actually started under the George W. Bush administration as an effort to support families who'd recently arrived in the United States and offer them temporary housing, but that didn't last long.

When migration across the southern border started to increase, family detention centers transformed into a tool for deterrence and for helping the administration at the time carry out deportations.

We have had multiple facilities open and then close because of lawsuits.

And toward the end of the Obama administration, which did expand the use of family detention, the administration convened a panel of experts to make recommendations on how to make this system more humane.

And, instead, the experts voted unanimously to have it close down entirely.

They point to this kind of fundamental disconnect between what is effectively a prison and the needs that children have to feel safe and to be safe.

They talk about the harm that being detained does to a developing child's brain, damaging their neurons, even leading to smaller brain masses, these are some of the things that you can read in reports that have been commissioned by the government, because of how scary effectively it is to be in a setting where your primary caretaker as a child has no control.

They can't decide what you eat, where you go, who you speak to, or what happens to you.

And that fear has a really serious impact on these kids.

JOHN YANG: Recently, there's been a lot of focus about two cases of people who are in the country legally.

Mahmoud Khalil, who was part of the protest at Columbia University, was detained and told his green card was being revoked.

And then Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the administration acknowledges they mistakenly deported him to El Salvador, despite having the protection of an immigration judge.

What do these cases tell us about the administration's strategy?

CAITLIN DICKERSON: When you have ICE agents across the country under immense pressure to deport as many people as quickly as possible, I think you may start to see cases like administrative errors that lead to these deportations.

Mr. Abrego's, the Trump administration is now saying is irreversible.

And when you look at the case of Mahmoud Khalil, I think more of the publicity campaign I spoke about earlier.

I think it's relevant and significant that the administration first took away the visa of the most prominent protester as part of this protest movement at Columbia University that the Trump administration opposes, knowing very well that he was someone who was likely to garner a lot of media attention.

The hope is for all of this to have a chilling effect.

And, in fact, that is happening.

I have spent the last several months out in the country reporting on immigrant families specifically.

And just to give you a few snapshots, I can tell you, in Illinois, I heard from administrators of a day care in a community that is heavily dominated by immigrants that their -- people attending school are down really dramatically.

Their attendance is down really dramatically because of fear.

In Upstate New York, advocates have told me about having to go out and buy groceries for immigrant families for weeks or even a month at a time because parents are so scared to leave home or to let their children leave home.

And, in Georgia, I met with families and lawyers representing families who were indeed deciding to leave the country on their own to avoid some of these consequences.

So I think it's almost as if a COVID-type lockdown is happening in different parts of the country where you have lots of immigrant families scared to leave home.

They're holed up, looking at their phones and social media at all times for reports of ICE arrests and really feeling a fear that's so intense they don't want to even fulfill the basic needs that they have.

And I think, from the administration's statements, this is exactly what they're hoping for.

JOHN YANG: Caitlin Dickerson of "The Atlantic," thank you very much.

CAITLIN DICKERSON: Thank you so much.

AMNA NAWAZ: We now turn to our series On Democracy, where we hear a range of perspectives on how government should function, what's led to this moment in American history, and where the country goes next.

Tonight, we will focus on President Trump's expansive view of presidential authority and efforts to claim sweeping powers over the executive branch, including independent federal agencies.

I recently sat down with Joel Alicea, professor of law and director of the Center for the Constitution and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition at the Catholic University, for his take on this moment.

Professor Alicea, thank you so much for being here.

J. JOEL ALICEA, The Catholic University of America: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, in the first 2.5 months of this Trump presidency, the president has signed more than 100 executive orders, right, more than any president in modern history, in American history at this point in their presidency.

Those executive orders have abolished federal agencies, they have tried to freeze billions in aid, they have fired masses of federal workers.

As you know, some legal experts say they're alarmed, that this is testing the bounds of presidential powers.

How do you look at this?

J. JOEL ALICEA: I think that President Trump has aggressively used executive power, but I don't think that's actually unusual in our history.

So, if you think about Franklin Roosevelt, for example, a very aggressive use of executive power and a federal power in general, and he's now considered one of our greatest presidents.

So, I think that we have to keep in historical context that the executive has enormous power under the Constitution.

And to the extent that the present uses that power to try to achieve policy outcomes, that doesn't make him very different from a lot of his predecessors.

I do think that one thing that is notable about President Trump is his attempt to use executive power to reshape the federal government in a way that we really haven't seen in peacetime probably since FDR.

I think that's probably fair to say.

AMNA NAWAZ: You referenced Roosevelt, of course, and the New Deal.

That was in response to the Great Depression here.

So it's fair to say it is rare use of that kind of power.

Why do you think other presidents haven't used their executive power in that way before?

J. JOEL ALICEA: Well, I think President Trump is responding to a number of domestic issues that have finally led to a president who wants to push back aggressively against the administrative state, the large bureaucracy.

And I agree with you that you're saying that hasn't been done in this way in a very long time.

That's true, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is beyond his power to do so.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, certainly, the legality of many of those executive orders and actions is being challenged, right?

AMNA NAWAZ: There are cases you have seen as well in which they alleged that President Trump illegally fired some officials, specifically from independent agencies, right, like the FTC and the National Labor Relations Board.

The law, as my understanding of it is, is that people in those agencies, officials there, can only be fired for due cause, like neglect of duty or malfeasance.

The argument here is they were not fired according to the law.

So, in this case, did the president break the law?

J. JOEL ALICEA: For much of our history, it was widely acknowledged that the president had plenary authority to remove anyone exercising executive power underneath him as a way of ensuring political accountability for those officials, since the president is the head of the executive branch who was elected by the American people.

That began to change in the 1930s.

And so for the last several decades, there have been restrictions on the president's removal power that the Supreme Court has recognized.

But in recent years, the Supreme Court has started moving back towards the historical baseline of plenary removal power by the president.

So, insofar as President Trump has exercised his constitutional power to remove these subordinate executive officials in a way that the statutes don't contemplate, well, I think his argument is that those statutes are just unconstitutional.

They're restrictions on his constitutional plenary removal power.

And there's significant Supreme Court case law, especially recently, that would support that interpretation of his power.

AMNA NAWAZ: There is -- I think the cases you're referencing, the 1935 Supreme Court precedent, right... AMNA NAWAZ: ... which was unanimous decision then that said that the president couldn't remove officials from independent bodies that were created by Congress, basically saying that these officials could do the work that they were doing for the American public without fear of political reprisal.

You're saying that precedent should not stand.

J. JOEL ALICEA: I certainly don't think it should stand.

And I would just point out that, while Humphrey's Executor, which is the case you were mentioning, from 1935 may have been unanimous, it was also contrary to a precedent that had been decided only a few years earlier by the Supreme Court, in which it had to distinguish in a really unpersuasive way, frankly.

A lot of this comes down to how you characterize the president's removal power.

I think that the way I would characterize the president's power of removal, or -- and I assume the way the president, President Trump, would is political accountability.

Like, that's really what this is about.

AMNA NAWAZ: Can I put it in layman's term?

So the president has the power to fire anyone for any reason or without a reason?

J. JOEL ALICEA: I believe that he has the power to fire anyone who wields executive power for any reason, or for no reason, as an exercise of the power that's vested in him by Article II of the Constitution.

That's right.

AMNA NAWAZ: We have also seen the president go personally after some of the judges who rule against him in some cases.

He's called one judge in particular a radical left lunatic.

Do you have concerns about that kind of language?

Do you feel like it undermines the judicial system in any way?

J. JOEL ALICEA: I haven't seen that particular quote from the president.

I will say that... AMNA NAWAZ: You have surely seen reports that this has happened.

J. JOEL ALICEA: Well, I will say that I think that it is not at all unusual historically for presidents to disagree strongly with decisions from the judicial branch and to call those decisions into question, and even to call into question particular judges as part of that.

That's not, I think, at all unusual historically.

AMNA NAWAZ: To call a federal judge a radical left lunatic, you think is consistent with what we have seen in the past?

J. JOEL ALICEA: I think that it would be useful to go back and look at some of the presidential rhetoric throughout American history going after the courts.

And I think you would see that a lot of times those attacks are pretty strong, and there were efforts, in fact, right after the 1800 election to go after federal judges in very aggressive ways.

I should make clear I'm not speaking to any particular statements that the president has made or hasn't made.

I'm simply saying, historically, we should have some perspective on these interbranch conflicts, that they're quite common.

AMNA NAWAZ: So a lot of these questions circle around this idea of just how much power the president has, right, what the interpretation of Article II here is.

How do you define executive overreach?

What would that mean to you?

J. JOEL ALICEA: That there are limits on the president's powers, right?

His duty is to take care that the law be faithfully executed.

It is Congress that sets national policy and makes the laws as a general matter and the president's the one who's supposed to enforce those laws and execute them.

So there are certainly limits to the president's broad authority.

AMNA NAWAZ: And for those who worry that this is executive power grab, that it brings him closer to a king than a president, you would say?

J. JOEL ALICEA: The whole point of our system, by separating powers among the three branches, is to ensure that no one branch becomes too powerful or claims authority that it's not supposed to have.

A lot of the president's actions are being reviewed by the courts.

And some members of Congress have pushed back against the president's spending clause decisions.

And so Congress has authority to push back against the president to the extent that it disagrees with him.

That kind of friction, which often is messy and often contentious and controversial, that is actually how our system is designed to work, is to place these branches in competition with each other, in a sense, to ensure that no one branch becomes too powerful.

So I look at the kinds of friction that we're seeing among the branches and say, well, that's actually the way this should work.

AMNA NAWAZ: Professor Joel Alicea, Catholic University, thank you so much for being here.

Really enjoyed the conversation.

J. JOEL ALICEA: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: 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.