AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Geoff Bennett is away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: Middle East nations reject President Trump's idea to remove Palestinians from Gaza and take ownership of the decimated region, while Republican lawmakers back the proposal.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): He's taking bold, decisive action to try to ensure the peace of that region.

AMNA NAWAZ: How Elon Musk is rapidly gutting government agencies and whether protests and lawmakers could slow his efforts.

And almost all USAID workers around the world are placed on leave.

The potential threat to global health programs and national security.

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

President Trump's proposal to -- quote -- "take over" Gaza and relocate two million Palestinians to other countries is being condemned across the region.

The announcement came at a joint press conference with Israel's prime minister yesterday, where President Trump promised to turn the war-ravaged area into a -- quote -- "Riviera" of the Middle East.

William Brangham reports.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Standing beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Trump issued what amounts to a thunderclap across the Middle East: Gaza will be rebuilt, but under U.S. ownership.

DONALD TRUMP: We will own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated places on Earth.

But, for 15 months, Israeli bombs have turned most of Gaza into a gray ghost town of dust and debris.

Israel's air campaign, one of the largest in modern warfare, flattened entire neighborhoods.

Israel says Hamas' elaborate tunnel network and the group's practice of embedding its soldiers inside civilian areas meant they had no other choice.

But President Trump, who made his name as a New York real estate developer, said he will transform this area into something magnificent.

DONALD TRUMP: I don't want to be cute.

I don't want to be a wise guy, but the Riviera of the Middle East.

This could be something that could be -- this could be so magnificent.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the man who led Israel's war in Gaza, stood beside the president in complete agreement.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israeli Prime Minister: Your willingness to think outside the box with fresh ideas will help us achieve all these goals.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Outside the White House, hundreds of people protesting Israel's onslaught in Gaza called for Netanyahu's arrest.

President Trump said his determination to own and develop Gaza was being welcomed.

DONALD TRUMP: Everybody I have spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land, developing and creating thousands of jobs.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But leaders in the Middle East flat-out rejected the idea.

Saudi Arabia said its position the establishment of a Palestinian state run by Palestinians was -- quote -- "firm and unwavering" and "non-negotiable and not subject to compromise."

Leaders in Jordan and Egypt also rejected the idea.

And similar reactions also poured in from Turkey, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Australia, Ireland, Brazil, Russia, and China.

In Washington, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland called the idea ethnic cleansing.

SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): He just said that it will be United States policy to forcibly displace two million Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.

That is ethnic cleansing by another name.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But the president's own party stands behind his move.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: MARCO RUBIO, U.S. Secretary of State: People can move back in, but in the meantime they will have to live somewhere.

Now, the details of that, if it was accepted, would have to be worked out among multiple partner nations.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson: REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): This is a bold, decisive move.

And I think you have to do something to eradicate the threat to Israel.

It just makes sense to make the neighborhood there safer.

I think that's logical.

I think it follows common sense.

I think people understand the necessity of it.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: President Trump argued that the Palestinians themselves will welcome his plan.

DONALD TRUMP: The only reason the Palestinians want to go back to Gaza is, they have no alternative.

It's right now a demolition site.

This is just a demolition site.

Virtually every building is down.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But despite that destruction, last week, many Palestinians returned home as soon as they were permitted by Israeli forces, on foot, in carriages and cars, walking over the remnants of their communities.Some rode on the backs of others.

Today, Palestinians told the "News Hour" that they reject the president's plan.

AHMED AL LOUDH, North Gaza Resident (through translator): The last thing we would do is leave Gaza.

I'd rather die than leave, no matter the reason.

Even if they said they'd give me a million dollars, I wouldn't leave my home, no matter the reason.

YOUSSEF AL SABAH, North Gaza Resident (through translator): We reject this decision.

The Palestinian people will persevere in our land.

The Gaza people are anchored to this land.

I think this decision will not pass.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, for more on President Trump's proposal for Gaza, we're joined again by Marwan Muasher.

He's the former foreign minister and deputy prime minister of Jordan and is now here in Washington, D.C., as vice president at the Carnegie Endowment.

Marwan Muasher, so good to have you back on the program.

MARWAN MUASHER, Former Jordanian Foreign Minister: Good to be here.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We should say at the outset that Gaza is not an American territory, and yet we have an American president who says the Americans will seize it, we will redevelop it, and we will own it.

What is your reaction to this?

MARWAN MUASHER: Well, a lot of reactions.

It's bizarre that the U.S. president says this about territory not owned by the United States.

Senator Van Hollen was very accurate in calling it ethnic cleansing.

There is no other way to say it.

Palestinians are not being asked whether they want to leave or not, and it's clear that they have not left.

After 15 months of bombing, they are not crowding at the Egyptian border.

They went back to their homes, knowing that their homes are gone.

Let me also remind people that Palestinians in Gaza are themselves already refugees.

They came from other parts of historic Palestine in 1948.

They already know what will happen to them if they, as Senator Rubio -- Secretary Rubio said, if they temporarily relocate.

There is no such thing as temporary relocation with Israel.

There are many U.N. resolutions, the most famous of which is 194, that have asked Israel to return back Palestinians who were forcibly displaced in 1948.

And Israel has not allowed a single one.

So Palestinians know that, this time around, if they leave their home, they are not going back to it.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We heard in that tape a good deal of the condemnation from nations all across the world.

Your own nation, Jordan, is one of the countries that President Trump said the Palestinians should move to.

What is Jordan's reaction to this specifically?

MARWAN MUASHER: Jordan cannot receive any more Palestinian refugees than it has already.

First of all, Jordan has no geographical borders with Gaza.

And so it is not understood why Jordan is being asked to receive Palestinians from Gaza.

What this is doing, it seems to me, is giving Prime Minister Netanyahu a green light to annex the West Bank.

And that is Jordan's also real concern, that, by saying Israel is too small, by saying Palestinians should move out, President Trump is basically suggesting that Israel can go ahead and annex the West Bank, much in the same way that he -- that Israel wants to drive Palestinians out of Gaza.

That is a big concern to Jordan.

That is going to pose economic security problems for Jordan and an identity problem to the country.

Imagine if all of Canada suddenly moves to the United States.

It would change the whole demographic and character of the state.

And that is why, in my view, Jordan will not accept under any conditions, and no matter what the threats are, becoming -- any number of Palestinians, not to say that Palestinians don't want to come, and also not to say that Jordan's main concern, main reason for signing the treaty with Israel has been to prevent against mass transfer.

This is going to be a clear violation of the Jordan-Israel peace treaty.

And it's going to give fuel to the Israeli right who wants to annex the whole land and have a solution at Jordan's expense.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

This is right in line with what a lot of the conservative Israelis want.

Do you think that we are paying too much attention to this issue?

I mean, this came out of the blue.

It seemed that President Trump was making this sort of evolving plan in his own mind yesterday as the day progressed.

Do you think we're focusing too much on something that may never really come to pass?

MARWAN MUASHER: I don't think it will come to pass.

There are no tools for it to come to pass.

I don't imagine that President Trump is going to send U.S. troops to the region.

That's going to be hugely unpopular with... WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Although the U.S. defense secretary today, Pete Hegseth, said he would be open to that idea if the president wanted it.

MARWAN MUASHER: I don't think the U.S. public will be open to that idea.

After the Iraq War, the United States does not want to get involved militarily outside.

So -- sorry, I lost my train of thought here.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, is it your sense that this is simply a gambit, a negotiating tactic by Trump?

MARWAN MUASHER: It might -- well, it might be.

But I want to say that every time the president of the United States says something, people have to take it seriously.

And the decision-making process cannot be done in such a way that a president says something and then people have to follow.

This is going to be dangerous not just for the Palestinians, but for Jordan, for Egypt.

And it should be taken very seriously before such statements come out.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Marwan Muasher, as always, thank you so much for being here.

MARWAN MUASHER: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Here in the U.S., the Trump administration is moving at a breakneck pace, targeting agencies and slashing the federal work force.

And one man is orchestrating it all, Elon Musk.

Currently the richest man in the world, Musk has been given access to critical systems across the federal government.

Today, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Musk could decide for himself if any government funds that his team has access to are in conflict with his business interests.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, White House Press Secretary: If Elon Musk comes across a conflict of interest with the contracts and the funding that DOGE is overseeing, then Elon will excuse himself from those contracts.

And he has, again, abided by all applicable laws.

AMNA NAWAZ: Alarmed by Musk's influence and growing control, House Democrats on the Oversight Committee attempted to subpoena Musk, but were blocked today by House Republicans.

Our Laura Barron-Lopez has been covering the latest, and she joins us now.

Laura, Musk and his team, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, are moving very fast.

Bring us up to date.

Since Monday, how many more agencies and government systems has he gained access to?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, to date, Musk and his team have accessed at least 11 agencies, Amna.

And the count is growing every day.

So that includes USAID, Treasury, Education Department, FAA, FBI.

And what does that mean?

That means that, with access to these agencies, he has access to the government's biggest payment systems, to personnel information, to the personal information of many Americans, H.R.

systems, and much more.

The New York Times also recently reported that DOGE has access to the Center -- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which has contracts totaling in $1 trillion.

And, now, we asked the White House about all this access.

And the White House claims that Musk and DOGE have -- quote -- "the appropriate security clearances" and that DOGE employees are employees of relevant agencies.

But it's not just about gaining access, Amna.

Elon Musk has also gleefully tweeted on X about dismantling entire agencies beyond USAID, including the Education Department.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have been reporting on this issue of Musk and his team granting -- getting access to the Treasury payment systems.

What does that mean?

Do we know if he has power to stop payments, for example?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says that Elon Musk and DOGE have -- quote -- "read-only access."

But the White House has not directly answered if Elon Musk and DOGE have the power to stop a number of these payments that go out of that system at the Treasury Department.

The White House press secretary today seemed to imply that he might, citing some very specific payments that DOGE itself was stopping.

But a source familiar that I talked to who was familiar with what happened during the transition said that members of Musk's team were asking the Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service if they could stop payments that were going through that system and that DOGE wanted information and access to the underlying code of that system, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: So what could all that mean?

What are the implications of that kind of access?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: I spoke to Natasha Sarin.

She's a former Treasury official during the Biden administration.

And she said that Musk and DOGE's access, which DOGE -- the DOGE team has a number of 19-to-24-year-olds who have no government experience.

She said their access poses a risk.

NATASHA SARIN, Former Treasury Department Appointee: I would think about it as like a data security, cybersecurity risks, right, risks of private information about individuals like their Social Security numbers, their bank account information, getting out to the public.

I would think of another category of risks is national security risks.

So you're making it more possible for our adversaries -- the less secure this data is and this infrastructure is, the more possible it is for our adversaries to be able to manipulate it.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, just to hammer it home, Amna, Natasha said that means that DOGE has access to Social Security numbers, direct deposit bank accounts for everyday Americans.

And we should note that a federal judge did indicate today that he may issue a temporary restraining order against DOGE's ability to access those payment systems.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura, what do we know about why Musk and DOGE have been given this kind of apparently unfettered access to these government systems?

Elon LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Musk has said pretty publicly that his goal is to cut the deficit by stopping all of these improper payments.

But he's made a lot of sweeping accusations without any evidence, calling USAID payments, they are just totally corrupt.

He claims that the Bureau of Fiscal Service - - that's that Treasury payment system we're talking about -- that they have never stopped improper payments.

Well, experts that we talked to say that that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what those civil servants do.

They're only responsible for cutting checks.

They are not responsible for vetting the payments at all.

That happens at the agency level.

And so there is a concern amongst government workers that Elon Musk is essentially claiming and creating a head fake, saying that he -- that there are all these improper payments going out of the federal government, and claiming that essentially is a permission structure to then eventually stop payments.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the big picture here, we have seen Musk gain access, get control of these systems.

Help us understand the influence.

What kind of a takeover is this we're seeing?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Well, some of the experts that we talked to say that there's a name for this.

And that name is state capture.

What is state capture?

It's when a wealthy individual like Elon Musk is able to capture the mechanisms of government, gain control of them, and then potentially manipulate them for their personal gain.

And I spoke to Tyler McBrien, the managing editor at Lawfare, who said that state capture practically works like this.

TYLER MCBRIEN, Managing Editor, Lawfare: It's rewriting the rules of the game in terms of law and policy.

It's capturing administrative decisions through appointments, budgeting, things like that.

And then it's attacking these accountability structures, so the inspectors general, any sort of congressional oversight that should happen, the media as well.

You see this now with certain government agencies only reporting things on X and no longer issuing press releases.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: He mentioned inspectors general.

A lot of inspectors general are gone now because the Trump administration put them on leave.

One of the only ways, he said, to stop state capture is public awareness.

And we saw today that there were a lot of protests in backlash.

There -- across D.C., outside of the Capitol, hundreds protested the dismantling of USAID.

And you hear them talking about -- chanting against Elon Musk there, Amna.

So that is potentially one of the only ways that state capture could be stopped.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura Barron-Lopez, thank you.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: We start the day's other headlines with a busy day at the White House that includes visits by two of the nation's most high-profile governors and an executive action that takes steps to restrict transgender rights in sports.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: Oh, I think we have a chance.

We have a 10.

AMNA NAWAZ: On National Girls and Women in Sports Day, President Donald Trump pushing through another campaign promise through executive order.

DONALD TRUMP: The war on women's sports is over.

AMNA NAWAZ: Banning transgender athletes from competing in women's sports.

DONALD TRUMP: In recent years, the radical left has waged an all-out campaign to erase the very concept of biological sex and replace it with a militant transgender ideology.

AMNA NAWAZ: Under the order, schools allowing transgender athletes to compete would be violating Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination in schools, and could be denied federal funding as a result, but a setback today for another campaign promise, as a second federal judge put a hold on Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman issued a nationwide injunction, saying that the order -- quote -- "runs counter to our nation's 250-year history of citizenship by birth."

Meanwhile, in Washington, California Governor Gavin Newsom became the first Democrat to visit the White House to meet with the president, trying to secure federal funding to help Los Angeles communities ravaged by deadly wildfires.

The president has repeatedly threatened to withhold that aid if the state doesn't take certain unrelated steps, like enacting voter identification measures for elections.

And Trump's own Cabinet continues to come together, Pam Bondi, former Florida attorney general and Trump impeachment defense lawyer, sworn in today to the nation's top law enforcement job.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio continues his five-nation visit across Central America, as Guatemala's President Bernardo Arevalo offers to accept deported migrants from the United States, including those from other countries.

BERNARDO AREVALO, Guatemalan President (through translator): Guatemala is and will continue to be a partner with the United States, a partner to address the problems that we face as a region.

AMNA NAWAZ: That follows a similar agreement from El Salvador this week, as one of President Trump's top priorities, immigration, gains more foreign partners.

Also today, in Sweden, police are trying to figure out the motive of a gunman who carried out the deadliest mass shooting in the country's history.

Authorities now say 11 people are dead, including the shooter, following yesterday's massacre at a school for adults in the city of Orebro.

Sweden's king and queen laid wreaths outside of the school today.

Stunned locals also paid tribute, saying they never expected an attack like this in their community.

MALIN HILMBERG, Resident of Sweden: Not in this place.

I mean, you have heard about it in different parts of the world, but, of course, it's a shock.

It's your hometown and, yes, so it's many lives destroyed.

Yes.

Yes, it's hard to find the words.

AMNA NAWAZ: Sweden has recorded some of the highest per capita rates of gun violence in the European Union in recent years, but deadly school shootings are rare.

Officials say five victims are still hospitalized in serious, but stable condition.

Argentina is withdrawing from the World Health Organization due to the -- quote -- "profound differences" with the agency.

President Javier Milei's decision follows President Trump's executive order to pull the U.S. out of the WHO.

The organization coordinates responses to global health threats and provides technical assistance to poorer countries.

Its work is critical during outbreaks of diseases like Ebola and AIDS.

A government spokesperson said Argentina's decision was largely a response to the who's guidance during the COVID pandemic.

MANUEL ADORNI, Argentina Government Spokesman (through translator): This is based on the deep differences regarding, of course, health management, especially during the pandemic.

We Argentines will not allow an international organization to intervene in our sovereignty, much less our health.

AMNA NAWAZ: Argentina's departure from the WHO complicates the agency's efforts in global health, though the country provides only a fraction of the WHO's total budget and it's under no obligation to follow the agency's guidelines and recommendations.

The racial gap in maternal mortality rates widened last year here in the U.S., according to new federal health data out today.

The CDC found that, in 2023, Black women in the U.S. died at a rate nearly 3.5 times higher than white women.

That's a greater disparity than the prior two years, when Black women were 2.6 times more likely to die either before, during, or soon after childbirth.

And it comes as maternal mortality overall actually fell below pre-pandemic levels.

Authorities at Seattle's main airport say a Japan Airlines plane struck the tail of a parked Delta aircraft this morning.

Video from inside the Delta plane shows airport personnel attending to the scene.

A Delta spokesperson says the Boeing 737 was waiting to have ice removed when the wing of another aircraft reportedly made contact with its tail.

There were no injuries and only a minimal impact on airport operations.

But it's just the latest in a string of incidents that have raised concerns about the nation's airline safety.

On Wall Street today, stocks posted modest gains amid a flurry of corporate earnings.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained more than 300 points.

The Nasdaq added nearly 40 points on the day.

The S&P 500 also closed in positive territory.

And Harry Stewart Jr., a decorated World War II pilot and one of the last surviving Tuskegee Airmen, has died.

After Pearl Harbor, Stewart enlisted as soon as he turned 18.

He joined what was considered an experiment to train Black pilots in Tuskegee, Alabama.

Stewart went on to fly 43 combat missions nearly one every other day.

He earned the Distinguished Flying Cross for downing three German aircraft during a single dogfight.

Stewart retired as a lieutenant colonel in 1950, but later returned to the skies to give rides to aspiring young pilots.

Harry Stewart Jr. was 100 years old.

Still to come on the "News Hour": the global impacts of putting nearly all USAID workers on leave; how President Trump's mass resignation offer is causing widespread confusion for federal workers; and chef Alton Brown offers reflections and ruminations in a new book of essays.

The Trump administration is continuing to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, posting this message on the agency's main page web.

It says on Friday -- quote -- "All USAID direct hire personnel will be placed on administrative leave globally, with the exception of designated personnel responsible for mission-critical functions, core leadership, and specially designated programs."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio had this to say: MARCO RUBIO, U.S. Secretary of State: Our goal for USAID was to align the programs that it fulfills with the foreign policy of the United States.

And yet, over the last two decades, it has not.

And it has gotten worse and worse.

And multiple administrations have complained about it, but none have done anything about it.

We are going to do something about it.

This is not about ending foreign aid.

It is about structuring it in a way that furthers the national interests of the United States.

AMNA NAWAZ: For perspective on all of this, we turn now to Andrew Natsios.

He was the administrator for USAID during the George W. Bush administration.

He's now at Texas A&M university.

Andrew Natsios, welcome back to the "News Hour."

I just want to start with your response to what we have seen over these last few days, essentially a complete takeover of USAID by Elon Musk and now the entire team placed on leave.

ANDREW NATSIOS, Former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development: It's not a takeover.

It's a destruction of the agency.

And I just want to say, I have always had respect for Marco Rubio, and I don't now because of the nonsense he just said.

AID was more aligned with President Bush's foreign policy than the State Department was, and sometimes even the Defense Department was.

That's not the problem.

The problem is, they don't have an administrator to run the agency to move it toward the right.

Whenever a president takes office, they appoint people who agree with their point of view.

When there's a Republican president, AID moves to the right.

When there's a Democratic president, AID moves to the left, as it should.

The programs that they're attacking right now are Biden administration programs.

They're not programs that the career people put in place on their own.

They're instructed to do it by the White House.

Why are you blaming the career people at AID for something that Joe Biden did?

I don't understand it.

It's ridiculous.

AID is one of the great powers, humanitarian powers in the world for the United States to protect the American people and our national interests and to protect the people in the developing world from disease, from hunger, and to advocate and to change policies to encourage economic growth and investment.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, tell us a bit, because it feels as if its future is uncertain.

We know Elon Musk says he wants to shut it down.

You hear Secretary Rubio saying there's going to be a restructuring.

But even in this moment of uncertainty, whatever this is, what are you hearing from people on the ground in the countries USAID serves and from leaders of the countries who've partnered with the U.S. in this?

ANDREW NATSIOS: Well, the people I talk to are appalled by what's happening.

And I'm talking about people in the developing world and people certainly within the agency.

The agency is shut down.

We can't field DART teams, Disaster Assistance Response Teams, which we created 35 years ago, and I was the director of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, which go to disasters all over the world in civil wars, in famines, in refugee emergencies, and earthquakes.

We can't field those DART teams anymore.

Our anti-polio eradication program is not functioning right now because the missions are shut down.

They're going to close all 80 missions?

That's the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

The most powerful thing we have going for us in the developing world are the USAID missions, two-thirds of whom are local people.

They're people with advanced degrees who work for AID for many years who help run our programs.

Two-thirds of the AID work force aren't even Americans.

And they don't work for very high wages, I have to tell you.

And they do important work, and shutting this whole system down makes no sense at all.

The notion that people have been -- who's been complaining about AID?

The Defense Department, career military does not complain about AID.

They complain about the State Department, if you talk to them.

And I have great respect for our diplomats.

I was a diplomat for a while, but the reality is, AID is far more like the Pentagon, because it is an operational agency that gets stuff done.

State Department is a policymaking body.

If you put AID into State, there will be no development program and no emergency programs, because we will no longer be operational.

It will be a disaster for the United States and a disaster for people in the Global South.

AMNA NAWAZ: Andrew, if I may, let me ask you about the way Secretary Rubio is talking about this, though.

He says this is a restructuring so the agency is more in line with this president's foreign policy.

People will say, isn't that within the president's purview to be able to do that?

ANDREW NATSIOS: Of course it is.

The president should appoint his own designee for the AID administrator, the head of the agency, which is what I was under President Bush, and the assistant administrators, all of whom, by the way, have to be confirmed by the United States Senate, and the next level down.

They run the agency.

And you put in place people who agree with you.

I promoted more conservative people who are economists, who are pro-business in the agency.

When the left takes control, they promote people on the left.

That's how any administration works.

That's true in the Pentagon.

It's true in the State Department.

What do you think the State Department was doing under Biden?

They were running the LGBT flag with the American flag in all the embassies.

That's not AID that did it.

That is the State Department that did it.

I -- these issues are subterfuge.

They -- I think what they wanted to do is to show that they were in control and they wanted to make cuts, and they have made up these illusory charges against AID that make no sense and are not accurate.

With all due respect, none of these people know anything about AID.

What does Musk know about international development?

Absolutely nothing.

He has a bunch of young kids in their 20s.

They don't know.

They're techies.

They don't know anything about international development.

They don't know anything about the Global South.

They don't know anything about these - - the programs and policies of the agency.

AID is the most pro-business and pro-market of all aid agencies in the world.

I can tell you that categorically.

I am a conservative Republican.

I'm not a liberal.

And I have served in repeated Republican administrations.

And the notion that the agency is Marxist -- they said -- they made the accusation it was a Marxist organization.

That's utterly ridiculous.

I know that we have private sector officers in it.

We have a program that we started when I was administrator called the Global Development Alliance that brings in American businesses who contribute $6 billion a year to AID's programs.

We don't -- they don't give us the money.

We don't give them -- we jointly invest in the same projects, and we manage the projects for the businesses.

The business community in the United States is very pro-AID.

They never bothered to ask the business community what they thought of this whole attack on AID and an attempt to abolish it.

ANDREW NATSIOS: I can't quite tell what they're trying to do.

Musk (OFF-MIKE) to abolish AID, and Rubio says he wants to merge it into State.

Which is it?

AMNA NAWAZ: Andrew Natsios, we will have to leave it there.

We do thank you for your time and insights.

Thank you for joining us, former Administrator of USAID Andrew Natsios.

More than two million civilian federal workers across the country are facing a gut-wrenching deadline tomorrow.

They can either accept an offer from the Trump administration to resign and keep their pay and benefits through September, or they can pass on the offer, but take a gamble that they may be laid off in the weeks ahead.

It's part of Elon Musk's push to dramatically cut the size of government that includes intelligence agencies like the CIA and the NSA, who are looking at the same offer.

Lisa Desjardins and our team have been talking with workers throughout the government, and she joins me now.

So Lisa, there's been a blitz of directives and actions around federal workers.

Help us understand what's happening and why it matters.

LISA DESJARDINS: Presidents have the right, as we just heard, to change agencies and to affect political appointees.

But what's happening here is sort of an unprecedented barrage of activity against the largest civilian work force in this country, pressure tactics, people told to snitch on their co-workers.

Let's take a look at through all the orders that federal workers have received in the last bit.

First, there is a hiring freeze in place across government.

They have this deferred resignation deadline that you talked about for tomorrow.

There have been administrative leave notices, layoffs in places.

There's been lists of new requirements that people think are going toward a purge.

Their back-to-office policy starts beginning Friday at the Department of Defense.

Now, as you said, Trump wants to downsize government.

But what's happening here is something even bigger, a bigger message, which is, it doesn't matter what your skill set is.

We're not looking at your job.

We simply want you to resign, whoever you are.

So what's happening for workers is, they're thinking if I could be fired.

Do I need to return to the office?

There is a debate over returning to office, of course, that can be had.

But our producer Diane Lincoln Estes worked out -- spoke to some federal workers who are dealing with this issue.

One of them she talked to in Texas explained that this difficult decision puts her family in a tough spot.

KATE, Federal Worker: I cried, sobbed in my car.

It's just a lot.

It's a lot to lose.

So there is no good option.

We're going to be commuting two hours a day no matter what we do.

So I just -- I don't - - the thing that gets me is, why?

Why?

Stop lying.

It's not efficiency.

They're going to have to lease out buildings and reconfigure desks and spend God only knows how much money to make space for all of us.

LISA DESJARDINS: So, you see, it's very personal.

I also talked to contractors who have already lost their insurance from being fired.

AMNA NAWAZ: That back-to-office order, what do we know about that and how it would actually work?

LISA DESJARDINS: It's agency by agency when it takes effect.

And also some of the details are still not clear to everybody.

Unions are saying this violates their bargaining agreements.

But the Office of Personnel Management sent out a directive saying, you can just ignore those union deals so far.

There is also a question about, is there actually room for all of these workers?

Diane spoke to someone else, Miranda Wolfcutter (ph) in Kansas, who's concerned about that.

MIRANDA, Federal Worker: My agency specifically just did a major reorganization that we just finished over the summer, and we sent every employee out of an office.

So we are all now remote, and we will all be called back to offices that no longer exist.

We gave up all physical space.

So in order to bring people back into an office, we first have to find those offices.

LISA DESJARDINS: Now, I also learned yesterday from a source that the Government Services Agency is now put out a directive saying it wants to sell or get rid of 50 percent of federally owned space.

Currently, that is 8,000 buildings across 2,000 communities, so really significant decision we haven't heard much about.

AMNA NAWAZ: In this moment, as you're talking to federal workers, what are they telling you about how they're navigating these decisions?

LISA DESJARDINS: I cannot overstress the kind of fear and chill effect hovering over federal workers at this moment, in addition to all of these dark-of-night decisions.

Workers have been told not to speak about this.

There are gag orders hanging over them.

Some of them are talking in code over encrypted apps.

Now, Elon Musk tweeted out -- or posted on X last night, rather.

He said this: "Leakers, if there is doubt, they're out."

I asked House Speaker Mike Johnson, what about freedom of speech?

He said, oh, no, I'm sure he didn't mean anything by that.

But federal workers take Musk's word seriously.

They believe there is a real threat to them.

And this is why several federal workers we talked to would not go on camera.

But here's what they said off camera.

WOMAN: If people know who I am and I'm sharing information, that it could be detrimental to me.

MAN: They're looking to root out any vestiges of any type of opposition.

WOMAN: They're looking for any reason to eliminate federal positions.

And I don't want to give an excuse to eliminate a federal position.

LISA DESJARDINS: Workers are finding strength in one thing, their oath of office to protect the Constitution.

AMNA NAWAZ: What do we know about the legality of all this, Lisa?

LISA DESJARDINS: Yes, I spoke just a short time ago with an expert on this, attorney Michelle Bercovici at Alden Law Group.

She represents federal workers.

Michelle, thank you for joining us.

MICHELLE BERCOVICI, Alden Law Group: Thank you for having me.

LISA DESJARDINS: I'm wondering, how overall are federal workers taking this in?

Do they think they have legal recourse?

And how -- what is your experience with what's going on here in the work force?

MICHELLE BERCOVICI: I will talk about it a couple of ways.

First of all, I do want to say this is unprecedented.

In the federal government, usually, when there's work force restructuring or major changes, it's a very deliberate process.

The government does a lot of really, really important things that make this nation function and make it function well.

So if you're going to be doing a buyout or retirement program, the agency is doing studies, they're realigning functions.

They're making sure their essentials are there to get the job done.

Bureaucracy does not move at lightning speed, but sometimes there's a reason for that.

So this bolt out of the blue, saying -- this resignation program is disorienting to begin with.

It's unprecedented to be communicating directly with OPM and not with your agency and to be in a situation where you're an employee and you expect maybe your supervisor or your manager's going to have answers about what's going on or certainly the chief human capital officer will have answers about what's going on.

LISA DESJARDINS: Are you sensing anger, fear?

What are you getting from these workers?

MICHELLE BERCOVICI: Yes, so federal employees believe in the government, in their mission, and they're all of a sudden hearing that they're lazy, unproductive, underperforming.

That's very hard to hear, because, quite frankly, they're some of the hardest working people I know.

And they don't know who to trust anymore because answers change so quickly every day.

You're used to having a place where you can at least get some firm information, some data, some evidence-based decision-making.

That is not the case here.

And at the same time they're being presented with these very vague choices, there's threats to their livelihood coming from all sides.

LISA DESJARDINS: In a nutshell, for a layperson, why might this not be legal?

MICHELLE BERCOVICI: I think it comes down to the fact that it's not clearly legal.

There are not clearly appropriated funds.

There's not clear authority pursuant to regulation or longstanding guidance.

And there's no precedent.

Because it's a federal government, if you're going to appropriate funds, if you're going to make certain changes, usually, there has to be some sort of regulation, congressional authorization, or one would hope, like, very thought-out guidance.

And, here, things like, for example, this idea that you can work -- get a second job while still getting paid by the government, that is very questionable.

It's only in very narrow circumstances.

There are a lot of rules and regulations that limit that, and limit that for a reason.

LISA DESJARDINS: So your advice to workers who have a deadline here, especially on the resignation offer, what should they do?

MICHELLE BERCOVICI: That is -- I mean, everybody at the end of the day, you have to make whatever decision is best for you and your family.

What I advise people is to not make that decision until you have done a benefits checkup, until you understand what specifically you are putting at risk if you take the offer and the agency reneges or changes its mind, because you will not be able to withdraw that resignation.

So I think, if you are in a place where, let's say, the offer doesn't work out and you are -- have to leave the government soon anyways, regardless, then perhaps you're not out of pocket much.

But if you're in a place where you need that job and you need those benefits, you have to be very careful, because it's just so unclear.

LISA DESJARDINS: Can I ask you one thing overall?

What do you think the purpose is of all this?

MICHELLE BERCOVICI: I think the purpose is to get folks to leave the government.

I don't think there's much care as to whether or not it's going to -- the government is going to be able to deliver on that process.

I think it's an end run around reduction in force.

And I think it's a way to, to be honest, intimidate the federal work force and kind of -- it's a chilling effect.

It's performative.

It's a pressure attack that gets coercive, in my mind.

I think they're -- the government -- or -- pardon me -- I think OPM is perhaps trying to give information to suggest it's not coercive.

But every time we get new information, it raises more questions.

LISA DESJARDINS: Unprecedented.

Michelle Bercovici, thank you much for talking to us.

MICHELLE BERCOVICI: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Using cooking, chemistry and comedy, Alton Brown has made a name for himself as a TV host and Food Network fixture.

His creative eye and quick wit captivated audiences of "Good Eats," "Cutthroat Kitchen," and "Iron Chef America."

Now he brings that same humor to the page in his new book, "Food for Thought," a collection of personal essays.

Geoff Bennett spoke with him earlier this week.

GEOFF BENNETT: Alton Brown, welcome to the "News Hour."

ALTON BROWN, Author, "Food for Thought: Essays and Ruminations": Thanks for having me on.

GEOFF BENNETT: You have had such a unique professional journey starting from your beginnings in television as a cinematographer for music videos.

ALTON BROWN: Indeed.

GEOFF BENNETT: When did you discover that food was your true calling?

ALTON BROWN: I don't think food was ever my true calling.

ALTON BROWN: But I think telling stories about food was a true calling.

And I think that it happened right when -- this is early 90s, probably around 1992, when I started thinking more about food.

When I was actually on set shooting TV commercials, I was thinking about cooking.

And that's what I thought.

Well, that's a little backwards.

So maybe I need to spend a little bit more time with this food thing.

GEOFF BENNETT: We were talking earlier and you said that the process of writing this book, you didn't intend to do it.

ALTON BROWN: Nope.

GEOFF BENNETT: And when you started writing, things just sort of fell out onto the page.

What surprised you about that process?

ALTON BROWN: You know, at least half of this book is what I'm going to call memoir.

I'm talking about myself in certain ways.

And I did not expect that to come tumbling out the way that it did.

I like to say that I have lived my life without a rearview mirror.

I don't think a lot about the past.

But, apparently, that's not true.

ALTON BROWN: I think about it plenty, and so that when anything that was memoir, stuff from my childhood, which is there, some of which I think is funny, that stuff came out, I was really surprised by it, very surprised.

Let's talk a bit about the past, namely "Good Eats."

ALTON BROWN: I suspect some of you are still asking.

GEOFF BENNETT: Because that show really revolutionized food television with its mix of history and science entertainment.

How did you settle on that format?

And did you know at the time that its impact would be as enduring?

ALTON BROWN: Oh, like most people that are doing something strictly for themselves, which I was in that case, I had no idea that it was going to have any impact at all.

I did -- when I first started thinking about writing that show and making that show, I had no intention of hosting it either.

I was just going to write it and direct it.

But I literally wrote down on a notepad, Julia Child, Mr. Wizard, Monty Python, because I thought if I could get those three types of things into a show, it would be the kind of food show I would want to watch.

And at the time I didn't realize that I would do it, but that was kind of the mission statement.

GEOFF BENNETT: What do you make of the evolution of food as entertainment since then on TV, but nowadays on social media?

ALTON BROWN: Well, everything has changed, more than I ever could have fathomed.

At the time that I started "Good Eats," if you wanted the recipes, you had to send a self-addressed stamped envelope into this place in Ipswich, New York, I remember, in order to get things back.

There was no, what, Internet.

We were on dial-up, the ones of us that were very sophisticated.

I think that food's role in society and culture has, of course, amplified, which is greatly due to Food Network, but then also proliferated and mutated in a way that concerns me as someone who has spent most of my professional life trying to teach people how to cook.

I think that food has moved into a lot of spaces it probably shouldn't be in.

We look at it more than we think about it.

We fetishize it more than we share it.

So I worry about food.

I worry about cooking and I worry about food and its place in culture in general now.

I never would have seen this kind.

GEOFF BENNETT: You have always emphasized the science behind cooking.

What's a common misconception that still frustrates you?

ALTON BROWN: There are so many kind of myths that are held about food.

For instance, I still hear people talking about searing meat seals in juices.

No, it doesn't.

It does not.

It doesn't do anything even remotely like that.

GEOFF BENNETT: What's it do then?

ALTON BROWN: It adds flavor, but let me tell you, if you sear a piece of meat, you weigh it, you sear it, and you let it sit for a couple of minutes, guess what?

It's lost weight.

You have done damage.

Liquid comes out.

It's worth doing, but it doesn't seal in flavor.

But that's such a wonderful kind of trope, and it's such a beautiful idea.

GEOFF BENNETT: If you could teach home cooks one fundamental technique, what would it be?

ALTON BROWN: Read the recipe, how to actually read a recipe, which people have lost that ability.

It's one of the things that I blame TikTok for, is that we have forgotten how to interact with this piece of instructional writing.

My thing is, you sit down, you read it, like you would read a short story, and then you read it again while taking notes about it.

Do I have these ingredients?

Do I know what this word means?

Does anything need to marinate for eight hours?

And to do that without touching tools, without touching the food.

Learning how to read a recipe properly is the single biggest upgrade any beginning or even kind of middle skill cook can do to enhance their skill set.

GEOFF BENNETT: You mentioned tools.

What's a tool that every home cook should have?

ALTON BROWN: A good kitchen table.

GEOFF BENNETT: Good kitchen table.

ALTON BROWN: You don't have a good kitchen table, nothing that you do in there matters.

It's where the people come together to share the food.

It's absolutely pivotal.

It should be the center of the entire house, in my opinion.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, you have taken your culinary mastery to the stage.

You have been doing these live events all across the country.

What do you enjoy about that?

ALTON BROWN: Oh, I love performing in front of live audiences.

And I think that live performing now, more than ever and live events are really critical.

We don't have a lot as a society.

I don't think we have a lot of places where we get together anymore.

We don't sit down and eat with strangers very much anymore.

Going into a theater and having a bunch of people sit down to watch a performance, I think, is really special and very, very badly needed in this time.

But, for me, someone that spent most of his time in television, it's like this massive energy source that gives you back what the camera takes away, which is really lovely and enjoyable.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, you said in the book that you are fortunate to have a loyal and passionate fan base, and that when you interact with folks, inevitably, they ask you the same five questions.

May I ask you these five questions?

ALTON BROWN: You may ask me the five questions, yes.

GEOFF BENNETT: So we can get these answers on the record?

OK. ALTON BROWN: Sure.

GEOFF BENNETT: What foods do you always keep in your refrigerator?

ALTON BROWN: This answer changes constantly, depending on what's actually in the refrigerator.

But I usually say, yes, 12 different kinds of mustard, four containers of olives.

There's going to be some butter and about 12 leftover containers of takeout Chinese food.

And the only thing that I can recognize on a regular basis is the Heartgard pills that we keep to give our dogs.

GEOFF BENNETT: What are your guilty pleasure foods?

ALTON BROWN: Oh, in that part of the essay, I talk about my problem with Little Debbie Nutty bars, which is a really junky snack food.

That's wafers with peanut butter cream in between that's coated in this -- they say it's chocolate.

It's not.

Chocolate doesn't feel like that.

It's closer to something you would make candles out of, I feel certain.

But the whole point -- and this goes back to childhood - - is that there's a way to disassemble the bar, because it's a wafer thing.

You have got -- the way you have got to move the pieces off, and the order that you have to eat them, makes Oreo eating simple by comparison.

And so that's -- I don't get them very often, but I'm mouth-watering right now, I think.

GEOFF BENNETT: Number three, what is your least favorite thing to cook?

ALTON BROWN: Hard shell blue crabs.

Hard shell blue crabs, because it's too much work for almost no return of satisfaction.

Now, if they're soft shell, that's a whole different thing,but, yes, my least favorite food to cook, because not only do I not like doing it.

I don't really like eating it.

I can make great crab cakes without crab.

GEOFF BENNETT: What food do you refuse to eat?

ALTON BROWN: Octopus.

I used to do a fair amount of work for the Monterey Bay Aquarium out of Monterey Bay, California.

I would do lectures and things out there, and I would get to -- I will make this short.

I used to visit this octopus a lot, a giant Pacific octopus.

And the first time that I met him and was playing with him in his enclosure, he stole my pen out of my pocket.

And, of course, they taste with their tentacles, and they recognize things by their tentacles.

And in the story, which I tell, I came back about eight months later, and he was getting very old at that time, and they were actually going to take him off of display, because they had very short lives.

But he touched my hand with one tentacle, and then with another tentacle reached up for my pen.

He remembered me.

He tasted me and remembered me.

And I'm like, friends don't eat friends.

GEOFF BENNETT: That's extraordinary.

ALTON BROWN: I don't do that.

GEOFF BENNETT: And what would your last meal request be?

ALTON BROWN: My last meal request would be -- as I say in the book, my wife is a fantastic cook.

She will go out and pick some things from the yard, and she throws them in the pot.

And it's the best thing that I have ever had.

So I think one of her soups would be my last meal, maybe with a good scotch and a nice cigar, and I'd be good with that.

GEOFF BENNETT: There you go.

GEOFF BENNETT: Alton Brown.

The book is "Food for Thought."

A real delight to speak with you.

Thanks for coming in.

ALTON BROWN: Thank you for having me on, and I'm glad you enjoyed the book.

GEOFF BENNETT: It's terrific.

AMNA NAWAZ: And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

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