AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Geoff Bennett's on assignment.

On the "News Hour" tonight: a major shakeup in the Trump White House.

Embattled National Security Adviser Mike Waltz leaves his post and is tapped to become the next U.S. ambassador to the U.N. More than 100 days into his second term, how the president implemented the conservative Project 2025 agenda and what the next 100 days could hold.

Plus: Who owns America's history?

We explore the latest efforts to reshape the nation's cultural institutions.

DAVID BLIGHT, Yale University: Americans love history, and they want a history they can trust.

They want a history they think is honest.

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

Three months into his second term, President Trump is shaking up his national security team.

National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has been ousted from his position.

His use of an unclassified messaging platform caused an uproar starting in March.

But he will now be nominated to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

And for the first time since Henry Kissinger 50 years ago, a secretary of state will also serve as national security adviser.

Marco Rubio will wear both hats for the time being.

Following all of this is Nick Schifrin who joins us now from the White House.

So, Nick, what can you tell us about Mike Waltz's reassignment and also Secretary Rubio's?

NICK SCHIFRIN: Amna, this morning, two officials familiar with the situation told me that President Trump decided to initiate this shakeup and remove Mike Waltz, the former Green Beret turned Florida congressman as national security adviser, as well as Waltz's principal deputy, Alex Wong, who serve in the Trump administration.

But this afternoon in a post on TRUTH Social, he named Secretary of State Marco Rubio to be the interim national security adviser after praising him this morning before the announcement.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: When I have a problem, I call up Marco.

He gets it solved.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But this morning, the people I talked to did not expect Waltz to be named ambassador to the United Nations.

And they did not expect Rubio to be named interim national security adviser, nor apparently did Rubio's spokeswoman, Tammy Bruce.

QUESTION: Do you know how long he's going to be serving in both roles?

TAMMY BRUCE, State Department Spokesperson: Yes, it is clear that I just heard this from you.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But two officials familiar with this situation tell me that President Trump soured on Waltz, most notably over what we now call Signalgate.

That is when the national security adviser created a group of Cabinet secretaries in their aides on the messaging app Signal to discuss policy on Yemen and inadvertently added editor in chief of The Atlantic Jeffrey Goldberg, who published the messages.

And, as an aside, Waltz was photographed using Signal just yesterday at a Cabinet meeting.

But the officials I spoke, Amna, also told me that President Trump considered Waltz -- quote -- "low-energy," or at least not exhibiting the fighting spirit that the president would expect from his national security adviser when, for example, outside voices like Laura Loomer, the far right activist, criticized Waltz and his staff or during ongoing foreign policy debates, where there's been disagreement over key challenges like Iran and Ukraine.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Nick, what do we know about what the impact of this shakeup could be and also who might replace Mike Waltz?

NICK SCHIFRIN: Three former officials who have served on Trump's national security staff in the past tell me that they worry that this shakeup, when there were already vacancies on the National Security Council staff, could negatively affect policy and policymaking.

These officials argue it's only the National Security Council that has the power to convene the government, and there's no orderly way to make policy without the NSC gathering the agencies all together, debating and figuring out how to implement the president's policies.

These officials acknowledge, Amna, as we have discussed, that President Trump does not necessarily like the orderly version of the National Security Council staff from the past.

And I have been told about examples recently where various foreign officials are told different things depending on which Cabinet secretary they're talking to.

But the former officials that I talked to argue that, look, the NSC staff at lower levels has been working, has been coordinating across the interagency, and they worry this could affect that.

As for the second part of the question, who could replace Mike Waltz-I talked to a half-a-dozen people about that today, Amna.

And assuming that Secretary of State Marco Rubio does not remain in the job, all the people I spoke to put at the top of the list Steve Witkoff.

That is the president's senior adviser leading policy across the world in terms of its diplomacy.

But two sources tell me he does not want the job.

Another option, Ric Grenell, a longtime Trump ally and former acting director of national intelligence.

Another name told to me today, Michael Anton, the head of policy planning at the State Department.

And, finally, another name, retired General Keith Kellogg, currently special envoy to Ukraine.

As we have discussed, Rubio is in the job temporarily for now.

And officials I speak to say that he and Waltz actually have some unanimity when it comes to most of these policies.

So that will continue.

But, Amna, this is the kind of shakeup that defined President Trump's first term and, by all accounts, he has been trying to avoid during his second term.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, Nick Schifrin reporting for us live from the White House tonight.

Nick, thank you.

But, in the meantime here, following this breaking news, I'm joined in studio by Ambassador John Negroponte.

During the George W. Bush administration, he served as U.S. envoy to the United Nations, to Iraq, and then as the first director of national intelligence.

He's now vice chairman of McLarty Associates.

That's an international consulting company.

Ambassador, welcome back to the "News Hour."

JOHN NEGROPONTE, Former U.S. Director of National Intelligence: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Good to see you here.

Let's just begin with your reaction to this shakeup.

Does any of this surprise you?

JOHN NEGROPONTE: You know, honestly, with President Trump, no, I don't think so.

We went through it in his first administration.

And so I kind of expected something like this to happen some time.

In what particular form, I didn't know.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, to move Mike Waltz from national security adviser to U.N. ambassador, help us understand the layout here.

Do we see that as a demotion?

Is it an ouster?

How do you view it?

JOHN NEGROPONTE: Yes, I mean, I think it's -- even though it's a very interesting and very important job -- I enjoyed doing it myself a great deal.

And there have been some notable people occupying that position, including Adlai Stevenson and Henry Cabot Lodge and all.

I think, in this context, it's a bit of a consolation prize.

AMNA NAWAZ: And why do you think -- I mean, after the Signalgate controversy, did it feel to you like there had to be some kind of accountability within the White House?

Were Mike Waltz's days numbered, in other words?

JOHN NEGROPONTE: I didn't know for sure, but I did pick up from some others that I knew who worked in or near the National Security Council that there was still quite a bit of turmoil and nervousness about Mr. Waltz's standing with the president.

So it was in the air, if you want.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I guess the related question is, if he's now going to be moved to U.N. ambassador, he does face a confirmation hearing, we assume.

JOHN NEGROPONTE: Yes.

Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: Does that mean he could now also face the slew of questions about Signalgate and other administration decisions in those hearings?

JOHN NEGROPONTE: Well, I don't know.

I mean, that will depend.

He's going to make a round of consultations with the various senators, explain the situation and so forth, and hopefully that will be kept to a minimum.

I can't imagine that Mike Waltz's confirmation would end up being a problem with the United States Senate.

AMNA NAWAZ: So let me ask you about secretary of state then, Marco Rubio.

He's stepping in as the interim national security adviser.

He now has two huge portfolios.

As you know, the national security adviser staff, they're all supposed to coordinate and hash out policies among a number of different agencies, State and Defense and Treasury and so on.

Can Rubio do that, holding both jobs?

How do you see that unfolding?

JOHN NEGROPONTE: Well, I think he will do it with some difficulty and probably pretty long hours in each of his days.

But I don't expect that to be the situation for a prolonged period of time.

They're going to have to find a new NSC adviser sooner, rather than later.

And let me remind you, because some people act as if this might be some kind of surprising development, Ronald Reagan, whom history at the moment views quite favorably, had six, count them, six national security advisers during his eight years in office.

So there have been past instances of frequent changes in national security advisers.

AMNA NAWAZ: As you implied earlier, though, this is a president who, especially in his first term, was known for some of the chaos in his own team.

I mean, the fact, as Nick reported, that the State Department spokesperson did not know her boss was taking over as the interim national security adviser... AMNA NAWAZ: ... does that reveal anything to you about how this White House works?

JOHN NEGROPONTE: Well, yes, it's Mr. Trump is a fairly spontaneous gentleman and he does things on the spur of the moment.

But, by the way, the National Security Council that Nick at the top of the show described is the way it's supposed to be that on paper.

JOHN NEGROPONTE: And, by and large, over its past 70 years of existence, it's worked that way.

But I would say Mr. Trump's presidency might turn out to be a bit of an exception, in that I don't think he's going to follow in quite the same way the rigid discipline of the National Security Council process, as would have perhaps some prior president like Dwight Eisenhower or somebody like that.

AMNA NAWAZ: And what's the impact of all of this?

I mean, just for context, this fire -- this follows, rather, a recent rash of firings at the NSC.

It comes at the same time as the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, is under enormous scrutiny for his ability to lead at the Pentagon.

What does all of this say to you about the administration's ability to conduct and carry out foreign policy right now?

JOHN NEGROPONTE: Well, first of all, I would say it seems to me that Mr. Trump appears to be more comfortable with his economic, as distinct from his foreign policy or national security team.

And he seems to be using them quite adeptly and -- but not necessarily through this national security policy.

I think, on the NSC side, I think there's work to be done.

But with passage of time, I think things may ultimately calm down and we will get down to a bit better routine than we have seen up until now.

AMNA NAWAZ: Do you think any of our allies are viewing this with any concern or any of our adversaries are viewing it with delight?

JOHN NEGROPONTE: Well, I don't think there's any doubt that our allies have been concerned, and I think that concern was probably exacerbated with that Oval Office meeting that President Zelenskyy of Ukraine had with the president and the vice president a number of weeks ago.

And I think that sort of frightened particularly our European allies as to, where was the national security policy if this country headed?

So, yes, I think there's concern.

And -- well, but I think, over time, it's likely to settle, settle down.

AMNA NAWAZ: Do you care to make a prediction about who might replace Mike Waltz as the national security adviser?

JOHN NEGROPONTE: No, but there are can -- there are people out there who are capable of doing it.

And I would certainly hate to start naming names on a national television broadcast.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ambassador John Negroponte, thank you so much for being here.

JOHN NEGROPONTE: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Really appreciate it.

JOHN NEGROPONTE: All right.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, turning now to other news out of the White House today, despite once again being told by a federal judge that their actions exceed the scope of the executive's authority, President Trump and his administration continued their fight with the judicial branch.

Our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, has this report.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Just two days after Trump passed his 100-day mark in office, his administration is making crystal clear they will not reverse on their collision course with the judiciary.

STEPHEN MILLER, White House Deputy Chief of Staff: We are not going to allow a district court judge to try to become the secretary of state.

Secretary Rubio is the one who, under his leadership and direction at the State Department, is managing the day-to-day relationship with El Salvador.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: That comment in response to a question about Kilmar Abrego Garcia, one of the migrants deported to El Salvador without due process by the Trump administration.

A U.S. district court judge, an appeals court, and the Supreme Court have ordered the administration to facilitate his return.

STEPHEN MILLER: Those are the terrorists that President Trump is finding and apprehending that our Democrat judges and Democrat activists are trying to keep on U.S. soil.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Today, a federal judge in Texas called Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Garcia and hundreds of others unlawful.

Trump-appointed district Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. wrote: "Administration officials do not possess the lawful authority under the AEA and based on the proclamation to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country."

The ongoing clash with judges all as financial markets remain in turmoil and the administration looks for others to blame.

SCOTT BESSENT, U.S. Treasury Secretary: Remember too, some of this is the economy that we inherited from the Biden era with the unsustainable spending.

BILL O'REILLY, Former Host, "The O'Reilly Factor": If it doesn't stabilize, this time next year, Democrats may win the midterms.

So there is risk here, big risk.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: That's true.

It is true.

And I just think that I will be able to convince people how good this is.

J.D.

VANCE, Vice President of the United States: Wow.

This is a hell of a crowd.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: At a steel plant in South Carolina today, Vice President J.D.

Vance told workers they will see a golden age of American manufacturing under President Trump.

J.D.

VANCE: We are never going to allow your job to get shipped off to a country that hates us.

We want to protect your jobs.

And most importantly, we want to protect the great work you do right here in South Carolina.

KAMALA HARRIS, Former Vice President of the United States: We are all in this together.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Meantime, Democrats are marking Trump's first 100 days in office with sharp condemnation, including former Vice President Kamala Harris last night, in her biggest speech since leaving the White House.

KAMALA HARRIS: If Congress fails to do its part, or if the courts fail to do their part, or if both do their part, but the president defies them anyway, well, friends, that is called a constitutional crisis.

PROTESTERS: I will support the Constitution of the United States.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Also today, lawyers rallied in New York City in response to what they call the Trump administration's full-blown assault on the rule of law.

Similar rallies were scheduled across the country.

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Laura Barron-Lopez.

AMNA NAWAZ: We start the day's other headlines with more on the Trump administration's deportation efforts.

Today, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to strip legal protections for some 350,000 Venezuelan migrants.

If successful, that could lead to their deportation.

The DOJ wants the High Court to put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept in place so-called temporary protected status for the migrants, or TPS.

The program allows people already in the U.S. to live and work legally because their native countries are considered unsafe.

The Trump administration is pushing for more behavioral therapy for transgender youth, instead of gender-affirming health care.

The guidance comes in a 409-page report from the Department of Health and Human Services.

It questions current treatment standards and reflects the shift in the government's approach to transgender issues.

The head of the National Institutes of Health, nominated by Trump, says the goal is to -- quote -- "follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas."

But many medical experts disagree.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry has said that such conversion therapies can harm young people.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced plans today to recruit and retain more air traffic controllers to offset chronic staffing shortages.

That includes a 20 percent annual bonus for controllers who are near retirement age to stay on the job, plus $5,000 bonuses to all academy graduates and new hires.

The agency will also streamline getting new recruits into the FAA academy and will look to hire more former military controllers.

Duffy says he will lay out plans next week to ask Congress for billions of dollars to fix the nation's crumbling air traffic control infrastructure.

In cities around the globe, demonstrators took part in traditional May Day marches today, with many taking aim at the policies of the Trump administration.

PROTESTERS: The people united shall never be defeated!

AMNA NAWAZ: Blocks from the White House, protesters marched against Trump's deportation policies, saying workers' rights were also immigrants' rights.

Anger against Trump was also seen in places like Pakistan, while, in the Philippines, discontent boiled over into clashes with police.

May Day is also International Workers' Day or Labor Day, and it comes amid global concerns over the economic impact of President Trump's tariffs.

Turning now to the fallout from the minerals deal struck between the U.S. and Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is making the case that it is a fair deal to his country following months of sometimes tense negotiations.

According to the text released by Ukraine's government, it covers minerals such as rare earth elements, plus resources like oil and natural gas.

However, it only relates to profits that are generated by new investments.

It also doesn't include any specific security guarantees to deter future Russian aggression, which Ukraine had long called for.

In his nightly address, Zelenskyy insisted that the deal is good for Ukraine.

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, Ukrainian President (through translator): The agreement has changed significantly during the preparation process.

Now it is a truly equal agreement that creates an opportunity for investments in Ukraine, quite significant ones, and in addition also for significant modernization of production in Ukraine, and, no less importantly, modernization of legal practices in our state.

AMNA NAWAZ: The agreement creates an investment fund that Ukrainian officials hope will be used to deliver future U.S. military assistance.

It still requires ratification from Ukraine's Parliament.

South Korea's political turmoil picked up the pace today with a series of head-spinning developments.

The country's acting leader, Han Duck-soo, is resigning amid reports he will run in next month's presidential election.

The nation's finance minister was set to take over as acting president, but he also resigned today as lawmakers prepared to vote on his impeachment.

That's left Education Minister Lee Ju-ho to take over as acting president.

In the meantime, the country's Supreme Court issued a ruling today that casts doubt on whether front-runner Lee Jae-myung can run for the presidency.

South Koreans head to the polls on June 3.

A pair of NASA astronauts became the fifth all-female team to ever perform a space walk today.

WOMAN: (INAUDIBLE) tether is attached to the aft.

AMNA NAWAZ: Anne McClain and Nichole Ayers stepped outside the International Space Station to prepare the facility for new solar panels, among other tasks.

They had been sent to the ISS in march to replace Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams, who had been stuck there for months.

McClain should have taken part in the first all-female space walk back in 2019, but there weren't enough medium-sized suits available at the time.

On Wall Street today, stocks ended higher after some upbeat earnings from tech giants like Microsoft and Meta.

The Dow Jones industrial average added around 80 points.

The Nasdaq jumped more than 260 points on the day.

The S&P 500 also closed in positive territory.

And a trio of Broadway shows are leading the charge in Tony Award nominations announced this morning.

'Maybe Happy Ending" received 10 nods, including for best musical and best lead actor in a musical, a strong showing for the offbeat show about two robots set in the year 2064 in South Korea.

"Buena Vista Social Club," inspired by the 1997 hit album of the same name, also received 10 nominations, as did the dark comedy "Death Becomes Her" about two women who live with the consequences of a potion that promises eternal youth.

In all, 29 shows got at least one nomination.

The awards will be given on June 8 at New York's Radio City Music Hall.

Still to come on the "News Hour": a leading conservative activist on his push to scrutinize DEI in higher education; and "Conclave" author Robert Harris on the secretive tradition of selecting a new pope.

Just over 100 days into the new administration, we're taking a broad look at what's been accomplished already and what else might be coming.

White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez is back now with more on the impact of Project 2025.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Many of the policies enacted by the Trump administration with lightning speed in these first 100 days were initially laid out two years ago in a document called Project 2025 by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

"Atlantic" staff writer David Graham's new book, "The Project," details the origins of Project 2025 and its sweeping goals to reshape American culture by expanding the president's control over policies on gender and immigration to the economy and the environment.

David, welcome to the "News Hour."

DAVID GRAHAM, Author, "The Project: How Project 2025 Is Reshaping America": Thank you for having me.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Many people by now have likely heard of Project 2025, but they may not know its origin story.

Can you tell us a bit about where it came from?

DAVID GRAHAM: Yes.

In early 2022, The Heritage Foundation's president charged -- Paul Dans, a former Trump administration staffer, was putting together a group of thinkers from across the Trump-friendly right to produce basically a platform for Trump or an agenda for Trump or the next Republican president, whoever that would be.

And it would include both policy ideas, ways to implement them, vetting of staffers who could serve in that administration and be trained ahead of time, and then a kind of playbook for the first 100 days so that the president could hit the ground running with a really effective rollout of policies.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: During the campaign, however, President Trump repeatedly said that he didn't know anything about Project 2025, didn't know the people behind it.

But how many of Project 2025's proposals have already been put into effect by the president?

DAVID GRAHAM: It's hard to quantify exactly because it's such a range of ideas.

But there have been dozens of executive orders that directly echo what's in Project 2025.

Many people involved in the project have entered the administration.

And in general, the whole approach of reducing the federal bureaucracy, seizing power for the executive branch, this comes straight from Project 2025.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Reshaping American culture is a, if not the central objective of Project 2025.

And you write that: "Project 2025 envisions in America where abortion is strictly illegal, sex is closely policed, public schools don't exist, and justice is harsh, all in accordance with fundamentalist Christian principles."

Who is prioritized in that vision?

DAVID GRAHAM: The priority really is on men as breadwinners.

They see women raising children as being the highest calling for them.

And they see the Christian heritage of the United States as being essential and something that needs to be brought to the fore.

So those are the people who will benefit and they want to see a family based around what they say are biblically based principles.

So when you see the Trump administration issuing an executive order that tries to define sex as male and female, or when they take on DEI programs, or when they issue an executive order banning trans women from sports, those are all ideas that come from here.

And they see these things as part of a total package.

This is the beginning.

It's maybe the part that's most politically salient, but they don't intend to stop there.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: One of the key authors of Project 2025, Russell Vought, is now the head of the Office of Management and Budget for President Trump.

Can you explain the beliefs that are guiding people like Russ Vought, as well as others that are now inside the administration?

DAVID GRAHAM: There's a really interesting interview that Vought did with Charlie Kirk a couple years ago.

And he said, the left describes me and people like me as a Christian nationalist.

They see that as pejorative.

I don't agree.

I think that's exactly what I am.

I am a Christian and I'm a nationalist.

They really buy into Trump.

They have gotten on board with him, even as they sometimes come from a more traditional right-wing background.

And they see this Christian society and the Christian founding of the country as they see it as important and slipping away from them in front of their eyes.

They want to stop that.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: David, you said that the conservative authors of Project 2025 are playing the long game.

How long?

DAVID GRAHAM: This is a question of decades.

For them, I think the Trump administration is a little bit of a vessel, but they want to change how structure -- the structure of society and they want to change the structure of the government.

They're looking back to roll back precedents from the Great Society in the 60s, from the New Deal in the 1930s, and even to the foundation of the civil service in the 1880s.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Another pattern across Project 2025 that you write about and that we have seen play out a bit in the first few months of the president's time in office is an effort to expand his power, so much so that it is essentially limitless, from immigration or also taking some of Congress' power of the purse.

I mean, how are you seeing this already play out and what's to come?

DAVID GRAHAM: They see the executive branch as being rightly controlled entirely by the president.

And so that means they think he should be able to fire anybody who works in the executive branch.

Civil servants should be political appointees.

And if they're not doing what he wants, he should get rid of them.

They also think he should be able to seize control of independent agencies, the FTC, the FEC, FCC, bodies like this that are established by Congress to be appointed by the president, but then to operate independently.

And they also want to go through the traditional safeguards around things like the Justice Department, so they can operate as a tool of policy.

And we see all of those things.

We see the firings of civil servants and conversions under the so-called Schedule F. We see the Justice Department being used as a tool of retribution and the White House firing specific line prosecutors.

And then we see the firings of heads of independent agencies as well.

So I think the plan is proceeding just as laid out.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: How does Elon Musk factor into this?

And has he accelerated or disrupted any of Project 2025's plans?

DAVID GRAHAM: Musk is not contemplated in the plan.

And when it was written, he was not yet fully on the Trump train, but I think he's become a really useful tool for them.

So the sorts of attacks on the civil service that he's doing, the attempts to lay a lot of people off, are right in line with his ideas.

And there's been a bunch of reporting showing how Vought is working with Musk on this.

Now, there are potential points of conflict, but I think they see him as a good accelerant for getting their things done.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: What comes next?

What do you see the administration tackling in the months to come from Project 2025?

DAVID GRAHAM: They have been slowed down a little bit on executive branch changes, I think, particularly in the civil service, but we're going to see continued attempts to close departments like the Department of Education.

And we're also going to see the slow attack on these independent agencies.

There's also so many policy ideas in here that have to be done through the rulemaking process.

And that takes time and it takes getting their appointees in.

But as those people get into place, there's a whole line of agendas for every department that they're going to start working through.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: David Graham of "The Atlantic," thank you for your time.

DAVID GRAHAM: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Now 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 might be headed next.

Tonight, we're looking at the president's push for more control at dozens of colleges and universities in order, he says, to promote free speech, end wokism and clamp down on burgeoning antisemitism.

But many schools are opposing the administration and argue that Trump is trying to dictate what's acceptable speech and what colleges can do.

We're joined by a leading conservative activist who's been instrumental in triggering the wider response and big changes from the administration.

Christopher Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Chris, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thanks for joining us.

CHRISTOPHER RUFO, Manhattan Institute: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So a lot of the action we have seen from President Trump in his second term so far builds on a lot of the ideas we have heard from a number of conservative activists, but you in particular, and I know you have called for a number of reforms, but you have also said the first field of battle is higher education.

So explain to us why that is and also why the focus on elite universities as well.

CHRISTOPHER RUFO: Well, you want to focus on elite universities because elite universities establish the cultural signals that then flow downward to the university sector as a whole.

And what we know from Ivy League universities, including Harvard, Princeton and Columbia, is that they are directly, flagrantly and intentionally violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

They're promoting from their central administrations racial discrimination, scapegoating and even segregation.

AMNA NAWAZ: So the changes we know the Trump administration has been trying to push through are really being enforced by threatening to cut federal funds, right?

That is sort of the threat that's looming over these universities.

A lot of universities, who I should note dispute the allegations you laid out in your first answer, though, a lot of universities will say, we can talk about this.

There are processes and laws in place to make these changes.

This is not how you do it.

Why do you think this is the best way to force that change?

CHRISTOPHER RUFO: Well, it's exactly how you do it.

And,of course, we know this from legal cases.

We know this from my investigative reporting.

And we know this even yesterday from Harvard's own report on antisemitism at Harvard.

And so this is actually the moderate option.

If you go back in history, President Eisenhower enforced the civil rights law at the time by sending federal troops into Little Rock High School.

President Kennedy did the same thing, sending troops to desegregate University of Mississippi.

So the president's threat under his Article II powers as president is not only legitimate, but I think it's really moderate, given the context of what's happening.

AMNA NAWAZ: I should note that the efforts you're citing there were to end segregation.

Those were to address a lot of the legacy of racist policies in America's history, and also that Harvard University, as you note, has put out a report.

They said there's work to do on both antisemitism and Islamophobia, addressing both on campus.

But they also maintain that the government does not have the right to subvert their independence.

And a number of other universities argue the same thing.

What do you say to that?

CHRISTOPHER RUFO: Well, I mean, of course, that's not true at all.

I'm a fellow at Hillsdale College.

Hillsdale College takes no federal money because Hillsdale knows that when you start taking taxpayer dollars, there are corresponding and reciprocal obligations and duties.

And so Harvard has a duty to uphold the law.

Certainly, we have made massive progress since the civil rights era, but the last bastion of racial segregation is ironically enough at these elite Ivy League universities, which retain segregated programs, segregated graduation ceremonies, segregated scholarship opportunities in many cases.

And so that's really what we're fighting against.

And I think we're going to win.

Harvard actually announced yesterday they were going to stop racially segregated graduation ceremonies.

It's a good start, but much more is needed.

AMNA NAWAZ: I know you're using the term segregation here.

I think it's important to point out too people would participate in those by their own choice.

This was not a segregation that was imposed from the university coming down.

But I guess the big question here is, what is the big change you want to see at the universities?

I know you're alleging that they're breaking laws.

They dispute that.

If that's not going to be pursued through the courts, what's the big change you want to see at the university system?

CHRISTOPHER RUFO: Well, I think you're wrong on the facts.

When you have racially segregated or racially separate affinity groups, and you have affinity groups that are for members of particular races with support from the administration, I think you're just wrong on the facts.

But here's the big change.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Chris, if I may, those are groups that people joined by choice.

They are not forced to join those.

(CROSSTALK) CHRISTOPHER RUFO: Harvard has adopted a principle.

Sure, but you could have labeled water fountains and say, we're not going to punish you if you go to the wrong race, categorized water fountain.

It's your choice, but it's still wrong.

It's still a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

But the big question here is a big question for America.

Do we want to have rule by racial equity or do we want to have rule by colorblind equality?

Under racial equity that is currently practiced at places like Harvard, you are rewarded and punished in part because of your ancestry.

Under what I'm proposing, a regime of racial equality and in a colorblind manner, you would be judged solely on your own talents, merits, and achievements.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, as you have probably seen, hundreds of college presidents and universities signed the letter protesting what they argue is unprecedented government overreach here.

And this is what they said in their letter.

They said that they have a "commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry, where in the pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of attribution, censorship, or deportation."

I know that you have argued a lot of your efforts are about defending free speech.

What they're saying here is these actions actually limit free speech.

What do you say to that?

CHRISTOPHER RUFO: Well, you have to actually interrogate the factual premise of that statement.

Are these places bastions of open inquiry and free speech?

And the answer is obviously no.

Less than 1 percent of Harvard faculty now are conservative because they have been ruthlessly through DEI policies and other ideological preferences weeded out of the university departments.

And so the idea that these places are bastions of free speech and open inquiry is not supported by the facts.

AMNA NAWAZ: But, Chris, if I may, how do the actions and what we have seen from this administration so far, how do they defend free speech?

I mean, we have seen the border czar basically come out and say that there are limitations on free speech when he was talking about the reasons for deporting some of the pro-Palestinian protesters.

You saw the president come out with an executive order that actually restricted how teachers and faculty and staff in K-12 schools can talk about things like race and gender.

Those are all limits on free speech.

CHRISTOPHER RUFO: I don't think that's right.

I think you should take a look at the president's executive order.

I'm not aware of the comments by the homeland security director, but what I can say is that there is a playbook that we have developed in states around the country, including the state of Florida.

We have expanded the range of discourse in higher education.

At New College of Florida, for example, where I'm a trustee, we have probably the widest range of discourse of any public university in the United States.

We have a faculty that approaches issues from a wide variety of perspectives, all within the classical liberal arts tradition.

These are not restrictions on speech.

These are basic protections of our civil rights, civil discourse and civil liberties.

AMNA NAWAZ: You have talked about the fact that you agree there is a legacy in America to our history of anti-Black enslavement and Jim Crow policies and so on.

So I'm curious.

If you take away the label of DEI, in what ways do you think that legacy should be addressed?

Through what systems and what processes?

CHRISTOPHER RUFO: Well, the problem with DEI was really encapsulated... AMNA NAWAZ: Yes, take DEI off the table for a second.

CHRISTOPHER RUFO: ... best by "critical Race" through Ibram Kendi.

Yes, but it's this idea that the solution to racist discrimination in the past is so-called anti-racist discrimination in the future.

And so any kind of literate kindergartner would be able to say, hey, wait a minute, two wrongs don't make a right.

Discrimination against one group in the past does not mean that discrimination against another group in the future is the right course of action.

I think what we want to do is to say we want to have a principle of colorblind equality in which every American is judged as an individual and that people can use their talents and gifts to pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit and then to really encourage everyone to participate in the system that we have with equal treatment under the law.

I think that is a very popular idea.

I think it's the right idea.

And I think that's really the only way to move forward in what we have, which is a complex and multiracial society.

AMNA NAWAZ: Chris Rufo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Chris, thank you very much for your time.

CHRISTOPHER RUFO: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: In its first 100 days, the Trump administration has sought to put its mark on various parts of the nation's cultural sector, the Kennedy Center, funding for federal arts agencies, and more.

One focus, how American history is told and presented in museums and public monuments.

And that has roiled many in the academic and art world.

Senior art correspondent Jeffrey Brown has a look for our series Art in Action, exploring the intersection of art and democracy, and as part of our Canvas coverage.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children.

JEFFREY BROWN: July 4, 2020, Donald Trump at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, a fiery response to protests following the murder of George Floyd, as monuments were defaced and torn down amid a renewed reckoning with the uglier sides of American history.

The president pointed to a -- quote -- "radical ideology attacking our country and vowed action."

DONALD TRUMP: Today, we will set history and history's records straight.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, that is beginning to take shape.

An early target of his second term, the Smithsonian Institution, the world's largest museum, education and research complex.

A recent executive order titled "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History" accused the Smithsonian of promoting -- quote -- "narratives that portray American and Western values as inherently harmful and oppressive."

The order points to a "revisionist movement in America undermining the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light."

Among several prominent steps taken to change that, the National Endowment for the Humanities recently canceled most of its grants that support historical sites, scholarship museums, and much more.

Some of those funds will be redirected toward the creation of a National Garden of American Heroes, which the president has touted as a centerpiece of national plans to celebrate 250 years of American independence.

DONALD TRUMP: Under the executive order I signed last month, this new beautiful outdoor statue park, it's going to be a statue park, it's going to be unbelievable, will honor hundreds of our greatest Americans.

JEFFREY BROWN: And joining me now is David Blight.

He's professor of history and African American studies at Yale University and outgoing president of the Organization of American Historians.

One charge by the president and others is that there has been an ideological shift in the universities and the art world that emphasizes race and identity in the teaching and presentation of history.

What's your response to that?

DAVID BLIGHT, Yale University: There have always been ideological shifts in academic approaches.

The charge that the entire production of history in this country has become nothing but ideology is more than shortsighted.

But this is the use of ideology by the Trump administration to attack what they perceive as a liberal, skeptical, critical vision of American history, which is ultimately our job.

JEFFREY BROWN: For critics like the president and others, this has meant a loss of acknowledgement of heroes, of heroism, of many of the positive aspects of American history.

DAVID BLIGHT: Well, that's, frankly, nonsense.

I mean, it all depends on what people consider to be a hero.

It also depends on what people consider to be, as the Trump administration has explicitly said, patriotic history.

It is not the job of professional historians, whether they're in universities, in the National Park Service, in the Smithsonian, or anywhere else, to fashion an openly patriotic history.

Our job is to search everywhere and anywhere for the truth and then to convert it into narrative and convert it into stories that are compelling.

Americans love history, and they want a history they can trust.

They want a history they think is honest.

There are all kinds of heroes in American history.

I happened to be the biographer of Frederick Douglass.

A book came out recent -- five years ago or so.

Millions of people in this country consider Frederick Douglass a hero.

My job was to present him as a real human being.

Sometimes, that was heroic, and, sometimes, it wasn't.

But that's what historians do.

JEFFREY BROWN: One could argue that this is partly a question of who owns American history.

And it's not exclusively the purview of professional historians like yourself, is it?

DAVID BLIGHT: It belongs to all of us.

But professional historians play a role in doing research, assembling evidence and facts, and converting that into story.

History ultimately belongs to everyone, but there are such things as trained authorities.

And that can sound elitist, I suppose, and that word elitist has become an epithet.

But we do -- we want our doctors to be trained, and we want them to revise what they know based on new evidence and new techniques.

We also want our historians to revise the past.

There is no single, static, sacred version of anyone's past.

JEFFREY BROWN: So what should the Smithsonian Institution and other museums do now?

What should professional historians do?

DAVID BLIGHT: Well, in the March 27 executive order by President Trump, the one that declared they were going to restore - - quote -- "sanity" to American history, they effectively declared war on our profession, whether that's curators at the Smithsonian, or historians in universities, or the interpreters at a historic site.

So, if this is a political, cultural war upon how history is told and written and exhibited, then we have to, with our meager sources, fight back.

We have to get out into the public.

We have to probably get into right-wing media and make the case.

We have to invite the authors of such executive orders to debate us, because I think we can win those debates if they're done in some kind of fair environment.

The past is full of surprises.

It's full of triumph, but it's also full of a lot of tragedy.

And if you don't learn that kind of history, it's always going to come back and hit you right between the eyes.

JEFFREY BROWN: David Blight, thank you very much for joining us.

DAVID BLIGHT: Thank you, Jeffrey.

AMNA NAWAZ: Late this afternoon, three groups, including the American Historical Association, filed a lawsuit in federal district court to reverse the recent actions to slash the National Endowment for the Humanities.

Tomorrow, we will hear a different view from Christopher Scalia of the American Enterprise Institute.

Three thousand and two hundred percent, that is the massive increase in streaming viewership of the movie "Conclave" in the first week after Pope Francis' death.

Viewers turned to the film, which was nominated for multiple Oscars and won for best adapted screenplay, to help them understand one of the most consequential and secretive elections on the planet.

The movie, starring Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, and Isabella Rossellini, is based on the bestselling novel written by former journalist Robert Harris.

Geoff Bennett spoke with Harris recently to break down the complicated process of electing the next pontiff.

GEOFF BENNETT: Robert Harris, welcome to the "News Hour."

ROBERT HARRIS, Author, "Conclave": Thank you for having me on.

GEOFF BENNETT: Many people are now turning to your novel and the movie based on your book to better understand what will transpire.

How true to life is what's depicted in your book and on screen?

ROBERT HARRIS: Pretty true to life, I think, I hope.

I was a journalist before I became a novelist, and I did a lot of research on conclaves before I started writing.

The procedure of the conclave is very clearly laid down by the Vatican, so that's easy to follow.

They also gave me a lot of help on locations.

I was able to see the places that are now about to be used for the conclave.

And I talked to a cardinal who'd been involved in the whole process.

GEOFF BENNETT: We are less than a week out from the start of the next conclave.

Help us understand what's happening behind the scenes.

What are the preparations like?

ROBERT HARRIS: Well, the cardinals will be getting to know one another and following -- everyone comes to Rome, obviously, for the late pope's funeral.

And for many of them, this will be the first time they have really spent a lot of time in Rome and met one another.

So, there's a getting-to-know-you session going on.

And then, on the Tuesday, I think it will be, the cardinals will arrive within the Vatican.

Their phones will be taken off them, laptops removed, and they will be given each of them a room in what's called the Casa Santa Marta, which is a hostel.

The rooms-- the windows are sealed.

So they're completely cut off from the outside world.

And then, the following day, Wednesday the 7th, there will be a mass, a speech from the dean of the College of Cardinals, and then they go into the Sistine Chapel.

GEOFF BENNETT: There are those who are demanding that the church institute a zero tolerance policy when it comes to priests and sexual abuse.

There are some cardinals currently participating in pre-conclave activities who are facing disciplinary sanctions following accusations of abuse.

How big of a role will the sex abuse scandal play in all of this, do you believe?

ROBERT HARRIS: Well, again, this is played out in the novel and in the film, where one of the candidates has a skeleton in his closet.

It obviously hangs over the Catholic Church.

They will be very alert for any possibility of scandal, that anyone might get near the papacy who might be investigated later and some problem discovered.

And they will be very anxious to avoid that.

GEOFF BENNETT: What are the various factions among the cardinals right now?

What are the competing visions for the future of the church?

ROBERT HARRIS: Well, the conclave is not supposed to be political, of course.

It's supposed to be purely spiritual, but inevitably political considerations come in, broadly speaking.

That is, traditionalists of whom Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict, was the foremost example recently.

They have their faction.

There are the liberal reformers, of whom Pope Francis was one.

So there is that division.

There is always controversy over issues such as the church's attitude to gay marriage or homosexual relations and to the role of women in the church.

So there are doctrinal issues such as that.

And then there are regional divisions.

It's nearly 50 years since there was an Italian pope, for instance.

And then, of course, there's the dream for many of an African pope, and Asia, where the church is really growing.

They may be looking to vote in a way that tries to make that happen.

So there are lots of sort of factions before the conclave even starts.

GEOFF BENNETT: Do you anticipate any surprises in the outcome?

ROBERT HARRIS: Well, there are generally surprises.

It's very rare that the media managed to tip the winner.

In fact, if you -- if someone goes in as a favorite, it's often counterproductive.

It puts a target on their back.

We will just have to wait and see how long the conclave goes on.

They will have the first vote on Wednesday afternoon.

There will be nothing after that.

That will be black smoke, certainly.

And then the next morning, there will be two further ballots and then two in the afternoon, if necessary.

If we haven't got a winner, a pope by the end of Thursday afternoon, then it will be a sign that there's quite a serious split developed.

GEOFF BENNETT: You were, as I understand it, inspired to write "Conclave" by the election of Pope Francis.

What was it about that moment in particular that struck you?

ROBERT HARRIS: Well, I was just watching it on television like everybody else.

And we were waiting for the new pope to show himself on the balcony.

And the windows on either side overlooking St. Peter's Square filled up with the cardinal electors who were coming to watch the whole spectacle.

And the camera panned along their faces, the elderly men, benign, cunning, crafty, transported with delight, looking grim.

And I thought, look at that.

That is the Roman -- the ancient Roman Senate.

And I have written a trilogy of novels about Cicero.

And it made me think that there must be something very political going on behind the scenes.

And I started investigating.

And, of course, it didn't tell me long to see that the conclave is the most extraordinary story, a gift, really, for a novelist.

GEOFF BENNETT: Robert Harris, the author of "Conclave," thanks again for joining us.

We appreciate it.

ROBERT HARRIS: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, remember, there's always a lot more online, including a look at chicken rentals and if they're actually an effective way to combat soaring egg prices.

You can see that on our TikTok account.

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.