AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "News Hour" tonight: a dire warning.

Famine has hit Gaza.

A food crisis group warns of widespread death if immediate action is not taken.

AMNA NAWAZ: The EPA undercuts the fight against climate change by planning to reverse a finding on the threats from greenhouse gases.

GEOFF BENNETT: And we speak with an FCC commissioner about the pressure she says President Trump is putting on media organizations.

ANNA GOMEZ, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission: I see this as just another part of this administration's campaign of censorship and control.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "News Hour."

More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Hamas terror attacks kicked off the war with Israel some 21 months ago.

That's according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which says more than two dozen people were killed in Israeli airstrikes overnight.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the meantime, Israel's prime minister is facing growing international pressure to end the war.

And a leading food crisis group is now warning of widespread famine in Gaza as deaths from starvation rise.

And a warning: Some images in this story are disturbing.

Daybreak in Gaza's Nuseirat camp revealing more death and destruction wrought by Israeli strikes overnight, familiar wails of mourning as another round of relentless funerals unfolds and as hungry Palestinians face an impossible choice, to seek food or die trying.

ABU ANAS SHEREER, Gaza Resident (through translator): He went to bring a bag of flour.

He came back in a body bag.

AMNA NAWAZ: But it's not just strikes that are killing Gazans.

They're also dying of starvation amid a near-total aid blockade by Israel since March, among them, 5-month-old Zainab Abu Haleeb, who died of malnutrition a few days ago.

ISRAA ABU HALEEB, Mother of Zainab Abu Haleeb (through translator): We have been in the hospital for three months to no avail.

This is how she looked before being sick.

The girl suffered a lot.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, a dire statement from the leading international authority on food crises, the IPC, saying -- quote -- "The worst-case scenario of famine is playing out in the Gaza Strip.

Widespread starvation, malnutrition and disease are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths."

Among the worst-affected are children.

The IPC reports that more than 20,000 kids have been admitted to Gaza hospitals for acute malnutrition since April.

Gaza's Hamas-run Health Ministry says, of the 150 Gazans who have died of starvation since the war began, 88 have been children.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denies there's any starvation or policy of starvation in Gaza.

And Israeli officials blame U.N. agencies for failing to distribute aid and blame Hamas for diverting aid.

Foreign Minister Gideon Saar today: GIDEON SAAR, Israeli Foreign Minister: Who is responsible for this tough reality?

I answer, this is Hamas.

Whether there is a starvation policy, no, the contrary is right.

We are doing amazing efforts, including this week.

AMNA NAWAZ: A USAID analysis reportedly found no evidence of systematic aid theft by Hamas, and The New York Times recently reported the Israeli military never found proof Hamas had systematically stolen aid, citing senior Israeli military officials.

Israel has allowed more food and supplies in this week amid building international pressure.

Aid trucks rolled into Gaza from Egypt today for a third consecutive day, and Israel is now allowing humanitarian airdrops by foreign countries.

Gazans and aid groups say it's not nearly enough.

Meanwhile, in the U.K., British Prime Minister Keir Starmer ramped up pressure on Israel today, saying his country will recognize a Palestinian state soon if Israel doesn't commit to ending the war.

KEIR STARMER, British Prime Minister: I can confirm the U.K. will recognize the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a cease-fire and commit to a long-term, sustainable peace.

AMNA NAWAZ: That followed France's pledge last week to recognize a Palestinian state, even as Germany's chancellor said formal recognition is not the right step right now.

But the prospects of a Palestinian state seemed to dim this week, as a report from Israeli newspaper Haaretz said Prime Minister Netanyahu will propose a plan to annex parts of Gaza if Hamas does not agree to a hostage release and cease-fire deal soon.

Netanyahu reportedly told Israeli ministers that the plan has been approved by the Trump administration.

Today, criticism of Israel's war conduct came from one of President Trump's closest allies.

In a social media post last night, Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene became the first member of her party in Congress to call what's happening in Gaza a genocide, all while deaths in Gaza from strikes and starvation continue to rise every day.

GEOFF BENNETT: We start today's other headlines in New York City with new details on the gunman who killed four people at a midtown skyscraper last night before turning the gun on himself.

Authorities say 27-year-old Shane Tamura was a Las Vegas casino worker who drove across the country in the days before the shooting.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams says his intended target was the NFL's office on Park Avenue.

Tamura shot three people in the building's lobby before taking an elevator to a different floor and killing another person.

A fifth person was critically injured.

Police say the gunman was a former high school football player who had a history of mental illness.

Mayor Adams told CBS about a note he left behind.

ERIC ADAMS (D), Mayor of New York: The note alluded to that he felt he had CTE, a known brain injury for those who participate in contact sports.

He appeared to have blamed the NFL for his injury.

GEOFF BENNETT: Police say they plan to question a possible associate who may have supplied parts for the rifle that Tamura used in the attack.

Meantime, we're learning more about the victims of yesterday's shooting.

They include security officer Aland Etienne, according to relatives and a local labor union, plus Wesley LePatner, an executive at the financial firm Blackstone, as well as off-duty NYPD Officer Didarul Islam.

The fourth victim is said to be Julia Hyman, a Cornell graduate who worked at Rudin Management, the company that owns the building.

The university released a statement calling her death a tragic loss.

Turning now overseas, Russian attacks killed at least 27 people across Ukraine overnight after President Trump said he was moving up the timeline for Moscow to end the fighting.

Ukrainian authorities say four powerful bombs hit a prison in the country's southeast, killing at least 16 inmates and wounding more than 90 others.

And in Central Ukraine, Russian strikes hit a building and a maternity hospital, killing at least five people, including a pregnant woman.

Yesterday, President Trump said he would impose sanctions and tariffs unless Russian President Vladimir Putin moves to end the war within 10 to 12 days.

A Kremlin spokesperson said today that Moscow had, in their words, taken note of Mr. Trump's warning.

In China, nearly a year's worth of rain drenched the Beijing area in a matter of days, triggering floods and landslides that have killed at least 38 people.

Some areas saw as much as 21 inches of rain, which peaked on Monday, sweeping away entire cars.

State TV showed people crammed into small rescue boats and riding construction trucks to safety.

More than 130 villages on the outskirts of China's capital lost power.

Today, many residents tried to pick up the pieces of their muddied homes, but much of the region was still at high flood risk through this evening.

A major deal is in the works to create the nation's first coast-to-coast freight rail company.

Union Pacific is buying smaller rival Norfolk Southern in a deal valued at $85 billion.

The combined company would cover 50,000 miles of rail lines across 43 states.

The railroads say the merger would lead to faster freight delivery for raw materials and goods across the country.

But the nation's largest rail union says it plans to oppose the merger, citing concerns about its impact on workers.

And federal antitrust regulators still need to sign off on the deal.

On Wall Street today, stocks ended lower despite a report showing that U.S. consumer confidence improved slightly this month.

The Dow Jones industrial average slipped around 200 points.

The Nasdaq gave back 80 points on the day, and the S&P 500 retreated from its recent all-time highs.

And we have two passings of note this evening.

Billionaire philanthropist Wallis Annenberg has died.

She was the heiress to her father's publishing empire and then led his influential Annenberg Foundation for 16 years, serving as its president and chief executive.

Her name adorns several public spaces around Los Angeles, including a performing arts center, the wing of a science center, and soon the world's largest wildlife crossing over the L.A. Freeway.

Her family says she died yesterday from complications related to lung cancer.

Wallis Annenberg was 86 years old.

The world has also lost baseball Hall of Famer Ryne Sandberg.

ANNOUNCER: There it is, way back, the record-breaking home run!

Ryne Sandberg!

GEOFF BENNETT: Sandberg was considered one of the best all-around players in the game over his 15 seasons spent almost entirely with the Chicago Cubs.

He won nine Gold Gloves for his fielding and was the national league's MVP back in 1984.

On the field and off, the man known as Ryno was a fan favorite, known for his work ethic, his professionalism, and his humility.

The Cubs say Sandberg died yesterday at home following a battle with cancer.

Ryne Sandberg was 65 years old.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": we examine the growing concerns about misogynistic online content that's appealing to some young men; a Democratic and a Republican senator's bipartisan effort to combat wildfires; and a look at the South Korean musical that's captivating audiences on Broadway.

The EPA announced plans today to overturn a key scientific finding that it has used to regulate carbon emissions and climate pollution since 2009.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's the latest in the Trump administration's efforts to roll back federal regulations, and, if upheld, could undo Obama and Biden era climate policies.

Stephanie Sy joins us with more.

STEPHANIE SY: Amna, the EPA is specifically targeting the endangerment finding, which determined that pollutants caused by burning fossil fuels endanger humans and can therefore be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

It's been the basis for the government's fight against climate change for the last 15 years.

During an appearance at a truck dealership in Indiana, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin accused previous administrations of twisting the Clean Air Act, resulting in what he said were more than a trillion dollars in regulations over the years.

He said President Trump was given a mandate to change that.

LEE ZELDIN, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator: They elected President Trump president of the United States.

That was the will of the American public.

And when they voted, they asked for, demanded that an agency like the EPA would be cognizant of their economic concerns, that all agencies would be applying common sense, that we at EPA must choose to both protect the environment and grow the economy, that it's not a binary choice.

STEPHANIE SY: Joining me now for more on what this means and how it will affect current regulations, I'm joined by Ben Geman, energy reporter for Axios.

Ben, thank you for joining the "News Hour."

So, first off, can the EPA do this, just rescind the entire legal basis for regulating emissions?

BEN GEMAN, Axios: They can certainly try.

Now, this is a proposal that went out today.

If and when it is finalized, it will certainly be subject to very vigorous legal challenges.

But, yes, in theory, this is something that they can attempt to do.

And it's a very bold and aggressive step, because what we're seeing right now is the most stark example of the Trump administration seeking to sort of rip out its Democratic predecessor's climate change policies really just root and branch.

And I think it's also important to sort of see this on a continuum, right?

It's part of a broader suite of efforts.

Now, what this would do is, as you mentioned in the beginning of the segment, essentially overturn the legal underpinnings of regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Real quick, a 2007 Supreme Court decision said that these emissions are -- can be considered pollutants, and if EPA makes a finding that they endanger human health and welfare, then EPA can go ahead and start to regulate these emissions.

This was directly about tailpipes, but, by extension, it's about power plants, refineries, and other types of large sources of emissions.

So what they're doing with this decision is essentially sort of trying to, in one kind of fell swoop, essentially knock out the pillars that hold up different types of regulations.

Now, I should say they're also repealing other regulations in a sort of piece-by-piece way.

So -- but this is -- like I said before, this is sort of perhaps the most direct assault, I would say.

STEPHANIE SY: OK, so there's a public comment period open now.

And then what?

How much could this roll back greenhouse gas regulations?

And what would the impact of that be, including on future attempts to regulate emissions?

BEN GEMAN: Yes, I think the last thing you said there is the most important, because this administration is already walking away from Biden and Obama era efforts to regulate emissions from cars, trucks, power plants, and so forth.

But if you remove the legal underpinning of the sort of whole endeavor, that would make it extremely cumbersome and difficult for a future administration that did want to take action on these sources to sort of reimpose those regulations, because this legal sort of bedrock for those actions would no longer be in place.

Now, I do think it's important to note that regulations are hardly the entire ball game when you sort of look at policies that aim to limit use of green -- or limit the emission of heat-trapping emissions in the U.S. and increase the uptake of cleaner-burning types of energy, whether that's electric vehicles or solar power or other types of renewables.

Now, the Biden administration had been trying to sort of aggressively create policies on, I suppose you could say, the demand side, which were these large consumer and business subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act for using these cleaner types of sources.

So I think, if you look at this together with -- if you look at this rescission of the endangerment finding together with these other policies, it would make it more difficult for the U.S. to continue cutting emissions.

STEPHANIE SY: So, even if this change happens, Ben, market forces are still going to do what they're going to do and renewable energy industries may continue.

BEN GEMAN: That's absolutely right.

I mean, regulations are one of the factors that determine how quickly or how slowly we see this slow-moving transition away from fossil fuels.

But certainly there's a whole constellation of other reasons why utilities are bringing more wind and solar power online, why car companies are creating more electric vehicles and issuing more and more models.

I think what's safe to say is that, while it's very hard to predict the future of clean energy deployment, removing this finding would make it difficult to accelerate emissions reductions in the U.S. and would create new barriers to the rapid uptake of clean energy sources that are coming alongside other barriers that have already been showing up.

But, that said, you're absolutely right.

Markets will have a say and the energy transition will continue.

But what we're really talking about, I think, is the pace of that transition.

STEPHANIE SY: I do want to talk about the fact that, at today's event, there was a lot of talk about how costly these regulations have been.

Have the American people and whole sectors of the economy been collateral damage in the transition away from fossil fuels?

BEN GEMAN: Yes, I mean, this is a very complicated question because any regulation has both costs and benefits.

But those costs and benefits don't all accrue to the same people.

Now, what I would say is that, when you have seen the EPA under the Biden and Obama administrations issuing these types of Clean Air Act regulations, they do tend to find that, on balance, the benefits far outweigh the costs.

But, that said, the way that these regulatory impact analyses are constructed are subject to some, I suppose, kind of fiddling with the dials.

I do think it's interesting to start looking at the reasons that the EPA is giving for trying to remove this finding.

I mean, on the one hand, it is definitely the scientific consensus, and we should never shy away from that, that greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels, are causing dangerous climate change.

But the EPA makes a whole series of other arguments in this long document, such as the idea that the EPA in 2009 was overstating some of the harms.

They also get into the idea that the U.S. contribution to these emissions, particularly from tailpipes, is not going to be globally significant enough to justify some of the costs of imposing these regulations.

And then they get into some other arguments as well.

Their eyes are really on the Supreme Court, as are mine, because the Supreme Court has been issuing decisions in recent years that essentially pull back how much running room agencies have to impose new regulations unless Congress has sort of given them a very, very detailed and explicit blessing with which to do so.

STEPHANIE SY: Ben Geman, Axios' energy reporter.

Thank you so much for joining us, Ben.

BEN GEMAN: Thank you for having me on.

GEOFF BENNETT: The $8 billion merger between Paramount, CBS' parent company, and Hollywood studio Skydance is fueling a fierce First Amendment fight and raising sharp questions about the influence of the Trump administration.

The FCC approved the deal last week by a vote of 2-1 along party lines.

The vote came shortly after Paramount paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump over a "60 Minutes" interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, the sole dissenting vote, issued a blistering statement, calling it an act of -- quote -- "cowardly capitulation that could set a dangerous precedent, reshaping the future of entertainment, while eroding the freedom of the press."

And Commissioner Gomez joins us now.

Thanks for being here.

ANNA GOMEZ, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission: Thank you for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: I want to talk more about the First Amendment threats you see resulting from this deal in a moment, but first the timeline, because you noted that the FCC approved the merger only after Paramount agreed to the $16 million settlement.

They made concessions like scrapping DEI policies at Paramount, installing a so-called bias monitor at CBS.

How do you view the connection between the settlement and the concessions and the FCC's approval?

ANNA GOMEZ: So I see this as just another part of this administration's campaign of censorship and control.

Here's what we know.

The president pressured Paramount over the "60 Minutes" segment.

The FCC pressured CBS over the "60 Minutes" segment.

And it wasn't until we saw both the settlement of the president's lawsuit and also the concessions that you mentioned to eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and to install a medium monitor that will basically self-censor CBS' content, that this deal was approved.

That is a dangerous precedent.

GEOFF BENNETT: So in your view, how does the government's role in this case cross the line into threatening press freedom?

What are the specific aspects that trouble you?

ANNA GOMEZ: A few things trouble me.

One, first of all, is the fact that the FCC revived a complaint against CBS because of the "60 Minutes" segment.

And it did so after the expert staff had found that there was, in fact, no basis in the facts or the law for a complaint against CBS.

Just to remind you, of course, this involved an interview with Kamala Harris in which CBS showed a different clip of her answer in one program and another clip in a different program.

And this somehow blew up into news distortion.

All they did was cut her answer for brevity, basically.

And that is very standard, as you know, in the news business.

So just reviving this complaint was a pressure campaign against CBS.

And then that became the basis of this lawsuit that Trump had against CBS.

And so what you saw was this pressure campaign that led to concessions.

And that concession of the media monitor is really serious, because what they're saying is that they are going to self-censor basically for ideological purity according to what this administration likes and to report only in the way this administration likes.

Apparently, bias is anything this administration doesn't like.

And that is what they're promising not to show anymore to their consumers.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, in practice, if a program like "60 Minutes" produces a hard-hitting investigative piece on the Trump administration, what happens next under this new framework?

Would that content, would that piece need to be cleared in advance or would this so-called bias monitor act in a role similar to what newspapers have, a public editor who holds a newsroom accountable and answers reader questions, that sort of thing?

ANNA GOMEZ: You know, that's a very good question.

What we know is that this monitor will report directly to the president and will field complaints about the news and about other issues with the programming.

So how that's going to work isn't entirely clear.

And the other thing that's not entirely clear is how this gets enforced by the FCC.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring broadcasters.

That is entirely what the freedom of press is all about.

And so if a complaint comes to the FCC, and the FCC determines that the content needs to be further censored, it's directly violating both the First Amendment and the Communications Act, which prohibits us from censoring broadcasters.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, the FCC chairman, Brendan Carr, he said in a statement in defense of this approval, he said: "Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately and fairly.

It's time for a change.

That is why I welcome Skydance's commitment to ensure that the new company's programming embodies a diversity of viewpoints from across the political and ideological spectrum."

What's the danger there?

ANNA GOMEZ: First of all, let's keep in mind that this administration has been the one that has been sowing distrust in the media for the last decade.

And so to use this alleged distrust in the media as the reason why the FCC needs to step in and regulate is, I think, disingenuous.

So, again, the First Amendment protects from government interference in freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

We cannot tell the press how to report, how to make its editorial judgments in its news organization, and we should not.

GEOFF BENNETT: You have emphasized that you have a good working relationship with Chairman Carr, a candid and good working relationship.

How does that dynamic affect how you raise dissent within the agency?

ANNA GOMEZ: The chairman and I do work very well together.

I'm a very transparent and very direct person.

He and I have very good conversations.

He knows when I have concerns because I raise them with him, and I also know where he's coming from because he talks about them with me.

So our day-to-day working relationship is good, but I am not going to stop raising concerns when I see these violations by this entire administration against the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

GEOFF BENNETT: So, if this merger is part of a broader assault on the First Amendment, as you say, what remedies exist?

What can the public do?

Within your role, what additional proactive steps are you taking to defend press freedom and the FCC's independence?

ANNA GOMEZ: I think it's very important that we all speak up and push back, because the way to address a bully is to push back on a bully.

But it's also very important that we encourage people to understand where our freedoms are being violated or assaulted, as you mentioned, because capitulation breeds capitulation, but courage breeds courage.

We need all institutions, all corporations, all users, all viewers, all listeners to stand up and push back.

GEOFF BENNETT: Are there specific pending or potential FCC proceedings where you're particularly concerned about similar ideological pressure, as you see it, or levers being used in the future?

ANNA GOMEZ: What's happening is, this administration is weaponizing the FCC as a licensing authority.

So any time that we have a license request or a transaction, another merger, the sale of a particular station, I am concerned that you are going to see similar demands for concessions that will lead to censorship.

Self-censorship, whether it's pressured or imposed by the government, is in and of itself a violation of the First Amendment.

And I'm concerned that this will breed more corporate capitulation, because the bottom dollar is what these corporations want.

They are not protecting their journalists.

GEOFF BENNETT: On that point, given the historical parallels between media regulation and authoritarian control in other countries aimed at whether it's silencing dissent or shaping public opinion, do you see signs of something similar happening in this country?

ANNA GOMEZ: I think we really need to protect our freedoms.

We can't let this become the new normal.

And a large part of that, like I said, is to speak up and to push back.

GEOFF BENNETT: FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, thanks so much for being here.

We appreciate it.

ANNA GOMEZ: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: And a note: We reached out to Chairman Carr's office to request an interview.

We plan to speak with him later this week.

AMNA NAWAZ: We turn now to growing concerns around the proliferation of misogyny online and its migration into real-world interactions, especially those involving young men.

John Yang has this story about a Detroit teenager's experience and the broader implications of this trend.

JOHN YANG: Like many his age, Bryan Campbell says he grew up an iPad kid, playing a lot of video games.

BRYAN CAMPBELL, Teenager: You're about to lose anyway.

It don't matter.

JOHN YANG: And when the COVID pandemic forced schools to shift to remote learning when he was 12, his primary connection with friends was online.

BRYAN CAMPBELL: I would spend all my time on the Internet.

Either I'm playing a video game or on TikTok or both, "Fortnite," "NBA 2K."

If me and my friends get bored playing it for 10 hours, then we scroll on TikTok, and send each other videos.

And then we'd get back to playing the game.

JOHN YANG: Eventually, content with a specific perspective started showing up on Campbell's feeds.

MAN: It is so easy to become a top-tier male in this world today, because the competition is so ridiculously low.

BRYAN CAMPBELL: Topics masquerading as informational kind of male improvement.

I think a lot of these people have lived more life.

They're rich.

They're -- nice car, all that, like what society says is the ideal for a young man.

JOHN YANG: The message appealed to Campbell.

And the more he engaged with it, the more he saw.

Campbell had found himself in the heart of what's known as the manosphere.

The term broadly refers to online communities that create and share content aimed at men and boys.

But there's growing concern about the ideas behind that content, misogynistic, often conspiratorial beliefs about gender roles and masculinity.

And thanks to a handful of key influencers, the manosphere's reach has exploded.

In an attempt to quantify that growth, researchers in Dublin set up accounts on multiple social media apps posing as teenage boys.

Last year, they reported that, in less than half-an-hour, every one of the accounts was fed manosphere content, whether they sought it out or not.

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS, American University: In the post MeToo movement, we have seen this surge of online misogyny in particular.

JOHN YANG: Cynthia Miller-Idriss is the founder of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab at American University.

Her book "Man Up: The New Misogyny and the Rise of Violent Extremism" will be published in the fall.

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: They land on an influencer who's offering them often very tangible and real help that makes a difference, right, like get eight hours of sleep and drink water and get to the gym, and they package that with scapegoating of women or treatment of women or an idea of success as being dominant.

And so your life is improving while you're starting to believe this other stuff.

MAN: Women sell purity.

Men sell success.

MAN: This is seen as a more dominant position.

MAN: A woman wants sex more than the guy does.

MAN: The average woman will always cheat more than the average man.

JOHN YANG: That's the sort of content Campbell was seeing.

Soon, he was echoing those ideas.

BRYAN CAMPBELL: Like women want to control us, and us as young men, we have to not be at the whim of women and stuff.

I didn't really know what I was talking about, but it sounded good.

JOHN YANG: Campbell's dad, Al, and his older brother, Brandon, who had fallen down similar rabbit holes when he was younger, noticed a change.

BRANDON CAMPBELL, Brother of Bryan Campbell: He started mentioning a lot of things typical of someone who believes that the world is against them or you think that, if you are not in, I will in quotes, "superior," then something's wrong.

He was kind of taking on opinions that didn't sound like his own.

They were opinions that I myself once had because I had gained them from someone else.

JOHN YANG: While Bryan was seeing this material, were you aware of it?

AL CAMPBELL, Father of Bryan Campbell: I guess I didn't really pick up one at first.

Over time, he said a few things that gets a little concerning.

And like, hey, my wife's going to clean up after me, being the alpha male and the this and the that and the type of guy that's the strongest, the baddest, and everybody needs to bow down and respect you.

But then you don't have to respect anybody else.

LISA DAMOUR, Author, "The Emotional Lives of Teenagers": When it comes to behavior like this, there's really no excuse for it, but there may be an explanation for it.

JOHN YANG: Psychologist and author Lisa Damour specializes in adolescent development.

LISA DAMOUR: It's helpful to think about 12-year-old boys in broader context.

Girls hit puberty before boys do.

So what this means is that for seventh grade boys in general, the girls are often beating them at recess and then they come into the classroom and the girls are often beating them in school.

So if you are a 12- or 13-year-old boy and you have had a very rough day at school, where a girl outran you at recess and then had all the right answers when you didn't understand what was happening in class, and you come home feeling pretty small, and you hop online and there is somebody telling you, listen, guys are actually great and the thing that's holding us back are girls, that is pretty compelling.

ACTOR: Jamie, I want you to listen carefully.

JOHN YANG: Online radicalization in the manosphere are at the center of the Emmy-nominated Netflix miniseries "Adolescence," the platform's most watched show in the first half of the year with 145 million views.

It's a fictional account of how these influences lead a teenage boy to murder a female classmate.

ACTOR: It's a call to action by the manosphere; 80 percent of women are attracted to 20 percent of men.

You must trick them because you will never get them in a normal way.

JOHN YANG: In real life, there's a growing number of examples of manosphere culture affecting interactions between boys and girls.

GIRL: It's like little things like, oh, you should be back in the kitchen.

And even though it's a joke, some people take it really far.

GIRL: There are games that I have stopped playing because every single time I joined, I'd receive a rape threat.

GIRL: Me and my former roommate were chased on campus by two different men, saying that they were going to have a lot of fun with us that night.

CYNTHIA MILLER-IDRISS: Those kinds of things are -- have migrated from online worlds into real life, sometimes in ways that boys are just trying to be provocative, sometimes in ways that are really dangerous stepping-stones on the way to more harmful and violent content and behaviors.

JOHN YANG: Experts say the key to combating the spread of these ideas and preventing their worst effects is to engage with young men.

LISA DAMOUR: Don't start with a lecture.

Start instead with a question.

Ask, have you seen this?

What is it like to see it?

What do you think adults don't know about this that we should probably know?

And how can I be helpful?

JOHN YANG: That's what happened to Bryan Campbell in Detroit.

Around Thanksgiving 2020, his older brother, home from college, sat him down for a long conversation.

BRANDON CAMPBELL: So I wanted him to have a more, I guess, reflective idea of how he was engaging with others, how he viewed people and how he interacted with them, less as ideas or groups of people, but as individuals.

JOHN YANG: Campbell says that talk helped pull him out of the manosphere.

He still sees online videos pushing misogynistic views, but he says he's able to tune them out and click not interested.

BRYAN CAMPBELL: A lot of it was like reminding myself about people in my life, like my grandma, my mom, like remembering that there are real-life women in my life that I respect a lot of and that there's more to it than what the Internet shows.

JOHN YANG: This fall, Campbell will be a senior in high school.

His summer is filled with internships and other programs.

Now, when he hears friends make misogynistic comments, he tries to speak up.

"What I won't do," he says, "is be complicit."

For the "PBS News Hour," I'm John Yang in Detroit.

AMNA NAWAZ: With razor-thin GOP majorities in the House and Senate, many federal lawmakers are retreating to their political corners, rather than seeking out compromise in the middle.

But one bipartisan duo is bucking the trend, arguing their disaster prevention proposal can overcome Congress' political dysfunction and is necessary amid worsening wildfire seasons nationwide.

I recently sat down with Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah and Democratic Senator Alex Padilla of California on Capitol Hill to discuss their bill and working across the aisle.

Senator Curtis, Senator Padilla, welcome to the "News Hour."

Thank you for joining us.

SEN. ALEX PADILLA (D-CA): Thanks for having us.

SEN. JOHN CURTIS (R-UT): Absolutely.

Good to be here.

AMNA NAWAZ: So I want to begin with this effort that you are both working on together.

It's worth reminding people it's been months since those wildfires that we covered that ravaged L.A. County in California.

We know communities are still struggling to come back.

We have seen currently in Utah as well there's a number of active fires burning right now.

So this is something that clearly impacts both of your states and so many others.

How did this bill, as a bipartisan effort, how did it come together?

Who went to whom?

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: This is one of those things it's impossible to say it started here or it started there.

It's been bubbling for a long time.

And some of these ideas have been bubbling for a long time, and it was great to have them crystallize and come together.

SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Right.

It's -- the dynamic and the challenge of wildfires is not new, not to Utah, not to California, but it has been progressively building bigger and bigger over the course of the last decade, right, more frequent fires, more devastating and larger wildfires.

And given, I think, the scale of the damage in Southern California back in January, it just underscored the urgency with which we need to better prepare to mitigate and prevent fires when we can, or at least keep them from getting as big as they do.

So it did provide the impetus for putting a lot of the proposals, bills that had been discussed in previous sessions together and sort of take it and add it to the momentum that we had.

AMNA NAWAZ: So I want to tell people a little bit about what the bill proposes here, because it does aim to essentially overhaul how we manage forests in the U.S.

It also aims to set up a federal wildfire intelligence center that would streamline information.

Senator Curtis, how would that work?

What does that change?

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: The beauty of the bill is, it is not just focused on one thing.

It's focused on everything, from starting early to prevent them, to deal with them while they're happening, and also deal with them afterwards.

And, as you mentioned, one of the problems we have had is interagency coordination and cooperation.

And this bill addresses that and tries to bring all that together, get us out of our silos, so that we're actually working together and pulling in the same direction.

SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Maybe on the federal government side, there's a way to be more effective, more efficient by pulling in that expertise, those resources and even personnel from different departments and agencies under one roof, and establishing a wildfire intelligence center to take advantage of the research, the experience and the data that's been collected through these experience.

Very similar to what the Weather Service does under NOAA, right, capture it all and make it very usable for people who depend on that data to get ready for fire season, respond to fires when they happen, and help us in that rebuilding stage as well post a disaster to try to prevent and mitigate future incidents.

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: It wouldn't be unusual in Utah to have a fire that started on Forest Service land, moved over to BLM land, moved over to state land, came down into a city or county and encroached.

And now you have all of these agencies competing with each other in how they're going to deal with this.

And that -- if we can bring that together and bring that intelligence together, we will fight these a whole lot more effectively.

AMNA NAWAZ: So is there federal funding for this at a time when we have seen -- it feels like the momentum around federal response and disaster response in particular is to pull back, to have states carry more of that responsibility.

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: Well, first of all, let me bring up how expensive it is once these fires start, right?

If we're successful in what we're doing, we will save the taxpayers massive amounts of money.

The second thing I'd point out is, we have asked for all the appropriations needed to do what's needed in this bill and still stayed within the limits that we're trying to target financially.

AMNA NAWAZ: How do you keep the politics out of it?

And I say this because we have seen with President Trump sometimes an effort to withhold federal disaster funds when there's a Democratic state involved.

How do you keep politics out of this effort?

SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Wildfires don't distinguish between Democratic states and Republican states.

It impacts everybody.

And so that's our incentive to sort of check the partisan politics at the door and do the substantive work on behalf of our constituents.

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: We have tried to build a bill that will last through many administrations, whether they're Republican or Democrat, and accomplish the goals and objections of this regardless of the administration.

AMNA NAWAZ: So you're confident you will have the votes in the Senate to get it to pass?

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: This is the United States Senate.

You're never confident of anything.

SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Right.

Disaster preparedness, disaster response will be -- will maintain a bipartisan priority.

AMNA NAWAZ: In terms of the bipartisan effort that's gone into this bill I don't want to assume anything here, but you may not even agree on what's fueling these more extreme fires, these longer wildfire seasons that we're seeing.

Certainly, folks on both sides of the aisle may debate over the reasons behind that.

So, how do you that aside?

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: We understand that the environment is drying, it's warmer.

That's not contested, right?

I don't really think we had any discussions about the cause of this.

I think we can all... AMNA NAWAZ: Climate change never came up?

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: It never came up.

Like, we all know that it is dryer and less rain and less moisture than we have had before.

We all know that the seasons are longer and hotter.

That is not a debatable thing.

And -- but we do know that these fires are devastating our communities.

They're very expensive.

And the loss of life and property is something that can't be tolerated.

SEN. ALEX PADILLA: That's why I like working with John, because we can maybe disagree on what words to use, but let's at least be grounded on truth and science and data.

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: There's a number of factors fueling this that are really not partisan issues.

AMNA NAWAZ: There is another bipartisan effort in the House that I have to ask you both about because it's been dominating headlines.

And that's the effort to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

We have seen a number of Republicans in the House join a Democratic effort to release those files.

Senator Padilla, you have seen a number of opinions on the Democratic side.

I did hear your Democratic colleague Senator Elissa Slotkin say, this isn't where her focus is, because this is not where her constituents' focus is.

What do you make of House Democrats' particular focus on this issue right now?

SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Because it's the latest example, in my opinion, of the Trump administration, or at least Donald Trump, saying one thing on the campaign trail and then acting differently once he's in office, or even earlier on in the administration, where Attorney General Bondi was holding up binders saying that the list was on her desk.

And they turn around and say, well, there is no list of names.

So which is it?

You can't have it both ways.

Were you telling the truth?

Now you're lying, or were you lying first and now telling the truth?

So I come at it from a perspective of transparency and accountability.

That's our job as members of the Senate, members of Congress, to hold this administration and any administration accountable.

AMNA NAWAZ: So you think that they're right to lean into that message right now?

SEN. ALEX PADILLA: I think for two reasons, one, the issue of Epstein and the heinous crimes related to that, but also as yet another example of this administration doing anything but being transparent and accountable.

AMNA NAWAZ: Senator Curtis, both Speaker Johnson and Senator Graham have recently said they support the files being released in some form as long as victims are protected and the information is credible.

Do you agree with that approach?

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: This isn't only a Trump administration issue.

All of these files existed with the previous administration, and they also chose not to release them.

And I think this really points out how desperate the American people are for transparency, how much we're doubting institutions, and that this is a real opportunity for us to step up and say, nothing to hide.

I'm going to make you a bet right now that our two names aren't on that list.

And let's give the American people some transparency.

Let's also not make this a major distraction.

We have important things to do.

If this gets in the way of our bill, that's going to be a problem, right?

So I think we can do both, right?

Let's be transparent, but let's also not stop the work of the Senate.

AMNA NAWAZ: For the people who are watching this interview who may themselves disagree with their neighbors, their friends, their family on many of these issues, how do you come together?

How do you find space to work on the things that you do agree on?

Give us some tactical, tangible tips.

Senator Curtis?

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: Yes, I think one of my aha moments was coming to Washington, D.C., and realizing that people can be very genuine and have different perspectives than I have.

So let's begin with realizing that they're genuine and they see things differently than I do.

And just because they're different, it doesn't mean that they're not genuine.

SEN. ALEX PADILLA: It's one thing to say, well, we're negotiating a budget and we're adjusting some numbers around the edges here and there, or even tax policy, right?

What do we really care about versus looking at the fiscal health of our country?

And then there's those much more controversial, in some eyes, issues, sensitive issues in some people's eyes.

And I think immigration is on the top of the list when it comes to people who feel very passionately, maybe over here or maybe over there.

But, like you said, if we can disagree on 99 things, but find one area of agreement, as much as I may disagree with you on those other 99, I owe it to my constituents to work hard with whoever I need to work with to try to make progress maintaining my values, maybe compromising a little bit around the edges, but maintaining my values as a result.

I think it's -- you owe it to your constituents to do the same.

I owe it to mine and wherever we can see that overlap, then we lean in.

SEN. JOHN CURTIS: I think compromise gets a bad rap.

And I think it's because oftentimes people look at compromise like you give up half of what you want, I will give up half of what I want.

We will both plug our nose and support this.

That's bad compromise.

But if we can sit down and find those areas of intersection where we actually agree, that's a different kind of compromise.

And my experience is, the best work -- and Fix Our Forests is a really good example of that, of where I don't think either one of us feel like we have abandoned our principles, but we actually found some areas of overlap that are really important to this country and to our constituents.

AMNA NAWAZ: Gentlemen, it has been such a pleasure to speak with you both.

I thank you so much for your time and your candor.

Senator John Curtis, Senator Alex Padilla, thank you.

We appreciate it.

SEN. ALEX PADILLA: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, online, you can hear more from the senators on immigration, including reflections on the moment that Senator Padilla was handcuffed by federal agents last month.

You can find that part of the conversation on our YouTube channel.

GEOFF BENNETT: It's a musical called "Maybe Happy Ending," and if that title leaves you guessing about the storyline, there's no doubt the show itself is getting its due.

It's the winner of six Tony Awards, including best musical.

Senior arts correspondent Jeffrey Brown has a look for our arts and culture series, Canvas.

(SINGING) JEFFREY BROWN: Oliver leads a fairly routine life listening to his jazz records, tidying up day after day, year after year in his one small room in a retirement home.

But we're in the near future, and Oliver is a robot, a now obsolete model living out his time.

Replacement parts are no longer being made.

So he's different from you and me, right?

DARREN CRISS, Actor: I think one of the most beautiful sentiments of the show is the way that love makes things alive.

Love makes things -- quote, unquote -- "human," but I will use the term alive.

JEFFREY BROWN: Darren Criss won a Tony for his portrayal of Oliver in what easily qualifies as this year's version of the little show that could, "Maybe Happy Ending."

WILL ARONSON, Composer: We've written four shows together now.

JEFFREY BROWN: Composer Will Aronson also won Tonys with his Korean song and book writing partner Hue Park... HUE PARK, Lyricist: Thank you so much for supporting us for this nine-year journey.

JEFFREY BROWN: ... and credits Park for the original idea.

WILL ARONSON: Well, luckily he didn't say to me, let's write a musical about robots in love, because I think like everyone else that might not sound like the best pitch.

He said, oh, I have an image for you.

It's this lonely robot playing trombone in this basement parking garage late at night when no one's around.

That was the image he came to me with.

DARREN CRISS: Way better pitch.

JEFFREY BROWN: And you thought?

WILL ARONSON: And I thought, this is really exciting.

JEFFREY BROWN: To be sure, the two lifelike machines at the heart of the story, Oliver and Claire, played by Helen J. Shen, who lives across the hall, do find their way toward love.

But as older model helper bots built to serve humans, they're no longer of use to their former owners, and their hard drives holding memories are wearing down, in Oliver's case, memories of his owner, James, played by Marcus Choi, whom Oliver thinks of in human terms as his best, make that only, friend.

For anyone in the audience contemplating his or her own battery life and who will be there for us in the end, it's not hard to connect.

DARREN CRISS: Which is exactly where I want to get you, so by the time we actually do become more human, you are now more dilated to the idea of like, oh, my God, maybe we are the same kind of person, which is what I think art can do at its highest level, or at least that's our goal.

JEFFREY BROWN: You just did the motion that switches back and forth between -- right?

DARREN CRISS: Exactly.

There's a stark physicality that is supposed to feel not human, but through the course of the show, as more human things are presented to this person... JEFFREY BROWN: Like love and relationships?

DARREN CRISS: Love and relationships, or the idea of obsolescence, or how one can be resilient or fearful of that, and how you choose to cope with that idea, this turns into sort of a softening of that physicality into something perhaps more humanlike.

JEFFREY BROWN: In addition to Chris and Shen, there's an old-style crooner played by Dez Duron, who regularly appears, evoking Oliver and his owner's love of jazz in an earlier life.

MICHAEL ARDEN, Director: Thank you to all my helper bots.

JEFFREY BROWN: Director Michael Arden and scenic designers Dane Laffrey and George Reeve all won Tonys for the production and stagecraft that includes a sliding panel set that keeps a relatively quiet story continually on the move.

The music itself avoids the big and brash numbers, at times over the top, of many of today's Broadway musicals.

WILL ARONSON: We love to come to a show, or any work of art, where we feel like a world is being created.

And certainly the approach to the acting, the approach to the directing, the physical staging, all of these are so unique.

I mean, you haven't seen these things before, and I think we also wanted a musical world that was a little different, I think, so you come out remembering the world of it.

DARREN CRISS: Yes.

WILL ARONSON: You know, it carves out a little space in your brain, maybe.

JEFFREY BROWN: But even so, "Maybe Happy Ending" nearly crash-landed early on, facing delays in development, including from the pandemic, and a very slow box office as it began its Broadway run, as producers found it hard to market a show like this.

Even its name was confusing to many.

WILL ARONSON: Hue and I had to leave for Korea for a different show right after opening night, literally the next morning.

And we had had such an amazing time.

DARREN CRISS: They got out of town.

(CROSSTALK) DARREN CRISS: They ran for the border.

(LAUGHTER) WILL ARONSON: This was preplanned.

We weren't like... DARREN CRISS: It's like "The Producers" say, drop it and go.

JEFFREY BROWN: Yes, we're out of here.

WILL ARONSON: Yes.

No, no, no.

DARREN CRISS: That's great.

WILL ARONSON: No, no, we had to.

We didn't want to, but we had this really emotional goodbye with everyone, because we thought we will be back in two months.

I mean, many shows close in the first two months, so we didn't know that we would see everyone again.

MAN: The Tony Award goes to "Maybe Happy Ending."

(CHEERING) JEFFREY BROWN: They certainly would see one another again, including on the biggest Broadway stage, the Tonys.

But, says Chris: DARREN CRISS: The Tonys were not on the itinerary.

That's not why we're here.

That's not why we -- why I said yes to this show, why I wanted to do the show.

JEFFREY BROWN: Yes.

Well, I mean, it's not something you can plan on, right?

DARREN CRISS: It's not something... And if you do, that's probably a surefire way to really disappoint yourself.

WILL ARONSON: That's right.

JEFFREY BROWN: So why do you do what you do?

DARREN CRISS: We don't know how to do anything else, man.

(LAUGHTER) WILL ARONSON: Exactly.

No.

JEFFREY BROWN: And now they do have a big hit, a happy ending, for sure.

And Darren Criss has his own personal dream for the show.

DARREN CRISS: Decades from now, I will be in some random place, some city that I have never been to.

Somebody says, hey we're actually doing -- we're doing "Maybe Happy Ending" at the local whatever.

It's community theater, high school theater.

Would you come?

And I go, you know what?

Yes, I'd love to.

And I go, and it's not a great production.

I will be like, we made it.

(LAUGHTER) DARREN CRISS: We did it.

You know why?

Because that means this show would have punctured the cultural zeitgeist enough to where everybody is doing it.

JEFFREY BROWN: Yes, done with love.

DARREN CRISS: Done with love.

WILL ARONSON: Yes.

DARREN CRISS: And enough people will see it that will be inspired or people that are in it that will be inspired to maybe work on Broadway one day.

So, when you say "Maybe Happy Ending," I do go, it's maybe happy beginning yet again.

JEFFREY BROWN: That beginning continues on Broadway and starting next year with a North American tour.

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

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

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

For all of us here at the "PBS News Hour," thanks for spending part of your evening with us.