AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Geoff Bennett is away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: A federal judge for the first time says there's probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for defying orders to halt deportations to El Salvador.

Negotiations over Iran's nuclear program hit a snag, as the United States sends mixed messages about what it wants from a deal.

And Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. weighs in on the latest data showing a continuing rise in autism diagnoses.

We examine the science that debunks widespread misconceptions about its cause.

DR. KUMANAN WILSON, Bruyere Health Research Institute: There was no evidence of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism.

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

What started a month ago as a challenge to the Trump administration's deportation policy has morphed into a full-blown battle over executive and judicial power.

For the first time, a federal judge in Washington said there is probable cause to hold the administration in criminal contempt, this after Judge James Boasberg says Trump officials defied his orders to turn around planes carrying deported migrants to a mega-prison in El Salvador.

The administration says it will appeal.

To explain what this latest order means, we're joined again by Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University.

Steve, thanks for joining us.

So, in part of Judge Boasberg's opinion today, he wrote this -- quote -- "The court ultimately determines that the government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its order sufficient for the court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt."

Steve, willful disregard for its order.

Is the judge saying here that the administration is not complying with his orders?

STEVE VLADECK, Georgetown University Law Center: Certainly, at least, that it did not comply, at least back on March 15 when we had those three planes of immigrants who were sent to El Salvador.

And I think one of the important notes here is that Chief Judge Boasberg, even though this is a pretty important step, it's actually still a fairly cautious one.

He's not holding anyone in contempt yet.

He's saying, I think there's probable cause to believe there's contempt.

And he wants to know more.

He wants the government to produce more information about exactly who knew what, when, about those three plane flights.

AMNA NAWAZ: So we have now had a response from the White House as well.

Communications Director Steven Cheung posted this online.

He said: "We plan to seek immediate appellate relief.

The president is 100 percent committed to ensuring that terrorists and criminal illegal migrants are no longer a threat to Americans and their communities across the country."

So, Steve, the administration will appeal.

Given that the judge here is looking for more information, what does that mean for what happens next?

STEVE VLADECK: Yes, I mean, I think we're going to see two tracks on now.

I think we're going to see the government try to appeal.

One of the tricky parts here is that, because Chief Judge Boasberg did not take that next step, did not hold anyone in contempt, not clear this is the kind of order that even can be appealed.

Not sure that the appellate court or the Supreme Court are going to want to deal with it at this juncture.

And then, if it goes forward in the district court, Chief Judge Boasberg said, hey, government, if you want to avoid all of this, you can by purging the contempt, by providing hearings, by providing the due process that was not provided to the 200-and-some-odd men who were sent off to El Salvador back in March.

Amna, that would be an easy way for the government to make this case go away.

I think it's pretty clear the White House for whatever reason wants this fight.

And so then the question is, assuming that the White House doesn't comply, doesn't purge the contempt and isn't able to get relief from the appellate courts, what happens if and when Judge Boasberg takes that next step and holds individual officials in contempt?

That will be the thing to watch for.

AMNA NAWAZ: So if you assume all of that does unfold as you laid out, what -- if the courts are meant to be the check on the executive power here, what's the enforcement mechanism for any of this?

STEVE VLADECK: So this is where things get a little complicated.

So, under the criminal contempt statute and the federal rules of criminal procedure, which I know everyone has right on their armchairs at home... the judge has the power to first ask the Justice Department to prosecute a criminal contempt of court.

I think it's safe to assume Pam Bondi's Justice Department is going to have no interest in prosecuting contempt here.

And then there's a rule in the federal rules of criminal procedure that says, in that case, the judge can appoint a private special prosecutor to try the criminal contempt.

Amna, what's tricky here is that there are some pretty serious constitutional objections to that rule.

Just a couple of years ago, two Supreme Court justices, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, suggested that rule might not be valid.

And so I think it's going to be a question of whether, if you're Chief Judge Boasberg, if we get to that point, you push ahead anyway and appoint a private outside prosecutor to try this case, or whether by that point you have made your point.

And you hold officials in contempt.

You point out that the Justice Department's refusing to prosecute, and you say, hopefully there will be political consequences for this kind of unprecedented defiance of a federal court.

Amna, I suspect we're going to find out the answer to which of those options he pursues sooner, rather than later.

AMNA NAWAZ: Steve, I apologize for asking a big question with 30 seconds left.

But last time you and I talked, we talked about this idea of a constitutional crisis, about whether or not the president was outright defying a court order.

Back in February, you said, I don't think we're there yet.

Do you still feel the same way?

STEVE VLADECK: I think we're still not to the point where the court has ordered him to do something, and you say, nice try, I don't believe you.

But, Amna, we're getting closer.

I mean, both sides are ratcheting up the stakes.

And so I think the question is ultimately going to be one, not for Chief Judge Boasberg, but for the Supreme Court.

Can you continue to try to walk this tightrope, or at some point are you going to have to get off the fence?

And if you get off the fence, do you get off the fence in favor of the power of the courts, or do you get off the fence in favor of packing up and going home and letting the Trump administration do what it wants?

AMNA NAWAZ: Steve Vladeck, always good to speak with you.

Thank you very much.

STEVE VLADECK: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other headlines: The Trump administration has sued the state of Maine for allowing transgender athletes to play in women's and girls' sports.

Attorney General Pam Bondi and education Secretary Linda McMahon say that amounts to discrimination based on sex, violating Title IX.

Bondi also warned of other consequences.

PAM BONDI, U.S. Attorney General: Maine's leadership has refused to comply at every turn, so now we have no other choice.

We are taking them to court.

And we are also considering whether to retroactively pull all the funding that they have received for not complying in the past.

AMNA NAWAZ: The lawsuit is the latest in a growing feud between the administration and Maine's Democratic Governor Janet Mills.

Back in February, she told President Trump -- quote -- "We will see you in court" when he threatened to pull federal funding for Maine at a White House event.

In a statement today, Mills said the issue was not about protecting girls, but -- quote -- "about states' rights against a federal government bent on imposing its will instead of upholding the law."

Meanwhile, another Democratic-led state, California, is suing the Trump administration over the president's sweeping tariff policy.

Governor Gavin Newsom says Trump lacks the authority to impose tariffs.

From a farm in the state's Central Valley, Newsom said tariffs are already driving up prices across California, the nation's largest importer.

Mr. Trump has used a 1977 law to justify his executive trade actions in a time of national economic emergency.

But the lawsuit argues that levying tariffs is not one of his powers and only Congress has the authority to impose them.

An Army base in Georgia has taken back its old name, but military officials say it's in honor of a different soldier than the Confederate general who was once its namesake.

A ceremony today officially renamed Fort Moore back to Fort Benning in honor of Army Corporal Fred Benning, who served with distinction in World War I. MAJ. GEN. COLIN P. TOOLEY, Commander General, Maneuver Center of Excellence: He embodies the very spirit we strive to cultivate here at Fort Benning.

That spirit, one of dedication, courage, leadership, is reflected here at Fort Benning in our three tenets.

AMNA NAWAZ: The base was named Fort Moore in 2020, as federal law now prohibits naming military bases after Confederates.

Benning, which is home to the elite Army Ranger school, is the second U.S. base to have its name change reversed.

Fort Liberty in North Carolina was renamed back to Fort Bragg last month.

Puerto Rico is facing a massive power outage across the entire island.

It puts 1.4 million customers in the dark with Easter Sunday just a few days away for the mostly Catholic U.S. territory.

The island has dealt with repeated outages since Hurricane Maria crushed its power grid in September of 2017.

Officials say they are working diligently to address the outage and find out what caused it.

A new CDC study says depression has become more common among U.S. adults and adolescents over the past decade.

Over 13 percent of people age 12 and older reported experiencing depression over a two-week period during the survey.

That is up from just over 8 percent the decade before.

Rates were higher among women than men.

Overall, depression prevalence decreased with age.

Despite the high rates, only 40 percent of people with depression sought therapy or counseling.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said today that President Trump's tariffs could slow the economy and accelerate inflation.

That grim outlook sent markets plummeting.

The Dow Jones industrial average lost 700 points, but that was actually the smallest drop on the day.

The Nasdaq fell by over 3 percent, while the S&P 500 finished down by more than 2 percent.

Speaking publicly for the first time since leaving office, former President Joe Biden said the Trump administration has -- quote -- "taken a hatchet to Social Security."

Biden was the keynote speaker last night at a Chicago conference for the disabled.

He never referred to the president by name, but was forceful in his condemnation.

JOE BIDEN, Former President of the United States: Social Security is more than a government program.

It's a sacred promise.

They're shooting first and aiming later.

And, as a result, there's a lot of needless pain and sleepless nights.

AMNA NAWAZ: Biden joins the chorus of Democrats weighing in on President Trump's turbulent leadership, focusing especially on his staffing cuts across the government work force.

And a passing of note.

Charismatic game show host Wink Martindale has died.

He started as a radio deejay in his native Tennessee before quickly landing his own TV show, where, in 1956, a young Elvis Presley joined him for one of his first-ever televised interviews.

Martindale said those early days prepared him for his decades-long game show run, hosting hits like "Gambit" in 1972 and then: ANNOUNCER: It's "Tic-Tac-Dough."

And now here's our host, Wink Martindale.

AMNA NAWAZ: He led the classic X's and O's puzzle game "Tic-Tac-Dough" that ran on CBS until 1985.

In 2006, he received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

Wink Martindale had been battling lymphoma.

He was 91 years old.

Still to come on the "News Hour": a whistle-blower alleges that Elon Musk's DOGE team caused a potentially illegal security breach at the National Labor Relations Board; the Trump administration's latest efforts to slash federal funding for public media; and we report from Chad about systemic sexual violence against Sudanese refugees.

Today, Iran and the U.S. confirmed that a second round of talks over Iran's nuclear program would take place this weekend in Rome.

But, at the same time, both the U.S. and Iran have hardened their negotiating positions after describing the first round as constructive.. Nick Schifrin's been following this today and joins me now.

So, Nick, let's start with the U.S. side here.

What's the U.S. position going into this second round of talks?

NICK SCHIFRIN: As you said, Amna, the mood music after the first round in Oman seemed in sync.

These were mostly indirect talks moderated by Oman's foreign minister between top presidential special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Both sides described them as positive, as constructive, and on Monday night, Witkoff went on Sean Hannity's show and seemed to support a key Iranian demand, that Iran would allow -- would be allowed to keep its nuclear enrichment program, even if that program would be capped.

STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East: The president means what he says, which is, they cannot have a bomb.

The conversation with the Iranians will be much about two critical points, one, enrichment.

As you mentioned, they do not need to enrich past 3.67 percent.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Recall, Amna, that is the number from the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal, also known as JCPOA.

It capped Iranian enrichment at 3.67 percent, a number related to the core of Iran's reactor.

It also capped Iran's nuclear enrichment stockpile, and it guaranteed more access to Iranian facilities in exchange for sanctions relief on Iran.

Today, seven years after the U.S. withdrew, Iran enriches up to 60 percent.

That is a small step away from weapons-grade and has a total enrichment stockpile that is 25 times what it was 10 years ago.

But President Trump and his allies have long criticized the JCPOA because the caps on Iran's program expired after a number of years, and the deal allowed Iran to keep that enrichment program.

And that comes to where the U.S. is hardening its position just in the last day.

Just hours after that Hannity interview, after a Situation Room meeting with President Trump, Witkoff posted this statement on X.

He said -- quote -- "Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program."

Let's keep that up for a second.

"Eliminate its enrichment program.'

That is a direct reversal of what he said on Monday night, because he's saying there Iran should not be allowed to enrich at all.

An official familiar with these negotiations tells me that -- quote -- "President Trump likes to keep people off-balance" and that the U.S. policy right now is what Witkoff posted on X.

So, at least in public, that means that the U.S., regardless of what Witkoff said previously, is demanding Iran dismantle its enrichment program.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, mixed messages there from the U.S. Where does all of that leave Iran?

NICK SCHIFRIN: Today, Araghchi criticized Witkoff's conflicting statements, and he specifically said that Witkoff's demand for Iran to dismantle that program, that was an Iranian red line.

ABBAS ARAGHCHI, Iranian Foreign Minister (through translator): We have heard contradictory and conflicting stances.

Mr. Witkoff has spoken in various ways.

The true stance will become clear at the negotiation table.

What is certain is that Iran's enrichment is a real, accepted and a factual matter, and we are prepared to build confidence regarding potential concerns, but the principle of enrichment is nonnegotiable.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Principle is nonnegotiable.

A U.S. official familiar with the negotiations tells me that they expected Iran to take a hard-line position -- quote -- "This is a negotiation.

This is how it works."

They expect those hard-line positions on every aspect of what the United States is going to prioritize in these talks, Iranian enrichment, on whether the caps on Iran's program are permanent or whether they sunset, as they did under JCPOA, and the discussion about Iranian missiles.

Iran's missile program, the largest in the Middle East, twice used to hit Israel in the last year, Witkoff says they are part of these negotiations.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, Nick Schifrin, thanks, as always, for your reporting.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Since President Trump reentered the Oval Office, billionaire Elon Musk and his DOGE team have been sweeping through federal agencies, accessing sensitive data as part of the effort to scale back the size of government.

We're getting new information about the scope of that access at one independent federal agency.

That's the National Labor Relations Board, which protects workers' rights to organize and investigates unfair labor practices.

A whistle-blower complaint filed by an I.T.

staffer at the NLRB claims that DOGE gained access to closely guarded data, including case files, and that could have led directly to a -- quote -- "significant cybersecurity breach."

That whistle-blower, Daniel Berulis, joins me now, along with his lawyer, Andrew Bakaj.

Welcome to you both.

Thanks for being here.

DANIEL BERULIS, National Labor Relations Board Whistle-Blower: Thank you for having us.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Daniel, let's just start with you.

You had been at the agency for about under a year or so.

It was about early March when the DOGE team arrived at the headquarters.

When and how did you notice that something wasn't right, something was going on?

DANIEL BERULIS: Sure.

I was doing metrics review, kind of looking around, trying to do optimization of our own, because we're always trying to save money.

And we were identifying different things, and we noticed something that was off.

Me and a couple of different people noticed different points, but it kind of added up to a bigger picture.

They're called indicators of compromise in the private sector.

And so, when I noticed these indicators, red flags went off in my head, and I said, something's up here.

So I investigated farther at that point.

AMNA NAWAZ: And what did you find as you investigated further?

What was happening to the data that you saw?

DANIEL BERULIS: Sure.

At first, I didn't have a good picture, so I started to try to rule out possibilities of what benign could have caused these large exfiltration of data, could cause these large spikes of internal transfers.

AMNA NAWAZ: Exfiltration of data, to be clear, you saw a large amount of data being moved out of the NLRB system; is that right?

DANIEL BERULIS: That's correct, leaving a network interface that faces towards a public Internet, something that would only occur if you were to transfer a file outside of our secure system.

AMNA NAWAZ: And that caught your attention why?

I'm assuming that kind of thing doesn't usually happen?

DANIEL BERULIS: It was very abnormal.

There's a 200 or 300 percent increase in that time period as to what normal baseline is.

So that's definitely unusual and warranted more investigation.

AMNA NAWAZ: And in the affidavit, you say that you detected the removal of 10 gigabytes worth of data.

Do you have any idea what kind of data we're talking about, why this would cause concern?

DANIEL BERULIS: Sure.

So what that data spike correlated with was data that was transferred off of an internal record-keeping device that was only used for internal case data.

So this system only has the private information about union organizers.

The privileged business proprietary, technologies, competitors, those kind of things are in that system only.

There's no other data.

There's nothing else except that.

So that correlated data spike lined up in the exact time window and the same amount.

And so that's what we can determine was taken, was data out of that system particularly.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Andrew, the White House responded to our request with a statement about this.

And they said -- quote -- "It's months-old news that President Trump signed an executive order to hire DOGE employees at agencies and coordinate data sharing.

Their highly qualified team has been extremely public and transparent in its efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse across the executive branch, including the NLRB."

So, Andrew, they're arguing this is all part of their work that they're doing to cut waste, fraud and abuse.

ANDREW BAKAJ, Attorney for Daniel Berulis: If the administration is taking the position that having data exfiltrated out of the United States government and potentially into other nation-states, if that's about efficiency and effectiveness for the nation, it doesn't make any sense.

Within 15 minutes of DOGE engineers creating accounts, years, names and passwords within internal systems within DOGE, within 15 minutes of the creation of those accounts, somebody or something from Russia tried to log in with all of our credentials, meaning they had the right usernames and right passwords.

And the question is, how do they get that and why?

The second question that I have is that why is it that from what Dan has seen, as well as others, because we have spoken to other individuals who are able to corroborate this, which is that some of the data is also using Starlink as a backdoor.

And that's another way to get data out of internal databases within agencies.

And Starlink has now direct access where information is likely, we believe is funneled directly into Russia.

AMNA NAWAZ: So let me ask you, based on the evidence you have seen, do you have a view about why the DOGE team would have been accessing and exfiltrating, sending out all of this data?

ANDREW BAKAJ: That I don't know.

I don't want to speculate as to the why because there are so many questions that would - - some questions that would lead to.

But that certainly is the question, is, why are they doing this?

Now, part of it may be there's a component where this could be intentional.

There's also a component where this is simply sloppiness.

I mean, another thing that we have seen within databases within the government, as Dan will be able to talk about, is that internal databases throughout the government have been opened to the open Internet.

DANIEL BERULIS: That's the key, is, these are not just my agency.

These are Department of Treasury.

These are Department of Energy, Department of Defense.

So these are the critical systems that those agencies use that basically turn on the porch light for other foreign nation states to come on in.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I need to ask you as well, Daniel, because the -- Mr. Musk's own companies have face complaints at the NLRB.

We know he brought just last year a case to federal court basically arguing that the agency's structure was unconstitutional, arguing it shouldn't exist in the first place.

Is there any way of knowing if the DOGE team accessed any information related to cases about Elon Musk?

DANIEL BERULIS: One of the frustrating things about this is, there's been roadblocks introduced along the way.

One of the things I don't have is access to that level of data.

Those logs and records of what was accessed during that time are missing, and just coincidentally missing after the data spike incident.

No other period of time is missing except that small window.

AMNA NAWAZ: Missing from your view?

Do you know if other people have access to that?

DANIEL BERULIS: They were deleted entirely.

AMNA NAWAZ: You were able to confirm that?

DANIEL BERULIS: Yes, I had another -- yes, absolutely.

ANDREW BAKAJ: Another key point to your question is that the data that was flying out of NLRB was case-related data.

It was their internal case management system.

So, given the fact that an entire library or an entire... DANIEL BERULIS: Encyclopedia, yes.

ANDREW BAKAJ: ... encyclopedia worth of information has been flying out, is it plausible that that would include any of Elon Musk's corporate information?

It's very possible.

We don't know.

AMNA NAWAZ: These are all questions you still have, but we don't have answers to.

ANDREW BAKAJ: Correct.

We don't have answers to that.

AMNA NAWAZ: Can I ask you, Dan, big picture, was it an easy decision to come forward to say this publicly, to get a lawyer, to be a whistle-blower?

Why decide to do that?

DANIEL BERULIS: It was never a question whether or not to do the right thing.

That was always my agenda.

But how I did it or whether or not I did it, honestly, was absolutely a question.

It's my safety.

There's so much at play that I didn't realize too, but I'm standing behind it.

I'm putting my name to it, and that's just who I am.

AMNA NAWAZ: You mentioned your safety.

Why do you mention that?

DANIEL BERULIS: We had an incident.

My -- go ahead.

ANDREW BAKAJ: This is a difficult topic for Dan to discuss, but prior to our filing the whistle-blower disclosure this week, last week, somebody went to Dan's home and taped a threatening note, a menacing note on his door with personal information.

DANIEL BERULIS: While I was at work, yes.

ANDREW BAKAJ: While he was at work, and it also contained photographs of him walking his dog taken by a drone.

So... AMNA NAWAZ: This was on your front door to your home?

DANIEL BERULIS: Taped straight on, not inconspicuous, just right there in a white envelope.

ANDREW BAKAJ: You can't get any more direct -- a direct threat than that.

AMNA NAWAZ: Dan, you said this felt like the right thing to do.

What do you want to see happen next?

DANIEL BERULIS: Just a full investigation.

That's all I have wanted, is just somebody to come in and validate, tell me why I'm wrong.

Just come in and say, this is because of this.

And so far I have been unable to find that.

Looked throughout my agency, tried to go outside of my agency, and that was not successful.

I just want somebody to look at the data, look at what's happened.

Find out.

That's it.

AMNA NAWAZ: Daniel Berulis, Andrew Bakaj, thank you to you both for being here.

ANDREW BAKAJ: Thank you.

DANIEL BERULIS: Appreciate you having us on.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. pledged to find out what is driving the country's rise in autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, after a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that rate had continued to climb.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary: The ASD prevalence rate in 8-year-olds is now one in 31.

Shocking.

There's an extreme risk for boys.

Overall, the risk for boys of getting an autism diagnosis in this country is now one in 20.

AMNA NAWAZ: The CDC said the increase was most likely driven by better screening and diagnosis, which Kennedy rejected.

Separately, there are reports that the CDC plans to study a supposed connection between autism and vaccines, despite dozens of studies showing no connection between the two.

Ali Rogin digs into the science.

ALI ROGIN: Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has recently delivered contradictory messages on vaccines, in one interview recommending them.

QUESTION: It's one thing to say the measles vaccine is the best way of preventing spread, but it's another thing to then say, and therefore we suggest that you get the measles vaccine.

Are you... ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: We encourage people to get the measles vaccine.

ALI ROGIN: While, in another, again raising questions about a link between vaccines and autism that has been thoroughly studied and debunked.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: The studies that they did were very, very narrow.

ALI ROGIN: More than 25 years ago, a supposed link between autism and the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was put forward by British doctor Andrew Wakefield, a gastroenterologist and surgeon who in 1998 authored this study in "The Lancet" medical journal.

The study was based on just 12 cases of vaccinated children, but contained no control group, patients who hadn't been vaccinated for comparison, and it relied on parents' memories, rather than official records.

It was quickly criticized for its flaws and later revealed that Wakefield hadn't disclosed conflicts of interest, that he was being paid to work on a lawsuit against vaccine companies, and that he had falsified some medical records to support his conclusion.

BRIAN DEER, Author, "The Doctor Who Fooled the World": We were able to show that he'd manipulated it, the study, and fabricated the appearance of a link with autism for personal gain and personal glory.

And the result of that was that he was banned from medicine and the research paper that he published was retracted by "The Lancet."

ALI ROGIN: Yet the alarm he created was real, leading to falling MMR rates and rising measles cases.

Researchers around the globe set out to test Wakefield's findings, with studies that track large populations over time, that compare affected groups against those without a condition and then analyze other research.

DR. MADY HORNIG, Northwell Health: We sought to confirm -- to test the hypothesis that had been raised by the findings of the Wakefield study.

DR. KUMANAN WILSON, Bruyere Health Research Institute: This was a systematic review of the existing evidence.

ALI ROGIN: Dozens of studies came to the same conclusion.

DR. KUMANAN WILSON: There was no evidence of an association between the MMR vaccine and autism.

DR. MADY HORNIG: There was no association whatsoever in our study.

ALI ROGIN: So that's what the science tells us.

But many who continue to question vaccine safety, like Kennedy, ask what then is behind the dramatic rise in autism rates?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: Autism rates have gone from one in 10,000 or one in 1,500 to one in 10,000, depending on what study you look at in my generation, as a 70-year-old man, today.

In our children, it's one in 34.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: You can't even believe these numbers.

One in 10,000 children had autism, one in 10,000, and now it's one in 36.

There's something wrong, one in 36.

Think of that.

ALI ROGIN: There was one landmark 1989 study of individuals in Utah which found the rate was four in 10,000, not one in 10,000, as Trump and Kennedy said.

Official estimates began in 2000 and show the rate in children jumped from one in 150 that year to one in 31 in 2022, still a huge increase.

And researchers say there are a lot of reasons for that.

Some, we understand, but many we don't.

CHRISTINE LADD-ACOSTA, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: The first is changes in how we diagnose people or who we're including as having autism.

The second is changes in recommendations from the American Association for Pediatrics to what pediatricians should be looking for in signs during wellness visits.

The third reason is due to increased awareness and acceptance of autism in our communities.

And then the fourth is changes in some trends over time for factors that we know are associated with increased likelihood of autism, things like preterm birth and fathers being older in age when they're having children.

ALI ROGIN: But those alone don't explain all of the increase.

CHRISTINE LADD-ACOSTA: Some of the things my lab studies and I focused on have been genes and how genes contribute to autism and how other environments or environmental factors also contribute to autism and brain development.

ALI ROGIN: Environmental factors like the air we breathe, what we eat and drink, infections and many more.

CHARLES NELSON, Harvard University: There are so many factors in the environment.

The question is where to look.

And when you look for one, you find that interacts with another one, right?

So, for example, what if children experiencing a lot of stress in their households is a factor that contributes to autism?

Well, maybe those very families are the ones using more screens.

So is it the stress or is it screen time?

ALI ROGIN: Researchers are now working to determine what these many factors could be and how they might interact with many genes to cause autism.

Some are also studying how to detect autism even earlier in life using brain wave analysis on infants well before behavioral signs show up.

CHARLES NELSON: The reason this work is so important is that it may give us a way to predict in the first half-year of life which babies will go on to develop autism.

And if we can do that, then we, A, can scale this up throughout the United States in pediatric clinics, for example, and, B, we can start to develop interventions that can be used in babies as young as 3 to 6 months of age.

ALI ROGIN: Researchers say this should be the focus going forward, not another study looking for a connection between vaccines and autism.

DR. KUMANAN WILSON: At the population level, it's been answered.

There have been innumerable studies, in fact, to such a point that they have actually stopped conducting the studies, from what I could see, or at the same extent that they had been before because the conclusions are always the same.

CHARLES NELSON: This question has been so thoroughly investigated.

One could argue, why throw even more money at a question that has been answered, when that money could be better spent trying to figure out what does cause autism, not what doesn't cause autism?

ALI ROGIN: For the "PBS News Hour," I'm Ali Rogin.

AMNA NAWAZ: Let's delve further now into Secretary Kennedy's remarks from today.

Stephanie Sy has more.

STEPHANIE SY: Amna, in today's press conference, the health secretary made no mention of vaccines and instead emphasized the government's plans to study potential environmental factors that may lead to autism spectrum disorder.

For more, we're joined by Christine Ladd-Acosta with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Christine, thank you so much for joining the "News Hour."

I understand your research focus is on how genes interact with the environment to affect our health.

So I want to play something Secretary Kennedy said today when talking about the dramatic rise in autism among children.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.: We know it's an environmental exposure.

It has to be.

Genes do not cause epidemics.

They can provide a vulnerability.

You need an environmental toxin.

STEPHANIE SY: Secretary Kennedy really emphasized in his press conference today this idea of environmental toxins and he referred to anything from food additive to medicine to ultrasounds as being potential factors.

Over the decades, has there been enough research into those potential environmental factors?

CHRISTINE LADD-ACOSTA: It's a great question.

There has been some research and more recent years on environmental factors.

And by environment, I really mean anything outside of our genes.

And, to date, the science really points most strongly to several factors we have learned or environments, including preterm birth.

So individuals that are preemies have a higher likelihood of autism.

Pregnancies where moms experience pregnancy conditions have also been associated with risk of autism in their offspring.

And there have been some studies on chemical toxicants, things like the air we breathe and air quality and trying to understand whether that impacts autism.

Certainly, there are other environmental exposures that we do think need to be considered, and in particular in the context of a person's underlying genetic liability for autism.

STEPHANIE SY: Secretary Kennedy has said that, by September, we will know what has caused the autism epidemic and he says we will be able to eliminate again those exposures, referring to what he believes is environmental catalysts for autism.

Do you know anyone in your field that thinks that that is a realistic timeline?

CHRISTINE LADD-ACOSTA: So I think, many of us, we all want answers and would love to have those quickly.

I think to do really good science takes time.

And because autism is so complex and has such a broad range of symptoms that individuals experience, it's going to take time to really figure out which genes and which specific environmental factors influence autism symptoms across the spectrum and how different combinations of those come together.

And it's really important we don't lose sight of doing good, high-quality science of high integrity and not at the expense of time in a rush to get the right answers.

STEPHANIE SY: You spoke earlier about how a lot of the surge that we're seeing in autism cases may have to do more with how we're diagnosing autism, as well as awareness.

Kennedy took issue with that, taking pains today to say that those explanations deny what he considers an epidemic.

Do you think there is what he calls epidemic denial out there?

CHRISTINE LADD-ACOSTA: So I don't want to characterize what he said.

What we do know is that we used to diagnose things like Asperger's pervasive developmental disorder, and we have these really specific diagnostic names and conditions that with changes in the diagnostic criteria, now all of those separate conditions fall under this broader autism spectrum umbrella.

And so that alone, right, this broader umbrella and net, brings in individuals and increases the number of individuals with autism.

STEPHANIE SY: Does that fact make it less of a public health crisis or do we have a public health crisis on our hands?

CHRISTINE LADD-ACOSTA: There are a large number of individuals living in our communities with autism that have a wide range of needs, care needs and a range of symptoms they experience.

Many of them have other co-occurring conditions that impact their daily living and quality of life, that they want answers for how they can address those conditions to improve their quality of life.

And so I think there is a need for continued research in this area to address their needs.

STEPHANIE SY: Christine Ladd-Acosta with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, thank you.

CHRISTINE LADD-ACOSTA: Thank you, Stephanie.

AMNA NAWAZ: As we have been reporting, the Trump administration wants to cut the federal funds that support public media in the U.S., which would impact NPR and PBS and the roughly 1,500 local public media stations across the country.

It would, of course, also affect national programs like the "News Hour."

The Trump administration has now drafted a memo that could make those cuts happen soon.

William Brangham has been following all of this and joins me now.

So, William, the administration is asking Congress to cut funds to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

That's a congressionally created entity through which NPR and PBS get federal funding.

What are they asking Congress to do here?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: They're asking Congress to use a process known as rescission, which allows Congress to claw back money that has already been appropriated.

And just to back up for a second, CPB is funded on this two-year cycle.

And that's by design.

Originally, that was to insulate CPB from any political interference.

So CPB gets about 500 -- a little more than $500 million a year.

That costs about $1.50 per year per American.

And the administration wants that two-year chunk, which is about a billion dollars, immediately cut.

So that's the money that would have been appropriated for the next two fiscal years starting in this fall.

AMNA NAWAZ: So what is the process here?

How could this unfold?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This is part of a series of rescissions, so that the White House is asking for this money to be cut, as well as money cut from USAID and the U.S. Institute for Peace.

Procedurally, this request will go to Congress when they get back from recess at the end of the month.

That starts a 45-day period where the House and the Senate can look at this request, they can change it, approve it, deny it.

One thing to note, in the Senate, the normal filibuster rules would not apply.

So, to pass it, they would only need 51 votes.

The GOP has 53 votes in the Senate.

So, if they approve those cuts, those would happen starting in October.

AMNA NAWAZ: So if the cuts are approved and if they move forward, what have we been hearing from public media leaders about what kind of impact those cuts could have?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: They have been saying across the board that this would be a major, major blow, especially to the large number of small rural stations that are spread all across this country.

The head of Alaska Public Media, who testified before Congress earlier this year, said, that if these cuts go through that likely most of the 26 stations spread across Alaska and all the reporters who work for them would have to close.

NPR's CEO, Katherine Maher, was on NPR today and was asked about some of this.

Here's what she had to say.

KATHERINE MAHER, CEO, NPR: We get so much value as public media by being part of a 50-state network that covers 99.7 percent of the American population.

If federal funding goes away, that network is absolutely at risk, the quality of service, the ability to cover everyone, people who live in what would otherwise be news deserts.

And as a result, there's no question that NPR would not be able to pull from that richness of our national coverage.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: PBS' chief, Paula Kerger, she said in a statement she put out yesterday that PBS produces a lot of hugely important educational programming for children, a wide array of cultural and artistic programs.

She also said this -- quote -- "Rescinding these funds would devastate PBS member stations and the essential role they play in communities, particularly smaller and rural stations who rely on federal funding for a large portion of their budgets."

This would also impact national programs like ours, like "Frontline," like "All Things Considered," because part of that federal money goes to local stations, who then use it as fees to pay for the rights to air our programs, so impacts across the entire network.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, William, it's worth pointing out too some Republicans have long wanted to cut funding for public media.

What is this administration's argument for why they want these cuts now?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You're right.

Republicans have long argued that there is a liberal bias on public media, that conservative voices are excluded or marginalized.

The Trump administration makes that argument, and they also make the argument that, by covering issues like race in America, gender issues, LGBTQ issues, that public media is somehow on a campaign to change the culture of America.

Russell Vought, who is the current head of the Office of Management and Budget and was also a major author of Project 2025, here's how he described it: RUSSELL VOUGHT, Director, Office of Management and Budget: You have the $1 billion for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is predominantly the NPR and PBS, which is giving us leftist news for decades and cultural indoctrination for the last four or five years.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We should note, PBS and NPR have consistently been rated some of the most trustworthy and reliable news sources in America.

I mean, that is from surveys of public opinion, as well as independent analyses of media bias.

And also polls have showed that the audience of public media in America does cover the full political spectrum of this country.

AMNA NAWAZ: Also worth noting, for example, on this program, we regularly invite and host conservative and Republican voices.

William Brangham, thank you so much for that.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Amid's Sudan civil war in the western region of Darfur, the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, or RSF, are using sexual violence to terrorize women and girls from non-Arab ethnic groups.

These are war crimes and have sparked international outrage.

Special correspondent Neha Wadekar and filmmaker Zoe Flood, with the support of the International Women's Media Foundation, traveled last year to interview survivors of these crimes and one woman determined to help them heal.

And a warning: This report includes graphic descriptions of sexual violence.

NEHA WADEKAR: Before war broke out in Sudan, Zahra Khamis was enjoying a peaceful life with her family in the West Darfur capital of Al-Junaynah, where she was employed as a social worker.

She now joins more than 235,000 other refugees living in this makeshift camp along the Chad-Sudan border.

Despite losing everything, Zahra is showing up for her community, especially its women.

Zahra supports women and girls targeted by militia groups in Sudan who are using sexual violence against non-Arab communities, especially the Masalit ethnic group.

ZAHRA KHAMIS, Women's Rights Activist (through translator): Sexual assault was used as a weapon to destroy our community because it's something you can't forget.

Any time you see a child who's a result of the violence, then you remember what happened.

That's why sexual violence is used as a weapon against us.

NEHA WADEKAR: It's impossible to determine how many women and girls have been targeted by ethnically motivated sexual attacks in Darfur.

The U.N. and human rights groups have tracked hundreds of incidents, the majority carried out by members of the RSF and its allies.

But the numbers are likely much higher.

Zahra herself manages a heavy caseload.

She makes house calls to identify survivors and then connects them to services.

ZAHRA KHAMIS (through translator): The number is very high.

Some are in different places.

Here, I have more than 30 cases and some are in the other camps.

I have a total caseload of 60 people that I follow, but the number is much higher than that.

NEHA WADEKAR: Twenty-four-year-old Amira is among them.

Like other survivors in this peace, we have changed her name.

She and her mother were alone at their home when four armed men barged inside and demanded that Amira join them in the next room.

"AMIRA," Sexual Violence Survivor (through translator): They called me, but I refused to go.

So they pointed a gun at my head.

When I got to the other room, he said: "Take off your clothes.

And if you don't do that, I will kill your mother."

NEHA WADEKAR: Amira says her mind disconnected from her body during the rape.

"AMIRA" (through translator): In the moment, I wasn't aware of what was going on.

Afterwards, my mother helped me put on my clothes and we left.

NEHA WADEKAR: With little financial support, Zahra has created a women's center in the camp.

She works with other Sudanese women to create a safe space for survivors in their community.

ZAHRA KHAMIS (through translator): People who have experienced sexual assault don't want to be with others.

They're always alone and sad and don't want to interact.

Once they come to the center and see others having normal conversations, they feel relaxed enough to share their stories.

NEHA WADEKAR: Nineteen-year-old Fatema also survived a horrific ordeal in which armed men raped her and eight of her family and friends, including one 16-year-old and a 12-year-old child.

"FATEMA," Sexual Violence Survivor (through translator): Among the eight who were raped, two died on the spot because they were too young.

They died in such a brutal way.

Blood was pouring out of their mouths.

NEHA WADEKAR: Experts say that sexual violence and war can impact individuals, families, communities and countries for decades to come.

"FATEMA" (through translator): Afterwards, I saw that my body was covered with liquid.

I don't know if it was blood or something else.

I was very disturbed.

I later took some medication for the pain.

A major impact for me was emotional.

I couldn't talk to people and couldn't eat.

I stayed alone in our home at the camp.

After I discovered that there is a center for women in the camp, I went there, and I have started to recover.

NEHA WADEKAR: Zahra also helps to connect survivors to medical care.

Facilities in Adre are extremely limited.

The nonprofit Doctors Without Borders, known by its front acronym, MSF, offers a range of services.

This is a mental health unit run by MSF.

In these private rooms, psychologists and mental health experts support women and girls who are survivors of sexual violence in Sudan.

The stories I'm hearing are horrifying and heartbreaking.

Women and girls are being subjected to gang rape, sexual enslavement, and many of them have become pregnant as a result of rape.

As well as treating walk-in patients, MSF runs community outreach in the camp to make people aware of its services.

Staff have to be particularly sensitive when mentioning sexual violence.

Community stigma around rape and sexual assault leads to severe underreporting.

Zahra is working hard to support women here in Chad, while dealing with her own deep trauma and loss.

ZAHRA KHAMIS: His name was Farhar Rahman.

He was 17 yeas old.

NEHA WADEKAR: Her firstborn son, Farhar Rahman Abdullah, was killed in an RSF attack as the family fled to Chad.

He was just 17 years old.

Her father was also killed while escaping from Al-Junaynah.

ZAHRA KHAMIS (through translator): He always said that he wanted to become an engineer.

He wanted to study electricity.

He was very determined and learned to speak English.

Sometimes, his friends would come over and ask, "Can your mother cook for us?"

if they wanted to take a picnic out of town on the weekend, and I would prepare food for them.

NEHA WADEKAR: Zahra lost her job, her home, her father, and her son on the same day.

But she never lost her commitment to fighting for the rights of women and girls.

She is also working with other human rights activists to try to seek justice for the survivors.

Khalid Sulemane is a Sudanese lawyer who represented survivors of violence back in Darfur, often at great personal risk.

KHALID SULEMANE, Human Rights Lawyer (through translator): For cases involving sexual violence and murder, we have always been threatened.

NEHA WADEKAR: Khalid was lucky to escape to Adre.

Other human rights lawyers were brutally murdered, targeted because of their work.

KHALID SULEMANE (through translator): There was so much violence.

They gouged out their eyes, slaughtered them.

It was very brutal, and I saw it with my own eyes.

NEHA WADEKAR: In Adre, Khalid is helping to document cases of sexual violence, while sharing information with international lawyers.

KARIM KHAN, Prosecutor, International Criminal Court: I am extremely concerned about allegations of widespread international... NEHA WADEKAR: Karim Khan, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, is currently investigating the ongoing violence in Sudan, with a focus on crimes relating to sexual violence and rape.

KARIM KHAN: The evidence my office has collected to date seems to show credible, repeated, expanding, continuous allegations of attacks against the civilian population.

It seems to show the widespread, prevalent use of rape and other forms of sexual violence.

NEHA WADEKAR: But Khalid knows that getting justice for the recent crimes in Darfur will be hard to achieve.

KHALID SULEMANE (through translator): In the short term, it will be difficult for the survivors to get justice, because the victims of the genocide in 2003 are still not getting justice.

NEHA WADEKAR: For women and girls who have survived rape in Sudan, the road to justice is a long and hard one.

Most, if not all of these women, will never have the opportunity to bring their perpetrators to account.

For now, all they can do is mourn what they have lost, try to recover the best they can, and adjust to their new lives here in Chad.

And, perhaps with Zahra's help, their adjustments will now be a little easier.

For "PBS News Hour," I'm Neha Wadekar in Adre, Chad.

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

I'm Amna Nawaz.

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