AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Geoff Bennett is away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: The Supreme Court rules that former President Trump is entitled to some immunity, complicating the special counsel's January 6 case against him.

In a major blow to President Macron, France's far right wins big in the first round of snap elections.

And a Hezbollah drone strike injures 18 Israeli troops, raising fears that a full-fledged war on Israel's northern border could be next.

QUESTION: Do you see an end in sight?

STAV SHMUEL, Elkosh, Israel, Resident: Not right now.

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

In one of its most anticipated rulings of the year, the Supreme Court declared that former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for any so-called official act taken as president, but not unofficial ones taken as a candidate.

The 6-3 ruling was split along ideological lines, and it will most likely delay Trump's federal election subversion trial until after the November election.

The former president today cheered the ruling, calling it -- quote -- "a big win for our Constitution and democracy."

To discuss this historic ruling and how it reshapes presidential power, I'm joined now by "News Hour" Supreme Court analyst Marcia Coyle and our William Brangham, who's been following the criminal cases against Mr. Trump.

Great to see you both.

Marcia, start us off here.

This was a ruling so many had been waiting for.

It was Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote the opinion for the majority here.

What's the essence of that ruling?

MARCIA COYLE: The chief justice said that -- very basically, that certain core presidential powers are absolutely immune from prosecution.

And those kind of powers would include things like the pardon power, the recognition of foreign nations, the appointment of foreign ambassadors.

For all other official acts, the court said there's a presumption of immunity.

And, as you know, Amna, from criminal law, the presumption of innocence, that presumptions can be rebutted.

And, in this case, the court said that the prosecution would have to show that the application of criminal law here into an official act did not interfere with the authority and function of the executive branch.

So it's a high bar.

Mr. Trump did not get everything he asked for, but he got an awful lot.

He also -- the chief justice also said that not all acts of the president are official acts.

There are unofficial acts.

And for those unofficial acts, the majority pretty much sent it back to the trial court in Mr. Trump's case and in future cases for judges to sort out in a very fact-intensive review what is official and what is unofficial.

But here we have in his own words, in the chief justice's own words, what the court's ruling was.

The chief justice said: "The president may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers.

And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts."

Amna, this opinion is really sort of undergirded by concerns for separation of powers and also what the chief justice said was the framers' desire and vision of an energetic and independent executive.

AMNA NAWAZ: Marcia, this was also a clear split along ideological lines.

So what was it that liberals argued in the dissent?

MARCIA COYLE: The main dissent was from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

And she pointed out that there was nothing in the text, the history, or even Supreme Court precedent that envisioned, applied, recognized the kind of immunity that the Supreme Court, the majority, was endorsing today.

She wrote a very impassioned dissent that she read, partially, a summary from the bench.

In fact, I think, Amna, it was her most impassioned dissent ever.

So, for her, there was nothing that really justified the grant of immunity in this case, and that the criminal justice system that we have would work just fine for the prosecution of a president.

She said here, in her own words: "When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.

Orders the Navy SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival?

Immune.

Organizes a military coup to hold on to power?

Immune.

Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon?

Immune, immune, immune, immune."

I don't think she could have been more direct than that.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, William, help us understand the context here.

The immunity claim was brought by Donald Trump in response to the federal charges he's facing in the January 6 case.

That trial had been on hold pending this ruling.

So now that we have this ruling, what does it mean?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It means that it is all but impossible for a special counsel Jack Smith to bring this case to trial before the November election.

The court in its ruling today categorically sliced off one part of his indictment, and that was the charges that Smith had brought that Donald Trump, in the aftermath of the election, tried to get his Justice Department to basically affirm his bogus claims that there had been widespread fraud and that the DOJ was investigating that.

That is now carved out of the indictment.

Everything else that has to be determined, as Marcia was just saying, is, the judge, Tanya Chutkan, here in D.C. has to decide what is an official act and what is not an official act.

That is pretrial motions.

That is hearings.

That is going to take up a lot of time before you could even begin a trial that itself was not going to be a short trial.

We are five months from the election.

There just seems to be no way that that's going to happen in time.

AMNA NAWAZ: We should also point out this doesn't just apply to former President Trump.

It also now applies to President Biden, to any future president who follows him into the Oval Office.

What does it mean for the scope of presidential powers moving forward?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This was something that was picked up by -- in the dissent today.

Justice Sotomayor said that the majority has left this shield laying around for any president to pick up.

If that president wanted to act criminally or undemocratically while in office, they have this sort of cloak of immunity, this veil that they can put on over themselves.

We talked earlier today with Steve Vladeck.

He's a SCOTUS, Supreme Court, scholar at Georgetown University.

And he said that this ruling quite significantly tilts power away from Congress towards the president, away from judges towards the president.

He also said this: STEPHEN VLADECK, Georgetown University Law Center: Most importantly, it tilts the power away from we the people because we all of a sudden become left only to the impeachment process and all of the warts that we have seen in recent years with that for accountability for misdoing by presidents,a process that is weak enough on its own and hard to imagine being especially effective in a late second term of a presidency, just as we saw how ineffective it was late in President Trump's first term.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Justice Neil Gorsuch, during oral arguments for this, acknowledged that in this case they would be writing -- quote -- "a rule for the ages."

And that is absolutely true.

This applies decades forward.

And a lot more power has now been given to the president of the United States.

And that will be that way for decades to come.

AMNA NAWAZ: Meanwhile, Marcia, while we have you, there were other rulings that came out of the Supreme Court today, notably one that dealt with state laws governing social media companies and moderating content.

How did the court handle those cases out of Florida and Texas?

MARCIA COYLE: These two laws were really prompted by concerns that the social media platforms were censoring conservative thought.

And the Supreme Court today did not get to the merits of the arguments.

I guess you could say they punted.

They decided that the lower courts did not apply the proper First Amendment analysis, so they sent the cases back to the two federal circuit courts of appeals to do just that.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's been a term of enormous consequence.

Thank you so much to Marcia Coyle, William Brangham for helping us understand it all.

MARCIA COYLE: Always a pleasure, Amna.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Thanks.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other headlines: Hurricane Beryl has made landfall on the island of Carriacou in the Eastern Caribbean.

With winds of 150 miles per hour, it is the strongest storm to ever form this early in the Atlantic hurricane season.

The National Hurricane Center has warned of an -- quote -- "extremely dangerous and life-threatening situation."

The prime minister of Grenada said the coming few hours will be vital in determining the storm's impact.

DICKON MITCHELL, Prime Minister of Grenada: It represents perhaps the most dangerous part of this exercise.

So, I want to reemphasize to our citizens that the state of emergency remains in place.

It is for your own safety.

AMNA NAWAZ: The storm is expected to remain a powerful hurricane as it moves across the Caribbean.

All of Jamaica is under a hurricane watch, but other islands may avoid a direct hit.

Beryl is expected to slam Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula by the end of the week.

Steve Bannon turned himself into a federal prison in Connecticut today to begin his four-month sentence on contempt charges.

The former adviser to President Trump hugged supporters and told a crowd he was proud to be a - - quote -- "political prisoner."

Bannon was found guilty two years ago for defying a congressional subpoena as part of the January 6 investigation.

His sentence means that Bannon is set to be incarcerated during much of the run-up to the November presidential election.

Republican lawmakers have sued Attorney General Merrick Garland for access to audio of an interview with President Biden.

The recordings are from special counsel Robert Hur's probe into Biden's handling of classified documents, in which he said that the president has a -- quote -- "poor memory."

The Justice Department has provided transcripts, but not the recordings.

In their filing today, House Judiciary Republicans argued that the audio can -- quote -- "provide immeasurable insight into a witness' credibility and mental state."

Israel issued mass evacuation orders today in Khan Yunis, signaling a potential return of IDF troops to the southern Gazan city.

Much of Khan Yunis was destroyed and fighting earlier this year, but many Palestinians have returned, fleeing violence elsewhere.

In the meantime, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told cadets at an Israeli military college that Israel has nearly destroyed Hamas' military capabilities in Gaza.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israeli Prime Minister (through translator): I returned yesterday from a tour of the Gaza division.

I saw great achievements.

We are nearing the end of the elimination phase of Hamas' terrorist army.

There will be a continuation to strike its remnants.

AMNA NAWAZ: In Northern Gaza, large explosions and tanks were seen today in a neighborhood east of Gaza City.

The Israeli army says it killed a number of militants and found large amounts of weapons on its fifth day of operations in the area.

A number of new laws took effect on this July 1 across the country.

Florida alone has more than 180 measures that kick in today.

Some laws highlight divisions in America.

For example, in California, a new law requires credit card companies to give banks special codes to track gun store purchases to help flag suspicious sales to law enforcement.

But new laws in Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee and Wyoming do the opposite, banning the use of gun store codes.

It was a positive start to the week on Wall Street.

The Dow Jones finished up 50 points in light pre-holiday trading.

The Nasdaq had the day's biggest gain, adding nearly 150 points, and the S&P also ended slightly higher.

And a new parental leave law took effect in Sweden today that pays grandparents to take care of their grandkids.

It's the latest step for the country that was the first to offer paid parental leave to fathers as well as mothers 50 years ago.

Under the law, parents can transfer some of their leave to the child's grandparents.

Couples can swap 45 days, while a single parent can transfer three months of their paid leave.

Parents in Sweden enjoy about 16 months of paid benefits overall.

Still to come on the "News Hour": Tamara Keith and Amy Walter on the fallout from the presidential debate; Oklahoma's top education official on why he's requiring public schools to teach the Bible; and a new book chronicles the history of reality TV.

The weekend did little to settle concerns inside the Democratic Party after President Biden's widely panned debate performance.

Questions about whether the president should step aside have only intensified.

JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: But here's the deal.

AMNA NAWAZ: The debate over the debate continues.

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): There are very honest and serious and rigorous conversations taking place at every level of our party.

AMNA NAWAZ: President Biden's allies have flooded the airwaves... SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): The only Democrat who's ever beaten Donald Trump is Joe Biden.

He is our candidate for November and he has the best shot to beat him.

AMNA NAWAZ: ... to defend his place as the Democratic Party nominee.

SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D-GA): The question this morning is not, what is Joe Biden going to do?

The question is, who has Donald Trump ever shown up for, other than himself and people like himself?

I'm with Joe Biden and it's our assignment to make sure that he gets over the finish line come November.

AMNA NAWAZ: But behind closed doors, the party is in panic, with many Democrats suggesting the president should drop out of the race before the party's convention next month to give the delegates the opportunity to nominate someone else.

And there are several potential replacement names being mentioned, including some high-profile governors, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Gavin Newsom of California, and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.

Whitmer reportedly called the Biden campaign, distancing herself from the rumors, but delivering a stark warning: Winning Michigan is out of reach in November.

Democratic voters are equally split on what Mr. Biden should do.

In a CBS News/YouGov poll, 55 percent of Democrats say the president should keep running, but 45 percent say he should step aside.

The concerns have even reached the world stage.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken was asked how U.S. allies responded.

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. Secretary of State: What the world knows, the world has experienced over 3.5 years, not one night, is exactly the kind of leadership that he's brought to bear.

AMNA NAWAZ: The president remains committed to the fight for now after huddling with his family yesterday at Camp David, first lady Jill Biden and his son Hunter among those urging him to stay in the race.

JOE BIDEN: The most lies told in the single debate.

AMNA NAWAZ: His campaign also launched a new ad, taking aim at Donald Trump's own debate performance and record as president, and using Biden's fiery speech at a rally in North Carolina to make the case for his continuing campaign.

JOE BIDEN: When you get knocked down, you get back up!

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) AMNA NAWAZ: For more on the fallout from the debate for the president and his party, it's time for Politics Monday with Amy Walter of The Cook Political Report With Amy Walter and Tamara Keith of NPR.

Always great to see you both.

Tam, kick us off here.

Now, much of the reporting, much of your reporting, much of ours, showed there's strong concern among Democrats about President Biden's debate performance.

Most of the public statements do not reflect that.

Four days after the debate, where is that conversation?

How real is the panic?

TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: Certainly, the public statements have coalesced behind President Biden.

I was talking to the chairman of the -- the Democratic chairman of the state party in Wisconsin today.

And he's closer to the ground.

What he said is, yes, absolutely, the debate was terrible.

His phone was blowing up.

But the people who were most concerned are people who have been paying close attention to the election and watched the State of the Union address, where President Biden did a solid job, or watched some of his speeches where he was on fire, like he was in North Carolina.

He said most voters who aren't paying a lot of attention are pretty much just seeing debate Joe Biden on loop on TikTok leading into this debate.

The guy that they think is running for president, the many voters' believer is running for president is the guy who showed up on the debate stage, somebody who stumbles on the steps and everything that they have seen in loop on TikTok.

AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, what about the impact here?

I mean, do we yet know how much of an impact the debate actually had, both on Democratic voters, who've long had concerns about President Biden's age, but also on Republican or independent voters, many of whom former President Trump still has to try to win over?

AMY WALTER, The Cook Political Report: That's right.

And, Amna, that's a really good point that Democratic voters have been saying now for months and months and months two things.

One, they are -- they do have concerns about his age.

And, two, they wanted to see an alternative to President Biden in the Democratic primary.

And what we're seeing -- and your piece set this up -- is that the very people who could have provided that alternative, whether it was the governors or some of those senators that were in your piece, decided that they didn't want to challenge the president, the sitting president.

And that was the choice that they made.

And that's why we are here now just four months before the election.

There is not going to be a replacement.

That replacement conversation has been happening in periods of time before this, right?

We saw it right before the State of the Union.

We're seeing it now.

It is set.

Unless the president of the United States decides himself that he is stepping down, there is no replacement for him.

The delegates are going to choose him as the nominee.

And the party, this is the choice in front of them.

Now, what are the polls showing post-debate?

We don't have really anything up to date right now because I think we're going to -- it's going to be about a week or so before we see some of the fallout.

I suspect that Trump is going to gain a little bit, based on everything that we have seen for these past four days, because the reality of this election today isn't much different than it was before the debate.

In order for Joe Biden to win this race, for President Biden to be reelected, the election has to be as much about Donald Trump as it is about Joe Biden or even more so about Trump than it is about Biden.

The debate was an opportunity for him to change that focus.

He failed on that measure.

And now it's really all about Biden.

And that is a problem for the Biden campaign.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Tam, speaking of former President Trump, we heard William Brangham and Marcia Coyle reporting earlier about the major Supreme Court decision today, essentially saying former President Trump and, by default, then all presidents do have some kind of immunity there entitled to it all, but ends any chance of Mr. Trump facing trial for his federal election subversion case before the November election.

What's your takeaway from that?

TAMARA KEITH: Well, and what I will say is, President Biden is now set to speak about this later tonight.

Certainly, that decision raises the stakes in the election.

That is how the Biden campaign sees it.

And their view -- and they're leaning into it -- as Amy said, this election -- if this election is about Joe Biden, it's a problem for Joe Biden, but if it's about former President Trump, then that is better for the Biden campaign.

And so they are running hard against former President Trump, harder than ever.

And this decision is the latest example.

They say it raises the stakes, because their belief and many voters believe that former President Trump is an existential threat to democracy, and this gives him or any president more power.

AMNA NAWAZ: And we will expect, as you mentioned, President Biden to speak about that a little later tonight.

Amy, what about you?

As you saw that ruling come down, this was highly anticipated, what were your key takeaways?

AMY WALTER: Well, I think that's right, that it was highly anticipated, that this is the ruling that we would see basically, kicking it down to the lower courts.

And essentially, from a practical purpose, what it means is that there will not be any other trials for which Donald Trump will be sitting.

And so that is something that we long suspected, but now is the reality.

And as Tam pointed out, the issue for the Trump campaign is making the case much more firmly that this election is about the economy, is about immigration, it's not about what the Supreme Court or other courts may say in the future.

AMNA NAWAZ: Tam, meanwhile, I know you have been reporting on how former President Trump's campaign has been planning ahead to their party's convention, presenting some kind of a platform later this month.

Tell us what your reporting shows and why it's important.

TAMARA KEITH: Right.

So we have been talking for this whole segment about Democrats in disarray.

And what my reporting shows is that Republicans are further coalescing behind Trump.

The -- his top advisers have a plan to cut back the party platform considerably, to make it shorter, more streamlined, clearer, more concise, and, importantly, very Trump-centric.

It is going to be built around Trump and the ideas that he has pushed forward that helped him win the primary.

And they are trying to avoid drama.

They do not want to put anything in that platform that is going to give their adversaries anything to go after him on.

And so they are going to move the process, which has typically been in front of cameras, behind closed doors, not open press.

This is a break with tradition.

However, it's part of they think they're winning.

They believe they are winning.

They are winning based on the polls.

And they don't want to mess with that by -- with a platform document that's really just a vision document for the party.

AMNA NAWAZ: Amy, weigh in on that from your perspective, I mean, the idea, as Tam's reporting has shown here, that this is the party now further coalescing around him, the platform now further coalescing around former President Trump.

This is a stark contrast to the way things used to be done at the conventions.

What's your take?

AMY WALTER: I know.

I know.

I think that is -- listen, this has been happening for the last few years as we have seen candidates downballot really mold themselves in the image of Donald Trump, looking to get endorsements from Donald Trump.

That is now where the Republican Party is.

And, in fact, I have been thinking about how much where Democrats are right now reminds me of where we were at this point in 2016, when there were questions going into that convention about whether Donald Trump was going to get the elites and the establishment behind him because there were so many concerns about his electability.

But voters were saying, no, this is the person that we want.

And, essentially, the establishment got on board.

In this case, it's the voters on the Democratic side who've been saying for a long time, we'd like an alternative.

The establishment and elites were saying, nope, this is the person that we're sticking with.

And so these conventions are going to look -- are going to be actually quite fascinating to see what the rank and file take from this and what independent or swing voters take away from those two events.

I think it's going to be really, really important.

AMNA NAWAZ: Those conventions now just weeks away.

I know we will all be following them.

AMY WALTER: Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: Amy Walter and Tamara Keith, always great to see you both.

Thank you so much.

TAMARA KEITH: You're welcome.

AMY WALTER: You're welcome.

AMNA NAWAZ: Today, France is closer than it's ever been in its modern history to being governed by the far right.

Parliamentary elections that began on Sunday are the country's most consequential in decades and will have implications across Europe and the United States.

Nick Schifrin is here with that story -- Nick.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Amna, the far right National Rally received more than 10 million votes, double the number it has ever received before.

Its longtime leader, Marine Le Pen, celebrated last night.

MARINE LE PEN, President, National Rally Party (through translator): It's a form of great emancipation for the people.

They're taking back their freedom.

They are determined to defend themselves against political powers that have hurt them, that weakened them, that ruined them.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But France's parliamentary elections are two rounds, and, today, Le Pen's opponents, the New Popular Front, a left-wing coalition, and the party of French President Emmanuel Macron could adjust their candidates and still have the possibility of blocking France's first far right government since World War II.

For more on this, we turn to Celia Belin, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Celia Belin, thank you very much.

Welcome to the "News Hour."

Why did the National Rally do so well?

CELIA BELIN, Senior Policy Fellow, European Council on Foreign Relations: It was a foregone conclusion.

When Emmanuel Macron, President Macron, decided to call for a snap election, the National Rally had just come out of a great victory from its European elections.

The reality is that the National Rally has been gaining strength very much over the past two years, mostly because a larger part of France is agreeing on the substance with them.

And then an even larger part of France probably is tired with this government and President Macron himself.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Macron will remain the president, but if National Rally were able to secure a majority and hold the prime ministership and many Cabinet ministers, what would be their platform and what would they be able to accomplish?

CELIA BELIN: So their platform cannot be further from the platform of Emmanuel Macron.

Let me remind you that he's a pro-European, liberal, centrist, versus this National Rally party, Rassemblement National, that is a nationalistic populist in nature, protectionist in nature very much, anti-European, anti-NATO.

And, therefore, the platform that the prime minister is going to push forward, probably some initiatives on immigration, initiatives on purchasing power, will certainly clash very soon with President Macron's own perspectives.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Marine Le Pen inherited what was then the National Front from her father, who was a well-known antisemite who was convicted on racist language.

Is she and her party different from Jean-Marie Le Pen and his party?

CELIA BELIN: They are different in one way.

Marine Le Pen has made the decisions years ago, already 15 years ago, that she wanted to de-demonize her party to make it appear, at least on the surface, like a regular mainstream, albeit radical right, party, but someone that could be in a position to govern at some point.

However, her ideology, the content of her policies, those have not changed.

She's still pushing forwards anti-immigration, anti-foreigner policies.

She's still fundamentally anti-European, anti-American as well, I must say.

Her platform remained this nationalistic populist radical right platform.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Explain the mechanics of what, to Americans, might seem a complex process for this second round.

Could Le Pen and the National Rally still be blocked from a parliamentary majority?

CELIA BELIN: In this election, you can either win in the first round if you are above 50 percent of the vote immediately, or you make it to the second round, which usually is two adversaries fighting each other, sometimes three.

So, if you have three candidates, there's been a call for all forces outside of the far right to make an agreement that the one that's in third position should drop out, so that it becomes a dual, instead of a triangle, because, in a dual, maybe the National Rally is not as strong.

So this will be the conversation of the week.

Who will drop out of the race?

And it's going to be the talk of the week, and it will surely have a strong influence on the results on Sunday.

NICK SCHIFRIN: One of the topics that American officials are most concerned about, of course, is French support for Ukraine and opposition to Russia.

Would the National Rally reduce bilateral French support or perhaps even NATO support for Ukraine or perhaps weaken some of the West's punishments on Russia?

CELIA BELIN: So, for the moment, support for Ukraine is pretty strong in the French population.

And the National Rally will probably stay the course for the moment, because they know how much President Macron cares about it.

They know how much the rest of Europe cares about.

And so it might not be the first fight that they fight.

And they may want to wait out to see whether President Trump makes it back into the White House, and maybe he will be the one imposing a change on Ukraine policy to the transatlantic allies.

And in that case, the far right National Rally will be more than happy to join him into pushing negotiations, lifting sanctions, and eventually maybe even returning to relationships with Russia.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Celia Belin, European Council on Foreign Relations, thank you very much.

CELIA BELIN: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: This weekend, a drone fired from Lebanese Hezbollah injured 18 Israeli soldiers, one of the highest single-casualty incidents since Hezbollah opened fire on October 8, one day after Hamas' attack in Southern Israel.

Nick Schifrin and his team have been reporting from Northern Israel, and Nick joins us once again -- Nick.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Amna, more than 60,000 Israelis are still evacuated from the border with Lebanon.

Today, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Israel had -- quote -- "effectively lost its sovereignty there."

Some 95,000 Lebanese are also displaced.

And tensions are very high, as we saw beginning right on the Israel-Lebanon border.

The Northern Israeli town of Shtula has no residents, only a newly built home damaged in a newly built neighborhood abandoned, and Lieutenant Colonel Dotan, who requested we only use his first name.

LT. COL. DOTAN, Israeli Defense Forces: One rocket hit there that was able to destroy the whole house.

This house has to be rebuilt.

It hit the foundations, completely destroyed it.

QUESTION: When did this happen?

LT. COL. DOTAN: This happened exactly a month ago.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Shtula once prided itself on its view.That's Lebanon beyond the wall.

Now that proximity is its greatest threat.

LT. COL. DOTAN: We have five minutes.

After five minutes, we can be shot.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Hezbollah videos show what it describes as Iranian-made munitions hitting Shtula's homes.

LT. COL. DOTAN: The missile hit over here.

See, this is the first impact.

Come to this side.

And you can see it going through one wall, and then a second wall over there.

You see the hole?

That's from the missile.

The clock stopped at 5:15.

NICK SCHIFRIN: A clock frozen in time.

Back on October the 8th, the family who lived here was given only minutes to flee, not enough time to pick up their laundry, still on the line.

LT. COL. DOTAN: This is a laundry room of a civilian family that, because we evacuated them, weren't here.

If they were here, they would get killed.

And you don't get a warning at all.

You duck or you run away.

What we demand is that Hezbollah stops firing at us.

It's unacceptable.

It's like firing from Tijuana on San Diego.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Hezbollah has launched more than 5,000 rockets into Israel, killing more than 10 civilians and 15 soldiers and helping ignite wildfires that burned a record 9,000 acres.

Forests that used to be popular in the summertime for thousands of tourists are now silent and scorched.

Sergeant Tamir's family has also been evacuated.

SGT.

TAMIR, Israeli Defense Forces (through translator): Right now, we're in a war.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Since October, Israeli airstrikes have killed 350 Hezbollah militants and 80 civilians.

Senior American officials have visited Lebanon and Israel, hoping to calm tensions with a diplomatic agreement to move Hezbollah back at least to the Litani River, an average of four to six miles north of the border, as the U.N. Security Council long ago demanded.

LT. COL. JORDAN, Israeli Defense Forces: And that's to change two things.

One is to prevent a Hamas-style attack, a surprise ground invasion of Northern Israel, and, number two, to get the homes away from the anti-tank missiles.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Jordan is a reserve lieutenant colonel who grew up in Miami.

He and senior Israeli officials say ground operations in Southern Gaza are beginning to end, allowing the military to reinforce the north.

Israel is also expanding enlistment.

LT. COL. JORDAN: The less troops that are fighting in Gaza, the more heading up towards the north.

The IDF Northern Command is ready for the next mission up north.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And now Israel is issuing an explicit threat that U.S. diplomats have said cannot be restrained.

LT. COL. JORDAN: The firepower that the IDF will use in the next Lebanese war is be exponentially greater than what's happened down south against Hamas in Gaza, exponentially.

They need to understand that the pictures that they see in Gaza is going to be a preview of a feature film that's going to happen in Lebanon.

Lebanon will not be recognized if we go in.

They will go back to the Stone Age.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The threat is mutual.

On Friday, Iran's UN mission tweeted: "Should Israel embark on full-scale military aggression, an obliterating war will ensue."

Wherever you turn in the north feels like war footing.

Israel tries to block Hezbollah's guided missiles by jamming GPS, including ours.

MAN: The GPS doesn't work because the military.

Google Maps thinks we're in Lebanon at the moment.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Israel has evacuated all residents within 2.5 miles from the border.

Just outside the evacuation zone, 2.7 miles from Lebanon, is Elkosh, home to 17-year-old Stav Shmuel and her grandparents.

Elkosh's school closed, and 90 percent of her friends live even closer to the border and had to evacuate.

STAV SHMUEL, Elkosh, Israel, Resident: I went crazy, like, the first few months.

I was very, very out of place, and I couldn't decide on what to do.

And my brain was, like, really disorganized.

So it was a very difficult time in the first two months.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Last month, she graduated high school, and her classmates sang a song of lament about the close of one chapter.

The next one for nearly all of them is the military.

STAV SHMUEL: If I get accepted, I will go to university and study law like a regular person.

And then I will enlist as a lawyer to the army.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Elkosh only has a population of about 275.

But one of its residents is now infamous, Shlomi Ziv, taken hostage on October the 7th and rescued last month in a daytime raid that also killed more than 200 Palestinians.

Last week, he and his daughter returned home to a hero's welcome.

But without a cease-fire in Gaza, homecomings for the rescued or the displaced will remain scarce.

QUESTION: Do you see an end in sight?

STAV SHMUEL: No, not right now.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And so Israel is preparing for war on a border that remains hot and tense.

For the PBS "News Hour," I'm Nick Schifrin.

AMNA NAWAZ: A new directive from Oklahoma's top education official requires all public schools to teach the Bible and the Ten Commandments starting in the fall.

Stephanie Sy has the details.

STEPHANIE SY: Amna, just weeks after Louisiana law mandated the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, Oklahoma is now requiring the Bible's inclusion in lesson plans, not only in studying history or comparative religions, but -- quote -- "ensuring our students grasp the core values and historical context of our country."

For more, we're joined by the author of this new directive, Oklahoma's state superintendent of public education, Ryan Walters.

Superintendent Walters, welcome to the "News Hour."

Let's start with this new directive.

Your memorandum says -- quote -- "Effective immediately, all Oklahoma schools are required to incorporate the Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments, as an instructional support."

It also says: "Immediate and strict compliance is expected."

Sir, what does compliance mean?

Because that's wide open for interpretation.

It could mean referencing how Shakespeare employs Scripture in his plays, or it could mean memorizing Bible verses.

Which is it, and are teachers going to be able to decide for themselves?

RYAN WALTERS, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction: Well, thanks for the question there.

We have issued this guidance, and we are issuing additional guidance to classroom on specificity in the upcoming weeks.

So we have standards that are in place that talk about that our teachers are to teach the role religion played in the classroom.

We have since seen that they are not doing that.

They are not talking about in their classroom the role that the Bible played in American history.

So we will be offering additional guidance to districts that they will have to comply with, which is to ensure the teaching of our standards and the role the Bible played in American history, dating back pre-Constitution, whether it's Mayflower Compact, the pilgrims, all the way up through Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights movement, where he repeatedly quotes the Bible as a directive for what he's trying to do there.

STEPHANIE SY: Your critics charged that this is a clear violation not only of parental rights, but of the Constitution.

Here's what Rachel Laser with Americans United for Separation of Church and State had to say.

RACHEL LASER, President and CEO, Americans United for Separation of Church and State: It's not about teaching religion as an inspiration for literature at times or art, which is -- and that's all permissible - - or teaching comparative religion.

This is about claiming the Christian nationalist myth that America is a Christian country.

And this is also about preaching, and not teaching, because when Ryan Walters announced the policy, he made clear that he was requiring teachers to have the Bible in every classroom and -- quote -- "to teach from it."

That's not education.

That's indoctrination.

And it's unconstitutional.

STEPHANIE SY: Superintendent Walters, the Bible is not banned in any schools.

It's allowed to be taught already in Oklahoma schools.

And yet your own Constitution says the schools should be open to all children and free from sectarian control.

Given the Oklahoma Supreme Court's recent decision against publicly funding a religious charter school, do you think this policy will remain, or are you just making a political point?

RYAN WALTERS: Yes, the left, they can be offended, they can be mad, they can be upset, but what they can't do is they can't rewrite history.

We are going to show the countless citations.

The Bible was cited more than any other document in the 1600s, 1700s' political writings.

It is clearly a momentous historical source.

We will bring it back to our schools.

And, look, we will continue to battle.

We feel very confident in President Trump's nominees to the U.S. that, if we can -- if we get sued and we get challenged, we will be victorious, because the Supreme Court justices he appointed actually are originalists that look at the Constitution and not what some left-wing professor said about the Constitution.

So we feel very confident in it moving forward and winning every legal case.

STEPHANIE SY: For the record, the Constitution itself does not mention God or Jesus or Christian in its text.

But going back to your memo, you also say immediate and strict compliance.

Immediate and strict compliance is expected.

What do you mean immediate?

Is every teacher expected to understand how to teach what trained theologians like Dr. King spent their lives trying to interpret?

Are you going to have Bible classes for teachers?

And what if they don't comply?

What happens?

RYAN WALTERS: Well, first, you made an absurd assumption there, which is the Declaration of Independence and our rights come from our creator.

That was a distinct change in a world history there.

And, also, the separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

So you all continue to cite people who say that obviously don't know what they're talking about.

And what we're going to continue to do is we're going to make sure our kids know history.

They're going to see citations.

They're going to see quotations.

They're going to see directly from individuals who said the Bible impacted their decision-making.

That is in our standards.

If teachers don't want to teach it, they are compelled to teach it, or they can find another job.

You don't get to pick and choose what standards you teach, the same way, if a teacher came in and said, I don't want to teach the civil rights movement.

Well, it's in our standards, so you're going to have to find another job.

We will make sure that our kids in Oklahoma understand American history.

We will not be censored by left-wing extremists who don't want the Bible mentioned in our classroom.

And that's what we will continue to do here.

STEPHANIE SY: What is the real goal here?

When you talk about core values, what do you mean?

Because critics believe measures like this lead to more division and hate.

And, in schools, that could mean bullying or ostracizing certain students.

RYAN WALTERS: Yes, that's an absurd assumption.

We have been very clear what our goal was here.

It's for our kids understand American history.

The left has been at war with the Bible in schools.

They have removed the Bible from schools.

It is academically, incredibly -- it is -- honestly, it is incredible to have an academic course on U.S. history and not include the Bible's influence in American history.

So we will continue to fix that, so that our kids understand this country, understand why the founders designed it in the way that they did and understand the role that the Bible played in American history.

And, frankly, it's the number one bestselling book in American history.

If that doesn't meet a test to be in a classroom for its literary value or its historical relevance, I don't know what book would meet that criteria.

STEPHANIE SY: That is the superintendent of public education in Oklahoma, Ryan Walters.

Mr. Walters, thanks for joining the "News Hour."

AMNA NAWAZ: Reality TV dominates television today.

In fact, it's estimated that almost 80 percent of adult TV viewers watch reality TV shows.

But how did we get here?

I spoke with the author of a new book which traces the rise of reality television and its broader impact on society as part of our arts and culture series, Canvas.

MAN: This is a bowling ball and this is a cake.

AMNA NAWAZ: From elaborate cake decoration, to the antics of a luxury yacht crew in the Mediterranean, so-called reality television now captures and contrives a seemingly endless array of subjects.

While it's often derided by critics and even fans as trivial, its cultural influence is undeniable.

WOMAN: And would you stop taking pictures of yourself?

Your sister's going to jail.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's launched multibillion-dollar dynasties, remade cable TV networks... DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. Presidential Candidate: You're fired.

AMNA NAWAZ: ... and arguably reshaped American politics.

A new book by "New Yorker" staff writer and Pulitzer Prize winner Emily Nussbaum, "Cue the Sun!

: The Invention of Reality TV," traces the history of this now-ubiquitous genre.

I recently sat down with Nussbaum and asked her why she started thinking about writing this book 20 years ago.

EMILY NUSSBAUM, Author, "Cue the Sun!

: The Invention of Reality TV": It was because I was obsessed with watching the first season of "Big Brother" in the United States on video streaming, which was very new at that time.

I had also been very into "The Real World" and I was fascinated by what seemed like an entirely new genre that was bubbling up, like a new industry.

So I wanted to write a nonfiction book about this kind of growth of a new Hollywood.

So when I got to it years later, I started looking into the history of the genre, and I assumed, frankly, the way that I had at the time that it was a modern phenomenon.

And only once I started doing research did I realize that there was a real back history to reality television, and that's where this book came from.

It's an origin story.

AMNA NAWAZ: You trace these very deep roots that I did not know about in American media.

We go all the way back to the radio shows of the 1920s and '30s, game shows and prank shows with everyday people.

When the format really moved from radio to TV though, how did that change the dynamics?

What did that do?

EMILY NUSSBAUM: In the late '40s, there had been this boom of shows that were called the audience participation shows.

And they created the same kind of moral backlash that reality TV did at the turn of the century.

Like, there was outrage about the tackiness and narcissism of this.

So there was a show that people are probably familiar with that's "Candid Camera."

That started as a radio show.

And on the radio, when you prank somebody, they have relative anonymity.

If you prank somebody on television, you can see them look humiliated, surprised, angry, sad, overwhelmed, giggle.

It's like a much more intense experience.

So I would say the biggest change was that it was a change for what these kinds of shows meant to the audience and their own feeling of being riveted by the emotions, but also sometimes guilty and a little -- as though they were colluding with the prank that was happening.

AMNA NAWAZ: So I was fascinated to learn from your book that it was PBS that created America's first reality TV family, part of a documentary series by our member station in New York WNET, basically documented the lives of the Loud family in Santa Barbara, California, for seven months for a series called "An American Family" back in 1973.

This is a moment between the mom, Pat, and one of her sons, Lance, walking around New York where he lives.

LANCE LOUD, Son: Everybody I could imagine, I sit apart from.

PAT LOUD, Mother: Yes?

LANCE LOUD: Like, when I was 13, I dyed my hair silver.

And I just -- and just think, it was energy that was being wasted, because, I don't know, it was like being a little mouse and trapped in a box.

AMNA NAWAZ: Why were moments like that so revolutionary for the format?

EMILY NUSSBAUM: That episode, which is about Pat's relationship with Lance, who's gay, it's about their intimate relationship and about her love for him and her fears for him.

And the reason this was so startling to people was partially because of Lance.

Like, there had never been a visibly openly gay man on television.

And this was like a scandal for people.

It was made as a documentary, but, when it came out, it was received as reality television, which is to say, people were scandalized by seeing the inside of this family.

And during the course of it, Pat, who's in that clip, asked her husband for a divorce.

So, her divorce and Lance's homosexuality became the subject of a three million think pieces.

It turned, as you were saying, the Louds themselves into really the first reality stars.

AMNA NAWAZ: You write in great detail specifically about the CBS show "Survivor," in which contestants basically battle to be the last person standing in some remote situation.

And this moment, in the very first season finale, ended up being watched by more than 57 million people.

Take a quick look.

JEFF PROBST, Host, "Survivor": The winner of the first "Survivor" competition is Rich.

Congratulations, Rich.

AMNA NAWAZ: You say "Survivor" supercharged reality TV.

How?

EMILY NUSSBAUM: I think it happened for a lot of different reasons, but one of them was electrical moments like that finale.

When I wrote this book, I interviewed more than 300 people.

One of my favorite interviews was with Ramona, who was a member of that cast.

And she left the show relatively early, but she stuck around on the island, so she was with the camera people when she was watching it.

And she had this description where she was just describing everybody's inner thoughts as essentially like who would think this could ever happen that the villainous guy in the show ends up winning?

It established a format that had never been done before that wove together soap operas, game shows, prank shows in a kind of lasting and unbeatable format.

There was just a vast array of reality shows that resulted in the aftermath, but also the creation of the industry.

AMNA NAWAZ: I think it's fair to say there's an understanding among audiences that what they're watching isn't just reality, that there's a lot of producing and manipulation, but what about the folks who take part in this?

Like, what is the trade-off for them for agreeing to have their lives filmed in this way?

EMILY NUSSBAUM: It's complex, because, for both the cast and the crew members, I would say that there's a range of experiences, including some extremely traumatic experiences of being misrepresented and traumatized.

But I don't want to simplify it and say it's only one thing.

On a regular scripted show, people write the show and people act the show and then you watch the show.

But on a reality show, it's essentially this invisible collaboration between crew members, which includes the field producers for the show and the editors for the show, and cast members.

And so when you see the results, you see it as a sort of simulacrum of real life, but what it really is the residue of this workplace relationship.

AMNA NAWAZ: You do end the book with "The Apprentice"... EMILY NUSSBAUM: Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: ... the NBC show launched in 2004 and made Donald Trump a TV star and a household name.

Why end there?

EMILY NUSSBAUM: For me, "The Apprentice" did mark the end of something, which was it had this incredibly significant impact.

It rebranded Donald Trump.

It made him president.

So it's the point at which the genre proved, for better or worse, it would affect everything from people's personal relationships to the government.

But the other thing is, actually, there are a lot of negative things to say about "The Apprentice," but it's a beautifully made season of TV, and it was made by skilled, polished professionals, because at that point it was an industry.

Like, people knew what they were doing.

It wasn't anymore like the spaghetti-on-the-wall period for reality TV where everybody was making it up for scratch.

And it was one of the most successful marketing schemes of all time.

They took an extremely rotten product and polished him up and sold him to the world.

AMNA NAWAZ: The book is "Cue the Sun!

: The Invention of Reality TV."

The author is Emily Nussbaum.

Emily, thank you so much for being here.

EMILY NUSSBAUM: Thank you so much for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: Remember, there's a lot more online, including a breakdown of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling and what's next for former President Trump.

That's at PBS.org/NewsHour.

And join us again here tomorrow night for a look at how abortion restrictions disproportionately impact Black women.

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.