AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: A federal grand jury indicts former President Donald Trump in a case involving the insurrection on January 6 and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

AMNA NAWAZ: National Security Council spokesman John Kirby discusses White House efforts to change military protocols for investigating sexual assault.

GEOFF BENNETT: And why the debate over opioid settlement money meant to curb addiction has sparked a legal battle in Ohio.

ANERI PATTANI, KFF Health News: It's such a patchwork.

Every state is doing things differently, and there are very few requirements for states to publicly report how they use this money.

(BREAK) AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

An historic day in Washington.

A federal grand jury has indicted former President Donald Trump on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding.

GEOFF BENNETT: It comes after a more-than-nine-month investigation by special counsel Jack Smith of Mr. Trump's involvement in the January 6 insurrection and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

AMNA NAWAZ: This is the third time Mr. Trump has been indicted this year.

He was first charged in March in a New York court with 34 counts related to hush money payments made during the 2016 campaign.

GEOFF BENNETT: His first federal indictment then came in June as part of the special counsel's probe.

A Florida grand jury charged him with 37 felonies related to classified material found in his home.

AMNA NAWAZ: Our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, has been following all of this and joins us here.

Laura, good to see you.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Good to be here.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, as we mentioned, Jack Smith has been following two lines of investigation, this January 6 probe being one of them.

Just remind us how we arrived at this moment in this particular probe.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: So, in November of last year was when the special counsel, Jack Smith, was named by Attorney General Merrick Garland as being the one who would oversee these two probes, the one into the classified documents, the mishandling of those at Mar-a-Lago, and this, the investigation into the former president's efforts to subvert the 2020 election, to overturn the 2020 election, what he potentially did to obstruct proceedings in Congress, and all of the potential conspirators that he worked with to do that.

So, since then, the special counsel has interviewed - - his team has interviewed a number of people that could potentially have information about what exactly the president did, what he knew, what he tried to exert -- how he tried to exert his influence.

Some of those people are his own vice president, Mike Pence, who we know testified to the grand jury.

We also know that Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, testified.

And we also know that recent reports show that Rudy Giuliani, a former attorney to the president, who was someone that we all heard repeatedly lie about the 2020 election, spoke for eight hours to federal investigators about this probe.

And he's not named in this indictment, as far as we can tell so far.

It's a pretty thick indictment.

But he is someone that could very well end up facing charges, be it from the Justice Department or be it from Fulton County's district attorney, which is another potential where - - venue where criminal charges are going to come.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yes, expected by the end of this month, potentially.

Laura, the former president has been posting real-time reaction to this case.

In fact, we learned that he received a target letter because he was the one who posted it on his TRUTH Social platform.

What he's saying this evening about all this?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Yes, it was a lengthy statement, Geoff, and it was from his campaign.

So -- though I want to go to this one first from his campaign, because it's just striking the language that his campaign used in response to this news of the indictment.

His campaign said that -- quote -- "The lawlessness of these persecutions of President Trump and his supporters is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the former Soviet Union and other authoritarian dictatorial regimes."

It's a stunning statement, especially with - - we have all spoken to historians about the historic nature of these investigations, the fact that a former president is being investigated, and I think all the historians that we have spoken to would say that that's not an accurate statement and would say that, in fact, the fact that the U.S. is investigating, that the U.S.' justice system is looking into this is a sign that we are not living in a Nazi or authoritarian regime.

But the president also on TRUTH Social, as you mentioned, Geoff, did post not too long ago, the former President Trump posted, and he compared this entire investigation -- he said that Jack Smith is trying to interfere in the 2024 election cycle.

Sounds familiar?

Because that is exactly what the former president has been running on in his campaign since 2020.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura Barron-Lopez is going to stay with us.

I want to bring in a couple of guests who have also been following this breaking news.

Mary McCord joins us now.

She's director of Georgetown University's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

Also with us is Jessica Roth.

She's a former federal prosecutor.

Welcome to you both.

Thanks for being with us.

Jessica.

I know you have both been making your way through this indictment, 45 pages, as we just received a short time ago.

Let me just ask, what stands out to you about what you have been able to review so far?

JESSICA ROTH, Former Federal Prosecutor: Well, it is the sweeping indictment that we were anticipating, alleging a broad scheme to subvert the election and to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power.

I am still making my way through it.

But the allegations are shocking, even though they were expected.

This really was an attempted coup.

And so it is a very somber day in our country to be reading this narrative account about what the former president attempted to do.

GEOFF BENNETT: Mary McCord, the indictment accuses the former president of three conspiracies, one, defrauding the U.S., two, obstructing an official government proceeding, and then, thirdly, depriving people of civil rights provided by federal law or the Constitution.

If you could, walk us through those three charges, and help us understand how the special counsel would have arrived at them.

MARY MCCORD, Former Justice Department Official: Sure, all three are charged as conspiracies.

Now, there is also a separate direct charge of obstructing an official proceeding, the congressional proceeding on January 6.

But the three conspiracies would be the result of Jack Smith spending many, many months, as we just discussed, investigating the full scope of the scheme.

And that scheme had multiple prongs.

And, frankly, those multiple prongs are very similar to what we learned from the House Select Committee in its many hearings last summer and its final report.

This includes -- involved the scheme to propound false theories that the election had been stolen, to organize fraudulent slates of electors in the swing states to meet on the date that the Electoral College met and to send the their ballots into the vice president to be counted, to pressure the Justice Department, to pressure state legislators to find the votes to declare Trump the winner, to pressure Vice President Pence to reject the ballots from the swing states for Joe Biden and instead either accept the ballots for Trump or send these cases -- these electoral ballots back to the states to decide.

And then, finally, to sit -- sit without taking action during the many hours of the violent attack on the Capitol.

So, this is a -- the first count, this effort to defraud the United States in its functions, it is the function of the United States government to ensure the peaceful transition of power.

It's constitutionally required that both houses of Congress will meet to count the Electoral College ballots.

So, this entire scheme undermined that.

The conspiracy to obstruct the official proceeding is specifically targeted to that proceeding on January 6.

It's the same charge that many of the violent attack -- attackers have been charged with.

But, here, we're talking about the people doing the white-collar work to set up the obstruction of that counting of the Electoral College votes.

And, remember, it was obstructed for at least six full hours.

And then the last count, Section 241 of the Title 18 of the U.S. Code is about a conspiracy not to count the ballots of the voters in this country by, you may recall, among other things, immediately after the Election Day, Donald Trump said, stop the counting, right?

And that whole entire conspiracy to try to not count those ballots, and thereby deprive people of their rights to vote and have their votes counted, that is that basis for that third conspiracy.

AMNA NAWAZ: I just want to note for our viewers following along at home we do expect a statement very shortly from the special counsel Jack Smith.

We will join that live in progress as it unfolds.

You see another official at the podium at this moment.

Our guests will continue to stay with us as well.

Mary McCord, if you can, very briefly -- and we will try to join this live -- Jessica mentioned what this day means in the history of the United States.

Have you had a moment to reflect on that briefly, how to read this kind of indictment at this moment?

MARY MCCORD: Well, I'm still trying to read the indictment.

But I have certainly skimmed through it.

And we have been anticipating this for some time.

I mean, I think this is a situation where accountability for the former president is so critical.

It's critical to our democracy.

It's critical to the rule of law.

And it's critical in the eyes of the world, not just Americans, because other democracies have faltered when they cannot actually have a peaceful transition of power.

They have faltered when people in their -- in those countries are willing to commit violence against the government, sometimes under -- at the direction of leaders who seek to stay in power, very much like the former President Donald Trump.

And so the fact that we can have accountability here -- and this is just the beginning, right?

We are at the beginning of the charges.

We have a whole process to go through to give Mr. Trump his due process and to get to trial.

GEOFF BENNETT: But, Jessica Roth, in about 30 seconds or so, help us understand the burden of proof the special counsel had to meet in order for this federal grand jury to hand up an indictment.

And apologies in advance if I have to cut you off.

JESSICA ROTH: The burden of proof is probable cause.

That is the standard at the grand jury stage.

It is far lower than this -- the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard that he would have to satisfy to convict Mr. Trump at trial.

GEOFF BENNETT: And pull back the curtain a bit more.

Help us understand what was happening, so far as you can tell us based on your vast experience, inside that room.

I mean, what was the -- what sort of quorum did they need?

And what was the -- what was the ultimate vote that they would need in order for the grand jury to decide that, yes, an indictment was warranted?

JESSICA ROTH: So, there are 23 members of the grand jury.

You need 12 of them, so a simple majority, to vote that they think that there is probable cause to indict the president for these crimes.

So, as I said, that is a much lower standard than the standard that it has to be met eventually at trial.

What's been happening, I believe, over the last couple of days of presentation... GEOFF BENNETT: And, Jessica, if I may, let's go straight away now to the special counsel, Jack Smith.

JACK SMITH, Special Counsel: Good evening.

Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding.

The indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the District of Columbia.

And it sets forth the crimes charged in detail.

I encourage everyone to read it in full.

The attack on our nation's Capitol on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.

As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies, lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government, the nation's process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election.

The men and women of law enforcement who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6 are heroes.

There are patriots and they are the very best of us.

They did not just defend a building or the people sheltering in it.

They put their lives on the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people.

They defended the very institutions and principles that define the United States.

Since the attack on our Capitol, the Department of Justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day.

This case is brought consistent with that commitment.

And our investigation of other individuals continues.

In this case, my office will seek a speedy trial, so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens.

In the meantime, I must emphasize that the indictment is only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I would like to thank the members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who are working on this investigation with my office, as well as the many career prosecutors and law enforcement agents from around the country who have worked on previous January 6 investigations.

These women and men are public servants of the very highest order, and it is a privilege to work alongside them.

Thank you.

QUESTION: Why didn't you charge any of the other co-conspirators, Mr. Smith?

GEOFF BENNETT: That was special counsel Jack Smith.

And he's not responding to shattered questions there in the room.

Jessica Roth, I cut you off -- apologies again - - as we went to listen to what the special counsel had to say.

Fill me in.

How does that -- how does all of that strike you?

JESSICA ROTH: Well, I anticipated that we would be hearing from him after the indictment was unsealed.

That's consistent with the practice in Florida, when that indictment was unsealed, that we heard very brief remarks from the special counsel.

So, again, here, after the indictment was unsealed, we heard very brief remarks, which I thought were appropriate, really laying out the basic allegations here and how significant they are, and how important, essentially, it was to bring these charges to defend our democracy.

And, again, it's appropriate that he didn't take questions.

But I thought -- I think it's important that the American people hear from the special counsel to acknowledge these charges and to speak about their significance, and then also to remind people that these are allegations in an indictment that are supported by probable cause, the low standard you and I were speaking about a moment ago, as determined by the grand jury, but that the defendant, this defendant, like all others, is entitled to the presumption of innocence, until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

I'm also struck by his emphasis on the fact that the government would seek a speedy trial here, as it has with respect to the other charges brought by the special counsel.

That will certainly be a challenge given the crowded calendar that Mr. Trump is facing in all of his other cases.

But I expect we will be hearing more in coming days about the scheduling of this matter.

And, on that point, I am struck, in reading the indictment, that it is only Mr. Trump, who is named here, that, even though there are clearly other co-conspirators who the government believes it has evidence to charge, they are not including that in this initial indictment, most likely in an effort to keep things streamlined, to make the chances of a trial before the general election more possible.

AMNA NAWAZ: Mary McCord, talk to us a little bit more about the potential timeline ahead.

Jack Smith did repeat that phrase here, saying he'd like to seek a speedy trial.

He also said that when unsealing the previous indictment related to classified documents against former President Trump.

I need not point out to you that we are facing an election year ahead.

Is there -- is there any way this trial unfolds before that election?

MARY MCCORD: I do think there's a way.

And I'd agree with Jennifer that I think the reason that this first indictment just names Donald Trump is in an effort to make sure that you're not dealing with multiple co-defendants, and there are all their attorneys and all of their motions.

I can make, I think, a pretty well-educated guess about some -- who some of those other co-conspirators are.

And Jack Smith did make clear that the government is still continuing to investigate.

So I suspect we may see indictments coming down the pike that involve those co-conspirators.

But, for right now, I think a couple of things are possible.

Alvin Bragg, the district attorney in Manhattan, did state over the weekend that if he needed his trial date to yield to a federal trial, he was willing to agree to that.

So, that could open up some space there in the spring before the Mar-a-Lago trial that is scheduled in May.

I believe Mr. Bragg's case was scheduled for trial in March.

The Mar-a-Lago case is scheduled in May.

It's also possible that the Mar-a-Lago case will get bumped even later because of the addition of three new counts and a new defendant in that case last week with a superseding indictment.

So, I think we also have the potential, of course, of a Georgia indictment.

But I do think this one is one that's going to be very much prioritized in the timing.

And I do think it is possible to get to trial before the election, and preferably even before the conventions.

GEOFF BENNETT: Our White House correspondent, Laura Barron-Lopez, is still with us.

Laura, picking up on the point that Mary made about this investigation continuing, the special counsel investigation, even in light of these two indictments, help us understand, based on your reporting, where could this investigation go?

Could the special counsel -- is the special counsel coordinating with prosecutors in Arizona and Michigan, where we know there are active investigations into the fake electors scheme?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Well, as far as we know, there haven't necessarily -- there hasn't necessarily been coordination between the special counsel and the investigation in Georgia's Fulton County.

But we do know that that one could be coming very soon.

And, also, what was striking to me, to this point, exactly, Geoff, that the special counsel said, was, the investigations of other individuals continue.

And when you're looking at this indictment, there's Co-Conspirator 1, an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the defendant's 2020 reelection campaign attorneys would not pursue.

There's also one about an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit false electors.

That sounds a little bit like John Eastman, who was a conservative attorney that was advising the president throughout this entire period, and was actually talking to state legislatures about submitting false electors, slates of false electors.

And I'm also thinking about Sidney Powell, another attorney that was really working in the states to try to overturn different elections, as well as, again, Rudy Giuliani, who I mentioned earlier, because we do know that he could either be a target in the DOJ investigation, as well as a target of Georgia's Fulton County investigation.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura, we heard the special counsel also say this was a conspiracy fueled by lies, right?

That is the election lie that Mr. Trump believed he actually won, or claimed to say he actually won the 2020 election.

And it strikes me -- you're covering the politics of all this -- that continues to hold, that lie, especially among many of Mr. Trump's supporters.

Where do you think and how do you think this latest indictment now becomes a part of the narrative for his election campaign?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: I think that every time we have seen -- well, the data is there.

Every time we have seen the president be indicted, his base rallies around him, Republican voters rally around him, his poll numbers go up.

He's only increased.

Now he's leading by some almost 58 percent among Republicans in the primary electorate.

He's leading Ron DeSantis by double digits.

And so this is something that he's used to his advantage when he's running right now for a second term in office.

And it's also basically what his entire reelection campaign is about.

It is about him being prosecuted, persecuted.

It is about him saying that they're coming after me also means that they're coming after you, and just using it in every single stump speech as he tries to argue that the DOJ is being weaponized.

AMNA NAWAZ: White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez on a historic day joining us here in studio.

Also, thank you to Mary McCord, director of Georgetown University's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, and to Jessica Roth, former federal prosecutor.

Thank you to both.

GEOFF BENNETT: In the day's other headlines: There's fresh evidence that the U.S. job market is slowly returning to pre-pandemic levels.

The Labor Department reports that job openings in June slipped to 9.6 million, the lowest in two years.

And the number of people who quit their jobs in June also dropped.

That's what the Federal Reserve has been watching for as it tries to cool inflation.

Dozens of congressional Democrats are petitioning to end expedited screening of asylum seekers in Border Patrol custody; 13 senators and 53 House members said today that asylum candidates are not getting access to legal counsel, as the Biden administration said they would.

In a letter, the lawmakers said -- quote -- "Affording people fair adjudication is particularly key for individuals fleeing life-threatening harm or torture."

France, Italy and Spain moved today to start evacuating their citizens from Niger after last week's military coup.

Hundreds of European nationals lined up outside the capital's main airport and waited for hours.

U.S. officials said they're not yet planning to evacuate Americans.

Meantime, the prime minister in Niger's ousted government warned the country's military that Islamist rebels now have an opening.

OUHOUMOUDOU MAHAMADOU, Prime Minister of Niger (through translator): It's a situation that could encourage jihadists, because, if the armed forces are preoccupied with issues other than ensuring the country's security, obviously, you can understand that this will allow the jihadists to be able to make advances on the ground.

GEOFF BENNETT: The prime minister called for outside powers to overthrow the military regime.

But neighboring Burkina Faso and Mali joined Guinea in declaring their support for the coup.

They rejected any outside attempt to intervene.

North Korea has responded to inquiries about Travis King, the U.S. soldier who had been facing military discipline when he escaped into North Korea last month.

A Pentagon spokesman says Pyongyang communicated with the U.N. Command, but he offered no details.

King was in civilian clothes when he joined a tour group, then dashed across the demilitarized zone.

He hasn't been seen since.

In the Russia-Ukraine war, a drone attack - - a drone attacked a skyscraper in Central Moscow for the second time in about 48 hours.

The building houses Russian government ministries and suffered damage to its glass facade.

Ukraine would not confirm or deny involvement, but some in Moscow said it's time to end the fighting.

ELDAR, Moscow Resident (through translator): The situation is like with this.

We attack them.

They attack us.

And it's obvious that they succeed somewhere and we succeed somewhere.

I'm for a peaceful settlement, so that this conflict moves to some negotiation stage.

It's necessary to look for points of settlement, because, so far, there has been only escalation for a long time.

GEOFF BENNETT: In Ukraine, Russian attack drones hit Kharkiv overnight, partially destroying an empty college dormitory.

Russian forces also shelled the port city of Kherson, damaging a medical facility and killing a doctor.

Back in this country, authorities in Michigan have accused two prominent supporters of former President Donald Trump of accessing and tampering with voting machines after the 2020 election.

One is a lawyer who ran unsuccessfully for state's attorney general last year.

The two men were arraigned today on criminal charges.

New Jersey was shaken today by the sudden death of Democratic Lieutenant Governor Sheila Oliver.

She'd been hospitalized yesterday with an undisclosed ailment.

In 2017, Oliver became the first Black woman elected to statewide office as Governor Phil Murphy's running mate.

They were reelected in 2021.

Oliver had been serving as acting governor this week while Murphy was out of town.

She was 71 years old.

Descendants of Henrietta Lacks have reached a settlement involving decades of medical research using her cells without compensation.

The family's lawyer announced the settlement today with Thermo Fisher Scientific.

He gave no details.

Doctors took tissue from Lacks' cervical cancer back in 1951.

It was the first human cell line to be cloned and aided countless innovations.

Her story became the basis for a book and a movie.

On Wall Street, the ongoing rally paused after a mixed set of earnings reports.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 71 points to close at 35630, but the Nasdaq fell 62 points.

The S&P 500 lost 12.

And at the Women's World Cup, the U.S. is moving on to the round of 16, but just barely.

The Americans played to a scoreless draw with Portugal today in a game the defending champions had been expected to win.

It's not yet certain which team the U.S. women will play next.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": why the debate over opioid settlement money meant to curb addiction has sparked a legal battle in Ohio; and the head of the World Food Program on how the end of the Ukraine grain deal increases the risk of starvation.

Last night on this program, we heard from two attorneys with expertise in the military justice system about new changes the Biden administration has made to how the Department of Defense deals with sexual abuse and harassment in the ranks.

Tonight, we hear from the White House in response.

Here again is Laura Barron-Lopez.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: An executive order signed by President Biden last week makes the largest changes to the military justice system since its creation in the 1950s.

It transfers authority over certain offenses from commanders to a new team of independent prosecutors called the Special Trial Counsel.

Those prosecutors, not commanders, will now decide whether to bring charges in cases of sexual assault, rape, murder, and other offenses.

Some military legal experts "NewsHour" spoke to have called the changes a movement in the right direction, but see room for improvement.

To discuss the new action by the president, we're joined by retired Navy Admiral John Kirby, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

Admiral Kirby, thank you so much for joining us.

You have called this new executive order, these changes, a monumental step.

Why is that?

JOHN KIRBY, NSC Coordinator For Strategic Communications: Well, it's historic, quite frankly, Laura.

I mean, when you think about the most significant change since the Uniform Code of Military Justice was put in place in 1950.

And to take a whole set of covered crimes - - you mentioned a few of them, sexual assault, rape, murder, as well as others -- and remove them from the commanding officer, from the chain of command, and put them under Special Trial Counsel, that has just never been done before.

So it is a monumental step.

It's historic, and we certainly believe that it will help us deal better with these sorts of crimes to properly -- more properly investigate them, more properly prosecute them, and, just as critically, in the case of sexual assault specifically, help restore some confidence in the judicial system by members of the military, particularly women service members.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: We spoke to a number of former military lawyers who pointed to three areas that they found concerning in the language of the executive order in the annexes that they say still leave some authority under commanders.

The executive order states that commanders will select the jury pool and provide that to the judge, which is then randomly selected.

And it also has specific language on pretrial confinement authority.

It states: "Who may direct release from confinement?

Any commander of a confinee may direct release from pretrial confinement."

So that language seems to still leave some authority with commanders.

What's your response to that?

JOHN KIRBY: So let me take each in turn, if I might.

On the jury selection, it is written into laws by statute that a commander selects the members of a court -- of a court-martial, a panel, and that can't be solved -- that can't be solved by an executive order, because it's law.

So, there would have to be legislation to change that.

On how the process will work, commanders will certainly have the ability to help provide context on the availability of members to serve.

But, by the randomization that has been added into this, they don't they won't get veto authority.

They won't get to -- they won't get to preselect members in that regard, because of this randomization factor that's been added into the E.O., which will give the system a lot more flexibility.

And then, on your pretrial confinement question, it's very specifically designed, this E.O., to make it clear that, while, yes, commanders can assign pretrial confinement, they have that authority -- they already had it before that -- and that they will have the ability if, for operational readiness concerns or other concerns, to want to remove a member from pretrial confinement, that the Special Trial Counsel can override that decision by a commanding officer and demand, if there is justification for it, demand that the accused stay in pretrial confinement.

So, the Special Trial Counsel can come in over the top of a commander and demand that an accused stay in pretrial confinement.

Again, they have to be able to justify it in terms of the case, like in terms of maybe the intimidation of witnesses.

But there is an override capability built into this E.O.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: That's interesting, because we didn't see the specific override language.

But is there override language for this other part of the executive order that I want to ask you about?

It's on another potential area where commanders have some authority still, on national security matters.

It says -- quote -- "If a commander believes that the trial would be detrimental to the prosecution of war or harmful to national security, the matter shall be forwarded to the secretary concerned for action."

So they could forward it on to the secretary and essentially potentially halt the trial.

JOHN KIRBY: Right.

I mean, the irony here with this language and why it's fresh language is, it's actually making it more restrictive for commanders.

It's actually making it harder for them to stop a prosecution or an investigation going forward, because now they have to make a formal justification, based on national security needs.

Now, look, we're the United States military.

The military fights wars.

The military defends the country.

So, obviously, we want to hear a commander out if he has national security concerns.

But the bar is pretty high.

And, before, there was no stipulation that, A, he had to claim national security, he or she had to claim national security matters as a reason for involving itself in slowing down or curtailing or stopping an investigation or prosecution, and, B, that now that commander has to go, has to petition the service secretary, the civilian secretary of the Army or Air Force or Navy, in order to make that case.

So, the provision actually, as written, makes it more restrictive and places an additional burden on commanders that wasn't there before.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Admiral, does the president think that more offenses, more criminal should be moved from under the commanders' chain of command over to this new Special Trial Counsel?

I know that there's many more offenses than the ones that we have talked about, including kidnapping, including retaliation, including stalking, that have been moved over to the Special Trial Counsel, but not all of them.

So, do you -- does the president think that, ultimately, Congress should change the law, so, that way, all of the offenses could be moved over to independent prosecutors?

JOHN KIRBY: The president believes it's really important to focus on these covered crimes - - and you mentioned a few others.

And I thank you for that -- because they are so complicated, and because they are often outside the realm of what a normal commander's experience would lend him or her, their ability to investigate and to prosecute.

And we really want to focus on executing to this executive order and implementing that.

And, look, as we go through this process, Laura, if we learn some things -- and we might - - and we might as we execute, implement this - - if we learn some things that cause us to change our minds or to find new amendments or to -- or to look at other articles that might -- that might apply, we're certainly going to stay open-minded to that.

But we really chose a set of covered crimes that truly are difficult for the normal commander to be able to investigate, adjudicate and prosecute, because they're so complex.

And that's what -- that's what we're really going to put our focus on, on these covered crimes for right now.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: And, finally, Admiral, what has the response been like that the White House has heard from sexual assault survivors since the president signed this executive order?

JOHN KIRBY: So we're hearing some very positive feedback from victims and from victims advocates.

And I'm glad you asked that question, because we're focusing right now on the accountability measures.

And that is very important.

And covering these crimes outside the chain of command, we believe, again, is historic and will have a huge effect on our ability to hold properly accountable those who commit these crimes.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Admiral John Kirby of the White House's National Security Council, thank you so much for your time and for answering our questions.

JOHN KIRBY: My pleasure.

Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: The makers and distributors of opioid painkillers have begun to pay out more than $50 billion to state and local governments across the nation.

Last night, we reported on how North Carolina is starting to spend its share of those payments.

Tonight, we traveled to Ohio, a state that has one of the highest overdose death rates in the nation.

But, as special correspondent Cat Wise and producer Mike Fritz report, the money has led to both a legal battle and questions about who's being left out of the process.

It's part of our ongoing series America Addicted.

CAT WISE: Three times a week, Jackie Lewis goes where no mother wants to go, to her son's grave in Jerome, Ohio.

JACKIE LEWIS, Mother: I always believed in him, even on the worst days.

CAT WISE: Shaun Lewis was 34 years old when he passed away last fall from a fentanyl overdose in Jackie's Columbus home.

Today, Jackie has come to bring new pictures, including of Shaun's 7-year-old daughter, Ava, and to clean the grave of a son she says was her best friend.

JACKIE LEWIS: He was always a prankster.

He was always a risk-taker.

He had a very kind, loving heart.

And he was very smart.

He had ambitions when he was young.

He wanted to be a scientist.

CAT WISE: But Jackie says Shaun's childhood wasn't easy.

He struggled with pain from scoliosis and, at 14, he was diagnosed with depression.

JACKIE LEWIS: In middle school, the doctor put him on four different pain medications, which, at the time I didn't know were addictive.

He didn't know.

CAT WISE: A 20-year battle with opioids followed, until October 19 of last year, when Shaun was found unresponsive in his room.

JACKIE LEWIS: And so I got down on my knees and he rolled over, and I heard air come out.

And it was just the last -- the last breath coming out of him.

CAT WISE: Jackie Lewis is now raising her granddaughter, Ava.

She says Ava's mother also died of a likely overdose three years ago.

Jackie's now sharing her family's story these days with anyone who'll listen.

LARRY KIDD, Chair, OneOhio Recovery Foundation: Unfortunately, Shaun died at a very young age of 34.

CAT WISE: That includes the members of this board, known as the OneOhio Recovery Foundation.

About once a month, this panel of state and local government leaders, addiction treatment experts and others gather in Columbus.

Their task?

To distribute 55 percent of Ohio's opioid settlement funds, expected to be about $2 billion over the next 18 years.

The rest will go directly to the state and local governments.

The foundation plans to start getting money out the door next year.

LARRY KIDD: Ohio will have the ability to preserve and deploy the resources to save lives in ways we never have in the past.

CAT WISE: This money comes at a critical moment for Ohio, a state that's losing about 5,000 people a year to drug overdoses.

GOV.

MIKE DEWINE (R-OH): It's torn up families all over the state of Ohio.

We have communities that have been devastated.

CAT WISE: Ohio's Governor Mike DeWine was one of the first in the nation to sue companies that made and distributed opioids.

He pushed for the creation of the OneOhio Recovery Foundation and appointed five of the 29 volunteer members, who represent regions across the state.

He says it was designed as a private nonprofit largely because of what happened to hundreds of billions of dollars won from tobacco settlements during the 1990s.

That money has mostly been used by state legislatures on programs unrelated to the prevention of smoking.

GOV.

MIKE DEWINE: So by setting up a nonprofit with the specific goal to deal with these problems, we are assured that that settlement money is in fact going to go toward this problem.

ANERI PATTANI, KFF Health News: So the council is the board of the foundation.

CAT WISE: Aneri Pattani of KFF Health News has been tracking how states across the country are spending their opioid settlement funds.

ANERI PATTANI: It's such a patchwork.

Every state is doing things differently.

And there are very few requirements for states to publicly report how they use this money.

CAT WISE: Ohio is one of two states, along with West Virginia, that created new private foundations to oversee the bulk of their settlement money.

It's an approach that Pattani says has raised concerns about whether the public will be able to participate in the process.

ANERI PATTANI: In Ohio, when the foundation started meeting and operating, it said: We're a private nonprofit.

We will choose to be public with our meetings and allow people to attend, but we don't have to.

And we don't have to follow public records laws and we don't have to follow open meetings laws, things that government boards do have to do.

DENNIS CAUCHON, President, Harm Reduction Ohio: So now you essentially have government officials spending government money and claiming they can do it all in secret because they are a private foundation.

CAT WISE: For 27 years, Dennis Cauchon was a journalist for USA Today.

Today, he runs the nonprofit Harm Reduction Ohio, a drug policy reform group.

DENNIS CAUCHON: This is drug overdose, intentional drug poisoning.

I track it every day.

CAT WISE: Last year, he says he was denied entry to the board's first meeting.

And when his request for records about how the board was operating went unanswered, he filed a lawsuit, citing language in the board's founding document that reads: "Meetings shall be open and documents shall be public to the same extent they would be if the foundation was a public entity."

DENNIS CAUCHON: They're covered by transparency laws, and they need to follow them.

CAT WISE: In May, Ohio's Supreme Court agreed, ruling unanimously that the foundation was required to follow public records laws and was performing a historically governmental function, the disbursement of public money.

GOV.

MIKE DEWINE: Afternoon, everybody.

CAT WISE: Last month, however, Governor DeWine signed budget legislation that states the foundation is not a state agency, exempting them from public records and open meeting laws going forward.

But DeWine pushes back on the idea the board isn't operating transparently.

GOV.

MIKE DEWINE: Every single meeting that OneOhio has is open to the public.

It's up on the Internet.

Anybody can watch it.

They're accountable.

And everybody can find out how the decisions are being made, but actually how that money is spent.

CAT WISE: But why not treat the foundation as a public entity?

I mean, what would be the harm of that?

GOV.

MIKE DEWINE: Well, because it's not a public entity.

If it is a public entity, you could have, candidly, a future legislature that decided, well, we're going to take this money and spend it on something else.

DENNIS CAUCHON: People who have lost loved one... CAT WISE: While his lawsuit plays out in court, Cauchon says the board is largely missing two crucial perspectives.

DENNIS CAUCHON: There is nobody on that 29-member state board who's lost a loved one to overdose.

That's unacceptable; 21 percent of opioid overdose deaths in Ohio are Black Ohioans.

I think they're adding one other member.

But, until now, only one member of the 29-member board has been a Black Ohioan.

LARRY KIDD: We don't pick our board members.

CAT WISE: Larry Kidd is an Ohio business owner and chair of the foundation.

LARRY KIDD: Regions pick their board members.

That's the majority of the board.

And they're also picked by the governor and the attorney general and the legislature.

So, while the diversity may not reflect the population, we're cognizant of that.

We do the very best we can to make sure that at least their voice is heard.

CAT WISE: Kidd also says several members of the board have been personally impacted by addiction.

LARRY KIDD: Whether they have gone through recovery issues or they have family members that have, it is not necessarily an issue people want to make public.

I personally have had issues within my own family that people aren't familiar with.

And that's one of the reasons I'm so passionate about the cause.

CAT WISE: But some on the front lines of Ohio's opioid crisis have felt left out of the process.

TRISH PERRY, OhioCAN: People who use drugs are not being included at all.

CAT WISE: Trish Perry is a county coordinator for OhioCAN, a nonprofit started by family members of individuals battling addiction.

Every Saturday, they hand out food, clothing, and the overdose-reversal drug Narcan in Newark, Ohio.

TRISH PERRY: Fentanyl testing strips?

CAT WISE: But Perry says her organization has so far encountered stigma and hurdles when applying for funding from opioid settlement money that's earmarked for local governments.

TRISH PERRY: If you don't supply people with clean use supplies and fentanyl testing strips, they die.

And if they die, they never get to be a productive citizen the in the community.

CAT WISE: It's a message Jackie Lewis hopes state leaders are hearing.

JACKIE LEWIS: I have to live every day just trying to figure out how to go on without him.

CAT WISE: She has met twice with members of the OneOhio Recovery Foundation and is pushing for families like hers to be reimbursed for funeral expenses and for kids like granddaughter Ava to also be compensated.

JACKIE LEWIS: Grandparents who were thrust into the role of raising grandchildren now, we don't know how long we will be around for their lives.

But these little children are the victims in this, and they need to have a chance.

CAT WISE: A chance for a different life amid a still-raging epidemic.

For the "PBS NewsHour" I'm Cat Wise in Columbus, Ohio.

AMNA NAWAZ: The world has never been wealthier or more advanced technologically, yet hunger still stalks tens of millions globally; 122 million more people now face hunger than in 2019.

And now nearly 20 percent of the 1.4 billion people across Africa face hunger.

Earlier today, I spoke with the executive director of the U.N.'s World Food Program, Cindy McCain.

She warns that the crisis could worsen without global action.

World Food Program Executive Director Cindy McCain, welcome back to the "NewsHour."

Thank you so much for joining us.

CINDY MCCAIN, Executive Director, World Food Program: Thanks for having me.

Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, you were joining us from Juba in South Sudan.

You have been visiting the border region between Chad and Sudan, where hunger is -- as you have said before, is being driven by both conflict and the climate crisis.

Just give us a sense of what you saw on the ground.

CINDY MCCAIN: Well, South Sudan right now is very lush-looking because it's had so much rain.

But what we're really seeing is a lot of impact from flooding.

And there is climate change for you right there.

So there's various regions that have been hit very hard, some of the dikes were blown out, and some that are not doing so bad.

The problem is that people -- because it's been continuously flooding for so many years, people have had to leave their homes.

And so you see a vast surface from the air, and then there's all these empty farm plots, and everything all along.

So it's disrupted life completely.

And, consequently, there's people that are very -- very much in need of food, and they're very hungry.

AMNA NAWAZ: When you're talking about the scale of need that you yourself have witnessed there, what are we talking about?

CINDY MCCAIN: Oh, it's enormous.

These people are, for the most part, on the brink of starvation.

And, of course, conflict, you add conflict to this, which is part of the refugees coming over the border fleeing conflict in the north, and conflict that has already existed here, it complicates everything.

The people, for most of their lives, many of them have been running from one place to another to escape it.

So there's a lot of people that are either in refugee camps or just on their own out in the bush trying to survive on whatever they can find.

And there just isn't any food AMNA NAWAZ: Your work -- and we think about the World Food Program, and we think about food aid and cash assistance and so on.

You have also been focusing a lot on food resilience.

What does that mean?

What are some examples of that on the ground?

CINDY MCCAIN: When you when you talk about emergency food, that's the people that are coming over the border that have nothing to exist on that are six months in and still have nothing to exist on.

That's emergency.

But that's not the solution.

The solution is resilience, the ability to give people the tools to begin to farm and farm their own land, so that they not only can feed themselves, but they can feed their communities.

And, that way, there's an economic portion to this.

It's the only way we're going to solve the problem of hunger, is resilience and making sure that people can feed themselves.

AMNA NAWAZ: In terms of meeting the emergency need, though, just this past weekend... CINDY MCCAIN: Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: ... an official from the World Food Program said, in at least 38 of the 86 countries that you operate in, you have already had to cut aid or may soon have to cut aid.

In Syria, for example, about 5.5 million people who rely on you for food, you had to cut their rations.

What does that look like day to day on the ground for these folks?

CINDY MCCAIN: Oh, it's heart-wrenching.

I have seen it three or four times just here and then many times in other countries, people being told that you only have three weeks left or you're up on your six-month mark, and we can't supply food anymore.

It's tragic, because they don't have any other place to go.

But we don't have a choice at this point because we don't have enough money.

There are so many -- so many crises going on.

So we're spread very thin.

Literally, here in Sudan, where we are $400 million short to be able to just keep things at an even keel here.

It's a lot of money.

AMNA NAWAZ: Why do you believe you have seen a drop in donations?

What's driving that?

CINDY MCCAIN: Oh, I think there's a lot of reasons.

I think there's a little bit of donor fatigue in it, because we were pushing, pushing, pushing when Ukraine hit, pushing, pushing, pushing for other -- when the earthquake hit, of course.

I think people are just -- they're stretched then.

And they're a little -- a little tired right now.

So it's up to us at WFP to reinvigorate this discussion, make sure people understand the importance, and really where it sits and how this could be very disruptive to the world if we don't help.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, speaking of Ukraine, as you know, there was a grain deal in place, whereby Russian President Vladimir Putin was allowing for the export of that crucial grain from Ukraine through the Black Sea.

That deal has now fallen apart.

How will that impact your work?

CINDY MCCAIN: Well, it's impacting a great deal, because some of that grain came to Africa.

So we're going to have to source grain another way.

And we can do that.

We're going to do that.

And we are doing it to a degree.

But I'm disappointed.

I mean, this is -- you're only hurting the most needy people in the world by doing this.

And so it just -- it's a real shame that, somehow, we have to -- have to once again tell people who can't feed themselves that we don't have enough because the grain isn't there.

And so that drives up starvation.

It drives up malnutrition.

It drives up illness, disease, everything else that comes around with a weakened body.

And so I'm just very disappointed in the whole thing.

And I'm hoping that clearer heads prevail and that we can once again put this deal back together.

AMNA NAWAZ: There was a senior administration official from the Biden administration yesterday talking to reporters about the agenda for the U.N. Security Council.

And that person said that food security is consistently a top priority.

CINDY MCCAIN: It is.

AMNA NAWAZ: Do you see that?

Do you see those words matching their actions?

CINDY MCCAIN: Yes, I do believe that that is happening.

But that's my -- partially, because WFP and other organizations have literally rang the alarm bells.

We all went forward to our various entities that we talked to, and certainly the U.N., and said, look, you got to put this on the table front and center.

And so we all started doing that just prior and just before Ukraine broke.

And then, consequently, afterwards, it's front and center everywhere.

AMNA NAWAZ: As you know, some of the same conflicts and the same nations can often dominate some of the global headlines.

You have been out on the road, on the front lines of WFP's work.

Where else should we be looking that we're not?

CINDY MCCAIN: Well, we haven't -- I was in Chad, as you know.

I was just a couple -- maybe 10 days ago on the Chad border.

And we have also been to Somalia and some other regional places around.

And what we're seeing is a continued hesitancy on the part of many countries to get involved and be involved and give more than they are.

And I think the hesitancy is a lot because of the instability.

And so it -- well, WFP is always first in, and we stay, and we are not leaving any of these countries at all.

We're here.

But we do need funding and we do you need extra help.

AMNA NAWAZ: The executive director of the World Food Program, Cindy McCain, joining us tonight from South Sudan.

Mrs. McCain, thank you so much for your time.

CINDY MCCAIN: Thank you.

Thank you for having me.

GEOFF BENNETT: An update now to our lead story tonight.

Former President Donald Trump has been ordered to appear in court on Thursday after being indicted for his alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 election.

AMNA NAWAZ: A grand jury has indicted Mr. Trump on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official proceeding.

You can stay up to date on the latest developments and read the full indictment online at PBS.org/NewsHour.

And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

Thanks for joining us.