JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: COVID concerns.

Cases of coronavirus surge across the U.S., even as restrictions start to be reimposed.

Then: in the room.

I ask former Trump adviser John Bolton about the dramatic accusations in his new book, including that the president solicited election interference.

And, as more people use food delivery apps, in light of social restrictions, questions remain about whether the business model is sustainable.

DESMOND REILLY, Co-Owner, Chicken + Whiskey: The price that we pay to these services to make this happen, it takes all of our profits.

There's really minimal left over for us.

JUDY WOODRUFF: All that and more on tonight's "PBS NewsHour."

(BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The surge of new coronavirus infections is spreading wider and faster throughout the country; 29 states are reporting notable increases, many of those in the Sunbelt and the West.

The head of the CDC also said today that it's believed that at least 23 million Americans have been infected.

That's 10 times higher the number of cases that have been reported.

And the CDC also added pregnant women to the list of high-risk groups.

Amna Nawaz gets a breakdown on these trends and the concerns over the pace of reopening.

AMNA NAWAZ: Judy, Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced today he would pause reopening and free up more hospital beds as the state is struggling to contain outbreaks.

In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis urged older residents to stay at home and young residents to avoid crowds.

But these governors and others have resisted new restrictions until now.

And a number of states are seeing record numbers of cases over the past week.

To help us understand more about all of this, we're joined again by Dr. Ashish Jha, professor and director of Harvard University's Global Health Institute.

Dr. Jha, welcome back to the "NewsHour."

And let's start with the numbers we're seeing, the surge in infections in a number of states.

They have increased testing, many of these states.

But what about reopening?

What role did reopening play in contributing to those new numbers?

DR. ASHISH JHA, Director, Harvard Global Health Institute: Yes, so thank you for having me on.

I think there's really little doubt that, in many states across the country, we reopened too early.

The evidence did not suggest that they were safe to reopen, and then they opened up too aggressively.

And what we're seeing now is the surge in cases that, unfortunately, many of us worried about, and they're happening in large parts of the country, and it's really quite worrisome.

And I think we have to act boldly to try to get this under control AMNA NAWAZ: One of the questions people have, though, is that a number of states have been moving to reopen.

We're seeing these huge surges in some states, like Texas and Arizona and Florida, but we're not seeing them in other states that have also moved to reopen.

So how do you reconcile that?

DR. ASHISH JHA: Yes.

So, it's true that it's not happening everywhere in the country.

Different states have taken different tactics in terms of how aggressively they have opened.

Different states have taken different approaches in terms of how much - - how many cases they had when they reopened.

And then there's always a little bit of idiosyncrasy to all of this.

None of this is perfectly predictable.

But, that said, in my mind, there's no question about it that we're seeing large increases in infections largely because we have opened up too quickly and too much.

AMNA NAWAZ: I want to ask you, too, about the role of masks, because there has been a lot of conversations around this.

And I want to share with you some analysis from state data that looks at the last two weeks in the states that recommend, but don't require mask wearing.

That was 16 states.

New cases in the last two weeks went up 84 percent.

And in other states -- that's 11 states total - - that mandated mask wearing in public, new cases fell 25 percent.

So, Dr. Jha, those numbers are strike, but we know there's a difference between causation and correlation.

What can we say we know definitively about masks and their ability to stop the spread of the virus?

DR. ASHISH JHA: Yes.

So, this is an area where the evidence has shifted substantially over the last two months.

And the study that you point to is only one data point, and if that was the only one we had, I would say, well, that may not be as definitive, but as part of what are now dozens of studies that are coming out, I think we feel very confident that masks are a really important part of getting this virus under control.

Unto itself, it is not enough, but as a part of a broader strategy, I think it's pretty critical that we get into mandatory mask wearing whenever people are out and about.

AMNA NAWAZ: There are a lot of questions, though.

People have concerns.

You're seeing a number of theories circulating on social media too that wearing a mask can actually be bad for your health.

I have seen some of these, where people say you can breathe back in the carbon dioxide you're breathing out, and that can be bad for your health.

I have seen other theories where people say it can actually increase your chance of getting the virus if you wear a mask.

What do you say to people who are reading those and are concerned?

DR. ASHISH JHA: So, I understand the reason for concerns, but I think the evidence on this is pretty clear.

Wearing a mask is not harmful.

It's worth remembering doctors and nurses often wear masks for 12, 14, 16 hours a day.

We haven't seen them get sick from wearing a mask.

Other workers wear masks for long periods of time.

Really, the concerns about breathing back in carbon dioxide or other things are not rooted in medical science.

And I understand it's a little bit inconvenient to be wearing a mask, but it's perfectly safe to be wearing a mask.

AMNA NAWAZ: Let me bring you back to where we started the conversation, with the news that the Texas governor says they're now going to pause reopening.

At this stage, when they are amidst a huge surge in numbers, what kind of impact is a pause like that going to have?

Is that enough to slow the spread?

DR. ASHISH JHA: So, I welcome the Texas governor recognizing that there is a problem, but this response is wholly inadequate for the size of the problem they have.

By the time your hospitals are starting to get full, you have got two weeks of rising infections already baked in.

Over the next two weeks, I expect the number of cases in Texas to continue climbing.

And just putting a pause is not enough.

They have to really think hard about mandated mask wearing.

I think you have to pull back on large public gatherings.

I really wonder whether it's safe to have indoor restaurants.

There's a lot that the governor has to do to bring this virus under control.

A pause is not enough.

AMNA NAWAZ: Dr. Jha, we can't remind people enough that hundreds of Americans are still dying every day.

When you look at the states where they are seeing these surges and increases, what states - - what steps, rather, could those governors take today that would help to slow the spread and prevent some of those deaths?

DR. ASHISH JHA: Yes, so the single biggest thing that I think governors have to do is recognize how serious of a problem this is.

And I still don't see that sense of urgency.

We have to get ahead of this virus.

And that means mandatory mask wearing.

It means absolutely canceling any large indoor gatherings, including really rethinking things like restaurants, bars, nightclubs.

And then we have got to keep working on ramping up testing and tracing.

Even this week, we heard from the president that the problem is, we're testing too much.

No, the problem is, we're not testing enough.

And we're not isolating cases once we find them.

And so, until we do those things, we're not going to be able to bring these large outbreaks under control.

AMNA NAWAZ: That's Dr. Ashish Jha, director of Harvard's Global Health Institute.

Thanks very much for joining us.

DR. ASHISH JHA: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In the day's other news: The U.S. House of Representatives moved toward a sweeping overhaul of policing.

The Democratic bill would press state and local police to ban choke holds, or risk losing federal funds.

And it would end qualified immunity for officers facing misconduct lawsuits.

The debate illustrated what a partisan divide exists on the issue.

REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND (D-LA): America is not only burning.

America is also weeping.

She is weeping for the victims of excessive force by those sworn to protect and serve.

She is crying for her American leadership to man up, to meet this moment, and to write in the laws of this country once and for all that black do lives matter.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): We need reform, but House Democrats have delivered a bill that is designed to keep cops in the car.

And when you do that, when you do that, it makes our communities less safe by preventing good law enforcement officers from being able to do their job.

That's what this bill is going to do.

JUDY WOODRUFF: In the Senate, Democrats yesterday blocked a Republican policing bill.

We will take a closer look at all of this after the news summary.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Trump administration's use of quick deportations for legal asylum seekers who fail initial screenings.

Today's 7-to-2 decision reversed a lower court ruling.

It had said that asylum seekers must first have access to federal courts.

Since 2004, quick deportations have applied to those picked up within two weeks of entering the country, and within 100 miles of the U.S. border.

The 2020 presidential race played out in battleground states today.

President Trump traveled to Wisconsin to shore up support in one of several key states where he trails in the polls.

He talked about economic revival to shipyard workers in Marinette.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: Manufacturing.

Remember, manufacturing was never going to come back.

Well, it did come back, and it came back big.

But I understand.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) DONALD TRUMP: I have an aptitude for manufacturing.

And I said it's got to come back.

And it will come back.

And we were doing great.

And we will do now even better.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The president's Democratic opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, campaigned in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

He blasted Mr. Trump's response to the pandemic and his attempts to abolish the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare.

JOSEPH BIDEN (D), Presidential Candidate: Mr. President, drop the lawsuit.

Stop trying to get rid of the Affordable Care Act.

Stop trying to take away people's health care and their peace of mind.

Now, more than ever, stop trying to steal their peace of mind.

JUDY WOODRUFF: The Trump administration is expected to join with a number of states urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare.

The president's niece, Mary Trump, won a round today in her legal fight to publish a tell-all book about the family.

The president's brother Robert had argued the book would violate a confidentiality agreement that was signed decades ago.

But an estate court judge in New York ruled that he has no jurisdiction in the matter.

In Russia, voting has begun on constitutional changes that could let President Vladimir Putin stay in power for two more terms.

Polls opened today for one week.

If voters approve the changes, Putin could stay in power until 2036.

He has already ruled Russia for more than two decades.

In U.S. economic news, unemployment claims rose again last week by nearly 1.5 million.

But the total number receiving benefits fell below 20 million, as employers rehired workers.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve ordered banks to stop buying back their own stock and stop dividend payouts through September, in case the recession gets worse.

But Wall Street rallied after the Fed also agreed to ease limits on banks investing in hedge funds and the like.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained nearly 300 points to close at 25745.

The Nasdaq rose 107 points, and the S&P 500 added 33.

And the Grammy-winning country trio the Dixie Chicks will now be simply the Chicks.

The group said today that it is changing its name to -- quote -- "meet this moment."

The name Dixie is closely linked to Southern states that joined the Confederacy.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": efforts at a bipartisan police reform bill stall in politically divided Congress; I ask former Trump adviser John Bolton about his dramatic accusations against the president; much of the Arctic circle suffers the dire consequences of an unprecedented heat wave; and much more.

After weeks of nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd, Democrats in the U.S. House are set to pass a comprehensive police reform bill later tonight.

Lisa Desjardins has more.

LISA DESJARDINS: Led by the Congressional Black Caucus, the House bill, named in honor of George Floyd, would create new federal bans on some police practices, and make it easier to punish officers for misconduct.

But tonight's vote comes a day of Democrats - - comes after -- the day after Democrats blocked a Republican-led police reform bill from passing the Senate.

The Democrats' Justice in Policing Act would ban police choke holds federally.

It would also ban no-knock warrants in federal drug cases.

And, again, it would make it easier to punish and prosecute police misconduct.

Joining me now to discuss the House effort is Congresswoman Karen Bass.

She is the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Thank you for joining us, Congresswoman.

First, tell me about your approach.

And, also, how is it different than Republicans' approach so far?

REP. KAREN BASS (D-CA): Well, actually, if you're going to talk about Republican approach, you probably are referring to Senator Scott's bill.

Senator Scott mimics parts of our bill, so he addresses choke holds, he addresses the federal registry, he addresses no-knock warrants, but he doesn't really have any teeth in his bill, the enforcement piece.

So we don't need to study choke holds.

We don't need to have data collection about no-knock warrants.

We don't need to have a federal registry that nobody sees.

It needs to be public, choke holds need to be banned, and no-knocks in federal drug cases need to be banned.

LISA DESJARDINS: You and the Congressional Black Caucus clearly disagree and think that they -- that the Republicans in that Tim Scott bill are not going far enough.

But you also took the step of urging Senate colleagues to not even open that bill for debate, even though Republicans were offering a chance to amend the bill in the Senate.

Obviously, in the Senate, 60 votes, a bipartisan measure, is needed to pass.

Why not even begin to begin debate on the Senate bill, which is what you're saying?

REP. KAREN BASS: Well, let me be clear.

That's the process in the Senate.

And so our focus is on the House.

What we issued was a statement in support of our two senators, which is Senator Harris and Senator Booker.

You know, they offered the same bill that we had in the House.

But, you know, this is just the sausage-making.

It's part of the process.

And so we're going to pass the bill out of the House in the next couple of hours, and negotiations will begin.

I have had several discussions with Senator Scott.

I plan to call him later tonight.

I'm talking to my Republican colleagues.

I will tell you, what is interesting and the reason why I'm hopeful is that my Republican colleagues over here in the House who are opposed to the bill, in the debate, they talked about everything under the sun except for the bill, which makes me feel like there are grounds for us to come together.

Sometimes, this is just how the process works.

And I will tell you, this is hyperspeed for Congress.

George Floyd was killed 30 days ago.

And so for us to come up with a comprehensive piece of legislation in 30 days, if we had started with negotiation, instead of moving forward with a clear signal as to what we believe should be done to lead to transformative change, there's no way we would be voting on anything now.

And so the process will continue, negotiations will begin, and I believe that we will be able to deliver for the American people a bill on President Trump's desk.

LISA DESJARDINS: Let me follow up on that.

You're calling Senate Scott tonight.

You know Senator Lindsey Graham and his Republican colleagues said today he thinks this issue is essentially dead in the Senate.

Tell me exactly what you think the way forward is here.

You think there could be some negotiations?

REP. KAREN BASS: Well, let me just tell you... LISA DESJARDINS: Yes.

REP. KAREN BASS: Let me just tell you, he's the last one that should say he thinks the bill is dead.

He's up in a tough reelection with an incredible African-American candidate.

So I think what is happening is posturing, political posturing.

I think that's all that that is.

When we come up with a bipartisan agreement, I'm sure Senator Graham will be the first one to put his bill on the -- put his name on the bill.

LISA DESJARDINS: I want to talk about one of the toughest issues that you face going ahead.

That's police immunity, the idea that courts have essentially kept police officers immune from lawsuits for anything that happens on the job.

Your bill would change that.

Some Republicans say that's dangerous, because it would discourage people from becoming police officers and harm families.

Why do you think that needs to change?

REP. KAREN BASS: Well, let me just tell you, you go back and look at that video of George Floyd's being murdered, and that's exactly why I think it should be changed.

That officer, who took eight minutes to slowly kill that man, was looking at the camera with his hand in his pocket, because he felt he could do that with straight impunity.

He did not expect to get arrested.

He did not expect to get fired.

And that's the mentality that absolutely has to change.

You know, I don't believe that good officers want to work with brutal officers.

They bring down the profession.

So, another part of our bill also calls for lifting up the profession with accreditation and national standards.

You go get your hair done, and your beautician has to have national standards and accreditation.

Why wouldn't the profession that has the power to kill have national standards?

We have 18,000 police departments in the country, and we essentially have 18,000 ways of providing policing.

And so that's what we're trying to do.

Now, the immunity and the idea that officers could be sued, at the end of the day, in cities where officers are sued, it's the insurance of the city that pays for it.

But we have to be able to prosecute officers.

So, in addition to removing qualified immunity from police officers, we also lower the standard in which you can charge an officer.

Right now, it has to be willful intent, meaning we have to get inside the mind of an officer.

We want to lower it to reckless, so that, if an officer -- you can be reckless and nobody looks at what was in your mind, you were just reckless in how you behaved.

These are tools that we have to have in order to change the culture of policing in the United States.

LISA DESJARDINS: And, quickly, one quick question.

You're under consideration, I understand, to be a potential vice president running mate with Joe Biden.

Do you care to comment on that?

REP. KAREN BASS: Well, let me just say that anything in that regard needs to be referred to the campaign.

I have one singular focus right now, and that is to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

And I am so honored and privileged to be able to have the responsibility of working on this now.

LISA DESJARDINS: Congresswoman Karen Bass, thank you.

REP. KAREN BASS: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Ambassador John Bolton has worked in every Republican presidential administration since Ronald Reagan.

But, during his most recent government stint as President Trump's national security adviser, he saw a different kind of commander in chief, and the differences, he says, are stunning.

He stepped down from that post last September.

And he is now out with his latest book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir."

And John Bolton joins us from Washington.

Mr. Bolton, thank you very much for being with us.

I want to start with something that actually happened after you left the White House, and that is the coronavirus and its effect on this country.

You do lay blame in the book on the Chinese leadership, but you also say President Trump, every decision driven by his desire for reelection.

Do you think he has put his reelection ahead of the country's interests in the way he's handled this pandemic?

JOHN BOLTON, Former U.S. National Security Adviser: Well, I think that's certainly true at the beginning.

Back in January, when key people around the government, on the staff of the National Security Council, the Centers for Disease Control and other places were signaling that this could be a pretty terrible medical incident, I don't think the president wanted to hear that news.

I don't think he wanted to hear anything bad about Xi Jinping.

He didn't want to hear about Chinese efforts to conceal the nature and extent of the disease in China.

He didn't want to see the trade deal with China in jeopardy, and particularly in this country, he did not want to hear anything about a negative effect on the economy that might jeopardize his reelection.

And I think, as a consequence of this empty chair in the Oval Office phenomenon, we wasted a lot of time that could have been used to mitigate the effect of the pandemic.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let's turn to impeachment.

In essence, in the book, you lay out in great detail how the charge that was the basis for impeachment, that the president used the powers of his office to get -- to try to get Ukrainians to do him a political favor, you lay out in detail exactly how that happened.

And yet you decided not to testify when you were asked by the House of Representatives.

I know you have made the argument that you don't think you could have changed minds.

But what I'm hearing from a number of people on the Hill is that, if they had known last year, before the impeachment hearings, that it could have changed minds.

Why don't you believe so?

JOHN BOLTON: Because I think they know that the impeachment effort was a massive failure, and I think they're looking for excuses.

The fact is, we have a model in this country of how to conduct a successful impeachment process.

And it's obviously what happened at Watergate.

Nixon wasn't convicted by the Senate, to be sure, but he did resign.

And that model was the Watergate Committee chaired by a Democrat, Sam Ervin, but working cooperatively with leading Republican Howard Baker, to build a kind of bipartisan base.

You know, when you run a partisan process, which is what the House Democrats did, it has consequences.

And in this case, it was to push Republicans into a partisan corner in the House.

They literally pushed away Republicans who might have been sympathetic to a truly nonpartisan approach.

And they had the same consequence in the Senate.

And there's one other point I think that's important that I think demonstrates whatever I had to say would have just been lost in the turmoil, is that many Republicans, House and Senate, bought the White House argument that, no matter what the president did, as described in Ukraine, that his conduct, even if it was reprehensible, did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

That's why Republicans voted overwhelmingly in the Senate not to call any new witnesses.

So, I think it's -- when the Democrats jump off a cliff and they're halfway down, they look up and say to me and others they could have said it to, why don't you join us, it rings hollow.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I have got a number of other things I want to -- I do want to cover, Mr.

Ambassador.

One is, the president and what happened with China and with Russia.

You lay out, again, in detail how the president pandered to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, that he went easy, if you will, on the Chinese human rights repression of the Uyghurs, all in -- so that he could get the kind of trade deal that he wanted.

You quote -- you say that Vladimir Putin played President Trump like a fiddle.

How concerned are you that the Chinese and the Russians may try to interfere in this year's election in order to help President Trump?

JOHN BOLTON: Well, I think they would try to interfere in this year's election.

I don't know who they would try and help.

I think their main objective -- and I think this has been true for some time -- is to sow mistrust in the United States about our constitutional structure.

I think any time they can get us going at each other's throats, they're successful.

And I think they have done a pretty good job of that.

And I think, if you look at what Vice President Pence said in a speech last year about Chinese efforts, it goes well beyond simply interfering in the election.

That's bad enough.

The Chinese, even more than the Russians, I believe, are trying to influence American public opinion more broadly.

This is a very significant part of the reason why we need a comprehensive strategy to deal with the Chinese threat across the board.

It is a mistake - - it's also a mistake in the case of Russia - - to limit our concern to interference in the election.

I'm not downplaying that.

I'm saying, this is a part of a much bigger picture.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You criticize a number of top officials in the book, aside from President Trump, former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, the former U.N.

Ambassador Nikki Haley.

I read Washington Post columnist David Ignatius writes -- and I'm quoting -- "You are the hero of nearly every anecdote."

What about that?

I mean, what about the criticism that this is a book about self-aggrandizement of John Bolton and criticizing a lot of other people?

JOHN BOLTON: Well, my focus is on the president.

I tried to tell what happened in the range of issues we covered.

Some people come out better than others.

I try to make sure I admitted in the book mistakes that I made.

And I'm sure I made my share and maybe more.

I was trying to tell this as honestly as I could.

Obviously, it's a memoir.

I told it from my perspective.

But I'm not questioning their integrity or patriotism.

They will write what they want to write.

They can tell their side to have the story, God bless them.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Just a few other questions, Ambassador Bolton.

In the White House right now, who do you believe would stand up to President Trump?

JOHN BOLTON: You know, if I answer that question, I'm going to get somebody in trouble.

So I will just say this.

I think there are people who remain in the administration who have the correct view of how to defend American national interests.

I think they are striving to do that.

I certainly have been criticized.

So have other people, like Jim Mattis, John Kelly, others who have left the administration, criticized from two sides.

One, why didn't you resign three days after you got there?

Or the even more extreme criticism, you never should have joined up.

Other criticism is that you should have stayed longer, you should have fought harder, you shouldn't have given up so early.

Look, it's a very personal decision.

I will just say, I think a lot of people joined the Trump administration, in part, perhaps they believe that I did, that it could not be as bad as some of the outside critics said.

We all lasted as long as we could.

That's not a decision anybody can second-guess, really, until you have walked in the kinds of shoes we have walked in.

But I think there were a lot of people who thought they were trying to make a contribution to the welfare of the country by serving.

And that the what I tried to do.

But so did many others.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me ask you very quickly about the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who, as you know, came from a real estate background.

He has played a huge role in the White House in foreign policy.

Has that been a constructive role?

JOHN BOLTON: Well, I don't think that it has been.

I don't think you should treat the White House or the U.S. government as kind of a small family business.

I'm not on a moral high horse about anti-nepotism statutes.

It's not a question of advancing somebody.

But I think there's a difference when your family is deeply involved in this kind of decision-making.

I will just go back a little bit in history.

I don't think it was a good situation when John Kennedy made his brother attorney general.

I think that was a mistake.

That's just how I feel about it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, finally, a question about this election coming up.

You do say throughout the book you think the president is driven by his desire to be reelected.

Right now, he's running behind in the polls.

There are a couple of polls that have him 12, 14 points behind, both FOX and The New York Times.

What do you believe -- I mean, if this president is focused on getting reelected, what do you believe he's capable of doing in order to stay in good shape that he would get reelected?

JOHN BOLTON: Look, first off, I don't believe these polls.

I'm not putting any real weight on them.

It's four months until the election.

A lot can change in the economy, with respect to the coronavirus.

Famously, in 2016 -- let's just say it again, so everybody remembers it -- Hillary Clinton was substantially ahead, and she lost, because we don't have a purely popular vote system.

We have an Electoral College.

So, before anybody gets hyperthyroid about what Trump may or may not do, let's just remember, this election, I think, is still a coin toss.

I haven't seen any evidence that he would do anything unconstitutional.

And I think it's -- I think Trump critics make a mistake when they exaggerate the nature of the threat.

If we saw any evidence of some kind of extraconstitutional effort, I think we should all, as a nation, stop it.

Particularly, the conservatives in the Republican Party have an obligation to stop it, and I think they will.

JUDY WOODRUFF: John Bolton, former White House national security adviser, the new book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir."

Thank you very much.

JOHN BOLTON: Thanks for having me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: There's a heat wave of historic proportions occurring in the Arctic right now, a region that is already the fastest warming place on Earth, due to the increasing buildup of greenhouse gases.

William Brangham talks with a scientist who's worked in the region for decades.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's right, Judy.

It is summer in the Arctic right now, so somewhat milder temperatures would be expected.

But this heat wave, which has triggered huge wildfires in Siberia and increased melting of the permafrost, are likely the warmest temperatures ever recorded, and now are only going to make climate change worse.

Dr. Merritt Turetsky is the director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

And she joins me from a cabin in Canada.

Dr. Turetsky, thank you very much for being here.

DR. MERRITT TURETSKY, University of Colorado: Thank you.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Can you just help us understand, what is going on in the Arctic right now?

What is driving this intense heat wave?

DR. MERRITT TURETSKY: Let me start with an analogy.

So, when we come down with a fever, when our bodies spike a temperature, we stop, we realize that there's a problem, and we provide care.

And that's exactly what's happening today.

The Arctic is feverish, with temperatures spiking above 100 degrees Fahrenheit in multiple locations.

So, these extreme temperatures are very unusual.

They are record-breaking.

But this is part of a longer-term trend.

In fact, last year, last summer was a very warm period in the Arctic, and Siberia and parts of Russia experienced the warmest winter on record.

And it's part of a trend that we anticipate will become more frequent in the Arctic because of climate change.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And so I understand there's also -- there's a high-pressure system, I guess, over the Arctic, which is making this particular issue.

But you're saying that the longer-term trend of a warming atmosphere is really being felt in the Arctic very sharply.

DR. MERRITT TURETSKY: That's exactly right.

So, this is part of a persistent warming trend.

But, at the same time, the best tools that we have at our disposal in the scientific community, our climate models, predict more extreme conditions.

And this is true all around the world.

We're seeing more extreme conditions in storms, more extreme conditions in precipitation.

And that's the same in the arctic.

We're seeing more extreme temperature changes.

And this is consistent with our predictions into the future.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, what are some of the impacts of that?

I mean, for people who might look at this and think, I don't live in the Arctic, the Arctic is very far away from me, what are some of the consequences of this warming trend in the Arctic?

DR. MERRITT TURETSKY: These Arctic changes will affect everyone on the globe, for a number of reasons.

The first is that, when the Arctic is warm, it changes weather patterns all around the world.

The heat wave is triggering very rapid wildfires.

And the Arctic is literally and figuratively on fire.

And this is likely to get worse as this heat wave continues through the summer.

The emissions from those wildfires, of course, release greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

So, that affects climate of the entire planet through the greenhouse gas effect.

But the emissions from wildfires also affect air quality.

These smoke plumes don't stay in the Arctic.

They drift globally with atmospheric circulation.

Last summer, when the Arctic was set on fire because of warm conditions, smoke plumes reached the Western United States and affected air quality for millions of people.

So, these impacts in the Arctic are very strong locally.

There are many people who live in the Arctic who depend on stable frozen ground.

They, of course, are impacted.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mentioned also that there is the warming and melting of the permafrost.

For people who may not be familiar with what permafrost is and why it's melting could impact climate change as well, can you explain that?

DR. MERRITT TURETSKY: Permafrost is the glue of Arctic ecosystems.

It is literally the backbone upon which all of the soils and the vegetation and the animals in the Arctic depend upon.

Permafrost is frozen ground.

So, it can be frozen rock, frozen soil, frozen sediment.

It's defined by its temperature.

And the Arctic today is shaped by permafrost.

But we are seeing widespread evidence on multiple continents in the Arctic that permafrost is thawing as a result of climate change.

And, in many places, this can cause catastrophic impacts on the landscape.

Lakes can literally disappear in the period of a few weeks.

These are lakes that have been used as fishing grounds for generations.

And they simply disappear because the permafrost thaws, and it's like pulling the plug out of a bathtub.

All the water is allowed to drain away.

Permafrost is very important not only to supporting life in the Arctic, but it's important for storing carbon.

It's been keeping carbon out of the atmosphere and benefiting climate for thousands and thousands of years.

But, once permafrost thaws, that carbon is now vulnerable to microbial decomposition, and it can be re-released into the atmosphere.

Its fate is unknown.

And scientists are trying to figure out just how much of that carbon will wind up in the atmosphere and what impacts it will have on our climate.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, such an important topic.

Dr. Merritt Turetsky, thank you very, very much for your insight.

DR. MERRITT TURETSKY: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Hopes for peace are stalled.

Seventy years to the day after the start of the Korean War, the continent remains divided.

Despite efforts by the South to ease tensions, in recent weeks, the North has returned to an aggressive posture.

Special correspondent Bruce Harrison has our report from Seoul.

BRUCE HARRISON: Under the cover of night, activists in South Korea released large balloons into the sky, hoping the winds take them north across the demilitarized zone.

This activist exclaims, it's their 20th balloon launch.

The heavy payloads bundled beneath the balloons have infuriated North Korea.

North Korean defector Park Sang Hak is the head of Fighters For Free North Korea.

He's agreed to meet in a park.

He shows off the leaflets he attaches to the balloons.

They call North Korean leader Kim Jong-un a devil who had his own brother killed.

PARK SANG HAK, Fighters For Free North Korea (through translator): The people in North Korea don't know about this.

And I want them to know.

They think of Kim Jong-un as a god, and they look up to him like some sort of deity.

If they know the truth about him, then they won't think he's a god, and that's Kim's biggest fear.

BRUCE HARRISON: Park says the truth, as he sees it, will eventually break Kim's grasp on power.

Later that same day, Park's group launched another round of balloons.

The South Korean government now plans to introduce a law that would punish the activists, in a move widely seen is trying to prolong diplomacy with the North.

North Korea has lashed out at Seoul for not stopping the propaganda launches sooner.

Pyongyang started by severing all communications with the South, and then, in a very dramatic move, blew up an office building just north of the demilitarized zone the two sides used for talks.

Kim's sister, Kim Yo-jong, also threatened to use North Korea's military, though North Korea's state media has since reported leader Kim will be holding off any military action.

Under President Moon Jae-in's peace initiatives, South Koreans had heard little criticism of Seoul from North Korea over the past two years.

And people had even discussed the possibility of leader Kim Jong-un traveling down this road in a motorcade after President Moon Jae-in had invited him here.

That now seems like a distant possibility.

Special adviser to the president Chung-In Moon says the leaflets may have been a step too far for Pyongyang, as Kim struggles domestically.

CHUNG-IN MOON, Special Adviser to President Moon Jae-in: North Korea could have become very angry, because these kinds of things are happening when North Korea is facing the fear of coronavirus, as well as economic difficulties.

BRUCE HARRISON: The special adviser also suspects Kim is frustrated after multiple summits with President Moon and U.S. President Trump that haven't led to eased economic sanctions.

Kim met Trump in Hanoi last year to cut a deal: He'd ease up on his nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Talks collapsed after North Korea offered to dismantle part of its nuclear weapons complex, but Washington wanted Pyongyang to dismantle all of it.

North Korean negotiators didn't budge.

A new book by Trump's former National Security Adviser John Bolton suggests, a deal on disarmament was never possible.

Bolton writes that Trump put U.S. interests at risk for a historic photo-op with Kim Jong-un.

He claims, President Moon prioritized improving ties with the North, but discounted any serious strategy.

South Korea has responded that Bolton's accounts are inaccurate and distort reality.

U.S.

Ambassador to South Korea Harry Harris says he hasn't discussed the book with South Korea, and its alliance with the U.S. is stronger than ever.

HARRY HARRIS, U.S.

Ambassador to South Korea: And it's important that we celebrate together our achievements over the past 70 years and that we honor the sacrifice of the Koreans, the Americans, and the forces from the other sending states for their sacrifices during the Korean War.

BRUCE HARRISON: And across the country this week, ceremonies have been held to remember the sacrifices.

For some who served in the war, there's still bitterness.

KIM SUK HWAN, Korean War Veteran (through translator): All these provocations from North Korea over 70 years, we can't solve this by just talking.

What did we get out of the U.S. president holding a summit with the North?

This shows that they are still a bunch of liars and savages.

BRUCE HARRISON: Kim is among South Korea Korean War veterans participating in the Sae Eden Church's June 25 veterans ceremony.

Every year, the church hosts Korean War veterans from all over the world to thank them for their service and remember those who died in the conflict.

The COVID-19 pandemic prevented foreign veterans from traveling this year, including American, Canadian, Filipino and Thai veterans.

But they're still on stage, streaming live into the event with family and friends.

Retired and active members of the military remembered the fallen and sent in video messages expressing their gratitude.

The atmosphere here is one of hope, despite the war that continues to divide a nation and a people.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Bruce Harrison in Seoul.

JUDY WOODRUFF: More Americans are ordering takeout these days, as restaurants limit dine-in service during the coronavirus pandemic.

That means more customers and restaurants are relying on food delivery apps.

Paul Solman reports on whether these apps' business models have long-term staying power.

It's part of our weekly economics segment, Making Sense.

PAUL SOLMAN: Grubhub, DoorDash, Uber Eats and more all competing to deliver restaurant food to shut-in consumers.

So, the restaurant owners like Desmond Reilly of Chicken + Whiskey in D.C. are ecstatic, right?

DESMOND REILLY, Co-Owner, Chicken + Whiskey: The price that we pay to these services to make this happen, it takes all of our profits.

These numbers are anywhere from 22 to 30 percent, depending on the provider.

There's really minimal left over for us.

So, you could mathematically put yourself out of business if you only had delivery service, and you had no walk-in, sit-down traffic in your restaurants.

PAUL SOLMAN: Chef/owner of the high-end D.C. restaurant Xiquet, Danny Lledo, actually stopped using the services entirely.

DANNY LLEDO, Owner, Xiquet: Right now, we are the ones that are delivering.

I have delivered quite a bit.

One of my employees has a car, but essentially the other apps weren't doing anything in terms of marketing for us.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, not great for restaurants.

But don't these apps at least provide work to delivery drivers during the jobless pandemic?

We met Mostafa Makled last year driving for Uber in San Francisco.

But now... MOSTAFA MAKLED, Food Delivery Driver: There is not that much people requesting Uber, since everyone is just staying at home.

And the only thing that is, like, more busy is just food delivery.

PAUL SOLMAN: So he switched.

The pay, however... MOSTAFA MAKLED: It's like half of what we used to make.

So, after expenses, like, your hour might be like somewhere between $5 to $10 an hour.

And that in a city like San Francisco doesn't even cover, like, living expenses.

PAUL SOLMAN: Now, wait.

Unhappy restaurants, unhappy workers.

OK, but how about the customers?

OLGA BERMAN, Food Blogger: I have very mixed feelings about it.

SARAH O'MALLEY, Washington, D.C. resident: Usually, the only reason that we would use Uber Eats is if there's some sort of discount or promotion.

CHRIS CHERKIS, Washington, D.C. Resident: I think we will sort of get away from the apps again and just start going out either to pick up directly or to actually go in and sit in a joint.

PAUL SOLMAN: Well, but some group must unequivocally benefit from this industry, its investors.

JANELLE SALLENAVE, Head of Uber Eats, U.S. and Canada: We should start by acknowledging that, today, Uber Eats does not make money.

PAUL SOLMAN: Janelle Sallenave is head of Uber Eats.

JANELLE SALLENAVE: We have been very public about the fact that it's not yet profitable.

PAUL SOLMAN: And neither are her competitors.

RANJAN ROY, Founder, The Edge Group: The platforms themselves lose a ton of money, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, billions collectively.

PAUL SOLMAN: Ranjan Roy writes a tech industry blog.

Count him a skeptic.

RANJAN ROY: Customers complain if the fees get too high, and the drivers and couriers are underpaid gig labor.

PAUL SOLMAN: Which raised the question that motivated this story, which I put to investor Vitaliy Katsenelson.

Why does this business even make sense?

VITALIY KATSENELSON, CEO, Investment Management Associates: I'm not sure it does.

And I think they are still trying to figure out how to make money at this even today.

PAUL SOLMAN: That is, after years of trying and a market that just doesn't get any better than this.

But then how could venture capitalists have poured in a billion buck, I asked Ranjan Roy.

RANJAN ROY: Everyone's searching for yield in some capacity and finding -- trying to find any opportunity they can.

PAUL SOLMAN: What Roy means is that, with historically low interest rates for years now, those with money have been desperate for higher returns.

Veteran venture capitalist Randy Komisar has seen it first hand.

RANDY KOMISAR, Venture Capitalist: Finding opportunities to invest large checks in potentially big outcomes has outweighed the ability for us to sort of discern good from bad returns on capital.

PAUL SOLMAN: So there's too much money chasing, too few opportunities?

RANDY KOMISAR: In a nutshell, that's it.

PAUL SOLMAN: So investors are willing to take risks on start-ups that might seem, well, daffy.

RANDY KOMISAR: I can remember one that came in that was a robotics pizza delivery business.

PAUL SOLMAN: A funding pitch for a start-up called Zume, spelled Z-U-M-E. RANDY KOMISAR: It was going to use A.I.

to understand the desires of its customers.

And they would have the trucks drive through the neighborhoods at exactly the right time to deliver exactly the right pizza made by that great little robot sitting in the back of the truck.

And, ultimately, I said, has anybody tasted the pizza?

And we ordered a pizza.

And it was the worst pizza I had ever had.

PAUL SOLMAN: Komisar argued against backing Zume.

But the Japanese-Saudi giant investment fund SoftBank plunked down nearly $400 million.

The business went bust in just over a year.

But, look, says Komisar, taking a flyer on wild ideas sometimes pays off.

RANDY KOMISAR: Hundreds of millions of dollars gets poured into failures all the time.

And on the other side, there are always these extraordinary phenomena that come out of nowhere.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, back to the basic question one last time: Is there any hope for these firms?

VITALIY KATSENELSON: These companies have to consolidate.

PAUL SOLMAN: Whittle the industry to a single player or two, says investor Vitaliy Katsenelson, which is presumably why Grubhub sold itself to the Dutch food delivery company Just Eat Takeaway two weeks ago.

And as for the remaining players, they're offering ever-steeper discounts to lure customers and run the weaker firms off the track.

But even if there wind up being a winner or two, says investor Katsenelson: VITALIY KATSENELSON: They will only make money if one driver picks up orders from one restaurant and delivers them to different customers at once.

PAUL SOLMAN: But FedEx or Amazon drivers deliver to well over 100 customers a day.

Who can deliver that many meals, though, relying on underpaid drivers, and on restaurants so unhappy with the commissions that some cities have put temporary ceilings on what the apps can charge during the pandemic, ceilings that make the business even more unprofitable?

Small wonder the industry opposes them.

MAX RETTIG, Head of Public Policy, DoorDash: Ultimately, even though these policies might be well-intentioned, that ends up hurting the very people that these policies are intending to help.

PAUL SOLMAN: Max Rettig speaks for DoorDash.

MAX RETTIG: When prices go up, that means there are going to be fewer orders into the system.

And when there are fewer orders in this system, restaurants are earning less.

PAUL SOLMAN: And, finally, should the caps become permanent, says Janelle Sallenave of Uber Eats: JANELLE SALLENAVE: It would be a fundamental rethink of the entire business model.

PAUL SOLMAN: A business model that, at the moment, seems kind of shaky as it is.

Paul Solman for the "PBS NewsHour."

JUDY WOODRUFF: Throughout the pandemic, we have been highlighting courageous front-line workers who have kept this country running.

In tonight's Brief But Spectacular, we hear from Bridget Rhodes, who works as a 911 dispatcher in Portland, Oregon.

She's been the calm voice on the other end of the line for many suffering with COVID-19.

BRIDGET RHODES, 911 Dispatcher: I live in Portland, Oregon.

And I'm a 911 dispatcher.

911 DISPATCHER: Nine-one-one.

Where's your emergency?

BRIDGET RHODES: We dispatch police officers, firefighters, paramedics.

911 DISPATCHER: What's the address?

BRIDGET RHODES: We walk people through CPR.

We deliver babies.

911 DISPATCHER: Is she having contractions?

BRIDGET RHODES: Basically, anything you can think of that needs a police response or a fire medical response, we're there.

We're considered essential employees, mainly because, without us, no one's going to necessarily receive the help that they need.

You can't just call an officer on the phone or a firefighter on the phone or an ambulance to come and get you.

You have to go through us.

I came into the 911 dispatching by accident.

But it's the best accident that I probably had career-wise.

I wouldn't change this career for anything.

My favorite thing that I enjoy about the job is helping people, from saving lives to maybe assisting an elderly person that just isn't aware of what to do right now.

Especially during this COVID-19 virus, we get a lot of resource referral calls.

So, just being able to help the community as best as I can, even though I'm just on the phone.

When you have somebody that's calling in and frantic, we go through a lot of training where you have specific questions that you need to ask.

And I think just having a flow and being confident, I think that helps direct the caller on where we want them to be and help bring them down a level to be able to answer those questions for scene safety.

Just being able to be that calming voice on the other end of the line for not only callers, but your officers or your firefighters that might be in an intense situation.

The flu-like symptoms is probably the number one type of call medically that we're getting right now for the shortness of breath.

When we, as first responders or call-takers, probably the worst part is talking to that one person who thinks that they're feeling OK, and you're talking to them on the phone, and they're describing the symptoms that they have.

And two minutes during that phone call, you realize that they passed while on the phone with you.

You just try to be there for somebody if you realize that they might not make it by the time your responders get there, and you just try to stay there with them and calm them.

If they want to talk to you, talk back.

Communicate with them until they're ready to not talk to you anymore.

I have told people in the past that their life matters.

My name is Bridget Rhodes and this is my Brief But Spectacular take on being a 911 dispatcher.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And to Bridget Rhodes and all the 911 dispatchers, we owe you our thanks.

And you can find all of our Brief But Spectacular segments online at PBS.org/NewsHour/Brief.

And that's the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

Join us online and again here tomorrow evening.

For all of us at the "PBS NewsHour," thank you, please stay safe, and we'll see you soon.