JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: the virus on the rise.

Cases of COVID-19 spike across the globe, forcing an end to many reopening efforts and further taxing health care resources.

Then: an undue burden.

The Supreme Court strikes down a Louisiana law restricting abortion providers, with the chief justice supporting abortion rights.

Plus: a bounty on U.S. troops.

New intelligence reportedly concludes that a Russian military unit offered to pay Taliban fighters to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

And a long race.

South Sudanese Olympic hopefuls living in Japan hold onto their dream, despite the postponement of the Games.

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

(BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The coronavirus pandemic has claimed the lives of some 503,000 people around the globe to date.

Over a quarter of those deaths are Americans.

This comes as more than 30 states are reporting a rise in new infections and as more communities loosen restrictions and reopen their doors for business.

But some state leaders are now having to rethink their plans, or cancel them altogether, to battle this summer surge.

We will talk with a health care leader shortly.

In the day's other news: Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Supreme Court's four liberal justices in striking down a Louisiana law that placed restrictions on doctors who perform abortions.

We will take a closer look at that decision after the news summary.

The high court also made it easier for President Trump to remove the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

But it separately declined to block federal executions that are scheduled to begin next month.

Stocks soared today on Wall Street and recovered half of their losses from last week after a healthier-than-expected report on the housing market.

The Dow Jones industrial average climbed 580 points to close at nearly 25596.

The Nasdaq rose 117 points, and the S&P 500 added 44.

The White House briefed select members of Congress today amid reports that Russia offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing American troops in Afghanistan.

The alleged bounties were initially reported by The New York Times, citing intelligence officials.

President Trump denied being briefed on the subject, and said that he was told the intelligence wasn't considered credible.

We will have more on this later in the program.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan today, an attack at a busy market killed at least 23 people.

A car bomb and mortar shells rocked southern Helmand Province, leaving children among the dead and injured.

Both the Taliban and the Afghan military blamed each other for the attack.

Back in this country, the so-called Golden State Killer pled guilty today to 13 counts of first degree murder; 74-year-old Joseph DeAngelo is accused of killing at least 13 people and raping scores more across California in the 1970s and '80s.

He was arrested in 2018.

The former police officer appeared in a wheelchair for his hearing in Sacramento.

He will be spared the death penalty, but will serve life in prison without parole.

The four former police officers charged in the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis were back in court today.

The judge threatened to move their trials out of the city if attorneys and local officials do not stop speaking publicly about the case.

Separately, lawmakers in Mississippi voted Sunday to remove the Confederate symbol from their state flag.

Their governor is expected to sign the bill soon.

Four militants attacked the Pakistan Stock Exchange in Karachi today, killing at least three people.

They stormed the compound armed with grenades and guns to try and take hostages.

Security forces killed them before they could enter the offices where employees took shelter.

AHMED CHINOY, Pakistan Stock Exchange: The law enforcement agencies, the police and the rangers played a very, very vital role in combating this attack, and the stock exchange, the financial hub of the -- Pakistan was safe.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Separatist insurgents from the southwestern province of Balochistan later claimed responsibility.

And Iran has issued arrest warrants for President Trump and 35 others linked to the drone strike that killed its top general, Qasem Soleimani, in January.

Tehran's chief prosecutor also asked the international criminal police organization Interpol to help, but it refused.

Brian Hook, who is the U.S. special representative for Iran, dismissed Tehran's move as a propaganda stunt.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": the Supreme Court strikes down a Louisiana law restricting abortion providers; a Russian military unit reportedly offers Taliban fighters money to kill U.S. soldiers; the U.K. ambassador to the U.S. discusses Russia, COVID, and travel bans; plus, much more.

Today, the White House briefed Republicans on intelligence reports that Russia paid Taliban fighters, as we have been reporting, to attack U.S. forces in Afghanistan, amid bipartisan concern about the president's statement that he had not been told about the intelligence.

We will get to congressional leaders' response in a moment.

But, first, Nick Schifrin reports new details on Russian bounty payments that U.S. officials fear killed U.S. troops.

NICK SCHIFRIN: In April 2019, a bomb planted by the Taliban in this spot killed three U.S. Marines.

And intelligence officials investigated whether this American blood was on Russian hands.

Last year, the Taliban are believed to have received Russian military intelligence money to target U.S. service members, former military and intelligence officials tell "PBS NewsHour."

The payments were discovered by information taken from Taliban leaders, and when U.S. special operations forces found a large amount of American money during a Taliban raid.

It was a dramatic increase in Russian support to the Taliban, already described in 2018 by then U.S.

Commander General John Nicholson.

GEN. JOHN NICHOLSON, Former Commander U.S.

Forces, Afghanistan: We have had weapons brought to this headquarters and given to us by Afghan leaders and said, this was given by the Russians to the Taliban.

We know that the Russians are involved.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Today, the Kremlin called that statement and today's reports -- quote -- "lies."

But former U.S. intelligence officials say, in the last two years, as Americans trained Afghan forces and fought the Taliban, Russian involvement was always a collection priority.

And it was always briefed up to senior levels.

But, today, White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany reiterated, President Trump had never been briefed.

KAYLEIGH MCENANY, White House Press Secretary: The CIA director, NSA, national security adviser, and the chief of staff can all confirm that neither the president nor the vice president were briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Former intelligence officials say President Trump was part of briefings about Russian support before the U.S. signed a peace deal with the Taliban this past February.

Since then, the Taliban have not attacked U.S. troops, but have killed hundreds of Afghan civilians and security forces, and launched a targeted assassination campaign against mosques with moderate clerics, journalists traveling in this van, and, just today, civilians in Helmand, leaving children bloody and orphaned.

Forty years ago, the U.S. and Russia began a much more serious proxy battle in Afghanistan.

After Soviet troops invaded, the U.S. funded Afghan fighters, who eventually forced the Soviets to leave.

U.S. officials say the Russians have always wanted payback in Afghanistan, and they likely increased their assistance to the Taliban to upset U.S. plans and because the us hadn't pushed back strongly enough on prior Russian support.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Nick Schifrin.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let's get reaction now from two key lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

First up, we turn to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff of California.

He joins us now from Capitol Hill.

What do you believe happened here?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Well, we want to get the full answers from the intelligence agencies.

We have asked them to come in and physically brief our committee.

The speaker has asked for a full House briefing on this as well.

We want to know, are the Russians offering bounties to kill American troops?

And, if they are, why is the president still seeking to have Russia brought in to the G8?

Why is he giving Russia that favored status, welcoming them in the community of nations, and maintained this cozy relationship with Putin?

That's not how we ought to treat a country that is trying to kill our people in Afghanistan.

So, we want to get the full intel briefing on these allegations and find out whether this was part of the president's daily brief, and, if the intelligence agencies are still not briefing the president, why they're not briefing him.

Is this an issue where they cannot tell the president things he doesn't want to hear when it comes to Vladimir Putin and Russia?

JUDY WOODRUFF: If the White House is saying, as it's reported from others today, that this was unconfirmed intelligence as part of an ongoing investigation, is it possible that this reporting just got ahead of what's going on?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: You know, anything is possible.

It's also possible that we're not getting the straight scoop from the White House.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

But I would think, if the president is making a pitch to bring Russia into the G8, his people in the National Security Council would want to make sure he's aware of this.

Now, they can caveat this and say, well, you know, we have X-amount of confidence in this intelligence, or we want to do further information, but before you invite the Russians back in, you should know about this.

I don't know if those conversations took place, or they're just afraid of raising this with him, or he just doesn't care or doesn't read his presidential daily brief, but we ought to find out.

These are the safety and the lives of our troops at stake.

And you would hope that the commander in chief would want to hear this information and be able to evaluate it.

JUDY WOODRUFF: How confident are you, Congressman Schiff, that the intelligence community is going to be straight with you on this?

And if you find out that they didn't brief the president with what they knew, then what does that say to you?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I'd like to find out.

And I can't comment on the classified information, but I would like to find out what they'd say in terms of their confidence regarding these allegations, if they felt they couldn't bring this to the president's attention, why they couldn't, or if they, in fact, did bring this to the president's attention.

What the agencies ought to do is, they ought to supply the president with the best information, they ought to tell the president the limits of that information, but allow the president to make good decisions.

If the president doesn't want to hear it, won't listen to it, won't hear a bad word said about Putin's Russia, then, obviously, we need to know about that, because then it falls on the Congress to protect the country, when the commander in chief won't.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you believe it's possible to determine whether or not the president was briefed on this or was informed in some manner?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: We should be able to.

I have to think the White House will likely resist that.

There are times where we are informed that this made it into the presidential daily brief.

There are times when, I'm sure, they will fight that.

But I would hope that we would be able to ascertain whether information is getting to the president and, as I mentioned, whether there's a separate issue about whether, as we see with Russian election interference, those that might raise it with the president at the Cabinet level don't do so because it's a good ticket out of the Cabinet if they do.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You said a moment ago that this raises questions about the president inviting Russia -- or talking inviting Russia into the G8.

What should the punishment be for Russia if it turns out this is true, that they were offering bounty to the Taliban to kill Americans?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Well, I think that we would need to consider what additional sanctions on Russia are necessary.

We certainly halt efforts to welcome Russia back on to the international stage, and it ought to tell us something about the peace process in Afghanistan, that we have a nation that is trying to subvert that peace process by incentivizing the Taliban to attack U.S. troops, again, if these allegations are correct.

But it ought to inform all of our policy judgments, as well as what repercussions ought to take place in terms of Russia.

At a minimum, though, we should -- it ought to end the president's talk about welcoming Putin and Russia back into the community of nations.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Chairman Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee, we thank you very much.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF: Thank you, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And now to Texas Congressman Mac Thornberry.

He is the highest ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Earlier today, he received a briefing from the White House on these reports.

And he joins us now from Capitol Hill.

Congressman Thornberry, thank you very much for joining us.

Tell us, what are they saying at the White House about these reports?

REP. MAC THORNBERRY (R-TX): Well, our briefing today was of the classified intelligence information which is the basis for these concerns about Russians encouraging attacks against U.S. troops.

And so we dug down a little deeper into the information.

Like a lot of intelligence questions, it's not completely clear-cut.

There are pieces of information, and some of it contradictory, and you have to try to put it all together to understand what's really happening.

And so that's what we focused on.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, as you know, The New York Times and now other news organizations are reporting that the Russians did offer bounty, paid bounty, to the Taliban to kill American troops.

That's pretty direct.

So, you're saying what you heard today was that this is not true or that it could be true?

REP. MAC THORNBERRY: There are pieces of information that support it.

There may be pieces that give a somewhat different view.

But I think most of us would agree, if there's any hint of truth or any prospect of truth in the idea that Russia or any other country would put bounties on the head of U.S. service members, we have to treat it very seriously and pursue every lead and make sure our people are protected.

And so I think that's got to be the mind-set moving forward.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what were you told with regard to whether President Trump was informed about this intelligence?

REP. MAC THORNBERRY: We were told that he was not informed about the intelligence, because it had not been fleshed out, not proved credible enough to rise to his level.

At the same time, the White House staff did begin to work on a menu of response options, in case further validating information would be -- would come forward.

So there were really, I think, from the White House perspective, two tracks.

At the same time, I do believe that our forces in Afghanistan took action in case this represented an elevated threat to make sure our people were prepared and protected.

And again, my view, and I think most of us believe that, whether you can prove it all the way or not, if there's a threat to our people, then we need to take decisive action to make sure our people are protected.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, that's what I want to ask you about.

If there is a chance that this information was correct, does it make sense to you, with such an explosive piece of information, that the president wouldn't have been briefed about it?

REP. MAC THORNBERRY: Well, my default would be, if it's a threat to our troops, especially a state that is putting a bounty on the heads of our troops, yes, I would want to tell the president, and, yes, I would want to pursue it as vigorously as possible to track it down, and I would want to take all measures possible to protect our people.

That is my default position.

But I also acknowledge that into the White House every day come many, many threats that have to be evaluated, which ones make it to the president, which ones don't.

They have to be fleshed out.

And so all of us ought to be a little bit careful about second-guessing because of all the things that are going in there.

But, again, my view is, if it's a threat to U.S. troops or might be a threat to U.S. troops, that's got to rise to the top.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you think the White House is completely leveling with you?

REP. MAC THORNBERRY: I assume they have told us -- I assume what they have told us is accurate.

But it is important for our committee on Armed Services, the Intel Committee on the House and Senate to pursue these issues, again, because there is so much at stake.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And if the intel community had this information and didn't share it with the president, what should happen with regard to the intelligence community?

REP. MAC THORNBERRY: Well, the intelligence community must first pursue these lines of information, and I think they are doing that, certainly now, to find out if it is true or not, what the supporting evidence is.

I think that, really, the decision is the advisers around the president on what to bring to his attention and whatnot.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, at this point, you're - - at this point, is the White House pursuing this?

Do you get the sense they take this seriously and you're going to get answers quickly?

REP. MAC THORNBERRY: I do think, at this point, they are taking it seriously.

I think there will be some other public statements coming.

But, again, this is an allegation that ought to be pursued with all the instruments of the U.S. government.

And the other thing is, it would be a tragic mistake for us to further reduce our troop presence in Afghanistan, because that would only encourage more of these sorts of threats to come about.

So, we have got to, yes, pursue the intelligence and where it leads, but we have also got to have smart policy to not encourage this sort of thing by the Russians or anyone else.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Congressman Mac Thornberry, ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, thank you very much.

REP. MAC THORNBERRY: You're welcome.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And after we recorded those interviews earlier this evening, we learned that leading Democrats, including Chairman Adam Schiff, will receive a separate briefing tomorrow at the White House.

As we have been reporting, the summer surge of COVID-19 has left the U.S. and the globe rethinking how to reopen.

William Brangham has more.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's right Judy.

The U.S., as you were saying before, is clearly struggling to contain this virus.

I'm joined now by a man who has spent his career fighting viruses and disease.

Dr. Thomas Frieden ran the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2009 to 2017.

And he's now the head of a global health initiative called Resolve to Save Lives.

Dr. Frieden, good to have you back on.

We are about six months into this ordeal.

We have seen 2.5 million official cases.

Over 125,000 Americans have died.

When you look at where we started vs. where we are today, what is your assessment of how we have done responding?

DR. THOMAS FRIEDEN, Former Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Well, the U.S. is clearly a laggard here.

There are countries around the world that are getting their economies back because they were guided by public health, they communicated clearly, they fully supported public health.

And, unfortunately, we are paying the price of a response that wasn't nationally organized and not well-implemented.

So, if you lean into a punch, you're going to get hit.

And that's what's happening all over the South and in most or much of the country today.

The numbers we're seeing in the U.S. are high, but they're only part of the story.

There are many, many more people who are getting this infection and who have not been tested.

So, the 40,000 cases that were diagnosed the other day are not all of them.

This is creating a huge viral reservoir that's going to take months to deal with.

And, really, the truth is, if you look at what people are saying, most Americans get it.

We need to do the three W's, wear a mask, wash your hands, watch your distance.

And government and public health need to scale up the box-it-in approach that we have been talking about for months, test strategically.

It's not a question of how many.

It's whether you do it right.

Isolate people well, contact trace, quarantine supportively.

There are some tough questions to be asked, but there's so much more we need to be doing.

There are parts of the U.S. that are continuing to see progress, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut seeing progress still, but at risk, because if any part of the U.S. is having this kind of rapid increase, all parts of the U.S. are at risk.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, if, as you say, the majority of the country does believe in the three W's, as you were laying out, and wants to stamp out the virus, how do we explain this -- several dozen states now seeing these dramatic spikes?

What is going on in those states that is causing that?

DR. THOMAS FRIEDEN: I think what you saw was an approach that wasn't data-driven.

A data-driven approach would not have closed for so long in so many places that didn't have COVID.

It's like trying to catch a wave when you're surfing.

If you go too early, you don't watch the wave.

If you go too late, you get swamped.

You have to do it just right.

So, in many parts in the U.S., you saw closings too soon and too long.

Then they opened just as it's increasing.

And, again, opening when it's increasing is just asking to get hit hard.

So it's no surprise that you're seeing these big increases.

Places like Arizona, where nearly one out of every four tests is positive, that's an extraordinarily high rate, and that indicates a real increase, not just an increase in testing.

It's going to take a while.

It means a lot more distancing, masks, handwashing, distance, but it also means that bars need to be closed in these areas.

You can't do that safely.

We have had many outbreaks related to bars.

It means that indoor space, the more people together with the more crowding, less ventilation and the higher the rate of COVID in that area, the more chance for explosive spread.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: We have been seeing several states that have opened up early, as you were describing, or reversing.

Arizona just this evening is announcing that they are going to start closing bars down, in response to the surge of cases there.

But I want to ask you about one other issue, that the president and the vice president have argued that the real reason we're seeing so many cases is because we're testing more, if you look more, you're going to find more.

That is -- is that a fair depiction of what's really going on?

DR. THOMAS FRIEDEN: That's simply wrong.

As a scientist, as an epidemiologist, as a doctor, I can tell you, when you look at the data, there are one or two states where you're seeing a lot more testing and a similar increase in cases.

That's correct.

Then it's really about more tests.

But, if you look, Arizona, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, in particular, and many others, the tests are either up or stable, but the percent positivity is increasing.

And that's the key number, because that tells you that the rate of COVID in that community is increasing.

This is not about increased tests.

It's about increased spread of the virus.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lastly, the president, the vice president also argue that, yes, we may be seeing an increase in tests, but not as many people are dying, that mortality rates are not rising commensurately with new cases.

How do you explain that?

DR. THOMAS FRIEDEN: There are a few things going on.

First off, death rates lag case rates by about a month, because people get sicker and sicker, and then need to be cared for.

Second, it is true that we're seeing increases especially in young adults, and the death rate of young adults is massively lower than the death rate of older adults.

But what starts in young adults doesn't stay in young adults.

That means the lag may be longer than a month, two or three months, but it's likely to be there.

We're also seeing some improvements in how to care for patients.

And what we have seen all over the world is, when you have a situation like New York City, with just overwhelming numbers, the death rate goes up, because it's harder for the doctors and nurses and respiratory therapists to give optimal care.

So, I do think that we're seeing a real lower death rate.

That's accurate.

Some of that is the lag, because it takes longer for people to get severely ill than to get a case.

And some of that is the age group.

So the death rate may come down, but we still project that, in the next month, the U.S. is likely to have at least 15,000 more deaths.

And I think we're getting inured to these numbers.

This is a huge number, 135,000 deaths, with another 15,000, doctors and nurses, other health care workers, more than 400 of them killed by COVID.

That is just a shocking number.

And we have to do better at protecting our health care workers, shielding our elderly, and making sure that nursing homes, meatpacking factories, homeless shelters, prisons and jails are protected, so we don't see this kind of explosive spread and steady increase.

It's not just about death.

It's about how broadly this virus spreads in our community.

It creates the equivalent of a reservoir of virus that's going to take a long time.

New York City had to shut down for months to cool it down.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Right.

Some very sobering news.

Dr. Tom Frieden, thank you very much for your time.

DR. THOMAS FRIEDEN: Thank you so much.

Nice to speak with you again.

JUDY WOODRUFF: As we reported earlier, the Supreme Court struck down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law with a 5-to-4 majority.

As John Yang reports, Chief Justice John Roberts provided the decisive vote.

JOHN YANG: Chief Justice John Roberts was again in an unusual position today, siding with the four reliably liberal justices to strike down a restrictive Louisiana abortion law by a 5-4 majority.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the decision, relying on the 2016 5-3 ruling invalidating a nearly identical Texas law, at the time, the court's biggest endorsement of abortion rights in a quarter-century.

Then, Roberts was on the other side, among the dissenters.

Today, in a concurring opinion, he wrote of the importance of Supreme Court precedent: "The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons.

Therefore, Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents."

Roberts said he still believes the Texas case "was wrongly decided.

The question today, however, is not whether it was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case."

Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for "The National Law Journal" says it underscores Roberts' emergence as the court's swing vote.

MARCIA COYLE, "The National Law Journal": Overlay on that his concern for the credibility of the institution.

And he tends then to write fairly narrow opinions when he does move to the left, as he did here.

He's not going to make any immediate gigantic shifts left or right, although he's capable of doing that and has done some in the past.

JOHN YANG: In a statement, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany called the ruling unfortunate and said: "Unelected justices have intruded on the sovereign prerogatives of state governments by imposing their own policy preference in favor of abortion to override legitimate abortion safety regulations."

Roberts, in particular, is drawing the ire of conservative legal scholars, like John Malcolm of the Heritage Foundation.

JOHN MALCOLM, The Heritage Foundation: Rather than calling balls and strikes, as he pledged to do during his confirmation hearings, he comes down with an opinion that I think can be appropriately characterized as a political one.

So, strangely enough, while trying to keep the court out of politics, the court becomes more involved in politics than ever before.

JOHN YANG: For President Trump's appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, it was the first case involving abortion rights.

Gorsuch criticized the majority in a dissent, calling its ruling "little more than the judicial version of a hunter's stew.

Throw in anything that looks interesting, stir, and season to taste."

In his dissent, Kavanaugh said lower courts need to determine more about how the Louisiana law would affect access to abortion there.

While today's ruling is a victory for abortion rights, analysts say there are more challenges ahead.

MARY ZIEGLER, Florida State University College of Law: And people who are celebrating today's decision as a big win for abortion rights are, in my opinion, going to have a rude awakening.

JOHN YANG: Law professor Mary Ziegler studies U.S. abortion law.

MARY ZIEGLER: It's clear that there will be more abortion restrictions upheld by this court and that access to abortion will be more limited.

If you're thinking about the ultimate fate of Roe v. Wade, in some ways, I think that's more up in the air today than it was yesterday.

JOHN YANG: The Louisiana law, which has never gone into effect, would have required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Abortion rights advocates said that would have left the state with just one abortion provider.

The law's backers said it was to safeguard women.

Angie Thomas is the associate director of Louisiana Right to Life.

ANGIE THOMAS, Louisiana Right to Life: This is all about just protecting women, keeping them safe from substandard care, and substandard care that we know to be true through the violations over the last two decades and more.

JOHN YANG: But abortion rights advocates say, the complication rate is extremely low, less than 1 percent.

Kathaleen Pittman is administrator of a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana, which would have been left with a single part-time physician permitted to perform abortions.

KATHALEEN PITTMAN, Hope Medical Group: How many times have we actually had to transport?

I think we were able to come up with four instances over a 20-year period.

A woman who is pregnant is at much greater risk for her health and her life should she continue that pregnancy vs. having an abortion.

JOHN YANG: And with today's rulings, the clinic's doctors will be able to continue performing abortions.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm John Yang.

We look now at how the U.S. relationship with one of our closest allies is complicated by current events.

Nick Schifrin spoke late today with the new British ambassador to Washington.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Dame Karen Pierce was named British ambassador to Kabul from 2015 to 2016, and then U.N. representative in 2018.

She was named U.K. ambassador to Washington earlier this year.

And she joins me now.

Ambassador Pierce, thank you very much.

Welcome to the "NewsHour."

I know you can't comment on specific intelligence reports, but we're reporting today that, according to former military and intelligence officials, there's a belief that Russian military intelligence was providing financial incentives to the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers.

How concerned is the British government about Russian support to the Taliban?

KAREN PIERCE, British Ambassador to the United States: Well, you're right, Nick, we never comment on intelligence matters.

But irrespective of this particular report, I think there has been a pattern of Russian malign activity around the world in recent years.

And Britain, together with our international partners, we want to push back on that malign activity, while making clear to Russia that we would like a more productive relationship.

NICK SCHIFRIN: You were ambassador in Kabul a few years ago.

More recently, the outgoing general in Kabul said that Russia was providing weapons and political support to the Taliban about two years ago.

Do you believe that support increased in the last two years?

KAREN PIERCE: Certainly, while I was in Afghanistan, we did see a hardening of the Russian position, and Russia became less cooperative than she had been previously.

But I also think it's also worth thinking that the only thing Russia liked less than NATO being in Afghanistan is NATO not being in Afghanistan, because NATO provides security and stability for Russia as well.

And I think that all needs factoring into Russian assessments.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The core of NATO-U.S.-Western deterrence to Russia in Europe has been tens of thousands of American troops in Germany.

And President Trump wants to reduce the number of those troops by about 30 percent, and he announced that without having consulted Germany or NATO officials.

So, does the fact that that consultation didn't happen, does that erode the transatlantic alliance?

KAREN PIERCE: I think NATO and the transatlantic alliance is so interwoven and so interdependent that it doesn't depend on one single event or one single decision.

I think we have to remember NATO is the most successful military alliance in history.

As we go into the numbers, my understanding is that Defense Secretary Esper is talking to the president about options for troop numbers in Germany.

But, as I say, one single decision doesn't undermine the fact that NATO has been extraordinarily successful since it was first founded.

NICK SCHIFRIN: On coronavirus, as you know, cases in certain U.S. states are spiking.

There are concerns here about people respecting social distancing ahead of the July 4 weekend.

July 4 also happens to be the day when the U.K. will open pubs.

With all due respect, Britons are not necessarily known for social distancing after a few pints.

So, are you worried at all that the opening up that the government has announced for later this week will increase cases in the U.K.?

KAREN PIERCE: Well, the prime minister and scientists and other ministers are calling for people to be vigilant.

We're calling July the 4th our version of Independence Day, because people can start to come out of lockdown.

As you say, they can go to the pubs.

They can do more to enjoy themselves.

But it has to be done on a responsible basis.

And social distancing rules will be relaxed to a meter, rather than two meters.

But that is dependent on taking other measures, like mask wearing and staying alert, so that we don't get a resurgence of cases.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The European Union is on the verge of extending a ban on American tourists from traveling to the bloc.

Will the U.K. make the same decision?

KAREN PIERCE: Well, our decisions are separate and independent from the European Union's.

Our transport secretary, who is called Grant Shapps, he made a statement in Parliament saying that the restrictions would be relaxed for a number of countries shortly.

He is looking at which countries might fall into that list.

A lot depends on the trajectory, the expected trajectory of the virus in those countries.

But we hope to be able to announce that list shortly.

I'm afraid I haven't seen it, so I don't know who's on it.

NICK SCHIFRIN: The trajectory in the U.S., though, is not in the right direction.

Are there ongoing conversations between U.S. and British officials about respective travel bans?

KAREN PIERCE: There's a lot of conversations going on about COVID handling in general.

They don't just cover travel.

They cover medical, science.

A whole range of talks go on.

And we take part in some other groups that the U.S. is in, trying to manage all these issues across Europe and the United States.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And, Ambassador, in the time I have left, one last topic.

This week, Israel might annex parts of the occupied West Bank.

Do you oppose the administration's green light, effectively, in the Trump peace plan to annexation?

And will you impose penalties if that annexation goes forward?

KAREN PIERCE: Well, Boris Johnson, our prime minister, said in the House of Commons that we did oppose unilateral annexation by Israel.

As to what will happen if Israel goes ahead and annexes, I don't want to speculate.

But I think our opposition to unilateral annexation has been laid out loud and clear.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Ambassador Pierce, thank you very much.

KAREN PIERCE: Thanks very much.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It's only Monday but it is already shaping up to be a busy week in politics.

To help us dive into it all, Tamara Keith of NPR.

She also co-hosts the "NPR Politics Podcast."

And Errin Haines, she is the editor at large of The 19th.

It's a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom reporting on the intersection of gender, politics and policy.

Errin Haines, we welcome you.

Amy Walter is away.

Hello to you, Tam.

So, I want to start by asking both of you about the language of race, as President Trump uses it.

This has been, as we know, an ongoing issue since the election in 2016.

But, just over the weekend, the president retweeted a video of a group of men, one of them yelling "White power."

Let's look at what was in that retweet.

MAN: Racist!

Racist!

MAN: Yes, you got it.

White power!

White power!

MAN: There you go.

White power.

You hear that?

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, the president did later delete the tweet.

But, Tam, how is something like this received in this current atmosphere in this current atmosphere of much heightened awareness of racial justice?

TAMARA KEITH, National Public Radio: The White House says that president did watch the video before tweeting it, but somehow didn't hear that very glaring "White power" phrase.

And the fact, is this is nothing new for President Trump.

It's only been a few days since we were talking about how he was using a racist term to describe the coronavirus.

He, in his campaign speeches and tweets, has been emphasizing that the removal of Confederate sculptures and statues is the removal of our heritage, though our is not particularly inclusive.

And the sense is that this is an attempt at a repeat of 2016, that President Trump is running a similar playbook, hoping for the same results.

And it's clear that there's no dialing it back, for instance, with the kung-flu reference.

It's almost become a call and response, and he's only had two campaign events in the last week.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Errin Haines, this is a difficult political climate now, is it not?

ERRIN HAINES, Editor at Large, The 19th: Well, this is certainly not the climate that the president was running in four years ago, although we certainly still are very much in a racially polarized environment headed into November.

Listen, it's just as Tamara said.

The president is drawing again from a racial playbook that he has been using since he first descended the escalator at Trump Tower five years ago to declare his candidacy for president, whether it was referring to Mexicans as rapists, whether it was referring to African and Caribbean countries as S-holes or cities like Baltimore as rat-infested, whether he was calling for law and order in cities like Chicago, or raising the specter of voter fraud in cities like Philadelphia.

I mean, at this point, they're not even dog whistles.

You saw in that video the elderly gentleman said "White power" not once, but twice.

And so, while it would certainly be hard to miss, even if that was something that the president missed, deleting it was obviously something that should have happened, but, in reality, that never should have been posted in the first place.

But I think it does send a message to certain supporters of his who either share his views or support him in spite of them.

The question at this point is not who the president is - - I think we know who he is after four years - - but who the American electorate is going to be heading into November.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, it certainly got a lot of attention.

Of course, the other thing getting a great deal of attention right now is COVID-19.

We are seeing a surge, questions being raised about the leadership both at the national and the state level about what to do, about whether the leadership has been the kind that has made the American people do what they needed to do to stay safe and to stay healthy.

And, Tam, we are seeing division over whether to wear masks, whether to stay socially distanced.

How do you see this politicization, if you will, of the coronavirus as we get closer to the election?

TAMARA KEITH: Right.

And there is a real mixed message coming from the Trump administration.

I guess that isn't a particularly new development.

But you have the health secretary, Alex Azar, saying that this is a critical moment and that people need to wear masks if they're not socially distanced.

The message from the president, according to the press secretary today, was a little bit different.

It was that masks are optional, and that it's really a personal choice, and the people should listen to local health officials.

But there just is a -- there's this message that is mixed, and there's this challenge that is coming that -- leading into this moment, it has been largely a blue state problem, a bluer state, bluer county problem.

And that has been flipping.

And the political implications for that for the president, where now states like Florida and Arizona are more dominant in the caseload, this could have political implications for him.

It's not clear just yet what it will be.

But one thing we know is that the city of Jacksonville, where the president is moving his convention acceptance speech, well, now they require masks to be worn.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Errin, how do you see this playing out?

I know we're months away from Election Day.

But this is on top of mind for many Americans right now, and will be, it looks like now, for a while to come.

ERRIN HAINES: It absolutely is, Judy.

And what we're looking at here headed into November are the dual pandemics of coronavirus and racism, which are absolutely political and on the minds of many of the voters that I have spoken to, both the ones who stood in line for hours to cast a ballot during this primary and wonder how they're going to be able to safely participate in this democracy headed into November, to black voters who are part of a community that is disproportionately being affected and killed by this deadly virus.

And so having leaders -- or looking for leaders who are going to respond to these dual pandemics, I think, is on the minds of a lot of voters, particularly voters of color, but also women, who are the majority of the electorate and who are being disproportionately affected, maybe not by death, but in almost every other aspect of the coronavirus crisis.

And so what I'm hearing from women and from voters of color is that the pandemic is absolutely political and absolutely something that could be galvanizing and energizing them headed into the fall.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just very quickly to you, Tam.

The polls are showing that older voters, who are more vulnerable to the coronavirus, the president is seeing some slippage in his support among that group.

TAMARA KEITH: Well, and former Vice President Joe Biden is doing surprisingly well with older voters.

I mean, you have to figure that the coronavirus is playing into this, certainly, even as, at the moment now, more young Americans are being affected by the new cases.

It's not clear whether the statistics will stay that way.

JUDY WOODRUFF: For sure.

So much to follow, even more than we have time to get to today.

But it's great to see both of you, Tamara Keith, Errin Haines, Politics Monday.

Thank you both.

The young African nation of South Sudan is facing two growing challenges: the coronavirus pandemic and ethnic fighting that has long plagued the country.

That has left little time and investment for athletes looking to compete in the Olympics.

So, Japan, the host of the now postponed 2020 games, offered to help.

"NewsHour" producer Ali Rogin reports on five unique runners.

ALI ROGIN: For South Sudanese track star Abraham Majok, the road to Olympic glory was already long.

COVID-19 made it longer.

ABRAHAM MAJOK, South Sudanese Athlete: The first night, when I heard that the Olympics were postponed, I was really worried.

ALI ROGIN: Since November, Majok and five teammates have been living and training in the small city of Maebashi, Japan, 7,000 miles from home, where none of these world-class facilities is available ABRAHAM MAJOK: They don't have a single track in the whole country which is still facing the country as a big challenge.

And then most of the athletes, including me myself, are from poor families.

ALI ROGIN: South Sudan is the world's youngest country.

In 2011, it declared independence from Sudan, following decades of fighting.

But fighting among South Sudanese ethnic groups continued.

Only in February did rival leaders agree to end six years of civil war.

Majok dreamed of giving his divided nation a reason to unite.

But in March, the International Olympic Committee postponed the Tokyo Games until next summer and possibly beyond.

Majok worried his dream would disappear.

ABRAHAM MAJOK: The whole night thinking I might have lost again this chance that I had come to fight for my dream.

ALI ROGIN: But, in that fight, he has an ally, one of the world's oldest and richest countries.

Japan's international development agency chose Majok and his teammates to train in Maebashi ahead of what was supposed to be the 2020 Tokyo Summer Olympics.

The agency's goal is to unite the South Sudanese people through sports.

Yoshifumi Yamanaka represents Japan's development agency.

He said Maebashi's mayor offered to host from a sense of duty.

YAMANAKA YOSHIFUMI, Japan International Cooperation Agency (through translator): The mayor said that Japan is a country which, after World War II, succeeded in economic growth thanks to the support from the international community.

And it is important for Japan to now return this favor by supporting the development of South Sudan.

ALI ROGIN: Back in November, Japanese TV celebrated Majok's and his teammates' arrival, and they have become a beloved part of the community.

Before the pandemic, they learned the traditional way to make mochi, a favorite Japanese dessert, took lessons in writing Japanese script, and visited local shrines.

Kenichi Uchida is their translator in Maebashi.

KENICHI UCHIDA, Team Translator: We are getting close, and we become friends.

So, one day, you know, I'd like to go there and meet them in person in South Sudan.

ALI ROGIN: Before a citywide coronavirus shutdown, the athletes trained with local volunteers and runners.

They spent their free time learning about Japanese culture and civics and about how the nation recovered from wartime.

ABRAHAM MAJOK: What I have got to learn from the Japanese history is, there is nothing which is permanent.

No condition is permanent, after that long suffering.

And Japan has finally gained the peace.

And they are one of the world's most peaceful countries at the moment also.

ALI ROGIN: And it goes both ways.

In this country now 75 years removed from war, Majok and his teammates visited with Japanese schoolchildren to share their stories.

ABRAHAM MAJOK: Most of them ask us about South Sudan, and we always tell them, this is the world's youngest country, but it's still under very difficult situations right now.

But that does not make us lose hope.

ALI ROGIN: And now the Japanese have decided to preserve the team's Olympic hope.

Maebashi officials extended their stay by raising money from taxes and revenues from new vending machines.

ABRAHAM MAJOK: When we heard that we're going to train after that long, at least the worry was a bit reduced, because we believe we're going to train, and we may have the chance to reach Olympics here.

ALI ROGIN: Majok and his teammates are staying at least through July.

What happens after that depends on local officials and South Sudan's Olympic Committee.

For now, the volunteers are keeping socially distant, and the athletes train in an otherwise empty gym.

There are still moments when Majok misses home.

But he remains focused on the reason he and his team embarked on this journey.

ABRAHAM MAJOK: I'm for a mission, which, if I miss, I can't achieve it again.

But the friends, when I get back, I will meet them again.

The family, when I get back, I will see them again.

So I have to focus on my goal first.

ALI ROGIN: What does it mean for you to have the opportunity to represent South Sudan in the Olympics/ ABRAHAM MAJOK: I feel very good to represent my country, because this is what I was always fighting for, and this is why I have been training all along.

And it was my goal that I set, and I have to achieve it.

ALI ROGIN: Whenever Majok achieves his goal, he will have the entire city of Maebashi cheering him on.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Ali Rogin.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You have got to be pulling for that South Sudanese team.

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.