GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Government investigators arrest a member of the Air National Guard suspected of leaking highly classified documents online.

GEOFF BENNETT: A federal appeals court allows an abortion pill to stay on the market for now with some restrictions.

How abortion providers are navigating the swiftly changing legal landscape.

AMNA NAWAZ: And the United Nations agrees to outline what countries are legally obligated to do about climate change.

We meet the young Pacific Islanders who made that possible.

SOLOMON YEO, Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change: If we were to go down in the history books the countries that float in the middle of nowhere, let us not go down without a fight.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Good evening, and welcome to the "NewsHour."

The man suspected of leaking highly classified military documents has been found.

AMNA NAWAZ: The 21-year-old Massachusetts Air National Guard member was taken into custody earlier today.

Jack Teixeira -- that's him in the red shorts there -- was arrested at his home in Southern Massachusetts by heavily armed FBI agents.

He's alleged to have posted hundreds of classified documents to an online gaming platform that detail secrets about the war in Ukraine, Russian capabilities, even secrets about U.S. allies collected by American intelligence.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced the arrest in Washington.

MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General: FBI agents took Teixeira into custody earlier this afternoon without incident.

He will have an initial appearance at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

AMNA NAWAZ: Teixeira was taken to Boston, where he will make an initial court appearance tomorrow.

Nick Schifrin is following the story and joins me here.

Nick, good to see you.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Twenty-one-year-old Jack Teixeira, who is he?

What do we know about him?

NICK SCHIFRIN: Yes, Jack Douglas Teixeira, 21 years old, served, as you just said, in the Massachusetts Air National Guard at the Otis Air National Guard base.

That's the rural part of the state.

His rank was airman 1st class.

That is very junior.

And his job title, cyber transport systems journeyman.

Now, what does that mean?

He was responsible for protecting the computer network.

He was essentially an I.T.

specialist who was supposed to be safeguarding sensitive information from external attacks, and very entry level.

That journeyman tag, that is one level above apprentice.

Now, at the same time, he was on this small group -- or led this small group on Discord.

That is an online platform popular among gamers, where he posted hundreds of documents.

And the investigative organization Bellingcat and other journalists have discovered he posted that in order to impress his friends on this platform, many of whom were teenagers, that he had access to classified information.

One of them spoke to The Washington Post about who he was.

GAMER: He did have sort of a bossy attitude at some points, but it was more of a fatherly bossy.

He did see himself as the leader of this group, and, ultimately, he was leader of this group.

And he wanted us all to be sort of super soldiers, to some degree, informed, fit, with God, well-armed, stuff like that.

NICK SCHIFRIN: So, he initially gave all of this information to his buddies.

But then the documents were reposted to a public channel.

And that started a chain reaction for it to be spread.

Millions of people read, and real military diplomatic blowback all over the world, especially among U.S. allies.

Teixeira will be charged under the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime to remove or transmit classified national defense information.

AMNA NAWAZ: Stunning details, Nick.

But this guy's airman 1st class, very junior, as you point out.

Why and how did he have access to this kind of information?

NICK SCHIFRIN: It's extraordinary think that he had access, because he was not an intelligence analyst who would need this access.

Multiple people I spoke to today compared him to Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who also leaked hundreds of documents of very damaging classified information, who was also a computer administrator.

Teixeira, like Snowden, had access to these documents, not because he needed them for his day job, but because they were on the computer network he was supposed to secure.

Now, despite all of that, the Defense Department spokesman Brigadier General Pat Ryder spoke earlier today right before Garland's announcement, and he claimed the classified information was in the right hands.

BRIG.

GEN. PATRICK RYDER, Pentagon Press Secretary: The important thing to understand about classified information, it's not just: I want to have access to it because I have a clearance.

It's all based on need to know.

Do you have a need to know that information?

And that typically will grant you access if you have the appropriate clearances.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But Ryder and other defense officials do admit, Amna, that they're in the process of restricting the number of people who have access to these kinds of documents.

AMNA NAWAZ: Nick, what else have you learned about how authorities eventually identified and caught him?

NICK SCHIFRIN: We don't know exactly.

We will know a lot more tomorrow.

But there's two important factors that led to this being solved relatively quickly.

One, Discord, the gaming platform that I mentioned, has said publicly it cooperated with law enforcement.

And the reason that is vital is because it likely meant that investigators had the names of those people on that small group on Discord, so they could cross-reference those names with the people who have access to this kind of information.

Two, the U.S. has extensive controls over the networks where the classified information live.

And investigators are able to track who and when they access classified documents and every time someone prints out a classified document.

And, if you recall, the original leaks were actually photographs of printouts of these documents.

Now, Snowden, as an I.T.

specialist, was able to manipulate some of the logs and tried to hide what he did.

So it's possible Teixeira did the same.

But former counterintelligence officials I talk to tell me that the U.S. has taken steps to try and mitigate that risk and make sure people's digital footprints inside these networks are very visible.

But, obviously, it'll spark a lot of questions about why he had this access and why so many people have access to this information.

AMNA NAWAZ: Finally, Nick, I know you have been reporting on the fallout from the leak for days now.

What else have we learned about those leaks?

NICK SCHIFRIN: Yes, we talked about the leaks, front-line information about Ukraine, spying on allies like Israel and South Korea.

We now know a lot more about the infighting inside the Russian military.

Russian intelligence accused the Russian Defense Ministry of obfuscating the number of casualties in Ukraine.

And the head of the Wagner group -- that's Yevgeny Prigozhin -- who fought publicly with the Defense Ministry, was called in to meet President Putin and the defense minister.

It turns out that the head of the military in Russia did cut off some of the ammunition to the Wagner Group, but then changed his mind.

AMNA NAWAZ: Fascinating details.

Nick Schifrin, thank you for your reporting.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: In the day's other headlines: The Biden administration announced it's expanding health coverage to hundreds of thousands of people brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

So-called DACA recipients will be eligible to apply for Medicaid and health insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act.

The change is set to take effect by the end of the month.

President Biden played up the shared history and shared values of Ireland and the United States today.

It was the second day of his three-day visit.

The president addressed the Irish Parliament and paid tribute to American and Irish unity on key issues, including aid for Ukraine against Russian aggression.

JOE BIDEN, President of the United States: Ireland remembers what it means to have to flee home, leaving everything behind and begin again on foreign shores.

The Irish people have generously opened their hearts, their homes, and you have welcomed, as you have said, nearly 80,000, nearly 80,000 Ukrainian refugees.

AMNA NAWAZ: Mr. Biden winds up his trip tomorrow.

Former President Trump gave a second deposition today in a lawsuit over his business practices in New York state.

Trump raised his fist in the air as he left his Manhattan apartment heading to the appointment.

The state attorney general alleges his family misrepresented the value of company assets.

Mr. Trump refused to answer most questions at an earlier deposition, citing his right against self-incrimination.

The U.S. Senate will be asked next week to replace California Democrat Dianne Feinstein temporarily on the Judiciary Committee.

She made the request on Wednesday amid calls for her resignation.

Feinstein, who is 89, has been ill and has not voted since mid-February.

Replacing her on the closely divided Judiciary panel would let action resume on federal judge nominees.

North Korea has fired another long-range missile, but this one may be something new.

The U.S., Japan and South Korea say the weapon may have been solid fueled, making it more mobile and harder to detect.

The launch drew sharp criticism from Japan, where officials initially ordered some people to take shelter.

HIROKAZU MATSUNO, Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary (through translator): This launch is an outrageous act that escalates the provocation against the entire international community.

North Korea's series of actions, including repeated launches of ballistic missiles, threatens peace and security.

It is absolutely unacceptable.

AMNA NAWAZ: The missile flew 600 miles and landed in the ocean between the Korean Peninsula and Japan.

In France, protesters staged a 12th round of strikes over plans to raise the retirement age to 64.

Today's rallies drew smaller turnouts than in weeks past.

In Paris, some in the crowds clashed with police, who fired tear gas and charged the demonstrators.

Tomorrow, France's constitutional council is to decide whether the retirement legislation passes legal muster.

Back in this country, inflation at the wholesale level eased sharply in March, falling to an annual rate of 2.7 percent.

That is down from 4.7 percent in February and the lowest in more than two years.

And, on Wall Street, the inflation news boosted hopes that the Federal Reserve will dial back interest rate hikes.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 383 points, or 1 percent, to close at 34029.

The Nasdaq rose 2 percent.

The S&P 500 was up 1.3 percent.

And visionary fashion designer Mary Quant, sometimes called the mother of the miniskirt, has died at her home in Surrey, England.

Her miniskirts, hot pants and other bold styles defined Britain's swinging '60s era.

Some compared her influence on fashion to the Beatles' impact on pop music.

Mary Quant was 93 years old.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas under renewed scrutiny for a real estate deal with a Republican donor; false alarms of school shootings put teachers, students and parents on edge; FOX News goes on trial in the defamation case brought by Dominion Voting Systems; a music organization takes on the challenge of diversifying classical music nationwide; plus much more.

GEOFF BENNETT: The Biden administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and guarantee expanded access to the abortion medication mifepristone.

This comes after a federal appeals court ruled overnight in favor of continuing access to mifepristone for now, so long as a woman sees a doctor in person.

But the appellate court also limited its distribution, saying it could no longer be delivered through the mail.

And it can only be used through the seventh week of pregnancy.

The battle over abortion is also playing out intensely at the state level.

Today, the Florida legislature approved banning abortions there after just six weeks before some women realize they're pregnant.

Governor Ron DeSantis has said he will sign it.

There are some exceptions, including for rape and incest.

But it'll make Florida one of the most restrictive states in the country.

For more on what all of this means for providers and patients, we're joined by Dr. Jamila Perritt, president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health.

Thanks so much for being with us.

And, Dr. Perritt, setting aside the question of availability of mifepristone, what's the impact of these obstacles to access?

DR. JAMILA PERRITT, President and CEO, Physicians for Reproductive Health: The direct impact is elimination of access wholesale.

What we're seeing now is justice by geography.

Folks who live in states and communities that have abortion providers, that have fewer restrictions get one type of medical care, reproductive health care, and folks that live in other places, like Florida, for example, that just passed their six-week ban, get another type of care.

There is not equity built into the system.

And it's designed to be fragmented and to make it very difficult for people to access abortion care, period.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, just this evening, we learned that the Washington state district judge doubled down on his Friday ruling, saying that the FDA can't roll back access to abortion pills in the 17 states and the District of Columbia that sued.

The pace of these rulings, the conflicting nature of them, it's confusing.

How are you and your colleagues advising women who may find themselves in need or a moment of crisis?

DR. JAMILA PERRITT: The unfortunate outcome here is that it is requiring health care providers, physicians, nurses, midwives like me to, instead of caring for our community, the work that we have been morally called to do, we're spending an inordinate amount of time talking to lawyers and policy folks, because we have an entire group of people who have no medical training, no medical background, no education in scientific research or even understanding the literature attempting to legislate care, legislate medicine.

GEOFF BENNETT: Right now, more than half of all abortions in the U.S., as you well know, are medication abortions.

Tell me more about how providers across the country, the -- your colleagues, folks who you represent in your capacity as president of your organization, how they're preparing for the possibility of providing care without access to mifepristone, which is one of the two pills commonly used for medication abortions.

DR. JAMILA PERRITT: We have more than 500 doctors in our network who are on the ground providing care in their communities day in and day out.

And this has caused a huge amount of confusion.

And it is a terrible burden, both for patients and for providers.

Certainly, we are attempting to be flexible and to be iterative, to follow the medicine and the science and to take good care of people.

But it's not easy.

It's sapping resources in an already under resourced medical system.

We are still coming out of the ashes from the COVID-19 pandemic.

And you have health care providers that are scrambling to be able to care for themselves and other people.

And this is making it much, much more difficult and will continue to be harmful for our communities for generations to come, should it stand.

GEOFF BENNETT: Dr. Perritt, how are providers in states that have abortion bans, how are they caring for patients who might have high-risk pregnancies, who might have suffered miscarriages?

How are they doing that while also worrying about their own potential legal exposure?

DR. JAMILA PERRITT: I'm so glad that you asked that, because what this is really done is pitted patients against providers.

When you go to see your doctor, what you want is someone who is going to prioritize your health and well-being.

And what we're being asked to do now because of these rulings is to center ourselves, to think about what's best for me as a doctor in this moment, and not what's best for the patient in front of me.

And that is no way to practice medicine.

It's no way to provide care to folks that you are charged, that we are charged with caring for and for whom we deeply care about in our communities.

And so it's tough, because I think a lot of people believed that, as long as it was just about abortion, then it wasn't an issue.

But you rightly point out that it impacts all areas of reproductive health, including pregnancy care for those with high-risk pregnancies, management of pregnancy loss, induction of labor.

This is going to have far-reaching consequences way beyond what folks think about when they hear the word abortion.

GEOFF BENNETT: Dr. Jamila Perritt is president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health.

Thanks so much for being with us.

DR. JAMILA PERRITT: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is facing questions again about his failure to disclose transactions with a Republican megadonor.

A new report by ProPublica details a 2014 real estate deal in which Harlan Crow's company paid $133,000 to Thomas and his family to buy the home where the justice's mother lived.

Like the luxury vacations uncovered by ProPublica last week, the sale went unreported on Justice Thomas' financial disclosure forms.

Gabe Roth is the executive director of Fix the Court, a group that advocates for court reforms, and joins us now.

So, Gabe, this $133,000 transaction between Justice Thomas and Harlan Crow, which Justice Thomas didn't disclose, as the law requires, this marks the first known instance of payments between the two men.

What are the implications?

GABE ROTH, Executive Director, Fix the Court: Well, it appears, from what we know so far - - and I think there's more information that's going to be coming out in terms of how exactly the $133,000 was delineated or just divided between the Thomas family and among the properties.

But the federal law is very clear.

It says that to, follow the financial disclosure law that was passed in 1978 after Watergate, filers, including Supreme Court justices, have to provide a brief description, a date and the value of any purchase, sale or exchange of real estate that exceeds $1,000.

So this is obviously more than $1,000.

Even if you divide the property up several ways, it's more than $1,000.

So this is a violation of that statute.

And there should be repercussions for that.

GEOFF BENNETT: If Justice Thomas had reported it, would that have put him in the clear, ethically speaking, or do you see other potentially deeper ethical transgressions here in this close relationship between Justice Thomas and Harlan Crow, given that Mr. Crow has been a Republican megadonor for years?

GABE ROTH: Love the leading question.

Yes, I think -- I think that that's pretty clear that I think there's more than just the statutory violation the real estate.

I mean, the $500,000 valued trip via private plane and yacht to Indonesia and the trips to New Zealand and East Texas and Upstate New York, I mean, it's -- there's nothing like this on the Supreme Court, at least since Scalia passed away, where you have a single individual reaping such largess from another individual, the latter being, the one giving the gifts, having a clear political bent and wanting the court to do certain things, even if he might not have had any cases.

So I think we should be expecting more ethically from our justices.

And it's a real shame that what we have shown over the course of several weeks with these ProPublica reports is that our justices are just thumbing their nose to whatever ethical, very weak, but whatever ethical rules exist, and that we're not in the good place when that's happening.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, we should say the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to our request for comment.

But Mr. Crow told ProPublica in a statement that he bought the property because his "intention is to one day create a public museum at the Thomas home dedicated to telling the story of our nation's second Black Supreme Court justice."

Do Mr. Crow's intentions take away from Justice Thomas' obligations to report the sale?

GABE ROTH: I don't think so.

I don't care how generous Harlan Crow thinks he is in being this philanthropist that's - - he also put up some money for a library wing in Savannah named after Thomas.

He turned the cannery where Thomas' family worked into museum outside Savannah in a place called Pin Point, where Thomas was born.

I'm not -- it doesn't interest me that he's using his wealth to be -- quote, unquote -- "philanthropic" with regards to Thomas' story.

The fact that a single individual is spending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars helping out a guy on the Supreme Court, just that sentence -- I mean, forget all the other details.

Someone is spending millions of dollars to assist somebody on the Supreme Court with something.

That, in and of itself, is enough to raise a ton of ethical questions.

And I really think we might only be scratching the surface here.

I would expect more details to be coming out about not only Thomas, but some of the other justices, right?

I think there's now a cottage industry.

It used to be just me.

But I think now there's a cottage industry of individuals who are looking into the justices - - and, look, remember, they're 2,500 lower court judges too -- into the justices and judges' past and their financial disclosures to see if they're -- our top legal officials, at a time when the courts have outsized power, to see if these officials are in fact being fully honest and ethical and following the letter of the disclosure and ethics laws.

GEOFF BENNETT: At the start of our conversation, you said that there should be repercussions.

But there is no way to enforce Supreme Court justices to comply with disclosure laws.

And, short of impeachment, there's no penalty that's applicable to them.

So what then is the remedy?

GABE ROTH: I mean, I think -- honestly, I think we have reached the point where the attorney general should appoint a special counsel.

So there is within the financial disclosure law the ability for either the head of the Judicial Conference, which depending on how you read it, is either a judge out in Oklahoma or Chief John Roberts himself, or the head of the Department of Justice to bring an investigation to refer this issue for an investigation.

And that could lead to up to a $50,000 fine, which probably -- again, probably not going to happen, or even up to a year in prison for falsifying records willfully.

I don't know if this is willful or not.

i don't know if Justice -- I assume Justice Thomas is probably willfully doing it.

But I think we need to have some sort of investigation.

And I know we probably have special counsel fatigue in this country right now.

But I don't see anyone else, not Merrick Garland, who almost was on the Supreme Court, not the members of the Judicial Conference, who don't want to piss off their fellow justices.

I think that you're going to have to have some neutral third party investigate this, because we really don't know the extent of this ethical issue.

But, at the very least, everyone who's talking about it realizes that it's a major problem, and it's really impugning the integrity of our top court, at a time when the court, especially after the leak and all these opinions reversing precedent, can least afford to fall even lower in the public's esteem.

GEOFF BENNETT: Gabe Roth is executive director of Fix the Court.

AMNA NAWAZ: For the first time in history, the world's top court, the U.N.'s International Court of Justice, has been tasked with determining what countries are obligated to do to fight climate change.

William Brangham reports on the young people who were instrumental in bringing this issue to The Hague.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Twenty-seven-year-old Cynthia Houniuhi lives in Sydney, Australia, more than 1,000 miles from her home in the Solomon Islands.

But she says just being at the beach reminds her of the ocean's importance in her early life.

CYNTHIA HOUNIUHI, Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change: I was in the sea after school.

I had to cross the sea to go to school.

And during lunchtime, we usually fished for our own lunch, so we would catch about maybe one, if we're lucky.

Sometimes, when we're very lucky, we get four.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: But because of warming waters and rising sea levels, that ocean, which once gave so much to her and millions of other Pacific Islanders, is now threatening to take it all away.

CYNTHIA HOUNIUHI: This feeling, you know, when the sand is slipping between your fingers, that's what it feels like for us, when we're trying to hold onto our languages, our cultural practices, our land, and it's slipping between our fingers like that, because of the adverse effects of climate change.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The island nations in the South Pacific are responsible for less than a third of 1 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, but these low-lying islands are among the world's most vulnerable to the impacts of that pollution.

As the planet warms, extreme weather events like cyclones are becoming more intense here.

Entire villages, like this one on the island nation of Fiji, have been abandoned made unlivable because of rising seas.

In 2019, frustrated by the chasm between global promises of action and any meaningful change, Houniuhi along with other Pacific Islander law students, decided to try and take the industrialized world to court.

SOLOMON YEO, Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change: If we were to go down in the history books the countries that float in the middle of nowhere, let us not go down without a fight.

Even if we can't protect ourselves, and we can protect people around the world who are also going through the same hardship as us.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Solomon Yeo is also from the Solomon Islands, and one of Houniuhi's partners.

Their idea was to get the issue of climate change in front of the world's highest court, the United Nations International Court of Justice, or ICJ.

SOLOMON YEO: We said, why don't we take on this initiative?

Let's choose the most ambitious one.

We have governments in the Pacific.

They're open to climate solutions.

Why not pitch it to them?

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Their pitch convinced the tiny island nation of Vanuatu with just over 300,-00 citizens to take this issue to the U.N. Vanuatu has felt the impacts of climate change head on.

Just last month, two Category 4 cyclones swept through the island, forcing 10 percent of its people to flee to evacuation shelters.

And Vanuatu's diplomatic efforts led to this moment on the floor of the U.N. General Assembly two weeks ago.

MAN: It is so decided.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Passage of a resolution formally asking the ICJ to specify what states' legal obligations are to address climate change and what the consequences should be for those who fail to act.

Michael Gerrard is a law professor at Columbia University.

MICHAEL GERRARD, Columbia University: A decision from the International Court of Justice would be the most definitive, authoritative statement to date about what international law and human rights law have to say about climate change.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It's the first time the International Court of Justice will consider climate change.

Vanuatu's Prime Minister Alatoi Ishmael Kalsakau hailed the historic resolution.

ALATOI ISHMAEL KALSAKAU, Prime Minister of Vanuatu: This is not a silver bullet, but it can make an important contribution to climate change, climate action, including by catalyzing much higher ambition under the Paris agreement.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: An opinion from the international court would not be binding or enforceable.

Still, experts say it will set an important precedent.

MICHAEL GERRARD: They have a strong influence on the decisions of domestic courts, which do issue enforceable opinions.

We have seen several of these domestic courts issue decisions telling their governments that they have to act, and those governments have acted.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The measure passed by consensus, meaning none of the U.N.'s 193 member states, including the biggest emitters like China and the U.S., objected to the resolution.

MICHAEL GERRARD: There's much greater public consciousness of the problem.

And the politics of the U.S. have shifted.

Climate change was a winning issue for the Democrats in 2020.

And I think the Biden administration saw that they didn't want to stand in the way.

That made a huge difference in getting the necessary votes.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Solomon Yeo now lives in New York and was in the U.N. General Assembly hall to watch the resolution passed.

SOLOMON YEO: My phone is buzzing with messages.

It's like 1:00, 2:00, 3:00 a.m. in the morning in the Pacific, but people are still waking up and sending in messages and saying how grateful they were.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Countries will be able to file submissions to the ICJ about how they have been impacted by climate change.

And experts say it is likely to take at least a year for the court to issue its advisory opinion.

Houniuhi says, while there is still a long way to go, the effort is well worth it to protect future generations.

CYNTHIA HOUNIUHI: I can imagine having -- in the future having a conversation with my child and looking at them in the eyes, if they ask, "Did you do your part?"

I want to be able to look into, if I'm lucky, my child's eye and say: "We did try.

We did try."

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: For the "PBS NewsHour," I am William Brangham.

AMNA NAWAZ: As America continues to grapple with mass shootings, another trend has authorities on high alert.

Across the country, school districts and universities are experiencing an increase in false reports of school shootings and campus threats.

Stephanie Sy has our report on the growing problem and what can be done about it.

STEPHANIE SY: It's known as swatting, false threats called into police and 911 that, in an age of mass shootings, triggers a cascade of responses.

Just today, multiple colleges in Texas were targeted with these calls.

And, yesterday, Illinois State Police said 21 schools had fake threats reported.

The spike in these incidents is taking a toll on students and school communities.

We spoke to three people who have experienced this firsthand.

GABY HOLLENBACK, College Student: I'm Gaby Hollenback.

I go to the University of Pittsburgh, and my majors are environmental studies and urban studies.

I got the text that the school was under lockdown.

And so I immediately ran basically right to my dorm and headed up.

And my -- all my friends were in my room already, and I just sat on the floor, and I basically started crying.

ANANYA VINAY, High School Student: I'm Ananya Vinay.

I'm from Fresno, California, and I'm a senior at Clovis North High School.

We were in our English class, and there was an announcement on the loudspeaker that said that there is -- that we're going on lockdown, and no one knew what was going on, not even the teachers.

MATILDA LARSON, Mother: My name is Matilda Larson.

I live in Canton, New York, and I am the mom of a 14-year-old boy in the eighth grade and a 16-year-old boy in 11th grade.

From my cubicle, I heard another mom who also has children in the same grade as my youngest son say: "My daughter just texted me.

She said the school is in lockdown."

GABY HOLLENBACK: Then the fire alarms on campus started saying that we were under lockdown and that we should stay inside.

And I remember just, like, feeling so, like, scared in that moment.

Then we started hearing that they couldn't find any shooter in the school or anything.

So all our minds go to, oh, like, they're out in the open and we could be in -- like, next.

MATILDA LARSON: I received a text from my youngest son who was using a friend's phone to say: "Mom, we're in lockdown."

And so I wrote back and said: "Make sure you stay hidden.

Make sure that the phone that you're using is on silent."

I then texted my other son and said: "Are you in lockdown?"

And he wrote: "Yes."

And I said the same thing.

And this overwhelming sense of despair and alarm, it just washed over me.

GABY HOLLENBACK: Once it was declared a hoax, it was -- the text went out that everything was OK, it went on like any normal day, and barely anybody talked about it.

It was just kind of like, OK, like, whatever.

And I think that's what made me, like, the most angry out of everything that happened, is just going back and being like, oh, everything is OK, everything is normal.

But, like, in reality, like, it's really not.

ANANYA VINAY: You think it won't happen to you, but then you get -- but then you get a five-minute lockdown that may just be a false alarm.

But the false alarm showed you that it could really happen.

MATILDA LARSON: This is the second time this school year that they had gone into a lockdown, earlier in the year during the winter months.

So being that it happened to be a second lockdown situation, you think, how could it be that another event could come out so well, where no one is hurt and that it's a situation that gets resolved very fast?

So, every -- so, the second time, you just think, is this the one?

STEPHANIE SY: You heard a range of reactions there.

Now I want to bring in Amy Klinger, co-founder of the Educator's School Safety Network, for a closer look at these swatting calls and their impacts.

Amy, thanks so much for joining the "NewsHour."

Some of us will remember bomb hoaxes and such being called in when we were in school, but these calls are on a different scale, from what I understand.

What is going on?

AMY KLINGER, Educator's School Safety Network: Well, we still have bomb hoaxes going on as well.

So now you have added another dimension, our worst fears of an active shooter being weaponized against us, and causing an incredible level of trauma and disruption and an incredible consumption of resources.

And your -- the people you just spoke with have really encapsulated it all, the fear, the anxiety, the uncertainty, the unknowing what's actually happening.

And all of that comes together, along with this incredibly rapid law enforcement response, and the need for something to be done very rapidly, while you're still unsure what's happening.

STEPHANIE SY: And these are not necessarily individuals affiliated with the school.

Again, I have read reports that this is computer-generated calls, in some cases, that technology is being leveraged to, as you say, leverage that fear of mass shootings.

AMY KLINGER: Absolutely.

And it's really not about of some individual or a little disgruntled kid saying something.

This -- these are attacks.

These are coordinated attacks that tend to occur in clusters.

They tend to happen regionally by an actor or an entity that is outside of the school that's being targeted.

They really are attacks designed to undermine, create chaos, fear, anxiety, all of the things that we see are happening.

And that's why they continue, because they're working.

STEPHANIE SY: I want to talk about the response that schools have to have, I guess, in response to these threats, given that mass shootings do happening this country.

Schools regularly send out text messages to the students, to the parents, when there are threats of an active shooter in a lockdown.

Almost all of us have gotten a text like this.

It sounds like that alone can be very stressful for some of the people we just heard from.

Are there clear best practices for how schools should respond to these threats, the vast majority of which we know will end up being hoaxes?

AMY KLINGER: Well, I think we have to guard against a couple of things.

Number one, we have to be proactive.

We have to start talking about that, talking about, what is our protocol?

What are we going to do?

What's helpful?

What's not helpful?

What are we going to -- how are we going to communicate as much information as we can?

So we have to have sort of that proactive approach.

And we also have to guard against the complacency, the boy that cried wolf, where we go, oh, it's just another one of those, oh, it's just another one of those.

And so we have to really brush up on and really coordinate the training on the front end of things, so that people are aware of what to do, what it could be like, what we're going to do, because you have got to also build back up that trust and help people to put it in the proper perspective, that while these are front of mind, these horrific events, and they're totally unacceptable, they also are statistically rare.

But that doesn't mean that we should not prepare for them.

And so this swatting just adds another complicating layer for schools to have to deal with.

STEPHANIE SY: I read that a lot of these hoax calls are considered misdemeanors in places.

What can be done to stop them, from a law enforcement perspective?

I know that Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, where they have had hundreds of these threats at schools, has called on the FBI to form a task force.

He wants to launch an FBI federal investigation into where the calls are coming from.

Is that what is needed?

AMY KLINGER: Yes, I think we have to really shift our thinking from -- I know we use the word hoax because we're saying it was just not really true.

But we have to shift our thinking from these as being, oh, it's just a bad joke or a threat to being, these are attacks.

They truly are attacks.

And we need to treat them as such, in terms of our investigation and in terms of our consequences, because they have really significant -- a really significant impact on kids and schools.

And so we have to treat them as the serious problem that they truly are.

STEPHANIE SY: What is your biggest concern, Amy Klinger, if this trend continues?

AMY KLINGER: Well, I think it is eclipsing the significant work that needs to be done in school safety, that needs to be all hazards, that needs to be about training, and about mental health, and about violence prevention, and relationship-building.

And this really complex array of things that needs to happen to keep kids safe in schools has been boiled down to a singular discussion of swatting, or guns, or anti-gun, or pro-gun, or whatever that is.

And we have really missed this larger picture of what we should be doing to keep kids safe.

And kind of the school safety movement has been hijacked by this incredible increase in these false events.

STEPHANIE SY: Amy Klinger of the Educator's School Safety Network, thanks so much for joining us.

AMY KLINGER: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jury selection started today in Dominion Voting Systems' $1.6 billion defamation suit against FOX News.

The voting technology company is suing the right-wing network for repeatedly airing debunked conspiracy theories that its voting machines were rigged against Donald Trump in the 2020 election.

NPR's media correspondent, David Folkenflik, is following the case and joins us now.

David, thank you for being with us.

David, as this case goes to trial, the judge has already rejected several of the First Amendment defenses that FOX hoped to invoke.

And he also took the extraordinary step of admonishing and sanctioning the FOX defense team.

Help us understand why and what it might mean for this case.

DAVID FOLKENFLIK, NPR: What we have heard in recent days is that judge's increasing frustration with the accretion of incidents in which he has concluded that FOX has been less than forthcoming with the court.

What does that mean?

Well, take an instance where, for example, there had been numerous representations, per the judge's account, that Rupert Murdoch, the founder of FOX News, the guy at the very top of the pyramid for its parent company, FOX Corp., the ultimate boss did not have a formal official role at FOX News itself.

He may have been weighing in, as we have learned from all these texts and e-mails that have emerged in recent months of evidence.

Early this week, lawyers for FOX acknowledged that Rupert Murdoch held the title of executive chairman of FOX News, which sounds like just an honorific.

And that's certainly what FOX is going to argue.

But in the judge's assessment, it suggests that Rupert Murdoch has agency and influence over how this network operates, and particularly in this moment of crisis following the election in 2020.

GEOFF BENNETT: David, this case has been notable for its unprecedented window into the inner workings of FOX News.

E-mails, text messages introduced as evidence show FOX personalities like Tucker Carlson privately insulting former President Donald Trump.

There was all sorts of private skepticism among some of the FOX anchors and executives about the election fraud claims that were showing up on air.

Given that sort of embarrassing exposure, why hasn't FOX tried to settle this case?

DAVID FOLKENFLIK: Neither side will talk publicly about this.

Certainly, Dominion indicated on the front end of this trial many, many, many, many months ago that it did not intend to settle this case, and certainly intend to want to take this to trial.

Why?

Well, the pain threshold increases at every point along the way, as it's turned out, because the -- it's not just embarrassing what we have learned about FOX.

It's damning.

There are two separate stories that people - - somebody like me is covering right now, right?

There's the actual litigation, the trial itself, on the legal merits that the jury gets to weigh in on and ultimately decide on, right, unless it's settled before then or dropped before then.

But there's also the almost forensic, archaeological look we're getting at FOX in almost real time, in a complete 360 nature, from the most junior producers, to the stars, to the executives, to the corporate chieftains and bosses above, all of them weighing in on this moment of crisis, triggered by FOX not only presenting its viewership and audiences with the unwanted news that it was projecting that challenger Joe Biden would win Arizona, and not Donald Trump, on election night itself, but actually FOX being the first TV station in the country to do so.

That was not news that its audience wanted.

And it wasn't news that it wanted particularly from FOX.

And, as a result, you saw this desperate chase of anything that might appease the viewers.

And it turned out that lying about Dominion was one of those things.

GEOFF BENNETT: So what are the potential long-term consequences for FOX News, David?

Because, in the short term, their ratings are up.

The stock price has remained stable.

Advertisers have stuck around.

And just this past week, Donald Trump was on Tucker Carlson's program, despite Tucker Carlson saying about him in private, calling him a demonic force, a destroyer.

DAVID FOLKENFLIK: A purely transactional relationship, and one that is consistent with these strong currents of cynicism coursing through so much of the communications that we have been able to examine from inside FOX News itself.

Look, FOX could win this case.

It could win its case on legal merits.

It could win it on an appeal to First Amendment principles, saying, basically, look, the First Amendment and free speech needs running room.

Even if we didn't do this exactly the way you would want, even if there was something inexact about what we said, as well as what our guests said, they can appeal to the jury and try to get them on this.

And if you have one or two jurors that are already fairly pro-Trump, you can create scenarios in which they win.

The legal ramifications could be huge to the bottom line if they lose.

And media lawyers and scholars tell me that this is among the most seemingly overwhelming amassing of evidence to suggest that a plaintiff has met this tough bar of actual malice that they have ever seen.

And you could also have the other ramifications.

Inside the FOX bubble in the way that you have described, it may not hurt FOX.

Inside the hardest sort of MAGA elements of the Republican Party and its viewership, they may stand by FOX for now.

But I think, outside FOX, you have seen an extraordinary reputational hit.

It's very difficult to sit by and listen to people to talk about FOX as a news organization that happens to have some conservative opinion hosts, when we have seen the way in which journalists and news imperatives and the idea of presenting people with the fact as an imperative be belittled, diminished, and attacked by people inside FOX from the very bottom to the very top of the pyramid.

GEOFF BENNETT: NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik.

David, thanks again for your time.

DAVID FOLKENFLIK: You bet.

AMNA NAWAZ: Like a number of institutions, classical music has been under recent pressure to diversify its ranks.

But one group in Detroit has been at it for a long time, and its reach now stretches across the nation.

Jeffrey Brown reports on the Sphinx Organization for our arts and culture series, Canvas.

JEFFREY BROWN: An after-school violin class at the Cesar Chavez Academy, a public charter school in Detroit.

WOMAN: One, two, ready, go.

JEFFREY BROWN: Among the songs, the traditional folk tune "De Colores."

Among the students, 9-year-old Taniel Hernandez, who loves to play at home for his mother while she is cooking.

TANIEL HERNANDEZ, Student: I also play "De Colores" to her, since that is my favorite.

JEFFREY BROWN: "De Colores" is your favorite.

TANIEL HERNANDEZ: Yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: Why is that?

TANIEL HERNANDEZ: Because it is a little bit challenging, but I still can do it.

JEFFREY BROWN: That he can do it, playing with other children on the violin, as well as the piano he has at home, is vital for his mother, Elizabeth Cruz, who struggled to find and pay for music lessons for her son.

ELIZABETH CRUZ, Mother: They need that more here in Southwest, because, if he didn't do that, he wouldn't be able to play the violin now.

He wouldn't be able to know what he knows now.

He has only been in here for two years, and it is only twice a week.

So, oh, yes, it's -- definitely -- we need that.

TANIEL HERNANDEZ: Yes.

ELIZABETH CRUZ: The kids need it, you know?

JEFFREY BROWN: The class is part of the Overture program run by the Sphinx Organization, founded 25 years ago by Aaron Dworkin to diversify the world of classical music.

AARON DWORKIN, Founder, Sphinx Organization: When we were looking at the idea of founding Sphinx and beginning this work in this field, which didn't really exist, it was, how can we bring about systemic impact?

How can we change the way that our orchestras are comprised?

And, of course, most importantly, how can we make sure that high-level, high-quality music instruction is happening at all of our schools, and not just those with the most resources?

JEFFREY BROWN: Dworkin had been adopted as an infant and raised in New York City, with access to music and violin lessons beginning at age 5.

But he routinely found himself the only Black person on stage or in the audience, and never even knew there were Black composers until he was in college and conservatory.

It was at the University of Michigan, where he still teaches, that he started Sphinx.

It's also where he met his wife, Afa, also a finalist also a violinist, who had come to the U.S. from Azerbaijan as a teenager, and who now heads Sphinx.

The biggest early barrier, the Dworkins say, overcoming biases surrounding the idea of excellence.

AFA DWORKIN, President and Artistic Director, Sphinx Organization: It was presumed that we're talking -- if we are talking about inclusivity, if we are talking about representation and diversity, there should be this presumed compromise relative to artistic integrity.

JEFFREY BROWN: You mean the quality would go down.

AFA DWORKIN: Go down.

It is a myth that is so misfortunate.

And it has stalled progress for our industry and sector.

AARON DWORKIN: I would have meetings with major orchestras, and leadership would sit and say to me, it's nice, but we don't need to do this.

We are X-orchestra.

We are excellent.

And this would invade that excellence.

Thankfully, we don't hear that much anymore.

JEFFREY BROWN: But that had to be a painful thing to hear.

AARON DWORKIN: My approach to things is not worrying about how painful things are and how unjust things are, but focus on the work.

JEFFREY BROWN: Years later, Sphinx now runs high-level intensive training programs, fields its own touring company, the Sphinx Virtuosi, 18 accomplished Black and Latino musicians, partners with more than 100 orchestras to promote diverse rosters and repertory, and now has a network of more than 1,000 alumni, many holding positions throughout the industry.

Its annual competition, held in Detroit, continues to expand, giving young string players of color a chance to perform with the Sphinx Symphony Orchestra, seasoned musicians from around the country who gather for this event, and to compete for prize money and touring opportunities with leading orchestras; 23-year-old Njioma Grevious won this year's senior competition.

NJIOMA GREVIOUS, Winner, 2023 Sphinx Competition: It was, I mean, life-changing.

It showed me that, even through all the struggles, that just keeping on believing was able to make this all possible for all of us on stage, and for me too.

Just the feeling of having that support, people who have shared in this experience that I have gone through, this journey, was very special and meaningful to me.

JEFFREY BROWN: Grevious began playing the violin at age 4 and credits Boston-based Project STEP, another organization seeking to diversify classical music, with helping her with lessons, mentoring, and financial support.

She is a graduate of the prestigious Juilliard School, where we talked.

At this level, she said, she met only a few other Black musicians.

NJIOMA GREVIOUS: Specifically, in terms of Black female violinists, I was the only one for quite some time while I was in my undergrad here.

So it definitely has been a journey, a challenging journey in many ways.

I have had a lot of support along the way, but it is sort of hard to ignore the lack thereof of us on the classical music stage.

JEFFREY BROWN: And that's the continuing issue for Sphinx.

The Dworkins see enormous progress, but also a long way to go, with very high stakes for the classical field and the arts in general.

AFA DWORKIN: The pitch to the orchestras is that it is existentially important.

If orchestras wish to envision themselves as thriving today and five and 10 years from now, they ought to think about their audiences.

And they ought to think about who comprises the artistic collective that performs on the stage, and why it is important for that artistic collective to, in fact, reflect the community and be relevant to the community.

AARON DWORKIN: All of this work, the reality is, it requires resources.

And so the resource allocation in the nonprofit world in general, and especially in the arts world, has inherent disparities that are not just limiting.

They literally can be destructive.

JEFFREY BROWN: This is still a problem you see?

(CROSSTALK) AARON DWORKIN: It is a massive problem.

It absolutely still continues.

And until that dynamic shifts, then we will see an ongoing continuing struggle as it relates to diversity in the arts.

JEFFREY BROWN: At Cesar Chavez Academy, the focus is on access as much as excellence.

And, already, young Taniel Hernandez has decided he wants a life as a professional musician.

TANIEL HERNANDEZ: Music is my life.

And I love it as much as I do -- as my mom.

(LAUGHTER) JEFFREY BROWN: Music is your life, and you love it as much as you love your mom?

TANIEL HERNANDEZ: Yes.

JEFFREY BROWN: For the "PBS NewsHour," I am Jeffrey Brown in Detroit.

GEOFF BENNETT: I can't wait to watch him perform on the big stage one day.

AMNA NAWAZ: Oh, we will be front row.

GEOFF BENNETT: And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Geoff Bennett.

AMNA NAWAZ: And I'm Amna Nawaz.

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