AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: The U.S. economy adds more jobs than expected in May, showing resilience in the face of inflation and interest rate hikes.

AMNA NAWAZ: Congress avoids a default on the nation's debt by passing a bipartisan bill to raise the debt ceiling with only days to spare.

GEOFF BENNETT: And Greenland pushes for complete separation from Danish control, casting uncertainty over the future of the North Atlantic island.

AKI-MATILDA HOEGH-DAM, Danish Parliament Member: In the end, it has nothing to do with you in Denmark that we are acting this way.

It has everything to do with us wanting to move forward in our lives.

(BREAK) GEOFF BENNETT: Welcome to the "NewsHour."

The nation's job market has turned in another strong showing.

That's despite the Federal Reserve's efforts to slow the economy and curb inflation.

AMNA NAWAZ: U.S. job growth in May was significantly higher than analysts expected.

The Labor Department reports employers added a net 339,000 jobs for the month.

The increased hiring came in everything from construction to restaurants to health care.

At the same time, layoffs rose in other sectors, and unemployment hit 3.7 percent.

That's up from a 50-year low in April.

GEOFF BENNETT: Now to the day's other headlines, starting in Eastern India.

A train disaster there has killed at least 120 people and injured 850 others tonight.

Two passenger trains collided about 130 miles Southwest of Kolkata, and at least 15 cars derailed.

A chaotic scene unfolded in the dark, with hundreds of police, rescue workers and others trying to free an estimated 200 people trapped in the wreckage.

The Biden White House says the U.S. will not build more nuclear weapons for now to counter Russia.

Instead, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said today the U.S. will adhere to limits under the 2010 New START Treaty, so long as Moscow does.

JAKE SULLIVAN, U.S. National Security Adviser: The United States does not need to increase our nuclear forces to outnumber the combined total of our competitors in order to successfully deter them.

We have been there.

We have learned that lesson, nor does the United States need to deploy ever more dangerous nuclear weapons to maintain deterrence.

GEOFF BENNETT: Russia has suspended participation in New START, but it's still abiding by limits in the treaty, which expire in 2026.

Extreme weather plagued much of Asia today.

Southern and Eastern China sweltered in nearly 100-degree temperatures as heat waves arrived early.

Meantime, Japan was hit with heavy downpours and flooding from the same storm that lashed Guam days earlier.

More than 100 million people were under alerts.

Back in this country, former Vice President Mike Pence will not face charges over classified material found at his home in Indiana.

It's widely reported that the Justice Department informed him Thursday, days before he announced his presidential bid.

Mr. Pence's lawyers searched his home back in January at his request and found about a dozen documents.

The FBI found another one later.

An internal review has found that a Border Patrol nurse practitioner declined to review a migrant child's medical history before she died last month.

The 8-year-old had heart problems and sickle-cell anemia and contracted the flu.

Officials previously said the girl's family did not share her medical records until after she died.

One of the nation's best-known military installations shed its Confederate name today and became Fort Liberty.

It had been Fort Bragg since 1918.

Soldiers gathered for the ceremony at the North Carolina base.

The commanding general said there was no shortage of ideas about disposing of the old symbols and signs.

LT. GEN. CHRISTOPHER DONAHUE, Commander General, Fort Liberty: This is the United States Army.

We received a lot of specificity of what to do with that.

Everything was collected up, every monument and everything, and that will go to the Center of Military History.

GEOFF BENNETT: Fort Liberty will still be home to the Army's 82nd Airborne Division.

It's name change is the most prominent yet in a Pentagon initiative to drop Confederate titles.

On Wall Street, stocks jumped after the strong jobs report eased worries about a recession.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 700 points, or 2 percent, to close at 33726.

The Nasdaq rose 1 percent.

The S&P 500 was up nearly 1.5 percent.

And this year's National Spelling Bee champion is Dev Shah, an eighth grader from Florida.

The 14-year-old took the title at the Scripps National Spelling Bee in Washington last night.

His winning word was psammophile, an organism that thrives in sandy areas.

MAN: Psammophile.

DEV SHAH, Scripps National Spelling Bee Winner: P-S-A-M-M-O-P-H-I-L-E, psammophile.

WOMAN: That is correct.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) GEOFF BENNETT: The title comes with $50,000 in cash and prizes.

Congratulations to him.

And still to come on the "NewsHour": multiple attacks inside Russia raise questions about the next phase of the war in Ukraine; Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy weigh in on the week's political headlines; and we break down the major takeaways from the first game of the NBA Finals.

AMNA NAWAZ: Crisis averted, that's the message from lawmakers as the deal to raise the debt ceiling makes its way to President Biden's desk.

For the White House perspective, I spoke earlier today with Gene Sperling, senior adviser to President Biden.

Gene, welcome back.

And thank you for joining us.

GENE SPERLING, Senior Adviser to President Biden: Thank you for having me.

AMNA NAWAZ: So this deal does protect a number of key Biden investments, infrastructure, semiconductors and so on.

But some groups have called it a betrayal.

For those people who do feel that betrayal, older food stamp recipients, folks who think this makes the climate crisis worse, what is your message to them?

GENE SPERLING: Well, first of all, let's remember this past with large bipartisan majorities, and that 165 Democrats voted for this in the House, 56 in the Senate.

They looked and saw overall that this was a strong agreement that protected these basic values of economic justice and climate change.

And so my response would be, understand the president completely protected the investment - - the Inflation Reduction Act with the historic, historic investments in climate change.

He completely protect protected Medicaid, education, Medicare, Social Security.

And we do realize that, when we made some changes, egregious changes on the work requirements for SNAP, for food, that there were some people, some people in the 50-54 age, that would be negatively affected, and we will do everything to have their back.

But, on net, this actually reduced hunger, increased SNAP and reduced the number of people who would lose SNAP benefits due to work requirements.

AMNA NAWAZ: But let me ask you about those negotiations in the first place, because, for months, the president was repeatedly saying there would be no negotiation over raising the debt ceiling.

He said it in January, again at his State of the Union in February.

As late as late April, he was saying that ceiling is non-negotiable.

And then he sat down with Speaker McCarthy and empowered a team of negotiators.

So, what forced the president to reverse course on that?

GENE SPERLING: Well, I would agree or disagree on reversing course.

What the president did was pound home the basic value that default was not an option, that it was OK to negotiate with divided government on a budget agreement and to even accelerate that negotiation, but that the idea of using the threat of default to extort extreme cuts was not something he was going to tolerate.

And I think that this agreement overall is very close to the kind of budget agreement that happens in divided government.

So I do think his value that we're not going to default, we're not going to threaten to default, no one's going to use the threat of default to extort extremist positions, I think he held firm on that.

I do think it is absolutely worth us as a country trying to think through how we can prevent even the appearance of extortion due to a threat of default.

But I think, in very, very many ways, the president held on to that value and was able to get an agreement that met that basic principle.

AMNA NAWAZ: But, Gene, as you know, coming out of the 2011 debt ceiling negotiations, the Republican takeaway from that moment was it could be used for leverage.

And by negotiating once again, I wonder if you worry the president has now emboldened Republicans in the opposition to do this again and again?

GENE SPERLING: Well, look, I was one of the negotiators in 2011.

And that was a scary, difficult time.

And you saw the stock market go way down, hurting people's retirements.

You saw lost jobs.

You saw consumer confidence get hit.

You saw us downgraded.

So that was a very harmful period.

I don't think that we saw that happen this time at all.

And so I do think the president's values of not threatening on default, or not negotiating with people trying to do -- take extreme positions did take hold.

I think the really unfortunate thing was that, after 2011, up until now, all Democrats and Republicans really avoided even getting close to this type of situation.

So I think we have fought back at it successfully.

I think it's unfortunate that the Republicans took that posture, and did try to use the debt limit as the occasion for bringing things on the table that may not have fit at this point.

AMNA NAWAZ: It didn't turn out the same way as it did in 2011.

The consequences were not the same.

But it did come down to the wire.

I wonder how you think we avoid this in the future, or whether this is just the way it will be.

GENE SPERLING: I hope not.

And I think that it's an important thing to recognize that Speaker Pelosi never did this type of high-wire act when President Trump sought to raise the debt limit three times.

And so there has been consistent view from the Democrat progressive side.

And I think it is very important that we think of what type of policies we could do going forward to prevent this.

And it should be forbidden or it should be so heavily discouraged and against any norms that no one should take advantage of that basic responsibility the president has to all the people to seek to extort or extreme measures.

I don't think the Republicans should have put this in this posture.

I do think, at the end of the day, the president was able with his leadership to get them to agree to something that was not fully, but close to the type of bipartisan agreement you would have in a budget in divided government.

AMNA NAWAZ: Gene Sperling, White House senior adviser to President Biden, thank you so much for joining us.

GENE SPERLING: Thank you.

Thank you very much.

GEOFF BENNETT: Today's jobs report shows the labor market remains strong, despite rising interest rates.

That's good news for American workers, but it complicates the Federal Reserve's efforts to curb inflation.

Economics correspondent Paul Solman looks at the connections among the labor market, wages and inflation and how they will inform the Fed's next move.

JUSTIN WOLFERS, University of Michigan: Holy moly, what a job market.

PAUL SOLMAN: University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers really liked the latest jobs numbers.

JUSTIN WOLFERS: unemployment is near a 50-year low.

We keep creating jobs.

The economists keep underestimating this economy and it keeps outperforming their expectations month after month after month.

And it's now done so 14 months in a row.

PAUL SOLMAN: But the unemployment rate went up, based on the household survey.

So how does that square with all the jobs added, according to the larger payroll survey.

JUSTIN WOLFERS: We talk with all the big companies.

We talk with a large number of small companies.

And, as a result, you get a very accurate reading on the economy, which is why that's the number that economists emphasize.

We have a much smaller server when they go door to door and ask people if they're working.

That's where the unemployment rate comes from.

Because that's a smaller survey, it bounces up and down a lot.

So I think the more important thing with the less reliable survey is look at the average over a run of months.

And what we have seen as the unemployment rate is hovering round about its 50-year low.

PAUL SOLMAN: Also good news to Wolfers, average pay last month rose by 11 cents point, 0.3 percent, lower than inflation.

JUSTIN WOLFERS: Wages have grown at a rate of around 4 percent over the past six months.

PAUL SOLMAN: Which raises a crucial question: How big a role have higher wages played in driving the inflation surge?

OLIVIER BLANCHARD, Peterson Institute for International Economics: For the most part, inflation hasn't come from wage inflation at all.

PAUL SOLMAN: Olivier Blanchard, former chief economist at the IMF.

OLIVIER BLANCHARD: It has come from energy prices, food prices, shortages.

This has completely dominated the scene.

PAUL SOLMAN: Even to the point of scenes on TV.

ACTRESS: Would you like some lemonade?

ACTOR: I would love some lemonade.

ACTRESS: Five dollars, please.

ACTOR: Five -- what?

ACTRESS: Supply chain issues.

There's a lemon shortage.

Have you seen the price of cups these days?

PAUL SOLMAN: So lots of reasons for inflation, and not just the supply chain snags we have kept showing you, the war in Ukraine.

CLAUDIA SAHM, Sahm Consulting: Truth be told, there was a lot of stimulus, a lot of support that went to households and small businesses early in the pandemic.

PAUL SOLMAN: As well as, adds economists Claudia Sahm, corporations opportunistically raising prices of their goods beyond their costs.

Instead of the so-called wage price spiral, that is, wages driving inflation up and up: CLAUDIA SAHM: I have become enamored with what's called a price-price spiral.

PAUL SOLMAN: At first, firms hiking prices because of their higher costs, but, when those costs go down... CLAUDIA SAHM: Businesses start raising prices, because they see that, oh, the last time I raised prices, it worked pretty well.

PAUL SOLMAN: So lots of factors driving inflation far more than the much feared wage-price spiral, which works how again?

CLAUDIA SAHM: The way a spiral would work is, you have a certain level of inflation in a particular year, the workers see that, they go back in and demand to have wages raised.

PAUL SOLMAN: But with unions on the wane, Sahm doesn't see workers making such demands via mass strikes or walkouts, nor does she expect to.

Bottom line, she says: CLAUDIA SAHM: I think we can get out of this, potentially, with people still keeping wages that are above average.

PAUL SOLMAN: But, here, Olivier Blanchard disagrees.

OLIVIER BLANCHARD: If the Fed really wants to go back to 2 percent price inflation, which is the target, they have to do whatever they need to do to get the wage inflation to be a bit lower.

And the only way we can do this is by having a slightly less overheated labor market or an unemployment rate which is a bit higher than the one we have today.

PAUL SOLMAN: And this is the conventional wisdom, including the Fed's.

But given that rising wages haven't been much of a factor, why are so many economists worried about wage growth at some point driving inflation?

CLAUDIA SAHM: There is a wide range of models that are used by macroeconomists when giving policy advice.

And some of the models, when you hear the wage-price spiral, that was something that did happen in the 1970s.

But, in real time, these have not been good guideposts.

And yet that's what they are.

OLIVIER BLANCHARD: I would fairly strongly disagree.

I think there are parts of economics where we get it wrong and we have to think anew.

But that's not one.

PAUL SOLMAN: And, therefore, a Fed-engineered slowdown, if not recession, to prevent a wage-price spiral.

So, no so-called soft landing where no one gets hurt?

OLIVIER BLANCHARD: We have to increase unemployment above what it is now.

Now, whether you call it soft or not, it's semantics, right?

High unemployment is painful for some.

And so there is no such thing as, you know, a perfectly -- I don't know what the word is, but... PAUL SOLMAN: He later remembered and e-mailed us: "immaculate disinflation."

And if you think there is no such thing, you do what Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is doing, says Justin Wolfers.

JUSTIN WOLFERS: So Jay Powell's strategy, do what we can to wring inflation out of the system, slows the economy, raises unemployment, and cost people jobs.

It's a very, very blunt instrument.

But it's also the only instrument we have.

PAUL SOLMAN: An instrument the Fed might or might not stop using when it next meets in a few weeks.

For the "PBS NewsHour," Paul Solman.

GEOFF BENNETT: For over a year, most of the attention has focused on Russia's invasion of Ukraine and attacks inside Ukraine.

But, in recent weeks, the war has expanded to attacks inside Russia.

Today, the Kremlin reported further explosions and incursions in its homeland, as pro-Ukrainian proxy forces step up raids along Ukraine's border.

The attacks have been sporadic and shouted in mystery.

Some have struck the periphery of Russia's Western border with Ukraine, while others have hit hundreds of miles within Russia.

The spillover of Moscow's war inside Russia intensified this week, with pro-Ukrainian groups releasing drone shots claiming to have destroyed Russian military targets.

Today, Moscow state TV aired footage of civilians fleeing a border region of Belgorod, where officials reported two deaths.

Residents described chaotic scenes at the site of an alleged explosion.

WOMAN (through translator): We were given two hours to get through.

We left without things, without anything, without documents.

And as we were coming up, we saw the explosion in front of our eyes.

GEOFF BENNETT: In recent days, Belgorod has come under heavy bombardment.

Other attacks have been reported in neighboring Bryansk.

But there's also been a spate of unconfirmed incidents far from the front line targeting oil refineries, pipelines, ammunition depots and railway junctions.

Ukraine says the cross-border incursions are the work of anti-Kremlin Russian fighters.

Last month, they seized several frontier towns before withdrawing to Ukraine.

One group behind the raids is known as the Russian Volunteer Corps.

Its leader is a notorious Russian nationalist with links to neo-Nazi groups.

The second group calls itself the Freedom of Russia Legion, and fight alongside Ukrainian soldiers under a flag used by Russian opposition groups.

Today, a spokesperson for the group outlined its broad aims, to liberate Russian territories, but also divert Moscow's troops.

ALEXEI BARANOVSKY, Freedom Russia Legion (through translator): One of our tactical aims is to draw Russian troops from other parts of the Ukrainian front, to force them to relocate substantial forces from the front lines of Ukraine and get them to protect their borders.

GEOFF BENNETT: Russia calls the anti-Kremlin fighters terrorists.

Today, at a virtual security meeting, Russian President Putin alluded to the assaults within Russia and vowed to crush the groups responsible.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russian President (through translator): Today, we will deal with the security of Russia, taking into account the efforts that our ill-wishers are still making and intensifying in order to stir up the situation inside the Russian Federation.

GEOFF BENNETT: Meantime, Moscow's military has escalated its aerial assault on Ukraine, this month launching more than 20 waves of attacks on the capital, Kyiv.

That carried into today, as residents took shelter in Kyiv's metro, as Ukraine fended off a sixth straight day of bombardments.

For more on the attacks inside Russia, why they're happening and who is conducting them, we turn to Jennifer Cafarella, national security fellow at the Institute for the Study of War.

Thank you for being with us.

And, Jennifer, when you look at these attacks, what do you see?

And what do you think are the objectives of the groups that are responsible for them?

JENNIFER CAFARELLA, Institute for the Study of War: So there are clearly two separate lines of effort, both of which are applying pressure within Russia, that does have the potential to make conditions easier for the Ukrainian armed forces as they launch their major counteroffensive, which has not yet begun.

The first line of effort or these cross-border raids.

What's most remarkable about them is actually the scale to which the Russians are panicking and the scale to which it is dominating these narratives, which is much larger than the actual raids taking place on the ground, which are quite small and opportunistic.

The second line of effort is the deep strikes that it appears the Ukrainians are doing to target supply lines, things like oil depots, and other elements of the resupply that the Russian forces in Ukraine are going to need in order to mount their defense.

That second line of effort is much more robust and much more directly supportive of whatever the Ukrainian armed forces are preparing for their next move.

GEOFF BENNETT: What effects are these different - - what effects are these different attacks having on Russia and Russia's ability to fight in Ukraine?

JENNIFER CAFARELLA: The cross-border raids are having the effect of accelerating the panic, essentially, of the Russian forces and of some of those border towns and populations within Russia.

And that's an important informational effect, right?

It continues to support the broader narrative that not only has Russia not won this war, but it's entirely possible that Russia will lose this war.

That's important.

So too is the fact that these cross-border raids have started to draw Russian military forces away from front lines and to reinforce those border towns.

That's a condition that supports the Ukrainian offensive.

Separately, we also are having just broader disarray in some areas with the Russian ability to organize and mount a capable defense.

And that disruptive disarray is a key effect that the Ukrainians have achieved time and time again ahead of offensive operations.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jennifer, how is the Kremlin responding to these attacks?

JENNIFER CAFARELLA: The Kremlin is reinforcing some of the border areas and trying to signal essentially that they're treating this as primarily a threat in the information space, because, again, the actual hard fighting on the ground is relatively limited.

But the Kremlin is taking pains to show that its population -- that it's taking it seriously and that it will reinforce this area.

And what that means is, the Kremlin is starting to make hard choices about where to allocate a limited number of assets.

And that's exactly where the Ukrainians would want them to be.

GEOFF BENNETT: How much coordination is there among the groups that are responsible for these attacks and between the groups and Ukraine?

JENNIFER CAFARELLA: If we're talking about the cross-border raids, not those deeper drone strikes, but the raids themselves, we're not sure.

These are actually relatively small groups that are claiming responsibility for these attacks.

There's reporting that links them to the Ukrainian military intelligence.

I can't say from unclassified sources whether that's true or not.

All I can observe is that, again, this is a small line of effort.

And it certainly doesn't require a significant amount of Ukrainian support or Ukrainian coordination.

So, whatever level of contact is there, I expect, is minimal.

I would also hope that it's minimal, given that some of the groups involved, as was already mentioned, have problematic ideologies and are not the type that we would like to see supported on the battlefield.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, how does Ukraine contend with that, the fact that one of these groups is linked to neo-Nazis?

JENNIFER CAFARELLA: Well I think the Ukrainians are in the position -- we have to keep in mind that this is an existential fight for their ability to survive as a nation and as a people.

And I fully expect that there are those within the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian military and intelligence that see that Putin has domestic enemies, right?

And, sometimes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend in war.

I think there's a certain kind of logic to that.

These groups did already exist.

The Ukrainians, from what we know didn't create them.

These are Russians that desire to fight back against Putin.

And what the Ukrainians seem to be doing is exploiting it, at least in the information space, and, again, possibly with some small level of contact.

GEOFF BENNETT: Jennifer Cafarella is the national security fellow at the Institute for the Study of War.

Thanks so much for your insights.

We appreciate it.

AMNA NAWAZ: After six years of work, the world's biggest island has finally unveiled a draft for its Constitution.

Greenland occupies a vital strategic location in the North Atlantic and gained autonomy from Denmark in 1979.

But the former colonial power still has control of the island's most important affairs.

As special correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports, Greenlanders are now seeking greater influence in the world and a future free of Denmark.

MALCOLM BRABANT: In Greenland's coastal settlements, the clamor to break free intensifying; 200 years after Greenland was dragooned into the kingdom of Denmark, is draft Constitution reflects the frustrations of the primarily Inuit people at the top of the world.

AKI-MATILDA HOEGH-DAM, Danish Parliament Member: We are trying to break from the colonial chains.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Aki-Matilda Hoegh-Dam is one of two lawmakers representing Greenland in the Danish Parliament.

AKI-MATILDA HOEGH-DAM: In the end, it has nothing to do with you in Denmark that we are acting this way.

It has everything to do with us wanting to move forward in our lives.

MALCOLM BRABANT: In may, Hoegh-Dam caused outrage by refusing to speak Danish during a parliamentary debate just feet from Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.

MAN (through translator): Let me once again encourage you to read your speech in Danish.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Why did you do it?

AKI-MATILDA HOEGH-DAM: I did it to demonstrate the inequality of the systems that we have.

So people keep telling me that there is a community, that it's a realm that -- where people are intertwined and interconnected and we have the same language, the same culture.

And everyone knows that's not true.

MALCOLM BRABANT: What sort of backlash have you had from that?

AKI-MATILDA HOEGH-DAM: I have received a lot of backlash for it.

So, people are not used to, especially people from Denmark are not used to anyone speaking other than Danish in the Danish Parliament, so a lot of hate mail, a lot of harassment in general.

MALCOLM BRABANT: With 80 percent of Greenland covered in ice, it's a barometer for climate change.

But, as glaciers retreat because of global warming, the temperature between Greenland and Denmark's capital, Copenhagen, is chilling.

Prime Minister Mute Egede: MUTE EGEDE, Prime Minister of Greenland: As we all live under the same sun, we all live under different conditions, but have all the same goal.

We aim for a future for our children and future generations.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Danish Queen Margrethe's realm includes Greenland, which relies on an annual handout from Denmark of more than $500 million.

But, in the draft Constitution, Greenland envisages complete independence, and there's no mention of keeping the Danish monarch as head of state.

MUTE EGEDE: Everyone is welcome to our beautiful country, if you respect and listen to us.

When the focus is on Greenland and the Arctic, it must be on our terms.

You are welcome to have an opinion, but decisions concerning Greenland and the Arctic must be made by us, the indigenous people and people who have the Arctic as their home.

MALCOLM BRABANT: There are just over 57,000 Greenlanders, making their nation the most sparsely populated in the world.

Greenland has limited self-rule, and there's widespread resentment at being regarded as second-class citizens by the Danes.

For many Greenlanders, divorce can't come quickly enough.

MICHAEL ZILMER-JOHNS, Former Danish Ambassador to NATO: I think this is inevitable.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Veteran diplomat Michael Zilmer-Johns used to be Denmark's ambassador to NATO.

MICHAEL ZILMER-JOHNS: I just hope that we can find a model where it would not be like a hard Brexit, where we could create a new community, a new commonwealth together.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Under the current arrangement, Denmark is responsible for Greenland's defense, foreign affairs and monetary policy, and it's reluctant to cede control.

Are you concerned that, if Greenland does break away, that it may become vulnerable to so called predator states like China and also Russia?

MICHAEL ZILMER-JOHNS: Yes.

And this is why I think it's very important for Greenland, but also for us and for the United States, that we find a model where Greenland will not be just a battlefield for competing big powers, but has us as a guarantor and remain a member of NATO and so on.

MALCOLM BRABANT: The United States has had a strong military presence since 1943, when the Thule Air Base was built in Northwest Greenland.

For decades, anti-Americanism festered in Greenland, not least because indigenous people were forced out of their homes to accommodate Thule.

But attitudes have changed following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

ULRIK PRAM GAD, Danish Institute For International Studies: I think the most important effect of the Ukraine war in the first place has been for all of the Greenlandic political spectrum to kind of assure that we are a part of the West.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Ulrik Pram Gad is a Greenland expert at the Danish Institute for International Studies.

ULRIK PRAM GAD: The U.S. can rest assured that, whatever happens, independence or not, Greenland wants to be a part of NATO.

So, in that sense, there's been a shift of positions in Greenlandic politics.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Russia's volatility means that Greenland's strategic role in U.S. defense is perhaps more important now than during the Cold War.

Catastrophic Russian armored losses in Ukraine resulted in a solitary Second World War tank garnishing the annual victory parade in Moscow.

But Russia's nuclear arsenal remains as strong as ever and in the hands of a leader who is more unpredictable than his Soviet predecessors.

The potential threat from rogue states is why the U.S. has been upgrading missile defense systems at Thule in recent years.

In April, Thule was renamed the Pituffik Space Base in recognition of Greenland's contribution to American and Western security.

DR. REBECCA PINCUS, Director, Polar Institute: Any missile coming in across Eurasian vectors will be passing over the Arctic region.

And so having a network of sensors as far north as possible is vitally important.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Dr. Rebecca Pincus is director of the Polar Institute in Washington and an expert on Arctic geopolitics and security.

DR. REBECCA PINCUS: With the advent of new generations of intercontinental both missiles and platforms, including hypersonics, those far northern locations for early warning are even more important.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Pincus believes that Greenland is now entering a new era in which it can leverage its increased strategic importance to extract more financial support from Western nations anxious to prevent China or Russia from exploiting Greenland's mineral wealth.

DR. REBECCA PINCUS: Too many of the decisions in the past were not adequately made with the involvement of Greenlanders.

They did not have enough agency.

That is changing, and we will never go back to the way things were.

MALCOLM BRABANT: In 2019, President Trump's offer to buy Greenland was ridiculed.

But Ulrik Pram Gad has a suggestion.

ULRIK PRAM GAD: The U.S. could perhaps buy Greenland, in the sense that, if a lot of American investments arose, then, naturally, Greenland would orient itself closer to the U.S. MALCOLM BRABANT: If Greenland does secure full independence, some experts believe that Denmark's importance in the world will diminish.

AKI-MATILDA HOEGH-DAM: Instead of saying Greenland needs Denmark and saying, well, Denmark actually kind of needs Greenland as well, we can say, then let's just create an equal society.

If we look at the systematics of it, that is how the democracy is, instead of just pointing fingers at each other.

MALCOLM BRABANT: Politicians like Hoegh-Dam would like to see independence secured by 2030.

But that target could fall victim to long and difficult divorce negotiations.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Malcolm Brabant.

AMNA NAWAZ: A deal on the debt ceiling and the 2024 presidential race ramps up.

At the end of this busy week in politics, we turn to the analysis of Capehart and Abernathy.

That's Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post, and Gary Abernathy, also a Washington Post contributor.

And welcome to you both.

Jonathan, we have avoided economic disaster with this debt ceiling deal.

People on both sides of the deal do seem very unhappy in some way, which, as the saying goes, means they probably did something right.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: It's a great deal.

AMNA NAWAZ: But, from the Democratic point of view, from the president's point of view, was this a good deal for the president?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: This was a good deal for the president, in that the -- as I have been calling it, the eat, pray, love bill that the House passed as part of their debt ceiling-raising bill had lots of drastic cuts to social programs and a lot of the president's priorities.

This deal does away with a lot of those things.

They had to make some concessions, work requirements and some other things.

But when you look at the details of the bill, particularly the one where it says that Congress has to go through the appropriations process... AMNA NAWAZ: Right.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: ... pass the 12 appropriations bills, and if you guys don't do it by the end of the fiscal year, well, there will be a continuing resolution and it will be set at F.Y.

22 or F.Y.

23 levels, that is a huge victory for a Democratic president dealing with a Republican House.

AMNA NAWAZ: Gary, what about from your perspective?

How do you see this?

Was this a good deal for the Republicans to make?

GARY ABERNATHY, The Washington Post: Yes, well, I agree it was a good deal for President Biden.

It was also a good deal for Kevin McCarthy, but particularly President Biden.

Why?

Not because necessarily of the details of the bill, but because a deal was made, a truly bipartisan deal, Amna and Jonathan.

Think about that.

I mean, a lot of times, we call things bipartisan because they pick off one or two or three votes of the other party, usually Republicans, and people say, that was a bipartisan vote.

This was, by any definition, a bipartisan vote in the House and the Senate across the board.

And that's something that President Biden can and will, I think, take a lot of credit for, rightfully so.

It's been a long time.

I'm old enough to remember when these kind of things happened in Congress more regularly.

It wasn't that -- I was a very small child.

(LAUGHTER) (CROSSTALK) GARY ABERNATHY: But it was kind of nice to see it again.

And for Kevin McCarthy, he delivered not just a majority of the majority of Republicans.

He delivered a supermajority of Republicans in the House.

So, a pretty good day, I think, for both McCarthy and Biden.

AMNA NAWAZ: As you both know, there were a lot of questions about how Speaker McCarthy would be able to handle the far right members of his conference in particular.

When you heard him talking to reporters after the bill passed the House, it kind of told you everything you needed to know about how he felt in the moment.

Take a listen to that moment.

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): This is fabulous.

This is one of the best nights I have ever been here.

I thought it would be hard.

I thought it'd be almost impossible just to get to 218.

Now I found there's a whole new day here.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, is that a man newly empowered, no longer worried about being removed from his speakership?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: I think so.

And this is how I know Speaker McCarthy is extremely happy.

I don't recognize that voice.

That voice is about three or four octaves higher than I have ever heard it.

And you know what?

Let me give him his due.

Let me give him his props.

The guy got the gavel after 15 ballots.

Everyone underestimated him.

Everyone said that he was going to be led around by the far right folks in the House Freedom Caucus.

And, to Gary's point, the fact that the bill passed the House with a supermajority of Republicans, but over 300 votes, with more Democrats voting for it than anticipated, than expected, that is a big win for bipartisanship.

And I do think it is a political win for the speaker that should put to rest this idea that this is a guy who is literally a vote away from being ousted from power.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Gary, do you agree with that?

I mean, he still has the same narrow majority.

The same members who were unhappy with the deal earlier remain unhappy with it.

What do you make of this?

GARY ABERNATHY: I got one name for you, Jim Jordan.

He voted for this bill.

So when he gets Jim Jordan to vote for this bill, the founder of the Freedom Caucus, I believe, it's hard for other Freedom Caucus members, as upset as some of them were, to really mount much of an offensive against Kevin McCarthy.

So, I agree.

I think he strengthened himself, and I just don't think Republicans have a stomach right now for the turmoil they went through back in January, where they elected him to begin with.

I think it's a big day for Kevin McCarthy going forward.

AMNA NAWAZ: So what does this say about the process more broadly when you take a step back?

I mean, that is the big question now, right?

Coming out of 2011, there was a lot of conversation about lessons learned.

The Republican takeaway was, this is how we have leverage.

This is how we do this every time.

Did negotiating with Republicans now further empower them in opposition to continue to do this every time?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: They might think so, but you can't continue to hold the American economy and the global economy hostage to try to get through your fiscal priorities that you can't get through in the normal appropriations process.

AMNA NAWAZ: That came very close this time, though, right?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: They came very close, but they didn't succeed.

And I think, going forward, I think the president should investigate whether he can use the 14th Amendment, put a court -- put -- like, do a filing.

Let's test the question.

I also think, after the next election, if there is a Democratic House and the president wins reelection and the Senate remains in the hands of Democrats, there should be a conversation had, a debate had about whether the debt ceiling should be done away with altogether.

And, quite honestly, I think it should.

We should do away with the hostage-taking.

AMNA NAWAZ: Gary, should we get rid of the debt ceiling?

GARY ABERNATHY: Yes, I think it's an interesting question, really, I mean, because it's such an exercise -- it's such an exercise in brinksmanship every time we have it.

But let's be clear.

Nothing in politics is beyond dealmaking over it, OK?

Or some people say -- want to say hostage-taking.

That happens on both sides.

Every bill coming up is an opportunity to deal, to horse-trade and so on.

And Republicans were very smart, I'm going to say McCarthy was very smart, in knowing how far to go.

You could push it too far.

And, listen, if this had fallen apart, who would have gotten blamed for this not happening?

As always, it would have been the Republicans blamed for this falling apart and for the debt ceiling not being lifted and for all these things that would have happened as a result of that.

But, listen, every opportunity -- everything in politics is an opportunity to make a deal.

And this was good.

It's just Republicans knew how far they could go.

And Joe Biden, a dealmaker from the Senate, was never adverse from the beginning from saying, you know what?

We are going to have to make a deal.

He had members of his party saying, don't deal with them at all.

Just do a clean bill and stick to that.

And he said, nah.

He likes the art of making deals.

That's OK. AMNA NAWAZ: Let's turn now to 2024, because we do expect more presidential campaign announcements on the Republican side next week, including former Vice President Mike Pence, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum.

They would join this field of declared candidates so far that includes Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Asa Hutchinson, Vivek Ramaswamy, Tim Scott, and Donald Trump.

So, Jonathan, take a look at that and entire field right now.

How do these new candidates coming in set themselves apart in this field?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: OK, so, Chris Christie, easy.

I know what lane he's in.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: He is that car in the motorcade that is the demolition car.

So, motorcades have a car that is on the lookout for anything that's trying to disrupt, say, a presidential motorcade.

That's the car that weaves out and heads for that destructive car.

That is Chris Christie.

Chris Christie will be in the campaign and on that debate stage taking whacks at Donald Trump, as someone who knows Donald Trump well, who ran against him, worked with him, did debate prep with him before.

So he knows him really well.

And it's a perfect way for him to take him down.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, I don't know what his lane is.

He is running for the Republican nomination in a party that's been remade in the image of the man who incited insurrectionists to try to overturn a free and fair election who ran through the Capitol screaming, "Hang Mike Pence."

I don't know where he thinks his votes are going to come from that would allow him to surmount and to beat Donald Trump for the Republican nomination.

AMNA NAWAZ: Gary, is there a lane for Mike Pence in this Republican Party, in a primary, in particular?

GARY ABERNATHY: Yes.

No, I agree that there's probably not.

But I also disagree with Jonathan.

I don't think there's a lane for Chris Christie either.

This week, we were asked at The Post what they called the right-leaning columnists to look at this Republican field.

As the editor pointed out, Chris Suellentrop, a lot of readers don't think they're right-thinking, but they're right-leaning columnists.

And most of us agreed.

I think, that the MAGA lane is the only lane.

It's just a matter of, can anyone other than Trump be the guy standing at the end of that?

And I do think it comes down right now -- it will come down to a Trump versus DeSantis two-person race.

Can Ron DeSantis make the case that, yes, he's MAGA enough to keep the base happy, to build that following, and yet move them away from Donald Trump, and to say, because -- because DeSantis is perhaps -- or definitely more electable in November?

He's got to make the case, look, you may love Donald Trump, but he can't win in November.

And I think that's what this race and this whole primary is going to come down to that question.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, we can't say this enough.

There's a long way to go.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: A long time.

AMNA NAWAZ: A long -- many, many months to go.

But Gary is right, and we have all seen this in the polls.

Trump and DeSantis remain the front-runners for now in the polls.

How are the Democrats looking at this?

And, in particular, how is the campaign of President Biden looking at this?

We have seen some of the presidential matchups so far.

That's a recent poll from late May, how President Biden would fare against former President Trump there, and also there was one showing him against Ron DeSantis as well.

We should note there the margin of error is about 2.3 percent.

So those are tight races.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: They're tight.

AMNA NAWAZ: How are Democrats looking at that?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, look, I think Democrats are still champing at the bit to run against Donald Trump again.

I think the president is clear-eyed and focused that, no matter who his Republican challenger is going to be, probably former President Donald Trump, the mission is to remind people about who we are as Americans and what we stand for as Americans, no matter we're Republican or Democrat, but we stand for the rule of law.

We stand for treating each other with respect and kindness and dignity and respect the freedom and liberty of all of us.

And I think, as long as he stays on that message, no matter who he's running against, he stands a better chance of being reelected.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy, thank you both for joining us today.

Always good to see you.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Thanks, Amna.

GARY ABERNATHY: Thank you.

GEOFF BENNETT: In their first championship game in franchise history, the Denver Nuggets outscored the Miami Heat 104 to 93 in game one of the NBA Finals.

The championship matches up two of the most dynamic players in the league, Nikola Jokic of the Nuggets, who has burst onto the scene as a star, and Jimmy Butler of the Miami Heat, one of the great playoff performers in the NBA.

David Aldridge is a senior columnist for The Athletic, and he joins us now.

So this is the first time the Denver Nuggets have made it to the championship stage.

Safe to say they didn't disappoint their fans last night.

You're in Denver.

What's the mood like and what does this ascension mean for the Nuggets?

DAVID ALDRIDGE, The Athletic: Well, it's always - - the first time a city or a team makes the finals, it's always kind of fun and exciting.

Everybody's -- something new.

They haven't experienced it.

The whole international media contingent comes down into their city.

And it's a different experience.

And their team is winning, and that's the most important thing.

And the Nuggets have been the best team in these playoffs by far so far in the postseason.

They have really dominated every series that they have played in the first three, and they certainly dominated game one against Miami.

And so the sense is that this team has arrived.

Jokic has been a superstar in this league for the last three or four years.

He's been the league's MVP twice.

He finished second in the MVP voting this year.

So he's a known quantity.

But his team has never had the kind of success that it's had now.

And that's a testament to the organization putting really, really good players around him and some of the key players on the team, like Jamal Murray, coming back from injuries.

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, let's talk more about Jokic and his stellar performance last night, 27 points, 14 assists, 10 rebounds.

Most people may not know who he is.

Tell us more about his backstory and how he helped turn the Nuggets into a championship contender.

DAVID ALDRIDGE: Well, it's a great story.

I mean, Jokic was a second round pick.

When he came into the league, he was 300 pounds, he was heavy, he was out of shape, but he could always play.

He was just -- he just has an incredible, innate gift and ability to see everything on a basketball floor.

And what he can do better than just about everybody in the league is anticipate.

It's a very, very unique skill.

Only the best players of all time, like Magic Johnson and Larry Bird had this skill at this kind of level, to me.

That means he sees plays before they start.

He sees where guys are going to be five or six seconds before they get there.

And he can play in a way that he's never sped up.

He never makes bad decisions with the basketball.

You can't get him out of his rhythm.

He just plays the game like he's playing in a park.

And he plays it at such a high level.

I mean, he confounds the best defenses in the NBA night in and night out with his ability to pass and see where his teammates are going to be.

GEOFF BENNETT: Let's talk about the Miami Heat, because that team, I mean, they were no strangers to the championships back when LeBron was their star.

But now they're relying on Jimmy Butler, who had a tough time of it last night.

What do they have to do to turn it around?

DAVID ALDRIDGE: Well, there's a few things.

I mean, they missed a lot of three point shots.

And they have shot the ball very well during the playoffs from the three-point line.

And they missed out way more than they normally do.

So you expect that they will start to play a little bit better and make some of those shots going forward.

Defensively, they just struggled to keep Denver from getting where they wanted to get.

Part of that, they can't do much about.

It's just that Denver is a bigger team than Miami.

So Denver is doing -- in game one at least did a great job of finding the physical mismatches and exploiting those.

You know, Miami can play harder and with more effort and more connectivity.

So that will help.

But you mentioned Jimmy Butler.

I mean, he didn't shoot any free throws in game one.

And that is a -- that's never -- that never happens.

And the Heat as a team only shot two free throws.

So they have to be more aggressive getting to the basket and forcing the referees to call fouls and shoot free throws, because that allows them to set up their defense.

Without the free throws and without making the three-point shots, they were constantly kind of having to get back in a scramble situation.

And even when they were set, Jokic just picked them apart.

He's just so good.

And Jamal Murray had 10 assists as well.

And that -- that's -- you can't win when the two best players are creating that much offense for their teammates.

GEOFF BENNETT: Yes, that's a good point.

You have covered the NBA for some 30 years.

What excites you about this current matchup between the Nuggets and the Heat?

And what will you be looking for as the finals progress?

DAVID ALDRIDGE: Well, the best thing to me is that this is kind of the NBA on almost a Ph.D. Level.

I mean, I know most casual fans look at the superstars and what they're doing well, LeBron James, or Steph Curry, or some of the best players in the league.

And you have great players in this series, don't get me wrong, but this really is about basketball.

It's about how well the game can be played, because both of these teams play at an extremely high level.

They make good decisions with the ball.

They don't turn the ball over a lot.

And they're just fun to watch because they play the game so well.

They're both very well-coached.

Michael Malone coaches the Nuggets, and Erik Spoelstra coaches the Heat.

They're just two teams that really know how to play.

And so if you like watching basketball played at a very high level, you will love these finals, I think.

And it could go four games or it could go five or six games.

I don't think it'll go seven, but we will see.

But I think, while you're watching it, you're going to see basketball played at a very high level.

GEOFF BENNETT: David Aldridge, senior columnist for The Athletic, thanks so much for speaking with us.

DAVID ALDRIDGE: My pleasure.

GEOFF BENNETT: And there is much more online, including a story about why Louisiana shrimpers say they're in danger of losing their business to imports.

Be sure to tune into "Washington Week" later tonight right here on PBS as well.

AMNA NAWAZ: And don't forget to watch "PBS News Weekend" on Saturday for a look at what's next for Congress after passage of this debt limit bill.

And, meanwhile, that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

GEOFF BENNETT: And I'm Geoff Bennett.

Have a great evening.