JUDY WOODRUFF: Good evening.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

On the "NewsHour" tonight: Negotiations over the trade war with China end without a deal, as the U.S. imposes higher tariffs on more than $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.

Then, we are on the ground in Iowa, as 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls make their pitches to the nation's first caucus-goers.

And it's Friday.

Mark Shields and David Brooks are here to discuss Congress' vote to hold the attorney general in contempt, the fight over subpoenaing Donald Trump Jr., and the ongoing trade war with China.

Plus: masterworks by Rembrandt.

A major museum in Amsterdam displays its entire collection of the Dutch painter's work.

JONATHAN BIKKER, Author, "Rembrandt: Biography of a Rebel": We still have emotions in the 21st century.

It's what defines us, basically, as human beings.

So when we look at Rembrandt's paintings, we actually experience our own humanity.

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

(BREAK) JUDY WOODRUFF: The U.S. China trade talks have ended, for now.

The new tariffs have just begun.

President Trump imposed the higher 25 percent levies overnight in a bid to bring Beijing to an agreement.

And he promised they will help, not hurt the U.S.

But the latest negotiations ended without resolving the standoff.

And U.S. farmers, in particular, are bracing for further pain.

We will have an extended report after the news summary.

Wall Street managed a modest rally, despite the ongoing China tensions.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained 114 points to close at 25942.

The Nasdaq rose six, and the S&P 500 added 10.

A top House Democrat issued subpoenas today for six years of President Trump's tax returns.

Congressman Richard Neal chairs the Ways and Means Committee.

He had already made a formal request for the returns, but the Treasury Department rejected it this week.

This comes on the day the chair of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee says he is open to further talks on obtaining the full Mueller report.

Chairman Democrat Jerry Nadler sent a letter today to Attorney General William Barr.

The committee voted this week to hold Barr in contempt for not releasing the full report.

Also today, Nadler announced that special counsel Robert Mueller will not testify before Congress next week, but the talks continue on another date.

The U.S. and Iran kept up a war of words today.

Tensions escalated this week over U.S. claims of unspecified threats by Tehran.

Today, the U.S. military confirmed that B-52 bombers have arrived in Qatar, and the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln is nearing the Persian Gulf.

The Pentagon also announced that it will send a Patriot missile battery to the region.

Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan warned Iran to tread carefully.

PATRICK SHANAHAN, Acting U.S. Defense Secretary: It's important that Iran understand that an attack on Americans or its interests would be met with an appropriate response.

We will position ourselves, we will protect our interests, but we're there to build security.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Earlier, a top commander in Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard rejected any talks with the U.S. President Trump had said he would like for Iranian leaders to call him.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a disaster relief bill today, with $19 billion for flood victims, for farmers and hurricane survivors.

More than 30 Republicans joined Democrats to pass it, over the president's objections.

He had opposed additional funding in the bill for Puerto Rico's hurricane recovery.

Negotiations remain before the issue is resolved.

Forecasters are warning of severe storms and possible flash floods across the South this weekend.

The weather system already dumped downpours from Missouri to Louisiana.

In Houston, cars struggled to push through high waters early this morning, and rivers remained swollen into the afternoon.

In the Mediterranean, U.N. migration officials say as many as 70 people drowned when their boat capsized today.

The vessel had sailed from Libya for Europe when it sent a distress signal off the city of Sfax in Tunisia.

It was the deadliest such incident since January.

Facebook's founder, Mark Zuckerberg, met with French President Emmanuel Macron today under growing pressure over online hate speech.

The meeting in Paris came as French regulators issued a new report.

They urged fines for social networks that do not remove hateful content.

Back in this country, Washington state has ended the right for parents to exempt their children from taking the measles vaccine for personal and philosophical grounds.

A law signed today still allows exemptions for medical or religious reasons.

More than 760 cases of measles are confirmed nationwide this year, including more than 70 in Washington state.

And today marked 150 years since the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad.

The final golden spike was hammered into place in Utah on May 10, 1869.

Today, thousands of visitors celebrated with a reenactment.

The Transcontinental line cut cross-country travel time from six months to roughly 10 days.

Still to come on the "NewsHour": the Trump administration places higher tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods; on the ground in Iowa, as 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls campaign across the state; Mark Shields and David Brooks break down a busy week in Washington; the risks that illegal tiger trafficking poses to the endangered species; and much more.

The U.S.-China trade war intensified today, as the Trump administration increased tariffs on imports from China, and China pledged to retaliate.

As Nick Schifrin reports, China's top negotiator left Washington without an agreement.

NICK SCHIFRIN: On a sunny Friday morning in Washington, the trade war escalated with a handshake.

The top Chinese and U.S. negotiators ended their 11th round of talks cordially, but the two countries are in economic conflict.

Today, the U.S. increased tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion of Chinese exports, including seafood, luggage, purses, and parts sold to U.S. companies, such as circuit boards, microprocessors, and machinery.

And the U.S. is threatening to go even further and impose tariffs on all cell phones, clothing, and laptops made in China, and exported to the U.S.

In response, the Chinese Foreign Ministry vowed -- quote -- "necessary countermeasures."

And spokesman Geng Shuang asked the U.S. to give a little.

GENG SHUANG, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson (through translator): The two sides need to meet each other halfway.

NICK SCHIFRIN: But the U.S. accuses China of not going halfway.

U.S. officials say, over all these rounds of negotiations, they hammered out a 150-page deal with changes to Chinese laws that would open the Chinese market to U.S. companies and protect U.S. technology and intellectual property.

But, last weekend, the U.S. believes Xi Jinping rejected those changes to law.

DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States: We were getting very close to a deal.

Then they started to renegotiate the deal.

We can't have that.

We can't have that.

So our country can take in $120 billion a year in tariffs, paid for mostly by China, by the way, not by us.

A lot of people try and steer it in a different direction.

It's really paid -- ultimately, it's paid for by -- largely by china.

STEVE LAMAR, Executive Vice President, American Apparel & Footwear: Tariffs are taxes the Americans pay.

They're taxes that American companies pay.

Ultimately, they're taxes that consumers pay.

And they're taxes that result in job losses in the United States.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Steve Lamar is the executive vice president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association.

He opposes this round of tariffs, and says, if further tariffs are imposed on everything made and shipped out of China, the victims will be American consumers.

STEVE LAMAR: If you realize that 82 percent of our backpacks and purses and travel goods come from China, 70 percent of our footwear comes from China, 42 percent of our apparel comes from China, when you tax these items, that is going to result in about a $500 increase for an average family of four.

NICK SCHIFRIN: And some of the families worst hit by the trade war are farmers.

DANIEL RICHARD, Louisiana Farmer: The Richard family has been farming for around 100 years, my grandfather, great-grandfather, and myself, and hopefully the next generation.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Daniel Richard farms soybeans, rice and crawfish in Louisiana.

He and his fellow farmers were hit by Chinese retaliatory tariffs, making it impossible to sell their crop.

They had to leave them in the field to die.

And, today, soybean prices are so low, he can't cover his costs.

He spoke to us from his phone on his farm.

DANIEL RICHARD: At the selling price it is now, at $8 beans, we can't pay the expenses that we are putting out in the field.

So we're unprofitable as soon as we put the planter in the field.

NICK SCHIFRIN: He doesn't blame President Trump.

He blames the Chinese, and urges both sides to make a deal to save American family farms.

He fears his son won't be able to follow in his footsteps.

DANIEL RICHARD: Well, he just graduated from college.

I can see in his heart and his blood he's got it in him.

And he's definitely got the work ethic.

But he sees what's going on right now.

And there's other opportunities out there.

It's not just the farms that are hurting.

It's these little communities that are hurting.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Administration officials say they understand that short-term pain, and ask for patience as they try to change long-term Chinese economic behavior.

But, for now, as it was in Washington this afternoon, there could be stormy days ahead.

This afternoon, though, President Trump tweeted and called today's discussions candid and constructive and said the conversations will continue.

To talk this through, we get two differing views.

Ryan Hass was the director for China on the National Security Council staff during the Obama administration.

He is now a Brookings Institution fellow.

And Derek Scissors has written extensively about China's economy, and is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Thank you very much to you both for joining the "NewsHour."

Ryan Hass, let me start with you.

Many assumed last week that there would be a deal between the two sides.

Was this a breakdown we saw today?

RYAN HASS, Brookings Institution: Well, it appears to have been a breakdown from expectations.

As you said a week ago, it looked promising that there would be a deal.

And then, over the weekend, President Trump and members of his team indicated that the Chinese had backed away from commitments that they thought they had already received from them.

And, as a consequence, we now have another step on the escalatory ladder of tariffs with China.

So, my concern is that we have taken another step down a dark tunnel with no end in sight.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Derek Scissors, is this a step down a dark tunnel with no end in sight?

DEREK SCISSORS, American Enterprise Institute: If you wanted the deal that was on the table, it is.

I was not at all convinced the deal on the table was going to work.

In particular, I thought China's incentives to keep its promises on intellectual property were unlikely -- were low.

And then the Chinese backed that up by saying, we don't want to make the legal changes that even might lead us to keeping our word on intellectual property.

So it's certainly a step away from the deal.

I don't think that's necessarily a step down a dark tunnel.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Meaning you don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to step away from that deal?

DEREK SCISSORS: That's right.

It's going to be very difficult to get China to change its policies on intellectual property, as well as others, such as subsidies to state-owned enterprises.

It shouldn't be an easy deal.

It certainly shouldn't be a deal that the president makes in a phone call with Xi Jinping.

As some have implied, we're going to have difficulties in the negotiation.

This is all part of the -- what the process should look like.

NICK SCHIFRIN: So, Ryan Hass, intellectual property, as Derek Scissors just mentioned, subsidies for state-owned enterprises, forced technology transfer, these are the things the U.S. is trying to get China to change.

Can tariffs achieve that?

RYAN HASS: Well, thus far, I think that we have overestimated our ability to muscle the Chinese into accepting our will, and underestimated China's ability to punch us in places that hurt.

And, as a result, American people are feeling the pain.

And so if the question is, are we going to get absolute surrender from the Chinese, I'm very pessimistic that that's the case.

If we can make progress where progress is possible, I think we should do so.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Derek Scissors, is that enough progress, as Ryan Hass put it, rather than get the Chinese to surrender?

DEREK SCISSORS: Well, first of all, I disagree with both premises in Ryan's point.

When he says the American people are feeling the pain, farmers are feeling the pain.

Aggregate U.S. economic growth is strong.

Consumer prices are low.

I don't see much pain caused by China tariffs.

They may be caused by bad fiscal policy, but not by our China policy.

And then the second part, of course, it's a false dichotomy to say the idea is, we have to accept the Chinese offer or they have to surrender.

As I said, this is going to be a long, difficult process.

We're not going to get everything we want.

But the turn -- to make a deal just so that you can remove uncertainty for the stock market or the like would be a mistake that would hurt the U.S. for years to come.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Ryan Hass, short-term pain OK for long-term gain?

What do you think?

RYAN HASS: Well, if there is long-term gain that accompanies the short-term pain, then sure.

But right now, all we're seeing is the pain, without any accompanying gain.

I think the American people were supportive of President Trump shaking things up and trying a new approach to China.

I think that there was merit to it.

But they wanted to achieve a purpose, not attack China on principle.

And, right now, we are in this exculpatory spiral, where neither side appears willing to take a step back from the brink.

And I don't think that's a good place for the United States to be.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Derek Scissors, let me ask about leverage right now.

Who has more leverage, the United States or China?

And do both leaders believe right now that they can actually push the other around?

DEREK SCISSORS: I hope not, because that's - - that's -- pushing the other around, as Ryan just mentioned, for no goal is not a good strategy to get what you want.

I do think the U.S. has more leverage.

The president is right about that.

But the leverage has to be applied over an extended period of time.

If the president becomes impatient, as it seems he was late last year and early this year, then we can't use that leverage.

The U.S. leverage advantage is a long-term leverage advantage.

It's not about signing on tariffs and then saying a week later, are you ready to make a deal?

We're going to have to have some pain to get China to change its policies.

If we're not willing to put up with that pain, then we should just abandon this process and sign a short-term deal that does very little.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Ryan -- Ryan Hass, yes.

Sorry.

RYAN HASS: I think Derek makes a great point.

In trade negotiations, the patient party has an advantage.

The disciplined party has an advantage.

And right now, the Chinese are trying to stake out that territory.

The Chinese have a view that they have leverage, because the closer that we get to our 2020 presidential election, the more desirous President Trump will be of a deal.

The United States believes that it has leverage, because our economy is strong and China, we believe -- the Trump integration believes that China's economy is brittle and that President Xi needs a deal.

And so we find ourselves stuck in this dilemma where both sides think they have leverage over the other, and neither appears willing to make the compromises necessary to reach a deal.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Derek Scissors, should the U.S. be making compromises right now?

DEREK SCISSORS: No, it should not.

Again, if you start with the premise that we have serious problems in our relationship with China, you don't try to get to a quick outcome.

You have to deal with uncertainty and risk and stock market losses and all the things that come in with long negotiations.

We should not be in a hurry to make a deal.

Now, Ryan may be right that the president sees the need to make a deal before the 2020 election.

I hope that's not true.

I hope he continues to receive support, as he has, from both parties, because both parties have realized we need a change in the China relationship, and it's not going to be easy.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Ryan Hass, you mentioned whether - - the perspective from the Chinese that the U.S. actually has less leverage.

There's a notion of the Chinese officials I talk to who say, basically, you guys can't take the heat.

You guys can't take the political heat -- or the president can't take the political heat and actually make sacrifices.

Is that right?

RYAN HASS: Well, Nick, I think you're right.

I think there's a baked-in assumption that the Chinese have that the American political system is ill-equipped for pain tolerance.

And the Chinese see that as their advantage.

They see their system, their top-down Leninist system, where they have a leader that doesn't face reelection, a leader that does have control over his media and can tamp down discontent or protest, and a leader that can allocate resources where they're needed, with control of fiscal monetary levers, as distinct advantages that they have on a systemic level relative to the United States.

I agree with Derek.

I would like for us to prove them wrong, as an American.

But we will see.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Derek Scissors, last word to you.

Do you have faith that the administration is going to pursue this path in the correct way, in your opinion?

DEREK SCISSORS: No, I'm afraid not.

I think the president's constant comments about his friendship with Xi Jinping make it difficult to have faith.

I think he deserves great credit for identifying this problem and being more aggressive than President Obama and President Bush.

We need that.

But I think the president is still looking for maybe a personal connection to Xi to seal a deal that will benefit the United States for a year or two, but not solve the problems we have with China.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Derek Scissors with the American Enterprise Institute, Ryan Hass, former Obama National Security Council China director, now at Brookings, thanks to you both.

RYAN HASS: Thank you.

JUDY WOODRUFF: There are still nine months before the first votes of the 2020 presidential election, but the battle to win the Iowa caucuses is well under way.

Just in the last week, eight Democratic hopefuls have campaigned across the state.

Amna Nawaz talked to some voters in the Hawkeye State to find out how they are sorting out whom to support.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's after 7:00 on a Tuesday night, which means book club night for Ruth and Scott Thompson.

But, in Des Moines, Iowa, in the run-up to a heated presidential contest, even book clubs can become political.

Do you ever not talk about politics?

RUTH THOMPSON, Iowa Voter: We talk about what channel we're going to watch politics on.

No, we actually... SCOTT THOMPSON, Iowa Voter: Baseball once in a while.

RUTH THOMPSON: yes.

(LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: This particular group, with more than 700 members, is making its way through every candidate biography published so far, then inviting them to take questions.

Tonight?

JULIAN CASTRO (D), Presidential Candidate: I understand the anxiety that people feel.

AMNA NAWAZ: It's former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro's turn.

Already, Secretary Castro has spent 14 days of his campaign here in Iowa.

In fact, every single Democratic presidential candidate has made a trip to the state at least once in the election cycle.

In a crowded Democratic field of more than 20, candidates are hoping that intimate moments like this, moments that come early in the cycle, could lead to support and the all-important Iowa caucuses in February, the first in the country.

JULIAN CASTRO: A lot of people don't know anything about me.

And so it's a great opportunity every time I get in front of an audience here in Iowa or one of the other states to let them know where I'm coming from and what I want to do for them and for their family.

BETO O'ROURKE (D), Presidential Candidate: That is why I'm here.

That is why I'm running to serve you.

AMNA NAWAZ: The night before, the Thompsons went to see former Congressman Beto O'Rourke on his third trip to Iowa.

BETO O'ROURKE: Well, ultimately, it's going to be up to the voters in Iowa, those who will go to the caucuses, to determine who the nominee will be, or at least who's going to have a head-start against the rest of the field coming out of Iowa.

We have held now more than 120 town hall meetings over the last six weeks across 14 states, most of them here in Iowa.

AMNA NAWAZ: Just name a candidate, and they're already here in some form.

MAN: My name is Deepak (ph).

I'm an organizer with the Cory Booker campaign.

How are you doing today?

AMNA NAWAZ: Senator Booker's team is settling in to their state headquarters.

WOMAN: Can we count on you to attend?

AMNA NAWAZ: Hosting a slate of events to start getting caucus-goers to commit.

MAN: I know there are a lot candidates in this race.

John Delaney is a congressman from Maryland.

AMNA NAWAZ: Ten minutes down the road, Congressman Delaney's office, one of eight in the state, is humming with activity, drumming up support.

MAN: Have you given any thought to who you might be supporting in the caucuses next year just yet?

O. KAY HENDERSON, News Director, Radio Iowa: Being a winner is always important, and being the winner of the first contest is always important in the presidential sweepstakes.

AMNA NAWAZ: Kay Henderson, news director for Radio Iowa, has covered presidential elections for 30 years.

She's seen dozens of candidates come through her home state courting votes.

O. KAY HENDERSON: The last four nominees for the Democratic Party have won the Iowa caucuses, so it's an important contest from that perspective.

It also gives candidates the chance to travel the state and test their message.

AMNA NAWAZ: One Iowa pit-stop for candidates to test those messages is Smokey Row coffeehouse.

Already this year, Castro, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang have passed through, among others.

No candidates here today, but local businessmen T.J. Johnsrud and Jim Townsend are happy to break down the field over breakfast.

One's independent, the other Republican, but both say they're open to registering and caucusing as Democrats this year.

JIM TOWNSEND, Iowa Voter: We're the first in the country, so this is where they get known.

T.J. JOHNSRUD, Iowa Voter: This a good place for them to start, actually.

And they get vetted pretty quickly, you know?

AMNA NAWAZ: So has anyone stuck out to you so far?

T.J. JOHNSRUD: Well, I think O'Rourke is an interesting guy.

Beto, I like.

He's got an interesting name anyway.

And Joe Biden, of course, is a known commodity, and Bernie Sanders.

AMNA NAWAZ: What is you're looking for in a candidate?

T.J. JOHNSRUD: Oh, boy, civility, maybe, acting like a president.

AMNA NAWAZ: A few tables away, Elaine Imlau and Ann Rezarch say they have been tracking the field.

ANN REZARCH, Iowa Voter: I have seen Kamala Harris and Cory Booker and Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang.

AMNA NAWAZ: Both are registered Democrats, it's worth noting, in a state that Donald Trump won by 10 points in 2016.

But they say they're waiting to pick until the pack thins out, paying close attention to one thing: ELAINE IMLAU, Iowa Voter: Who's civil.

AMNA NAWAZ: That's a big thing for you?

ELAINE IMLAU: That's a big thing for me, after everything that's been going on.

AMNA NAWAZ: What about you?

Does that matter to you as well?

ANN REZARCH: I want somebody who can win.

And, normally, that wouldn't be my priority.

I usually go with who I feel would be the best.

And I'm having a lot of internal conflict about, who do I think would be the best, who do I think could actually win, and that might not be the same person.

AMNA NAWAZ: Kay Henderson says Iowans are approaching this crowded field with open minds.

O. KAY HENDERSON: That was certainly not the case in 2015 at this point, because you had people who were Clinton supporters and you had people that were Sanders supporters, and never the twain did meet.

But this time around, I go to candidate events in a certain community, and the same people are turning out to see multiple candidates.

RUTH THOMPSON: This is so hard.

I have never struggled with choosing a candidate the way that I have this year.

AMNA NAWAZ: The Thompsons are far from deciding, but a few candidates top their lists right now.

RUTH THOMPSON: So, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Beto and Julian and Pete.

SCOTT THOMPSON: So, yes, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar.

RUTH THOMPSON: First and foremost, having lived through 2016, my first question is, can they win?

AMNA NAWAZ: Is that one of the most important things to both of you now, is, can this person win, can this person beat President Trump?

SCOTT THOMPSON: Yes, we're not so idealistic that we -- that it's -- our principle is, we need to win.

AMNA NAWAZ: There is a world in which you guys could disagree on which candidate you support.

(LAUGHTER) RUTH THOMPSON: Yes.

SCOTT THOMPSON: Yes.

AMNA NAWAZ: And you're both very politically active.

(CROSSTALK) RUTH THOMPSON: We have taken the pledge that if we end up in different campaigns, we won't share strategies or give away campaign secrets, because... AMNA NAWAZ: You will build a wall between the two of you?

SCOTT THOMPSON: Yes.

There will be a firewall.

RUTH THOMPSON: Yes.

SCOTT THOMPSON: Yes, absolutely.

AMNA NAWAZ: Can you do that?

RUTH THOMPSON: Yes.

SCOTT THOMPSON: Oh, yes.

RUTH THOMPSON: Oh, we do, yes.

(LAUGHTER) AMNA NAWAZ: And they will have plenty of chances to meet the candidates again and again, as campaigns continue to build up their staff on the ground, and the candidates descend for this summer's Iowa State Fair.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Amna Nawaz in Des Moines, Iowa.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.

That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

So, before we turn to all the whatever we want to call it that's happened in Washington this week, Mark, let's talk a minute about Iowa.

We heard this voter tell Amna, this is really hard.

I don't know why it's so hard.

There are only 23 candidates.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right.

(LAUGHTER) MARK SHIELDS: But that is -- Amna captured the Iowa essence.

I mean, these people take their responsibility very seriously.

JUDY WOODRUFF: They do.

MARK SHIELDS: It's not casual.

They are gatekeepers.

Between Iowa and New Hampshire, they are 1.4 percent of the population of the country, and unless you finish in the top three in Iowa and the top two in New Hampshire, you will not be elected president of the United States, based on the historical precedent.

And that's why it makes sense for both Mr. Castro and Mr. O'Rourke to be spending time there.

JUDY WOODRUFF: They get one-on-one time.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes.

If you love politics, this is the time go, actually, right now, because there's like crowds of three or eight.

And there are candidates everywhere.

You can drive to -- in beautiful weather and see beautiful candidates.

And then it all peaks at the state fair, where they all sort of congregate.

My most profound political coverage moment was covering Gary Bauer, who was running in the Republican primary, as he toured a refrigerated railway car with the Last Supper carved in butter in life size.

(LAUGHTER) DAVID BROOKS: And that was politics at its best.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: That was the state fair.

DAVID BROOKS: That was at the state fair.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Which is coming up in August.

We have already got it on our calendar here, here at "NewsHour."

MARK SHIELDS: Raise the cholesterol level of the entire state and press corps.

(LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: All right, so now tear ourselves away from Iowa, Mark, to talk about what's gone on in Washington this week, this escalating battle between the Congress and the White House.

Just today, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House, Richard Neal, is subpoenaing the secretary of the treasury, the head of the IRS, to go after the president's tax returns, this on top of subpoenas for the president's son, subpoenas for the attorney general.

What do we make of all this?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I mean, we -- I think it's approaching almost situational overload, in terms of -- we're talking about subpoenas from committees, including the House Intelligence Committee, the House Banking Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the -- across the board.

And now we have the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, as you mentioned, led by Republicans, that have subpoenaed the president's son.

I just think, Judy, that, in a strange way, this plays to Donald Trump's strength.

I mean, Donald Trump lives in chaos.

I think it's sort of almost an emotional and technological and intellectual overload, given the fact that we're on the cusp of war in Iran, in Venezuela, in a showdown with the Chinese.

I mean, there's just -- but this is what he thrives on.

And I think there's a -- almost I dare you to impeach me attitude that's prevailing.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Overload, you mean for the American people?

(CROSSTALK) MARK SHIELDS: For the American people and for the -- this isn't -- the system wasn't intended for this.

I mean, this isn't the way it's constructed, that we can deal with crisis upon crisis upon crisis.

JUDY WOODRUFF: David, the Democrats say they're very serious about all this.

They want this information.

They want this testimony.

I mean, are they pursuing the right strategy for them?

DAVID BROOKS: No.

Well, neither side is.

It's the complete breakdown of the checks and balances system.

The president has to say, Congress, I need you.

I need you to oversee what I'm doing.

I need you to correct for my imbalances.

And so I'm going to cooperate with you.

And that's just the normal way we do business.

And the Trump administration is not doing that.

So that's the first crisis.

The second is, if you're going to do oversight, you got to oversee.

You got to try to say, I'm at least going to try to be a productive force here.

But what we're seeing on the side of the Democrats is an escalation of the passion.

And it's just become an attack machine.

And so there's just a lot of -- there's a lot of talk now about jailing people.

There's a lot of talk about just holding multiple people in contempt.

This fight over the redaction is the wrong fight to have.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Of the Mueller report.

DAVID BROOKS: Of the Mueller report.

The administration has offered to show of the volume two, which is about obstruction, the vast majority, 99.5 percent, to least the elite Democrats.

And that wasn't good enough.

And so there was a little negotiation, which broke down.

But, to me, that -- just issuing orders of contempt, which may go forward, just freezes everything.

It just pushes everything into the courts, and we sit there and do nothing for a couple of years.

And so there's a way to do this, and there's a way not to do this.

So there's a lot of error on the Trump administration.

But, nonetheless, I think the Democrats across the board and across many committees are sort of walking slowly up toward impeachment.

And we could end up in impeachment.

And I do think that's what Donald Trump... (CROSSTALK) JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Mark, we had on the program last night Jerry Nadler, who is the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee... MARK SHIELDS: Yes.

JUDY WOODRUFF: ... who essentially said, if we don't carry out our responsibility, we're not fulfilling what the Constitution, what the founders wanted and expected Congress to do, which is have oversight over the executive.

MARK SHIELDS: That is a -- it's a legitimate argument, make no mistake about it, I mean, that if you lay down a precedent that, literally, that this precedent can -- this president gets away with what he's getting away with, and the Congress does nothing, then that certainly lays the precedent for the next president.

I think, just to add to what David -- the point David made, Donald Trump, according to USA Today, which has established a database, has been a plaintiff or a defendant in 4,095 lawsuits.

Now, think about that.

I mean, that's an awful lot.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Over his career.

MARK SHIELDS: Over his career.

I mean, about employment, about contracts, about subcontractors, you name it.

He'd been -- and you talk about litigious.

He enjoys this.

I mean, he thrives on this.

This is modus operandi.

And I really think they're playing to his strength, quite honestly.

And he's -- and he's sitting there, quite honestly, Judy, with 91 percent approval among Republicans.

And just, I think, intimidates his own party.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, David, are the two of us saying Democrats just drop this?

DAVID BROOKS: No.

No.

JUDY WOODRUFF: What should the approach be?

DAVID BROOKS: No, they should be in the business of trying to inform the American voters.

And so getting Mueller to testify... MARK SHIELDS: Absolutely.

DAVID BROOKS: The fact that Mueller may not testify is outrageous, and Mueller should testify.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes.

Yes.

DAVID BROOKS: And so they should be in that business.

But, basically, what they're doing is walking up toward the line of impeachment.

And you can see the passions rising, as they get further and further down that line.

And there's a difference between going toward the prosecutorial impeachment, and having hearings to educate the American voter.

And when you get down one path, you're really trying to appease the part of the party that wants -- that wants impeachment.

And the problem, when you try to appease that part, you end up emboldening, and you just turn it into an attack game.

And what Donald Trump wants -- who would -- who does Donald Trump want to be his foil, his opposite member?

Does he want it to be the presidential candidates, most of whom are kind of attractive, who he is actively running against, or would he rather run against Congress?

Of course he would rather run against Congress.

Any president would.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But, Mark, I mean, I just -- I come back to what the Democrats are saying is, we want this information.

The administration is saying, we're not going to give it to you.

So how does it ever get resolved?

MARK SHIELDS: No, there's no question that they're playing -- they're playing absolutely hardball, is the administration.

And they're being -- they're not being respectful of the law in the least.

I think, Judy, you have to make -- the difference is, the Russians were involved in this election in 2016, make no mistake about it.

Our intelligence agencies have all concluded that unanimously.

They were around in 2018.

They all got all the way into a county in Florida, into its official site.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.

MARK SHIELDS: So that is a legitimate area.

What, are we going to have American elections for Americans and not interference?

That -- and nobody could argue with that, save Donald Trump.

I mean, his own administration is mindful of that.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And you're saying that's what they should be talking about, rather than... MARK SHIELDS: Yes.

I think that's where they ought to be going.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Let's turn... DAVID BROOKS: There is even a weird moment where a senator started acting like a senator, Richard Burr, the Republican from North Carolina... MARK SHIELDS: Richard Burr.

DAVID BROOKS: ... who wants to bring Don Jr. in to investigate that exact question.

The rest of the Republican Party went crazy because he was acting like an actual senator who wants to get to the bottom of a very serious issue.

MARK SHIELDS: And, Judy, I would point out that his own colleague in -- Thom Tillis in North Carolina, who had written a very straightforward op-ed page piece in The Washington Post opposing Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency on building the wall, and then caved like a $4 suitcase when Donald Trump objected, went after -- went after his own colleague, Richard Burr, and criticized him for leading a bipartisan investigation.

JUDY WOODRUFF: I'm thinking of a $4 suitcase.

MARK SHIELDS: OK. (LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: David, I want to turn, though, to the -- all the news today about China.

The president basically saying, we're throwing these tariffs down and this is the way it's going to be.

The president has thrown the gauntlet down, knowing that the U.S. economic interest, farmers, the auto manufacturers, are going to suffer.

DAVID BROOKS: Right.

And I think, normally, the default for a lot of people certainly in the center-right would be, this is ridiculous.

Trade wars are always unwinnable.

But I'm struck by the broad consensus among many people who normally are very pro-free traders that something has to be done about China right now, that they are moving up the supply chain and up to our industries, A.I.

and the high-tech industries.

And they're not doing it fairly.

They're doing it by stealing.

And so the systemic threat that China presents now makes some hard negotiation and even some tariffs acceptable.

And so China has brought this on themselves, and has converted a lot of people who are radically for pro-free trade into thinking, we have got to do something about China.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it something, though, Mark, that the president should be thinking about vote -- there are voters out there who are concerned with farmers' interests and other economic -- U.S. economic interests that are going to be hurt by this.

MARK SHIELDS: Sure.

No, sure, there are, Judy.

But, I mean -- and this is a time, if ever there was one, when you want a coalition of nations.

You want -- and we find ourselves isolated, increasingly, under this administration and this president's approach.

I mean, this is a time for coordinated, collective, strong approach to and enforcement with China.

And I agree with David that China has to be confronted.

I mean, whether this is the -- Donald Trump has one great asset going into 2020, and that is a booming American economy.

I mean, it is unparalleled, 50 years the lowest unemployment, rising wages.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But are you saying this risks - - puts that at risk?

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, I think it puts it -- I think it definitely puts it at risk.

I really do.

DAVID BROOKS: You could have a very bad outcome, which we will actually have an actual trade war.

You could, it seems unlikely to me, have a good outcome where China actually does move.

China seems under no pressure to actually do that.

And then there's a lot of different scenarios in between.

But the possibility of a real trade war is certainly a live possibility.

I just wish we could have more confidence in our side of the table.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Only 40 seconds left.

To Iran, to both of you very quickly.

Is the president wise at this point to be pushing Iran?

We have got now a carrier moving into the region.

We have got B-52s.

What are we looking at here?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes.

To me, these are -- this is a Potemkin foreign policy.

It has a facade of toughness, but there's no actual negotiate -- interagency process behind it.

There's no actual delivery mechanism.

So, to me, it looks a little more like bluster.

MARK SHIELDS: Two battle carrier groups, Judy, one in the Med and one in the Gulf, I mean, this is -- this is serious stuff.

We're talking about a president who got elected by withdrawing from American entanglements.

And this is -- this is serious stuff.

And I just commend both Senator Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia, and Todd Young, the Republican from Indiana, who are trying to get the Congress to confront the fact that they have never repealed the authorization of military force, which is -- since World War II, 153,000 Americans have died in uniform without any declaration of war.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you.

Earlier this week, the United Nations warned that roughly one million of the world's species are on the verge of extinction, more than at any other time in human history.

As William Brangham reports, one of those species is one of the most iconic animals on Earth, the tiger.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's right, Judy.

It's estimated there are fewer than 4,000 tigers remaining in the wild today, down from roughly 100,000 in the early 1900s.

More tigers now live in captivity than in the wild, and many of those can be found in so-called tiger farms, where they are bred, raised and then slaughtered, sold for their skin and body parts on the black market.

In a new investigative report for The Washington Post, Terrence McCoy traveled to Laos in Southeast Asia, and got an inside look at some of these farms, and the grisly trade that keeps them afloat.

And Terrence joins me now.

Welcome.

TERRENCE MCCOY, The Washington Post: Thanks for having me.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: It's really an incredible brutal and powerful piece of reporting that you have done about this market and the forces that are driving it.

But can you just start off by telling us, what is driving this market?

What do people want tiger parts for?

TERRENCE MCCOY: I mean, that was the big question that we had when we first started off with this, was, what on earth do people want tigers for, one of the most iconic of species?

And what we found was some of the qualities that make the tiger so iconic have also been its undoing, that because it's so strong, because it's so ferocious, it has become something of a medicine for a lot of folks in China, for traditional Chinese medicine, that they think that all the elements that make the tiger what it is can also be used to treat human ailments.

And the other factor of this is because it's become something of a status symbol, that, if you are wealthy enough, you can actually wear tiger on you.

It's a luxury item.

So this has created a circumstance where people want it for both medicine and also just to show off their wealth.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: And just for the record, it's -- there is no medicinal benefit to eating or imbibing anything from a tiger.

TERRENCE MCCOY: No, there's no medicinal benefit to this whatsoever.

There have been rumors that they have medicinal elements going back 1,400 years, but clearly there's no medicinal benefit to that whatsoever.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Your report is largely -- is also a profile of this man Karl Ammann, who you basically travel with all through Southeast Asia.

He is this sort of striking, quixotic activist figure.

Can you tell us a little bit more about him?

TERRENCE MCCOY: As much as this story was a profile of the tiger trade and what's happening with the tiger, it's also a profile of obsession, and somebody becomes so consumed by their mission that that is all that they do.

And Karl Ammann has become something of a Don Quixote figure in the conservation movement, just someone shouting into the wind.

Today, there are lots of discussion about the mounting extinction rates.

Karl's been talking about this for decades.

And for decades, not many people have been listening to him.

And now, finally, he's doing more investigations, that this is something that's happening in this world and this is something that we have to take note of.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: You visit several of these tiger farms in the course of your reporting.

Some of them are sort of small and look very ramshackle.

Others are almost industrial scale in their size.

I mean, you must have been shocked to see this kind of -- this sort of farming of an animal like a tiger.

TERRENCE MCCOY: Yes, the most amazing thing was that you would be driving down these roads in Laos that were rural, and, all of a sudden, you would come upon some gates, and beyond those gates was something of an industrial enterprise, that they could farm hundreds of tigers in these places.

And then we'd have -- we'd have a drone going over it.

And inside that footage, you would see tigers as small as ants down there prowling around.

And you can see just at that moment that this isn't like a kiddie operation.

This is industrial, that we are creating -- out of this tiger becomes a product along this assembly line.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: The thing that also really comes through in your reporting is this -- the difficulty of trying to stamp out this trade, because all the nations that you visit and all the big Southeast Asian and Asian nations say, we want to put a stop to this trade, but it persists, as your reporting shows.

Why is it so hard to stamp out?

TERRENCE MCCOY: I mean, there's a difference between passing a law and actually enforcing it.

And what's happening in a lot of countries where wildlife trafficking is especially rampant is, they are the same places that also have endemic poverty, have endemic struggles.

And a lot of these countries have neither the legal framework nor -- or sometimes even the political will to be able to take on very powerful entrenched wildlife interests in the country that want to traffic these animals.

And, also, you have people who are just struggling to survive.

And, sometimes, it's easy for you and I to say they shouldn't be doing this.

But, ultimately, for them, it's a decision between poaching an animal or trafficking an animal or not being able possibly to feed their family.

And, sometimes, unfortunately, what we have are people making those decisions to work in this enterprise.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Karl Ammann, who you follow, has actually been tracking this one particular tiger farmer for years.

And there's an incredible scene where he actually meets him, finally, after years of sort of hunting this man.

Can you explain -- describe that scene.

TERRENCE MCCOY: It kind of typifies that same idea, where he has been -- he's been tracking this person for five years.

And he grows into this larger-than-life figure in Karl's mind, where he's talked in intimate detail about how he goes about butchering these tigers.

And, finally, Karl meets him.

And what he finds is not some sort of gangster, some sort of taciturn, menacing person, but decked in jewelry.

What he finds is somebody who's in dusty, dirty pants and flip-flops, is just smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer.

And what he finds is not -- is somebody who's impoverished.

And what Karl realized in that moment is, this is just one more bit player in a world that's unable to save itself.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Really a tremendous piece of reporting.

Terrence McCoy of The Washington Post, thank you very much.

TERRENCE MCCOY: Thanks for having me.

JUDY WOODRUFF: 2019 marks the 350th anniversary of the death of the Dutch master painter Rembrandt.

To celebrate his life and legacy, museums in the Netherlands are dedicating the entire year to new exhibits showcasing his work.

Jeffrey Brown traveled to Amsterdam, as part of our ongoing arts and culture series, Canvas.

JEFFREY BROWN: The Night Watch by Rembrandt van Rijn.

Every day, thousands of visitors crowd into Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum to catch a glimpse of one of history's most celebrated art works, a masterpiece of storytelling, light and shadow, on a mammoth scale.

But we got our own after-hours look at it and the other works in the museum's extraordinary new exhibition titled All the Rembrandts.

It's part of the Netherlands' celebrations commemorating the 350th anniversary of his death, and marks the first time this world-renowned museum has made its entire collection of Rembrandts open to the public.

JANE TURNER, Rijksmuseum: This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see it all out.

JEFFREY BROWN: Jane Turner is curator of prints.

JANE TURNER: It's something you can just come back to over and over again, and each time you look, you will see something new and something different.

JEFFREY BROWN: There are 22 paintings, including grand portraits of Dutch high society and scenes from the Bible, 60 drawings, and more than 300 prints.

They span his career, and show an artist unmatched at capturing the humanity in his subjects, even in sketches of daily life, like this one of a pancake-maker and some very hungry children.

JANE TURNER: She looks a bit cynical, and she's thinking, you will get your pancake when I see the money.

And the young kid -- it's brilliant.

He's digging in his pocket and he's really, really digging.

And Rembrandt, he's managed -- he makes the leg bent a bit.

JEFFREY BROWN: Right.

JANE TURNER: And so you really feel that movement of trying to find his coin.

JEFFREY BROWN: But this is a street scene, right?

I mean, it's just something he... JANE TURNER: This is a street scene.

This is something that he would have seen.

But it's the brilliance with which he observes humanity.

JEFFREY BROWN: The sketches also offer a glimpse into Rembrandt himself and his development as an artist.

JANE TURNER: You see the artist thinking on paper.

There are mistakes, and he doesn't try to cover it up.

He's not doing it for somebody else or to sell.

He does it for himself.

And then you get the raw inside glimpse of what he thinks, what makes him laugh, what makes him grieve, what makes him sad.

JEFFREY BROWN: One of his main subjects was himself.

The exhibition opens with a roomful of self-portraits done throughout his life, smiling, frowning, young, and old.

He used them, in part, to practice techniques that would come to embody his larger works.

In other cases, they served as a statement to the outside world, one that at times had its critics.

JONATHAN BIKKER, Author, "Rembrandt: Biography of a Rebel": They called him the first heretic in art history.

JEFFREY BROWN: Jonathan Bikker is curator of research here, and author of the new book "Rembrandt: Biography of a Rebel."

JONATHAN BIKKER: A number of them mentioned that he broke the rules of our art.

JEFFREY BROWN: Which meant what?

JONATHAN BIKKER: A variety of things.

Some of the things they accused him of doing, we wouldn't think of as radical at all, for example, painting old wrinkled women, for example.

What you were supposed to do was to select the best, the most beautiful things in nature, and improve upon that.

Rembrandt didn't do that.

For Rembrandt, this was the ideal playing field for light and dark.

JEFFREY BROWN: For Bikker, the culmination of Rembrandt's achievement is the painting known as The Jewish Bride, a portrait of two lovers cast as the Old Testament's Isaac and Rebecca.

JONATHAN BIKKER: This is the greatest painted ode to love that was ever made.

JEFFREY BROWN: The greatest?

JONATHAN BIKKER: The greatest.

JEFFREY BROWN: It also shows Rembrandt's technique, here, the use of thick layers of richly colored paint.

JONATHAN BIKKER: It's modeled like clay.

The high point of that technique is figuratively and literally in the sleeve of Isaac.

That is the thickest passage of paint in any 17th century painting produced in Europe.

Every painting that Rembrandt did was a different experiment.

JEFFREY BROWN: The celebration also sheds new light on Rembrandt the man, walking the streets of Amsterdam, a celebrity artist in his own day, in one of the world's wealthiest cities.

LIDEWIJ DE KOEKKOEK, Rembrandt House Museum: He lived on quite a large scale .

He spent a lot of money.

He was an avid collector of expensive and beautiful things.

JEFFREY BROWN: Lidewij de Koekkoek is the director of the Rembrandt House Museum.

Rembrandt originally bought the house at the height of his fame near one of Amsterdam's iconic canals, and he used it as a living space, studio and workshop for his apprentices.

LIDEWIJ DE KOEKKOEK: Here, his first wife, Saskia.

JEFFREY BROWN: A new exhibition examines his social network, family, friends and colleagues.

LIDEWIJ DE KOEKKOEK: We have this romantic idea about Rembrandt being very grumpy, being a lonely genius.

But he wasn't at all.

I mean, he was obsessed by art, and art was foremost in his life.

So he surrounded himself with people, and that is what the exhibition shows, people that shared his interest in art, that he could discuss art with, connoisseurs, pupils, artist friends.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well-connected, but not always easy.

ALETTE FLEISCHER, Art Historian: We, of course, think of him as a genius, but a genius with - - I don't know, with a temper, and opinionated, and not being always a very nice guy.

JEFFREY BROWN: Alette Fleischer, an art historian, leads tours on Rembrandt in Amsterdam, and took us to the Royal Palace, site of one of the lowest points of his career.

As the story goes, Rembrandt was commissioned to paint a portrait of the first century warrior Gaius Civilis, but his version, a moody and gritty depiction, wasn't what his benefactors were expecting.

And they pulled the painting shortly after its completion.

ALETTE FLEISCHER: The client wanted one thing, and he gave them another story.

And he was completely sure that what he did was the right thing.

His man was more truthfully felt.

JEFFREY BROWN: While he continued to receive commissions, his later life proved turbulent.

Overspending led Rembrandt to declare bankruptcy, and he spent the remainder of his life in relative poverty.

He was buried in a rental grave here at the Westerkerk, his remains eventually moved and lost to history.

JANE TURNER: It was a life filled with success, happiness, great tragedy.

JEFFREY BROWN: And it's all there in the artwork, notably in the portraits of his wife, Saskia.

She gave birth to four children, but only one survived to adulthood.

And she herself died just shy of her 30th birthday.

Curator Jane Turner: JANE TURNER: There are lovely portraits of her, but there are also a series of very sad drawings, when -- before or after she's lost one of her children.

And this is gritty, everyday life, and poignant.

And you can imagine him wanting to sit with her because she's sad or she's ill or whatever.

And while he sits with her, he draws her.

JEFFREY BROWN: And it comes through that he loves her.

JANE TURNER: He adores her.

He absolutely adores her.

JEFFREY BROWN: For Jonathan Bikker, it's that ability that keeps Rembrandt relevant and beloved three-and-a-half centuries after his death.

JONATHAN BIKKER: We still have emotions in the 21st century.

It's what defines us, basically, as human beings.

So when we look at Rembrandt's paintings, but also his etchings and his drawings, we actually experience our own humanity.

JEFFREY BROWN: The exhibition All the Rembrandts runs through June 10.

For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Jeffrey Brown at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, some sad news.

Last month, we reported on Ariella Stein, an 11-year-old girl featured in our story about Hope for Henry.

It's a program that helps hospitals support seriously ill children.

Ariella lost her battle with cancer yesterday.

You can see our original story about her and the Hope for Henry program on our Web site.

We extend our condolences to Ariella's family, her friends and her caregivers.

And that is the "NewsHour" for tonight.

I'm Judy Woodruff.

We hope you have a good weekend.

Thank you.