JOHN YANG: Tonight on PBS News Weekend,## President Trump abruptly splits from Ukraine# and European allies and aligns with Russia,## saying a sweeping peace deal, not a ceasefire,# should be the next step in ending the war.

Then, a White House plan to overturn a landmark## climate change policy could threaten# the health of millions of children.

And why AI generated models are# shaking up the fashion industry## and raising new questions about# unrealistic standards of beauty.

WOMAN: Right now, we're at a# point where we can create the## same level of quality of beauty of# compositions.

So why not utilize it?

(BREAK) JOHN YANG:## Good evening.

I'.. White House next week when President Trump meets# with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.## Their talks come as Mr. Trump has now aligned# himself with Russian President Vladimir Putin,## dropping his demand for a ceasefire and backing# a comprehensive agreement to end the war instead.

Hours after meeting with Putin in Alaska, Mr.# Trump announced his sudden reversal on Truth## Social.

It was determined by all that the best way# to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine## is to go directly to a peace agreement which would# end the war and not a mere ceasefire agreement.

Earlier, the president had told Fox News Sean# Hannity that the responsibility is now on others.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. President: Now it's really# up to President Zelenskyy to get it done.

And## I would also say the European nations,# they have to get involved a little bit.

JOHN YANG: And now for analysis of all of# this, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, she's a former## senior intelligence officer.

She's now a senior# fellow at the Center for New American Security.

Andrea, in addition to sort of flip flopping# or changing his position on the ceasefire,## there are now reports that he's told# European leaders that he now supports## Russia's demand for territory for peace.# Where does this leave the peace effort?

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR, Center for# a New American Security: Well,## I think this was the big c.. in fact, come around to Putin's point# of view and join on to his demands and## then force that deal on Ukraine and the# Europeans.

And then if they reject a deal## that's unjust and unfair to Ukraine, will# turn around and reassign blame to Ukraine.

You know, I think we're perhaps even in a# worse position than were going in because## I'm exceptionally concerned that now, after months# of suggesting he would ramp up pressure on Russia,## that Trump is once again reversing course and# is going to apply that pressure now on Ukraine.

JOHN YANG: After he spoke with President# Trump early this morning, President Zelenskyy## had a social media post that doesn't# directly contradict the president,## but he does say the fire must cease on# both the battlefield and in the sky.

What does this do for this meeting on Monday?

What# are the stakes for this meeting on Monday now?

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR: Well, the stakes# are really significant.

And as that quote## from President Zelenskyy underscores,# the Russian and the Ukrainian sides are## as far apart as they've ever been.# And so now Zelenskyy really is in## a perilous and precarious position.

He# has to walk a tightrope, essentially.

I think my hope is that he might take a# page from the Russian negotiating playbook## and come back to President Trump with a yes,# but to try to demonstrate, yes, that he too,## is interested in peace, but then lay out# his conditions that would have to be met.## That might help Zelenskyy buy a little# bit more time for things to calm down## and also to buy time for the Europeans,# who I do think really need to prepare to## step in to fill a gap if President Trump# decides to withdraw support for Ukraine.

JOHN YANG: Speaking of those European# leaders, they thought they had an agreement## with the president to push for a ceasefire.

They# met with them on Wednesday.

What can they now do?

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR: You'll see in the public# statements that many of the leaders released that## they don't want to directly contradict# President Trump.

They've dropped their## language about asking for a ceasefire before# discussions on territory or negotiations.

So they're trying to avoid that contradiction,# but then are doubling down on some of the other## conditions that everyone believes would lead# to a more just and durable peace.

So they're## highlighting, for example, that there can be# no limits on the size of Ukraine's military.

So I see their role now again# as trying to keep Trump on side## in part to buy time while they ramp up# their own capabilities to help Ukraine,## while also really working very hard to keep some# boundaries and parameters on any future agreement.

JOHN YANG: Going into this summit, President Trump# really raised the expectations for a ceasefire## that talked about how it's really what he wanted# to come out of the meeting with.

And then the day## after he says the cease fire is out the window.# What do you think happened in that meeting?

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR: Well, I think, you# know, first President Trump sat down with## Putin and was able to hear from him Putin's# version of the war, his version of what's## happening on the battlefield.

And he's# sympathetic to Putin.

He obviously has an## inclination to want to agree with Putin and# maintain that close personal relationship.

President Trump continues to have this# vision of Russia as a great power,## perhaps dating back to the 80s with the USSR# and of course, Sergey Lavrov with the throwback## with the Soviet Union sweatshirt, reminding# Trump that Russia is in fact a great power.

So I suspect he went into that meeting with# Putin and recognized yet again that Putin is## not willing to back down on his demands.

And so he# now, I think, views Zelenskyy as the weaker party.

And I think one final point that is also# worth highlighting is President Trump does## not have a solid grasp of the facts and the# issues at hand.

President Putin, in contrast,## knows these details in and out.

He's a# steely eyed, detail oriented dictator.

If they're in a discussion, in a negotiation,# it's not a level playing field.

I don't see## how Trump can do a good deal when he# doesn't have a solid grasp of the facts.

JOHN YANG: Andrea Kendall Taylor, the Center# for a New American Security thank you very much.

ANDREA KENDALL-TAYLOR: Thank you for having me.

JOHN YANG: And tonight's other headlines.# Hurricane Aaron, the first of th.. has rapidly intensified into a Category# 5 storm.

Erin has maximum sustained winds## of 160 miles an hour and is churning# in the Atlantic north of Puerto Rico.

The storm strengthened from Category 1 to Category# 5 in just 24 hours.

While Erin is expected to stay## east of the United States, the National Hurricane# Center warns it will produce life threatening## surf and rip currents from the Bahamas up the# U.S. east coast all the way to parts of Canada.

In Pakistan, rescue crews# are frantically searching## for survivors from devastating# flash floods and mudslides.## Heavier than usual monsoon rains in Bunir in# northwestern Pakistan are responsible for at## least 220 deaths and officials say only a# fraction of the bodies have been recovered.

Survivors said rising waters overflowed riverbanks## and sent boulders from surrounding# mountains slamming into homes.

AHMED KHAN, Local Resident (through# translator): I was going to work and## on the way I saw that there was a lot# of water coming down..

I turned back and people were shouting, save# your life, save your life.

Many people climbed## the mountains and some people went to the# sides.

In this way, they saved themselves.

JOHN YANG: Heavy monsoon rains are expected# to continue in the region through next week.

The Canadian government has ordered# thousands of striking Air Canada flight## attendants back to work and sent their# contract dispute to binding arbitration.## The nation's jobs minister said she acted to# protect Canada's economy, with which is already## buffeted by President Trump's tariffs.

The strike# lasted only about 12 hours, but in anticipation,## Air Canada canceled more than 600 of its about# 700 daily flights that stranded more than 100,000## travelers around the world.

Air Canada said it# could take days to get operations back to normal.

Still to come on PBS News Weekend, why eliminating# a bedrock air pollution regulation may hurt## children's health and how AI generated# models are affecting the fashion industry.

(BREAK) JOHN YANG: Last month, the Trump administration# proposed revoking the landmark 2009 scientific## finding, that's been the basis for EPA regulation# of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air## Act.

If the proposal is finalized, it's# almost certain to be challenged in court.

And if the administration succeeds, experts# warn that it could jeopardize the health of## millions of Americans, especially children.# Pediatrician Debra Hendrickson is a clinical## professor at the University of Nevada# Medical School and the author of "The## Air They Breathe: A Pediatrician on# the Front Lines of Climate Change."

Dr. Hendrickson, what would be the# effect of revoking this finding on## the health of Americans, especially children?

DR. DEBRA HENDRICKSON, University of Nevada School# of Medicine: Well, if they revoke this finding,## it knocks out a major pillar in our fight# against the growing wildfires, rising heat## waves and worsening floods and hurricanes we've# been seeing for the past two decades.

And it makes## it more likely that all of these problems# will continue to get worse in the future.

And failing to stop this process,# to me, is a crime against children,## in my view, because not only are# they going to inherit the hotter,## more dangerous and more chaotic world that# we're creating, but they're already more## vulnerable to the growing health hazards# of that world.

We're already seeing that## things like worsening air pollution, rising# heat waves and the trauma of natural disasters.

And so we're losing many of the# gains we've had over the past## century infant mortality and# children's health and welfare.

JOHN YANG: Explain that.

You said children# are more vulnerable.

Explain that.

DEBRA HENDRICKSON: Yeah.

So there's a long list# of reasons why children are more vulnerable,## but particularly children under five.

And there's# three major reasons that we talk about most.

One is that their physiology is different.# That's the way their bodies work.

So we often## say in pediatrics that children are not just small# adults, and that's because you can't just take the## same calculations and assumptions you would# for an adult and apply them to a small child.

The second big reason is that they're# smaller in size.

And the third reason## is that their organs and body systems are still## developing and can be easily derailed# by pollutants and environmental harm.

So, for example, if a city is engulfed# in smoke, like my city, Reno, often is,## and a baby or toddler in that city is breathing# that smoke, they breathe faster than their## parents and they are taking in more air# pollution per pound of weight and.

And## their lungs and brain are still developing and# can be adversely affected by that pollution.

JOHN YANG: For your book, I know that you spoke# to a lot of young people about growing up in areas## with heavy pollution.

What did they tell you?# What are the sorts of things they told you?

DEBRA HENDRICKSON: You know, in our# town, it causes a lot of distress## and mental health problems because we've# been encased in smoke sometimes for## eight to 10 weeks at a time.

In 2021,# there were two huge wildfires nearby.

And as the weeks wore on, you know, it's very hard# on everyone, mental health.

But a lot of kids,## I think adolescents I'm talking about,# primarily feel kind of betrayed that## nothing has been done about this problem# to help ensure a better future for them.

JOHN YANG: EPA Director Lee Zeldin,# when he announced this proposal,## said that the finding twisted the law,## ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve# their preferred ends.

What do you say to that?

DEBRA HENDRICKSON: I think that's exactly the# opposite of the truth.

I mean, I think that the## statement they released by the five scientists are# kind of known for being contrarians on this topic,## that if they reverse it is disregarding# the science, jeopardizing public health,## and is a direct contradiction to their mandate# to protect public health under the Clean Air Act.

JOHN YANG: Doctor, you practice in Reno, Nevada,# which is by some accounts the fastest warming## city in the United States.

What do you see# in your practice and the patients you see?

DEBRA HENDRICKSON: Yeah, so when we get engulfed# in smoke, it's called a smoke wave.

That'll come## over because we're 10 miles from the California# border.

So when the big fires hit California,## we're downwind, immediately downwind,# and we really get hit by it.

And the clinic and the hospital will fill# with kids wheezing and coughing.

You know,## we've had kids.

The pediatric ward will fill# up with kids on oxygen during heat waves,## which often go with, you know, we# usually have a heat wave before## the smoke hits because the heat# will trigger the fire to start.

We often see kids fainting in athletic# practices.

You know, there's been studies## showing that pediatric ER visits go up 17# percent when in hot weather, and smoke waves## also increase asthma visits by up to 78 percent,# according to one study of the Camp Fire in 2018.

So these events have a huge impact on# children's immediate health.

And because## they affect development, like I mentioned,# they can have a lifelong impact as well.

JOHN YANG: Dr. Debra Hendrickson# of the University of Nevada Medical## School, thank you very much.

DEBRA HENDRICKSON: Thank you.

JOHN YANG:## The rise of artifi.. disrupting long established workflows# and raising concerns about job losses.

Now the fashion world is reckoning with# these changes as AI takes hold there,## from customer service chatbots to virtual fitting# rooms and AI avatars starring in marketing## campaigns.

Ali Rogin explores this refashioning# of the industry and why it's raising alarms.

ALI ROGIN (voice-over): This August's Vogue# magazine may give us a glimpse into the future## of fashion.

This ad features a new model styled in# outfits from the clothing brand Guess.

She gazes## into the camera with a wide smile and bright eyes,# and none of it is real.

She was generated by AI.

VALENTINA GONZALEZ, Seraphine Valora:# Right now we're at a point where we## can create the same level of quality,# of beauty, of compositions with AI.## And you don't have to deal with a lot# of logistics, so why not utilize it?

ALI ROGIN (voice-over): Valentina Gonzalez Andreaa# Petrescu are the co-founders of Seraphine Valora,## the AI modeling agency behind the# ad that's garnered so much att.

ANDREAA PETRESCU, Seraphine Valora:# We believe that AI is the future of## fashion in the sense of supplementing# and offering a new avenue of marketing.

ALI ROGIN (voice-over): Some have called for# a boycott of Vogue for giving it a platform.## But this ad wasn't the first to use AI models.# In March, fashion brand H and M experimented## with a new marketing strategy by digitally# cloning actual models with their consent.

SARA ZIFF, Model Alliance: This# appeared to be almost more of a## campaign for using AI generated# models than a clothing campaign.

ALI ROGIN (voice-over): Sarah Ziff is a# former model who founded the Model Alliance,## an advocacy group for workers in the# industry.

She recalls how just two years ago,## the brand Levi's was under fire for planning# to promote diversity by using AI models.

SARA ZIFF: It's important that companies# actually celebrate diverse people,## not just sort of showcase# an avatar who is diverse.

ALI ROGIN (voice-over): For many brands, AI# models are viewed as a cost saving alternative## to elaborate photo shoots.

Industry insiders# warned that would take away many traditional## jobs, while proponents of AI argue that# they're just creating different jobs.

VALENTINA GONZALEZ: We open a# new opportunity for a different,## completely different type of creatives# to expose their work to the biggest## fashion magazines.

And that's the# conversation we should be having.

ALI ROGIN: To continue that conversation,## I'm joined by Sinead Bovell, a former# model turned tech entreprene.. studies AI's impact on society.

She's also# the founder of Waye, a tech education company.

Sinead, thank you so much for being# here.

You predicted this moment that## we are now in back in 2020.

You wrote an# op ed about it in ironically in Vogue.## Is this a moment, a turning point in the# use of AI within the fashion industry?

SINEAD BOVELL, WAYE Founder: Why I think it# is a turning point is because I and I think## many people kind of look to Vogue in some# ways as like Supreme Court of Fashion.

So## by AI appearing in one of their magazines, one# of the most sought after exclusive magazines,## it's almost like it's the industry stamp# of approval on the supplier side in a way## that AI is here to stay and acceptable# at the highest ranking order of fashion.

ALI ROGIN: And this Guess ad has elicited# strong opinions, a lot of controversy,## particularly when it comes to beauty standards# and what it means for reshaping the standards## that people look to.

The co-founders behind this# ad touched on this point.

Here's what they said.

ANDREAA PETRESCU: I would argue that it's# actually more freeing for a woman to know## that these images are made with AI and that they# are don't exist and that they're just a digital## created through a digital medium.

And# so the woman in the pictures actually## didn't perhaps starve for herself.# Or I believe it's maybe more freeing## because you actually don't compare# with something that doesn't exist.

SINEAD BOVELL: So that's really# interesting perspective.

I agree that## looking at an AI generated figure, we might# start to say, well, because this isn't real,## I don't even see the value in comparing# myself to it.

But the problem is in some## ways AI has crossed over that uncanny valley# where we can understand that it's not real.

So the only way that perspective# is going to work is if it's clearly## identified that the figure you're looking# at is AI generated without that labeling,## which there is no kind of industry rule# that has to happen, we really have no idea.

And that's still a pretty broad# assumption.

Because they're so## perfect and because they're AI# people won't compare themselves## to it.

I think we would have to leave that# question to the Department of Psychology.

ALI ROGIN: What is the obligation, in your mind,# that fashion companies, AI companies have to## disclose the use of these models?

And where does# that conversation stand right now in the industry?

SINEAD BOVELL: In some ways it could be argued# that there is a lot of editing that happens in## photoshoots anyways, and that transparency# has never been declared for viewers.

In## the last couple of years, people have started to# demand more natural, more realistic photography.

But when it comes to AI, if were to continue# that line of this kind of blurry, how much## is real?

How much was edited?

But this actually# isn't a question that's even unique to fashion,## right?

We're all trying to grapple# with how do we understand what is## real and what is not in an AI first# world?

And it just so happens that## this is also going to apply to an# industry like fashion and shopping.

ALI ROGIN: When we talk about fashion,# we're talking about an industry that's## never been known as being great on# representation in terms of body size,## racial diversity.

So how does# the introduction of AI into this## conversation change the debate over# representation in the modeling world?

SINEAD BOVELL: Models themselves have worked# really hard to build an industry in the last## couple of years that is more reflective of the# breadth and depth of diversity we see in society.## And so what happens to the gains from those actual# models who are now kind of kicked off the payroll?

And then the second is there's kind# of unique areas for exploitation to## occur here.

So a company could just# generate the illusion of diversity## and create characters from a community that# perhaps nobody in that fashion company or## in that brand has anybody on the play# role that represents that community.

So you're profiting off of a community# that you're speaking on behalf of.

And## maybe that community would have not worked# with that brand.

So you get to kind of## take control over where communities appear in# advertising, which I think could be problematic.

And then the second area for exploitation is# misrepresentation, right?

So you could create an## identity of, say, an AI generated black woman# that misrepresents that community.

So there## are all of these kind of strange areas, and# I call it digital cultural appropriation,## where it's not illegal, right?

Cultural# appropriation is of course not illegal,## but we as a society decided this probably# isn't a good thing.

Let's draw a line here.

And it doesn't mean all AI characters have to# represent the exact people in the companies.

No,## that's kind of ridiculous.

But we do have# to figure out what are the new lines of## representation in an era when you can generate# identities using artificial intelligence.

ALI ROGIN: Wow, such interesting questions.# Sinead Bovell, thank you so much.

SINEAD BOVELL: Thanks for having me.

JOHN YANG:## And that is PBS News Weekend f..

I'm John Yang.

For all of my colleagues,# thanks for joining us.

See you tomorrow.