united states, and it's probably not going to be an easy job, certainly not as easy as signing an order. in his first major interview as president, mr. trump vowed to begin the construction in a matter of months and insists without details that mexico will pay for it. >> the mexican president slamming trump's plan, saying they will not pay for a wall. their meeting next week could be in jeopardy. president trump also discusses his plan to investigate voter fraud, and he says that waterboarding, quote, absolutely works. we have much to discuss on day 7 of the trump administration. let's begin our coverage with cnn's sara murray live from washington. hi, sara. >> good morning, alisyn. the relationship between the united states and mexico is already under a shaky start, and he's raising alarm with both parties as he continues to insist that waterboarding works. >> we will be in a form
reimbursed by mexico. >> reporter: trump insisting that mexico will pay for the board wall, but offering few details. hours after signing an executive order directing funds for building that wall. >> all i can say is we will be reimbursed at a later date from whatever transaction we make with mexico. that wall will cost us nothing. >> reporter: his rhetoric is bringing tension between himself and president nieto. pena nieto defiantly responding to the u.s. president in a video address to the nation, saying mexico does not believe in walls and it won't pay for one. president trump also continuing to peddle the false claim that voter fraud cost him the popular vote. >> the people who register who are dead, who are illegal in the
two states. >> reporter: trump erroneously cited a pugh study where the author found in evidence of voter fraud. >> then why did he write the report? then he's groveling again. remember i talk about the reporters groveling when they write something they want to hear but you don't necessarily want to hear. >> reporter: but both parties across the country say there's no truth to trump's claim of widespread fraud. but there is evidence of outdated voter rules. secretary nominee steve mnuchin and the president's steve strategist, steve bannon, were each registered to vote in two states on election day. the "washington post" reports that the president's daughter tiffany was also registered in two states. president trump digging in on another controversial campaign promise, his pledge to bring back waterboarding. >> i want to do everything within the bounds of what you're allowed to do legally. but do i feel it works?
absolutely, i feel it works. >> reporter: ultimately saying he'll let his cia director and defense secretary decide whether to reinstate it. >> when they're chopping off the heads of people because they happen to be a christian in the middle east, when isis is doing things nobody has ever heard of since medieval times, would i feel strongly about waterboarding? as far as i'm concerned, we have to fight fire with fire. >> reporter: trump's tough talk extending to chicago as well, where he says he'll send the feds to combat violence. >> it is carnage. it's horrible carnage. afghanistan is not like what's happening in chicago. people are being shot left and right. thousands of people over a period -- over a short period of time. i don't want to have thousands of people shot in a city where essentially i'm the president. so all i'm saying is to the mayor, who came up to my office recently, i say you have to smarten up and you have to toughen up. because you can't let that
happen. >> now, donald trump has a very busy day ahead of him. we're expecting to head to the republican retreat in philadelphia later this afternoon. i'm sure his colleagues will have many questions on what is next on his agenda. one thing we'll probably see is some kind of executive action moving toward this voter fraud investigation he's called forward. we also expect him to take executive action on trade. >> we now have the president of the united states on record, and those words matter, and we'll go through different issues in his position right now. deputy culture editor patrick healy, "washington post" reporter abby phillip, and host of the examining politics host, david drucker. let's play a piece of sound of the president talking about how he will pay for the wall. here it is. >> the american taxpayer will pay for the wall at first?
>> all it is is we'll be reimbursed at a later date from whatever transaction we make from mexico. >> mexico's president said in recent days that mexico absolutely will not pay, adding that it goes against our dignity as a country and our dignity as mexicans. he says we're simply not paying. >> he has to say that. he has to say that. but i'm just telling you, there will be a payment. it will be in a form, perhaps a complicated form, and you have to understand, what i'm doing is good for the united states. it's also going to be good for mexico. we want to have a very stable, very solid mexico. >> now, i'd like to play the part of the interview where he says how he's going to get them to pay for it. that part doesn't exist. let's discuss it right now. how do you get mexico to pay for a wall if it doesn't want to do it volitionally? he says remittances. how would that work, david drucker? >> donald trump talked about this during the campaign, and they talked about monitoring remittances that come from mexican immigrants, legal and
illegal, in the united states that are sent back to mexico. >> how would they know who is sending them? >> that's a very good question. when you walk into a western union or any other place where you're going to wire money, i think the question is, number one, do you want a government in a sense architecture, big brother sense moving money? we already have laws guarding against money laundering and other financial crimes, but do we want this? and the place where the remittance is going to be sent, how do they decide who to question? if i walk in there, are they going to question me? if they question everybody, at least it's consistent. and what form of identification are they going to ask for? in other words, are they going to say, show us your papers? which is something in the united states, even when we've had issues like this, one of the reasons we've shied away from big, huge, washington oversight solutions, it's always sort of
gone against the character of our country to have government officials asking these kinds of questions. it harkens back to the old cold war films where you would have the guy in the russian accent at the border asking one of our undercover spies, show me your papers. >> it's very jarring to think of turning the western union into a branch of the irs. that would be illegal. >> who says that the united states government sal loud to monitor all remittances and decide which can go through and which can't? >> the president gets started with an idea he gets very taken with and how to communicate it. that's where he starts. he figures out policy details and what's legal and what's not later, chris. part of his idea, though, too, is about nafta. he's talking about a reimburseme reimbursement, and this idea that he said it's going to be complicated, it might be a little complicated. he never talked about reimbursement during the campaign, but i think the idea is if he's able to open up nafta and renegotiate it and come away
with what he can go to ohio and pennsylvania and michigan and say, much better deal on nafta. we've got a new nafta. we're going to be getting all this money back from mexico, and hey, this is the, quote, unquote, reimbursement for the wall. >> abby, you're in washington, d.c. as we speak. what are republicans there inside the beltway saying? you just wrote a piece saying about how they are now, a little late, starting to take him literally about all this stuff. >> on the wall, republicans are in favor of the general idea of securing the border, but the reality is that the wall is not feasible, and i think many republicans realize that, that there are parts -- a republican congressman whose district encompasses more border than any other congressman in this country basically said, it is not possible to build a physical wall along parts of this border because of the geography, because the terrain is not conducive to that, and also because that's not the challenge that the people on the border
are facing. they need different kinds of resources. if this debate goes from donald trump's desk to the halls of congress, which it inevitably will, i think we're going to see a broader array of opinions about this, and you're going to see some resistance to this idea that, as david mentioned, the government essentially seizing the assets of people who live in this country, whether they are citizens or not. that's a path that i think a lot of republicans are not going to want to go down because it opens up a pandora's box, especially about this issue of executive power and how far trump can go on his own. >> $30 billion, maybe more, the estimates to build something, where right now you have more recent estimates of people leaving this country who are undocumented than coming in, and you have all these landowners along the way who historically have not wanted to see their rights, which you would have to build eminent domain which means you'll have litigation out the
wazoo for years and years. those are the facts. >> i actually think that's what threatens the wall the most. politically the concept of the wall has a lot of bipartisan support. i think people want it to make sure the southern border is secure, so i think it's a matter of how you do it, but that's what can threaten it the most, all the potential legal action. >> they've also been given a false impression of how porous it is. the numbers are exaggerated, the number of criminals who are in the country and how many are thrown out and how many people get deported have been mistreated as facts. >> people also don't look at the topography to abby's point. they don't sort of understand just how much of the border is buildable. it's unbuildable, but it goes to ideas and images that he's putting out there, hiring all these border security agents more, putting all that money into it. >> after he signed an executive order of a hiring freeze. >> you got at this earlier, chris. the notion of the sort of executive orders is kind of the
magic wand. he's going to pennsylvania today, but talking to congress about what they can actually pass, it's all about what can we sign, what can we sign. >> we need to move, abby, to voter fraud. the president is promising a major investigation into this. it turns out, i think, my interpretation, is that he's using the wrong words. he doesn't mean voter fraud, he means voter registration fraud. that's what he's talking about. when he talks about millions of people that might be registered in two different places or some deceased people who might not yet have been purged from the polls, that's what he is talking about. and by the way, if he wants to begin prosecuting, two of the people are on his staff who are registered in two different states, steve bannon and steve mnuchin, it turns out, are part of the voter registration -- >> which isn't a crime, by the way. >> this is my point, but it's voter registration fraud, or do you interpret it in a different way, abby? >> no, i think you're totally right. what's so fascinating about
trump's comments on this is that he concludes pretty definitively that if you are registered in two places, maybe because you moved or your registration is out of date, that means you've definitely voted in two places, you've definitely voted in new york and new jersey if you're registered in both places. we know that's not true. he also concluded that there is no chance that any of these millions of people that he claims have voted illegally voted for him. we also know that that is not true. there were only a handful of cases in which people were actually prosecuted for voter fraud in the 2016 election. and several of those cases involved trump supporters, involved people who attempted to vote twice for donald trump. so there is a real disconnect here between the facts and what president trump is saying. but what has really fascinated me, talking to people who know trump and his aides, this is something that he has wanted to talk about and wanted to do for a long time. he has wanted to go down this
investigatory path. and also, you know, a lot of republicans see this as an opening to talk about voter i.d., to talk about some of these measures that they've been pushing at the state level even if the underlying premise of 5 million illegal voters is untrue. >> and i hope they do talk about voter i.d. so we can talk about these recent cases of voter suppression systemically and what's been going on, because that's a real issue. and you should read the pugh study, everyone out there watching the show right now, because the president wasn't tested on this in his interview with abc. he wrote the study to show that you have registration issues, that you have this lack of continuum among states, and he concluded the study, there is no fraud on that basis. >> there is a big difference in proving voter fraud and getting at sort of what the rules are and how porous it can be. >> panel, thank you very much. we have more questions. president trump vowing to fight fire with fire in the war on terror. will he reopen the cia's black site prisons and will he
reinstate torture tactics? we discuss that next. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache.
tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. what makesheart healthysalad the becalifornia walnuts.r? the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org. customer service!d. ma'am. this isn't a computer... wait. you're real? with discover card, you can talk to a real person in the u.s., like me, anytime. wow. this is a recording. really? no, i'm kidding. 100% u.s.-based customer service. here to help, not to sell.
there goes my sensitive bladder. sound familiar? then you'll love this. incredible protection in a pad this thin. i didn't think it would work, but it does. it's called always discreet watch this. this super absorbent core turns liquid to gel, for incredible protection that's surprisingly thin. so i know i'm wearing it, but no one else will. always discreet for bladder leaks
president trump says he believes torture works, and he insists that he has to fight fire with fire. >> president obama said the u.s. does not torture. will you say that? >> well, i have a general who i have great respect for, general mattis, who said -- i was a little surprised -- who said he is not a believer in torture. i have spoken to others in intelligence, and they are big believers in, as an example, waterboarding. because they say it does work. >> okay. let's bring back our panel. we have patrick healy and david drucker. we also want to welcome counterterrorism analyst and former counterterrorism official, phil mudd. phil, we must start with you. we have heard from all sorts of cia officials that, yeah, you'll get information if you waterboard somebody and torture them. it won't be the right information. it will be erroneous.
they'll say whatever they need to to make it stop. what do you think? >> i think that's incorrect. look, whether you like toit or not, people speak under duress. if you're talking to the architect of 9/11, for example, are you telling me he's going to lie if he's under duress. even that information is valuable. if i question you, alisyn, and i know you've been to 10 countries in the last two years as a terrorist and i say, where you been, alisyn, and you list nine of them, that lie is a critical hint. why did you skip the tenth? >> so if president trump brought back waterboarding, you would be in favor of those techniques? >> i think that's the wrong question. one question you have to ask is about american values. he said, i'll listen to my cia director and my secretary of defense. that's the president's responsibility to answer that question. he reflects american values. i don't know why he pundited it,
but it's in his in box. if he wants to go down that direction, i would say, hold on a second here. when you sit around the table in 2002, when we picked up our first detainee, we did not understand al qaeda. we didn't understand their hierarchy. we didn't know what was in california, in chicago, in miam fast-forward to 2017. i think for americans who didn't sit at that table to believe we're in the same place withis . i don't understand we need to go down this route. >> you don't think we need torture? >> hold on a second, let's stick with why. he says the intel guys tell him that waterboarding works, torture works -- >> torture is a violation of the federal statute, by the way. so the president doesn't know what he's talking about when he says, i'll listen to my people on torture. you cannot violate federal law as president of the united states. if you want to say i'm going to the department of justice and ask them, i'm going to prevent people from sleeping, what we call sleep deprivation, used a
lot more than waterboarding, is that torture? you have to ask the department of justice first. that's one reason why this will never happen. >> we've seen in history, certainly the last bush administration, a president, a vice president, who were willing to go to the department of justice and basically say, this is what we want to do. how do we get there legally? how can we sort of make this argument? and you can believe that president trump, jeff sessions, it looks like the attorney general and others around him will be saying, okay, we want this to be at least the policies of this administration. how can we get there? >> the cia is going to say, i don't care. first question is go to the congress oversight committees, senate and house, and say, hey, guys, we've got an order from the president of the united states. you're the congressional oversight committee. you represent the will of the people and the congress -- >> it's not as simple as him saying i want to fight fire with fire. >> let's say they all agree. my peers, the generation that's still there, are all going to be saying, you got to be kidding
me. >> the issue where this comes up is it may not be the justice department or what the constitution says stops them, it's going to be people like john mccain and lindsey graham in the senate who have to decide how blunt, how pointed are they going to be in taking on president trump and calling him out for things? >> i think that part of the problem here is the president doesn't talk as artfully as politicians usually do about these matters. there has been a debate, at least in political circles, mostly on the right, about whether or not enhanced interrogation tactics or torture works or not, whether we should use it or not. and i think what the president is trying to say, and i hate to try and sort of shrink the guy, but i think what he's saying in a sense is what a lot of americans think about the issue of terror. if we think there is a terrorist threat and we can't figure out where it's coming from and how imminent it is and is there a nuclear device or a dirty bomb or something like that, wouldn't we use any tactic we have available to us to try and find
it? i think what most americans say is, of course, we would try to do anything we can, but the president talks about this without the nuances that phil brings up very correctly, and i think it leaves a lot of us very confused. he can't do anything that would break the law. if he wants congress to change the law, he should send up a policy and see if he can get it changed, and i think that would make this whole thing a lot easier to understand. the president tends to reflect on the last person he spoke to. a couple months ago he spoke to secretary mattis. mattis said it's not a good idea. he's now discussed it with someone else. >> let me ask you about a new report that you are poised to lift a ban on so-called cia black sites, prisons around the world that have been used in the past. is that true? >> i'll be talking about that in about two hours. >> are you going to lift the ban? >> you're going to see in about two hours. >> he says he wants to lift the ban and put black sites in.
phil? >> ain't going to happen. first of all, i do think we understand clearly what he's doing. i ain't a politician, but i got this game. i tell the american people, i want to give you what i told you i would give you, that is a return to tough tactics. but i defer to my team. the team comes in and says no, and the president tells voters, hey, i wanted this but they said no. he has his cake and eats it, too. if he wants to go down this road, he's goptt a couple problems. who is going to say you can do this? because the cia said, i want a six-foot stack of paper on this and everybody's fingerprints, secretary of state, secretary of defense, vice president, congress, they better be on that. second, let's go to a few countries and ask them this. we've been approved to open black sites. after we expose the people who did this before, what country would say yes? i can tell you what i would say if i were in europe, africa, asia. heck, no. you guys are going to die this out when president trump is voted out. we ain't doing it. >> the terrorists are chopping
off people's heads. we need an even playing field. don't tie our hands behind our backs. what about that any means necessary tactic that david was just saying? if we think there is a dirty bomb plot, we need any means necessary. what about that? >> hold on here. this is ludicrous. we do not set standards in the united states about how we treat a terrorist based on what a terrorist organization does to a hostage. if they behead, we behead? i think the question here, if we go back to a time, and i hope we don't, obviously, where we're as unsure of a terror threat as we were in 2002, we go back to terrorist threats. i think they'll say no. >> we have sad news. she inspired an entire generation of women warming us with her smile, all while battling a devastating disease. mary tyler moore has passed. next.
hey... hold on, i can explain. you better have a good answer... switch to geico and you could save a ton of money on your car insurance. why didn't you say so in the first place? i thought you's was wearing a wire. haha, what? why would i wear a wire? geico. because saving fifteen percent or more on car insurance is always a great answer.
role model for a generation of women. ♪ who can turn the world on with her smile. >> there are few people who the word iconic truly applies to. but mary tyler moore was one of them. moore began her a sescent to stardom as a dancer in the 1950s. but landed her big break as laura petrie on "the dick van dyke show." the famous costar taking to twitter as the news broke, saying, there are no words. she was the best. ♪ i've got your number. >> show creator carl rhiner fondly remembered the moment he discovered her. >> i grabbed the top of her head, and i said, come with me. and i walked her down the hall to sheldon and i said, i found her. >> her role on "the dick van dyke show" made her a household name. but it was her own show, portraying a single 30-something
woman that made her an icon. >> you know what? you've got spunk! >> well, yes. >> i hate spunk! >> moore blazed the trail for women on tv, fighting for equality in the workplace. >> i would like to know why the last associate producer before me made $50 more a week than i do. >> oh. because he was a man. >> moore went on to create mtm enterprises with then husband grant tinker, making her a tv executive as well as a star, popping out hit shows like "rhoda," "the bob newhart show" and "hill street blues." mary tyler moore changed the world for all women. on behalf of newsy, funny women everywhere, mary, thank you.
♪ >> she did change -- she changed how we saw newsrooms. obviously it wasn't just women who loved "the mary tyler moore show." that was such a great depiction of what goes on in our business and she was such a great role model. >> that was keathe key. it wasn't just the show, it gave an audience that might not have been receptive to things discussed on there politically, it put an aspect to it. it changed the way people thought. >> we will talk to tv host dick cavett about his memories of mary tyler moore, coming up. president trump talking about the crowd at his inauguration day. why does it matter so much? discuss. if you're told you have cancer, explore your treatment options
i won't allow you or other people like you to demean that crowd. and to demean the people that came to washington, d.c. from far away places because they like me, but more importantly, like what i'm saying. >> joining us now, cnn senior media correspondent and host of "reliable sources," brian stelter and patrick healy. that wasn't the only time in the interview where he talked about the size of his crowds. yes, people came from a long way away to see him. but it wasn't the most people that have ever come to washington, d.c. for an inauguration, but he doesn't draw that distinction. here it is. >> we had a crowd -- i looked over that sea of people, and i said to myself, wow. and i've seen crowds before, big, big crowds. that was some crowd. when i looked at the numbers
that happened to come in from all of the various sources, we had the biggest audience in the history of inaugural speeches. here's a picture of the event. here's a picture of the crowd. now, the audience was the biggest ever, but this crowd was massive. look how far back it goes. this crowd was massive. and i would actually take that camera and take your time if you want to know the truth. >> oh, i get it, he's saying -- here's the problem. we actually have two different conversations going on. were there a lot of people there, are there a lot of people who like what the president says? yes, yes, it's true, we were there, the crowds were big and enthusiastic. were they the biggest ever? no. not by any metric. it wasn't the biggest audience no matter how they want to cobble it together. they got their numbers wrong about who watched where. the idea that cnn got crushed by
fox, the numbers were the same, not including the videos, which would have put us ahead. the facts, brian, not the perception that people don't like him. that's in his head. just the raw facts, is he right about any of them? >> i'm a big nerd about ratings. i started from the premise that he was right and tried to prove that he's right, and it's just not possible to prove this. the fact he's still talking about it today with david mewer, initially mewer brought it up, and that's when he took him down the hall to look at the photos. at the end of the interview, he's still talking about it. he explained why really clearly. he said, these people who voted for me, some of them are forgotten. they're never going to be forgotten again. he views this as a big cultural symbol of disrespect for his voters. it's wrong on the facts, but it's right in a more emotional way. >> it's incredibly emotional for him. at virtually every rally during the campaign, he would say,
cnn tv camera, pan around the crowd. look how obsessed these crowds are. he was obsessed with the notion that the media was conspiring together, just to say how popular he was. every interview i did by phone with him, in person, probably about 20 interviews over the course of the year and a half of the campaign. the first thing he always brought up unbidden was the poll numbers. have you seen how well i'm doing? he would have an assistant come and bring out the printed-out poll numbers here, just like david muir walking down the hallway, showing him, take time to study these numbers. for him i think growing up in the tabloid culture of new york city, it was very important to have the sense that you were getting on the front page of the "new york times" or in page 6 and the circulation numbers said you were reaching a certain number of people. that to him is so emotional,
that sense that he is popular. he's a popular guy. >> he is popular. by the way, brian, you're giving a very generous, i think, spin on it which is that it's about his people and he wants to make sure his supporters are represented. he also likes being number one, he likes being the most popular. as you well know, he would always say the "celebrity apprentice" was the number one show on tv. it was not. he would make claims long after it was the number one show or in the top 10. he made claims years after that it was number one, which it was not. he likes being on tv. maggie caylen, your friend, says here's what's going on inside the white house. he rises before 6:00 a.m., watches television. turns to the cable channel, later in the small dining room in the west wing. he looks through the times, the new york post and now the
"washington post," but his meetings now begin at 9:00 a.m., earlier than they used to which significantly occur tails his television time. still, mr. trump, who does not read books, is able to end his evenings with plenty of television. >> in the abc interview trump referred to fox. he said, go look at fox. fox is covering this issue correctly. they understand what's going on here. he's actually pitting the news stations against each other, and he'll be on with hannity later today, so that's going to be a notable element of this. he'll have a much friendlier interview later today. >> one thing, though. there is no such thing as emotionally correct. you are either correct or you are incorrect. on this he is incorrect, and in truth, he should have been pushed about it in the interview. because his ability to say it and not get checked on it, i think, feeds his miss ppercepti of what's right or wrong. >> i like to think it's about
his people and not about crippling insecurity. >> thank you, brian, patrick, very nice. thank you both for being here. president trump's executive order greenlighting a border wall that mexico says it won't pay for. will mr. trump's tough talk cause the mexican president to rethink his planned trip to the u.s.? let's see. thanks for loading, sweetie. ...oh, baked-on alfredo? ...gotta rinse that. nope. no way. nada. really? dish issues? throw it all in. cascade platinum powers through... your toughest stuck-on food. nice.
what makesheart healthysalad the becalifornia walnuts.r? the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org. it's going to be an all williams final at the australian open. think about how amazing that is, that serena and venus are still
facing off after all these years. this will be the ninth time they faced off in a final. andy shoals has more on this bleacher report. and a sport that's getting younger all the time. two of the oldest, still two of the best. >> serena is 35, venus is 36. when the williams sisters fly back to florida, one of them will be the open champion. squared off in a grand slam final since wimbledon in 2009. that was also the last time venus made it to a grand slam final. this is going to be the 28th meeting between the two sisters, is he ve serena getting the better of venus winning 16 of those. she'll come out with the most grand slam titles in the open era, and serena is excited to be facing her sister venus in saturday's final. >> she's my tough opponent. nobody has beaten me as much as venus has. she has a pretty good record against me and we have a good record against each other, so
it's -- you know, it's -- i just feel like no matter what happens, we've won. the pro bowl has been tinkering with ways to make the week more interesting for fans for years. they may finally be on to something. as part of the skills competition, which is making its return tonight, they will be making a drone drop. a drone with a football will go up 200 yards in the air, and a receiver will be on the ground trying to catch the ball when it drops. they're also going to have a big dodgeball game between some nfl players. that should also be exciting to watch. >> i don't like dodgeball. i always get hit in the head, as you can imagine. >> that explains it. >> it explains a lot, i think. andy, thank you very much. president trump's america first pledge is playing out in a series of these executive orders he's signing. how is mr. trump being viewed on the world stage? richard haas is here next.
. president trump and mexico's president sparring over paying for a border wall ahead of a face-to-face meeting next week which may not happen now. how is trump diplomacy being seen around the world? here to discuss, richard haas. he's the president of the council on foreign relations and author of "a world in disarray: american foreign policy and the world order." good to have you here. >> good morning. >> the president agrees with you. he says the world is in disarray. it is an angry place. listen to this. >> etsit's not the muslim ban, it's countries that have tremendous terror, and it's countries that people will come in and cause us tremendous problems. our country has enough problems without allowing people to come in who, in many cases or in some cases, are looking to do
tremendous destruction. you look at what's happened. i have a whole list. you'll be very thrilled. >> are you at all concerned it's going to cause more anger among muslims around the world? >> there's plenty of anger right now. how can you have more? >> you don't think it will exacerbate the problem? >> david, i know you're a sophisticated guy. the world is a mess. the world is as angry as it gets. you think this is going to cause a little more anger? the world is an angry place. >> what do you think of that? >> look, the world is a mess, as he would put it. i call it a world in disarray. the real question is, is what he's saying or doing going to add to or detract from it? i think it's going to add to it, whether it's killing off the trade agreements, talking about america first, or most recently, this new position on building a wall with mexico, this talk about the nafta agreement. he could send mexico into an economic fall.
that would make it less likely the mexicans would stay at home to work, which would increase immigration pressures against the united states, so his own policies, i actually think, potentially add to the disarray. >> right, it's the unintended consequences that you, of course, are steeped in, having studied this through different administrations. to him it makes it more orderly to have a wall along the border. we stop illegal immigration. >> but he's fixing a problem that mostly doesn't exist. for the last few years, more mexicans have gone back to mexico than have come into the united states. >> say it again, because nobody knows or believes what you're saying right now. >> we don't have this great influx of mexicans. what's happened over the last few years is the mexican economy has grown faster than the american economy. mexican families are smaller, so what's happening is more and more mexican young men in particular are staying home. we do not have a net inflow, we have a net outflow. what's happening now, if he goes and rips up the nafta trade agreement, and then this kind of insulting of the mexican president, what this could
ultimately do is elect a mexican president who is more of an anti-trade, anti-populism sort of guy. this could create more problems where mexicans feel a need to leave. instead of fixing a problem that doesn't exist, this could add to the problem that he's so worked up about. >> what about the idea of the first piece of sound that you heard there about this de facto muslim ban? the administration wouldn't like the way i characterize it, but i don't know how else to characterize it. if you stop immigration from countries that he sees as terror prone, and he lists yemen, iraq, iran -- doesn't list france, and i don't know how he can't. by what definition aren't they terror prone right now? what is it about keeping muslims out of the country. >> to single out people from certain countries, obviously, our muslim countries doesn't help. you really have to think,
whoever you keep out, what about the message you're sending and doesn't this inspire people who are already here to become alienated? >> how could it not? >> exactly, how could it not? it's less stress of people coming over the border. i don't want young muslim men growing up in this country feeling they're not 100% accepted into our society. >> you heard president trump say that he feels in this world of terrorism there should be a level playing field. if, we the uls u.s., don't go b to using enhanced terror techniques like waterboarding, et cetera, then we're basically tying our hands. >> there is debate over whether these techniques work. people who look at them and are wildly skeptical about what you get from them, people who get tortured ordeal with them very harsh harshly, tend to say things to stop the treatment. there is not a great deal of
proof that that would work against terrorism. we're not going to eradicate it. the real question is how we push it back, and that means doing things like going after the terrorists in places like syria and iraq, it means trying to stop the entire recruitment of terrorists, stopping the funds going to them. it's almost like fighting disease. you don't eradicate it, but you push it back wherever you can. you make yourself less vulnerable to it, you build resistance in your societies. >> the president is preoccupied right now with voter fraud, speckly wh specifically what he thinks made him lose the popular vote. but he's not interested in the voter fraud that the intelligence community is sure of, which is that russia motivated the hacks that took place during the election. what do you make of his insistence of investigating possible voter fraud in this country? >> a country that committed war
crimes in syria that's wildly liberal at home, why he would be going out of his way to pick a fight with china, a country that's an important partner that can help deal with the missile challenge, that could be possibly the biggest national security crisis of donald trump's first term, and why he's focusing on the domestic crowd side issue, i just don't get -- he in hherits an in box that is the most confused in box in history. he's inherited president obama's world. he needs to focus on. asia has world problems. that's what we need to focus on, not these national domestic issues. >> it is a dire situation. i don't want to say a bleak picture, but you just spell out what a mess the world is in
right now. how do you sleep at night? >> look, it is bad. butvitable that we got here. things we did, things we didn't do in europe contributed to it. the up side is things we do going forward could make it less bad or better. there's very little that's scripted or inevitable. people make a difference. better or worse, donald trump, who in her iherits this world o disarray will make it better or worse. >> from where you sit, what would make it better? >> what would make it better? it would be bafrksically workino calm down the middle east a little bit. i would not be advocating things like brexit in europe. i would be standing up to europe. i would be working with china to work with north korea's problems. i would be wondering how we could work with the global world. how are we going to deal with
the world that nothing stays local for long? what goes on at any country can go over its borders and come and hurt everybody else, including us. we need a new operating system for the world. those are the kinds of conversations we need to have, but that's going to take serious diplomacy, and again, pushing back against russia, working with china, and i think we have to save things like nato, we have to save the european union. europe has been extraordinarily stable after a terrible first half of the 20th century. i think we have to calm things down there as well. >> how big a deal is the theresa may meeting with president trump? people expected it to be a hug, you know, a kind of brexit shared populism hug, but she's very strong on nato. what's the chance that this could go the wrong way, this meeting? >> i think most of the symbolism will be about brexit and the eu, and i think that's a little bit unfortunate, because it sends the signal that somehow we favor the dismantling, again, of european relationships that have kept this part of the