tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business June 26, 2018 12:00pm-2:00pm EDT
this is another ratchet up your >> negotiating tactics for china either way the u.s. and china. stuart: you are short and to the point. stuart: time is up everyone. neil cavuto, it is yours. neil: is stuart, thank you very much good supreme court ruling will hold the president's travel ban. kristina partsinevelos is outside the supreme court with more. >> like you said the you said that liberals dissenting. what they concluded as the president the authority did fall in line. he was able to put forth a travel ban. you have chief justice john roberts aimed that the ban was based on legitimate purposes and not due to religion. this is the third version of the travel ban because they concluded that these are based off of religious beliefs are that it was targeted to majority muslim countries. the third version though include
the five majority muslim countries being chad come iran, libya or and mysterious, yemen, but includes north korea and venezuela. the white house did issue a statement that the supreme court has upheld the clear authority of the president to defend the national security of the united states and this like terrorism and extremist movements on harming innocent civilians who must properly vet those coming into the country. this has been a major argument going forward the part of the vetting process for those who come into the country. given this trial will continue in hawaii. i want to bring up a comment that came out that said what is illegal is not always just. a narrow ruling on whether or not the president of the united states is in possession of the statutory authority to implement this policy avoids the question of whether or not it is the right thing to do.
this still will go on in the courts in hawaii. they will go to trial. the supreme court has said hawaii now can make a decision based on the supreme court ruling today. for all the foreign travelers coming in from the countries i listed, they can challenge the denial of entry on the ground that doesn't apply to them. they cannot challenge the ban on the ground that the order is an const additional. neil: christina, thank you very much. the president has treated about this. he is meeting with congressional leaders on the republican side. there's a pool spraying the room tickets back to us. no doubt he will comment on developments here. when we get back, we'll share with you. in the meantime, justice department official hansekoske joining us. what do you think of this? >> well, it was a big loss for
the resist track movement in a big win for the administration and for the american people because it basically upheld the ab of the esident to make national security judgments when it comes to who gets into the country. neil: as far as what it portends going forward, are there any other similar decisions you are waiting for that would rest on something like this? >> this is really the big one. we have other cases developing in the courts, for example, on sanctuary cities and sanctuary policies. this goes directly to the power of the president as given to him by congress to suspend the entry of aliens who he thinks would be detrimental to the united states. look, the lawsuit really lacked common sense. how in the world could anybody believe that we shouldn't be careful about the aliens coming in from a country like iran, which has been a state sponsor
of terrorism for a very long time. the idea that we shouldn't be doing not just doesn't make any sense. neil: obviously reject any argument that it was some sort of unconstitutional religious discrimination. in that narrow frame, what did you think of that? >> what the court does was the presidential directive was religiously neutral. it didn't in any way discriminate and there was a legitimate national security. this proclamation wasn't putting an there was a comprehensive worldwide review of every single country in the world information comes a statement of department of homeland security. only after all of that i came up with a list of the countries they said didn't meet our basic information gathering requirements.
neil: said the view you get from the left those you look at that this was somehow targeting people and fighting people. that interpretation on the left is wrong. >> no, it is wrong. if you read the opinion by chief justice roberts, he talks about the very comprehensive review that was done by multiple cabinet officials in the federal agencies before they determine which list of countries should be in this proclamation. neil: in the president calls this a tremendous victory or when he referred earlier on, is a justified in saying that? >> yes, he absolutely is. this shouldn't be a surprise to anybody because he's not the first president to exercise this authority under federal law. numerous prior presidents did this including president obama and no one ever questioned it before this administration.
neil: well put. very good seeing you again. hans, thank you geared >> thank you. neil: you already heard that harley-davidson is moving a lot of its production overseas. because of the situation the europeans would be targeting american made products. they want to get out from under that. others are saying this has nothing to do with that. they are just looking for cheaper labor costs. all of this is the president promises there will be retribution to market watchers, national taxpayers and national taxpayers, senior fellow matti templer. not too satisfied. >> i stand close to the president terms of taxing the wisconsin company. this is a deep, profound misunderstanding of the way commerce works. they have to respond to the factors on the ground in a
number of turks coming up in from the e.u. they can't cost an extra $2200 under their customers in the european union. companies can't turn on a dime. they need to plan when it comes to their forecast the coming year. i think that's a good question for the administration. what is the administration's plan here? they need to offer some real details and tangible objectives to accomplish their trade policy. businesses are looking at each other asking how do i survive an environment that is so uncertain. this is at a time when businesses should be taken the opposite perspective. real tax reform, deregulation, things that should be giving businesses an american commerce a ton of certainty is all being undermined by three for different policies out of the administration. very worrisome. neil: a lot of people who quickly seized on harley-davidson will lose thousands of jobs, thank you very much. he could come back initially say
we've netted millions more since i became president. there is a fear that this could open up a wounded near ripping the scab off. maybe ripping a lot of these companies now. what do youhi? >> well, your statement is very accurate because trade wars never end well for capital markets. the trade war is being played out against the political scheme of things. ceos don't have the luxury of playing politics. they got shareholders and trillions of dollars on the line to deal with. if harley has to move to survive, that there's dozens of companies out there in the next couple weeks i will have similar news. q3 in for as long as the uncertainty if there are a real challenge. neil: i'm wondering and i don't know when it comes to our favorite wisconsin company. you know, a lot of these companies can hang a bad performance or bad quarter on terrorist fears, the kind of
like reporting in this business since i was a much younger man. retailers blaming the weather as this. so what dynamics are you seeing here? >> will kneel, that thing mentioned that i'm most concerned about is related to business confidence. we know a sentiment among business leaders from big to small high as the election to levels we haven't seen in almost 20 years. the plans associated with capital expenditures, higher income increase in compensation to attract and retain workers all has been moving up into the right. i worry too whatever degree in the uncertainty associated it therefore douses those that have been recently ignited. actually translate into a mechanism in which it economic act committee in business activity. right now we haven't seen enough evidence to suggest that is
occurring, but mentions of the word terrorist among business leaders are spiking at the moment. we have to tread very carefully and monitor developments along the trade negotiation as to how it translates into the economic impact which will weigh on financial markets. >> i'm not a fan of tariffs and this sort of approach with our friends and the like, but when you start looking at what some countries led by the chinese have been doing for years, whether they are breaking their currency markets were having investment and other concerns go through hoops just to do business there, does open your eyes up to what a market that is. i don't know if that is the response is necessary, but i don't see the chinese blinking and i don't see them changing. if this were to drag on for potentially years, which hasn't been ruled out, then what? >> there's a couple things we do know. one is what china is. a centrally planned economy. they see their path to growth is
one of their industries and having state control. we know better. the administration has an opportunity to prove once and for all with the ability is for an economy to grow under true pro growth liberalized market. now the tax side of the regulatory side. it can undermine all of those other factors of a pro growth economy. what we do at the administration is look at the bad actors in the global economy. china is one in a number of arenas that they need to target actions clearly and specifically to the actors rather than painting with a broad brush. allies and enemies in the space of the same action. it simply doesn't make sense. a targeted action against the people who are causing the problem need to do so clearly rather than muddy the waters with tariffs they really are a broad-based approach to what should be a very acute problem. >> keith fitzgerald come a lot of people have said to the
president, i always come back because i'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. what if these crazy at the bed again there is no method to this. anything that sticks and they'll eventually caved and we will all be better off. maybe you'll get a resulting yogic countries countering. they don't seem to be dealing. >> well, you raise a very valid point. i've spent a lot of my career overseas including a lot of time and mainland, china. it is not a donkey cart economy that used to be that we grew up singing "national geographic" magazine picked a very sophisticated economy been driven by the world's largest request to want the services and technology we have. for 18 of the last 20 centuries for the question we have to ask is why they are not blinking. i'm not even cannot go there,
but that's the game the president is playing and i sure hope he's right because if not it's one heck of a gamble to be playing with 300 million americans. neil: he's got to get people used to the idea that if it goes on longer than he thought or even the european doesn't bend or canada doesn't bend or mexico doesn't bend or india doesn't bend, and then his gut all-americans for higher prices. we are not at that stage yet. what you think about? >> well, no we are not. i think you are right to some degree in the risk of that is underpricing financial markets at the moment. the fact is the u.s. economy is a fairly closed one by most other standards. we only ask for 12% of gdp. we are not particularly reliant on global economic conditions, but the supply chain of that relates to the imports and exports that go into our economy spills over into a much bigger picture than what can be viewed
through that kind of gdp lands. that said, the prospect of protectionist policies leading to inflationary concerns is something they could be debating because while some have suggested if we do see trade wars escalate, the federal reserve will likely stop raising interest rates. the counter argument was in fact is inflationary and given the dual mandate is combating price instability. they may have their hands tied. neil: may be a little stagflation era. getting way ahead of ourselves. thank you all very much. as we were discussing this and wringing our hands for the market, up 87 points. they don't think this will materialize. that is the widespread view here that whatever bumps we get along the way very close to correction territory. in asia, the chinese markets are in bear market territory down 20%.
the senate seems toe tha it's very real over there, not so real over here. after this. insurance that won't replace the full value of your new car? you're better off throwing your money right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with new car replacement, if your brand new car gets totaled, liberty mutual will pay the entire value plus depreciation. liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. you shouldn't be rhed to booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. only when you book with expedia.
across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver. >> welcome back to cavuto coast to coast good nicole nicole petallides live on the floor of the new york stock exchange. general electric has some news
today. front and center this week i pay by 5%. yesterday's close with a 52 week low has spun off some businesses. yesterday we saw them selling off the industrial engine unit. today the health care business as well shutting its ownership in the oil services company baker hughes restructuring that t forget, general electric is out of the dow jones industrial average. for this year the stock is down 21%. moving onto an to move their production abroad because of the tariffs. today is to the downside in president trump has some tough talk saying that this is not what the country needs. you can see the stock is lower today. oil moves higher about $70 at more than $2. they says we are looking and focusing as the u.s. is pushing its allies to halt imports of iranian oil by november. a big jump in oil of 3%.
neil: i'm noticing a big jump in oil related stocks. they are all smartly moving up here. a big cnk of that behind vidal 72 points. meanwhile trying to figure out what china will do right now. this is interesting in their own neck of the woods they are cutting import tariffs on a lot of the good that comes from asia. trying to stimulate as a base 150 billion u.s. dollars over the last couple of weeks. are they bracing for a storm and preparing what is depending on themselves in the region to get them through this. what are they up to. they are being very subtle in increasing tariffs. the effect of this will be to increase the cost of u.s. supplied agricultural products by comparison so it's like putting a terrorist on u.s.
goods without doing the public we are going to put a tariff on u.s. goods. very smart pressure from then en we are no patsies. he can't bully us. we'll end up fighting back could be going to a trade war. his goal is 00 terrorists. a+ plus win-win to the chinese. it's a much better approach in negotiating. neil: in the meantime before we get to zero, how do you see this playing out and for how long. >> and i think we are going to
what he will do knowing him well is have an opportunity to see the partial victory, take it and pocket the wind. >> what is the partial victory. maybe we can move to lower tariffs. jump on that quickly and say yes, that is our goal. 00 is the president stated goal selective in that direction. neil: those automakers don't determine. the european union. a big leap to say that. >> their potent political force in germany because of their industrial strength. neil: what is this going to mean for our economy and markets? i guess prior talking about the fact that this is inflationary and recessionary. i'm paraphrasing here that the
prices go up. the federal reserve has to deal with that by raising interest rates, thereby slowing and economy that is to be called stagflation. are you worried about that? >> i am worried about that. it is a very precarious position to put the u.s. in, especially when we were on the cusp of some wonderful opportunities for really significant for% growth rates for several years. it is hurting not in the stagflation is one of the ways that will happen. neil: great seeing you. thank you very much. >> we are waiting for the president right now with congressional leaders, but he is we are told that the big victory in united states to bring quarter. a 5-4 decision saying he was well within his rights and targets of muslim nations. he has already been tweeting about that. we are expecting him to do even
for most of you, it's lower a1c. but only a few of you are thinking about your heart. fact is, even though it helps to manage a1c, type 2 diabetes still increases your risk of a fatal heart attack or stroke. jardiance is the only type 2 diabetes pill with a lifesaving cardiovascular benefit for adults who have type 2 diabetes and heart disease, significantly reducing the risk of dying from a cardiovascular event and lowering a1c, along with diet and exercise. this really changes things. jardiance can cause serious side effects including dehydration. this may cause you to feel dizzy, faint, or lightheaded, or weak upon standing. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may be fatal. symptoms include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, tiredness, and trouble breathing. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of ketoacidosis or an allergic reaction. symptoms of an allergic reaction include rash, swelling, and difficulty breathing or swallowing. do not take jardiance if you are on dialysis or have severe kidney problems. other side effects are sudden kidney problems,
genital yeast infections, increased bad cholesterol, and urinary tract infections, which may be serious. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you have any medical conditions. man: ask your doctor about jardiance and get to the heart of what matters. man: ask your doctor about jardiance when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price. tripadvisor helps you book a... ...hotel without breaking a sweat. because we now instantly... ...search over 200 booking sites ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. don't sweat your booking. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. nah. not gonna happen. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh?
hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call and ask about saving $1000 on your walk-in bath, or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info.
neil: the supreme court was told in the travel ban policy. the one that targeted muslim majority nations. a lot of people at the time called a racist and some of the justices going against the decision. be that as it may, it is now official to the supreme court with the nuances here. a big victory for the president meeting with congressional leaders. republican leaders more to the point. california republican congressman duncan hunter. it is an unequivocal victory? >> i think it is. it took a long time to get here. as commander-in-chief and putting national security first and he did what he said he was going to do again throughout the commentary, all the bluster and political stuff back and forth. the president did what he said he was going to do and thought through and here we are.
a victory for the american people. we know now you will not come into the san diego crew shed. you will sneak across the border. if are from pakistan, you'll try to come across the southern border and tram stops this totally by not letting you even get close to come into the u.s. neil: does the policy change now with the decision, which is told in advance for a while from these muslim majority nations could still fly back and forth from here. >> the courts upheld the last man based on what is happening now in the supreme court just nailed it in place. it's already been happening for most of those nations. >> when you hear from your colleagues on the last and speaking for the minority opinion on the supreme court that this endorses religious discrimination, you say what?
>> the radical islamists who happen to be muslim and want to kill americans, we should realize that they are there. this keeps the american people safe. president trump is of the american people. africa or the middle east. these are dangerous countries with predominantly muslim population to have radical, more radical divisions than anybody else. those are the guys that trumps travel ban is going to stop and permanently stop in place. >> do you think this changes the debate on this immigration bill against paul rangel put up a vote in the house tomorrow and maybe this will be the wind at the pre back. >> i don't think so. for me for instance the immigration bill comes down to either verify. if you don't institute you verify, it doesn't matter what kind of other provision because the magnet that pulls people over legally will be here.
they've got a putting you verify tomorrow. that will help the immigration bill passed that has nothing to do with what the president state driven the supreme court today. neil: maybe this applies to both parties that you're trying to do something in one fell swoop on immigration reform or change in immigration policies. you learn the hard way that it might be better to do these things in chunks. the [inaudible conversations] thing come at you verify you alluded to, whenever because try as you may, nothing happens. >> seal off the border. you have to do what you verify. once you do those two basic things, that stops 90% of the people from coming here. if there is no work for illegal aliens and you have the border and drug smugglers and human smugglers, that makes the rest of the debate very easy, meaning those are the two were contentious things, but that will stop 90% of illegal
immigration. the border wall in a verify. it's a combo kit subject that will take a complicated hill but i don't think it's too crazy. especially if he verifies part of it. >> they just wait until after the mid-terms when you're hoping you guys pick up some seats. but how realistic is that? delaying will get any more of a positive response. >> i don't think you'll do anything because the house is going to pass something. will pass immigration legislation. neil: -- if they add you verify in it, they will make it happen. me and many others as part of the immigration bill. i don't know, but in the end, things die in the senate. they just go there to die. the president needs to work and
try and get those six votes we need to pass immigration legislation. neil: the 193 votes of the more conservative measure brought last week in its failure which was more than most people thought it would get, does that indicate to you that this measure could have at least allowed? >> yes. neil: really? >> absolutely. it's going to go out. it's going to get closer. we will find out tomorrow. the good part of this. we will know soon. neil: congressman, thank you very much. very good seeing you. of about 64 and a quarter points. issues exposed to trade for reversing yesterday. much of the story today seems to be focused on energy. we made it clear or at least the president did. so this idea that iran put together saudi arabia's increase
neil: uber can keep driving in london. it won an appeal a few minutes ago to operate in her majesty's kingdom. the judge saying that uber's new license to operate in that city will be for another 15 months. drivers are up to speed, not doing anything wrong. background checks, et cetera, et cetera getting in the way of their drivers getting on the road there. for 15 months everyone better behaved. in the meantime, higher prices they can soon be felt by consumers and we are told these
terrorists aren't even happening yet. suzanne leigh here with indications that already happening. >> you might be paying more. when you start talking about tariffs on imported goods, it's usually consumers to have to pay these higher prices and when the u.s. is importing close to $500 billion in goods from china each and every year, that's a lot of stuff americans might have to pay higher prices on. the answers may not surprise you. $70 billion importing each and every year. $45 billion or $36 billion brought into the country each and every year. president trump and his team are trying to shield consumers from getting hurt and having to pay more. they are targeting supply-chain components. however, supply chains are far-reaching. they are very complex and higher prices might eventually creep in. but there are some consumer and products that will actually,
especially tax. i should point out only 1% is going to be terrorist right away. some of these might surprise you. for instance, google loans classified in the 1% capital goods category character 25% start in a few weeks on july 6. chinese made of 18 devic come even general motors made air-conditioned suvs in the u.s. at least last year. unless they are actually made at the south carolina plant which they recently opened. i want to talk about washing machines. i know we use this as an example of the trade facts. washing machine prices have gone up 17%. the most in months over the past five years. neil: i wonder about the impact of their sales. great reporting as always. thank you very much, susan ley. are people willing to pay for
this? is a slow this economy down? brad andersen, always good to have you. what you think of this? >> i'm always supposed to tariffs. as the previous report just mentioned, the economy is so intertwined on a global basis that i can't even imagine how you sort of interrupt a supply-chain that includes china, the u.s. and many other countries. so why do think that it would be foolish to be get ourselves into any kind of trade war and hope the administration recognizes that. one of the things we've got to beware of is the way trump operates which is to typically threaten more than he does. that is part of the identity on the negotiating staff. i hope that is what we are seeing. neil: what if it were not. what if he overplayed his hand here and thought that the country we don't see that of canada or mexico. we don't see it out of the european union.
if anything the european union is european union is upping the ante and we certainly don't see it out of china. >> well, you also have another factor that i think is going to push towards at the end of the day rational behavior which is all of these countries need each other. china's economy would be vastly damaged by not being able to have american customers and our economy which is worrying which is the only thing you can think of that would disrupt our economy's growth right now. it would be a terror for that actually increase the price of the good. it is tremendously negative to the american consumer because as your previous report mentioned the consumer will pay for it at the end of the day. i presume we will avoid getting into indigo conflict. but it's always dangerous territory. neil: of the stuff that you mentioned with the stuff on gdp could knock the gdp down to size
a little bit here. i wonder if the american people should be getting prepared for that, whether it comes to the administration or trade officials. you are going to be paying more for a lot of those who used, but we are making a principled statement, a stand against the chicanery that has dominated trade for years. whatever. it is the patriotic thing to do. back in the beginning days of world war ii world war ii. what you make of that? short of that, people are going to really like it. >> americans are going to have to first understand what the report is indicated. all three parties if you look at bernie sanders, hillary clinton and president trump ran against the nafta agreement which i would argue has been tremendously beneficial to the country. part of the driver is the populace does not understand trade and its impact and at the end of the day what they have at
stake in terms of global trade. and so, i hope that we find an opportunity to educate ourselves as consumers in terms of how global trade has benefited us. that is the only thing i think that would insulate us from the risk that are here in bad trade arrangements. neil: do think there is a strategy to what the president is doing to force a deal that he really doesn't want to trade war because he knows full well to your point the repercussions on us, on its markets, everything else. sort of flying by the seat of his pants. >> i think we've seen a pattern. i don't think we got to this level of economic growth by accident. i think the president's behavior has been much more sophisticated than his tweets. that is what we are going to see going forward. neil: if you had to go just by the tweets and targeting every country on earth, you would be worried? >> yes, i wou
neil: you are a very honest man. thank you very much. former big chief at best buy. we look at the president's take on that. he is meeting at the white house right now with some key republicans. he is expected to make some remarks may be on trade. definitely on the sprint court decision which is perhaps his most romantic wind from the supreme court. to put neil gorsuch. voted for this travel ban. we will have more after this. for this new stepdad, it's promising to care for his daughter as if she's his own. every way we look out for those we love is an act of mutuality. we can help with the financial ones. learn more or find an advisor at massmutual.com
we can help with the financial ones. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ snap ] the kohler walk-in bath features a low step-in at three inches. the bath fills and drains quickly. comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. call and ask about saving $1,000 on your walk-in bath. welcome to holiday inn! thank you! ♪ ♪ wait, i have something for you! every stay is a special stay at holiday inn. save up to 15% when you book early at hollidayinn.com
there's nothing more% important than your health.rly so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new.
you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon,
it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today. neil: you know, if you don't like it they can put on the ballot and see if they can get it. and the gas tax increase based on a lot of californians when they put up a vote in november they can go and decide on that. hillary vaughn has all the details. >> a common meal. californians are so unhappy with jerry brown's 40% gap tax increase he signed into law last year. in november they are hoping to overturn it. it involves the extra 12 cents per gallon gas tax will go away and voters want to make sure that futureernors can do
what brown did an raise prices at the pump before, letting californians have a say. the repair would amend the california constitution so voters have to approve any future gas tax increases. "the l.a. times" and main show the 51% of californians want to reject brown tax hike up the pump. this repeal movement is actually coming out of washington saying in a statement is flawed and dangerous measure pushed by terms washington allies jeopardizes the safety of millions of californians by stopping local communities from fixing their crumbling roads and bridges. just say no. blending the repeal measure on the ballot wasn't the only backlash. orange county voters kicked a freshman democrat, josh newman out of his state senate seat over his support for the tax goodies out of of a job and now national republican bank this measure on the ballot would give them a repeal saying california
voters will officially have the opportunity to reject california democrat gas tax becoming clearer every day. josh newman's double-digit defeat was a canary for california democrats. i talk to national democratic campaign committee today and they say they are not worried about the repeal measure been on the ballot. they say that republicans are the one raising taxes on californians to the gop tax plan. they are not worried about this being in the ballot in november. the gas tank notwithstanding the economy is doing pretty well right now. in fact, the quarter we are in in a few days could be the best we've seen in years. the u.s. federal reserve is an estimate example may be an uptick of 4% or better, for .5%. the average has been about to point may come a 2.9, close to 3%. the market watchers scott martin. we get growth like that.
all bets could be off. what do you think? >> let's not hope i guess the latter they are. i think it's interesting. i believe the economy would win best client money here, we follow economic data and stuff like job reports. average hourly earnings directly gdp comment. to me en masse. about 150 to 175,000 jobs. being dependable. a new level for the economy. significantly will help stocks as far as price. neil: you know, we've had burst about committees. that usually subsides a bit in the next quarter. the rolling average will go a
long way towards, for example, paying for the tax cut. it would create trillions in unexpected revenues. you and i both know that washington no matter who's in charge and the money and then some. they would change the dynamics a little bit. neil: you make a good point. a lot of times an economic study is a pop in a gift bag. here's what i would say. we think about history and like you mentioned the pro-business policies of the administration, the reagan administration. gdp up 4% or so is really not that big of a stretch for this country and this economy. getting to that point in staying there or leveling off 3%. the level of economic growth and job creation and wage growth that seems sustainable here provided we continue to get an administration that is business friendly. neil: i wanted to talk to you
about the president not so veiled threat against harley-davidson on his plan to move jobs out of the country. many in the white house believe and others have said this seems to be an excuse to jesse go cheaper labor costs. the president went on to say they will be taxed like never before. >> i was really disappointed. i've got to be honest this is coming from supposedly business friendly president, one has been in business all his life and been very successful about it who i'm sure has cut corners and cut costs for things because he said is to produce and services to provide. it is a shame given harley-davidson's move that they felt like it was a better deal to go to the e.u. because of the tariff talk and threats of their business that the president immediately went after them. i believe that this is something the president should take some of the other comments we made here for companies coming out
which doesn't start much later than a couple weeks from now where companies are going to start talking about they be looking overseas to cut costs and jobs with respect to what they are facing going forward from this administration. they do listen to these companies, not attack them. >> a lot of these companies if they are not entertaining dramatic moves like that, they are cutting back for keeping their power drive. even with some of the big media deals, you get the idea that people are just holding back until maybe they get some clarification, for example, waiting for a counteroffer from comcast for the 21st century fox. do you thinkrade step is getting into the mix and making everybody cost? >> it seems like it is. it is starting to escalate in effect the markets a little bit more than it was a month or two ago. the midterm elections provide some uncertainty. too many companies come and dry powder is the safe move and we'll take that because for
example their shareholders to please first and foremost. not the president of the united states. to me the dry powder will stay there until the stuff clears up. neil: great seeing you. thank you very much. scott martin. the president meeting with lawmakers right now. this has been going on a while. it will be very, very long intake until at least 8:00 p.m. tonight. what might seem like a small cough to you...
neil: all right, in and out of session highs for the dow, up about 80 points right now, and a lot of this idea that maybe cooler heads will prevail on trade. it's good for the markets if it looks like this is going to get drawn out and heated, it doesn't. a lot better than yesterday, of course, when we had over a 350-point falloff. a different tone today. of course, this on the same day that the president got a huge reprieve okaying his travel ban from the supreme court on muslim-dominated nations. blake burman at the white house with that and a number of important powwows going on there. >> reporter: i feel like once a week we meet awaiting to hear comments from president trump. right now he is speaking with reporters inside the west wing as he is meeting with several lawmakers here as well. the president reacting to the supreme court decision which he
called a great victory. we will hear from the president momentarily. according to the ongoing notes that are taking place inside, reporters inside the room -- which i always caution check the tape when it comes out -- the president saying at one point about the immigration policies that we need going forward, it's so simple, it's called i'm sorry you can't come in. clearly, the president wanting to see a clamp-down along the southern border, but we await to hear his remarks momentarily, we are led to believe here, from the white house. in any event, as it relates to the official statement from the white house on this day as, in relation to the supreme court decision, they are in a very celebratory mood here. the president saying in that statement, quote, in this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country. this ruling is also a mood -- a moment, rather, of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and democratic politicians
who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country. the map that you're looking at right there, venezuela, libya, syria, iran, yemen, somalia and north korea, those are the seven nations on the travel ban 3.0, as it's commonly referred to. the initial iteration was largely countries with muslim majority populations. the white house ended up reshaping that to the map you just saw there, not necessarily all countries with muslim-majority nations as it relates to venezuela and north korea, and that was part of their argument. in any event, the chief justice, john roberts, who wrote the favoring opinion 5-4 said that the president has the constitutional authority to oversee the nation's immigration laws, and here's the president. so we'll listen. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you very much, everybody. you have probably all seen, otherwise you wouldn't be at the top of your game, the fact that
today's supreme court ruling just coming out, a tremendous success, a tremendous victory for the american people and for our constitution. this is areat victory for our nstituti we have to be tough and we have to be safe and and we have to be secure. at a minimum, we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country. with we know who's coming in, we know where they're coming from. we just have to know who's coming here. the ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the democrat politicians are wrong, and they turned out to be very wrong. and what we're looking for as republicans, i can tell you, is strong borders, no crime. what the democrats are looking at is open borders which will bring tremendous crime. it'll bring ms-13 and lots of others that we don't want to have in our country. it'll bring tremendous crime.
so i will always be defending the sovereignty, the safety and the security of the american people. that's why i was put here. we're discussing today the funding of the wall which we very much need. we started the wall, we're spending a lot of energy and a lot of time and starting it up in san diego and other places. it's under construction now, we have $1.6 billion, but we're going to ask for an increase in wall spending so we can finish it quicker. it stops the drugs, it stops people that we don't want to have, and out gives us security and safety. and with that, if you -- i think we might just take a quick spin around the room, talk to a couple of the folks, and maybe, senator, i'll ask you, roy, do you want to say a couple of words about why we're here and what we're doing? >> well, i think with the leadership of chairman shelby,
we're trying to get these appropriations bills to the floor and get 'em on your desk as you insisted not in an omnibus. i think the last time we had a conference report on the senate floor, this would be where the house passed a bill and we didn't, we went to -- it was 2011. so we just passed the first three bills yesterday that the house had already passed, and we're doing our best to try to get back into business in a transparent way so that people can see what their government's doing. >> mr. president? >> yes. >> we're in the first quarter of the appropriation process. if you want to use a football analogy. we're doing well right now, we're working together. i think both sides, democrats and republicans, realize it's in their best interests and the interests of the american people for us to pass, on time, our regular appropriations bills, bring it back to regular order to avoid crises and the threat
of shutdowns and all of this. we're early, we're making progress, we're hoping to stay the course. but you saying -- and you said it several times -- that you're not signing a big omnibus, i think, resonates with all of us, and it makes sense to the american people. >> well, we got military taken care of. we had $700 billion for our military, then the following year $716 billion. we had to have it, we all knew it. nobody at this table loved what we did last time, but we did love the fact that we got more for the military than anybody thought was possible. we also got $6 billion for the, if you look at the drug problem and all all of the problems we'e having with drugs at every level, got $6 billion for that. the opioid epidemic and and other things. so that was a good thing. and then we had to, unfortunately, do some things we didn't want to do, but this time we don't have to do it. and this time we're very early.
but we had to get our military funded. and now it's not only funded, it's never been funded that well. so we're very happy about that. lamar, do you have anything to say? >> sure, mr. president. first, thank you, thank you for having us. on the appropriations bill, we have two parts to our budget. one part's going through the roof, that's the entitlement part. the part we're working on has gone up over the last ten years about the rate of inflation, ask be according to the congressional budget office will go up about the rate of inflation. and these are, for the most part, things you and i, that you have advocated. as you said, more than half is defense. so that's good. another thing that's good is our national laboratory. secretary perry went to -- [inaudible] last week. we're in a competition with china to see who has number one supercomputing. thanks to the last two appropriations bills you signed, we are now number one in supercomputing in this country, which we need to be. >> we just moved ahead.
that's good. >> senator blount has chaired a committee that reported out record funding for the national institutes of health. you've got great people over there working on curing cancer, other things. so i would suggest that a part of your america first agenda would be the items that are appropriations for science, technology, research. you've signed two appropriations bills that do that. secretary perry, senator blunt, those things. i think that fits your america first ada. agenda. so a lot of what we're doing is on your agenda, and it's going up about the rate of inflation, just a little bit more. so we're watching the budget as we do this. >> you know, lamar, you mentioned entitlements. we were all set to repeal and replace obamacare, and then we were very surprised by one gentleman who decided to vote against it after campaigning for it for about 14 years or since its inception, i guess 8 years.
but that would have saved about a trillion dollars, that one vote would have saved a trillion dollars. now despite that, we are cutting, and you've seenof the association plans that we've come up -- >> i was with secretary acosta in knoxville on friday, and you saw him the next day. that is a really -- >> great man. >> -- good step forward that'll help a lot of people. >> it's a great plan. and secretary aczar's coming -- azar's coming out with one in two weeks. these are plans that won't cost the country anything -- neil: all right. i always hate it when they do this, that is the most substantive part of the whole thing talking about, certainly, an issue important to you, the budget. what's included, what's not, what they're going to work on, what's not. of course, they break away from that because it's only economic matters, so who's interested in that? what the -- anyway, sorry about this. they're going to rerack this when they get to the q&a by which time all the decisions or
the goals that they would have outlined to try to deal with this budget and get it done before any potential government shutdown or fear therein is out there. but who are these bunion heads who decide -- anyway. to daily mail white house correspondent francesca chambers, also congressional reporter caitlin owens. caitlin, to you first on the bowing the president's taking in light of this supreme court decision. is it your sense here that he's going to find a way to ride this or something, maybe get more support even on this immigration bill, apples and oranges that it kind of is, the wind at his back even though he said, the heck with it, wait after the midterms? >> you know, i don't think so. you've got so many competing factions. the house is voting on a big immigration bill this week, and it's always been expected to fail. it was just a management thing where republicans wanted to vote
on an immigration bill. and, you know, while trump does have a big victory today, the president has not been super engaged in creating member confidence to vote for this bill. so i think that while, you know, this is definitely a victory for the president today, i still wouldn't expect an immigration bill to pass in the house. you could be wrong, you know, things can change very quickly these days, but it's still a very long shot. neil: yeah. i think, francesca, even if you get an unlikely victory even though that other measure got 193 votes which or very few people expected, it's possible that it wins in the house, but then the trouble is always the senate, right? >> that's right. even if it did pass in the house, it would have to go to the senate where republicans only have 51 votes and would need at least 9 democrats assuming they had every republican voting with them to be able to pass immigration legislation. and you mentioned earlier that the president goes on here for a little while, we expect, by the way, this to last about 38
minutes. the president does come back, we're told, at the end to talk more about this victory that you said was a tremendous success and a tremendous victory for his administration. and also the president does go on to say, however, speaking to what with you were asking, he does however feel a little bit more emboldened after the supreme court victory for his administration today on the travel ban. neil: you know, i'm wondering, caitlin, where he's sizing things up. his approval numbers are up. when it comes to the economy, those numbers are up. i don't know how this is factoring out politically and the impact of the immigration and tearing these kids away from their parents and all, so the dust has still got to settle there. where and what's the word you're getting on how he is trying to right-size republicans right now? >> the president -- this is, who president trump is, is he is fiercely tied to his base. you know, he cares about those approval ratings. they love what trump does, he
loves their approval, and it's this back and forth. that's why you're seeing such a hard-line stance on immigration. the political pressure on the border separation policy, that was huge political pressure, it was too big. but everything else, you know, i think we're going to see him -- he digs in on this. his core republican voters, the base of the party, they love it. so, but that's a really difficult place to be because when it comes to, as we're talking about immigration legislation in the house and senate, you know, these members there, there's a wider spectrum. so getting -- they are not all far right, hard-line immigration hawks. and so just getting an agreement this, and not to mention there's democrats. you know, you need democrats in the senate. so i think that while president trump feels emboldened in his executive action, it doesn't translate into compromise on the hill. neil: you know, francesca, the far bigger issue i hear from a lot of republican politicians is this trade thing and that the tougher he gets and the more
countries he includes, the harder it is for them to explain to their constituents if this blows up. and that's their bigge worry. so much the immigra what do you make of that? >> well, the president has made both of those issues, neil, a central focusover of his campaigning -- focus of his campaigning. he was in south carolina yesterday, we know he's going to north dakota later this week. in addition to immigration, he has been talking about trade, and he does think that's beneficial to him. he believes these trade policies will end up working out for the administration and for u.s. companies. just look at what he was saying about harley davidson. he says they won't end up having to pay these larger tariffs, they won't pay stiffer penalties for their exports in europe. he does believe this agenda will help republicans on the ballot in november. neil: all right, ladies, thank you very much. we do hope to revisit that pool spray when they get ready for questions. the dow is at session highs, over a 105-point gain.
and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate of warehoue near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.
neil: all right, we're awaiting more words from the president of the united states meeting with lawmakers right now inside that building, i think you know it. let's get a read on the markets which are now at session highs. we've got hal lambert and fox news' deirdre bolton. deidre, the markets obviously feel a little differently than they did yesterday at this time, and a lot of this on the idea that it's not going to be that bad. the president is, i think, is he ready, guys? two minutes. i got the two minute warning. i apologize, deirdre. >> i'll be quick. [laughter] neil: is that the wind at his back, this economy, these markets and everything else? >> so yesterday the game-changer washat technology shares, which really have been the markets, the stock market's darlings, have outperformed for so long, and yesterday with this talk of the trump administration eventually block tech investment, restricting u.s. exports that are tech exports included going to china, you saw
this whole tech group sell off. today it is the opposite of that. so we're looking at the dow, i mean, we're seeing the dow up around 100 points. you know, apple is climbing 2%. so essentially, you have tech leading again. that's why there's green the screens today where there was red. neil: you know, john, it's the kind of thing that less the trade war looks, the better. >> yeah. let's be clear, trump's protectionism would be disastrous for stock markets and the economy, but thankfully -- and to trump's credit -- he wants his presidency to be judged by the stock market. that's a very good thing. i wish all presidents were that way. and hopefully, he will not move in a direction that would ruin his administration. neil: yeah, but he's risked all sorts of fallout before, al. are you worried? >> no. i think, in fact, the tech companies ought to be thank president trump. at the end of this, they're not going to have to sell their companies and have all their ip stolen to do business in china. i think it's going to be not
only positive for tech, but the rest of the economy. neil: the president, by the way, is at the white house right now. he has been meeting with largely republican leaders. let's dip into that again. >> maybe you can make a look at it. >> yes, sir. >> anything to say? >> i'll be short, we need the border security money. >> that's what we need, border security. we've got to get going. a lot of bad things are happening, and i think we're doing it incredibly well. we have no tools -- bad laws. we have the worst immigration laws in the history of the world, okay? it's a joke. people can't believe it. other countries look at us, and they say how is that possible. somebody touches our land, we now take them to a court, to a judge. they want us to choose 5,000 judges. how to you choose 5,000 judges? can you imagine the corruption just from a normal standpoint, just common sense? can you imagine the corruption? go to the barbershop, grab somebody, make 'em a judge. everybody's being made a judge. they want 5,000 judges more.
it's crazy. other countries it's called, i'm sorry, you can't come in. you have to leave. this one we have judges. if they step on our land, we have judges. it's insane. so we're going of to change our whole immigration policy. and i was saying last night in south carolina when i came in, i inherited some things. we inherited north korea. that's going really well. we inherited horrible trade deals. that's going really welch -- well. nobody knows what's happening behind the scenes, but these companies -- countries that have been really -- i don't blame them, i blame our people. but they have just been ripping us for years. they want to negotiate so badly, you have no idea. we inherited a lot of different things, but of all of them, immigration is, makes the least sense. it is a hodgepodge of laws that have been put together over years, and we have to change it. it's so simple. it's called, i'm sorry, you can't come in. you have to go in through a
legal process. you don't have to see a judge where the judge is going to take three years before you can come back. in the meantime, you never come back because you're already in the country. you're someplace in the country. and that would be bad, but it's really bad when it's a criminal. and we have plenty of them coming into the country this way. and they use the children. they use these young children for their own benefit. so we have to change the whole immigration picture. we'll be able to do it. we need the border wall, we need the border, with we need border security, and we need modern equipment. and we'll get it done, i have no doubt. anybody else would like to say something? anybody? are we okay? we'll let these guys go out and have lunch. [inaudible conversations] >> on trade, there are some people who are saying that your tariff threats threaten to plunge the economy into a recession. harley davidson announced that it's moving a plant to thailand --
>> harley davidson is going to do that, they announced it earlier this year. so harley davidson is using that as an excuse, and i don't like that because i've been very good to harley davidson, and they used it as an excuse. i think the people that ride harleys are not happy with harley davidson, and i wouldn't be either. but mostly companies are coming back to our country. i was the one that explained to harley about the 100% tax in india where they had a tariff of 100%, and i got it down to a much lower number. i think it's 50%, which is far too much, but they were paying 100% tariff. now prime minister modi brought it way down, but it's still way too high. no, i will say this, john, other countries are negotiating. and without tariffs, you could never do that. and if they don't want to negotiate, then we'll do the tariffs. and just remember, we're the bank. we're the bank that everybody wants to steal from and plunder. and it can't be that way
anymore. we lost $500 billion last year with china. we lost $151 billion with the european union which puts up trade barriers so that our farmers can't trade. we can't send farm products in for the most part. it's very hard to send cars in. we have countries where, as an example india, they charge as much as 100% tariff. we want the tariffs removed. what i would like to do and what i offered at the g7, you remember, i said let's drop all tariffs and all barriers. is everybody okay with that? and nobody said, yes. i said, wait a minute, folks, you're complaining. no tariffs and no barriers. you're on your own. let's do it. and it was like they couldn't leave the room fast enough. [laughter] >> what do you say to people who say it's a risky business, you could tip the economy into recession, and what do you plan to do later this week -- >> first of all, we're so high up, we're so high up, we've picked up 40 -- have you looked
at the kind of numbers we've picked up? it's up almost 40%, the market. that's not -- the real market is the overall, and the overall's up much more than that. but we picked up about $8 trillion in value doing what we're doing. now, we've got a little bit of uncertainty because of trade. to me, there's no uncertainty and the other people that happen to be smart, there's no uncertainty. but we can't allow the european union to take out $151 billion out of the united states. we can't allow mexico to have a nafta teal that gives them over $100 billion -- deal. and i call it profit, you know? you can divide that up any way you want to do it. i call it profit. we can't allow mexico to take $100 billion. we can't give china anywhere from $375-500. it's $375 some people, depending on your formula, $375 billion,
it could be $504 billion. it's a tremendous amount of money being taken out of our economy. we have to straighten it out. now, what's happening, we put steel tariffs on. our steel industry's going through the roof. u.s. steel just announced they're expanding or building six new facilities. last night in south carolina, right, go ahead, georgetown steel. the factory's been closed, the the plant's been closed how long, lynn city? >> about three years. but what's interesting, a british company, a steel manufacturer in britain bought georgetown steel to make steel here. >> right. solar panels. we put tariffs on solar panels, 30%. they were all being made in china. we had 32 different factories. now they're starting to open again. plants, new plants, because solar's pretty new technology. we had 32, we had 2 that were open. everyone else was closed because of what happened and what came in from other places, in
particular china. and now we have 7 that are opening and many more are considered -- and the 2 that were dying, they were going to close, they're thriving right now. washing machines. they were being dumped all over the country. not good ones, by the way. ones that didn't work really well. and now they're opening up washing machines. we put a 30% tariff on -- so tariffs can be a very positive thing. in the old days, when we didn't have tariffs we didn't have income tax. when people wanted to come in, you look at the days of mckinley and some others, when people wanted to come in, they had to pay a price. when they want to come in and raid our treasury, they had to pay a price. we didn't have income tax, you didn't need income tax. we didn't have debt. so we're doing this, i will say in every instance every country, any country that you can mention has been extremely nice even less to the media probably, but extremely nice. they want to negotiate a deal.
so, and we're open to that. we're open to that. but it's going to be very strong. we are putting on tariffs on certain industries. we can't lose our steel industry. our steel industry was ready to go out of business. it was at the bottom. our human numb industry was ready -- aluminum industry was ready to go out of business. now the steel industry is thriving. think of it. united states steel, first time in 35 years they're actually expanding. going up. they're building new places. georgetown steel closed for three or four years, they announced yesterday they're opening up their plant. it's been closed for four years, i think they said, in south carolina. no, we're typing the right thing, 100% -- we're doing the right thing. you have them on both sides, some people agree, some people don't agree. the bottom line is countries are coming back now to negotiate. including european union wants to negotiate. because if they don't, we're going to tax their cars. they said her -- they send
mercedes in, they send bmws in. when we send cars to the your -- european your on, they charge us a tremendous tax, five times greater than what we charge them. but more imporly, they don't want our cars. but if you do get it in, you're going to pay taxes. with china, with china if we send a car the china, they charge us a 25% tax. so we make a car, we send it to china, we want to compete, that's not free trade. that's stupid trade. so we send 25% tax. when they make a car in china and they send it here, we charge them 2.5%. okay. so we get 2.5%, china gets 25%. that's not fair be, that's not free, that's just stupid. [inaudible conversations] >> in terms of chinese investment restrictions, i think you've got an announcement -- >> well, it's not just chinese. it's we don't want people coming
in -- hey, look, we are a very smart country. we have the most incredible people in silicon valley. we don't want china and other countries, it's not necessarily or particularly -- because they covered it incorrectly. they had either a leaker that doesn't exist or a leaker that didn't know his business very well. but they gave it to bloomberg, and they gave it to, i believe, "the wall street joual," that it was either a bad leak by somebody that didn't know, but probably they just made up the story, there was no leak. i'm not sure if my political friends would agree, but i think a lot of leaks aren't leaks, they don't exist. they're made up by the writers. we want to have our jewels, those are our great jewels. that's like united states steel from 70 years ago, these companies. we have to protect these companies. we can't let people steal that technology. we have greatest technology in the world. people copy it and they steal it. but we have the great scientists, we have the great
brains, and we have to protect that. and we're going to protect it. and that's what we were doing, and that can be done through cfius. we have a lot of things we can do it through. and we're working that out. but the bottom line is we have charged a very substantial tax to some people. they are coming back to negotiate and, frankly, if they don't negotiate, i'm okay with that because i'd rather get the tax. any other questions? is. [inaudible conversations] >> so the supreme court ruling was a tremendous victory for this country and for the constitution. the supreme court, the supreme court ruling was a tremendous victory for our country. >> will you go ahead with it, sir? >> of course, what do you think? i wouldn't go ahead with it? >> does it 'em -- embolden you also to the idea of deporting people without due process as well? do you think -- >> we have to find a system where you don't need thousands of judges sitting at a border. other countries look at us and they think we're crazy. they say what kind of a thing is
that. they have countries where they have no problem with people pouring in, and you have countries where people do want to go in. and if you look at the european union, they're meeting right now to toughen up their immigration policies because they've been run. they have been overrun. and, frankly, a lot of those countries are not the same places anymore. finish and i'm sad to say it, and i said that at the g7. they are not the same places. but we had a tremendous victory today, and we greatly appreciate it. we needed it as a country. that was a big victory for -- and i can tell you everyone at this table is very happy about it -- but that was a big victory for our country. >> do you consider that the final word, sir? >> well, i think it's pretty much the final word, the supreme court, you know? we went up -- knox -- [inaudible conversations] we just waited for the supreme court, yeah, that's the final word. now, do i want to go in with a different one and a different variety? i don't think there's any reason. the it's a very strong victory,
very strong. >> how much in terms of wall funding? you said you wanted an increase -- >> well, we're spending $1.6 billion now, there's a plan for another $1.6 billion, but i'd like to ask this room if we could increase it. i think in light of what's happened with the drugs, with the human smuggling, with all of the problems, we have to have the wall. we have to have the wall. and the wall, you have ports of entry. that's what people come through. and they can come through legally. and by the way, i want people to come into our country, because our country's doing so well. and we have companies moving into our country like at numbers that nobody's seen in a long time. we need workers. so i want people to come in. they have to come in through the merit system though. they have to come in so that they can help our country and these companies. in wisconsin you have foxcon, one of the great companies of the world. they make the laptop for apple and iphones and -- they're building a tremendous plant right now in wisconsin.
they need workers. i have to let people come in. but they have to come in through merit. they have to be people that can lo our country and help our country, okay? thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations] >> we'll see. we'll see. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you all very much. thank you. [inaudible conversations] neil: all right. the president talking about that big victory in the supreme court, approving his ban on largely muslim, muslim-majority nations. it was a 5-4 vote, the significance of that with my colleague and friend judge andrew napolitano. what do you think? >> well, it wasn't a surprise because the same supreme court reviewed the same ban back in october and basically said we'll let you keep it in place until we rule on it. here's the distinction. the dissenters decided to look
at the words of candidate donald trump which were extremely incendiary about muslims and would hardly reflect the neutrality required by the first amendment. but he wasn't in the government at the time. the majority said, look, if we get in this business of looking at what people said earlier in their career, there'll be no end. we're just going to look at the words that he wrote and determine if those words are grounded in the constitution and significant with the statute. they're grounded in the constitution because the constitution makes the president the sole decider of foreign policy, they're significant with the statute because as an express harry truman era statute that allows every president -- it's been used by every since eisenhower -- to block a group of people for a publicly-stated national security region for a specific geographical area, and that's what donald trump did. p.s., we, the majority, do not
pass on the wisdom of this on whether it is good policy, on whether it would even work. we only pass on whether the esident has theer to do it, and he does. neil: so the minority, the four justices, this was unconstitutional -- >> b it was based on religion. and when the government discriminates based on religion, and that's a very, very high bar to meet which the president didn't meet here, felt he didn't have to, turned out he was right according to the majority. i have to tell you, neil, justice sotomayor who's been a friend of mine for years, her dissent is stinging and biting and doesn't call the president a racist but with comes very, very close -- neil: all but does. >> yes. you rarely see a dissent that harsh. she is the offspring of immigrant, this may have resonated with her differently than it does with others, but a very, very harsh dissent. neil: many on the left
criticized this decision saying much as judge sotomayor had said in her opinion. do you think that democrats galvanize on this, it was unfair, that we have now got a supreme court in the hip pocket of a president? be you've heard all that. >> yeah. i don't think so. i don't think the supreme court is in the president's hip to pocket. they happen to have voted in a way that he wanted on this one. he doesn't always get what he wants from this or any supreme court. the flip side of that argument is this travel ban, which is the third travel ban -- neil: right. >> -- was picked apart uniformly by a large group of judges on the west coast of the united states who just by happenstance are the most liberal gaggle of federal judges in the union. and they all based, to a person, based their decisions on the words of candidate trump, not president trump. so there's two sides --
neil: no doubt, but i think sotomayor was going back to 1944, the treatment of japanese into this country -- >> yes. neil: -- and that was something the supreme court would later regret, this is a decision they will regret? >> yes. i agree with her on that. the treatment of japanese-americans and italian-americans in new jersey as well during world war ii was reprehensible. the supreme court affirmed it. many justices, before they died, regretted their affirmation of it, and the congress enacted a statute saying this will never happen again. the discrimination based on race or religion. but the majority says this is not based on race or religion, it's based on rational findings by the president that it is more likely than not that from these seven majority muslim countries will come people that will harm us. not because they're muslims, but because they happen to be there. neil: you are so brilliant, it's scary. judge, thank you very, very much. >> you're welcome. neil: all right. we'll be back after this. up about 123 points on the dow. here.
we perform over 50,000 operations a year in places like this. for the past 15 years, chubb has identified ways that we can strengthen our safety measures. and today, our hospitals have some of the best patient safety records in the country. now, we're constructing new buildings that will define the future of piedmont and chubb is here, insuring our expansion. two million patients a year depend on us. and we depend on chubb. captured litning in a bottle. over 260 years later as the nation's leader in energy storage we're ensuring americans have the energy they need, whenever they need it nextera energy. heartburn and gas? ♪ now fight both fast new tums chewy bites with gas relief all in one relief of heartburn and gas ♪ ♪ tum tum tum tums new tums chewy bites with gas relief
aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. so don't wait. call to request your free decision guide. and gather the information now to help you choose a plan later. these types of plans let you pick any doctor or hospital that takes medicare patients. and there's a range of plans to choose from, depending on you needs and your budget. so if you're turning 65 soon, call now and get started. because the time to think about tomorrow...is today. go long. i mwell, what are youe to take care odoing tomorrow -10am? staff meeting. noon? eating. 3:45? uh, compliance training. 6:30? sam's baseball practice. 8:30? tai chi. yeah, so sounds relaxing. alright, 9:53? i usually make their lunches then, and i have a little vegan so wow, you are busy.
wouldn't it be great if you had investments that worked as hard as you do? yeah. introducing essential portfolios. the automated investing solution that lets you focus on your life. with savings on the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your every move and automatically adjusts on both sides to keep you effortlessly comfortable. and snoring.... does your bed do that? for a limited time, save up to $500 plus free home delivery on sleep number 360 smart beds. ends june 30th. >> we're doing this, i will say, in every instance any country that you can mention has been extremely nice, even less to the media probably, but extremely nice.
they want to negotiate a deal. so, and we're open to that. we're open to that. but it's going to be very strong. we are putting on tariffs on certain industries. we can't lose our steel industry. neil: all right. the president moments ago talking about this ongoing trade tiff that we've seen happen with a lot of countries on this planet, including china. but with whom we have very good relations. the president said behind the scenes progress is being made. you guys in the fake news media just wouldn't know it, so let's ge the read on all of that from the university of virginia poll pick the -- politics director, larry sabato, lawyer, best selling author, you're like an avengers of political knowledge here. and welcome to you, ben stein. ben, begin with you. what do you think the president is saying, this is resonating, he'll succeed on trade, he's sending an unequivocal individual, the world needs us a lot more than we need them, the wind is at my back, you say?
>> the wind is at his back politically, but i think he's making a mistake economically. but i think he's making a good point about china. china has been taking advantage of us, has still been acting as if it's a dirt poor, third world country. they're now a terribly rich company although not on a per capita basis, and i think it's time we stood up to them. more especially on technological theft than on the question of tariffs. i have to say this president amazes me endlessly. he is ahead of the curve an awful lot of the time. and by the way, i send my greatest to harry sabato -- larry sabato, my parents used to teach at the university of virginia. neil: larry, the compliment from ben stein is awesome in and of itself, but i'm wondering what historically is going on here. i mean, trade tiffs in the past usually don't end well. ronald reagan even regretted going after the japanese for dumping chips in our market, but
maybe in this, you know, bucks that trend. what do you think? >> the heck with your question, neil, i just want to say hi to ben stein and the tell him that i very fondly remember particularly his dad who taught here in the 1970s who was just out of the nixon administration where he was a senior official, totally uninvolved in watergate, completely focused on economics, and that segways to the fact that i agree with ben and actually you, neil, on free trade. by the way, 95% of republicans believed in free trade before the trump administration. now hypocrisy is the life blood of politics, but this is kind of ridiculous. neil: one of the arguments republicans are taking for kind of going along with the president is how he has roadway vealed -- he has revealed how much other countries have taken. >> i think he's probably politically wise to center it on china because american, at least
older americans, have had a deep suspicion be about china ever since it was red china, you know? [laughter] when we were growing up or i was growing up and ben was growing up. it was never referred to as china or the people's republic of china, it was red china, and it was always presented on the front page of the newspaper as red. that is, you know, red paint dripping down from china. so there's an inherent bias that americans have, at least older americans do, toward china. so i'm sure that that plays politically reasonably well. but economically i'm going to defer to you and ben. i don't think it does play well. neil: you know, it's funny, i drove by the university of virginia one time. i'll never forget it. it was just a very -- [laughter] >> we didn't -- i don't remember it at all, neil. neil: yeah. [laughter] we're all sharing this bond, and i just, i didn't want to feel left out. again, it was about me.
so, ben stein -- [laughter] let me get your read on what the markets are saying to us. not yesterday, but they're more the exception than the rule of late. now through nine of the past ten sessions have been down on concern in this trade thing is escalating, but i can't tell you the number of traders i talk to, ben, who said, well, you know, we doubted trump and his style in the beginning, but we've always been proven wrong. somehow, you know, it all works out, this'll work out. we're literally betting money that it'll work out. what do you think of that? >> i think we've got -- to use your phrase from earlier -- we do have the wind at our back in many different ways. we are cruising along. i don't think trade with china is going to affect the stock market very much. it'll affect the individual stocks but not the stock market very much. we have a very, very strong economy. our real worry at this point is that we've got inflation brewing. it's clearly brewing. anyone who does grocery shopping -- which i do in my family -- knows inflation is
there. we're going to have to clamp down on it. that's going to be a controlling factor on stock market prices and a dampening factor on stock market prices. but i don't think what's happening with china is going to have an impact at all. i love the stock market at this price. i'm an old man at this point, but i think for my children and my granddaughter, my child and my granddaughter i think the stock market is the place to be, and i think the c are going to be a net positive factor. and, yes, red chinese indeed, but red dripping with blood, and now they're green chinese dripping with money. [laughter] neil: i just can't get the image of you shopping at the store, you know, and should i get -- >> i love shopping. i love shopping. neil: good. i'm very impressed. larry, historically when there are big protests as we've been seeing since the whole immigration dust-up and separating kids from their parents, the protest has reached a fever pitch. of course, it's now gotten so nasty they're, you know, going
after cabinet officials in restaurants and kicking sarah sanders out of one. where does this go? historically, this bad blood, this bad will, where does it go? >> well, we hope it never gets as bad as it was in the late '60s. johnson's vietnam policies, the riots in the cities and, of course, vietnam again under nixon and, finally, watergate when things really got nasly. honestly, a lot of us, i think in 1968 in particular, wondered if the country was just falling apart. it seemed that way. we're nowhere near there. let's hope we never get there. and one way to not get there is to get everybody to sign on to a statement that we can word right here now. i'll let ben word it. i'll go along with ben. and the statement should say no more name calling, no more insults, no more asking people to leave restaurants or theaters. in other words, return to the
kind of civility that our parents taught us to practice. and that's from the president on down. that's everybody. neil: what an idiotic idea. [laughter] i'm kidding. you know, you, but you raise a good thing, you know? you hold cooler, more rational, just more decent human beings prevail, but, ben stein, it just follows an escalation, i mean, where we're accosting people outside their homes, in restaurants, you know, the president just today threatening harley davidson. and that was just on a matter of i might go after them with taxes. but it all plays this same theme. it's weird. >> people are more juvenile than ever. people are more infantile than ever. when i lived d during watergate i lived down the street from h.r. bob haldeman who was a big, big player in the scandal, and there were never protesters outside his house. there was always a news crew but
never protesters. i worked for nixon, i did work on watergate, and nobody ever bothered me about it one bit. i had wonderful friends who were democrats -- neil: yeah, but now we have the internet. it's easy to find that. >> you know something? you're totally right. the internet is like a bad boy recess where everybody can go out on the yard and tease everybody else and be mean to everybody else. i myself stay away from the internet, from social media. i've never been on twitter, i don't even know how twitter works, i don't intend to ever go on twitter. i like to stick to just more solid arguments. and, by the way, stick with more solid arguments, it is a disgrace to humanity that that poor woman, ms. sanders, was chased out of that restaurant. i know that restaurant, i've been to it, it's not a very good restaurant, in my humble opinion. she made a mistake to eat there in the first place. should have gone to -- neil: you know, you could look at that and just say i think even chuck schumer, nancy pelosi, you know, said that's going too far, elijiah cummings,
going too far. so i admired all of them coming out and say cool it on that, but will people cool it? on both sides? >> well, you have to do that a lot. you have to do it every day or week or month, and you have to do it on both sides. there's a clear bipartisan objective that a everybody in the system ought to have to be more civil, to treat people well as you would like to be treated. some religious con nations there, yes. why to not? it's something that we could do to help bring people together. and, my god, ben is right about twitter. i'm on twitter. we're supposed to do some social media here at the university of virginia. increasingly i hate twitter. i hope the people who are organizing twitter hear that. it is one of the nastiest places on earth. and it brings out the very worst in people. neil: all right. can we cancel that twitter sponsorship, guys? [laughter] i want to thank you both very
much. >> ben and i will sponsor, neil. >> we will sponsor. neil: there you go. well, it's a beautiful -- [inaudible] i know driving by it, it was stunning. [laughter] so good to have both of you. they really are like an economic avengers team. we'll have more after this. some key primary battles at stake today, after this. ♪ ♪ ♪ . rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage.
. neil: you know, we were just talking about the key primary tasks for republicans, democrats as well. the republican side is getting a great deal of attention. adam shapiro with the details. reporter: the establishment versus the underdogs and let's talk about this, because while there are primaries and runoffs in seven different states. three, we are paying major attention to. start in south carolina where you have henley mcmaster, the current governor facing john warren. mcmaster failed to get 50% of the vote at the state republican convention. that's why the president endorsing master. utah, the seat to replace orrin hatch, mitt romney former
massachusetts governor facing businessman mike kennedy who is a state senator. romney failed to get 50% of the vote at the state republican convention, he faces a runoff. worth $270 million. mr. kennedy worth $2 million. romney outspending money and outraising money with kennedy. staten island, dan donovan is the current incumbent, he replaced michael graham after graham pled guilty to one charge of tax fraud because he had hired illegal aliens, but now grimm is trying to get a seat back. the president endorsing donovan on this one but grimm is popular on staten island. grimm takes a hard line on immigration and pled guilty to the issue a few years back. neil: he is very popular in his district. see what happens. as adam was speaking here, dow
in and out of session highs. up about 108 points. oil spreading here. trish regan will take you through the next busy hour, incredible market day. trish, to you. trish: big stuff, thank you so much, neil cavuto. breaking, the supreme court coming down with a big win for the white house. ruling to uphold president trump's travel ban, restricting visitors and immigrants from seven countries from coming to the united states. i am trish regan, welcome everyone, to "the intelligence report." all right, the supreme court ruling today 5-4 in favor of the president's travel ban. the president calling it a tremendous victory for the american people and the constitution. we have here with us harvard law professor alan dershowitz, he will weigh in on this historic ruling next.