♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." ♪ charlie: we turn to north korea, relations between the united states and in that country have been fraught since the end of the korean war. the last several months have months have seen an escalation in tension as north korea ramps up its nuclear program. following north korea's largest nuclear test, the united nations voted to step up sanctions against the regime. many feared that a violent confrontation is increasingly likely. joining me from washington is evan osnos.

he recently traveled to pyongyang for the new yorker magazine. his report offers a rare, inside look at north korea. he writes "in 18 years of , reporting, i never felt as much uncertainty at the end of a project, a feeling that nobody , not a diplomat, the strategists, or the scholars who have devoted their lives to the subject matter able to describe with confidence how the other side thinks." i am pleased to have him on this program. welcome. evan: thank you very much. charlie: tell me how this trip took place. who was on the trip, its purpose and plan? evan: this trip began a few months ago, really with the idea that we have to get there, we have to go to north korea to understand what is going on on the ground. they don't have diplomatic relations, so you can't go to an embassy in washington. what you can use is what is known as the new york channel, it is an informal office that exists within the north korean mission to the united nations who manage relations with the

united states. and i contacted them and i said, we would like to come. and they said it would take a while. and it did it took five months. , by august, we made an arrangement for me to go with a pinkertoner named max , and an assistant, and the three of us went in on august 14. it happened to be that this was a couple days after donald trump had tweeted the united states it "locked and loaded" for a potential confrontation. charlie: what happened? evan: when i got there they clearly had a message that they wanted to send to the rest of the world. this was not a casual choice to allow an individual reporter. they typically allow in reporters in large groups. this less frequently. and what they wanted the world to understand, over and over they said it, is that will not give up their nuclear program. if there was ever a point where

they might have been willing to bargain that away for the sake of other elements in a diplomatic relationship, they believe that moment has passed. that is important because at the moment, the united states, its strategy is predicated on trying to get north korea to give up its nuclear program. charlie: why does it want a nuclear program? evan: this is a key question. as you know, this has been a source of tremendous debate. they say that they want it for self-defense. as north korean officials told me their leader does not want to , end up with like other leaders andke saddam hussein up theirwho gave nuclear programs at the request of the united states and , ultimately both removed from office and executed. not by the united states. but they talk about it openly. aorge w. bush said let it be lesson to other countries. in 2011, the united states and

nato joined in assisting the overthrow of the gaddafi regime and it led to his execution, ultimately. and that is what they are conscious of. there is another element, which is important, which is if they do achieve self defense, then do they go further? conscious of. there is another do they seek to try to reunify with south korea, did he try to use the weapon is a way to coerce the united states to reduce it security presence on the peninsula? that is a debate going on right now. charlie: kim jong-un is a leader, but is he a rational leader? evan: this is the question that analysts in beijing and the soul are struggling with. the answer based on people i have spoken to is that he is rational. in a sense that he can be dealt with. they do not believe he is mad, they do not believe he is out of control. what they believe is he is protecting his national

interests in the way he thinks he should, but that is putting him on a trajectory towards confrontation with the united states. but i think the key point is sometimes get lost, when we look at what he is doing, we see him moving down this path towards greater tension with the u.s., but there have been moments where he has shown himself to be capable of restraint. charlie: what else do they know about him? evan: he began as a mysterious figure. when he took power in 2011, the u.s. knew almost nothing about him. , a cia analyst at the time said they had little more , than a single photograph of him as an 11-year-old boy. since then, they have discovered quite a bit. he has proved himself to be a more skillful tactician than we thought. and some of that is very brutal. north korean politics is a brutal business. he has removed senior officials from power to solidify his control. he is very much, as a u.s. official told me last week, he

is in control of the country. he is the top decider. he is the one that matters. the notion he is not running the country is not valid. he is in fact very much in control right now. charlie: he obviously has brought that country closer to nuclear weapons than his father or his grandfather, and he must have some skill to be able to do what he has done, no matter how ruthless it has been. evan: that is right. one of the things he has done that has surprised analysts is he is willing to tolerate public failure. there have then a number of tests, missile launches, which have failed. in an earlier generation, they would have covered that up, but very early on, he began to let people know that scientists would be allowed to fail. because the only way they would make rapid progress was to have tests back to back, all the time. as a result, they have been able

to accelerate their progress. they are now at a point where we thought they would be in 5-10 years. but i think one of the things to keep in mind is whether or not he is willing to compromise. this is something his father was able to do. kim jong-il, he was constantly playing against the united states in a way that he would provoke, and then he would get to the negotiating table. he would provoke and then get to the table. kim jong-un has not shown he has the ability to know when it is time to sit down. that is what americans are waiting for right now. in the white house, they are waiting for a signal from north korea that it is time to negotiate. charlie: do we know if he would like to see korea unified? evan: there is no question that he would. this has been the driving ambition of his country ever since his grandfather founded it, is to try to reunify the

korean peninsula. the question is whether he is force to do it, or is this just an abstract goal. the analogy is like taiwan and mainland china. taiwan is obviously something that beijing talks about all the time, they aspire to reunify the country, but they are not willing to take steps to do it, and that gives the u.s. reason to do with china. the same question applies to north korea. if kim jong-un is in the broader sense committed to unification, that is ok. the south koreans want unification ultimately as well. but the u.s. will not relinquish its support for south korea by removing troops. or by removing itself from that alliance. so they have to be absolutely sure before they begin to make concessions to north korea that they are not setting themselves up for the day when they discover north korea has sought to invade south korea. i will tell you right now, i think that the view broadly felt is that he is most likely looking for self-defense. he is not looking for the

conditions by which he could re-invade south korea immediately. and that means there may be opportunity to come up with a combination. charlie: you say in the second part of the quote that i began "we simply don't know kim , jong-un regards the use of his country's nuclear arsenal or how much seclusion and mythology has distorted its understanding of american resolve. we don't know whether kim jong-un is taking greater risks because he is willing to fulfill his family's dream of retaking south korea or because he is afraid of ending up like gaddafi. we do not know." evan: that was one of the amazing things about being there. you get a sense everywhere you go that they are thinking and talking about their weaponry. it is on every billboard. it is on the television when you are watching it at lunch. government officials mention it

to you constantly. they say we have now achieved , the ability to meet the united states head to head, toe to toe, if we need to. what that means is we need to understand now, ultimately, what are they prepared to do? are they actually going to press the button? my impression from being there is they have no illusions. they don't believe they could get into a war with the united states and ultimately survive it, but they are scared at the moment. frankly, they are disconcerted by the fact that the u.s. president is talking about fire and fury. they are confused by the number of voices out of washington. they hear general mattis, rex tillerson, donald trump, and they are not sure what the united states is preparing. and the risk here is if north korea gets the impression the u.s. is prepared to attack, then north korea may do something

hugely self-destructive, but could also take a lot of lives elsewhere, so it is important that the united states should send the message we are not seeking to attack north korea. if it can be avoided. mentioned have not it, but ever present the idea of , china and somehow the u.s. believes that if only china would step up, they could persuade north korea, at least to freeze their nuclear program, if not do something else that would reduce the fear of the united states. evan: i think china's position on this is evolving slowly, but in important ways. as you know they have been , reluctant to do anything, put pressure on pyongyang, afraid of collapsing the regime. they do not want to north korean refugees coming over the border or american troops taking over the peninsula in the event of a collapsed state. charlie: thank you so much. evan: my pleasure. charlie: back in a moment. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: apple's widely anticipated special event took place earlier today in california. it was the first keynote in the steve jobs theater at apple's new 175 acre campus. apple unveiled new models for the iphone 8 and iphone 8 plus. it also introduced the iphone x. a product that marks the 10th anniversary of the original

iphone launch and costs $1000. >> the first iphone revolutionized a decade of technology and changed the world in the process. now, 10 years later, it is only fitting that we are here in this place on this day to reveal a product that will set the path for technology for the next decade. charlie: the screen eliminates the home button and uses facial recognition software to unlock. they also introduced apple watch series three and apple tv. joining me is the editor and chief of back channel which appears on wired.com. and the ceo of business insider. and emily chang, the host of bloomberg technology. i will begin with emily, set the scene today and the reaction in cupertino.

emily: it was pretty powerful. you can see the steve jobs theater behind me. the sight of it is breathtaking. you have a glass wall, walking down four stories deep into the theater, and they opened today's presentation with the voice of steve jobs talking about what it means to make wonderful products and share them with the world, with humanity. his wife was in the audience. and then tim cook came on stage and took a moment to remember steve. he actually got a little bit choked up, he got emotional talking about how he misses talking to steve every day. he said today is not just a day to look back at steve, but the first-day we can start thinking about steve with happiness. this is the beginning of a new decade, a new generation of technology for apple, for the iphone, so some poignant words. those from tim cook inside the

steve jobs theater. charlie: do you see this as the beginning of something new? >> i think, you know, the moment is -- what is is a substantial upgrade to the phone which is probably the most popular product of the century. the iphone, it has transformed the company. charlie: and made it the richest company in the world. >> right. but i would stop short of saying it is a transformational product. it is not a drastic change. it will be better to use. it has a bigger screen, sharper screen, face recognition, other things we can talk about, but it is still not drastically different than the ones that came before. it is just a pretty good upgrade. charlie: what do you think? >> stephen is right. it is an incremental upgrade. given the amount we use these, it is basically a body of appendage at this point. that much of a price increase

many people will say it is worth it to have the latest. charlie: price will not deter -- >> it will not deter some. henry: apple now has a wonderful range of options with the iphone. you can spend $400 to $1000 depending on what you are getting, so you have a big range of price points. they have a good offering for a lot of the market. and i think part of what steve and the reference to the next generation is that apple's campus was one of the last things that steve played a big part in. designre was spectacular when they unveiled it. the theater itself is just amazing. steven: i did a big story for wired about the campus. i was really struck by how much they referred to steve. for the last few years, they have been trying to avoid what would steve have done? this is something he would of loved. charlie: and he had told tim

cook, you should not ask consistently, what should i have done? steven: but i think with this campus they made an exception. , in part because the last couple of years of his life, steve spent a lot of time working on this campus, so they were going from his plans, then he handed it over. charlie: it is different than saying, what would steve have done? it is one thing to remember and live in a building he visualized, but it's another thing to say, what would steve have done? steven: right. i think for the products they , haven't done that. some people wish they had. because we are still waiting for the first big, totally new product from apple. i know there are some in the works we can talk about. charlie: we will definitely talk about that. let me go back to emily about the watch. there is a new watch and apple tv. tell us about that. emily: right, they unveiled and

apple tv set-top box compatible with 4k. of course you need a 4k tv set , to use it. which of course a small number of people do. they did demonstrate 4k video. absolutely much crisper. they talked about the apple watch, an analyst on our show earlier said he thinks the apple watch is a sleeper hit. they really played up the health care features, the fitness and tracking features. and of course, now you can buy it untethered. so you can use it even if you do not have your phone with you. there is an interesting irony here. you were talking about the meaning of doing this at the steve jobs campus, there is an irony that this is an end of an era, but a fresh start for apple. it is a brand-new campus and we have seen tim cook increasingly coming forward and putting a stronger stamp on the company. charlie: so what should apple

worry about? henry: i think he has done a spectacular job. he had the toughest act in history following the chief executive. everybody keeps saying, what is the next iphone? they have not innovated. but i think the iphone is a unique product. it had a huge impact on the world, profitability. the idea that apple would pull another rabbit out of their hat like that is dreaming. they have invented the watch and , the services business, so the company has done well under tim cook. and he deserves a huge amount of credit. charlie: do they need another breakthrough like the iphone? henry: do they need it? i think this is an extremely healthy company. the smart phone market is maturing. so people will stop looking for the growth there. if you look at the services business, it is growing rapidly. the watch is growing, so it is a healthy company. there is a lot to do. steve says he knows what is coming next. i am looking forward to hearing

about that. see the spines of where they are going. -- steve: you can see the signs of where they are going. one thing that was very striking, one of the more impressive parts of this keynote today, which had a lot of great stuff. i love the idea of using the watch without the iphone. was the augmented reality products -- charlie: right. tim cook talks about all the time. steven: i think that is not an accident. they built this platform for augmented reality. and i think where the next wave is going to be, the thing that comes after the smartphone is , probably a quiet race that is already happening within not only apple, but amazon, facebook, certainly google. is, you know, the sort of make the phone really disappear.

jony ive said we made the iphone 10 screen disappear. but i think the next up is literally making it disappear and have some sort of augmented reality glasses that bring s computing in front of your eye. all these companies have patents on this right now. charlie: thank you for joining us. great to be here. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪

♪ charlie: we continue with part two of my conversation with steve bannon. the former white house chief strategist and current executive chairman of breitbart news. portions of this conversation first aired sunday on 60 minutes, then for the hour on this program last night. tonight, we talk about the transition and governing. plus the trump agenda. , i begin with the definition of populism. steve: it is anti-elitism, it is anti-crony capitalism, basically the voice of the people in this country saying that there is a corrupt permanent political class in washington, d.c. linked to financiers on wall street and the high tech community in silicon valley and hollywood. they are role less.

it is a hate crime. standing aside, and seeing the manufacturing base of this country be exported overseas, to see a rising middle class in asia at the expense of working class people in this country, so populism is basically, it is anti-elite. what this movement and what donald trump has been able to to galvanize is jacksonian populism, which is concerned about the elite of washington dc. --h kind of the hamiltonian the two great forces of american century politics. they were very anti-elite. if they were smart, we would have a different situation. they are totally incompetent. brexit and 2016 are inextricably linked. right? breitbarty started london in early 2013 in 2014 because i saw this guy nigel farage, a populist,

anti-establishment party and i said that is a canary in the mine shaft. we have to get a group there that will cover that every day, like breitbart covers politics here. because by following ukip, we will understand the evolution of the party. charlie: what about marine le pen in france, loss? steve: let's talk about that for a when you look around the second. world, the ways of going his populism and nationalism. ok? the question before us in the united states and in europe, is there going to be a left wings socialist populism or a center-right populism. marine le pen is a right winger, culturally. but economically, she is for state control. she is virtually as socialist. she has a very garbled message. it is tough to galvanize people -- it is different than the center-right coalition. what we have here in the states, in the united states, you see it over there -- jeremy corbyn

versus the tories, so that type of populism, anti-elite populism that you see in bernie sanders, you see the bernie sanders voters -- by the way, in key districts, 15% and 16% of bernie sanders voters voted for trump because they are economic nationalist -- charlie: they were voting for change. steve: let me talk about the three basic components. number one, he is going to stop mass, illegal immigration and cut back dramatically legal immigration. number two, he will bring back manufacturing jobs to the u.s. number three, get us out of these pointless foreign wars. those are the three basic touchstones of the trump movement. there is also building the wall and all sorts of stuff, but those are the three broad categories. if you go back to the speeches, you can see that time and again. stephen miller would put that in the speeches. that is the change that people want. vance said, it is amazing, i

just read a study. there is a direct correlation between the factories that have moved to china and the manufacturing jobs and the opioid crisis down to the congressional district, so you can see there is a correlation. people know that. they understand that bringing back these manufacturing jobs are very important. and trump articulated that. charlie: you win the election, go through a transition. steve: the one important thing at the beginning of the transition -- the next morning after the win, trump made a very important decision. we put a coalition together to win, reince priebus, the rnc and paul ryan and people came in and out as there were heated moments in the campaign. ryan waved us off coming to wisconsin, said we are down three points, you will not win,

it will be a waste of time. instead we went to minnesota. 48 hours after we won, there was a fundamental decision that was made. you might call it the original sin of the administration. you saw it that night in the acceptance speech. we embraced the establishment. in president trump's mind and in the family's mind, i agreed with the decision. you had to staff a government. look, i had never been in a campaign my entire life. i am a former investment banker, media guy. running a little website. was thee campaign island of misfit toys. he looks around and i'm wearing my combat jacket. i have not shaved, my hair is down to hear. and he is thinking, i have got to put together a government. i need to embrace the establishment. we did. we had wanted a coalition. the whole thing --

charlie: he needed to govern. steve: i need to govern. i need establishment people. charlie: so if he had chosen mitt romney as secretary of state -- steve: during the 2012 campaign when mitt romney had the most traction, he is the biggest hawk on china. i wanted him to at least have a shot to come in. we were looking at a broad range of people. we looked at general kelly, david petraeus. we looked at a wide range of people. why not get mitt romney in? let the president do his own due diligence. as we went on, people had reservations about loyalty, but particularly given his angle on china, i thought it was smart. charlie: rex tillerson comes from one of the biggest

establishment companies in the world, exxon mobil. steve: he is a guy from texas, though. president -- elect -- president-elect spent a lot of time with each other. they have a similar outlook on the middle east, on russia, maybe not so much on china, but the middle east and russia we thought would be two very big hot areas. charlie: you are running against washington and the establishment and the people you are choosing to come in. steve: some are establishment. some are anti-establishment. you have to stand for government. maybe you get people in the second-tier or third tier, but you have to coach these people up. there is not a tremendous amount of anti-establishment folks ready to step in as secretary of state. that decision was made that would not be rudy giuliani. charlie: what was the decision? steve: rudy data six shows on billy bush sunday.

he was the only person who went. he went out there. to me, he is a guy who will always have your back. on billy bush sunday -- he went on all six morning shows. charlie: you took names, didn't you? steve: i did. i'm irish. i have my black book, and i did. charlie: if you weren't there for me on billy bush sunday, i won't be there for you when your ambition comes up? steve: i will always know that when a guy like trump runs to the gunfire, you will be back in the foxhole. reince and i became great partners. i love the guy. he was a tough guy. and by the way, rudy giuliani was there. the president made a decision. donald trump is a good guy at weighing and measuring people. but he made a decision for what we needed at the time that rudy giuliani would not be secretary of state. charlie: and newt gingrich? newt could have had a

pick at the time. he was on -- he was up front of the time that i've got more to , do for you guys on the outside than inside. he could have had his pick of what he wanted also. sessions, newt, rudy, the guys that had been there the entire time general flynn. , those guys -- and that's why general flynn was selected. jared kushner came in afterwards and we talked and the president wanted general flynn right out of the box, so he was selected right away. general kellogg general flynn, sessions, christie because of the billy bush weekend was not looked at for a cabinet position. charlie: he wasn't there for you on billy bush weekend, so he would not have a cabinet position? steve: i told him the plane leaves at 11:00. if you are on the plane, you are on the team. he did not make the plane. that was on saturday. i told him the plane leaves at , 11:00. those on the team are on the plane.

we are going to st. louis. rudy giuliani was on the plane. governor christie was not. all that nonsense about jared kushner could not be farther from the truth. i never heard jared kushner say anything negative about governor christie. everything he has said is always positive. that nonsense the media plays up was purely on performance. i like chris christie a lot. he has tremendous attributes. on the last debate, he prepped, came back and worked, but it was billy bush weekend that always stuck in my mind. charlie: january 20, you take office. what did you want the president to do in that inaugural speech? steve: it is not what stephen miller and i wanted to do. that speech, i'm telling you, donald trump worked that speech in mar-a-lago. it is a very populism, economic nationalism speech. it was a very forceful speech.

it was a forceful in a refined rhetoric, more so than the convention. it is a powerful speech. charlie: nobody had heard an inaugural speech like that ever. steve: that is why i think it is so powerful. he laid out what trump was going to do. he took the structure of lincoln's second inaugural, and builds to a climax then war , came. he goes through all the things that led to civil war. that is the way he structured it. now arrives the hour of action. he builds the case. charlie: the call to arms. steve: call to arms. charlie: that is what that speech was. steve: absolutely. 100%. he worked on that speech more than any speech he has ever worked on. one iteration after another. the only thing i said at the time, i just wish -- the night before, we spent into the wee hours of the night making sure the teleprompters were working. in thatout there

beautiful setting on a chilly night while it was drizzling, getting ready for it, i told him at the time that if we can only turn the podium backwards and face the permanent political class. facing the capital and facing the permanent political class. you are like an old testament prophet laying out the bill of indictment and how you are the agent of change. i thought it was very powerful. charlie: let's talk about the new sheriff and what he wanted to do. what is the highest priority of this president? steve: get the economy, economy, immigration, economic nationalism. we see in august what he did with enforcement of the immigration laws and his whole effort to talk about how he's going to put up quotas, how it

will be a new day in america. we are bringing manufacturing jobs back. we have no tax cut. if you read the presser, they are still thinking about tax reform. he has 3% economic growth today. he has the lowest hispanic unemployment in 11 years, lowest black unemployment in 16 years lowest overall unemployment in , 17 years. wages and agricultural at the lowest level. wages in construction are on the rise. we are seeing wage increases. you know what that is? that is economic nationalism. it is controlling illegal immigration and letting the world know that if you want to be in business, business investment is up 10%. charlie: america was in the eyes of so many people, and it is what people respect america for, people have been able to come here, find a place, contribute to the economy. that is what immigration had

been in america. you seem to want to turn it around. and stop it. steve: you could not be more dead wrong. america was built on her citizens. charlie: we are all immigrants. except for the native americans. steve: this is the thing the left will say. charlie, that is beneath you. america is built on her citizens. look at the 19th century. what built america was the american system from hamilton, pope, henry clay, lincoln, to the roosevelts, a system of protection of our manufacturing, financial system that lends to manufacturers and control of our borders. we are not anti-immigration. in fact, donald trump wanted tom -- worked with tom cotton and senator purdue to come up with a system that benefits america, and immigration system that is merit based.

it's not we are anti-immigration. we are for citizens of the country, regardless of your race ethnicity, religion, sexual , preference. the people have been of the eviscerated by legislation, have been the hispanic and black working-class in this country. this is the power of this campaign and what we talked about with sessions. trade and illegal immigration are two sides of the same coin crushing the worker. the trade deals just bring the power of cheap, international labor from its point of origin. illegal immigration is just bringing that foreign labor to the united states. it is both crushing pressure on the working class in this country. that is irrefutable. bernie sanders back in the old days was the biggest guy about stopping illegal immigration. so were the labor unions.

it is quite simple. by the way, that's what we support. what we do not support h-1b , visas. in this country, grammar schools, everything is on a stem program, science, technology, engineering, math. we have done away with history, art, culture, but they can't get -- because all the kids have to be stem kids. but they can get into engineering schools and get jobs in silicon valley. it silicon valley wants to bring in foreign labor to compete with them from asia, unfairly. why is that? we are not going to solve the problem in this country until we have black and hispanic kids in silicon valley in the engineering schools. we have hundreds of thousands of kids from india and china -- hang on -- computer science schools, and you will not solve that until you open things up to american citizens. charlie: people have come here and made huge contributions to our economy, technology, science, and you don't want them to stay? steve: i did not say that.

first off, should we have 1.2 million immigrants every year? we have done that every year since 1964. how was that number pulled out of a hat? what we want is a merit-based system so those people that can contribute in a meaningful way can still come here, but we still have citizens in this country that have to be taken care of, and that is the promise of donald trump. i'm looking out for you as a citizen. whether you hispanic, black, jewish, evangelical christian, whatever your sexual preference is, you are an american citizen and i will defend your right. charlie: let's go down the list of things donald trump wanted. he wanted to do away with obamacare, repeal and replace. it didn't happen. steve: did i talk about the

original sin of this administration? here was the plan that was laid out. they would take obamacare, a three-part program, we would take the taxes in phase then we two. would take infrastructure as phase three. people say why did you start , with infrastructure first? charlie: because you could get democrats involved. steve: infrastructure is quite complex. charlie: you had to postpone that to 2018. steve: let me tell you the worst thing. the plan was to do obamacare because paul ryan said we have done this for seven years. we voted on this 50 times. we understand this issue better than anybody. we know how to repeal and replace. this is ours. that is what we start with day we will have something on your one. desk by easter. by the easter break we will do , repeal and replace. come back from easter, taxes. come back from the summer break on labor day, we drive home to the end of the year on infrastructure. we accomplish all three big legislative goals in the first

year. charlie: this is what the leadership and the house and senate told you? steve: it was a deal. charlie: you are blaming them for all of this? steve: i am not blaming them. i am saying as a statement of fact that they were going to take repeal and replace. they are the first to admit that there is wide dissension inside the republican caucus. they could not even repeal it in june in the senate. they put it up for vote and had only 41 votes. there was wide discrepancy in the republican party. the leadership at the time did not know it until the very end. let me tell you about obamacare. there is something being worked on by lindsey graham, rick santorum which is modeled on the 1996 welfare reform where it devolves it back to the states. that is probably the highest probability and one last shot we have to fix obamacare. charlie: will it come to that where the choice is simply to

fix obamacare? steve: the choice is that you will not be able to repeal it. i don't believe there is an alternative now, at least this alternative that rick santorum and them are working on, that you get a full repeal. you will still have some of the architecture. i think that is a reality. that was not thought of by the republicans. they told us we have done this for seven years. this has been our number one issue against obama, obamacare. we have tom price. he should be your secretary of hhs because he is the intellectual leader in this effort. that whole effort, you see from the debate, from what was happening every day, the republicans themselves did not have their hands around this issue. charlie: it is now looked at as your baby. what happened?

steve: what do you mean what happened? i think the travel ban has been successful. i think the supreme court will uphold key parts in the fall. charlie: could it have been drafted better? steve: president trump likes the original draft. to go through an interagency process, you have to have an executive order. by the way, the mainstream media knows this. you have to have the office of legal counsel sign off on it. we already started in the transition period. the other was the enforcement eo, the one about the deportations. these eo's were fully vetted. general kelly said they were fully on board to do it. where there a couple of wrinkles? yeah, but it is about extreme vetting. it is about extreme vetting. we have found out we did not know a whole lot about how you bet people coming to this country. i think the travel ban has been enormously successful, and the key parts will be upheld in the

supreme court. charlie: you have said when you saw the number of people lining up at the airport being detained because they could not get in because of the travel ban on the first day, that you said that was a first successful optic. steve: i did not say that. i said something quite different, not about the people. for the people coming in, clearly you don't want people that should come in to have anything that would delay their trip. what i thought was a good optic was the resistance, the resistance. the resistance will keep the house of representatives in republican hands. it was so over-the-top, so insane -- the resistance, on joe scarborough every morning, they say if you had a chamber of commerce, churchgoing, little league coach, entrepreneur

running in these things against republicans that they would win by 20 points. they would be very competitive. guess what? they will not be democratic candidates. you know why? the resistance. the best you can get is down in georgia. charlie: he lost. steve: that is the best you are going to get. the resistance will force people in the primaries to the left. what occurred that we did not think of is the resistance. the resistance is so outside the american mainstream. they are so over the top. they will drive the democratic party exactly where they should not go, which is they should not go more to the middle. they should go more towards economic nationalism and populism, and the resistance will stop that. charlie: you believe the democrats are talking about simply being anti-trump rather than being pro-economic? steve: the smart ones.

they are talking about the economic issues, but most of the democrats -- remember, they are trying to destroy trump. president trump triggers the left. they can't handle it rationally, ok? as long as they can't handle it rationally, they will not defeat him. charlie: why is he at 30-something percent approval rating? at 36% orhink he is 30% because we have not gotten the wall built -- if you just go through and do the program he laid out, you will be fine. charlie: paris. there is talk you may not try to undo the iran nuclear deal. steve: decertify? president trump wants to make a better deal or view it from the outside.

have you cleaned the swamp? is 50 years inp the making. it is a successful business model. it is a donor, consultant, k street lobbyist politician -- the wealthiest counties in america are in washington, d.c.. for the first time in history, the per capita income is higher than silicon valley. charlie: what you talking about when you talk about the swamp? steve: the permanent political class represented by both parties. people still think in a left-right continuum, republican-democrat continuum. while you are thinking that way, you are not seeing the real story. the real story is economic nationalism and populism on the left and the right versus a permanent political class, which hillary clinton representated. that swamp you will not drain in eight months or two good terms. take 10, 15, 20 years

of relentlessly going after it. trump in his first eight months has done amazingly. charlie: your takeaway on the trump administration so far is what? steve: it is hammering through what he is trying to hammer through to deliver on the promises that president trump made to the american people when he campaigned. if he continues to go down that path and punch out those promises he made, he will win. we will pick up 6-7 senate seats, a couple of seats in the house, and win and a huge landslide in 2020. charlie: 2018 is a big year. not worried about losing the house or senate? steve: i'm worried about losing the house because of daca. this whole situation with daca in the last 24-48 hours, which

has to be sorted out, the whole issue of amnesty was put to bed in 2013 and the great civil war that occurred in that summer in the republican party. the predicate of donald trump's winning of the nomination was the issue of amnesty. he beat 16 people. that was the creme de la creme of a generation of republican politicians, chris christie, marco rubio, ted cruz rand paul, , jeb bush. it is the best of the best. it is the best field, and trump beat them. one of the reasons he beat them is because he was so different on immigration and trade, but in particular immigration. by the way, that sealed it. amnesty is nonnegotiable in the republican party. a gang of eight, marco rubio -- marco rubio made of that. bet.ayday bet. -- made a the new york times reported that dinner he had with rupert murdoch, roger ailes in 2013, they had the thing taking the autopsy and building the gang of eight and roll it out in the summer of 2013.

marco rubio made a bet that would make him president of the united states, and he was wrong. amnesty has been nonnegotiable in the republican party, and my fear is six months downrange, if we -- if this goes all the way down to its logical conclusion in february and march, it will be a civil war inside the republican party that will be every bit as vitriolic as 2013, and to me doing that and the springboard of primary season for 2018 is extremely unwise. it is extremely unwise. you have the ability to pick up five or six seats in the senate in red states. you have the ability to hold the house. right now, by the way, those districts that republicans one, if you look at the generic ballot they are down 10 , points. i admit that. once you put the resistance candidate up, and that's what you will get, the resistance will give you not the little

league coach, a resistance candidate. those republicans will beat them every time. that's why i feel confident until daca. this is a huge problem. i think it is a huge problem. charlie: the president made the wrong decision? you wanted him to go full board? -- bore? steve: what we have to do is focus on the american citizens. charlie: what would you do with the people who came here? just tell me what you would do. steve: as the work permits run out, they self-deport. charlie: they self-deport. steve: absolutely. charlie: if they don't self deport, you would deport them? steve: breitbart and others think there is no path to citizenship, to a green card, and no amnesty. amnesty is nonnegotiable.

charlie: you got your deal on climate. the president withdrew from paris, please do. steve: only the start. hasn't withdrawn from the substrate of paris, the other agreements that i think he ought to withdraw from. charlie: you think he ought to do that? steve: absolutely. no doubt. charlie: you think it will hurt america's reputation overseas? steve: that is the party talking to themselves. you'd read the economist in the financial times and take it as holy writ. not only is that deal terrible for the nine states of america, ok? president trump program -- charlie: people in your own party -- steve: by the way, people in our party disagree -- by the way, that is why there is a new party forming. it is a more populist and economic nationalist. there are plenty of globalists inside the republican party. ♪

so new touch screens... and biometrics. in 574 branches. all done by... yesterday. ♪ ♪ banks aren't just undergoing a face lift. they're undergoing a transformation. a data fueled, security driven shift in applications and customer experience. which is why comcast business

delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. hello, mr. deets. every branch running like headquarters. that's how you outmaneuver.

washington, and you are watching "bloomberg technology." let's start with a check of your "first word news." one person is dead and three others wounded after a shooting at freeman high school in washington state. a spokesman says the threat is, quote, "eliminated." the wounded are said to be in stable condition and the school is no longer on lockdown. and electronic frontier foundation have filed suit against the trump administration over searches and seizures of mobile phones and other electronic devices by border agents who, they say, did not have warrants. they say they were in violation of the first amendment and fourth amendment. the u.s. has banned the use of