ed lavandera has been touring the wall to be built. anderson cooper is next. another big night because of what the trump administration did today but also what it was expected today and did not, action on donald trump's election fraud claims, being postponed until tomorrow or saturday. president trump did however clash with mexico's president over the border wall and who will pay for it. his spokesman floated a plan to fund wit a 20% tax on imports from mexico. the top adviser said we should keep our mouths shut. more on that tonight. that and the white house asking four top career officials at the state department the leave. another big day. we start with mexico and cnn's jeff zeleny.

>> reporter: six days after taking office, president donald trump is facing his first diplomatic assistantostandoff. >> the president of mexico and myself have agreed to cancel our planned meeting scheduled for next week. >> reporter: that's not how mexico sees it. mexican president enrique pena nieto said he was cancelling the meeting alerting the white house in a message op twitter. trump learned about it making his way to philadelphia, his first trip aboard air force one, presenting his agenda to congressional republicans who are skeptical of how to pay for a border wall. >> unless mexico is going to treat the united states fairly with respect, such a meeting would be fruitless and i want to go a different route. we have no choice. >> reporter: the firestorm between the two leaders has been escalating since their first meeting in august. >> we did discuss the wall. we didn't discuss payment of the wall. ta will be for a later date. >> reporter: that date has now arrived.

paying for the wall is at the heart of a collision between campaign promises -- >> better believe it. they're going to pay. >> reporter: and governing realities. >> i've said many times that the american people will not pay for the wall and i've made that clear to the government of mexico. >> reporter: mexico says it will not meet trump's demands to pay for the wall. >> translator: mexico does not believe in walls. i've said time and again, mexico will not pay for any wall. >> reporter: tonight details are emerging on thousand howe the trump administration might cry and get the money from mexico. white house fbi director sean spicer told reporters one idea being considered is imposing a 20% tax on imports from mexico as part of a comprehensive tax reform deal with congress. >> by doing it that way, we can do $10 million a year and easily pay for the wall through that mechanism alone. >> reporter: republican leaders to objecting to proposal saying

americans would end up footing the bill. lindsey graham saying any policy proposal which drives up costs of corona, tequila or margaritas is a bad idea. mucko sad. >> jeff zeleny, republican leaders say they will handle the up front costs, but then what? >> that is the big question and one that mitch mccontinue sell says could be between $12 billion to $15 billion. there's no talking him out of it at this point. he campaigned on it. he wants to do it. and there is a split inside the republican party about this. some house republicans are in favor of this tax. i was on air force one today. sean spicer was talking about this as a leading idea here. it wasn't more than an hour later when they came back to the white house they were walking that back because it is so controversial inside the republican party. so, anderson, this is something

that house republicans, senate republicans need to reconcile how they will pay for it because mexico simply will not. and now it's a diplomatic standoff between the white house here and mexico and we do not know how this will end differently or financially. -- diplomatically or financially. >> we were going to have mexico's foreign minister on the program tonight, and he canceled at the last minute, saying he's been summoned back home for an urgent meeting with mexico's president. hetlet's bring in the panel. matt lewis, kirsten powers, jeffrey lord, and cnn's chief international correspondent, christiane amanpour. christiane, where does this go? this is fascinating it's happe happening to early on.

what kind of a signal does it send internationally? >> it sends a massive signal because this is the first example of president trump negotiating as a businessman in public and this is the result, that there is now a standoff between two leaders of friendly countries, let's face it. this is a very important neighbor. as jeff said and as you said, the foreign minister has been called back, he was going to be on this program. they're telling me the mexican foreign ministry that mexico did not see this coming, they were totally blind-sided by president trump's announcement of the wall and then the announcement that mexico would pay for it. they see this i'm told as an attack on mexico and mexicans and they are gathering their diplomatic forces to figure out how to respond because they, too, have voters who don't want to be humiliated, who don't want to have their back pushed against the wall, will happen to the mexican president. he was forced to cancel this trip after deciding obviously he wouldn't pay for the wall. >> mexican officials saying

they're surprised. if you listened to the campaign -- >> the timing happened as the mexican foreign minister was in the white house preparing iffer the mexican president. >> was it a take for sean spicer to come out and push this 20% tax on mexican imports and have to walk it back an hour later? >> this is going to be an ongoing situation. >> usually floating ideas are done sort of quietly leaked kind of running up the flagpole. >> this is the trump era. things will be different. i have to say it doesn't matter whether the subject is mexico, the state department, the press, et cetera. this is a revolution of sorts. these are all the folks, he is the nigel faraj, if you will, of the united states, and he won. so all of these institutions, no matter what they are across the border, will be upset. >> nigel faraj seems to be working for fox news. >> i think jeffrey stated this is going to be the chaos

candidate and something good could come out of it. but something bad has happened. two presidents of friendly countries are against each other. they nearly started the first step of a trade war. which is why they pulled that 20% back. that is not going to help the united states of america. >> jeffrey, you don't see this as a bad thing. in fact, i'm guessing and for a lot of folks they see this as a first move the a negotiation. >> that is correct. this is the art of the deal. all we're doing is seeing it in public. >> honestly, i don't think it's just a dpoeshnegotiation with m either. it weese the world. this is donald trump signaling like the call to the taiwan president sent a message to china. this is signaling that we're past the presidency of barack obama which was very cautious, very prudent, very predictable.

this is like let me pull a line from jeffrey lord here and talk about when reagan went after the air-traffic controllers union and sent a message to the soviets. i think that might be part of it. >> the problem is mexico's not an enemy. they're one of our closest partners and allies in the world and we're economically intertwined with them in a way we are with almost no other country. they're our second largest trading partner. canada is our first. a lot of the goods coming from mexico, someone today said 40% have americans parts in them. >> this first few days we're talking about has according to many of the observers, the editor of foreign affairs who used to be a cabinet official under clinton, has said this is the most change so fast to rapidly so, you know, quickly in the first week than at any time since the end of the second world war. that's a major statement. and the most profound change is

america pulling back its global leadership. it is still the head of global superpower, but president trump in his inauguration as you'll all agree, discarded the cloak of american leadership around the world. and so you talk about, you know, disruptive -- discarded. he said it's america fist and we're going to have bilateral deals but we're not going out there to -- >> harming the mexican economy. if he went through with this, first of all, a violation of nafta, so he would have to withdraw from nafta. he wants to renegotiate it. it would harm the mexican economy and that means more mexicans coming into this country illegally, which is what he says he doesn't want. on every level it doesn't make sense. >> the reagan anecdote for the night is early on in his first term i think it was al haig, someone met with him about sea traffic, i forget the issue and said to him literally, mr.

president, this is how it's always been done, to which president reagan replied, isn't that why we're here? >> he had been governor for a long time and had experience governing. you seif seep with the state department situation, a huge swath of the bureaucracy for whatever reason, left the biggest simultaneous departure whatever. >> 1993. >> you've seen all the lack of cabinet secretaries and second tier and the rest. there's a question now being asked overseas after this mexican debacle, which is how it's being seen overseas, who's governing and what's coming next. >> we've heard from the republicans who are kind of voicing concerns about this 20% tax idea that was floated, this is not something which is republicans versus democrats. this is donald trump and his administration in a way defying conventions and for his supporters -- >> ronald reagan made budget cuts. he would get united states senators who were all republicans saying not on my watch, you're not cutting this

or that program. he was eternally at battle with my late friend arlen specter and others who just were crazy about some of these. this is an ongoing battle throughout his entire presidency with his own party. >> republicans have been the ones who have been pro free trade and would normally oppose the idea -- >> that's calvin coolidge. >> okay, but really -- >> the modern era. >> nafta but passed with republican votes. >> security, drugs, you know, immigration across the border, all of that kind of stuff. they have been helping the united states. >> that's a sort of -- look, president obama governed sort of the way that you're suggesting. the way that really was not very effective or very successful. that's the reason that donald trump was elected. i think that a lot of americans are tired of the handwringing, like man, if we make the mexicans mad they'll do this or that. we're tired of that.

>> what's so interesting is i don't know why anybody would be surprised by these moves. maybe it's the timing but he campaigned on it and like it or not to his credit he is doing exactly what he said he was going to do during the campaign. >> do you think the president's expected to have hi first meet with the mexican president blow up in his face like this? >> i don't think he cares at all. >> i think he thinks it's the first step in a negotiation. >> public hi but what he's done according to the mexicans the publicly humiliated the mexican president. >> which he would not agree. >> he may not. >> much more to happen including a big surprise at the state department. four top diplomats forced out by the trump administration. later we'll talk to los angeles' mayor eric garcetti.

with not food, become food? thankfully at panera, 100% of our food is 100% clean. no artificial preservatives, sweeteners, flavors, or colors. panera. food as it should be.

he's happy.t's with him? your family's finally eating vegetables thanks to our birds eye voila skillet meals. and they only take 15 minutes to make. ahh! birds eye voila so veggie good i am totally blind. i lost my sight in afghanistan. if you're totally blind, you may also be struggling with non-24. calling 844-844-2424. or visit my24info.com. ugh. heartburn. sorry ma'am. no burning here. try alka-seltzer heartburn relief gummies. they don't taste chalky and work fast. mmmm. incredible. can i try? she doesn't have heartburn. alka-seltzer heartburn relief gummies. enjoy the relief. mone hundredts thousand times a day, sending oxygen to my muscles. again! so i can lift even the most demanding weight. take care of all your most important parts with centrum. now verified non gmo and gluten free.

four top officials are out. their services were no longer needed. the white house usually asks career officials, not political appointee tees, career officials to stay on for a few months not leaving a gaping whole in management. who are these four senior state

department officials asked to leave and what do they do there? >> one of the names you might recognize, undersecretary of management, patrick kennedy, longtime in service, embroiled in the benghazi controversy, in charge of management then and also in charge of helping handle secretary clinton's e-mail when she was at the state department. real criticism from republicans about him. the assistant secretary for administration, joyce ann barr, the assistant secretary for consular affairs, michelle bond, another long serving official, and ambassador gentry smith, who handled the office of foreign admissions. that's embassies and consulates here in the united states. as you said, these are long-serving career officials, 150 combined years of institutional knowledge among them and it does leave a gaping hole in the management department of the state department as secretary of state

rex tillerson he's not been confirmed yet but can't p expected to be next week. these bureaus have deputies but it really does leave a lot of institutional knowledge out the door as this new secretary comes in. >> the state department says they have new people who could fill the slots. how unusual is it for an incoming administration to go after staffers without having a replacement lined up? >> pretty unusual. as i said, these are career appointees, some serving dinse is nixon administration, so clearly they've served in republican and democratic administrations, usually they say, listen, stay on for a few months until your successor is confirmed. case in point, patrick ken den when the bush administration came in, he was assistant secretary for administration and they asked him to stay on until his successor was confirmed and that was six months. and it's not just the management department. there are other officials across the state department that were told their services were no

longer needed. for instance, the secretary and acting undersecretary for arms control, tom countryman, was on his way to a conference in rome when he was told to turn around, your services are no longer required. it's pretty clear that the trump administration wants to start fresh. the problem is all this, you know, decades of institutional knowledge walking out the door, they're going to be hard-pressed to find those kind of officials that know the inner workings of the state department the way these people do, anderson. >> elise, thanks very much. christiane, this gets to a point you raised in our last segment about mexico, eventual sempbsse pace of change, what folks voted for trump for but unlike anything we've seen in -- >> yeah. absolutely. there's a huge pace of change. some of the people she was talking about were going to retire anyway, they were older,

some have to do it in terms of procedure. some left because they didn't want to be part of the incoming administration. there's a mixture of reasons. the bigger picture is when are will all the people get in to govern? i'm not the only one asking this question. foreign leaders and interlocutors, different european capitals that they've come over here, haven't had a sense of who their partners are. let's take a for instance. today i was interviewing ha sad ara cat and the chief negotiator and the israeli ambassador to the u.n. about the whole idea is the embassy going to move, and he said the palestinians haven't had their letters responded to or anything responded to in terms of questions. that might be political but administrative. we don't know. >> one of the untold stories is how long it takes to get people

confirmed. it could be six or many months before some of these staff positions are confirmed and in place. i totally understand donald trump, there is an argument to be made about sort of cleaning house, getting people who have frankly haven't been that effective or just don't share your philosophy, getting them out, bringing in your team. but it takes so long to staff up and to sort of get all of your people in place. and that strikes me as maybe that's something we need to focus on is expediting these things. >> i remember working in the bush 41 administration for jack kemp. and we got the letter that said thanks, be out by january 20th at noon. we held a party with secretary kemp the day before, we took the half day off, and that was it. but those were the political people. one of the problems here in this town that has been there increasingly is are the career folks. lots of them belong to union, political unions, they donate

money, et set rashgs and the money goes heavily to democrats. i don't care. god bless their first amendment rights. what i'm suggesting is the culture in these bureaucracies is left leaning and so when you get a republican president like donald trump who comes in, not to mention somebody who's bp such an outsider, they're going to want to flush the system out and they should, one so they have career people in there who are representing their point of view, and two so that things get done here and they get fresh blood in there. that's -- >> you're saying get rid of career people who they think don't have their political view? because i don't think that's -- >> the career people are supposed to represent -- >> what are you talking about? career people have protected positions. they've been there their entire lives and they're not all partisans but this is your breaking news here, if you think that -- you're saying the trump administration is going in and purge career people out of the administration? these are political appointees, aren't they? >> career people, were they not? >> some of them. my understanding.

>> they're leafing on their own accord, that's not the same thing. >> they submit their letters of resignation. >> political appointees do. career folks are not oblige pd. >> these folks did. are these all career people? >> all career people who have been in the administration for decades. the process is when you're in a confirmable position that the president appoints you to, you are required by law to submit your resignation. now, you'll remember a few weeks back all of the political ambassadors submitted their resignations and they were all told, yes, thank you, be out by january 20th. some of them usually ask to stay on for a couple of weeks. some of them have kids in school. they were all told, no, we'd really like you out by january 20th. on a political realm, that's certainly expected. but with the career officials even though they're required to submit their resignation, they're serving both -- most of

them have served several democratic and several republican straight administra the question is do they want to just purge and start fresh? they won't be able to fill every position with new people. as kristen said, these are protected positions and also they have a lot of institutional knowledge. so it is kind of rare they would be asked all to leave in this way and i have to respectfully disagree with jeffrey. i understand what you're saying about how a lot of these officials perhaps lean left but these are, you know, loyal to the department that they serve. really they kind of go with the flow with any administration. >> therein lies the difference. i think they don't go -- this whole controversy with -- we were talking about the other night with the websites or whatever where nation the national park service and this kind of thing, that epitomizes what the problem is. it doesn't matter. it could be the fbi, the epa,

the justice department, what have you. you have these folks in this culture, for lack of a better term, a culture of liberalism within the department, that's what they do. >> everybody says they want change and politicians come to washington and then they become part of the system and like all the other politicians. one way to make sure that happens is to have bureaucrats who slow down the works. donald trump is a revolutionary candidate and he wants to do some big things. those may be good things or bad things but the way to strang it will baby in the crib and prevent that from happening is to have people and, you know, personnel is policy, and if you have people in key positions who are not implementing your vision, then you're not going to be able to accomplish much. >> i'm not sure it's the greatest -- we'll take a pause. more with the panel ahead. president trump today was expected to launch an investigation into voter fraud

on claims that millions of fraudulent votes were cast against him. why was the announcement delayed? that's next. (vo) when you're on your phone 24/7, you probably think you need an unlimited plan. but actually, the majority of people pay for data they never use. that's right, two out of three people use less than five gigs. now verizon introduces the one plan that's right for you. switch, and for just $55 get five gigs on america's best network. that's tons of data at a cost that's less than an unlimited plan. and the best part, no surprise overages.

finally, all the data you need, on the network you want. verizon. (vo) do not go gentle into that good night, old age should burn and rave at close of day; rage, rage against the dying of the light. do not go gentle into that good night. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪

more breaking news. it's been more than just a running theme with president trump and before that candidate trump the idea the election might be tainted of is voter fraud. he warned about it on the campaign trail, railed about it during his first sitdown interview as president, promised a federal investigation, all of it based on the false premise, we and others have reported that, bipartisan and state election officials agree, there is no "there" there. today we expected the president trump to sign a document what he wants to do about it. he did not. details from pamela browne. >> he was expected to sign an executive order around 4:30 this afternoon calling for this federal investigation into alleged voter fraud. before that we got word from the white house it wouldn't happen today because he was running late after speaking in philadelphia. now he's expected to sign that order either tomorrow or

saturday. the question remain, how will this work or proceed from here? it's unclear from officials within the department of justice because there is no precedent for this. voter fraud investigations are usually triggered when there's credible evidence to suggest fraud, not because of an order from the president. basically the officials at doj are in a holding pattern waiting to find out more about the language in the executive order and how to proceed. >> has jeff sessions responded to this directive from the president? >> he may be forced to respond. it's unclear what he thinks about this, how he will handle this, but he's already been asked about trump's request for this investigation by senators on the judiciary committee including senator leahy and it's likely, expected he will respond to those questions before the committee votes on his nomination next tuesday. so it will be interesting to see how he answers the senators given the fact that this request as i said to doj is

unprecedented. >> appreciate that. it seems like the president is moving the goal post on this. initially it was 3 million to 5 million illegal votes cast by illegal immigrants, undocumented immigrants, now including old voter rolls with people registered in multiple states which would include steve bannon, sean spicer, i believe, tiffany trump, and i think jared kushner as well. and people who are dead who are still on the rolls. >> they need to pay. >> that's actually not voter fraud. that's just rolls that are incomplete. >> right. >> according to now to the experts from pew the last two nights, things are actually better now than they have ever been in terms of all these states doing a much better job, trying to clean up their voter rolls. is the president trying to move the goal post on this? >> i don't know what he's doing. i think it's insanity. look, yes, we need to purge people off of rolls who are no longer living because somebody could maybe try to assume their

identity and, you know, cast a vote. i do believe that voter fraud has happened. i'm from maryland. ellen sawyer briten may have won that gubernatorial raceway back when. rossi probably won. in louisiana it's been known to happen. the notion that donald trump lost the popular vote because millions of illegals voted -- illegally voted for hillary clinton is insanity. i'm interested to see what happens when they launch this federal investigation. no idea what is going to turn up because it seems like a crazy thing to do. >> jeff, for the federal government to get involved in this, there's republicans heads of elections commissions in states and democratic ones. >> i've learned something interesting today from someone named bruce marks. let me tell you the tale. he used to work for arlen specter. he ran for the pennsylvania state senate in 1993, lost

narrowly to a democrat. suspicion of voting irregularities. they took it to court discovered there were. a judge overturned the election, installed him, yanked the other guy out of the pennsylvania state senate. fine. the next year bruce marks had a fund raiser and who came to that fund raiser? donald trump. who was very interested in the chapter and verse of voting fraud in philadelphia. so my point is i think this idea has been going around in his head for a long time. he's now elected president. he get whether or not there areo 3 million people or whatever, he clearly believes there is fraud in the system. the bruce marks episode is one. >> him believing it doesn't make it true. he held the birther belief for a long time. >> donald trump hears something -- >> find out what's going on. >> no problem with an investigation -- >> state senate races, congressional races, incident of that, find out what's going on.

>> that make sense, kirsten? >> no. you know, it's just not -- this isn't a nationwide problem. this is something that has happened occasionally. of course we need to have, you know, a good rho says where we have clear voter rolls and all of that is true. but what he is describing is not voter fraud. people being registered in two states is not voter fraud unless they vote in two states. there's a second part of it that's missing. so, you know, for him to be using government resources to investigate something that doesn't exist and to undermine democracy basically by telling people that the voting system doesn't work is really dangerous. >> there's a lot of voter fraud and corruption and irregularities in the world. >> jeffrey's story makes sense. >> -- is not healthy for america's ability to lead and find the moral high ground. >> on the other subject something steve bannon said today to "the new york times."

"the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." went you hear that -- >> i would say no chance on that. but, look, seriously, steve bannon is playing the role he set out for himself. there is obviously some kind of strategy here, although it's hard for me to comprehend it because, you know, i operate in the truth and the fact-based universe, but he's playing a strategy which involves creating straw men and women, create ang enemy out of the press and dividing, diverting, obfuscating while other things are going on. that's the only thing i can imagine. obviously there are many other i want to satoal taryn regimes in the past which use the same kind of strategy. the i was going to be funny i'd say he's angling for an order of merit from president cc, putin, erdogan and others. that is how they treat their press. be it a compliant propaganda

state unit in the service of the president. thost it is not the tradition of the american press. so of course we're not going to shut up. and why should we? and what have we tone wrong? why should we be humiliated? about what? the story was right. we reported it. whatever it is, we got it right. the polls were wright. >> the polls were right that 98% chance that hillary clinton -- >> those weren't the polls. that was a sort of prediction. the national polls i'm saying. obviously he won the election. isn't why all this sort of hysteria has started? because there's a real anger about this idea of the popular vote and suddenly we have to be the enemy. we can't allow others to frame our reference. we are not the opposition. we're not the mainstream. we're the press. >> jeffrey, is the media the opposition party to donald trump? >> sure, in a permanent sense it is. i believe people should say and do anything they choose to say and do.

my point is in a political sense beginning with spiro agnew back in 1969, 1970 when he gave his speech denouncing television anchors that sat in their studios and, you know, ran the news, et cetera, all the way through to today, you've had this increasing bonfire being built about the national media and it has a liberal tilt to it. we've now got to the point where so many millions of americans believe that to be gospel. what steve bannon is basically saying is at this point, yeah, this is it, this is a real problem. and i saw that ari fleisher, the former press secretary, said today there's a massive cries is for the media. i think there is and i think every individual institution is going to wind up fighting for its correct and this white house is not going to help them. >> he witnessed a massive crisis in his president's administration. there was this rush to war by the bush administration and the press was accused of being either with the terrorists or unpatriotic. if we even reported the

objective facts. this is unfortunately an unpleasant tradition that we have to understand why it's happening, we have to be calm, be united and do our jobs because we're not going to allow other, particularly the seats of power, to be our frame of reference. >> bannon said the media is quote the opposition party. anita dunn back in 2009, an aide to president obama, said about fox news then we're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. she said to chuck todd today we didn't say the spire news media. we had an issue with one news network that was actually creating news. is there a difference? >> the difference is trump has gone after the entire media except fox news. the obama administration went after fox news and not the rest of the media. it wasn't even anita dunn. it was sort of strategy for a lot of senior white house aides went out and wept on shows and told other reporters you

shouldn't treat fox news as a legitimate organization. at the time i wrote about it and i was critical of it, the same way i'm critical of what the trump administration is doing it. i think the media plays on important role in our democracy and something a president should recognize. it's not for them to decide who's legitimate. >> there's a reason why it is the first amendment. >> exactly. what i don't see is you were very critical what they did to fox but i don't see you giving the same type of criticism to trump. to be consistent i think you should see in both situations they're problematic. >> i was using the fox example as hypocrisy. that's all. >> but you're not criticizing trump for doing similar things -- >> i'm saying -- >> ridiculous debate. we know exactly what it is. it is the attempt to delegitimize trump. >> no. >> it's really important because donald trump -- honestly we are trying to do an honest job but it is very disconcerting to every day be told twer most

dishonest people. >> look at this quinnipiac poll. i'll put it up. how is trump handling his job as president? approval 36 per, disapproval 44%, 19% say they don't know. when you see those numbers -- >> i think that seems about right. that seems about where the country would be and that i think that, you know, donald trump will say that the polls are, you know, wrong and we get everything wrong. i think it's worth pointing out donald trump did not think he was going to win the election. so -- >> why? he said it to a crowd after the election. he turned to somebody and said it's going to be a bad night, i don't think i'm going to win. they were not expecting to win but we were dishonest because we were following the polls showing hillary clinton would win. >> as unpopular as donald trump is, there is oa reason he has picked us to go after to make

his newed a va ed adversary, an because the media is less popular than donald trump. why? some of it i think is earned. some of itty think is a product of getting things wrong and of liberal media bias, which i do believe is real. i think the most subtle -- is most troubling liberal media bias is very subtle. i would say it's probably sup b subconscious. >> obama is the new fdr. >> that's not subtle. >> you're all talking about domestic reporting and putting it within political paradigm. and the truth is reporters today around the world not just in the united states but wherever i travel are being increasingly politicized and pulled into cornerbacks and treated as partisan and enemies by each side. very difficult -- >> when journalists basically all in new york or washington, d.c., they don't go to church

regularly, not like a lot of average americans out there. their world view is different, our lifestyles are different. we don't represent what a lot of the viewers believe. >> i would actually point out that newsrooms are more diverse than ever before. when i was growing up there were three white middle-aged men, heterosexual, i should point out, who told the world in 15 minute increments what was happening in the world and that's the way the world is. i don't gave religious litmus test to people in my office. >> i don't gave gay litmus test either. >> i don't know how many born again christians or jewish people work in my office but i think newsrooms are more diverse than ever before. i think there's a greater variety of news than ever before and i think that's a good thing. i'm all for this. i love there is the daily caller and the daily beast and fox news. i think it's good. i like the fact that we have more information about our finger tips than ever before.

>> you should be able to have a huge variety of views without calling each other and treating each other as enemies. up fortunately, a -- >> a number of -- >> it doesn't allow real journalism. >> agreed. >> of course it should be more in the heart land. >> absolutely. >> i want to be clear i agree with you in the sense that i obviously believe that we need to have journalists who hold powerful people accountable and tell the truth. i'm not agreeing with bannon. i'm saying i think there is a reason why donald trump has picked us to pick on. we're less popular than him. >> easy target. not anything new. >> i'm sort of in the middle of this as usual. i think there is a disconnect between the media and a lot of people in the united states in particular who are trump supporters and it's a cultural disconnect. >> absolutely.

>> it's because we all plif the same place and there's a different way of thinking. i think there's some bias that sometimes people don't recognize and that's the problem. it's fine to have a bias but you have to recognize your bias and try to correct for it. >> totally agree. i think about this all day long. i hope everybody does. >> we're professionals and everybody is a human being. but you have to get past that and actually do your objective job. i'm saying unfortunately in today's media environment reporters are pushed into political corners just like these panels and things like that. you know, just go out, do an objective job of reporting. if anybody wants to see great journalism from the heartland the dupont columbia wars which have just been held, just are exhilarating in the demonstration of the most fantastic american journalism that you see every single year coming from a diverse group of people and not only the coast but everywhere. >> we have to take a break. coming up, the president is targeting undocumented immigrants including threatening

sanctuary cities if they don't get on board. mayors say they will fight, including the mayor of los angeles. he's next. ange... at t. rowe price... our disciplined approach remains. global markets may be uncertain... but you can feel confident in our investment experience around the world. call us or your advisor... t. rowe price. invest with confidence. audi pilotless vehicles have conquered highways, mountains, and racetracks. and now much of that same advanced technology is found in the audi a4. with one notable difference... ♪ the highly advanced audi a4,

with available traffic jam assist. ♪ so if ydead battery,t tire, need a tow or lock your keys in the car, geico's emergency roadside assistance is there 24/7. oh dear, i got a flat tire. hmmm. uh... yeah, can you find a take where it's a bit more dramatic on that last line, yeah? yeah i got it right here. someone help me!!! i have a flat tire!!!

well it's good... good for me. what do you think? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. and they're absolutely right.

they say that it's hot... when really, it's scorching. and while some may say the desert is desolate... we prefer secluded. what is the desert? it's absolutely what you need right now. absolutely scottsdale.

the president signed an executive order saying he would block federal money for cities that don't cooperate. they are called sanctuary cities and the mayors of mayor cities say they will stay that way. here is what the president said at the gop retreat in philadelphia. >> we've put in place the first steps in our immigration plan ordering the immediate construction of the border wall, putting an end to catch and release. expediting the removal of the criminal -- this is so important to me from day one i've said it, and i mean the immediate removal of criminal aliens will be gone fast, and finally, at long last, cracking down on sanctuary

cities. [ applause ] >> the president is praising one mayor tonight tweeting quote, miami-dade mayor develops sanctuary policy, right decision strong today mayor carlos jimenez required to follow with detention requests but as we mentioned, the mayor of other cities are fighting back. mayor garcetti, what was your reaction when trump's executive order told cities like yours to play ball on immigration or lose funding? >> a lot of us knows we're the engines of opportunity of economic come back. we're the places where american goods come true ahrough and job generated. our own tax dollars coming back to us is something we deserve and separating families or taking away funds doesn't create jobs or save streets and communities. so we certainly want to speak up and speak out about the quintessential american values that cities represent, whether

it's making sure we have safe streets, having family unite or a strong economy. and i think our constitution has pretty strong present in saying that local governments and state governments can't have a financial gun to their head from the federal government no matter who is in charge and we'll continue to cooperate in a lawful constitutional way. >> president trump says there has to be law and order and that you're not cooperating. for those who disagree with the idea of a sanctuary city, why not turnover people who have committed crimes to immigration authorities? >> well, we do all the time and i think there is a misconception we don't. we hand over dangerous criminals to the immigration officials, but what we don't do is we don't do that without a warrant. just based on the way somebody looks or live or who they are. five police chiefs in los angeles in a row since the late '70s, very conservative knew this is the best way to win the trust of the people they police over, so i don't know a lot of

about what they intend, but i do know something about good policing and keeps our streets safer and the so-called sanctuary cities areas have lower crime rates, less unemployment. i think we know how to build trust and build an inclusive city and country that helps us be more economically prosperous and safer on the streets. >> you're set to receive $500 million to pay for services like port security, anti gang programs. how much of that would actually be at risk? i know there is big questions about how much teeth this actually has. >> i just that's a question for administration. i hope none would be at risk. i hope this administration believes as we do veterans that everything issed their country like i have shouldn't sleep on their streets and a homeless voucher is a good thing. i think that america's port that we have here in los angeles, 43% of america ea's goods come thro the ports that we need to protect from biological

terrorism and funding goes towards that. this is not just a question of los angeles and other cities' individual needs, these are american needs and i hope that would be what this administration would help us protect and move forward. >> the president says that federal money is for law enforcement personnel or reasons that would continue to flow, but other programs might be hurt. i mean, if it came down to losing, you know, $100 million for some programs you think are important law, which would you do? >> well, it's not law at the and we think that that demand is both unconstitutional and unamerican. in fact, just over a year ago, the supreme court agreed when the obama administration tried to force states to expand medicaid. the supreme court agreed and said you can't put that financial gun to the head of local and state governments who decide what they want and what

is best for their areas. >> appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you, anderson. joining us now is miami-dade mayor. what exactly are you instructing them to do? >> we've always shared information with the federal government. we didn't consider ourselves a sanctuary city but the obama administration, there is a resolution that was passed here in miami-dade county that said that if immigration wanted us to hold an illegal immigrant that we had in custody because we arrested them for non-immigration issue because our offices are not immigration offices, but since they had that information and then if they wanted us to hold them, we would require them to send us a letter saying they would pay for the cost of incarceration. that was implemented a couple years ago here in miami-dade county. that policy was put out by the justice department about five, six months ago saying that that

may be in violation and may put us at a sanctuary city and that document was issued by the obama administration. all i did today is we no longer need the immigration decides that somebody who is in our custody, that they want us to hold that person, that we no longer require that letter saying they will pay for the costs. >> so do you require -- because mayor garcetti saying they would require a warrant for that person. do you require that or simply notification? >> it's a notificationotificati. if a federal agency says look, we're interested in one of your prisoners and they notify us they want us to hold that individual, then we will hold that individual. what we are worried about and have been is that obviously costs us, there is an expense to that and we wanted the federal government to reimburse us and they hadn't been, so for us this

isn't like -- it was at the time about a $600,000 issue. but really when we just ran the numbers on this. it's $52,000 a year. in order for -- i'm not going to put millions of dollars in federal aid in jeopardy simply because we want the federal government to reimburse us for maintaining these prisoners, especially at that lower cost. so it's not worth it and obviously, we want to compile with the request of the federal government. they are partners and like i said, we have always provided the information to the federal government. and whenever anybody is arrested, and that means anybody is arrested, whether it be a normal citizen et set thecetera provide fingerprints and information. some may be illegal immigrants and if the federal government is interested, right now we will detain them as long as we have a request from the federal government. >> one of the concerns is that

this will stop undocumented folks from coming forward, reporting crimes or testifying or speaking to police. do you have any of those concerns? >> no, because really, this is just dealing with illegal immigrants that have been arrested by the miami-dade police department. they are under arrest for committing some kind of crime in miami-dade, not an immigration crime, just a crime. we're not in the business of enforcing immigration law per se, we have a lot of other things that we have to police in miami-dade county, but once one of these illegal immigrants commits a crime in miami-dade and arrested, that information is given to the federal government in compliance with federal law. the only thing that changed here today by me was that we no longer require a basically a letter, a document from the federal government stating they will reimburse us for the cost of the additional time that we will incarcerate that illegal

immigrant on, you know, for the federal government. >> mayor, appreciate your time and perspective. thank you. >> thank you. got much more ahead in the second hour of "360" and the feud who will pay for the border wall. president trumped and fall out reaction when we come back. safety doesn't come in a box. it's not a banner that goes on a wall. it's not something you do now and then. or when it's convenient. it's using state-of-the-art simulators to better prepare for any situation.

it's giving offshore teams onshore support. and it's empowering anyone to stop a job if something doesn't seem right. at bp, safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better. at bp, safety is never being satisfied. i wanted to know where i did my ancestrydna. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american. i had no idea. it's opened up a whole new world for me. ♪