say nice things about australia today, but we certainly got a window into the way the businessman, donald trump, works, in trying to negotiate. >> all right, guys, to everybody, thanks very, very much. that's it for me. thanks for watching. "erin burnett outfront" starts right now. "outfront" next, the breaking news, president trump escalating the fight with iran, vowing nothing is off the table, including military action. plus, more breaking news, new details on the deadly raid that killed a navy s.e.a.l. and innocent civilians. was it approved by president obama or president trump? tonight, the obama administration fighting back. and is the birthplace of free speech now trying to crush it? let's go "outfront." good evening. i'm erin burnett. "outfront" tonight, the breaking news. trump versus iran. sources telling cnn at this

hour, that the white house is planning additional sanctions on iran, punishing the country for firing a ballistic missile. it's president trump's latest move in the escalating war of words between the u.s. and iran. now, when asked about the possibility of military action against iran, the president at a meeting with harley davidson executives today gave a short and to-the-point answer. >> honestly, nothing is off the table. >> blunt. the trump administration fired the first shot, threatening iran yesterday. trump doubling down earlier today on twitter, warning that iran has been formally put on notice for firing a ballistic missile, and should have been thankful for the terrible deal the u.s. made with them. iran responding to all of this today, vowing not to bow to u.s. threats. a senior government official palasti i blasting what he called trump's baseless ranting and that he should take a hint from president obama. the white house in iran now in

an escalating confrontation. >> reporter: yeah, it does seem to be escalating. it's thahard to say that the u. is escalating this. it was iran that fired off yet another ballistic missile. it's done several over the last couple of years. and that's why there was opposition to the iran nuclear deal. you would think that after it got some of the things it wants, there would be this equilibrium for a while, but iran keeps doing plenty of other bad stuff. what's different here is that this administration now seems to not be backing away from tough talk. it seems to be willing to act quickly. and you're talking about penalties for something like a ballistic missile launch, sanctions an obvious choice. the obama administration did the same thing after another launch just last year. iran, of course, doesn't want additional sanctions. and this is separate from the iran nuclear deal. the two issues are intentionally kept secret, but this is not to say that iran won't react to additional sanctions with more provocation. there are, of course welcome

conservatives within iran that would love to see the iran nuclear deal fall apart over this. but analysts say, you know, this is a testing period. both sides are kind of tweaking each other to see how far it will go. we don't know how far this will go. and it's possible additional sanctions for the trump administration will be a first step in penalties. they keep saying things like, nothing is off the table. so the rhetoric keeps heating up as well, erin. >> michelle, thank you very much. and the escalation michelle is referring to with iran isn't the only controversy that trump is facing on the global stage tonight. jim acosta is "outfront" at the white house. >> reporter: president trump is doing some cleanup down under, offering his praise for, of all places, australia, following the disclosure of a tense phone call he had with that country's leader, malcolm turnball. >> i love australia as a country. >> reporter: at issue, the president says, is a deal cut by the obama administration, to take in political refugees currently held in detension centers off australia, who fled

from some of the predominantly muslim nations now barred from sending people to the u.s. under the trump administration's new travel ban. refugees the president incorrectly calls illegal immigrants. >> we had a problem where, for whatever reason, president obama said that they were going to take probably well over a thousand illegal immigrants who were in prisons and they were going to bring them and take them into this country. and i just said, why? >> reporter: but sources tell cnn that the president was so upset with the prime minister, that he abruptly ended their call. and sources say the president had another testy phone conversation with mexican president, enrique pena nieto, in which he offered to send u.s. troops to mexico to help go after, quote, toughhombres south of the board. a source says trump's harsh language made the faces of white house staffers turn white. not to worry, says the president. >> believe me, when you hear about the tough phone calls i'm having, don't worry about it.

just don't worry about it. they're tough. we have to be tough. it's time we're going to be a little tough, folks. we're taken advantage of by every nation in the world, virtually. it's not going to happen anymore. it's not going to happen anymore. >> reporter: still, top republicans were spending the day reassuring a key u.s. ally. >> i don't think australia should be worried about its relationship with our new president or with our country, for that matter. >> this, in my view, was an unnecessary and frankly harmful open dispute over an issue which is not nearly important as united states/australian cooperation and working together. >> reporter: those worries come as the president said he is weighing his options on how to deal with provocations from iran. >> nothing is off the table. >> i don't even know if you're a democrat or if you're a republican, but i'm appointing you for another year. >> reporter: the president also took his shoot from the lip styles of the national prayer breakfast, a typically more solemn affair where he mocked

arnold schwarzenegger for replacement on mr. trump's old tv show, "the apprentice". >> the ratings went right down the tubes. it's been a total disaster. and i want to just pray for arnold, if we can, for those ratings, okay? >> reporter: drawing this rebuttal from schwarzenegger. >> why don't we switch jobs. you take over tv, because you're such an expert in ratings, and i take over your job, and then people can finally sleep comfortably again. >> now, the president says the australian ambassador to the united states paid a visit to the white house today. white house officials say ambassador joe hockey met with chief of staff reince priebus and steve bannon who conveyed the admiration for the president, that's the kind of cleanup you would expect when some diplomatic feathers were ruffled, as they are with australian. erin? >> thank you very much, jim acosta. and "outfront" now, the republican senator, jim langsford. he sits on both the homeland security committees.

thank you so much, so much as it is every night, to talk about. you just heard the president say, nothing's off the table, those are his words in regard to iran, including military action. do you support that? >> i support trying to fix what we're dealing with iran right now. we tried to do additional sanctions last year when they did ballistic missile tests and continued having that same behavior before. that was blocked before. it did not move forward and finish the legislation. i think that is a natural response. i know that the president last year made statements that the ballistic missile tests are separate in negotiation and agreement from the nuclear tests, but clearly, iran is trying to test missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear weapons. haas in violation of all of our agreements. we should have some sort of response. >> right. so he has said he wants to go ahead with sanction. you're right, obviously making a distinction between the u.n. deal and the united states deal. but he said he's going to have sanctions. so you support those. but are you saying then that you think that everything's on the table is going too far?

you don't even want the hint of military action? >> no, i think, at this point, it's pretty obvious that he's talking about sanctions and other things. i'm not going to rtry to read into his statement something he didn't actually say. the key issue is, iran continuing to be a bad actor. they're pushing the coup in yemen right now, trying to work towards the overthrow of the government in bahrain, a major part of what's happening in syria, right to expand their influence all the way from lebanon, all the way no yemen. they are a bad actor that's destabilizing the region. and while they're test firing ballistic missiles in violation of all the things the u.n. security council has said, that demands a response for the peace of the entire region. >> all right. we'll see whether these sanctions are enough to do it. obviously, much more limited the relative to the ones that were in place before the deal. you have been a strong -- you've known about these harsh words that the president says said with regard to other foreign leaders in recent days. we have been talking about jim acosta, what happened with the australian prime minister. and i want to play for you how

trump himself talked about his calls with world leaders. >> when you hear about the tough phone calls i'm having, don't worry about it. just don't worry about it. they're tough. we have to be tough. it's time we're going to be a little tough, folks. >> are you concerned about anything that trump said? you know, abruptly ending a phone call, bad hombres with the president of mexico? >> you know, obviously, neither one of us were on the phone calls. we're all getting secondhand what those actual phone calls were. it is his negotiating style. we've seen that already, that he's a blunt individual. and that when he speaks about an issue, he speaks about an issue. i understand that's a different kind of diplomacy, but he's used to making deals and engaging with people around the world and negotiating. so at this point, none of that concerns me, if a phone call ended abruptly and he hung up with, but then obviously, they made sure -- everyone makes sure that we're not trying to challenge our relationship with australia. australia and the united states have had a fantastic relationship. every single war that the united

states has been in, every time we've gone to military action in the last century, australians have fought with us side by side, we have a very close relationship with australia. that's not going to be channeled with one tense phone call. >> okay, so tonight the white house has come out and done something actually almost identical to what barack obama did when he was president. and that is talking about israeli settlements. the statement out of trump's white house, while we don't believe the existence to have settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements, beyond their current borders, may not be helpful in achieving that goal. the obama administration's language on settlement expansion was unhelpful. i think it's safe to say, not be helpful and unhelpful are the exact same thing. so are you happy with that? that the trump administration, the obama administration are now saying the same thing about israeli settlements? >> yeah, i think this is tan ongoing conversation, just for the united states, period, in israel, regardless to the president. you can go back to the language from the bush administration, probably both the bush administrations and the clinton administration. it's been a fairly clear conversation that the united states knows our closest ally in

the region is israel. we don't want israel to engage in something that's going to be a detriment to peace. but at the end of the day, israel and the palestinians have to be able to come to the table to be able to resolve it. the americans can't impose peace, they can't give instructions to israelis about how they build, to force that -- >> but you're glad that the white house is saying that settlement expansion is not good? i mean, that was a surprise. a lot of people thought -- trump has been very enercouraging of settlement expansion. that is a change. >> yeah, dealing with the borders. obviously, israel needs to be able to build within their own borders. they need housing like everybody else does. occasionally, settlements are called settlements, but they're actually apartment complexes going up within israeli land. >> fair. >> so when you look at the borders, we have to be able to resolve that, as well. >> right, over the line, but right in the center of jerusalem. thank you so much, senator. i want to bring in our special correspondent, jamie gangel. you know, interesting when senator lankford has to come on and talk about all these changes. and look, he's trying to say, it's fine. i'm okay with it. but this is a president which is

radically sort of changing what he's saying day by day. >> let's put it this way. there's a new sheriff in town. everyone's being kept on their toes, even the republica senators. but here's the thing. there is an argument to be made for keeping people off balance. the question is, is there a strategy behind being unpredictable? is there a strategy behind a tense phone call with australia or blindsiding israel? >> and do calls like that. he's saying, there is a different diplomacy. not the way it's normally been done. can you have calls like that, slam the ambassador one day, and then the rip's back to normal? nothing to worry about? >> i think what we're hearing from europeans, from everyone, they don't feel it's normal. they do understand that donald trump is going to do things differently, but they're having to figure out how to deal with this. this is a real case of whiplash for them. they don't know what to expect. >> all right. jamie, thank you very much.

they clearly don't know what to expect, it changes every day. that is part of the strategy. "outfront" next, trump says that nafta is a catastrophe, but is it, really? plus, violent protests at berkeley over a breitbart editor speaking there. president trump now threatening to cut off federal funds. finally, the answer the to one of the president's best-kept secrets. what is the amazing and secret ingredient behind that head of hair? and now, i help people find discounts,

like paperless, multi-car, and safe driver, that help them save on their car insurance. any questions? -yeah. -how do you go to the bathroom? great. any insurance-related questions? -mm-hmm. -do you have a girlfriend? uh, i'm actually focusing on my career right now, saving people nearly $600 when they switch, so... where's your belly button?

[ sighs ] i've got to start booking better gigs. [ sighs ] that the essence of integrity is a promise kept. ♪ if you've got the time welcome to the high life. ♪ we've got the beer ♪ miller beer

i did... n't. hat? hey, come look what lisa made. wow. you grilled that chicken? yup! i did... n't. smartmade frozen meals. real ingredients, grilled and roasted. it's like you made it. and you did... n't. mattress firmness? enter sleep number... she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. you can both adjust the bed for the best sleep of your life. right now, save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed. go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you. breaking news. nafta may be no more. the mexican government quietly taking the formal first step in renegotiating the trade deal. this as president trump is upping the ante, insisting that nafta maub scrapped to create jobs in america. >> nafta has been a catastrophe for our country, it's been a catastrophe for our workers, our

jobs, our companies. i don't care if it's a renovation of nafta or a brand-new nafta, but we do have to make it fair. and it's very unfair to the american worker. >> "outfront" now, robert reich, and stephen moore, the former economic adviser to donald trump's campaign. also, our new senior economics analyst, we're thrilled to have you, steven, welcome. and i am so glad to have both of you reunited in a discussion here on our show. robert, you heard the president, nafta, a catastrophe. what do you say? >> wrong. nafta could be improved, slightly, erin, there's no question about it. i think the labor and environmental standards in nafta could be strengthened and made more enforceable, but nafta is not going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the united states. most of the reason you don't have manufacturing jobs in the united states has to do with technology. look inside a manufacturing plant and there are some in the united states, and you'll find that those assembly lines with a lot of workers don't exist any

longer. you have robots and numerically-controlled machine tools. and all kinds of technology. and it's absurd to think that somehow nafta is responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the united states. >> steve, do you think it's absurd? because, to bolster robert's point, the united states has lost 5 million manufacturing jobs since the year 2000. people who like nafta and people who hate nafta agree that the nafta blame of that is between 100,000 and 700,000. that means almost all of it is other things, technology and other things, not nafta. >> erin, great to be with you and great to be with cnn. look, i think there's something wrong here, because i agreed with almost everything robert reich just said. not everything, but a lot of it. if you go back to the history of this, this was actually ronald reagan's vision in the 1980s, to have a free trade zone in north america, and of course, it was consummated under a democrat, bill clinton. i think it was one of the great

bipartisan accomplishments that we've had over the last 25 to 30 years. look, i think trump has a point about the fact that it's now, you know, 20 years old, and there are parts of it that probably do need to be renegotiated and modernized. and the other thing i would say, erin, having travelled with donald trump to a lot of those midwestern states, you know, pennsylvania, michigan, ohio, wisconsin, indiana, illinois, those are states where a lot of the workers agree with donald trump, that they feel like their jobs have been taken by nafta. it's one of the reasons, i would say, that donald trump won the election. so clearly, there's a political problem with nafta. hopefully, we can renegotiate this in ways that helps, you know, the u.s. and mexico. >> erin, may i ask steve moore a question? >> yes. >> is that okay? >> i'm cringing. >> steve, because you said you agree with me. and therefore, you agree -- >> mostly. >> that nafta is not a catastrophe. and now, you've never agreed with me, before, ever.

and i'm interested in one aspect of this. and that is, you were, or have been, a major economic adviser to donald trump. >> right. >> he says that nafta is a disaster. he was saying that throughout the campaign. where is he getting his economic advice and why were you telling him that he's crazy? >> well, you know, it's a funny thing. you know, when i first started working with donald trump, with my fold buddy, larry kudlow, one of the first things we said to him, donald, we don't agree with you on free trade. he used to say, look, i'm not against free trade, i just want fair trade. he said, i'm not a protectionist, but there are some voices in this new administration, erin, that are more trade protectionist than the traditional republican view. and there's going to be a tension not just between parties, but within the republican party about the position on trade. now, bob, i do agree with donald trump when it comes to china. i do think that china is stealing and cheating, and i think we do need to get tougher. i haven't talked to you about

this, with uh but i think we've get tougher with china. i don't think they're playing by the rules. i think they're stealing our technology, but when it comes to nafta, i think it's worked pretty well -- >> let me just ask you a question about nafta, robert. because on this point, the chief of patrone tequila was on the show the other day. he didn't like donald trump's idea about a 20% tariff, but he said, he can ship into mexico, no tariff under mexico, but when he's shipping from mexico, it's totally different. here's what he said. >> i know when i ship into mexico, for paul mitchell hair care products, we have a duty of 16%. so we have to choose a little bit more money to the mexican people. they pay it because of the quality of the product. >> so what he's trying to say there is that he gets 16% -- mexico is able to charge 16%, to pick that up, but the u.s., zero. doesn't that need to change, robert? >> well, it may pip mean, there

are very different product categories with regard to nafta. i think the goal ought to be to get it down and make it equal. but why would you ever want to impose a tariff on mexican goods coming to the united states that american consumers will have to end up paying? i mean, that's what's so crazy about the wall idea, that somehow you get mexicans -- you know, mexico doesn't pay. american consumers pay. and let me just say one more thing. wait a minute, steve. just one more thing. that is, donald trump's view of the globe, whether we're talking about nafta or trade, generally, or we're talking about politics, is everything's a zero sum game. that is, we win, only to the extent that they lose. or they lose only to the extent we win. actually, it's not a zero sum game. it's a win-win. if mexico is more prosperous, we benefit. >> of course. of course, no doubt about that. but here's the point, where donald trump does have a point when it comes to not just trade with mexico, but a lot of these

cups. we have free trade deals where we say, we're not going to impose tariffs on one another, but when they sell things to mexico, the first thing that happens when those goods get to the border, they slap our goods with a 10 to 15% value-added tax, which is like a tariff. so we may want to change the way we tax, not tariffs, but some kind of border adjustable tax system, so we're not -- you know, they charge us 16% on our goods, but we let their stuff in at no tax. maybe that needs to be changed. >> is that the whole point about becoming more fair, robert? more fair? >> i don't want to pay more for that corona beer. but i do think there has to be a parody here, and we are -- look, bob, you're always the one talking about american workers and our manufacturing workers. we're putting our manufacturing workers at a 15 or 16 percentage point disadvantage -- >> but we just went through this. nafta is not responsible for loss of manufacturing jobs. don't buy into that. >> no, no, no, i'm not --

>> north america, we have -- no, wait a minute, let me just finish this. >> yeah. >> we have a huge stake in the prosperity of mexico. it is our neighbor. the more prosperous mexico is, the fewer people who are going to be desperate enough to come across the border and take jobs that -- illegally. so we want mexico to be well off, we want, obviously, american workers and american consumers to be well off -- >> i agree, but bob -- >> so why all of this building of the wall, steve. what a stupid idea that is! >> well, because the american people are -- i'm very pro-immigration, you are, but we've got to get illegal immigration under control. and that's an issue the vast majority -- and the wall is not meant to keep out menxican products, but illegal immigration. >> no, but we have more undocumented workers in the united states going back home for years now. the actual rate and level of undocumented workers in the united states keeps on going down. and that's why this is so insane. >> but neither party, bob, for

20 years have done anything about illegal immigration. >> but robert just raises an accurate point, right. right now there are more people originally from mexico going home than there are people, illegals crossing going north. >> i don't think that's true. >> that's according to pew, which we all know that donald trump likes to cite. >> but those are statistics that are a little bit old. as the u.s. economy has done better, you have more people coming over the board. >> but do you really think a wall is going to work? really, a wall? we sent ed lavendera to the border, found stacks of ladders, tunnels 70 feet under the ground. a wall isn't going to stop any of that, it's just going to cost money, right? >> no, if you have a wall and security at the border and internal enforcement, i don't think there's no reason we think the significantly reduce illegal immigration. and i'll tell you both, until we get illegal immigration under control in this country, i think the political consensus for real legal immigration reform and getting the immigrants into this country we need is never going

to happen. we've got to get the border secure and the american people spoke pretty loud and clear on that, bob. they want the border secure. >> here's what worries me. steve, you've just said, the american people are loud and clear, they don't like nafta. the american people are loud and clear, they want a wall. >> it's true. >> the american -- wait a minute, the american people are loud and clear on these things, because they have been misled and lied to by people apparently -- in fact, mostly by donald trump, in saying a wall is going to be terribly important, or nafta is taking away your jobs. if the american people hear big lies over and over and over again for two years or more and they elect somebody who has basically built his entire political structure on big lies, it's not surprising a lot of people think the wall is necessary or nafta is the key to getting better jobs. >> i don't think he's lying to them. i think he's appealing to a lot of their very valid, financial concerns. i saw that firsthand, erin, when i was on the campaign trail with trump. people are worried about trade, worried about illegal immigration -- >> of course, they are! >> maybe they're exaggerated,

but -- >> wait a minute, steve, they're not exaggerated. the problem is, american workers have a valid concern about the level of their wages and the lack of security in their jobs. but the kind of solutions donald trump is pointing to are scapegoating mexicans, scapegoating others, foreigners -- >> final word, steve? >> they are really dangerous. >> that's why we have to cut taxes, cut regulations, to get the jobs back in america. okay, we agree, bob! >> i don't know that you would both agree on those solutions, but -- >> not at all. not at all. >> but i do know this. that you will both be back on this show. >> okay. thanks, erin. >> appreciate it. thank you, both. next, violent protesters at berkeley shut down a speech by a controversial breitbart editor. is the birthplace of the free speech movement in america now against free speech? and breaking news at this hour, the obama administration fighting back, saying the trump white house isn't telling the whole story about the deadly yemen raid. what happened?

see me. see me. don't stare at me. see me. see me. see me to know that psoriasis is just something that i have. i'm not contagious. see me to know that... ...i won't stop until i find what works. discover cosentyx, a different kind of medicine for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. proven to help the majority of people find clear or almost clear skin. 8 out of 10 people saw 75% skin clearance at 3 months. while the majority saw 90% clearance. do not use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting, you should be tested for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur... ...tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms... ...such as fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. see me.

see me. see me. on my way. find clear skin... and a clearer path forward. for a different kind of medicine, ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. is it keeps the food out. for me before those little pieces would get in between my dentures and my gum and it was uncomfortable. just a few dabs is clinically proven to seal out more food particles. super poligrip is part of my life now.

breaking news tonight. a top california official condemning the violent protests at uk berkeley and the man they were protesting, a controversial editor at breitbart news. the lieutenant governor of the state tweeting "hatred has no home on california's public university campuses in any form, from vitriol to violence," this after protesters smashed windows and set fires last night, today the president trump tweeted, saying if uk berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view, no federal funds, question mark. kyung lah is "outfront." >> known as one of america's most liberal campuses, uc berkeley, a war zone over controversial speaker milo yiannopoulos' speaker here. a mob set fire to campus lights, milo's name melting. the president yiannopoulos supports now a target here.

notable, because yiannopoulos worked for steve bannon at breitbart. this woman pepper sprayed during a local tv interview. >> ma'am? >> she, along with at least five others were injured. this wounded man, who a witness says was wearing a trump hat, pulled out of the violent crowd by police in riot gear. shelly monroe came to yiannopoulos speak. >> it's totally disrespectful. we came here to listen. >> really? >> embarrassment. uc berkeley should be embarrassed. >> that sentiment echoed by yan n yan nap lost. >> a provocative far-right speech. protesters called his talks hate speech, targeting feminists, transgender people, and muslims. police evacuated him from his own speaking event due to the violence.

yiannopoulos calling it hate speech. >> people with arguments and facts that don't conform to the crazy vision of the universe. >> reporter: president trump weighing in with a funding threat. tweeting, if uc berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence, no federal funds? the berkeley college republicans who invited yiannopoulos say they're disgusted, but not surprised by the violence. >> that just underscores what we already know to be. what we know to be here at uc berkeley, and that is a very intolerant, progressive, left-wing culture that is not hospitable to conservative students. >> reporter: uc berkeley says of the 1,500 protesters, there was only a small group of non-students, 150 outside agitators that led the violence and says it regrets the violence overshadowed a legitimate and lawful protest by students. >> no hate, no fear, immigrants

are welcome here. >> reporter: we saw it ourselves. before protesters in black arrived, cal students were overwhelmingly peaceful. but the violence far spoiled what students wanted. >> i don't support trump either, but i think that it allows the people on the right to say, oh, look at all of these berkeley liberal snowflakes and they're going out -- and they're just as intolerant of speech as we are. >> reporter: a microcosm of a divided nation, driven even further apart. >> that tells me that they're hypocrites. this is being tolerated. this behavior is being tolerated. this is why trump's the president. 2020 re-election! >> reporter: now, the irony, of course, is that berkeley is the birthplace of the free speech movement, bib not allowing yiannopoulos to give his speech, he's, in fact, more well known today. and erin, we should add that about trump's tweet regarding funding here at this university, that was wildly read by california lawmakers as a threat and they condemned it.

erin? >> thank you very much, kyung. and outfront now, david druker and john avalon. the video is awful, protesters lighting fires, bank windows being destroyed, even graffiti that we saw on the video that says "kill trump" being rain. does this hurt the protesters? basically, milo yiannopoulos is more well known and the trump has been made by the protesters. >> extremists are always their worst enemy. when the protests become violent and turn riots, all they do in this political context is empower the right. it creates a rationale for a message of law and order. and on the left, it undercuts any claim to represent liberal values. the core of liberal ideas is i oppose what you say, but defend by the death your right to say it. that's undercut by this. >> and you heard the statement, that says the free message is dead. the irony, berkeley being the

birthplace of that movement. there is a wider concern, that those who preach tolerance can be incredibly intolerant of other's points of view. we hear this from college campuses across this country, berkeley, yale, and everything in between. >> and it's been a problem. one of the things we've seen on universities, at least since i was there, just at this point, it's been a while, is that there is not a diversity of thought. and there is not a lot of tolerance for a diversity of thought. >> but there never really was. it's only -- >> that's not necessarily true. i think if you go back to the free speech movement, the whole point of the argument was to allow different points of view when the people preaching the free speech movement were not in the majority. and i would say this. milo is a provocateur, but traditional intellectual conservatives get the same sort of treatment as he does. >> but bill buckley wrote, god made yale in the 1950s. this is an old complaint. the problem is, is when it transcends into the violence and

feeds into existing narratives. provocateurs want to provoke. when they do, when outside come in and make it violence, everyone's a victim here, no one's a hero. the fact that people like playing the victim now is part of the problem. >> but there's also the issue of whether or not diversity of thought is tolerant. that's the point i was making. >> sure. milo and breitbart, they obviously have a reputation that proceeds them and that's what you're going to get. >> that's one way of saying it. >> but there are plenty of traditional, intellectual conservatives who have been invited by conservative groups to speak on college campuses. you don't see the rioting, but the same sort of reaction, they shouldn't be allowed to speak, they rye to shut the speech down. that's what i'm saying, this is an old story. >> kyung went to berkeley last august is covering the election, met with the college republicans there. and they were being taunted and not treated well. and after she left, they sent her this picture of what happened to their trump cutout. >> yeah. that's terrible. >> right, it's not surprising, but i'm just saying, this is obviously the way it is there. >> and look, the key, what we're

not doing anymore is applying consistent standards. if you're offended some when the president of your party gets compared to hitler, you're part of the problem. but we need to make sure that campuses get over this idea of illusions of safe space and intolerance towards differing viewpoints. campuses, particularly public universities, need to be forums for debate and thought. but that needs to remain civil. protests are legitimate. once protests turn violent, we're all off the rails here. >> but then the others on the other side, if your point of view is intolerant, why should i be intolerant of it? those who were not violent, were just standing up -- >> hate begets hate. >> look, it's all subjective. but i think that we know -- we know that there is a difference between actual racism and the fact that maybe some people think taxes should be lower. i mean, that's -- >> sure, yeah. >> but i think that's what erin's talking about here, is that, look, obviously the more

politically charged your speech is, the more upset people are going to get. but -- >> especially if it's designed to insult or provoke. but here's the big picture, guys. there is no right not to be offended. so don't work under the illusion that life works that way or college campuses. >> which is the key point you're both making about safe spaces. that is not what the world is about. next, breaking news about a deadly raid that went horribly wrong. the obama administration fighting back against the trump administration. and jeanne moos looks at what may be the world's most famous head of hair. does anyone have another candidate right now? am i missing something? well, here's what i'm missing, is the secret ingredient. we have finally figured out why it looks like that. we'll be back. hello, i'm an idaho potato farmer and i finally found our big idaho potato truck. it's been touring the country telling folks about our heart healthy idaho potatoes, america's favorite potatoes, and donating to local charities along the way. but now it's finally back home where it belongs.

aw man. hey, wait up. where you goin'? here we go again.

breaking news. obama administration officials pushing back against the trump white house over the deadly raid in yemen, in which a u.s. navy s.e.a.l. was killed along with civilians in yemen. this raid in the works since november, when president obama was still in office. we have confirmed that president trump signed off on the raid, a day after receiving two briefings about it. first by the national security

adviser, general michael flynn, and then during a ten-person dinner at the white house, which included secretary mattis. jim sciutto is outfront. jim, what are you hearing from members of the obama administration now about this raid, they're pushing back? >> erin, i've spoken to members who were involved in national security in the obama administration, and they say this is simply not true that this raid was okayed, approved by president obama, before he left office. one, and two, they're saying, it just wouldn't be that far in advance, weeks or months in advance of an operation that has so many moving parts on the ground, that's just not how far in advance operations like this are okayed. we're hearing this, as we're hearing, as well, new information of just how central president trump himself was to the decision making. tonight, new information that president trump was actively involved in the decision making on the yemen raid up until the final hours. on january 25th, four days before the mission, the

president was briefed by national security adviser, michael flynn, and then again during a ten-person white house dinner later that evening. the dinner, as mr. trump's request, included his three closest aides, chief of staff reince priebus, and senior advisers jared kushner and steve bannon. >> he then, on that evening, had a dinner meeting, where the operation was laid out in great extent. >> reporter: like many high-risk military missions, the planning was months in the making. the initial proposed plans were first sent to the pentagon on november 7th, during the obama administration, and one day before the election. department of defense lawyers and legal experts then reviewed the details before approving the plan and sending it to the national security council on december 19th. next, the plan was reviewed by officials from defense, state, and the national security council. but there was one final delay, waiting for a moonless night to help conceal u.s. special

operators. that would not come until late in january, after the swearing in of donald trump. the new president gave final approval on january 26th, one day after that white house dinner, three days to mission launch. >> this was a very, very well-thought-out and executed effort. >> reporter: the raid targeted a suspected al qaeda in the arabian peninsula compound in yemen's alibida province. special operators immediately encountered aqap fighters as they approached the compound. the fighters, including some females, positioned themselves along rooftops on adjacent buildings, pinning down u.s.-led forces. aircraft conducted an air strike, leading to at least 23 civilian deaths, according to an ngo. the al qaeda fighters used heavy arms, killing navy s.e.a.l., william ryan owens. a v-22 osprey aircraft was badly

damaged as it tried to land to rescue the wounded. special operators then took intelligence materials from the compound, including computer hard drives. >> when you look at the totality of what was gained to prevent the future loss of life here in america and against our people and our institutions, and probably throughout the world, in terms of what some of these individuals could have done, i think it is a successful operation by all standards. >> so, jim, is this finger-pointing going on right now or is there more to it? >> well, with listen, what's interesting here, is you have the trump administration, in effect, seeking obama administration buy-in to the first major military operation that was ordered under president trump. i mean, here's one important point. i spoke just now to a former s.e.a.l., who worked in the yemen fighting space, who said that there and in other places, the military will often have a number of options that it will present to the president for a

number of raids. all of them possibilities, but you have to factor in final decisions, your latest intelligence, the moment before those soldiers, those special operators are launched. at the end of the day, it's the president's decision when that happens. and trump was president, at the end of the day, it was his final decision to launch this operation. >> jim sciutto, thank you very much. outfront now, the former cia director under former bill clinton and former senior adviser to the trump campaign, ambassador james woolsey. so let me just ask you, you know, obviously, this had been in the works for a long time, it had gone through a lot of approvals. when the final night came when the moon wasn't out, president trump was the president, he was the one who had to make that final decision, as jim is saying. is the trump white house trying to shift the blame here? >> i can't tell -- i am struck by the fact it seems to me maybe they have too many pr people in the top levels of the government, because they're jousting with one another. this sounds like it was a

carefully planned operation, and it's terrible that they lost one of the s.e.a.l.s and it's a shame that they had some, as they call it, collateral damage, civilians who were apparently killed in the fighting. but we're at war with a terrorist movement. and if you're going to take some terrorists out, things like this are going to happen. >> so it had been in the works since the day before the election. that's when the first plans were delivered. there had been a lot of discussion. but when president trump was briefed on it twice by his national security adviser and then at that dinner, there were four days between that and the actual raid itself. it was the first moonless night that had come, when president obama was president, there was no moonless night, so he wasn't able to approve it, even had he wanted to. when you put that together, are you concerned at all, had he been rushing it, he took the first moonless night? is there anything that would make you concerned there? >> no, i'm not really speciou d experienced with this.

it sounds to me as if it was well planned. and i also -- i mean, my overwhelming memory of something like this is the one time in my tenure at the cia, when someone was killed, implementing a decision. and it's a terrible feeling that you have if you are responsible anywhere up the line in any regard, that someone died for your country, that was under junior command. >> it's a horrible tragedy, of course, a s.e.a.l. dead, civilians, as well. obviously, in the fog of war, we don't understand who was fighting, in what way, but there were civilians. this is only the second major raid in yeppen in two years. so what information could have been this valuable that would have been worth. obviously, they knew they were taking a lot of risks. this was a risky raid no matter what. if they thought something was worth it, what could that be. >> like the raid where they had

obtained on and on i think it would be best if they had not said anything about it. i think it would have been best have given us a general road map to things they were able to take. >> things like hard drives and things like that? >> absolutely. >> thank you very much, ambassador. i appreciate your time. good to see you. and outfront next, what is the secret behind trump's hair? only jeanne moos could tell this story. and you know, his doctor revealed something today, and she's going to tell you what it is. as a control enthusiast, i'm all-business when i travel... even when i travel... for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade

in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges. what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro.

across new york state, from long island to buffalo, from rochester to the hudson valley, from albany to utica,

creative business incentives, infrastructure investment, university partnerships, and the lowest taxes in decades are creating a stronger economy and the right environment in new york state for business to thrive. let us help grow your company's tomorrow - today at esd.ny.gov (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. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ at the age of 70, president trump appears to have all of his hair, and tonight, we may know why. here's jeanne moos. >> reporter: now that he's president, no one will dare do what donald trump once invited -- >> come on, barbara, get over here. >> reporter: barbara walters to do. >> now you're going to mess it up for this interview. >> reporter: but now we've learned something new about the much-aligned, most famous head of hair on any head of state. >> talk to your doctor about propecia. >> reporter: only it was trump's doctor to "the new york times,"

something a trump official said he did not have permission to do. >> remember dr. harold boarstein? even his wife once tried to stop him from doing an interview with cnn, but he told "the times" that president trump takes a small dose of propecia, leading men's journal to ask, should the leader of the free world be taking propecia? it's a drug that reduces hair loss, but it has side effects. >> anywhere from 2 to 10% people will have a problem with libido? >> what do you do? keep the hair on your head and you're sexier and look better, but don't have a libido. >> reporter: a hair-raising choice. but could propecia surround one of the mysteries surrounding donald trump. on twitter, some seized on this less-common propecia side effect. >> it causes a runny nose. >> reporter: so does it explain this? [ sniffing ]

then candidate trump denied he had a cold or allergies. >> no sniffles, no. >> reporter: we'll never know if propecia causes the donald's sniffling, but at least we do know you can't blame it for alec baldwin's sniffs. what do you want to bet donald trump would like to get the doctor out of his hair? jeanne moos, cnn, new york. >> yes! donald trump, everybody! >> and we'll be right back. chan. 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. afoot and light-hearted i take to the open road. healthy, free, the world before me, the long brown path before me leading wherever i choose.

the east and the west are mine. the north and the south are mine. all seems beautiful to me.

tadirectv now. stream all your entertainment! anywhere! anytime! can we lose the 'all'. there's no cbs and we don't have a ton of sports. anywhere, any... let's lose the 'anywhere, anytime' too. you can't download on-the-go, there's no dvr, yada yada yada. stream some stuff! somewhere! sometimes! you totally nailed that buddy. simple. don't let directv now limit your entertainment. only xfinity gives you more to stream to any screen. and thanks so much, as

always, for joining us. you can watch "outfront" anytime, anywhere on cnn go. i'll see you back here tomorrow night. "a.c. 360" with anderson begins right now. and good evening. thanks for joining us. a busy night today. president trump making what could be seen as a change on expanding israeli settlements, taking confrontational steps towards iran, and on top of all of that, confounding a longtime ally, australia. we begin with a new white house potential on israeli settlements and sanctions on iran. cnn's michelle kosinski is reporting on iran tonight. elise labott is on israel. but first, michelle kosinski at the state department. so what about these possible sanctions? >> well, they could be coming soon. >> and clearly, we just lost michelle. let's go to elise labott, who's standing by to talk about the latest on israel. there's late word from the white house, marking what could be seen, elise, as a shift in the administration's approach to the issue of expanding israeli settlements. what do