including the staff the the congressional black caucus, and staff throughout various committees. we've used this work period as an opportunity to invite staffers from both sides of the aisle to come to the white house and discuss shared priorities and find common ground on the way forward. and we're not just reaching out to capitol hill. we have actively engaged with key leaders and policy makers around the country. it's critical to gather information from states and from people throughout the country rather than just leaders in washington. so to discuss specific action he can take. they leaders, many of whom represent some of the country's largest manufacturers, cabinet members and key aides of the president's staff. the working group will engage in a deep-dive conversation on the attendees specific areas of expertise. topics of discussion include deregulation, tax and trade, and infrastructu

infrastructure. after the gripes conclude their discussion, the president's it is staff will compile the feedback and for a listening session on some of their recommendations. as you can tell by the structure of the meeting, the president is expecting these real -- creating a dynamic and booming economy that works for all americans. this tibets to be at the top of his domestic policy agenda. as a successful businessman, the president knows if we're going to get the country back to work, we need to hear directly from sxwrob creators, what is holding them back and where appropriate take tips to remove the behalfiers. the in a key economic -- and economy economic indicators are showing it's working. ceo and confidence are up, and jan wear numbers were strong. the meetings on thursday will continue to build on that momentum. with that, i'm glad to take some questions. steve holland?

>> steve is not here. jeff mason against it then. >> can you give us an update on the administration's plans with regard to transgender bathrooms again in schools? and can you confirm there has been disgreat between secretary devos and the attorney general? >> why expect further guidance to come out on that today. the president, as i said yesterday, is a firm believer in states' rights. when you look at the guidance issued under the obama -- to the best of my knowledge that was he stalled, and several legal reasons and several procedure renals, both who jointly issued that guidance are now working together again under a trump administration. they have been reviewing the guide krantz that was signed and i think there's several he areas

both legal and procedure that they have been discussion. i think where you might be hearing something is more on the conclusions that everyone has agreed upon. there's no daylight between the president and any of the secretaries. i think there's been some discussion between the timing of the issuance and recommendations, or between the exact wording, but as far as the conclusions go, i've made this clear, and the president's made it clear that he's a firm believer, and are not best dealt with at the federal level. >> sean, a report out today that some cabinet secretaries are bristling as what they see as the white house micromanaging staffing. to what degree does the white house think it should impose its hiring approvals on members of the subcabinet, and is some of it at least partially driving by cabinet secretaries wanting who

might not necessarily be aligned with the president's thinking? >> well, i mean, i think when you kim to -- they're called political appointees for a reason. the idea that people who come into the government should want to the support and enact the president's agenda that he campaigned on with the american people. i think one of the reasons you see in recent polls, even if they don't agree with the president, they give him high marks for following through on the promises he's made to the american people. getting things done that he actually said, which is not always the case here in washington. i think we want to make sure that people who staff a trump administration are committed to a trump agenda. you know, so cabinet secretaries and other administrators and directors have broad discretion, but i think at the end of the day, no matter what position you have, whether it's the lowest other highest in the white house or in a department or agency, we should be making sure that people coming in as appointees of the president support the

president's agenda. i think that's one of the things -- this isn't about getting a job as a federal employees where you're subject to certain, you know, restrictions as to what you can and can are can't do. these are political appointees. so i think there's obviously we are going to ensure that people who are political appointees share the vision and agenda that the president campaigned on and is implementing. >> does the white house believe it neither to have the final approval or can you trust your cabinet secretary? >> it's not a question of trust, it's a question of making sure that we are all on the same page and committed to the same agenda that the president has set forth. this process is probably no different than we've seen in previous administrations. cabinet secretaries come to the president with recommendations on who they want, and it depends on the position, obviously. but in certainly cases if they're going to fulfill a job that is a key area that the

president had very specific goals to enact that he promised the american people, you want to make sure the person fulfilling that job is actually committed to the agenda and vision the president set forth and promised the american people. so there is -- that's something we're always going to be making smur is in alignment. >> is the approval process in some what slowing down the appointment of crucial staff. >> not at all. when you like across where we are we're doing very very well with getting all of these positions filled. i think once in a while you might hear one or two people, but overall generally speaking, i mentioned how much of the beachhead teams we had and those members appointed had 120 days they were there to a i lieu it to make sure a -- and that's what's happening, but make no mistakes.

we were ahead of the curve on the beachhead teams, very clear with the landing teams, it's been a methodical process than seen from top to bottom through, and i think we're doing a phenomenal job. >> marta? >> which marta? >> oh, luck where me. >> reporter: i have a -- [ laughter ] >> reporter: the president in the roosevelt room just said, among other things that the tax plan is nearly finalized but can't be submitted until the health car plan statutorily -- what i wanted to clarify, is the white house doing a health care proposal? or was he talking about congress and the white house? >> obviously there's two vehicles, requisition -- the bloom better answer, the fy17

reconciliation was never completed, because the budget wasn't finalized in the last congress. i think we want to look at the opportunities and make sure -- and then you could utilize the 2018 reconciliation to do tax reform. again, that's not prescriptive, but as far as why the president is saying it that way is because we've got that option available to us right now. i think the president is committed to making sure that the promise that he made to the american people to repeal and replace obamacare continues to be first and foremost, and then his tax plan, but it's not a we can walk and chew gum kind of thing. we can continue to work with the leadership in both houses. >> reporter: just the bloom birk -- the time line, there is things that will happen then, there will be a budget plan that you guys are going to present on march 13th-ish? >>ish. >> this is where i got lost.

something from him and something from them and then a plan afterwards? >> look, when we're really to announce -- i think you have obamacare, the budget, tax reform, a very busy march and april for us, and we continue to work with congress to make sure that it's implemented. noah beerman. >> he had a complete shutdown of muslims during the campaign. there were a lot of people who thought that was a very good proposal. can you explain his elf lice of backing down from that? and can you say whether he regrets using that rhetoric, since it ended up hurting the court case? >> again i go back to the merits of the case, and the order that gave him the authority to make that. u.s. code 1182 is very clear. the president was very clear in his executive order that these were countries that we didn't have the proper vetting for when

it came to ensuring the safety of americans. that's what the executive order said. the authority is re clear, and i think you'll continue to see the president take the steps necessary to protect this country. that's why he's talking about fighting this on both fronts, making sure we keep evolving through the court system, and then looking forwards the next draft of the executive order that will continue to achieve the goal of protecting the american people. that's where we are, that's what the order says, and so i think we continue to feel confident that that's -- but it was crafted in a way that was very clear about the countries and was not focused on anything else but the vetting requirement we have to make sure that we know who is coming into this country and we're here not to do us any harm. >> talking about fulfilling his promising, can you explain why he decided to back down from that? >> i think he's made it clear, noah, from the beginning that

this was a country-focused issue, and i don't see anything other than that with reference to that. debra saunders? >> reporter: is the oscars are for sunday night. will the president be watching? if there's a meryl streep kind of moment, how do you think he'll react? and why -- this has happened in other award ceremonies. why do you think this happening? >> why do i think what happens? >> actors. >> i have no idea. it's a free country. i think hollywood is known for rather being farther to the left, and i have to be honest, i think the president will be hosting the governors' ball, mrs. trump looks forward to putting together a phenomenal event that will welcome our nation's governors to the capitol. i think that's where they'll be focused sunday night. so we'll go from there. >> reporter: the president has a

big audience next tuesday in the joint and. does he have a sell of goals in mind? do you think we'll see specific policy roll-outs as part of that speech? >> i think -- i mentioned this yesterday. i think it's going to talk -- remind the american people what he's done already, and make sure that he explains to them -- not just because of a sense of accomplishment in moving the country forward, but because i think it's important for the american people to know he was an agent of change. he came here to get things done, and he didn't waste any time. he 'committed to keeping hi word, and then i think he'll lay out his vision. the problems that we face as a country, the violence in some of our inner cities, but also some of the solutions that we can act on and some of the partnerships we can create, it's obviously still a work in progress, but i think it will look forward to where he wants to take this

country and talk about working with congress and other leaders throughout the country to get things done, but i think in the drafts i have seen so far, it is going to be a very strong blueprint of where he wants to take this country. in the past i think a lot of presidents -- or some, rather have gotten into detail spocks. i think you'll see him try to talk about politics, and what defining success is, what that goal means, but it's still a work in progress republican optimistic? >> yeah, i think this is an opportunity for him to lay out a very positive vision for the nation and really let america know where we can go and how we can get there, and the potential we have as a nation. anita? >> reporter: will he -- i know past presidents, including president obama, immediately hit the road but something like the

state of the union address. to sell policies, since it's more of a vision -- >> i think there will be some travel. that's evolving right now. there's a lot of things that we're trying to look at, and i think as we look at the speech and some of the objectives and goals and vision that he's sharing, talk to him about potential places to go to highlight that, but i think you're going to see a fair amount of visits in the next few weeks to highlight some of the places that he wants to take it. >> reporter: i've seen members of congress last we're, there's the legislative meeting today. it feels as if we haven't seen as many executive actions -- or executive orders. i know we have the one vetting coming out this week. are we in a different phase that he's sort of done the executive orders he wants to do? >> no, we have several in the pipeline, and part of it is just -- you know, these days are

focused with these meetings and getting things done, and trying to plan ahead. so as we see fit, and as the implementation process of a lot of these goes through the process, we'll have future -- plenty more. fimplgts legislative emphasis now? >> it's both. part of this is we work through congress, aknit :we're talking about fundamental tax reform, something that happened since 1986. the repeat and replacement of obamacare, which is mammoth. i think part of it is those things take time. he has a joint address on tuesday. there's a lot of things that are happening, and therefore we need to kind of make sure that we appropriately use the schedule. but i can assure you if you've missed executive orders, you will see a bunch. i know, i want to do make sure you knew. jonathan karl. at the present time referred to

so-called sangry crowds? is he suggesting this is manufactured anger and this is not real anger and real -- >> thanks. i think there's a hybrid there. i think some people are clearly upset, but there is a bit of professional protester manufactured base in there. but obviously there are people that are upset, but i also think that when you look at some of these districts and some of these things, it is -- it is not a representation of a members district or an incident. it is a loud group, small group of people disrupting something, in many cases for media attention, no offense. just because they're loud doesn't necessarily mean there are many. i think in a lot of cases that's what you're seeing. >> reporter: not saying there's real anger -- >> i just said that. >> reporter: there's real concern -- >> i think that's a false narrative. i don't -- the president has been very clear, look, you have

to look at what our health care system is right now. in so many counties around our nation we've gone down to one provider. that's not choice, that's not access and in a lot of cases we're not taking medicare, the doctor you used to have haven't participating anymore and by the way, states like arizona, you have over 100% increase in premiums. many statesi double-digit. and i think that the idea that we have to remember is that the american people got sold the affordable care act. it's neither affordable or accessible. they're losing their coverage and premiums are spiking. if people this should be appl d applauding the president's action for wanting to ensure we have a system in place that does what they were promised a while back. that's what i think is missing from this dialogue. i've seen some folks protesting, saying i'm on obama care and i'm

going to lose my thing, and when they asked how old they were, they're not on obamacare, they're on medicaid. they're not making it up, but some are on employer-based insurance, or medicaid or medicare because of their age. so they have no problems. but i think in other cases people are being told the plan they're on is unsustainable, that these carriers throughout the country. look at them over and over again pulling out of the exchanges. the reality is they are losing their health care, but they're losing it under obamacare because the exchanges are collapsing on themselves, carriers are pulling out, so the president's plan is actually going to do exactly what they were promised eight years ago and didn't get. so for those who are worried, the answer is help is on the

way. >> reporter: what goes tis the ? >> first, the president made cheer we'll have it out in a couple weeks. the goal is they god it jammed through the democrat-controlled, so taking the time, getting this right to achieve the goss is probably the right thing to do considering the experience we had the last time. hall hallie? >> reporter: at one point the caitlyn jenner could use whatever bathroom he wanted so why system a priority? >> i don't think it's a priority. it's not a priority. there is a case pending in the supreme court in which we have to decide whether or not to continue to issue guidance to the court. it's not -- it's dictated by that. the obama administration a issued joint guidance. we now have to decide whether or not this administration wants to continue that track that they were on. it's plain and simple.

if we don't, but there are problems in the legal and process way in which that guidance was issued. so it's incumbent upon us to actually follow the law and recognize that title ix never talked about this. this was an act in 1972. there was no discussion of this back then. to assume certain elements were thought about back then would be completely preposterous. >> you think secretary devos is on board with this? >> yes, is 00%. >> the second question is on mexico. the secretary of state along with secretary kelly. obviously there have been tensions between did this is this a cleanup job? >> no, i think the presidents and foreign ministers had several contacts with our staff. i would argue that we have a very healthy and robust relationship with the mexican government and officials. i think, president nieto has

echoed that. i think there's an unbelievable and robust dialogue. >> thank you. >> reporter: on syria, the general indicated the u.s. needs to take a larger share of the burden and send troops to syria. has the president discussed this with his national security team? >> i'm going to refer you backs to dod. i would argue you've seen the president talk about safe harbors in syria with several foreign -- safe havens, thank you, that's an area at the top of the president's foreign policy agenda that he's continued to talk to leaders especially in the middle east, about trying to make sure we deal with that issue in that area right now. but i'm not going to get ahead of the dod on this? look, i will -- if i have an

update, i will give it to you tomorrow. >> president trump indicating the prime minister wants the u.s. an canada council for advancement of women entrepreneurs, have you talked a bit about how it's growing? >> staff is implementing the president's agenda. it occurred six, seven days ago. we'll have further updates, but i know that he continues to be in touch with the prime minister trudeau and our staff continues to do -- to work on the back end to make this happen. >> a few questions for you. does the white house not have confidence in its cabinet secretaries if it's looking over their shoulders? does the white house -- does the president not trust his cabinet secretary? the staff to find people who agree with the president's agenda? >> not at all. the president named these folks, because they're an unbelievably

qualified individuals. part of is you're attaching major deposition, somewhere in the area of 5,000 positions to fill. i don't even this i the secretaries, to some degree, depending on the department have a full background. as they get pumped through the pipeline. again there are areas that are of key priority to the president that he campaigned on. i think when he wants to make sure that certain of those individuals who are going to be overseeing key priorities, that he promised the american people have somebody who is not only qualified, but agrees with and shares the president's vision to fix whatever problem that was or fulfill whatever vision he articulated, but it would almost be malpractice not to do that, to allow people to fill a job, a political appointee job, who don't share the vision and agenda of the united states,

would -- it would be silly on its face to suggest this. i don't think there's any administration in past history that would literally willingly take on somebody who is adamantly opposed or spoke on you spefl again what the president was seeking to do -- it doesn't seem as though it makes any sense. >> on the -- we're coming up a week away from the review of the counter-isis strategy. what's the status of that review? a bunch of generals? >> yes. is that regarding that review? >> i think general dumbford and secretary mattis have begun providing him updates on that. i know that the new national security adviser is getting brought into that process and continuing to do updates. we'll have further updates, but the team has been working on it. >> as far as the second executive order is concerned, what is the white house doing differently? in terms of consulting with the

various departments to make certain that the exec executive order passed the constitutional scrutiny? >> i think we have done a few things. one, we have been very clear about understanding what the court said in trying to tailor that specifically, while achieving the same goals of keeping america safe and ensuring that people don't come into the country that seek to do us harm. and number two, to -- that order is basically completed. what we are now doing is working with the various agencies and departments to make sure the implementation of that is done in an extremely smooth way. we have looked at it from both a process standpoint, as well as a legal standpoint, and i think it's achieving the goals, but again i would also mention that on the merits, we can see -- i believe in the first order did just that. it was written in a way, and i think ultimately we'll continue to prevail on that, because it

is written in a way that is clear and consistent with u.s. code and the authority the president has to protect the nation. katy. >> reporter: as it relates to the executive order, it's almost likely to face a legal challenge. >> sure. >> reporter: are you concerned the president's prior remarks as it relates to the judiciary is going to allow him to have a fair hearing by the judicial branch as it relates to the second amendment? >> yeah, absolutely. i think -- because i think that you've seen it happen in the massachusetts case. at the end of the day, you look at the law and what the order does, and i think, again, you may have -- in the case of the ninth circuit, we continue to disagree with that. i think the president has pointed out, you don't have to be that high up in grade school to recognize what the code says, what the authority that is granted to imhad, and then what the order does. i think the -- one of the cases they suggested there have been

no people that entered within the seven countries, and with a quick curse so i look there were 20 people that had come in. so the basis on which they decided the case doesn't actually pass muster. i think any judge or judges that look at that order or the one that will be put forward will come to the same conclusion. >> katie? >> reporter: i wanted to ask about the budget priorities? where does he see increase or decrease of spending? and how much money is he asking for -- >> i'm going to refer you back to marta's question. we'll have something in mid-march. look, he just had a meeting where he's continuing to work out, they're providing him back and forth. that's the idea of crafting the budget. until we put it out on paper, i don't want to get ahead -- >> sean, thank you very much. back to mexico, officials have

said this morning that they're not going to accept -- by the white house and by dhs yesterday and they may not taken that's not a mexican immigrant. >> i think secretary tillerson and secretary kelly will have a great discussion down there and walk through the implementation of the executive order, but i feel very confident that any country who has a citizen that comes into the country and we send back, we'll make sure they comply with this. >> two questions about immigration at the same time. one, the president has talked a number of times about millions of illegal immigrants casting votes for the election in his mind, promised to looked into that, but there was no mention of that in any of the these directives for these immigrants. does the president still believe -- >> he's mentioned that vice president pence will lead the task force, and the vice president is starting to gather names and individuals to be part of it. >> the other question i have about the daca program yesterday he suggested, well, we have to

go after hardened criminals, major national security threats first, but during the campaign, the president talked about daca as being unconstitutional and executive amnesty. does he still think it's unconstitutional use of president obama's powers? >> yes, i think the president is very clear about his priorities. yesterday was focused on going after people who are a public safety concern, and we're going to walk through this. we will get back to you on that. right now the focus on keeping the he country safe. >> wile given all of the personal on deporting of legal immigrants, i wanted to see if this white house and president trump have any interesting in curtailing legal immigration going forward. >> we have to look at this. there's millions of people in the country illegally. i think the focus continues to be the 800,000 or 900,000 that

already have an torrid to be removed and keep the process smooth. legal immigration is a completely separate subject. the president has talked about that, talked about it with bid leaders h 1 b vhave i visa, but there's a prioritization and we'll have more on it later. i've got to run. thank you very much. see you tomorrow. take care. so there you have it, sean spicer, the white house press secretary wrapping up his briefing, answering reporters' questions for a little more than half an hour. lots of questions were asked, veries important questions. the press secretary didn't completely answer a lot of those questions. we'll assess exactly what we learned, what we didn't learn. i'm wolf blitzer in washington. once again we want to welcome our virus in the united states and around the world to help sort all of these important

issues out. there's a lot going on today. let's bring in our chief national security correspondent jim scuitto, laura coates, david greg dorsey, talia polpan. jim, let mea start with you. the new travel ban that's about to be announced, there are several important questions about rhetoric, statements the president as a candidate had made that potentially could complicate implementing round 2 of this travel ban. >> clearly the white house strategy is to make it just about vetting from country that is have vetting problems, not making it about muslims -- these are donald trump's words when he announced this during the campaign december 2015. first was statement on preventing muslim immigration, pretty broad there. donald trump is calling for a

total and complete shutdown of muslims entering the united states. that's what he sid during the campaign. that's on the record. even since the election, he's started to focus more on terror, keeping the country safe. you heard sean spicer says this is just about country that is didn't have proper vetting. so the question is, do the courts accept that quite remarkable pivot from the initial public statements, and we know in the ninth circuit case, they mentioned donald trump and the surrogate statements on the campaign trail d it meet the legal standard? that's for the courts to decide. i will note there has been a continues contradiction among donald trump's advisers here, because stephen miller, he was quoted on the air just a short time ago speaking to martha mccollum, if the change are minor and technical, but sean spicer is saying it's a whole different thing, listen it's going to be for the courts to

decide what it is on paper. >> laura, you're a legal analyst. we did learn that the new travel ban has been completed. they're now going through how best to implement it to make sure that the requirements are fully met, but this issue of a muslim ban, that rhetoric that the president as candidate delivered did you the campaign, how much of a problem is this for getting round 2 approved? >> if due process is your minor technical point, you have a big uphill battle. remember, the court made very clear, they gave a blueprint in the ninth circuit that essentially said, listen we don't believe in the smoke and mirrors, if this is simply a pretext for discrimination, it violates the first amendment of the constitution, which is not what you can turn off and on if you're the president of the united states based on unfounded or perhaps just a bold assertion

of national security. they're going to have do combat two things, take away the minority religious preference, and also figure out a way to provide some clarity for the court that says there is a reason why the existence vetting measures that we currently have in place are insufficient with respect to these seven countries. if it's because of your campaign rhetoric that will not pass constitutional muster. sara murdray is in the pressroo, the reports came out that the president is micromanaging all the various departments and agencies, vetting individuals that a secretary may want for a senior position, to make sure that those individuals didn't say or do anything contrary to the president's policies, didn't say anything negative about the candidates who have running. >> reporter: that's right, wolf, we do know this is a president that's been preoccupied for a long time about the notion of

loyalty and he takes any criticism very personally. we've seen that playing out as these cabinet secretaries are trying to staff their various agencies, that there has been concern coming from the white house about potentially people filling these political appointee slots who have been critical of the president in the past. white house press secretary sean spicer downplayed this today, basically say if you're looking at political appointees, you want people who are supportive of the president and supportive of his priorities as you know there were a number of republicans that might be well qualified for these jobs who weren't necessarily supportive of donald trump early on in the campaign, especially when we are looking at roughly a dozen candidates. one of the concerns we've been hearing are worries that you will not broadband fill all of these slots of people who are proper loy -- have the proper level of experience if you're only looking at people who are support i was of donald trump from day one.

the white house as you said is dismissive of this concern, who basically said anyone who will fill a political appointee should be on board 100%. >> that's an important point indeed. >> david gress guardino, on the issues of the town hall of republicans that they are now facing, some of them becoming rather loud, a lot of protests going on, citizens complaining, we did hear from sean spicer in response to a question, there seems to be in his word, a hybrid. some people are legitimately upset, they have every right to do so, but some of this is manufactured and there's a lot more noise than there are -- there seems to been a lot more noise than there seems to be specification issues. in other words it's directed from the outside. >> i think that's largely true. i don't think the manufactured part is true, but the fact you have some districts with loud resistance, organized resistance, resistance similar

to the tea party, which is that it's coming organically, this time from progressive circles, in some cases being brought in from outside the district, to make a lot of noise, and to be disrupti disruptive. that's what the tea party was in large measure, and it's taking on big questions, are the republicans going to resist where progressives and middle of the roaders think they should. >> we're getting from the press briefs a lot of policy discussions now that's unsettled policy discussion. this whole debate about obamacare is not going to go well, because it's going to be messy and hard, just as it was when president obama pursued it, it's going to be contentious. that's what i think the town has are legitimately reflecting. >> you know, tal, he had a photo op with his secretary of treasury, budget director, basically insisting the whole

budget is a mess. he used that word, but he did saysh and we did shear from sean spicer that make by early to mid march, new proposals for health care would be released and new specification budget decisions would be released as well, but the president referred to the whole process right now that he has inherited as a mess. >> it might look like a mess. folks on capitol hill are sort of waiting with bated breath to see what they get if we have this march dead lining, but there's a lot of things in the budget that's contrary to republican ideological ways. for example he wants a massive border security plan, we're going to build a wall, we're going to hire 15,000 people minimus, plus detention centers. there's very big-ticket items. we're not even talking yet about an infrastructure time, yet at

the same time mick mulvaney is one of the biggest budget hawks that comes out congress. and there's a lot of questions how those two different ideas will work out. s. >> and who's going to pay for a lot of it. >> if you take the larger view, the only thing particularly well done is judge gorsuch. that was a hornet's nest because of how they handled judge garland, and all that's correct but all the traps were hit before he got going. the president could have been in a position to roll out some things on tax reform. he could have gotten that ball rolling a lot more seamlessly, hasn't done it yet, hasn't been organized. this focus on immigration has been incredibly questionive, but also not organized. >> jim, the secretary of homeland security, secretary kelly, the secretary of states

rex tillerson, they'll be meeting with the mexican leadership. they should be arriving in mexico city shortly. there's been various descriptions of what their mission is right now. clearly there are some serious strains because of the president's repeated assertion that the u.s. is going to build this border wall and mexico will pay for it. >> apparently kelly and tillerson will propose that mexicans detain -- of course a burden for mexico in lights of the accusatory language, to say the least used by the president. you had sean spicer there in his words say we have a healthy and rho robust relationship with mexico. i wonder certainly if some strains have leaked out about paying for the wall, so we'll see if tillerson and kelly -- kelly had a long time working with mexicans as chairman of southern command, so he's been

partners with them in the antidrug war, et cetera, do the personal relationship, tillerson's well-known diplomatic skills, does that get over an enormous hump by the president remains to be seen, and the ask they're going with is a pretty dramatic ask to make of someone you're not having the warmest relationship right now. >> another sensitive issue, laura, the issue of transgender bathrooms, the press secretary was asked a few times, what is the administration's stance on this? does it differ from the obama administration? >> he said further guidance would be released later today. it is a sensitive issue for the department of education. >> it is. what happened a couple years ago you had this issue of the fourth circuit of a student in virginia, gavin graham who is trying to use the bathroom of the sex he identified with. you had the president issuing guidance saying, listen, i'm going to assist the public schools around the country to

figure owl hoe we should sensitively treat people who are transgender, the civil rights division backed them up, and essentially the department of education said title ix guards against sex discrimination. we didn't talk about transgender identity being sex, but it's the same thing we're talking about protecting people. well, the supreme court will now hear the case march 28th, because the fourth circuit set we're going to rely on the president, president obama's guidance at that time. so if trump then reverses that guidance, even if it's for benign reasons, which he has suggested that it is, the court may send it right back to the lower courts and say because you relied on that guidance, it no longe arer exists this could be a very lengthy court procedure and an affront for civil rights that's happened for the lbgt population. >> you heard sean spicer saying the president is a strong

believer in states' rights, and that would be a sensitive issue as far as this supreme court decision is concerned. >> it will be. it's not just whether the federal government should have a role, or is this a states' rights constitution which would be a constant battle between federalism and different administrations. that's the theory, but when it comes down to it title 9:00 does guard against sex discrimination. gender identify is about sex discrimination. it's a civil rights issue. >> we we know about the uproar in north carolina as a result of the ex-governor there. everybody stand by. we're getting more reaction coming in. ted lu of california is with us. we're going to get his reaction of what we heard from the white house. some of those fiery town has. congressman, stay with us. we'll be right back. what makes this simple salad the best simple salad ever?

heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org.

if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis isn't it time to let the real you shine through? introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.

and her new mobile wedding business.tte at first, getting paid was tough... until she got quickbooks. now she sends invoices, sees when they've been viewed and-ta-dah-paid twice as fast for free. visit quickbooks-dot-com.

right now constituents across the nation are extending republican lawmakers that they are not happy. outside a town hall event for mitch mcconnell, people lined for miles carrying signs protesting many of the new policies. other republican lawmakers are on town has later today, including ryan costello, senator dean heller, and bill cassidy of louisiana. they're hoping to avoid scenes like these. >> we wrecked our economy with our rulations -- >> last i heard these coal jobs are not coming back. now they don't have the insurance they need because they're poor, and they worked the coal mines, and they're sick, the vet advance are sick, the vet advance are broken down, they're not getting what they need. if you can answer any of that,

i'll sit down and shut up like elizabeth warren. >> the insurance -- no, what percentage -- let me finish my answer, please. i'm going to answer the question. >> when will you be defunding planned parenthood? >> are you willing to cross party lines to make things work for everyone in your constituency? >> i cross party lines all the time. last week i was the single -- >> do you want to be poor or richer? that is the -- [ crowd yelling ] >> i would like to answer questions. >> president trump weighed in with this tweet. i'd read it to you -- the so-called angry crowds are actually in numerous cases planned out by liberal activists. sad with an exclamation point. meantime president trump is sending two of his top

lieutenants to mexico. secretary of state rex tillerson will get there later today and joined by secretary kelly. they'll be meeting with president nieto as between the two presidents, but secretaries kellie and tillerson hope to move past that as they engage the mexican government on border security, immigration and trade and of course the wall that the president wants to build along the border. house speaker ryan is paying a visit to the mexican border, there along with other republicans as they view the area of trump's promised border wall, coming up with a roughly $20 billion expected to take to builds that wall. >> let me bring in a democrat, a

member of the foreign affairs committee and subcommittee on homeland security. thanks for joining us. >> thank you, wolf. >> you heard sean spicer say the u.s. and mexico have a robust healthy relationship right now, do you agree with that assessment? >> thank you, donald trump is afraid people are going to watch cnn, you must be doing something right. thank you for reporting real news. to your question, sean spicer is lying again. he said relations are phenomenal, that is false. there have been protests, and just introduced legislation to say they are not going to buy u.s. corn, they are at one of the worst points in u.s.-mexican history. >> they're going to be having high level meetings, spicer also

said it was an important trip but pushed back on what you're suggesting, he said they're going to try to mend some fences with mexico but this is clearly a critical moment, i assume you agree? >> absolutely. this is not the first time this has happened when president trump offended the prime minister of australia, we had republican u.s. senators call the ambassador to try to mend fences, now we're sending two secretaries to try to clean up the mess. >> the white house says everyone who is here illegally undocumented immigrants here in the united states everyone is subject to removal but also say the enforcement guidelines are not meant the facilitate mass deportations, you're response? >> having come to the united states as an immigrant i find the administration's actions

offensive, unamerican and cruel, and it's going to separate children from their parents, break apart families and at least under george bush we had compassionate conservative, this is cruel conservetism, and is going to lead tomas deportations and that is not good for america and i hope people see about what's to happen and we stop it. >> but the president is letting the so-called dreamers brought here as young kids by their parents from other countries an they have grown up here in the united states the only country they know, he says the daca provisions will remain in affect. you're pleased by that? >> i am, but they could also deport their parents of these daca students and i'm not pleased with that. this is all based on a ultimate reality of facts, it's been negative since 2007 that means

more mexicans have left america than entered. and studies show documented and undocumented commit less crimes than people born in america. >> let me quickly get your reaction to president trump's tweet that a lot of unrest is being caused by liberal activists, sean spicer basically said the same thing in his briefing saying that the anger that the media is showing is not necessarily genuine, what's your response to that? >> these protests at these town halls are continuation of the massive backlash against president trump starting january 21st with the women's march, then at the airports and now at the town halls and i think it's sad that the president of the united states is ignoring the concerns of the americans. >> thanks for joining us. >> thank you. so who will lead the

democratic party in the era of a new president. the debate they debate tonight live on cnn at 10:00 p.m. eastern, chris cuomo and dana bash are the moderators. >> the visit is meant to ease tensions between trump's administration and mexican president, tillerson's state department is responsible for explaining u.s. foreign policy to the country indeed to the world through daily press briefings, but they haven't held one since president trump took office back on january 20th, tony blink en is with me. it's been a month now and there's been no daily state department briefing. >> that's right. >> to the news media, no on-camera briefings, sthrthere'

spokesman, but it's pretty unusual to be this long not hearing from the state department? >> it is, and it takes an important mega phone out of our hands. this is the way to explain policy and clarify policy, i think there's probably good reason for it and that's that it's unclear what the police is, it's hard to know what to say when there's this dysfunction in the national security process. to date the right people haven't been brought around the table in the situation room, secretary of state, chairman of joint chiefs and others normally when you have a normal process everyone gets around the same table, debate the policy, decide the policy an everyone speaks with one voice. that hadn't been happening. >> presumably a state department spokesperson could go out there

and say something contradictory within minutes? >> yes. the vice president and the secretary of homeland security and they did a good job in i think reassuring europeans except no one in europe could tell what exactly represented the administration's policy and i think secretary tillerson is under the same challenge. >> all the senior positions that just below that of secretary of state are unfilled. assistant secretaries their vetting people presumably reviewing the process but you have temporary career diplomats filling in some of those spots. >> that's exactly right. it's not the same thing as having a full time -- when he's off going to mexico which is a good thing who is back in the white house representing the state department when they're

talking policy? assuming they're even convened in that room. he's there to protect the interest of the department to make sure it's fully represented. >> what's wrong with what the white house says, they are political appointees, they don't want those who criticize donald trump during the extent of the campaign, i'm sure that the obama administration didn't want critics. >> on one hand there's nothing wrong with that and the president is entitled to have his people so is the secretary of state, but two things what's going on and i think a new problem with the national security adviser has to get his arms around is while the nfc has been operationing you see other competing power centers rising, you have mr. bannon apparently

maki making -- with russia, even mexico, a bunch of freelancers presenting peace plans for ukraine around behind the back of the national security council. unless regular order is re-established and that really is mr. mcmaster's job it's going to be hard for anyone to make policy and doubly difficult because our partners around the world don't know who to listen to. >> you served and became deputy secretary of state. i assume you're reassured that general mcmaster is now the national security adviser. >> he's a first rate pick and everything he's done whether it was on the battlefield or thinking and writing about national security, i think it's hard to find anyone who has anything negative to say about him, i hope one of conditions he took about taking the job was it

was going to be the national security process, and all of these alternative work-arounds has to go. >> thanks very much. >> coming up we're slated to hear directly from the vice president addressing anti-semitic acts across the country, stay with us right here on cnn. top of the hour i'm brooke baldwin thank you for being with me. moments ago the white house hit back on this. >> anger, out ccryoutcry, frustt these town halls across the country for republican members of congress, but is it for real or for show? let me first s