this is "gps: the global public square." welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. today on the show, a stunning development. president trump says he will

meet with north korean leader, kim jong-un. will it happen? what could get accomplished? is the denuclearization of north korea actually in the cards? i have a great panel to discuss. also, four-star general, martin dempsey. the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. the man who advised president obama on all matters military, talks about the challenges facing president trump. and i ask for his take on the many generals around president trump. is it appropriate to have so many in a civilian government? but first, here's my take. the news on the korean peninsula is being described as a diplomatic breakthrough. and it is, for north korea. it has been the goal of north korea for decades now to have a high-profile, one-on-one summit meeting with the president of the united states. kim jong-un's father, kim jong-il, wanted such a meeting with mlk.

the clinton administration agreed to send secretary of state madeleine albright to north korea to begin talks and see if enough progress was made to warrant a presidential summit. it concluded that there wasn't. the bush administration, which labeled north korea part of the axis of evil was even cooler on high-level talks. the obama administration achieved breakthroughs with the cuban and iranian regimes through high-level contacts, but gave up on diplomacy with the north korean regime, because of its unwillingness to denuclearize. it adopted, instead, a policy of pressure and until now, the trump administration had stuck to that policy and actually escalated it. earlier this week, mike pence said our posture toward the regime will not change, until we see credible, verifiable, and concrete steps toward denuclearization. trump himself previously ridiculed the idea of talks, tweeting, the u.s. has been talking to north korea for 25

years. talking is not the answer. he humiliated his own secretary of state, rex tillerson, for his diplomatic efforts, tweeting that tillerson was wasting his time. so what changed this week? well, it's not clear. the charitable interpretation would be that the south korean government received assurances that the north was serious about talks to eliminate its arsenal. let's be clear. north korea has announced no concessions, no reversal of its arsenal, no denuclearization, let alone any actions. what appears to have happened is the following. trump was told that in the talks between north and south, kim jong-un expressed a wish to meet with him and trump jumped at the opportunity. henry kissinger has often said that presidential summits should be the climax of a long negotiating process, not the beginning. trump's gambit turns that dictum on its head. victor cha, once slated to be

trump's own ambassador to south korea, warns that a presidential summit is dangerous because if it fails, it leaves little room for further diplomacy. the outcome, he says, could actually end up being war. but we should look upon this move with open and wish the president and the administration well. yet it does feel like it's part of a pattern. trump talks tough towards countries like, say, china and saudi arabia. they then flatter him, put on parades and banquets, and he quickly reverses course. and in his eagerness to reward flattery, he makes large concessions and gets little in return. the united states has endorsed saudi policy in yemen and qatar with no noticeable reciprocal reward. trump announced a major concession to israel, the move to jerusalem, without even asking for something in return. south korean president moon seems to have noticed this pattern. he sought to move events on the korean peninsula away from war talk and towards negotiations,

essentially the opposite of trump's declared path. but he took pains to always praise trump while he charted his on temporary course. he did it again this week, giving trump ample credit for his own opening. all these countries seem to understand how to play donald trump. what we need to watch now is whether donald trump knows how to play them. and let's get started. let's keep going with this extraordinary news about north korea, with my terrific panel today, sue miteri was the senior analyst was 2001 to 2008. she's now a senior fellow for korea. ian prebremmer is the presidentd

founder of the oeurasia group ad now the author of "super power." and he traveled to pyongyang in 2000 on that famous trip with madeleine albright to meet kim jong-il. those were the highest level meetings ever held between the united states and north korea. so, first, let's just talk about the way this happened, which i still feel is, itself, unprecedented, ian bremmer. have you ever heard about, you know, kind of a foreign policy initiative, which worked out like this? >> nothing even close. we have the south korean senior foreign policy envoy, who's meeting with hr mcmaster on thursday, not supposed to meet with trump until friday. trump finds out the meeting is happening and says, no, i want to do that right now. they meet, they talk, it's clear that the invitation, which is offered to trump is something that president moon himself of south korea is not in any way

suggesting that trump should just accept, be cautious, first engage at a lower level. trump is like, no, no, i want to do it, let's announce it right now. the south koreans end up making the announcement in the driveway, in front of the house. on every level, this is unprecedented. and yet on every level, this is par for the course and what we should expect with president trump. >> so, what would -- normally, presumably, you would have had the president say, let's think about it. >> sure. >> let's convene a national security council meeting. >> of course. even president moon jae-in, south korean president, who's all for engagement said, if the conditions are right, let me think about this and i'll get back to you. so what president trump in a normal situation should have done is convene a nsc meeting and talk about pros and cons about having a meeting with kim jong-un and then coordinate the policy and then announce it. >> so stanley, what's wrong with

trying this? the trump argument, i suppose, would be, look we've tried all that kind of thing. why not do something out of the box? >> there's nothing wrong with trying this. i think extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. and in my view, president trump had no choice. first, this had been clearly orchestrated by president moon, whoed a invested enormous political capital and prestige, sending his national security adviser to personally brief the president, carrying the invitation. it would have been a massive insult to president moon had he nod accept not accepted. it would have been a massive insult to kim jong-un. furthermore, i think the president, because of the way he runs the white house, does not have the luxury that president clinton had, where he could send secretary albright, ambassador sherman, and a very large team. we had four assistant secretaries to pave the way for a trip. a secretary tillerson really going to be able to represent the u.s. on north korea policy after the way the president has publicly treated him three

times? is this the right time for national security adviser mcmaster, reportedly on the way out, to be heading the delegation? you can haven't the secretary of defense. so really, it is up to president trump to start it. but remember the key thing. the point that ti agree with th white house, that i hope that they stick to it. this is not a negotiation. a negotiation requires endless rounds of preparation and detail. this is a meeting. and if a meeting can start to form the beginnings o s of a relationship, and i'm not saying friendship, if a meeting can somewhat reduce the tensions, and if a meeting can end up with an agreement on a process for negotiations, it is then worth the risk. >> but sue mi terry, the north has wanted this meeting for a long time, because this is a very repressive regime and this provides incredible legitimacy to the regime. >> absolutely. north koreans have sought a meeting with a u.s. leader for many years. i mean, even president bush was invited, or they wanted to meet with him. it gives north korea legitimacy, as you said, it normalizes the

country. but i have other concerns. it's that trump might not see this as just a beginning of the negotiation. what if he concludes? what if he agrees to something like, you know, north koreans say, if their regime security is guaranteed that they might give up nuclear weapons, but what does that mean? that means they want to break up the u.s./south korean alliance and kick off the forces of the korean peninsula. so what if he decides, hey, this might work? or, at the other end, i think victor cha was absolutely right when he said, you know, you have a premature negotiation. what it if falls through? there's no recourse after that. you slr malready have met with jong-un. now we have no recourse except to take kinetic action on north korea. >> ian bremmer, you said to me, you knew this was going to happen in the sense that kim jong -- trump was going to want to meet with kim jong-un, why? >> because no one else has done it? kim jong-un has not met with a

single other leader of the world since he's taken power. and no american president has ever met with a north korean leader, only former secretary of state. so it's the first, it's incredible television, clearly trump wants to make this happen. that doesn't mean it's going to happen. and there are a lot of things -- simply the fact of saying there's going to be a subtle has now made trump's presidency more about north korea than i think any of us want. i mean, the fact is, this has been the most intractable geopolitical problem for several mirp administrations now. they've all decided to kick it down the road, even though we knew it was getting worse. because they worried that openiopen ing up that can of worms had the potential to kill an awful lot of people. and now that trump is making his presidency more about that is a greater greater for all of us. >> but you're saying from a pure tv point of view, this is irresistible to the former host of "the apprentice"? >> i think it's irresistible, and at some point, that putin will make an offer to actually

host this thing. because it's irresistible to have the media covering in this sort of way. they both like that kind of thing. it doesn't mean the meeting will occur or be any good. >> but this is all very good for north korea. north korea is now what, 95% of the way to a robust nuclear arsenal with delivery systems, right? >> yes. >> now is the time for them to talk. >> absolutely. north korea is going to spin this as going into this summit meeting from a position of strength. they're going to say, it's because of our nuclear strength. they are 90 to 95% done with their nuclear program. they just have one more technical hurdle that they have to cross, which is to show successful reentry capability. but, yeah, south korea and japan are already under nuclear threat, they have already shown icbm capability that can reach all of mainland united states. they are very, very close and they're going to say, hey, we are now coming in from a position of strength. >> all right, we've got to take a break.

when we come back, what i'm going to do is ask stanley roth what this meeting would look like since he's the guy who planned the last high-level meeting. when we come back.

you were pushed out of your homeland, but you could never be broken. you walked together. you built your home again. my dna showed that i'm native american, and connected me to cousins who taught me about our tribe. my name is joseph reece, and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 10 million new family connections made every day. order your kit at ancestrydna.com smile dad. i take medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol. but they might not be enough to protect my heart. adding bayer aspirin can further reduce the risk of another heart attack. because my second chance matters. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. i just need some rest.

i'm just worried about the house. and taking care of the boys. [ door slams ] he's still asleep. zach? zach?! [ dog barking ] ♪ [ sighs in relief ] zach! talk to me. it's for the house. i got a job. it's okay. dad took care of us. principal. we can help you plan for that.

and we are back with sue mi terry, ian bremmer, and stanley roth. stanley, you planned, you helped plan the madeleine albright visit. what is your sense of, how do the north koreans behave in these situations? do they just want the meeting, or are they actually willing to engage and make concessions and all that kind of thing? >> let me say, first, going back to risk, that, yes, there's risk for the president, but there's risk for the president in doing nothing or in rejecting the

offer, and there's risk for kim, as well, because an unsuccessful meeting puts him right back under maximum pressure and under situation of threat to his economy. so nobody is risk free in this. and i think we should remember that this is not a clear win. now, coming to what you've talked about, i think the key thing to suspect is surprises. when we did the albright trip, kim jong-un was not supposed to be the host, yet he ended up being the host. we expected that he would make the initial presentation. instead, he turned to secretary albright and asked her to start. and when she stopped, it was because he didn't like long presentations, he had her speak for 30 to 45 minutes. there was the big surprise, unwelcome one, of the stadium event, the propaganda event with the 100,000 athletes charging the stage with fireworks and clapping. so expect surprises. depending on the venue of where this is held, which we don't know, there may be less capacity for major surprises comparable

to the stadium. >> you say that, you don't think trump should go to pyongyang? >> i don't think that he should go to pyongyang and i don't think kim should come here. i would prefer the dmz, the peace house. i think it gives excellent access to the rok government. you have daily conversations after the negotiations and japan could send a delegation and it's great for coordination. but, still, even there, there's less capacity for major surprises. but even at the trivial level of protocol, what, if on the one hand, kim gives president trump a great big bear hug? how do you respond to that? an awkward moment. or a bad scenario, he gives him a diatribe about all the u.s. sins going back to the behavior in the korean war. the president has to be prepared for that. i think the important point is, one, do the right thing, you're here in an historic first meeting of leaders, shake hands, you don't have to be best friends, but don't create an incident. second, expect surprises and try to think through how you deal

with some of them. third, don't be provoked. the worst outcome is if they start trading insults and it becomes a race to the bottom. fourth, stick with your plan. don't try to solve everything. because that can be dangerous. remember, reagan at retgorbache. understand that you're not here to work out the details to come up with common definitions. try to get a plan for a negotiating process. >> sue mi terry, it's still quite possible this won't happen. trump's own national security council seems to be walking back the possibility by putting on these conditions saying, we're only going to do the summit if there's denuclearization. >> so i'm getting already a sense that nsc is trying to walk back this, because before may is right around the corner. and i think, because they understand the danger and the risk that's going to be involved with are very premature,

engaging with kim jong-un right now. when you're prepared, that's fine, but it's a little bit too premature. they're trying to walk back. but north korea, what preconditions? they already said denuclearization is now on the table. so what actions do they need to take? i think if mr. trump really wants to see him, he will. i think in terms of the venue, dmz is fine. definitely, i think mr. trump should not go to north korea, because it's going to really give north koreans are going to spin this into legitimacy, into u.s. president coming to north korea, to kowtow to their dear leader. so they should at least do it at the dmz or a place that's a neutral country like switzerland, sweden, or singapore. >> stanley, a quick thought on you from china. is china happy with the situation? they've, after all, wanted a diffusion of tension. this is sort of what the chinese want. >> yes, i think they're happy, but conflicted. of course, anything that diffuses the situation makes

military action less likely is very positive for them if it can lead to a negotiating process, even better. at the same time, they've got to be very concerned about the possibilities of a trade war, not just the steps taken, but the steps that might be taken, and that could influence their willingness to be helpful. and third, there's probably a bit of resentment that north korea met with the u.s. president before the meeting with the chinese president. that's absolutely extraordinary. >> and the trade war part. what's extraordinary is the south koreans are under the gun with trump's tariffs, even at the time when we're trying to build a close alliance with them. >> that's right, the fact that this invitation was formally accepted by trump at the same time that trump is saying i'm going to put tariffs on steel and aluminum against all these countries around the world and south korea happens to be quite an important exporter to the united states, but he backed away from that significantly, not just on mexico and canada with exemptions, but saying that anyone can have an exemption for

national security purposes. the south koreans immediately said, thank you so much, trump, you're brilliant for organizing this meeting with kim jong-un, but can we have an exemption? and the u.s. government quickly said, yes, we'll be working on that, we'll take care of the south koreans. >> one last thought before we go. italian elections, ian bremmer. this seems to be pretty big news. >> i think this is the most significant anti-establishment vote in a major industrial democracy in decades. over 50% of the italians said that they're either for the five-star movement. you're a skeptic, which is now the largest part, or the northern league, strongly anti-immigration. the establishment parties are devastated. it's not going to matter that much near-term, because the european economies are still doing well. but the fact is, anyone that hoped that macron was turning the page and now we're anti-globalization, it's a wave across europe get stronger and

stronger and italy shows that decisi decisively. >> to me, the big news is populism is not dead. you know, we have not passed peak populism and technical shows that pretty powerfully. thank you all so much. fascinating conversation. for more on italy, i had a chance this week to interview one of the nation's finest minds about what it all means. go to cnn.com/fareed and see my chat. coming up here on "gps," why tariffs have turned into the biggest political battle in the united states. not between democrats and republicans, but between trump and the republicans. we'll be back in a moment. imagine if the things you bought every day... earned you miles to get to the places you really want to go. with the united mileageplus explorer card, you'll get a free checked bag. two united club passes.

priority boarding. and earn fifty thousand bonus miles after you spend three thousand dollars on purchases in the first three months from account opening plus, zero-dollar intro annual fee for the first year, then ninety-five dollars. learn more at theexplorercard.com looking for a hotel that fits... whoooo. ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over... ...200 sites to find you the... ...hotel you want at the lowest price. grazi, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.

the markets change... 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. mitzi: psoriatic arthritis tries to get in my way? watch me. ( ♪ ) mike: i've tried lots of things for my joint pain. now? watch me. ( ♪ ) joni: think i'd give up showing these guys how it's done? please. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are changing the way they fight it. they're moving forward with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. it's proven to help people find less joint pain and clearer skin. don't use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx you should be checked 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 of an infection.

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. mitzi: with less joint pain, watch me. for less joint pain and clearer skin, ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. ask your rheumatologist the more you know the the commute is worth it.me, for all the work you pour into this place, you sure get a lot more out of it. you and that john deere tractor... so versatile, you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive. but just like a john deere, it's worth it. nothing runs like a deere. now you can own a 1e sub-compact tractor for just $99 a month. learn more at your john deere dealer.

if you'd have told me three years ago that we'd be downloading in seconds what used to take minutes. that guests would compliment our wifi. that we could video conference and do it like that (snaps). if you'd have told me that i could afford a gig-speed. a gig-speed network. it's like 20 times faster than what most people have. i'd of said... i'd of said you're dreaming. dreaming! definitely dreaming. then again, dreaming is how i got this far. now more businesses in more places can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network.

now for our "what in the world" segment. the tussle over tariffs in washington right now is the most significant political battle taking place in america. it's much broader than the dispute over steel and aluminum exports. it is the republican party's last stand against a total takeover by donald trump. having ceded ground to the president on everything from personal character to immigration to entitlement reform, republican leaders have chosen to draw the line at free trade. if they get rolled on this, trump will have completed the transformation of his party. in recent weeks, donald trump seems to have remembered that he is a populist, or at least is playing one on television. after campaigning as the tribune of the forgotten working class,

he handed over his presidency to the establishment wing of the republican party, which proceeded to attack obamacare, roll back regular layings, and pass a huge tax cuts for companies and wealth americans. but now he is moving hard on tariffs and also immigration. as is often the case, trump may be more in line with his party's base than most of its leaders. a recent poll finds that voters overwhelmingly oppose trump's tariffs, as does the republican establishment. but most republican voters support them. in fact, over the last decade, republican support for free trade has dropped a staggering 20 points. the new republican party is now coming into view. it is a party skeptical about free markets, from adam smith to milton friedman, every great theorist of capitalism has recognized that free trade is at the heart of what makes capitalism worked. and they have all pointed out that tariffs are precisely the kind of government intervention

that produces inefficiency and corruption. but republicans are now apparently comfortable with government intervention, as long as it's for the right people. it is also now a party that has developed a total contempt for experts and expert analysis. consider that trump's tariffs are opposed by a remarkable array of scholars across the political spectrum, from the conservative heritage foundation, to the kato institute, to the center-left brookings institution, to the left-wing center for economic and policy research. the white house barely offers serious arguments about it, instead providing a bogus argument for the tariffs, even though china provides only a tiny portion of these goods to the united states. despite research showing that previous protectionist policies have failed, that the steel industry has lost more jobs due to efficiency in automation than to trade and that preserving one job in the steel/automobile industry through tariffs can cost consumers a whopping $1.5

million, administration supporters no longer even offer a response. the data is simply dismissed as partisan spin or fake news. and the finally point is the dpgop is being transform spooded into party that is basically hostile to foreigners. even traditional allies like the europeans are increasingly viewed with great suspicion. it is bizarre to have chosen these tariffs that most threaten american allies. now, trade does produce disruptions, especially severe ones in recent decades. the most sensible, cost-effective way to deal with them would be to provide subsidies to workers who lose their jobs because of trade and then invest in large-scale retraining efforts. but that doesn't quite have the bite that attacking foreigners and stoking trade conflict does. having transformed the party's views on issues, as diverse as immigration and fiscal discipline, if trump wins the battle over trade with his party, he will have won the war.

the republican party will be history. and given his long demonstrated preferences in this regard, who knows, trump would probably want to rename the party, the trump party. for more, go to cnn.com/fareed and read my "washington post" column this week. next on "gps," president obama's former top military adviser, martin dempsey, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, on what he would advise the current president to do on military matters, starting with north korea. ♪

(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. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

my next guest is general martin dempsey. he was the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the highest ranking u.s. military officer from 2011 to 2015. in that role, he was the top military adviser to president barack obama. general dempsey, thanks for joining me. >> good to see you again, fareed. >> so the big news is north korea. when you think about the north korean position, putting

yourself in their perspective, their shoes, doesn't this make sense from their point of view, which is that they have now built up a robust nuclear arsenal, intercontinental ballistic missiles that can reach the united states, so they have the insurance that they were laooking for all along. now they're willing to talk. i would imagine what they're trying to talk about is regularizing and codifying that reality rather than reversing it. >> well, militarily, which is really my expertise, they can threaten their south korean neighbors with a conventional threat. they have thousands of artillery pieces and rockets along the demilitarized zone. so they don't need the nuclear capability for south korea. they do need it to threaten us and the other stakeholders like japan and others in the region. so i suspect that they will try to compartmentalize this.

and we'll have to decide or our negotiators will have to decide, how compartmentalized do we want it to be? are we trying to bring stability to the korean peninsula, which takes you on one path, or are we trying simply to denuclearize? and that will be an important decision. >> in your analysis of kim jong-un, did you imagine that this might be possible? did he strike you -- because this is a fairly rational process, where he has built up his arsenal to the point where he feels secure. now he's willing to talk. that doesn't sound wild, crazy, irrational. >> i think the path he has put himself on to acquire the nuclear capability is quite rational. i think some of the tactics along the way have been unimaginably brutal. and, you know, caused instability in the region to spike. now, i suspect we'll see all of that come out. do you remember the last time when we met, we did have this conversation about, is he a

rational actor? and i certainly think he's a rational actor in the sense that he's principally interested in preserving his own regime and his dynasty into the future. the tactics are troubling. you know, we've seen he's willing to do nearly anything to do that. and this is why this negotiation would be so, so challenging. >> when you look at the iran deal, what's your assessment and you know, how would you have responded to the argument that iranians after the deal have not moderated their behavior? they're still a troublesome force in the region? >> i think it's a little early to tell. we've been at it for a couple of years. i think it's important to note that it wasn't a u.s./iran deal, it was the permanent members of the u.n. security council, plus germany and iran. and so, again, in the spirit of inclusion, these complex problems are best solved, you know, allies and partners and

coalitions and teams rather than unilaterally or autonomously. so i would, you know, the most important thing for me is that we keep that resolve alive, that we will keep pressure of iran not to go nuclear. can you imagine, by the way, if we were dealing with a nuclear-capable north korea and a flanuclear-capable iran, simultaneously? that's the definition of a bad day in the pentagon. so i would hope that we would stay strong and resolute in allowing this agreement to move forward, while still keeping pressure on them in other ways, for the others activities that we see out of iran. cyber, weapons proliferation, surrogates, and proxies. but i think the iran -- the iran nuclear accord was important for the time and i think we have to give it time to see where it leads us. >> we will be right back. more with general martin dempsey, including his take on all the generals that surround

donald trump. kelly, mattis, mcmaster. is it a good idea to have so many military men running an american democracy? ancestrydna can pinpoint where your ancestors are from... and the paths they took to a new home. could their journey inspire yours? order your kit at ancestrydna.com what's going on here? i'm babysitting. that'll be $50 bucks. you said $30 dollars. it was $30 before the pizza-ordering fee and the dog-sitting fee. are those my heels? with t-mobile taxes and fees are already included, so you get four unlimited lines for just $35 bucks each.

it's hard to get all the daily that's why i love fiber choice. it has the fiber found in many fruits and vegetables, all in a tasty chewable tablet. fiber choice: the smart choice. and we are back with general martin dempsey. you know, what's interesting to me about your book is that you're a military man. and people think of military men general, you know, it's about hierarchy, it's about commands. and the whole book is actually about the importance of radical inclusion of almost a kind of flat organization of consensus, of trying to share both the decision making and the responsibility. do you think we understand the armed forces wrong. that we don't understand how you actually -- that you're actually persuading a lot more than you're commanding. >> absolutely. and i think it's because, if you

think about how we've, we as a nation, have constructed our national security apparatus, it's through allies and partners. since the '50s. and, in fact, we have 53 allies and partners around the globe, 28 of them in europe, in the organization called the north atlantic treaty organization, and that's how we've built our security. well, as a result, military leaders who have come through that system have learned to achieve particular outcomes, it's not just about achieving them yourself, if you want them to last, it's about achieving them through allies and partners, which can take longer and can, you know, create frictions. but, you're more likely to gain the knowledge you need to find optimal solutions. you're more likely to share the burden, so solutions are affordable. and if you find optimal solutions that are affordable, they actually have a chance of enduring. >> let me ask you a question about civil military relations right now.

as you know, one of the things that the american military has striven very hard to do is to be independent of the civilian authority, but also be subordinate to it. >> absolutely. >> we now have a situation where you have generals running core parts of the american government. the secretary of defense is a former general, the chief of staff is a former general, and the national security adviser is a sitting, in uniform, general. is that smart? is that too many generals? >> boy, you know, smart is a tough metric for me. but i'll tell you, it's probably smart in the sense that they're terrific individuals. i mean, they are very capable men. there is precedent, of course, where you would have these episodic cases where these military officers may migrate into the administration. i think the reason we're reacting to what we see now is that it's happening all at once. and they are capable

individuals. i worry, as i've said in other -- when i've had other opportunities, that we just have to be sure that we don't confuse the american people about our military's relationship them. and for them, which is everybody, whatever side of the aisle or whatever your politics are, we have to make it clear that we are acting in their best interests. and to the extent that some people now believe the military is holding back their president, and some people believe that it's just the opposite, that not only, sop so we just have to ensure that we continue to make it clear that the military serves the country and they are nonpartisan when it comes to political affiliation. >> and do you think that there is danger in a democracy of having so many generals? could it confuse the public into thinking this is a government

run by generals? >> yeah, i don't think -- instin instinctively, i don't think there is a risk to our democracy. but i do think that -- let's just say hypothetically that the white house goes in the other direction in the next election or the election after that. i think there will be a natural instinct for the democratic party to be suspicious of the military and its senior leaders because they are so present in the trump administration. that's not a challenge to democracy. it's actually -- frankly, it's a troubling issue for civil military relations and for our profession. >> so i've had former generals, very distinguished ones, one i think that -- >> until today. >> the names of which the public would know but unfortunately they told me this off the record, who said they did think general kelly has politicize d his role more than a military person should. they pointed to mattis and said that's the way to do it.

you take off your uniform. you're not really called general mattis anymore. you're secretary mattis. you are now serving as a civilian leader in the democratic system. and they contrasted that with general kelly, who has been very political in his support for donald trump, made political statements of his own, and, of course, admiral mullen said in his view, in admiral mullen's view, politicized the death of his own son by saying, well, president obama didn't call me when my son got killed. is that a distinction to bear in mind between mattis and kelly? >> the distinction is not between mattis and kelly but the role of the secretary of defense and the role of the chief of staff. the secretary of defense has to deliver national security policy, has to go and argue for a budget -- and all of them have to go and support the president's budget, presuming they've negotiated it to a satisfactory level. but the chief of staff job sin her he notally political.

the chi -- inherently political. the chief of staff is the one who keeps the trains running, if you will. the chief of staff makes a recommendation, talks about what is this going to mean to our politics, what's it going to mean to midterm elections, what's it going to mean to our caucus -- >> then maybe he should be called mr. kelly. >> i would actually support that, fareed. >> always a pleasure having you on, general dempsey, mr. dempsey, whichever. next on gps, the alarming statistics of anti-semitism and a disturbing theory of what is driving it, when we come back. a, entrusting your heart to entresto may help. entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital

compared to a leading heart failure medicine. don't take entresto if pregnant. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. and help make more tomorrows possible. ♪ tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to time to bask... in low prices! find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. refreshing, isn't it?. tripadvisor.

than♪ you. imagine if the things you bought every day... earned you miles to get to the places you really want to go. with the united mileageplus explorer card, you'll get a free checked bag. two united club passes. priority boarding. and earn fifty thousand bonus miles after you spend three thousand dollars on purchases in the first three months from account opening plus, zero-dollar intro annual fee for the first year, then ninety-five dollars. learn more at theexplorercard.com

hey ron! they're finally taking down that schwab billboard. oh, not so fast, carl. ♪ oh no. schwab, again? index investing for that low? that's three times less than fidelity... ...and four times less than vanguard. what's next, no minimums? ...no minimums. schwab has lowered the cost of investing again. introducing the lowest cost index funds in the industry with no minimums. i bet they're calling about the schwab news. schwab. a modern approach to wealth management.

internet providers promise business owners a lot. let's see who delivers more. comcast business offers fast gig-speeds across our network. at&t doesn't. we offer more complete reliability with up to 8 hours of 4g wireless network backup. at&t, no way. we offer 35 voice features and solutions that grow with your business. at&t, not so much. we give you 75 mbps for $59.95. that's more speed than at&t's comparable bundle, for less. call today.

egyptians are preparing to go to the poll nz a couple weeks, but the country is hardly a beacon of optimism these days. it reminds me of a question. an egyptian pop star was recently sentenced to prison for a joke about what? the nile, the pyramids, the sphinx or the suez canal? stay tuned and we'll tell you the answer. my book is "five days in london may 1940." if you watched "darkest hour" and you want more, this is about adolf hitler in 1940, great britain surrounded by nazis. now for the last look. we are all aware of the rise of hatred and violence against

immigrants and, in general, minorities in the last year. but a striking statistic makes one aware this is an even larger problem that we realize. the number of anti-semitic incidents in the united states surged by 2017, increasing by 57%. you might have thought that jews in america could live safely and securely and integrated into the country with which they have contributed so much. but last year america had its second highest number of reported incidents of harassment, vandalism or assaults against jews or jewish institutions since records began in 1979 with nearly 2,000 such incidents. the adl says it was the largest single year increase on record. this report came out just one week after the southern poverty law center published a study which found a number of neo-nazi hate groups in america grew by 22% last year.

so why is all this hate rising? well, one adl associate director told cnn that the current mood in the u.s. has some people feeling more liberated to express their hate. i guess the lesson is when leaders unleash the darker sides of human nature, the hatred can spread to places that might have seemed safe and secure. this report should serve as another very sad reminder to the united states and other nations, not only is their work to still be done, but the progress can be undone, and quicker, perhaps, than we think. the correct answer to the gps challenge question is a, the nile. there is a song that says, if you drink from the nile you're destined to return. but after jokingal at a concert drinking the water will actually

give you a parasite. she was sentenced to six months in prison for false news. following the arrest or withdrawal of any serious opposition candidate, president al-cici is running unopposed. thank you for watching my show this week. i'll see you next week. hello, everyone. thanks so much for joining me this sunday. i'm fredricka whitfield in new york. president trump spent his sunday slamming the "new york times" over a story of a potential hiring of an impeachment lawyer. he's also repeating the line we've heard many times before, no collusion. and shifting the blame to his 2016 campaign foes hillary clinton and the democratic national committee. all of this after a raucous night in the steel