>> [inaudible] these are very serious matters and you yourself have acknowledged that a. i love the allegations that have been made against you. i think the questions flow remain as long as people speak out in that way.

>> today, canadian prime minister justin trudeau will be giving a news conference on the final day of the g-7 summit. live coverage from where that, canada, begins at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. before departing for singapore, president trump held a news conference to discuss the summit held in canada and offered a preview of his meeting with north korean leader kim. this is half an hour. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it. we are getting ready to make a big trip. we are just leaving, but we wanted to have a little bit of a to announce what we have done. i think it has been successful. we've concluded a tremendously successful g7 and would like to provide you with an update.

you know the gentleman of our the legendary larry kudlow in the legendary john bolton. you know the gentlemen up. we had a good meeting on defense and environment and tariffs, which are what we are here for. first, i would like to thank prime minister trudeau for hosting this summit. it has worked out to be so wonderful. the people of canada are wonderful. it is a great country and a very beautiful country, i might add. we tackled a variety of issues and opportunities facing our nations. at the top of the list was the issue of trade. a very important subject because the united states has been taken advantage of for decades and we cannot do that anymore. we had extremely productive discussions on the need to have fair and reciprocal, meaning the same. people cannot charge us 270% and we charge them nothing. that does not work anymore.

i made a lot of statements having to do with clarity. we want and expect other nations to provide fair market access to american exports, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to protect american industry and workers from unfair foreign trading practices, of which there are many, but we are getting them straightened out slowly but surely. we also discussed the issue of uncontrolled migration and the threat it poses to national security and other groups and countries and our citizens and quality of life. we are committed to addressing the migration challenge by helping migrants to remain and prosper in their own home countries. a wide array of national security threats were addressed, including the threat of aroiran. -- of iran. the g7 nations remain committed to controlling iran's nuclear

ambitions. with or without them, those ambitions will be controlled. along with efforts to combat terrorism and extremism and those who spread this deadly ideology. the nations of the g7 are bound together by shared values and beliefs. that came out loud and clear. each of our nations is totally unique with our own people and our own sovereign obligations, but we can coordinate together and achieve the common good, fit for all of our people, all of our nations, who are linked in the great effort to create a more just, peaceful, and prosperous world. and from the standpoint of trade and jobs and being fair to companies, we are really , i think, committed. i think they are starting to be committed to a much more fair trade situation for the united states, because it has been treated very unfairly. and i don't blame other leaders for that. i blame our past leaders.

there was no reason this should have happened. last year, they lost 800 -- we as a nation over the years, for the latest numbers, $817 billion on trade. that is ridiculous and it is unacceptable. and everybody was told that. i don't blame them. i blame our leaders. in fact, i congratulate the leaders of other countries for so crazily being able to make these trade deals that were so good for their country and so bad for the united states. but those days are over. in a few minutes, i will be leaving for singapore. i will be on a mission of peace. and we will carry in, in my heart, we will be carrying the hearts of millions of people, people from all over the world.

we have to get denuclearization. we have to get something going. we really think north korea will in a veryndous place short period of time. we appreciate everything going on. we appreciate working together with north korea. they are really working very well with us. i say so far, so good. we will have to see what happens. and we will know very soon. i will be leaving as soon as we are finished with this conference. i very much look forward to it. i think it is very important for north korea, south korea, japan, the world, and the united states. it is a great thing. we will see what happens. ok. any questions? yes. >> we are about to embark on what may be the most important meeting you have ever had in your life. what is in your gut?

steel nerves or butterflies? >> really everything. this has really been done. it is unknown territory in the truest sense. but i really feel confident. i feel kim jong-un wants to do something great for his people, and he has that opportunity, and he won't have that opportunity again. it will never be there again. i really believe that you will -- he will do something very positive for his people, for himself, for his family. he has an opportunity the likes of which i think if you look into history very few people have ever had. he can take that nation with those great people and truly make it great. so, it is a one-time shot. and i think it is going to work out very well. that is why i feel positive, because it makes so much sense. and we will watch over, protect, and do a lot of things.

i can say south korea, japan, china, many countries, want to see it happen. and they will all help. this is a great time. this has not happened in all of the years they have been separated by a very artificial boundary. this is a great opportunity for peace. and lasting peace, and prosperity. yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] when you last spoke with vladimir putin, when have you last spoken with vladimir putin? do you expect to meet with him in vienna? >> i have not spoken with him in a while. it has been discussed. some people like the idea of bringing russia back in. this used to be the g8 and not the g7. something happened a while ago

where russia is no longer in. i think it would be an asset to have russia back in. i think it would be good for the world, russia, the united states. i think it would be good for all of the countries of the current g7. i think the g8 would be better. i think having russia back would be a positive thing. we are looking for peace in the world. we are not looking to play games. ok, question? yes yes >> you said this was a positive meeting. from the outside, it seemed quite contentious. did you get any indications they were going to make any concessions to you? i believe you raised the idea of a terror-free -- terrace -- iff-free g7.arr i did. -- >> i did. no tariffs, no barriers, no

subsidies. that's the way it should be. in canada, we have tremendous tariffs. the united states pays tremendous tariffs on dairy. 270%. nobody knows that. we don't want to pay anything. why should we pay. ultimately, that is what you want. you want tariffs-free. you what no barriers, and you want no subsidies. you have some cases where countries are subsidizing industries and that is not free. -- that is not fair. so you go tariff-free, barrier-free, subsidy-free. that is the way you learned at the wharton school of finance. that would be the ultimate thing. i did suggest it. i guess they are going to go back to the drawing board and check it out. we cannot have an example where the united states is paying 270%. we cannot have it. and when they send things to us, you don't have that. i will say it was not contentious. what was strong was the language that this could not go on, but

the relationships are very good weather -- whether it be with president macron or justin. justin did a great job. i think the relationships were outstanding. because the united states' leaders of the past did not do a good job on trade, and i am not blaming countries, i'm blaming our people that have represented our past, it has got to change. it is going to change. it's not a question of i hope it changes. it is going to change 100%. tariffs are going to come way down because people cannot continue to do that. we are like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing. and that ends. in fact, larry kudlow is a great expert on this and a total free trader. but even larry has seen the ravages of what they have done with their tariffs. would you like to say something, larry, quickly? might be interesting.

>> one interesting point in terms of the g7 group meeting, i don't know if they were surprised with president trump's free trade proclamation. but they certainly listened to it and we had lengthy discussions about it. he said to reduce the barriers, go to zero tariffs, zero subsidies. and along the way, we will have to clean up the international trading system, about which there was virtual consensus on agreement of that. that will be a target. these are the best ways to promote economic growth. we will all be better and stronger. i myself was particularly gratified to hear my president talk about free trade. thank you, sir. >> thank you, larry. and it is very unfair to our farmers. our farmers are essentially, whether through a barrier or

through high tariffs that make it impossible, and this is all over the world. this is not just g7. we have india where some of the tariffs are 100%. 100%. and we charge nothing. you can't do that. so, we are talking to all countries. and it is going to stop, or we will stop trading with them. that is a very profitable answer if we have to do it. yes, sir you can >> thank you, mr. president. another question on trade. you said you think the tariffs will come down. it does appear various countries are moving forward with retaliatory tariffs on the u.s. did you get any concessions or agreements with any of these countries not to move forward with those? and are you willing to not move forward -- >> we have a tremendous trade imbalance. so when we try to bring our piece up a little bit so it is not so bad and they go up, the

difference is they do so much more business with us than we do with them that we cannot lose that, you understand. we cannot lose it. as an example with one country, we have $375 billion in trade deficits. we cannot lose. you could make the case they lost years ago. but when you're down $375 billion, you cannot lose. and we have to bring them up. there is very bad spirit when we have a big trade imbalance to and we want to bring it up to balance -- just balance -- and they keep raising it so you never catch. that is not a good thing to do. and we have very strong measures that take care of that because we do so much. the numbers are so astronomically against them in terms of anything as per your

question. we won that war 1000 times out of 1000. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] >> two things can happen on nafta. we will either leave it the way it is as a threesome deal with canada, the united states, and mexico, and change it very substantially -- we are talking about very big changes -- or we will make a deal directly with canada and directed with mexico. both of those things could happen. if a deal is not made, that would be a very bad thing for canada and a very bad thing for mexico. for the united states, frankly, it would be a good thing, but i'm not looking to do that. i am not looking to play that game. we will either have nafta in a better-negotiated form or we will have two deals. >> does it have to have a sunset clause in it? >> it will have a sunset. you have two sunset provisions that have been heavily negotiated.

you have two concepts of sunset. we are pretty close on the sunset division. ok? >> [inaudible] >> we have one that is five years. you know it very well. you have studied it very well. congratulations. you have one group that likes to have 5 years and renegotiation at the end of five years. you have another group that wants longer because of investments. we are pretty close. yes, sir. >> to come back to russia for a something that got them kicked out of the g8 was the invasion of crimea. do you think it should be recognized? >> you have to ask president obama. he was the one that let crimea get away. that was during his administration. he was the one that let russia spend a lot of money on crimea because they spent a lot of money rebuilding it. crimea was let go during the obama administration. obama can say all he wants, but he allowed russia to take crimea.

i may have had a much different attitude. you would really have to ask that question to president obama. you know, why did he do that? that being said, it has been done a long time. >> you would allow russia back into the g8 with crimea still -- >> i would rather see russia in the g8 as opposed to the g7. i would say the g8 is a more meaningful group than the g7 absolutely. yes, ma'am. >> how persuasive did you find the europeans and canadians, when they made the case to you that you should not use national security as a justification for tariffs? >> they virtually did not even make that case. my case is the fact it is national security. it is our balance sheets. it is our strength. it is absolutely national security. just take a look at our balance sheet. we will have a very strong

balance sheet very soon because of what i am doing. we have the stalinist economy we -- we have the strongest economy we have ever had in the united states. the best unemployment number. black unemployment the lowest in history. hispanic unemployment, the lowest in history. i don't mean the lowest in the last 10 or 20 years. the lowest in the history of this country. black unemployment is doing the best it has ever done. hispanic doing the best. women, now up to 21 years. soon it will be the best ever in the country's history. we have to have deals that are fair. and we have to have deals that are economic. otherwise, that does affect our military. >> how do you make that case? for autos specifically? >> it is easy. it is economic. to have a great military, you need a great balance sheet. ok? yes, sir. go ahead. >> as you were heading into the g7 talks, there was a sense

closest allies were frustrated and angry with you and you were angry with them and you were leang here early to meet for friendlier talks with kim jong-un in singapore. i wonder if you view the u.s. the same way and if you view the u.s. alliance system shifting to your presidency. >> who said that? the figures. fake news, cnn. the worst. i had no idea you were with cnn. i would say the level of relationship is a 10. we have a great relationship. angela, emanuel, and justin, i would say the relationship is a 10. i don't blame them. i blame our past leaders pretty there is no reason we should have big trade deficits with

virtually every country in the world. i am going beyond the g7. there is no reason for this. it the fault of the people who preceded me. and i'm not just saying president obama. i am going back a long way. you can go back 50 years, frankly. it just got worse and worse and worse. we used to be a nation that was unbelievably cash flow oriented. had no debt of any consequence. and they built the highway system. we built the interstate system virtually out of cash flow. it was a lot different. we have a very good relationship. i don't blame these people. but i will blame these people if they don't act smart and do what they have to do because they have no choice. i will be honest with you. they have no choice.

they will either make the trades fair because our farmers have been hurt. you look at our farmers. for 15 years, the graph has gone just like this, down. our farmers have been hurt. our workers have been hurt. our companies have moved to other countries, including canada. we are going to fix that situation. if it is not fixed, we are not going to deal with these countries. but the relationship i have had is great. you can tell that to your fake friends at cnn. the relationship i have had with the people, the leaders of these countries, on a scale of 0-10, i would rate it a 10. that does not mean i agree with what they are doing. and they know very well i don't. so, we are negotiating very hard tariffs and barriers. as an example, the european union is brutal to the united states. and they understand that. they know it. when i tell them that, they are smiling at me like the gig is up. the gig is up. there is nothing they can say. they can't believe they got away with it.

canada cannot believe they got away with it. mexico. we have a $100 billion trade deficit with mexico, and that does not include all of the drugs pouring in because we have no wall, but we are. we have started building the wall, as you know. $1.6 billion, and we will keep that going. a lot of these countries smile at me when i am talking. the smile is we could not believe we got away with it. that's the smile. so it is going to change. they have no choice. if it is not going to change, we are not going to trade with them. how about a couple more? go ahead in the back. >> going into the talks with kim jong-un, do you have a clear objective of what you want to get out of them? >> i have a clear objective. i have to say it is going to be something that will always be spur of the moment. you don't know. you know, this has not been done

before at this level. this is a leader who really is an unknown personality. people don't know much about him. i think he is going to surprise on the upside, very much on the upside, but we will see. never been done. never been tested. many people, world leaders -- i'm talking world leaders that have been right next to him has never met him. we are going in with a very positive spirit. i think very well prepared. and by the way, we have worked very well with their people. they have many people in shanghai. our people have been in singapore. our people have been working very well with the representatives of north korea. we are going in with a very positive attitude, and i think we will come out fine. but i have said it many times, who knows? who knows. it may not work out. there is a good chance it will not work out. there is probably an even better chance it will take time. it will be a process.

>> is there a particular outcome that you would look for from this initial talk to judge if you think things are going well? >> i think the minimum would be relationship. you would start at least a dialogue. as a deal person, i have done very well with deals. you want to start. i would like to accomplish more than that. but at a minimum, i do believe at least we will have met each other. we will have seen each other. hopefully, we will have liked each other and we will start that process. i would say that would be the minimum. and the maximum, i think you know the answer to that. but i think it will take a little bit of time. ok, yeah? >> [inaudible] >> good question. how long will it take? i think within the first minute, i will know. >> how you can >> just my touch, my field. that is what i do.

how long will it take to figure out if they are serious. i say maybe within the first minute. they say you know whether you will like somebody in the first five seconds, you ever hear that one? well, i think very quickly i will know whether or not something good is going to happen. i also think i will know whether or not it will happen fast. it may not. but i think i will know pretty quickly whether or not, in my opinion, something positive will happen. and if i think it won't happen, i'm not going to waste my time. i don't want to waste his time. yes, ma'am. >> are you concerned at all by giving kim the meeting, that he is getting a win out of you? >> no. only the fake news says that. we just got 3 hostages back. we paid nothing. they are happily ensconced with in their homes with their families. they are the happiest people in the world right now. we have not done anything. everyone said, the haters, they

say you are giving him a meeting. give me a break. ok? there's nothing -- i think if i did not do this, and it has never been done before. and obviously, what has been done before has not worked. this is something i cannot stress strong enough. i talked about terrorists that previous people -- and i'm not looking to criticize people that were preceding the, but on tariffs, it should have never happened. well, the same thing on north korea. we should not be in this position with tariffs where we are hundreds of billions of dollars down to other countries that frankly were never negotiated with. they never got spoken to. i asked the top person in china, how did it get so bad? he looked at me and said, nobody ever talked to us. they were missing in action, our leaders. well, a very similar thing if you think about it with north

korea. this should not be done now. this should have been gun 5 -- done five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago. this should not be done now. >> [inaudible] >> i cannot comment on that. >> are, you have a plane to catch. >> ok, one more question. >> [inaudible] >> we are going to raise the issue. every issue will be raised. >> you have attacked the u.s. press back home but you have also done it on foreign soil. i guess i would like to ask you why you do that. >> because the u.s. press is very dishonest. much of it, not all of it. i have some folks in your profession in the u.s. that are some of the most outstanding people i know. but there are many people in the press that are unbelievably dishonest. they don't cover stories the way they are supposed to be. they don't even report them in many cases if they are positive.

there is tremendous -- i came up with a term, fake news. there is a lot of fake news. at the same time, i have much respect for many people in the press. thank you all. i appreciate it. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> after his news conference, the president left the g-7 summit and boarded air force one en route to singapore and his meeting with north korean leader un. jong during his walk, for a moment, the president stopped to talk with the u.s. ambassador to canada.