name is or the faith we practice but our adherence to a common creed, a belief that all people are created equal. a belief in free speech and freedom of assembly and democracy and pluralism and democracy and rule of law. and we have observed those ideals imperfectly at times but in each successive generation we got a little better at it. we've come closer to our ideals. and the notion that somehow we would stop now on what has been a tradition of attracting talent and strivers and dreamers from all around the world, that would rob us of the thing that is most special about america.

and i don't think it will happen. now, people are genuinely concerned about immigration that is not orderly. people pouring across borders without having gone through some sort of a process. it adds to people's sense that things are out of control and that's why we have invested in securing our borders and we made unprecedented investments. that is part of the reason why illegal immigration to the united states is actually at its lowest level since theness '70s. it's we so value the cooperation we obtained from the mexican government in making sure that our borders work to facilitate legal trade and legal immigration and commerce but

discourages, you know, illegal immigration. it is why i'm pushing very hard and will continue to push until i leave this office and expect the next president to push for a comprehensive immigration reform plan that can fix those aspects of the system that are broken so that we remain a nation of laws and nation of immigrants. and that's ultimately, i think, where people in the united states will land. we've had times throughout our history where anti-immigration sentiment is exploited by demagogues. it was directed at the irish. it was directed at pols and italians and you can read was said about those groups and it is identical to now what they're saying about mexicans or guatemalans or salvadorans or

asians, same stuff. they're different. they will not fit. they won't assimilate. they bring crime, same arguments you go back to the 1800s, the language is identical. but guess what? they kept coming. they kept coming because america offered possibility for their children and grandchildren. even if they were initially discame the against, they understood our system will over time allow them to become part of this one american family. so we should take some of the rhetoric seriously and answer it boldly and clearly. but, you shouldn't think that is representative of of how the american people think.

>> our third question, from the united states, reporter roberta ramdan from reuters. >> i should point out, i should point out that roberta is secretly from canada. >> not so secretly. >> so canadians are getting an extra question. >> thank you, mr. president. given how the "brexit" vote shook the stability much global economy do you feel you need to do more to calm markets quickly and perhaps encourage a quick exit rather than somebody that is long and drawn out? do you still feel that the uk should be at the back of the queue for a trade deal with the united states, and are you going to make a full-throated pitch for the tpp, for your prescription when you are out on the campaign trail this summer stumping for secretary clinton? prime minister trudeau, both, you seem to be quite careful

when you talk about mr. trump. renegotiating nafta or tearing it up would be such a disaster for canada. why not come out and say that forcefully? and president pena nieto he. you came out this summer comparing trump to hitler and mussolini and how concerned are you that there may be a wall up on your border? >> canadians are a little more subtle. i'm actually going to help out my friends a little bit on your last question even though it wasn't directed to me. just say, when i visit other countries it is not my job to comment on candidates in the middle of a race just because they may end up winning. and the relationships between

governments transcend who is in power any given time. it's a tough question. i'm not saying they shouldn't answer them. i'm helping them out a little bit. there is no doubt when i visit countries there are times when i gotten preferences but i rarely express them. with respect to "brexit," first of all i think you have seen the market settle down last couple days. i didn't follow the markets today but we're monitoring very carefully whether there's any systemic strains on the system and so far what you've seen is reactions in the market, stock prices, currencies but i think the preparations that were done by central banks and finance ministers, our treasury secretary, indicate the degree to which the global economy in

the short run will hold steady. i think there are some genuine longer term concerns about global growth if in fact "brexit" goes through and that freezes the possibilities of investment in great britain or in europe as a whole at a time when global global growth rates were weak already, this doesn't help. so when we attend the g20 summit in china later this year, one of the major topics, one i continually advocated for during the seven 1/2 years i've been president, is we all have to look what we can do to boost to boost global demand. whether it is united states adopting a more robust budget

for infrastructure improvements, fixing water systems in flint, michigan or preparing airports not as efficient as they should be or rebuilding our power grid so that it can take advantage of cleaner energy. whether it is germany, a country with a surplus doing more in terms of spending or europe as a whole, lifting some of the austerity constraints that have been placed on them, whether it is china, shifting to a more consumer based, domestic based growth strategy as opposed to trying to export its way out of problems. you know, there are going to be a whole host of measures all of us can take to fortify the global economy and that should be a top priority of ours. with respect to the actual "brexit" negotiations, my main message to david cameron, angela merkel and others is, everybody should catch their

breath, come up with a plan and a process that is orderly, that's transparent, that people understand and, and then proceed understanding that both sides have a stake in getting this right. and i think that will be a difficult, challenging, process but it does not need to be a panicking process. i think it can be a steady, sensible process. obviously leadership issues in great britain will need to be resolved for it to move as crisply and as effectively as it needs to. but that i think that's recognized and that should happen fairly quickly and i know that speaking with chancellor

merkel, that you know, her interests is not in retribution. her interests is in making sure that the process works. and i have a lost confidence in people being -- lot of confidence in people being able to do that and we'll help in any way we can to facilitate that. the last part of your question is with respect to the uk and any trade agreement with the united states. frankly we will be the least of their problems right now because their first order of business is going to be to address the market where they sell half their goods which is europe and these things are not easily negotiated, particularly because we've been spending our time trying to negotiate with the european union and so, to suddenly go off on another track will be challenging but i think their first and primary concern is going to be to try to figure

out how they interact with the european union and the european market if in fact, and when in fact they leave. i have emphasized throughout though that the special relationship that we have with great britain does not change. the ties of affection and family and and language, institutions and culture that business relationships that exist those are so deep and long-lasting, the cooperation we have on security issues on global challenges, those are so fundamental that our relationship with the uk fundamentally doesn't change. we are concerned that their absence from the european union and potential desare up shuns

within europe make it harder for us to solve some of the other challenges that have to be solved. >> one of the things that's easy to forget amid the inflated rhetoric of an election campaign is that the relationship between our three countries goes far deeper than any individual leaders. and if the three of us get along it's not just because we're aligned in many different values and priorities. it is very much because we serve citizens who are they themselves tremendously aligned in terms of priorities, in terms of hopes and dreams, in terms of desire for success and ways to reach it. so when you look at the level of integration, of our supply chains, our markets, of the flow

back and forward across borders of goods, of people, and the tremendous benefits that have come from proximity and strong relationships to individual citizens across this continent, it's, it is e we understand that regardless of electoral rhetoric, canada, the united states and mexico will continue to have tremendously close relationships, economically, culturally, socially, fa hilally, -- familially and historically towards the future. we said many times, i look forward to working with whomever the american people choose to elect as their president in november. i know that we will always be

able to find shared priorities and challenges that we want to work together to overcome and i know our commitment to doing what is right and what is best for our citizens will lead us to much more alignment than differentiation. >> translator: robertta. go to trade to the point to the describe the stand of my administration and my own very personal point of view and i said it and i will say it again, my government will respectfully the domestic electoral process in the united states. i don't think i've said anything different from what i am stating once again here. what i have said. is that today and i, did not make reference to a specific

place. my words reinforce what i believe. i believe that in this global scenario, and i'll use president obama's words, and as i said, he gave us a hint, to address this question. we are facing a global reality. we have a populist world, an interconnected world, with its own challenges. what i have said is that in the world we're living, in different places, we have political leaders, political stakeholders, that use demagoguery and have populistic slogan that want to eliminate and destroy what has been built, what has taken decades to build, to go back to problems of the past and yes, it

is true, all the benefits have not reached society asa whole that is true, but those leadership, those political actors, by using populism and demagoguery, they choose the easiest way to solve the challenges of today's world. things are not that simplistic. not as easy to lead a country, to take on a responsibility, to rule a country, it goes beyond giving the easiest answer. it is complex and it is difficult. to lead a country. i just said it. what we have reached so far, the level of development and level of well being we have in the world, without a doubt, makes contrasts with what the

situation that we leave 30-years back. never before has global society or the societies at least of our three countries had lived. the level of development and well-being that we enjoy today. never before have our countries had a high life expectancy as we have today. never before have we had the opportunity to have access to the knowledge of the world as fast, and as easy as we do today never before are we at such a level of connection between society and the possibility of having access to any product, from any corner of the world, as we do today. and that was built throughout the years, by using the model based on openness, free trade. trade agreements.

and biggest challenge today, is to make sure that those benefits reach out to everybody single citizen but the solution proposed by some is not by destroying what we have been building. it is not taking a different route, to choose the road towards isolationism and destruction. what we need to do is keep up the pace towards development. when i said that i mentioned that most of what some people say, it is very similar, that in the past and president obama already said it even years back, but in the past some leaders addressed their societies those terms. hitler and mussolini did that. the outcome, it is clear to everyone. it resulted in devastation and, turned out to be a tragedy for mankind and we saw it last century. that was my message, when i made

reference to this event. my message was about to value what we have and also to be aware of the road that we need to walk still but that's the benefit that we're looking forward to. to take the benefits to our society. >> last question. >> translator: the question from mr. phillip boussat. mr. trudeau, with the goals that you have said are ambitious for clean energy, does this mean the u.s. will import more hydro electricity? >> answer for you, mr. obama, with this agreement to produce more clean energy, does it mean that the united states will have to import more hydro electricity from canada? >> certainly the agreement that we have concluded today, values our shift towards cleaner, renewable energy.

canada has a tremendous amount of energy that comes from clean sources right now and, we're always looking to create more. how we work together as not just as two countries but as three countries on energy solutions that give opportunities to our citizens while protecting future generations from impact of climate changes is something we all are entirely agreed on. one of the things we learned the paris agreement, following different paths towards solutions there is no one single solution to our energy challenges or to the challenges posed by climate change. we need to be creative and innovative and work together. that is the why the conclusion of this ambitious continental energy strategy is so important. i -- how we are going to do, not

just our share our shares to combat the global challenges of climate change but to demonstrate leadership and show that clean energy, and clean growth are exactly the solution and the opportunity that we face because of climate change. >> translator: it's true that the agreement that we came to today is very important. because it allows us to fight climate change but it is also very important when it comes to investing in green energy, clean growth in our country. i know that we will have to pursue multiple different solutions when it comes to clean energy. but cooperation and collaboration that we have highlighted today among our

three countries will give rise to innovative solutions positive in the area of green energy. i can't wait to work with the united states and with mexico in order that together we are able to face climate change challenges. it's not just a matter of doing our fair share. it's a matter ever showing leadership in the world. when it comes to climate change and clean energy, we have to do more than our share. we have to show that the future of the environment and the economy involves taking responsible decisions for the environment and green energy, thank you. >> translator: even when this question was addressed to the u.s. and canada, i would like to

say that mexico in this trilateral relationship and has been mentioned here, we also are committed to clean energy mexico has its legal framework so that by 2024, at least 35% of generation of energy is clean. this is an agreement they made in this trilateral meeting to reduce other pollutants like methane. what i would like to say our tree country -- three countries share the same agenda and we want to protect our world and find solutions that we're already working on.

>> well justin i think got it right, which is we set a goal and, and we are coordinating and synchronizing best practices, and there is going to be an energy mix in each of our countries will be different and some will be determined by what natural resources we have, it will be determined how well we integrate the grid and transmission of power. so there may be some wonderful hydroelectric power we would like to get to the united states. the question is, are there enough transmission facilities for us to be able to buy it at a competitive price. just as, as we develop wind energy, we have to build a infrastructure, to get wind produced in south dakota down to chicago. each of us will each have national plans but point is that

by setting these goals, creating coordinating mechanisms we're in a better position of taking advantage the con prunes of interests and -- confluence much interests and economieses and i view this sector as enormous opportunity. look, oil is cheap right now but it is not going to be cheap. i said this before. those of you before, buying gas-guzzlers, i'm telling you because it's a finite resource and it becomes more and more expensive to extract and people are taking climate change more and more seriously. so we're in a transition phase. but in the meantime, technology is moving. and solar and wind and hydro, biomass and entire technologies we haven't even thought of yet. there are some 15-year-old kid somewhere who is figuring it out. i don't know whether he is in

mexico, canada, the united states or china or, you know, china, saud sued. somebody will figure that out. i want that opportunity to accrue to our workers, our people. our communities. whoever wins this rice is going to, everybody else is going to follow. and i believe that we have the brain power and the architecture to lead and, we have such a huge market between our three countries that we can test out a lot of these opportunities and figure out which work best. if you will allow me i want to say one last thing because it has been a running thread in a bunch of questions and that this whole issue of populism. maybe somebody can pull up in a

dictionary the phrase populism, i'm not prepared to concede the notion that some of the rhetoric that is popping up is populist. when i ran in 2008, and the reason i ran again and reason i leave this office i will continue to work in some capacity in public service is because i care about people, and i want to make sure every kid in america has the same opportunities that i had. and i care about poor people working really hard and don't have a chance to advance. and i care about workers being able to have a collective voice in the work place. and get their fair share of the

pie. and i want to make sure that kids are getting a decent education and a working mom has child care that she can trust. i think we should have a tax system that's fair and that folks like me who have been, have benefited from the incredible opportunities in my society should pay a little bit more to make sure that somebody else's kids who weren't as lucky had those same opportunities. and i think, there should be curbs on the excesses of our financial sector. so that we don't repeat the debacles of 2007 and 2008. i think there should be transparency in how our systems work with people dodging taxes setting up offshore accounts in other places, avoiding

responsibilities that their fellow citizens who don't have fancy lawyers and accountants, that they can't benefit from those same tricks. i suppose that makes me a populist. somebody else who has never shown any regard for workers. has never fought on behalf of social justice issues, making sure poor kids getting a decent shot at life or health choir and have in fact worked against economic opportunity for workers and ordinary people, they don't suddenly become a populist because they say something controversial in order to win votes. that is not the measure of pop

pop -- populism. that is nativism or xenophobia. or worse. or it is just cynicism. so i would just advise everybody to be careful about suddenly attributing to whoever pops up at a time of economic anxiety the label that they're a populist. where have they been? have they been on the front lines working on behalf of working people? have they been carrying the -- opening up opportunity for more people? now there are people like bernie sanders who i think genuinely deserve the title because he has been in the vineyards fighting on behalf of these issues. there the question is going to be, we share values, we share

goals, how do we achieve them? i do think and enrique's broader point is right which is, you know, sometimes there are simple solutions out there but, i don't know, i've been president for seven 1/2 years and turns out it has been pretty rare. and the global economy is one much those areas where there aren't a lot of simple solutions. there are not a lot of shortcuts to making sure more people have opportunity in our countries. we are going to have to educate our kids better and that takes time. we've got to make sure our manufacturing sector is more cot takes time. we've got to restructure our tax codes, to incentivize the right things and make sure workers are getting higher pay. that takes time. we have got to raise minimum wages. we have to make sure college is affordable. we have to restructure and reform our financial sector so they're not reckless but we have to do so in ways that don't

destroy the entire system and throw millions of people suddenly out of work. and when we bailed out the auto industry, that wasn't popular. so maybe i wasn't populist, but i tell you what, all those automakers, all those uaw members, both here in the united states and in canada, are pretty happy i did even though it was, had about 10% popularity at the time. even in states like michigan. so i don't know, maybe that was an elitist move on my part because it didn't poll well. last time i visited an auto plant they were pretty happy. so, let's just be clear that somebody who labels us versus them or engages in rhetoric

about how we're going to look after ourselves and take it to the other guy, that's not the definition of populism. sorry. this is one of the prerogatives at the end of your term you just kind of -- [laughter] you go on these occasional rants >> translator: with this we conclude our press conference. thank you very much. merci. david: so after yesterday, donald trump talking about ripping up nafta. today we have the 3 1/2 at that nations represented by leaders here, mexico, canada and united states. all those leaders talking up nafta, talking up trade. the president also of course being asked questions about "brexit" and donald trump saying some things that many people would have a little bit of difficulty with. melissa: all three ever them taking a lot of shots at donald trump. breaking news. the federal reserve out with the

second part of the report on health of u.s. banks. peter barnes is standing by in washington with details. peter? reporter: the fed rejected capital plans of u.s. subsidiaries of tao big foreign banks, deutsche bank of germany and santander of spain. among u.s. banks it has told morgan stanley to go back and try again on its plan without with outright rejecting it. 30 other big u.s. banks and operations of foreign banks the fed reviewed, one full stamp of approval for higher dividends and stock buybacks if a bank wants to do those. morgan stanley can proceed with those now too if it wants to as it revises its plan but the fed can halt them later this year if it does not approve the banks revised plan. this is the second part of the annual stress tests of banks with assets more than $50 billion to make sure they survive a major economic hypothetical downturn like the one we had in 2008 to prevent future taxpayer bailouts.

on deutch and santander the fed rejected their plans, not for lack of capital but over qualitative concern, weaker internal controls and risk management. morgan stanley must resubmit its plan by end of fourth quarter of this year to quote, address certain weaknesses in its capital planning processes. david and melissa. melissa: peter, thank you so much for that. david: all right. well we had a lot of leaders talking about the benefits of free and open trade, namely nafta and other trade agreements. let's listen to donald trump talking about trade in bangor, maine. >> "crooked hillary," "crooked hillary" has spent on commercials some people say more than $100 million. i also heard $68 million on negative come -- cop mergessals. in the old days, the other thing, she has 900 people. i have 73. no i actually have more i must say, but she's got 900.

i have 73. she spent 100 million or something, spent a lot. i mean i have friends calling me from other states, man the airwaves are blanketed with negative ads. we don't believe them. the fact is she spent almost $100 million in some form on negative stuff. i spent nothing. now here's the thing. in the old days, if i spent less and had fewer people and was leading or tied, they would say he a genius. now they say, hillary clinton has more people, has spent more money and they're essentially tied. that's not good. and i said, with one of, i'm not going to knock him, what, it is useless to knock them. these people signed a pledge. remember they all wanted to me to sign a pledge. i signed the pledge. they did too. the only difference i would have honored the pledge. they don't honor the pledge. amazing what can happen when you lose. no, no. i have people in all fairness, whether they like me or not, it

was a rough campaign, and i wasn't nice but they weren't nice either. i mean jeb spent 15, $18 million on negative ads. am i supposed to say i like him? but they signed a pledge. tell you one thing. if paul signed a pledge he would honor it. and there were -- [cheering] there were, there were people that honored it that would have loved not to have honored it. we got great back. guys like ben carson, who became because not because of that, but we have a great relationship. chris christie. rick santorum just signed on. [applause] we have great people. we have great people. we have a we have amazing endorsements but when you sign a pledge, and this isn't a pledge subject to my changing my mind. this is a pledge, i really think it is like legally binding, you want to know the truth. i don't care. i don't think it matters. i don't think i will get two more votes. honestly you signed a pledge, you're supposed to honor the

pledge. i have guys out there and they really are sore losers, if you think about it. it was a rough campaign. they say it was the roughest campaign ever. might be soup sear seeded by this but we'll see. but, they say it was the roughest campaign ever in the history of republican politics and maybe in politics. i mean i heard a lot of so-called walking heads, they call them walking heads or talking heads. usually they're walking heads to me because there is nothing up there with most of these guys. and it was rough. you go to sleep a couple days and you wake up and say, i honor the pledge, right? i would have honored it. there are people i don't like and people i love on the stage but there are people i don't particularly like or particularly respect but i would have honored the pledge. i wouldn't have said let's yell it from loudest building. but you know what? i would have honored the pledge. we have people that have not

honored the pledge. that is a terrible thing. i don't care who you are, what your position, you can say what you want, they all signed because i was signed. i was one negotiating a little bit. i will always negotiate for you people. i love to negotiate. [cheering] but just remember this, they signed a pledge saying they will abide, saying they will back the candidate of the party. and now they sit back and the pledge is out there and the press doesn't even go after them on that. they broke their word, in my opinion, they should never be allowed to run for public office again because what they did is disgraceful. [cheers and applause] so, so i said, when i saw the u.s. chamber of commerce again, controlled totally by you know, various groups of people, that don't care about you whatsoever -- david: donald trump speaking.

in bangor, maine, talking about a whole lot of stuff. he started talking about trade. he is off prompter this time and rolls into other subjects, talking about hillary's campaign and other things. so he we had a little it about president. a little bit of trump. we'll have a little bit of market. melissa. melissa: all right. we have a big rally on wall street today. the dow ending the session near highs of the day, up 284 points. mark the dow's largest two-day gain since february. take a look at that. >> wow. everything except one stock in the red. next, american airports on high alert, following the deadly attack in turkey. more on that coming right up.

. . . .

melissa: concerns mounting major u.s. banks could be leaving london after britain's vote to leave the european union. charlie gasparino is working phones.

he has information that could ease some of those fears. he is here with exclusive report. charlie, lay it on us. >> if you listen to president obama before, eventually the world is going to come to an end because of "brexit." we'll have long-term economic consequences. here is what i am getting from big banks who initially said they would all leave. remember jamie dimon said this "brexit" would cost 4,000 jobs of the 16,000 jobs jpmorgan has in the uk. but since the "brexit" vote, that is the vote for britain to exit from the eu. we've gotten different story from all major firms. they're all basically saying, retreating from their initial promise to leave britain. they're saying they have no plans to leave london in any major way. we should point out we talked with press representatives from morgan stanley, jpmorgan, citigroup, fidelity, even goldman sachs. no plans to dramatically cut costs. they say they're taking very much a wait-and-see approach to this. i will say this, melissa.

here is one problem with leaving uk for all these firms, it is infrastructure. how do you develop infrastructure in alternative site like dublin which is bandied about. like frankfurt where they don't speak english? put one other thing on the table. we'll find out more about the post-"brexit" fiscal policy coming out of britain next couple days we're hearing. suppose the uk does really good thatcherrite reforms and opening up trade. why wouldn't you want to be in a place like that. melissa: right. >> the banks at least for now, i would say for immediate future despite what they said initially they're telling us right now they're staying put and watching it develop. melissa: that is shocking. like y2k all over again. everything will fall apart! oh, wait. exactly. charlie gasparino, thank you for that. good stuff. david? david: the future of the european union, eu leaders meeting for the first time without the uk in more than 40 years. fox business's adam shapiro is in brussels with the latest on

this. adam? reporter: and they agree to meet in september, the 27 lead earns, not 28 because the uk will not be at that meeting at this point. they will try to figure out the future of the eu. right now what you heard from different eu leaders the united kingdom can not cherry-pick what it wants when it negotiates whatever agreement will be negotiated with eu. that the uk will have to adhere to the four freedoms. for instance of freedom of movement within borders. perhaps what charlie gasparino was talking about make sense. banks would want to stay in london. perhaps employees from europe can go back and forth. we don't know because nobody from the eu knows. one other thing taking place today, uk doesn't have written constitution like the united states but essentially have a constitutional crisis, calls from scotland from the first minister to held a referendum perhaps for independence because scotland she says wants to stay in the eu.

she was here today, lobbying eu leaders. here is what she had to say. >> i have not been here today to reach any conclusions or to press anybody for any decisions or any commitments. i've been here today to make sure that scotland's voice is being heard and scotland's position is understood. i'm confident that is the key. reporter: but eu leaders already come out and said scotland can not have some special negotiating status with the eu. prime minister of france and prime minister of spain said scotland is part of the uk. the uk will have these negotiations. it ends there. not according to the scottish. stay tuneds david. david: eu may be saving scotland by saying don't come in, you can't. we'll see what happens. adam, thank you. melissa: fear striking for flyers. airports ramming up security following a major attack in istanbul.

they are adding high visibility patrols. terminal in jfk airport after police spotted unattended bag. it was later determined not to be a threat. david: thank goodness. meanwhile the world is still on edge. all signs point to isis-inspired attacks on one of the world's busiest airports. secretary of state john kerry raising eyebrows, calling the bombing a sign of weakness for the terror group. take a listen. >> daesh and others like it know that we have to get it right 24/7, 365. they have to get it right for ten minutes or one hour. so it's a very different scale and if you're desperate and if you know you're losing and you know you want to give up your life, then obviously you can do some harm. david: here now is chris harmer, institute for study of war, senior naval analysts. chris, i shook my head at that comment by kerry s there any possibility that these terror strikes are a sign of weakness

or a sign of desperation? >> well, there is certainly desperation that the caliphate can no longer defend borders. they are contracting and losing internal support. we expected that to happen all along. there is not enough of people want to live in brutal dictatorship led by a theocracy. for the political narrative it is not sign of weakness, but a sign of strength. the fact that isis can strike targets around the world at time and place of choosing is a sign of strength. they may be origination alley desperate but they can strike around the world. i dislike the political narrative and because it is misleading and inaccurate. david: totally different from the head of the cia was saying a week ago, he was suggesting yes, they may be losing some on the battlefield, not surprising considering our warfare capabilities but expansion of terrorism will continue and that's, in that sense we're going in the wrong way.

>> as predictable as it is unfortunate. as the caliphate loses territory, as it deinvolves from a state-based entity back to terrorist organization which what is started out as, it will start conducting more terrorist attacks. in the short term you could make the case, yes, all international terrorist attacks either conducted by or inspired by isis are evidence that the caliphate is crumbling. there is no evidence that isis as a terrorist organization based on an islamist, jihadist ideology is losing ground at all. in fact just the opposite. they're building their franchises around the world. they're sort of adopting the al qaeda model of dispersed operations. david: right. as that happens, another thing john kerry said, we sort of have to accept this as daily fare. that was his expression, a daily fare. why do we have to do that? we're the strongest country in the world. we don't have to accept that, do we? >> i categorically refuse to the accept the notion that the united states can not defeat isis every way, idealogically,

militarily, transactionally in terms of ability to attack us. some people may be waving white flag we have to accept certain level of attacks from isis. professionals i know in the intelligence community and law enforcement and us old guys sit around talking about it, none of us accept that. >> what is the first move you make? say you're the next president of the united states, to do that, to stop the terror side of isis? >> step one acknowledge isis not the jv team of terrorism. they're the olympic dream team of terrorism. there has never been a terrorist organization in modern world history that has been able to do what isis is able to do. they took al qaeda playbook. expanded it significantly. they built their own nation-state. al qaeda was a guest of the taliban in afghanistan. isis said we'll build our own nation-state, we'll build the caliphate. we'll have our own secure territory from which we can launch international terrorist attacks. acknowledge from the get-go isis a valid, legitimate, very capable, most capable terrorist force out there. then you go about destroying it

mechanically on the battlefield. you confront the ideology by correctly identifying as islamist jihad i. there is number of things you can do past then. ignoring problem seems what we've done so far certainly it? working. david: we keep waiting for wake-up moment from the administration. like kerry's comments never seems to come. chris, thank you for being here. appreciate it. former gitmo detainee with ties to terrorist groups who had been living in uruguay disappeared. he literally vanished. law enforcement is on the hunt. fox news's doug mckelway is live from the pentagon with the latest. as if we needed this one, doug? reporter: we hear there is expected 30% recidivism rate of former gitmo detainees who have been transferred to other countries. the pentagon has been unable to confirm that is the case with this particular detainee. he isp muhammad jiab.

they're trying to track his whereabouts. what is not in doubt that diop is very bad guy. >> he has connections to really high-risk guys, guys known to be the worst of the worst, of the worst. including a recruiter for al qaeda who helped recruit the 9/11 hijackers for that operation. in his leaked file he was tied directly to samar. because he is in syria a leading member of isis. reporter: the defense authorization bill which passed both houses of congress and conference committee, there is provision which would block funding for the transfer of any gitmo detainee, either domestically or abroad. but the president threatening to veto that. >> campaign promise that he made several days ago he trying to fulfill, this notion there is somehow location called gitmo that is inciting folks to become terrorists. france doesn't have guantanamo bay. brussels did not have one. reporter: senator scott is also concerned that there is no

present day detention policy for present day isis fighters. meaning there is heightened risk for further attacks down the road. one indication, david of the diop's fanaticism, he was one of the gitmo detainees who engaged in a hung are strike. he started this whole thing. there are videotapes under lock and key show him struggling with guards as they try to injected feeding tubes into him. that is indication of his fanaticism. according to intelligence files obtained by wikileaks, diop is expert in document forgery. he is capable of forging passports, enabling him to go anywhere in the world to hook up with his old al qaeda cohorts who he had a long and deep relationship. david: this is bad news, bad news. doug, thank you very much. melissa. melissa: hillary clinton and donald trump are neck and neck again. a new "quinnepiac poll" showing hillary leading "the donald" by two points with less than a month to go until the democratic and republican conventions. here now, jessica tarlov, schoen

consulting senior political analyst and democratic strategist. jessica, thanks for sticking around through the breaking news and joining us now. >> i always want to see extra donald trump some. david: don't believe you. melissa: i love your sense of humor, my friend. what do you think about the latest poll? this is after weeks of things going the other direction. >> right. melissa: it now seems like you inject a little teleprompter, moving in the other direction again, what's your take? >> my take is we'll have to see if more polls come out and show that donald trump has indeed gotten a bump. this could be the "brexit" bump that a lot of people have been discussing they thought would happen. i'm not so sure if that is going to be the case but it's a signal this is really tight race. i think anyone running around on left or the right saying that the "abc/washington post poll over the weekend that gave her a 12-point edge would be all, end all, knows for sure it isn't. it will be a very close. melissa: we have a long way to go. you make a great point it is about the trend.

this looks like turn in the trend but only one poll. >> "fox news poll" out at, embargoed until 6:00 p.m. we'll know a little more then. we'll see what happens over the course of the week. melissa: good promo. >> that is what i'm here for. if you look at swing state polls, battleground polls up in every single one ever them except georgia where he has a slight lead. that is very meaningful. she had a four-point edge in arizona. melissa: i have to look at those again, i thought they were within the margin of error. >> no, they are. but at least she is on top there. when you talk about states that -- melissa: can i turn i to one part of the poll i loved was this idea when they asked would trump be a good president, 58% said no. you look would clinton be a good president? 53% said no! the thing that people are united in, it seems like in this election is there taste for someone out there. >> although upsets me to say this, this will be a lesser of two evils election for people on

both right and the left here. it is interesting, also to note when you integrate gary johnson an jill stein into the mix, clinton's lead on top gets smaller, like nbc, sorry, the "nbc/wall street journal" poll from over the weekend. there is a lot going on here. america has certainly not come around to the fact these are the two top choices for president. i think that's what we're seeing. >> we were watching this press conference last hour that was going on between you know the leaders in, on our continent and president obama standing there with mexico and canada and spent a lot of time taking shots at donald trump. and it is kind of a rare moment when you have three major leaders of nations standing together and kind of taking down the political opponent, just like a mere candidate in one of the countries. does that strike you as bizarre? >> it is not bizarre for this election. i think we've seen a lot stranger. also not surprising when you think about donald trump's

rhetoric about free trade as of late and specifically nafta. we all know what he thinks about mexicans. so, i am not completely shocked. barack obama goes out on the trail i think monday. he is in north carolina with hillary. he is in campaign mode. as he said. i've only got a few months left his point donald trump is bad for america. melissa: seems like they would be making points about their policies or what they have done and all that kind of stuff. >> talked about climate change. melissa: spent a lot of time on donald trump. >> angers a lot of people especially in high places. melissa: jessica, thank you so much. thanks for sticking around. david: i love those windmills that aren't turning. bank stocks plunging after hours after fed released results of its stress tests. lori rothman. you've been watching this. i thought it was good news but apparently not so. why? >> it mixed report here. the headline david is that the federal reserve has approved 31 of 33 bank capital return plans. so the two banks not approved

are deutsche bank and santander. you're looking at citigroup, citigroup actually did get approval to do an $8.6 billion share buyback and raise its dividend to 16 cents per share. that is why you're seeing citigroup shares up in extended session. bank of america, another huge buyback they got approved to do. it will be 5 billion shares,b of a buying back 5 billion shares by 2017. hiking dividend to 20 cents from 15 cents. and so basically the story is that the fed feels that these banks which are considered too big to fail under systemic pressure have a little wiggle room to return value to shareholders. david: i think i misled in the intro to that. the banks are doing well of a hours. >> santander is one that is down. they failed three years in a row. david: foreign banks are not surprising.

u.s. banks are doing well, giving stock buybacks. melissa: was quite an hour. it is over. we were busy. david: a lot of stuff. thanks for being here with us. melissa: absolutely. that does it for us. "risk & reward" starts right now. >> candidates are speaking about that terrorist attack in istanbul. this is "risk & reward." i'm deirdre bolton. here is donald trump calling about tough action. >> can you imagine them sitting around wherever they sit around for dinner, saying saying that americans don't weighter board while we chop off people's heads. they think we're stupid. we have no leadership. you have to fight fire with fire. deirdre: hillary clinton had a different approach. here she