minnesota, ontario, canada, edge land, france -- england, france, spain, they all saw it. that is kind of cool. >> yeah. >> it was the mir space station. ashley: yes. russian debris. with the dow just down about eight points, kind of a quiet beginning to the week. neil cavuto, you take it from here. neil: thank you very much. well, tom brady no doubt celebrating a very big comeback. do republicans need one of their own? president trump is signaling he hopes tax reform is coming and soon. >> 2017, can americans expect a tax cut? >> i think so, yes, and i think before the end of the year. i would like to say, yes. neil: i think so, i would like to say yes, that doesn't sound definitive to me. but maybe i'm missing something. senator bill cassidy, republican of the beautiful state of louisiana. senator, i'm getting the feeling that this is slipping away. is it? >> no. i think what you have to recognize is that the repeal and

replace of obamacare is connected to tax reform. and you want to do both right. the president has committed to replacing obamacare. that's tied in with tax reform. you want to get it right. in medicine we like to say don't just do something, think. and the president is thinking as he does something. neil: all right. but on the health care thing, he says that's a 2018 phenomena, could be, it could be pushed off, and i understand it's very complicated. but do you regret that republicans made that the immediate priority and not something that could goose the economy quickly like a big old tax cut? >> i actually think that doing something good about health care gooses the economy. if you repeal the employer mandate, all those employers who took full-time workers and made them part-time to avoid the employer penalty now hire them back. doing something right on health care gooses the economy. again, you do that plus tax reform, and, by the way, under our patient freedom act that

senator collins and i introduced, health care would be kicked into next year because it would give it to the statements to do it. we in washington would do our part this year, states their part next year. and by the end of two years, it's all settled in the direction we're going. i would like to think that's what the president is thinking. neil: have you guys sort of coordinated a timetable for this? i got the impression when the president was speaking to bill o'reilly that he was sort of throwing things out there, possible dates, time frames, but that it hadn't run by you, and you hadn't run anything by him. >> yeah, i think what's happening that as congress works through its position, members become aware of the issues, the president brings his team on board and there's an accommodation both ways, we will adjust to time. i tell folks when you sit the someone next on the plane, you figure out where your arm goes on the armrest, you just kind of figure it out. that's what we're doing. neil: all right.

let's hope that works occupant. one of the things that's come up, push too far back, you get into 2018, a midterm election year. generally not good for the party in the white house. ronald reagan knew that very well. in the middle of his own tax cut proposal that was actually factored in over years, republicans lost 26 seats. could you imagine a situation where, hard as this might be to imagine now, the momentum is slowed, democrats gain significantly -- maybe even take the house -- and then your tax cut dreams die with nancy pelosi as speaker? >> first, i agree with you, we should do both tax reform and repeal and replace of obamacare this year. i always believe that good policy is good politics. and if we have good policy, the economy begins to rise, people feel secure about health care, they're empowered, not the federal government, we will do quite well in midterms. i am confident of that. neil: what about mitch

mcconnell's indicated that he disagrees with the president on some key areas, infrastructure spending for one. he went ahead and criticized the president for criticizing the judge in this ban ruling. he has said that vladimir putin, the senate majority leader, that he's a thug. and he's not really keen on this investigation of voter fraud. now, those are just four examples of a senate leader who seems to be at odds with the president. or are these things that we shouldn't make a big deal of? >> you know, it's no big deal. mitch mcconnell and the president are totally onboard about our supreme court nominee, totally onboard about repeal and replace, totally onboard about doing tax reform. so in any adult relationship, there's going to be disagreements. how much more so between the executive and the congressional. but i think if you focus on the common ground, the areas of common ground are far greater. neil: all right. do you think that the nuclear option is out there, that is a simple majority to vote on the

president's supreme court pick, or do you think, you know, senator mcconnell, of course, a great protector of these standards that have tested this country well will stick to them and thinks he has the 60 votes necessary to approve judge gorsuch? >> i think that mitch mcconnell will do what it takes to make sure that the judge is nominated and approved. by the way, clarence thomas was approved 51-49 or 52-48, i forget which -- neil: no, you're right. >> so it's been a relative recent phenomena that 60 were required. i think mitch is also aware of that. neil: senator, thank you. is it a risk for republicans to have to push in this off, some of the other key agenda items? washington examiner correspondent sarah westwood on that. i guess that is the trillion dollar question, the rough cost

of a tax cut, that it could be put off. now, i always imagine if these things are put off where they don't even raise it until late summer be, early fall, it's not voted on likely until the following year, and now we're in midterm election year. i don't want to precurse it, but that would not be good for republicans who want this, right? >> right. i mean, if the gop does fail to deliver on basics like tax reform or like an obamacare replacement, they could put some of their more vulnerable members in jeopardy for 2018, particularly the two dozen or so house members who represent districts that voted for hillary clinton; that is, on the gop side. neil: right. >> luckily for senate republicans, though, the 2018 map does favor the gop. there are a number of senate democrats who are going to have to run tough re-election fights in states that voted overwhelmingly for president trump. so the senate may be in this case safer than the house even though the majority is so much thinner in the senate than in the house.

that's why gop members are working to get started on some of these priorities early so they don't delay the fights until the highly political environment of the elections. neil: but you can educate me here, but i believe tax policy is a house issue, so it starts with the house, right? >> right. neil: all of a sudden there's the possibility that we have -- and this generally haunts administrations of either party -- that in that first midterm test they lose seats. not all the time, but most of the time. ronald reagan lost 26 of them because the recession was still dragging on, the slowdown was not going away. now, it's a very different dynamic, i understand here, but it does behoove republicans to move on this if it's going to be their signature achievement sooner rather than later, right? >> right. what's interesting is that there seems to be a lack of consensus so far about what the tax reform package will look like. in the house, like you said, that's where tax legislation will start. kevin brady, chairman of ways and means committee, house speaker paul ryan, they seem to

favor a policy called border adjustment, basically just exempts taxes on exports and taxes imports. so, you know, it's supposedly to encourage manufacturing within the united states. but key senators like senator john cornyn, for example, are expressing doubts about whether they want border adjustment, and the white house has sent mixed messages about where they support it or don't, whether they're leaning more towards a tariff on imported goods. but the bottom line is republicans on capitol hill are going to have to come to a consensus around some sort of tax proposal, and the fact that there are disagreements so early in the process over just, broadly speaking, what kind of tax reforms are going to be put in place, that doesn't bode well for this getting done quickly. neil: yeah. whatever your thoughts are on a border tax, it comes in a variety of flavors, but ostensibly it would be one of the means by which you pay for these tax consistents; that is, a tax hike to pay for tax cuts which on the surface seems bizarre, right?

or am i missing something? >> right. the argument in favor of border adjustment is that over a period of years it would generate enough revenue potentially to offset bigger cuts to individuals and companies. but there's another argument that says you can't impose these taxes on the border arbitrarily, that it would be very disruptive to the market and that this is relatively uncharted territory when it comes to border adjustment, this is very -- it's a radical departure from our current tax policy. so there's been some skepticism about what the long-term effects of border adjustment would be, and that's causing some friction between republican members. and it'll make this a much more complicated thing to get done. neil: yeah. to your point, they're not on the same page, sarah, at all. sarah westwood, thank you very, very much. again, we don't want to make a bigger deal out of this than is warranted, but we do want to remind you of all the dynamics at play here, despite the republicans having the run of the house, the senate and the white house, getting them to

agree on big tax cuts -- let alone those that would be deemed revenue neutral and how they pay for them -- well, they are far from on the same page on that. we're keeping track of this. remember where you heard it here first, this is a lot easier said than done. only now have i noticed many in the general media are beginning to follow up on the possibility this might not happen or happen so soon. all right, well, you know about that immigration ban or visitor ban. of course, the administration says it's not a ban, but we do know this much: with the legal back and forth on this, that might be settled tonight, at least the latest chapter settled tonight. there are a lot of folks trying to rush this order and get in here fast. the dangers of that, after this. ♪ ♪

hey gary, what are you doing? oh hey john, i'm connecting our brains so we can share our amazing trading knowledge. that's a great idea, but why don't you just go to thinkorswim's chat rooms where you can share strategies, ideas, even actual trades with market professionals and thousands of other traders? i know. your brain told my brain before you told my face. mmm, blueberry? tap into the knowledge of other traders on thinkorswim. only at td ameritrade. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car. the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan.

no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

neil: all right. former secretary of state john kerry, former defense secretary leon panetta among the latest to say this immigration order is unjustified. now, that is part of a growing pool of -- i don't know if you'd call them former administration key players on foreign policy who have doubts about not only how this could be executed, but the signal. i know this that case, that's been secretary of state kerry's view, on what it tells the world. former u.n. ambassador james woolsey on that. a number of republicans have told me they think the president's on good legal ground. system of them criticize the distraction it's caused, but say there's no racial or targeted intent to it. what are your thoughts? >> i think that they made a mistake when they initially announced this as something that would bar muslims from coming to

the country because that's a first amendment problem, i i think, that's insurmountable. but some, a few days back the president switched and started talking about individual countries, seven, i think, individual countries that would have immigration at least slowed or special scrutiny or even barred, i guess, in some cases. that i don't think has legal problems associated with it. it's a question of wisdom. and on that one, i think they might have taken it a bit more slowly but still done it. for example, they could have let people in who had green cards or were the parents of people with green cards or whatever that would have removed some of the problems for a lot of people trying to get into the country. and i think they could have had a special consideration for people who were religiously to oppressed, christians, jews, yazidis in that part of the world.

and for people who had helped the united states, fought with -- for us in iraq, let's say. and so make some distinctions -- neil: yeah. >> -- and take a few more days to do it. but in general, i think the administration's correct, it can do this. and if it does it right, i think it's a plus. neil: all right. now, obviously, it's easy to play monday morning quarterback now. time might have been on their side if they'd factored all of the above that you said. they argued that they didn't want to telegraph too much to the bad guys, to those, as we speak, might be trying to rush into this country to sort of beat the deadline. what do you make of that? >> i suppose that's possible. it's a compromise. you can't just kind of do it weeks in advance, but i think they overdid it at first by having it happen so fast. a lot of people got very mad and upset about it, and i think they would have been better advised to take a few days. neil: you know, they have been

arguing -- that is, the administration -- look, this is not a muslim ban. it's kind of the same approach that president obama took. i know not the exact example, but the same seven countries, the same caution about people who visit from those countries. what is the magic of these countries? because, if you think about it, they represent but a fraction of the incidents we've had in this country. but nevertheless, they are the same seven that come up when we worry about terror coming here. >> i think people are looking at the genesis of the terror -- neil: right. >> -- not so much any individual terrorist event. but if you look where the schools and the ideology and the statements by leaders and so forth are particularly hostile, you tend to come out not always with exactly these seven, but you tend to come out with something close to this group of folks. neil: do you get a sense that whatever the merits of this --

and there are a lot of people who look at our safety and certainly consider the louvre attacks last week that were thwarted -- that we are only one attack, god forto bid, away from people -- forbid, away from people very quickly changing their minds on this issue, that such an action would change the perspective of what the president's trying to do? >> yeah. we need to be steady as she goes. we these to come up with a sensible policy we can implement and stay with it and not get either panicked because there's an event or go to sleep because there isn't one for a while. that's -- the americans, churchill used to say, always do the right thing but unfortunately only after exhausting all other possibilities. and on some of these areas, we tend to follow the churchillian tongue in cheek approach and sit

around until we get stimulated. and i, i think we could do with a lot more steadiness. and maybe the president can bring that to us. neil: ambassador, it's always a pleasure. thank you very, very much. >> good to be with you. neil: still on this issue of foreign policy, the president at odds with his own party and particularly the leadership of his party over russia and how to deal with vladimir putin. after this. ♪ ♪ achoo! (snap) achoo! (snap) achoo! achoo! (snap) (snap) achoo! achoo! feel a cold coming on? zicam cold remedy nasal swabs shorten colds with a snap, and reduce symptom severity by 45%. shorten your cold with a snap, with zicam.

neil: all right. when it comes to dealing with vladimir putin, the latest sign that the party leadership is not in sync with its president came from no less than mitch mcconnell, the senate leader, who said that, you know, this vladimir putin, he's a thug. bottom line, he's a thug. the president, though, thinks that he can work with vladimir putin and that it might be a way to triangulate issues, for example, in iran, get their help

this those countries and countries like syria, and all of a sudden we're off to the diplomatic races. former pentagon spokesperson jamie gordon -- j.d. gordon. >> hey, neil, great to see you. i think president trump is just trying to make us safe. i think he has a great point, that we have to have better relations with russia. we share common threats like the threat from radical islam. you know, in the washington establishment, one of the central tenets has been that russia is our number one threat, and a lot of republicans still think that. i think radical islam-inentired terrorism is our -- inspired terrorism is our worst threat, and the president agrees. neil: the last republican nominee, mitt romney, had raised about russia being the greatest threat out there, now you have the case of donald trump saying not at all. who's right? >> president trump is right. look, who was behind 9/11, right? and these mass shootings in san

bernardino, orlando, chattanooga? and even if you look at the boston marathon bombing, the two brothers were chechnyans, so technically russians, but they came here as kids. neil: in the case of the tsarnaev brothers, the russians were warning us about those brothers. we didn't react. but now wondering where this goes, because i almost get a sense in -- and you're up on this, j.d -- but mitch mcconnell is very, very clear along with john mccain and lindsey graham, a host of others maybe establishment republicans who are just all but shouting to the president, you are so wrong on this guy. step back, because this guy is dangerous. what do you make of that? >> well, i think because they saw that president obama tried this reset button with hillary clinton, and they were embarrassed. the russians ate our lunch because we weren't strong. we didn't really ask much in return. what we have to do is make sure we get something in return from russia shah, and what that is specifically, neil, we should be

pushing back against this ideology of radical islam that's coming from saudi arabia and coming from iran. so we have to work together with the russians to push back against that threat. neil: all right. when our bill o'reilly mentioned in the interview with the president that vladimir putin was a killer, a murderer, you know, donald trump more or less comes right back at him to say, well, you know, we've not been saints either. the russians quickly responded today taking great offense to what bill o'reilly said. so let me ask is you outright, do you think vladimir putin is a killer? >> well, i think vladimir putin has interests, like we have interests, and i think that's how you could translate what president trump said. both countries have interests, and i think both of our interests right now is to protect our countries. and radical islam terror groups are a threat to both countries, they've killed a lot of russians, a lot of americans. we have to work together to stop them. i'm not a big fan of vladimir

putin in the sense i don't like the way he conducts business, but i do think we should work with him, we should make both countries safer, and that includes cooperation against things like isis. but it's not just isis. isis is just one terror group. there are a lot of terror groups, a lot of radical islamist terror groups, and we have to force the saudis and the iranians to stop exporting terrorism and supporting these hateful ideas towards infidel -- neil: but on any level -- i understand what you're saying, j.d., but does that bother you, that we might be dealing with someone who has a significant body count behind him? whether he was the direct cause of it or inspired the attacks that led to that body count, that's a little disquieting, is it not? >> well, you know, we're $20 trillion in debt, we have to pick our battles, and we have of to pick the people we think that are going to help us with the most current threat. the last time the russians were marauding throughout continental europe and central europe was czechoslovakia in the '60s, hungary in the 1950s.

however, today we're being slaughtered by jihadists. so i think we have to focus on what's killing us now, and vladimir putin could be an ally. we should have listened to the russians about the tsarnaev brothers. that could have avoided the boston marathon bombing. neil: but what would make him change his allegiance to president assad in syria or, for that matter, working behind the scenes with the iranian regime, what would possibly get him to say i've been aligned with the wrong folks, i'm going to be friends with you mr. president donald trump, and forget about these allegiances i've had for decades? >> russia's economy has been in tatters, so russia does have things they want from the united states. it's a matter of what do we want, what do they want. one of the big things for us is we have to stop iran's nuclear program. all the countries that enrich uranium either have a nuclear weapon or protected by the nuclear umbrella except for

iran. we really could use russia's help to stop their enrichment of year rain yum. there are about 30 some countries that operate nuclear reactors. the russians, for instance, in finland and hungary, the russians operate their nuclear reactors. those countries don't enrich uranium, so we could use russia's help on that. neil: all right. finally, how do you think president trump is doing? right now a little more than two and a half weeks into his young presidency? >> i think he's doing april pretty well because he's shaking up the establishment. he said he was going to shake up the establishment, he's doing it. i think the travel restrictions were a smart idea. we just can't keep business as usual. that's led to the attacks in san bernardino, orlando, chattanooga, we have to take a timeout and figure this out before we keep letting people in from places where radical islam is spread like a cancer. neil: all right, j.d., great catching up with you. be well. >> thanks, neil. you too. neil: president trump, by the way, he's meeting with central

command right now in tampa, florida. he will be addressing troops in the next hour. when he does, we will go there. and are tax cuts delayed tax cuts that never happen because regulation cuts are coming as well? but is that what we have to depend on to spark this economy? after this. ♪ ♪ with every early morning... every late night... and moment away... with every click...call...punch... and paycheck... you've earned your medicare. it was a deal that was made long ago, and aarp believes it should be honored. thankfully, president trump does too. "i am going to protect and save your social security and your medicare. you made a deal a long time ago." now, it's congress' turn.

tell them to protect medicare. my dad gave me thhe ran that company.? i get it. but you know i think you own too much. gotta manage your risk. an honest opinion is how edward jones makes sense of investing. you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief, try doctor recommended gaviscon. it quickly neutralizes stomach acid and helps keep acid down for hours. relieve heartburn with fast- acting, long-lasting gaviscon.

neil: all right. you probably know by now about china getting very provocative in the south china sea and outsided there. now upping the ante. we're getting reports three chinese warships have sailed near the contested islands, this is a couple of days after the defense secretary visited japan and vowed to defend those islands. you might recall that in this general reason, the japanese recognize those eye hands as theirs. the chinese say, no, no, they're ours. the chinese have been militarizing them, and this is something that jim mattis, the defense secretary, will not go unresponded to. and it is something that he echoed again in tokyo. i made clear, quoting him from friday, that our longstanding policy on the islands stands.

the u.s. will continue to recognize japanese administration of the islands. so he sees it as japanese eye loondz, the chinese see it as their islands, and here we go. all right. how big a deal could this be, a distraction from all the domestic events that we want to see? a lot of folks said could be delayed like when it comes to tax cuts, regulations. former oklahoma governor frank keating. governor, it's always these outside, so-called black swan events that change the equation for everybody. i'm wondering whether it involves vladimir putin, russia and new ties, terror or what's going on with china takes all of this other stuff that you and so many other republicans want to see happen delayed. what do you think? >> well, there's no question that you are easily distracted by foreign policy and national security issues, neil. the, i think the cause for some

comfort is the fact that we have a secretary of state and secretary of defense, two very mature, very tough individuals, but that doesn't mean on the economic development front treasury and the regulators should not sit down and resolve some of these issues, carryovers from the obama administration. but foreign policy, national security affairs will certainly take the headlines and dominate the agenda of the day. neil: you know, governor, i could be wrong -- i doubt it though, but here's what i think is going to happen. we will get some regulatory reform, a move to sort of ease up on regulations that not only hurt the financial industry, but a host of others. i think the president's plan to every time someone in washington gets a bright idea to think of a regulation, he or she's got to remove two others. not a bad idea, not a bad start. but that might be the best we can hope for as far as be stimulus is concerned. and be that would be stimulative, no doubt about that. but tax cuts could be pushed back. what do you think? >> who knows what's going to

happen because of other headlines, but the reality is as you know, neil, treading water is not a public policy, and when you consider what dodd-frank, the cfpb, basil iii has done, for example, the community banks, we have lost one community bank a day five days a week in gross numbers through the end of 2016, more in 2017. what does that mean? that means that a big chunk of the lending certainly to small business, new job creation, community banks, they're not doing it. for example, the ability to repay rule by the cfpb says you've got to meet the exact 43% debt to income ratio. for example, my first house my dad didn't co-sign my note, but the owner/seller did make it possible for me to buy that house. those aren't permitted. those are not admitted and permissible ways to get a mortgage loan. basil iii, a lot of these small

banks have gotten out of the mortgaging business because it requires additional capital. why do we have all those artificial rules? i think the president's executive order to say we're going to have tailored regulation, now, you guys figure out how to grow the economy makes a lot of sense even if he's distracted by putin or the chinese -- neil: no, i see what you're saying. here's what i worry about the dodd-frank thing. of course, i'm no fan of the onerous regulations heaped on the industry either. here's what concerns me, though, are we going to go back to the way things were and encourage the very events that could lead to another meltdown? now, i know there are many in your party who have argued dodd-frank itself and onerous restrictions are going to, you know, be the cure that produces the next disease. and i see where you're coming from. but some of these protections were put under there to sort of curb the inner spirits, animal spirits of an industry that went a little far. what do you say?

>> well, neil, i think there is no question that regulators contributed to the collapse of '08. why? because you and i were watching television, and we were seeing ads no job, no assets, no income needed to get a mortgage loan. what kind of silliness is that? for me as a bank or for you as a bank to loan money -- i don't understand why that was even done. but the reality is tax policy is important. with a $20 trillion debt, if you're going to cut taxes, you better make sure it's surgical and it makes sense. for example, for me to go from 39.6 down to 25 and have the tax code eliminate exemptions, deductions and credits including, quite truthfully, mortgage interest deduction, charitable contributions, to have me have a much lower tax rate and let not the tax code determine growth, but what my animal spirits are makes a lot of sense. that debate needs to be joined, and hopefully it will be. neil: in other words, if the tax cut portion is delayed and you

get the regulatory -- something you alluded to -- easing up dodd-frank and a host of others even including looking at some of the taxes and regulations attached to the health care law, will that be enough to get us by or to stimulate us because it looks like tax policy might have to take a back burner? >> well, no, i think some regulatory changes and corrections will definitely tim late animal spirits -- stimulate animal spirits. for example, here in the states how long a period of time does it take to get a building permit? state and local government need to be engaged. the federal government, obviously, to make sure that we only tax was we need -- because we need the money for the purpose of essential government issue that is the public wants, we need the debate. i think president trump, i think the congress, both parties are going to stimulate that debate pretty soon. but they need to do it. they just can't tread water. neil: yeah, i hear you. governor, a pleasure. thank you very, very much. >> thank you, neil, appreciate it. neil: all right.

we've got almost a hundred tech companies led by the likes of google and apple already rallying against the president's so-called travel order. critics say it's a travel ban. it is not a ban. nevertheless, they're piling on here, and a lot of folks worry if they're piling on against this, are they going to help the administration on anything else? after this. ♪ why do some cash back cards make earning bonus cash back so complicated? they limit where you can earn bonus cash back to a few places... ...and those places keep changing every few months. the quicksilver card from capital one doesn't do any of that. with quicksilver you earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere. leave complicated behind. what's in your wallet?

neil: all right. we're getting the earliest read on super bowl ratings, averaging 48.8, so down a fraction from last year's 49 rating that brought in about 111.9 million viewers. i have a theory on this, guys. you know me, i'm a football expert, so let me hazard a guess. the game looked like it was going to be dull, so i think a lot of people left, especially when the falcons were adding to the lead in the third quarter. and then, you know, word of

mouth, they just said, oh, my god, you've got to -- and late in the fourth quarter, they started tuning in again. some of them stuck around for lady gaga, and then left, came back, and i think it affected ratings. anyone who disagrees with me, switch the channel. [laughter] no, no, no, don't. [laughter] in the meantime, we've got some other news that this guy knows a lot about. knows a lot about football as well, but a hundred companies almost $97, to be exact -- led by apple and google who have serious issues with the executive ordering the part of dump, to making money host charles payne on whether whatever peace pipe they were all smoking for a while has now gone away. what do you think? >> you're right, it's gone away. neil: right on the super bowl and the ratings or this? >> i give you about -- you're about, i think you're right on on both. neil: really? >> yeah, i think so. neil: i literally made that up. [laughter] >> although i did notice elon musk's company is not on there.

i think he and, perhaps, peter thiel like to be the bridge between the white house and -- neil: he did raise that with the white house. >> right. neil: better to be there at the table than not. >> he said it wasn't on the agenda, he made it first and foremost -- neil: right. >> and he's trying, of course, to keep his credibility with silicon valley and with the white house, but it is a tenuous relationship. neil: could it hurt their relationship on other initiatives that they're so worked up about this that they don't -- >> here's the irony. if you look at apple with 200 million, google with 450 million, microsoft, 110 million all offshore, you know, when president trump talks about repatriation, no one benefits more than silicon valley. no one. neil: absolutely. >> so i do find it interesting that they're saying that foreign workers perhaps are more important than access to one point something trillion dollars or -- neil: very well put. >> you know? or do they deeply believe in this from an ideological point of view even to the point where

it could even interrupt or interfere with their business. neil: do you think they could have avoided this, the administration could have avoided this had they been very clear they were going to exempt the green cards out of this, those who come here and have green cards, because that was never the initial fear or that even those who had green cards would be slowed, stopped, whatever people's views on this and that's the life blood for the tech industry. >> right. well, i hear when president trump says there was a sense of urgency after they announced the ban. i think some people are saying, well, they probably shouldn't have announced it. worked on all of the small loopholes -- neil: right. >> -- behind the scenes, and once they announced it, it would go into effect immediately. but any of these heartbreaking cases that have been illuminated by the media, maybe some kid who couldn't get an operation or some of these workers who, obviously, were the first to when they started to fix it up. i mean, we also know we're in a hyperbolic area, period, rather, where all this stuff is being blown so far out of proportion.

when you think of the grand scheme of things, this is something that's being fixed. it could be fixed. it's something the president campaigned on. so none of it was a surprise. and the seven nations being questioned here, you do have to wonder how many of them really do work for these 97 companies. neil: yeah. and another thing i thought of too that the president couldn't win for love or money on this, again, whether you agree or disagree, first of all, it was a muslim ban, but it should have been all the muslim-majority countries if he wanted to affec. so you couldn't win -- >> yeah. i read stories the first day out where christians were turned out or even sent back. it is true that these are majority muslim countries, it's also true that these are broken countries -- neil: you and i know we're one incident away, if we had a louvre type of attack here in the united states, all of this comes front and center again. do you think that any of this stuff, though, regardless of the passion of people on both sides that it is getting in the way of some of the issues?

wall street, for example, wants to see, tax cuts that might be pushed further back? i know you've gotten into it on your show, and we've gotten into it on lots of shows. but i do think -- >> i do too. i think -- neil: backseated. >> i think so. i think it's cast little bit of a pall over the potential, over the excitement, even over real news that's coming out like last week. the factory data was amazing, really amazing. you didn't hear about it, you know? there's some really good things happening flight that are being pushed back -- right now that are being pushed back, and i think that's hurting the market a little bit. neil: and i think there's a vested group of interests that don't want a tax cut, that don't want corporate tax reform and certainly don't want it to happen under this president, so they will pounce on any distraction to keep people preoccupied. >> well, there's no doubt about that. there's some -- listen, we know that the embedded politics is a

multibillion dollar industry. neil: absolutely. >> a lot of people don't want to see the boat rock from both sides of the aisle. that's going to be a hurdle for the president to deal with forever. no matter what. but then again, having said that, there might be ways to sort of hopefully tone down all of this so that it doesn't echo so loud and so that we can focus on the enthusiasm. we don't want that to fade away. we don't want main street enthusiasm to fade away, because i think that's the key component to making this all work. neil: obviously, i'd be remiss if i didn't mention lady gaga and how you thought she did. >> i knew one song, i thought the show was great. [laughter] i was just looking to see if she did anything, you know, whatever. she didn't live up to the hype that a lot of people thought, which was good because i think she played it -- neil: yeah. she seemed to telegraph she was going to do something, and then i was reminded in some of her lyrics, while they sounded like an impassioned plea against the president's travel message,

she's had them out there for years. so she didn't say or do anything new. >> her music makes a political stance all of its own. depending on what side of the aisle you sit on. and there are some who read between the lines -- neil: right. >> but she wasn't right out in front. it wasn't a janet -- i mean, a beyonce kind of thing from last year which was right in your face. i mean, that was a gut punch. neil: right. >> this was more subtle, and i think it tried to celebrate america. my wife loved it. i nodded because she was happy. [laughter] neil: but you lost your voice in the process. >> be i lost my voice yelling at the game. neil: i was that way with the history channel. [laughter] oh, my god, washington, what were you thinking! >> madison does it to you all the time. neil: yeah, exactly. every single time. all right, buddy, you're the best. >> thanks, neil. neil: catch him tonight, he puts it all in perspective and helps you make money. me, it's just the prompter. stick with me, america. betsy devos, a lot of

people are not sticking with her. she could be the one administration pick -- in this case to be education secretary -- who is just one republican senate senator shy of going bye-bye. after this. ♪ ♪ many people clean their dentures with toothpaste or plain water. and even though their dentures look clean, in reality they're not. if a denture were to be put under a microscope, we can see all the bacteria that still exists on the denture, and that bacteria multiplies very rapidly. that's why dentists recommend cleaning with polident everyday. polident's unique micro clean formula works in just 3 minutes, killing 99.99% of odor causing bacteria. for a cleaner, fresher, brighter denture every day.

neil: all right. she is the president's choice to be the next be education secretary of the united states. things were looking okay for her until two key republican senators said, you know what? we respect her but not our cup of tea for this post. so in a 52-48 senate, that means you're at a 50-50 situation here. best case scenario, then you have vice president pence breaking the tie in an

unprecedented role to get a cabinet pick through there. peter barnes with the latest on that little drama. >> reporter: yeah. and the vice president said yesterday he is ready to cast that tie-breaking vote if it comes to that, neil. and we should see a flurry of cabinet nominations approved by the senate this week. as you mentioned first tomorrow, betsy devos as the secretary of education, expected around noon. vice president pence ready to cast the tie-breaking vote after those two republican senators said they could not support her. but also up for floor votes this week are jeff sessions to be attorney general, tom price to be hhs secretary and steve mnuchin to be the treasury secretary. trump supporters are still steamed that these confirmations are taking so long because of democratic tactical delays. in fact, the democrats are on the floor of the senate right now spending, they say, the next 24 hours trashing betsy devos. by this time in barack obama's administration, the 18th day, the senate had approved 14 of his cabinet nominees.

for president trump the senate has confirmed just five cabinet nominees so far. neil? neil: peter, i heard quickly there was a thought to doing sessions after devos and that as a sitting senator, he could vote for her. they didn't want to take any chances, is that right? >> reporter: yeah, that's right. they'd like to keep his vote because as soon as he becomes attorney general, he's not a senator anymore and can't vote. so devos first. and then i was actually asked the senate gallery about the rest of the schedule regarding price and mnuchin and whether or not they would do sessions before price and mnuchin, and the gallery source said they could because the republicans feel they have enough votes for mnuchin and price, enough comfortably to do that without sessions voting. neil: all right. so they hope. peter barnes, thank you very much. let's take a look at the corner of wall and broad where the dow is down about 20 points. things could be worse even with the possibility of tax cuts

delayed, and this is a day by day thing. but when i hear the president saying hope, possibility, all of that stuff, ain't happening. it ain't happening soon. that's my prediction. if i'm wrong, i'm going to burn this tape. we'll have more after this. there are

. . neil: all right. ratings are in. for tom brady a big disappointment. he did not fox business network's inauguration day coverage with the super bowl. better luck next time, tom. obviously you know he did very, very well here. off the chart ratings here. it was all over the map i suspect because of up and down nature of the game. looked like a rout at beginning. then you had lady gaga. people tuned in for that. third quarter looking like the prior half was, people got into it. that is my theory here. i'm sticking to it. the bottom line, celebration not necessarily delayed but in doubt for tom brady and company. obviously they got that celebration.

they got that moment. back to tax cuts and whether those who were hoping for big ones are going to see that delayed or realized. so sort of a super bowl of finance section is here as we kick off hour two. we got "the daily caller." we have market watcher gary kaltbaum and fox business network's connell mcshane. so, connell, what of that? the idea that everyone has been hoping for these tax cuts and they still is might be coming but when i hear the president telling bill o'reilly might, and later on this year, i don't know, what do you think? >> i really enjoyed your football analysis, neil. neil: that is the way i role, buddy. i was watching cho chopped for most of the super bowl. >> that makes it more impressive. i go back to some. conversations i had leading up to the inauguration about what the dynamic in washington between the new president and new minority leader.

that is the most dynamic chuck schumer and president trump. many people thought there was a chance to work together with these new yorkers. maybe there incentive for assumer to cut deals. if you look at first couple weeks of trump presidency, it looks less and less likely that is going to happen. whether tax reform or regulatory reform or even infrastructure spending, those things look less likely to happen in the near term. a lot has to do with the same old, same old, polarized washington. neil: what i worry about, a lot of people say ronald reagan's tax cuts didn't start overnight back in 1981 when he took over. and they're right about that they were layered and over the course of years but even in that era republicans ended up losing 26 seats and they rebounded. i don't know that republicans are in that position this go round? >> right.

i think if you have retroactive tax cuts and deregulation could jump-start the economy. it could ahead of any problems that democrats latch on to in talking points in 2018 and "20/20". if he gets ahead of tax cuts and does something that helps businesses and helps the middle class, blue-collar democrats that turned away from hillary clinton in the michigan and wisconsin, went to trump, maybe went red for first time in years are could solidify with them. hey, maybe i should stick with the republican party. maybe i should move over. and take the opportunity to bring more people into his base. neil: gary, easy to play monday morning quarterback but with the reagan tax cuts in a way we can, they were phased over the years, they delivered a bang for the buck, no one doubts that but in measured way, what looked like a certain one-term presidency for him quickly turned around but wasn't for years later. i'm wondering if republicans are

risking ceding a lot of seats in the house, maybe even giving up the house if we delay the oomph we get from tax cuts? >> all i can tell you is donald trump was driving to the hoop on tax cuts and it seems to me they're backing away, and the longer they take, the tougher it is going to be. remember, neil, back then we didn't have massive debt and deficit. we didn't have massive regulations. we're 20 trillion in debt and we have government spending this year $4.1 trillion up from 3.8 last year. go back to two presidents ago, 1.8. all the money coming out. economy. that is why the economy can't get going sooner rather than later. my big worry is this, there was some supply-siders supposed to be advisors to trump. they're nowhere near the white house at this point in time. i'm just thinking they're backing away. and this will take some time. neil: i heard that too, connell, that those who dominate the

economics scene in this administration are not subsiders. they're not keynesians, that we don't need a big tax cut. what are you hearing? >> gary cohn as opposed to larry kudlow and steve moore, somebody like that. before gary cohn took the position a lot of people didn't know about his politics at bold man saks, suspect he was more on the left and the right. ends up with this administration with obviously a big, big say. story going back to friday on regulatory reform on wall streets and rolling back regulations seemed to have his fingerprints on it. that made a lot of sense. on taxes i'm not so sure. a lot comes back to, we say why is it such a big deal the administration and president gets off some topic, immigration, whatever the topic of the day may be? go back to the earlier point, it contributes to the polarized nature trying to get things done with the other side.

fewer democrats willing to work with republicans because they can't go home and sell it they will work with this president because of what he may have said on a different subject. makes tax reform less likely to get done. neil: to latch on to that. katie, the argument i heard from one republican senator at the top of the last hour, look, neil, we get a lot of bang for the buck with regulatory relief. that stimulates the economy. addressing onerous burdens in dodd-frank and health care law does that but nothing equals impact of a tax cut to me. it's a bias but what do you make of that? a prominent republican senator saying, you know, all things being equal it is nice to get regulatory relief as if that will do the job. i don't know about that. >> right. i agree. he has done a lot of good gestures, carrier, dodd-frank, fiduciary rule. neil: right. >> you need something more concrete than that people need something they can sink their

teeth into and look at and ideals and concepts for things he wants to do. at the same time congress can get the ball rolling. look at gop retreat, border adjustment tax that representative roskam is touting. trump is wishy-washy on it. mcconnell is wishy-washy on it and i think it is better than the 20% import tariff. if trump will not get going on it, congress certainly can. neil: gary, hypothetical it may be if it looks like this will be a late year development and maybe not take effect until next year how will the market react to that? >> well i'm a big believer that the markets are working off all the promises of donald trump. it is by no accident november ninth the market lifted off led by financials because of regulatory relief and the promise of corporate tax cuts. it is my expectation that markets are going to no like if they take their time on doing

think, did you say no liken? >> regulations are find but tax relief is only way to force government getting smaller. we can not get the trajectory of growth of government. it is sucking the air out of the economy. 2% growth is the best last two years. if they don't do anything, business owners who prepared and market who has been expected will go the wrong way. neil: yeah. how likely is that, connell? it is coming, just not coming soon, so it is not as if the president is denied. it is delayed? >> i think a lot of it is the debate over the when, not the if but i mean that could change too. i mean the, assumption seems to be now that we're at best, when especially on the topic of tax reform that we're at best talking about late this year, even the president himself interview with bill o'reilly seemed to indicate he was

answering that part of the question. neil: indeed. >> that means more likely rolling into early next year. that is the when. if the if starts to become a another question. neil: then no likey. >> no likey. neil: thank you very much. we were mentioning president trump. he will address troops at u.s. central command later this hour. in fact any minute. blake burman has the details what is on tap there and where he is going from here. sir? reporter: hi, neil. the president is at tampa, florida, at central command. expected to speak in 20 or 30 minutes or some we wait to see what the president might have to say. whether he addresses the latest questions surrounding russia. the stir that he caused his super bowl halftime interview. the folks around the white house and in and around the administration are trying to ease those questions, no, the president they contend did not

draw a moral equivalency between the united states and russia/vladmir putin. also we will see if he brings up, the president does any talk surrounding iran. as we know the administration put that country on notice as it has been described over the last few days. while part of our eyes are trained there on florida, another portion also trained out on the west coast. that being specifically san francisco, california, as the ninth circuit court of appeals is expecting a briefing, a brief, rather, a filing from the trump administration, the department of justice, relating to the halt on that executive order. that executive order is expected, or that briefing rather, is expected to come at some point tonight. it will be the trump administration's response to washington state and minnesota which filed its own brief earlier today in which they said, reinstitution of the extreme vetting executive order would unleash chaos. brand new cnn -- orc poll, very

slight majority of americans disaprove the president's order on extreme vetting. mr. trump appears to taken notice n a tweet this morning here is what he said about it. any negative polls are fake news. just like the cnn/abc, nbc polls in the election. sorry people want border security and extreme vetting. that from the president earlier today. neil it is possible that this case ends up making its way to the supreme court. as we were standing here talking to you, one of the outlying questions is, might neil gorsuch, the nominee weigh in on this. seconds ago we saw mr. gorsuch walking around the white house complex. whether he is ducking into the executive wing but one of the outstanding questions involved in this case. neil: on the white house ground. wasn't as if he is looking for a place to eat? >> no, no. there are good restaurants down the street i could recommend.

neil: great delis. thank you, sir, very, very much. meantime we're told the president plans to play a round of golf with japan's prime minister shinzo abe in florida this week. he will make sure the japanese leader is his partner in the game rather than a competitor which is always good. i'm assuming that the prime minister plays golf because mr. trump, the president, seems to be saying better than just having a lunch. that is the one thing about golf, president trump said. you bet to know somebody better on a golf course than you will over lunch. i don't play golf. miniature golf. but i think you would get a lot more bang for the buck with me, treating me to a nice old lunch then you would golf. but again i could be very different. we're on top of this because, well it's important. a little more after this.

i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes,

or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area. serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. won't replace the full value of your totaled new car.

the guy says you picked the wrong insurance plan. no, i picked the wrong insurance company. with liberty mutual new car replacement™, you won't have to worry about replacing your car because you'll get the full value back including depreciation. and if you have more than one liberty mutual policy, you qualify for a multi-policy discount, saving you money on your car and home coverage. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

u.s. ninth circuit court of appeals travel ban in effect delay as you like to call it. attorneys alex kincaid and peter where this order stands. let's say, pretty simple or with the administration on this or not. if they're not, is this thing put to bed, done or what? >> well, thank you for having me to begin with but, the power of regulating immigration in the united states is federal matter, and the question of it here, which one of the branches of the government has that power. in 1952 congress passed or enacted the immigration nationality act which specifically authorizes the president to prevent someone, an individual, class of people or group of people from emigrating or coming to the united states

if they are deemed to be a national security threat. so this is not a ban. it's a suspension, a temporary suspension. i believe if it winds up in the supreme court, they are going to rule in favor of the president. neil: will it go that high. will it go all the way to the supreme court. >> i wouldn't be surprised if it does. neil: what do you think of that all the way to the supreme court, alex. >> absolutely think that's where they're headed. either side is likely to appeal. we're going to the liberal ninth circuit. interesting to see how the case turns out. important to people to remember so much drama surrounding what is going on now, these bans are really nothing new. neil: yeah. >> maybe the way it is being broad case and shared is a little bit different. we have a president who is tweeting to other people. neil: we're watching the president meeting moments ago in tampa at centcom with our troops. this is what he said repeatedly our security. so this that point, alex, does he have legal ground to stand on? >> yes.

neil: peter, what do you think? >> yes, he does, actually. what happened in 1979, president carter exercised the exact same powers when we had iranian crisis. 2011, president obama exercised the exact same power under 1952 act. both of them were somehow found by the courts to be within the powers of the presidency. neil: guys. hold on there. i'm not leaving you. i want to dip into this if president is saying anything. >> we can be your sounding board. >> sounds very good. thank you, everybody. this is very nice. i guess i will be speaking in a little while. i ask you some questions. how do you like it. >> i love it. >> everyone loves doing it. great spirit, great military spirit. >> who is this guy? strong guy, huh? you think i could lift as much as you? i don't think so. [laughter] better not. how did you like the game last night? >> yes.

>> tom brady, his place, right? he did a great job. >> most of the troops in here sir, are young enough they came in after 9/11. they all volunteered knowing they were coming to a conflict. they're all smart kids. they have options in life. but they chose to come in and serve. >> are you going to make a career out of it? yes? >> still deciding right now. >> come on. you have to stay. [laughter]. you like it better with me. what about you? >> i came in right out of high school, mr. president and making a career. i have already 11 years in. >> that's great. what do you thinking about? career? are you going to make it a career? >> [inaudible]. >> fantastic. good? okay. >> you're a good reenlistment counselor. >> that's great.

i brought some of my friends, some of the most successful people. they have tremendous respects for the military. that gentleman right there. mr. perlmutter. [inaudible]. neil: we're following this closely. that is the president meeting with central command in tampa, florida, before he returns to the white house later this evening. he is going to be speaking there, i don't know if a press conference or brief announcement after this luncheon but, alex kincaid, peter lamage, talking about something that really cuts to our security issues, at least that is how the president framed this. peter it comes back to keeping us safe, he keeps saying that the despite the fact that this has been looked at as muslim ban, it is not the case, not very different from what president obama was doing. any clear-thinking judge,

paraphrasing here, he said would agree with that. not this particular judge but what do you think of that? the the end he has legal upper hand here? >> i do. immigration is foreign national policy issue and that is always handled by the president of the united states. the courts have always supported the president having that kind of power. and this is not the first time that these -- uncharted waters but there is presidency, or precedent in the united states where the supreme court sometimes did get things wrong and the president may disagree with the outcome of, the outcome, go back to all the way back to the 1800s which lincoln disagreed with the outcome in the dred scott case. the president still has the power to these kinds of matters. neil: you know, alex, there is the possibility here that the court doesn't rule his way and

calls into question anything a president can do. goes to your point and peter's point to the supreme court. if you don't have gorsuch approved, a eight-court member dealing with this, eight justice. >> right. neil: how does that go down? >> well it's possible at that point that we have a split decision and nothing happens. we have the standing order from the lower court which may not be a good situation. neil: exactly. >> for people who are supporting president trump. and this ban. neil: so in that event, the lower court ruling, sticks at this level and against him, what are his options? peter what were the options ahead of getting to the supreme court? >> well, i think that he is going to have to go back to congress and let congress of the united states handle the issue of, you know, this kind of suspension he is imposing right now. i still believe the 1952 act if it winds up in the supreme

court, the supreme court will either find that the president has that power or if they litigate the case and hear the case they will rule in his favor because the 1952 act is still the law that was passed by congress, enacted by congress, specifically authorizing the president to do exactly what he is doing. twice before this was exercised as we said in 1979 and 12 ven and, you know i think, the supreme court will rule in the favor of the president. >> peter i think it is important to point out too they have in the past very similar issues. >> yes. >> the supreme court has supported the president in issuing these kinds of orders going back to what i said originally. this is not that new or outrain just. >> absolutely. the liberals or democrats are arguing that the 1965 act made it unconstitutional for the president to base bans on religion or any other -- neil: woe have to prove it is not based on religion. >> this is not based on religion.

this is very clear that it is based on national security issues. neil: i have to break you off here. but i want to thank you both very, very much. president due to speak at central command very shortly. when he does, we are there. stick around. you're watching fox business.

neil: all right. we are awaiting for the president to address the troops in tampa, florida. he is at centcom. all of this at a time when the president is sort of reprioritizing what used to be our obsession with foreign policy. for example, russia, being lethal enemy number one. he says he can work with russia. he says he can work with vladmir putin. he says he thinks he can use vladmir putin and russia to thwart isis and other terror groups around the world. peter brookes, former bush 43 defense official. what do you make of that theory and has been consistent and on it, and mitch mcconnell says, no, no, putin is thug and don't

put your hopes in him? what do you think? >> it is fair to assess the diplomatic intention of any country. the united states is looking not looking for enemies and friends hoping to advance our national interests. depending on the country, i don't think there is anything wrong. the bush administration did it. the obama administration. depends how you go about it. i didn't have a problem with the reset policy which turned into regret in the obama administration. the way they did it. the obama administration decided to give a lot of things away, missile defense in eastern europe, new s.t.a.r.t. reductions and russians didn't take reductions. our involvement overseas which allowed russians to get involved in syria. there are a lot of mistakes there. if we get along with countries and don't give up our interests i don't see a real problem with that. there may be other issues. there may be moral issues or

human rights issues. it is okay to check the intentions of a country with a new administration. neil: this is 180 of their typical position, which even democrats is set in a cold war mentality. do you agree with that? >> well, i have concerns too, and i think you and i probably discussed at times in the past. neil: indeed. >> about russia. so i mean, yeah, like i said it is okay in theory to do this you have to be careful. you have to understand what you want. there is talk they're trying to peel the russians off from the iranian-russian relationship. neil: how likely is that, peter? that relationship has been one decades in the making. i can not see them suspending that all together to cozy up to it to us. >> iran and russia are natural rivals. they basically kind of border the same areas of central asia. they have been pushed together.

it is a marriage of convenience, not of love. you know there is reasons -- there is syria. they both have strong interests there. there is weapons sales. russians have sold the iranians a lot of weapons. there is anti-americanism. they both see the united states as a major obstacle to them being the regional dominant power, the regional hedgemon, whether talking about the persian gulf. once syria is resolved, if it ever gets resolved they will likely be rivals. they are rivals on the energy front. there is reasons to look at this as possibilities keeping russia and china apart as allies and opposing the united states. neil: well you just hit what i was going to follow up on, this idea that china is our bigger enemy. as i have talked to or known donald trump i'm going back decades where he bemoaned and worried about china rigging its currency, playing games in the south china sea, just lately now, defense secretary of the united states raising hackles

about populating those islands that we argued technically belong to japan. they argued at that, chinese to them. they quickly mail at that rise them. that we actually, with the russians share a greater contempt and worry for china than each other. do you agree with that? >> they have a long history, chinese and russians. and they have a long border and the russians are very concerned about the rise of china the neighborhood. they had a alliance early on in the cold war. that fell apart. president nixon took advantage to place russia and china as opposites. this sort of geostrategic games can go on and you can be very successful with it. we have to be open-minded in the new administration for a few weeks and see what they're thinking about, as long as they're protecting and advancing american interests. i think that is something we should look at. neil: peter, always great talking to you. always learn something my friend. thank you very much. >> thank you, neil.

neil: peter brookes. we're waiting to hear from the president. he is at centcom in tampa, florida. we also have word that neil gorsuch the president's to fill the vacancy and spotted on the grounds, not looking for a place to eat.

neil: all right. firmer numbers we're getting on ratings for last night's super bowl. that it garnered 113.7 million

viewers for fox, across the greater fox network. that is down from the record, i guess a couple years ago, that was 114.4 million. we're having trouble with that. there is a lot of back and forth why that might be the case. the game originally looked like a blowout. people may have come back when they heard it wasn't a blowout or to see lady gaga. i got worried when i saw her jump from the stadium there, i thought, oh, my god, don't do it! she was fine but people might have left that. see that, you wonder why i was worried. she was fine. outstanding halftime act. but again, not in keeping with the ratings that fox business network had for inauguration day. lady, you will have to work a little bit harder for that. we'll be crunching numbers why what happened, happened. pretty nice showing for a game

that looked like a glow -- a blowout but wasn't a blowout. the president is in tampa, florida, he will speak to u.s. central command there. we have jason beardsley with us, retired army master sgt. jason, great to have you. for president trump and his connection to the military community it is already strong you but now he finds himself in this fight over who can come here, whether it's a ban. whether it's a delay. that might distract from greater terror concentration. he said no, far be it, what do you think? >> by the way, great to be with you, neil. neil: same here. >> i agree. i think he has great people surrounding him. we're talking to folks like general mattis, general mike flynn, kt mcfarland, sebastian gorka. these are folks, a team that will not get distracted because

of the immigration ban. that is taking another approach. remember this is a writ large policy of national defense. how do we secure our borders. how do we predict beautiful i don't remember attacks before they initiate around getting in front of those things requires looking at picture holistically. this is the right track but will be a little controversial, in war, tactics and strategy. you will clear up a little bit of controversy. there is thesis, antithesis, grind the two come together and come up with a cogent plan. neil: i could be imagining this, i think underreporting story today, we've been mentioning it, is china's say per rattling, getting more aggressive in the south china sea and other areas and islands presumably the japanese think are theres. chinese insisted are theirs. they beefed up their military presence. general mattis, our defense secretary, said this kind of

action will not be ignored, and i'm wondering whether that is a mean we tighten our ties to russia to thwart that. what do you think? >> well, it is an approach. i again look at national defense at large, this is about deploying the right conventional assets first, then augmenting or supplementing those with our policy or diplomatic policy. surgical strike, direct action strike with special operations. he is down at macdill. today he talks to the special forces command. these guys are willing to put it out there every day, you build the policies together. take a country like russia, a potential bell lidge rent you bring them on board when you can. iran, that nation-state put the separation between the two. we have been on our heels. we've been behind in this fight too long. it is really good to see the sort of change coming. that is how you get in front of something like china and what is happening in the sabre-rattling there.

that is not a new thing. we have talked about this a number of times. this is about deploying the right forces in conjunction with your national policy we'll get a lot of that in the next six months. neil: what is weird bit, jason, and you're the expert, we're doing reversal what richard nixon did. we're triangulating, but he triangulated with china to sort of push off russia. we might be making amends with russia to push off china. regardless -- >> right. neil: where do you see this going? >> well, first of all that is an excellent point and one we should remember in our global strategy as a nation. we'll often find ourselves on different sides of an equation, based on our enemies, based on our al lyles. that is the case of changing that triangulation. where this ends, the trump presidency will have a few months to get their legs under them. we'll see what they define as who our allies are.

we have to secure our cooperation. our security agreements have been week in the middle east. saudi arabia, our gulf state allies. ukraine, your previous guest mentioned that too. we failed to secure a lot of those cooperation agreements. so getting back in front of those will let the united states breathe a policy that puts the u.s. first and keeps our men and women when they're in harm's way from being there with ambiguity or without any sort of clear direction. that is where we've been. it is time we see a change. neil: you know these fellow heroes, jason, men and women in the armed services the president is addressing and they're hearing about his overtures to russia. they have been schooled and brought up believing russia is the evil empire, right? so now you have a president comes along i think i can work with this guy. how do you think they're responding to that, taking all that in? >> well, that is a good question. we'll talk about two different populations. one, the operators it, that are out there, in combat in harm's way.

these are men and women really focused on my open i can battle in front of them -- myopic battle in front of them. they with the political element they will go with the winds of the administration. you will see them go along to get along a lot more. that is part of their job to understand the leadership and boil that down to the troops. you will see a little bit of friction. believe me when our troops are tasked with a mission they are going to knock it down. neil: they always do. jason, thank you very much, again for your fine service to this country. >> i have one recommendation for you, neil. neil: yes? >>f you want to a splash splash like lady gaga, we will strap you in a for a halo. neil: there is not a strap but i admire your tenacity. jason making final appearance on the show by the way. thank you, sir.

we have a lot more coming up including the president of the united states speaking right now to military members there in tampa, florida, centcom. again he has a difficult sell here lately, saying russia, the evil empire that you know and were schooled and grew up on i think i can work with these guys. i think i found a more evil force? how will that work? what is the fallout? we'll have that and more after this. what if we could stop the next

epidemic before it happens? what if technology gave us the power to turn this enemy into an ally? mosquitoes are the ultimate field biologists, taking blood samples from every animal they bite. microsoft and its partners are using smart traps to capture mosquitoes and study the dna they collect. using the microsoft cloud, we can analyze over 100 million pieces of dna in every sample, so we can identify where

diseases come from and how they spread. with the cloud, what used to take 30 days now takes 12 hours, and every second counts. if we can detect new viruses before they spread, we may someday prevent outbreaks before they begin. we must be passionate. we must be bold. and never stop striving in our desire to make an impact. that $100k is not exactly a fortune. well, a 103 how long did it take you two to save that? a long time. then it's a fortune. i told you we had a fortune. get closer to your investment goals with a conversation.

neil: to central command. introducing commander-in-chief donald trump. >> he was born february 6th, 1911. in his words, and i quote, we americans don't want war, we don't start fights. we don't maintain a strong military force to conquer or coerce others. the purpose of our military is simple and straightforward. we want to prevent war by

deterring others from the aggression that causes war. if our efforts are successful we will have peace and never be forced into battle. there will never be a need to fire a single shot. ladies and gentlemen, that remains our focus today and we are enormously grateful for the strong support we received from our national leadership starting right at the very top with our commander-in-chief. we are incredibly fortunate to have him here with us today. president donald trump has been in office for just over two weeks. 18 days to be exact. he wanted one of his very first trips to be here to macdill air force base to visit the commands and spend time with our men and women in uniform. i can not overstate this. this is a very big deal. this is a real testament to how important you are to him. he holds our military in the highest regard and we are enormously grateful for the president and the first lady and entire first family strong support for our troops serving around the world and their

families. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in a very loud and warm reception for the 45th of the united states, and our commander-in-chief, president donald j. trump. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, everybody. thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much. so nice. a lot of spirit. great spirit for this country. thank you all. we have tremendous spirit and i want to thank you. we had a wonderful election, didn't we? [cheering]

and i saw those numbers, and you like me and i like you. that is the way it works. i'm honored to be here today among so many of our really and truly great heroes. i want to begin by thanking general votel and general thomas for their distinguished leadership and service on behalf of our country. very, very outstanding people. i would also like to thank general dunford, the chairman, of the joint chiefs of staff. that's big stuff, when you have the chairman. where is -- joe, stand up for a second. this is one of the great people. [applause] thank you. also, commander vogel and everyone serving at macdill air force base. quite a place. and we're going to be loading it up with beautiful new planes and beautiful new equipment.

you've been lacking a little equipment. we're going to load it up. you're getting a lot of equipment. [applause] so importantly, also let me thank all of the coalition partners and their representatives assembled here today. we proudly, very proudly, stand with you, and we will be fighting for your security. they're fighting for our security and freedom. let me recognize our great governor, very good friend of mine and somebody who endorsed me, that makes him a better friend of mine. if they don't endorse, believe me, if you're ever in this position it is never quite the same, okay? you can talk but it never means the same but this man is a great, great governor and has done a fantastic job. rick scott, governor. stand up please. [applause] thank you, rick. finally, on behalf of the entire nation let me express our grat

stupid to all members, and i mean all members of to our members serving in the united states central command and united states central operations command. we salute the army, marine corps, navy, air force and coast guard along with civilian defense personnel so who are important to success of what we're doing. let me recognize the military families and spouses who bravely shoulder the burdens of war. i want every military family in this country to know that our administration is at your service. we stand with you 100%. we will protect those who protect us. and we will never, ever, let you down. as your president, i have no higher duty than to protect the american people. highest duty we have. said it the other night. great, great supreme court

nominee, you all saw that. but i said to myself, perhaps the only thing more important to me definitely is the defense of our nation. supreme court is so important but we have to defend our nation. and we will do that, believe me. [applause] we will do that. and each and everyone of you is central to that mission. the men and women serving at centcom and socom have poured out their hearts and souls for this country. they have experienced things very few people don't get to experience. you have shed your blood across continents and oceans. you have engaged the enemy on distant battlefields, toiled in the burning heat and bitter colder and sacrificed everything so that we can remain safe and strong and free. our administration will always

honor our sacred bond to those who serve and we will never ever forget you, believe me. we will never ever forget you. we will insure that the men and women of our military have the tools, equipment, resources, training and supplies you need to get the job done. you've seen me say we've been depleted. our navy is at a point almost as low as world war i. it is a long time ago. it's a long time ago. not going to happen anymore, folks. not going to happen anymore, folks, not with me. we will insure no taxpayer dollars are wasted. i have saved more thanhundred -- $700 million, when i got involved in the next on the f-35. i want to thank lockheed martin and i want to thank boeing and i want to thank all of the

companies that have really opened up and, when i say opened up, rick scott understands this very well, opened up and cut their prices, okay? because that's what they did. and, we've got that program. it will be back in really freight shape from being very troubled. we are taking care of our great veterans. we're making historic investment in the armed forces of the united states and show the entire world that america stands with those who stand in defense of freedom. we have your back every hour, every day. now, and always. that also means getting our allies to pay their fair share. been very unfair to us. we strongly support nato. we only ask all the nato members make their full and proper financial contributions to the nato alliance which many of them

have not been doing. many of them have not been even close. and they have to do that. central command and central operations command are at the very center of our fight against radical islamic terrorism. america stands in awe of your courage. those serving at centcom have bravely fought across the theater of war in the a vicious enemy that has no respect for human life. today we express our gratitude to everyone serving overseas including all of our million military personnel in afghanistan. socom has dispatched its legendary warriors to the most secret, sensitive and daring missions in defense of the united states of america. no enemy stands a chance against our special forces, not even a

chance. they don't have a chance. and that's the way we're going to keep it. and you're going to be better off, because you're going to have the finest equipment known to man. going to be better off. the proof that our nation has been blessed by god, look no further than the men of and women -- the men and women of the united states military. they are the greatest fighters and the greatest force of justice on the face of the earth and that the world has ever known. the challenges facing our nation, nevertheless, are very large, very, very large. we're up against an enemy that celebrates death and totally worships destruction. you've seen that. isis is on a campaign of genocide, committing atrocities across the world. radical islamic terrorists are

determined to strike our homeland as they did on 9/11, as they did from boston to orlando to san san bernardino and all as europe. you've seen what happened in paris and nice. all over europe it's happening. it's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. and in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. they have their reasons and you understand that. so today we deliver a message in one very unified voice to these forces of death and destruction. america and its allies will defeat you. we will defeat them. we will defeat radical islamic terrorism, and we will not allow it to take root in our country. not going to allow it. you've been seeing what's been

going on over the last few days. we need strong programs so that people that love us and want to love our country and will end up loving our country are allowed in, not people that want to destroy us and destroy our country. [cheers and applause] thank you. freedom, security and justice will prevail. in his first state of the union message, president george washington wrote that to be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. almost 200 years later, as the general was also speaking about ronald reagan, he said that

wisdom comes in three very, very strong words; peace through strength. i've said it many times during the campaign, speaking this front of tens of thousands of people at one sitting, and i'd always mention america first. a phrase that you probably never heard, make america great again -- [laughter] anybody ever hear that? [cheers and applause] and peace through strength. the men and women of the united states military provide the strength to bring peace to our troubled, troubled times. we stand behind you, we support your mission, we love our country. we're lie y'all to our people -- loyal to our people. we respect our flag. we celebrate our traditions, we honor our heroes. you are our heroes.

and we are prepared to fight and we pray for peace. thank you, god bless you, and god bless america. thank you very much, thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank you. [applause] thank you very much. [applause] thank you, general. [applause] trish: all right. you've been listening, everyone, to president donald trump speaking at the conference there at macdill air force base in tampa, florida, vowing to make our military great again and to make our allies pay their fair share. he also stressed the need for strong borders saying we want people that can help our country, not people that want to hurt our country. joining me right now, former