stuart: if we get news from the white house we've got a tax cut bill and we got it this summer and know what is in it, it is retroactive, the market takes off. >> the market takes off. by the way, that is tough thing, the house, sene, oh, yes, the esident. if it gets to his desk we have wonderful response. stuart: we love that story. don't you love that story, neil cavuto? neil: if it is retroactive. wonder keep delaying this, pushing it back, it will not being retroactive. we'll see. thank you very much. the debate on the tax cut notwithstanding something we get into the next couple hours, we're focusing on a record for the dow, the 8th in a he row. a lot buoyed by the retail earnings came in surprisingly strong with walmart, costco, home depot, on and on we go. what does this mean if this keeps up and if a border tax would presumably hit the retailers would that rain on that party? to gerri willis who has been crunching all the numbers.

hey, gerri. >> hey, neil. i took a look at the results. start with home depot. they were out with a solid fourth quarter beat. eps, earnings per share up a dime over expectations $1.44 versus $1.34. the housing recovery has legs here. all-time high for the stock as you've been seeing on our network. let's talk about walmart. here is company struggling with amazon as a competitor but they come in with a handy eps beat. their earnings per share up a penny over expectations at $1.30. revenue fell short of expectations i should say. here is what they are doing. they are putting all their money in ecommerce. they invested in five, excuse me, three e-commerce companies over five months. a lot of money going into online sales. it looks like it is paying off with traction against amazon. tough ask yourself, hey, what would happen if the republicans

border tax went through? what would happen to the results we see from retailers? it is not such a great story. if you're a retailer, buying a 10-dollar t-shirt in indonesia, selling it for 30, suddenly taxed on $30, the cost and profit. the consumers would feel the brunt. $1700 a year with costs passed through on consumers on goods they buy. that is a 15 to 20% annual bump to their costs. what would it mean to the bottom line of retailers? that is what we sent out to find today. r-fc capital markets took this analysis, looking at the company home depot that reported if, if they had to pay a proposed border tax. this eliminates deductions for imported goods, their net income would have gone down 34%. that is pretty astonishing.

big impacts for retailers for those that import goods. neil, that is very, very common in this country. lots of goods coming from asia, china to service american consumers. neil? neil: thank you very much. gerri willis. that border tax cuts both ways if you're a multinational conglomerate. say ge, you do business abroad, you do very well in such an environment. so is it a wash with stocks, some that are hurt, most hear the way it is touted in the house who are helped? that is in the eyes of the he beholder. doesn't look like no matter what your opinions on this it will go through. kerry sheffield, heather higgins, jonas max ferris. jonas, my own read on this that the votes aren't there, i could be wrong but republicans are arguing that huge revenue racer and with the huge tax cuts, what if that is taken out of

equation, what would that do? >> you're reading it right. a lot of companies would again again -- benefit. unfortunately although it is not perfect a radical hit to how corporations are taxed globally needs work. i want to say to those graphics you would be lowering the corporate tax rate at same time, even company taking a bigger hit like walmart and home depot will pay less tax on their profits. there will be possible equalization there, not just blatantly passed on to the consumer. neil: that is an excellent point. >> i agree with that. >> there consumers on airplanes who have pass those costs on. there are other beneficiaries you might save money elsewhere in your budget. a little simplistic to point to the negative side. neil: who was speaking up there? >> this is kerry. i agree with max. the tax code is a statement of h the border tax that we prioritize domestic producers

over foreign producers. that is a statement of priorities. the other statement of priorities it needs to be balanced as by as max said tax cut to the individual and corporate. you can't have one without the other. that is a statement that would actually hurt the consumer if we don't have the tandem corporate and individual tax cuts. because then that would offset the hit to the consumer. they would then have benefit of ving aax cut offseing pontial rise in consumer prices. i have got to tell you as someone who grew up in family of eight kids, my family shop ad lot at walmart and costco. there is study mit, walmart, big box retailers benefit low, middle income families than rich families. if we want to protect the most vulnerable among us that we simply mint a tax code that does not hit consumers at that level. we have to offset that with individual tax cuts and corporate tax cuts.

neil: to jonas's point, heather, pick up on this, slash corporate tax rates and individual tax rates by pretty big margins, seems to be the goal of republicans that could go a long way addressing those fears. addressing that, do you ever think the market got ahead of itself here? i don't think it dismisses any of this stuff. doesn't seem to be worried about it. do you? >> i'm not. i read it the way you do. remember trump talked about the wanting a tax cut. it is house that wanted it to be revenue neutral. neil: mitch mcconnell did too in the senate. >> i meant gop leadership on the hill. neil: i gotcha. i gotcha. >> you have the people who have been supportive of the border adjustment tax which really is a change in how we do deductions, really making an argument for tear tore ralty and moving towards territoriality in the tax code. people opposed to it is a stealth consumption tax, that it

is going to hurt the little guy, these people in favor of the border adjustment tax will tell you in addition to having the tax cuts that you would have, you will have significant moves in the strength of the dollar. to compensate. it is not simplistic. i think looking at politics of it, the coalition which is looking out for the little guy, retail consumer is a lot better organized than the coalition of exporters in terms of the effort that they have made to advance this. so it doesn't look, unless trump in the new tax plan comes out strongly in favor of this, i don't see it going much of anywhere. neil: interesting. let's step back. i still think it is going to happen. i don't know when it will happen. whether magnitude, jonas, president would like to see it happen, sweeping comprehensive lower rate across the board for everybody, including corporations but i seem to see the markets expecting it will happen. the only question is when. but if we take away this border tax, whatever you want to call it, that isn't flying anywhere,

there is pressure on the part of budget-minded republicans to pay for these things so they don't make deficits worse, whatever argument tax cuts revenue down the road, may make them worse, how are they going to push that through, how are they going to get that through pass themselves forget democrats? >> revenue neutral is not such a bad thing. it is passible as revenue neutral. even a revenue neutral tax fix at corporate level how it might happen to get passed saves potentially, if not hundreds of billion of dollars, tax planning dodging, routing profits through countries. they spend so much just complying with the current more complex tax code than what we're talking about a solution. so that savings alone is good for stocks and companies, even if the corporate tax is done revenue neutral. the income tax doesn't have to be revenue now trillion because

that is passible, even democrats will not stand ahead after tax cut for individuals. possible both sides will be dealt with separately and different goal and overall revenue goals. neil: one of the other things we should focus on carrie as well, that the rich won't get away with tax cut murder here. whatever your views, steve mnuchin and others said it will be revenue neutral for them. in other words they will be offset limiting their deductions and the like so net tax cut for them is virtually no tax cut for them. do you buy that if you do? what would fallout be from angry rich people like jonas complaining? >> well, i don't see them taking to the streets and burning things down, at least i hope we won't goat to that point. neil: you don't know jonas. >> oh, boy, i'm glad i'm not on set with him and glad i'm on remote now. i think wealthy individuals pay the vast majority of taxes in this country. actually lower, middle income

families a lot pay no taxes. we're talking about revenue neutral and saving taxpayers we're talking about in general saving few taxpayers. if we're able to, as i said before, make a value statement, make a priority statement in our tax code that we he prioritize american homegrown businesses and foreign businesses that we make it revenue neutral at the beginning but over time we have more economic growth. neil: you make sense but heather, i don't see this revenue neutral in the beginning. i believe tax cuts do create enormous revenues. you don't see them immediately. the danger those in power will spend that and create worse deficits but won't right away. i worry how republicans explain that? >> scoring. neil: okay. >> scoring is the perpetual game. why there is dynamic or not.

how many years out you're going. neil: you can make the numbers say anything you want. >> make the numbers say anything you want. neil: do you know my ratings are higher than bill o'reilly ace? it's a weird measurement. unusual measurement we use. that is where we stand on tax cut thing. not that it will happen. it might be delayed. might not be retroactive. thinking from kevin brady from the house ways and means committee, pushed off much past summer very unlikely it would be retroactive. say it is september event. talking the time which the house and senate vote for this thing, then it would be effective on that date, not retroactive. seems to be the feeling. how you feel about that, markets feel about that anyone's guess. this whole issue of building a wall a moot point when you hire 10,000 i.c.e. officials to track down illegals who are already here, after this.

your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance

neil: welcome back, everybody. homeland security right now says it has identified places along the border where it starts building that wall. a good chunk has the wall already in place or beginnings of it, especially along the southern california border. not as if something isn't there already but the federation for american immigration reform says it is needed regardless. dan, very good to have you. all this comes on the same day we're learning that the administration is pushing 10,000 new i.c.e. officials what the wall should be doing cracking down on illegal criminals already here. is this one-two effort part of a new tone in washington? >> thanks for having me, neil. these are complimentary efforts.

the wall tells people all over the world don't even try, i.c.e. patrol, border patrol and interior in the border that is pushing in place these very powerful tools. since 199the congress gave the president a whole lot of powerful tools. these tools are in the law, and john kelly is using them. barack obama walked up to the tools, turned his back and folded his arms, said nothing to see here. donald trump he is moving at the pace of a cheetah, right? if congress is snail, nothing gets done, donald trump is a cheetah, putting in place the whole 287-g cooperative agreements with state and local police, building up the border patrol. neil: a wall is a wall a wall, can it go along the entire border? can the costs anywhere, 18 to $50 billion cover it? >> neil, the voters who voted for donald trump, what they want is secure borders. they want security on the southern border.

if it take as wall 50%, fencing other things, deployed in the interim, what they care about they want illegal immigration stopped. nobody is going to quibble over the trifles whether it is concrete or brick or, you know, made of he mosaic tiles or -- neil: they will quibble over the price, right? the argument seems to be mexicans will find a way, whether or not like it or not to pay for this but is that a moot point inhe scheme of things? >> one of the thin ithe kelly memo they're reviewing all forms of aid going to mexico in one form or another. donald trump is looking at leverage and cooperation to help mexicans pay for the wall. it is in our interest and mexico as interest to clear up the cartels. with a force multiplier of state and local police, mandatory detention, credible fear determination so they're not abused there are great stuff. you have to realize these memos

are putting out, they unleash a battery of tools that congress given them make it public -- i'm not upsetting the cameraman i hope. possible to control our borders in ways we have not seen in 30 years. neil: didn't notice that. dan, one of the things we discovered no wall or wall, a lot of illegals are very good at digging tunnels. some elaborate, sophisticated, long tunnels. how would a wall stop that? wouldn't it encourage that behavior, and wouldn't you need even more agents along the line to watch out for that sort of thing. >> sure. obviously where the deployment of sensors and drones and satellite i am -- imagery. you find a tunnel, cover it up. we have eight years after administration didn't want to see is. they had absolutely no interest seeing what is before their eyes. a wall by itself is not proper fame work of the analysis, neil. it is everything. it is messages we send overseas. curtailment of abusive counselor

decisions giving people who will not leave the country. interior control, state and local cooperation. credible fear determinations. mandatory detentions is all possible because congress give the president all these fabulous tools, including of structures funding along the border. donald trump understands he has great tools, great powers, great guy in john kelly. a lot is going to happen. courts, simply do not have jurisdiction to challenge everything he is growing to do. border control and national security is attribute of national sovereignty. neil: dan, we'll watch it closely. great to see you again. daniel stein. neil: he was a conservative rock star until all of a sudden he wasn't. milo yiannopoulos lose as book deal and maybe his job at "breitbart"? gaspo on what he is hearing after this. online u.s. equity trades, you realize the smartest investing idea isn't just what you invest in, but who you invest with.

♪ isn't just what you invest in, but who you invest with. if only the signs were as obvious when you trade. fidelity's active trader pro can help you find smarter entry and exit points and can help protect your potential profits. fidelity -- where smarter investors will always be.

neil: all right. conservative rock star, not so muchight now.

mile yo yiannopoulos, will be holding a press conference at 3:00 p.m. a few hours from now. he has a book deal reneged. disinvited from gathering of conservatives known as cpac. the qusay grawe could be his job at "breitbart." charlie gasparino. what are you hearing about this. >> my producer broke the story on "breitbart" thinking that, or weighing whether these latest statements of his that he came out with involving underage sex. that is what it is. neil: what context was he saying this? >> i think people look it up, because if i explain the context, i like milo. i have known milo for a long time. i don't believe he was advocating pedophilia and i don't believe he was advocating rape which is some of what has been come out, which has been some of the interpretation of it.

i think what he did was, and this is what happens when you fancy yourself as a provocateur. he was trying to make some theoretical statement about sexuality. i don't agree with it, far from it, i think got in over his heels and dug himself in the ditch. as you have have seen on lot of issues from race and things like that. from what i understand. brian broke the story. we did a little more reporting. there is a debate inside of "breitbart," milo is very controversl on immigration, race. he got a book deal out of it. got the cpac speech out of it. he got a name out of it. got front page stories in the "new york times" out of it. neil: on bill maher. >> on bill maher recently. whether this is a step too far and i think there are two main things they're weighing here. number one, they are, "breitbart," which is known as a very nationalistic some people

say engine of the alt-right is now moving away somewhat. they're moving more towards mainstream conservatism. they are doing reporting based. they hired a guy from "wall street journal" to do finance page, john carney. a good reporter. they have good guys. neil: for anyone like a third rail like this whether their comments are taken out of context with they don't want anything to do with it? >> right and there is the business issue here. milo generates a lot of traffic to his site and provocative statements and lot of college republicans like it. neil: when i hear college republicans highly regarded in that community. >> i will unpack it on foxbusiness.com. he took on political level wing in colleges by being overly provocative. i think he thought shocking people would be able to unleash a torrent of free thought that would take over the pc culture

in colleges. neil: he must have known react he elicited. >> liked it because -- that he wanted to show them at their worst. now on comment about sex are fairly indefensible as far as i'm concerned. he said some is wild things. around i think he should, he claims want advocating pedophilia. he claims he was abused as a kid as well. you have got to look at them -- neil: i don't want to repeat because i know it leaves some people, you're not hearing it wonder what the heck you're talking about, to characterize them any other way sounds like he was promoting pedophilia. >> it was. neil: that sticks in the craw of a lot of people here, no matter how he explains it at 3:00 p.m. it won't help his cause or maybe it might. he has come through rough things before. >> i know the man, person, not a bad kid. i have had dinner with him.

this is not a guy espousing pedophilia at the dinner table. he has a partner he has been a while. this basically, i know why he does what he does. that is why i'm putting this in context. i have seen people dig themselves in holes -- neil: he was among the first say republicans should open up to gay. >> he is openly gay. neil: and beyond that, saying that the party doesn't serve itself or those it wants to recruit any good if it ignores this vast cross-section of the population. >> he has done some interesting work. some i would say -- neil: how did he get a cpac invite to begin with? >> because he, some of his work was so obviously true. the college campuses are stalinist. you can't talk about race except for in certain ways. you can't talk about immigration except for in certain ways. there are speech codes. listen, the guy shows up for a speech at berkeley people are throng bricks through windows. neil: punches at him. >> punches at him.

this is crazy stuff. it is and led by a coward, liberal intelligentsia that doesn't understand the first amendment. neil: you think other gays, those out of so-called mainstream of the conservative movement will say, boy, i better not be so aggressive getting my point of view out because this is what happens? this is exception i grant you but could it boomerang? >> i don't think that is what will be the end result. i think gays, particularly gays in the republican party that i know will say, what milo, what he really did with these statements, again go back to look at them, he stereotyped homosexuals. he basically, the warped notion that every homosexual likes little boys is what i have heard gays that have partners, that is totally not true. neil: explain that one. >> it's a stereotype. neil: every time he explains it will get worse. >> the problem is his statements enforced that stereotype. so he is not even going to have support among gay republicans.

that is the problem. i think, what he should do is maybe resign, and rethink some of this and let this thing cool off. neil: he isn't in "breitbart." he already has a book deal canceled. disinvited to cpac. how does he make his views known? he disappears. >> there is cooling off process that i think any good pr person would tell him. neil: there is none. >> i would say this. he is at bottom, a good kid. i call him a kid. i'm old and he is 20 years younger. but i know him personally. and i know what happens to people that dig themselves in holes on tv. you've seen it. i've seen it. neil: absolutely. >> you keep digging you don't really mean it like that but you double down about accident and it gets out of control and doesn't represent who you really are. and i have seen that happen -- look at jimmy the greek. you remember the whole controversy about race? listen, i don't want to agree

with what he said. what he said was disgusting but he was trying to dig himself out and made it worse. he just kept digging. neil: better part of valor not to hold a press conference. >> not to say anything. neil: not to say anything. buddy, thank you very much. that presser is planned for 3:00 p.m., 2 1/2 hours from now. we'll be on it. more after this.

liberty mutual stood with me when i was too busy with the kids to get a repair estimate. i just snapped a photo and got an estimate in 24 hours. my insurance company definitely doesn't have that... you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance neil: all right, we're waiting out of things to develop out of the white house today.

maybe new immigration vetting plan here. we're learning that the president is meeting with a close friend of his billionaire businessman, head of inaugal committee for donald trump, tom barrack. they're having lunch. could mean two friend having lunch at the white house. what it means beyond that anyone's guess. maybe he was in town. president says why don't you stop by the white house. you know where it is. let me know how you're feeling. in it the meantime these first 100 days as we're about 1/3 through depending on who you talk to the administration is doing horrifically or not too badly, especially looking at progress on executive orders and memoranda and market wealth grown to $3 trillion since he was elected president. house freedom congressman from alabama, where consensus building on issues that matter to a lot of folks, tax cuts, first and for most replacing the affordable care act better known

as obamacare. congressman, very good to have you. i guess the repeal and replace obamacare is first up. where does that stand right now? >> well, i'm unsure where it stand right now. i know what the speaker of the house wants to do. i know what those of us who pledged to the american people we were going to repeal obamacare, what we want to do. then we've got big government republicans who don't really want to repeal obamacare. they may want to couch it that way. basically what they want is obamacare light. there would be still some form of obamacare and higher taxes on people who are paying for the cost of insurance for themselves and also for those who wish to be subsidized. republican party quite frankly in washington, those of us who are conservatives who want to repeal obamacare we feel we're being held back by people in positions of power. i hope we'll get a vote on repeal. i don't know if we get that.

neil: the goal was first repeal it first. most of you agreed on that. the replacement mechanism not so much is the talk now, because i get different stories here, repeal and replace simultaneously or what? >> well, i think you hit it nail on the head. you're getting different stories. i'm also getting different stories. if it was up to me we would repeal obama care in toto. i will urge speaker of the house to let us have the vote, repeal on obamacare. that is what we promised american people. that is also what is best for the american people. then if you want tom replacement that is fine. bear in mind, what we have a replacement is the world's best health care system that we had in 2009 and 2010, that obamacare over time done so much damage to. finally i'm one of those believe as much as possible we ought to defer the issue to the states. if for example, new york or massachusetts or california, if they want obamacare, their legislatures can pass it and

they can pay for it themselves. states like mine, alabama, that don't want obamacare, that still believe in individual freedom and liberty and responsiblities for the decisions you make during your lifetimes we can not have obamacare and not have our industries, our employers and our people burdened with the high cost associated with that failed program. neil: i don't know where this is going, sir, to your point, and i do know there has been a concern if you repeal it in 20 plus million who have coverage right now don't have coverage have to sort that out, some of you say it is not up to you to sort that out. the issue this could push back the tax cut thing. are you worried about that? how likely is that? to your point, you don't seem in agreement on these bigger repeal and replace options, so the tax cut i can imagine getting pushed back further? >> well, i think that is likely to happen as long as obamacare is on the front burner so to speak. that is going to push a lot of

other issues pack somewhat. we've also got the problem that the white house is facing. you still have democrats exercised a very successful obstructionist program to delay. the white house being fully complimented with the cabinet and subordinate employees hired by cabinet members once they're appointed. so the white house is strug is link because of the absence of a still and complete cabinet. democrats obstruction is effective in my perspective. from a democrat perspective it is good. from the house we yet to confront any major issues we get direction the white house where they want to take us. for obamacare, it is simple. we had repeal votes in the past. let's go ahead and have a repeal vote. if we can't muster votes to repeal obamacare, if there too many liberal big government republicans in the house to get that done, then we start looking at alternatives.

we should not look at alternatives until we first had the vote on repeal of obamacare. neil: we'll watch very closely. congressman, thanks very much for taking the time. >> thank you, neil. neil: meantime, you knew this would happen. scott pruitt now is the epa chief a controversial choice of the administration. he got in, he said he would be looking at a big regulatory roll back. he said he would change the epa operate and rethink its various priorities. now he is acting on it and we're talking acting on it big. after this. we've done well in life, with help from our advisor, we made it through many market swings. sure we could travel, take it easy...

but we've never been the type to just sit back... not when we've got so much more to give when you have the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant. ameriprise

>> i believe that we as an agency and we as a nation can be both pro-energy and jobs and pro-environment. that we don't have to choose between the two. i think our nation has done better than any nation in the world making sure we do the job of protecting our natural resources and protecting our environment while also respecting the economic growth

and jobs our nation seeks to have. neil: all right. epa chief scott pruitt, now in place and addressing some. troops. many are repelling against him and urging senators to vote against him. he is now their boss. a lot of them stayed through one administration after another. so they're not going anywhere. but again, this is an administrator who says he has a different idea what the epa should be doing and it isn't what a lot of them think he should be doing. so some roll back in regulations might be easier said than done in the organization itself. we have climate depot.com founder who welcomes this initiative. former obama epa staffer and a liaison who, stan, i guess you do not. what do you think? >> no, i don't. i think the approach they're taking is one size fits all approach often decried on the right. regulations are an easy thing to bat around like a pinata politically. the reality we're not talking

about regulations outdated and perhaps a little rusty at this point that need tweaking and modifications. neil: do we every do that though? do we have regulations applied to industries, vibrant years ago and do they get rid of those? >> sure they happen all the time. in fact 2011, president obama issued an eo required agencies to look at -- neil: did they do that? did they actually removed some? >> they sure did and modified others and madthem me applicable to today's standards. when you do that stacks up anotheregulation and becomes part of data how many regulations there were in given year. even with that, neil, 500 fewers regulations in federal register annually under barack obama than george bush. we're not talking about these kind of things. we're talking about big industry fights -- neil: 500 fewer at increased rate or 500 fewer net? >> 500 fewer every year in the federal register. neil: mark, what do you mick of that. this guy is pouncing too soon or

maybe not aware and maybe the epa is doing all good? >> i wasn't aware of obama being the great regulator. clean air previous three presidents bushes and clinton five clean air implementation as on the state. obama did 56. 40% of the country wasn't in attainment. the more the plans failed the more they kept planning and passing more regulations. what scott pruitt really represents, you see my smile here, this is the end of superstition in washington. it is actually going back to science and actual cost benefit analysis. it is very simple. the epa climate plan is signature obama executive order. he couldn't get it through congress. he bypassed democracy. this plan wouldn't even impact global co2 levels, let alone global temperature or storms. obama administration officials like john podesta sold it as a way to prevent storms and we need this because the storms are getting voicer. neil: do you fear the pendulum

could go the other way? one you had epa too protect tiff environmentalists at expense of business. now you have auy comes in would presumably much more inclined to ally himself with business than give a hoot about environment. >> it will not go the other way. what scott pruitt whole agenda, returning stuff, working with the states, using model of federalism, not imposing on the states. this is where president obama kept passing the regulations. all this was done again through executive order. donald trump and pruitt have easier job in the sense this isn't like obamacare where you have got to get congress to pass repeal legislation and president sign it this is just a matter of starting the executive orders, overturning them and going through layers of bureaucracy, court cases it will take weeks, months, years to got some of overturned. i don't think they can go too far. neil: what is the edict of the environmental protection agency? do you think it veered a little bit from protectioning environment to clubbing business?

because a lot of business guys, whether they're getting wrong image, they recoil at the thought of epa rules an regulations they say are knee-jerk, antibusiness measures that are not weighed carefully on their industries or their workers. what do you say? >> sure. i think as a healthy debate neil on this stuff. there is a check and a balance. there are often times place where approach in washington will work differently or less well than localities. i will say sometimes one size fits all critique, sometimes too complex is the critique. complexity is the solution not making it one size fits all. i do think debates how regulations can be applied are healthy. there are ways to do it well and ways to do it ham-fisted and not going to be effective. we tar everything as one size fits all approach, fixing regulations, mr. trump, we'll kill two for everyone we create is not practical. means you are not firsting some of the things that need fixing.

i would like to make one point about clean air since mark bought it up. since the clear air passed 70% reduction in air pollutants in this country while gross domestic product agreed with 250%. i agree with the rhetoric, strong economy and good regulation. >> quick answer, technology. if you want to resin al gore's nobel prize give it to fracking. they have the greatest effect. u.s. emissions are at 25-year low in first half of 2016 due to fracking taking over for coal. it is technology and new ways doing it, not the heavy hand of regulation. >> mark, i would assume mark is going to really support the rule that will limit the emissions pumped out by natural gas companies that are wasting 330 million a year. >> co2 emissions are not bad. neil: do not get me started on co2 emissions. you eloquently argued respective points of view. i appreciate that. meantime you heard snapchat, they call themselves snap,

selling online video recording glasses. they look stupid but apparently they're all the rage and this is sort of setting the stage for the ipo of all time. so i guess with these things you can see just how well you're doing or not doing. i guess. did you know 90% of couples disagree on

mattress firmness? fortunately there's a bed where you both get what you want every night. enter sleep number and the ultimate sleep number event, going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. she likes the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store. right now, save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed. sale ends sunday! go to sleepnumber.com for a store near you. your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if

you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance

neil: all right. running of the bulls literally. forget wall street. this isn't queens. actual bull. real live bull, caught in queens, new york. it rap apparently escaped from a slaughterhouse in the area. who knew queens had a aughterhou. just started running loose for hours here, better part of close to two hours, before finally apprehended with darts. seems to be calm right now. but sure as heck hope they don't

return him to the slaughterhouse. really guys? the they're trying to figure out what to do. what do you do with a bull? they're big, they're big animals. and it's a metaphor for our market. you have to be very careful how you handle metaphors as well. i will keep an eye on it. if they return them to the slaughterhouse it will not go down well here at team cavuto. meanwhile snapchat, already changed their name to snap ahead of ipo. they have these glasses, spectacles, enable you and touch them, videotape away. some places forbid cameras, okay, i will honor that. anyway these things are all the rage. i guess it will be the backdrop for this ipo slated in the next week or two. anywhere from 12 to 14, upwards of $16 a share when all said and done. it will raise billions.

i don't know where the spectacles come into play but hillary vaughn does or whether it ends up being a wall street spectacle itself. what do you think, hillary? >> hey, neil. snap is into the leading with the spectacles in the pitch meetings. they lead with size doesn't matter. they're not trying to be the next twitter or facebook. that their users are valuable and worth more money because they're more engaged than their competitors. >> one of the challenges we encountered over time, explain to people why bigger isn't better. >> investors that attended spiegel's first road show said they wanted to talk numbers and were disappointed there weren't any projections for snap's future revenuer id how quickly the company thinks they can make money. people in the room say most investors wanted to know how snap plans to keep both advertisers an users happy while expanding their base. even though snap is trying to separate itself from others, some are confident it could pose

a threat to social networking giant facebook. here is businessman martin sorrell on "coast to coast" last week. neil: you don't think snapchat is overrated company as much as they said about facebook? >> probably said it about facebook an google at time too. google's fundamental product is their strongest search. facebook is more after branding mechanism. snapchat i think is a significant competitor to facebook. >> one thing snap has that has facebook doesn't is hardware. snap's spectacles are available online for first time. they're going for 130 bucks. snap says the glasses haven't demonstrated significant revenue and not paying for the cost. investors warrant ad demo of the specs and were bummed that they didn't get one. neil. neil: this is the way of younger, my two teenage boys

only use snapchat. whatever you're sending disappears, that right? >> yeah, disappears after 24 hours. neil: how honest they are that this he would want to hide it from me. the other thing, young people want to use it, does snap make the argument the social network of the new generation? is that their pitch? >> yeah they have that coveted 18-year-old to 34-year-old demographic but investors want to see how they will expand beyond that. because they don't want to just focus on that demographic only. we'll he see if snap can show them how they're going to do that. neil: all right. do you need snapchat to get the glasses or use the glasses or can you use the glasses feed them -- why am i asking questions that bore me? i have no idea? you doesn't know or i don't know? seems like a big deal. >> yeah the snap spectacles are for snapchat only. again it could open up other options in the future. for now, snapchat only. neil: you were very kind to

dignify that idiotic question. thank you very much, hillary vaughn. >> thank you, neil. neil: they look weird to me but what do i know.sw we'll have more after this. it'll get better. i'm at the edward jones office, like sue suggested. thanks for doing this, dad. so i thoughtt might be time to ta about a financial strategy. you mean pay him back? knowing your future is about more than just you. so let's start talking about your long-term goals. multiplied by 14,000 financial advisors, it's a big deal. and it's how edward jones makes sense of investing.

great panther silver produced approximately 4 million ounces of silver last year at their 2 mexican mines. their recent mine acquisition in peru, once fully operational, stands to increase their production up to 75 percent. great panther silver

neil: all right, a lot of you want to know more about this bull on the loose in queens, new york. the bull is okay. we're not sure how he escaped, but thousand we're told that there's a slaughterhouse nearby. who knew? but apparently, this has happened before from same said slaughterhouse, so it almost makes you think that these things talk to each other and, you know, plan their escapes. but it happened prior with another cow at the time named freddy that led policee on a wild chase here. i could say using a sguise, but that would be too silly. just himself, just walked out. and sometimes for those in the neighborhood, it can be a shock, but apparently it's happened before, and they've seen it.

they sedated this bull in question. now, when it happened the freddie some months ago, i'm told, freddie was taken to an animal sanctuary. they did not send him back to the slaughterhouse. we don't though what's going to happen to this one, but i think after all the trouble it's been to, slaughterhouse out of the question. especially when you've got a market soaring, and it's very bullish, i think it would with a bad move to do anything to harm this bull. so hopefully, they won't which is why stocks are still up on indications that this bull, they won't tamper with it. and you're probably wondering why stocks are up so much, the consumer's still strong, and this rally that continues unabated if you think about it since donald trump's election, this record after record continues, and retail stocks with better than expected numbers keeping a lot of this going. the read right now with christine short, we've got alan

knuckman joining us and adam shapiro of the fox business network. alan, i have to naturally go to you. >> well, thank you. neil: you got it, buddy. i worry about the capture of this bull, and i think if they harm this bull in any way, shape or form -- and they should know the eyes of the world are on them -- if they harm this bull or send him back to sanctuary, there goes to bull market. what say you? >> yeah, it's not worth taking that chance. superstition, if you mess with the bull, you get the horns. let's be careful. we're having this market, it's just momentum. it's money momentum that continues. and if we get back to science class, you know, a body in action tends to stay in action until acted upon by an outside force, and there's no forces pushing on this market to the downside right now. neil: all right. as you're speaking, i want to make sure i'm getting all relevant facts to you. a butcher said they were moving a large group of these cows and bulls and believes this one may

have heard a noise, got scared and escaped through the fencing. well, that begs a lot of questions right. how can you miss a bull escaping? a bull could easily walk by me, and i'd not see it. i'm curious about that. christine, let's get a better sense right now of this bull market and how long it lasts, because a lot say it's priced for perfection be, almost too much perfection. we've just heard from a republican congressman who says this repeal and replace thing on obamacare is going to be pushed back, and once you push that back, you push tax cuts back. in other words, a lot of problems. what do you think? >> yeah, you know what? i think, certainly, this market is being driven by great earnings at this point, but i also think underlying that is, of course, optimism around some of these policies that have been introduced. even though we don't have details yet, the trump administration has said more details are coming. i think you get too muddled up

in some of these other things, and you take away from, you know, potential corporate tax reform, that's when you're going to see a allback from the rally -- a pullback from the rally. if they are going to push off aca, that has an impact on when this corporate tax change is going to come into effect, that could impact earnings for the rest of the year, and we already have high expectations for 2017. valuations are so rich, the fundamentals need to continue justifying those high p.e. ratios at this point. neil: adam, some of the retailers that are leading the charge, the likes of walmart and costco and home depot, you know, a lot of them are built on this continuing, but if we get a border tax, an impocket tax -- import tax, they'd be the first to be hit, wouldn't they? >> they would be, but i think it was jonas who pointed out, yes, consumers pay the border adjustment tax, but at the same time companies would be able to use some of savings as their

taxes would be dropping to keep prices from going up. neil: right. >> but, look, as long as you're talking about the border adjustment tax, kevin brady, you know, the chairman of the house ways and means, is dead set this thing will be part of tax reform. whether he can deliver is another issue. macy's stock has gone back into positive territory, and it was the one that was having real trouble. neil: adam's quite right, ken brady is very convinced this border tax thing happens. i don't see it, but i could be wrong. let's say they don't have that, they still want to go through with the tax cut, they still have a situation where deficits get worse before they get better the if you buy dynamic accounting or all of this stuff, there are some republicans -- forget about democrats -- there are some republicans who will have issues with that, wouldn't they? >> the freedom caucus. the whole idea is that it could raise $1.2 trillion over ten years. if you don't have that, you're going to have to cut, you're going to have to cut from spending. and believe it operate,

republicans like to spend your money -- neil: none of them are are saints on this. alan, when you're looking at that and it turns out that they've got to wrestle with a way to pay for this tax cut but they don't, how would you feel about that? how would the market feel about that? still get your tax cut, near term it still hits the deficit, though, worse than would be the case otherwise. >> i don't think the market's that concerned at this point. i mean, we've been bandying this thought back and forth. stocks aren't going up in a vacuum. all assets are rising, which is interesting. bonds moving up, gold's moving up and the vix is moving up. the fear factor is actually rising. weaver 15% off the -- we're 15% off the lows, but even though the stock market's made new highs, the vix isn't making new lows. we still are not complacent if you look at the rice action in the market. there's still more upside. your previous guest was talking about earnings, that's what it's

about. 5% thiswater -- neil: but those earnings, alan, those earnings we're told -- and you know this better than i, my friend -- but those earnings don't justify stocks at these levels in this present market. do you buy that? >> well, the forward p.e. isn't that high, it's at 17 or 18, you know, historically it's been higher than these levels. that's truly what drives stocks, are earnings. there's no choice between bonds and stocks. still even with rates moving to 1, that doesn't make, you know, the yield attractive to moving the treasury. so money's still going to go into stocks, and i think the fact that oil's moving up helps out some of these energy companies. that's another boost. i like exxon. it's down 10% in 2017 alone, so if it just gets back to that level it was at the end of the year, there's a lot of upside potential in the near term from a risk/reward level. neil: you know, christine, when you talk to clients and they say, all right, i've been hearing a lot, watching these shows, the market seems to be on

fire, i want in and they've never been in before, or they could be young, maybe not so young, what do you tell them? >> you know what? it depends. i think there's still a lot of great opportunities here. retail is rising, but i'd argue i'm not necessarily bull bish on retailers. you just need to pick winners, and this is how it sets up at the beginning of every year. we do have this winners and losers effect. i'd say it's a little broader this quarter than i've seen in the past. i'd say if you just look at some of the names that were out this morning, macy's, even though they're going up a bit here, they issued guidance that was worrisome saying same-store sales is going to be down 2-3%. that's more than analysts were expecting. walmarts, home depot be, i'm really loving the home improvement dealers now. this housing recovery really has legs. we know as home prices appreciate, there's a direct correlation with how much people are willing to invest into their properties, so i like that space.

walmart, i like them just because i think they're only the traditional retailer that has the money and is making investments into online to compete with amazon at this point. but the border tax, for me, really concerns me mostly about walmart. this is the largest retailer in the world. they make money, and they can offer those low everyday prices because they are able to buy and manufacture in the cheapest places in the world. even though they get a corporate tax reduction, perhaps, is it completely wipe out by this border tax? i think that's, you know, perhaps a scenario we might be facing. neil: yeah. because the taxes will be cut virtually in half. i know no one pays at the advertised rate, but you would think that would offset a good chunk of that, but we'll see. meanwhile, president trump back at the white house wrapping up, we're told, a lunch with a billionaire friend here. new details, meanwhile, about what should later today, a new immigration crackdown order that this time might just be appeal-proof. we'll see. blake burman at the white house with more on that. >> reporter: yes, the

department of homeland security putting out a uple memos today that would back up many of many of the president's campaign promises as it relates to securing the border, making the southern border safe as he sees it. those memos signed by john kelly, the head of dhs, earlier today put out by the administration. some of the highlights here include a spending spree be, i guess you could put it, by the federal government. among it, 10,000 i.c.e. agents, immigration and customs enforcement agents, to be added, along with 5,000 custom and border patrol agents as well. criminalize criminal illegal immigrants for deportation, that is something the president has talked about for a while now, and there will also be the end to so-called catch and release as the new guidelines call for a stricter judicial process. within the information that was put out by dhs today, there was also some stuff about the border wall in which they say they have identified certain portions in

texas, arizona and california for which that wall can start going up in the near future. as for the other memo that you talked about, the extreme vetting memos, we expect those to come out here at some point we believe this week, potentially forward the end of the week. that would probably complement what happened here today with the department of homeland security. that executive order, these dhs memos as well. by the way, neil, the national security council meeting with the president later this afternoon, 4:00 that is scheduled inside the situation room. neil? neil: all right. by the way with, you are becoming very quickly a rock star, right? getting called on more questions. how's that going down with your colleagues? are they dealing with that? >> reporter: they look at me and say, what's your name, kid? i'm like, yeah, i'm blake. nice to be here. neil: you go. blake burman, always look forward to it. in the meantime, that white house briefing moments from now, also how we aim to make this

nation safer. part of it is clamping down on all the leaks. easier said than done, after this. ♪ ♪

neil: all right, you know, the dow is about 289 points from 21,000, i just thought i'd mention that. i can't believe that, but that's what it is. so this market that soars under anticipation of tax cuts, regulatory relief, you name it. some say priced to perfection, some say it could go a lot, lot higher. that battle roars on with the bulls leading the charge, even though one was captured today in queens, new york. we'll keep you post toed on that one. the bull is okay. wow, what are they carrying it in? looks like a horse wagon or a --

they had him on, like, it looked like, ralph, a wagon of some sort prior on wheels, right? and that makes it easier to carry. there you go. that is -- they're, what, about 2,000 pounds, ose ty're big, right? they're big. he's okay, was sedated. got loose from a slaughterhouse. well, if you were in a slaughterhouse, you'd run fast as well. he did, unbeknownst to anyone there until it was too late and neighbors in the area said, hello, there's a bull loose. we don't know where the bull's going, but if it's like freddie, another bull -- cow, i'm told -- that escaped some months back, freddie, they put it in a sanctuary. i'm telling you, they better do the same with this one. to go through all of that, and that's a lot, and to get plopped right back into the slaughterhouse, it won't fly with this bull market fan, not here, not now. so i'm watching you, queens. in the meantime, president trump meeting today with a number of his top officials, and

we're later on going to get the details of an isis plan that's due early next week. former cia analyst darren muller on that. you know, tara, there is this talk that the administration right from the get go wanted a different approach to isis and wanted generals and all these top military guys to come up with that, that would be different than what we've done in the past. how would it be different? what do you think? >> sure. there are a few ways that it could be different. it could be an accelerated plan where we move in a little bit faster in a lot of these places, we've been relying, for example, in mosul, on iraqi security forces. i think there's between 5-6,000 u.s. troops in iraqing right now. that could be ramped up. we've heard talks about ground troops potentially which we have t seen happen to we also have seen potential areas for more cooperation with russia we could see perhaps out of the trump administration. so there are potential changes to look towards. it's unclear exactly what will

be recommended by the pentagon. ultimately, the decision will lie with president trump after he see what is the pentagon suggests which'll probably be a nurple of scenarios and -- a number of scenarios and alternatives. i will point out that's just part of the fight, a lot of it also has to do with fighting it online are, fighting the ideology and taking them down, the spreading of their message. neil: yeah. because they're able to recruit no matter where they are. even if they're isolateed in syria or iran, it's quite another thing to stop them from the recruitment. and they always go after disenchanted, largely males, particularly in this country. how do we stop that? >> sure. even if we take back cities in syria, even if we take back cities in iraq, we've been there before. neil: right. >> isis can still spread its ideology. what we really need to focus on is getting technology companies to be stricter and remove, the removal of this content off places like twitter, off places like facebook.

my organization's been pushing technology that can do this, they use this sort of technology already, for example, in fighting child pornography, and this is one way to counter the spreading of isis propaganda, platforms -- some of which are american companies -- really enforce their terms of service that are on the books and took down horrific, threatening, brutal content. neil: you know, it's been a while since isis, you know, they obviously have these hellacious attacks on these compounds or shopping centersbut they usually save some of theore gruesome things they like to do as reminders in western europe or, for that matter, in the united states through some of their, you know, worshipers and recruits. that idea to make a statement, it quickly elevates them when we respond in mass military tags that i think rahm that had said -- president obama had said, i'm paraphrasing, you elevate their importance. obviously, the if they're able to do that, they're

automatically important. how do we balance that without galvanizing them and making this a cause celebre for them? >> well, i think a key to the strategy is sort of integrating the military strategy and the ideological strategy and not giving them undue attention where the attention is not deserved. obviously, the media needs to focus on these groups in the places where they're carrying out horrific and awful attack, but we also these to be aware of helping to spread their propaganda because their message is resonating in certain parts of the globe. once you see over the next few months, perhaps, a new look at how we're fighting isis online and perhaps some tweaks to the military strategy, you know, maybe we'll see an impact. it's unclear to me though that this is going to be something that's quick and easy. it's not going to be fast. this is something that's going to take not months, it's going to take years if not decades to sort of change the ideology over time. the key is here on the homeland security side as well and making sure we have the resources that if there are lone wolf attacks domestically or if there are

plots, we're able to intercept those with good intelligence and good resources on that side of the equation as well. so it's both offense on the military side and ideological side, but also defense in terms of our intel and homeland security. neil: tara, thank you very much, former cia analyst. good havg you. >> thanks for having me. neil: that plan, of course, is next week. later on today could come the one that a lot of people have been waiting for, that revised immigration order that would be more sweeping and, we're told, more appeal-roof, and also call for hiring anywhere from 10,000 to 15,000 i.c.e. agents. forget a wall, to track down on illegals already here. after this. ♪

neil: all right, the white house briefing room, sean spicer is set to address reporters in a few minutesful we'll take you there as soon as he does. some of the things that might come up, the fact that the president has sort of cobbled

together a new executive order on immigration, vetting those trying to come into this country that could maybe absorb the punishing blows from eager lawyers very happy to slap it down. we're told that that order will involve, among other things, hiring 10-15,000 i.c.e. agents to crack down on illegal criminals already here. to congressman east sessions, republican -- pete sessions, republican of texas. he join ares us out of dallas. congressman, what do you make of that part of a plan that will include beefing up the i.c.e. forces to deal with illegal criminals here? >> well, the president has heard us quite plainly for years when president obama ignored us. criminal aliens, what they're doing in this country is a problem to all of us. not just our communities, not just with drugs, not just with their own personal behavior. i think the president, when he comes to congress on february the 28th -- prime time

conversation with not only congress, but the american people -- will highlight and tell the story about why we are doing what we're doing. this is more than a campaign promise, this is a needed, necessary step that congress has been seeking and asking for for a number of years to address the issue. it is my hope, even though i've not seen even the preliminary draft -- although i've heard certain things -- that it will address the problem. and i think the american people will be pleased and proud that we finally have a president that can say the things that need to be said and address the issue. congress will be there to back this up. neil: i always worry about very eager judges, whether you support this type or thing or governing by executive order. i know you guys didn't flip over it when it was barack obama, democrats not surprisingly certainly not flipping other it when it's donald trump, but that it could be held up to the glare of potential appeal. we're told that the president is going to really tighten up the wording on protecting those with green cards trying to get in and out of this country as well as

not necessarily targeting syrian refugees as a group. but others have argued those moves alone might water it down to the point of making it a lot of folks wonder why you're doing it at all. what do you think? >> well, here's what i think. the basis of what i think the president should and must do is grounded within the law. and grounded within the law means that he has now a new attorney general who's very capable of not only understanding the law, but arguing where we are and why we should be there. there are things that probably are not well stated in law, and that is where we deal with those that are coming there other countries that are of refugee status. that might be where i, if i were the president, i would engage congress and draw a quick box around that about why we these what we need. because you remember years ago we said that vetting must take place to certified people -- to certify people w come in t country. that is a good law.

that is law. and i think the president standing on the law is exactly where he should be and then give us information about the fine lines that need to be addressed other than that. neil: veering like a crazy professor, if you'll indulge he, congressman. the tax cut and where you think it stands. we're told that repeal and replace on obamacare, you guys -- that is, republicans -- aren't all on the same page. that could get pushed back a little bit. the timing isn't exact, but it's not what maybe the markets are hoping for. and the markets, as you know, sir, seem to be very earring for big tax -- eager for big tax cuts. are they still coming? >> i'm back in dallas for this weeklong work back in our districts. neil: right. >> it's very clear to me a huge number of people are counting on us doing this. so let me just say this: i said to a group of people laos week when asked what are we going to do obamacare, i said it will either be this year or 40 years from now when we gain back the majority.

it is critical that the republican house and the senate and the president find a way to make republican ideas work on health care at the same time we repeal obamacare. it is possible that we have better plans, it's going to require us to coalesce around those, and that is what our task is. neil: very well put, congressman. thank you very much. >> you bet. neil: all right. the dow up over 100 points right now, at or near session highs. just what the congressman said, tax cuts are coming. the devil might be in the details, the devil might be in the date and the exact timing and whether they're retroactive or not, but they are coming. do not tell the markets otherwise, because if they get any hint that it could be herwise, wow. that one bull that was captured? all of them captured. back to a slaughterhouse, after this. when you have something you love,

you want to protect it. at legalzoom, our network of attorneys can help you every step of the way. with an estate plan including wills or a living trust that grows along with you and your family. legalzoom. legal help is here. . .

neil: all right. white house briefing moments away right now. we'll keep an eye on it for you. they will announce among other things, new crackdown on illegals. better vetting process that would be appeal proof or they're hoping. at a time president's approval numbers are in and out of the 40s. rasmussen has him up at 55. fact of the matter, 50 or better. kind of all over the map. to "politico"'s anna palmer whether president trump cares about that?

he is very good, anna, to your point, appealing to his base, reaching out to his base. gets energized going out to his base. is he moving needle beyond his base? >> you mentioned polls in the 40s, one month in is very low compared to most presidents. usually their approval rating is in the 60s, according to the "gallup poll." he is appealing what he is doing today, with the immigration order, what we're expecting to see another nod toward red meat to fire inhis base. neil: how does improve the overall numbers? say what you will of the guy, he is doing everything he said he would do. some people are shocked at that. he is doing everything he said he would do. the jury is out making him more popular, less popular compared to prior residents of the oval office, maybe less, but where do you see this ending up? as i was mentioning before with my guests, the markets are

soaring on the belief he will deliver the goods on big tax cuts, regulatory relief and repealing and replaceing what they hope will be a cheaper health care plan. what do you think? >> just like the markets are reacting that the base is excited he is doing some of the things he said. the wall with mexico. looking what happens with obamacare, potentially tax cut, if he fails, that is a big if what happens with congress, some hesitation on obamacare repeal with republicans going out on congressional recess hearing from their constituent they are concerned about what happens with repeal replace thing. if trump is not able to do that and deliver the goods, i think you could see that base, his strong support really start to wobble a bit. neil: i, this battle he had on and off with the press, we might see more manifestations of that with sean spicer, but how is that going?

i don't see it ending well, know, he is deemed thin-skinned. media and their response they seem thin-skinned. they're going at each other non-stop, by sheer energy level alone i can't see this going on every day all days here. what about you? >> every day here feels like a week in terms of the news cycle. at 6:00 a.m. when trump is tweeting. news cycle at noon is very different. i ink trump gets energy off of this. neil: i agree with that. definitely agree with that. >> this is something like goes back to the 1980s new york tap lloyd journalism and him having something to punch up to. hard to see him stop that he clearly enjoys it. otherwise i don't think you would see him do it over and over again. neil: one. things he says, he is sometimes called when he uses faulty data himself, but he likes to point out that the vast majority of

stories on him are always negative. they focus on things that are bad, not the things that are good. i mentioned market soaring and scant attention in the press. including ceos he met, intel with multibillion dollars expansion and hiring thousands of workers he doesn't get boo from the media. that is what he keeps pounding. that is what he led with for half an hour before he entertained first question. what do you make of that strategy? >> i take issue of that. there has been coverage of soaring markets, decan manning the press is there when meets with ceos. that is unprecedented, except for him introducing who he is meeting with and press is shuttled out for him to have the actual meeting. i take a little bit of issue with that. this is his way of using bully pulpit, whether twitter, whether the press conferences whether news he wants people to hear

about, that he is taking credit for. neil: what is the strategy? i was trying to factor this out. even if you believe that, certainly many conservatives who espouse that, then are you trying to say that every story that's written of you, the negative storyyou're ging reporters pause there is hell to pay they do? and that all the ask nice questions. that seems to be the goal. i'm not politicizing it, without saying getting to that, is that what he wants? is that what the media might feel it has to do? >> i think the media is doing fact-checking what donald trump says. whether the faulty data or taking credit for jobs that were already in the pipeline for a lot of these companies and some deals already done before he took office. i think that it is something he want to be job create tomorrow. anytime he highlights that. that is something he will go go to, look i did this. neil: does it work when

presidents go over the heads people, or they try to pursue legislation? john kennedy did this with tax cut legislation to try to go over the heads of congress to meet the american people and ironically the tax cuts went in after he died. targeting the press with lower ratings than he does, does that work? he is actually sly like a fox with this, what do you think? >> i think this plays right to the base. it goes into the what we were talking about before, in terms of his approval ratings, how strong they are with the people that have supported him. neil: he has to widen that base, right? >> no. i think it is going to be a tricky test, right? as far as what is happening in the senate and he will need a lot of republican senators who are waffling a bit in terms of what he has done so far who are looking at their own approval ratings and their own reelections. that is where the proof is in the pudding does the strategy work for trump?

he hasn't pivoted away from it. clearly he thinks it works. talk in couple weeks, couple months, see if this actually has any impact or not. neil: anna, he always claimed, i indulge this because briefing will start, he always claimed he doesn't get adequate credit and that the media a nerve to call him thin-skinned, when they go apoplectic when they go after him, saying he is mentally unstable? does that resonate with folks back home? the same people that are judging him now same people didn't think he would make it one one hundred miles of white house and here he is now. that they pounce on approval numbers and they're missing something again, what do you think? >> i think there is skepticism when you go out in the midwest, when you go outside of the beltway in terms of how does the mainstream media or media in general cover politics. how does it cover trump so i think as far as at strategy it goes it plays into the hand of what he tries to do. when he goes to the rallies,

that is the case he wants the bully pulpit and bring his message towards the masses and fake news or criticizing the press is one of the many things that he goes back to time and again because i think he feels like it energizes not only him but energizes base. neil: he generally does hate the press. last thought, the markets i mentioned before, racing ahead, i'm resident nerd here at fox, maybe i focus disproportionally, do you think they're getting ahead of themselves, i don't want to sound like a bear or rain on the party, they seem to be betting on massive tax cuts, that it will all happen, that republicans unite on them sooner rather than later, that they might be retroactive to january 1. those are generous assumptions which all prominent investors agree, are they ahead of themselves? >> we write every morning on playbook trying to decode washington for everyone else, the optimism is putting a cart

before the horse here. congress is a slow-moving body. you're already seeing on tax reform republicans waffle on boarder adjustment which is a key piece of speaker paul ryan's package. without it hard to see how they will pay for all these things. certainly a much tougher road to hoe than i think a lot of markets are showing right now. neil: you have your playbook. i with nye nerd book. i outplay your nerd book. anna palmer, "politico" senior washington correspondent. we're waiting for sean spicer. he is coming out now, guys. sean spicer is coming out. >> afternoon, everyone. been a little while. hope you missed me. >> miss us? >> absolutely. which have a lot to talk about today so let's get right to it. first off i want to acknowledge the tragic plane crash that occurred in australia that took the lives of five individuals including four americans. the president's thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims and the u.s. embassy

and con sew late are ready to provide necessary and appropriate assistance. moving on the president was honored to announce lt. general mcmaster will be his national security advisor. general mcmaster served his nation in the united states army for over three he can decades including during operation iraqi freedom, operation enduring freedom and desert storm. the president med with the many distinguished and qualified candidates for the position. he will consider many of them for other positions within the administration. he is especially pleased that lt. general kellogg will stay on as national security council chief of staff. the president is proud to welcome general mcmaster to the team. we have full authority to structure the office to his desires to best serve its ultimate mission, which is to protect the american interests at home and abroad. this morning secretary kelly and the department of homeland security released memos regarding the implementation of two of the president's executive orders that are designed to protect the homeland.

these two memos provide explicit guidance to dhs staff how to carry out two executive orders signed by the president on january 25th. one dealing with interior an forcement and one dealing with border security. perhaps most critically the president is empowering dhs to carry out the immigration laws currently on the books. of course dhs gave a full briefing on these memos this morning but just to briefly summarize a few of the facts. the memo regarding the executive order enhancing public safety in the interior of the united states outlines several practices and policies in order to strengthen the efficient, faithful execution of this country's immigration laws. that includes hiring more i.c.e. agents and officers as well as additional missions support and legal staff necessary to support their activities. this memo also directs the establishment of the victims of immigration crime engagement office within i.c.e. fulfilling another major campaign promise of the president. this office will facilitate the

engagement with victims and their families to insure their questions and concerns regarding immigration enforcement efforts are addressed. the memo regarding the executive order border security and immigration enforcement improvements outlines the steps that dhs will take to secure the nation's southern border, prevent further illegal immigration and to repatriate illegal immigrants swiftly, consistently and humanely. this includes immediately identifying and allocating all sources of available funding for the planning, design, construction and maintenance of a wall along our southern border and hiring of additional personnel including 5000 additional cpb border agents again i would refer you to dhs for further comment on these specific memos. there are fact sheets and q&as on the dhs website that address many of intricacies and areas within each of these executive orders that you might have questions on. also this weekend the president had calls to the president of

panama and prime minister of trinidad and tobago. readouts of those calls have both been provided. president's team this weekends also had a very productive meeting on president's plan to repeal and replace obamacare and assure that it is replaced with a system good for all americans. back to the president's schedule in honor of black history month he started his day by visiting the african-american history of culture. this is one of washington's most visited attraction shuns. the president was joined by a group of individuals included his daughter ivanka, dr. ben carson and his wife, tim scott, alveda king the niece of martin luther king, jr., museum director lonnie bunch. david sorkin, the director of significant sownian. the president commented several times during his tour how impressed he was with the my sue yum. some of the exhibits he was particularly drawn, hariett

tubman who had a shawl given by queen victoria in the late 1800s. contributions of african-americans made to the united states military and the president was particularly pleased by the human homed alley exhibit, with the quote i shook up the world prominently displayed -- can mohamed alley alley -- ali. similarly, alveda king who never viewed the museum's visit on her uncle. the president was honored to be able to share the experience with the two of them specifically. the president further expressed his pressure shun for the tour and looks forward to returning again. his desires to honor the immense contributions of courageous african-american leaders throughout our history by building a more unified country dedicated to liberty and justice. this afternoon the president will have routine national security council briefing in the situation room in addition to his presidential daily briefing which he received earlier this morning. then this evening the president will have did i e dinner with the vice president. i'm sure they will discuss the

vice president's recent trip to europe. the vice president was incredible representative for our nation and the president during his time where he reiterated our support for european allies and unified pursuit of the noble ideas of freedom, democracy and justice and the rule of law, discussing how to encourage all nato allies to meet their financial obligations and commitments. during his speech before the munich security conference on saturday, the vice president conveyed the administration's unwaiverring commitment to europe's peace and prosperity, especially remembering the tens of thousands of americans who gave their lives to defend the ideals during world war i and two. these shared sacrifices are the backbone of our alliance and our mission of security through strength. during his time in munich the vice president met with nine world leaders. the vice president and these leaders discussed the issues most pressing to them, including escalating violence in eastern ukraine and the role nato in the fight against isis. the vice president met in

brussels with the president of the, vice president tusk of the council european union and nato secretary, the nato secretary-general. as a candidate for office president trump actually called attention repeatedly to the fact for too long many of our other nato allies have not been sharing their financial burden. the president looks forward to working closely with nato to advance our shared objectives. a strong nato means a safer world. and the united states looks forward to working with our partners in nato to achieve just that. looking ahead to the president's upcoming schedule, tomorrow meets with secretary of state rex tillerson fresh off his trip to germany for the g20 foreign ministers summit. he will discuss the president's foreign policy agenda and the secretary's up coming trip to mexico. he will have a thursday morning a job creation and manufacturing sector with ceos and business leaders from different industries. on friday he will deliver remarks to the conservative political action conference and we are just one week out today from the president's joint dress

to congress. the president will continue to work closely with his team to craft a speech that lays out his ambitious policy agenda that benefits all americans. plans are currently in the works for pre-and post address activities for president and his staff. we'll have more updates as the week goes on. before i take your questions i want to address the recent threats and acts of vandalism on jewish community centers throughout the country. the president said this morning, i want to he reiterate, quote, the anti-semitic threats targeting our jewish community is noters are horrible and painful and very sad reminder of work we must do, excuse me the work that must be done to root out hate an prejudice and evil. with that, take some of your questions. jim stenson. >> sean, thank you. i was curious the president, by the way i have two questions, characterization of media as enemy of the american people. >> i think the president has been very clear that certain outlets have gonout of their

way to not represent his record accurately. and it's a concern to him. and i think some reporters, he has deep respect for the first amendment, for the role of the press. i addressed this multiple times in the past. he has healthy respect for the press but it's a two-way street as i also said before. i think the president understands that certain outlets have gone out of their way to not be completely accurate and fair in their coverage of what is going on. >> speaking of the media, i have noticed two times in the last week that you've been directly contradicted by two members of media. one of them bill maher of hb o who said that in front of guests at mar-a-lago the president was briefed on classified, classified north korean situation. >> say that again, i'm sorry? >> president and the prime minister of japan were briefed in front of guests. >> no, i didn't say that. >> no, no. this is what was being said on hb o. that, the president and the

prime minister were briefed on classified information in front of guests at mar-a-lago. i just want to clarify. did that happen? >> no. i think i walked through this timeline before, jim. and it was, amazing a photo gets put out, president has a piece of paper, the immediate conclusion he has to be talking about classified information. the president was briefed on the situation in north korea prior to the dinner. in a scif that is at mar-a-lago. he went had dinner. he discussed the logistics of press conference which i talked to you all before. there was question where to hold the press conference. they had a question out logistics. he was subsequent to the dinner briefed in a scif on developments in north korea. that is it, plain and sin pell. to your first question immediate jump to conclusion several outlets there is a piece of paper, it must be classified. i don't, you know, it is amazing to see that.

to see people jump to that conclusion, that he is surrounded by his staff and members of the japanese delegation. the conclusion they must be doing something nefarious or wrong. he followed every procedure that is laid out. i, i think in some cases it is disheartening to realize that those are the kind of media conclusions somebody jumps to. so you know, when you talk about coverage, we have a free press. we have the right for our people to say and do what they believe but at some point there, it is inincumbent upon people to try to get it right. in that case it wasn't even attempted. it was jump to conclusion by many say there must be something else going on. we were able to provide a very, very clear ticktock as far as what happened. jessica. >> question about the resignation of -- [inaudible]. >> right. >> that happened last week in the letter, we can no longer serve a president diametrically on to our principles and charge.

first of all, what is the white house's reaction and do you plan to appoint your own members to this council? >> those members of that council were political appointees of the obama administration. their terms were set to expire this year. so it is not surprising in the nse that they were appointees of barack obama. they were going to have their terms expire. but, again, but i get it, but most political appointees from other agencies or whatever would automatically resign of the term of these individuals, they would carry through until later in the year but i don't think it is surprising people who were appointed by barack obama to fulfill his agenda suddenly understand that there is a new administration in town and didn't want to stay on board but we will make sure we appoint people to the task force. it is important. something provided guidance to multiple presidents in the past and we will continue to do that. shannon? >> on the, oh, on the statement today about the anti-semitic acts -- >> yeah. >> what specifically will the

president do to address that issue? along those lines, there are reports earlier on he was considering changing the mandate of this county countering violent extremism program to concentrate on islamic extremist groups. is he still considering that? would he alsod scope of program -- >> are you talking about the travel executive order? >> no, this is countering violent extremism program. >> right. >> again i think we're getting ahead of ourselves there. there is nothing to announce on that front. secondly to the first part of your question i think the president will do what he talked about since election night. it's through deed and action, talk about how we can unify this country and speak out against hate and anti-semitism, racism. and he is going to continue to do that. he will show you over the course of months and years through what he does in terms of his policies and his speech that he is going

to be a president that brings people together, that unites them and speaks very, very forcefully against those who are seeking to do hate or to tear people down pause of their religion or their gender, or color of their skin. those are all things that i think the president is -- john? >> t questions unrelated. the next big piece in the immigration profile here at the white house is going to be the new executive order. is the president confident that this one will pass legal muster and if he is, what gives him that confidence? >> well i think, we, first i want to be clear that wefeel confident that we're still going to prevail on the case, the merits of the case. i think we've seen in the case of massachusetts, once it is fully ajudicated we will prevail because the authority is granted to the president to do what he has to protect the country. so i feel very, very confident about where -- the second track he made very clear as well, until that occurs we'll have a

dual track system. that we implement a second executive order tailored to achieve the same goals in accordance what the court said. we're working closely with the department of state, department achieves the president's goal of recollecting the country and does so in a way that recognizes the concerns that the court had until we prevail at a later time. so it's a dual track thing. yeah. >> second question, what -- would this administration send american terrorist suspects picked up overseas to guantanamo bay for interrogation? >> i am not going to discuss that. as the president has said clearly before, we don't telegraph what we're going to do. he believeshat guantanamo bay does serve healthy purpose in o natn security, but i'm not going to get into what we may or may not do in the -- >> [inaudible] >> again, i'm just not going to -- >> i want to give you a chance

to respond to something, because i think the president's remarks and your clarification on where he stands on anti-semitism, it's clear, but after that statement was made by the president, the -- [inaudible] center released a pretty strongly worded one saying that -- well received are band-aid on the cancer within the trump administration saying that there is, whetherç less or otherwise, a sense of xenophobia within this administration. >> yeah, i think it's -- look, the president has made clear since the day he was elected and, frankly, going back through the campaign that he is someone who seeks to unite this country. he has brought a diverse group of folks into his administration, both in terms of actual positions and people that he has sought the advice of. and i think he has been very forceful with his denunciation of people who seek to attack people because of their hate, excuse me, because of their religion, because of their gender, because of the color of

their skin. and it is something that he's going to continue to fight and make very, very clear that he has no place in this administration. but i think it's ironic that no matter how many times he talks about this, it's never good enough. today i think was an unbelievably forceful comment by the president as far as his denunciation of the actions that are currently targeted towards jewish community centers. but i think that he's been very clear previous to this that he wants to be someone that brings this country together and not divide people, especially in those areas. i saw that statement. i wish that they had praised the president for his leadership in this area, and i think that, hopefully, as time continues to go by, they recognize his commitment to civil rights, to voting rights, to equality for all americans. [inaudible conversations] >> yes. >> sean, on that -- >> we're starting early with the two questions. >> sorry.

the southern poverty law center says the number of anti-muslim groups in the u.s. has tripled between 2015 and 2016, during the time of the campaign. is the message in the administration that anti-semitism's not allowed, xenophobia is not allowed, has the president been forceful about that lahr issue? >> well, i don't -- i think that the president in terms of his desire to combat radical islamic terrorism, he understands that people who want to express a peaceful position have every right in our constitution. but if you come here or want to express views that seek to do our country, our people harm, he is going to fight it aggressively whether it's domestic acts that are going on here or attempts through people abroad to come into this country. there's a big difference between preventing attacks and making sure that we keep this country safe so that there is no loss of life and allowing people to express themselves in adore dance with our first -- accordance with our first amendment. th