>> this is a fox news alert. good afternoon to you. we are awaiting an on camera press briefing today at the white house on what is a very busy day in washington. hello everyone. i'm julie bandares. sarah huckabee sanders will be taking the podium any moment now. we expect another intense round of questions on the travel ban, healthcare, immigration, the controversy surrounding president trump's tweets about another network's cable tv host i most likely believe that will probably lead the newser with reporters biting at the chance of asking her about them. we've got fox team coverage. we have the latest on the travel

ban, but we begin with john roberts who is live inside the briefing room. let's start with the g-20 summit. >> reporter: one of the seemingly rare on camera briefings that the white house has. some news made here just a short time ago when white house officials announced that the president next week at the end of next week in germany will be meeting on the sidelines of the summit with the russian president vladamir putin. this is a chance we're told. a bilateral but not an official sitdown type of thing. bilateral polacide is what they're billing it as. no specific agenda for the meeting. the white house officials saying the president will speak with the russian president about anything that comes to his mind. clearly there are a lot of very important issues on the agenda. sarah huckabee sanders will likely get a couple questions on

that. what she will, as you eluded to, probably get a lot of questions on are the tweets the president sent out viciously attacking the host of msnbc's morning joe making an illusion to plastic surgery that she may or may not have had. almost universal condemnation of that from capitol hill with people saying that tweet really crossed the line. sarah huckabee sanders this morning on "america's news room" saying the president has a right to defend himself. listen here. >> there have been an outrageous number of personal attacks, not just at him, but to frankly everyone around him. people personally attacked me many times. this is a president that fights fire with fire. certainly no not be allowed to be bullied by liberal media. >> reporter: certainly the white house saying the white house has a right to defend himself. but what this has also done is taken him way off message during a couple weeks where he's made a lot of progress. he's got the partial immigration

ban that goes into effect at 8 p.m. tonight. the house is expected to pass a couple immigration bills that the president has called for although he backed during the campaign. he's also kicking off another theme week, unleashing america's energy. so, julie, this really has taken over the news cycle here pushing all of the president's agenda items firmly to the side. >> julie: all right, john roberts, thank you very much. president trump's travel ban impacting travellers from six majority muslim countries going into effect tonight 8 p.m. in fact. as officials brace for the impact, the question now is if problems could arise at airports like they did during the first travel ban. how's it going so far? it hasn't kicked in yet. >> reporter: no, it has not. if there's any sign of chaos or confusion here at dulles airport, we have not seen it yet. in fact, there have not been any

legal advice here. a few moments ago a woman bearing a sign offering free legal aid to those who have been detained per happens in the past, who might fear they will be detained in the future. but the travel ban has not yet started. a reason for all the comments. first of all, the travel ban now has premature and direction, guidance of the united states supreme court. and secondly, the administration saw fit to impose a 72 hour delay, a pause, before its implementation. that 72 hour period begins at 8 p.m. tonight. it affects arrivals and refugees from these six countries that were designated terrorist straw holds by the obama administration. a 90 day ban for immigrants, 120 saturday ban for refugees. but there are many, many exceptions. those who have a parent, spouse, child, son or daughter-in-law or sibling already in the united states.

i understand the white house briefing is getting under way. >> julie: thank you. yep. let's go to the white house press briefing. we've got sarah huckabee sanders. mnuchin will be introducing her. >> today the trump administration is continuing its efforts against the government of north korea. despite multiple u.n. security council resolutions imposing international sanction, the government of north korea continues its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. today treasury's financial crimes enforcement network has found the bank of dandong to be a foreign financial institution of primarily money laundering concern under section 311 of the usa patriot act. this bank has served as a gateway for north korea to access the u.s. and international financial systems. facilitating millions of dollars of transactions for companies involved in north korea's

nuclear and ballistic missile programs. the united states will not stand for such action. this will require u.s. banks to ensure that the bank of dandong does not access the financial system directly or indirectly through other foreign banks. this action reaffirms the treasury department's commitment to ensure that north korea is cut off from the u.s. financial system. in addition, the department of treasury's office of foreign asset control hass sanctioned to individuals and one entity for their continued support of north korea's activities. while today's actions are directed at chinese individuals and entities, we look forward to continuing working closely with the government of china to stop illicit financing involving north korea. we are in no way targeting china

with these actions. we will be meeting with china and other countries at the g-20 next week to further our efforts to cut off north korea's illicit activities. >> julie: there you have treasury secretary steven mnuchin. he's basically talking about sanctions on north korea putting pressure on countries like china and others to cut off ties to north korea as it continues to disobey the world on its nuclear weapons program. we'll go back to the white house press briefing when sarah huckabee sanders takes the program. we'll be monitoring it for you. we'll have it here for you live. meanwhile senate republicans scrambling to draft a new healthcare bill before the fourth of july break. as mitch mcconnell works to win over gop strong holds. joining us the republican national chair woman. thank you for talking to us. >> thanks for having me, july.

>> julie: healthcare, the travel ban, camera, on camera/off camera press briefings that we're about to air. but instead i got to start with the president's tweets. this probably makes you cringe. i need your reaction. and here's one of them. i heard poorly rated morning joe speaks badly of me. don't watch any more. then how come low iq crazy mika along with psycho joe came to mar a-lago came to join me. she was bleeding bad for a face lift. i said no. how does the gop get their message out and work on their agenda when the president continues to send tweets like this one? this one's bad. i mean, it gets personal. he's insulting a woman again. it doesn't look good. >> let me just say the gop and the president are completely focused on our agenda because, while we talk about tweets a

lot, and i know that's the news story today, people in my state and across this country are under the threat of losing their healthcare and their premiums are doubling and they're making a choice between, can i pay health insurance or can i pay rent? this is frightening for them. they want to see washington get this done. i understand you have to cover it today, but i think we should be covering healthcare. this shouldn't distract us from covering the things that americans are focused on. now let's look at morning joe and what they've said about the president since january. they said he has dementia. they said he's stupid. they've called him a goon, a thug, they said he's mentally ill, they said he's an embarrassment. this is the type of thing they say day after day for two hours on their network and they control the narrative and they push it out. today the president acted like a human and pushed back. we can have a discussion as to who's right or wrong, but at the end of the day, we have to focus

on the american people and who sent us here to lead and make their lives better. that's what republicans will do. >> julie: you don't need to stoop to the level, obviously. i don't care who you are. you don't stoop to the level of that. that's like me scolding my 4-year-old for using a bad word and then me repeating it. that's just not how you run a country or you parent a 4-year-old. i mean, i have to be honest, if you see this negative commentary on a show, change the channel, ignore it. that's what i tell my kids when somebody's mean to you, don't fight back, just walk away. >> it's more than that. july, i'm gonna say, i have been a daughter of a candidate and i have been a niece of a candidate. i'll tell you something, you can have a discussion as to whether it's right or wrong, but i'm gonna say, it's personal sometimes. when you see kathy griffin hold a beheaded head up. >> julie: her actions were despicable. >> day after day. [ talking at the same time ]

>> it's day after day after day of this constant media. they are calling the president of the united states stupid, a goon, a thug, comparing him to somebody with dementia. where has the outrage been on that? >> julie: people used to call president obama a muslim, under qualified, a sellout to america, a hater of israel. they called him every name in the book, but you didn't see him lash out. and i believe it is a human instinct. i get it. i just think sometimes maybe less sensitivity and less human and just focus on these issues here. bill hoer -- >> we have. we have to focus on the issues. >> julie: yeah, absolutely. there's so much riding on this white house right now. >> -- by an illegal immigrant who kept coming back to our country and he was able to take this young woman's life. you have sanctuary cities being addressed today. you have veterans issues addressed. we're getting veterans addressed.

now you have the obama repeal and replace. we need to focus on these things. you have to choice to what you cover. i understand you have to cover this. i appreciate you covering the issue s that matter to the american people. >> julie: absolutely. we try. thank you very much for talking to us. appreciate it. we're gonna head back to the white house press briefing now. we are waiting for sarah huckabee sanders to come out, but let's listen to the secretary of the treasury, steven mnuchin. >> it is one of the president's top priorities for economic growth. i think the people of america understand that. that we need economic growth and we're committed to doing that. i expect that healthcare hopefully will get done, but regardless, we are committed to gettings tax reform done. yet so many questions, i forgot your first one. >> let me follow up with you on tax reform, if you don't mind. paul line has said things are on track. why should the american public believe that things are actually on track when we see what's

going on with healthcare reform and seems like the timeline keeps getting pushed. >> why shouldn't the american public believe it? of course they should believe it. we said that. speaker ryan just said that. chairman hatch has said it. we are all 100% committed to getting tax reform done this year. >> you received a letter from lawmakers suggesting the treasury department should consider sanctioning the bank f of -- [ inaudible ]. the question is, have you reconsidered that? is the idea on the table? the second question is about the debt ceiling. my understanding of the debt ceiling drop dead time for you all the october. does that give congress additional time in your mind or would you still like them to act earlier? >> i haven't given't any specifics to the drop yet date. what i said is i hope congress acts before they leave. we do have contingency plans if they don't, but that the market shouldn't be concerned.

but again, i think for the benefit of everybody, the sooner they do this, the better. as it relates to banks again, as you've seen, we've taken very significant action today. we will continue to take very significant action rolling out additional sanctions on north korea until they stop their behavior. >> one question on indirect access to the bank. are you aware of other banks that are providing similar access to north korea to the international financial system? what arer this banks are you prepared to take action against? >> let me just say we have a team of people, both in treasury and working with the intelligence agencies and as we see other banks or individuals or entities, you can expect we will continue to roll out additional sanctions opinion. this is something we take very seriously. this is a big priority of ours. >> there is not about targeting china but this is aimed at a

chinese bank. does it speak to a message that you're trying to send to china in any way, specifically right before the g-20? or is this really an indication of how limited your options are in terms of dealing with north korea indirectly? >> i wouldn't say it's limited in what our options are. quite the contrary. we are committed and we will work with everybody and nothing's off the table. where we see illicit financing, we will stop it. there's no message before the g-20. the message for everybody at the g-20 is this is a serious issue. we'll work with everybody. but if there is illicit financing going on, we will cut it off. i specifically said in my comments this wasn't aimed at china. we continue to work with them. again, this is about north korea and this is about how serious we're taking this and kind of

whether it's china or anybody else, we will take this seriously. [ inaudible question ] >> how are you defining success with that? in other words, what exactly are you looking for? >> i think you'll know it when you see it. again, i think everybody will know success. their behavior is unacceptable and it will be very clear kind of we want them to stop doing tests, the ballistic missile programs and others. it's very clear. >> mr. secretary, i want to ask you something that a lot of people don't understand. you're uniquely qualified to explain. the administration and congress are saying there will be 320 2 $1 billion in savings from the healthcare bills that are out there. isn't that because people and benefits are being taken away? so isn't this really just a take

away? >> not at all. one of the flaws of the scoring on the cbo on this when you look at the number of people is that, again, there's a lot of people -- when given the option -- will decide not to elect to take this healthcare because it's a bad deal. that doesn't mean people are losing healthcare. everybody knows obamacare was just a giant tax hike on the economy. it slowed down the economy. it's another reason why we've continued to have sub2% growth for the last 8 years. this administration's 100% focused on creating economic growth, creating jobs, creating proper wages and getting this economy back to 3% or higher. yes, right here in the front. >> first of all, congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> i have got a couple finance questions. could you talk ant just push came to shove, would you advise for prioritizing debt payments

or not? and do you believe that the review of chinese investments into the u.s. should be more careful or more involved? >> again, let me just make a comment. i do chair it. i take it very seriously. ky tell you the reviews are very careful and very involved no matter who's on the other side. it's very important for national security and we will use that to the maximum powers. in regards to prioritization, again, i think that congress should act quickly, raise the debt ceiling and we should pay our debts on time. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i was going to say congratulations, too. >> thank you. >> two questions. first, you were a participant along with madam lagard at the last imf world bank meeting. you certainly know there was some concern about what the future of u.s. policy is toward involvement with the international monetary fund. what is the u.s. policy towards

that and toward involvement in financial relief? >> let me say i have had the pleasure of meeting with christine at least a dozen times. i think the imf plays a very important role looking at currency and world economies. the imf was very helpful in regards to stablizing the greece situation and working with europe. i think that could have been a major problem this summer that would have had significant concerns to the markets of the economy. i think she was a very important part of the negotiation. >> my second question was, how do you feel about maintaining the u.s. level of support of the imf at the current level? and specifically as a part of the relief for greece? because the u.s. role is through the imf in relief of the greek financial crisis. >> let me just comment. the imf commitment to greece was

quite small, not even sure greece are necessarily going to use that. i think the significance was more a stamp of approval. again, there's no direct cost to the u.s. or the taxpayers. and we're supportive of the imf. although we're look at our contributions to the imf like we look at all contributions very carefully and making sure we're spending the taxpayers' money properly. >> clarify which entities are being sanctioned. the paperwork sent out said shipping to chinese individuals, does not mention the bank of dandong. is it four toll entities? >> there's two different actions. there's a thin action against the bank of dandong and then there are the three sanctions as you pointed out. >> a relief from which part of the treasury? >> you will see. the loss will be released on the bank. >> communications in advance to

beijing? >> i'm not making any comments on how we communicate. >> you're a math man. what are the chances that we get a 15% corporate tax rate or 25% corporate tax rate in the final bill? >> let me just comment. tax reform is a pass/fail exercise, okay? and we're gonna get this passed for a plan that's good for the american public. we are working closely with the house and the senate and we're going to get a bill that passes, that will be great for americans putting people back to work. >> how is it possible, noneding source of the healthcare to lead to lower premiums and expanded coverage? >> again, i'm here primarily to talk about sanctions and tax reform, but i will comment on healthcare although it's not my primary area. the healthcare that's been in

place is a bad deal for the american public. okay? that's why a lot of people aren't using it. it was a giant tax hike to the american economy and premiums have been going up a ton. so we're looking at making the system more competitive so people can actually afford it. >> we first heard counter part said airports all over the world have to step up aviation security because there's this threat. this is the product of a months long discussion, an interagency process that resulted in sanctions. i'm wondering if you, sir, are convinced that the national security risk, are you satisfied that the security risk outweighs any potential economic risk if, for example, certain airlines cut off or certain airports cut off if they don't comply? >> let me just say i can think of nobody better than general kelly to protect our country in this position. again, i have had the

opportunity to discuss these issues with him, national security council. i'm not gonna comment specifically. but let me make it clear. the safety of the american public is our utmost concern and we will never ever put economic issues, okay, where we will risk the lives of the american public. >> on tax reform, are you going to be revenue neutral? if the ceo said if we don't get the growth for the revenue, what are you gonna do? >> again, let me just first say there will be complete transparency when we come out with the plan. we are in the process of listening sessions. we literally met with hundreds and hundreds of ceo's, think tanks, various different groups. i was over at the white house twice today talking to people at the house of representatives in groups. we've been at the senate. we're listening. as we develop this plan, we've said we're going to have a

responsible plan that is paid for and we do believe in dynamic scoring and we're gonna take that into account. >> mr. secretary, the gdp for the first quarter came out today 1.4, slightly better than economists anticipated, but during the campaign the president repeatedly promised to have growth rates in between 3% and 4%. two questions. first, how much of that 1.4% is atributedable to the actions of this administration, or inaction? and secondly, when are we going to start seeing the 3%, 4% growth rate that the president promised? >> again, i feel i have pretty clear on what our projections are by growth. we believe we can get to 3% or higher. it's not this year, not next year. it will take some time to scale in. our projection over the ten year period is 2.9% which i think is conservative, scaling up to 3% and staying there which i think both the president and i believe we can do better than 3%.

so our projections are quite conservative. i think that to the extent we can get healthcare passed, tax reform passed, to the extent we can roll back regulatory issues which we're working on very carefully in financial and energy and in other areas, we are very comfortable that we will hit these projections. i'm going to take two more questions then i'll have to turn it over to the super star over here. >> the president said before that if china is not going to hel with north korea, the u.s. will. he made clear that he doesn't think china is currently doing enough. where does he stand on taking unilateral action. is there a deadline such as the g-20, maybe as an ultimatum or deadline for which the u.s. would -- sorry that china would need to do more? >> i think the president has

made it very clear that if there are deadlines he is not going to advertise those deadlines. so i am not gonna make any specific comments as to whether he has a deadline or if he has a deadline, when it is. that would make absolutely no sense. i can assure you we will have conversations with our g-20 counter parts about this next week and we've been having these conversations and we will continue to do more on this. one more question. right here. >> little bit of a legislative snafu but i does appear the house and senate will pass sanction legislation related to russia including a range of sanctions. i don't think we've gotten a straight answer on whether the president supports that. does the administration support that? is the treasury prepared to implement those sanctions? >> let me be clear. not only the sanctions that we have on north korea today. we have santions on iran already. we will continue to put more sanctions on iran around their ballistic missile and other

programs. you've seen we've used sanctions in other areas. we will continue to use these. so not withstanding anything congress passes, i can assure you this administration and the treasury department will use sanctions to the maximum amount available by law. we don't need congress to tell us to put on more. we're gonna do more whether they tell us or not. we have plenty of those on as well. again, thank you, everybody. pleasure to be here. >> thank you, mr. secretary. at the top of yesterday's briefing you heard from tom homan and john huber about how important the two immigration bills the white house will be voting on today are in our efforts to secure the border and protect our communities. this morning secretary kelly spoke about kate's law and the sanctuary for criminals act on the hill.

important legislation that is supported by 80% of americans. yesterday the president heard the tragic stories of the innocent american lives that were ended by violent individuals who should never have been allowed into our country or our communities. a star high school athlete from los angeles who was killed by a member of the 18th street gang while his mother was serving her second tour of duty in iraq and joshua wilkerson who was brutally beaten and tortured to death by his classmate in texas who then set his body on fire. christie pena, a 14-year-old girl who was raped and murdered by man who had multiple warrants out for other crimes involving kidnapping and rape. 25 years later, he was finally located in his native mexico where he fled after murdering christie in 1990. the president also heard from federal immigration officials and local sheriffs who are on the front lines of this fight to protect innocent american lives. these laws will help empower the federal government in

partnership with local authorities to more easily locate and remove these violent individuals and prevent so-called sanctuary cities from receiving benefits from the very agency whose rules they are refusing to enforce. the president looks forward to seeing these commonsense proposals pass the house today so we can be one step closer to helping fulfill his campaign promise to help stop these horrific crimes. yesterday we were disappointed to see that people living in 14 out of nevada's 18 counties will be left without a single choice on the state's obamacare exchanges, specifically citing difficulties due to a shrinking and deteriorating market. to add insult to injury, the thousands of people living in nevada without access to health insurance on the obamacare exchanges will then be taxed for not having insurance that isn't even available to them. this is yet another reminder that obamacare is continuing to collapse, leaving millions of people around the country

suffering the consequences of this failed law. the vice president is back on the hill this afternoon for one on one meetings on healthcare as work continues towards repealing and replacing obamacare. we are keeping these american families, business owners and individuals at the front of our minds. they've been paying ever increasing premiums and still losing their plans and their doctors. it's time for republicans in the senate to fulfill their promise to the american people and come together around the consensus plan to fix this broken system. in terms of the schedule for today, this afternoon the president will make a big speech on the importance of american energy dominance at the department of energy. united states has been relying on other countries for our energy for decades. but with new innovation and advances particularly in liquid natural gas, we've had the opportunity to not only become energy independent, but to use our abundant resources as an important tool in advancing our global interest. i'm going to let the president get into more details on how

we'll do that. hopefully you'll tune in. there have been a few questions asked this week and sean and i both said we would get back to you on. i want to address a couple of those now. monday sean was asked how we knew that the supreme court's ruling on the president's travel executive order was 9-0 when the case was -- when the decision was announced. in fact, the decision which stayed the lower court's injunction on the president's executive order for all affected individuals without a bona fide connection to a person or entity in the united states was unanimous on the point that the stay should be granted at least to that extent. three justices would have gone further and stayed the injunctions in full. no justice dissented on the point that the stay should be granted in part and no justice indicated that he or she did not participate in the decision. jennifer jacobs from bloomberg all asked about the imf projection about u.s. growth. this morning the commerce department revised first quarter gdp upwards of both the imf and

the commerce department figures show we still have much more work to do. the president spoken out clearly about the need for faster and more sustainable economic growth that will create jobs and raise incomes for americans. the imf has expressed support for a lot of the president's policies, including more infrastructure spending, reforming our tax code, boosting educational outcomes and adopting family friendly policies. the president is also working to end job killing government regulations and negotiate good trade policies that help workers. lastly, what deal breakers exist in senate negotiations on the healthcare bill. the president isn't going to negotiate in public, but he has laid out his priorities to repeal and replace obamacare with a system that provides greater choices and better coverage at lower cost. i can tell you obamacare is failing and new policy is around the corner. from our on going negotiations we're confident any amendments the senate agrees to will make

the bill stronger. the other bill that's getting support of house democrats is the bernie sanders single payor plan that would cost the government $32 trillion over the next decade. 113 house democrats, including the dnc vice chair have signed on to this approach. the president believes that it's completely unaffordable and kre kwraeuts a one size fits all government approach to healthcare. that bill and others like it on the other side that have been proposed are clearly deal breakers. now that i have answered a couple of the questions from earlier this week, i'd be happy to take a few now. john roberts. >> in reference to the president's tweets have been a matter of some discussion. you said earlier that the president has a right to defend himself when he is attacked. it's no secret that this particular program has been very critical of him. however, the nature of the tweets this morning has drawn condemnation from people on capitol hill, including the speaker of the house, senator graham, senator susan collins, all of whom are allies of the

president. did the president go too far with this tweet in a deeply personal nature? >> i don't think so. i think that the president has been attacked pherslessly on personal accounts by members on that program. he's been very clear that when he gets attacked, he's gonna hit back. i think the american people elected somebody who's tough, who's smart and who's a fighter. that's donald trump. i don't think that it's a surprise to anybody that he fights fire with fire. the things that this show has called him, and not just him, but numerous members of his staff, including myself and many others, are very deeply personal. so to then turn and pretend like, you know, this approach is i guess kind of like we're living in the twilight zone. they do this day after day after day and then the president responds and defends himself and everybody is appalled and blown away.

frankly, if this had happened in the previous administration, the type of attacks launched on this prarpblg the things they say, utterly stupid, personality disorder, mentally ill, constant personal attacks, calling multiple members liars, liars to their faces while they're siting on their programs. the rest of the media would have said, guys, no way, hold on. but nobody does that. but the president, he's not gonna step back. he's showed that. that's exactly what he did. >> if i could follow on that. a couple of the criticisms from supporters of the president have been that this particular tweet was beneath the dignity of the office. where does the president draw that line on the dignity of the office? >> look, i think that he shows that every day in the decisions that he's making, the focus and the priorities he's laid out in his agenda. but he's not gonna sited back and be attacked by the liberal media hollywood elites. when they hit him, he's gonna hit back. >> i have a health care

question. one other aspect of this. someone suggested in their tweet response or public announcement today that the president miscon straoued one of the messages that should have been gathered from shooting that involved steve scalise. the hostility of the verbal environment can create an atmosphere of violence. i'm not saying that but members of congress have said that about this particular tweet. i know that episode affected the president and those at the white house personally very importantly and deeply. do you have any reaction to that sentiment, that conversations like this create an atmosphere that is either dangerous or one we need to avoid? >> the president in no way, form or fashion has ever promoted or encouraged violence of anything. quite the contrary. he was simply pushing back and defending himself.

>> you talked about the president's overall priorities. late last night as part of the amendment and evolution of senate draft, $45 million on the table for opioid treatment and health savings accounts can be used according to this new draft to pay premiums in the future. does the president support those two initiatives? why does he believe they make the bill better, specifically does he believe opioid allocation will be sufficient? many people do not. to address that problem. >> i'm not going to negotiate the details, the back and forth in public, but i can tell you the president has obviously made fighting the opioid crisis a priority for him. i would imagine he would be supportive of pushing resources towards that. >> how about the health savings account? >> we're always looking for ways to add additional flexibilities and something to be considered. >> what about the republicans who are criticizing the president? >> i want to go back to the shooting and remember what

president trump said then. he said our country will have to come closer, more unified. it's so important. does his tweet this morning, his series of tweets help unify the country? >> again, i think this question has been asked and i have answered it several times. >> did the tweet help unify the countries to help do what he said wanted to do in reaction to the shooting? >> look, i think the president is pushing back against people who attack him day after day after day. where is the outrage on that? you're constantly coming and asking like is this okay? he did it one time. this is day after day after day. it's not just the president. the only person that i see a war on is this president and everybody that works for him. >> two questions to follow up on that. i understand your point, but he is the president of the united states. they are cable news anchors. so he has to stand to a higher standard. one. two, you talk about criticism.

he said that former president obama wasn't born in this country. he clearly was part of the criticizing the past president, who was not immune to criticism. i wonder how you make that argument. >> again, i think i have been pretty clear that when the president gets hit, he's going to hit back harder, which is what he did today. >> doesn't he have to meet a higher standard than cable news anchors? >> look, i don't think you can expect someone to be personally attacked day after day, minute by minute and sit back. look, the american people elected a fighter. they didn't elect somebody to sit back and do nothing. they knew what they were getting when they voted for donald trump, and he won overwhelmingly. >> what about the impact of statements like this? it was an marist poll this week that said 68% of registered voters said the president's tweets are reckless and destruckive. only 22% say they're

informative. half republicans say that they're reckless and distracting. how can you argue that this is something the president must do? >> i answered this question yesterday in regards to the poll. i think any time the president has a chance to speak directly to the american people, it's a good thing. >> how do you feel about the president attacking another woman, specifically for her looks? what does that show as an example to how men should be treating other women? >> look, everybody wants to make this an attack on a woman. what about the constant attacks that he receives? or the rest of us? i'm a woman andive attacked by this show multiple times. but i don't cry foul because of it. i think that you want to create this false narrative. one hand it's like, let's treat everybody equally. and on the other hand, they attack attack attack and he responds and apparently that's wrong. i'm sorry, guys. i have answered this question --

>> this gets to the point you made. >> exactly. this is the point that i made. i'm not sure why we're continuing it. >> you talk about the president as being a fighter. you talk about being personally affected by this. and that nothing is wrong with the president fighting fire with fire is the argument you're making. i would ask this on a personal level. you have talked about your family on this podium. are you gonna tell your kids this is okay? >> look, i have been asked before when it comes to role models as a person of faith. i think we all have one perfect role model. when i'm asked that question, i point to god, i point to my faith. that's where i always tell my kids to look. none of us are perfect. certainly there's only one that is. that's write would point. >> another question on policy point. >> that would be a change in tone. policy. >> we talk about policy a lot here. i want to ask about his meeting with president putin coming up.

this has just been confirmed. on whether the president will bring up election interference. it is clearly the biggest topic between the u.s. and russia. is the president going to press putin on that? >> obviously, i'm not going to get ahead of the president's conversation. as we typically do, i imagine we'll have a readout after that conversation takes place. john? >> okay. thanks a lot, sarah. president's tweet today, does it help his legislative agenda? does it help him win the vote of the nine senators who have come out against that senate bill? senator collins, senator murkowski. what's your view on this? >> again, i think we're just looking for new ways to rephrase this question. the president was attacked, he responded. there's nothing more i have to add to that. >> i'm not asking about -- i'm asking about whether or not this

helps his legislative agenda? >> the president would love for us all to focus on the legislative agenda a whole lot more. you look at the coverage over the last month of the extended period between may and june. all of the major networks, if you look at their coverage and what they're talking about. they spent one minute in the evening news cast talking about tax reform. three minutes on infrastructure. five mints on the economy and jobs. 17 minutes on healthcare. and 353 minutes, 353 minutes attacking the president and pushing a false narrative on russia. i mean, look at that in comparison. if you guys want to talk about legislative agenda and focus on policy and priority, you guys get to help set that table. and 353 minutes of attacks against the president and driving a false narrative and one minute on tax reform. that's over the course of a

month. that's incredible. guys, the numbers don't lie. the media is focused on priorities that don't line up with the rest of america. right now we've gotted our economy growing, the stock market's up, unemployment is down, jobs are back and isis is on the run. america is winning and that's what we'd like to talk about. but you guys constantly ignore that narrative. >> all of those points -- [ talking at the same time ] >> all of those things are true. but the president today put out this tweet which takes away from all of that. you expect us here in this room to simply ignore that. i think that's that's a lot. just ignore this entirely? >> i think he's put out a number of tweets on health care, on the immigration bills that will be in the house today, but that's not being talked about. that's not being asked about. but the discrepancy again, 353 minutes. you can't say that you want to

talk about policy and then you look at the numbers and they just don't lie. you can't expect for that amount of attack and intensity to come to our president and not respond. i said i was going to john next. >> two questions for you, sarah. first, did the u.s. administration send a representative to the funeral mass for chancellor cole or will they send anyone to the funeral service july 1st? >> i do believe that there is an official delegation. i'll have to get details back to you. >> my other question is this. you've had people turn down nominations to be deputy secretary of the treasury. president is on his third appointee i believe for secretary of the army.

and the ambassador to ireland has declined the nomination. and there's no candidates for ambassador to germany or france, both major allies or greece for that matter, an important country. is the president having trouble recruiting people to fill some of the key slots that remain unfilled after six months? >> no, john. actually, the trouble isn't in the recruitment, it's in the vetting and getting them through the process. like i mentioned yesterday, i believe there were over 100 candidates in the queue waiting to be pushed through. but due to the historic obstruction, it's taking much longer than normal to get a lot of those nominees through. frankly, a lot of people that are part of that process, one of the number one reasons we've had people take a step back is because that process is so lengthy. i have got an skype question from chris burg in north dakota. we'll go to that. >> thank you. i want to talk about making

america great again, energy dominance. during the dakota pipeline process, some pretty scary times here. just a couple weeks ago a judge suggest -- [ inaudible ] my question is this. what specifically is president trump going to do to give these companies more certainty if they make these multibillion dollar infrastructure improvements at the same point in time tribal leaders feeling honored and respected -- [ inaudible ] >> it was a little difficult to hear, but i believe the question was focused on energy production specific to dakota access and i think we've been talking consistently about this.

the president is dedicated to increasing energy production in the united states and we're doing part of the review of the dakota access pipeline in the administration working with those tribal leaders and stake holders throughout that process to make it as successful as possible. lot of the travel leaders want to expand energy production and development in their area. we're going to work continuously with them to try to make that as successful as possible. >> i want to ask you about this question. if, as treasury secretary mnuchin said, the administration wants to go the upper limits of the law with sanctions on russia, why not support this legislation that basically keeps what has been in place? >> we're continuing to review the process until there's final legislation there. i have got another skype question from louisiana. hopefully, we'll be able to hear him. >> question on healthcare.

our governor put out numbers 100,000 people will lose their healthcare if this goes through. if you ask the other states that puts it into the billions. is there an accessible number of people losing coverage to get the greater bill through? >> kwrerpbgs i'm having a little difficulty hearing, but as best i could understand you're looking at how obamacare repeal and replace would affect the state of louisiana and i mean, frankly, louisiana's been one of the hardest hit states in the country by obamacare. their insurance premiums have gone up over 125%. the goal here is to give people in the country choices. no one who currently has medicade will have their benefits cut. we're looking across the board, the healthcare plans that will lower taxes, reduce premiums and offer more choices for people in louisiana and across the country. hopefully that somewhat addressed your question as best

i could. margret. >> president has let us know he planned on having an isis news conference to update people on the situation within the next couple weeks which is now-ish. we're coming up -- >> now-ish is a good word. >> do you expect we would get that update, whether it's a news conference or just remarks before the upcoming foreign trip? and i also wanted to ask you, it looked like there might be some coverage over a fund-raiser yesterday that didn't work out. beyond yesterday, are you guys looking at if you need to do that for fund-raisers of a certain size to have some transparency or ability to hear what to tell the donors? >> yesterday it was a logistical issue trying to accommodate at the last minute. certainly on the table for future events. as for the first question, we'll keep you posted when we have an announcement on that. as you know, the president is

getting ready to depart for the department of energy and we'll be speaking. thank you very much. >> no apology from president trump? >> julie: so there you have it. they did talk about some issues. of course the reporters could not get enough there talking about the president's tweets. but let's now talk with our political panel and try to actually talk issues. political editor for town hall.com also here radio talk show host richard fowler. both are fox news contributors. the unfortunate part is i wanted to hear about health care. i wanted to hear about the travel ban that goes into effect. i wanted to hear about two house bills, one in particular that is going to protect future victims of illegals kphreuting crimes after several people have been murdered by repeat offenders here in this country, many of whom actually met with the president yesterday. but unfortunately all we heard about was tweets, cable news network's bloody face lift. richard, i guess i mean, can we move on from this and can the

gop get back on track? seems like this is throwing everything off considering tomorrow time is running out on healthcare. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell wants to come up with a revised healthcare bill by tomorrow. all we're talking about is tweets. so that it can be ready for a vote when lawmakers return to washington on july 10. does that have any chance of happenings? >> sadly, it doesn't. i think if you talk to republicans in the house and senate, they will tell you, we want to focus on healthcare but the media is only asking us questions about the fact that this president got baited by a tweet. for tweeting. here's my point. larger cycle. the job of the media is to criticize the president. no matter who the president, democrat or republican or to sort of vigorously get the truth, right? now, do i agree with how morning joe and mika treat president trump? of course i don't. but with that being said, these antics would get a freshman in high school suspended. he is supposed to be the role model for america? if this is our role model,

julie, it's a sad, sad day. >> julie: we got to argue both sides here. this president gets insulted tremendously. we're not talking about the american people. we're talking about the media. the media has a responsibility to report the news. oftentimes we all fall into that crack of exposing our opinions. we're not supposed to. at least some of us. others are opinion journalists. nonetheless, you have a cable news anchor who goes on and insults the president every day. sarah huckabee sanders said when the president hits back, he's going to hit back hard. >> yeah. i mean, look. if you're the white house and you're complaining that reporters are asking you about a stupid tweet or two that the president said, the solution is to have the president not send stupid tweets that are personal insults to a cable television host. i mean, yes, if we're gonna go by playground rules here, mika started it by going after the president in very personal terms. she talked about his hands and

other things this morning. my point is, who cares? he's the president. be bigger than it. transcend it and focus on your actual job. i think one of the problems with trump is that he's very impulsive and he cannot help himself. in this case, the idea that i have heard this theory, he's trying to distract the media from other things, that's not true. i think he saw something that he viewed as an attack and he wanted to fire back so he decided to talk about plastic surgery and call others silly, foolish names. no one comes out of this looking good, but saying, oh well, shame on mika, fine. she's a tv host. he's the president of the united states. sometimes it seems like he forgets that. >> julie: i'm gonna try to take the high road. i gotta move on. it's unfortunate that we've just spent all this time talking about it. but, of course, like the reporters are saying there, we can't ignore it. we can't ignore a lot of other issues that are happening in washington. specifically this travel ban. this is a hug deal.

this was a huge win for president trump. something, again, we're not talking about with the supreme court reinstating this until they try the case in the fall. the travel ban goes into effect tonight. at this point there is some confusion as to whether or not this is gonna go smoothly. richard, there's a lot of question as to the writing on this, the bona fide relationship, that part really confusing a lot of people. grandmothers can't get in, cousins can't get in, sisters, brothers can. sister, half sisters can. where do you see this going tonight with that travel ban taking effect? >> this is going to be very interesting for the president. sadly, we're not talking about that. we're talking about his stupid tweets. i think the white house has to do some explaining. the department of home land security should get in front of this. actually, in defense of the department of homeland security, those sort of familial

relationships are there. they're basically following american law on this, but they're not out in front of this once again, julie, because they have been distracted by this president's sticky twitter fingers. >> i think dhs probably is. the people in charge of implementing this travel pause are on top of it. a big win for the white house. unanimous support from the supreme court. >> julie: that's all the time we have, guys. thank you very much. we have an abridged verge of the show. thank you very much. richard fowler. appreciate. secretary mattis just met with nato pledging to increase defense spending by more than 4% this year. he also had this to say about the new plans to fight isis in afghanistan. listen. >> we may have pulled our troops out too rapidly, reduced the numbers a little too rapidly, but the difference today is that the afghan army is actually able to carry the fight. they've been carrying the fight for sometime now. so there's always new ideas you

can come up with that there's never lack of those. there's new opportunities and certainly the political will is there to carry this fight forward. >> julie: we have a lot to get through very short period of time here with a fox news channel contributor. okay. so basically, the nato chief basically saying pressure from potus is increasing regarding defense spending. but we need our european allies to get on board as well. >> we need them to be on board. they haven't been. this is a big win by president trump. it was also an alliance adrift. what is it standing for and standing against? in this particular case, he's rearted the fight toward radical islamic terrorism. they haven't taken that serious. they haven't focused on fighting to defeat the enemy where it lives. to say he doesn't care about it, he cares more about it than those who let it drift and not be relevant. >> julie: i think the media needs to care more about what

has happened over seas. talk about testify troops that, the added troops that will be headed into afghanistan. you heard sarah huckabee sanders talking about how isis is running. she said the media is not covering this. so let's cover it. >> absolutely. there have been serious tactical gains in iraq and syria against isis. afghanistan is a different picture. isis moved there as well. i served in afghanistan in 2011/2012. it's a really difficult battlefield. it's not clear a couple more thousand troops will make a strategic differ tprepbs there. i like the fact that president trump is deferring to general mattis. they want to put more pressure on afghanistan. you can't just leave it because you'll leave behind a haven that terrorists will use. this is due to an aggressive push to untie the hands of war fighters. let them go at the enemy. what happens after we take mosul and raka is the most important.

what happens withal assad in iran. they want a foot hold in that region. we can't allow them to do it. this team, they're focused on making sure they win not just the conflict tactically but strategically as well. >> julie: you talk about syria and the warning against assad. regarding the potential of them launching another chemical weapons attack against his own people. >> yeah. >> julie: does it look like we're making any leeway there? >> we made leeway in that our words matter. >> julie: it's about time. >> it's about time. this white house has restored that. >> julie: that's something nobody is talking about it. for the record, we actually talked about it. >> good developments this white house has brought to the world, making it more stable. >> julie: i'd like to focus more on that. truly. thank you very much for coming in today. all right. that is gonna wrap it up for today. boy, what a big hour for us. of course, we have continuing coverage here on fox news

channel. a lot to talk about. i mean healthcare, mitch mcconnell's deadline for tomorrow. of course, that travel ban that kicks in tonight. much more coverage with you now. i'm julie bandares. here's shep. >> it's noon on the west coast. 3:00 on capitol hill. senate republicans are looking for progress on healthcare. we'll show you the sticking points and the fixes including billions for opioid treatment and a new way to help people pay their premiums. after months of fighting, a limited version of the president's travel ban takes effect today. new restrictions on travelers from some mostly muslim countries. we'll explain what changed and take you to the airports. plus, the white house dealing with the backlash after the president sent a tweet attacking a news anchor's appearance. plenty of people are completely riled up. but his team is not backing down. we're expecting to hear