realize that being unique is normal. thanks for joining us. we'll have the white house briefing as soon as it happens. i'm dana perino. here's shep smith. >> shepard: it's noon on the west coast. 3:00 at the white house where we're waiting for the day's briefing to begin. a lot to cover. president trump insists we're not in a trade war. now somebody needs to tell the chinese. because they fired off some possible new import taxes aimed at the united states. have your semantics, it is what it is and could affect a lot of americans. the white house saying the american's mission in syria is coming to a rapid end. we'll try to find out what those words may mean. and major news in the robert mueller investigation. the president's legal team learns he's not currently a criminal target. let's get to it.

first from the fox news deck this afternoon, we begin with a live look at the white house. there it is. press secretary sarah sanders is set to take to the podium pat any moment. she was set to take to the podium 31 minutes ago. the idea is to weigh-in on rising economies. beijing is announcing retaliatory tariffs. that could impact soy beans to cars. strategic in nature no doubt. in minutes, a look at what those proposed taxes would mean for american workers. first, a live look at the dow. what a turn around. you can see the markets dropped this morning after the announcement from china. about 500 points it was at the opening bell. dropped more than 400. most of this rebound after some re-assuring words from the president's newly appointed director of the national economic council, larry kudlow.

formerly of cnbc. he told reporters that the president's plan for tariffs might not happen and could be a negotiating tactic. >> i would take the president seriously on this tariff issue. you know, but he is ultimately a free trader. he said that to me. so he wants to solve this with the least amount of pain. again, here's a key point. both sides benefit by positive solutions that lower barriers. >> it's worth noting that the president tweeted we're not in a trade war with china. that war was lost many years ago by foolish or incompetent people who represented the united states. now we have a trade deficit of $500 billion a year with intellectual property theft of another $300 billion. we cannot let this continue. so is it a trade war? that's semantics.

there's no formal declaration and depending who you listen to, we're in one or about to be in one or it's already over and we lost. semantics aside, trade wars have been a topic of debate for decades. in 1985, the republican president ronald reagan said during a radio address, the surest way to destroy those jobs and throw americans out of work is to start a trade war. now more than 30 years later, the current president faces a trade challenge that could affect a lot of americans. their jobs, their families, their futures. our chief whiteouse correspondent john roberts is in the briefing room. >> on the surface it looks like a trade war. the stock market is looking at it saying it looks like a trade war to us, too. keep in mind, none of this has happened yet. so the wild swings we're seeing in the stock market based on speculation and the possibility

of what could happen. certainly if this were a trade war, both countries have a number of powerful missiles aimed at each other that they could launch. the united states trade representative robert lightheiser announced billions in chinese goods that could be taxed, including steel and aluminum, nuclear reactors, jet ski motors, bakery ovens, milking machines and sewing needles. china today announced 106 u.s. items worth about $50 billion that included soy beans, cotton, cars, cranberries and whiskey. many of those items come from very important political swing states. the chinese knowing exactly where to apply pressure here. the white house standing firm on the idea that the president has got to get tough with china to level the trade playing field. here again is the chief economic adviser larry kudlow on fox this

morning. >> blame china, not president trump. they've been going on for many years. trump is the first president to fight back and to put a shot across the bow, stealing intellect july property rights, technology transfers, high barriers and investment limitations, high tariffs. this stuff is really not jus unfair, it's unwf. >> the white house dismissing th notions that there could be a trade war. not that we're in one now. the president said yesterday that he and president xi have a terrific relationship suggesting that they would get it worked out before the timetable lapses. >> shepard: the white house is looking to rescind parts of the $1.3 trillion spending bill that president trump just signed. >> that's true. the president signed that bill. you can say he held his nose and signed it. it's a wonder he don't light it

on fire as it was sitting there beside him. so now the white house, the office of management and budget and legislative affairs are working with the republican leadership on the hill on a package of cuts. the white house being cautious about this, not wanting to suggest too broad a package for fear that that could spark opposition in congress that the white house is interfering here. but they think if they can narrowly target it to a few items, maybe more symbolic than anything, they can get the votes to pass it through. it's been a law in effect for decades. it's not used very much. the appropriators in the house will probably like at this as a precedent that they don't want to give president trump. white house officials are optimistic that if they tailor it narrowly at some specific items, they can gain the approval of the republican leadership that they can muster

the votes for a few cuts. >> shepard: and there's a brief something. >> yes. something has happened in the last half hour that has taken sarah sanders from the podium. >> shepard: do you know what it was? >> i do but i can't say. >> shepard: he would if he could. john roberts, thank you. chinese tariffs could strike the hart of trump country. one target is soy beans. soy beans has to be a strategic target. look where we make soy beans. that is the area. largely trump country where american farmers grow soy beans for a living. includes a lot of states that helped president trump win the 2016 election. china is the biggest buyer of american soy beans. they need the beans. look at this this morning. what they're including in it, it's strategically placed. >> i love that map. a good map. >> shepard: tells a story. >> it does tell a story. we exported like $14 billion of

soy beans to china in 2016. so this is not the chinese first time at the table. >> shepard: no. >> they know where to go and picking industries that would hurt the people that voted for president trump. >> shepard: we'll get more on that from the briefing. and facebook's scandal is growing that goes days before mark zuckerberg is scheduled to testify on capitol hill. facebook says 87 million people were improperly shared. 87 million. >> that's up from the 50 million that was disclosed, this is coming directly from facebook. this is coming from the company's cto. so the chief technology officer. what they're saying is okay, the number is bigger, but what you and i have discussed last week, they have already changed. they have to now, the way that cambridge analytica and any other third party app would tension. the number is worse. the share is down. the sto is down. but facebook has already cleaned up. they have to.

they're in the cross hairs. so for example, there will not be any future cambridge analyticas. maybe we'll keep hearing more and more, but they have changed their policies going forward. mark zuckerberg would be testifying next week in d.c. he will have a chance to answer a lot of questions on how they continue to handle data and privacy. >> shepard: very good. nice to see you. >> nice to see you, too. >> shepard: let's go to zeke miller. hello. what's happening? >> good to see you, shep. >> shepard: so there's talk of a trade war and the president says trade wars are good and easy to win and now they're walking back the idea of a trade car because trade wars are unpopular? what do we make of this? >> no one likes a trade war. even the president according to his aides does not like or want a trade war. he seems confident if the united states were to enter one, they would come out victorious. that's not a situation that he

wants to get into. the message that we heard from harry kudlow, coming out, talking to reporters, basically trying to ease concerns about the chinese retaliatory tariffs maybe saying none of them will come into effect. maybe it's part of a larger negotiating tactic. we've seen that before. so maybe there will be -- they're weary of the market -- >> shepard: zeke, negotiating for what? >> it's unclear. for a more level playing field. we haven't seen a specific demand -- >> shepard: a level playing field in what way? if he has explaed this to any government or any news in our reporters, we don't know about it. >> exactly. >> shepard: we have a pretty good pipeline. >> yeah, we have not heard that level of specificity, what the president wants, certainly on intellectual properties. there's area for improvement. everybody in the united states

government says that. >> shepard: sure, on that front absolutely. when he says we have a $500 billion imbalance, it would be nice if we had clarity on what he thinks would fix that sort of thing, right? >> yeah, we have seen that level of specificity. he got chinese commitments to bring that balance down. doesn't seem the president will be happy with that. there's no possibility where that gets to zero or where there is no imbalance or where it's a perfect trade balance. the president will have to live with some significantly large deficit. he can a take some claim if he can narrow it but there will always be a deficit with china in this decade. maybe -- and probably several decades out. >> shepard: he's lunched the caravan of people from honduras and immigration and the wall into one thing. i wonder if there's new

reporting on that situation. >> the white house is saying the president is not trying to use nafta or immigration as a bargaining chip. but if you look at his tweets and statements, it seems to be the case that's what he's doing. so there is -- it's not clear who to believe. if you believe what the president is tweeting what he's suggesting in the statement or saying that these processes are separate and these conversations aren't interfering with each other. >> shepard: the president and his team seem to be happy on some level that he's not a "target" of the russia investigation. nor is he a witness with puts him that place in the middle. you can be one of three things. that is a subject. it's hard -- if you back yourself up a couple years, this idea of a president of the united states being the subject of a criminal investigation as something that is good news is almost unfathomable as sarah sanders walked to the podium. listen up. >> i'm not concerned about that

now. i just want to do god's will. he's allowed me to go up to the mountain and i have looked over and i've seen the promised land. i may not get there with you, but i want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land. i'm so happy tonight. i'm not worried about anything. i'm not fearing any man. my eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the lord. these words were from a man that found his identity and his purpose through his faith and self-lessly led a movement that while it cost him his life, changed the course of history. in honor of his sacrifice, we continue to protect our union by the theory that all mean created equal. looking to tomorrow, the president will be travelling to west virginia. while there, he will participate in a roundtable with ceos and companies that have provided bonuses, pay raises and other benefits to their employees as a result of the trump tax cuts. also participating in the

roundtable will be families with more money in their pockets. this will be the president's fourth trip to virginia since he took office. later this month, the president will welcome the olympic teams and paraolympic teams to the white house. the president looks forward to celebrating the athletes and their achievements in the 2018 winter games. before taking your questions today, i have a special guest here with us. secretary nielson from the department of homeland security. as you all know, the president received a briefing yesterday on the administration's strategy to confront the grong threat of illegal immigration, drugs and violent gang members coming across our southern border. as the president said, the mobilization of the national guard will be a part of the strategy. secretary nielson will have brief remarks and take your questions and after that, i'll be back to answer questions of the day and other topics.

secretary? >> good afternoon, everyone. i want to start. i'll give you some facts and perspectives. hopefully i can put some things in context. i want to start with just a very simple statement for today's announcement, which is border security is homeland security, which is national security. it's not a partisan issue, it's not something that we can separate out. it's core to being a sovereign nation. the president says that a nation that cannot or chooses not to defend its borders he not be a sovereign nation. the threat is real. we talk about it. the department of homeland security has watched for current and emerging threats despite a number of steps that this administration has taken, which i'll talk about shortly. we continue to see unacceptable

levels of illegal drugs, dangerous gang activity, trans national criminal organizations and illegal immigration across the border. this threatens not only the safety of our community and children but our very rule of law in which our country was founded. it's time to act. let's talk about that today. in an effort to prevent a consequence, directed the department of defense and the department of homeland security together with our governors to deploy the national guard to the southern border. when the president took office last year, he issued a series of orders and directives that empowered dhs to fully support our border and laws. we saw a drop in border crossings. 44% down in the first few months after his inauguration. this trump effect as many of you have referred to it as we have

as well, the border activity was undeniable and those for elicit activity were forced to wait and see if enhanced enforcement effort would scale back their criminal activity for good. in the last 15 months under the president's leadership, he's taken a step to strengthen border security. let me give you a few. we're happy to provide additional details. we stepped up ms-13 star gets. we removed thousands of criminal aliens and we no longer except entire classes of illegal aliens from the consequences of breaking our immigration laws. we began the first new border system in close to a decade, we modified or asylum system to adjudicate claims and ended temporary immigration programs that were either constitutionally dubious or were

administered a manner that was inconsient with the purpose of the law or contrary to the intent of according. despite this, we've seen border crossings rise to back to previous levels. our current border security and immigration laws fail the american people. the system rewards bad behavior. it does not punish law breakers. it undermines our nation's economic interests. make no mistakes, interdiction without the ability to remove those without legit it in cause is not border security. it's not national security. when the president took office, the traffickers, smuggers, tcos and the illegal aliens paused to see what our border enforcement efforts would look like and if we could follow-through on the deportation and removal. while we have been apprehending aliens at the border with historic efficiency, these

elicit smuggling groups saw that our ability to actually remove those that come here illegally did not keep pace. they saw that there were loop holes that they could exploit to avoid detention and removal. let me give you numbers to put how that has changed the context of our immigration and border security system. before 2013, approximately one out of 100 arriving aliens claimed fear. which is the first step in asylum process. today one out ten do so. why this matter is because this number unfortunately demonstrates and is indicative of the rising level of fraud that plagues our system. this prevents us from timely helping those that do need asylum. when we have to deal with the fraud and the backlog, we're unable to help those truly in need. before 2011 over 90% of arriving aliens were single adult males. today 40% are families and

children. the traffickers and smugglers know that if you arrive with the family under our current legal and court system, you have a much better chance as being released into the united states. we have seen the smugglers advertise this as an enticement and we have seen traffickers use children to gainntry into our country. before 2009, the last stat here, 90% of arriving aliens were mexican nationals. today nearly 50% are from central america. the traffickers and smugglers know that these individuals cannot be easily removed in an expeditious way back to their country of origin. they exploit the loop hole. each of these loop holes have made it more difficult to apprehend the criminals, traffickers, gangs our illegal

aliens. those falsely claiming asylum for fear, they will be released for many years before they see a judge. in 2012 when daca was offered, families with children similarly understood that deferred action was on the table and the possibility of future deferred action has caused additional migration that continues through today. this is exacerbated because of the deeply flawed flores settlement agreement, one that we have talked about before and because of our inability to use expedited removal authority for all unaccompanied alien children. because of this, we do see many more central american families with children attempting to enter the country illegally. many more than a decade ago. smugglers are gaining the system. they take advantage of our laws and know we cannot prosecute to

stop their behavior and we know in some cases it takes many years for them to be removed. this in addition creates a magnet for additional illegal immigration, tco activity and criminal activity across our border. every day we rely on partnerships to help accomplish missions to secure our borders. congress and our international partners. i have been with and will and continue to work with these partners. this is a problem that requires all of our attention. this administration has also asked congress for help. congress makes immigration law. it's that simple. that's how our system works. congress makes immigration law. congress decides which classes of aliens are allowed into the country and which can be deported. we've asked for changes to existing law to close loop holes that exacerbate the challenges we have and often result in a court order or catch and

release. the president as you know terminated administrative catch and release last year and due to those loop holes, we find particularly those with families, they must be released after 20 days. we asked congress for additional funds for detension beds, personnel as the magnet of lawlessness draws thousands to the borders. we must change the environment. unfortunately, time and time again, congress has failed to act. we're still, some members of congress have continuous little opposed effort to strengthen the border. because of this inaction, the administration has drafted legislation and we will be asking congress again to provide the legal authority and resources to address this crisis at our borders. we will not allow illegal immigration levels to become the norm. more than 1,000 people a day,

300,000 a year violating our sovereignty as a nation will never be acceptable to this president. since becoming secretary, i've spoken with hundreds of members of congress on the needs for legislati legislation. i will continue to speak with anyone about ending catch and release and close the loop holes for all. based on conversations with congressional leadership, i'm optimistic. wore a country based on the rule of law. i asked congress to pass with all urgency. i will work with you. let's get this done. the president has directed that the national guard be deployed to the southern border. the department of defense has long supported the efforts of dhs to protect our nation's borders. this includes infrastructure construction, surveillance operations training and aerial support roughouthe western hemisphere.

while plans are being finalized, it's our expectation that the national guard will deploy. it will take time to have the details in place but it will begin today and we're anxious to have this support. i've spoken with the governors. some have already confronted illegal immigration and to strengthen the border security to prevent the criminal activity and the inflow of drugs. these are leaders that understand the importance of enforcement and how it improves safety in their states. i look forward to working with them. as a result, i will not provide full details today because much of what we'll be doing with the border state governors will be worked out through the appropriate processes as it has been in the past. the urgency cannot be underscored. we will be doing this today

under the president's direction. i will continue my conversation with all four border governors and we hope to have the path forward specified in the near future. i also wanted to just make sure before i turn it over to questions to mention that we've been in touch with my counter parts in mexico regarding this action. they understand the administration's desire much like their own to control illegal entry into our country. they understand and respect our national sovereignty. i thank them for their recent support in addressing the yearly carav caravan. i value their partnerip and do not expect this operation to affect that relationship. i want to close by saying that the problems of catch and release and unsecurity borders are solvable problems. congress has the ability and the opportunity to provide this administration and our country with the tools it needs for border security. my conversations with members of congress, all have said they're

for border security and the rule of law. the legislative fixes have been drafted and debated. the tools are tested and ready. all that is lacking is the will to act. i'm hoping that changes and i call on all members of congress to work with us to close these loop holes and to end catch and release completely. let me be clear, we are a welcoming nation. we support tens of millions of legal visitors every year as well as over 1 million legal immigrants. we will continue to do so. as i said earlier, border security is national security. security of our nation is not a partisan issue. border security is national security. it's a foundational element to the security of our systems, of our citizens and homeland. the president is committed to securitying the border and using the tools available for him. i thank him for his leadership and support of dhs and i look

forward to your questions. >> maybe for some context. can you compare what the president is contemplating with what bush did in 6,000 national guards and personnel for arizona, new mexico. presid obama did 1,200. is he going to do something larger than that? >> let me take the last part first. we hope the deployment begins immediately. i will have conversation with the governors today. it's done through a men random of agreement. we're working with haste to agree on that. we specified out the missions where we need support. they include everything there aerial surveillance through some of the support functions that the guard was able to do under president bush in operation jump start. so we've been very specific state be i state, local by local

of what cbp believes what they need and we'll work in conjunction with the governors on the front lines to see what they need and work it with the national guard. as soon as possible. conversations are ongoing. >> and size and duration -- >> we have not. i don't want to get ahead of the governors. this is a partnership with them. we're giving them the opportunity to review our suggestions of how the national guard can support the border patrol. as soon as the numbers are available -- >> will it be more robust than the bush employment? >> it will be strong. it will be as many as is needed to fill the gaps that we have today. we'll go through and make sure. >> madam secretary, in terms of the operations, operation jump start prohibited the national guard from laying hands on immigrants. they were only in a support capacity to the border patrol. are you thinking of similar rules of engagement? >> we're working with the governors. we've had that nversation. it's a partnership under title

32. we've discussed our support activities that are similar to jump start. >> so it wouldn't be actual enforcement? >> correct. as of now. >> the president also in a tweet said that he suggested that he would use some of the military appropriations to fund the construction of the border wall. does the president have the authority to use money that congress has appropriated to the department of defense to build the border wall? >> so it's a good question. i'm only going to side step it because i'm not at the department of defense. what he meant was, there's some lands that the department of defense owns that are right on the border that are areas where we see elicit activity as part of what dod does every day in terms of force protections. we're looking at options for the military to build a wall on military installations.

other than that i can't speak to the legality. >> do you know what this will cost or -- >> i can't. looking at past numbers should be indicative. it really depends on a very specific mission set that they'll provide. for example, aerial surveillance is done by flight hours. to translate that to ops and how much people will cost. >> we will do it in conjunction with the governors. >> how much wall can you build with the money that you currently have? >> the currently appropriated will build about 150 miles. >> $1.7 billion? >> 17 and 18 together. we have started building. so we're building real time. >> how much -- >> this an important question. to it's, it all new wall. if there's a wall before that needs to be replaced, it's being replaced by a new wall.

so this is the trump border wall. >> current wall would be new wall. >> yes. >> and how much does it cost to complete the wall as you desire? >> border patrol has submitted a plan to congress. we have a tool kit, if you will. some of the parts are different. we have a wall that almost floats with the sand because of the conditions there. other places will have taller walls. some places we have levees. we're continuing to work it on based on the funding we have and the prototypes. >> so we don't have a total ticket price at thistime >> we have the down payments and we're working with congress real time to let tm know what we need for what. >> i'm not sure i understand what the urgency for this is. seemed like it ramped up over

the weekend. the house is not here, the senate is not here. why is this such an urgent priority right now? >> i think -- what i would say, the numbers continue to increase. april is a month in which we see more folks crossing the border without a legal right to do so it's partly modelling, partly anticipating. we're seeing more and more advertising but the traffickers and smugglers to the south specific to how to get around our system and enter our country and stay. we have documented cases of borrowing children appearing at the border as a family unit. so why today, not yesterday, tomorrow? today is the day. today is the day we want to start this process. the threat is real. >> why not last year? reresponsibility does the white house or the department have for not urging congress to do something more permanent rather

than having national guard troops who are stretched then already? >> yeah, no, it's a great question. i appreciate that opportunity. we do want congress to act. we had been hopeful that we would be able to agree on a bipartisan bill. what we were trying to do is give congress an opportunity to act. we're taking what actions we can as an executive branch and hope that we can soon again start the conversation with congress. >> you said you hope deployment begins immediately. what does that mean? does that mean that troops could be headed to the border as soon as tonight? >> it does mean that. that means that we'll do it conjunction with the governors. this is title 32. the governors retain control of the national guard in their region. i'm not going to get ahead of

them. the ones that i have spoken to urge the request. so we'll do it as expeditiously as possible but it's an moa process. we're working through that real time. >> and follow up, this is the 440th day of the trump administration. talked about the urgency. there's a lot of speculation that this might have something to do about the president on television sunday morning. can you speak to the speculation? >> the president is frustrated. he's been very clear that he wants to secure our border. he's very clear that he wants to do that in a bipartisan way with congress. what you're seeing is the president taking his job very seriously in terms of securing our border and doing everything we can without congress to do just that. i do hope as soon as congress comes back i can work with them. >> how long have you been

working on this plan? >> it's always on the table. it's never been done before. it's nothing new. it's one of many things that we have looked at. we're in continuing conversations with the governors, this is a partnership. it's not new. we're just walking through all of the things that we can do. i looked at some of the ones that we have done. last one. >> you spoke of daca and other programs as a magnet. the president made similar arguments. the same argument was made against the gang of eight bill some years back. can you describe what sort of immigration bill that covers people that are here without paper and would be acceptable and would not be a magnet or is a magnet one that restricts be immigration? >> a good question. i don't think it's the bill per se. it's the bill wasn't passed.

all of that uncertainty gives the conversation wings in the south of us, hurry and get here now. >> at the time republicans that opposed the bill said that passing the bill will cause a wave of people coming to take advantage of it. you know, you just made a similar argument about similar programs other than a bill that is only restricted on illustration do you think would be a magnet? >> border security. i'm not trying to be flip. that's how the two go together. we want a permanent solution. >> i'm not being difficult. but every time this issue comes up and every time there's any sort of method where -- whether it's administratively or legislatively, attempted to

address this problem, the same people every time said it's going to be a magnet. people are going to flood the borders trying to take advantage of it. so i'm curious, if that constantly is a problem every time this issue comes up, then how can you entertain any kind of comprehensive immigration bill? >> i understand the question. what i would say is if we put together a package and pass it, the conversation is over. vote for this trench. there are those that will receive some sort of permanent status. that's what the president has been clear on. >> the president favored two bipartisan bills. what he's been clear on, he won't view half measures. we have to stop the poll. we have to have the ability to remove when we interdict. he's been very clear and very strong on this. if we pass a bill that doesn't do either of those two things that would be a poll factor. we're trying to do them in

conjunction. we've talked about some people giving some permanent status to. we have to close the loop holes. we can't pull up more populations to say go now, go now. that's not how it works. thank you for your time. we will continue to give you details as we get them. thank you for your time. >> thank you, secretary nielsen. we're running long. jump into questions. jonathan? >> back in january, the president told several of us that he was looking forward to answering questions under oath from robert mueller. he said it to happen in two or three weeks. does the president still intend special couel and d it under oath? >> the president is working with his legal team and making a determination. i'd refer you to them on that

matter. we're continuing to be fully cooperative with the office of the special counsel and will continue to drive the same message that we've been driving over a year. there was no collusion and we'll continue to be cooperative until that comes to a full conclusion which we hope is soon. >> so nothing has changed in terms of willingness -- >> again, i'll refer you to his legal team. they would make that determination. >> what is the reaction to learning that he is not a target of the special counsel investigation although he's a subject? >> i'm not going to comment on the ongoing and the back and forth out of respect for the special counsel. as we said many times before there was no collusion between the president and russia. nothing has changed. we know what we did and didn't do. nothing of this is a surprise. >> i have two questions. a russia question and a daca question. does he agree with mcmaster that we have failed to impose sufficient costs on russia?

>> what mcmaster said, we've been very tough on russia. he echoed the president's message that he said yesterday during the press conference with the baltic leaders that no one has been tougher on russia than this president. what he also said is that other nations could do more and should do more. we -- that's not different or in contrast to anything that we've said. we have continued to be tough on russia and continue to be tough on russia until we see a change in that. at the same time as the president stated yesterday, it wode good for the world can be . we'll have to see what happens. lot of that is determined by the behavior of russia. >> the president thinks other nations should be tougher but we've been as tough as we can? >> we've been tough on russia and will continue to be. we're asking russia to change their behavior and be a good actor. but other countries should step

up. we expelled 60 russian operatives. other countries did four or five everybody can do more. >> on daca, the president tweeted no more daca deal. does that mean when the courts resolve this issue he will start deport something. >> i'm not going to get ahead of anything. we have tried and tried. democrats don't want a solution. they failed to show up and do their jobs as they were elected to do. the president has been very clear, put multiple proposals on the table to fix the problem and democrats have not been willing to take a deal. it was a really good deal and went further than the previous administration. frankly, you shouldn't be asking me this question or the white house this question. you should be asking senate democrats and members of the house democratic party why they don't want to fix something that they champion day after day? >> sarah, larry kudlow and the

the commerce secretary said today that negotiations are the most likely way the trade dispute will be resolved. does the president agree with that or does he intendo put tariffs on the tabl make them real, they're not real yet and see what happens? >> we're going through the review period. we're very lucky that we have the best negotiator at the table, the president. and we'll go through that process, a couple months before tariffs on either side would go into effect and be implemented. we're hopeful that china will do the right thing. china created this president, not president trump. we have a president that is willing to stand up and say enough is enough. we're going to stop the unfair trade practices. we're asking china to stop unfair trade practices and we're going to work through that process. >> any change in chinese behavior that these tariffs will take effect? >> i'm not going to get ahead of the process.

we're in the review process right now. certainly we expect china to make changes and stop the unfair trade practices that they participated in. again, i'm not getting ahead of the review process. i would anticipate if there's no changes to the behavior of china, that we would move forward. john? >> meantime, all this is taking place, we're seeing wild swings in the stock market which represent billions and tens of billions of dollars in real money. is the president worried that the saber rattling is cause manage people in this country to lose money? >> the president is worried that we have countries that have been taking advantage of us for decades and he's not going to allow to to happen anymore. we may have short term pain but we'll have long-term success. we're focused on long-term economic principles and making sure that we have a strong and stable economy. that's exactly what the president is doing.

jim? >> question on amazon. the pentagon could award a very large cloud from computing contracts from amazon. given the president's criticism of amazons, is this something he would have a concern about, amazon getting this contract and would he intervene? >> the president is not involved in the process. dod runs the competitive bidding process and i would refer you to the department of defense on the specifics of how that process would work. >> so -- >> that's something that the president is involved in. it's a competitive bidding process. for the specifics, i refer you to them. >> thanks, sarah. >> a lot of johns here today. >> president mentioned his stance calling the deal that they have with the united states postal service a sweetheart deal. my question has to do with another sweetheart deal. the $50 a night payment that the

epa administrator scott pruitt paid to a lobbyist with the epa. president promised to drain the swamp. his behavior and actions seem swamp-like. why is the president okay with this? >> we're reviewing the situation. when we have a deeper dive on that, we'll let you know. we're currently reviewing that. >> does the president have confidence in the epa administra >> the president thinks he's done a good job on the deregulation front. we'll look at it and let you know when we're finished. i'm sticking with the theme here and go to another john and then mix it up. >> two questions. last week buzz feed reported that christopher steele was claiming in a report documented

evidence the fbi had a second report on the mysterious death of mikale lesdon and the former press secretary to vladimir putin. he died at the hotel dupont. originally it was said from a fall, but this report said he was bludgeoned after by oligarchs close to putin. does the administration have any comment on this given the commentary on russia and response to russian activities abroad? >> i don't have anything specific on that incident at this point. >> the other thing is, can we have a read out from the mexican foreign ministers meeting recently, including with the white house staff. jared kushner. >> i'm sorry. i didn't get the last. >> i understand -- >> are you asking me if we're going to have a read out? >> yes. >> we're continuing in the nafta

negotiation. we feel like we've made significant progress. we'll keep you posted. >> is it important for the united states to stay in syria? >> the president has maintained all along that our focus is on defeating isis. we've made significant progress since the president took office under his leadership with a complete collapse of the caliphate there. we're continuing to make progress. we're continuing to work with our allies and partners in the region. we want to focus on transitioning to local enforcement and do that over this process to make sure that there's no reemergence of isis and take away some of the progress that we've made. so that's what we're moving to as this environment has changed because of t success under the president's leadership, wre evaluating it as we go. >> the president has expressed

his annoyance or his dissatisfaction with iran, criticized the iranian regime. wouldn't taking u.s. presence out of syria to embolden iran further? >> no. the purpose would be to transition that and train local enforcement as well as have our allies and partners in the region that have a lot more at risk to put more skin into the game. certainly that is something that the president wants to see happen. it's for them to step up and do more and that's what we're working with right now. >> follow up on that. the president said yesterday that he wanted to see american troops come out of syria, come home from syria. >> absolutely. the goal is to defeat isis. once we completely do that, we've made significant progress. when there's no longer a need for troops to be there and we can transition to that local enforcement, that would be the operative. >> what does that look like? what is the yard stick for measuring what eradicating isis

looks like based on the conditions on the ground. the military commanders are looking at. secondly. what did he tell his commanders during the meeting about how quickly he wants to see that play out? >> the president has maintained since the beginning he's not going to put an arbitrary timeline. he's measuring it in actually winning the battle, not just putting some random number out there. making sure that we actually win, which we've been doing. we're going to continue doing. that determination will be made by the department of defense and the secretary of defense, which the president has given north to do that. >> in addition to local forces -- >> to training and help transition to local forces to make sure there isn't a reemergence of is in syria. we're continuing to make sure that they're prepared to take

that step. >> and this sense of urgency about sending the national guard to the border, the secretary sized up this question. does this have anything to do with the report that the president saw on fox news? >> it has everything to do with protecting the people of this country. it shouldn't be a surprise. the president has been talking about securing the border for years. since he started on the campaign trail. he asked congress to do their job. he asked them to pass legislation that would close loop holes that would secure our border and build a wall. he asked them to do a number of things. they failed time and time again and now the president is making sure that in between the congress actually doing something, he's doing what he can to protect the people of this country and he's going to continue to do that and look at different measures that he can do that, whether it's through the national guard or through other administrative actions that he has the authority to carry out without having to involve congress since they simply -- democrats apparently can't show up and do their jobs.

>> this announcement of sending the military to the border is coming a week before the president makes his first ever trip as president to latin america. what signal does that send to the region where the united states has had a long history of military involvement that is very unpopular and how does that affect his ability to prevent the united states vision of latin american whi he's there? >> they have toughsn immigration, too. a lot of countries in central and south america have tougher laws than the united states. they probably understand that the loop holes that we have in this country are a problem and we want to be able to work with them to address it. we want people to come here but we want them to come here legally and we're not just going to have an open border where drugs and gangs and other bad actors can come. in we want these people to come here specially and legally and

through the proper process. >> just to be clear, you said earlier the white house mission is coming to a rapid end. the president said last month we should never have have left iraq. he talked about that vacuum. why would he talk about a new vacu vacuum? >> we're evaluating this as we go. progress has been made with the complete collapse of the caliphate. we want to make sure that there isn't a reemergence and we're counting on the secretary of defense and our troops on the ground and commanders on the ground to help make that determination. >> at some point, he has confidence that local forces independently will manage those countries and those situations? >> we're going to work with those individuals. we're training the local forces. we also want all of our allies

and partners to step up and do more. again, they have far greater risk being there in the region with isis. other at the greatest risk. they should step up and doing more. the president is calling on other countries to do that. steven? i'm going to keep going. >> one on scott pruitt. the president called him the other night. why? >> because he works for the president. it's routine that the president would speak to members of his own staff and cabinet. >> did he call him to keep fight something. >> i'm not going to get into words that they had. they had a call. we're reviewing the allegations. i don't have anything beyond that. one last question. >> sarah, thank you. arizona congressman tweeted using the national guard as border security is very

expensive. what would it cost to make two arrests at the guarder we can give a homeless veteran permanent housing for a year. >> you can't put a cost on american lives. the president sees securing the border as a national security issue and protecting americans. if he's so concerned, maybe he show up and support legislation to fix the problems instead of blaming the president and trying to do something about it. work with us instead of complain about it. thanks so much. hope you have a great day. >> shepard: i would have a follow up question on that if i were in that position. what will the national guard do there? when president obama sent the national guard to the border, they were there to advise and for surveillance. under the laws unless permitted by congress, the national guard cannot detain, cannot check

documents, cannot arrest, cannot do really anything along those lines. what they would be able to do is if they see someone whom they suspect to be an undocumented person coming across the border, they could call the border patrol. beyond that, couldn't check documents, couldn't detail. john roberts, the news is that the president is going to sign a proclamation to send the national guard to the border. the question is what in the world are they going to do there? >> if we look at a history, in 2006 in operation jump-start or most recently 2012 where the national guard in the force of 1,200 was placed along the border, it is to support the border patrol with logistics, observation. they were building some parts of the fence back in 2006. but they were not allowed under the rules of engagement to engage in law enforcement. looks like according to a question i asked secretary nielsen during the briefing that

it will be the same sort of rules of engagement. so what it is, it's a show of force, the ability to free up some of the border patrol agents from surveillance and other duties like that so they can be involved in the law enforcement aspect of this. the perception of this from the southern side, the u.s. is militarizing the border, it's an escalation of the tensions between the two countries and something that mexico is not fond of seeing, shep. >> shepard: jennifer griffin is our national security correspondent at the pentagon. this could happen tonight according into sarah sanders? >> that is what the heland security secretary just said. wh gotten the attention of republicans on the hill is the cost of sending the national guard down there. if you look in the past when president obama sent 1,200 troops for a year in 2010, it cost $125 million for one year.

when president bush sent 6,000 troops, it was does 450 million. the republicans on the armed services committee who have fought hard to get money for readiness issues and to fix planes, that money in the past under obama and bush came out of the operations and maintenance funds of the navy and air force. that could be a problem for dealing with these readiness issues at the pentagon. >> shepard: we just got word of the air force of a crash at nulles at las vegas. >> we just confirmed that an f-16 has crashed outside of nulles air force base. they're looking for the pilot. this comes on the heels of two crashes yesterday. one with a ch-53 stallion hell continuer, four marines were

killed there and of course in jabuti, the marine helicopter. the pilot did it eject. >> shepard: you've been reporting on these problems the last couple years. >> that's right. we started documenting the marine aviation problems, the b-1 bombers. all of this is related to money that was cut after 2011 and also money that was taken out of these operation and maintenance funds over the years from the defense budget. and the ongoing wars and the military had timely put their hands up and said we need money to deal with training pilots and fixing the planes that are falling out of the sky. >> shepard: thanks, jennifer. if you've been watching the dow, what a turn around. we reached historic territory now. the dow was down more than 500

points at the opening bell. it's now recovered all of that and up 220 something. a 700 point turn around in histor context and perspective from "your world" starting now. >> neil: this is crazy. this is really crazy. the white house really is kind of re-assuring investors at a time when the talk of the trade war was disconcerting them. so enter larry kudlow who will be joining us later on to say that yeah, the tariffs are coming and spear widespread, but the initial reaction that we're falling over 500 points on tit for tat. you can see what happens yesterday. you can see the 500-point fall-off by the beginning of the day and by day's end,