thank you, andrea. craig melvin at msnbc headquartersneyork. we start with what andrea just talked about there, victory lap for the trump administration. the court ruling 5-4, upholding the president's travel ban libya, syria, iran, yemen, somalia, north korea and ven waila, the third attempt to put a travel ban in place. he first tried to put a ban in place about a week after he took office. hallie jackson is inside that white house briefing room, standing by. hallie, again, to pick up where you just sort of left off two or three minutes ago as we wait for this tape to start playing. the president a bit of an understatement to say he's taking a bit of a victory lap. >> we've seen it. that's exactly what we're hearing. my colleagues who are in the pool who goes in for these events walked out five minutes

ago. he called it a great victory, tremendous victory and sees this clearly as validation and vindication. remember, this was not a ruling on version one. the original version of that travel ban. remember, way back, right after the inauguration. this was, instead, on v3. what we've heard from the president, so far, to my knowledge -- stop me as soon as that tape is ready and i'll stop talking. we understand that the president is reiterating what his administration said earlier, that this ruling is a tremendous victory, as the president puts it, for the american people and the constitution. the supreme court, the statement says, has up held the clear authority of the president to defend the national security of the united states. the president goes on to say later on as long as i'm president i'll defend the sovereignty, safety and security of the american people and fight for an immigration system that serves the national interest of the united states and its citizens. craig, here is the thing. i have sat in this briefing room for months and months.

this is exactly the argument that the administration, that the press secretaries, dating back to sean spicer, have made. which is the president has the constitutional authority to do things related to national security. the challengers of his travel ban, these critics, say this is based on religious animous essentially, that this is discriminatory. you see the dessentors make that point. validation for the president. he feels vindication as he is talking about what his administration has been saying all along related to this. somebody else who might see this as real vindication is steven miller, who early on became the face of the policy and the president's more hard-lined policies moving forward. >> we're told that tape is coming in. chief white house correspondent hallie jackson in the briefing room. thank you. let's listen in to president trump. we will dissect a bit of what

the president says on the other side. again, president trump speaking now in the wake of that supreme court victory. let's listen in. todas supre court ruling just coming out. a tremen success and victory for the american people and for our constitution. this is a great victory for our constitution. we have to be tough. we have to be safe and we have to be secure. at a minimum, we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country, we know who is coming in, we know where they're coming from. we just have to know who is coming here. the ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the democrat politicians are wrong and they turned out to be very wrong. and what we're looking for as republicans, i can tell you, is strong borders, no crime. what the democrats are looking at is open borders, which will

bring tremendous crime. it will bring ms-13 and lots of others that we don't want to have in our country. it will bring tremendous crime. i will always be defending the sovereignty, safety and security of the american people. that's why i was put here. we're discussing today the funding of the wall, which we very much need. we started the wall. we're spending a lot of energy and a lot of time. it started up in san diego and other places. it's under construction now. we have $1.6 billion. we're going to ask for an increase in wall spending so we can finish it quicker. it stops the drugs. it stops people that we don't want to have. and it gives us security and safety. and with that, if you -- i think we might just take a quick spin around the room, talk to a couple of folks and maybe, senator, i'll ask you -- roy, do you want to say a couple of

words about why we're here and what we're doing? >> i think with the leadership of chairman frelandheisen and shelby, we're trying to get these appropriations to the floor and on your desk as you insisted, t in an omnibus. last time we had a conference report on the senate floor -- this would be where the house passed the bill and we didn't. it was 2011. so we just passed the first three bills yesterday that the house had already passed and we're doing our best to try to get back in the business in a transparent way so that people can see what their government is doing. >> all right. that was senator roy blunt there, talking about the funding of the border wall. president trump here, as predicted, will go around the room a bit. we are not going to listen to all of that. that would bore you to tears. but we are going to go back into that room when president trump

starts to take some questions from reporters. let's bring back in our chief white house correspondent, hallie jackson. hallie, just to bring folks up to speed on what we were just hearing, president trump now saying he is going to be asking for increased funding for this border wall. is that right? >> you heard him say it, yeah. here is the thing, though. the president has asked for a specific amount in the budget he has put forward to congress. congress has worked to fulfill some of what the president has asked for. however, the president, from what i've heard, based on my conversations with sources the last couple of weeks or so, the president is very sort of focused on this particular issue, the idea of border wall and funding for this border wall, fencing or however it's going to be construed and constructed here. the real question, though, is the president's discussion on immigration -- the border wall is all about where he is on immigration. this is something, as you know, craig -- because we talked about it the last 2 1/2 years. this was a president and before

that a candidate who made immigration front and center in his campaign and now his administration. you are seeing that today with his travel ban decision. you've seen it for the last 12, 13 days as you've been covering the issues and the problems that have been happening along the border with these migrant kids separated with their families. the president wants to be tough on the border, perceived as being strong on the border. the president is continuing in these brief remarks to talk about what you heard from, for example, his press secretary and others, going after democrat s for, he says, not being tough enough. democrats come back and say it's not us. you guys control congress. this is an issue where republicans can't seem to come together to be able to pass some kind of immigration bill. as we're seeing problems happening right now in the house. the president focusing on mormon he for his border wall and, as you predicted, taking that victory lap on the supreme court decision that came out a couple of hours ago. this is the first on-camera

reaction that we are seeing from president trump. although, remember, he did tweet within 25 minutes or so after that decision came down, saying, wow! he called it the trump travel ban. sean spicer insisted when he was press secretary this is not a travel ban. it's been a long and complicated history for that particular piece of the immigration puzzle. before we listen to the president there, craig, you and i were having the conversation related to, for example, stephen miller, someone else who feels vindicated, given he was the face of the travel ban. particular particularly the early days of the administration, when it was a real, obviously, mess. and i think that's an objective way to put it. you saw chaos at the airports and confusion inside the agencies as to how this was going to be rolled out and carried out. you saw immediate legal problems for the president and the administration. and then a second and third version of what this travel ban ultimately looked like with the seven countries we've been showing on the screen, craig.

as far as other headlines out of the room i think you'll hear the president in q & a be asked about harley davidson as i mentioned moments ago with andrea mitchell and the issue of thos jobs or production that's shifting overseas because of tariffs. as we continue to follow that storline, impact that's having on the stock market and american workers as the president heads to wisconsin, home of harley davidson later on in the week, craig. plenty to talk about today. where do you want to go next? >> there's concern in wisconsin, if i'm not mistaken, about how the talk of tariffs will affect the cost of cheese and exporting cheese. it's not a joke. there's no joke in there. there's real concern coming out of that state. at least over the past few days, as it relates to the tiffs and what it means for cheese producers sbl it's not just wisconsin and it's not just cheese.

bo bourbon in kentucky. these american industries and harley davidson. these companies have been sounding the alarm for weeks. you saw predictions it would lead to a trade war and that seems to be exactly what is happening now. those retaliatory tariffs coming in from the eu and other allies and companies now being forced to respond. you look at the outlook from harley. they are planning for this to be an issue the next 18 months, i believe they said, as they talk about how it will take a while to shift production away from the united states. this is the antit hechhesis of he said he wanted. a bunch of harleys pulled up in the drive way when i was on the south lawn and the president came out and did this photo-op, talking about specifically -- mentioning his trade policies and tariffs. he simply does not have a lot of support on capitol hill for the moves that he has been making. that said, as you'll see, i think in this q & a that we'll

play in a couple of minutes, the president is insisting he's 100% right on this, craig. >> we'll go back inside for a little bit. hallie jackson, thank you. pete williams is standing by. to talk about what the supreme court decision means and does not mean perhaps as well. pete, walk us through the reasoning that we heard from the justices. >> reporter: so, to compare that to what the president just said a moment ago, he said it's a great day for the constitution. the supreme court's ruling is based largely on federal immigration statutes, not the constitution. and the court concluded that under those statutes, longstanding immigration laws, the president has the power to do this. the challenger said no, he doesn't, because immigration law says you can't just cancel immigration from a whole country. and the only thing these people had in common was their nationality. that wasn't enough. under the president's general

power to control imdprags amigrd to protect the national ty,e had the power to do this. his statements about muslims violated the constitution, were so discriminatory that they basically proved fatal and the supreme court said no, they looked at, a, whether the president has authority to do this. they concluded any president would. therefore, trump did. they said while they're aware of his statements, there was a rational basis behind the policy. and, therefore, it is upheld on both grounds. so, i don't think you can say that today's ruling, because it's confined to the facts of this case, the fact that this is the third version of the travel ban, that the administration did this review of 200 countries before they enacted and even though they ended up with five of the original seven countries on the list, that's very fact specific. the chief justice noted that there is supposed to be a very robust program to get waivers

from these restrictions so people from these countries in individual cases can still come here and that it's sse to be limited duration. that is, as soon as the country cures whatever problems the government found with its visa verification process, they can get off the list. so, for those reasons, i think it would be hard to say, because of this ruling, the president has greater authority to do what's now going on in the southwest border. they're very different issues. >> and the immediate practical effect of this is what? >> reporter: in one sense it's nothing because the administration was already enforcing the travel ban. the court in hawaii had said no, you can't. the supreme court lifted that stay in december. and that was sort of, i think, a distant early warning that the court was going to rule in favor of the president. so immediately it doesn't change anything. what the question is, what is this going to do to the lawsuit,

to be technical here for a moment. this was a decision about the injunction, the order that the hawaii judge put in place saying, you can't his law, which the court fro in december and today struck down. so there's still a lawsuit about whether this is legal and constitutional. given what the supreme court has done today, i would be very surprised if there's much left of that lawsuit and, indeed, the lawyer for hawaii seemed to say today in a sense they won the battle because all the litigation over the previous versions of the travel ban forced the administration to make this one better, craig. >> justice correspondent pete williams for us at the supreme court. pete, thanks as always, sir. >> you bet. >> let's bring in executive director of the cleveland office of the council on american islamic relations. you sued the administration over that first proposed travel ban. first of all, your reaction to today's ruling on the third version of the ban?

>> well, clearly, we're deeply disappointed. we think that the court should have seen what was very clear, that this ruling was dripping with religious animous toward the muslim community. also essentially half a century ago or approximately half a century ago, the congress decided that they did not want to have discrimination in the immigration context. unfortunately, this ruling gives kind of a green light to the president to continue his discriminatory policies toward the muslim community, hispanic, latino community and other people coming from countries that are not desirable in his eyes or the eyes of his administration. clearly, this is deeply disappointing. he may be taking a victory lap, but this is a marathon. and the arc of justice is very long, but it bends toward justice and the ownness is on the muslim community and our allies to continue this fight and this struggle.

it's clear to everyone that this muslim ban, this proclamation was clearly intended to reduce immigration from muslim countries. fox news has actually said it would reduce immigration from the muslim world by 21%. so this is clearly a problem. unfortunately, the court was not -- they didn't see it maybe because the administration has cleaned this up. but they had to use a lot of bleach to do that. >> for future reference, julia, we don't usually go citing numbers from that particular network here on the broadcast but we'll let you go since you're a new guest to the show. julia, you wrote in a column recently, american muslims have been here since before we were a nation. we have helped build this country. in short, muslims have lived in america for centuries and we are not going to accept being stigmatized by the federal government's unconstitutional muslim ban. that was from the article that you wrote there. what's next in terms of

strategy? where do you go from here? >> there are still cases pending. and it's going to be a matter of those cases to, i hope, get some of discoveryo we can actually look into what this so-called waiver procedures are. some counselor officials have said the waivers to allow people are in just really a fig leaf and that the immigration from the muslim world has slowed to a trickle. we want to look into that. the government has said it did a multi-agency review of hundreds of countries to look to see whose information-sharing policies matched what america wanted. the government refused to show that to the court. the supreme court has not even seen that. on the pretext of some vague national security concerns, the court didn't even look into that. so, we'll see. this is a long battle. i hope that that document will be revealed to the public just as the document was when a

general said that the japanese were a danger to the american people and need to be evacuated from the entire west coast. this government is saying that muslims, 1.6 billion of them, at least from muslim countries, are a danger and has broadly excluded them. we'll have to see what that country review actually looked like. apparently it was pretty thin and the government is keeping its secret from the court. we need to see some transparency on that as well. this is a long battle. it's not over. the president can certainly take his victory lap on this one. again, the arc of the moral universe is long and this is a marathon for us, not a sprint. >> julia, thank you. >> thank you. david french is a senior writer for the national review, washington post political columnist david millbank is also with me. mr. millbank, there have been a lot of folks over the past few hours who have suggested that this is a ruling that was made

possible by the blocking of merit g meritt garland. in fact, posting this image of the majority leader and justice neil gorsuch. there's the image right there. is that what this is? is this a real world result of the majority leader blocking that 2016 nomination? >> it's not even debatable, craig. there's obviously been that numerical change, very clear split. kennedy, as usual, was in the middle here. gorsuch was very clearly with the majority. we don't know what merrick garland would have done but it could have gone the other way. it's a real consequence of the court we have right now, highly unusual in that it has no elected officials, previous elected officials serve iing on.

nobody with real private sector, prior experience. and i think you see that in this kind of decision like we have today, which is sort of a debating society, decision that says well, the words religion weren't moned in the order. therefore, it's not discriminatory. other folks living in the real world would say well, that's a bunch of nonsense. but these are the consequences of those political decisions but also the tim idity of the court overall. >> my apologies in advance, by the way. we'll have to go back inside the white house in a moment. president trump is going to be taking questions from reporters in a moment. but i would love for both of you to stay put. when the president finishes going around the room with reporters, it shouldn't take more than five or six minutes, i would love to come back to you. 14 minutes, i've been told. so don't go -- you could go somewhere, use the restroom. but come back. david, we heard from a senator earlier today, from hawaii, and

she said i won't play the sound, we don't have time. she said this is a dark day for anyone in our country who cares for checks and balances. does this decision, in your view, david french, does it embolden the president as he moves forward with developing some sort of immigration policy? hold the thought. i'll start there on the other side. president trump taking question questions. >> that's what we need. border security. we've got to get going. a lot of bad things are happening. we have bad laws. we have the worst immigration laws in the history of the world, okay? it's a joke. people can't believe t other countries look at us and they say how is that possible? somebody touches our land, we now take them to a court, to a judge. they want us to choose 5,000 judges. how do you choose 5,000 judges? could you imagine the corruption, just from a normal standpoint?

just common sense. can you imagine the corruption? go to the barber shop, grab somebody. make him a judge. they want 5,000 judges more. it's crazy. other countries it's called i'm sorry, you can't come n you have to leave. this one, we have judges. if they step on our land we have judges. it's insane. we'll have to change our whole immigration policy. i was saying in south carolina last night when i came in, i inherited some things. we inherited north korea. that's going really well. we inherited horrible trade deals. that's going really well. nobody knows what's happening behind the scenes. these countries that have been really -- they can't even -- i don't blame them. i blame our people. they have been ripping us for years. they wanted to negotiate so badly, you have no idea. we entered a lot of different things. of all of them, immigrati

makes the least sense. it's a hodge podge of laws that have been put together over years. it's called i'm sorry, you can't come in. you have to go through a legal process. you don't have to see a judge where the judge will take three years before you can come back. meantime you never come back because you're already in the country. you're some place in the country. and that would be bad but it's really bad when it's a criminal. and we have plenty of them coming into the country this way. and they use the children. they use these young children for their own benefit. we have to change the whole immigration picture. we'll be able to do it. we need the border wall. we need the border. we need border security and modern equipment and we'll get it done. i have no doubt. anybody else would like to say something? anybody? are we okay? we'll let these guys go out and have lunch. >> on trade, there are some people who are saying that your

tariff threats threaten to plunge the economy into a recession. harley davidson announced its moving a plant to thailand. >> they announced it earlier this year. harley davidson is using that as an excuse and i don't like that, because i've been very good to harley davidson. they used it as an excuse. the people that ride harleys are not happy with harley davidson. and i wouldn't be either. but mostly companies are coming back to our country. i was the one who explained to harley about the 100% tax in ind india, where they had a tariff of 100%. i got it down to a much lower number. i think it's 50%, which is far too much. they were paying 100% tariff. now prime minister modi brought it way down. it's still way too high. i will say this, john. other countries are negotiating and without tariffs, you could never do that. and if they don't want to negotiate, then we'll do the tariffs.

just remember, we're the bank. we're the bank that everybody wants to steal from and plunder. and it can't be that way anymore. we lost $500 billion last year with china. we lost $151 billion with the european union, which puts up trade barriers so our farmers can't trade. we can't send farm product in for the most part. we want the tariffs removed. what i would like to do and what i offered at the g7, you remember. i said let's drop all tariffs and all barriers. is everybody okay with that? and nobody said yes. i said wait a minute, folks. you're complaining. no tariffs and no barriers. you're on your own. let's do it. and it was like, they couldn't leave the room fast enough. >> people say it's a risky business here.

you could tip the economy into recession and then what do you plan to do -- >> we're so high up. we picked up 40 -- if you look at the kind of numbers we've picked up, it's up almost 40%, the mark. the real market is the overall. and it's up much more than that. but we picked up about $8 trillion in value doing what we're doing. now we've got a little bit of uncertainty because of trade. to me, there's no uncertainty. to other people that happen to be smart, there's no uncertainty. but we can't allow the european union to take out $151 billion out of the united states. we can't allow mexico to have a nafta deal that gives them over $100 billion. and i call it profit. you know, can you divide that up any way you want to do t i call it profit. we can't allow mexico to take $100 billion. we can't give china anywhere

from 375 to 100 it shall to 500. it's 375, some people, depending on your formula. it could be $5.4 billion. we have to straighten it out. what's happening? we put steel tariffs on. u.s. steel just announced they're expanding or building six new facilities. last night in south carolina, right? georgetown steel. the factory is plenty has been closed? >> about three years. georgetown steel bought steel to make steel here. >> solar panels, 30% tariffs. they were all being made in behinda. we have 32 different factories. now they're starting to open new plants because solar is pretty

new technology. we had 32 that were open. everyone else was closed because of what happened and what came in from other places, in particular china. now we have seven that are opening and many more considered -- and the two that were dying, they were going to close, they're thriving right now. washing machines. they were being dumped all over the country. not good ones, by the way. ones that didn't work really well. now they're opening up wash iin machines. we put a 30% tariff on. so, tariffs could be a very positive thing. in the old days when we had tariffs, we didn't have income tax. when people wanted to come in, you look at the days of mckinley and some others. when people wanted to come in, they had to pay a price. when they want to come in and raid our treasury, we had to pay a price. you didn't need income tax. we didn't have debt. so we're doing this, i will say, in every instance every country -- any country that you can mention has been extremely

nice, even less to the media probably. extremely nice. they want to negotiate a deal. and we're open to that. we're open to that. but it's going to be very strong. we are putting on tariffs in sern industries. we can't lose our steal industry. our steel industry was ready to go out of business. it was at the bottom. our aluminum industry was ready to go out of business. now the steel industry is thriving. think of it. united states steel. first time in 35 years, they're actually expanding. it's going up. they're building new places. georgetown steel, closed for three or four years. they announced yesterday they're opening up their plant. it's been closed for four years, i think they said, in south carolina. no. we're doing the right -- 100%. you know you have it on both sides. some people agree, some people don't agree. bottom line is that companies are coming back now to

negotiate, including european union that wants to negotiate. because if they don't, we're going to tax their cars. mercedes in, bmws in. they pay almost no tax. when we send cars to the european union, they charge us a tremendous tax. five times greater than what we charge them. more importantly, they don't want our cars. they have a barrier. we don't want your cars. but if you do get it in, you're going to pay tax. with china, if we send a car to china, they charge us a 25% tax. so we make a car, send it to china. we want to compete. that's not free trade. that's stupid trade. we send 25% tax. when they make a car in china and they send it here, we charge them 2.5%. okay. so, we get 2.5%. china gets 25%. that's not fair. that's not free.

>> mr. president in terms of chinese investment restrictions i think you have an announcement -- >> it's not just chinese. it's we don't want people coming in -- hey, look, we are a very smart country. we have the most incredible people in silicon valley. we don't want china and other countries -- it's not necessarily or particularly -- because they covered it incorrectly. they had a leaker that doesn't exist or a electricer that doesn't know his business very we well. they gave it to bloomberg and, i believe, "the wall street journal." it was either a bad leak by somebody they didn't know or they made up the story. i think a lot of leaks aren't leaks, they're made up by the writers. they don't exist. this was a leak that was just off. we want to have our jewels. those are our great jewels. that's like united states steel from 70 years ago, these companies. we have to protect these companies. we can't let people steal that

technology. we have the greatest technology in the world. people copy it and steal it. we have the great sin scientists, the great brains and we have to protect that and we're going to protect it. that's what we were doing. that can be done through a lot of different means and we're working that out. we have charged a very substantial tax to some people. they are coming back to negotiate. frankly, if they don't negotiate, i'm okay with that. i would rather get the tax. >> the supreme court ruling was a tremendous victory for this country. and for the constitution. the supreme court ruling was a tremendous victory for our country. >> will you go ahead with it, sir? >> of course. what do you think, i wouldn't go ahead with it? >> are you also emboldened to the idea of deporting people without due process as well? >> we have to find a system where you don't need thousands

of judges sitting at a border. other countries look at us and they think we're crazy. what kind of a thing is that? they have countries where they have no problem with people pouring in. and you have countries where people do want to go in. if you look at the european uni union, they're meeting right now to toughen up their immigration policies because they've been overrun. they've been overrun. and, frankly, a lot of those countries are not the same places anymore. and i'm sad to say it. and i said that at the g7. they are not the same places. but we had a tremendous victory today. and we greatly appreciate it. we needed it, as a country. that was a big victory for -- i can tell you everyone at this table is very happy about it. but that was a big victory for our country. okay? >> is that your final word, sir? >> i think it's pretty much the final word. it's the supreme court. we went up, just waited for the supreme court. yeah, that's the final word,

supreme court. now do i want to go in with a different one acres different variety? i don't think there's any reason. it's a very strong victory. very strong. >> in terms of wall funding you said you wanted an increase. >> spending $1.6 billion now. there's a plan for another $1.6 billion. i would like to ask this room if we could increase it in light of what's happened with the drugs, human smuggling, with all the problems, we have to have the wall. we have to have the wall. you know, in the wall, you have ports of entry. that's what people come through. and they can come through legally. by the way, i want people to come into our country. our country is doing so well. and we have companies moving in to our country like at numbers that nobody has seen in a long time. we need workers. so i want people to come in. they have to come in through the merit system, though. they have to come in so that they can help our country and these companies. in wisconsin, you have one of the great companies of the

world, fox cot. they make the lap tops for apple and iphones and they're ing a tremendous plant right now in wisconsin. they need workers. i have to let people come in. but they have to come in through merit. they have to be people that can love our country and help our country. thank you all very much. >> president trump there, a few moments ago at the white house, taking questions from reporters there in the room. it was, shall we say, wide ranging in terms of scope. the president talking about tariffs, the president talking about trade. the president, of course, talking about immigration as well at one point, dispelling the notion that you need a bunch of judges along the border to help decide who should get into this country and who should not. also the president, at one point, talking about washing machines and there being some sort of abundance of good washing machines being discarded all over the united states of america.

let's go back to the panel. david french is standing by and "washington post" columnist david millbank. if you want to respond to anything you just heard in the oval office, that's fine. because i cut you off before. i did want to get your take on whether you think the supreme court decision will embolden this president as he moves forward with trying to tackle the immigration policy now. >> no. i think that the supreme court decision, if he's actually reading it properly -- that's a completely different question from how he's going to actually read it. but if he reads it properly it's really a focused decision that says here is a federal statute, passed by congress, that gives the president an enormous amount of latitude in this one particular area. it says, you know, when there's a finding that's in the interest of the united states he can bar from entry any alien or any class of aliens. this is an enormously broad statute. that's what justice roberts pointed out. so this wasn't -- the president

shouldn't be thanking the court. he should be thanking congress. and if we don't like this level of authority being delegated to the chiefxecutive this area, as in many other areas, like trade, it's time for congress to start to think about taking back some of its power. >> if congress actually decided it wanted to start regulating tariffs, as the founders intended, then lawmakers could have done that. i mean, i guess that's a separate conversation to a certain extent. really quickly before we move on to the congressman who is standing by, this immigration -- we heard the president last night in south carolina talk about it. we just heard him talk about it there. we are, roughly, six months away from the mid term. are we getting a preview here of the single issue that president trump thinks is probably going to be able to help him keep control of the house and senate? is it all going to come down to immigration? is this a winning issue for this administration?

>> certainly this is what president trump believes would be the winning issue for republicans. it's not as all clear that that's what the issue is going to be. he wants to make it about ms-13 and sanctuary cities. the idea is to motivate the same base that came out for him in 2016. the thing is he's antagonized a much larger base and we're beginning to see all kinds of other problems, most recently with the harley davidson situation. so i think this is where the president would like to direct things. but it's not entirely clear that he's going to be successful at doing that. that's not exactly where the electorate is now. >> i know you were listening to the president there take questions. you correct me if i misheard him. he seemed to confirm that he

asked lawmakers for $1.6 billion in additional funding for his border wall, despite the fact that telling us for the better part of a year that mexico was going to pay for t he has asked for $1.5 billion to fund the wall and wanted to ask for more because drugs and human smuggling have increased at such an unprecedented clip. is that what you heard? >> that seemed to be what i heard. when he's talking in sort of free form it goes back and forth and twists around a little bit. i always wait a beat after he has one of these impromptu conferences and then i begin to see what comes out of the administration after this. if you listen to one of these impromptu conferences, he has endorsed clean dream act in the past, he has attacked the nra and things like this all to have it walked back. i'm much more interested in what are the formal policy proposals put forward. >> sound like what i'm hearing

from david french is we shouldn't really listen to the president of the united states. we shouldn't listen to what he says. we should wait a day or so until the people around him manage to clean it up. i feel like that's what you're saying. >> well, i think what i'm saying is what he actually says often does not end up becoming a policy proposal. i think that much is accurate. >> all right. >> this business with the washing machines, i think that's going to be very important. >> we have to get to the bottom of it. i did not know. and maybe where you live that's a problem but where i live there's not washing machines littering the streets. >> democrat from south carolina, assistant democratic leader as well. sir, thank you for your time. >> thank you so much for having me, craig. >> let's start with your general reaction to the supreme court's decision this morning. >> it was a disappointing decision. it was not a surprising one to me.

i think that we are beginning to see with each one of these sp m supreme court decisions exactly what the answer to president trump's question was before the election, when he asked, especially the black community, what do you have to lose? well, we're finding out now exactly what we have to lose. and one of them is our good neighbor policy that we have practiced as a country for a long time. i grew up in -- and one thing i learned was being a or is not defined by church membership or ethnicity. it is designed by whoever can show compassion for one that is in need. and this, to me, is not a good neighbor decision on the part of the supreme court. >> your colleague, congresswoman maxine waters, continues to face a fair amount of criticism for

calling on people to harass trump administration officials in public. democrats, congressmen, appear to be backed into a corner a bit here. if you speak out too forcefully, you're labeled uncivil. if you don't, you're called spineless. how do you go about capturing legitimate opposition? what's going to be the strategy for your party heading into the mid terms? >> my opposition to this administration has to do with its policy. and some of its practices. not its rhetoric. i don't pay a whole lot of attention to the president's rhetoric. and everybody is free, in my opinion, to practice their own. we have heard president trump talk about people, be very disparaging in tone and even several weeks ago, months now, he talked about low iq maxine. he even had some of his supporters that talked about her

hairstyle in derogatory ways. now they're speaking to their base. maxine is speaking to her base. as far as i'm concerned, one is no more uncredible than the other. >> you don't do that, congressman. >> no. >> you never engaged in name calling and vilifying. that's never been your style. >> no, it's not. as i said to a group of young people this morning, i was taught at an early age that the best sign of a good education is good manners. and i try to practice a sign of a good education in what i do where i interact with people. my way of doing it is what i think is required and expected by my base supporters and other people do what they think is required by their base of voters. i would never say anything, or the things that trump says about

people. i would never say that, even in private. i wouldn't say it. he speaks to his base. maxine speaks to her base. i'm not going to take what trump says or maxine waters says. i'm only going to be responsible with how i deal with my fellow man and how i express myself in public places. >> president trump, as you know, was in our home state last night, in south carolina, not far from your district, in fact, the district that borders yours. >> yes. >> this is whate said about the democratic party. >> this has become the party of maxine waters and nancy pelosi. that's what it is. >> is that true, congressman? are they the face of the democratic party? >> this is the party of jim clyburn, jim smith and we have a big tent party and i'm pleased

to be part of it. this party is not defined by any one or two people. this party is defined by the broad brush of the american people. people who are basically good people. years ago, the greatness of america is built upon the goodness of americans. and if americans fail to be good, this country will fail to be great. >> who is the leader of the democratic party, though? >> well, we have a lot of people. nancy pelosi is the leader of the house democrats. schumer is the leader of the senate democrats. we have other leaders in our party, based upon what entity you may be speaking of. schumer has nothing to do with house democrats or very little. same thing with nancy with senate democrats.

we are defined by the roles to be played and we are responsible for our own reactions and interactions with our constituents. that's why i'm standing here in front of will rogers. the party which is not an organized party of democrats. >> back and forth with reporters, the president, congressman, talked about georgetown steel. i know your district, like a lot of districts, it's kind of carved out a little weirdly. is georgetown steel in your district? >> no, it's not. georgetown steel is in georgetown, which was in my district until ten years ago. >> how convenient. congressman jim clyburn, always a pleasure, sir. thank you. >> thank you. >> president trump insisting that his new tariffs will create a level playing field for american workers. why, then, does it now seem to be driving out some u.s.

companies like harley davidson? >> we'll also be talking to a reporter watching markets. that's what this reporter does, this particular reporter anyway. all this tariff talk has investors really worried about a possible recession now. man 1: no matter how full our days are... woman 1:...with our tempur-pedic we get a deep, restful sleep. man 2: my tempur-pedic relieves pressure like no other mattress. woman 2: and we stay cool and comfortable all night long. now is the best time to experience tempur-pedic sleep for yourself. during our july 4th sales event, purchase a tempur-luxe or tempur-breeze mattress and enjoy $500 off. or get a free adjustable base upgrade. experience the most highly recommended bed in america today. find your exclusive retailer at tempurpedic.com

but how do i know if i'm i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to . this is truecar.

with the right steps, hasn't left my side. 80% of recurrent ischemic strokes could be prevented. a bayer aspirin regimen is one step to help prevent another stroke. so, i'm doing all i can to stay in his life. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

if you look at the kind of numbers we picked up it's up almost 40% the market. the real market is the overall, and the overall is up much more than that. now, we have gotten a little bit of uncertainty because of trade, to me there's no uncertainty, and to other people who happen to be smart there's no uncertainty. >> i didn't really understand what the president was tking abouthere so i brought in a guy who does. president trump just a few minutes ago throwing often market fears. harley davidson says it's going to have to move some of its production over seas because of that tariff war. and president trump says if it does, he promised it would be the beginning of the end, again, not sure what the tweet means, but right now, a look at the markets, stocks actually doing okay compared to where they had been over this time over the

past few days, analysts, watching trump's trade comments very closely, they're wondering what could come next. ben is a cnbc contributor, the headlines, sir, of your new piece, sufficiently terrifying for a lot of folks who watch the markets closely. there's the headline, trump's trade wars triggers recession fears. what's driving those fears and what do you make from what the president said a few minutes ago? >> we have to unpack a lot of what he said on trade deficits, which is fueled by a misunderstanding on how trade works. the first thing is the economy is doing well, we have good jobs growth, good wage growth, but we have this big negative overhang and that's the fraytrade wars, companies like harley davidson

doesn't want to pay the higher tariffs from europe, so they make their product in europe so they don't have to pay the higher tariffs. what the cost of their materials will be, it means maybe they don't build a plant, maybe they don't create a bunch of jobs, sand if there's one real risk to this economy right now, it is donald trump, and you take away nafta and you've taken up a lot of the supply trade, one of the risks of going into recession, the biggest one is donald trump. >> u.s. trade policy, something that president trump talked about a lot on the campaign trail, it remains to be seen if lawmakers will actually act on immigration. but the president's rhetoric and his action on immigration, how do they fit into this conversation we're having about the larger economy? >> they're enormously important. we're at 3.8% unemployment,

which is tied to the lowest in 30 years. we look at the biggest problems workers are having is to find jobs, both skilled and unskilled. i talked to voters in idaho, they're very worried about undocumented people coming into this country, because he cannot milk his cows if he doesn't have foreign born workers. our workforce is getting older, baby boomers retiring, not having as many kids, we need more immigrants to come into this country to take jobs and pay challenges. >> 30 seconds here, president trump likes to tout market success, he likes to do it in rallies, he likes to do it on twitter as well. how much of this booming economy, if you want to characterize it that way, how much of it can the president

really take credit for? >> he can certainly take credit for the tax cut package which was helpful to the stock market, they're going to pay lower taxes, and trump is take credit for that. right now the dow is falling, there's a lot of uncertainty in the market, that is directly over his trade policies, nafta, all of those things. under president obama, the economy was doing pretty well. but he does get some credit for boosting them a little bit with tax cuts but he can take them down again with trade. >> you always make sense out of things, we appreciate it so much. we'll be right back with a story guaranteed to make you smile.

i's prty amazing out there. the world is full of more possibilities than ever before. and american express has your back every step of the way- whether it's the comfort of knowing help is just a call away with global assist. or getting financing to fund your business. no one has your back like american express. so where ever you go. we're right there with you. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. don't live life without it.

wmust have cost a lot. a fancy hotel. actually, i got a great deal. priceline saves you up to 60% on hotels, but that's something the hotels don't really want other guests to know. i saved about 120 dollars a night! did you say you saved 120 dollars a night on a room? 120 a night on a hotel room... that's a lot of savings! i saved even more on my flight. save up to 60% on hotels with priceline. new family connections, every day.llion that's me discover new relatives. people who share your dna.

and maybe a whole lot more. order your kit at ancestrydna.com

. well, we want to send you off with a smile on this tuesday. thecorching heat of the tar heels state has forced kids to get creative there. sunday, the men from engine 18 saw kids trying to fill their kiddie pool with pots of water from the sink. so the group of firefighters there in charlotte, north carolina, they helped those neighborhood kids beat the heat with a simple act of kindness. they hooked upz the ee eed up t filled the pool for them and even stayed to make some memories. steve is standing by, he'll have you smiling and thinking as well. >> it's 11:00 a.m. out west 2:00 p.m. in washington, where just

hours ago the supreme court handed president trump a immigration victory, upholding his travel ban on majority muslim nations. the president took the opportunity to take a victory lap. >> today's supreme court ruling, just coming out, a tremendous success, a tremendous victory for the american people, and for our constitution. we have to be tough, and we have to be safe and we have to be secu secure. at a minimum, we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country. the ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the democrat politicians are wrong and they turned out to be very wrong. >> the decision from the supreme court, comes after two earlier attempts by the administration to enforce similar executive orders. this one restricts travel from iran, libya, north korea,