This is a rush transcript from "The Story," June 27, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARTHA MACCALLUM, ANCHOR: Hi there, Bret. Indeed we do. Thanks. All right, everybody. Breaking tonight, round two of the Democratic debate as they get ready to take the stage.

And as Nancy Pelosi gives in and accepts Mitch McConnell and the Senate's immigration deal after pressure from House Democrats. Which this bill we expect will make its way to the president's desk. And we also expect that because of all of this, this week, the border is destined to be a very hot topic again this evening.

But before we hear from the next round, let's dig into the ideas that were put forth last night which argued that United States taxpayers should be sending more money and more aid to bolster Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Got a lot of applause. Watch this.


JULIAN CASTRO, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Go to the root cause of the issue, which is we need a Marshall Plan for Honduras, and Guatemala, and El Salvador. So, the people can find safety and opportunity at home instead of coming to the United States to seek it.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We need to make sure that we address the issues that made Oscar and Valeria come in the first place, by making major investments in the northern triangle, not like this president is doing. By ripping away the resources, we need to actually solve this problem.


MACCALLUM: So, is that true? Is that the way that we should go here? An in-depth look at the situation shows that economically, in terms of the way -- you know, the global markets look at countries, Honduras, and Guatemala, and El Salvador, are considered to be financially stable.

They enjoy, in fact, in many cases the same international credit as big countries like Brazil and Mexico. But they choose not to provide a social net for their poor. In fact, they have in their own legislatures voted down plans that would raise taxes among their own people in order to do so.

And it seems like they like this arrangement that pushes their poor to leave their countries and take these dangerous journeys coming up to America. Once they get here, they work and then they send a lot of money back to the country.

Take a look at this Bloomberg chart that was published today. The pattern shows that these countries are getting 30 times more from America this way with this plan as they do in aid. And they don't have to provide any meaningful services then, for the poor people who leave their country and go elsewhere.

We're going to debate this with Andy Puzder and Austan Goolsbee in just a moment. But first, we want to go back to Miami. Chief National Correspondent Ed Henry live there as we gear up for what will no doubt be a very interesting round two tonight. Hi, Ed.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It will. Good to see you, Martha. Immigration was just one of several issues where we saw a leftward turn last night. When I covered the 2015-2016 Democratic debates, Bernie Sanders socialist ideas we're sort of outliers, now, they're the norm.

Take a look at some of these. Bill de Blasio, pushing a 70 percent tax rate for the rich. He and Elizabeth Warren raising their hands and saying they want to end all private health insurance in America affecting millions of people. And Jay Inslee vowing to end all fossil fuel production within a decade.

On the border crisis, you saw Julian Castro there. He is all in unchanging a section of U.S. law to actually decriminalize illegal border-crossing. Now, the buzz I'm hearing privately from some Democrats here is that with really no major standout in the field so far, Castro really stood out a bit last night as he appeared to flummox Beto O'Rourke.

Remember him? He was somebody who the mainstream media had predicted would be a giant in this field, maybe the next Obama, not so much. Watch.


BETO O'ROURKE, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I helped to introduce legislation that would ensure that we don't criminalize those who are seeking asylum and refuge in this country.


CASTRO: I'm not talking about -- I'm not talking about the once that are seeking asylum. I'm talking about -- I'm talking about everybody else.

O'ROURKE: If you're fleeing -- if you're fleeing desperation, then I want to make sure -- I want to make sure that you're treated with respect.

CASTRO: I'm still talking about everybody else.

O'ROURKE: But you're looking --

CASTRO: Section 18, Title 18 of the U.S. Code -- Title 21 and Title 22, already covered human trafficking.

I think that you should do your homework on this issue. If you did your homework on this issue, you would know that we should repeal this section.


HENRY: Do your homework, Castro said. He stood out in part because of his reaction to this haunting image of that father and daughter drowning near the southern border. Castro answered what he would do on day one of his presidency to try to deal with the crisis, while O'Rourke never quite directly answered.

Now, just a few months ago, top Democrats though were opposing the president's national emergency, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, both claiming it was a manufactured crisis. Interesting, Castro at one point recently called the border crisis B.S. He and many Democrats though, are now saying, it is a crisis as they tried to score political points on the president.

By the way, Congress tonight passing a multi-billion dollar aid bill that deal with the border crisis. But a lot of Democrats were not on board. A defeat for Nancy Pelosi because it didn't have the restrictions in the bill that she wanted. Martha.

MACCALLUM: Ed, thank you so much. Ed Henry, live tonight in Miami as we gear up for the debate. Joining me now, Andy Puzder, author of The Capitalist Comeback, and former CEO of CKE Restaurants. Austan Goolsbee, President Obama's former chief economist and economics professor at the University of Chicago. Gentlemen, thank you both. Always good to have both of you with us.

You know, this article, this piece by Bloomberg really struck me this morning. And Andy, I want to start with you on it. Because there was all kinds of applause last night that, you know, what we need is to help these people who everyone is sympathetic towards at home. But it -- you know, is that a formula that actually adds up that would be successful?

ANDY PUZDER, FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF CKE RESTAURANTS: No, it's not a formula that adds up at all. And they've got to solve their own problems down. Here, we're spending a lot of money in this country trying to solve ours. We were $800 billion short last year with respect to our budget. We don't have the money to go and solve Guatemala's problems or the problems in Honduras or El Salvador.

Should we try and help them solve those problems? Should we do what we can to try and lift those people as we do people across the world? Sure, we should. But the idea that our government's going to go down there and solve the problems in what they call the northern triangle is ridiculous.

There's terrible violence down there, gang violence, there's drugs, there's excessive poverty. This is not a problem we can solve, it's a problem we can help them with, but it's not one we can solve ourselves.

MACCALLUM: So, you know Austan, it feels like the thinking and the focus last night was not so much on -- you know, organizing the border better so that people are safer when they go through this process. The things that got big applause was that we need to -- we need to send more. We need to do a Marshall Plan equivalent of a post-World War II plan to rehabilitate these economies, which the bond market appears to think are pretty stable.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, FORMER ECONOMIC ADVISER TO BARACK OBAMA: Well, I didn't - - that was one of the candidates said that one time. I think there was --


MACCALLUM: Two of them. We played -- we just played Booker and Castro.

GOOLSBEE: Yes, well, Booker didn't call for a Marshall Plan. I think that -- I thought it was interesting that the --


MACCALLUM: No, but he said what we need to do is go -- we need to send aid and help those countries. And we need to help those people where they live is what he said.

GOOLSBEE: Yes, but the interesting thing, I don't disagree with Mr. Puzder that the United States cannot solve those problems, but I think we can help. And historically, when the United States has assisted, for example, in anti-crime, anti-drug, anti-violence measures, that has reduced the amount of immigration to the United States.


MACCALLUM: Yes, what's we're doing help. Yes.

GOOLSBEE: So, as a factual matter, I think it is worth not trying to blow up their economies or threaten them. The Trump administration has been threatening economic sanctions and ending all aid.

I don't know that you need to go to a Marshall Plan. I don't think it's predominantly economic aid. That's as effective as so much as institution building for the government.

MACCALLUM: All right.

GOOLSBEE: And the repatriations, don't really do that. The money that goes back to the countries now from the people here (INAUDIBLE).

MACCALLUM: No, and I mean, if anybody thinks that the governments in these countries are going to disperse that money set to help the poor people in their countries, you know, they should just look at the way that the governments are functioning right now. They don't even have basic social safety, net they're happy that everybody is leaving and joining caravans to get out of their country and --


PUZDER: And so I -- but I think the president wants to see these countries do something before we help them. It's not that you help them, and you send money down. There you want to see some reaction on their part. And they have the ability to act and they're not acting.

MACCALLUM: All right. And I want to play this sound bite from Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez because she was very angry that Nancy Pelosi went for the Senate deal today. Let's play that.


CHRIS CUOMO, ANCHOR, CNN: By opposing both bills, aren't you just ultimately depriving these kids of housing facilities that they need?

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: The problems right now and the question at hand right now is that Mitch McConnell sent us a bill, and we're just putting a big checkmark on it. Instead of even trying to negotiate.



PUZDER: Thank God for Mitch McConnell and the -- and the U.S. Senate. The -- and the Democrats who voted with Mitch McConnell. I think the bill passed with 83 votes. It was a good bill, it didn't restrict our abilities to deal with immigration at the border. The Democrats bill would not only -- what they wanted to provide under the auspices of trying to (INAUDIBLE) protection for children, they were going to restrict funding for ICE, they were going to make it more difficult for us to enforce our laws at the border. Thank God, we got a bill that doesn't do that and does provide, at least, temporary funding.

We still need a final solution. This bill is -- you know it's just a temporary solution. We need to resolve the issues down there. We need to deal with the Flores decision.

MACCALLUM: Well, and as a Graham said today -- Lindsey Graham is it's basically a band-aid. I want to play President Obama back in 2007 when he was in a debate talking about immigration. And Austan, I want to get your final thought on that before we go.


BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: The Bush administration has done nothing to control the problem that we have. We've had 5 million undocumented workers come over the borders since George Bush took office. It has become an extraordinary problem. And the reason the American people are concerned is because they are seeing their own economic position slip away.


MACCALLUM: I mean, it's very interesting to look back at that Austan. We didn't hear a lot, you know, last night that -- you know, the tenor of the conversation has changed so dramatically since then. Why do you think that is?

GOOLSBEE: Well, I mean the two reasons. Number one, in the run-up period to 2007 that he's describing, there was a dramatic increase in the number of undocumented people in the United States coming from Mexico. After the financial crisis and the recession, the number of undocumented workers in the United States actually fell quite a lot.

So, I think one reason that the tone has changed is the nature of the problem has changed quite significantly. And I think the second is you saw the Trump administration come in and take a series of actions that were viewed to be tough, harsh, whatever you want to call it. The zero- tolerance policy where they started separating kids from their parents.


GOOLSBEE: And now this -- the new developments where they've got kids in conditions that would literally violate the Geneva Conventions if they were prisoners of war. That has just completely changed the tone of how the Democrats are just in immigration.


MACCALLUM: Well, I mean everybody from the top of Homeland Security, all the way down has been warning that these situations were going to become overwhelming and untenable. And they've been asking for more money for months on this. So, it's good that today, they finally got it to at least, put a band-aid on it and start to hopefully solve the problem. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

PUZDER: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: Andy and Austan, great to see you both.


PUZDER: Great to see you.

MACCALLUM: When we come back tonight, comparing today's Democratic Party to the party of the past. From abortion to immigration, is there a sharp turn and are the people who are Democrats in America supportive of where it is going?

Democrat John Delaney who pushed back on his colleagues a bit last night on healthcare, he is up next. Along with former DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile, next.



OBAMA: If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor too. The only change you'll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.


MACCALLUM: So you remember when that was the conversation in the country about ObamaCare. Tonight, ten more candidates are going to take the stage in Miami for their first Democratic presidential debate. And while round two has some of the big hitters including Joe Biden, last night's faceoff had a moment that may linger in this race to the White House.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government-run plan just to show hands to start out with?


MACCALLUM: So that was up -- hands from Bill de Blasio, the Mayor of New York City and Elizabeth Warren Senator from Massachusetts raising their hands for the idea of Medicare for all and the end of private insurance has dominated the conversation with Warren, and Sanders, and Kamala Harris initially saying that if you like your insurance you can't keep it.

But former Congressman John Delaney pushed back on this last night bucking the mindset of many in his party and garnering quite a bit of attention for doing so.


JOHN DELANEY, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think we should be the party that keeps what's working and fixes what's broken. I mean, doesn't that make sense? I mean, we should give everyone in this country health care as a basic human right for free full stop, but we should also give them the option to buy private insurance. Why do we have to stand for taking away something from people?


MACCALLUM: Here now 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidate John Delaney in Miami, fresh off his debate performance last night. Sir, good to have you with us.

DELANEY: Thanks for having me.

MACCALLUM: Did you get a lot of good response from that today?

DELANEY: I did. I think people saw me as a truth teller which I am about every issue. And I think they saw me as someone who is pragmatic and practical and uses common sense and tries to solve problems which I do. And those -- that has been the theme of my campaign from the beginning and I think this race is going to start breaking down into those camps.

There's a bunch of folks out there with impossible promises or pie-in-the- sky ideas, things that we all know are never going to happen like writing off all the student debt in our country. It's a crazy idea actually, versus people actually have real solutions that can help the American people and improve their health care and lower cost of education and make public schools better and create jobs and those kinds of things. So I think I accomplished that mission.

MACCALLUM: All right, there was a Politico article today by Jeff Greenfield and I just want to read that the back part of it here it says, in suggesting that a major plank of two potential nominees could wreak havoc on the system, John Delaney may have left a ticking time bomb on his party's hopes for the White House. Meaning that that moment may have you know may have done some damage. What do you say to that?

DELANEY: Well, listen I think it's a terrible plan. The single-payer Medicare-for-all that these people are all getting behind is a terrible kind of health care policy and it's terrible politics. I believe we will lose the election if we put up a nominee who runs on this. Because if you go to the American people, half of which have private insurance and a lot of them like it including our seniors, by the way, Martha.

About half of our seniors have something called Medicare Advantage which they select. That's private insurance. How are we going to do as a party if we're running on taking away the Medicare plan that half of our seniors have chosen? This is one example. And I think everyone has been afraid to talk about this and we've kind of mindlessly been following Senator Sanders who's not even a Democrat by the way on this issue.

I mean Senator Warren outsourced her whole health care platform to Senator Sanders. We've been mindlessly following him on this. And meanwhile, I'm like, someone's got to stand up and talk about this because I can assure you if we put a nominee up who runs on this, Donald Trump is going to talk about it. He's not -- he's never going to shut up about it.

MACCALLUM: So you talked about you know talking to your dad about it. I thought that was kind of an interesting moment. You know, you said, I don't want to tell my dad that I'm going to have to take away the health insurance that he's been you know, enjoying and using all these years.

But is your dad -- is your dad a Democrat and did your dad -- what does he think when he looks at the party today? I'm just curious.

DELANEY: Well, so my dad passed away two years ago but I always think about him.

MACCALLUM: Oh, I'm sorry.

DELANEY: Well, thank you. But he was a union electrician in the IBEW for 60 years. I mean he to me is what is the Democratic Party that I grew up in, the party of the working class and of the working family. He loved his health insurance from the IBEW. And he was also a bit of -- you know, he was suspicious of things.

So if someone would have came and said to him you know, Jack Delaney, we're going to take away your IBEW healthcare, but trust us we're going to give you this great government plan and it's going to be better. He would have been like you're not taking away my health care and my dad wouldn't vote for that person. And my dad was a true-blue working-class Democrat his whole life.

MACCALLUM: John Delaney --

DELANEY: So you know, I always give it to Jack Delaney test with what he would he say about it. He'd applaud me for making sure everyone has health care, but he'd be like, why do you got to mess with my health care?

MACCALLUM: I can hear your dad I don't even know him. He probably sounds like a lot of dads around the country. So thank you very much for sharing your story about him and good to see you tonight. Thank you, sir.

DELANEY: Thanks. Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So here now with more Donna Brazile, former Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Mike Huckabee the former Arkansas Governor and former presidential candidate, both are Fox News Contributors. I want to start by just playing about half a minute of some of the highlights from last night and then we'll go to you Donna and get your response.


SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health care services and that includes birth control, it includes abortion, it includes everything for a woman.

CASTRO: Just because a woman or let's also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female is poor, doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to exercise that right to choose.

O'ROURKE: It's going to take all of us coming together to make sure that it does.


MACCALLUM: Donna, what did you think of last night?

DONNA BRAZILE, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I thought last night debate was heavy on substance and light on personal insults and gratuitous attacks. Tonight is another main event for the Democrats because we're going to see the frontrunners compete on the stage.

And remember they're still several of the candidates who are going to try to introduce themselves. Martha, as you well know the Democratic Party, we have a diversity of opinions, and diversity of views, and of course of diversity of candidates.

The thing I like is that they all enjoy talking policies. Some I agree with, some I disagree with but it's going to be a great night tonight to watch the frontrunners compete as well.

MACCALLUM: You know, I'm just reading through a lot of the reviews this morning and kind of looking back at some of the sound bites. I was thinking about what it used to look like. You know, what -- the kinds of things that people talked about in the past and the way they approach some of the issues that we just heard about in that -- in that montage.

This is Hillary Clinton and President Obama back in 2007 which isn't terribly -- that terribly long ago. Watch.


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years going back really at least 15 years and talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare, and by rare I mean rare.

OBAMA: Here is no doubt that we have to get control of our borders. We can't have hundreds of thousands of people coming over to the United States without us having any idea who they are.


MACCALLUM: That was in a primary debate. Governor Huckabee, what goes through your mind when you watch those two pieces of video?

MIKE HUCKABEE, CONTRIBUTOR: It's a dramatic shift in the Democratic Party from the days in which they talked about abortion being legal and rare. And last night Julian Castro said something that was bizarre. He said you know, a transgender person should be able to have a choice.

He's saying a man pretending to be a woman should pretend to have an abortion and I guess then taxpayers can pretend to pay for it. I mean, how does a biological man have an abortion? The point is, it's so --

MACCALLUM: I should point out that you know, he didn't really clarify, but there were a lot of people who had that a similar question about exactly what kind of anatomical situation we were talking about there. But anyway, go ahead.

HUCKABEE: It's -- it was very evident that there was a very dramatic attempt, it was almost like an auction. Let's see who can outbid who in the most left-of-center approach. That may work in the primary but I think there are a lot of Democrat voters across this country who are uncomfortable with the party going this far left. The party and the people of it in middle America has -- they've never been that far out there.

MACCALLUM: So Donna, do you think that we're going to hear something different tonight? We have Joe Biden who is obviously the standard-bearer moderate who is in the lead right now. You know, what do you expect to hear from him tonight and you know how risky is tonight for Joe Biden?

BRAZILE: Well, as you well know, last night, we barely -- they barely mentioned Joe Biden because they wanted to talk about themselves. I do believe that the American people be it on the right of the left want to talk about solutions. They want to make sure that the Democratic Party address everything from rising health care costs to making sure that this economy leaves no one behind.

And just because some of these solutions might require us to think differently, we should not cast aspersions. And I have to tell you, governor, you know, I believe that every American whether you're gay, straight, you know, transitioning, every American should be respected --

MACCALLUM: But Donna, let me just come back --

BRAZILE: And we want to respect every individual regardless of their sexual orientation.

MACCALLUM: I understand that. I understand that but those are very broad ideas. We just played two very specific pieces of video. One that you know, basically in short abortion. You know, nobody on that stage said that they would put in any, any deadline, any ramifications whatsoever and we've pressed them on this issue as we've gone across.

And then you hear a Hillary Clinton say you know, we want this to be safe, legal, rare, you know, so carefully discussing the issue. We hear -- don't you hear a difference in the way the party talks now?

BRAZILE: This is a different party. I mean, we want to go back to the party --


BRAZILE: If we -- look, Martha, look, I'm a different person than I was say, ten, 20 years ago. This is a different party and this is also a country that want to hear solutions. I'm not talking broadly, I'm just trying to explain to the Fox viewers and others that this is a very important period in our country where they want to see the Democratic candidates debate all these issues.

At the end of the day, we might decide to go with a moderate, we might decide to go with somebody who's perhaps further to the left and I am, but the good news is that as Americans we can have this conversation.

MACCALLUM: What -- before we go, Governor Huckabee, what are you going to be watching tonight and what do you expect from Joe Biden who's you know, been around a long time and it's going to be at center stage tonight.

HUCKABEE: I think he has the most to lose but I think some other candidates like Kamala Harris have the most to gain. She's an incredibly strong person, incredibly articulate, forceful, fearless. I still think she's one that is probably being underestimated across the board.

MACCALLUM: All right, we'll be watching it.

BRAZILE: I agree. I agree.

MACCALLUM: Thank you so much. Donna, great to see you. Governor Huckabee, thank you very much.

BRAZILE: Good to see you, Governor. Good to see you, sir.

HUCKABEE: Good to see you, Donna. Take care, my friend.

BRAZILE: Bless you. Bless you.

MACCALLUM: And a Fox News Alert. We are about to get our first look live at the scene in Osaka, Japan this evening where President Trump is about to emerge and sit down with President Abe. He's already stirring the pot on trade issues. We're going to talk about that.

Also coming up on “The Story” tonight, a new twist this evening in the case of missing Utah student Mackenzie Lueck. It could help the police break this case open. We'll be right back.


MACCALLUM: Fox News alert. President Trump is in Japan tonight. These pictures are from earlier but we are about to get live shots in any moment now so stay tuned for those. He is at the G20 with the world leaders. He is set to meet with Japanese Prime Minister Abe any minute now.

But it's his big meeting with Chinese President Xi that is coming up there. There's the live pictures you see right now as he walks into the diner. There is Prime Minister Abe, as they get things underway in the evening in Japan -- or the morning I should say, in Japan, 8.32 a.m., I believe. I'm going to see is that the correct time, about 8.30 in the morning in Japan right now. So those meetings will get underway.

I mean, the president, you know, basically laying down a lot of markers, as he always does, about how he thinks that most other countries treat us unfairly when it comes to trade. He has worked as president to rework those bilateral trade agreements all the way through. There is Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner as they walk in as well.

John Roberts is with me. He is covering the president's trip live watching all of this unfold. John, talk to me a little bit about what we expect this evening and what the White House says as some of their goals are here.

JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Martha, good morning to you. As you saw the president and Prime Minister Abe walk away. They are going to a room together where they hold a bilateral meeting. And we should, ahead of that bilateral meeting get a light, what's called pool spray from them. So, we'll hear the two of them talk.

It's just a month ago that the two of them last met, that was when the president was here to meet the new emperor, Naruhito. But President Trump raising some eyebrows before coming here to Japan when he suggested the defense agreement between the United States and Japan that goes back to the 1960s is so one-sided that if the United States were to get into a conflict, the only thing that Japan would do would be to watch the unfolding conflict on a Sony TV.

Well that prompted Japanese officials to say look, while this whole thing is not exactly equal, that it is very balanced. Now the two of these leaders are friends now that they'll likely quickly get past those comments. It's been an awful a lot of time together they really do like each other as you see Abe greeting Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.

They love to play golf together. They love to spend time together. So, a comment like that likely will probably be dealt with pretty quickly.

The last time the leaders were together they were talking about trade and they likely will again today. President Trump making some news by saying that any trade deal between the United States and Japan to replace the current trade agreement will wait until after elections that are coming up next month in the upper house of Japan's government called the Diet where half of the members are up for reelection.

Shinzo Abe trying to strengthen his hand there so that he can craft a deal with the United States and more power to craft the deal with the United States. President Trump is looking for something to level the playing field and reduce the tens of billions of dollars in trade deficit that the United States has with Japan every year.

The president also raising some eyebrows when it comes to the Indian Prime Minister Modi who he will meet with a little bit later on today. The president saying that he is not happy that India has slapped very large tariffs on American goods. A lot of that was in response to the United States leveling tariffs on steel.

The big meeting though, still tomorrow, that's when the president will meet with Xi Jinping of China. There were some reports out earlier in the day and the stock market was looking optimistically at this that the United States may agree to a precondition of easing restrictions on Huawei which is the Chinese telecom giant that the president slapped restrictions on recently as a precondition of that meeting.

And also, that President Trump may forestall for six months the imposition of new tariffs on some $300 billion in Chinese goods. But in the 11 o'clock hour yesterday -- I'm getting my times mixed up yesterday in Japan time. Earlier this morning New York time, the chief economic advisor Larry Kudlow shot down those reports. Listen here.


LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, U.S. NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: There are no preconditions. I don't know where that story came from or what they are talking about. We believe it's quite possible if the meeting goes well that the Chinese will come back to the negotiating table and we might be able to pick up where we left off in May where we completed roughly 90 percent of what could be a good agreement.


ROBERTS: Trade is going to be topic number one in the summit, there's no question about that. They will also be talking about technology, artificial intelligence, and the president will also be speaking about Iran.

He'll talk with Vladimir Putin of Russia about that this afternoon, Japan time in a bilateral meeting. And French President Emmanuel Macron, even though he does not have a formal bilateral meeting with the president, told Reuters new news agency on his way here that he is going to urge the president during the summit to back off on some of the harsh sanctions against Iran in attempt to bring them to the table.

We don't believe that the president will look too favorably upon that proposal because the president believes, Martha, the more you squeeze the leadership of Iran, the more likely you are to get them to the table. Martha?

MACCALLUM: Every one of those very big important stories that we have to follow over the next two days with your help, John Roberts, on the ground in Osaka. Thank you so much, John.

All right. When we come back here from New York tonight, we are hearing what could be a big break in the case of missing college student Mackenzie Lueck.

We will go live back to Miami where Shannon Bream is standing by for night two of the first Democratic presidential primary debate, all after this.


MACCALLUM: New developments tonight in the search for missing Utah college student Mackenzie Lueck. Police now have a person of interest in this case. They have searched his home and they are looking for a mattress and a box spring that may have been removed from that house. We're going to show you, talk about the address and all of that.

Joining me now, Salt Lake City Police Chief Mike Brown. Chief Brown, thank you so much for being with us tonight. You know, I guess the first question that you have a person of interest. You're looking for this mattress and box spring. Are you getting any closer to figuring out what happened here tonight, sir?

MIKE BROWN, POLICE CHIEF, SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT: Yes, I think every day we are. And actually, every hour, we are. But there's still a lot to go through. You mentioned the mattress and the box spring.

We found out through a tip that this person of interest either gave away or sold a mattress and box spring last week. Now they didn't go to the same person. So that's our call today. That those people, those individuals that pick those up, if they would contact the Salt Lake City Police Department, we would love to get our hands on those so that we can process them for any additional evidence.

MACCALLUM: And just tell everybody what address they came from specifically and, you know, where this houses what we're talking about. So, if anybody knows anything, they can call you.

BROWN: Yes. We executed that warrant last night at a residence at 547 North 1000 West --


BROWN: -- in the Fair Park district of Salt Lake City.

MACCALLUM: So, sir, she was making several texting and phone calls while she was in that airport. Was this person who lives at this house one of the people that she called?

BROWN: We have not confirmed that. We have, though, spoken with and contacted the individual that she did text and talk to that night. It's through investigations and a lot of digital investigations that have led us back to this residence that we served the warrant last night.

We collected multiple items throughout the night last night, our detectives did and we are in the process of testing and analyzing those right now.

MACCALLUM: So, have you been able to locate every person that she texted or called during that time?

BROWN: We are not disclosing that right now. But the one thing that we are disclosing and it made clear, there been no arrests made but we do now have a person of interest who is the homeowner at that address that we talked about earlier.

MACCALLUM: All right. You know, in terms of the timeline and everything, you know, it's very late, I think it was about one in the morning when she gets to the airport. She texted her mother. Can you confirm that she texted her mother and probably said, "I landed. I'm here."

BROWN: Yes. The timeline goes back, I think it was 2.01 she lands and she texted her mother that she had arrived in Salt Lake City.


BROWN: At 2.09 she deplanes the airplane. At about 2.40 she is picked up by a Lyft driver and about 2.59 she is dropped off at Hatch Park in North Salt Lake.

MACCALLUM: And did she tell her parents I'm stopping somewhere first. I'm not coming straight home? And was she intending to go to her parent's house that evening or early hours of the morning?

BROWN: Well, we don't have that information. We don't -- I mean, those are questions that we want to know very much.

MACCALLUM: Of course.

BROWN: But her parents actually live in California. So, yes, she would be returning to her residence.


MACCALLUM: Because she was just letting them know that she landed and then, yes, was heading somewhere else.


MACCALLUM: And I know how hard you are working on this and we thank you for taking the time to talk to us a little bit this evening, and we wish you well. We hope you can find some good news for this family soon, sir. Thank you very much.

BROWN: Thank you, Martha. Thank you so much.

MACCALLUM: You bet. When we come back, Shannon Bream is live on location for night two of the first Democratic presidential primary debate series and we'll go straight to her there. Stick around.


MACCALLUM: A Supreme Court ruling today that could shape the future of American politics. The justices blocking for now a bid by the Trump administration to add a citizenship question on the 2020 census.

Chief Justice John Roberts writing the decision for the majority, quote, "We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decision making under the law calls for an explanation of the agency's action. What was provided here was more of a distraction?" Very interesting to read into the language in there.

Chief legal correspondent and Fox News at Night anchor Shannon Bream is live in Miami covering the debates for us later tonight on her show but now with us on the Supreme Court. So, you know, first of all, what do you read into what Justice Roberts said there, Shannon? I'm curious.

SHANNON BREAM, ANCHOR: Well, I mean, he did say that agencies can make decisions like this. The Commerce Department could add a question about citizenship probably to the census but he wasn't buying the explanation that Secretary Ross has given publicly about how the whole thing came about.

He was basically saying this goes back to the lower court. So logistically, it seems like they're never going to be able to get this case resolved in time for these things to be printed for them to go out so it looks like the question doesn't make it.

But this is what the president is saying today. A couple tweets tell us he's not done with this fight. Here's what he says. He says, "Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed country, cannot ask a basic question of citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important census, in this case for 2020. I've asked the lawyers if they can delay the census, no matter how long, until the United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter. Can anyone really believe that as a great country, we are not able to ask the question whether or not someone is a citizen. Only in America."

It's funny because there were a number of concurring decisions, dissenting decisions. Justice Alito wrote one that went both ways and he asked this question too. He said, you know, in our hyper-partisan environment right now, it's turned into a political question, people are calling this racist. But he said a lot of other countries ask this question.

So, Justice Thomas also writing in part about this. He said it should not have gone beyond whether or not you can ask the question. He said, "Our only role in this case is decide whether the secretary complied with the law and gave a reasoned explanation for his decision. The court correctly answers these questions in the affirmative. That ought to end our inquiry. The court, however, goes further. For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency's otherwise adequate rationale."

So, there are a group of these justices who felt like the question should survive all the scrutiny but the fight over it is not over. So, Martha, we'll see whether there is any way in which administration can delay this whole legal fight or at least the printing of the documents. Until that legal fight is settled and possibly get the question onto the census.

MACCALLUM: All tight. We will see. Shannon, thank you so much. We'll be watching you later tonight. Great to see you.

Joining me now is Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and former White House political director for President George W. Bush. Matt, good to see you as well.


MACCALLUM: So, obviously, you know, I thought in Justice Roberts' statement, it's almost as if he saying, you know, look, you need to give me a good reason for this agency changing of the question and it felt like the reason was kind of slapped on a political motivation. You know, that's my interpretation in a way of what he said.


MACCALLUM: Go ahead.

SCHLAPP: I think you're exactly right. Look, for most of our history we've had a question, like asking whether or not someone is a citizen, on the census. The Department of Commerce which has statutory authority over the census, Martha, needs no reason at all to justify putting a citizenship question on the senses.

What John Roberts was trying to do and I think you're right, but I would say it a different way, it's almost like he was trying to find any reason, give me any reason where I could side with the four liberals.

For some reason he considered about 50 percent of the time he likes to saddle up next to them on these important decisions and I think it's a real -- it's a real example of judicial activism. The court really has no role in this at all. And Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas said it very well when they said just that.

MACCALLUM: Al right. So, you know, obviously, Democrats feel that this question will hurt their chances because there will be a lot of people who are new to the country or maybe they have relatives who are here illegally who just don't want to go near answering anything on the census and that in the law that it insist on the census, it says that every person should answer the census, not every citizen. And that's the language that they feel is more important. How do you answer that?

SCHLAPP: Well, I like -- I agree that only people should answer the census. But as I said, for most of our history, there's been a question akin to this. And the secretary of commerce is totally in his right to add it.

Martha, what's behind all this is this weakening of the concept of citizen. What does it mean? A weakening of the concept that you should only be here if you are here legally. Elizabeth Warren said on the debate stage the other night that she wanted to make legal the crossings at the border even when you're not allowed to be here.

There's a weakening of what it means to be a citizen. If you allow people to get into the count who aren't here legally or who aren't citizens, that screws up the whole ability to properly apportion congressional seats. It screws up completely the whole idea of having an electoral college.

Why is that surprising to us when the left and Democrats want to abolish the electoral college? They are doing everything they can to undermine these basic tenets of what having a successful and workable republic means.

MACCALLUM: All right. And no doubt it will be one of these topics that we hear about tonight, Matt. We'll all be watching. Thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

SCHLAPP: Thanks, Martha.

MACCALLUM: You bet. More of “The Story” coming up next.


MACCALLUM: So, Vladimir Putin has landed at the G20. That is his plane. That's the live shot in Osaka, Japan this morning, a lot of international planes lined up obviously for this huge international event. There will be a side meeting between President Trump and President Putin.

That's “The Story” for tonight. We'll see you back here tomorrow night. Have a great night, everybody.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.