Lewandowski on chances Trump will sit down with Mueller; Larry Kudlow talks North Korea summit, trade

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," June 3, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.


The summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un is on. But what about a trade war with our closest allies?


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I think the relationship we have right now with North Korea is as good as it's been in a long time.

WALLACE: This hour, we'll discuss what to expect from the Singapore summit and the pushback from Canada, Mexico and Europe to the president's tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Let me be clear. These tariffs are totally unacceptable. We have to believe that at some point, common sense will prevail.

WALLACE: A live interview with Larry Kudlow, top White House economic advisor, only on "FOX News Sunday."

Then, will President Trump sit for an interview with the special counsel?

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEY: I'm not going to let my client testify, the president of the United States, even if he wants to, without those documents being produced.

WALLACE: We'll talk with Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump's first campaign manager and still a close advisor.

Plus, comments from Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee both sparked outrage, but very different results. We'll ask our Sunday panel, is there a double standard?

And our power players of the week share some words of wisdom for the class of 2018.

All, right now, on "FOX News Sunday".


WALLACE: And hello again from FOX News in Washington.

We begin with breaking news. "The New York Times" is the first to report a story that President Trump's legal team sent a memo to special counsel Robert Mueller in January accreting broad presidential powers. In the memo, the lawyers argue the president cannot be compelled to testify and cannot obstruct justice because he has authority over all federal investigations. And new lead lawyer Rudy Giuliani tells ABC News: If Mueller tries to subpoena us, we're going to court.

Joining us now from Manchester, New Hampshire, President Trump's first campaign manager and current advisor, Corey Lewandowski.

Corey, is that the president's view that he could not be compelled to testify and that he cannot, as the president, obstruct justice?

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Well, Chris, I think -- look, I'm not an attorney, so I want to be very clear about this. But what this memo outlines and what their team has said was if the Mueller team is going to potentially subpoena the president, that is something that they believe is not authorized because of his position.

Now, what they are trying to do, Chris, is they are trying to sit down and figure out if the president is going to sit down for an interview and that interview is going to be based on a narrow scope of questions that the team is trying to negotiate right now. What Rudy Giuliani has said as the president's attorney is if the Mueller investigators decide to subpoena this president, they will take it to court and I believe the court is going to be on the president's side on this.

WALLACE: But -- and this specific issue has never been adjudicated but there was a long history of the courts ordering presidents to do something and presidents agreeing to do it. A subpoena is a court order.

Thomas Jefferson had to bow to a court order. Richard Nixon had to bow to the Supreme Court in releasing the Watergate tapes. Bill Clinton had to bow to the Supreme Court when it came to testifying in the Paula Jones civil suit.

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, that's exactly right. But you have to remember, look, the Giuliani legal team is trying to negotiate with the Mueller team to decide if it's the right thing to sit down and have this interview and if so, they want to understand what the scope of the questions are. So, there's the potential to avoid the subpoena entirely if the teams can work together and determined that the questions that will be asked will be relevant to an investigation to prove once and for all there was no collusion.

And it sounds like what Giuliani and his team are saying is, you don't need to subpoena route, but if you do, we will fight it in court. The president has been very clear. He has offered to sit down with the Mueller investigators but he has said and the Giuliani team has said this, they want to understand what the scope of questions are going to be before they sit down and do that.

WALLACE: I want to just try to narrow this down a little bit. Mueller says -- rather Giuliani says if Mueller gets a subpoena, which is a court order, Giuliani and the president's legal team are going to go to court. What if the court says no, Mr. President, you are wrong. Is the president prepared under his understanding of his powers in the executive branch, is he prepared to defy a court order?

LEWANDOWSKI: Look, I don't think so and I haven't spoken to the president about it. That's a question for his legal team, but I think the president clearly respects the rule of law in the country. There's no question about that.

But what they're doing is, Chris, there is a way to avoid all of this. There's a way to avoid a potential constitutional issue on this, which is working with Mayor Giuliani and his legal team and the Mueller investigators. If they can come up to a resolution which is going to ask the president to sit down and have a conversation which is limited in scope, present the interrogatories, then the team will decide if the president is willing to do this.

But, Chris, at the end of the day, what the Mueller investigators can do is they can write a report to Congress and to the Justice Department and show that there was no collusion between the president and the Russians and that's where we are. So, if the president is asked to sit down and discuss this, he's going to say exactly that because I know what to be true, you know it to be true, and the American people know there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

WALLACE: I want to talk about another part of the memo and we again should point out -- this was a memo that was written by the president's former legal team in January, including John Dowd, was sent to Mueller. Rudy Giuliani was not part of that, but as the president's lead lawyer, he is embracing that January memo.

And another part of it basically says the president has the ability to pardon anybody he wants. I want to look back at that because the president has been busy with his pardoning this week. He pardoned Dinesh D'Souza, a conservative author, this week, going around the normal process of going to the Justice Department, the Office of Pardon Attorney, he did it unilaterally. He says he may pardoned Martha Stewart. He may pardon former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said even before these latest pardons, that he's off pattern. Here he is.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA), RANKING MEMBER, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I think the president is sending a message basically: I will use the pardon power to pardon people, even that have been convicted of leaking and obstruction of justice. If you're with me, I have your back.


WALLACE: And long-time Trump advisor, Roger Stone, said this: It has to be a signal to Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort and even Robert Mueller, indict people for crimes that don't pertain to Russian collusion and that is what could happen.

So, are you saying, is the president saying, is Rudy Giuliani saying he can pardon anybody he wants, including people that are swept up in the special counsel's investigation?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, Chris, the Constitution is very clear in the power of the president as defined by the Constitution allows him to pardon anybody he wants for federal crimes and no one is talking about the pardon of the heavyweight boxing champion Jack Johnson that he pardoned, something the Obama administration had the opportunity to do and others but chose not to. And so, people want to make this a political issue. The pardoning of Dinesh D'Souza was a one-off, but this president has pardoned I think 0.7 percent of the applicants in front of him, which is a far lower number than any previous president at this point.

And so, look, is he going to pardon the Marc Riches of the world like the Clintons did? Of course not, right? Those are personal friends of the president back then who had crimes committed against our government that were convicted and they were pardoned for political expediency --


WALLACE: But, Corey, if he were to pardon -- I got to emphasize if -- he were to pardoned Michael Flynn, or Paul Manafort, people that could conceivably give evidence against him, that's a lot worse than Marc Rich.

LEWANDOWSKI: Yes, but, Chris, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the president has ever discussed having a pardon for Mike Flynn or Paul Manafort or anybody else for that matter.

And with all due respect to Roger Stone, I don't think he has any idea what he's talking about. This is not a sign. Look, I don't know of the president's relationship with Dinesh D'Souza. I don't know -- I had never met Dinesh D'Souza, so I don't think it was a strong relationship between the president and him.

But if you look in that particular case, saw an injustice that was done, which, by the way, Chris, was selective enforcement by the previous administration for a campaign finance violation, the same exact finance violation I think Roseanne Barr has admitted to, giving too much money to candidates and we haven't seen the prosecution of her for that.

And so, the president pardoned Dinesh D'Souza on a one-off opportunity. But never, ever, ever has this president said, to the best of my knowledge, he's even thinking about pardoning for Mike Flynn or Paul Manafort or anybody else with him.

WALLACE: But you are saying that he could -- but you are saying that he could do it if he wanted to?

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, yes, of course. Under the Constitution, he has the legal authority to pardon anybody. That's a power that lies strictly with the president of the United States. No question.

WALLACE: All right. I want to go to a couple of other subjects. Let's turn to spygate, the allegation by you and others and, of course, by President Trump that the FBI inserted a spy into the campaign.

Here's what President Trump said and also what Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy said after he got a classified briefing from the Justice Department and the FBI.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: How do you like the fact they had people infiltrating our campaign? Can you imagine?

REP. TREY GOWDY (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got and that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.


WALLACE: Corey, that's Trey Gowdy. He's a conservative Republican. He led the Benghazi investigation and he is undercutting what the president and frankly people like you talk about when you discuss spygate.

LEWANDOWSKI: Well, Chris, I'm very concerned. What we don't know unequivocally is did the FBI taken in form and it put them inside the campaign?

Because I can tell you I never spoke to anyone from the FBI as the campaign manager for 18 months of that campaign. Never did they notify me of their concerns about potential Russian meddling. Never did they notify me or anybody else while I was there of a potential spy entering the campaign.

Never did they notify anybody that I'm aware of that they have those concerns, and what is more disturbing to me is there was only one campaign that was involved in the general election that took $5 million, went out and hired a former spy to go create a false dossier to spy on American citizens and that was the Clinton campaign and it doesn't sound like they were so concerned that they put a spy into that campaign.

So, this looks like potentially selective enforcement if this took place and if it did take place, Chris, there had better be accountability for sending us spy. Now, Clapper says that's not the term we use anymore and Brennan says we don't use the term spy. You call it what you want, when you have a paid government informant who made a lot of money trying to solicit information from a presidential campaign without notifying that campaign, that's called spying.

WALLACE: All right. One last question I want to get to because you have joined Vice President Mike Pence's political action committee involved in raising money and supporting Republican candidates in the midterms. Here are some of what President Trump has been saying about Democrats on the campaign trail.


TRUMP: Remember the term Chuck and Nancy. They don't want the wall, they want open borders. They are more interested in taking care of criminals than they are in taking care of you.

We are going to protect your Second Amendment. You won't have a Second Amendment if the Democrats take over.


WALLACE: And the president called Nancy Pelosi the MS-13 lover -- of course, referring to the terrible violent gang.

I've got 30 seconds for you. Any of that do you believe over the line for President Trump?

LEWANDOWSKI: Chris, it's a clear reminder to the American people of what happens if the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives and Nancy Pelosi becomes the next speaker.

Not one Democratic member of the House or the Senate voted for the historic tax cuts. This president tried to negotiate to get money for the wall and take care of the people that came to this country through no fault of their own and the Democrats didn't want to do it because they want to politicize it. So, this president has to remind the American people of what is at stake in the 2018 election and that is moving our country in the same direction, which is the lowest unemployment for African-Americans and Hispanics ever recorded, or going back to the ways of more money in taxes and increasing your taxes under what would be speaker Pelosi.

It's a clear dichotomy and I think the president is on the right track.

WALLACE: Corey, thank you. Thanks for joining us today. Always good to talk with you.


WALLACE: Up next, we'll bring in our Sunday panel to discuss those hateful comments from two comedians that sparked similar outrage but very different consequences this week.

Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about comments from Roseanne and Samantha Bee this week? Just go to Facebook or Twitter, @FoxNewsSunday, and we may use your question on the air.



SAMANTHA BEE, COMEDIAN: Let me just say one mother to another, do something about your dad's immigration practices you feckless (EXPLETIVE DELETED). He listens to you! Put on something tight and low-cut and tell your father to (EXPLETIVE DELETED) stop it.


WALLACE: Well, Samantha Bee's vile comment about Ivanka Trump that sparked outrage, this coming just one day after Roseanne Barr tweeted a racist remark about former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett.

And it's time now for our Sunday group.

FOX News senior political analyst Brit Hume, columnist for "The Hill", Juan Williams, and the co-host "Benson and Harf", and we have them both, on FOX News Radio, Marie Harf and the aforementioned Guy Benson.

Al right. So, Brit, the Roseanne Barr comment clearly hateful but I think you could argue that while the remark by Samantha Bee may not have been more hateful, the circumstances about it were even more disturbing because it was scripted, it was taped and it was run hours later by TBS.

Your thoughts about all of this?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Roseanne Barr's comment was completely out-of-bounds and as you say, hateful. But if you're trying to think of something to say about a woman that would be worse than what she said, the use of the C-word, which I would say is second only to the N- word, the ugliest words in the temporary parlance, you couldn't do any better than what you said. I mean, it was misogynistic, it reduces a woman to a body part. You know, this is a comment someone derived as hate speech and sexist.

So, I think the two remarks were basically on par and what's not on par was the disparate treatment by ABC News towards Barr and by TBS toward Samantha Bee. Vast different and it's pretty hard to argue therefore there's not a double standard.

WALLACE: All right. We asked you for questions for the panel and on this specific subject, we got this tweet from Kaycee. Do networks have to respect an individual's freedom of speech, or our network's responsibility and freedoms different?

Marie, how do you answer Kaycee?

MARIE HARF, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Well, private corporations can make decisions based on what they think is in their best business interests and we'd seen a couple of businesses boycott Samantha Bee's show. That may continue, it may not.

So while both of these cases, Roseanne and Samantha Bee, they are able to say these things, they are also very much able to face consequences if they do so and it will be interesting to see if ABC decides this is not in their corporate interest to keep Samantha Bee on. I have a sense that they'll keep her on.


HARF: TBS, yes, excuse me. I also don't like the idea that we're only outraged when people that we agree with are attacked with this kind of language. We need to be outraged as a culture this is where we are. Now, politics on the left and the right, this is where things are and it's terrible and it needs to change on both sides.

WALLACE: Juan, would you agree that there is a glaring double scandal here that Roseanne Barr, within hours, ABC cancels her show and for Samantha Bee and TBS, we are sorry?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: No, I don't. And in fact, I think it's regrettable and picking up on what Marie was saying --

WALLACE: Would you say you don't -- do you -- you're saying you don't think there's a double standard?

WILLIAMS: No. I think that I agree with what Marie was saying in the sense that the cultures in this place where we use this kind of rank and vulgar language, but when you think about what Roseanne Barr had to say in terms of calling Valerie Jarrett an ape, a black woman, this is something that's very deep and speaks to race in our culture. Dehumanizing people, it speaks to oppression, slavery -- I can go on.

HUME: You don't think calling someone the C-word is dehumanizing?

WILLIAMS: I do. Let me finish.

I think that calling -- two white women having an argument over immigration policy and separating children from parents and the like is as I was going to say, vulgar and rank and unnecessary. It does not speak to the idea of tearing apart the social fabric around the most central and difficult issue in America, race. And that's what Roseanne Barr not only did in this instance, she had done previously with regard to Susan Rice, another Obama official, and I think --

WALLACE: Well, Samantha Bee has said all manner of horrible things about all manner of women, yes white, who were working in the Trump White House.

WILLIAMS: I'm telling you, one of these items speaks to tearing at the social fabric in a way that can't be undone and puts us all in great danger. And therefore, it's not about team sport in terms of, oh, I'm a Trump supporter and I'm there to support Roseanne Barr, or I'm an Obama supporter and therefore, you know, support Samantha Bee.

That's really juvenile compared to the seriousness of what's taking place. You think about the NFL players, you think about Charlottesville. I could go on. You understand that they are playing your --

WALLACE: Let me bring in guy.

WILLIAMS: -- to set -- separating us as a society.

GUY BENSON, TOWNHALL.COM: Look, I think that you can defend what ABC did with Roseanne Barr, and I'm not calling for Samantha Bee to be fired by TBS, but I am wondering will there be any consequences for Samantha Bee aside from a few advertisers temporarily suspending the support for the program? TBS, the only thing they've said publicly about this is applauding Samantha Bee for apologizing for something that she shouldn't have said.

And while Roseanne Barr, her tweet was totally unacceptable and racist, it was a tweet in the middle of the night. That is a different context than Samantha Bee's rant, which was scripted, it was in a teleprompter. It was a comment that was clearly premeditated and made it through multiple layers on pre-taped show and production.

WALLACE: And then was taped hours later.

All right.


WALLACE: Guys, I want to move to one of the subject here and that is the Russia investigation because we do have this news of the president's legal team back in January sending this memo. Brit, you and I have covered a lot of scandals and they are taking a very forward-leaning position on the presidential powers when it comes to obstruction of justice, when it comes to having a sit down and answer to a subpoena, when it comes to pardoning.

Your thoughts about it?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think on the question of obstruction of justice, the memo may well be legally sound in a sense that the president does have broad powers over the actions of the executive branch and the special counsel is most certainly a part, so that the question whether he could be charged with that I think is one thing.

The question whether he would have to answer process, that's to say respond to a subpoena I think is another. We do know that the Supreme Court has ruled that Richard Nixon had to produce material evidence which he ultimately did. Whether that would -- whether that would extend to sitting for an interview or being called before a grand jury has never been fully adjudicated, but I think the president may be on not as strong ground there -- his legal team may be not as on strong ground there arguing.


MARIE HARF, FOX NEWS ANALYST: The letter also opens some very interesting questions about the Trump team's relationship to the truth. The letter made clear that Donald Trump himself dictated the statement that was given to the press about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russian agents. This happened months ago. But you have Jay Sekulow, one of Trump's attorneys and Sarah Sanders, publicly on the record saying the exact opposite.

So, by trying to put forward a legal case, the Trump team has opened themselves up to more questions about whether they are telling the truth on the Russia and that's the problem.

WALLACE: All right, panel. We'll have to take a break here. We'll see you a little later.

When we come back, the latest on the Singapore summit as well as the effort to avoid a trade war with China and our closest allies. Larry Kudlow, the president's top economic advisor joins us next.


WALLACE: Coming up, will President Trump sit down with special counsel Robert Mueller?


RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER: If there is no evidence, which I assume there is no evidence, then, I mean, he shouldn't testify.


WALLACE: President Trump's former campaign manager and current advisor Corey Lewandowski joins us next.


WALLACE: Major news today on two fronts for the Trump administration.

First on trade, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is in Beijing for talks aimed at fending off a trade war with China. And U.S. allies slapped with new tariffs on steel and aluminum vowed to retaliate.

And second, preparations are ramping up for the Trump-Kim Summit now set for June 12th in Singapore.

Correspondent Kevin Corke is live at the White House with the latest on both -- Kevin.

KEVIN CORKE, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Chris, there are growing concerns that a trade war between the world's two largest economies could be inevitable after Beijing warned Washington that no new deal to shrink the massive trade deficit between our countries will take effect if President Trump follows through on his promise to hit China with new tariffs.


CORKE: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross travel to Beijing with two goals in mind: trim the U.S.'s passive to $375 billion trade deficit with China by $100 billion, and stave off a potentially explosive trade were. Mr. Trump's feeling on the issues spilled out on Twitter.

If we charge a country zero to sell their goods and they charge us 25, 50, even 100 percent to sell hours, it is unfair and can no longer be tolerated. It's not free or fair trade, it is stupid trade.

An example the White House is pond of offering is that of the auto sector where China charges 25 percent on U.S. cars sold there, the E.U. 10 percent, while the U.S. charges just 2.5 percent in return. The Trump administration has already hit Canada, Mexico and the E.U. with 25 percent's tariffs on steel and 10 percent on aluminum, saying it's in the interest of national security, a notion that left our neighbors to the north gobsmacked.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: That Canada could be considered a national security threat to the United States is inconceivable.

CORKE: All against the backdrop of a week dominated by news on North Korea as the North Korean official hand-delivered a letter to the president from Kim Jong-un, setting the stage for the June 12th in Singapore, where today Defense Secretary Jim Mattis warned the North will get no sanctions relief until it's demonstrated verifiable and irreversible steps to denuclearization.


CORKE: Mattis adding, we can expect at best a bumpy road to the negotiations and perhaps the understatement of the week -- Chris.

WALLACE: It sure is. Kevin Corke reporting from the White House -- Kevin, thanks for that.

Joining me now for an exclusive interview, President Trump's top White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow. Larry, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."


WALLACE: Let's start with the Singapore summit because President Trump, it seems to me, has dramatically softened what it is he is expecting and demanding from his first meeting with him. Here is what national security advisor John Bolton said just after the summit was announced and here's President Trump this week.

Take a look.


WALLACE: Will President Trump insist that Kim give up, ship out all of his nuclear weapons, all of his nuclear fuel, all of his ballistic missiles before the U.S. makes any concessions?

JOHN BOLTON, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Yes, I think that's what denuclearization means.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're going to start a process. And I told him today, take your time. We can go fast. We can go slowly.


WALLACE: So now the president is talking about a process of negotiation, not what Larry -- what John Bolton was talking about, which was unilateral, immediate disarmament.

KUDLOW: Well, I think at the end of that process, that's the goal, unilateral denuclearization, disarming them and so forth. It is going to be a process. I'm not directly involved in that. My pal John Bolton is, of course, and the president.

But, sure, these negotiations take time. It's the same one trade. All these negotiations take time. Everything's on the table during the negotiations. But you can't expect -- you're not going to change Rome in a day. And I think that's a very realistic attitude.

The key point is that we're sitting down. And the second key point is that the president has been bolder on this and Korea, and, by the way, on world trade than any other recent president. Everybody says we -- you can't do it. We can't do it. The president says, hang on a second, we may be able to do it.

WALLACE: OK, well, let's pick up specifically on that aspect, because the president says the main reason that he has gotten North Korea and Kim Jong- un to negotiate was because of this policy of maximum pressure, extreme sanctions from the world on North Korea to really squeeze them. But, this week, North Korea is talking with the South Koreans. He's talking with the Chinese. He's talking with the Russians. And here's what President Trump now says about his policy of maximum pressure.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't even want to use the term maximum pressure anymore because I don't want to use that term because we're getting along, you see the relationship.


WALLACE: Hasn't Kim, in effect, ended his economic isolation without giving up a thing?

KUDLOW: Well, I don't know that. I mean how has he ended it? I'm not sure I understand --

WALLACE: Because he's talking with -- with China and there seems to be every indication that they are going to relax economic sanctions. South Korea is talking about an economic partnership. This is no longer maximum pressure, Larry.

KUDLOW: I think over time, over time it may be relaxed, but right now I don't think so. I think the sanctions are in place are very tough, very strong. I think there was a moment a week or ten days back when the president was concerned about that Chinese sanctions. They seem to have said, no, no, wait a minute, we're still hanging tough.

This is tough economic pressure. I think economic sanctions work. I think the president's whole attitude of toughness with respect to North Korea -- and people yelled at him or said this -- now you're too strong, you're saber rattling. Everything's on the table, including military action. That stuff works over a period of time.

Now, as we head into the negotiations, I think the president is being very realistic and it's going to take a period of time. I don't think we're going to let up on any of these matters. That's not what President Trump wanted to do.

WALLACE: The question isn't whether we. The question is whether the Chinese and South Koreans, in effect, have already started to let up.

Let me -- let's turn to tariffs on the president's decision this week to go ahead and impose tariffs on metal imports from some of our close allies, Canada, Mexico, the European Union. You dismissed it this week as, your words, a family quarrel. But Canada's prime minister, Justin Trudeau, said that it is a, quote, turning point in relations. And he went on to say this.


JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: These tariffs are an affront to the long-standing security partnership between Canada and the United States, and in particular an affront to the thousands of Canadians who have fought and died alongside their American brothers in arms.


WALLACE: Sounds like a lot more than a family quarrel.

KUDLOW: I don't think our tariffs or anything to do with our friendship and our long-standing alliance with Canada.

WALLACE: But we're imposing the tariff because of national security reasons.

KUDLOW: That's correct.

WALLACE: And so that is --

KUDLOW: That is --

WALLACE: The implication is that somehow we can't trust Canada as a reliable national security partner when it comes to supplying steel and aluminum.

KUDLOW: Well -- well, I don't -- I don't think we're satisfied yet that they will protect or uphold all the shipments of steel coming into Canada from around the world. Could be China. Could be Brazil. Could be a lot of different places. The trans shipping effort is something that has been troubling to us.

Look, the president has declared our steel industry a national security matter and he hopes through these actions to rebuild it. There's some early signs that that may be possible. But, look, in the communique, in the announcement from the White House, it said very clearly that we still welcome good faith negotiations, and that's why I regard this as more of a family quarrel.

This is -- this is a trade dispute, if you will. It can be solved if people work together. But -- but, but, but, Chris, I must say this, this president, from day one, wants to reform the world trading system. It is not working. And there is so much unfair trading and illegal trading practices. There is virtually no reciprocity here. Tariff rates are not equal. Nontariff barriers are not equal. The World Trade Organization, which sets these rules, has been totally ineffectual. It has, in some cases, damaged the American economy, damaged American workers in manufacturing and other businesses. So the president's stepped up to the plate here. And as somebody who is a free trader, I've got to say, if you don't have a level playing field, you can't operate free trade.

WALLACE: But -- but you're making it sound like this is the beginning or the midway point in negotiations. In fact, it represents something of a breakdown.

Let me put the timeline up on the screen.

President Trump first threatened to impose these tariffs on March 1st. This week's action comes after more than a month of negotiation. The E.U. is now imposing tariffs on $3 billion of U.S. goods, Canada on $13 billion of U.S. imports. And, for all of the talk of protecting American jobs, the United Steelworkers Union opposes putting tariffs on Canada, saying that there metal exports to the U.S. are, quote, fairly traded. This isn't the beginning of a family squabble. The family has broken up and has gone into separate rooms.

KUDLOW: I know. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes families have disputes. Again, good faith negotiations were part of our announcements the other day.

Listen --

WALLACE: But -- you -- this comes at the end of the months of good faith.

KUDLOW: By the way, I just want to say, the American economy is booming right now.

WALLACE: We're going to get to that.

KUDLOW: That has to be part of the discussion here with respect to trade. And confidence is also booming. So that has to be part of the discussion.

Look, these matters can be solved. No one said they can't. Whether they will be, I don't know. But, again, the president's vision here, and it's very important, he's a trade reformer. And, at the end of the day, he would love to see free trade. But these barriers have to be swept away. Unfair trading practices, illegal trading practices, places like China, which are (INAUDIBLE) possible --

WALLACE: We send more steel to Canada than they send to us.

KUDLOW: Well, it's about -- look, it -- they buy our steel. We buy their steel. I agree with that, OK. But we're not satisfied yet that all the loopholes have been closed. And there are other issues with respect to Canadian-U.S. trade discussions. Other very difficult issues. The president himself has raised the issue of intellectual property and dairy and farming and agriculture, which is very important to our farm folks.

So it may be -- it may be worked out. These tariffs may go on for a while or they may not. I don't want many predictions today on the program. I'm just saying, let's talk it through. But to say that this is an attack on Canada is not right. But to say that we're going to protect the American industry --

WALLACE: I didn't say it was an attack on Canada. That was what Justin Trudeau, the prime minister, said.

KUDLOW: That's right. Well, that's -- and Mr. Trudeau, I think he's overreacting. I don't want to get in the middle of that. As a fine friend and ally of the United States, nobody denies that. But the point is, we have to protect ourselves.


KUDLOW: We must protect ourselves.

WALLACE: You say we need to protect ourselves.


WALLACE: You were a TV analyst when the idea of tariffs on Canada first came up. Here's what you said.


KUDLOW: We're already hanging by a toenail on NAFTA. If we have to walk out with NAFTA or those negotiations totally breakdown, then this steel thing turns in from a minor irritants to a major calamity for our economy and our stock market.


WALLACE: Mr. Kudlow, that's where we are now. The NAFTA talks have broken down. The steel tariffs are on. To quote Larry Kudlow from just a couple of months ago, a major calamity for our economy and our markets.

KUDLOW: Well, I hope it works out. Buy the buy --

WALLACE: Well, what do you mean you hope --


WALLACE: That's pretty cavalier. You --

KUDLOW: The NAFTA talks haven't broken down. We're still having those conversations. And we're still having the steel talks with Canada. As I said, you know, take a look at the communique the White House put out, or the statement. Good faith negotiations are welcome and we hope to continue there. So I don't think things are broken down. I don't want to be cavalier about anything. These are very serious matters that could affect the economy. There's worries about that every place. So no, I don't want to deny that.

But I do want to say this. If you cannot abide by the rules -- see, that's the thing. In the world trade game, rule breaking is all over the place. That's why I think that the president is right. We have got to make reforms and we have to stand up for U.S. interests as we go along. This is always - - you know, don't -- don't blame Trump, blame China, blame Europe, blame NAFTA, blame those who don't want reciprocal trading, tariff rates and protectionism and the --

WALLACE: I -- I want to -- I want to get to --

KUDLOW: Trump -- Trump is responding to several decades of trade abuses here, really. I think that's --

WALLACE: I want to get to something that I know you're going to want to talk about, which is the very solid jobs report on Friday.


WALLACE: I want to put it up. And 3.8 percent unemployment, the lowest rate since 1969, 3.6 percent for women, the lowest since 1953, 5.9 percent for black Americans.

One, how long can this last, and, two, sitting here, right now, can you honestly say that the possibility of trade disputes/trade war couldn't jeopardize that?

KUDLOW: Oh, it might. I don't deny that. You have to keep an eye on it. It's a very precious --

WALLACE: It could jeopardize that?

KUDLOW: It's possible, absolutely. I don't think it has right now.

You know, I think we're on the front end of what will turn out to be the best prosperity boom in several decades. The economy is clicking on all cylinders. As you noted, jobs and unemployment. Business investment is growing everywhere. Money is being repatriated. Trillions of dollars are coming back home to the USA.

This is all probably 3 percent growth. We're right on the cusp of the 3 percent growth. All our critics said we couldn't have. The Atlanta Fed and other private forecasters are now looking for 4 percent growth in the second quarter. I hope we get there. I would take another 3 percent growth.

I think the tax cuts and the rollback of regulations has created not only new incentives to grow, Chris, but also tremendous confidence, consumer surveys, business surveys, small business surveys.


KUDLOW: And I think trade --

WALLACE: I -- I want --

KUDLOW: Trade can dovetail into this in a very positive way if the president is able to change these trading practices and allow Americans to export freely around the world.

WALLACE: Last -- last question and I've got 30 seconds.

There has been a federal directive since the Reagan years, the president that you worked for and where we first met, that the president does not comment on the jobs numbers until at least an hour after they're formally announced. The president, at 7:30, an hour before they were announced on Friday said, looking forward to those numbers, and the markets reacted. You have said he did nothing wrong. Question, has he agreed that he won't do it again?

KUDLOW: Look, by law and custom I was just doing my job and it was a great number and I got a hold of him on Air Force One.

WALLACE: Right. I understand.

KUDLOW: Has he done anything wrong (ph)? Of course he has (ph). He didn't put the numbers out. Yes, other presidents have done this before. Someone reminded me, President Obama once did it --

WALLACE: No, he did it before he got the numbers.

KUDLOW: He said, it's going to be a terrible number.

Look, presidents can say what they're going to say. There's no law. If he had put the number out, that would have been a much more difficult proposition.

Will he do it again? Chris, I don't know if he'll do it again. I suppose I hope he doesn't. But, you know, just saying, let's look at the jobs numbers, all of America is looking at the job numbers. That's a harmless tweet. Stock market futures, by the way, did nothing --

WALLACE: The dollar went up.

KUDLOW: The bond market --

WALLACE: Bond yields.

KUDLOW: Somebody said two -- two basis points.

WALLACE: OK. All right.

KUDLOW: I mean, come on.

WALLACE: Larry, thank you. Thanks for your time. It's always a pleasure to talk with you.

KUDLOW: Thank you sir. Appreciate it.

WALLACE: Up next, we'll bring in our Sunday group to discuss prospects for the Trump/Kim summit and the threat of a trade war with our closest allies.



DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It will be a beginning. I don't say, and I've never said it happens in one meeting. You're talking about years of hostility, years of problems, years of really hatred between so many different nations. But I think you're going to have a very positive result in the end.


WALLACE: President Trump expressing optimism, but lowering expectations for his Singapore summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un.

And we're back now with the panel.

Brit, what are your thoughts now? The summit is nine days away. Is the president giving up too much without any guarantee of what he's going to get from Kim?

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, the strong (ph) men (ph) thought that for the president of the United States to sit down with some rogue dictator would confer legitimacy on that person and was therefore not a good idea to do unless it's in exchange for something worthy. But there's a view in this administration, and we don't know if it's right yet, that something really is different with the North Koreans this time. Well, we'll find out.

I think the president's seeming eagerness for all of this to go forward is a little troubling because it may look like he wants the deal to badly, which weakens your position. At the same time, though, he does appear to be prepared for the fact that there's not going to be some -- it will not be some staggering breakthrough in this first round of discussions and that it could lead to a long process, which is a realistic way to look at it. And that's what you hope for in a negotiation like this, is that the president has realistic expectations with Mr. Trump from time to time seems not to.

WALLACE: But, Juan, I want to pick up on this with you because, again, I go back to what Bolton and Pompeo were saying in the beginning where they were talking about, in effect the first meeting should be, when are you going to get rid of everything.


WALLACE: And if they didn't give you a date certain, you get up and you walk up. Now there're talking about a process, a series of meetings, negotiations. Given North Korea's history, where they make promises and then renege on them, does this summit still make sense?

WILLIAMS: Well, no, if you put it in those terms, Chris. But the -- but Brit makes the wise point, which is you -- you know, you hope that this process leads somewhere. You hope that the administration's faith is rewarded in the end. The problem is that we know historically going back to Kim Jong-un's grandfather, Bill Clinton and Kim Jong-un -- Kim Jong-il in 1994, these people lie, they're deceitful, they'll take the concessions, they'll keep them in their pocket and then they won't deliver.

So it looks like the president, President Trump, is saying, well, maybe we can end the Korean War. That will be the big announcement at the summit. Or maybe we can say that we are lessening sanctions in the hope. But that seems like a lengthy process and it does not seem to justify rewarding a brutal dictator with a -- with a position on the international stage.

WALLACE: Let's turn to the other big news this week, and that is the president announcing new sanctions going into effect on June 1st against some of our closest allies, the E.U. and Canada and Mexico. Here's what the president said on Friday.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look, the American worker agrees with me. Obviously the stock market agrees because when you look at what's going on with the stocks, they're starting to see them ripe (ph).


WALLACE: Guy, going after China is one thing. Going after some of our closest allies is a very different matter.

GUY BENSON, TOWNHALL.COM: Yes, it's a terrible idea. Trade wars generally are terrible ideas. He talked about the American worker and he's talking about 140,000 roughly steel workers in America. "The Wall Street Journal" points out there are 6.5 million -- million -- Americas workers in steel using industries who are going to be harmed by this. And I think --

WALLACE: In the auto business.


WALLACE: In -- in beer cans.

BENSON: Yes. I mean across -- across a ton of different industries. So I think it is telling and unfortunate from the administration's perspective that you had this lengthy back-and-forth with Larry Kudlow moments ago and the amazing jobs report and state of the U.S. economy almost felt like an afterthought because we are discussing whether or not we should move forward with tariffs against some of our closest friends, which will throw a wet blanket over the positive movement that I think is attributed to Trump policies on deregulation and taxes and so forth. This is a totally needless fight.

WALLACE: Marie, let me pick up on that with you because, you know, international trade is not checkers. It's three-dimensional chess. And you've now got China, as we impose tariffs on some of our allies, China is now reaching out to them and saying, well, you can do business with us and we're going to remove some of the barriers to our markets.

MARIE HARF, CO-HOST, "BENSON & HARF": Right. We have not put tariffs on more of our allies than we have on China. And the president, I think, sees foreign affairs really as zero sum. There's winners and losers and he doesn't often talk about things that are mutually beneficial. Whether it's trade or whether it's diplomacy, he's really good at tearing things down. He ripped up TPP. He's trying to wrap up NAFTA.

WALLACE: Which is the Pacific trade deal.

HARF: Yes, the trade deal. He's trying to -- he walked away from the Paris agreement. He walked away from the Iran deal, all in the hopes, he says, that he can negotiate better deals, whether it's on trade or nuclear weapons. So far he's been good at ripping things up and not very good at building things back up or putting new agreements in place. And so that's what will be interesting. As we look at tariffs and trade, as we look at NAFTA, which the Canadians are very upset about, or if we look at North Korean diplomacy, whether he can actually make deals or just tear them up. That is an open question today.

WALLACE: And what -- I want to pick up on the last thing I discussed with Larry Kudlow, Brit, and that was these astonishing job numbers. Lowest unemployment rate since the '60s in one case, the '50s in another case. Could that be derailed if we get into a trade -- a serious trade dispute, let alone war?

HUME: Certainly could. And there's no doubt in my mind that the president, in -- in -- in putting his tariffs in place, the ones just announced against our -- our European friends is playing with fire. They -- they will retaliate and the -- all the parade of horribles may come into being.

However, I would caution on that, that this -- I think the president sees all this as a continued negotiation. The troubling thing is, we've been negotiating with some of these countries for some time now in hopes of a better deal and it hasn't materialized. So we'll -- there's a way to go. It's kind of the corollary to foreign policy where you practice diplomacy backed up by the threat of force. Here we're practicing trade negotiations backed up by the threat of tariffs. But tariffs, in and of themselves, are almost always ruinous to both sides, to all sides.

WALLACE: All right, we're going to have to end it there. Thank you all, panel.

Up next, some surprising advice for the class of 2018 from our "Power Players of the Week."


WALLACE: It's become an annual tradition here to sample some of the words of wisdom college graduates are getting at their commencement. This year the speakers include world leaders, a tech giant and some superheroes, and they're all our "Power Players of the Week."


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We know that glory will be yours because you are winners. You are warriors. If you are fighters. You are champions. And you will lead us only to victory.

OPRAH WINFREY: You can't stand in line at Starbucks. You can't go to a party. You can't go anyplace without everywhere you turn people are talking about how bad things are, how terrible it is. And this is what I know. The problem is, everybody is meeting hysteria with more hysteria. And then we just are all becoming hysterical. And it's getting worse.

TIM COOK, APPLE CEO: Don't just accept the world you inherit today. Don't just accept the status quo. No big challenge has ever been solved and no lasting improvement has ever been achieved unless people dare to try something different.

CHADWICK BOSEMAN, "BLACK PANTHER" ACTOR: I don't know what your future is, but if you are willing to take the harder way, the more complicated one, the one with more failures at first then successes, the one that has ultimately proven to have more meaning, more victory, more glory, then you will not regret it.

CHANCE THE RAPPER: We cannot revere anyone so much that we become afraid to reach their heights or grow past them. You do a disservice trying to live up to your ancestors. You have to outlive them.

NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: We all know of gratitude as a feeling. The good feeling we have for the things we've been given. But what I want to talk about his gratitude as intention. That is, gratitude as the determination to take the things that have benefited us and pay them forward.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: Let yourself be vulnerable to another point of view. That's what takes true courage, to open yourself to another's conviction or risk being convinced a little or a lot of the validity of their perspective.

MICHAEL KEATON, ACTOR: I've got two words that I want you all to remember. They're very important. And if I leave you with anything, I'm going to leave you with these two words. And those two words are, I'm Batman.


WALLACE: Our best wishes as well to the students and parents of the class of 2018.

And now this program note.

Be sure to tune in next week as "Fox News Sunday" heads to Singapore. We'll kick off Fox News coverage from there ahead of a historic summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un. The latest developments from Singapore just before the leaders of the U.S. and North Korea meet for the first time.

And that's it for today. Have a great week and we'll see you next "Fox News Sunday."

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.