March for Our Lives organizers send message to Congress

This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," March 25, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: I’m Chris Wallace.

Students marched on Washington and cities across the country against gun violence.


CAMERON KASKY, MARCH FOR OUR LIVES ORGANIZER: Today, we take to the streets at over 800 marchers around the globe and demand common sense gun laws.

DELANEY TARR, MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS STUDENT: This is more than just a march. This is more than just one day, one event then moving on.

EMMA GONZALEZ, MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS STUDENT: Fight for your lives before it’s someone else’s job.

WALLACE: As hundreds of thousands participate in the March for Our Lives, we’ll talk with two of the leading organizers from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, Stoneman’s Delaney Tarr and Cameron Kasky. What’s the school shooting generation’s message for lawmakers?

And the markets are on edge after the president launches a tariff crackdown on China. We’ll discuss the potential for a global trade war with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. It’s a "Fox News Sunday" exclusive.

Plus, Tillerson and McMaster out, Pompeo and Bolton in. We’ll ask our Sunday panel about the president's move to the right on national security and get the latest on the Russia investigation after the president's top lawyer quits.

And our Power Player of the Week, we meet the Pence family’s pet bunny -- the subject of a new children's book.

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


WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington.

Thirty-nine days, that's how long it was from the school massacre in Parkland, Florida, to marches this weekend on Washington in more than 800 cities across the nation.

Here's another number: 187,000. The Washington Post says since Columbine in 1999, that’s how many elementary and high school students have experienced a shooting on their campus during school hours.

The scene on the National Mall yesterday felt like protests against the Vietnam War. Organized by survivors of the shooting that killed 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the rally was led by students and raw in emotion. And speakers challenge nation's leaders to act.

In a moment, we’ll speak with Cameron Kasky at Delaney Tarr, two of the leading voices of the movement.

But first, correspondent Peter Doocy reports from the march.


GONZALEZ: Jamie Guttenberg would never. Meadow Pollack would never.

PETER DOOCY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Six minutes and 20 seconds, that's how long high school student Emma Gonzalez stood on stage in silence to mark the length of the mass shooting at her school, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, last month.

March for Our Lives also spread to New York, Boston, and Parkland, Florida, where students started this nationwide campaign for gun control.

KASKY: Thousands of young people, my classmates were forced to become adults and were targeted as adults. We have to do this for them.

DOOCY: The Trump administration's proposed bump stock ban and the Fix NICS background check improvements signed into law Friday don't go far enough for students like Parkland’s Delaney Tarr.

TARR: The pressure is on for every person in power and it will stay that way, because they know what is coming.

DOOCY: Lin-Manuel Miranda, Ben Platt, Ariana Grande and Miley Cyrus were among the celebrities sharing the stage with students Saturday. President Trump is in Florida this weekend, but a White House spokeswoman applauded young people exercising their First Amendment rights.

As for the NRA, unlike the day of the school walkouts when they tweeted: I’ll control my own guns, thank you -- no response during the rallies, even though a high percentage of protests signs were aimed at them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To all the politicians out there, if you take money from the NRA, you have chosen death!

DOOCY: Thousands who couldn't get close enough to see the stage on Pennsylvania Avenue stood around for hours anyway, supporting a cause that inspired many young protesters to attend a political rally for the first time in their lives -- Chris.


WALLACE: Peter, thank you.

Now to just released Fox News polls that strong support for tougher gun controls. By a 13-point margin, voters say protecting against gun violence is more important than protecting gun rights. And there is broad support for measures to reduce gun violence, universal background in mental health checks, raising the legal aid to buy rifles to 21, putting armed guards in schools and banning assault weapons.

But the poll also finds widespread doubt Congress will act. While 38 percent say it's extremely important for Congress to pass gun legislation this year, only 7 percent think that's extremely likely to happen.

Joining me now, two students from Parkland, Florida, who were key organizers of yesterday's marches, Cameron Kasky and Delaney Tarr.

And to both of you, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."


WALLACE: Cameron, it was a remarkable event, hundreds of thousands of people marching on Washington in cities around the country. But in practical terms, what do you think you accomplished?

KASKY: I think the best thing to come out of the march was the fact that while it was important to stand for what we believe in and it was important that the people have come together on this unified front, I think the fact that young people everywhere were taking initiative, standing up and leading in their communities showed that we learn that our voices matter and so many people came and registered to vote. So many people discussed voting. And if you look at the voter turnout for our age, it's embarrassing.

So, the fact that this movement has so many people realizing that it's important to get out to the polls is what I think is one of the best things we've accomplished.

WALLACE: Well, I want to pick up on exactly that point, which is that young people traditionally do not go out and register and vote. Take a look at these numbers. In the last midterm election in 2014, only 19.9 percent of 18 to 29-year-olds voted. That was the lowest rate of youth turnout in the last 40 years.

Delaney, what makes you think that 2018 is going to be any different -- and, look, I understand the rally is exciting, but we are talking about more than seven months from now, are people going to go out and are they actually going to vote in November? And how do you, in a sense, keep this movement going?

DELANEY TARR, MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS STUDENT: I believe that the strongest thing we have going for us at this time is the fact that this is a youth movement. This is led by the youth and it is lead for the youth. And if we can encourage these people to take action, to be participating in our society and our politics, then that's going to encourage our voters to actually turn out. And that's something I think is going to continue the momentum, because even when the media leaves, these people are still there and they’re still fighting for their own lives.

WALLACE: Let's talk about the government response since the terrible shooting at your high school. In the big spending bill, the president just signed, a tightened background check system and allocate $2.3 billion for school safety. And the Justice Department says it will ban bump stocks. Your state of Florida passed a tougher law, it raises the age you can buy a rifle from 18 to 21, imposes a three-day waiting period, makes it easier to take guns away from people considered a danger, bans bump stocks and provides $400 million for school safety.

Cameron, what grade you give the state and the federal response?

KASKY: The state I will give a very, very crisp C-minus, because there are things in what that they passed that are very important. Raising the age to 21 is something that the majority of the country can get behind. And the three-day waiting period, all of that, these are great steps in the right direction.

As for the country with --

WALLACE: Federal.

KASKY: The federal level, I was not impressed at all, because it's important to make the schools safer, but this doesn't just happen in schools. Shootings are in night clubs, churches, movie theaters, airports. Yes, it's important to stop school shootings but this does very little to keep the American people out of the line of fire.

WALLACE: So, what you want to see?

KASKY: What do I want to see?

I want to see an assault weapons ban, I want to see high-capacity magazines ban. These are things that -- now, I don't just want to see these, these are everybody. The age has to be raised to 21. These are things that are -- that are -- these are important issues. And the fact that nobody just got -- in the bill, they don't say the word gun once.

What causes all these shootings? What's the one thing that tie everything together? There's no specific mental health problem that makes all these shootings happen, it’s the weapon. The fact that they aren't taking any action towards it is a proof that we need to keep on going.

WALLACE: Right after Parkland, President Trump talked tough about these issues. He talked about taking guns away from the people who have basically are -- have been seen as a threat. He talked about raising the age to buy a semiautomatic.

Take a look at what the president had to say.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Take the guns first, go through a due process, second.

You can't buy a handgun at 18, 19, or 20. You have to wait until you’re 21. But you can buy the guns, the weapons used in this horrible shooting at 18.


WALLACE: Delaney, what do you think happened?

TARR: I mean, words are find and day. I’m glad that he said those words, because those are some things that we would like to see. However, I have not seen any action taken to follow through, the steps (ph) --


WALLACE: And why is it that you think that the rhetoric ended and he backed off a lot of the more extreme steps or stronger steps?

KASKY: We know he had a meeting with the NRA after that, and suddenly, he backed down.

WALLACE: Is that what you think it is?

TARR: I mean, to call it a coincidence seems like a bit of a stretch because to say all of these incredibly firms stances and then to immediately backpedal on them after having a meeting with the NRA. And not a long time periods of difference there. It reads sketchy to me.

WALLACE: The NRA says that what you guys want to do is not just take away semiautomatic weapons, just take away high-capacity weapons, you really want to take away people’s guns.

Here is one of your fellow students at parkland, Kyle Kashuv, talking during the march yesterday.


KYLE KASHUV, PARKLAND SCHOOL SHOOTING SURVIVOR: They truly don't know what they’re marching for. They think that they are marching to end school violence, but in reality, the March for Our Lives Website hasn't listed that they want to ban assault rifles.


WALLACE: Cameron, how do you respond to Kyle?

KASKY: Well, first of all, we are not just marching to end school violence. We are marching to end violence all over the country, because that's where it happens.

Second of all, we are not trying to take everybody's guns away. My father was a reserve police officer. We have guns in our house. They are responsibly managed and hidden from anyone but him.

The point is, we are not trying to take away everybody's guns away and the NRA wants people to think that. They are fear-mongers. They want to sell weapons by exploiting people's fears. So, the second we want to put common sense resolutions on these assault weapons, the NRA will say they are trying to steal every single one of your guns and people believe them. Fortunately, the majority of the American people see past this.

WALLACE: So, where would you draw the line in terms of eliminating guns? Would it just be assault weapons?

KASKY: I think assault weapons need to be banned and I think that smaller weapons used more for protection of your homes can be sold, but there need to be more restrictions. You need to go through mental health check, you need to be 21. These are all things that are common sense and I think getting a handgun to protect your home is an important thing if you need to, but it can't be that easy.

WALLACE: We had a school shooting, as I’m sure you know, here in Maryland last week where a student went into the school and killed his former girlfriend, but he was stopped and died, we’re not sure whether he killed himself or he was shot by a sheriff's deputy at the school who confronted him.

A host on NRA TV yesterday talked about that deputy.


COLION NOIR, NRA TV HOST: To all the kids from Parkland getting ready to use your First Amendment to attack everyone else's Second Amendment at your march on Saturday, I wish a hero like Blaine had been at Marjory Douglas High School last month, because her classmates would still be alive and no one would know your names.


WALLACE: Delaney, your reaction to that in your reaction to the NRA argument, which is the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?

TARR: Well, first of all, our school is Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, not Marjory Douglas High School. So, I felt like I needed to clarify that.

But also, I’m glad that that sheriff had a gun, because he is a person who should have a gun. But a teacher? A teacher does not need a weapon like that. A teacher's job is to educate, not to defend.

They are pushing that a good guy with a gun -- what do you define as a good guy with a gun? Because I would define it as a highly trained professional, not as filling our classrooms with weapons. That is not a good guy with a gun.

WALLACE: And what about the application when he says nobody would know your name, that this is an ego trip?

KASKY: Yes. I think that's the most pathetic thing I’ve seen out of this, possibly even beating (ph) crisis actors. And that’s the NRA. You’ll notice. They can't attack our argument, so they are attacking us personally.

The fact that they are saying that all we want out of this is for people to know our names, they have no idea how much each of us would give for it to be February 13th again. So, the fact that they stooped that low, I can't imagine how much lower they can get.

WALLACE: I want to end this on a personal note, because this is been a whirlwind 39 days and I suspect in some way, maybe even you wouldn’t agree with this, that organizing and the media attention and all of that was a way to get through these 39 days after the shot, but now the camera is going to go away.

First of all, how are you doing? And secondly, do you look at going back to being high school students is something that you’re to be able to do?

TARR: I mean, even through all the negativity that we'd seen, as we just watch there, there's been an overwhelming amount of support and positivity, and I think that's what keeps this going, knowing that so many people stand with us. And even once the cameras go way, that doesn't mean our job is done. It doesn't mean we just get to go back to our old high school lives because those are forever changed.

We can never go back to school and feel the same that we once did. That’s just not a possibility anymore. And even though our lives are changed, it's something that we take in stride because we know we’re going to have to continue working on this.

WALLACE: Cameron?

KASKY: Well, you know, it's been a frenzy the past couple of weeks, but the fact that the people that I’ve been directly working with, my peers, the fact that we’ve had each other, that's really how we’ve gotten me through this. We've been supporting each other. We’ve been smiling through the pain together. And the fact that we still have each other, the fact that we’ll still have the Stoneman Douglas community, it shouldn't be too hard to feel like everything is OK soon.

WALLACE: Cameron, Delaney, thank you both. Thanks for taking time out of this busy, hectic weekend. We’ll follow where the movement goes from here. And thank you again for everything you’ve been through.

KASKY: Thanks for having us.

WALLACE: Up next, we’ll bring in our Sunday group to discuss whether the student movement on gun control will have an impact on the midterm elections and beyond.



DAVID HOGG, PARKLAND SHOOTING SURVIVOR: When politicians say that your voice doesn't matter because the NRA owns them -- we say no more!


WALLACE: Student organizers of March for Our Lives, calling for action in the wake of last month's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida.

And it's time now for our Sunday group. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, columnist for The Hill, Juan Williams, Julie Pace, Washington bureau chief for The Associated Press and former Trump campaign senior advisor Jason Miller.

Well, Speaker Gingrich, some people are comparing what we saw yesterday to the civil rights movement, to the marches against the Vietnam War. As a historian, do you see some parallels?

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: I think it would be fascinating to know who paid for it all. I mean, the left has this wonderful ability to mobilize, so the day after inaugural, you have the women's march. People come in buses. Who paid for the buses? People who organize the whole process, who brought the entertainers?

The left can't govern, but they can sure demonstrate.

WALLACE: Well, I mean, respectfully, why does it matter who paid for it?

GINGRICH: It matters who paid for it because you’d like to know how does somebody build again and again an ability to demonstrate? I think it's useful for the country to know that, as part of the political process.


JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I couldn't disagree more. I think the key point here is that you saw people of their volition turned out in astounding numbers to express their discontent with the easy availability of guns in this country, and what it’s led to, which is obviously not only we saw the events in Parkland, now just about a month ago, Mr. Speaker, but we’ve been through Columbine, which is coming up on its 20th anniversary. Virginia Tech.

So, we know that there is a problem with gun violence in schools and I think it came as an expression of genuine concern about our country and for their own lives, to see these young people turn on and his numbers. And if folks help them organize, I don't think that is somehow to discount the sincerity of their feeling.

GINGRICH: I didn’t discount the sincerity of the individuals. I just said, it’s an interesting phenomenon that the left’s great ability is organizing, whether it's the women the day after the inauguration. You go down a whole list of things.

But let's talk about guns for a second. I adamantly favor having armed guards in school. I think if we have armed guards in school, you would radically reduce the danger we just saw. I’m willing to have a debate about guns.

There are five cities in America that have most of the killings in America, five cities. All five theoretically have gun control. All five cities are a disaster. By the way, those guns are almost all handguns.

WILLIAMS: Right. Well, I just -- I don't think that’s specific in terms of I think this march was sparked by what happened in Parkland, Florida.

WALLACE: Let me, I want to just take -- before I bring, I promise I will in a moment -- the other two in. You and I are old enough, so is the speaker, that we were around for the marches in the ‘60s, the civil rights marches, the Vietnam marches, you wrote a great book on the civil rights movement, "Eyes on the Prize." What parallels do you see and do you think these activist can accomplish what they did?

WILLIAMS: Well, I can tell you this, I don't make predictions but I will say that I do say a clear parallels. Just before Easter 1963 in Birmingham, Dr. King had young people, people without mortgages, no cars, able to go out on the street and take that risk. And when the nation saw that, saw these young people up against Bull Connor and the dogs and the arrests, guess what? The country became galvanize. They though, oh my God, these are children in distress.

So, our arguments about be patient, take your time, this change will come -- suddenly, all those people who were on the line, Chris, suddenly said, you know, this is a matter of conscience to seek children in distress and we now want change in terms of civil rights. Same thing with Vietnam, same thing interestingly with the suffrage movement in this country. Young people took the lead. So, this could be a preview.

WALLACE: The conventional wisdom, and, of course, as the student said, the big issue is, are they going to get out, register, vote and put people, like-minded people, into positions of power? The conventional wisdom is that gun rights activists tend to vote more on a single issue than gun-control activists.

But I want to put up this Gallup poll. Thirty percent of gun owners say they will only vote for a candidate who shares their views on gun control. But so do 20 percent of people who don't own guns.

Jason, Gallup says that we, the chattering class overestimates the power of the gun rights lobby.

JASON MILLER, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISOR: Well, I think that -- obviously, Second Amendment supporters are very important here and I think going back to the speaker’s point, though, as well, we have to look at where the money is going because you have the students that were out marching yesterday. You have the celebrities that were there. But what people haven't been talking about near as much are the gun control groups, which there've been articles this week talking about their record fund-raising. I think one of the groups saw a 30 percent increase.

So, what do we have coming up this November? We have the midterm elections. And that's what everyone seems to be missing is that these groups have a lot more funding. They are going to be trying to turn people out.

But there's another thing that we are missing as we talk about the paradigm here with this entire debate. Don't just look to the future, look what just happened.

Kyle Kashuv, one of the Parkland students who you referenced in the previous segment, has already worked with Senators Hatch, Rubio and Murphy to pass the STOP School Violence Act. These Parkland students are already getting it done before we even get into the radical left groups that they are going to try to influence the elections this fall.

WALLACE: Julie, what are your sources at the White House say? How worried are they about the really tough anti -- well, let me put, gun-control advocates that they’re going to be able to mobilize people to go out and vote and the impact it could have in the midterms and beyond in 2020?

JULIE PACE, WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF, ASSOCIATED PRESS: I don't get the sense that they are particularly worried about that piece right now. I think they are worried broadly about what we'd seen over the last several months, which is a groundswell of enthusiasm on the left among Democrats in marches. The big think they are looking for, though, is can that be translated into votes? And that's where this always comes down to.

You can have -- regardless of who is funding it, if you have hundreds of thousands of people on the streets, that's an enormous show of enthusiasm, but it doesn't always translate into registration, it doesn't always show up in people -- especially young people turning out into the pulse.

WALLACE: So, is that something they’re concerned about? Is it something that they are skeptical and think probably --

PACE: Most Republicans both inside and outside the White House that I talked who are involved in the midterm elections say that the enthusiasm on the left is real, that it is not a flash in the pan from, you know, Donald Trump's election, that it has been sustained. What they are unsure about and what they're trying to combat is the idea of that turning into electoral victories for Democrats. I think that is still an open question on both sides right now.

WALLACE: Final thoughts, Speaker?

GINGRICH: I think nothing would make Mitch McConnell's day more than if the Democrats insist on bringing up a strong gun-control bill because in North Dakota, Montana, Missouri, go down the list, every vulnerable Democrat --

WALLACE: We are about Democrats running for reelection in states that Donald Trump --

GINGRICH: Democrats running for reelection in states Trump carried, 10 of them, at least eight of those states, it would -- they would commit political suicide if they voted for strong --


WALLACE: Real quickly.

WILLIAMS: Look at what happened in Florida. Rick Scott, a Republican, took on the NRA and passed some gun-control measures. I think that's a sign of a political potency here for people who aren’t necessarily on the left, but also independent and Republicans.

WALLACE: OK. All right. We have to take a break. We’ll see you all a little later.

When we come back, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on the escalating trade rift between the U.S. and China. What does it mean for the economy and jobs and the stock market? That's next.


WALLACE: Coming up, President Trump holds his nose and signs a massive spending bill after threatening to veto it.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There are a lot of things I’m unhappy about in this bill.


WALLACE: So, how will he and Congress funds the government? We’ll ask Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, next.


WALLACE: After months of good news, the economy has hit some choppy waters with the announcement of stiff tariffs, threats of a trade war and stomach churning drops in the stock market.

Joining me now to discuss it all, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

Mr. Secretary, welcome back to "Fox News Sunday."

STEVEN MNUCHIN, TREASURY SECRETARY: Thank you. Great to be here with you.

WALLACE: U.S. stocks just had their work week in two years. The Dow fell more than 1,400 points. That’s a 5.7 percent drop. What's going on and how long will it last?

MNUCHIN: Well, Chris, there's a lot of different things impacting the stock market, but I think the most important thing to focus on is the market will go up and down in the short term. The real important issue is, where will it be longer-term?

And the market is still up an enormous amount since the election and we’re confident as we continue in our economic plans that will translate into the market doing better.

WALLACE: Eleven -- you know, to talk about why it is dropping right now, 1,100 points of that drop came Thursday and Friday after President Trump announced that he's going to impose tariffs on $60 billion of Chinese exports. Are the markets wrong to react so negatively to the president's tariffs?

MNUCHIN: Well, Chris, I've never thought that the markets are necessarily efficient. There's a lot of things that went on last week, including the Fed.

But as it relates to the tariffs, there's really been three parts of our economic plan. And we've been very consistent from day one. Tax reform, regulatory relief and trade. And now we are executing on the third part of our plan. So I don't think anybody should be surprised.

This is a president that absolutely believes in free trade, but wants free and fair trade, and has been very clear since our first meeting at Mar-a-Lago with President Xi that the trade deficit has to be addressed, that they need to open up their markets to our companies, and that's fair and free reciprocal trade.

WALLACE: But to press my point, are the markets wrong to be afraid of the president's tariffs and the impact it will have on the economy?

MNUCHIN: I don't expect to see a big impact on the economy. We've been very careful in how we're doing this and -- and what we're doing.

But, again, I think what we're doing is long-term very good for the economy, which it is pressing for free and fair trade. And to the extent that China is willing to open up their markets, which they're making all the right directions on. But if they open up their markets, it's an enormous opportunity for U.S. companies.

WALLACE: Of course the fear is that that's not going to be the way they respond. The fear is that the response to the president's tariffs is going to be a trade war with China and the day after the president announced his tariffs, China announced plans to impose its own tariffs on $3 billion in U.S. exports and the possibility of billions of dollars more in U.S. experts, whether it's American soybeans or Boeing jets.

I know that you spoke with the Chinese vice premier yesterday, who, according to the Chinese news agency, said that China is prepared to defend its interests.

Do you really believe Beijing is going to blink?

MNUCHIN: Well, it's not a question of blinking. I think we've been very clear in what we want and they understand that. President Xi, Liu He (ph), have acknowledged that our shared objective is to reduce the trade deficit.

So, as President Trump said, we're not afraid of a trade war, but that's not our objective. And I've had very productive conversations with the vice premier. He came to Washington. We've communicated several times since then. We continue to have a discussion the other night. And I think we're working on a pathway to see if we can reach an agreement as to what fair trade is for them to open up their markets, reduce their tariffs, stop forced (ph) technology transfer. These are all the things we want to do.

But in a negotiation, you have to be prepared to take action. And that's what President Trump is doing.

WALLACE: So -- so I just want to make sure I'm clear here, because the president announced $60 billion in tariffs. The Chinese talked about $3 billion and the possibility of more. And, as I say, the vice premier talked about defending Beijing's interests. Are you suggesting that none of this is going to happen, that you're going to be able to avoid it and that none of these tariffs will actually go into effect?

MNUCHIN: Well, we -- we are going to proceed with our tariffs. We're working on that. We're also working on investment restrictions. But we're simultaneously having negotiations with the Chinese to see if we can reach an agreement. As the president has said, we want to cut the trade deficit 100 billion over the next year. We want to eliminate forced joint ventures, forced technology, and we're having very productive conversations with them.

I'm -- I'm cautiously hopeful we reach an agreement. But, if not, we are proceeding with these -- these tariffs. We are not putting them on hold unless we have an acceptable agreement that the president signs off on.

WALLACE: Earlier this month the president announced different tariffs on aluminum and steel imports into this country. And one of his top advisors on trade, Peter Navarro, was on in this program right after they were announced and he said that this was going to be a global imposition of tariffs on every nation that sends metals to this country. Take a look.


PETER NAVARRO, WHITE HOUSE TRADE ADVISER: But you have to understand, Chris, as soon as he starts exempting countries, he has to raise the tariff on everybody else. As soon as he exempts one country, his phone starts ringing from the heads of state of other countries.


WALLACE: But that's not what happened. The administration has now exempted Canada and Mexico and the European Union and South Korea and almost all of the major exporters of aluminum and steel.

I guess my question is, what was the point of announcing global tariffs in the first place when you took them all away?

MNUCHIN: Well, Chris, I think -- I think the strategy has worked, quite frankly. So we announced the tariff. We said we were going to proceed. But, again, we said we'd simultaneously negotiate. And I'm pleased to say Ambassador Lighthizer reached a very productive understanding with South Korea, not just these tariffs, but on the chorus (ph) trade agreement overall. We expect to sign that agreement soon.

And -- and there is a quota. So, South Korea will reduce the amount of steel that they send into the United States as part of this. So I think this is an absolute win-win.

When I was at the G-20 last week, I had many discussions with -- with my counterparts. So where we've put a pause on tariffs, we're negotiating.

WALLACE: President Trump said that his policies, and especially the big tax cut that was passed at the end of last year, would unleash strong economic growth. Here is the president.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: To get it going the way I really want, where we have GDP getting up to four, five, and even six percent, because I think that's possible.


WALLACE: But the Federal Reserve just came out with its production, and it's not four or five or six percent growth, its 2.7 percent this year, declining to 2.4 percent in 2019. Again, this is the projection of the Federal Reserve.

Question, what happened to the boom?

MNUCHIN: Well, I think we've absolutely had a boom. And that's why the Fed raised their projection to 2.7. It was substantially lower. Part of the reason why they're projecting to raise interest rates is because of the exceptional performance of the economy.

And as I've repeatedly said, our objective is 3 percent or higher. The president would like us to get higher than that. But at 3 percent, there's trillions of dollars of additional revenue to the government and tens of trillions of economic growth.

So what we've --

WALLACE: But they're saying for the next two years, the Fed is, you're not going to reach 3 percent. It's going to be 2.7 and then 2.4.

MNUCHIN: Well, again, as you know, the Fed is independent of us and I respect their projections. Our projections are higher. But I think what to focus on is their projections are up significantly. And we've now had more than two -- we've had two quarters of 3 percent GDP. We are well on our way to the 3 percent growth. And tax reform and tax cuts are a big part of that. We're seeing enormous investment back in the United States and great success on that.

WALLACE: Do you think the Fed is raising interest rates too quickly?

MNUCHIN: Well, again, I respect Fed independence, so I'm not going to comment on that.

But what I would say is, the market expects interest rates are going to go up. That's built into the forward curve. So the only question is, how fast do they raise them and where does it stop? And I think that's something that they will balance as they see economic growth.

I think the Fed is very committed to make sure that they don't cut off economic growth.

WALLACE: When a corporate tax bill was passed, you and the president promised that most of the benefits were going to go to workers, but that's not, in fact, what has happened so far. I want to put up this chart.

According to one study, S&P companies have given employees $5.2 billion in bonuses and higher wages, the kinds of things you and the president talked about. But at the same time they spent $157 billion on stock buybacks.

So far the tax cuts are going to shareholders. They're not going to workers.

MNUCHIN: Well, Chris, first of all, we're only a couple of months into this. So I think you have over 4.5 million Americans that have received special bonuses. That's an enormous situation.

I was at Boeing last week with the president -- or two weeks ago viewing the factory. There were a lot of happy workers there. I was at Apple, who's committed to put $350 billion back into the United States. These are massive commitments.

And as I've commented, there's nothing wrong with share buybacks. Share buybacks are just an allocation of capital. If a company can't effectively use that capital, they will return it to shareholders. In many cases that's pensions and other large investors, who then invest that capital back into companies that need the capital. So --

WALLACE: OK, so are you disappointed that $5 billion is going to workers and $150 billion is going to shareholders?

MNUCHIN: It's not -- it's not an equivalent comparison.

So, again, that $150 billion that's going back to shareholders gets recycled into the economy. The 5 billion that's going to workers is an -- is an enormous amount of money that we didn't even expect to see right away.

What we've expected to see is, over the course of the next year, wages increase something like $4,500. And that's -- that's a lot of money. So I think -- I think you're seeing absolutely the impact that we thought and more so on the tax plan.

WALLACE: Finally, we had some drama on Friday when President Trump threatened for a few hours to veto the $1.3 trillion spending bill that Congress had passed and then eventually signed it. And when he signed it, not very happily, he issued this warning.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again. I'm not going to do it again.


WALLACE: Question, what is the president saying? Is he saying that he'll not sign another omnibus spending bill? That it's got to be individual spending bills for each department?

And this is something the Republicans are in control of the House and the Senate and they -- and the bill that was passed, aren't they responsible for this big, omnibus, grab bag spending bill?

MNUCHIN: Not -- not at all.

So, first of all, as you know, you need bipartisan support in the Senate to get the bill passed. So even though the Republicans control the Senate, they couldn't pass this alone.

It was a difficult decision for the president, and I understand that, because the president's main priority was to get money for the military. Given everything that's going on in the world, that is absolutely critical.

And the Democrats held us up. Our original budget was we would keep everything else balanced, but the Democrats demanded a massive increase in non-military spending. And that's going to balloon the deficit.

WALLACE: Because that's going to --

MNUCHIN: And that's something we're going to have to deal with.

WALLACE: But -- but, I was going to say, that's going to happen next time when the next spending bill comes up in October, they're going to be demanding parity as well. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is reality.

MNUCHIN: Well, it doesn't need to be reality. And I'm not going to comment on what the president will do. But as you heard him say, he's not planning on doing this again. I think -- I think they should give the president a line item veto. These things should be looked at --

WALLACE: But that's been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, sir.

MNUCHIN: Well, again, Congress could pass a rule, OK, that allows them to do it. But --

WALLACE: No, no, sir, it would be a constitutional amendment.

MNUCHIN: Chris, we don't -- we don't need to get into a debate in terms of -- there's different ways of doing this. My comment is, it's clear what happened. The Democrats, in order to get us military spending, demanded a massive increase in non-military spending. And the president made the decision this time that that was worth it because military spending, given what's going on in Iran, in North Korea, in Venezuela, and Russia, all around the world where we're using sanctions, we need to make sure we have a military that has the necessary resources.

WALLACE: Secretary Mnuchin, thank you. Thanks for your time this weekend. I always appreciate your willingness to take all our questions and answer them.

Thank you, sir. Always good to talk to you.

MNUCHIN: Thank you, Chris. Great to be here.

WALLACE: Up next, more shake-ups at the White House as President Trump names former Ambassador John Bolton as his new national security advisor. We'll bring back the panel to discuss the new hawks (ph) on his national security team.



JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.N. AMBASSADOR: This is the way I would propose you do it. I'm glad to be here to talk about denuclearization. So tell me what ports American ships should sail into, what airports American cargo planes can land at so we can load your nuclear weapons program onto those as soon as beginning next week?


WALLACE: President Trump's new national security advisor, John Bolton, suggesting just weeks before his appointment how the president should handle his upcoming summit with North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un.

And we're back now with the panel.

Speaker Gingrich, to say that John Bolton is a hard-liner on foreign policy is an understatement. In addition to those remarks, he also said it was, quote, "perfectly legitimate" for the U.S. to conduct a preemptive strike on North Korea.

Putting Bolton at the NSC and Pompeo at the State Department, do you think that helps or hurts in terms of the president's foreign policy in general and specifically in terms of the upcoming summit with Kim?

NEWT GINGRICH, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think, first of all, it actually helps the president because I think he always felt that he and Secretary Tillerson and he and National Security Advisor McMaster had a tension and that both of them wanted a more moderate policy than he did. Now he's going to have two guys who are him, and I think it will allow him to relax and accept the fact that they can work together as professionals.

And Bolton is a very solid professional with a very long career. And I think that Bolton and Pompeo both will provide the president with a range of choices, along with Secretary Mattis, and I think that they will -- but they'll be on -- they'll be going in the room saying, how can we help get what you want done as opposed to going in the room and saying, what you want done is wrong.

WALLACE: The new Fox poll that we were talking about earlier also asks people about the upcoming Kim-Trump summit. Take a look. Sixty-three percent approve of the two leaders meeting, while 30 percent disapprove. And when asked, who will get the better deal, 42 percent say President Trump, 26 percent say Kim.

Juan, what do you think of Mr. Trump putting together what some people are calling a war cabinet, and does it increase the chances, this more hawkish team, for conflict or for peace?

JUAN WILLIAMS, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you know, to meet, the big item here, Chris, is that we have the Iran deal reauthorization coming up in about a month. And the president has been reluctant in the past to sign it. But McMaster, Tillerson were of a mind that he should, that it is a good deal for the USA.

Bolton, on the other hand, is a critic, a strong opponent. And I think that in the short term it means that there's -- it's less likely that the president will allow the Iran deal to go forward.

And what does that mean in terms of North Korea, as we were just discussing. Does it mean that the United States, as we try and negotiate with North Korea and Kim Jong-un, that we might be seen as not keeping our commitments? So I think it does increase the chances for conflict, not only in the short term in terms of the Iran deal, but also with North Korea.

WALLACE: All right, I'm going to make a dramatic change here because the president is also changing his legal team. His lead private lawyer, John Dowd, resigned this week and the president is apparently considering a well-known lawyer here in D.C. named Joe diGenova to join the legal team.

Here he diGenova about Trump back a couple of months ago.


JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: There was a brazen plot to illegally exonerate Hillary Clinton. And if she didn't win the election, to then frame Donald Trump with a falsely created crime.


WALLACE: Julie, now there is talk that the president may be having second thoughts about bringing diGenova on. One, what do you know about that? And, two, with Dowd out and all of this talk about the legal team, what's the strategy here? Do you get a sense that -- is the president going to be more cooperative with the special counsel and sit down and do an interview? Is he going to be more competitive? What's going on?

JULIE PACE, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Well, the questions about diGenova started to percolate pretty quickly after it was floated that he was under consideration. He and his wife have a law firm. They are representing -- his wife in particular is representing another person who has some potential exposure under the Mueller investigation. And that really encapsulates one of the problems that the White House has had, that the president has had in trying to bolster this legal team.

The Mueller investigation is incredibly broad. So you have qualified lawyers all over town who are conflicted out because of other clients that they have taken on. You have a second problem where you have people who are not conflicted out who frankly just don't want to join the team right now. It has been a struggle to find high-quality lawyers who are (INAUDIBLE) --

WALLACE: But do you have a sense of what his strategy is?

PACE: So the strategy as it relates to the Mueller investigation --


PACE: Has been twofold. One has been to say, we want to let this investigation continue. We think that there is nothing that the president did wrong either during the campaign or with some of the things that we know Mueller is looking at since he's taken office, the firing of Comey, the crafting of this letter. So that has been one piece of it.

But you do see the president himself itching to get this over with. And getting it over with would mean having to do some type of interview with Mueller's team. And that's where a lot of the debate is right now. The president wants to do that interview a lot more than his legal team does.

WALLACE: Jason, what's your sense? What's the -- what's the strategy going forward after these changes in personnel and do you think the president wants to sit down or not with Mueller?

JASON MILLER, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISER: Well, we've obviously seen the comments from the president about wanting to sit down, but I think he absolutely should. And I'll tell you why. Where I disagree -- I agreed with the speaker in the previous segment. I'll disagreeing with him here. In a conventional Washington with a conventional client, this would be the advice that you would give the president to say, don't sit down with him. But President Trump is an unconventional president. He didn't run as a conventional candidate in the primary or the general. (INAUDIBLE) --

WALLACE: But, wait, this isn't policy, this is law (ph).

MILLER: No, but -- but it all -- but it all comes together because at every moment, every critical moment in President Trump's short, political career, he has risen to the occasion, whether it be in debates, whether it be in big speeches. He sat down in front of interviews and depositions before and to sit down and say there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and a foreign entity, I have full confidence that he can do that because he has to get on offense and take that power away from Mueller. Right now the only one who's telling the story are President Trump's political opponents. This is his chance to go and tell it.

Now, there's one other critical point here, Chris. Even after this investigation wraps up, President Trump is one of -- is going to be out there telling his story, going into 2019 and into 2020. And if he hasn't sat down, I think that's going to make it much tougher in the eyes of the American public to say that he's completely cleared the deck.

I full -- I have full confidence in the president.

WALLACE: Go ahead.

PACE: But the reality -- the reality, though, is that collusion is not what the president's lawyers are worried about in terms of this interview. They're worried about the things that happened after he took office, the firing of Comey, the drafting --

WALLACE: The potential obstruction of justice.

MILLER: But this is --


MILLER: But -- but he has the ability here, and his legal team has the ability, to dictate some of the terms of what this interview was going to look like. And so this is where he needs to go and do that on the front end because, again, if he's not telling his story, nobody else is going to.

WALLACE: All right. Ten seconds. He picked a fight with you and you haven't said a word.

GINGRICH: Well, the only time -- we were talking outside.

Look, my only point is this, Trump may have done a lot of civil litigation. Criminal investigations by special councils are very different and very dangerous.

WALLACE: All right, we -- well, I think we would all agree with that.

To be continued. This is not going to be ending right here.

Thank you, panel. See you next Sunday.

Up next, our "Power Player of the Week." How the Pence family's pet rabbit -- I should say bunny, is giving children a civics lesson.


WALLACE: For the first time in 150 years, there is no pet in the White House. But the vice president and his family have brought a menagerie to Washington, including a dog, a cat and a bunny. Which brings us to our "Power Player of the Week."


KAREN PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE'S WIFE: And he'll sit and hold a poise and wait until you get a lot of shots. I mean it's really adorable. He's kind of a prima donna.

Hey, Marlon.

WALLACE: Karen Pence is talk about the family's pet bunny. The main character in a children's book she had her daughter, Charlotte, have written called "Marlon Bundo's Day in the Life of the Vice President."

But before we get to the book, there's Marlon's story.

Charlotte was working on a college film project and needed a bunny.

CHARLOTTE PENCE, "A DAY IN THE LIFE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT": I asked the owner how much for the bunny, and they said to make him an offer. And so it became this godfather joke with my friends.

WALLACE: Marlon Brando became Marlon Bundo, who escapes from his cage just as two teens break out of their troubles.

C. PENCE: He's kind of a metaphor. He's every deep.

WALLACE: In 2017, when the family moved to Washington, photographers spotted Marlon being carried off Air Force Two.

K. PENCE: For some reason it became this phenomenon, you know, that, oh, my gosh, the Pences have a bunny. And so Charlotte thought it would be a lot of fun to start Marlon's own Instagram account.

WALLACE: Last May Marlon made his first official appearance at an event honoring military families and clearly upstaged the vice president.


K. PENCE: You know who this is, don't you? Whisper it. Whisper it.

M. PENCE: Marlon.

C. PENCE: Marlon, this is Chris Wallace. Mr. Chris Wallace, this is the BOTUS.

WALLACE: Yes, that stands for bunny of the United States.

WALLACE (on camera): My family has had a bunch of bunnies and none of them were ever as well behaved as Marlon.

C. PENCE: He's good. Yes, he's -- he -- we think he's kind of, you know, he likes the spotlight a little bit.

WALLACE (voice over): And so was born the idea for a book about Marlon following grandpa, the vice president, around Washington for a full day of meetings.

Mrs. Pence, who's an accomplished artist, did the illustrations, while Charlotte wrote the story in verse.

C. PENCE: Allow me to introduce myself. I am Marlon Bundo Pence. I live with my family here at the vice president's residence.

WALLACE: The Pence's are donating proceeds from the book to charity. Charlotte, to fight human trafficking, Mrs. Pence to support art therapy.

K. PENCE: When our soldiers come back and can't talk about trauma, art therapy is something that can help bring those emotions to the surface where then they can deal with them.

WALLACE: Charlotte says Marlon brings bunny lovers together, erasing political lines (ph). But comedian John Oliver came out with his own book trolling the vice president, with proceeds going to LGBT and AIDS groups.

JOHN OLIVER, LATE NIGHT HOST: Our story is about Marlon Bundo falling in love with another boy rabbit, because our Marlon Bundo is gay.

K. PENCE: On Marlon's Instagram, Marlon actually said, the only thing better than one bunny book that benefits charity is two bunny books that benefits charity.

WALLACE: Marlon can be seen on Instagram flipping the pages of his book. While mother and daughter are clearly enjoying their collaboration.

C. PENCE: Every time I see a picture of a kid reading the book, it just makes my day.

K. PENCE: One of the first pictures she sent me on her phone was the binding where it says Pence/Pence. So it was -- it was really sweet.


WALLACE: The Pences are already talking about a second book. Charlotte says Marlon has a few more adventures up his sleeve.

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.