This is a rush transcript from "The Five," May 15, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Kimberly Guilfoyle. This is a Fox News alert.

The White House pushing back against the bombshell Washington Post report. The headline of the Post story says, quote, "Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador." National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster spoke to reporters from the White House denying the report.


H.R. MCMASTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There is nothing that the president takes more seriously than the security of our American people. The story that came out tonight as reported is false. The president and the foreign minister reviewed a range of common threats to our two countries including threats to civil aviation. At no time -- at no time, were intelligence sources or message discussed. And the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known. Two other senior officials who were present including the Secretary of State, remember the meeting the same way and said so. Their on the record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous source. And I was in the room, it didn't happen.


GUILFOYLE: Joining us now with more is chief White House correspondent John Roberts.

Good evening, John. So, obviously a big breaking news story. You saw that very strong and definitive statement from H.R. McMaster. What's the latest?

JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS: Well, I can tell you that nobody at the White House is happy that all of this has happened, Kimberly. And they're trying to get to the bottom of it. I talked with the senior official here at the White House and told me, quote, "The fact that someone would leak this is astonishing and it shows both an extraordinary lack of concern for National Security." The White House frankly is baffled as to how all of this got out.

You heard H.R. McMaster say that there were a limited number of people in the Oval Office. Clearly, there were some aides as well who were present. But the fact that the details of this meeting with such a small circle of people could get out was baffling to the White House is also very troubling. However, for us as journalists, and H.R. McMaster statement, he did not say what the nature of the information was that the President shared.

And here's why we get into a little bit of an area that is concerned to some people who have been in this business for a long time. And that is the intelligence business. But this was said to be an intelligence document that was developed by one of our partners, may be a partner in the region, and that the President didn't have, quote, "ownership of this." And while the President can go out there and talk about anything he wants, classified or not. The fact that this might have come from a third country is something that is troubling because it might actually compromised in the hands of the Russians, the sources and methods used by that third country to develop their intelligence -- Kimberly.

GUILFOYLE: All right. John, thank you. We will going to take it around the table. We have some questions for you. Dana?

DANA PERINO, CO-HOST: So, John, I have a couple questions. So, there was a report that after the meeting, is it true that the NSC called the NSA and the CIA to report about the meeting because they were concerned about something? Does that actually happened?

ROBERTS: We don't have any independent reporting on that. We can only go by the story that in which this all first came to life and that's in The Washington Post which says that the NSA called the CIA and the NSA, the National Security Agency to tell them that the President had shared this documents, we don't know what the substance of these conversations was and what the reaction was at the CIA and the NSA. I'm sorry, Dana. A little deeper level of understanding of that particular --

PERINO: No. You don't have to apologize. It's difficult because obviously it's breaking news and something like this would be so classified -- no, White House communications team like, they would never know about it. So now they are having to scramble on a story but that is possibly I guess the story is about the leak.

ROBERTS: And here is one thing we do know about this information is that it had to do with threats to airlines, which would put it in the realm of this whole laptop threat. You know, laptops have been banned on flights coming into the United States at least in the cabin from the Middle East that has now been expanded to Europe. Russia faces the same threat. So, we are hearing from sources that, you know, why wouldn't the White House share that sort of information with another country that is under the same sort of threat, and in particular, a country with which the President would like to work together to defeat ISIS? So, there may be less there to this actual information than what is being deposited by some news organizations.

GUILFOYLE: Okay. And we will take it to Jesse and then Bob.

JESSE WATTERS, CO-HOST: John, how many people were at the meeting, number one? And were they all aides? Did each individual there have an aide and have they narrowed down the amount of people that were there? Because this is turning into a leak investigation. And can't you go up to one of these aides who I assumed did the leaking, I assume it's not McMaster, I assume it's not Tillerson, it's got to be in aide and say, hand over your Blackberry, let me see your computer, who did you call? Is that happening right now? It seems like that would be the top priority of the Trump White House.

ROBERTS: Well, first of all, we don't know the exact number of people that were in the meeting. We do know that there were four principles to the President, Rex Tillerson, H.R. McMaster, the National Security Advisor, and Dina Powell who is the Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy. And then there will be a number of aides as well. We know that Lavrov and Kislyak were there. We know that there was a photographer who was operating on behalf of the Russian government who was there.

He also happened to apparently being a journalist because those photos were published and then the Russians would have had a number of aides as well. You can bet that this White House is actively trying to trace down the source of this leak. I do not know if it's been narrowed down to any particular group of people. I've been told that a memo was not broadly circulated about the contents of this meeting. But I am also hearing that there were electronic communications regarding this meeting, and that the leak could have happened digitally. And that is someone got a hold of an email and decided to share with somebody else that then shared it to the media.

If you look at The Washington Post story and The New York Times also has matching reporting on it now, there are officials who are, U.S. officials who are current and former, who are sources for these stories, so that was it just somebody inside government, somebody who used to be in government but is now in the private sector -- Jesse.

GUILFOYLE: They have to figure in fact who had access to an email like that as well to know this, John. Bob has a question for you, John.

BOB BECKEL, CO-HOST: John, if you asked me, McMaster says the story is flat false. He wouldn't take any questions but he said it was false. Yet, The Washington Post, if this is a false story, was asked by the CIA and the NSA not to publish the name of the town which is very significant where this information came from. Where our partner got the information and shared it with us. And for that to get out, even that to get out is beyond comprehension vote, except in this White House. But, so, why would The Washington Post make this up? Why would the CIA say, say The Washington Post withhold this information, and then post it?

ROBERTS: Well, it all depends on what type of document and what the intelligence was Bob, that they were talking about. And I think that's what H.R. McMaster is talking about when he says that the story as reported is false. And again, I am told that this is information that was both pertinent to threats against the United States and threats against Russia. And when you are trying to develop an ally on the war on terror and the fight against ISIS, you want to share some information that is relevant and pertinent to them to try to get them on board.

But Bob, to your other point, you know, this is information, you know, it comes back to Russia again for this White House. If this was a singular event, you can say okay, fine, so they shared some information. But when you take this in the piece of a larger puzzle, there are some people here at the White House who say, I can't believe it's Russia and it's Russia again -- Bob.

GUILFOYLE: Uh-hm. All right. Greg has a question for you, John.

GREG GUTFELD, CO-HOST: Yes. I noticed the criticism of McMasters is that, he says the story is false, but he doesn't say what part is false because it sounded like a legal answer. So, he can't say if there is like one sliver of the story that is not right that he can say. The whole story is not right. I am wondering if that holds water in your opinion. Was that a legal -- his way of a legal answer and not a real answer? And I am also curious about Sean Spicer. I'm wondering if he is somewhere doing shots of Jagermeister in a fork made of pillows in the woods.


ROBERTS: Well, I could tell you this much, he is not hiding out in the bushes here on the North Lawn. Did it sound like a legal answer or at least a legal statement from H.R. McMaster? Yes, it did. Because again, we do not know what the actual document was. Was it a classified document? Was it a top secret document? Was it a code worded document as was reported by The Washington Post. We do not know. We do not know what part of the reporting is, quote, "false."

Now, as to Sean Spicer, he is still in his office right behind me. We do know that the communications staff Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Michael Dubke were together in a meeting in the cabinet room with Steve Bannon. And in a couple of moments because we were standing in the hallway not too far away, we heard some raised voices. So, it's likely that that meeting got a little heated at times.

We don't know what the content or what the substance of the meeting was. But it sounded like there were points of disagreement that were going on there. And no question, Greg, that this President is not happy with his communications operation as it has been. I don't know if you saw Sean Spicer during the briefing today, but I have never seen him like that. He barely cracked a smile today. It was kind of flat and forthright and that is not the Sean Spicer that I know.

GUILFOYLE: Okay, John, just a real quick follow-up and then we're going to discuss at the table. But it seems so far thus far that Tillerson and Dina Powell and H.R. McMaster were on point in terms of, you know, consistent with their statements about what transpired.

ROBERTS: Yes. I mean, there was consistency among the principles, and those were the three that were in there with the President. They were the senior administration officials, all on the same page. You can expect that they might be as well because they are all working on this together. The big question here, Kimberly is, who is not on the same page? Who thought that it would be appropriate to leak to The Washington Post and now "The New York Times" as well? Such sensitive information as to what happened in that meeting a week ago.

GUILFOYLE: Yes. Highly inappropriate and should be action when they make a determination. John, thank you for your report and we will check back in later.

BECKEL: You know, can I just -- go ahead --

GUILFOYLE: Oh, is that a question, Dana had a comment about that.

PERINO: Well, so the communications team again, I don't see how they can be at fault for this.


PERINO: They are not privy to that kind of classified information. Apparently. So, other people shouldn't be, like, necessarily, like the Russians. I can understand why you don't share that information. But if there are reasons that you have partnerships with third-party intelligence because you can't always be there, but those entities or sources don't necessarily want it to be known that they are helping the United States of America because I could actually either disrupt the source and method or show that a government that shouldn't be helping America is actually helping. So, that is probably the concern.

Also, part of the report on The Washington Post says that after the meeting concludes, the NSA contacts the NSA and the CIA. So, immediately I think that takes it out of the White House.


PERINO: And so, I don't know if you had to like hunt down people in the White House. Like, how do people in the White House know? And now the communicators are on the hook for something that is highly classified that they can't even comment on. When the NSA documents were released in 2005 and it was not on the front page of the "New York Times," it's still had nothing declassified by the President so we had to say no comment all the time. So, the communicators are in handcuffs. And the last thing I would say is, if you are going to have an internal White House meeting, where you're going to hash something out, don't do it and the cabinet room. Do it in the chief-of-staff's office where nobody can hear you.


GUTFELD: This is probably a very dumb question. Are there transcripts of meetings like this?

PERINO: Probably not. I mean, somebody in there that might have been taking notes.


PERINO: I mean, that's either whether it's true or it is a flipping comment, like now all of a sudden --

BECKEL: I think it's fair to say --

GUILFOYLE: If I make sure you don't want anything leaving the room as well in terms of especially because they have to get leaks under control and find out exactly who the person or individuals are that are causing this, you know, inner breach of National Security, releasing information like this, which highly inappropriate.

PERINO: Right out, it came from the White House. I don't think the leak to The Washington Post came from the White House.

WATTERS: It probably came from one of the aides.

PERINO: Right.

WATTERS: Because --

PERINO: One of the agencies, right? Because they called the NSA and the CIA to alert them that this third-party source information has now been given to the Russians that wasn't ours to --

WATTERS: But how would the NSA or the CIA have access to the information if they weren't in the meeting?

GUTFELD: Because they were contacted after because they were giving a head-ups, is what I understand.

WATTERS: So, it went through the agencies and then to The Washington Post.

GUTFELD: Yes. Perhaps.

GUILFOYLE: It could be a former employee, could have been --

PERINO: Or it could have been, that the Russians called somebody to say, hey, we got this information and then the sourced tracked it.

WATTERS: Maybe the Russians were the leakers.

PERINO: Excellent.

WATTERS: To make Trump look bad.

GUTFELD: Trump could have been the leaker by pivoting the story away from Comey. So it could be, what could I do to get everybody to forget about Comey, this, let's do this, like you know, when we --

GUILFOYLE: I seriously doubt he wouldn't want to add more Russians to the --


BECKEL: Can I get in just for a minute if I could?


BECKEL: Code level language into the security business, at least when I was in the White House was restricted to the President and maybe four or five other people.


BECKEL: So, this leak is a serious leak, nobody knew about it before. They gave the name of the city, which is in a country probably sure where ICE is controlled that city. They got the information from a source in that city and a third party country had did that whose probably worked with us.


BECKEL: The idea that this gets out like that, do you think this third- party country is going to help us? Excuse me. Let me finish! Let me finish! Let me finish! Let me finish! The fact of the matter is, that nobody knew the name of the city until this meeting took place. Nobody!


BECKEL: Nobody knew about. And the other thing is that the Russians are threatened by these computers, all you have to say is, we have got the intelligence that says, you maybe in trouble too. You don't get the details of it.


BECKEL: Trump did this and Trump screwed himself.

WATTERS: Okay. Trump did this but The Washington Post is wrong about Sean Spicer hiding in the bushes, they were wrong about Rusty (ph) and the Deputy AG resigning.

BECKEL: Oh, come on!


WATTERS: -- from the Washington Post. We also know that Trump has been at war with the intelligence community for a very long time. And there's been leaking against him from the very beginning. We also know -- can I just say one more thing? When the Obama White House --

GUILFOYLE: I'm going to have to restart.

WATTERS: One more thing. When the Obama White House put out in a press release, the name of this CIA -- in Afghanistan, expose them, that guy had to fly back in the next -- no one cares.


WATTERS: No one care!

BECKEL: Yes. We understand that was a bit -- not nearly as bad as this. And your understanding at this stuff is so --

WATTERS: No, your level of outrage based on the political party, that's what outrageous.

BECKEL: My outrage is that you have a city where -- you gave me this information that was never known before and after that meeting it was which means something of a compromise and that hurts the National Security.

WATTERS: I trust McMaster over you.

BECKEL: Yes. Well --

GUILFOYLE: Let's get Greg in. You two are fighting like cats and dogs but who is the cat and who's the dog. Raise your hand.

GUTFELD: Yes. I'm the dog. This story broke two hours ago, roughly two hour ago so everybody is ripping apart. The media is presenting two choices. They were presenting choices. The Washington Post made this up of "fake news." Trump committed a heinous blender and now they are covering it up. Those are the only choices that you are always given when in fact it's likely, and we all know it is probably true, it is probably somewhere in the middle.

Trump being Trump doesn't know the rules. Doesn't know what he supposed to say and he probably said something, you went a little too far. That to me sounds plausible. The other thing that sounds plausible to me is that The Washington Post took a small blender and exaggerated it. So, these are two polarities that is something in the middle.

BECKEL: They didn't exaggerate that they had the name of the city, and they have the name of the country, and they refused to put it in at the request of the CIA and NSA. One thing we do know is true, before this meeting, nobody except a very few people knew about this. Now everybody knows about it which means it had to come out of that meeting some way. Maybe it wasn't Trump. Maybe it wasn't an aide. It doesn't matter. It was discussed. The fact that it was discussed is disgusting.

WATTERS: Well, the story is the leaked. That's the story.

BECKEL: No, it's not.

WATTERS: Absolutely. If you're a disloyal person, you sing to The Washington Post. If you are a loyal person, you take it to your superior. If you take it to the press and you say, I'm concerned about it --

BECKEL: If you are a source living in an icy city, you will probably get killed because of this, it doesn't matter if it's a leak.

GUTFELD: But Bob, but Bob, okay, the discussion is what McMaster has said, is the discussion didn't go beyond what is known. That is what he said that this was already in the public arena. This was about the laptops.


GUTFELD: However, what might be new at this piece is where they got the information from the cities. So, what I am saying is, there might have been a blunder there but is it the mushroom cloud of The Washington Post or is it fake news? It's in the middle.

GUILFOYLE: The statement is pretty, in terms of what the administration did here. I think it was important that they went ahead and addressed it immediately without letting the story start to fester. Because they had a statement released by Tillerson and then a specific statement from McMaster, who was one of the principals in the room, said the President and Foreign Minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation, that was also meant in the reporting from John Roberts about the laptops, we were receiving the alerts about that.

BECKEL: But how do we know the name of the city?

GUILFOYLE: And then, okay, well, and at no time whether any intelligent sources or message discussed and no military operations were discussed that were not already known publicly. That's the thing.

BECKEL: Nobody knew the name of the city publicly. It doesn't occur to any of you that nobody knew about this informant or the country or the city? And so, after that meeting, they did. Which means in that meeting it was discussed. Somebody talked about it, somebody named the name of that city otherwise it wouldn't have gotten into the post. Yes. You could say, it's fake --

GUTFELD: No, I'm not saying it's fake news.

BECKEL: No, no, no. I'm saying, the people say, it's fake news are idiots. And the other thing about it is it's not a leak the story.

PERINO: Right.

BECKEL: It's a question about whether this informant is still alive, which I doubt, and whether this country is going to help us that's going to help us again. That's important. The leak is --

GUILFOYLE: All right. And moving on now, there's a matter of big news today because there is some. The White House has a lit up in blue tonight in honor of our nation's finest who lost their lives in the line of duty. Today is Peace Officers Memorial Day, which marks the start of national police week, a time of renewed importance as a law enforcement face is constantly growing dangerous. Officer fatalities are up 39 percent this year alone according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Think about that for a moment. And while critics said the Obama administration didn't fully back cops, President Trump had a warning to anyone who dares to harm a police officer.


PRES. DONALD TRUMP (R), UNITED STATES: The attacks on our police are a stain on the very fabric of our society and you are entitled to leadership at the highest level that will draw a bright line in the sand. Not a red line in the sand that isn't gone over, but a bright line in the sand. And we will protect you, that I can tell you, and we will say, enough is enough.


GUILFOYLE: That president also had a compassionate message for the family members of slain officers.


TRUMP: Every child in America has lost a mom or dad in the line of duty. I want you to know that your parents are American heroes. American heroes. Their sacrifice will never, ever be forgotten. To everyone in the audience here today, I want you to know that my administration is determined, totally determined to restore law, order, and justice for all Americans, and we are going to do it quickly.


GUILFOYLE: Very important message coming from the President of the United States which is very consistent with the promises he made it during his campaign to put law and order first, to protect America, and to also have respect for the men and women that serve in blue. Jesse, a powerful moment.

WATTERS: Very powerful. One of the best moments is when he said the thing you can do and it really helps us is go to a police officer and say two words, "thank you."

GUILFOYLE: Thank you.

WATTERS: And shake their hand. I think everybody should do that. It's nice to have a president honor the sacrifice and the service of law enforcement. We haven't heard that a lot for the last eight years.

GUILFOYLE: And the family members.

WATTERS: And the family members. You know, I think President Obama came out first and said that Cambridge -- that all the drama over "Hands Up Don't Shoot" and the hoodie which wasn't based on fact.


WATTERS: Yes. Because you are wrong, again.

BECKEL: No, I'm not.

WATTERS: Let me get this for you.

BECKEL: Please.

WATTERS: Okay. You drop your ID. Maybe I should keep this so you can't get back over the --


WATTERS: But, you know --

BECKEL: I'll tell you what's --

WATTERS: There you go. No, it is just very nice to hear the good guys having support from his commander-in-chief and, you know, it's about time.


GUILFOYLE: Yes, go ahead.

GUTFELD: Well, no, I think -- because you were talking about the campaign, and I think what Trump had done was with the larger point in immigration or trade and that was that no one had called out the last, I would say, three decades of anti-police ideology that you see in pop culture. That it started really in the 70s and 80s that driven home this idea that we live in this police state and that there's this militarization and that the police should not be trusted. And this has been building for some time and I'm not talking about President Obama.

I'm talking about in our culture, in our pop culture, in our music, we had created this idea that these were the bad guys. This was a win for Trump in a sense that no one had really gone out there and asked the politician and gone after this. And I think for the Democrats, Bob, they should re- examine their stance and learn something from President Trump that in the world of law and order. B, for law enforcement doesn't make you a racist and being tough on crime doesn't make you a bigot. It actually tries to stop crime helps minority communities. And I think the Democrats even know that they have to re-examine the way they look at it.

BECKEL: I think it was the best statement that Trump has given -- I read that whole thing. And for once, he has paying some attention to people writing for him. Because he did a very good job.

GUILFOYLE: Maybe because of the -- Bob.

BECKEL: But here's the problem. Here's the problem. He has said, we are not going to let that happen again, what are you going to do about it, Mr. President? Are you going to send in troops? Is that what you're going to do? The President doesn't want to stop cops being killed. And you say, you were going to do something about it, will you stop talking about it and start doing it?

GUILFOYLE: What are you talking about? Why are you seizing these opportunities to disparage --

BECKEL: Oh, come on!

GUILFOYLE: -- when you just said that he in fact made a good statement --

BECKEL: That was a good statement.

GUILFOYLE: And is totally consistent with what he is always promised and to focus on law and order and making sure police departments are respected and their lives are protected and they are not cashing in.

BECKEL: How is he going to protect their lives?

GUILFOYLE: He is making sure that the Police Departments have adequate resources and not worrying about the Department of Justice investigation every other second for just doing their job and acting following the law --

GUTFELD: It was a crisis in confidence and it was the law enforcement who belief that they weren't going to be backed up.

GUILFOYLE: And they were targeted.

GUTFELD: So they pulled back and that allowed crime to increase. There was a, you know, dispute over whether this is true or not, but there are a lot of people who believe that because the police pulled back, you are seeing a rise in crime. What he is saying is you have that confidence in support of this administration and the American people to do your damn job. We want you to do your job.

GUILFOYLE: Versus witch hunt against police officers. Dana.

PERINO: Well, there's not much about to say. I talked to a police chief today. He said that what matters the most, he thinks that the police officers are actually well resourced. That they don't actually need more stuff or more money. What they want is -- this is what he said to him.


PERINO: He's part of the Police Chief Association. He said that what they do appreciate is the moral support and the belief that they have the backing of the federal government. But he said, even more importantly than that is that this needs to trickle down to the state level because this pulling back, or this so called Ferguson effect, that you are actually now seeing, the uptick in major metropolitan areas having crimes that they've been going down for 20 years. So, something definitely happened and he said that it would actually help them to have this sort of support to know that they will be supported in going out and doing their jobs. But he said, at the state level, for their state representatives, it's really important to add that into the mix.

GUILFOYLE: And just that level of communication and being able to express thoroughly what they need and the resources and or support for their communities is important.

BECKEL: (coughing) I'm sorry!


BECKEL: Sorry, I have a cough.

WATTERS: Are you okay?

GUILFOYLE: All right.


GUILFOYLE: Somebody get Bob some smelling salts and cough drop.

All right. Ahead, one of Bin Laden's sons may be looking to take over the family business. Hamza Bin Laden is all grown up and apparently bowing revenge for his father's death. Is he the next leader of al Qaeda? We will explore it, next. Stay with us.


PERINO: It's now been over six years since Navy SEALs raided Usama Bin Laden's home in Pakistan and eliminated the world's most wanted terrorist. But according to former FBI agent Ali Soufan, the world may not have heard the last from the Bin Laden family. Soufan who was the FBI's lead investigator of al Qaeda after 9/11 says that Usama's 28-year-old son Hamza Bin Laden seen here at a younger age is an emerging leader for the reinvigorated terror group and that he is bowing to avenge his father's death.


ALI SOUFAN, FORMER FBI AGENT: He is basically saying America and American people -- we are coming and you were going to feel it. And we are going to take revenge for what you did to my father. We are going to revenge what you did in Iraq. We're going to revenge what you did in Iraq. We are going to revenge what you did in Afghanistan.


SOUFAN: Absolutely, the whole thing was about vengeance. He wants to avenge his dad. We killed Usama bin Laden. But his message lives.

WILLIAMS: His messages lives. And now, there is a new messenger. His young, charismatic son.

SOUFAN: Yeah. I think we are not done with the bin Laden's yet.


PERINO: Soufan also has a pessimistic assessment of the current threat posed by Al Qaeda.


SOUFAN: If you look at 9/11, Al Qaeda had only about 400 members. They were based in Afghanistan. If you look at Al Qaeda today, they have thousands and thousands of members. All over the Middle East, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. I don't believe even bin Laden in his wildest dreams thought that he would have followers who command armies, troops, control lands. Our extremely powerful geopolitical players as Al Qaeda today.


PERINO: All right. Let's take it around the table. Greg, talk with former intel person today who said that he worries that Al Qaeda is patiently setting the table for something big, which means that we have to be on our toes, I suppose.

GUTFELD: I have said it before. This could be the solid day before something really bad. That 9/12 that looks 9/11, makes 9/11 look small. I would love to see his father and son reunite. So I am all for that. But the conflict boils down for Donald Trump, I think. He is somebody who wants to stay out of things.

This is kind of my impression with war. It is not nation building when you are killing terrorists, it is simply killing terrorists. Killing terrorists isn't meddling in a country, it isn't a way to win a war, it is a thing. It's the global version of taking out the trash.

If there's a leak in the apartment above you and that person is away, you have every right to go in there and plug that leak. And that's what we have to do. We have to lift restrictions on fighting. We have to look at it in a different way. We have to look at cyber. We have to look at biochemical. We have to look at everything.

PERINO: Nuclear?

GUTFELD: Nuclear. And we have to treat it as though it's never going to end and kill as many as possible when given the chance.

PERINO: One of the things, Kimberly, is that Hamza, the son, does not have any experience on the battlefield with Al Qaeda, but what they can is they franchise.

GUILFOYLE: Absolutely.

PERINO: They recruit. And they train, provide contacts and receive money. So I also heard and I am wondering what you think about this, it is possible that (inaudible) is basically using the son to fund his operation (inaudible) by ISIS.

GUILFOYLE: Absolutely because, you know, his family and his father was the head of a terrorist dynasty, Jihad dynasty. So people will look to that family for support. They will use him to recruit in a political way to be able to get followers, to inspire people to radical Jihad. You know, his brother was killed in the attack against his father, and so now he is the one that sort of left to carry on.

You're right, he doesn't have operational battlefield experience, but perhaps the value that he has is far greater than that to the terrorist organization because he may not be able to tell you how to go out and do it, but he can recruit people to get numbers and strength and resources and financial means to be able to carry out terror. PERINO: President Trump in front of them has a decision that was supposed to be made maybe last week but now they said that it will probably wait until after he goes to the NATO meeting and that is to whether or not to reevaluate and to change our posture in Afghanistan and possibly in the broader war on terror. Where do you think it will come down?

WATTERS: I think he is going to have to give more troops to Afghanistan. That's what the generals want. And he's been very open to giving the generals all the tools they need on the battlefield. When I first heard the story, I am thinking this is one of the stories when they say about no one talks about homelessness and then a Republican gets in there and all these homelessness stories popped up.

Remember how Obama said, you know, GM is alive and bin Laden is dead, we decimate there on the run. I believe this guy. This is the guy that works for the FBI that was doing the interrogations of terrorists at blacks sites. That made me think whatever happened to enhanced interrogation, whatever happened to black sites, because when we were doing that and we were not just zapping people with drones, we were getting so much actionable intelligence.

And we did have them on the run, and we did take out all their top leadership. We got away from that. I think we need to get back to that, people on the ground, human intelligence capturing guys, stealing laptops and turning screws.

PERINO: What do you think, Bob, the Democrats will do when the decision comes down from the president, support him?

BECKEL: Well, I think there is couple of things that Trump is facing here. We haven't talked about that today. We probably should have, which is that North Koreans shot off a ballistic missile that could go and travel somewhere at 480 miles. It was successful. Now, Trump has to decide what he is going to do. Is he going to let that happen?

He said he wouldn't let that happen again. Well, it happened. Now we have to find out what he's going to do about it. I don't deny that this guy is right about the growth of terror. We know that is not a big new story. And then Al-Qaeda, their general message has been Jihad from the very beginning and the caliphate. And so it is not a terrorist group rather that doesn't align themselves with those.

The name had been adopted by some but let's also keep in mind, when he talks about (inaudible) never would have believed it. His followers have tanks in territory. He's talking about ISIS. And ISIS is damn Al-Qaeda. Advisers say they are not part of Al-Qaeda and they are the most powerful organization going. So I think it makes some sense, I think not certainly to a lot more people, but a lot more terrorists (ph). I am not sure what Trump can do about that except to put boots on the ground and that's something he said he wouldn't do.

PERINO: Share and tell, maybe not. No, share and tell, that's always good. Up next, there are some social media outrage about the comments of the new Miss USA. We are going to tell what that controversy is all about when "The Five" returns.


GUTFELD: So how do you know the Miss USA pageant took place last night? Because the next day, every media hack is foaming over "the question." Yes, Kara McCullough has already drawn fire because she answered a political question like a normal human being not a progressive robot.


JULIANNE HOUGH, HOST: Do you think affordable health care for all U.S. citizens is a right or a privilege and why?

KARA MCCULLOUGH, MISS USA BEAUTY PAGEANT WINNER: I'm definitely going to say it's a privilege. As a government employee, I am granted health care and I see firsthand that for one to have health care, you need to have jobs. So therefore we need to continue to cultivate this environment that we are given opportunity to have health care as well as jobs to all the American citizens worldwide.


GUTFELD: Oh, my precious ears. If that weren't enough, she then said this:


MCCULLOUGH: As a woman scientist in the government, I would like to transpose the word feminism to "equalism." I don't really want to consider myself -- I try not to consider myself like this die hard -- you know, like, oh, I don't really care about men -- but one thing I am going to say is though, women are just as equal as men when it comes to opportunity in the workplace.


GUTFELD: Someone fetch the media a fainting couch. That you just heard was an opinion not slathered and left-wing dogma. It is a micro-aggression against the micro-tolerant. So today's beauty queens aren't simply being judged by judges but by the media, celebrities and jobless scrubs on Twitter. And the only way to escape mockery is to spout left-wing tripe.

These questions are no longer a way to gauge the brain but a trap to spawn media coverage. Once you violate group think, that's a bigger news than the fact that the winner, Kara, is a radiochemist and way smarter than the smarmy, low-achieving snot-buckets who are judging her. But maybe that's what's really angering all of these drool tools.

What does Kara remind people of really? Reality. In a world where all men and women are equal under the law, the law cannot lock in equal outcomes. Sorry, some people work harder and whine less. And some hit both the gym and the books. Kara seems like that type of person: One who wasn't just winning a beauty pageant, but life as well. That just has got to drive social justice warriors nuts. Maybe they can have their own pageant. You can judge them on their misery.

I wouldn't watch it. Dana, okay, she is a radio chemist at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I like the fact that she invented the word "equalism." She knew that it was an interesting word. And then they cheered!

PERINO: Yeah, if you listen to it, there are a lot of girls in the audience and they all cheered for that because they are trying to find the next generation.


PERINO: Because they do feel equal. If you look at her, she is amazing, I do think that one thing that will find and I hope that she continues to try to -- obviously we want her to be a nuclear scientist, but if she decides to ever run for office one day, there are traps that are said to you by questions like this and there are really easy ways to get out of it.

And I think what she would say if maybe given another chance is that, we are blessed to live in America where we are compassionate and we care for people we can't provide health care for themselves and then we try to encourage the free market so we can have the lowest possible prices and good competition.

GUTFELD: You improved your answer.


GUTFELD: That's easy because it's a day later. That's not fair.

PERINO: I had all day to think about it.

(LAUGHTER) Gut: Jesse, these pageants seemed to be designed to spark controversy like they have that question knowing the next day it is going to help.

WATTERS: Yeah, I mean, they should have asked for that Obamacare. That would have been a much sharper question. She didn't really say anything that controversial. She says she is for jobs.

GUTFELD: True. That's true.

WATTERS: Because jobs give health care.

PERINO: The controversy is that she said "privilege" instead of a "right."

WATTERS: Okay, I don't think anybody cares. It is a privilege to have health care.

PERINO: That will be the battle of 2020.

WATTERS: You think so?

PERINO: Absolutely. WATTERS: But the other thing is she also said she's not anti-male.


WATTERS: And that was controversial.

(CROSSTALK) PERINO: Because she didn't want to have the title of feminist.

BECKEL: She hasn't met you yet, Jesse.

WATTERS: She's not a hard-core, anti-male.

PERINO: Why am I explaining?

BECKEL: I'm telling you.

GUTFELD: What Jesse is saying is an interesting point.

WATTERS: Please interpret.

GUTFELD: No, because we have accepted the assumption by the media that health care is a right. And if you dare question that, it's over. It's like, you are -- right, Bob, I am looking at you, because you believe it is a right. But where do rights come from, Bob? Where do they come from? Do they come from media?

BECKEL: Listen, I got to be careful because I have been told to be careful to what I say.


BECKEL: Everybody keeps telling me to be quiet. There are a number of things I want to say about this. But I think I will be very careful because I don't want to say anything that can disturb people. Let me just say this. She works in the government, she's very smart, she's got a wonderful career in front of her, she works for the government that provides really good health care.

There are a lot of people who work who have no health care from their employers. If she was standing there, I think she might think more about a right than a privilege. That's all I'm going to say to you guys, okay?

WATTERS: We pay for her health care because she works for.

GUTFELD: And also, Kimberly, the idea that she was trying to make was that it's good to tie health care to the job because it often drives people to get jobs.

GUILFOYLE: Absolutely. She thinks that's one of the benefits or the perks. Therefore, it is a privilege, very good health care. I think she is saying it from her perspective of being appreciated and saying it makes sense. If you want to have great health care, try to go out, get a job, get some health care and put yourself out in the revenue stream of the economy.

BECKEL: But the vast majority of jobs don't provide health care.

GUILFOYLE: Well, it depends.

WATTERS: Well, it's not true.

BECKEL: It is fact true.

WATTERS: 70 percent of the country gets their job through their employer.

BECKEL: No, excuse me, you are absolutely wrong about that.

GUILFOYLE: Real quick is I am saying. What was interesting about her and her background, in 2013 when she was Miss SC State University, her platform was "keep your coins, inspire for change."

She was focused on the empowerment of young African-American women in science, technology, engineering, mechanical-related subjects which goes in with her theme of "equalism" saying, I am empowered as an individual to do and achieve the same outcomes as you over there, Greg.

GUTFELD: Yeah, I sense a future, Fox News employee.

GUILFOYLE: Or a president. She makes up words.

GUTFELD: I sense for like a Fox News host. All right. Directly ahead, Obama's defense secretary actually had a nice thing to say about President Trump's leadership style. That's up next.


BECKEL: Robert Gates knows a thing or two about presidential leadership. He recently discussed President Trump.


JOHN DICKERSON, HOST OF FACE THE NATION: What's your sense overall of President Trump as an unpredictable leader?

ROBERT GATES, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Probably philosophically, I am in agreement with his disruptive approach. So in government, I am a strong believer in the need for reform of government agencies and departments. They have gotten fat and sloppy. I also think on the foreign policy side that there is a need for disruption.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BECKEL: All right. Jesse, since you didn't get a block here, you go ahead.


WATTERS: No, I mean, electing President Trump was throwing a hail Mary. Police wasn't working, the system was corrupt, we had a trillion dollar debt, we are not winning wars, this country was losing on trade, the economy wasn't recovering that strongly from the recession. So you can bring in a guy to come over here and flip the table over. And what do you expect when he flipped the table over? I think that's the point. If things were not working, let's try new system.



WATTERS: You can't disagree with that.

BECKEL: No, of course not, no.

PERINO: So disruption is basically meant to do several things. It is not just about regarding equality, it is about to make something simpler, make it cheaper, more accessible. But sometimes it is not always the best answer. It can be but it's like Wikipedia replaced Britannica as an example. I think from disruption, if you try to do it with government, it's a very messy and public and we all own it.

Everyone is super invested and if you are against Trump, all of the disruption makes you extremely uncomfortable. If you are for him, that is amazing and brilliant. So I think we just have to see. But I think Robert Gates is right. There is no doubt that the government needs some shaking up.


GUTFELD: I actually wrote about this. I have an article at the Fox News about the idea that with Donald Trump, it is hard to divorce his personality from his policies. That's why it is so hard. My advice is you might try to do that, to separate it, because I know a lot of people who agree with him but find him exhausting and crazy.

He's a tiresome boss because his unpredictability always keeps you like what's he going to do next? Then you find out you kind of agree with him on a lot of things, but you can't support the personality.


GUILFOYLE: Yeah, you are right. With that unpredictability though, there's also a certain stoic nature and fearlessness to be able to stand up to people whether it's Putin or whether it's the president of China to make sure that you can effectuate positive outcomes for U.S. policy. I think it's what's needed at this point in time.

You need a disruption and somebody is going to try and do it differently and say, you know, I need to pass an order so I can fire people at the VA for endangering veterans lives or deep state that aren't in fact doing what's in the best interest of the country and are harming it. BECKEL: Okay. I really have nothing to say on the subject, so "One More Thing" is up next!


GUILFOYLE: It's time now for "One More Thing." Miss Dana, what do you have?

PERINO: We are talking about work and hard work and look at this guy. (inaudible) terrible lately. So (inaudible) for hours. Look at this guy. You see the guy walking right there? He's a pizza delivery man. Listen, the guy was on the train for hours, stuck because of technical difficulties. Called Jim Leary of Don's Pizza. And Jim goes through backyard, through the mud to deliver the pizza. He got a $32 tip and he said, I'd do whatever it takes to a cheering crowd. And he walked home.

GUILFOYLE: How amazing is that? I love that. Hard work.

GUTFELD: Don't they have a cafeteria on the Amtrak train? Imagine how they must feel. Anyway, like I said, I got a call on the foxnews.com/opinion. It is learning to live and love in an era of Trump anxiety. Now it is time for Greg's Secrets to Happiness with unicorns.

When you can't reach a goal, maybe the goal must reach you. Take this little guy here, couldn't reach that little piece of fruit, but you know what he did, he figured out a way for the fruit to reach him. He also got a little jaw exercise at the same time.

BECKEL: Is that a mouse? (CROSSTALK)

GUTFELD: I have no idea. They are all the same. GUILFOYLE: All right. That was fascinating. Jesse, what do you have for us?

WATTERS: All right. Jesse sports moment. The British Lawn Mower Racing season is upon us. This is what people in Britain do for fun.

GUILFOYLE: They are very fast.

WATTERS: They are going around and around and around and they are cutting the lawn.


WATTERS: And are probably drinking heavily. I will be there next year.

GUILFOYLE: Okay. That was scary. Bob.

BECKEL: Yesterday in China, Vladimir Putin decided to play the piano. Take a listen.



BECKEL: It was out of tune.


BECKEL: But you know what Putin said? It was out of tune.


GUILFOYLE: Okay. All right. It's time now for Kimberly's Food Court. Fantastic and delicious at the same time. So guess what today is, if you haven't taken a look at the table, it's national chocolate chip day. This is kind of exciting so we brought in gigantic cookies to make the point.

Anyway, did you know that chocolate chip cookies were invented in the late 1935 by Ruth Wakefield, the owner of the "Toll House Cookie". That's where we get the the toll house cookies. I didn't know that until now. We want to pass it out to our friends here since we are also friends.

WATTERS: Not me, I'm on a low carb diet.

GUILFOYLE: Set your DVR. Never miss an episode of "The Five." Sean Hannity is up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2017 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2017 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.