This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," July 26, 2021. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SANDRA SMITH, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Inflation? What inflation?

With prices spiking for everything from gasoline and used cars to fruits and vegetables, even Oreo cookies, Democrats are reportedly pushing the message that their more than $4 trillion in proposed spending is a way to help families and that a nearly 5.5. percent spike in inflation is just temporary. But is it?

Welcome, everyone. I`m Sandra Smith, in for Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."

Coming up, we will speak to Republican Senator Thom Tillis about all of that.

But first to David Spunt. He`s reporting live from Washington. He`s got the very latest from there.

Hi, David.


Big story. Democrats are looking at the temporary spending burden for millions of Americans as, well, temporary. They believe that this is a marathon not a sprint, and, ultimately, the higher spending will help more Americans than hurt them.

Citing a private White House presentation obtained by NBC News, Democratic lawmakers are encouraged to focus on how the president`s $3 trillion-plus human infrastructure plan helps out working families by lowering costs, instead of getting people back to work or maybe even helping the economy.

The Consumer Price Index, measuring what people pay for goods and services, as you mentioned, increased by 5 percent from about a year ago. The president is counting on a bipartisan infrastructure plan to eventually help the economy. Republicans are continuing to make inflation an issue, arguing that the president and Democrats` spending in Congress is reckless and ultimately that increased spending will hurt where it counts, at the grocery stores and at those gas pumps.

Inflation is at its highest in the past 13 years. Economists, though, are concerned it won`t just disappear either in the next few weeks or few months. The ultimate message from Democrats, stay the course, stay calm. The spending more overall will actually cost less for working families.

And, of course, Sandra, as you know, the clock is ticking, Democrats and Republicans set to leave for the August recess. So both sides are hoping to get something done as soon as possible -- Sandra.

SMITH: OK, David Spunt live in Washington for us.

David, thank you.

So, will massive government spending lower costs for Americans, as the White House is suggesting, or will inflation ultimately win out?

With us now, economist Steve Moore and Democratic strategist Laura Fink.

All right, welcome to both of you.


SMITH: This seems to be just one of the hottest debates in Washington right now, because, Steve, can we continue all this spending in the face of this rising inflation?

STEPHEN MOORE, FORMER DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, look, you don`t have to have a Ph.D. in economics to understand if you print more money -- and that`s $4 trillion worth that President Obama wants -- I mean, President Biden wants, on top of the $2 trillion already this year, and on top of the $4 trillion budget that we have, that this is going to cause much higher prices.

In fact, I got to tell you, Sandra, when I watched Joe Biden in that town hall meeting, when he said this is going to lower inflation, I almost dropped off my chair. And, look, Americans know this is not complicated.

You have put more money out there -- and, by the way, none of these programs have any kind of work requirement -- you`re going to have higher inflation, not lower inflation.

SMITH: It`s a great point, because, as these unemployment checks continue to go out, the work requirement is a big question, right, Laura, because we have seen many of these states where they continue those extended unemployment benefits that a lot of folks still are not going to apply for those job openings.

So the White House says inflation, the inflation spike we`re seeing right now is temporary. Is it?

FINK: Well, absolutely. The CBO agrees. The Fed agrees. Jerome Powell, remember, is a Republican. He agrees.

Frankly, Republicans are out with political pom-poms cheering like it`s 1979, because, politically, they want inflation because they want to have a Reagan-like victory. That`s simply not happening.

And none of the indicators are there. Just looking at the bond market traders.

SMITH: Laura, are they cheering? Are they cheering? Or are they acknowledging the numbers in your screen?

FINK: Well, let`s...

SMITH: There are clearly well priced spikes happening for the American.

FINK: Well, let`s talk about that. Well, let`s talk about that.

The price of lumber is down 60 percent from its high. The used car index is down. There are indicators all over the place that this is temporary.

We absolutely need an investment in infrastructure over the long term that will create tens of millions of jobs really, and career careers in construction and broadband access and the green economy. These -- just because you have -- the price of groceries goes up doesn`t mean that you don`t fix your leaky roof.

In America, our house has a leaky roof. We need that infrastructure bill. We need that help with eldercare. Women need that child care help. And we have seen the impact . Right now, child care tax credits are going out to millions of working families, helping alleviate that short-term pain. That`s real policy with long-term thinking.


SMITH: But the question, ultimately, is, how much longer does it take the Fed to step in here?

I mean, even Larry Summers from a Democratic administration, he stepped in way early on, right, Steve, when he said, it`s time to take away the punchbowl. We just can`t continue with these rates.

And, Laura, while you`re dismissing those higher prices, that is a reality for many American families...

FINK: I`m not dismissing them.

SMITH: ... whether it`s at the grocery store or it`s fueling up your gas tank.


MOORE: Yes. So here`s the problem.

If you have got -- inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. It`s that simple. So, look, if you print $4 trillion more, and drop it out of helicopter windows, which is essentially what we`re doing, then, obviously, that`s going to lead to higher prices. And there will be winners and losers.

The people who are getting the money are the winners. The people like senior citizens who are living on fixed pension programs, lower-income people may not get -- they may not have children. They may not get the benefits. Those people are really hurt by this.

And the problem the Fed has right now is, what options does the Fed have? As we continue to put out this debt spending, the only way that we will be able to pay for it is by getting the printing presses to print more dollars. There`s no other option, because we know we don`t have the growth to cover the spending.

And, by the way, only about 20 percent of the money in that infrastructure bill is even roads and highways. It`s green energy projects. It`s money for electric vehicles. It`s things that we shouldn`t be spending.

SMITH: And that`s a fair point.

I will bring that up with the senator, as Thom Tillis Is coming up.

But the main concern, Laura, if you could address this, is that the Fed may end up responding too late and too aggressively to this high inflation. You`re obviously acknowledging that prices have gone up. We have shown the prices. That is a fact. That is happening. You`re making the case that is temporary.

So what happens for it to end? Does the Fed ultimately step in, and when?

FINK: There`s no indication that the Fed is going to step in. And, in fact, Jerome Powell has said quite the opposite.

But let me get back to the Larry Summers point. Let`s keep in mind that Larry Summers also said that women were inherently inferior and couldn`t do science as well as men. So I don`t think he`s right about everything.

He also has thrown into question his own analysis, saying that there`s still a high degree of uncertainty in terms of his own claims. So I would say this. We have got to make long-term investments in America. The infrastructure bill does. The relief package that`s already been passed does that.

We have got to keep our eye on inflation, because you`re right. We absolutely have to protect seniors and working families. But making long- term investments in...


FINK: ... child care is essential.

MOORE: Let me just one quick -- one quick point.

SMITH: Sure.

MOORE: Larry Summers -- I`m not even a big fan of Larry Summers.

He would -- but he was the chief economist for Bill Clinton. He was an economist for Barack Obama. He was the president of Harvard University.

FINK: And he`s not right about everything.

MOORE: So, he has pretty high credentials.

And it is typical liberals. When they don`t say something that they agree with, they throw...


FINK: And he also thought women couldn`t be scientists. So the man`s not right about everything.

SMITH: Laura, and, to your point, there is bipartisan support, obviously, for the infrastructure.

FINK: That`s right.

SMITH: It`s where that money is spent. And it`s the timing, I believe, that is what we`re talking about and debating at this moment...

MOORE: That`s right.

SMITH: ... as you see sky-high prices of things. The stock market is at record highs. But yet you have still got unfulfilled jobs, millions of job openings happening in this country, and questions whether your grocery bill is actually going to come down in the near term or your gas bill.

Great to have both of you. The debate continues. Thank you.

MOORE: Thanks, Sandra.

FINK: Thank you.

SMITH: All right, all this debate over those spending bills continues to heat up on Capitol Hill.

Here to discuss that, North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis.

Senator, I`m sure you have been listening to that debate there. Do you care to jump in, weigh in on your thoughts on whether all these sky-high prices are here to stay or just temporary, as the White House says?

SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Well, I`m afraid a lot of them are here to stay.

We have to keep in mind the spending spree started back in January, when they passed a $1.9 trillion package without any Republican votes. The reason that I`m a part of the so-called G-20, trying to negotiate an infrastructure bill, it`s, get this, really infrastructure, roads, bridges, the Internet, high-speed broadband.

These are things that I believe that we can justify, not a $3 trillion or $4.5 trillion price tag, which I believe is going to soon -- we`re going to forget the word transitory, and we`re going to be dealing with inflation for some time to come.

SMITH: Senator, where is your support for further spending? How would you like to see that money spent, knowing it`s a big risk in this hot economy to put more dollars on the table?

What are you supporting right now?

TILLIS: Well, what we have -- what we are negotiating now and making great progress over the weekend is a 700 -- or -- I`m sorry -- a $579 billion package, which is a fraction of the $4.5 trillion that Bernie Sanders and Pelosi would like to spend, on roads, bridges, expanding our infrastructure.

There`s no question in our -- in my mind that COVID has really forced more of a digitization of this economy, how people get educated, how people get their information. We need to help unserved and underserved areas for broadband. That`s about $65 billion.

The majority of the resources that I`m most focused on are roads and bridges, which we desperately need to expand, to address congestion, to address safety. It will create good-paying jobs. And we will have an economic return.

The infrastructure bill that they`re referring to, they`re being dishonest with the American people. There`s very little in the way of infrastructure in the $3 trillion-plus package that they`re proposing. It would create entitlements. It would create, I think, an upward pressure on inflation.

And people like me growing up living paycheck to paycheck when I was 17, 18 years old are the ones who are going to suffer the most.

SMITH: Interesting perspective there.

As you just heard one of our guests, Laura Fink, there say, she was talking about spending will eventually counteract inflation. You have heard that from the White House and your Democratic colleagues as well.

So is that the case?

TILLIS: Oh, absolutely not.

I spoke -- I serve on the Banking Committee. I have spoken with a lot of people in financial services sectors, some of the largest banks in the country. And they are bullish on the economic prospects, absent this $3 trillion, $4 trillion package.

All of them have said and financial experts far more experienced than me say that, if we flood the zone with this additional $4 trillion to $4 trillion in spending, it`s not going to end well. It is going to affect the long-term costs in products. It is going to affect inflation.

And it could ultimately have an upward -- if the Fed does ultimately react, it could have an upward impact on interest rates. And we could be in a situation where we could be spending as much as a trillion dollars a year serving our national debt right now and -- servicing our national debt.

That is a financial disaster waiting to happen, which is why we hope that by -- on a bipartisan basis, getting this infrastructure package in, we can set it aside. And then the president and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi can sell this additional spending spree and the reckless taxes that will come with it.

That`s something else we haven`t spoken about. We have got to remember it`s corporate taxes, capital gains. Family farmers are going to get hit hard. No one is going to be protected from the tax increase, which is another just way of undermining what was a great story to be told about rising wages before COVID hit our shores.

SMITH: Senator, I only have got five seconds or so.

TILLIS: It will be a disaster.

SMITH: But, in a word or so, are you optimistic there will be compromise?

TILLIS: I think, on the infrastructure bill, I`m optimistic right now. We`re working in good faith. And I hope we can get it done.

SMITH: Senator Thom Tillis, really appreciate your time.

Thank you.

TILLIS: Thank you.

SMITH: OK, quick look at the corner of Wall and Broad, by the way, another record day for your money.

Take a look at this, the Dow and Nasdaq, S&P 500 picking up where they left off last week, closing at all-time highs. Big day for tech tomorrow, with Apple, Microsoft -- Microsoft and Alphabet all reporting earnings. That`s going to be happening tomorrow 4:00 p.m. Eastern time. And we will be watching.

All right, their kids told to mask up. Now a group of California parents are lawyering up. One of them is here.

And defund for thee, but not for me?

Lydia Hu on top of hypocrisy over the top.

Hey, Lydia.


Many Democratic mayors are cutting the police budget. But a new report shows that those same mayors are spending millions on private security. We got those details coming up.


SMITH: Crime is surging.

And we warn you, this video you`re about to see is disturbing, in New York City, where a 68-year-old man is attacked in broad daylight, the brutal beating and robbery captured on video.

And in Chicago, 73 people shot over the weekend, at least 11 dead as a result, all of this as a report finds mayors of some of the same cities pushing to defund the police are shelling out big bucks on their own security.

FOX Business` Lydia Hu is in New York with the very latest.

Hi, Lydia.

HU: Hi, Sandra.

There are 20 cities that have either already moved to defund the police or they have plans to slash the police budget as they continue to spend taxpayer dollars on private security for mayors and other elected officials.

These findings follow an investigation from an organization called Open the Books. That`s a nonprofit that tracks government spending and it comes as crime is spiking across the country. Take a look at this example.

Chicago cut 400 police positions last year, while it spent $3.4 million private security for -- quote -- "unnamed city officials." Shootings there are up 10 percent over a year ago. In San Francisco, officials plan to divest $120 million from the police over two years, while they spent $2.6 million last year on the mayor security detail.

And in Baltimore, the city eliminated about $22 million from its police budget, as the city spent $3.6 million private security.

Now Democratic Missouri Congresswoman Cori Bush is being criticized for her spending to fortify her personal security, while also calling to defund the police.


TREY GOWDY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I understand full well why members of Congress spend money on their personal safety. I just don`t understand why some members of Congress don`t feel the same way about your safety.

If their safety is the highest priority, shouldn`t your safety be too?


HU: Now, Sandra, we reached out to the cities that I just mentioned for comment, and we did not get a response back.

But the work from Open the Books to learn more about municipal spending on private security for their elected leaders is ongoing, especially since a number of the cities they reached out to did not disclose the information. And that includes the city of Los Angeles -- Sandra, back to you.

SMITH: Lydia Hu live in New York City for us, thank you.

Let`s get right to it with former NYPD Lieutenant Joe Cardinale for his take on all of this.

So, let`s get this straight. Officials that are pushing for defund the police, they get protection, but the American taxpayer doesn`t, Joe?

JOE CARDINALE, FORMER NYPD LIEUTENANT: Absolutely, because we`re dealing with a bunch of cowards. These politicians are cowards.

They will surround themselves with the security that they deny their constituents, all right? Look at Chicago. I mean, the stats you just put up before, Sandra, were...


CARDINALE: They`re incredible. These are ridiculous stats that should never be.

So keep defunding the police in keep putting the money into areas that these politicians think is benefiting everybody. It doesn`t benefit anybody but themselves. And this is the exact reverse of what policing should be all about.

And when you have police commissioners that go coincide with the thoughts of the mayors, because they have to be at their whim to do whatever they want, this is going to continue to happen. Thank God for Open the Books. This is great.

SMITH: You look at that video of the beating in Brooklyn, and it is just brutal, brutal to watch. And these attacks are happening in broad daylight.

It`s this. It`s also retail stores on the West Coast where people are walking in, walking out without -- with merchandise, and they get nothing but a misdemeanor, if anybody even goes after them. I mean, you look at this attack happening in Brooklyn, you just wonder, what is happening? Where is law and order in this country?

And where is the White House on pushing it?

CARDINALE: Well, they nowhere to be found.

And, Sandra, the sad part is, it`s a round-robin effect. When you don`t have the DA`s office backing the cops up on the arrests that they will make, if they do make an arrest, because a lot of these stores will not call the police, because some of the district attorneys have lowered the -- have raised the criteria for the petty larceny crimes, so that the criminals actually go into a store with a calculator.

And they say, man, we`re at the threshold, so we don`t have to worry about this. So we can walk out. And nobody -- they go on out of the store unchallenged. So they go -- everybody blames the police. Well, the police cannot get involved if the store security doesn`t get involved.

And increasing store security isn`t going to do anything, right, because they just stand there and they watch them go out. Some of the retails have decided to close some of their stores. Good for them. But who pays the price on this? Think about it. The local consumer is going to pay the price for everything that`s stolen, because the price is going to go higher.

But, more importantly, that criminal may go out and commit an assault on somebody or a more serious crime, and they could have been stopped to begin with, because most of them, the majority, are career criminals.

SMITH: Joe, I have only got about 20 seconds left. But you go back to just a short time ago, when we had the shooting at the Nationals game.

I mean, the Americans that were in that stadium running for their lives, the players searching for their families. What is this country if we`re walking down the street or going to a ball game, and we are scared? If you were asked, what will you do about this? Sum it up. What`s the answer?

CARDINALE: We have to get back to good old police enforcement. We have to get back to quality of life crimes. You have to get out there and let the police -- unhandcuff them, indemnify them, and let them do the jobs that they`re trained to do, that they`re paid to do, not with -- so, this way, they`re not afraid of losing their livelihood, losing their families, and possibly going to jail.

We need to back the police department up and let them do the jobs in a manner that everybody`s happy with.

SMITH: We need to feel safe in America`s streets.

Joe, always appreciate talking with you. Thank you.

CARDINALE: Any time, Sandra.

SMITH: To mass confusion now. With new mandates kicking in, will it be harder to convince those vaccine holdouts.

And going to the courtroom over masks in the classroom. Meet the parent leading that charge in California next.


SMITH: Elon Musk`s Tesla is charged up, beating quarterly earnings and sales estimates. The stock is up after-hours.

And back to school and back to masks? Not if one parent group can help it, but do they have the law on their side to fight it?

Back in 60.



DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, CHIEF MEDICAL ADVISER TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: We certainly are seeing a surge in cases with the Delta variant, which is now dominating in this country, 83 percent. And in some places in the country, it`s as high as 90 percent.

So, it`s quite understandable, Neil, why local authorities are now saying, good that you`re vaccinated, but in a situation where you have people indoors, particularly crowded, you should wear a mask.


SMITH: Well, that was White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci telling Neil that there are still circumstances in which vaccinated individuals should be wearing masks, this as the White House today is facing questions over the current masking policy.

FOX News White House correspondent Peter Doocy was in that Briefing Room. He had a question to ask of Jen Psaki himself, has the latest with all that.

Hey, Peter.


President Biden now says that all professionals working at the enormous Veterans Affairs Department are going to have to get vaccinated. And this revelation, this announcement comes after Dr. Fauci said yesterday there are active discussions under way with the CDC about a possible return to mask mandates for everybody.


JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: It would be actually surprising and odd if our health and medical experts were not having active and active discussion about how to protect, best protect the American people.

And there, of course, is an active discussion about a range of steps that can be taken.


DOOCY: California is that requiring proof of vaccine or a negative test for all state employees.

In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio is requiring masks for all city employees who are not vaccinated and calling for stiff penalties for anybody who does not comply. Medical experts stress that, right now, the greatest danger is to people who have not yet been vaccinated, which had some experts wondering whether or not further restrictions are fair to those who already chose to get the shot.


DR. MARTY MAKARY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Right now, they have chosen not to get vaccinated at their own individual risk.

Asking every American to change their lifestyle for their benefit is not something I think where there`s political will in some parts of the country.


DOOCY: At the tail end of a Rose Garden event earlier today, somebody shouted out to the president and asked if he`s confident that he can get unvaccinated Americans vaccinated. And he shouted back, "We have to" -- Sandra.

SMITH: Peter Doocy live at the White House for us.

Peter, thank you.

All of this as two California parent groups are now suing California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom over a mask mandate in its schools there.

One of those parents joins us now, Let Them Breathe founder Sharon McKeeman.

By the way, we do want to mention that we have called Governor Newsom, and we have not yet heard back from that.

But, Sharon, thank you so much for joining us.

So, please tell us, what do you take issue with? Should they require kids in the fall to wear masks in the classroom there?

SHARON MCKEEMAN, FOUNDER, LET THEM BREATHE: Well, as parents, we are seeing our kids suffering behind those masks.

And we know that they`re at low risk for COVID. And those who are at higher risk have had that opportunity to be vaccinated. And so, at this point, we wish that those government officials would be addressing our kids` mental health, because it is in crisis from these mask mandates and these prolonged restrictions.

We have been advocating in every way that we can. I have spoken at all the school board meetings, the county board of supervisor meetings, asking for mask choice for our kids. And, unfortunately, in California, it looks like the only way to move forward with this is to actually sue, to let them breathe, and to be able just to see our children`s smiles again.

SMITH: What do you believe? What are your expectations going into this filing this lawsuit against the governor there?

MCKEEMAN: Well, it is shocking and then kind of crazy to me, as a parent, that we are taking this on. But we are very hopeful.

I was part of the school reopening lawsuit that was successful in reopening our schools. We`re working with that same legal team. And we`re asking for an emergency temporary restraining order. And we know that, if that was granted to us, then that would immediately keep the state from enforcing their mask mandates, which, if a child wants to or needs to wear a mask, they still could.

It would just allow those kids that are at the point where they need to unmask, they want to unmask to be able to do that for school in the fall. So we`re just waiting to hear when our hearing date is and hoping that that`s very soon.

SMITH: And that`s such an important point, because you are clearly stating you`re not anti-mask or against masks. You`re simply saying that should be the choice of those students when they return in the fall, knowing that so many have had the opportunity to be vaccinated, including the teachers, of course.

We did reach out, by the way, to the California Department of Public Health for a statement, and they provided this to us: "CDPH does not comment on litigation. But the data and science is unequivocal. There`s no substitute for in person instruction. And California`s COVID-19 prevention strategies are the best way to fully open our schools while protecting students and staff. The state`s guidance, which aligns with the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics, is how we keep our kids safe and start the school year fully in person."

Sharon, there are some parents that we hear from who say, whatever it is, just get them back in the classroom. Masks, no masks, whatever it is, we want them in class, we want them in person, full learning, and they will take whatever comes their way, including masks.

To them, you say what?

MCKEEMAN: Well, we are partnering with Reopen California Schools to bring forward this lawsuit.

And that`s what they have been all about. I was part of the reopen schools movement. But in that reopening schools lawsuit, the judge ruled that the kids have not only a right to an education, according to the California state constitution, but an effective, quality education.

And so what we`re asserting and what we`re hearing from teachers and our students is that they`re not able to engage in an effective education when they can`t see each other`s faces, they can`t have that communication. Also, this lawsuit is addressing the asymptomatic testing and the close contact quarantines that are keeping our kids out of school.

They`re keeping our kids away from that in person education that the CDPH has acknowledged is a priority. And, also, the CDPH, they`re not aligning with the CDC. So all of these government agencies, they shouldn`t be parenting. They shouldn`t be doing the school boards` jobs. And they can`t even agree with each other on what`s the best thing for the kids.

SMITH: Yes. And it`s the constant moving of the goalposts that`s really hard for parents as well.

And we want our kids, who have lost out on so much learning in some areas of this country, want them back in the classroom, especially learning. And, obviously, masks are -- looks like they`re going to be part of it.

Great to have you here. Thank you very much, Sharon, one of those parents speaking out for the kids.

MCKEEMAN: Thank you.


SMITH: And to a similar story in New Jersey now.

Seven high schoolers are among 20 people suing the governor there over that state`s classroom mask mandate.

FOX News` correspondent Alex Hogan is in West Orange, New Jersey, reporting on that for us.

Hi, Alex.


Now, all of this is different from some of the cases that we have seems centering around freedom of religion. This one is arguing freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

(INAUDIBLE) people involved in the case, including seven students here in New Jersey, students that say they`re taking this matter into their own hands. Their lawyer says mask requirements violate kids` rights to interact with each other.

Chicago, Boston, Atlanta, and New York City schools are all announcing that they will require face coverings in class this fall. Here in New Jersey, Governor Phil Murphy says that he will leave that decision up to individual districts.

The class-action lawsuit names Governor Murphy, the head of the State Department of Education and the state commissioner of the Department of Health. Families involved say that they fear long-term social development effects on their kids, as children head back to the third school year that will have been impacted now by the pandemic.


KELLY FORD, NEW JERSEY PARENT: How is it that everybody around now doesn`t have to wear a mask, including kids in sports now, but kids still have to wear masks? They`re the only ones that are still paying the price and they`re the ones that suffer from it the least.


HOGAN: Now, we have reached out to everyone named in this suit, and they say they will not comment pending litigation.

As far as this group behind the lawsuit, they have already raised about $48,000 to support this file against the school and the governor -- Sandra.

SMITH: Alex Hogan reporting live from West Orange, New Jersey, for us, thank you.

Coming up: If companies don`t add flexible work policies, do they risk losing employees? One Wall Street firm is banking on it.

But first to the Southern border, where Texas law enforcement is trying to get in front of the migrant surge there by doing something critics say the administration refuses to do. What is it?

A Texas sheriff will tell us.


SMITH: Looking live at the Southwest border, where things are not slowing down, so local law enforcement is stepping up.

Texas officials have begun arresting migrants on trespassing charges. Authorities say 10 have been made so far.

So, will this help stem the flow of drugs and human smuggling throughout the state?

Jackson County Sheriff A.J. Louderback joins us now.

Sheriff, welcome, and good to see you.


SMITH: So, how far will this go in helping stem that problem, do you believe?

LOUDERBACK: Well, when you have an administration that has rendered the law meaningless -- and, by that, I mean not enforcing the law.

You can follow the law. But if you just don`t enforce it, then you have the same -- the same issue here. We`re hoping that at least Governor Abbott has stepped up more than any governor the United States has ever done on trying to put some kind of process and stabilize the border to some degree.

So we applaud that. The infancy of the program right now, so we`re -- the numbers are still low. And there`s -- there will be some migrant movement, I`m sure, to try and thwart those measures that the governor has put in place. But at least it`s the effort that counts here. And

that`s what we`re most proud of here, as Texas law enforcement, where we have our governor fighting for us and fighting for our citizens here, with the federal administration that could care less.

SMITH: Sheriff, what about the demographics of these arrests that have been made so far? It`s my understanding that all so far have been single adult men?

LOUDERBACK: That`s correct.

But you have to understand that, yesterday, there was a group of 400 massed -- 400 massed at to Del Rio gates. Those were not just single males in that particular group. Those were Haitians and Venezuelans. You`re looking at 4,000 people in the Donna facility right now that`s supposed to hold 800.

None of these numbers are going down. They`re simply going up. They`re more and more people coming. This administration has created the largest catastrophic issues on our southern border that`s ever happened before in the United States.

You`re looking at the massive resettlement of the United States right before Americans` eyes.

SMITH: Sheriff, in just the short time that I have left here, as far as resources, do you have the resources you need to continue making these arrests?

LOUDERBACK: Well, certainly, no -- no Texas sheriff has the kind of resources to prevent the kind of invasion that`s happening right now.

The state of Texas is stepping up and spending billions of dollars to try and help us in this respect. And our hats are off to the legislative -- the legislators in the state and the leadership of this state led by Governor Abbott.

SMITH: Sheriff, we really appreciate you joining us. Our best to you as this crisis obviously continues at the Southern border. Appreciate your time.

LOUDERBACK: Thank you. Appreciate it.

SMITH: We will follow back up with him.

Meanwhile, employers are facing a new labor test, as they try to get workers back in the office.

Charlie Gasparino has the very latest on that.

And President Biden`s poll numbers are dropping as prices are spiking. Is there a connection?


SMITH: Want to work from home? Then work for us.

FOX Business learning that Wall Street firm UBS is using its flexible return-to-work policy as a recruiting tactic to poach brokers from Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley calling for most of its workers to return to the office full time.

FOX Business` Charlie Gasparino has the scoop. He is joined by FOX News contributor Liz Peek.

So, Charlie, I feel like it`s something everyone`s talking about. Are you going back to work? How long have you been back to work? But this is becoming a major recruiting tool. So what is UBS doing here?

CHARLIE GASPARINO, FOX NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I can`t wait to get back to work. Actually, I`m at work right now.



SMITH: Good. Good for you.

GASPARINO: But, listen, I like telling stories through anecdotes. I was taught to do that when I was a senior writer at The Wall Street Journal.

And this is an anecdote here of one instance. But it`s interesting. And it`s becoming much more typical. UBS is a brokerage firm. It`s seeking to grow. It wants to poach high-producing brokers -- those people that handle rich people`s money -- from other places like Morgan Stanley.

And one of its recruiting tools, in addition to maybe more money, but another recruiting tool is, guess what, guys? If you come to -- and gals -- if you come to work for us, if you leave Morgan Stanley -- that`s the biggest brokerage firm, considered the sort of gold standard in the brokerage business -- well, we will let you work from home or do whatever you want. Or, if you want to come in, you could come in as well. It`s up to you.

It`s very flexible if you`re a broker dealing with clients.

SMITH: And, Liz, that`s because Morgan Stanley doubled down on wanting its employees back to work.

James Gorman, the head of that company, says: "I fundamentally believe the way you develop your career is by being mentored, by watching, experiencing the professional skills of those who came before us."

He is huge on getting people back to the workplace, but is what UBS is doing evidence that perhaps these firms should be more flexible?

LIZ PEEK, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think that`s right.

This is an argument raging on Wall Street, Wall Street is on fire. Like everyplace else, they`re trying to compete for workers right now. And so this is one thing that UBS can do.

But I would note, Sandra, UBS is not as highly regarded a platform as Morgan Stanley or J.P. Morgan or Goldman, all of which have really have taken a much harder line on people coming back to the office. They can probably do that and still keep most of their people.

But, certainly, the other firms who are allowing a little more flexibility are appealing to the new generation on Wall Street. There is a new generation. And they are talking about lifestyle. And part of that has to do with flexibility and being able to work from home.

The thing is, we have seen over the past year that people can be very productive doing that. So, they have a pretty good case to make.

SMITH: There`s a question how long that can happen.


SMITH: Because so many of those folks learned in the office, on the job, with mentors.

GASPARINO: And everything...

SMITH: Hold on, Charlie.

I want to get to inflation, though, switching gears.


SMITH: Price spikes.

Everybody`s talking about this as well, a new Gallup poll showing President Biden`s job approval rating dropping to 50 percent last month.

So, Liz, you have a new column out that is making the case that President Biden is not taking inflation seriously. So are these new poll numbers dropping because prices are spiking?

PEEK: Well, I think consumers and voters, the same, are recognizing and connecting the dots between these enormous spending programs.

Biden wants to spend another $4 trillion, and he`s arguing that that will bring prices down. Sandra, I don`t know anybody who thinks that`s actually realistic. And so, yes, I think people are beginning to worry about the cost of everyday goods going up.

And, by the way, the White House has changed its messaging. They`re no longer talking transitory, because guess what? It isn`t going to be transitory. They`re going to be looking at...

SMITH: It`s been around a while already, right?

All right, Charlie, you weigh in.

PEEK: Yes.

GASPARINO: Well, I will just say this.

We had really good growth during the Trump years. And we didn`t -- we didn`t have the massive increases in prices that we`re having now. And David Einhorn of Greenlight Capital, the hedge fund manager...


GASPARINO: ... just came out with a report -- with his annual report.

It`s a quarterly report to investors.

SMITH: I got 10 seconds, Charlie.

GASPARINO: And he basically laid out why this is not transitory, because it`s affecting everybody. And you have zero percent interest rates.

SMITH: It is real.

GASPARINO: Zero. Zero.

SMITH: Those price spikes are real. No, it`s true. We will see what the Fed does next.

Great to have both of you.

PEEK: Thank you.

SMITH: All right, as employers struggle to find workers, one group that`s usually on the hunt for summer jobs is leaving millions of them open.

Kat and Gunz on where these workers are this summer. That`s next.


SMITH: Restaurants, hotels, amusement parks all reporting labor shortages.

And while these type of job openings are usually a big draw for teenagers looking for summer work, a new report by global outplacement firm Challenger Gray & Christmas shows that number -- the number of teen jobs added in June was at its lowest since 2015.

So what`s keeping teens from more of these jobs?

Internet radio host Mike Gunzelman and FOX News contributor Kat Timpf joins us now.

OK, for now, I will go first to Gunz.

Gunz, you`re joining us.

Why are teenagers not applying for these jobs? Why are they not filling these positions?


I was actually at the Jersey Shore this past weekend. And a lot of the locals were saying that it`s been hard to try and find lifeguards or people to work the boardwalks or board games this summer. But I kind of had a different opinion maybe they Kat and others, because I don`t think that this is because teenagers are lazy.

It`s not like they`re getting stimulus checks like adults are that just don`t want to go to work because, hey, they`re making money at home. I think that this is more so the local governments and board of eds have scared and frightened kids.

You think all year long they could go -- they couldn`t play sports. Many of them couldn`t go to outside graduations. They couldn`t have their prom in May.

SMITH: Right.

GUNZELMAN: But now a couple weeks later, in June, they`re all of a sudden supposed to go out and work as if everything`s fine?

I think this is a byproduct of what the -- this fear factor that`s been going on from the governments or from the board of ed.

SMITH: Kat, is Gunz letting them off too easy? And why aren`t these teenagers applying for jobs? Apparently, the outplacement firm that did this survey says that the Delta variant is to blame.

It`s making it hard for some people in some areas of the country where there`s a spike in cases. That is keeping teens out of these mostly in person positions. Is that what you see from your view?

KATHERINE TIMPF, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Look, I don`t think teens are all lazy. I think, if anything, I would never say that because I`m pretty scared of teens.

I don`t know. I see teens out. And I`m like -- I just feel like they`re going to make fun of me. They`re always on skateboards. They always look cool. Very scared of teens.


TIMPF: But I really think, honestly, that is probably part of it.

Really, if you -- people are really still concerned about this and the Delta variant., And, also, maybe some of these teens aren`t vaccinated. I know 16 and up, that is available to you. But if you`re still a teenager living at home, that`s going to be a decision that you`re going to make with your parents. Maybe you`re still concerned about that.

And it does seem like a little bit of mixed messaging. As Gunz put it, OK, no proms, no school. You haven`t been in school for over a year, but go out and work.

I`m really not sure, because it`s not like there`s really much to do. There`s -- I mean, there`s restaurants are open. Some areas are more open than others. But travel is still a little questionable.

SMITH: Gunz, we`re -- we are -- we depend on that group of teenagers in the work force, because many of them do fill some of those minimum wage- paying jobs, whether it`s at restaurants or small businesses. And they make up a good chunk of our economy.

So, if they`re not working, can this economy fully recover, especially when we see signs like this all over the country?

GUNZELMAN: Well, I mean, this is what we are going to have to deal with, that many restaurants are dealing with this.

The fact is that, listen, teenagers want money. Like teenagers, I really don`t think have a problem working. It`s not like they`re working 40 hours a week, 20, 25 hours. They want all the money they can get.

But this is the situation that we`re in, because this is what the government -- or this is just what`s happened to us, that we`re kind of hesitant to fully go back to working at 100 percent, especially the younger you go, with no vaccine for 15-year-olds.

SMITH: All right, it seems that they`re also attributing this to the difficulties navigating virtual school, the COVID precautions that we talked about, distancing from friends, potentially missing major milestones.

A lot of making up to do right, Kat?


SMITH: There was a lot of lost living.

TIMPF: Right.

SMITH: Kat, I believe I will see you on "Gutfeld" tonight.

TIMPF: Oh, absolutely. Can`t wait.


TIMPF: We`re going to have the best time.

SMITH: Excellent. We will indeed.

I will see you then.

Gunz, great to see you. Thanks for being here as well.


SMITH: It is always fun to join you. And thanks to Neil for allowing me to fill in for him.

I will be back here tomorrow, with Republican Senator Pat Toomey sounding the alarm over the Fed and inflation.

And, as always, you can catch me and John Roberts on "America Reports" weekdays live from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Eastern time. We`d love to have you. Tune in. We will see you there tomorrow, and I`ll see you on "Gutfeld" tonight.

"The Five" starts right now.

Content and Programming Copyright 2021 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2021 VIQ Media Transcription, 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 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.