Transcripts For FOXNEWSW Americas Newsroom 20220630

0 land, air, sea, cyber, and space. we have reaffirmed that our article commitment is sacred. an attack on one is an attack on all and we will defend every inch of nato territory, every inch of nato territory. for our part, the united states is doing exactly what i said we would do if putin invaded. enhanced our force posture in europe. we will station warships in spain. we are stationing more air defense in italy and germany. or after 35's in the united kingdom. added to strengthen our flag, new permanent headquarters for the army fifth corps in poland. in addition, an additional brigade combat team positioned in romania. an additional rotational deployment in the baltic countries. things are changing. we will adapt to the world as we have it today. although this is against the backdrop of our response to nato's russia's aggression and to help ukraine defend itself. united states is rallying the world to stand with ukraine. allies and partners around the globe are making significant contributions. secretary austin just brought together more than 50 countries. more than 50 countries pledging new commitments. and this is a global effort to support ukraine. nearly 140,000 antitank systems. more than 600 tanks. in nearly 500 artillery systems. more than 600,000 rounds of artillery ammunition. as well as advanced systems. and again, the united states is leading the way. we provided ukraine with nearly $7 billion in security assistance since i took office. the next few days, we tend to announce more than 800 million more including new advanced air defense systems in ukraine paid more artillery in munition. additional ammunition for the multiple launch rocket system. we have already given ukraine and more coming from other countries as well. we have also welcomed for the first time our partners in the pacific to participate in the nato summit. as i indicated to putin, this would be his action would cause worldwide response. bringing together democratic allies and partners from the atlantic and the pacific to focus on the challenges that matter to our future and to defend rules based order against the challenges including from china. they g7 and germany, we also lost what started out to be the build back matter initiative. but it has morphed into the partnership for global infrastructure and investment. to offer developing in middle income countries, better options to meet their emerging needs. it helps bring millions of dollars out to a trillion dollars. private sector money off the sidelines. $600 billion in just the next few years. unlike china, these projects will be done transparently and with very high standards. for example, u.s. government just facilitated a new partnership between two american firms. the government and angola to invest $2 billion building a significant solar project in angola. it's a partnership to help angola mediate climate goals and energy needs while creating new markets for american technologies and jobs. excuse me, and angola. as you have heard me say before, when i think climate, i think jobs. and they g7 also said, we work together to take on china on china's abusive and coercive trade practices and radar supply chains of products made with forced labor. we task our teams to work on the details of the price cap on russian oil and want to drive down putin's revenues without hurting america's -- at the gas pump. we will seek to use the funds from the tariff on russian goods to help ukraine rebuild. they are committed and we have committed more than $4.5 billion, more than half of that to the united states to address food insecurity in the immediate caused by the russian war. at every step of this trip, we sat down a marker of unity, determination, deep capabilities for the democratic nations of the world to do when need be done. putin thought he could break the transatlantic alliance. he tried to weaken us. he expected our resolve to fracture. but he's getting exactly what he did not want. he wanted the passion of nato. he got the natoization of fenlon. now nato and sweden are closer than ever to joining. we are more united than ever. in addition to finland and sweden, we will be stronger than ever. they have serious militaries, both of them. we will increase the nato border by miles across the russian border. sweden is all in. the point is, we are meeting the goals i've sent out when we first -- the first g7 meeting. we are moving to a place that reflects the realities of the second quarter of the 21st century. we are on the verge of making significant progress. i would be happy to take your questions. and the first question i am told is darlene from the associated press. >> thank you, mr. president. two questions please. >> president biden: [laughs] of course. >> your model as the first nato summit last year. you've come to this summit here and the one in germany. after the u.s. supreme court overturned constitutional protections for abortion after the shootings in buffalo and texas at a time of record in placing in the new polling this week shows that 85% of the u.s. public things the country is going in the wrong direction. how do you explain this to those people who feel the country is going in the wrong direction including some of the leaders you have been meeting with this week who think that when you put all of this together, and amounts to an america that is going backwards? >> president biden: they do not think that. you haven't found one person, one world leader to say america is going backwards. america is better positioned to lead the world and we have or have been. we have the strongest economy in the world. our inflation rates were lower than other nations in the world. one thing that has been destabilizing in the outrageous behavior of the supreme court of the united states. in overruling not only of roe v. wade, but essentially challenging the right to privacy. we have been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights and privacy rights. and it is a mistake in my view for the supreme court to do what it did. but i have not seen anyone come up to me to do anything other -- nor have you heard them say anything other than thank you for america's leadership. you change the dynamic of nato and the g7. so i can understand why the american people are frustrated. because of what the supreme court did. i can understand why the american people are frustrated because of inflation. but inflation is higher in almost every other country. prices at the pump are higher in almost every other country. we have a way to go. the supreme court, we have to change that decision by codifying roe v. wade. >> there were comments after the supreme court ruling. my second question is, g7 leaders this week pledged to support ukraine "for as long as it takes." i'm wondering if you would explain what that means to the american people for as long as it takes. it doesn't mean indefinite support from the united states for ukraine? or will there come a time when you have to say to president zelenskyy that the united states cannot support his country any longer? thank you. >> president biden: we are going to support ukraine as long as it takes. look at the back of the war on has had on russia. they have had to renege on the national debt for the first time since the beginning of almost well over 100 years. they have lost 15 years of the gains they made in terms of their economy. they are in a situation where they are having trouble because of my imposition of dealing with what can be exported to russia in terms of technology. they can even -- they are going to have trouble maintaining oil production because they don't have the technology to do it. they need american technology. they are also in a similar situation in terms of their weapon systems and some of their military systems. so they are paying a very, very heavy price. just today, snake island is now taken over by the ukrainians. so, we are going to stick with ukraine and all of the allies will stick with ukraine as long as it takes to infect make sure that they are not defeated by ukraine i mean, excuse me, in ukraine by russia. and by the way, think of this. ukraine has already dealt severe blows to russia. russia in fact has already lost its international standing. russia is in a position where the whole world is looking insane, wait a minute. all this effort to try to take the whole country, to try to take kyiv. you lost. they try to take the donbas, all of it. you haven't done that yet. at the generic point is we are supplying them with a capacity and the overwhelming courage they have demonstrated that in fact they can continue to resist the russian aggression. and so, i don't know what and how it's going to end. it will not end with a russian defeat of ukraine in ukraine. i am supposed to go down the list here. jim, from "the new york times." >> mr. president, thank you. this week, you and the g7 allies introduced a plan for an oil price cap for russian exports. this is not yet filled out. obviously, as a response to the high price of gasoline in the united states and around the world. are you confident that cap would bring down prices for american drivers? how long is it fair to expect american drivers to hit a premium because of this war? >> president biden: the second part of the question was and what would it bring down the price? mika would it bring down prices? the war has pushed prices up. they can go as high as $200 a barrel some analyst thing. how long is it fair to expect american drivers around the world to pay that premium for this war? >> president biden: as long as it takes so russia cannot in fact defeat ukraine and will be on ukraine. this is a critical, critical position for the world. here we are. why do we have nato? i told putin in fact if he were to move, we would move to strengthen nato. we would move to strengthen us, strengthen nato across the board. look, let me explain the price hikes acted a while ago. putting a cap on the amount of money that we would pay for the world would pay for russian oil. and that we would not -- we would not provide the west provides insurance would not insure russian ships carrying oil. we would not provide insurance for them. so they would have great difficulty getting customers. the point is that we said to them, here's the deal. we are going to allow you to have a proppant on what you make. and not the exorbitant prices that you are charging for the oil now. we have delegated a commission or group of our -- our national security people to sit down and work out that mechanism. we think it can be done. we think he can be done and it would drive down the price of oil and it would drive down the price of gasoline as well. in addition, in addition at home, i have also called for changes. i have released a million barrels of oil per day from our oil reserve. in addition, other nations move forward a total of 240 million barrels of oil to release from the strategic petroleum reserves. i have asked congress, would they in fact go and end the temporarily end the tax on gasoline at the pump. and thirdly to asked the states to do the same thing. if we do these things, it is estimated we can bring down tomorrow if congress agreed in the states agreed, we can bring down the price of oil about a dollar a gallon at the pump in that range. and so we can have immediate relief in terms of the reduction of the elimination of temporary of the gas tax. a lot of things we can do and will do. the bottom line is, the reason why gas prices are up is because of russia. russia, russia, russia. the reason why live food prices exist is because of russia. russia not allowing grain to get out of ukraine. and so, that's the way in which i think we should move. and i think we would have a positive impact on the price at the pump as well. jordan fabian of bloomberg. >> thank you, mr. president. thank you, mr. president. i also have two questions for you. >> president biden: [laughs] of course. >> the first one is on target. what assurances if any did you make to the president about his request for new f-16 jets for his military? >> president biden: what i said was what i said back in december as you will recall. we should sell them the f-16 jets and modernize those jets as well. is not in our interest not to do that. i indicated to them, i will not change my position at all since december. and there was no quid pro quo with that. we should sell. what i need congressional approval to be able to do that. and i think we can get that. >> my second question is on your trip to saudi arabia which is coming up next month. as we just discussed, americans are paying almost $5 a gallon nationally on average for gas. do you expect to ask the crown prince or linking to increase oil production? how will you balance that with your desire to hold them accountable for their human rights abuses? >> president biden: first of all, that is not the purpose of the trip. the purpose of the trip -- first of all, i'm starting off on that trip in israel. and the israelis are believed it is really important that i make the trip. and in addition to that, what we are trying to do is the gulf states plus 3. and so, i'm sure it is in saudi arabia. it's not about saudi arabia. it's in saudi arabia. and so there is no commitment that is being made. i'm not even sure. i guess i will see the king and the crown prince. but that is not -- that's not the meeting i'm going to do. they will be part of a much larger meeting. what we are talking about in dealing with that trip is before i go, i am as i said going to israel to meet with israeli leaders to affirm the unbreakable bond israel and the united states have. to deepen israel's integration to the region which i think we are going to be able to do. which is good for peace and good for israeli security. and that's why israel leaders have come out so strongly for my going to saudi arabia. the overall piece here is we are also going to try to reduce the deaths in the war that is occurring. as a whole range of things that go well beyond having to do with saudi arabia in particular. >> if you were to see the crown prince of the king, would you ask them to increase oil production? >> president biden: no, i'm not can ask. all the gulf states are meeting. i've indicated to them that i thought they should be increasing oil production generically. not to the saudis particularly. i think we are going to -- i hope we see them in their own interest concluding that make sense to do. you know, they have a real concern about what's going on in iran and other places in terms of their security as well. all of them. a book called the journal." "the wall street journal." they go i will also ask two questions if that's okay. when on the summit and one domestic question. on the summit, you just said that there would be another round of security assistance for ukraine. after hearing president zelenskyy's assessment that the war needs to end before the winter, are you changing your calculation in terms of the pace of the assistance and what kind of assistance you are sending to ukraine? >> president biden: the work at end tomorrow by the way if russia stops its irrational behavior. you know, i hope it ends sooner than later. for it to end, it would have to be in a position -- the ukrainians have all that they can reasonably expect, we can reasonably expect to get to them in order to provide for their physical security in their defenses. and so, one does not relate to the other. they need -- we are going to be providing another -- i guess i will announce it shortly. another $800 billion -- $800 million for additional weaponry. including air defense system as well as offensive weapons. i have a whole list that i would be happy to give to you. that is the next process that is going to occur. >> and on the domestic question, sir, go out for other specific executive action are considering in response to the roe ruling? would you declare a public health emergency as several democrats are calling on you to do? >> president biden: i will happy to go into detail with you on that. i'm having a meeting with a group of governors when i get home on friday. and i will have announcements to make men. the first and foremost thing we should do is make it clear how outrageous this decision wasn't how how much it impacts not just women's right to choose which is a critical, critical piece, but our privacy general. i will be talking to the governors as to what actions they think i should be taking as well. but the most important thing to be clear about is we have to change -- i believe we have to codify roe v. wade in the law. and the way to do that is to make sure that congress votes to do that. at the filibuster gets in the way, it's like voting rights. we provide an exception for this. the required exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with. the supreme court's decision. hang on. i've got one more year. calio donald, "nbc." >> you made some news saying that she would support changing filibuster rules to codify abortion rights across the country. >> president biden: not just abortion rights, but yes, abortion rights. >> many americans are grappling with this. what is your sense today about the integrity and the impartiality of the supreme court? should americans have confidence in the court as an institution? in your views of abortion have evolved in your public life. are you the best messenger to carry this forward swing democrats, many of them want to -- >> president biden: ! i am the president of the united states of america. that makes me the best messenger. i really think that it is a serious, serious problem that the court has thrust upon the united states. not just in terms of the right to choose, but in terms of the right to who you can marry. a whole range of issues relating to privacy. and i have written way back a number of large articles about the ninth amendment and the 14th amendment and why privacy is considered as part of the constitutional guarantee. and they just wiped it all out. and so i'm the only president to god. and i am feeling extremely strongly that i will do everything in my power as well as push the congress and the public. the bottom line is if you care if the polling data is correct and you think this decision by the court was an outrage or significant mistake, vote. show up and vote. vote in the off year and vote, vote, vote. that is how we will change it. all right, guys. now, there is no such thing as a quick one. i'm out of here. thank you all very much. >> dana: president biden is actually going to wrap up this press conference herein madrid the end of the nato conference. there was a lot of shouting questions at the end. it usually does take them. in this time. not standing at the podium in treating this more like a town hall. the microphone in hand walking around took several questions made a little bit of news. quite a bit of news. at the same time, the final day for the supreme court term. we are expecting two more major rulings on the environment and integration after the court's controversial decision to overturn roe v. wade. we will be monitoring all of that this very busy day on speech 21. good morning, i'm dana perino. you are there listening to the same press conference i was. it's good to be with you today. speak of what a way to kick out the only right there with a president breaking news on a whe host of things domestic policy and abortion foreign policy. so just now, you heard him talk about putin's invasion of ukraine. nato's push to get the allies on the same page. upcoming travel to the middle east. >> dana: after six days on the world stage, the president is going to head home today. there are many domestic problems that he had left behind last week. these remain unchanged. he's ready to be created on the andrew starr mark with all sorts of things that he is the deal with. his cabin appears divided on the way forward. the border crisis is deepening as well as persistent record gas prices and inflation. >> lets go right now to jacqui heinrich who is traveling with the president in madrid. hi, there jackie. >> good morning to you. a lot of news made in that press conference. i think the biggest point, the biggest takeaway was expressing a support for changing the filibuster, the 60 vote threshold required to pass legislation in this and in order to protect privacy rights. related to the roe v being overturned and also other privileges that are now seen as being sort of jeopardized. things like gay marriage and access to contraception which had basis in similar court rulings on the same goes standing over privacy rights. the president was asked about his motto when he first came into office being that america is back. since he has taken office, there has been a space of shootings recently. in the overturn of roe v. wade, causing a lot of social unrest. he was asked whether america is in fact back. he lashed out at the supreme court. listen to what he said. >> president biden: one thing that has been destabilizing in the outrageous behavior of the supreme court of the united states. in overruling not only roe v. wade but essentially challenging the right to privacy. we have been a leader in the world in terms of personal rights in progress rights. it is a mistake in my view for the supreme court to do what it did. >> so he encouraged people to vote in the midterms to bring their causes, their concerns to the polls. and now he was also asked in a separate question about inflation and high gas prices. these challenges that have really been plaguing his presidency and the american people. he was directly asked to support the war in ukraine or differently. we got these high gas prices around the national average of $5 per gallon to maintain that pressure on russia. in his answer was, yes, it makes sense for as long as it takes. because it is critical to contain russia, to ensure that they do not move beyond ukraine. and that people understand that even though he sympathizes with a high cost that people are paying at the pump, he really laid it out in terms of being much more dire in terms of national security, not just for the u.s. before the world ever afterward to move beyond ukraine's borders. he was asked about his upcoming trip to saudi arabia. he is expected to push those arab countries to ramp up oil production. in one of the other headlines that came out of the summit we had overheard a couple of days ago, french president emmanuel macron, inc. biden come with saudis may not be able to ramp up their production very much. they are nearly at capacity. the uae is already at capacity. when you gonna do? he denied is going to be asking the saudi specifically to increase their production. going to bring that call to all of the gulf states and the broader purpose of his trip has to do with integrating israel more into the middle east. and some other regional concerns. but he said that's not going to be a direct asked that he brings to the saudis. >> so far the national security advisor about the client to comment on those comments which from president macron which were on camera captured for the world to hear. stand by. we will check back in with you later. thanks so much. >> dana: it's bring in fox news contributor chief correspondent at the "washington examiner." one of the things that the president started with is the fact that there was significant movement at nato. they did a new mission statement for the first time in 12 years. they have said that russia is an adversary and the added china to that as well. sweden and norway were able to join in people members at the president was able to negotiate with turkey to make that happen. he said he would be willing to have the american people continue to pay the gas premium at the pump for as long as it takes when it comes to the gas prices. also, the fact that he was talking about the supreme court. destabilizing the world with its decision on row which is hard to imagine since the states are going to decide to many of the states already have laws that are even more permissive than those in europe. it's a big wind up for me to turn it over to you to ask you, byron, what do you think was that because there that to know that? >> well, that president started the news conference talking about nato and efforts to strengthen nato. and he said that russia had hoped for the finlandization of europe and instead they got the natoization. the news they come later about roe and about congress because we know that president is under a lot of pressure from the democratic base to do something about the supreme court ruling. and the house last year already passed a bill to codify roe. and it would never -- it has no chance at all in this inning because of the filibuster. we are not even sure of all 50 democrats are on board for it. it certainly has no chance because of the filibuster. so the president's news came when he said that he supported kind of a one-time only break in the filibuster in order to codify roe. now, the president was a senator for 36 years. it took part in a lot of filibusters in that time. so this is his way of telling his democratic base, i'm with you on this. >> equally surprising, perhaps talking was to hear the president of the united states stand on a foreign stage before an international cadre of reporters and essentially say, the supreme court has lost his confidence. do you recall a time that you have seen the president of either party -- from either party announced something like that? >> yeah, it is unusual for presidents to engage in that kind of domestic rhetoric when they are on foreign soil. the fact is, the president is speaking for a lot of americans who now say they have less confidence in the supreme court than they did. as a matter of fact, a new poll from ap show that just 25% of those polled said that they had a lot of confidence in the supreme court. the number was 40% just three weeks ago. >> to be fair, that's accurate but the president and say that. he didn't say the american people have lost confidence in the supreme court. he said that what they have done was scandalous and outrageous. he was speaking on behalf of himself. >> he's trying to tell his base and the americans who are upset about this that he is going to do something. because the president has been seen on the democratic left as a bit of an institutionalist. he is nervous about getting rid of the filibuster. he doesn't want to pack the supreme court. he doesn't really want to make these big changes that the progressive left wants him to. but he's under a lot of pressure. he wants to run for reelection. so now he has to actually align themselves to some degree with these forces who were so outraged at the supreme court roe decision. >> there's a poll that was brought up by the ap. it was in a people and the reporter brought up as well. i think that's pretty, pretty stunning. when you have 85% of all americans agreeing that the country is going in the wrong direction. he has been away for five days. i think it was an important meeting to go to. it was important that he be there pretty said is going to come back and meet with governors on friday. that was the talk about roe. i'm pretty sure, byron, i would love your analysis. when 85% of americans agree that the country is going in the wrong direction, is much broader than row will be that is about inflation and cultural wars, crime, immigration. all these things that are leading people to feel like the country is certainly on the wrong track. >> much, much broader. 85% is a huge number. if you look at what is called the right track or wrong track number over the years, usually actually the majority of americans think that country is on the wrong track. we are kind of a dissatisfied people. for getting 85% is amazing. i got the 80% in the worst days of the pandemic. it was about 75% during the financial crisis from 2008 until 2011. 85% is absolutely huge. i think most people would say, it's mostly a reflection of the increase in the cost of living. americans are having a very difficult time doing the basic things they have to do witches eat and get around. inflation has been terrible on the price of food and of course on the price of energy. i think that is the biggest driver of this wrong track number. >> when you just mentioned also from the same ap polling said, the percentage of americans have confidence in a bench right now, it strikes me that the problem here is not just over the recent decision this past week in dobbs versus jackson. the front-page news all term and long which in itself is kind of unusual and not for their jurisprudence, but for that kind of internal politicking that's going on. first there was reporting about justice sotomayor being uncomfortable about her values conduct during covid with masks and things. then there was this leak recently of dobbs back in may. another highly unusual perhaps political move. there was the january 6 committee releasing attacks from justice clarence thomas is wife with mark meadows. s also strikes me while i'm listening to you speak, byron, that this is an unusual situation before we even get into the roe overturning. >> that's right. recent developers have shown that the court is not something apart from american society. in fact, it is driven by some of the same divisions that we are seeing in american society. the leak of the dobbs decision was just stunning. and i think it disappointed and a enormous number of people. by the way, has the leaker been caught or punished? we have no public word that that has even happened. that is something that i think has damaged the image of the court and clearly, it has damaged relations inside the court as well. >> dana: today in about 25 minutes, we are going to get the first of the last two opinions that we have been waiting for. one on the remaining mexico policy. the other on the epa. much broader than just the epa about the whole federal government and how we can regulate businesses and farms and all of our lives. that's coming up. i do want to bring up this point about china. we don't talk about it enough. the president pointed out at the beginning. this is number 6. this is what he said about nato and china. >> president biden: the last time nato drafted a new mission statement was 12 years ago. at that time, it characterized russia as a partner. and it didn't even mention china. the world has changed. changed a great deal since then. >> dana: and so when you have the people of europe -- excuse me, nato bringing the pacific saying you're welcome to come. and china is on the menu here, really. i think that basically, they are saying, it's very clear that we all agree that you are a problem. and yet, you look across the board, byron, china absolutely everywhere making decisions over the last several years that have been very strategic. buying up a lot of farmland. just at a point when we are looking at a possible food crisis because we are not able to get all of the grain out of ukraine. the importance of china being on this list. >> i think that everybody would agree with what the president said about the world changing a lot in the last ten years. china actually shooting to the top of americans concerns. indeed, the subtext of a lot of the nato talked about ukraine of course is taiwan. and what the example of russia's effort in ukraine if it ultimately is seen in russia as having been a success that they went in some portion, excuse me, ukrainian territory or something like that, when a bank that would on china and emboldening tenant to go after to invade and take over taiwan. i think that china concerns about china were everywhere in this meeting that was in europe offensively about nato and ukraine. >> the issue of immigration. we talked about it a lot here at fox news. the president i think is aware of it but doesn't talk about it very much. it's also an issue here at the nato conference. one of the problems they are seeing in european countries is about the wave of immigrants coming across from either syria or from northern africa or from other places around the world. they are not able to deal with it effectively. because he did not have rules-based order and you are not dealing with root causes and many of these countries, these waves of immigrants are going to continue to come in destabilize. >> i'm very glad you brought this out because there is some news that is not getting talked about enough. one of the supreme court decisions that's going to come out within the hour is called biden v texas. it's a suit about donald trump's remain in mexico policy and whether that biden administration can throw it out as it did on day 1 of biden's presidency. one of the interesting things about that as a result of the suit, the department of homeland security has had to give the court documents, statistics on how many illegal border crossers that the biden administration is allowing to stay in the united states. so far if you had them all up, the united states is about more than 1 million illegal border crossers to remain in the united states since joe biden became president. that does not count the number of what are called, ways. people that are across the border and never encountered by the border control which is many as 700,000. 200,000 unaccompanied minors are also allowed to stay. it could be as many as 2 million illegal border crossers that the biden administration has allowed to stay. what that does is it creates an enormous incentive for people to cross illegally into the united states. the odds -- >> dana: thank you so much. you make an excellent point. stick around just in case we have -- we want to bring in former assistant u.s. attorney andy mccarthy. byron was explaining to us, the significance of president biden saying that he would now be willing to do a one-time exception to the filibuster rule to codify roe. he's trying to appeal broader on the issue of privacy. how does that square with what you know about his positions in the past? >> dana, he has always been and certainly during his time in the senate, he was very strongly against a reform of any kind of filibuster. and, you know, the history of this is that when democrats and progressives kind of let their end in front of them and move up the filibuster for this or that thing, it tends to blow up on them in short order. i think this is one of these things where it is very shortsighted to broach this. i hope it doesn't go anywhere. people should understand, there is no one time break of the filibuster. as senator mcconnell has set any number of times, you know, the filibuster is an all-or-nothing proposition. and they are not going to selectively break it for one thing or another as the progressives go down there wish list. and if they opened this pandora's box, i think, you know, once again, in short order, they have to get bit back by it. >> dana: andy hill and the other thing here. part of this argument in the wake of the dobbs ruling is already moved on to abortion medication, so-called abortion pills. the biden administration kind of across the board at least in the cabinet from the vice president to health and human services secretary to the attorney general now says nothing in this really impacts women's access to abortion pills. we are going to make sure they say that they can still order these bills online that they can still email ordered, mail delivered across state lines. nothing in this most recent decision will impact that in any way. pushing his heritage back saying this is not the case at all. can you unpack out a little bit for us? how do you see this legal fight snaking through the courts now? >> i think what is happening is there's kind of a clash of which aspect of our government has control over this aspect of health care and protection of life. so at the federal government will say is that the constitution makes us supreme over interstate commerce. that in the constitutional doctrine by which we have been able to capture much of health care and regulate it. in terms of moving product, including -- across state lines and getting them into the hands of people across state lines regardless of what the state law is in those places, the federal government is going to say the constitution makes us supreme in this regard. pushback on the federalist side is going to be that the constitutional system sets up dual sovereignty where the states are supposed to be sovereign and supreme regarding the internal affairs of the states. that has traditionally -- this is important because a lot of what is in the dobbs decision is all about traditions of the united states and how we have been governed, what the intention was to sign the constitution ratified. the idea was that the states were going to be supreme over things like security of the public, the safety of life, and even medical affairs within the states. so they would be allowed to make whatever regulations about abortion that they would choose to make. you're going to have a clash between what the feds say is their constitutional authority and what the states say the constitution makes them supreme to decide. that ultimately may be something that the supreme court will have to grapple with. >> dana: that is so interesting because of the dobbs decision. what a law like this as president biden is suggesting would that pass constitutional muster? >> it's a very interesting question, dana, because i think the argument that we have made on the pro-life side and what we consider to be the constitutionalist conservative side is that this realm, the whole emmett of abortion that the supreme court took away and basically you start to itself in 1973 was at that point in time exclusively of the subject of state regulation. you had about 30 states that at complete bands. and then there was reform law in the number of other states. even ruth bader ginsburg at that time about this was problematic that roe vs. wade was actually arresting that whole development, and evolution of the law and state. what we have been arguing for a half a century is that the court should never have taken this away from the states. that it should have been left there for them to regulate. and that people would eventually in the places where they live have the abortion regime under the law that they were more comfortable with rather than one imposed by a court in washington. now where they are talking about is having washington impose a one-size-fits-all pursuing through congress rather than courts. i really don't think that is any better. i doubt -- i think that a lot of the supreme court is going to have a lot of problem with that too. >> dana: you are here because we have two big supreme court announcements and opinions that are going to come down in just about 15-20 minutes. the press conference as well. you know nato extremely well. the president i would say probably had a pretty successful meeting when it comes to nato and nato expansion. there is still a question remains which is how long can the support for ukraine be sustained? are they going to get what they need in order to beat back the russians? or are we on a tipping point and not giving them enough of what they need? over to you, sir, what did you hear? >> first off, i think that you are absolutely right that some of the outcomes of the summit are very good and even better than expected. getting the decision for sweden and finland to be admitted to nato is very important. these are very capable countries and enhance security of northern europe where those countries are insecurity of the baltic states. increasing the high readiness forces the 300,000 and maintain a commitment of several countries including germany to spend more on defense. these were all very good things. unfortunately, i think nato in the united states and others have always been a step behind when it comes to support for ukraine. here we were slow to get some of the arm is that we needed. we were reluctant to give some of the assistance. that is still the case in the longest range artillery or fighter aircraft. we do need to get them everything that they need. one good thing that i think that congress did with the administration's request of $40 billion in ukraine, $24 million of that in ukraine assistance which will carry us to the rest of fiscal year which is important to sustaining the ukrainians to a very tough time. >> the president is enjoying this sort of unique maybe even unprecedented at least in the 21st century period of unity with nato normally goes over there and wrangling these countries to get on the same side of any issues is like herding cats. right now there's a lot of unity and goodwill. people seem to be united in their belief that ukraine must be defended. i guess my question goes back to something dana brought up moments ago. the china element here. my question is, going forward as more space opens up for other issues to enter the transatlantic dialogue, is not going to evaporate, that unity? do you think this will help us make progress on key national u.s. national security issues? >> first off, you're absolutely right to describe the degree of transatlantic unity that way. that is all due to vladimir putin. when he is done by invading ukraine as the brutality of that invasion, the war crimes, the killing of civilians is really united the u.s. and europe to oppose russia's aggression. one of the things that happened in the nato summit was a new strategic concept where they do for the first time mention china and say that the u.s. and european allies should be consulting about that. they have the leaders of several asian countries there from new zealand and australia and japan and south korea. there is an effort to put a little bit more attention on china and discuss this and nato. you're absolutely right. i think over the long haul, even as europe is recognizing some of the dangers that china presents, it is still going to be a stretch to see the u.s. and europe or nato as nato be deeply involved in asia. i think we are going to have some different interests here. >> dana: thank you for being with us this morning. if you can stand by as well, we're going to try to get a little bit of news here before the supreme court makes its rulings or releases a ruling in about 10 minutes. so that's gonna happen in the next hour. we are watching two major cases. one is on the remaining mexico policy. griff jenkins is live in eagle pass taxes and have the latest on this. i know that the governor of texas is watching this very closely. he is already indicated what he might do if the biden administration decides not to comply depending on what the supreme court ruled today. over to you. >> good morning, dana. you are exactly correct. no one is watching closer than texas governor greg avenue is literally here in eagle pass with a press conference where we are standing announcing additional measures he wants to take in order to try and crackdown and prevent the next human smuggling tragedy. i asked him what he intends to do if indeed the high court rules in texas' favor how he intends to hold a biden administration accountable to fully comply. he was his answer. listen. >> if they do not follow the standard, texas can take legal action and go to court older president, donald secretary mayorkas and other operatives in the federal government in contempt of court if they failed to live up to that order. that is exactly what we will be seeking to do. >> is going out out of control this border situation is. take a look at this massive group of 300 plus migrants crossing the river less than a mile away, less than an hour after greg abbott left this location. i spoke with the property owner there. a pecan farmer says she sees this every day. she told me on tuesday, she witnessed a migrant woman die right in front of her. listen. >> she made it to the land and they brought her out. i checked her pulse. it was really low. by the time they brought her out under the tree, she was gone. >> she died from the exposure. >> i am assuming it is heat exposure. >> with our live drone, you can see exactly in the area where she crossed. i can show you, dana, it's a six days i've been here i've been tracking the number of encounters. the current six-day tally and justice sector, 9,141 with more than 326,000 encounters just in this sector. this fiscal year today with 4 more months to go. finally, they also worry about those got aways. sources say they've had more than 130 in this location. this comes by the way as these temperatures are headed toward the triple digits again today, dana. >> dana: am also wondering what the mexican authorities and mexican president might be doing today as they await this decision as well. do you have a sense of what they would like to see happen here? are they prepared for either scenario? >> that is a fantastic question. president is the other piece of this remain in mexico. we are dependent on mexico cooperating and helping enforce it. they did so. he did so under president trump. it is unclear whether he will be willing to help fully comply depending on what the court says. however, obviously, we are seeing the president along with mexican officials very concerned about monday's tragedy with a 53 migrants being killed. at least 27 i believe of those that perished where mexican nationals. and of course, they are worried about exactly who carried out that smuggling operation as we are now going to hear and see some of those arrested appearing in court in san antonio. >> do you see in the other news outlets reporting on the story? >> during the press conference yesterday, we saw half a dozen or more. there are at least one other national organization had a reporter out here doing live shots where we are. they are setting up again today. there is not much reporting going on. i can't overstate how much the border patrol officials who are not allowed by their bosses in washington to go on camera with me to tell me how much they appreciate that we show these images that we bring these tragedies to the air. because it is unprecedented. they have never had these kind of numbers. they have never come about border patrol and stretched to this length. they have never seen the amount of suffering that they are seeing with migrants were trying to get here to have a better life. they are putting themselves in such dangerous peril. that is why we see tragedies like we saw on monday. >> dana: he will be there for the press conference. governor abbott will hold as soon as we have the supreme court decision. thank you so much. we appreciate it. there is so much happening. we want to get a little bit of a preview now. i believe we still have andy mccarthy, former u.s. attorney in fox news contributor. jonathan turley, constitutional law professor. we might even have shannon bream although she's getting ready to accept those opinions. she is there working on it. it's a closing to have a monumental term of the u.s. supreme court. we are moments away from learning the final ruling before the summer recess. to be case on the dockets, number one, concerning the authority of the apa to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by the ruling will determine whether government agencies have the power to write our laws or if that should be left at congress. and the other decision centers on the remaining mexico policy. immigration program requires asylum-seekers to remain in mexico while the process lays out. the biden administration suspended the program and tried to it and make it. i'm dana perino. bill hemmer is off. >> i can't believe we are through our number 1 already. talk about a busy news day. i'm gillian turner. these rulings are not the only big story is that we are tracking this hour. it's also the final day on the bench for just a stephen breyer pretties going to be giving up his seat when he officially retires. that's happening in two hours at noon. his seat will be handed over. meanwhile, we should have the first of these big rulings coming down any moment for the full coverage on fox as i mentioned in constitutional turley, former u.s. assistant attorney. attorney general, texas lieutenant governor dan patrick. at the justice department anymore. standing by in a jam-packed hour. but first, let's go to shannon bream. she is our chief legal correspondent. this is the last day of this term. it has been an incredibly consequential term. shannon, i know that you have been covering all of these for us. his elastomeric opinions we expect i do think things will shake out today? >> this is it. we hope to get a lot of answers on many different things. not just the two opinions that we had today. which are going through executive power on the issue of the epa and how far they can go with a regulatory power and whether some of that should be left out congress part of the agencies. it's vital that the border for remaining mexico policy that keeps people who are transiting through mexico and coming to the u.s. for asylum on the mexican side of the border while they await their cases. it was a policy put into practice by the trump administration. the biden administration has repeatedly tried to get rid of it. we wait to see what the supreme court will do. they do have this transition from one justice and proteges. one of the clerks will now become justice around noon today. of course we're still still waiting to see if there's any word on that leak investigation. it's been hard for us to get any substantive update. we are hoping today may be the day we get all kinds of answers. >> shannon, this is jillian. the second case you mention which deals with the drop era remaining mexico policy, specifically has guidance as it pertains to asylum-seekers here in the u.s. legal experts have been telling us for months, there are certainly a broader implications here for all would-be immigrants hoping to come to america. can you describe that to us and unpack and a little us? >> gillian: you talking about immigration policy, there have been a lot of a lot of back-and-forth between the white house on the supreme court even during the trump administration. we think about policy under the obama administration. every administration is going to come in and tackle executive order that they didn't like from the previous president. there is a procedural way it has to be handled. we saw that when the supreme court look at the trump administration's attempt to get rid of daca and found that they had not followed the letter of the law trying to get that done for their going to be questions about whether this remain in mexico policy attempt by the by demonstration to roll that back, whether it meets the criteria that exists out there that the court has recognized a pertains to rolling back executive orders. it can go to immigration and beyond when it comes to how the president handles the executive orders of their predecessors. the epa has far reaching implications. we will see of the court decides their meaning that in today. she >> dana: shannon bream is going to be ready in the next minute or so to find out what that opinion is. joining us also is jonathan turley. jonathan, i know we have these two cases. how consequential do you think the supreme court term has been so far? >> well, it has really been quite consequential in a number of respects. he had the major amendment ruling out of new york which really is going to frame future challenges under the second amendment. it was an amplification of the individual rights contained within the second amendment. you also obviously have the dobbs decision which returned the question of abortion to the states where the court simply said it's time for citizens and the individual states to determine where they fall on abortion. what limits should be applied and whether it should be allowed. today, we are going to see some very important cases involving immigration and climate change. that's going to turn on how much discretion we give agencies. how much freedom presidents have in reversing their predecessors. the biden administration has had a particularly bad record in court. and they have a long string of losses. i have a feeling today, that is going to get worse more likely than it will get better. >> dana: we hear that the epa case is the first one that will be released today. i don't have the final answer yet as to how they ruled. that'll be the first one. this one really has to deal with not just the epa. depending on how the court rules, tell me if i'm right here. it could be very narrow about the epa or more broad answer why people have been wondering about. does the epa and other agencies get to interpret all these laws or should congress actually do that? >> this is an incredibly important decision and what is called the administrative state. we have a system that is called tripartite. it is three branches. we've had the rise of a fourth branch in the form of federal agency. that is concerned a number of us about whether it froze out of kilter this madisonian system built on three equal branches. the court has given more and more discretion to these agencies. the epa is claiming really breathtaking authority to dictate changes in terms of green energy. many people said, look, this needs to go to congress. you shouldn't have an agency making these decisions in a system that is based on a representative democracy and participatory politics. >> dana: what is interesting is that jillian jump in here after me. as i recall, one of the reasons that the democrats find themselves in this position today is because president obama got frustrated during his term that the environmental regulation greenhouse gas emissions reduction law that he wanted to pass couldn't actually get the votes he needed to pass. they said, the epa can go ahead and do it on their own. the fact that now, he could not just be about epa. it could be much broader point the democrats and the pretty interesting position here, chilean, as we wait to find out what this decision is. we know it is the epa decision. >> gillian: that gets to a question i have. i'm sure a lot of other americans following this case after maybe jonathan can shed some light. on paper, this case has a pretty narrow focus, write, sound like how much the epa can really entice or force coal power plants to carbon emissions. how do we end up with an interpretation from the supreme court that would potentially affect every federal department and agency in every u.s. industry sector? >> that's right. what the court has done in the past is the say that major questions like this should come with the added burden that congress should be heard on it. they have gotten increasingly uncomfortable with agencies effectively taking these questions away from the legislative branch. indeed, taking away from the political process. this is an excellent example of why that concern is so relevant. the obama administration and the biden administration have pushed congress for more strict environmental protections. there are many people that balk at that including democrats. >> dana: i'm sorry to interrupt you here. we've got the ruling in from shannon bream from our supreme court producer. they have ruled against the biden administration over climate change authority. this is considered a major blow to the federal government's power and perhaps a setback to the biden administration. the court has ruled that the epa lacks broad statutory authority to curve greenhouse gas emissions. epa is telling us that we have got shannon back. are you with us? >> this is a 6-3 opinion. we do have a concurrent. this is authored by the chief justice john roberts. what the majority is said is pushing back on the sweeping epa power to institute and implement its regulations as this. capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level i will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible solution to the crisis of the day, but they going to say it's not plausible that congress gave epa the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme. if the decision of such magnitude and consequence rest with congress itself or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. essentially, they are saying epa is gone too far in the way it interpreted how it can crackdown on these carbon dioxide emissions. congress should have been more clear in delegating the exact power to the epa or that congress itself should be doing it. it is i brush back to the epa power and reach of administrative agency. it seems tailored to the epa itself. we will keep reading and look at the dissent which is authored by justice kagan. it will get to that as soon as we dig into that. >> dana: thanks. i want to bring in larry kudlow. this is a decision that does have far-reaching implications not just for government bond for businesses. for businesses and for consumers. and let's get your take on what this decision means. 6-3 ruling against the biden administration. >> this is a massive, massive decision. it essentially repeals the chevron decision back in the middle '90s which simply said, if congress is ambiguous in its law, we will defer to the federal regulatory agencies who will then decide. they will make their own laws. they will make their own rules. i think a new balance has been struck. john roberts has always been very good on these economic regulatory issues. it's a 6-3 decision. it basically says, you want to have that kind of carbon policies, carbon emissions policies, you need to clarify and get a law. which by the way, i don't think they could. this is about how you measure clean air. it also is about how many times you measure the same air, which is what the obama's wanted and what the biden crowd is wanting to do. measure it many times. there's also a federal versus state issue year. federalism. it is essentially saying, i'll have to to read this decision obviously. i think it's in the say that the states and the individual power plants will be the one to take action. you can have a one-size-fits-all. in the trump administration rolled back obama's power plant and got it back. said put it into the states. stop measuring matters that clean air 2 and 3 times. this affects all of the climate change policies of the obama administration. in affects all of the green new deal. also and i've got to read this thing. it may affect more generally, it may curb the power of the regulatory agencies. this so-called administrative law agencies. this is absolutely huge. >> quick follow up question for you. i want to make sure i am understanding you right. we got that said from the minority side, written by justice kagan. she said whatever else this court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. she goes on to say in this instance, the court appointed self instead of congress are the expert agency. that would be the fda you were just talking about. the decision-maker on climate policy. what is your reaction to that? >> now, it would be the epa not the fda. >> gillian: i'm sorry, the epa. my brain is a scrambled eggs of acronyms this morning. >> okay. kagan is wrong here. the court is not saying -- i just read what dane is a summary sandwich makes a lot of sense to me. the court is not pretending to be the epa. the court's ruling on a much larger question. okay. the court is saying, these so-called independent regulatory agencies -- in this case, it's the epa. it could be the fcc. it could be the ftc. they don't have authority to do basically whatever they want, unless congress passes legislation. the thing is, go back to the obama thing in the mid-'90s. the clean power act, cpp. the law that passed was so ambiguous that it left that out to the radicals at the epa. in the trump administration came in. we did this at the national economic council. we did at their own epa and the energy department. we said, wait a minute. you are not empowered to force us to do that. we are going to do a couple of things here. we are going to curb some of the metrics used to measure clean air. it should be two and three times measuring the same particles of air. secondly, we are going to go power plant by a power plant. third, the ultimate jurisdiction here should be the states. okay, not the federal government. finally, you got the pass a new law to stipulate this. they are not saying what's right and what's wrong regarding the metrics or the outcome of whether you want net zero omissions. i don't think they are going to rule on that because they don't have any expertise, blah, blah, blah. but they are saying is congress is not the independent agencies should make clear law, point number one. point number two, this opens the door for federalism. you don't have to have one-size-fits-all. leave it to the states. of those dates will deal with the individual power plants as they always had until this thing was put in place. >> dana: thank you, larry. let's bring in andy mccarthy, fox news contributor. this issue here, we are all reading through it. is this going to be narrowly targeted to just the epa? do you think you have broader implications? >> i think it's got broader implications because i think i had broader implications even before today. but the court is doing here is very similar to what i did in the osha case that we talk about weeks ago where it basically said, you know, look, these agencies. we are not saying that they don't have power to do things. but there has to be a clear delegation from congress. what they are essentially saying is if you are going to do something that is arguably constitutional, but it would mark a big shift in the way things i've always been done whether it is a big shift in the relation between the individual and the stage or between state power and federal power, congress has the same with clarity and with the lack of ambiguity, this is what you the administrative agency are permitted to do. the administrative agencies are not going to be able to knit together about so sort of related regulations and say, i think this gives us the authority to do major, major changes in policy. what they are saying is, these major changes in policy may be permissible, but congress has the elected body that is representative to the people that is accountable to the people has to give clear authority for this. >> dana: all right, thank you so much, andy. standby here. we are waiting for remain in mexico policy. i believe we have that decision in. shannon bream, are you here? >> yes, this is a long one but we are getting through this. it looks like the chief justice john roberts and justice kavanaugh joined with the liberal three justices for a 5-4 decision in favor of the biden decision for now for this one is complicated. the government's decision of that remain in mexico policy did not violate federal law. they say this october 29th memorandum. to try to get rid of this remain in mexico policy didn't constitute final agency actions but reversing the court of appeals was decided against the biden administration sending this case back down for further proceedings. this is a win at first blush at first-rate overview for the biden administration that has been trying to get rid of remain in mexico policy. >> for now, it looks like a five hundred four decision that should make the white house happy after a week where they found a real brock spack of everything they've been trying to do in their policies. does look like the final phase of that term is going to be one that will make the white house happy. >> dana: you keep reading. that spring in texas congressman who has been gracious enough to join us this morning. we're just getting this in. 504 decision on a technicality. you are looking at this too. what are you hoping to see here, congressman? >> i want to make sure we have policies in place that can treat the migrants with respect and dignity. at the same time, have repercussions. we follow the laws because otherwise, we are going to continue to have a record number of migrants coming into the united states. and a lot of them are going to be released on our streets. i want to replace the policies have to be in a central way that it doesn't -- more people are coming to the united states. >> dana: for your area, your neighborhood, your district, the idea of remain in mexico policy is to try to have a process here, not swamp the border patrol. let's have them remain in mexico. the biden administration tried twice to get rid of it. did you ever advise them that was a bad decision? >> my position has been that in this case, if you have a remain in mexico and they have access to an attorney they want to come and present their case, and they are in a safe situation, then we ought to do that. otherwise, you have so many people that come in, come into the united states. and a lot of them are given false hope because they do have a hundred people, only 10-12% are given asylum. only 10% to 12% are going to be given asylum. why are we letting 100% and we should be allowing only 10% or 12% of those people come into the united states? >> dana: president biden has been away for five days at nato for a meeting. there's been a lot of things happening back home. there is the roe v. wade decision. it is the fact that inflation and gas prices continue. crime across the border. excuse me, across the country and the really big issue. the border is a major issue. griff jenkins has been there for six days. he counted 9,000 people came across. do you think biden will ever turn his attention to the border in a serious way before the midterm? >> yeah, you know. i feel bad for the -- so many issues happening in the united states domestically and across the world, dealing with russia and china. i feel, you know, bad for him. at the same time, there were people that can implement the laws that we have on the books already to make sure that there is repercussions. because otherwise, and we finish this fiscal year which will be on september 30th, we are going to have a record number of people coming into the united states. and this is why certain policies like title 42 are important to keep in place while we look at the situation at the border. there is no repercussions where people will return under title eight or title 42. they are going to keep coming into the united states and large, large numbers. >> dana: congressman henry cuellar, thank you for your time today. speech and that's bring it out texas lieutenant governor dan patrick with more reaction to tg in this case, sorry. remain in mexico policy applies to certain types of asylum-seekers attempting to reach the united states. it also was widely understood this case to have implications for immigrants, migrants seeking to come here for a whole host of reasons, talk to us about the practical implications this ruling is going to have on the ground at the border on the u.s. side. >> very disappointing in the decision today that the conservative justices decided on the liberals with this. this is devastating for the united states of america. this is that is that most people in america really don't have their arms around. to put in perspective, under about four years of biden based on the numbers we have already seen in the numbers projected over his last 2.5 years, we will have allowed more people into this country illegally that do not share our values and our principles. they are not highly educated in many areas that have health issues that impact our entire economy in every state. we are going to see more people here illegally and live in the two largest cities in america. five times the number of people which is the fourth largest city in the country. it will be approaching 40-50000000 people here illegally since the 1990s. and the question that has to be asked, what happens to these people when they get here? they don't just disappear. they do disappear from sight. what do they do? if they go to school, they are three or four grades behind. what future do they have? i don't have a work permit. they don't have citizenship where they go to our emergency rooms and clog our hospitals. and it's pouring across the border with them. as you grab people into the border, the drugs coming the other direction where but over dialect or border patrol or not. 18 of 25. this is a terrible decision for america. this is a terrible decision for taxes. we alone in texas are spending $4 million this year in border security. we normally spend 400 million. a $4 billion. that's more than some states have a total budget. this is only going to allow biden to thump's chest and say i'm right in the floodgates are going to be open. we are approaching by the time his term ends if you look at the mit report from 2016 which sent 26 million people here illegally and at his numbers, we are going to be somewhere near 40 million people here illegally. we cannot absorb that in our cities and counties and states. it's dangerous for america. people are coming here from 150 countries. one last stat to give you a sense of how big this is in america. the border with mexico and texas is longer than the mileage from atlanta, georgia, to maine. that is about 1100 miles. we have almost 1300 miles of border with mexico. a zigzag way down the red river. that is how much we have to protect her and the court is open the doors. we are not going to suggest packing the court or burned on this cities. we are going to respect his decision and fight to overturn it. >> dana: i wonder about the fact that we have seen this week the horrible deaths of the migrants who were packed into that trailer with no air conditioning, is very hot in texas this summer. most summers, but this number seems to be hotter early. they still keep coming across. i know that you and governor abbott certainly can't give up. you have to try something else. do you have any other legal records that you can try to pursue here? >> we are doing everything we can up into the letter of the law. we will be coming back into session in january. and it is my intention as lieutenant governor who does control the agenda with the senate majority two pass legislation that we can get back to the supreme court like arizona did for they lost their case in 2012. to bring a case that says we have to have control over our border. it impacts 29 million texans. and we should have a saying that. you had earlier guessed talking about going back to states rights. that's what we need, dana. i number one responsibility is to the constitution of texas in america but for the safety of our citizens. the federal government is allowing people to come into this country which has a tremendous impact in so many areas on america, but on texas. that's my responsibility. i should have a right to protect my citizens and not have the federal government not do their job. our founders never thought we would have a president this incompetent who would open up the border and allow his invasion. i don't think our founders ever dream that we would have a president that says, just come on in. just let america without checking anyone or anything. we don't know who these people are. we don't know where they go as i said. they go into our society. it's a tremendous turn on the taxpayers. those who have actually gone to court which are very few, 90% of the cases show that they are not here a legal reasons. this was a policy that trump put into place. it worked. and we had control -- back in the 18-wheeler. i said yesterday. i think when i was with you, it's been a long 24 hours. no one should have to come to america and die in the back of an 18-wheeler to get here. we need legal immigration reform. we need control of the border. we have to protect our citizens. this presidency is a culture of death. i don't care about the babies in the womb. i don't care about the people in the back my trailer. i didn't care about our soldiers in afghanistan. i don't care about our kids and young people dying off fentanyl. you never hear any compassion from this president about anything when it comes to human life. this is going to continue now. we are going to everything we can to stop it. we will be doing everything we can building the wall. i'm going to look for a law that we can go back to the supreme court and challenge them that the state has to have the permission to protect its citizens when the federal government will not. that's my duty. that's my obligation. i believe that's what texans and americans want. >> dana: thank you for your time today. i will let you get back to work. jonathan turley is still with us. do you have a sense yet and looking at the decision of the preliminary moments that you've had to understand why justice roberts and justice kavanaugh ruled the way they did? >> yeah, certainly of that biden administration eked out a victory here. it's not too surprising with the lineup. and this is a classic roberts decision. it's accommodating and narrow. brought along justice kavanaugh here. when cavanagh was appointed, i wrote a column saying while president trump said he was looking for someone who would not be a john roberts, he could not found one who is more similar in his approach. the opinion like this where you see that's true. and they cut from the same both. they tend to be more incremental and narrow. in this case, they are reversing the decision and saying that the court of appeals was wrong to say that this was a violation of federal law. it is a very narrow decision in that sense. today as a whole, and sort of a split judgment for about biden administration. quite frankly, the laws on the epa side will be felt more acutely by the federal government. that is not much more important decision in terms of its application going forward in my view. it reinforces this idea that major questions need to be resolved by congress. and by implication, that means that federal agencies should not take these questions out of our legislative process out of our political process. it does not take down what is called the chevron doctrine which was this doctrine that gives great deference to agencies. this court has made it clear that it does not have that level of blind faith or is willing to afford that discretion to federal agencies. the epa case will have lasting impact in my view. >> dana: all right. >> gillian: jonathan, standby. i want to bring in the national border patrol council vice president. our immigration advocates in this case have been saying remain in mexico photo forces would be asylum-seekers who want to come here but can't afford it from doing so to seek dangerous illegal ways of crossing the border. governor abbott has basically said, remain in mexico is a deterrent policy. any deterrent policy we can put in place at the border right now is a good helpful thing for the border patrol. what do you think? >> if governor abbott is 100% right. the problem right now is still that 42 has implemented implemented on a small number. as much as it has been helpful, people need to understand it is still a small number. it is being implemented on. that is where we are getting so many individuals that are still crossing into the united states. we heard henry cuellar say earlier, it's a small percentage that will get the asylum. as a small percentage that should get the asylum. we are releasing so many individuals in the united states that do not qualify for asylum. you will never see those individuals again. many times, their court date has been extended to five years from now. we are never going to hear from individuals to go to court. it's beyond this. they are never going to show up where they are going to remain in the united states. we don't know who they are where they are from. you have to add the entire faction of what is getting away. when you are getting large groups that are inundated in certain parts of the united states and the border, you remove agents from that area. now you got a huge number of individuals that are coming into the country and we don't know that they are. we don't know the number that is coming in. a number cannot be established. that's the problem. i'm hearing individuals say this is a win for the biden administration. this is a win from the white house. this was a huge loss for the american public. i think that's what people need to be concerned about. >> dana: andy mccarthy, want to bring it back in. i know that a couple of months ago, he wrote a piece for national review in which you said that you did not think that that part would save remain in mexico. you turned out to be right. what i do think that then and how do you feel that now? >> unfortunately what i thought it was going to be. something they can hang their hat on is that the court really doesn't have a foreign policy role under the constitution at all. even though i think the statute unlike what the majority opinion says no i think the statute is very clear. congress has been very clear that people who don't have legal authority to be in the united states are supposed to be detained until their case has been solved. the law is very clear on that. justice alito is adamant on that in his dissent. that problem is, remain in mexico is a diplomatic policy that has to be agreed to by basically the executive branch of the united states and the government of mexico. the court has no authority to force mexico to do anything or even to force our executive branch to negotiate with another country. this is one of these things where the practicality especially for people who are pragmatic like robertson, are, the practicality kind of overwhelms i think the clarity of the statute. even though congress is saying everyone who is not here illegally is supposed to be detained, they never authorized enough funding or resources to detain the number of people that would entail. the court simply isn't in a position to tell presidential administration to negotiate with another country. >> dana: justice barrett -- i wonder if you could maybe understand what she's saying here. i agree with the court's analysis of the merits, but not with his decision to reach them. why does that mean? >> what she's saying is that there was a procedural bar here that if you read the law in the technical way, they shouldn't even reach the merit here. the court didn't have to get involved in this at all. i would just point out, if she had not developed this theory with the dissenting judges and grab onto as well, she would have been in the majority. she pretty much clearly says that she agrees with the bottom line decision of roberts, cavanaugh, and the three progressive judges. i must say, i'm disappointed to find that. i think they did a lot of finagling with the construction of the statute in order to come to that outcome. >> dana: thank you so much. >> gillian: let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture. here with chief legal correspondent shannon bream. >> the two final decisions from the court. this win where the biden administration allowing them to roll back the remain in mexico policy instituted under the trump administration. a court said this is at the end of the story. they do send this case back to the lower courts with guidance. for now it's not really a win where the biden administration in their attempt to get rid of that policy. there is still more litigation to come. the second case has to do with the epa in its power to regulate carbon emissions. the court was very clear on this a and i gone too far. they said this is the kind of thing that needs to be addressed by congress. they said in their opinion, it's not possible that congress gave epa the authority to adopt its own regulatory scheme on this and the decision of such magnitude and consequence rest with congress itself or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. they say that the epa didn't have that. the dissenters are equally passionate. justice kagan saying the court appoints itself instead of congress climate policy. "i cannot think of many things more frightening." a split decision today for the administration when it comes to the use of executive and agency power. this comes on the day that the president's overseas talking about what he calls the "outrageous behavior of the supreme court of the united states" essentially suggesting that it is destabilizing and not good by the u.s. he is talking about trying to codify roby weight on the national level which would require some really tricky but work by the democrats going into the midterm elections. we also have the final statement by the chief justice and we had wondered, would we hear anything about the leak investigation? it is not mentioned in the final end of term statement. we wait for it changing over of one justice to another as who will soon be justice ketanji brown jackson. sworn in about noon eastern time and we will cover in life. >> gillian: standby. >> dana: last spring in fox business house larry kudlow again. you've had time to think about the epa decision that just came down. as he said it was a massive decision, very consequential. on the remain in mexico, i think viewers would be interested in your take on just how much pressure the economy is taking as the southern border issue is not dealt with by the federal government. >> thank you, dana. just one quick one on the epa. this ruling -- jonathan turley is correct. the ruling does not overturn the prior chevron decision back in 1994. but it substantially reduces the regulatory running room or elbow room that these so-called independent agencies have. and what is in this document apparently, if there is a major impact on the economy, that is where epa and other agencies must defer back to congress. and there is one that is going to be impacted, dana. that is the sec. security exchange commission which is put together of five or 600 page rule which is pure insanity forcing all these american companies, thousands and thousands of them to go through hoops about carbon emissions and other metrics and to open themselves up to lawsuits. this sec action would probably be stopped because of what the court did today. frankly, there may be other agencies like the federal trade commission. the federal communications commission, et cetera, and will be impacted. do your border question, it has had a very destabilizing effect on the local economy. that is not necessarily the most important issue because it's a national issue. yes, you are bringing a lot of new immigrants and hearing, illegal immigrants, provides cheap labor. that upsets local labor markets. folks that are looking for a job in south texas or arizona, southern california, oklahoma will probably spread throughout the south. you are pouring in cheap labor which knocks down wages. i am not against his migration. i'm against the illegal part. we should have reforms from congress that would provide things like temporary visas or permanent visas or no visas at all. the trouble is this gray area where it is essentially catch and release and it really damages the local economies. that is a separate issue from the lawbreaking obviously or other drug trafficking or the lack of a clear border sovereignty which are terrible, terrible mistakes. mc narrowly on the economy, it is very destabilizing down there in south texas and arizona and so forth. >> dana: will be epa decision have any impact on businesses here immediately in terms of either exploration or as i warned us about the reporting requirements that the government would try to put on them? >> now, i think immediately, i'm sure, legal actions and corporate actions are going to occur. the epa now is going to be way on the defensive. all of these regulations and rules imposed by the obama administration are subject to question all of a sudden. this is why it is such an important decision. it cuts to the very core of the bidens climate change, so-called prenew deal. the idea of going net carbon emissions in 5 or 10 years. a cuts to the core of that. you're going to see major changes. i don't think, dana, there will be any real legislation to clarify the authority of the epa and other regulators. that by the way energy, interior, and so forth. ending with the air quality council inside the white house which is in very militant against carmen. i don't think you're going to get legislation several years. this matter will not be resolved for several years. that means the regulatory regulators are going to have to pull back big time. >> gillian: larry, i want the flag for you at the democrats are saying in reaction to the ruling. we just got this from chuck schumer. he said this ruling "will cause more needless deaths because of more pollution that will exacerbate the climate crisis and make our air and water less clean and safe. the decades long fight to protect citizens from corporate abuses being wiped out in a single case by extremist judges." what you say to that? >> the united states has the lowest carbon emissions and the cleanest water of any of the major countries, the oecd countries which is about 25 countries. that has always been the puzzling part of this radical assault on fossil fuels coming from the biden white house. we have clean air. we have clean water. we have done a great job on endangered species. we shouldn't have these overreaching overbearing regulations. because those regulations are aimed at stopping fossil fuel companies, which of course we desperately need more gasoline and more oil supplies to cut prices back and to actually -- to help our own consumers and drivers and truck drivers. these other regulations are superfluous. they are ideologically driven. they are not practically driven. our air and water is the cleanest in the oecd. we go back, i don't know, 50 years into the 1970s. we have been working on this. richard nixon i believe started the epa. in 1970 or 71. we have done a good job, not a bad job. as far as his other criticisms, you know, my friend chuck schumer is having a bad week or so with the supreme court. >> dana: right before the supreme court releasing opinions, the president of the united states was in madrid. he had a press conference. he was asked a lot of questions. one of them was about inflation. he was comparing it again to other countries around the world. how do you listen to this and look at a map here that we have? watch here. >> president biden: i can understand why the american people are frustrated because of what the supreme court did. i can understand why the american people are frustrated because of inflation. but inflation is higher in almost every other country. prices at the pump are higher in almost every other country. we are in a better position to deal with this than anyone. we have a way to go. >> dana: the white house has been saying this for a few weeks. i think we have a map that can show you. inflation is going up in certain places. it certainly is not higher in every other country, larry. speak out, that is correct. there are plenty of countries -- you can just see. i bought germany, france, korea, so forth for this assertion by the president has been disproved by several studies. one by the san francisco fed. another one by former obama advisor jason furman, a straight shooting economist. the best way to look at this. everybody particularly in europe as an inflation problem because of high oil prices. they depend on russian oil. i get that. the best way to evaluate this, take a look of the so-called core inflation rate which removes energy and food. look at the underlying, underlying. the report today was almost 5%, 4.7%. that is higher. that is a higher core inflation rate in almost every body in the oecd countries. in the studies have shown one reason for that is because we had significantly more fiscal spending stimulus and these other countries did. so we spent more. the federal reserve earned and more our inflation rate is higher. look at the core again. it's about 5%. i think that is the key point. by the way, can i just -- just one point. look, briefly, i don't want to go nuts about this. i'm having a problem with the president of the united states and the attorney general of the united states constantly overtly criticizing the supreme court. which is a valued institution in our country. the justice department -- i mean, the ink is barely dry on the supremes decision on roe. in the justice department puts out this scathing broadside attack on the supreme court. i have never seen anything like this. you may disagree. okay. about the job of the attorney general is to uphold the laws. he hasn't done a great job in my opinion. but whatever. this public blasting of the supreme court is unseemly, unhealthy, and really, over time will damage the ability of the court to do its work and to have the respect institutionally that is so central to our democracy. >> thank you so much. standby. >> gillian: joining us right now as west virginia's attorney general. i want to bring him in for reaction to this ruling from the supreme court. a major blow to the president's climate edge and document authority. does it mean mean for your state? >> this is a huge victory for our american system of government. we have been arguing for many, many years while everyone has been focusing on the question of climate change, we have said one simple thing. that if you have a major issue of the day, congress needs to be the decider, not an unelected bureaucracy. that is what days decision means purity unelected bureaucrats are not going to be seizing power across the board. today, it matters with respect to stopping the epa's power grab. tomorrow, it can impact what goes on at the securities and exchange commission and other federal agencies. this court got it absolutely correct. it's a very stable position. every state needs to have a role in the process. west virginia, california, texas. that's the way of the founders envisioned it. i think this is a very important victory for separation of powers for the rule of law and ensuring that overreaching government knows it has limits. >> gillian: do you think in this instance, the democrats a moment ago. i don't know if you heard, but i read a statement from senator chuck schumer. he says that this ruling is going to be devastating for american workers. he said it's going to cause potentially risk to their health, their livelihoods, their lives. what you say to that pushback? >> i think seminary schumer is once again misleading american people. the american public should look at this decision as value neutral. by that i mean, this simply means that an unelected bureaucracy can't reach out and seize power. doesn't exist. congress could step in. they have the power to regulate and legislate. when people start to scream that the earth is following. they have to go back to the fact that for many years, these agencies have been running amok. i try to regulate in areas where they lacked power to do so. this is congress' realm. he needs to look himself in the mirror and say this is congress' job. not of an unelected bureaucracy. roe we have to leave it there. thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you so much. >> dana: pro-life centers facing a wave of violence and vandalism in the wake of the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade. fox news found the fbi has opened 200 investigations since the draft opinion was leaked in may. mike emanuel is live with more. are they any closer to making an arrest? because it sounds like they may be working it very goes to making arrests fox news has learned the majority of the threats after the abortion really have been directed toward pro-life groups by anarchists or pro-choice activists. churches and pro-life pregnancy centers across the country's seen stepped up attacks. pro-abortion rights group james remains claim responsibility for an attack with graffiti left behind and says "jane was here." virginia police are investigating vandalism and property damage at the blue ridge pregnancy center. officers report the building has been sprayed with graffiti in multiple windows have been broken out. security camera footage shows four mashed suspects committing the acts. the st. john neumann catholic church was vandalized with abortion-related graffiti. investigators say a slow burning fire was also found in outside the church and an accelerant was likely used. the graffiti on the charge sign warning this won't stop. a worshiper says she doesn't mind people expressing themselves, but vandalism is going too far. >> stopped by to say a prayer for my father who passed away this week. and so this is upsetting to see this at my church. >> fox news has learned federal authorities are warning attacks on charges or pro-life centers could be classified as hate crimes. the archdiocese of washington tells fox remains in close communication with law enforcement due to increased risk of catholic institutions. >> dana: they give it out. president biden on the comment reporters early this morning after his trip to the g7 and nato summits. martha maccallum is with us. at two days in a row of the luckiest anchor in fox news to have you. one of the things president biden was asked about was gas prices and how long it would take for gas prices where the american people to do without. he basically said, for as long as it takes for ukraine to beat russia. there are many other things that he said. let's get your take on his press conference today. >> it's great to be with you as always, dana. i thought i was a very interesting moment. especially when it was layered on top of the moment that we saw with the french president, emmanuel macron falling aside biden and sort of an awkward way and saying, i know you are going to saudi arabia. i'm paraphrasing here. i don't have any more capacity to produce more oil. that put the president in a position where he had to say that's another reason that i'm taking this trip. it's not about oil. he also i thought made some interesting comments with regard to their boards of our relationship with israel which has been a tricky area for him at times. back to the price of oil. he said it's more important to help ukraine fight off rationale than it is to be overly concerned about gas prices and home. i don't know how that's gonna play with people here. i wonder about the patience and longevity of the support for the war in ukraine. we've seen how this goes over time and billions of dollars are ported towards that are far away. and whether or not he will be able to sustain then i think it's going to depend a lot on how much of a true commitment we are actually seeing from nato. we have heard a lot of language. i think it was stronger today from the president then we have earned in the past. that safe to sacred whether or not this turned into an actual commitment of 300,000 ready troops on the russian border or whether or not we start to see a dissipation. i think we are kind of at a very important moment with the situation with ukraine. i think the president accurately described the threat that we see from russia and why there has been this need to reorganize the mission with a rash and no longer as part of this group of seven nations. now seven nations. clearly an adversary. that is a big change. whether or not the teeth are there to actually defeat russia is something that we are still sort of waiting to see articulated in exactly that way. >> dana: he was finally asked about domestic policies that we have here. we also brought out roe v. wade. two reporters. he said that the supreme court of the united states united states has destabilized the world, martha. speak out about that was shocking good i was listening to larry kudlow and all of your great coverage of all of this throughout the course of the morning. the language -- this is not the language we were used to hearing. you remember when one of the justices spoke out in the middle of a speech by president biden and what a strange moment that is, right? or not. we're in a different era now. we are in a more coursera now. we see that play out when we see the president says their behavior is outrageous. mike emanuel talking about the attacks on the pregnancy centers. we are not hearing a language that i would say we need to respect each other. we need to respect the views. i understand this is a very upsetting decision for a large number of people in the country. you also need to recognize that it is something that another -- the other half of the country feels very joyous about. that kind of respect for the decisions respect for the court is something that we need to restore. i think it needs to ripple across the country in the way that we deal with these things on the hole. >> dana: we have opportunity to do that today. one in favor of the biden administration and one against. martha maccallum, we will see you on the story at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> gillian: it was a rare breach of secrecy at the supreme court. the league draft really on roe v. wade sparred protest outside justice holmes and across the nation and now nearly two months later's, the search for the culprit and that leak drags on. let's bring it forward prosecutor jim trusty. thank so much for joining us. >> sure. >> gillian: are you hear anything about we know that this investigation is ongoing. we get tiny little nuggets, you know, like every week or so about what the court is doing. we know that they subpoenaed phone records. are you hearing thing about how they are doing with the investigation? are they narrowing in on somebody? are they frustrated? what are you hearing? speak out conspicuous silence. i think we are frustrated on the outside because there is a couple of things that are taking place here. a couple of possible explanations. neither of which are very attractive. the first is that this very finite i think actually very easy internal investigation into the supreme court league is being bungled. you've got a police department for the supreme court that focuses on protection that might be out of their element. this is a very finite investigation. you've got government computers, government printers. you should be asking for their phone information and further phones consensually. is a lot of obvious steps and even a lawyer doing an internal investigation investigating the supreme court for this possible criminal breach. the alternative explanation which is getting increasingly possible and terrifying and a sense is that they have found some level of complicity by an associate justice. if that's true, that takes a horrible event and magnifies at times a hundred in terms of somebody breaching a long-standing moral code of that supreme court. i hope that's not the case. it can also explain silence one month after this event initially took place. >> we did hear that they subpoenaed as a matter of court records the phone. i guess that i don't know if it is personal professional phones. they did subpoenaed the phone records of the clerks. why is there so much speculation about the clerk as opposed to say the hundreds of career staff on the court? >> mostly because of access. there is a broader pool of accents than you might think from the outside thinking about nine supreme court justices. there is some logic to beginning the search with the people that are in the middle of the opinion making process that have some input to that like the law clerks. i don't want to speculate on which work for or anything like that. to me, this is a very easy moment for all of these law clerks to lineup and say, here's my phone. is my personal phone. as my government phone. fire away. eliminate me as a suspect. i would hope there is that kind of measure of respect for the institution or patriotism where that is already taken place. it's a pretty simple process of looking for phone connections between politico and a cleric and chasing down the paper trail to see if we can see the actual delivery of the leak opinion. >> gillian: do keep us in the loop on anything you hear about this case. thanks so much. >> sure thing. see you then. >> dana: i want to bring back in andy mccarthy. we have a two supreme court decisions. one was the remaining mexico. the other was the epa. you -- the impact they will have. let's give you a chance to do that here. >> i think overarching lee, dana, with the supreme court is doing here is trying to even though they are being accused on the left of usurping authority, and i think that they are trying to do is restore constitutional order in terms of who gets to decide these major questions. with respect to the epa case and claimant, what they are saying is, if you are going to have a policy that marks a vast shift between the relationship between private business and the government, between the state's ability to regulate the federal government, that congress has to speak clearly about that. and an administrative agency can't stitch together a bunch of disparate regulations and theorize that they are able to do these dramatic changes. basically, the court's restoring order same as the congress. on abortion, they are not taken the decision away even though that's what they are being accused of. they are saying go under our constitutional order, this is a state matter. it is not for the federal court. so it's not taking the power. it's actually seating power and saying, this is the way our constitution is structured. on the immigration case that we got today, the new mexico case, the remaining mexico case knowing what they are basically saying is, policy in this regard has to be chiefly in the hands of the president along with congress. while we are going to read the statutes to say what they mean, we also have to do that with the practical understanding that the chief executive has to be able to make foreign policy and to negotiate with foreign countries. we are going to give a lot of deference in that regard. i think just restoring order -- they are being wrongly accused nothing by democrats who want to run against the supreme court rather than run on biden's record in november. they think i think they think that's more effective politics. they are not taking power. they are simply assigning it where the constitution thinks it should be assigned. >> dana: juergen have the official retirement today have justice breyer in the swearing in of the new justice ketanji brown jackson. and this court has been obviously got a lot of attention lately. summers are usually a chance for people to cool tension. you think this court will have an ability to get back into some sort of place where all americans can say, okay, we respect the fact that the supreme court look at these issues and wait them carefully and comes down on the and all of us should respect the decision that they make. the institution as a whole is really down and i think about 25% trust in the institution. is there anything that can be done in this transition they can help that? >> i think the collegiality of the court is something that will endure even though it has been tested in last couple of months like it has never been tested before. but i just think it is really hard. they don't call at the bully pulpit for nothing. they may try to recommit on a day like today with brown coming in to continue the tradition of collegiality on the court. but when the president of the united states is overseas attacking the supreme court, and i think that is very hard to overcome.

Related Keywords

Australia ,Taiwan ,Afghanistan ,United States ,Madrid ,Spain ,China ,California ,Angola ,New Mexico ,Russia ,West Virginia ,San Francisco ,Ukraine ,Mexico ,Arizona ,Italy ,Finland ,South Korea ,Poland ,Norway ,New York ,Georgia ,Texas ,Washington ,Virginia ,United Arab Emirates ,Togo ,San Antonio ,Germany ,Maine ,Israel ,Saudi Arabia ,Sweden ,Chile ,Kyiv ,Kyyiv ,Misto ,France ,Turkey ,Romania ,Texans ,Americans ,America ,Saudi ,Ukrainians ,Mexican ,Russian ,Saudis ,Israelis ,French ,Ukrainian ,Gulf States ,Israeli ,Chilean ,American ,Chuck Schumer ,Larry Kudlow ,Henry Cuellar ,Roe V Wade ,Mccarthy Byron ,Andy Hill ,States Dana ,John Roberts ,Griff Jenkins ,Martha Maccallum ,Clarence Thomas ,Baltic States ,Ruth Bader Ginsburg ,Gillian Turner ,Adana ,Jonathan Turley ,Mike Emanuel ,Jason Furman ,Roe V Wade Fox ,Richard Nixon ,Andy Mccarthy ,A John Roberts ,Dana Perino ,Greg Abbott ,Statesunited States ,One ,Wall ,Commitment ,Space ,Attack ,Land ,Hair ,Cyber ,Article ,Sea ,Nato ,Part ,Vladimir Putin ,Northern Europe ,Territory ,Warships ,Force Posture ,Addition ,Air Defense ,Flag ,Headquarters ,Army Fifth Corps ,United Kingdom ,35 ,Things ,World ,It ,Countries ,Deployment ,Brigade Combat Team ,Baltic ,Allies ,Partners ,Response ,Aggression ,Backdrop ,Globe ,Effort ,Contributions ,Commitments ,Secretary Austin ,50 ,Artillery Systems ,Systems ,Artillery Ammunition ,Rounds ,Antitank Systems ,Tanks ,600000 ,600 ,500 ,140000 ,Way ,Office ,Security Assistance ,Billion ,7 Billion ,800 Million ,Air Defense Systems ,Artillery ,Launch Rocket System ,Ammunition ,Action ,Time ,Nato Summit ,Pacific ,Order ,Matter ,Rules ,Challenges ,Atlantic ,Partnership ,China S ,Investment ,Build Back Matter Initiative ,Infrastructure ,Options ,Needs ,Millions ,Government ,Example ,Money ,Sector ,Projects ,Standards ,Sidelines ,600 Billion ,00 Billion ,Project ,Firms ,Angola Mediate Climate Goals ,2 Billion ,Two ,Energy ,Jobs ,Climate ,Markets ,American Technologies ,Products ,Labor ,Trade Practices ,Price Cap ,Details ,Teams ,Supply Chains ,Soil ,Goods ,Funds ,Revenues ,Rebuild ,Tariff ,Gas Pump ,Trip ,Unity ,Food Insecurity ,Step ,Marker ,Half ,Russian War ,Immediate ,5 Billion ,4 5 Billion ,Nations ,Capabilities ,Determination ,Resolve ,Transatlantic Alliance ,Natoization Of Fenlon ,Passion ,Now Nato ,Militaries ,Border ,Meeting ,Point ,G7 ,Both ,Goals ,Place ,Progress ,Realities ,Verge ,21 ,President ,Questions ,Question ,Mr ,Associated Press ,U S Supreme Court ,Joe Biden ,Course ,Laughs ,Nato Summit Last Year ,Model ,Country ,Abortion ,Direction ,Shootings ,Record ,Polling ,Placing ,Protections ,Public ,Buffalo ,85 ,People ,Some ,Leaders ,Amounts ,Together ,Economy ,Person ,You Haven T ,One World ,Inflation Rates ,Thing ,Privacy ,Behavior ,Overruling ,Vote ,Terms ,Privacy Rights ,Anything ,Rights ,Anyone ,Anything Other ,My View For The Supreme Court ,Leadership ,Dynamic ,Decision ,Inflation ,Prices ,Way To Go ,Comments ,Supreme Court Ruling ,Codifying Roe V Wade ,Support ,It Doesn T ,Cannot ,Zelenskyy ,Back ,Beginning ,War On ,Debt ,Situation ,Trouble ,Dealing ,Imposition ,Gains ,15 ,100 ,Oil Production ,Technology ,Price ,Military Systems ,Weapon Systems ,Snake Island ,Make ,Fact ,Blows ,Position ,Standing ,Donbas ,Capacity ,Courage ,List ,Defeat ,The New York Times ,Jim ,Plan ,Oil Price Cap ,Exports ,Drivers ,Gasoline ,Cap ,Around The World ,War ,Premium ,Mika ,00 ,200 ,Analyst Thing ,Barrel ,Critical ,Board ,Amount ,Price Hikes ,Insurance ,West ,Ships ,Deal ,Proppant ,Difficulty ,Customers ,Security ,Group ,Commission ,Four ,Mechanism ,Changes ,Home ,A Million ,Push The Congress ,Barrels ,Oil Reserve ,Petroleum Reserves ,Total ,240 Million ,Pump ,Tax ,Orange ,Reduction ,Relief ,Lot ,Gas Prices ,Bottom Line ,Reason ,Gas Tax ,Elimination ,Grain ,Food Prices ,Impact ,Bloomberg ,Fabian ,Jordan ,Target ,Request ,Military ,Assurances ,16 ,Interest ,Jets ,Quid Pro Quo ,Approval ,Gas ,Average ,Crown Prince ,Desire , ,5 ,Purpose ,Human Rights Abuses ,Gulf States Plus 3 ,Plus 3 ,King ,Bond ,Integration ,Peace ,Region ,Piece ,Deaths ,Sense ,Interest Concluding ,Oil Production Generically ,Places ,Concern ,Iran ,Book ,The Journal ,Wall Street Journal ,Assistance ,Hearing ,Ground ,Assessment ,Calculation ,Winter ,Kind ,Work ,Mother ,Another ,Defenses ,800 Billion ,Process ,Air Defense System ,Weaponry ,Offensive Weapons ,00 Million ,Sir ,Roe Ruling ,Executive Action ,Public Health Emergency ,Go Out ,Governors ,Announcements ,Democrats ,Detail ,Men ,Women ,Decision Wasn T ,Privacy General ,Law ,Actions ,Filibuster ,Exception ,Voting Rights ,Biden Decision ,Hang On ,Calio Donald ,Nbc ,News ,Abortion Rights ,Filibuster Rules To Codify Abortion Rights ,Life ,Integrity ,Institution ,Views ,Impartiality Of The Supreme Court ,Many ,Messenger ,President Of The United States America ,Forward Swing ,Problem ,Serious ,Madisonian System ,Issues ,Articles ,Court Older ,14th Amendment ,Guarantee ,14 ,Power ,Everything ,God ,Polling Data ,Outrage ,Right ,Guys ,Press Conference ,Shouting Questions ,Conference ,The End ,Bit ,Supreme Court Term ,Rulings ,Podium ,Hand Walking ,Microphone ,Environment ,Town Hall ,Speech ,Invasion ,Policy ,Foreign Policy ,Breaking News ,Page ,Whe Host ,Problems ,Middle East ,The World Stage ,Six ,Crisis ,Record Gas Prices ,Sorts ,Cabin ,Andrew Starr ,Jacqui Heinrich ,Takeaway ,Jackie ,Hi ,Legislation ,Privileges ,Sort ,Threshold ,Roe V Being ,60 ,Access ,Court Rulings ,Same ,Contraception ,Gay Marriage ,Basis ,Motto ,Unrest ,Midterms ,Progress Rights ,Presidency ,Concerns ,Causes ,Polls ,Answer ,Pressure ,Cost ,Borders ,Production ,Couple ,Headlines ,Emmanuel Macron ,Inc ,Call ,Uae ,National Security Advisor ,Fox News ,Camera ,Thanks ,Contributor ,Chief Correspondent ,Stand By ,Client ,Mission Statement ,Adversary ,Movement ,Washington Examiner ,12 ,Gas Premium ,Row ,Laws ,Byron ,Wind ,Permissive ,News Conference ,Efforts ,Finlandization ,Something ,Base ,Roe ,Democratic ,Chance ,Bill To Codify Roe ,House ,Filibusters ,Senator ,36 ,Confidence ,Stage ,Reporters ,Cadre ,Presidents ,Party ,Rhetoric ,Poll ,Polled ,Show ,Three ,25 ,40 ,Behalf ,Institutionalist ,Left ,Degree ,Progressive Left ,Reelection ,Reporter ,Forces ,Supreme Court Roe Decision ,Five ,Immigration ,Analysis ,Crime ,Talk ,Wars ,Track ,Majority ,80 ,Pandemic ,75 ,Increase ,Reflection ,Cost Of Living ,2008 ,2011 ,Track Number ,Driver ,Food ,Witches ,Percentage ,Bench ,Dobbs Versus Jackson ,Term ,Politicking ,Jurisprudence ,Justice ,Reporting ,Leak ,Conduct ,Masks ,May ,Committee ,Attacks ,Wife ,Move ,Mark Meadows ,6 ,January 6 ,Developers ,Roe Overturning ,American Society ,Dobbs Decision ,Word ,Leaker ,Divisions ,Court ,Relations ,Image ,Epa ,Congress Climate Policy ,Businesses ,Opinions ,First ,Farms ,Lives ,The Last Time ,Partner ,Didn T ,Saying ,Menu ,Decisions ,Everywhere ,Food Crisis ,Farmland ,Everybody ,Importance ,Subtext ,Top ,Ten ,Portion ,Emboldening ,Bank ,Success ,Issue ,Tenant ,Immigrants ,Wave ,Waves ,Syria ,Root ,Northern Africa ,Administration ,Suit ,Donald Trump ,Result ,1 ,Statistics ,Border Crossers ,Court Documents ,Department Of Homeland Security ,Number ,Ways ,1 Million ,Border Control ,Unaccompanied Minors ,2 Million ,700000 ,200000 ,Odds ,Incentive ,Case ,Assistant ,Positions ,Filibuster Rule ,Significance ,Reform ,Senate ,Progressives ,Front ,End ,History ,Break ,Doesn T Go Anywhere ,Times ,Proposition ,Wish List ,Senator Mcconnell ,Argument ,Pandora S Box ,Vice President ,Dobbs Ruling ,Medication ,Wake ,Abortion Pills ,Cabinet ,Least ,Dan Patrick ,Nothing ,Secretary ,Bills ,Pills ,Health And Human Services ,State Lines ,Heritage ,Courts ,Happening ,Clash ,Aspect ,Fight Snaking ,Constitution ,Control ,Health Care ,Protection ,Us Supreme Over Interstate Commerce ,Product ,Doctrine ,Side ,State Law ,Pushback ,Regard ,Hands ,System ,Sovereignty ,Internal Affairs ,States ,Idea ,Intention ,Traditions ,Regulations ,Safety ,Affairs ,Authority ,Feds ,Constitutionalist Conservative Side ,Realm ,State Regulation ,Subject ,30 ,1973 ,Reform Law ,Wade ,Bands ,Roe Vs ,Estate ,Development ,Arguing ,Revolution ,Pursuing ,Abortion Regime ,Court In Washington ,Better ,Expansion ,20 ,Tipping Point ,Outcomes ,First Off ,Readiness ,Insecurity ,300000 ,Defense ,Others ,Arm ,Fighter Aircraft ,Brest ,4 Million ,0 Billion ,40 Billion ,24 Million ,Goodwill ,Belief ,Herding Cats ,Element ,Dialogue ,Make Progress On Key National U S Security ,Due ,Concept ,War Crimes ,Brutality ,Killing ,Civilians ,Attention ,Mention ,New Zealand ,Japan ,Stretch ,Haul ,Dangers ,Ruling ,Interests ,Well ,Asia ,10 ,Governor ,Cases ,Taxes ,Gonna ,Latest ,Eagle Pass ,No One ,Greg Avenue ,Favor ,Measures ,High Court ,Human Smuggling Tragedy ,Crackdown ,Standard ,Border Situation ,Contempt ,Operatives ,Migrants ,Pecan Farmer ,Location ,Look ,River ,Property Owner ,300 ,Woman ,Tree ,Pulse ,Area ,Drone ,Wheat Exposure ,Exposure ,Encounters ,Tally ,119141 ,326000 ,Got Aways ,Digits ,Temperatures ,Sources ,4 ,130 ,Authorities ,Trump ,Scenario ,Officials ,Tragedy ,53 ,Nationals ,Smuggling Operation ,27 ,Story ,News Outlets ,More ,Shots ,Organization ,Border Patrol ,Tragedies ,Images ,Bosses ,Numbers ,Length ,Suffering ,Supreme Court Decision ,Peril ,Shannon Bream ,Attorney ,Preview ,Constitutional Law Professor ,Number One ,Closing ,Summer Recess ,Dockets ,Apa ,Greenhouse Gas Emissions ,Government Agencies ,Program ,Immigration Program ,Bill Hemmer ,Asylum Seekers ,Stephen Breyer ,Seat ,Pretties ,Constitutional Turley ,Coverage ,Let S Go ,Department Anymore ,Correspondent ,Answers ,This Is It ,Executive Power ,Agencies ,Asylum ,Transition ,What The Supreme Court ,Practice ,Policy Put ,Leak Investigation ,Proteges ,Clerks ,Kinds ,Update ,Jillian ,Implications ,Experts ,Immigration Policy ,White House ,Unpack ,Obama ,Policy Attempt ,Executive Order ,Daca ,Executive Orders ,Demonstration ,Letter ,Criteria ,Apertains ,Predecessors ,Meaning ,Opinion ,Second Amendment ,Respects ,Amplification ,Citizens ,Climate Change ,Discretion ,Freedom ,Losses ,Feeling ,String ,Court Rules ,Federal Agency ,Branches ,Branch ,Tripartite ,Form ,Rise ,Kilter ,Agency ,Green Energy ,Reasons ,Politics ,Democracy ,Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Law ,Regulation ,Votes ,Flight ,Paper ,Focus ,Write ,Sound ,Carbon Emissions ,Interpretation ,Coal Power Plants ,Department ,Force ,Industry Sector ,Burden ,Producer ,Blow ,Climate Change Authority ,Statutory Authority ,Setback ,Justice Roberts ,Concurrent ,Shannon Back ,3 ,Level ,Use ,Coal ,Electricity ,Solution ,Capping Carbon Dioxide ,Consequence ,Delegation ,Magnitude ,Scheme ,Body ,Reach ,Carbon Dioxide Emissions ,Justice Kagan ,Dissent ,Reading ,Administrative Agency ,Consumers ,Government Bond ,Decision Means ,Chevron Decision ,90 ,Balance ,Carbon Emissions Policies ,Carbon Policies ,Federalism ,Federal Versus State Issue ,Say ,Obiden Crowd ,Power Plant ,Power Plants ,Policies ,Measuring ,2 ,Affects ,Green New Deal ,Written By ,Expert Agency ,Instance ,Clue ,Self ,Fda ,Reaction ,Climate Policy ,Decision Maker ,Eggs ,Brain ,Acronyms ,I M Sorry ,Dane ,Ftc ,Fcc ,Mid 90s ,Radicals ,Cpp ,Council ,Metrics ,Energy Department ,Particles ,Jurisdiction ,Outcome ,Omissions ,Zero ,Door ,Expertise ,Blah ,Osha ,Shift ,State Power ,Individual ,Relation ,Clarity ,Black ,Ambiguity ,Major ,Standby ,Representative ,Justices ,Kavanaugh ,Mexico Policy Didn T ,October 29th Memorandum ,October 29th ,29 ,Win ,Court Of Appeals ,Agency Actions ,Proceedings ,First Rate Overview ,Blush ,Phase ,Brock Spack ,Five Hundred Four ,Congressman ,Technicality ,504 ,Respect ,Dignity ,Repercussions ,Record Number ,Streets ,Neighborhood ,District ,Hope ,A Hundred ,Midterm ,9000 ,Domestically ,Books ,September 30th ,Title ,42 ,Eight ,Mtg ,Types ,Host ,Liberals ,Perspective ,Arms ,02 5 ,Areas ,Health ,Principles ,Values ,Cities ,City ,4550000000 ,1990 ,Sight ,School ,Grades ,Citizenship ,Work Permit ,Emergency Rooms ,Drugs ,Hospitals ,Dialect ,18 ,Border Security ,Chest ,Floodgates ,Budget ,Biden To Thump ,Million ,4 Billion ,400 Million ,Somewhere ,Mit ,2016 ,40 Million ,26 Million ,Stat ,Counties ,150 ,Mileage ,Zigzag ,Red River ,Atlanta ,1100 ,1300 ,Doors ,Trailer ,Summer ,Air Conditioning ,Records ,Something Else ,Agenda ,Session ,2012 ,29 Million ,Responsibility ,States Rights ,Constitution Of Texas In America ,Job ,Founders ,Incompetent ,Society ,Turn ,Taxpayers ,Immigration Reform ,24 ,Care ,Compassion ,Death ,Culture ,Babies ,Womb ,Soldiers ,Fentanyl ,Kids ,Human Life ,Permission ,Duty ,Obligation ,Classic Roberts Decision ,Lineup ,Victory ,Someone ,Column Saying ,Approach ,Kcavanagh ,Violation ,Appeals ,Split Judgment ,Whole ,View ,Application ,Implication ,Chevron Doctrine ,Deference ,Blind Faith ,Border Patrol Council ,Photo ,Deterrent Policy ,Individuals ,Groups ,Agents ,Parts ,Faction ,The Border ,Loss ,National Review ,Statute ,Majority Opinion ,Don T Have Legal Authority ,Hat ,Foreign Policy Role ,Justice Alito ,Of Mexico ,Executive Branch ,Practicality ,Robertson ,Mare ,Everyone ,Resources ,Funding ,Isn T ,Barrett ,Merits ,Bar ,Judges ,Court Didn T ,Merit ,Theory ,Cavanaugh ,Construction ,Finagling ,Picture ,Chief Legal Correspondent ,Attempt ,Litigation ,Guidance ,Dissenters ,Split Decision ,Executive ,Statement ,Chief Justice ,Elections ,Ketanji Brown Jackson ,Viewers ,Fox Business ,Running Room ,Elbow Room ,1994 ,Document ,Sec ,Thousands ,Page Rule ,Companies ,Insanity ,Hoops ,Lawsuits ,Federal Trade Commission ,Border Question ,Effect ,Et Cetera ,Labor Markets ,Folks ,Yes ,South ,Wages ,Reforms ,Southern California ,Oklahoma ,Visas ,Economies ,Release ,Obviously ,Mistakes ,Border Sovereignty ,Lawbreaking ,Drug Trafficking ,Gmc ,Exploration ,Requirements ,All Of A Sudden ,Prenew Deal ,Defensive ,Bidens ,Core ,Cuts ,Regulators ,Think ,Interior ,Air Quality ,Ending ,Big Time ,Carmen ,Pollution ,Climate Crisis ,1970 ,71 ,24 7 ,Seven ,Nine ,