our country echos nativist talking points and has the potential to cause real danger and violence. we're going to have to leave it there. thank you so much for joining "inside politics," cnn's "news central" starts right now. ♪ donald trump trying to play king maker as the house searches for a speaker. the former president now endorsing jim jordan as some republicans are furious with two of their own candidates planning a televised debate, one lawmaker calling it insanity. plus jobs soar, the september jobs report crushing expectations. the white house is celebrating, but will it help president biden's poor approval ratings on the economy? and back to donald trump. did he share nuclear secrets with a member at mar-a-lago? ahead new details on an australian billionaire turned potential witness for the special counsel. we're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to "cnn news central." ♪ we start this afternoon with the race for speaker and a house divided. representatives jim jordan and steve scalise courting fellow conference members behind closed doors hoping to lock down enough support to win the speaker's gavel even as emotions over kevin mccarthy's ouster are still raw. now neither candidate has a clear path yet, but one huge voice in the republican party has weighed in, donald trump. the 2024 republican presidential front runner and criminal defendant just endorsed jim jordan and he's actually offered to step in as interim speaker until all of this is settled. let's get more now on today's closed door maneuvering from cnn capitol hill reporter melanie zanona. bring us up to speed on what's happening. >> reporter: at this point no candidate for speaker has the 218 votes that are going to be required to become speaker on the house floor. now, there is still time, both men have been furiously working the phones, meeting with members, doing virtual meetings over the past few days trying to lock down their support. scalise and jordan have zeroed in on moderate members, they will be a key constituency in this speaker's race. those moderates want to see a clear plan to avoid the same chaos they saw on the floor this week. they want to know both men have a plan to govern and they want to know how they are going to unite this bitterly divided house republican party. our manu raju did catch up with one of those candidates, jim jordan this morning, here is what he had to say. >> you're saying you are united. what is different between you and steve scalise? >> i think this race comes down to two questions, i said this yesterday, who can unite the conference, who can also unite -- maybe three questions. who can unite the conference, who can unite conservative republicans and our party around the country and then who can go tell the country what we're doing and why it's important to them, to their -- to their family, to their business, to their community and, look, i like the job i've got now, i never wanted to do this job, but someone has to, who can bring the team together and can go communicate to the country and that's why i'm running. >> reporter: now, jim jordan is likely to have strong support within the conservative members in the conference and of course former president donald trump came out and supported him last night so that's a big boost at least on his standing on the right, but he will have to really work to win over the moderates who are skeptical about jim jordan. the co-founder of the freedom caucus, the face of the biden impeachment inquiry. a long way to go. next week they will have their candidate forum on tuesday and wednesday they will meet for a secret ballot on when they will vote for their next nominee for speaker. >> as you were speaking i was handed some new information about a planned televised debate or forum that had been scheduled for monday evening on fox news between these two. it seemed like a good idea to them when they presented it but they got some feedback, didn't they, from congressional republicans? >> reporter: yeah, and this is some of thigh reporting, boris. so as quickly as these plans were made, it seems lick they fell apart. it was announced this morning that fox news was going to do a televised interview with all of the speaker candidates on monday from the capitol and then i started hearing from a lot of members in the party, including some of those key moderates we were talking about saying they thought this was a horrible idea. that they don't like the idea of the speaker drama being debated and broadcast for tv and saying this is something they need to figure out and work out amongst themselves. then those candidates expressed those concerns to both jim jordan and steve scalise and i am told that steve scalise and jordan talked amongst each other, decided this was not a wise idea and have decided to pull out so now the forum appears to be off, boris. >> we will look forward to seeing what exactly they do next. melanie zanona, thanks for the reporting. now to a surprising jobs report that blew forecasts out of the water. u.s. companies were on a hiring streak in september, creating 336,000 new jobs. that is nearly double what economists were expecting and the biggest gain since january. unemployment stayed near a 50-year low coming in at 3.8%. just moments ago biden spoke from the white house, crediting his so-called bidenomics for the strong jobs report. when asked for his response on how americans are feeling about inflation, this is what he said. >> i think that the american people are smart as hell and knowing what their interests are. i think they know they're better off financially than they were before. it's a fact. and all of that data -- all that polling stuff shows they think they're more positive about the economy than they've been, more positive about their jobs, et cetera. >> joining us now to discuss this, deputy business editor at the "washington post" damien p poletta. obviously the white house is celebrating this, crediting bidenomics, but even with these hiring gains you look at the polls and americans, the majority, still aren't feeling good, right, about where the economy is. how do you square that with what's going on in reality? >> sure. i mean, i think inflation really knocked the country off stride and it really affected people's psychology about the economy. prices were going up and they were going up faster than wages. now we're finally in a situation where wages are going up faster than inflation and people should be feeling better. 336,000 jobs sun believable this far into the recovery and it's great at this point with just a quarter of the year left, we are heading into the holidays with people having jobs they're going to spend and that's going to create more jobs. that's a really good sign for the white house. but i think the lag -- you know, the shadow of inflation will continue to haunt a lot of voters heading into 2024 and that's something the white house is going to have to deal with. >> so what is driving this jobs growth and why is it exceeding expectations by such a big amount? >> i mean, consumer spending is just so strong and americans have just continued buying things, cars, refrigerators, whatever, they just can't get enough. i think we thought when interest rates went up that it was going to really cool things off and it didn't. sure, the housing market has changed a bit, there is still a lot of cash offers on houses but mortgages are very expensive, but people continue to spend money. now, that's good and bad, we're seeing credit card debt at very high levels, you eventually have to pay that back. that's something concerning heading into next year but as long as consumers are spending money there's going to be jobs out there and right now there's plenty of opportunity for people to get into the job market. >> there was a lot of talk about a soft landing and now, you know, there is a lot of questions about are we in a hotter economy for a longer amount of time and will this mean that the fed raises rates more? tell us about what your insight is on that and how that's impacting markets. >> great question. i mean, going into this the fed has never really successfully been able to thread that needle of raising interest rates this much and getting through it without a recession, but it looks like they might pull it off, which would be great, but he think the report today when it came out this morning we did see the stock market fell pretty sharply because people assumed that the fed was going to have to continue raising interest rates to get the economy to stay cool. so now the market is back up because i think people realize, well, companies are going to continue earning money, that's good. we will have to see how the next few months play out. if consumers continue spending money into the holidays and beyond we will possibly pull off the soft landing many people thought the fed could never achieve. >> for a lot of people looking at their retirement funds it's not a pretty sight. what is your advice for folks who look at their funds and are concerned? what steps should they be taking now? >> definitely don't overreact. definitely keep a close eye on things. as you guys know really well there's a lot of things that could happen in the next few months that could knock this country off stride, a government shutdown to be destabilizing, maybe the credit card debts gets too much and people fall behind on payments and stop spending money, that will lead to layoffs. there are a lot of things that could go wrong and affect the stock market. this is a good day, good news, we will see what happens next month. >> damien, thank you so much. russia unleashing yet another deadly strike in ukraine. this morning they launched missiles at residential buildings in kharkiv killing a 10-year-old boy and his grandmother. this comes after a massive drone attack overnight in the port city of odesa. ukraine says several trucks caught fire when a grain storage facility was hit. and the death who will is rising in hroza where more than 50 people were killed in a missile strike that targeted a café. people gathered there to mourn the death of a local soldier when the building was reduced to rubble. jim dougherty joins us for some perspective. jill, let's start with that attack in hroza. not a military target, it appears it was a memorial for someone, and yet russia used a very large missile to attack the area. what message are they sending? >> well, i think they're continuing to do what they have been doing, which is just relentless bombing and a lot of this really, boris, is meant to make people, make the ukrainians simply give up. that it is too much. there was enormous psychological pressure right now and that's precisely what putin wants to do. so it's really merciless and i don't see any sign that he's going to change that, unfortunately. >> jill, putin is putting pressure on ukraine and the west in a different way as well. he just announced the successful test of a new nuclear-powered missile, no indication of when or where it might be used, but he's laying out clearly that he has very powerful weapons he's willing to use. >> oh, yeah. i mean, this is classic putin right now. a lot of nuclear threatening comments, he's talking about this missile, it's a nuclear propulsion cruise missile and, by the way, they have had a lot of trouble with this missile over the years, going back to like 2017. it was blowing up, it had problems. so we would have to see whether actually this is correct. but that said, this is another way that putin simply ups the ante and he immediately turns to nuclear weapons which is about the last thing that russia has that has any strength to it. the economy is not in good shape, military is not performing well. so it's another threatening situation as if -- as he was saying today, well, we could pull out of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. that's another, i think, way of just constantly trying to threaten the world. >> i'm also eager to get your read on some statements that he made and you've obviously learned kremlin dialogue very well in your years working at the moscow bureau for cnn, he described russia's war in ukraine not as a conflict over territory but a conflict over principles. how should we interpret that? >> well, it's, again, this is really everything that you're talking about, boris, is what vladimir putin does. this is his game card. and i actually have been to that conference, the forum where putin talks for like three hours. and i heard this a long time ago, the very same thing. what he does is he says it's all the west's fault. we want to have a new world, a new world that is not under the thumb of the west and the united states, but nobody would listen to us. he has used that phrase many, many times. and then he criticizes the arrogance of the west and then goes on to say, i will do something -- which is the nuclear part of it -- because they are doing it. so this is, again -- we have to understand that putin has his approach. this is really the show that he puts on to try to threaten the world and it's kind of an old playbook at this point. but that said, it is dangerous and threatening. >> and it comes as there is increased opposition in congress to sending more aid to ukraine. the united states one of the biggest suppliers of military aid in the invasion of ukraine by russia, what ultimately happens if congress delays sending aid or ultimately chooses to wait longer before they do? >> well, there's no question that that would be a disaster for ukraine. ukraine needs the weapons that the united states and other countries are providing. and i think this is -- we've been speaking about vladimir putin. this is his objective, to wait it out, to wait for the west to fall apart, to wait for political dissension, to, you know, take a toll on support for helping ukraine, divide the allies, divide europe from the united states. he, i think, is banking on something like that happening. it really would be a terrible situation. i think if you look at the polls, though, if you look at the polling, the majority of americans still do support aid to ukraine. >> jill dougherty, very much appreciate getting your perspective. thanks so much. still plenty more news to come on "cnn news central." was it a change in policy or was he backed into a corner? how the biden administration is explaining its move to build a border wall even though the president says walls do not work. we're going to be speaking to the mayor of a border city in just moments. plus, a new report from abc news revealing a troubling allegation that trump shared potentially sensitive government secrets with a member of mar-a-lago. and later, it's just how the cookie crumbles. why the girl scouts are discontinuing a popular treat just a year after its debut. as a surge in migrant crossings hits the southern border the white house is shifting its approach on immigration. they are just not calling it a shift. the latest move president biden reviving a program to swiftly deport venezuelans who enter illegally. it comes after he contradicted a key campaign promise clearing the way for new border wall construction. a dhs bulletin stressed the acute and immediate need for a physical barrier at the border, something biden has said is ineffective. homeland security secretary alejandro mayorkas addressed the apparent discrepancy in mexico yesterday but he may have further muddied the picture. listen. >> there is no new administration policy with respect to the border wall. from day one this administration has made clear that a border wall is not the answer. that remains our position and our position has never wavered. the language in the federal register notice is being taken out of context and it does not signify any change in policy whatsoever. >> let's talk to someone in the rio grande valley, that stretch of texas border that's gets new barriers. joining is the mayor of rio grande city. we heard president biden yesterday and again today say that a border barrier is ineffective. do you agree? >> yes, absolutely. [ inaudible ] -- let me tell you why. bottom line is president biden lied to the american people and if memory serves me well he was not going to build another foot of border wall, but fast forward to today, he is building the wall. now, again, it is hypocrisy. i mean, at this point, for example, we are suing governor abbott for erecting a barrier but president biden is doing the same thing. i mean, which is nonsense. at this point is the wall going to be effective? the answer is, no, it's not. by the way, there are sections along the 2,000 mile southern border where it would be effective. i don't believe this is one of them, but, again, there are sections that along the 2,000 mile southern border that would benefit a border wall. now, the current influxes are not going to be -- this wall is not going to impact the current influxes because these individuals are turning themselves in, again, self-s self-surrender. you're talking about thousands of people. at this point expedited removes works and also remain in mexico. during an influx it is imperative that we exercise caution against our global enemies exploiting our broken immigration system to hurt america. this catch and release is not sustainable. theres a reason why we don't have sanctuary cities along the border and that's because it is not feasible to house thousands of people at the expense and on the backs of the local taxpayers. new york city and chicago cannot handle it. no city in america can handle it. no may or or governor in america should have to bear the burden for a broken immigration system without the federal financial resources that are necessary to better manage these flows. now, which is unfortunate we cannot bridge the political divide -- by the way, i have to say this, to be fair to the president, to our democracy, congress has failed to deliver consequential long-term solutions for our broken immigration system which consequently places onus on the president causing border policies to flow with administrations. if we ever are going to get to that point i don't know, but at this point you're talking about both political parties amassing political capital by simply engaging in the debate on immigration and border security but not delivering consequential long-term solutions. by the way, the last five presidential administrations the american people initially delivered a unified government to each of those administrations and yet we still failed to prioritize our broken immigration system. you know, i've said this before, we continue on the same trajectory ten years from today we will be having the same conversation because we failed to address it at its core. anyway, i could go on and on with this. >> i can tell you're passionate about the issue, i hope what you're saying about another decade of this continuing to be a problem is not the case, but let me ask you about a potential solution because this has been floated many times out there and perhaps accurately you describe a cynicism about both parties using this issue to their political advantage, but what's been laid out is for republicans who want border security and more enhanced equipment and barriers at the border, they will get that and then on the other side democrats will see what they want, which is a more accessible asylum system, a pathway to citizenship for folks that are undocumented like dreamers. do you think that that solution that's been floated before would be effective and if so, why hasn't it been taken up? >> would it be effective? absolutely. because the reality is that we do -- immigration and border security are not mutually exclusive, they can coexist but we have not been able to bridge that political divide for x number of reasons. but to all democrats i would say this, we must exercise caution against our global enemies exploiting our broken immigration system to inflict pain on america. and to all republicans i say this, we are a country of immigrants, of the people, by the people, for the people. in fact, president ronald reagan said it best, one of the most important sources of america's greatness we lead the world because we draw our people and strength from every country and corner of the world. now, the center is where the majority of problems are solved. can we get to the center? that's yet to be determined. the last several decades we have not been able to do that and a at some point we are going to have to. it is an american issue, it is not a democrat or republican issue, it is an american issue. there are solutions ad nauseam. you are talking about -- there's, what, every -- should i say a dime a dozen ad nauseam solutions that have been written about and written for many articles about this, but unfortunately we still come to the same thing, we have not been able to bridge the political divide and until we do so we're going to continue to see this problem. it's not going to go away. it's not going to go away. we do -- at this point we have to make it work if we want at some point to address this issue of having this influx. it's not going to go away because people the world over still believe in the american dream. this idea that individuals can rise above their circumstances in life and as long as people still believe in that dream, then we're going to continue to see these influxes. it's not going to go away. at what point are we finally going to address it and we haven't, again, it's yet to be determined at some point where democrats and republicans are going to get together instead of this political mud slinging which accomplishes absolutely zero. on the contrary, it is counterproductive to the cumbersome and complex task of managing the border and, again, immigration and border security. >> mayor, we very much appreciate how passionate you are about this issue and how important it is to you. we have to leave the conversation there, but i hope you will come back sometime to discuss further. >> thank you. i appreciate your time. god bless. >> thanks so much, mayor, and enjoy the weekend. happy friday to you as well. still plenty more to come on "news central," coming up, revealing sensitive information on nuclear subs. a new report alleges that's what president trump did at his mar-a-lago resort. could that spell more legal trouble for the former president? and later, as more books are being banned there is a growing call to stop what opponents are calling a suppression of ideas. we're going to dig into this debate when we come back. the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. donald trump's handling of nuclear secrets is front and center today after a major new report from abc news. it says trump allegedly discussed u.s. nuclear subs with foreign nationals after leaving the white house. foreign national is this man, australian billionaire anthony pratt. he runs one of the world's biggest packaging companies. cnn confirms he was interviewed by federal prosecutors as part of the trump classified documents probe and he is on their list of potential witnesses who could testify. the sensitive conversation reportedly happened at mar-a-lago in 2021. pratt reportedly said he told trump that australia shd start buying its submarines from the united states. that's when trump leaned in and allegedly revealed the supposed act number of nuclear warheads u.s. submarines routinely carry and exactly how close they can get to a russian sub without being detected. pratt went on to share that information with scores of people. joining us now is cnn global affairs analyst kimberly dozier and cnn legal analyst and former white house ethics czar norm eisen. all right. put this into context for us, norm. sources tell abc that pratt relayed this information to 6 journalists, 11 employees, 10 australian officials, 3 former australian prime ministers. what could the security implications be here? >> pam, the security implications are profound. as you know, i served as the united states ambassador, the first thing that they told me in ambassador school was don't give away -- never mind secret information, be careful with any information you share with a foreign national. here when you have the number of nuclear warheads on our nuclear armed submarines and you have the distance that was allegedly disclosed, how close those subs can come to an enemy submarine without being detected, it calls our whole nuclear deterrents doctrine into question that keeps us all safe because the uncertainty of what our potential adversaries do and do not know is part of the deterring them from attacking. this is a profound betrayal, if true, and there is a lot of corroboration, profound betrayal of america's most sensitive national security concerns. >> i want to talk about that in a second. and, you know, you mentioned you were a former ambassador. look, kimberly, the former australian ambassador to the u.s., joe hockey, is down playing this. he is saying in part if the conversation between trump and pratt is as reported there has been nothing said that we all did not know. kimberly, even if u.s. ally, in australian officials or submariners knew about this it doesn't mean it should be publicly available information, right? this could fit under the classified -- this could be classified information, right? >> classified information -- >> yeah, look, i hear where joe is coming from as an ambassador he is talking about there was a lot of this information out in the public realm already, but when you are talking about the payload of a u.s. submarine and how close it can get to a russian submarine before the russians noticing it, the russians, the chinese, look, they are reading everything that's out in u.s. and other newspapers, but every piece of information that they get adds to their intelligence picture of what the u.s. naval capabilities are, defensive capabilities and also where their blind spots are. if i were a russian or a chinese military engineer and i understood that the u.s. thought it could get within half a mile without detection, then i'd start working on that technical problem. they have just done my red teaming for me. they might have thought a u.s. submarine could get that close but now that a former president has told this businessman who has told a number of people, that just creates this very stark picture of u.s. capabilities that the enemies have to plan against. >> and, norm, you know, you've raised if this is true, right? we should note these allegations were not included in jack smith's indictment of trump in the classified documents case, but his team as reported by our kristen holmes and our kaitlan collins as well has interviewed pratt, he is expected to be a witness in the trial. why wouldn't this have been in the indictment? does it make you question whether it's true? >> it doesn't make me question the truth of these -- what appear to be heavily corroborated allegations that trump shared this sensitive classified, dangerous information. indictments are outlines of the case. they are not a comprehensive checklist of everything that is put in at trial. it is common for prosecutors to reserve substantial information, including witness information, for the trial itself. this -- if trump did it -- goes to his pattern and practice of alleged callous mishandling of national security information that endangers us all. like those photographs we saw of some of our nation's most sensitive secrets spilled all over the floors of bathrooms and ballrooms at mar-a-lago. so it could come in at trial as part of the pattern and practice of donald trump mishandling national security information. >> right. and of course as kristen is reporting, if he is a witness, it would lead you to believe that at least some of this is true, at least. but i want to get to what trump's spokesperson is saying about all of this, kimberly, in response to this abc reporting, the spokesperson says president trump did nothing wrong, has always insisted on truth and transparency and acted in a proper manner according to the law. but, kimberly, that is not a denial. does this all raise concerns about what else trump discussed with other mar-a-lago members? >> well, i think it raises the question of what is a former president allowed to share? what are they allowed to, quote, unquote, get away with? those people who are trump followers think that it was within his rights. perhaps one of the reasons that we haven't heard about this come up in the case is it's a lot easier to prosecute on you had these papers in your possession, you didn't treat them in a classified manner and you didn't return them when we asked you to as opposed to this hearsay of what presidential authority to declassify does a president have after he's left office. but if this had been a lower level official who had been caught doing something like this, you can expect the doj would have thrown the book at them. from my perspective as a reporter, this is someone you would call a golden source. you would want to get close to because who knows what they might tell you. that the lid is totally off. >> all right. kim dozier and norm eisen, thanks for coming on and offering your perspective. happy friday. still ahead, hunter biden now asking for a judge to dismiss his federal indictment on gun charges. what his attorneys are saying about the special counsel investigating the president's son. a late night filing from hunter biden's legal team. his attorneys have told the judge they're going to ask that his case be dismissed. they say the special counsel was prohibited by a previous agreement from bringing the federal indictment on felony gun charges and that hunter cannot be charged. let's break this down with central bank's senior justice correspondent paula reid. let's take a step back. how did we get here? >> it's a great question. you have to understand the entire story here to understand what exactly is happening today. several months ago this case as well as some tax charges were all expected to be resolved with a plea deal. hunter had been under investigation for five years and it was expected that he would plead guilty to some tax charges and these gun-related charges would be diverted, which means that they would ultimately be dismissed, not even charged, if he could stay away interest drugs and stay out of legal trouble for a few years. that entire plea deal, though, several weeks ago fell apart. the prosecutor overseeing the case was named as special counsel and then he went ahead and filed formal charges related to this gun issue. now, i was in court with hunter a few days ago, he pleaded not guilty during his arraignment but now his lawyers are arguing this whole case should be dismissed. they said that original diversion agreement remains in effect. you can't just go ahead and file charges, but prosecutors say that agreement was never signed by the court, it was never formally in effect. now it will be up to the court to weigh in. two other key things i'm watching with this case, the first question, boris, what happened to those tax charges? the now special counsel david weiss said he's still weighing whether he want to formerly file those. if he does that would mean the president's judge would be facing two possible criminal charges and as we are, you know, reporting this earlier this week we broke the story that hunter has racked up over $10 million in legal debt and it's unclear how he's going to afford to fight potentially two federal trials. >> we will see about those tax charges. the statute of limitation only a few weeks away, right? >> exactly. >> paula reid, thanks for the reporting. still plenty more to come on "news central" including this, not what america stands for. that's what one author is saying about book bans as more and more titles are being targeted. he will join us live in just a few moments. from chrome to duckduckgo. duckduckgo is a browser you download to your mobile and desktop devices. unlike chrome, the duckduckgo browser has privacy built-in. it comes with a private alternative to google search, which doesn■t spy on your searches, and it blocks cookies and creepy ads. and there's no catch. it's free. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you around. join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on mobile and desktop today. a controversial trend is taking over classrooms. a surge in book bans is spreading and more public school districts across the country. a new report shows the last school year saw a 33% rise in bans with more than 150 districts impacted across 33 states. more than 40% of all book bans are taking place in florida with more than 1,400 titles blocked across 33 school districts. but a movement to put an end to this type of censorship is growing. joining us is one of more than two dozen authors fighting back on book bans. david baldacci. you are part of pan america's banned books week. tell us what you are trying to accomplish. >> look, we have had banning of books and burning historically in this country and other countries it never ends well, it always ends terribly badly. we are a country who stands on freedom of speech, freedom of expression. libraries changed my life growing up and i can't believe in 2023 i'm here having to defend librarians who go to prison for putting the wrong book on a shelf, the wrong book according to someone else. we have to make a stand. this is not what this country stands for. we have to push back against this. >> supporters of these book bans say a lot of these titles are, quote, sexual in nature or inappropriate for students. they claim schools are essentially bringing pornographic material into the classrooms. you have a different view. >> i do. look, you know, particularly florida, florida has a propensity to move the goalposts when they banned any discussion of gender edit or sexual orientation first it was up to third grade then middle school now all the way through 12th grade. people who are old enough to vote can't talk about those issues. what's to say that next classrooms and school libraries it will be public libraries where these books are banned and how about book stores, will books be banned there as well? i learned in lawsuit the very first rule i learned is a slippery slope is slippery, if you give a little bit ever they will come back until they have gotten everything they want and more. if we don't make a stand here it will get worse. i have a problem with the process in florida. one parent or it doesn't have to be a parent, this they can fill out a one-page form, then the book is yanked and depose into a vetting process. what about the other parents who would like the books to be on the shelves. their rights are not as strong as the person or parent who had the book banned. once you start allowing books to be banned it will keep going. texas right now if you want to sell a book to a public school in texas you have to go and under the rating system evaluate every book you have ever sold to the state of texas, there could be millions of them and no business can do that. a lower court judge stayed that and said there will be no more book sellers. the 11th service stayed that execution that the law was going to allow to go forward. i see this huge snowball getting bigger and rolling downhill very fast. we're getting close to the mess a precipice. >> it's interesting what you raise about parental power, the power of the parents who want some of these booked banned versus the parents who say i want my kids to be exposed to these books, i don't want them to be banned. how do you think banning the books at school and the rhetoric around it impacts students and their learning? >> i will tell you exactly how it does. one, when you ban something it's a negative connotation, it tells a first or fourth or sixth grader there's something in there that's not good, you shouldn't be ex proposed to it, you should end up hating or not agreeing with. we're telling these kids that segment of our society is not something worthy of respect or to learn about and they grow up to be adults. we don't want those perception toss grow with them. when you ban something it's a negative condo nation. some kids, maybe some books they are april appropriate, that's for parents to decide and teachers to work with parents to decide on. some kids it may be appropriate. one size does not fit all. when you ban one book for all kids because one parent has a problem with it, what about the kids that wanted to read the book. this is a broad brush stroke and it's not good for anyone. the end result will be very bad for this country. >> david, thank you so much. still ahead, the white house is taking a victory lap on the white hot jobs report. what it means for you and why it might not help when it comes to inflation. up next.