Causes here at home. The signing was on wednesday in honduras. So it would seem that Administration Policy was pretty focussed on inkreecreasing the s on the front lines in those countries. Just a day after that press release the president announced this. I have ended payments to guatemala, to honduras and to el salvador. We were giving them 500 million. Were giving them tremendous aid. We stopped payment. To honduras, to guatemala and to el salvador. We were paying them tremendous amounts of money. And were not paying them anymore because they havent done a thing for us. Again, thats just a couple days after his department of Homeland Security secretary signed an agreement with those same countries about which he said and i quote, together we will prevail. Or maybe not. She signed the deal on wednesday. And by saturday, the state department announced that it is ending more than a half a billion dollars in foreign assistant programs to the north and triangle countries. The question is why the sudden 180 . Pamela spoke to an Administration Official who told her there was no interagency process behind the policy change, which is basically a fancy way of saying no meetings involving the departments, experts and various agency. No options considered, no objections registered, no problems identified. Apparently just the president , for whatever reason, making the call and providing kind of a dubious justification for it. They set up these caravans. In many cases they put their worst people in the caravan. Theyre not going to put their best in. They get rid of their problems, and they march in here and come into the country. Were not letting them into their country. The president seems to be suggesting they are rounding up their worst people somehow and forcing them to walk several hundred miles north to the United States. There is no evidence that this is the plot by these governments to rid themselves of the worst people, as he said. Hes also suggested george soros is bank rolling the caravans. President trump cutoff the money. And according to the experts, even experts within the administration, they have had an impact. Maybe not big enough, but they have had an impact. The official telling her before the president made his decision, the department of Homeland Security, his own department of Homeland Security was looking at how to increase the aid and better target it within those countries, something even the president s leading defender seems to recognize before glossing it over. If were going to give these countries hundreds of millions of dollars, we would like them to do more of that. It is not a reasonable position. We could prevent a lot of whats happening in the southern border by preventing people from moving from mexico. Thats what the money does, is makes these countries more stable. This is not according to me. This is according to experts in your own administration. Career staffers, but lets talk about that for a second. Thats mick mulvaney. But he says, no, only a career staff believes that and is pushing that. Im not clear when that became an insult. Career staffers are people who have spent years working on particular issues. Another word for some of them is experts. Mulvaney relied on career congressional staffers when he was in the house. He used the work they did. Career staffers prepared the briefing material he reads every morning. You can argue that a fresh set of eyes on a problem can be a good thing. But arguing that career staffers are all bureaucrats that push paper is not the case. It is also not the case that career staffers want increased involvement with foreign countries. The president s appointee seemed to think working with northern triangle countries and funding the programs to do it was a good thing, or at least she did on wednesday. Now the president has undone what she did on her Central American trip. Well see if she suddenly has changed her mind. As to whether the president will follow through on his threat to close the border, cnn has obtained the notes of a white house Conference Call from today. They reveal that Steven Miller told Top Administration surrogates that the president has not quite made the decision, saying it depends on how the week goes. Quoting miller, we will see how much progress we are able to make in the ensuing days. He described the asylum claims as miraculous. Elliot chairs the Foreign Affairs committee. Congressman, i know you just got back from Central America. You were in el salvador evaluating the significance of u. S. Assistance. What did you find . What did you see . What do you think now of the white house stance . We were actually flabbergasted. We were sitting with american officials when we heard that the president decided to cut all foreign aid to these countries. We had been touring and watching different programs that the United States is paying for, which will ensure that less people emigrate to the United States rather than more. We saw programs where young people were making software to show that they could survive and have a good future. And you cut that program, what are they going to do . They will emigrate to america. It seems to me what the president has done is just the wrong thing, the opposite thing. There are people who support the president doing this, who say, well, look these programs are so great, how come there is this up surge there is this, you know, huge number of people still coming . Well, but i think and thats true. I think we need to deal with it. But to sort of have a temper tantrum and say were picking up all our marbles and leaving, thats the worst thing we could do. It does seem like this decision is not something. I mean normally in most administrations, republican and democratic, there is a process for having a major change or eliminating Foreign Policy to a country or having a major change in Foreign Policy. There is consultation with various experts, you know, who i think now people in this administration derive as being career staffers but people have actually worked on these issues and have the expertise in it. It doesnt seem like any of that was done. In fact, it doesnt seem like many people in the administration, including secretary nielsen knew this was coming when she was signing agreements with triangle countries. Time and time again we have seen this. Even if you can take an analogy of syria. One day the president Just Announced we were pulling out of syria, and the defense secretary was so agitated he resigned. We have these things coming out where the president makes these announcements. I dont know anything about it. He has no obligation to tell me. But you think that people in his cabinet or people who are surrounding him, i think the conclusion we all came to, there were five or six of us on the trip, that pulling out would be the absolute worst thing. And clearly the president should know this. It is just a matter of just scratching your head. In terms of the president s threat to close parts of the border, whether you agree or disagree with that, it is within his legal rights to do it, isnt it . Well, yeah. Hes the president of the United States and he can do it. But what does that do to us . What does that do to us in the future . Is that going to stop the flow of people coming, or is it going to accelerate it . I would make the argument it would accelerate it. The businesses in mexico and elsewhere will hurt economies. Absolutely, absolutely, yeah. Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I dont understand it at all. And everybody who was there was blind sided by it. Even the fbi people and other people from the programs. Again, the president talks about ms13 and these bad groups. Well, you know, i saw programs that talk with gangs that try to convert gangs, taking away from what they have been doing. It does seem to run counter to what people in this administration have been saying now for quite a while, which is they actually need to figure out ways to make programs more effective, to, you know i know one, you know, person who works in the administration wanted to institute a marshal plan for those countries to really get the u. S. Involved preventing people from leaving in the first place. That should be as far as im concerned our whole policy, our whole focus on what were doing. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, anderson. Nick mulvanemulvaney. When say johnson says it is a crisis, i hope he will believe us. Many folks in the media, not you necessarily, but a lot of other networks didnt believe us when we said what was happening at the border was a crisis, a humanitarian crisis, a security crisis. Im very glad to see that jay johnson now is admitting that we were right and that 100,000 people coming across the border this month, that is not a made up number by the way, that is a crisis. Joining us now is the man himself, jay johnson. Thanks, secretary, for being with us. Is he right . Are you admitting that they were right all along . Well, first, anderson, it is not a matter of admitting and acknowledging somebody is right or wrong. There is a crisis. 4,000 apprehensions in one day on the southern border. It is the equivalent of albany, new york, showing up on the southern border. It is unprecedented. We havent seen numbers like that in 12 years. We havent seen numbers like that in my years as secretary. The question now is what to do about it. We are hearing talk about trying to shut down the border, which im sure you will get to and shutting off aid to Central America, which i think is the exact wrong thing to do in this circumstance. It also seems to run counter with people in the administration themselves. Just days before, correct. I was very pleased to see that the administration is intending to continue the effort we began to invest in eradicating the poverty and violence. I know from personal experience of owning this problem for three years that the push factors, the poverty and violence in those countries, it is the most violent place on earth. What are driving this phenome n phenomenon, there is no amount of Border Security you can put that is going to stop it. When the president says it is the governments in these countries that are sending their worst and putting them in these caravans and getting them up north, is there any truth to that . That is not consistent with my experience. Illegal migration is driven by smugglers. Almost everyone who comes up to mexico to our southern border has paid 2,000, 4,000, 6 ,000. Why are the numbers now growing . We saw this, but not at this level in 2014, they have a snowball effect. They sell some new discount or put out a new message about in 2014 for example, they were telling folks in Central America the Border Patrol are giving out free passes, which is totally false. And the other families going, and they think this will not be going around forever, so it has a snowball effect. That is obviously something happens right now. And the question becomes how do we deal with this very serious, serious situation. I dont believe that cutting off aid to these countries is the answer. You talk to people within dhs and they will say that the limited amount that we have begun to invest is already beginning to have a positive impact. And, so, there are no easy quick answers. Folks that support the president s policy will say, look, if these programs are actually working, why are we seeing an increase . Because you cant turn around a region of the world overnight, very clearly. And what is happening now is while the underlying causes may be addressed longer term, there is something fuelling the latest spike. Its a messaging. Familying are seeing other families going. President trump has clearly not been able to deter either by his hard line policies, zero tolerance policy and there is something driving this, and there are ways to address this. We addressed it in 2014. We got the numbers down pretty dramatically by the end of the summer and they stayed low. How do you address it . Is it working with these Central American countries . Well, working with the Central American countries is the longer term investment. Working with the government of mexico to help them fortify their southern border, which is a smaller border with Central America had an impact. Thats something that we did in my conversations with my counter part and they agreed to do more on their southern border which had an almost immediate affect as well as the dangers of the journey. But what happens is you can do short term things that have a short term effect, but as long as the underlying conditions exist, the patterns are going to revert back to normal. You could make the argument that President Trump threatening to shut down the border with mexico, if its just a threat, a way to motivate mexico to do more on their southern border. Well, thats a threat and a gamble, i suppose. It is physically impossible to shut down a 1, 900 mile border. The most a president can do is to shut down ports of entry, the bridges, the bridges along the rio grande valley. But you are driving the migrants away. You are driving them to cross the borders illegally. We will know less about who they are coming into our country, and it will have an adverse effect on legal migration and legal commerce. Although now the white house is saying that essentially these are asylum claims. The president saying this is a con job. You have, you know, very big guys coming in claiming theyre scared of gangs in their own country. Thats a stereotype. What you have coming from Central America are women, children, families. And i know because i spent hundreds of hours in Border Patrol holding stations in texas. Every time i would go there, i would talk to the kids and say, why did you come here . Didnt you hear our messages about the dangers of the journey . Y yes. My mom sent me here because the gangs were going to kill me. And these families are making the basic judgment to flee a burning building. It is human nature. And as long as those underlying conditions exist, were going to be banging our head against the wall trying to address this on our southern border. We have got to address the longer term problem. I appreciate your time. Thank you. More on the politics now. Joining us, the head of the trump campaigns advisory council. The president still hasnt decided whether he will follow through on the threats to the border. What is going to change this week . Do you think he will shut down the border . By that, the ports of entry. Correct. I think it should be on the table. I hope we dont have to get there because it is really a very severe penalty for both the United States and more mexico. It is a severe price to pay, but i do think that option has to be real and viable because mexico has simply not responded to less onerous threats. They have been willing to make their problems our problems. One of the ways to stop that is to make it their problem. I would rather he go trade sanctions rather than physically closing the border. But, again, i understand why he has to at least threaten that very drastic action. Does it seem to you the administration has no coherent policy . Because you have secretary nielsen down signing this agreement on wednesday. The press release goes out on thursday saying, nfin fact, we e working together and together is the way forward. And then the president on friday undercutting all that work. I mean, this is not her first trip down there. Officials from this administration have gone down plenty of times to south america and have talked openly about increasing involvement. Sure. No, listen, anderson, i will certainly concede that seems inconsistent to me and i would prefer a more consistent policy. The situation is incredibly fluid. And in just recent weeks it has grown so much worse. Heres the demonstrable reality to a wednesday and thursday when you are announcing this policy to a friday nothing changed in those, you know, st hours or 24 hours. Sure, right. I think also, look, it is a vast government. It is a vast administration. Different parts have different agendas, and i think the president , though, ultimately is the boss over the executive branch and the commander in chief charged with controlling and protecting our border and america. Heres the reality. Secretary johnson said this is a stereotype. The reality is these are economic migrants who are coming to our country. The reason i know that is because according to nielsen, 90 of the people are not eligible for asylum. 92 of families who we have let in have ignored their deportation hearings. On top of that, the violence in those countries, while severe, while it is severe, it is less dangerous. Yet, the influx is vastly increasing. Why . Because they figured out how to game our system and take advantage, quite frankly, of our good will. We welcome the worlds oppressed if they are truly oppressed. Thats not the case here. A couple of things. First of all, if crime is down and things have gotten a little bit better, isnt u. S. Aid part of that policy which we have now cutoff . I mean, you know, these programs, according to people in Homeland Security, were working. People on the fbi were working on these things. State department was working. Youre arguing things are getting better. You can argue part of that was the money the u. S. Was nvinvestg these programs. You also seem to be agreeing with Steven Miller and the president that it is all a con job. The administration has changed youre saying that the asylum claims are baseless. The administration has changed the justification for asylum. So fleeing Domestic Violence or gang violence, thats no longer valid, according to this administration, for gaining entry on an asylum claim. Well, its also not valid, not just according to this administration, anderson, but its not asylum according to u. S. Law. Look, a lot of americans live in dangerous neighborhoods. I live in chicago. The west side of chicago was a dangerous, violent place. We are not offering asylum to