'Your World' on Title 42 rollback, Ukraine-Russia war

close

Video

Biden giving smugglers, illegal immigrants a 'head start' with Tile 42 roll back pledge: Former ICE director

Former U.S. Border Patrol chief Ron Vitiello sounds off against the Biden administration on 'Your World' as ICE officers prepare for an influx of migrants crossing into the United States.

This is a rush transcript from "Your World," April 18, 2022. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHARLES PAYNE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: A federal judge knocking down the Biden administration's extension of mask mandates for travelers. How will the White House respond? A press briefing is moments away. We're on it.

But, first, it's Tax Day, and Democrats could soon be looking at more taxing, more spending, even with inflation raging, Democrats reportedly eying scaled-down version of the president's Build Back Better bill, hoping that a win will improve the president slumping poll numbers ahead of the midterm elections.

Welcome, everyone. I'm Charles Payne, in for Neil Cavuto. And this is "Your World."

First to FOX Business' Hillary Vaughn at the White House with the very latest -- Hillary.

HILLARY VAUGHN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Charles.

Well, progressives have been pushing for a while for the president to act alone on some of the items in Build Back Better. But now there is a renewed sense that there may be able -- there may be a possibility that Democrats can get enough of them on board to pass a slimmed-down or skinny version of what was the president's Build Back Better agenda.

Senator Elizabeth Warren saying in an op-ed today that it is mandatory for the president to try to do something, because, if he does not, she does not see Democrats holding the majority in Congress in the midterms in November.

And White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain also signaled that there may be some negotiations going on for a revised reconciliation bill headed into the summer and fall. Inflation, though, has been a top concern of some Democrats, like Senator Joe Manchin, and one of the reasons why he has been a roadblock to passing Build Back Better through reconciliation.

But it's not just on some Democrats' mind. It's also on voters' mind. Even today, we have seen how inflation is impacting one of the most beloved events in the spring here at the White House, the White House Easter Egg Roll. Today, the president hosted the annual event after a two-year break during the pandemic.

And we found it is more expensive than before because of inflation. Today's event featured over 14,000 hand-dyed Easter eggs. A dozen eggs today are 85 percent more expensive compared to what they were priced at just one year ago. And it is price spikes like that, that are a drag on Biden's approval rating.

You can see from this chart, as inflation goes up, President Biden's approval rating goes down. And the White House knows that it is a problem for them in the polls, but they're pointing at Republicans for not having an answer to the problem.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The Republicans have no plan for this, no plan to address inflation. We all agree it's a huge problem. It's the number one issue in polls. Everyone thinks costs are too high. Costs are too high.

And, oftentimes, we get a little cannibalistic about what our own plans are and whether they're good enough or whether they're -- we're passing them fast enough or what have you. And, really, if you look at the other side, there's nothing in the cupboard.

1(END AUDIO CLIP)

VAUGHN: But Republicans are not shy about what they think is causing inflation and what they think can fix it, reining in government spending.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I think the president has richly deserved his approval ratings. If I'd been a majority leader this past year -- in other words, we'd won one seat in Georgia -- we wouldn't have dumped $2 trillion the economy and we wouldn't be suffering from record levels of inflation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUGHN: So, Charles, headed into the midterms, Republicans will be talking a lot about inflation. But they have already been talking a lot more about inflation.

A public affairs software company, Quorum, dug into how much Washington has talked about inflation over the past year. They found that Republicans had mentioned inflation six times more than Democrats -- Charles.

PAYNE: Hillary, thank you very much.

So, canceling student debt, pushing more spending, hiking taxes, Democrats said to be plotting their next move ahead of the election.

Reaction now from Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, and he sits on the Finance and Budget committees.

Senator, thanks for joining us.

Obviously, it's a mad dash, a wild scramble there. And to a certain degree, I wonder why President Biden hasn't done this already. He referenced bite- sized versions of the Build Back Better plan. He knows he's got to deal with Senator Manchin and perhaps other Democrats. You think they will get anything done?

SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA): Well, if you're talking about Build Back Better, I think the country's really fortunate that 50 Republicans, plus Manchin, are saving us from pouring more gasoline on the fires of inflation.

I had 17 county meetings last week in Iowa. And inflation came up at every one of them. I think it's one of the main reasons, maybe the main reason, that Biden's poll numbers are so bad. And I would think that they would start realizing that, when people like Larry Summers, former secretary of Treasury in the Democrat administration, says that, way back a year ago, on January, we had already spent too much money and the economy was turning around before Christmas 2020, that you're going to have inflation.

Nobody listened. And like McConnell said, $3 trillion more were spent. And that's -- that is just feeding the fires of inflation. And that...

(CROSSTALK)

PAYNE: There's no doubt.

GRASSLEY: Go ahead.

PAYNE: Yes, sir. I was going to say there's no doubt about that.

Wages in this country, real wages, went negative immediately thereafter, and have stayed there. You know what I thought was interesting, too? It wasn't just Larry Summers, but a lot of folks from the Obama administration, Jason Furman and Rattner and so many others.

So the Biden administration started off initially saying it was a high- class problem, we should be happy, it's a good thing. Then they said it was transitory. And then they blamed a few other things before they pivoted to Putin. And now they're saying, well, what's the Republicans' plan? So they're trying to throw the ball back in your court.

What do you say?

GRASSLEY: Well, our plan would be simply this, that a good share of this inflation is because of the high gasoline and energy costs.

And on day one, he stopped the XL pipeline, stopped drilling new wells, North Slope of Alaska, public lands in the United States, offshore Atlantic, and then put regulations on fracking, and then tell the bankers not to loan. Just think what that does to the morale of people that have been giving us cheap energy. We were an energy-independent nation January 19.

And then, January 20 of 2021, we become energy-dependent. And there's no reason for it. And so we Republicans would say, just reverse the terrible energy problem that you put this country in and get the price of gasoline down at least a dollar.

PAYNE: Yes, I mean, it's a blessing to actually have all this underneath our feet and to know how to drill for it.

Another scheme I want to get your opinion is canceling student debt. Now, the notion is, if $1.5 trillion is owed, and it doesn't have to be paid back, it would somehow find its way into the economy. It's flawed in many ways. But, certainly, it's an odd way to say let's help inflation, which was caused by too much government spending in the first place.

GRASSLEY: Well, if it's paid back, it will find its way into the economy as well.

So, Charles, where do you end paying off debt if you're going to relieve student debt? Are you going to relieve the debts of some low-income people on the cost of their house or their car or their credit card? Where does it end? That's a slippery slope.

Besides, if you assume that, you have got to have some responsibility for paying that off. That's a choice you made. It was a free choice you made. And I think, when it comes to education, everybody ought to have some skin in the game if you're going to do that.

PAYNE: There's an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal quoting the co-founder of FedEx, Fred Smith. Now, he said, had we actually passed Build Back Better the way President Biden wanted to, we'd have 25 percent inflation, rather than 9 or 10 percent. That's an astonishing number.

What do you think of that?

GRASSLEY: Well, I think he's an outstanding executive of a very good company, does a lot of good for our economy.

I think we're beginning to hear economists say we're already in stagflation. Now, that's language from Carter presidency, high inflation and a bad economy. Now, the bad economy hasn't started right yet, but some economists say we're on that road right now and we don't know it.

Maybe it's just like transitory inflation.

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: Yes.

GRASSLEY: Maybe we will have transitory stagflation. And then, in a few weeks, we will realize that it's the real stagflation.

PAYNE: Yes, it's a painful thing. We haven't gone through it since the 1970s. And a lot of people who are alive today have no idea. Hopefully, we will skirt that.

I want to ask you about some news that broke not long before the show came on, the United States district court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, essentially striking down President Biden's -- the markets mandate.

The court can concludes that the mask mandate exceeds the CDC's statutory authority and violates the procedures required for agency rulemaking under the APA.

It's not the first time President Biden's administration has lost one like this in court. Do you think we will get some sanity when it comes to these masks?

GRASSLEY: Well, I sure hope so. And a federal judge made that injunction nationwide.

So it's going to accomplish the same thing that a vote I cast and about 53 or 54 senators cast that said mask mandate should go away anyway. That vote was in March. Of course, Pelosi is not going to take that up. But we have been saved once again by the checks and balances of government. And that is a judge stepping in to say that the president exceeded his authority.

PAYNE: Senator, here we are heading toward the midterms. We were promised during the campaign trail a different sort of presidency. We're -- somehow, we unite the nation.

And maybe I'm a sucker. I always want to believe that's going to happen. Maybe I have too much faith in politicians, and on either side it. But it never seems to happen. In fact, it seems to be getting precipitously worse. Why is that?

GRASSLEY: Are you just talking about the partisanship or are you talking about a promise that Biden made and didn't keep?

PAYNE: Well, I'm talking about the promise that the president made and didn't keep, but also what's happened in this nation at large, the way we're a fractured nation, a significant -- a severely fractured nation, and it happens on every single subject, every single topic.

It's very rare we come together on anything anymore.

GRASSLEY: Would you -- would you, as a journalist, believe me when I say that controversy makes news?

First of all, I want to admit I agree with you. There's too much partisanship. But there's not quite as much as people think, because journalists always want to talk about the fighting that goes on in Washington.

PAYNE: OK.

GRASSLEY: Just like Republicans don't talk to Democrats.

PAYNE: I'm sorry, Senator, let me -- let me cut in, because we're going to go to the White House, their briefing.

We want to hear about the mask mandates.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

JEN PSAKI, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: So, right now, the Department of Homeland Security, who would be implementing, and the CDC are reviewing the decision. And, of course, the Department of Justice would make any determinations about litigation.

QUESTION: Secondly, Russia is expected to virtually attend meetings of the IMF and World Bank this week. Is that appropriate, given the actions in Ukraine? And how should international organizations treat Russia?

PSAKI: Well, the President has made clear that he does not believe we should be operating as business as usual. And he's made clear about his concerns about their participation in the G20.

I'd also note that our representative there, the Secretary of Treasury, has made clear that she isn't planning to attend events or meetings that the Russians are participating in. But in terms of other determinations beyond that, I don't have any further comment.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: A question on this move to restart the sale of leases for drilling on public lands.

PSAKI: Yeah.

QUESTION: How long do you think it will take for these new leases to actually start producing? And what impact do you think this might have on gas prices?

PSAKI: Well, let me first say that today's action -- as you know, but for everybody -- was the result of a court injunction that we continue to appeal. And it's not in line with the President's policy, which was to ban additional leasing because, one, we need to move towards a more clean energy economy, which he strongly believes in, but also because there are 9,000 permits, unused, on lands that could be tapped into by oil companies, and we don't feel they are needed.

In terms of how long it will take to get up drilling because of the court action, I don't have any assessment on that from here. I would just note that we are going to continue to fight this court injunction that is forcing our hand in allowing this to proceed, even as we have taken actions to reduce by 80 percent the areas to lease and impose stringent environmental standards.

QUESTION: But the President has promised to slash greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. Now you're having to expand production of fossil fuels when you promised to curtail them. Congress, as we know, has yet to act on many of your climate proposals.

Is the President's ambitious climate change goal and agenda still attainable, or are these new leases going to undercut that pledge?

PSAKI: Well, again, these leases are not in line with our policy or the President's view.

QUESTION: But whether it's your policy or not, I mean, this is the situation that you're in.

PSAKI: It is. And we're going to continue -- there's -- there is -- obviously, we're going to continue to fight this legal action.

But I would say that the President remains committed. Addressing the climate crisis is one of the four pillars that he came in -- he ran on as President and he will continue to fight for.

One of the reasons that this was so troubling to him is because he is so committed to that objective as President. And we continue to propose -- have continued to propose a historic investment in addressing the climate crisis, something that we will continue to discuss with Congress.

So, there are a lot of ways to get there that we will continue to work with Congress to take actions, but he has also not hesitated to take actions himself through his own authorities to take actions to help our climate.

QUESTION: So -- but are you still confident that goal is achievable?

PSAKI: We are continuing to pursue it, and we are going to continue to do everything we can to reach it.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Steve.

QUESTION: Sorry. Oh, thank you. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is saying President Putin probably would have backed off from invading Ukraine if President Biden had shipped weapons to Ukraine sooner. Does the President feel he should have acted sooner?

PSAKI: Well, first, I mean, just for facts' sake, we sent a record amount of security assistance to Ukraine during President Biden's first year in office -- more than any other president in history -- and we shared a significant amount of intelligence with Ukraine about Russia's intentions and military movements, as you all know because we've talked about it in here: $3. 2 billion total, $2. 6 billion since this conflict started.

That's in direct contrast with our predecessor who withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid from Ukraine, including Javelins, which Mr. McCarthy, who was critical of us in this moment, defended at the time as, quote, the rightful thing to do because he claimed people believed there was corruption in the Zelenskyy administration.

So, I don't know if that's a question for us as much as a question for him -- what has changed in that period of time.

QUESTION: And, secondly, are you planning more sanctions this week on Russia, more oligarchs? What can you tell us?

PSAKI: We are continuing to review and consider additional sanctions. It's been an ongoing process. But right now, you will -- so you will see us continue to expand our sanctions targets and to continue to take steps to both further tighten our sanctions to prevent evasion and put in place additional sanctions.

I also wanted to note a couple of comments for anyone with questions -- which probably isn't anyone in this room, but maybe -- whether these sanctions are having an impact. One is by the chairwoman of the Russian national -- central bank, who said these sanctions are -- quote, will now begin to increasingly affect the real sectors of the economy, and, quote, practically every product.

She also said that, quote, that sanctions are being tightened almost every day, and, quote, the period during which the economy can live on reserves is finite, meaning these are really having the squeeze that the President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Treasury, and others have conveyed.

But we are continuing to review, and I expect we'll have more in the coming days.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just to quickly follow up on the mask mandate being voided by this judge, what is the White House's assessment of what that means for travelers today?

PSAKI: Well, it just happened this afternoon. And so, the Department of Homeland Security is over -- obviously oversees the implementation of this, and they're reviewing it as we speak.

QUESTION: So it's still in place right now?

PSAKI: They are doing it as we speak. It just came out this afternoon. And if there any updates while I'm out here, I'm sure we can provide them to all of you.

QUESTION: OK. And President Zelenskyy told Jake Tapper yesterday that he wants President Biden to visit Ukraine and he believes that he will. You said last week there were no plans being made for President Biden to go. Is that still the case?

PSAKI: That has not changed. What our focus continues to be on is providing Ukraine, the Ukrainian government, and Ukrainian leaders a historic amount of security assistance -- assistance that's been adapted based on their needs and their successes on the grounds. And, obviously, that can be attributed largely to the courage and the bravery of Ukrainian leaders. But the second reason is because of the military assistance we provided.

I would note, because I know this is an understandable question you all have asked, that if anyone were to go -- there's no plans for the President to go, so let me just reiterate that -- but we would not outline from here or anywhere from the government who, if, and when for security reasons. So we wouldn't have any details to preview regardless.

QUESTION: Is the President considering granting President Zelenskyy's request to make Russia a state sponsor of terrorism?

PSAKI: So that is a process that -- it's an authority that obviously exists within the government and at the State Department. And in order, just broadly speaking, for any country to be designated a state sponsor of terror -- and there's only three - North Korea, Sudan, and Iran -- at this point in time, just for your full perspective -- the Secretary of State would need to determine the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. And these, of course, designations are made after careful review.

So while we have those authorities, I don't have any update on that or prediction of that. That assessment would be made by the State Department.

What I would note, which I think is important, is that for the countries that have been designated state sponsors of terrorism -- so I named a couple of them for you -- that the four main categories of sanctions that result from designation under these authorities include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance, a ban on defense exports and sales, certain controls over exports of dual-use items, and other financial restrictions.

And what we've already done to date is, of course, impose significant financial sanctions, export controls, and curtailed restrictions on financial assistance. So when you're thinking about the impact, these are already a lot of steps that we've taken.

But I have nothing to predict on that front. That's a -- that's a process that would have to be reviewed through the State Department.

QUESTION: OK. And last question. Russia warned the United States last week to stop arming Ukraine or it will risk unpredictable consequences. What does the U.S. believe those consequences would be?

PSAKI: Well, we're not going to comment. I mean, I'm not going to speculate on empty threats or threats by President Putin or by Russian leadership. What we have done here is done exactly what the President said we would do from the beginning, which is to -- if they invaded, we would be providing significant security assistance, economics assistance, and support to the Ukrainian people. And we're going to continue to do exactly that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: I want to belabor this only because we've heard from the airlines, from airport passengers. There may be people sitting at an airport bar watching right now, wondering, if they're boarding a flight tonight, is the mask mandate still in place?

PSAKI: We're continuing to recommend people wear masks. I don't have any update. This just came out through the courts just this afternoon. And as soon as there is an update, we will provide that to all of you.

QUESTION: Is the White House anticipating an announcement by Homeland Security tonight?

PSAKI: They are assessing it right now. And as soon as they have an assessment and an update on additional steps, they'll make that available.

QUESTION: But if the DOJ, say, doesn't stay the order tonight or first thing tomorrow morning, are passengers supposed to go maskless?

PSAKI: I understand why you're asking, and certainly no one here is trying to provoke uncertainty with passengers. We also think the mask mandate should be in place and that it's safer for individuals who are flying to continue to wear masks.

So we would say to anyone sitting out there: We'd recommend you wear masks on the airplane. And then, as soon as we can provide an update from here -- hopefully soon -- we'll provide that to all of you.

QUESTION: Two more related CDC things.

PSAKI: Yeah.

QUESTION: In the ruling, the judge said that she accepts the CDC's argument that masks limit COVID spread, but that alone is not sufficient to overcome what she concludes is a rule that exceeds the agency's authority to put it in place. The administration believes otherwise. Right?

PSAKI: Well, otherwise we wouldn't have put it in place to begin with.

QUESTION: OK. So, that, potentially, is the crux of an appeal or an attempt to stop it?

PSAKI: Well, again, I would leave that to the Department of Justice.

But all -- what we -- what we announced last week was just a two-week extension in order to have time to assess what we've all seen is rising cases, and make an assessment and recommendation with that in mind. So, of course, it's disappointing.

QUESTION: There's another issue the CDC is in the middle of that's troubling some Democrats, and that is, of course, the impending end of Title 42. Gary Peters, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee -- another Democratic senator -- today, suggesting he has doubts about ending Title 42, says that Secretary Mayorkas is scheduled to be there for a budget hearing, I believe later this month or next month.

What more, though, is the administration sharing with these Democrats and Republicans, but notably a handful of Democrats who say they don't see a firm plan, they want more details, and the administration seems to be rushing into this with no sense of what the repercussions could be?

PSAKI: Well, I think it's important to remember this is not an immigration authority -- for anyone who has concerns about it -- nor is it an immigration plan. We've never said it was. It is a health authority that Congress gave the CDC authority to make a determination about, about whether it needs to stay in place or not.

There is no question we have a broken immigration system, there's more we need to do. We've been saying that from the first day the President took office. And anyone who wants to work on that -- Democrats, Republicans, anyone -- how we can put smarter security in place, how we can have an asylum processing system that works, we would love to do that.

But what they're -- what is happening right now is they're essentially holding hostage funding for COVID. And we are going to run out of funding - - we're already running out of funding -- for key programs. So our issue here is let's move forward with the COVID funding. We're happy to have a discussion about the broken immigration system. We agree it's broken. Let's work together on addressing that.

QUESTION: You say that because there's this amendment to the COVID plan...

PSAKI: Well, that's the...

QUESTION: ... that would put it in place?

PSAKI: I say that because that's the root issue here, isn't it? I mean, anyone who's raising concerns, they're tying it to -- they're tying it to the COVID funding.

QUESTION: Republicans are, but you got a handful of Democrats who aren't necessarily supportive of that amendment.

PSAKI: I understand that, but we're also happy to work with anyone on immigration reform and any concerns they have.

QUESTION: But it sounds like the answer is, If you've got concerns, you, Congress, do something about it.

PSAKI: Well...

QUESTION: Not here's what happens on May 25, once Title 42 is gone.

PSAKI: The President put forward a bill his first day in office. It's not you do something about it. Let's work together on it. And we're happy to do that. You have different ideas, you want to talk about how to move this forward? Let's do that.

At the same time, what's happening is this COVID funding, which means people who are uninsured are not going to be able to get access to treatments, to vaccines -- we're going -- and we're not going to be able to get the fourth booster shot to everybody. We're not going to be able to get the treatments for immunocompromised.

So that's where we're at. And that's why it's important to move that funding for it. And, yes, our system is broken. Let's address it. But this is a health authority, not an immigration authority.

Go ahead.

DOOCY: Thank you, Jen. You said about this mask ruling out of a federal court in Florida that it's a disappointing decision, and you say you continue to recommend that people wear masks. Why is it that we can sit here in the White House briefing room with no masks, but people can't sit in an airplane cabin with no masks?

PSAKI: Well, Peter, I'm not a doctor. You're not a doctor -- that I'm aware of. If you're a doctor, I wasn't aware of that today -- until today.

DOOCY: Can confirm. Right.

PSAKI: OK, not a doctor.

(LAUGHTER)

PSAKI: Just making sure. I don't know.

DOOCY: Nor do you play one on TV.

PSAKI: Nor does he play one on TV. There you go. Most days.

But these determinations -- remember the masking guidance is -- there are - - is green, yellow, and red. We are currently in a green zone in Washington, D. C., so they're not recommending it.

Some people can still wear a mask if they want to -- many people do -- or wear them in meetings or wear them at certain times where you're going to be around or sitting close to people, or maybe you have an immunocompromised parent or friend. And so people make that decision.

And there's -- this is based on health considerations and data that the CDC looks at about transmissibility as -- as we've seen an increase in cases on -- on airplanes.

DOOCY: Jen, would the President support if a flight is leaving from an airport in a green zone, those people don't have to wear masks?

PSAKI: Again, Peter, there's a -- there's been long a difference from the beginning about people on an airplane and in federal transportation vehicles and situations than where they are in locations, like we here -- here continue to be, in Washington, D. C., a green zone.

But what we had asked for -- I think it's important to remember -- is a two-week extension -- or not asked for -- what we had announced was a two- week extension to look at the data and make recommendations based on the data and the science about whether it should be continued or not.

DOOCY: OK. On a different topic, we have new reporting that at least 23 people apprehended at the southern border in 2021 are on the terror watch list. Why do you guys think it is that somebody on a terror watch list would want to get into the United States undetected?

PSAKI: Well, I can't make an assessment of that. But what I can tell you is that your data you're citing here, it means the Border Patrol was doing their job. I mean, they...

DOOCY: So -- so...

(CROSSTALK)

PSAKI: They apprehended people at the border.

DOOCY: Two thousand illegal immigrants a day got away last month. Are you saying that you can say with certainty none of them are on a terror watch list?

PSAKI: Here's what we're talking about: Encounters, we know, and -- of suspected terrorists attempting to cross the southern border, they're very uncommon. We're talking about a few dozen annual encounters at most -- at most. And these encounters represent significantly less than the . 01 percent of total encounters per fiscal year in recent years.

But I'd note: These individuals, these 23 people -- the Border Patrol, they stopped them. They prevented them from getting into the country. They're protecting our homeland and keeping us safe.

DOOCY: So the President is not worried about holes in the southern border being exploited by people trying to come in and kill Americans?

PSAKI: He's grateful to the Border Patrol for doing their job and stopping these people and preventing them from getting into the country.

DOOCY: And one additional question about something that happened a few months ago down at the border: We've been told that the mounted Border Patrol officers the President accused of whipping migrants have been notified they will not face criminal charges. So, when is the President going to apologize to them?

PSAKI: There is a process and an investigation that's gone to the Department of Homeland Security. I don't have any update on that.

DOOCY: The President said that they were whipping people, which would be a criminal offense. And they've been told they're not going to be criminally charged. So will the President...

PSAKI: And there was an investigation into that. And I will let the Department of Homeland Security announce any conclusion of that investigation.

DOOCY: You accused these officers of brutal and inappropriate measures. Now that they've been told they will not be criminally charged, will you apologize to them?

PSAKI: And, Peter, there was an investigation into their behavior, so that investigation is playing out. Whenever there -- it's going to be announced, the Department of Homeland Security will announce that. And then I'm sure we'll have a comment on it after that.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Back on the mask issue, as the debate is going on about next steps...

PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: ... is there any concern....

PAYNE: All right, we're going to wrap here, a White House briefing.

We just heard Jen Psaki covering, of course, a lot of questions about this mask mandate, a lot of confusion, particularly if you're traveling today, but also finishing on what's happening down at the border.

I want to bring in a former acting ICE Director Ron Vitiello.

And, Ron, let me just start where -- with that last question that was presented on those mounted officers who were accused of whipping the migrants who were attempting to come into the country. The photographs didn't look great. But everyone there said that was a misjudgment.

Nevertheless, President Biden had harsh words for them. So did Jen Psaki and others. It appears they have been vindicated, at least from an from an investment case in point of view. But no one at the White House has admitted as much. Your thoughts?

RON VITIELLO, FORMER ACTING U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR: Yes, it's incredible how bad these people are at their job.

The president went to law school. The vice president went to law school. The secretary of homeland security went to law school. They know very well the due process rights that are all American citizens, including men and women who wear the Border Patrol uniform, have, but yet they neglected their duty to the law.

They neglected their duty to the Constitution to go on the side of wokeness and to blame agents who were put in an impossible situation to try to help control an out-of-control border in Del Rio, when thousands and thousands of Haitians elected to cross the border all at the same time.

We saw those images. The reporter who took that image said no one was struck physically. And here we are. They're still neglecting to praise the Border Patrol for the job that they did. And there's -- they don't want to exonerate them. They said they said they were going to bring charges, that they were going to pay for what they did.

And now that the U.S. attorney's office apparently has passed on criminal charges. There may still be an administrative case ongoing. But, either way, they need to apologize to those agents.

PAYNE: Yes.

VITIELLO: They need to apologize to the men and women in uniform. And they need to apologize to American people for disregarding the due process rights of those individuals.

PAYNE: Yes, it's really tough, because it would be a heartbreaking image to believe, as an American, and to think that the president of the United States would jump to that -- to the one wrong conclusion, and say it publicly to the degree that he did, was heartbreaking.

I want to ask you about Title 42. Apparently, more and more Democrats are very concerned about this issue. Jen Psaki again had difficulty answering this, giving us a straight answer on this. What are you hearing?

VITIELLO: It's ridiculous.

They gave everybody a six-week head-start on the rescission of Title 42, which is the only tool, the smallest tool that they have in the tool shed as it relates to policies that allows the Border Patrol to expel people back into Mexico if they're claiming asylum at the border; 1.7 million-some people got expelled over the last period during the -- during the pandemic.

That was a public health measure that's in the law. It exists. It's existed since, I think, the '70s. It was employed here to protect us from the pandemic. And yet they don't want that -- they gave everybody -- all the smugglers a six-week head-start and saying they're not going to do that anymore.

Every chance they get to make a statement as it relates to policy on the Southwest border or immigration enforcement, they step back, and this is no different. And in this case, they gave all of the would-be smugglers and all of the people who are coming in the pipeline a head-start.

PAYNE: We're also seeing a resumption of migrants being taking to different places, some on charter planes, some on buses.

I just don't understand how we can control the situation. Now, of course, many have been given a phone or some sort of cell phone, smartphone. And I guess the understanding is that they will be contacted and his phone and they will come back and show up for a court date.

VITIELLO: It's ridiculous.

Charles, I was on the Border Patrol for 33 years. I have never seen this kind of chaos at the border in my entire career. It's never been as busy at that border than it is right now. You have thousands of agents, instead of patrolling the border, are doing the care and comfort mission.

You have thousands of people coming in every 24 hours. The system is overwhelmed. And this administration has failed in their duty to protect us. The more chaos you have at that border, the more threat we're all under.

PAYNE: If they do say, OK, we're ditching Title 42, we're already saying, to your point, the record books are being shattered right now, absolutely shattered. You -- we have got to believe that the men and women involved in trying to protect our borders are exhausted. Other local agencies have tried to help, very little federal assistance beyond that.

What could the onslaught look like? I mean, just the kind of numbers -- because, to be quite frank with you, the numbers I'm hearing now I thought were unimaginable even a year or two ago. How high could it go?

VITIELLO: Terrifically bad, that we're between 6,000 and 8,000 every 24 hours now. The projections after Title 42 authority has rescinded, they're going somewhere over 10,000, maybe to 18,000 a day.

The system is already overwhelmed. The work force is already overwhelmed. They're distracted by taking care of these people, instead of patrolling the border. What does that mean? That means the cartels are making money hand over fist in smuggling people up to that border. And then they're plying their trade. They're bringing poison into the United States across the board.

PAYNE: Yes.

VITIELLO: They control the flow across the Southwest border. And the Border Patrol is working with both hands tied behind their back.

PAYNE: Ron, thank you so much. Always appreciate the conversations.

You know as well as anyone else what we're facing down there. Meanwhile, folks, Texas facing fierce criticism as it continues busing migrants to D.C., this as the federal government is continuing its own mass release of migrants into Texas.

FOX News' own Bill Melugin has captured video earlier today -- Bill.

BILL MELUGIN, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Charles. Good afternoon to you.

And just a few moments ago, we heard Peter Doocy press Jen Psaki about these CBP records that FOX News has obtained via a Freedom of Information Act requests that show at least 23 known or suspected terrorists were caught at our Southern border here last year.

We will show you what we're talking about. Take a look at this graphic right here. What you're looking at are hits on the TSDB. That is the Terrorist Screening Database, which is compiled by the FBI. And what you're seeing is a sector-by-sector breakdown of where these hits came across, four in San Diego Sector, four in El Centro, two in Yuma, two in Tucson, three in El Paso, four in Del Rio, and four in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, again, totaling up to 23 in total.

But keep in mind, those are only the ones they know about. You heard Peter Doocy press Jen Psaki about the got-aways. Well, if we can pull up this file video of runners down here at the border, Peter is exactly right, because CBP sources tell us, in the last six months alone, there have been more than 300,000 known got-aways at our border, more than 62,000 in the month of March alone.

That's more than 2,000 a day, as Peter mentioned. And for that reason, former ICE Director Tom Homan says it's time for Secretary Mayorkas to get serious about this being a national security crisis when it comes to the border issue. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THOMAS HOMAN, FORMER ACTING U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR: He knows 23 people have been arrested off the FBI screening database. He knows that. I mean, he's the secretary of homeland security.

At what point does this man have enough integrity to tell the White House, I cannot keep this border open, no matter what, because we have created a national security issue of the highest proportions? If he had an integrity at all, he would tell the White House, no, we need to secure the border.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELUGIN: And what you're looking at right now is video of more mass releases of migrants here in Eagle Pass today. We shot this video earlier in the morning, busload after busload.

We have just learned more than 500 illegal immigrants were released by the federal government at this NGO just today alone, almost all of them single adults. This sort of thing happens every single day out here in Del Rio Sector, as well as down in Brownsville down in the Rio Grande Valley Sector.

And, Charles, back out here live, what you just witnessed there, that is one of the reasons why Texas Governor Greg Abbott has started shipping these buses to Washington, D.C. He says these local communities out here, very small communities, are sick of these mass releases. They can't handle anymore.

So, he says that's why Texas is offering them buses to ship them right to the doorstep of the Biden administration at the U.S. Capitol.

We will send it back to you.

PAYNE: Thanks, Bill. Appreciate it.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy says Russian forces have begun -- quote -- "the battle of Donbass." We will be speaking with retired general David Petraeus in just a moment.

First to FOX News' Jeff Paul, who's in Lviv with the very latest -- Jeff.

JEFF PAUL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

And they're calling it the second phase of this war. And as folks in the east part of the country prepare for intensified fighting, here in the west, of the city of Lviv, many people waking up to the sounds of air raid sirens after learning that Russian forces hit the city.

Now, officials say, so far, they know multiple missiles hit within the city just outside the city center, killing seven people. These would make them the first wartime deaths in the city since the invasion started. Shortly after the strike, thick black smoke could be seen billowing from multiple points in the city.

A military spokesperson in Lviv says three warehouses were hit, emphasizing the buildings were not being used by the military. The fourth strike hit this auto repair shop. Now, we spoke with -- one-on-one with the mayor here in Lviv shortly after the attack today. He made it clear this is an all- civilian city full of hundreds of thousands of refugees. But

He says, sadly, this strike underscores a new reality.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDRIY SADOVYI, MAYOR OF LVIV, UKRAINE: We must be ready to new Russian attack. And, together, we must maximum protect our country.

It is a very special moment in our life. We have only one country. We have only one land. I believe in our victory. Never give up. Only victory.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL: Now, the mayor here in Lviv also saying that this highlights, unfortunately, that nowhere in this country is 100 percent safe and that, at any time, in any place, something could happen at the hands of Russian forces -- Charles.

PAYNE: Jeff, thank you very much.

Now, there is a rush to get Ukraine the weapons it needs before Russia's new ground offense in the east. Pentagon spokesman John Kirby just saying those shipments are starting to arrive.

FOX News' Rich Edson has the very latest from the Pentagon -- Rich.

RICH EDSON, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: And good afternoon, Charles.

The first four of those flights, according to a senior U.S. defense official, arrived yesterday. Flight number five is expected to arrive within the next 24 hours. This is this latest $800 million of weaponry that the U.S. is sending to the Ukrainian military.

Officials here say Russia is moving forces into Southern and Eastern Ukraine for an expected offensive there, and that the Russians are still facing challenges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: These are -- these appear to be chronic difficulties the Russian military has had in terms of logistics and sustainment, command-and-control, unit cohesion, operational maneuver integration of air to ground, all problems that they still suffer from.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

EDSON: Now, last week, the U.S. announced that additional $800 million in additional security assistance. That includes sharing more intelligence.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been imploring the West to offer more sophisticated and just more weapons. The Biden administration says this latest round will include more advanced equipment, like artillery and armored personnel carriers, though no fighter jets and other equipment Ukraine is requesting.

A senior U.S. defense official says Ukrainian troops will be trained in an eastern NATO country in the next few days on how to use the howitzers the American military is sending. The official says the U.S. is going to move quickly on that training.

Now, on the other end of this invasion, a senior U.S. defense official says that, because of American and European sanctions, that Russia is having a tough time resupplying its precision-guided munitions. That's because they're having trouble getting components for those weapons -- Charles, back to you.

PAYNE: Thank, Rich Edson.

So, will Ukraine have the weapons it needs for the battle in the Donbass region? Former CIA Director retired Four-Star General David Petraeus is here to discuss.

General, thank you so much for joining us.

John Kirby just gave a fascinating press conference about an hour ago. He's always a straight shooter. And he repeated a couple of times that Russia is -- quote -- "shaping." And I found that to be, as a non -- for most folks who don't understand what this means and the magnitude of what's going to happen, can you explain that to us?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS (RET.), FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Well, really, it just comes down to preparing, Charles.

And good to be with you.

This could be a pivotal moment in the war in Ukraine, as the Russians obviously gave up on the effort to seize Kyiv, topple the government and replace President Zelenskyy with a pro-Russian figure. They lost the battles of Kyiv, of Chernihiv, and of Sumy in the north, and the Ukrainians one.

So the Russians have refocused in the area where they have made some gains, very hard-fought. And they're going to reinforce that in the east and the southeast, and then presumably further down around the port of Mariupol, when those defenders, incredibly resolute, really the Alamo of Ukraine in many respects, when that ultimately falls.

And his discussion of shaping, normally, for us, that would also include preparatory fires. It would include a variety of positioning of logistical assets, medical evacuation, resupply, ammunition caches, refueling assets, and so forth. And they're doing quite a bit of that.

But they have struggled, as Admiral Kirby noted. And I know him well from the war years in the past. They have struggled with the logistical aspects of this, as, as he rightly noted, they have struggled with so much else, including air-ground, including combined arms affects, where you use not just tanks, but infantry, engineers, artillery, mortars, and so forth all together, protected by air defense.

All of these have been very, very challenging for them, and surprisingly so, given the months that they supposedly spent on training and maneuvers in Russia and also in Belarus before taking the operations to invade the country.

PAYNE: General, I was also surprised to hear about Russia's capabilities, that, although they have suffered losses -- and we have noted them -- everyone has been shocked at the magnitude of these losses -- that they still -- quote -- "have quite a bit left," a lot of combat power, in fact, the vast majority.

It sounds really ominous, in my mind, that, strategically and certainly the way they carried out the plan so far, has -- it's been a series of blunders, but they still are capable of maybe significant damage.

PETRAEUS: Well, we think that's the case. But we will have to see.

The one challenge of the east that was not present in the north is that the train is a good bit more open. I have been that part of Ukraine pre-COVID, certainly when I visited the front lines in the Donbass. It is much more advantageous terrain to the kinds of offensive operations that we presume that the Russians will want to conduct, again, armor, infantry fighting vehicles and so forth.

The question is whether or not they're going to be able to go off-road onto the fields, or whether they will still be muddy, as they reportedly are right now. And, in that case, the -- even the track vehicles will get mired in those fields. And that would be very, very helpful for Ukraine, which has to stop these forces in order to then hit them with these sophisticated shoulder-launched anti-tank guided missiles, the Javelins, take out their aircraft with the Stingers, employ a variety of the other systems.

And I'm very, frankly, enthusiastic about the addition of 700 of the so- called Switchblade drones to the list that's being provided. These are -- could be game-changers, because, when the soldiers get out of their vehicles, these are loitering munitions. They're launched by Ukrainian forces out of a tube. They're quite intuitive to use.

There's an iPad like device that the operator looks at. And he picks the target. It's circling above. It's electric, so you can't hear it. And then it just takes out that target. So it is literally silent, but deadly.

What we're sending are the anti-personnel versions. I'd love to see a lot of the armor version, but they're literally just not in our arsenal.

And let me just highlight something that is a challenge for us. I think we'd like to provide a great deal more for Ukraine. The challenge is that we do not have the ammunition that they need. It is Eastern Bloc ammunition. Their artillery shoots 152-millimeter howitzer ammunition. We shoot 155. That's why we're providing the howitzers and then also tens of thousands of rounds to go with it, because their artillery won't go into it.

PAYNE: Right.

PETRAEUS: Same with tanks. Same with fighting vehicles.

So anything that we provide that would require a lot of spare parts, a lot of different ammunition and so forth will be challenging for them. And that's been an issue here. Same with planes. I mean, we can't give them F- 16s, and we don't have MiG-29s.

Now what we are doing and they're working very hard is to get the Eastern European countries that have this equipment, have this ammunition, have those planes to transfer them to the Ukrainians, which they can use right away, because they're very similar.

But the Western European and U.S. arsenals just don't have those items in them.

PAYNE: Right.

So, General, yes, we're -- 40,000 rounds for the .155 howitzers and some training to train their trainers. The planes, that -- it sounds like you're suggesting, then, that the MiG-29s are still possibly in play?

PETRAEUS: Well, I don't know. I'm not part of that discussion. I wish that they could have just been quietly handed to the Ukrainian pilots at some airfield in Eastern Poland, and no one would make a lot of big deal about it. Unfortunately, they did.

Then they wanted to, in essence, launder it through the U.S. and get a guarantee that we provide F-16s, which we can't. All the ones coming off the assembly line are committed to another nation, and in the Indo-Pacific, which, after all, is still the priority, despite what is going on here and the way that we're focused very, very much on that.

PAYNE: Right.

I have got a minute to go, General. So, a Ukrainian official says that this is now the active phase of the offensive. Of course, a lot of experts thought this would be a one-week, maybe several-day invasion, quick victory. And this is a lot of folks in the West.

Do we have a potential timeline right now, a new timeline?

PETRAEUS: I don't think so.

I think the timeline is in Moscow. It's Putin's watch or clock. And he's watching his economy, his financial system, his business community and his inner circle be damaged very, very severely. And the question is, how long is he going to allow this to go on?

And he's watching as 300,000 of his most talented Russian citizens have left the country, rather than stay in a country that truly is now the personification of the evil empire. And he is a global pariah.

PAYNE: Yes.

PETRAEUS: That's the challenge. And it is a contest of wills between him and certainly President Zelenskyy in Ukraine, whose forces have far exceeded certainly what the Russians thought they would do.

You said that they thought this would be a few days or a week. That was what Russia thought it would be. And this has been a very, very rude awakening for them about the limitations of their forces and the extraordinary capabilities demonstrated by the Ukrainians.

PAYNE: Great point.

General Petraeus, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

PETRAEUS: Pleasure, Charles.

PAYNE: Between unleashing more spending and more migrant crossings, why is the White House ignoring the issues that have Americans worrying? Gerry Baker has some thoughts on that, and he's coming up.

But, first, Elon Musk, he continues his battle for Twitter, insisting that it's a fight for free speech. Are some in the mainstream media proving him right?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PAYNE: Twitter shares jumping more than 7.5 percent today, as the takeover tussle is intensifying.

Today, Elon Musk tweeting investors will see big savings because he would pay the board nothing if he wins control of the company.

FOX Business' Lydia Hu joins us now with more on this Twitter war -- Lydia.

LYDIA HU, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good afternoon, Charles.

Yes, we had our eye on Twitter shares today because this is the first day that trading resumed since markets were closed on Friday, the day that the poison pill defense to Musk's takeover bid was announced. Some had concerns that we'd see volatility after that poison pill announcement.

But, today, we are seeing a good deal of resilience in Twitter. You can see shares up more than 7.5, closing higher than $48 a share. This is still lower than Musk's bid of roughly $54 a share. And that adds to the debate on whether Musk's bid fully reflects the company's value.

And, for now, it seems that Elon Musk shows no signs of backing down on his bid takeover on Twitter, as he says that he would pay board members nothing if he were successful. Musk claims taking the board member salaries down to zero would save shareholders about $3 million a year. Board members are paid between $250,000 and $300,000 a year.

But in this battle for control of Twitter, employees of the social media giant are also weighing in. According to The New York Post, an internal survey of Twitter employees shows that 78 percent believe that Musk does not have the best interests of Twitter and its shareholders in mind.

Now, the Twitter board, for its part, has not responded to Musk's takeover bid just yet. And CEO Parag Agrawal says he's not sure when a response from the board is going to come -- Charles.

PAYNE: Lydia, thank you very much.

All right, folks, in the meantime, I have got Gerry Baker here, host of "Wall Street Journal at Large." He joins us on where do you think this is going.

I mean, it's interesting the board hasn't reacted yet.

GERRY BAKER, HOST, "WALL STREET JOURNAL AT LARGE": It is.

I mean, by the way, what a way to win friends on the board, saying you're going to do away with their $300,000 a year. He really knows to go for the jugular.

(LAUGHTER)

BAKER: Look, I mean, Charles, as you know well, they have got a fiduciary duty to get the best for their shareholders. The shareholders have not done very well out of Twitter for the last 10 years.

That company's stock has basically been flat since it IPOed 10 years ago.

PAYNE: Right.

BAKER: He's come along with what's a good bid. OK. It's below where the stock price was last year.

But in terms of recent performances, it's a good bid. Clearly, the issue is the politics. They know that his claim that he's going to make it a genuine platform for real free speech is something they don't like, because they -- as you know, on the left, they don't like free speech. They don't want free speech, because they think free speech challenges their control of information.

PAYNE: And, really, the elephant in the room is Donald Trump. I mean, really, isn't it amazing that it really boils down to whether or not -- if a private equity firm, you could pick the name, offered Twitter $54.20 a week ago, we would probably be talking about a done deal today.

BAKER: Right. Right. Exactly.

And it is -- again, that's what the politics are. And, again, as you said, we were chatting earlier, Charles, and you pointed out that just after Trump got elected, the Twitter stock price went crazy.

PAYNE: Sixteen dollars on Inauguration Day. The quarter that he -- last -- his last quarter as president, the earnings report came out in February. Stock went up 13 percent that day, 24 percent that week, went in the mid- 70s, and it's never been that high again.

BAKER: It was a beautiful relationship, wasn't it?

(LAUGHTER)

PAYNE: It was really.

BAKER: That he was great for Twitter and Twitter was great for him.

And then...

PAYNE: He was great for all of them. Gerry, he saved The New York Times.

BAKER: Oh, completely. CNN.

PAYNE: Remember, Carlos Slim was going to come in, CNN.

BAKER: CNN's ratings since Trump has gone have absolutely disappeared.

PAYNE: Yes.

BAKER: No, no, no, he was absolutely -- look, it is his political.

This -- Musk might attract another bid. We might -- we don't know. We might see. But I suspect this is -- that, in the end, that the board of directors are going to have to do the good thing by their shareholders.

PAYNE: Yes.

BAKER: And that looks like a good offer.

PAYNE: An interesting reaction after the poison pill.

Let me ask you about the Democrats now, this -- you have written extensively on this, their new plan they try to do something with respect to inflation. At the same time, they want to do more spending.

BAKER: I have never seen, Charles, a political party, which -- all politicians think they're right all the time, obviously. But I have never seen a political party and a political establishment be so out of line with where the people are, where the people's interests are.

And that's the problem for the Democrats at the moment, whether it's crime, immigration, the pandemic, the state of the state -- the state of the economy generally, and particularly on this issue of inflation. People are really concerned about inflation.

The way to deal with it, look, inflation, you -- as you well know, once inflation is embedded in an economy, it's really hard to get rid of. It's not like dealing with a recession. It's not like dealing with a foreign policy crisis. It takes a long time to overcome inflation.

But what you can do as a government is, you can make it worse. You can make it worse by spending money that you don't have, by adding to the deficit, by pouring more money onto -- pouring more fuel onto that fire. And that's exactly what the Democrats are proposing to do.

PAYNE: Is it paternalistic? It's not economic, as you're pointing out.

Everyone -- these folks are intelligent enough to understand that. Is it -- I honestly believe that it's the -- that none of this ever has anything to do with economics. It's a paternalistic thing, where they just simply think they know better than the rest of us, and their idea of what a perfect country would look like, I guess, for right now involves runaway inflation.

BAKER: It is an established fact in the progressive mind-set that they are better than the rest of us, they are better morally than the rest of us, they are more intelligent than the rest of us, they know what's right.

So, it doesn't matter what the voter says. It doesn't matter that the voters don't want to do this. It doesn't matter what this is going to do. They know that, in the long run, it's right.

And, as far as inflation is concerned, yes, their main priority is to increase the size of government more and more and more, because it's a ratchet effect. The more you -- the more you increase government, the harder it is to reduce it. So they are prepared to pay the price of higher inflation, which they know will come, because they will get a larger government.

And that's their primary objective.

PAYNE: Title 42, I have got to ask you about that. Jen Psaki just -- she didn't really give a straight answer on it. But you have got a lot of Democrats who are saying it's a mistake to ditch it right now.

BAKER: Absolutely.

This is a -- by the way, think about the contradictions here. On the one hand, the administration doesn't want to remove the mask mandate, because we're still in an emergency, although a judge, as we know, overturned that today. On the other hand, they say, actually, we are no longer in the emergency.

So we have got to lift Title 42. Of course, it's just an -- of course we know what the impact is going to be. It's going to be a rush -- a further surge -- illegal immigration is already surging. It's going to be a further surge. They know that very well.

And, again, it's part of their overall political agenda that is not addressing the needs of the country. It's addressing their longer-term ideological objectives.

PAYNE: So we got a minute to go.

I'm going to ask you about the Hail Mary, the midterm Hail Mary, canceling all student debt.

(LAUGHTER)

BAKER: That's the same thing.

I mean, again -- again, it favors completely the -- a minority of the population that actually doesn't really need the money. These are people -- you go to college, generally speaking, you're going to earn more money, you're going to be able to repay that. I know some people have a very hard time and I understand that.

PAYNE: Right.

BAKER: But, by and large, this is transferring money from hardworking Americans who don't go to college to those who benefit from going to college and, by the way, come away with all these crazy ideas when you come out of college.

PAYNE: Professional degrees, $3.6 million in a lifetime, if you drop out, less than a million.

BAKER: Exactly.

PAYNE: I mean, who -- it's just -- it's so skewed. It's so backwards here.

BAKER: Why make the rest of the country pay for that?

PAYNE: It doesn't make sense. And then you promote college as something that you're going to give to people and make sure they do it.

Gerry, thank you so much.

BAKER: Thanks, Charles.

PAYNE: All right, folks, make sure you catch me also every day on FBN. A lot to talk about, particularly with this market not looking too good, down late today, down a lot.

The Fed is in there. The administration is in there. But you got me.

And you got "THE FIVE" next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2022 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2022 VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of VIQ Media Transcription, Inc. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.