>> hockenberry: welcome to the program. i'm john hockenberry filling in for charlie rose. we begin tonight with a discussion of i.s.i.s. with michael weiss of the daily beast. >> in syria, any kind of accounting for the demographic and sectarian tensions in that country seems to have gone out of the window. now we're saying let's get the job done quickly. the kurds are good at fighting i.s.i.s., a trusted and reliable proxy, we'll worry about the political aftermath later. militarily you can defeat organizations like i.s.i.s., we did it in 2010 when it was known as al quaida in iraq, but what comes next is what you need to worry about. >> hockenberry: then the trump administration's immigration detention policies. >> people need to think seriously about their

relationship to these laws and will we maintain the posture of saying we want an exception here and here. here's a nice family, a good immigrant family, or are people going to start looking at the long-term consequences of these laws and saying, you know what, having facilities all over the country keeping people locked up instead of allowing them to work, we moving people from their families and their jobs, something is problematic about that. >> hockenberry: we conclude with fashion designer and philanthropist tory burch. she talks to katie couric about her career. >> instinct is good. if you believe in your vision, it's important to follow it when you have a unique point of view. when i haven't gone with my instinct is when we've gone wrong. with any great company, you need to be flexible. when you make a mistake, react

quickly and i keep thinking of grace under pressure. >> michael weiss, jackie stevens and tory burch when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> hockenberry: good evening, i'm john hockenberry filling in for charlie rose. we begin tonight overseas with the state, you probably know it as i.s.i.s. iraqi forces have taken all but the western part of the city of

mosul, the last i.s.i.s. stronghold in that country. in syria, hundreds of u.s. marines and artillery are joining local forces in preparation for an assault of the i.s.i.s. capital of raqqa. this safe to hope this is beginning to have the end to i.s.i.s.? michael weiss, co-author of "isis: inside the army of terror," just updated and reprinted in a new edition. pleased to we can imhim to the program. >> thank you. >> hockenberry: seems mosul is in transition and we're starting on raqqa. >> and part of the ambition is to keep i.s.i.s. from fortifying raqqa. a lot are fleeing from mosul because they will lose the city in a matter of weeks, so the goal is to squeeze both ends to have balloon at the same time. but raqqa i fear is going to be moch more difficult fight, not only because it is the de facto capital of their so-called caliphate, but the forces are

not necessarily going to be welcomed in as liberators. so the organization or the umbrella group that's going to lead the fight is called the syrian democratic forces, largely kurdish in composition and almost wholly kurdish many military dom nanls. the sunni arabs who are part of the umbrella are kept down, they're not allowed to exert political will for a reason, because the kurds are making their state in syria with the backing of american fire power and jets overhead. the deployment of this military force, a couple hundred marines, army rangers in syria, yes, they're going to be fighting i.s.i.s. and waging indirect fire int in raqqa and squeezing i.s.i.s. out of the raqqa province, but they're more to keep piece between the kurds and

the sunnis. so you have operation you euphrs shield, and they have cleared out northern aleppo and al-bab, i.s.i.s.'s intelligence wing, sort of langley or c.i.a. but the kurds intervened to stop the kurds from building their statelet. they don't want the kurds west of the euphrates river because the kurdish military force mounting the campaign is essentially a syrian offshoot of the pkk. they have been at war with turkey for 40 years and the turks see them as a greater threat than i.s.i.s. in the long term. so there are so many inherent continue digs to operation resolve, it's almost embarrassing to say. american military forces are deployed essentially to keeping two american allies from going to war with each other even more than waging the fight --

>> hockenberry: is that because the u.s. deems it important that the u.s. be there to be this kind of military mediator, or have the turks demanded this as part of supporting this coalition in some way? >> the turks wanted to go into raqqa. they wanted to lead as part of euphrates shield, a garrison of sunni turkman, a lot of people have been peeled off from the free syrian army, a lot under the train and equip program that ended in calamity several months ago. but now the turks are blocked by the syrian forces, american forces have been redeployed there to essentially hold the turks at bay. erdogan's ambition is countered by the pentagon, frankly. according to everything reported in the last several weeks -- we

at "the daily beast call it obama on steroids. i and others who study this think it is fraught with complications. look, you don't use a minority to liberate a majority. sort of middle east 101. the reason mosul has proceeded and the reason iraq has learned from mistake is the force they are using to march into mosul, not the shia militias, groups trained up by the iranian revolutionariranianrevolutionart mostly these are elite counterterrorism units, professionalized military divisions of the iraqi army that consist of sunni, shia,

christians and other minority groups, these guys aren't going in to help iran plant their flag. that's working in mosul. in syria, any kind of accounting for the demographic and sectarian tensions if that country seems to have gone out the window and right now we're saying let's just get the job done quickly. the kurds are good at fighting i.s.i.s., a trusted and reliable proxy, we'll worry about the political aftermath later. my problem is political aftermath is all. militarily you can defeat organizations like i.s.i.s., we did it in 2010 known as al quaida and iraq. it's what comes next that you have to worry about. it was let's think about that. number one, are americans aware

theraware,when we're talking abt fighting i.s.i.s., i recall no u.s. boots on the ground -- you're talking about hundreds of marines potentially facing i.s.i.s. troops. the first i.s.i.s. casualty that is in a u.s. uniform is going to be big news and big propaganda news for i.s.i.s. >> completely. i recall when the debate about whether or not to intervene in syria to counter the assad regime and proxies took place, the state department said we don't want to send 18-year-olds to damascus. instead we send them to raqqa, which is a place people heard of even less than damascus. this is a game of mission creep, if you like, the idea america could reduce its footprint or obliterate its footprint in the middle east, i thought this was a fantasy. one of the options i put forward and my co-worker and i outlined

this in a recent article is america's biggest mistake in iraq was not only military withdrawal but political disengagement from the country. we washed our hands, said you deal with this mess, you don't like the troops we helped defeat iraq, go to the green zone and parlay with them yourself in. syria, it's more dangerous simply because the united states has intervened, iran has intervened to such an extent they built up militias and proxy armies that really are running the security portfolio for assad. there was a piece this week that said assad's army doesn't exist, even the russians said when they intervened in 2015, there are only about 6,000 combat ready forces beholden to the syrian army. now gangsters. it's all proxies. >> hockenberry: and some russians. >> yes. the russian protect rat in

eastern syria while helping the pkk in northern syria, while essentially leaving assad the 35% of tear rain that he now controls which he considers to be a victory in this war, he'll never be in control of all syria, the country is vulcanized, but what is america's end game and what are we doing the protect the bellwether constituency which i.s.i.s. cannot thrive again, and the tribesmen who occupy jay jazeera and western and central iraq. we need to think of it as two nation states. you will never see a cohesive and integrated state of syria come out of the ashes of what's left of i.s.i.s. >> hockenberry: so either i.s.i.s. is done and it means nothing, or i.s.i.s. is not done, which would you pick? >> i.s.i.s. is not done. they've already been planning for this.

their dearly departed spokesman, in his last communique of last year, he said, look -- well, he didn't say it explicitly but it was implicit in the message, we're going to lose our state. so we'll return to the desert where rebuilt up in the 2008-2011 period after the sunni awakening in iraq and surge drove us out of that country. they're planning to do it again. so if america says you've lost mosul, fallujah, ramadi, raqqa, we're out of here. guess what? i.s.i.s. 2.0. it may not look exactly the same as now, and already i can tell you i'm noticing a transformation i never thought i would notice with an

organization like this. when founded as al quaida and iraq, it was led by foreign fighters, most famously al-zarqawi. over time it was taken over by native iraqis including former agents of saddam hussein's baath party, military apparatus, military intelligence services. as of 2014, half of the shirr council consisted of former saddamists we knocked out of power. those guys are largely dead. now what i'm seeing is europeans and central asians, particularly who speak russian, rising to the forein this organization. >> hockenberry: president trump made good on his promise to defeat i.s.i.s. but something will replace it. >> yes, and also redouble it was to strike in the west. they speak the language, come from these societies, and as one i.s.i.s. defector said they

understand the strength and weaknesses of the societies. they know what a soft target is like. they've transgressed through international airports in paris, brussels and berlin. so you will see that phenomenon happen. as they lose their caliphate, they will branch out. they had a province in libya. they've got one in afghanistan. they've got one in russia. these are not places where they exercise command and control. al-baghdadi didn't necessarily pick up the phone and say i want you to march a column of soldiers into this neighborhood or village, but there is still concern in terms of international jihaddism. people are still joining. what we are finding is -- and this is a cliche -- what looks as lone wolf attacks, are in fact being run remotely through the internet and linked up with

other people whoivel cultivated or recruited. >> hockenberry: the battle of raqqa has begun, but what comes next does not look pretty. michael weiss, editor of "the daily beast." thank you so much. >> sure. >> hockenberry: growers in california and alabama may be worried about the sund shortage of undocumented immigrants to work their field, but the private prison industry stands to benefit. the department of homeland security has been asked by the white house to find 80,000 bed for detainees, doubling capacity, and as detention goes up, so does the prison industry's profits. here to discuss the aggressive new defensive policies, jackie stevens, heads the deportation research clinic at northwestern university's institute. welcome to the show, first of all. let's talk a little bit about what we can expect from the aggressive policies from the trump administration. >> well, i think what we'll see is a return to the raids and,

you know, uptick in detentions and arrests and deportations that go back to the bush administration years. right now the detentions were going down since 2012, and now there will be an uptick. >> hockenberry: i think people are prepared for detentions, but what is not widely known is the infrastructure for dealing with the number of people that are involved here is on a scale that i don't think many americans are aware of. could you give us a sense of where people go when they're detained, how long they stay and this sounds to me like a shadow prison system. >> right, well, that's definitely what's been put in place since the early 2000s, and it really goes back to a law passed under the clinton administration, the 1996 law that increased the possibilities for people to be deported who have been in the country for a very long period of time, and

took away a lot of discretion from judges' ability to appeal decisions. we've seen an increase in detention to 475,000 people a year detained under the obama administration in 2012. to accommodate that increase in detention and deportation, there has been a big upswing on private prison industry, which itself played a very, very active role in lobbying to accommodate those kinds of ends. in 2010, congress passed a law requiring that the government maintain, on average, no fewer than 34,000 beds a day in order to keep people in custody under immigration laws. there is no comparable law for requiring people to be locked up absent any particular penalty in the penal system. so, you know, this is law that was lobbied for aggressively by the prison industry and is still

on the books today, and it's outrageous, and it's not anything that would be consistent even with conservative values, which would, you know, tend to want to limit government. it's something that is, you know, again, going to be experiencing. it's the basis for the kinds of policies that will be allowing the expansion of the prison industry going forward. >> hockenberry: first the question of the relationship with the prison industry. is it the case that there is an incentive for private prisons to take detainees because at a get some sort of reimbursement from the federal government, and then that money goes into their revenue stream? >> well, right. i mean, in order to keep people locked up, ice develops a lot of contracts, and about 65% of people in custody now are in custody with firms that, are you know, privately owned. the balance are in wings of

county jails that are rented out by ice. >> hockenberry: and, so, this could be in any community. there could be an ice detention center down the street, and you might not know it, because it's either a part of an existing prison system or it's just a wholly new facility. how would you know? >> well, you know, there is actually some really good data that are available through a web site run by track at syracuse university, and if people want to find out where the facilities are, that would be a really good place to look. they have a number of different interfaces for law enforcement data from the government, and one of them has information on immigration detention facilities, including the private facilities, as well as the places that are kind of off the grid that might be in a local neighborhood, they might be in an office park, even, and not have the sign and not even have a u.s. flag, and many of those also are listed on that web site. >> hockenberry: and this is not toncrease awareness

because we consider these people dangerous. i mean, it is the case that most -- the vast majority have committed no crime, they're just on their way out of the country and are in a kind of suspended detention that could be fairly open-ended depending on the speed of the government's detention hearings and the like. >> well, right. well, just to be really clear about this, you know, many of the people who are being held are actually challenging their deportation order. so they get an order that says ice believes you're not in the country lawfully, and they're allowed, in many contexts, an opportunity to contest that charge in immigration court. so the people who are being held in ice custody are not being held because they have been convicted of any particular immigration crime, or any other crime. they're being held because they are challenging a civil order to deport them. they are administrative detainees. they're not there because they

have been convicted of a crime. they are being held because they're either a flight risk or there might be some factors in their record that would suggest they're a danger to the community and additional risk factors construed as bed space availability. those are the three factors ice detention officers weigh when deciding whether to keep someone locked up or allow them to be free while appealing their deportation order. many people who are detained actually have their orders terminated or have other discretionary release, and, so, they're actually not deported. so there's a whole range of different kinds of outcomes. it's also important to point out that thousands of people being held in these facilities are u.s. citizens, and these people are completely, you know, unlawfully detained and, you know, held under very horrible conditions. >> hockenberry: let me stop you on that one. they're u.s. citizens because they're caught in a dragnet inat

verntdly? or what is the reason a large number of american citizens would be in this system? >> these are typically young men of color coming out of the prison system or some other encounter with law enforcement and their claims of u.s. citizenship are disbelieved. evidence consistent with deporting them is treated as accurate an and other evidence s discredited. >> hockenberry: there are people who will say the depondensy of individuals who illegally came into the united states doesn't concern me a lot, they took the risk, they're in this situation, why should i be terribly outraged by this even if it is at this scale? >> right. so i think there are a couple of ways to think about this question. one is about the magnitude of the response to what is a civil

infraction. many of the people who are locked up are here on visa overstays and so forth and they've violated no criminal laws. the second question does, i think, have to do with a very serious question this country is coming to terms with now and that has to do with our deportation laws and our borders. i think we're at a moment now that reminds me perhaps of where the country was in the 1850s, and this was in the context of there being legal slavery in the south, but in 1850 congress passed the fugitive slave act, and that allowed the slave catchers to go into the north and required communities there to return escaped slaves to the south. communities in the north, in the past, may not have been so, you know, favorable about slavery, suddenly had to deal with this question in their communities. i think this seems resonant to me about what's happening now with sanctuary cities and other,

state attorneys general and so forth who are pushing back of ramped up enforcement of deportation laws. i think you're right to point out especially people on the left and progressive communities need to think seriously about their relationship to these laws and, you know, are we going to maintain this posture of saying, okay, we want an exception here, here. here's a nice family, a good immigrant family. or are people going to start looking at the long-term consequences of these laws and saying, you know what? having these facilities all over the country keeping people locked up instead of allowing them to work, we moving people from families, jobs, so forth, there is something really problematic about that and maybe we want to think more seriously about what it would look like to have open boaferredders especially in north america, to have something more like the european union. this sounds like a reach, but if

you think about things that may be worth considering, one, for most to have the world, slavery was normal and it was strange to challenge it. even in the 15th, 16t 16th century, moving wasn't allowed. if you were caught outside the parish of your birth without a pass, you could be wind whippedr ear would be seared and if you were caught a third time, you would be executed. one of the penalties was being transported to the plantation, which is to say the colonies in america. people thought at that time if you allowed free movement you would allow people flooding london. fast forward to the 21s 21st century, no one would think it's plausible or even a problem to say that we want to limit, say, the movement from

people in mississippi to new york because there are a lot more poor people in mississippi. so, again, i know this is a lot to take in, but the system that we have right now is really inconsistent with any kinds of, you know, liberal values and conservatism with a little c, and, you know, i think this is something that people might want to consider as we contemplate the alternative, which is this ramped-up enforcement of the deportation laws and the massive expansion of a prison industry. >> hockenberry: thanks so much for illuminating us on that. >> thank you so much. >> couric: good evening. i'm katie couric, filling in for charlie rose. tory burch is here. she is chairman, c.e.o. and designer of her lifestyle brand tory burch. her foundation has launched a global campaign called "embrace ambition" in honor of presidentsinternational women's.

here's a look at the public service announcement for the campaign. >> i amal alamuddin bicious. will not hide it. we are made to be ambitious. i will dream big. take risk. not live in fear. longer will ambition be seen as negative. >> ambition is not a dirty word. what is your ambition. build an empire. more women run for office. transform society. help all of us lean in together. >> embrace ambition. will you? the proceeds of the campaign will go to empower women entrepreneurs in the united states. we are excited to have tory burch on the program. hi. >> hi. >> couric: before we talk about the campaign, i felt empowered just watching it, but how did you embrace ambition or didn't when you were younger because in preparing for this interview i read about how you got into fashion and it seems to me that you set your sight on a

career in fashion after graduating from the university of pennsylvania with a degree in art history. you came to new york, and things kind of fell into place. can you tell us about sort of the early days of your career? >> yeah, so first of all, i think i was raised -- well, i know i was raised in a family that really i didn't know gender would have anything to do with it. i grew up with three brothers and my parents taught us we could do anything if we worked hard. that was the general feeling. i went to penn, studied art history and i got a job randomly in fashion. i sent a res pay to an interesting designer who looked like rasputin and he said i could start but i had to start the week after i graduated from penn and that's how i got into fashion. it was a bit by chance. my mother wore his clothing. it went from there. >> couric: that was sort of a fling in a weird way.

>> it was. >> couric: you started out in p.r. and marketing. >> right. in his office it was small, me, his partner and him. it was learning about everything. minimalist space, no desks. mats on the floor. start 10:00 a.m. i grew up on a farm in the middle of nowhere in philadelphia, so it was a crazy beginning to my career. >> couric: what did you learn in the first job that provided a foundation for you as you moved up in the business? >> i learned a lot about the industry and how colorful the industry was. you always had people coming and going. i was fielding as well. he would run to the bathroom, i would pretend he wasn't there. he didn't particularly like women, he was trying to cut me hair all the time. his clothing was incredible.

minimalist and beautiful fabrics. >> couric: how did you develop your aesthetic? you started your brand what year? couric: by the way, was that a huge endeavor? how did you say, i'm going to start a brand, name it after myself and i am going to build an empire? >> so, a couple of things. i had no design experience, and i had never run a business. i was a stay-at-home mom for four years. the job that i had left was a very tough decision, i had been offered to be president of a beautiful brand from spain, and i found out i was pregnant with my third son so i knew i couldn't do both jobs well. i became a sta stay-at-home mom. during that time, i knew i wanted a career but didn't know what it was. i researched starting a school and this company at the same time. it was working on the idea of beautiful clothing that didn't

cost a fortune. >> couric: starting a school? i had twins and it was hard to get children into schools and i thought there is a need for incredible schools. i was interested in education and it didn't go anywhere. >> couric: do you wonder what your life would be like if you focused on education and not fashion? >> in many ways. i had so many ideas. none came to fruition. i was so tired of talking about ideas and none coming tough. so i decided to start working on the company. this idea -- it was called jack's in the '60s, and it was great-looking clothing not hard to find and about not spending a fortune. >> couric: the rest is history, as they say. i think you've done well for yourself. >> part of the business plan from day one was to start a foundation. that has always been a driving force for me. i think when you ask where i got my style, i was a tom boy

growing up but my parents were and still are very glam warehouse. i was surrounded by my mom and dad. he should have been a designer. he designed all his own clothing. my mom, too. every family dinner, she would have beautiful flowers, and the way she took care and was into every detail. i learned from them. >> i heard a sweet story about your dad who passed away, had a lighter with charms on it. >> yeah. >> couric: it's one of your most special possessionings and you made it into a locket or a pendant. >> a pendant. he had extraordinary detail and was the kindest man i met. my parents took all kinds of people in. i never know who i would be coming home to. they would come for a short stay and stay six months. andy warhol meets robinson. we had a crazy childhood but it was all about family and love.

>> meanwhile your brand expanded consistentty since you started the company. how many stores do you have now? >> about 200 globally. about 89 in the u.s. >> and you started is it called athleticwear? >> we call it tory sport and it's a sport line and i love it. the word ath-leisure we call it coming or going. >> couric: when did you start that company? >> a year ago and a half ago it's still brand new. >> couric: how's that going? well. we're keeping it separate from the main brand. it's exciting. we're starting to build it. >> couric: this is a trend a lot of brands are doing this kind of clothing which i guess is just comfortable, you can kind of go from the gym to even the office at times, right? >> i think it started as a trend but i think it's here to stay

and i think it's really a shift in the way women are dressing. we have been working on it for maybe seven years, and i had forgotten how hard a startup is. it's excruciating. so we finally got it going. the idea to marry real function and fangs, and how do you think about the elegance of sport, and that's what's exciting. i started thinking of the royal tannenbaums, and that's where we started. it has a bit of a retro vibe. we have tennis, golf, running, yoga and what we call coming and going. >> couric: i want to get to your incredible flyn philanthroc work. how do you make sure you're not expanding too fast and into too many arenas? who helps you measure and balance that when it comes to expanding? >> ist such an important point and i think now more than ever

there is this philosophy of less is more. i think department stores used to be in charge and now the customer is in charge. we could be three times the size now if we wanted to be but it would not be a healthy company. we have or i personally have been so careful about growth, even though we've had this great trajectory, it's been very strategic, and we don't want to be everywhere. we want to be in the right places and very careful. i think a lot of people open too many stores, get too promotional and when we do that and we have done promotions, we tell you back because it can really hurt your company. >> the company is now 13 years old. how has it evolved and what were the most important lessons you've learned? >> there's been so m. i mean, first of all, on some levels, i just never imagined being on a journey like this. to feel to privileged to work with the amazing team i have worked with to build it is extraordinary. but it has evolved where i've

learned a lot about design and how to be a dr c.e.o. eve one i've learned on the job. patients is something i've learned. i think i've always had a bit of it, but my parents tell me to buckle my seat belt, thicken my skin and think of negativity as noise. that's pretty good advice. >> couric: what's the biggest mistake you've made on the way? >> i don't know if i can say it on tv. there are so many. instinct is good. if you really believe in your vision, i think it's important to follow it, if you have a unique point of view. when i haven't gone with my instinct is when we've gone wrong. the great thing is with our company and i think any great company you have to be flexible and when you make a mistake you need to react quickly, get out of the mac mistake. i think of grace under pressure. >> couric:ettes talk about "embrace ambition," which is

such a great campaign. you're right, i think society and women themselves feel fairly ambivalent about the word "ambition." >> yeah. >> couric: how and why did you come up with it? >> it started with the first article i was telling you that was written on our company and my friend said nice article but you shied away from the word ambition. she was right. i started to think about that a lot over the last 13 years. when men are am birse, it's celebrated. -- when women are ambitiousish it's seems crass or they're unattractive. women definitely internalize that. i did it myself so i can see why, but we need to get rid of it, it's a very harmful stereotype. >> couric: did you find in talking with other women that they shied away from the term as well? >> i think everyone i spoke with has said at some point in their life they understood what i mean. i think, you know, i was interviewed by a man yesterdayers and he was, like,

this doesn't exist. and i said, of course, it does. i mean, it's very -- it's rampant, in fact. i mean, if you think about how few jobs that there are of women and as c.e.o.s -- >> couric: actually, the number has declined. it was interesting for me to read that in 2014 to 2015, there were 24 women c.e.o.s. in 2016, 21. >> fortune 500 companies? >> couric: yes. so that number declined which i was surprised to read and dishearnted. >> it is a bit disheartening. if a woman wants to be that and it's hard and you have to make those choices, there should be equal rights to do that. when you think of the word feminism, i think it's misused. feminism is about equal rights. it's not about disliking men. i think men have to be part of the conversation. it's a human right. it's not a favor.

>> couric: women's rights are human rights. >> it's half the population. >> couric: there is a lot of subtle sexism in the workplace. you can't necessarily go to h.r. about it. it's almost more insidious than blatant sexism. >> i think there is definitely both. there is definitely an old men's club mentality in every industry i've experienced. i've had a few pats on the back. when i went to raise money for our company, i was told never to say social responsibility and business in the same sentence. i thought that was so interesting. when you h think about millennials, it's what they look for most. it's so important. >> couric: yo i want to talk about social responsibility in a minute but i want to talk about feminism and where you think we are today. we saw the women's march following this election. it was a day without women this week. where do you think the women's

movement is now? do you think it's being reenergized and that younger women are suddenly embracing the notion of being feminist? >> i think it's being reenergized. i'm very helpful. i was blown away by the woman's march. it was extraordinary to see city after city around the world really unit. i think the important thing is not to lose sight of how powerful that message is and not to make at it a partisan issue because to me it's not one. >> couric: with any political movement, there has to be forward momentum. >> yes. >> couric: as a businesswoman and someone who's been so successful in building a brand, what should this movement do in order to become bigger and to have impact? >> well, i think, when i speak to fathers and i talk about their daughters, they want equality for their daughters. and whether they're republican

or democrat. so if we start to have men be part of the conversation about the equality of women, whether it's equality of pay, or paid maternity, or whatever issue it is, i think that it shouldn't be about gender, it needs to be about the quality of work. and women need to have equal rights. so how do we push that forward and keep the conversation going? i think the great thing about now is people are more engaged than they ever have been. >> couric: it's interesting because i read an essay i think during the campaign about men who want equality for their daughters but not necessarily for their wives. >> i knew you were going to say that. >> couric: which i thought was interesting and depressing. >> yeah. >> couric: but i also think perhaps generationally it's changing. you have three boys. >> yeah. >> couric: and you were telling me earlier that they love the fact that you work, they embrace your career enthusiastically, and i think,

for a lot of kids, our kids' ages, i think having mothers who work is a very different experience than our generation because my mom didn't really have a career. she worked at lord & a taylor ad did other volunteer work but she wasn't a career woman. she would have been a great stockbroker. >> i feel the same about my mother. i feel she would have been a great architect. how sad they had a bid of a -- bit of a myth because generationally it's great to be a role model for your daughter or me for my boys, but i think it's interesting because when i showed my boys the campaign, i had to explain to them that ambition for women is perceived as different than it is for men. i was happy about that. >> couric: it's interesting. i personally have never had trouble with the word ambition. i don't know why. i have always felt like, yes, i'm ambitious and i'm totally happy and okay with that, you

know? >> well, i think it's great and certainly i am now. but i think tell you that we even have entrepreneurs at google told not to be perceived as ambitious. >> couric: really? that's what they want? >> they think men don't find it attractive. i think it's a stereotype and a harmful one and i think it's out there. >> couric: who wants a man who doesn't find ambition attractive? i think those are the wrong men for powerful women to couple with, if you will, right? >> i definitely agree and i think that, certainly -- when i speak at colleges, and you said your daughter is in college, i spoke at one recently, and i was so impressed with how ambitious the students were. i remember when i was in college, it didn't seem to be the case. you know, they might have had a lot of interests, but a lot of them didn't go and have important careers for themselves, they didn't want it or they wanted to get married.

i think times are definitely changing, and we just have to country the issue and make sure women have equal pay. i think that's a big one. >> couric: women are still not paid as much as men for the same job. >> right. >> couric: and that has been the case for years. at some point, i think most of us peel that just has to change. >> i read a statistic the other day -- and i kind of remember this -- that women could not have a credit card in their own name in 1972. so we definitely have come a ways. the thing i'm worried about is we go backward and that's something that i think the women's march and this movement is so important it really needs to make us move forward and not go back to the 1960s. >> couric: i know the trump administration has the fewest number of women in its cabinet in a long time, and i think there are those who feel that it is not the most hospitable administration to women in a long time, but i think in a way it's galvanizing those who, like

you, don't want to see women's strides go backward. >> i think it's a mess for their administration, because women offer a lot and they have a different perspective. >> couric: you give advice to a lot of millennials through your foundation. tellme about what you do and what your goals are, because you work with young nawrps. >> we do but they're not all young. >> couric: well, that's good. yeah, i know. it's about women entrepreneurs in the united states, and it's all kinds of women, and that's what i love most about it. but we talk a lot about confidence. i think that's a big thing women don't have. i think it's hard for women to ask for a raise. i also have had that. i'm not sure you've ever had that. but it's been difficult for me to -- and i'm not sure why that is, but it's really being the best advocates for themselves, and i think not in an arrogant way, but men can really represent themselves quite well, and women need to be taught that

more. >> couric: why is that? just conditioning? >> conditioning. i do believe that. i think it is changing, but i think we need to really be there to change it more. >> couric: let's talk pragmatically what you do to help these women. i'm sure some women watching at home would love to hear your advice for those who want to start a business or do something on their own and just don't know where to start. >> well, i mean, one exciting thing, is as i told you earlier, part of the business plan of our company was to start a foundation, and i was very worried it would ever be perceived as marketing, so we did not want to talk about it for a long time, and we ended up launching the foundation in 2009, andeth taken us until how to really see impact and scale, and i think, with the partnership with bank of america, we have now given out over $25 million in the last two years to women entrepreneurs in the u.s., and we're averaging

about a million dollars a month, and that's exciting. women have a harder time getting loans, and that's just a fact. they pay their loans back, they are often single mothers, they're dedicated to their communities, they're great investments. >> couric: can you give me an example? because i think it's hard to kind of visualize some of the women you're helping. can you give me real world examples? >> we have one who has a company called diva dogs, a hot dog company in new orleans. she's incredible. then we have a woman in texas who started -- she was on food stamps, had four children with her husband, and they were down and out, and she started to make granola bars, and we were able to give her a loan, and now she has a thriving company. women are really courageous. they have courage, and they can get themselves out of really tough situations. we have a woman who goes on

movie sets and really makes it more green and shows them how to do that. there are so many different kinds of businesses. there is an architect who now designs bras for ma mastectomy victims. so it goes on and on. we had one, she had a shredding company that was in a car that she would take to offices. they would bring down their documents and shred it on the spot. so it's all kind of industries. a lot of food industries, certainly fashion, and it's really inspiring to me to meet these women. >> couric: yeah, i bet it is. i mean, does it inspire you to keep going with your business so you can help more women like them? >> well, certainly, it does. aside from our partnership with bank of perk, we also -- bank of america, we have an violation program with goldman sachs, and that's really exciting. we have with our foundation a fellowship program.

next week we'll have 30 entrepreneurs which we'll high light on our site. we'll have to narrow it to ten, and they each get $10,000 towards a grant for their education for their business and the winner will get a $100,000 grant. >> couric: isn't it ironic, when you started out, tory, you were advised never to use social responsibility in the same sentence. social responsibility is part answer parcel of so many companies' mission. it's about not just doing well but doing good. it's such an exciting development in business. >> i think people are looking for more and certainly there's a bit of a backlash with so much stuff and people want less but things with more integrity and things that are doing good, and i think that if we could be role models to companies that think about philanthropy and not wait

20 years out, it would be a great thing. it could be just giving time of a day to support a charity or any organization. >> couric: we've talked a lot about millennials and i've read about them and understanding that generation, and they prefer experiences over stuff. you know, they don't want to be burdened by a lot of possessions. so i think it's really important that this social responsibility component exists in business because at a are very socially conscious, i think. >> i think also what our investors didn't think of is it's good for the bottom line. it makes our grease happy. it's attracting great people the to work at our business, s and

great for customers. it's a win-win. >> couric: you're doing incredibly well. when you look, tory, at the next ten years and sort of what you want to accomplish, you know, how you want your business to it rate, as they say -- iterate as they say in the tech world, what's on the ho risen? >> everyone told me there's an inflection point in ten years of a business and i never understood that until recently. we have looked at our business, we had this amazing growth and the first ten years was super exciting, but we restructured to look at the next ten. and i think it's about less is more, we're editing, but really looking at every product with more integrity, but also how do we do more good, how do we have more experiences, what does personalization mean and certainly technology? i've always been interested in technology. 14 years ago, people told me no one would ever buy online and we

launched with an e-commerce site. it's interesting how there is a lot of naysayers and people who have different opinions, but what i talk to entrepreneurs about is you have conviction and drive and you believe in your vision, it's so important to keep your focus. >> couric: i have to ask you a fashion question. i think one of your first items were the ballet flats, right, with the tory burch gold. >> my mother's. >> couric: and i think everyone knew, you have tory burch flats, right? i'm just curious because i've always been one of those people who i don't like labels, i don't like purses that have labels on them, it just feels show off-y to me. i'm curious, have you changed sort of that approach in terms of screaming i'm wearing tory burch! >> our logo wasn't meant to be a

logo traditionally. it was meant to be more of a design element because i, too, am not one to wear a lot of logos. so it became this crazy thing we loved and embraced but, over the years, we've definitely pulled it back, and we love the logo but we want to love it in a careful way. we don't want it to be all over the place, even though it's done so well and we're so excited. but i totally understand where you're coming from. >> couric: but in a way, it is. it also means quality and it means a certain aesthetic and a certain sensibility, so it can be used in a positive way. i just wondered about it. >> well, we try to use it in a pos thetive way and certainly we don't want to have a lot of logos on everything but we want to do it in the right way and that's something over the years we learned about our logo and how to use it and it's interesting, globally, whether in asia, europe or the u.s., people respond to it in different ways. >> couric: and style, i think,

has become increasingly individual. style, i think, people -- i feel, today, people are much more individual in their pursuit of style. it's sort of anything goes. there are so many different looks. it's not cookie cutter. >> women are wearing track pants with heels and going out in the evening and looking great. >> couric: i don't think i could pull off that look. >> i think anything does go and i think it's about how you feel about yourself and what clothes can do to elevate your mood to make you feel confident and i think people -- i love it when people do a different take on what we offer, and we have young women wearing it very differently than someone in their 20s or 30s, and then we have -- >> couric: or beyond. we have all ages, and i think

that's what's so great. >> couric: i wanted to also take a moment to say congratulations because you will be getting married. >> yes. >> couric: soon. you're marrying a frenchman. >> pierre, and we have six boys together. we have a lot of children. we're very busy. >> couric: i think it's very exciting. i wish you much happiness and continued success because you're doing such great things with your success and it's wonderful how you're paying it forward, tory. >> thank you so much, katie. i likely appreciate it. >> couric: thanks, tory. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. >> you're watching pbs.

hello. welcome to kqed newsroom. coming up in our program, a look at how the republican proposal to repeal and replace the affordable care act impacts california. and wikileaks said it will work with silicon valley companies to fix the vulnerabilities the cia allegedly uses to hack into devices. plus the founder of craigslist and why he's giving millions to uphold and expand trustworthy journalism. the first 100 days of the trump administration, this week two congressional committees approved the gop's new health care plan. it would no longer require people to have health insurance, but a penalty would apply for a lapse in coverage. the proposal