Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Dimon: I Should Never Curse, But We're Going Back To The Office; Future Work Location Preferences; FAA To Use Musk's Starlink System To Upgrade Its Networks; Supreme Court Orders New Trial For Oklahoma Death Row Inmate; Disastrous "Fyre Festival" Gets Reboot On Mexican Island. Aired 2:30-3p ET
Aired February 25, 2025 - 14:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:30:00]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: It's -- you know, it's a quick read for something that is obviously pretty serious material. Thanks for being with us to talk about it.
LT. COL. ALEXANDER VINDMAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: Thanks.
KEILAR: We have some new concerns ahead over conflicts of interest after the FAA agrees to use Elon Musk's Starlink system to upgrade the network used to manage U.S. airspace. We'll have that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Welcome back. The CEO of Americas largest bank is now apologizing after he used some, let's call it, salty language at a recorded employee town hall a couple of weeks ago.
In the audio, JPMorgan Chase's Jamie Dimon makes it clear how he feels about hybrid work from home schedules.
(BEGIN AUDIO FEED)
[14:35:00]
JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE: This company is going to set our own standards and do it our own way. And I've had it with this kind of stuff.
And, you know, I come in -- you know, I've been working seven days (EXPLETIVE DELETED) a week since Covid. And I come in and I -- where's everybody else? Here and there and the Zooms. And the Zooms don't show up. And people say they didn't get stuff.
So that's not how you run a great company. We didn't build this great company by doing that, by doing the same semi disease (EXPLETIVE DELETED) that everybody else does.
(END AUDIO FEED)
JIMENEZ: So any backlash aside, Diamon says he's sticking with his plans to get workers back in the office five days a week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DIMON: I completely respect people that don't want to go to the office, you know, all five days a week. That's your right. It's my right. It's the citizen's right.
But they should respect that the company is going to decide what's good for the client, the company, et cetera, not an individual. And so they can get a job -- I'm not being mean -- they get a job elsewhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: All right. CNN chief data analyst, Harry Enten, is here. That is chief data analyst, Harry Enten.
All right. So what is --
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: I like it.
JIMENEZ: Yes. I knew you would.
What do the numbers tell us about work from home, work remotely and productivity?
ENTEN: Yes. You know, and I should note, you're working remotely today from Washington, D.C., Omar, instead of here in New York, where you belong.
(LAUGHTER)
ENTEN: Look, we can take a look here. And, you know, studies are really split on this, right, remote work, impact on productivity.
On fully remote, it's actually kind of unclear. You could look at one study from the BLS that suggests that they're more productive. You could look at a separate study from Stanford that says less.
But when it comes to hybrid, which we'll get into a little bit more a little bit later on, the impact on productivity is it either helps or there's no impact.
So when I hear Jamie Dimon say, I got to get them back in five days a week, I get why they might want him back from fully remote, but from hybrid, I'm not quite sure the math necessarily adds up based upon the studies.
JIMENEZ: And look, it seems like everybody knows someone who either works fully remote or hybrid in this country. I mean, how many people are actually working remote or hybrid?
ENTEN: Yes, it's a lot of people. It's a lot of people.
So, well, look at those who are remote-eligible workers. So, you know, this isn't everybody. But among those who are remote eligible, look at this, 55 percent are hybrid, 26 percent are only remote. And then you just get 19 percent on site.
Now, I should point out, of course, about only half of jobs are actually eligible to be remote. So overall, we're looking at about 60 percent of voters -- 60 percent of workers who are on site.
But amongst those who are remote eligible, it's the large chunk that are either only remote or the clear majority here hybrid -- Omar?
JIMENEZ: Yes. This next question doesn't apply to you because you don't go home. But how much do they like --
ENTEN: Yes.
JIMENEZ: -- working remote or hybrid?
ENTEN: Yes, I never go home and think -- I think only one day a week I'm off. I think Sundays sometimes, and even then, I'm working from home. So I guess that is going home and working from home.
But the future work location preference among remote eligible workers, look at this. The clear majority want to be hybrid, 60 percent. Only remote, you see a third. Get this though, just 7 percent want to be on site. These folks don't want to go back to the office.
And, indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some backlash from some of these workers if they're forced to go back. Why do I say that? Because -- get this -- workers are very likely to try to leave their job if the employer ends remote work.
Get this -- 64 percent of those who are working only remotely, you get 29 percent who are hybrid, and even 11 percent of those who work on site if they're allowed to work remotely.
But they like the idea of potentially being able to work remotely. So I would expect a backlash, Omar, a remote worker.
JIMENEZ: They like the idea that it's out there. Yes, I guess I am, I'm remote. I'm sorry. Hold down my seat over there, make sure no one sits there. You know, that's my policy.
ENTEN: I'll keep it warm for you.
(LAUGHTER)
JIMENEZ: Harry Enten, good to see you, man.
Brianna?
KEILAR: Definitely not remote.
OK, now to Elon Musk's new U.S. government deal. The FAA has agreed to use his SpaceX Starlink Internet system to upgrade American air space technology networks.
And this is raising some new conflict of interest concerns for Musk, who, as you know, is recommending funding cuts at federal agencies, including the FAA.
Plus, the agency already has a contract with Verizon to do the Internet upgrade work.
CNN's Pete Muntean is here with the details.
What's going on here?
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: This is not the first time that there have been conflict of interest concerns when it comes to Elon Musk and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Remember that SpaceX and all private space launches are overseen and certified by the FAA. So this only fuels the fire for members of Congress who have been calling for the Trump administration to put the brakes on any conflicts that could benefit Musk.
Just last night, five Senate Democrats called on Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to detail how he's dealing with this. And now that call is even more poignant after this latest announcement by the FAA.
It said it is testing Starlink satellite Internet at three locations, the FAA test center in Atlantic City, New Jersey, also what it calls two non-safety critical sites in Alaska.
This is timely because getting reliable weather information in Alaska has been a major issue. That was highlighted earlier this month after the crash of a Bering Air flight that killed 10 people.
[14:40:06]
Flying is a vital way of life in Alaska. The state has the highest number of pilots per capita. And often the status of automated weather reporting systems are the difference between life and death for pilots.
The FAA's new statement says, "Alaska has long had issues with reliable weather information for the aviation community. The 2024 FAA reauthorization required the FAA to fix telecommunications connections to fix those needs."
This is likely only the start. "Bloomberg" reports it could be a huge contract for Starlink, eventually, including 4,000 Starlink terminals over the next 12 to 18 months.
There's no real dispute here that the FAA's computer and communication systems are in bad need of an upgrade. The Government Accountability Office said just this past December that urgent FAA actions are needed to modernize aging systems.
Also set this against the backdrop of Musk's cut to the federal government. The FAA just axed about 400 employees who helped maintain critical air traffic control infrastructure.
Secretary Duffy says those jobs are not safety critical, but the union that represents them says any job cut eats away at the aviation safety ecosystem. This is really developing all the time.
KEILAR: Yes, because do the jobs they're cutting support the people who are doing the safety critical thing. That is the key question.
(CROSSTALK)
KEILAR: Yes.
Pete Muntean, as always, thank you so much.
And coming up, the Supreme Court ordering a new trial for an Oklahoma death row inmate whose case has drawn national attention.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:45:55]
KEILAR: A divided Supreme Court ordering a new trial for an Oklahoma death row inmate whose case has drawn international attention and the support of the state's attorney general.
Richard Glossip was convicted of arranging the 1997 killing of his former boss. He's been scheduled for execution nine times, he's eaten his last meal three times, only to have his execution repeatedly stayed.
JIMENEZ: Now, Glossip's attorney claims the state withheld crucial evidence related to its main witness.
I want to bring in CNN chief Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic, who joins us now to discuss.
So, Joan, I mean, this place -- this case has been a lot of places. Where does this case go from here?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Well, it's interesting, Omar and Bri, in the courtroom today, when Justice Sotomayor started to announce excerpts from her opinion, she looked out at spectators and said, "This case has a long history."
Yes, all the way back to 1997, through two trials, multiple appeals. But what happened is that enough state officials started to believe that prosecutors had really mishandled the case, that there had been -- first of all, there had been evidence that was withheld.
But the key problem, as the justices saw it and as the case came up, you know, almost 30 years later, was that the prosecutors had allowed false evidence to be used against Mr. Glossip from the star witness, who was actually the man who had beaten to death the victim here with a baseball bat.
But the star witness, the man who had done it, said Richard Glossip put me up to it. So that's why he was convicted and -- and was given a life death sentence whereas the man who turned on him was just given life. So there were -- and there were all sorts of problems. You mentioned
the Republican governor -- attorney general of the state was supporting Richard Glossip, a bipartisan investigatory commission was supporting him.
And today, the justices, by a five to three vote -- Neil Gorsuch was out of the case because he had worked on it when he was on the lower court -- they ruled, you know, essentially enough is enough.
That, first of all, that they had the authority to intervene here. There were some procedural hurdles that you know, in terms of maybe not -- not letting the state decision stand, coming in and saying there were some federal constitutional rights here.
And bottom line was that the state had violated -- the prosecutors had violated his rights under a 1959 case that says that you cannot be convicted with false evidence that the prosecutors even know is false.
One of the key things here was that Justin Sneed, the man who actually had done the act, had said that he had been on some cold medicine, but it turned out that he had been prescribed lithium, and that was before his testimony.
And -- and Richard Glossip didn't know that. That was part of the case as it first came up.
So a very strong opinion where Justice Sotomayor got two of the conservatives to join in. It was Justice Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan, the liberals, but also Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh. So it shows you kind of the -- the strength across ideological lines.
Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, which was interesting because Amy Coney Barrett, as -- as we've talked so many times, Brianna, you know, often straddles the middle and will sometimes go with the chief for a middle ground.
But here, she felt like it was not in the Supreme Court's hands to actually say, this man needs a new trial, we're throwing out the past -- Bri?
KEILAR: It's really interesting.
BISKUPIC: Yes.
KEILAR: Joan, thank you so much.
BISKUPIC: Sure.
KEILAR: The breakdown of the justices is fascinating.
BISKUPIC: Yes.
KEILAR: And up ahead, Fyre Festival 2.0. You know what they say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice.
[14:49:44] JIMENEZ: Give me a limp sandwich.
(LAUGHTER)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEILAR: The disastrous Fyre Festival is getting a sequel this summer in Mexico. You may remember -- who -- I mean, who could forget this, right?
(LAUGHTER)
KEILAR: The original 2017 version, hyped as a luxury event on a private island.
Instead -- oh, yes, look at this stuff here. Attendees met with poorly constructed tents and the now infamous limp cheese sandwiches so bad they made documentaries, plural, about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my god.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Turn it back right around.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's mattresses all over the place getting soaked.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The "save yourself" mode kicked in. It's a free for all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JIMENEZ: Look. The Fyre Festival is embattled founder, Billy McFarland, says tickets are already selling out. They range from $1,400 to -- I think I'm reading this right -- more than $1 million.
KEILAR: You are reading that right, yes.
JIMENEZ: Executive editor of "Deadline Hollywood," Dominic Patten, is here to discuss.
OK, no performers have been announced. The event site makes vague reference to excursions. And the organizers spent years in prison for fraud. What could go wrong here?
[14:55:05]
DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD": As they say, buyer beware. And to quote the great Public Enemy, "Do not believe the hype on this one."
(LAUGHTER) KEILAR: OK? Do not believe the hype on this one. So when you look at the prices, $1,400 to more than $1 million, what do you get for your money?
PATTEN: Well, that's the whole thing, Brianna. We don't know what you get for your money. As you said in the introduction, don't know who the headliners are. We don't really know anything about this. We just know some dates.
I will say -- you said in the intro, I believe, don't fool me again. Second time.
This is actually the third time. They tried to bring a Fyre Festival to -- back to life in 2023, and that fell apart. So I wouldn't hold on too tight to this one actually happening.
JIMENEZ: Ah, we will see. We will see.
And you remember the viral tweet of that limp sandwich and salad in a to go box? Attendees were promised seven-star eats at the original Fyre Festival. The pictures right there looks absolutely appetizing.
Do you think reminders like this will keep people from buying tickets? I mean, I feel like it's, anything hyped by the Internet, you're always going to have a crowd of people who are just going to buy and see what happens for the experience.
PATTEN: I think you're entirely right, Omar. In fact, I think some people will do what I would literally call misery concert tourism here.
But what I think it's also important to remember is the Fyre Festival is going to have a very hard time getting people to come on the level of what you expect.
You have Coachella in April, which has Lady Gaga, Green Day, Post Malone. You have Glastonbury in June in the U.K. You have the great big heavy metal Black Sabbath reunion in the U.K. in July.
So I'm not quite sure why people would want to be a part of this, knowing what the legacy is.
You'd think the way to bring this out would bring it out with a couple of huge headliners who are back behind it, and that would draw people in.
As it stands right now, I feel like this is less a sequel to the Fyre Festival and more a sequel to those documentaries about how terrible Fyre Festival One was in 2017.
(LAUGHTER)
JIMENEZ: Taking a chance on Fyre Festival, Coachella. You can -- you can make your pick.
Dominic Patten, thanks for being here. Really appreciate it. PATTEN: Thank you.
(LAUGHTER)
JIMENEZ: All right. Coming up, controversy in the NFL. And by that, I just mean the Green Bay Packers are pushing to ban the tush push. And the Internet is divided. We'll talk about it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
