Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
CNN Saturday Morning Table for Five. U.S. Supreme Court Rules President Trump's Tariffs Unconstitutional; President Trump and Vice President Vance Criticize Supreme Court Ruling against Trump Administration Tariffs; FCC Chairman Brendan Carr Investigating Talk Shows for Not Observing Equal Time Rules for Political Interviews; Members of President Trump's Cabinet Release Videos of Them Working Out; Meghan McCain Warns Republicans against Pressing Woman to have More Children as Rhetoric May Alienate Women from GOP. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired February 21, 2026 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[10:00:40]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Today, the Supremes tell Donald Trump stop in the name of law. The president suffers his biggest defeat yet from the court he built.
Plus, the FCC won't let them be.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have to comply with equal time requirements.
PHILLIP: Will Trump's crusade against TV backfire when conservatives aren't holding the remote?
Also, from milk and male bonding to presses and playdates, it's curtains up for a performative cabinet, and it's become the right's new tagline.
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: I want a baby boom.
J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT: I want more babies in the United States of America.
PHILLIP: But Meghan McCain tells conservatives to stop lecturing women.
Here in studio, Ashley Allison, Lydia Moynihan, Justin Pearson, and Hal Lambert. It's the weekend. Join the conversation at a "TABLE FOR FIVE".
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Hello everyone. I'm Abby Phillip. He built the court to tell him yes, but on Donald Trump's most
important agenda item, they are now telling him no. Nearly a year since the president's so-called liberation day when he began unilaterally slapping tariffs on the entire world, the Supreme Court is calling that illegal. The six-three decision, which includes two of his picks in the majority, will have profound impacts on Americans, on the economy, and on foreign relations. And let's just say Trump isn't taking this decision well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what's right for our country. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It's my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The court rules that he cannot invoke national security, which he clearly contradicted many times, including in this interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: So it was at 30 percent. And I didn't really like the way she talked to us. And so instead of giving her a reduction, I raised it to 39 percent. And then I got inundated by people from Switzerland, and I figured, you know what? We'll do something that's a little bit more palatable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, these tariffs were probably doomed to failure from the very beginning, and a lot of it has to do with stuff like that. He didn't like the way she sounded on the phone. You get a tariff. And then the numbers, even on liberation day, were essentially random. And even if none of those things were the case, they probably would have been unconstitutional, but Trump did himself no favors in how this was executed.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK POST": I mean, it's interesting. Yes, they struck these down on IEEPA grounds, but Trump's moving ahead. He is somebody who says fight, fight, fight when he's literally shot at. I think he's going to continue to try and implement his agenda here.
And it's interesting. I mean, I've been hearing so many times where people keep saying the Supreme Court is in Donald Trump's pocket and we don't have checks and balances. Well, for anyone who made that accusation, I think today was a sign that the system is working exactly how it was designed to work, with the Supreme Court putting a check on the executive branch. And, you know, he isn't challenging that he disagrees with that. He's upset, obviously. This is something that he's been talking about since the 1980s. But he's going to figure out another way to move this agenda forward. And honestly, if he does it, I think the markets will be even happier than they are now.
HAL LAMBERT, POINT BRIDGE CAPITAL FOUNDER AND CEO: I can see why he's very frustrated, because if you look at what the opinions say, if you look at some of the opinions, Kavanaugh Justice Thomas, Kavanaugh said, you know, if he'd had done this under the 1930 act, the 1962, 1974 act, he could have done it and still agreed with Trump that he had the right to do it. Thomas was even more specific. He said, look, historically when you've given someone the right to regulate trade, which he does have under the law that he went under, that historically has meant the ability to put duties on countries.
[10:05:01]
PHILLIP: He doesn't have the authority to regulate trade. That's not actually the authority that he has Congress, the ruling very -- and the Constitution. Forget the ruling. The Constitution is crystal clear.
LAMBERT: No. He could shut down products right now from countries. He could do it just like that.
PHILLIP: He can do it under specific circumstances for specific reasons. And that's the gist of this, right? It's not that the president doesn't have some tariff authority. He does. But to your point, he could have done this in any number of other legal ways that would have limited the scope.
LAMBERT: Well, now he's going to.
PHILLIP: And now he has to, because that's what the law is. But he can't do it forever. He can't do it at 30 percent or 40 percent or 60 percent or whatever number he comes up with off the top of his head. There is such a thing as rule of law, and I think that's what the court was basically saying.
JUSTIN J. PEARSON, (D) TENNESSEE STATE REPRESENTATIVE: That's exactly what the court was saying. And look, people in my district have been feeling the effects of these tariffs for almost a year now. We are seeing higher prices at the grocery store. People are struggling more in our communities than they have been due to the actions of this administration. And so it's the Supreme Court telling Trump what we all knew to begin, which is that his irrational actions were illegal and unconstitutional and anti-constitutional as it relates to the separation of powers.
Congress is the one who is supposed to determine whether or not we're going to have tariffs, and the executive is able to continue to administer whatever policies fall in line with that. But we have three branches of government, and this unitary executive power by this wannabe dictator is finally seeing a check by the Supreme Court, which hasn't happened a lot --
MOYNIHAN: To be clear, if he was a dictator, he wouldn't have acknowledged that the Supreme Court gets to do what they're --
PEARSON: Look at the way that he speaks about -- MOYNIHAN: I don't see why everyone is still up in arms when the
system is working exactly the way that it's designed to work.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm not saying this system in this instance did not work. It's also not just like people on the left that are saying that the Supreme Court is in Donald Trump's pocket. There's 60 percent of Americans, which includes Republicans, think that the Supreme Court is partisan at this point. So that's just a popular opinion.
But on this, he is upset because he did stack the court, and he stacked the court for a reason. And now he's like, you aren't following my order.
MOYNIHAN: What do you mean, stacking the court.
ALLISON: Stacking the court.
MOYNIHAN: He appointed justices, which the president does.
ALLISON: Yes, but this is how you stack the court. Remember when Scalia died and he didn't let Obama appoint -- they didn't let Obama because they were hoping Trump would win, stack one. Stack two.
MOYNIHAN: That was Mitch McConnell.
ALLISON: Stack two is when he was president and Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and he then rushed it in less than 100 days, hypocritical to what he said before. So that is actually stacking the court.
(CROSS TALK)
PHILLIP: So let me --
ALLISON: Actually on the tariffs, because I don't really care about what -- the Supreme Court is what it is. The reality about these tariffs is he could go ahead and try and do it the way he wants to, but up to this point, Americans have all spent, on average about $1,000 more because of those tariffs.
LAMBERT: Then why would the refund go to the companies. I thought the companies were paying the tariffs? They're all saying we need our money back.
ALLISON: Right, exactly. You just made my point. The companies are saying we paid this money. No, you didn't. The American people. So now --
LAMBERT: Then who gets their money back?
PHILLIP: You're both a little bit right, and the answer is both, OK. It's both Americans and American companies are paying tariffs. And Americans, actually, might be paying a double price because when companies pay for tariffs, they don't give wage increases. They don't put in more for your 401(k).
LAMBERT: Then we shouldn't have a corporate income tax.
PHILLIP: They don't hire as many people.
LAMBERT: Then why do we have a corporate income tax?
PHILLIP: But let me let me just read this. This is what J.D. Vance -- this is where J.D. Vance said about the --
LAMBERT: We're all paying for that. You can't have a tax on a corporation.
PHILLIP: This is what J.D. Vance said about the Supreme Court. He says "This is lawlessness from the court plain and simple. And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency." So he goes all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States and says that they are lawless. Who gets to determine who the law -- what the law is? Is it not the Supreme Court?
MOYNIHAN: J.D. Vance and Donald Trump are allowed to be upset. And I think they do feel that over the span --
PHILLIP: But lawless, lawlessness?
MOYNIHAN: They were able to curb the inflow of fentanyl. They were able to use this as tools to end wars. Obviously, they're very upset, which of course they would be. They're not allowed to be upset? I mean, look at Biden.
PEARSON: The problem isn't -- the problem isn't just that they're upset. The problem is that they're attacking the Supreme Court of the United States, which is a very --
LAMBERT: The left literally attacked the Supreme Court in the streets and went to their houses.
PEARSON: -- every important branch, is a co-equal branch of government. And when the president United States and the vice president of the United States are attacking the legitimacy of the court's decision, even when we disagree with their decisions, the president of the United States and the vice president doing this really continues to affect and --
MOYNIHAN: OK, OK, AOC said --
PEARSON: But here's the other thing. Here's the other problem.
ALLISON: AOC is not the president.
PEARSON: The tariffs that were put out and that this administration did were illegal, were unconstitutional, and were anti-constitutional. We have a Congress. They have a job. I'm running for Congress. Let Congress do their job. Don't allow don't allow the president of the United States don't allow the president of United States, the vice president of the United States take over what Congress's role is supposed to be. PHILLIP: Trump has never really, Trump has never asked Congress to
codify his tariffs. Why not?
LAMBERT: Well, because --
[10:10:00]
PHILLIP: His party controls both houses. He could do that. Why won't he do it.
LAMBERT: Let me see if I can say something that everybody might agree with. I don't know. I think it should be illegal for foreign countries to be able to lobby our congressmen. And that's what's happening. You've got all these countries that lobby Congress, and guess what they're going to lobby for? No tariffs. So you're going to -- it's going to be a hard time to get this stuff passed into law. That's a major problem.
PHILLIP: Even if that were true, there are also dozens and dozens of American companies who are lobbying to not be subject to these tariffs. And guess what? Some of those companies got tariff exemptions because in this administration, you can get an exemption if you can get into the White House and get the ear of the president, which is, at the very least, an anti-capitalist idea.
ALLISON: It's also tariffs are not bad policy as a whole. It is the way this administration so carelessly did it. Like Democrats do support tariffs. They would be probably willing -- actually, I bet you if he actually tried to follow the three branches of government, that might have actually been a bipartisan piece of legislation.
LAMBERT: Can we agree the tariffs worked? Our trade deficit went to zero, basically.
(CROSS TALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on, hold on. Whoa, whoa, whoa, that did not happen. Just this week, just this week they announced that the trade deficit is now where it was before. There was one brief period when people were front loading tariffs when the trade deficit changed, lowered. That is not the case anymore.
LAMBERT: The trade deficit is way down than where it was for Biden.
PHILLIP: No, no, it is not. Go back and look. Hal, go back and look at it. It's not.
ALLISON: So do you think any of the American people paid any money out of pocket for these tariffs?
LAMBERT: Let me just say this. In the real world, in the real world, if it's purely a capitalist society, yes, the tariffs will be passed on. But when you're looking at China, China can subsidize it and go, you know what? We're going to subsidize this so we don't have tariffs.
PHILLIP: Why do we keep talking about this as if there are not facts available to us.
LAMBERT: There are. There are facts.
PHILLIP: There was a CBO report. There was another report that came out just in the last 30 days that found that between 90 and 95 percent of the tariffs, not speculatively, they have been paid by American companies and by Americans.
LAMBERT: Then where's the inflation? Where's all the inflation that everyone is talking about. Theres been no inflation.
PHILLIP: And so, look, American companies have absorbed some of that cost, but that is not a free lunch, OK. When companies absorb the cost of tariffs, it comes out of their bottom line. It reduces their profits. It changes whether they're willing to spend on R&D, spend on capital, spend on employees.
LAMBERT: I'm glad Democrats are worried about corporations now.
PHILLIP: I get that you don't think that it matters, but it's not the case --
MOYNIHAN: We can all agree that taxes --
ALLISON: You guys keep doing our jobs for us and keep pushing these policies. Because let me tell you something, the American people feel the pain of tariffs. And if that's what you all want to run on 2026, go for it.
PHILLIP: All right, well, we'll leave it there, my friends.
LAMBERT: We have 4.4 percent GDP growth. So --
PHILLIP: All right, next for us, will Donald Trump's FCC crusade backfire when Republicans aren't in power? And why isn't talk radio now under scrutiny as well? Plus, what the workout videos and brunch pictures tell us about the MAGA cabinet.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:17:45]
PHILLIP: Once again, the FCC is at the center of a major controversy. Stephen Colbert claimed this week that CBS lawyers told him not to air an interview with the Texas Senate candidate over equal time rules. The host insists it's because the networks are scared of this administration. CBS denies this.
The FCC chairman confirmed that he is investigating networks, including ABC over "The View". But what about talk radio? For example, Sean Hannity's radio show falls under the FCC's umbrella. And since the new year, which of course is a campaign year, he has had zero, zero Democrats on. But for some reason, Brendan Carr doesn't think that's a problem.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BRENDAN CARR, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: The equal time rule applies to all broadcasters. The particular equal time notice that we put out walked through a number of precedents that applied in the TV context where we had seen that it appeared that programmers were either overreading or misreading some of the case law on the equal time rule as it applies to broadcast TV. We haven't seen the same issues on the radio side, but the equal time rule is going to apply to broadcast across the board.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Well, if he hasn't seen it on the radio side, maybe it's because he's not looking, because talk radio is actually pretty dominated by conservative outlets and radio broadcasters. So where's the outrage?
PEARSON: Absolutely. This should scare everybody. When the Trump administration is deciding who can be listened to or who will not be listened to about whether or not they angered the president of the United States or are somehow anti-conservative, this is silencing dissent. This is antithetical to the First Amendment.
MOYNIHAN: Where is this happening?
PEARSON: I mean, you see what happened with Stephen Colbert.
MOYNIHAN: What happened with Stephen Colbert? Was he silenced?
PEARSON: We saw this happen with Jimmy Kimmel. I mean, the FCC is abusing --
MOYNIHAN: Are they silenced?
PEARSON: -- and misusing their authority and their power in a way that I think is detrimental and harmful to our ideals about democracy.
MOYNIHAN: OK, no one is being silenced. And I'm so tired of these late-night hosts who act like they're martyrs and they think they're so brave for saying, I'm standing up to Donald Trump. No. They're unsuccessful, overpaid whiners. And this is the best thing that you can do to ingratiate yourself to Hollywood and the media is to go after Donald Trump. And there is actually no --
[10:20:00]
LAMBERT: And by the way, this was Democrat on Democrat violence. This had nothing to do -- this is a primary.
MOYNIHAN: Jimmy Kimmel has a show. The issue that happened this week is that James Talarico --
LAMBERT: Yes.
MOYNIHAN: -- went on --
ALLISON: Well, you actually had a Freudian slip. Jimmy Kimmel was silenced when the FCC --
PEARSON: He was silenced.
ALLISON: We're talking about Stephen Colbert right now.
MOYNIHAN: No, no, Disney fired him. Disney fired him.
ALLISON: Why did Disney fire him? You've got to take a couple more steps.
PHILLIP: They did not fire him.
ALLISON: They paused him. They paused him. They paused him.
LAMBERT: Jasmine Crockett was the one that was that was denied equal time. This had nothing to do with Republican-Democrat. Jasmine Crockett is running against him. They would not have her on. OK, they wanted this particular candidate to win. They've made the decision they wanted to win and they wanted to put him on late night show. This had nothing to do with the FCC. Brendan Carr said he had nothing to do with this decision.
PHILLIP: Well, just a second. But I mean, I feel like we're kind of putting the cart before the horse here, because the idea that the equal time rule even applies to Stephen Colbert is a novel thing. That's what Brendan Carr was announcing, essentially, is that he has decided that despite the last 20 plus years this not actually applying to late night hosts, he wants to make it apply to them. And he wants to make it apply to daytime TV, like "The View". So that's the thing that's changing.
And that's what Colbert says is the threat. The threat is not this one incident. The threat is he's decided he's going to change the rules to try to target a certain segment of television.
LAMBERT: I think that's Colbert trying to get ratings now, because that didn't happen in this case. In this case, it was it was the network decided we can't have him on without having Jasmine Crockett on.
PHILLIP: But do you understand why the network would have said that? They said that because Brendan Carr issued that statement about a week before this incident, and essentially gave a warning sign to these networks that if you don't, you know, if you don't have whatever, if you don't have apply equal time, I'm going to go after you.
LAMBERT: Do you think it was fair to have one candidate on versus the other in the Democratic primary?
PHILLIP: I think that -- I think that historically, that concept of equal time would not have even applied. So if that, if that --
ALLISON: Do you think Sean Hannity should have equal time?
PHILLIP: So what is the purpose of putting that into place? I think that's the question for the administration. And then the next question is, also, OK, if you're going to do it for TV, why won't you do it for Sean Hannity?
ALLISON: That's right.
PHILLIP: He doesn't have a single Democrat on ever.
ALLISON: Everything is like, everything is -- I guess, I mean, like, look if you want to stack the deck for your team, OK. Just don't pretend like you're not. That's my whole thing is like --
LAMBERT: But this was an entertainment deal.
ALLISON: So then, so do you think they should have had the Republican candidates on?
LAMBERT: But that's wasn't what this was about.
MOYNIHAN: This is in the middle of a primary.
ALLISON: But they have a primary too.
LAMBERT: Yes, but they're not running against each other right now.
ALLISON: The Republicans are having a primary. The primary, the primary -- when this whole thing came up, the origin story was on the equal time was not just Democrat against Democrat. It was that late night shows were not having Republicans on. When they ran the data. It was saying that late night shows were having primarily Democrats on. And so equal time was for Democrat and Republican, not Democrat against Democrat.
PHILLIP: What you're talking about, you're saying that Republicans wanted the equal time.
ALLISON: So that they could have fair time space on. So why not have the Republicans folks on too?
PHILLIP: So let me let me play Jasmine, let me play Jasmine Crockett.
ALLISON: So why do you need equal time?
PHILLIP: She is a player --
LAMBERT: Jasmine Crockett is the one complaining.
ALLISON: The FCC is the one saying equal time.
PHILLIP: She is a player in this as well. Let me play what Jasmine Crockett has said about this whole situation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT, (D-TX): I did not get a request from the Colbert show to go on. As you know, I've been on Colbert multiple times. And so there were a number of options that could be put on the table. And frankly, you know, "The Late Show" decided that this was the option, and I think that it was a good strategy. I mean, look at what happened when they tried to censor CECOT. We found out that you could get a lot more views. So I think it probably gave my opponent the boost he was looking for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Do you think that there's some truth to that?
PEARSON: Look, I think the problem that we have and that we have to articulate is we have an administration that is determining who gets a voice, who gets an opportunity to speak and who does not. When the administration is wielding and misusing its power in this way, all of us really need to speak up and speak out against it and about it. I think Jasmine is an amazing candidate. I think James is an amazing candidate. I think we are going to have a Democratic U.S. senator. But the reality is, when we look at Sean Hannity, when we look at these other people who also have platforms that are under the FCC umbrella, they are not getting critiqued. They are not being told they need equal time. They are not ensuring that there is a diverse number of opinions. This is really targeted at really institutions or organizations that are seen as more progressive or more Democratic leaning.
PHILLIP: How does the administration justify that? How do they justify? I think the phrase that -- I can't remember exactly the phrase that Brendan Carr used, but he was talking about sort of politically-minded shows are the ones that he is focused on. Why is it only the television shows that are critical of the president that Trump has called out by name?
[10:25:06]
Why isn't the FCC dealing with its entire mandate, which includes radio as well?
MOYNIHAN: In my experience speaking with, you know, Buck Sexton or some of these notable radio hosts, they complain, we would love to have Democrats on. Any time we try and get a Democrat on, they don't want to come.
PHILLIP: See, but that's not how equal time works. You don't you don't get a pass.
MOYNIHAN: They would be happy --
LAMBERT: So wait, if Democrats refuse to go on they should shut down the radio shows.
PHILLIP: Well, listen, ask Brendan Carr, OK?
ALLISON: They started this. This is the problem.
PHILLIP: I think that the lack of the -- why then, you know, why would he investigate "The View"? I mean, Republicans go on "The View".
MOYNIHAN: No. OK, what I say about this --
PHILLIP: There are --
(CROSS TALK)
PHILLIP: More Republicans go on "The View" than Buck Sexton's show.
MOYNIHAN: There were 120 plus liberals on "The View". There were two Republican guests. One of them was Marjorie Taylor Greene, and she was only invited on because she criticized Trump.
ALLISON: And you're making --
PHILLIP: This is a campaign thing, right. OK? You just mentioned a conservative show, and you're saying that if liberals don't want to come on or whatever, then that makes them exempt from the FCC jurisdiction. And it doesn't.
ALLISON: It doesn't.
PHILLIP: It doesn't.
MOYNIHAN: Should Democrats be forced to go on their show?
PHILLIP: Brendan Carr never asked the question, well, did you invite, you know -- because it doesn't even need to be on the Colbert show. It could be anywhere else on CBS. Did CBS invite any of the other candidate to come on? He never asked that question. He simply suggested that they would be subject to enforcement. And they're doing the same with "The View", which is part of a broader network that, again, has Republicans on.
MOYNIHAN: News shows are exempt from that equal time.
ALLISON: This is what happened here.
PHILLIP: Yes.
ALLISON: This is what happened here.
PHILLIP: OK, let me let me just clarify this, because this is important. What you said is correct. But this is why we're talking about this right now, because previously shows like "The View" and these late night shows were underneath the umbrella of bona fide news programs. They were exempt, right. And now they're not, because Brendan Carr doesn't want them to be. And so that's why were talking about this. That's why it matters.
ALLISON: This is what happened, and it happened with the tariffs, and it happened with other policies that this Trump administration does. They take a big swing, and they don't look at what part of the field they're trying to hit the ball to. They don't know if there's somebody out in the outfield that can catch it. They don't know how far it is to get a homerun. And then when they do it and something happens, I don't think they ever anticipated that this would be a Democrat against a Democratic thing. But now you actually have to answer some real questions that they haven't thought out of. But the underlying intention was to actually put some intimidation, to put a silencing effect.
MOYNIHAN: Then who has been silenced?
ALLISON: But what we're saying is it's not about who has been silenced. It's about a fair application of the law. And that is something this administration isn't too familiar with. They do things that think are going to have one consequence. And when the fact pattern plays out differently, they get caught on their heels because they don't know what to do.
So the answer is fine, if they didn't air the Talarico interview, that's OK. They didn't air it, maybe they are beneficial consequences to Talarico. The question still goes by the fair application of this law is, what about the Republican radio hosts?
LAMBERT: Then file a lawsuit, go to court.
ALLISON: Again, I think
MOYNIHAN: I would love to see Democrats dragged onto Republican and conservative talk shows. I think that would be great.
PHILLIP: Next for us, why does Trump's cabinet like to show off their bench presses and ice baths? We'll discuss.
Plus, Meghan McCain says that Republicans need to stop telling Americans to have more babies. We'll tell you why.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:33:03]
PHILLIP: Is Donald Trump's cabinet a traveling theater group? TikTok influencers, personal trainers or a governing body? You'd be forgiven if you couldn't tell the difference lately. Pete Hegseth has once again filmed himself lifting weights. He and Dr. Oz also did a brunch, which included ice baths and hanging from trees. And then there's Kristi Noem. She is no stranger to a photo op, appearing to mishandle a firearm there. And of course, the week's most viral video, perhaps not for all the right reasons
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: A shirtless bromance between Kid Rock and RFK Jr. featuring a hot tub, milk, swimming in jeans, and sauna biking. I don't know, guys, it seems just kind of cringe to me.
LAMBERT: These are great.
PHILLIP: It's cringe.
LAMBERT: Look, do we all agree that America is unhealthy? We have a lot of unhealthy people in this country. They're trying to get people to be more healthy. And I don't think it's cringe at all. I think it's great television. I think it's great.
(LAUGHTER)
LAMBERT: I really don't think it's cringe. And let me just say this as well, I mean, look, no one called it cringe when Mamdani was trying to do bench presses and he couldn't bench press 100 pounds.
PHILLIP: It was cringe. That was totally cringe.
LAMBERT: It was a mistake because he got made fun of for how light his weight was.
PEARSON: He still won.
LAMBERT: He did win. But listen, these guys, look, I think people, look, Bobby Kennedy looks good, doesn't he? I mean, he's fit. I mean, why not get people out there to get more fit?
PEARSON: Listen, government is not reality TV. And this administration has turned government into reality TV for clicks, for likes, and for shares, and instead of doing their actual jobs, which is to actually be improving the lives of people in this country. They're doing this, right. I don't think this is -- I don't think this is how you make people healthier, right? If you want to make people healthier, you give them more resources, create more opportunities for them to engage in healthy activities.
[10:35:02]
There are policies and programs that we should be advocating for to make sure that people can live the lives they need. This is, this is turning our government into reality TV.
PHILLIP: Well, not for nothing. All of this talk of healthy whatever and MAHA, this week the news was also that the Trump administration is trying to protect this chemical that has been linked to cancer, glyphosate, which the MAHA moms are furious about. And there were other things about forever chemicals in our water and whether the EPA is actually going to regulate those things. I mean, there's real policy. And I personally am wondering, are we actually seeing that or is this just theater?
ALLISON: Well, first, America would have been a whole lot healthier if you just would have let Michelle Obama do it so many years ago.
LAMBERT: Well, she got eight years to do it I don't know what happened.
ALLISON: But the way you all fought her on it, maybe if you just would have let her do her thing it would be a healthier --
PHILLIP: Tried to keep pizza as a vegetable on school menus.
ALLISON: I do think that there are real concerns. I do wonder, is our water safe? Is the air we breathe, is it getting more polluted? Are the chemicals in our food? What are the regulations? I understand that some Americans feel that this country is overregulated, but there are some things that when you ingest chemicals that are unhealthy for you and they cause cancer, that also is just as unhealthy as not doing an ice plunge bath, apparently, and drinking whole milk while doing it.
PEARSON: And we have to remember that this is the same secretary who has been gutting the CDC, has been ensuring that people don't get vaccines for themselves or for their kids. And so if you're going to make America healthy again, you need to go back to the policies that experts --
PHILLIP: Yes. Lets start by --
LAMBERT: Go back? Go back to what? We're very unhealthy.
PHILLIP: Lets start by not having kids with measles. Can we --
ALLISON: I know.
PHILLIP: Can we, like, stop the measles outbreak? I mean, come on.
MOYNIHAN: I didn't need to see that video. I'm not going to lie.
(LAUGHTER)
ALLISON: Thank you.
MOYNIHAN: I mean, wearing blue jeans and a cold plunge is a little strange.
ALLISON: How hard is it going to be to get off?
MOYNIHAN: RFK -- oh, God. Yes, RFK, he is the most, he is the most liked politician, essentially, of our time, more so than Gavin Newsom. He has very high favorability ratings, more so than Marco Rubio. But yes, I don't I don't think that this was necessary. I don't --
ALLISON: I agree.
MOYNIHAN: I don't know who the intended audience was, but it wasn't me.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, it was a troll. I mean we'll allow for that.
LAMBERT: But I think they wanted to do something fun, and they did it. And Kid Rock, who knows who came up with the idea. It's probably Kid Rock. But like --
PHILLIP: It was someone in the digital, digital marketing office of one of these --
ALLISON: Just put your shirt on. Do a sit up, a push up, put our shirt on.
PHILLIP: All right, we'll leave it with that one. Meghan McCain, she's got a message for her fellow conservatives --
stop shaming women if they don't have children. We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:42:30]
PHILLIP: Get busy living or get busy trying. Americans right now are being pushed with an interesting new narrative.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: I want a baby boom.
J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT: So let me say very simply, I want more babies in the United States of America.
ELON MUSK, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: If people don't have more children, civilization is going to crumble.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Rachel Campos-Duffy even told Americans to have more babies than you can afford. But fellow conservative Meghan McCain calls the messaging harsh and says it needs to stop. She argues that some women can't become mothers or haven't found the right person. McCain says that the lectures risk alienating a lot of women. On top of that, there's also an economic problem, from housing to groceries. It is getting harder and harder for younger Americans to afford children, and also even just their own lives, frankly. But there's nothing like a bunch of men telling you to have babies. That really strikes the right chord, right?
ALLISON: Yes. I mean, have more babies than you can afford. I remember an era when people would say that was so dysfunctional and so irresponsible. But now, I mean, sure, maybe have more babies you can't afford and have social safety nets to help you support it. I don't know. But we know that's not what this administration does.
Look, I think stay out of people's bedrooms. Stay off like, don't worry about what I do with my body. And if I want to have a child, I will.
PHILLIP: How does that work? Tell people to have more babies. Tell them to have more babies that they can afford. But then also tell them that it's immoral to be on social safety net programs, food stamps, what have you, housing vouchers?
MOYNIHAN: Well, I just want to sort of say, for context, this whole baby boom thing, I think, I think what the right is trying to do is to celebrate motherhood and encourage people to get married and have children, which I would say the vast majority of my friends, even in a liberal city like New York, most women want to get married and have children. I think for decades we were sort of told this "Sex and the City" narrative of, you know, men come and go. Just be with your girlfriends, focus on work.
And I think women were discouraged and sometimes even shamed for wanting to be a stay-at-home mom or wanting these sort of more traditional things.
PHILLIP: I think that's true, yes.
MOYNIHAN: So I think that's where a lot of Republicans are coming from. And I think feminism means that women should be encouraged to make whatever choice they want.
I also, I totally understand what Meghan McCain is saying, and I think we have to be careful that we can encourage this, but also make sure that women who haven't found the right guy, or maybe that's not their path, you know, they shouldn't feel that they're alienated from the GOP.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, look, I do think that -- I don't think there's really anything wrong with saying, hey, if you want to be a mother, be a mother.
[10:45:03]
But I also think that if you're in a position of policy power, then you have to back that up with something that actually makes it a real thing for women, because the reason they're not like settling down and having kids we know isn't just because -- isn't entirely because there are two career driven or indecisive or anything like that. A lot of families are saying it's just too expensive.
PEARSON: Because it is too expensive. This administration is making that worse. I was just talking to a mom and in New York City for child care, it's $3,000 a month, or $3,500. Back home, it's an equal amount to rent $1,200 a month for one kid who's three-years-old. It is too expensive to have a kid. I am married. I have an amazing wife. We want to have kids, but it won't be happening any time soon because the cost of everything are too much, whether it be our housing, whether it be having transportation, we don't have good public transportation systems. You're looking at the cost of a lemon going up from $0.83 three months ago to $1 now. People are struggling. Even utility costs are going up for people. And the cost that they're paying for public utilities or for their utilities is taking a higher percentage of their income.
So people are really struggling to live. And you have the most powerful people elected in the world who are saying no, just go have babies, without ever providing any of the necessary resources to make it possible for you to have a family and to raise a family in a way that makes it sustainable for you and for them.
LAMBERT: It always comes back to the government needs to give out more money. And I just -- that's not what this is about. I mean, you're talking about higher costs.
PHILLIP: To be fair, Trump did do the Trump accounts. So they're also planning to give out money to people to have kids. LAMBERT: They want to get people involved in the capitalist system early, correct, so that when they're older they actually appreciate capitalism.
PEARSON: Whose money are they using to do that?
LAMBERT: Well, right now it's Michael Dell and others. That's who has funded this.
PHILLIP: Yes, but they're giving out -- it's government money. It's like taxpayer dollars. And also they've increased the child tax credit. I mean look, they're giving out dollars.
LAMBERT: But when you talk about higher costs, I mean, we had massive inflation under Biden. So OK, the costs are high. We have $20 hamburgers because of Joe Biden's policies, not because of President Trump's policies. But I would just say that, you know, when you have these higher costs out there, it is a factor. But what they're just saying is listen, we people need to have children. To sustain society we need to have children. We all know that. If you look across the world, if you look at Europe, when you have a 1.2 birth rate in Italy, where is that going to lead in 20 years? I mean, Italy is going to go away. I mean, that's kind of where were at and we need to --
PEARSON: What people should do. If you looked at that and said we need to make the conditions necessary for people to be able to have children, what are the things that are necessary for that? Maybe higher wages, better jobs, more educational opportunity, access to affordable housing, making sure that people can build or own their first home. It's ensuring safe communities. It's making sure we have clean air, clean water, clean soil. I think there are some things we could do to make that possible.
ALLISON: I don't care if it is affordable, affordable to have children. Like we could be, well, we are the wealthiest country in the world. But we could have the best education system. We could have the highest wages. If someone doesn't want to have a child, it makes them no less of American or a citizen.
LAMBERT: No, that's not what they're saying.
ALLISON: But they did they did during the campaign, what did they call me, a cat lady, or whatever it was?
PHILLIP: A childless cat lady. It is looked upon as a derogatory stance in society if you hit a certain age and you are unmarried and you don't have children. And that, I think, is wrong. And I think that is the undertone of this. So it's not about the economy. It's about valuing people's life choices regardless whether you agree with them or not.
PHILLIP: All right, next for us, the panel is going to give me their unpopular opinions, what they're not afraid to say out loud.
And a special programing note. Timothee Chalamet and Matthew McConaughey, they talk craft and career on CNN Special Variety town hall event tonight at 7:00 p.m. on CNN and on the CNN app.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIMOTHEE CHALAMET, ACTOR: I've legitimately maybe seen it 22 times or something. I saw it 12 times in theaters when it came out.
MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY, ACTOR: His girlfriend set him up a screening of "Interstellar" for his birthday.
CHALAMET: This is true, man. This is true, for my last birthday. And I was grumpy on the way there because I didn't know where she was taking me. It's my birthday. Why are we driving 30 minutes outside of L.A.? I got to the theater. It was "Interstellar" in Imax. I said, oh, I'm sorry.
(LAUGHTER)
CHALAMET: I'm sorry I was so grumpy on the drive. I wasn't going to bring that up, man. But listen, man. I love that movie, man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: We're back, and it's time for your unpopular opinions. Lydia, you're up first.
MOYNIHAN: The plight of sweet baby punch who was abandoned by his mother, bullied by fellow monkeys, and only has a sweet little friend to keep him company. I think he needs a home. He needs to be adopted. Monkeys should be pets.
PHILLIP: Yes, get him out of there. That is a vicious, brutal environment.
MOYNIHAN: Come live with me. I know.
PHILLIP: Yes, I agree.
ALLISON: I would coparent.
PHILLIP: Lydia, that's a popular opinion.
MOYNIHAN: OK, well, I just wanted to talk about Punch, and I couldn't think of an unpopular thing to say about him.
PHILLIP: OK, Ashley.
ALLISON: My unpopular opinion is there should be no diet soda. Like, if you're just going to drink pop, drink it. Like that, fake sugar stuff, just drink it. It's, what is it, 20 ounces? It's not going to kill you.
PHILLIP: It might kill you, but.
(LAUGHTER)
ALLISON: Oh, well. [10:55:00]
PHILLIP: Justin?
PEARSON: Yes, my unpopular opinion is X AI is just a millionaire's plaything. Elon Musk has built this plant that is polluting the air. People in Whitehaven, Westwood, Horn Lake in Mississippi. And billionaires can't continue to pollute and hurt our communities like this.
PHILLIP: All right, Hal?
LAMBERT: Wow. I thought it was supposed to be a little bit light here.
(LAUGHTER)
LAMBERT: I think there's been way more drama off the ice in the Olympics than on the ice. I mean, you had the Norwegian biathlete that got up and confessed that he cheated on his girlfriend to the whole world and hope she takes him back. And then you had the Canadian team being accused of cheating by the Swedish team on curling. That was a huge drama. They got into it on the on the ice. And then you had a proposal of one of our ice hockey players with one of the speed skaters. So there's a lot going on with the Olympics these days off the ice.
PHILLIP: So sounds like a successful Olympics to me.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much. And thank you for watching "TABLE FOR FIVE". You can catch me every weeknight at 10:00 p.m. eastern with our news night roundtable, and anytime on your favorite social media, X, Instagram, and TikTok. In the meantime, CNN's coverage continues right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
