Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
CNN Saturday Morning Table for Five. Higher Oil Prices Pressuring President Trump to End Conflict with Iran; U.S. Ground Forces En Route to Middle East for Possible Action in Iran; Former Trump Adviser Steve Bannon Says ICE Agents at Airports Good Practice for Using Them to Monitor Midterm Elections; President Trump Draws Controversy for Stating California Governor Gavin Newsom's Dyslexia Disqualifies Him for U.S. Presidency; In Potential Landmark Case, Jury Find Social Media Companies Meta and YouTube Liable for Not Warning Users about Dangers Linked to Their Platforms. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired March 28, 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]
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Today, will low polls and high prices end Donald Trump's war on Iran sooner than expected. The pain is hitting home.
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: It hasn't been nearly as severe as I thought.
SIDNER: Plus --
STEVE BANNON, HOST, "THE WAR ROOM": I think it's perfect training for the fall of 2026.
SIDNER: A MAGA ally says sending ICE to America's airports is a test run for America's midterms.
Also --
TRUMP: I believe he took himself out of the running when he says he suffers from mental disability.
SIDNER: The president says Governor Gavin Newsom's dyslexia is disqualifying for the presidency, while suggesting he's a genius.
TRUMP: I'm the only president that ever took a cognitive test. It's actually a very hard test for a lot of people. It wasn't hard for me.
SIDNER: And is big tech having it's big tobacco moment? A landmark case finds Meta and YouTube liable for addiction.
Here in studio S.E. Cupp, Terry Moran, Nayyera Haq, and Joe Borelli.
It's the weekend. Join the conversation at "TABLE FOR FIVE". (END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Hi there. I'm Sara Sidner in New York.
America's war on Iran is taking its toll just about everywhere. Here at home the president's military actions are pushing up prices on everything from gas to mail packages. It's even causing mortgage rates to rise. And overall, new polling showing broad opposition now to the war. A majority of Americans oppose the U.S. action in Iran. Most think it has gone too far, and that the U.S. Made the wrong decision.
Now, the president's own party is even beginning to sour on this. Many complain about the lack of answers and strategy. Others, like Nancy Mace, says Iran is becoming another Iraq.
Meantime, mixed messaging from the Trump administration continues. The U.S. is deploying more troops. The Pentagon is asking for $200 billion to help fund the war. The White House says the Iranian military and regime is decimated, but they're still able to hold the Strait of Hormuz. And yet, President Trump keeps declaring victory
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: We've won this. This war has been won where. They have no Navy and they have no air force and they have no nothing.
Oh, I think we've won. But from a military standpoint, they're finished.
We've won. Let me tell you, we've won. You know, you never like to say too early you won. We won. We won the bet. In the first hour it was over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: We've got a lot to discuss. And Americans are watching this, but so is the world to see how this is going to end. How can you say you've won when we have troops actually going there? We've got reporting that the 82nd Airborne paratroopers are on their way. This is the beginning of what you would use if you wanted to do a ground invasion.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Well, look, I mean to say we've won militarily, at this point I think we've displayed that our technology and capabilities are far superior to the Iranians. Certainly, the Iranians have not been able to mount any serious attack. I mean, they fired two missiles at Diego Garcia last week. They presumably fell somewhere in the ocean. They're losing their ability to conduct any forward operation every single day.
And right now they're controlling the Strait of Hormuz largely because of fear and it's a zero sum game for oil shippers, right? Not every oil shipper will get hit by some attack or drone. But if you're an operator, you're not taking any risk whatsoever. So that's really the state of play that we're at now. NAYYERA HAQ, ASSISTANT DEAN, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY'S MAXWELL SCHOOL:
That's what's fascinating about all of this, is that Iran is using a lot of the tools the United States used to in the past, with economic sanctions, economic relief, using corporate interests and other concerns, and not really doing the military thing that it could have done, but opted not to.
So look at the Strait of Hormuz specifically. They have gotten sanctions relief. For the first time, Iran is able to sell oil directly to the United States since 1995. Why? Because the United States simply needed oil. All of that hoopla that was over Obama gave them a gift, all of that. Iran got one of the biggest things it has wanted in the last 40 years, which is be able to sell its oil directly to the world stage.
So they've got a new, younger, more -- possibly even more angry mullah now in charge, because the United States killed the guy's entire family, including his wife and children. So you haven't changed the structure of the regime. Iran is getting more money, and they now want to defend their homeland. So longer term, military wins for the U.S., but what does this get us otherwise?
SIDNER: S.E., I'm curious when you're also talking about what has happened with the regime.
[10:05:03]
At the very beginning of this of this war, the president would mention regime change. He was sort of toying with it, right. And certainly Israel has said that's their stated goal. They would like to see regime change, in effect regime change. Did the U.S. miscalculate here, do you think, as you're looking at what's happening and how long this is going on?
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think Trump certainly did. I think Iran has been preparing for a war of attrition with the United States for like 20 years. They could be in this for the long haul. If Trump decided to quit Iran today, that doesn't mean Iran quits the U.S. or quits this war. There are things they could continue to do, both to Arab states in the Gulf region, to our allies, to Israel, and to our assets that would keep us involved in this because we would have to keep interacting if they didn't take our, you know, our quitting at face value. If they, if they thought we'd like to get something out of this and save face, they could keep going.
So Trump really miss -- I think, underestimated just how prepared Iran was for this. I want U.S. success, of course. The problem, I think for so many people is we don't know who to trust. Now, I know not to trust Iran. I know not to trust anything Iran is publicly saying. But it feels like Trump and the United States are engaged in just as much propaganda. What Trump is saying from we won to, you know, we just got a gift of eight to ten oil boats through the Strait of Hormuz. This all feels like it's not intended for us. This is intended for Iran. These are threats. These are attempts at forcing some kind of diplomatic resolution to a war that Trump started. I just don't know that that's going to work. And I don't think it's getting anyone at home to a feeling of confidence either that this will be over soon, or with any wins for us when we leave.
SIDNER: Terry, I would like you to talk a little bit about some of the messaging that we have seen, because when people listen to some of the different things that, whether it's the president talking or the defense secretary, it feels confusing as to what is happening. And obviously, you're not going to put all your cards on the table and tell everyone what your plan is. But the plan seems to be sometimes nebulous. Is that the way that you would describe it?
TERRY MORAN, VETERAN JOURNALIST: Well, to be charitable, Donald Trump is an improvisational actor, right? He senses opportunities and seizes on them. In war, the commander in chief must be credible and words still have meaning. Karoline Leavitt is out there saying Iran is defeated and will continue to be defeated. They're firing off missiles every day that are killing people, destroying critical energy infrastructure, and they're continuing to dominate strategically the choke point of the world, not just for oil, but for helium, which apparently is necessary. Who knew? To every single microchip.
HAQ: I got another one for you, urea, which is the --
MORAN: Fertilizer.
HAQ: There you go.
MORAN: So you know who also said we won like that? Obviously, George Bush, with mission accomplished, and the generals who were trying to fight George Washington, because he kept retreating, right, from Boston to New York to all the way down into New Jersey and beyond. And they said, we've won this war. The enemy always has a say, and you can't B.S. your way out of a war.
SIDNER: Joe, how much do you think that Republicans, because we're starting to see. At first there was support generally from the Republican Party when you looked at polling, but it's starting to erode. Why do you think that is?
BORELLI: You know, I think you have a healthy debate within the Republican Party about this issue. I don't think people are abandoning Trump by, you know, by and large. That's not happening. In fact, even the sort of the case in point is Nancy Mace, who has come out and sort of been this, this, this you know, flashpoint of we don't want to see boots on the ground. That's not the same thing as saying we want another Iraq war. We want another long-term engagement. Deploying, you know, 2,200 marines on a ship, deploying 2,000 paratroopers is perhaps a leverage point for Trump. That is not the same thing as a largescale U.S. deployment over a long time. I think that's where Trump would lose a lot of the just grassroots support. That hasn't happened yet. We have to be clear that has not happened yet. But Nancy Mace, for all her flaws or whatever, she is raising an issue that is of concern to Republicans.
MORAN: Its 5,000 marines.
BORELLI: Two ships. MORAN: And 2,000 airborne, and those are boots on the ground. You
don't take them out of where they are at great expense and risking a little bit of weakness where they should be.
CUPP: But you know what we had left --
BORELLI: But if 2,000 paratroopers are necessary to actually take physical control over enriched uranium, isn't that not a good use and a good ending to this scenario? I would say it is. I would say it is.
MORAN: It depends on the cost.
HAQ: That's not a debate, right? Like, that debate was not made to the American public prior to this, right. Typically, going to messaging, a commander in chief or any leader would bring their own public along first.
[10:10:05]
I mean, OK, we were lied to about the Iraq war, but at least they bothered to lie to us and cared enough to lie to us to bring us aboard on that. And then you move that to how you're able to execute in the battlefield. At the end of the war in Afghanistan, we only had 2,000 troops on the ground. And did you see the disaster of what happened when we left and how we left? So I'm not saying it's a --
BORELLI: So you're saying the president should say, hey, we're going to deploy to Isfahan right now.
HAQ: It's not another 20 years in Iraq. It's not another 20 years in Afghanistan. But at least over there, we understood, if you break it, you've got to stick around to fix it for a little bit. This potentially makes it even a tighter cycle of terrorist infrastructure getting into place, right. When we left Iraq, that's where ISIS came in. The Taliban are back. So do we really want to see that cycle move even faster?
BORELLI: The terrorism infrastructure was in place for the last 40 years. I think that's the sort of justification behind the war. It's whether they still have the ability to finance proxies, whether they still have the ability to, you know, arm --
HAQ: And now we've seen --
BORELLI: Those are the things that are, I think, significant wins for America.
CUPP: Here's how I know that Republican lawmakers are really sick of this, and they're worried, because it's an election year. In case anyone forgot, it's an election year. They are running. I'm sure you've noticed because you've interviewed a bunch of them, running to cameras, dying to get on television to say, I don't think we're going to get boots on the ground. I don't want boots on the ground. We don't need boots on the ground. Trump shouldn't put boots on the ground. And you see it echoed at Trump's -- on Trump's favorite sort of media outlets. FOX News anchors saying we should definitely not put boots on the ground.
They are trying to communicate to Trump that they don't want this because they have no other way to do it. He's not listening to them. He's listening to Laura Loomer and Lindsey Graham, and he's being shown videos of stuff blowing up, and that's his briefing. So you can sense the desperation among a lot of Republican lawmakers who know they can't get to Trump any other way than by going on to CNN or FOX News or all the cables to beg him, sort of indirectly, please don't go farther than we've already gone.
SIDNER: Coming up for us, are ICE officials at the airports the preview for ICE going to the polls? One key MAGA ally thinks it should be. We'll discuss that.
And, is this a turning point for big tech? A landmark ruling says Meta and YouTube are liable for screen addiction. That story is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:17:10]
SIDNER: This week, some of America's airports were in chaos. ICE did show up after weeks of a DHS shutdown to try and deal with these lines, at least try to help in some way. But the lines kept growing. TSA agents kept disappearing. Congress kept dragging its feet on a deal before the president declared an emergency and ordered those agents get paid. He ordered ICE agents into the airports. They started small, handing out water, helping with crowd control. But now we're told they're taking a more active role in security. That includes verifying I.D.s, which, according to one MAGA ally, could be a test run for the midterms. Let him explain.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, HOST, "THE WAR ROOM": We can use what's happening with these ICE helping out, helping out at the airports, we can use this as a test run, as a test case to get really perfect ICE's involvement in the 2026 midterm elections, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I think we should have ICE agents at the polling places.
BANNON: I think it's perfect training for the fall of 2026. Look what happened. They moved everybody along. People get there quick. They vote quick. Maybe every now and again they pull somebody out of line, hey, yo, I.D., got an I.D.?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: S.E., is this a good idea to have ICE there checking I.D.s or standing there armed as people are trying to vote.
CUPP: First of all, there's no need for that. Our elections in 2024 and 2020 and 2016, were fine. They were secure. They were free and fair. To the stupidity of -- imagine you're a TSA agent. You haven't been paid. You haven't been paid because of ICE. You're working, and the guy behind you, the ICE agent, is watching you work. He's getting paid, and you're not. The stupidity of this. I couldn't imagine the indignity of being in a TSA worker right now with ICE watching you do your job. They're getting paid. You're not.
But the biggest, the big picture problem with this is we should not want a militarized United States, with our streets militarized, our voting militarized, our airports militarized. I am so concerned about the North Korea coded stuff that is going on right now. From Pam Bondi unfurling a banner with Trump's face on it on the DOJ building to Trump putting his signature on our currency and his name on the Kennedy Center, to inviting only friendly media outlets who are going to say exactly what you want in Pentagon briefings. I mean, it goes on and on and on.
When did we want to become North Korea? This should be unnerving, disturbing to everyone. This is not partisan. This is scary stuff. So it can feel like a slow creep, and MAGA will justify it using Trump's lie about the election. But look around. Look around at your country, people.
[10:20:00]
Is this what you want? You want to walk down the street and see, you know, rifles, guys with guns patrolling because for no reason at all, just to intimidate you? Is that what you want? You want to walk around and see the president's face on the Department of Justice, which is a separate but co-equal branch of government? It's bananas.
HAQ: I think there are people who do. Clearly that people who do, I mean, based on the fact alone, and I'm not talking about the voting numbers, right around the election time, there was a poll that came out, and it was listed what are authoritarian actions when it comes to criminalization, arresting people, people at the border, how rights should work. And 40 percent of Americans picked the actions that are considered authoritarian, right?
That is, there is a strain in our country that wants to feel powerful and strong with a gun because they assume it's not going to be directed at them. And that's what I think is a dangerous part.
CUPP: That's right. They're happy, they have all the right enemies. So they're t MAGA because MAGA has all the right enemies. But it's not just going to be --
HAQ: It's not going to stop there.
CUPP: -- trained on your enemies. At some point it's going to come back on you. And that's what people don't realize about the list of authoritarian --
BORELLI: Let's just get back down to earth. You know, the North Korea comparison is a little extreme considering --
CUPP: No, it's not.
BORELLI: -- that 80 plus percent of Americans say, yes, you should have I.D.'s at the polls site.
CUPP: That has nothing to do with ICE.
BORELLI: Which obviously means that someone should be checking your I.D.s. But you know what does have something to do with ICE. You mentioned armed guards at polls. You know what happens every single year? You mentioned the 2016 election, 2020, 2024. There are armed guards at every poll. They're called police officers. They're in every single poll site here, and --
HAQ: And that's their job and what they're trained to do. ICE is customs enforcement at the border.
BORELLI: Wait, hold on.
CUPP: They have no business there.
BORELLI: What points --
CUPP: And you know that. You know that.
BORELLI: Steve Bannon is a provocateur, right? He's doing what he's doing because we talk about crazy stuff he says on CNN and more people watch his show. That's why he does this. However, the idea of voter I.D. and someone checking that I.D. is still wildly popular with Americans.
CUPP: It's a strawman. You can have that without ICE. You know that.
BORELLI: One more mistake you made. You said that TSA agent is mad at ICE because ICE is getting paid. No, they should be mad at Democrats for dropping funding and causing this crisis.
CUPP: They are. They're not mad at ICE. They're annoyed that ICE is getting paid to watch them do the job they're not getting paid for.
BORELLI: ICE should buy them coffee. If you're in the airport, you're an ICE agent, you should buy your TSA colleagues --
HAQ: That's really going to solve everything.
CUPP: Yes, great.
HAQ: Thats what they want, free coffee.
BORELLI: Come on.
SIDNER: Wait a minute. Let's be clear that TSA isn't just mad at Democrats. They are mad at Democrats. They are mad at Republicans. They are mad at Trump.
CUPP: And they should be. SIDNER: And we're also hearing from people in lines every single day.
One of our reporters in Atlanta, which is the busiest airport in the world, Ryan Young, has been talking to people every day, and every day they're just mad at Congress and the president. They just want this fixed.
BORELLI: When a party causes a shutdown, we typically blame that party for doing that. This is a Democrat -- this is the second time in the Trump presidency, this is Democratic owned --
SIDNER: But what I'm telling you is that's not how people are seeing it.
(CROSS TALK)
CUPP: It's not even true. It's not even true.
HAQ: OK, so you know what people are clearly seeing? $550 million a day, right? Oh, no, it's actually even worse, $550 million is a social media number of what they make a day. The billions of dollars a day it is costing in Iran. Like how quickly that is spread. Oh, we have money for war when we --
BORELLI: When, are you happy Trump's paying --
HAQ: We have, we have --
BORELLI: Are you happy President Trump signed the executive order. Is that a good thing?
HAQ: I think that's a great thing.
BORELLI: All right, good.
HAQ: And you know what, because that's actually Trump recognizing that this is going to be a pain point for him, the fact that 400 TSA agents have quit, that this is a huge customer service like American pocketbook issue. When people like you and me are making decisions to drive 11 or 15 hours rather than take the flights that we scheduled for our families, that's real.
CUPP: And paid for.
HAQ: And paid for.
MORAN: First, ICE at the airports, one thing we learned in the giant ramp up of ICE personnel is the training was lacking. And that's not just liberals saying that. Law enforcement that worked with them were saying, these guys are amateurs, and they need more training at their jobs. These aren't even their jobs. And so we're asking them to do this.
And about them at the at the ballot box, I covered an election in Russia once. And there were armed guards at every election station, and they were watching everybody come in and made sure who everybody voted. I don't want to live in that country. BORELLI: But do you live in New York, Terry?
MORAN: They were local police. It is federal soldiers.
BORELLI: If you asked a local Democrat here, one of the Mamdani coalitions, they'll tell you that NYPD is ICE and fascists and dictators.
MORAN: I'm not saying that.
BORELLI: I'm just saying.
MORAN: I'm not saying that.
CUPP: That's not a real argument.
BORELLI: It is a real argument.
CUPP: It's not.
BORELLI: One guy with ICE --
HAQ: The entire U.S. national security structure is built on that difference.
BORELLI: Theres what, 3,000 ICE agents? Theres 40,000 polling sites.
MORAN: As a Republican, you want the federal government to send federal law enforcement agents, or troops, as has been suggested, to the states to govern elections? That is like Russia.
BORELLI: There isn't enough. There isn't enough. There's more, there's more NYPD officers alone than the FBI, right. And they're the largest federal law enforcement agency.
[10:25:01]
So it's not going to happen. This is why this is this is a Steve Bannon exercise in getting us to talk about him so more people listen to him.
(CROSS TALK)
SIDNER: Hold on a second. He's not the only one saying it. DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin did not rule out sending ICE to the polls. Let's let you listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, THEN-NOMINEE, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: The only reason why my officers would be there if there was a specific threat for them to be there, not for intimidation.
Then we will work with local law enforcement. There will be a reason for us to be there, and it will be known why we're there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: So he's not ruling it out. He's saying if there's a threat. I mean, a threat could be a lot of different things. And I guess the question is why ICE? Why ICE.
BORELLI: That's a bit different than what Steve Bannon was saying on the radio.
SIDNER: It is different. But why, why ICE? Why use ICE? There are other agencies that could be used. Not that anyone wants to see people with, you know, guns just standing there watching you go in and out.
BORELLI: Play out Markwayne Mullin's theory. If there is a reason, meaning someone called, there's some illegal immigrant present at a polling site and they get a call for that, why is it a problem that ICE show up there? To use his own, to use his own format of what he's saying would be the conditions of ICE going to a polling site, why is that wrong?
SIDNER: I don't think that was his condition. Yes, I don't think that was --
BORELLI: He said if there is a specific.
SIDNER: He said a threat. He said a threat.
BORELLI: A threat or a reason, obviously this is what ICE does. ICE goes after people who are here illegally. If they have some issue related to their course of business, why would we not want them to --
MORAN: I am haunted by a memory, OK, of December 2020 in the Oval Office when Donald Trump demanded that the military, the National Guard, be called out in each of the seven swing states that he had lost and supervise a reelection, hold an election again under, like Putin's Russia, the eyes of federal troops. That's in him. And anybody who pretends that's not in him doesn't know him.
SIDNER: All right, we're going to leave it there, because next, President Trump once again attacking California Governor Gavin Newsom, calling his dyslexia a mental disability that disqualifies him to ever be president. We will discuss this conversation coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:31:38]
SIDNER: California Governor Gavin Newsom has been pretty candid about his lifelong struggle with dyslexia, a condition that Yale says impacts about 20 percent of the population and is not connected to a person's overall intelligence. And yet, the president of the United States called him stupid, someone with a mental disability, and disqualified from seeking the White House. These are his words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: I believe he took himself out of the running when he says he suffers from mental disability. And a reporter said it was terrible that I talked that way about somebody with mental disability. I said, I have no problem with it, but I don't want a person with mental disability to be my president.
Gavin Newsom said that he can't read a speech. He can't do almost anything. He's actually a very stupid person. So I believe he's out of the running. I think that that statement, that interview, he admitted that he's a stupid person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right, Joe, was this a huge, huge mistake on his part?
BORELLI: You know, I think dyslexia, I forget the number off the top of my head, but it's something like one in 10 or one in 15 people. It's a pretty common disability that people have. So I don't think you should be, you know, framing that in some way in terms of someone's overall intelligence. It's not.
Now, separate and apart, is it right to call Gavin Newsom stupid? Yes. Why not? I mean, Trump gets called every single name in the book all the time calling him stupid.
SIDNER: But he's the president. And I guess the question is, I mean --
BORELLI: He's the president who gets called a dictator, a fascist, a white supremacist, a racist. So when he calls someone who is potentially a challenger to presumably the candidate of his party stupid -- and by the way, I think Gavin Newsom is stupid because he's made stupid decisions on high speed rail energy, sanctuary city policies. All those things indicate to me that, yes, he is stupid, and people flee his state continuously because of those policies. So I'm not concerned about Trump calling him stupid. Dyslexia is a different thing.
SIDNER: It's one of the biggest economic powerhouses in this country. Just, just.
HAQ: California is one of the largest economies in the world.
BORELLI: Yes, it's number three in the world, great. The population is shrinking, mostly because the population of California. The population of California is so much larger than any of the other states. It's two, two-and-a-half, two, two-and-a-third of New York, right. However, more people have left the state of California because of decisions made by not just Gavin Newsom, but the California legislature as well. More people have left that state and fled because of those decisions. It's fair and a good criticism for Republicans to be pointing out that those policies are stupid.
HAQ: So here's what I find fascinating about watching that clip. Like, when you think about campaigns and rhetorical devices that people use, there's one old adage is attack the other person with their strength, like what you think they're strong at, make it a negative. And there's also projection. And I think we see that very obviously in Trump. I mean, the number of times he committed to and repeating about stupidity and intelligence, I'm like, OK, well, you're telling me a lot about what you worry about people saying about yourself.
CUPP: I don't like Gavin Newsom. I think the Democrats are wrong to wrap their arms around Gavin Newsom. I don't think another California coastal liberal is the savior of their party. I think Gavin Newsom has made a ton of mistakes. And I don't think California, as economically important as it is, should be sort of model for how our states should run.
All of that said, that has nothing to do, nothing to do with what Trump said and how he framed it. And no one should defend it because it's ridiculous. And one of the first red flags we saw in 2015, 2016, that should have transcended politics and partisanship was when Trump started mocking people with disabilities, whether that was John McCain or a disabled journalist.
[10:35:12]
This was gross. It was playing to the lowest common denominator. That should have been disqualifying immediately. Unfortunately, there were plenty of people for whom that was titillating and exciting. If that's titillating and exciting for you, mocking disabilities, your trash, your garbage, and you shouldn't want that in your elected officials or leaders.
But we have to keep doing this thing where, as Joe did, expertly, by the way, try to separate. OK. Yes, the dyslexia thing, not fair. You can call this guy stupid though, because we don't like his policies in a state that's liberal.
BORELLI: Gavin Newsom.
CUPP: Why can't we do the right thing, which is say the president of the United States should not talk about anyone like this. And separately, we can talk about the policies we dislike. Why can't we do that?
MORAN: I will say this. Donald Trump doesn't get to do the disqualifying for president, right? People do. And in 1932, when Franklin Roosevelt ran for the presidency, there were editorialists and others who says he's not physically fit. Translation, he's in a wheelchair. American people elected him four times, OK, because he could do the job.
Lincoln was a depressive. People knew that. Grant was a drunk at times, Lincoln said, you know, find out what brand of whiskey.
BORELLI: He had a fat one, too, you know, I mean, there's hope --
MORAN: And the voters decide. This notion that he can sit all high and mighty and said, no, we shouldn't have that kind of president is very typical of Trump and I don't think will have any traction at all except for the people who already agree with him on everything. SIDNER: Yes. I mean, we should just be clear, this one in five, when
it comes to dyslexia, there's a lot of people in this country that have it. And when you link that with stupidity, I can't imagine what a child thinks if they hear the president saying that. And that is my point. It's like linking those two things is pretty awful, if you think of it from a standpoint of a child struggling to read or to write. Those are hard things, I think, for any parent to try to explain away.
Coming up, two rulings this week against social media giants Meta and YouTube, considered dangerous and addictive to users. Is big tech the next big tobacco? We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:41:58]
SIDNER: Is big tech facing its big tobacco moment? In a landmark case, a jury found Meta and YouTube liable for not warning users about the dangers linked to their platforms. A young woman alleged that she became addicted to their social media apps as a child, impacting her mental well-being. Meta says they respectfully disagree with the verdict, while Google plans to appeal.
So is this an outlier case, or is this a bellwether for what might be to come? I know that you have some you have some thoughts on this, but there were two big cases that happened this week that were against these social media companies, and I think there's a message being sent.
HAQ: It's the same message that big tobacco was given by the American public and by plaintiffs, which is that we're going to go the personal responsibility route. Like, your product may be legal, but we're going to make you take responsibility for personal injury and harm. So these are how you're seeing these cases come up.
The one in New Mexico, I think, is fascinating. It's against Meta, a $375 million judgment because they said they failed their own child safety protections and what they guaranteed. And that children are not only exploited, but they became subject to sexual abuse -- 77,000 claimants in this, $5,000 a pop is what they get from Meta for harm. That's $375 million. That's how they came up with this calculation.
But I sit here and wonder, $6 million in California, $375 million out of New Mexico. It sounds like a lot. That's 500 -- Meta makes $550 million a day, a day. Like this is so much bigger in money than what big tobacco could ever even dream of having had in its hands.
SIDNER: S.E., we have talked about this ad nauseam, I think, in person, but also just, you know, in the background as to what Congress's responsibility is with social media and whether regulation needs to happen. And at one point, I think I remember Mark Zuckerberg saying, yes, we should be regulated, but it hasn't happened. And now we're seeing this. What do you make of this?
CUPP: It's tricky. You know, there are a lot of areas in which I think Congress should not be regulating, and speech is a very tricky one. But this issue is so pernicious. Not just for kids, for adults. And I remember, I've been very open about my struggles with anxiety and my mental health. And one of the first things I had to confront with my therapist when I sort of had a nervous breakdown a few years ago was my social media intake.
And it's important. We're in the news. We're meant to be monitoring all of this. But the lack of intentionality with which a lot of us go on these websites, we go on passively, right? I go on X or Twitter or Instagram because I'm waiting in line at the grocery store, or maybe I go on because I want some validation. Or maybe I'm curious about, you know, the news or whatever. But we go on passively. Until we start, we take personal responsibility, change our patterns, our behaviors, and our habits, and go on intentionally to say, this is what I'm here for, and only this.
[10:45:04]
And like a grocery store, I'm not going to walk around aimlessly and hope things jump in my cart. I'm going with a list, and I want this, this and this, and nothing else. And when I have these things, I'm leaving. And I'm not going to stay in this grocery store for hours and hours and hours where I can be harmed by the algorithms and all the things around me.
We've got to become better consumers of this. And I'm not saying there's no role for regulation. Theres also a role for private companies self-regulating. But there has to be so much more, I think, responsibility and education for the individual consumer and user, because we're the parents, and we're going to decide ultimately how I can best use this and stay healthy.
HAQ: And so that's what I see the big challenge, right? Like, we're the generation, we still remember what it was like have a landline, go out into the sun.
CUPP: It was so fun.
HAQ: It was great.
CUPP: It was the best.
HAQ: But I'm looking at this set in between, and we were talking about how we teach undergraduate students. They got their phones when they were in sixth grade. They were 12 years old, right. We didn't know what we know now about the science and data that the companies were hiding from us. That's what hit big tobacco. They knew the science. They knew that they were causing cancer, and they hid it. Meta knew that it was making these algorithms addictive and hitting dopamine, and they pushed it out on children. That's also why these lawsuits are really about children and how do we regulate and protect those who are not considered able to make decisions for themselves?
SIDNER: Joe, when you hear that and, you know, I know you have kids and I know we are all -- I mean, to some degree, were all a bit addicted to this, right? BORELLI: Look, you know, this is a win for the justice system. We
criticize them all the time. I think the jury made the right decision. These companies are not just aggregators. They're not just utilities, right? They are adding value through their algorithms. And the constant fight I have with my kids about getting off of YouTube or whatever, they're allowed to use it from time to time, is not the same fight I have with them when the XBox game goes off. When they're done playing, it's time for bed after this game, and they go up. When they're in that zone on these systems, it is a fight for all fights in our house.
CUPP: So true.
SIDNER: There were some statistics this week that Harry Enten was showing us, and I think it's something like 60 percent of Americans think that sort of this kind of technology should not be allowed for 16 year old and younger, that they're sort of like, you know what, we'd like to keep this away from them. Good luck.
MORAN: Good luck. Good luck with that.
So this is a huge national problem and should have a national solution. I'm not a big fan of making national policy through lawsuits. That was a problem with big tobacco. But the problem really rests in the fact that the big tobacco and big social media companies basically buy government power, right? They're enormous donors. Look at Trump's inauguration, who is who is in the room. And so it falls to the courts, which is spotty. And we should have proper national debate. We should have proper regulation, in my judgment. But this is the kind of thing that Teddy Roosevelt used to -- trust busting. He found a law to break up the giant corporations of that time. Maybe, maybe that's part of it. But I think there's a deeper issue for me is that the democracy has to address this.
SIDNER: That's a very good point.
Next up, the panel's unpopular opinions, what they're not afraid to say out loud. Oh, boy.
But first, a programming note. This Sunday, CNN's Omar Jimenez is on the front line of Trump's immigration crackdown in this year long push. Have the tactics accomplished anything? "The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper" airs Sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and the next day on the CNN app.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:53:24]
SIDNER: We're back, and it's time for your unpopular opinions. Terry, you are up first.
MORAN: Oh boy. I didn't like "One Battle After Another." I'm sorry. I know.
(LAUGHTER) MORAN: It's like a sacrilege in some places. I just, I didn't kind of buy into it. It seemed a fantasy trying to be like an emotional drama. And I also think that Leo DiCaprio has made a mistake trying to be Robert De Niro. He's really Cary Grant. He's not some giant, serious actor. He's much better as a light --
SIDNER: That was a backhanded compliment.
MORAN: He's got a nice smile. "Catch Me If You Can" and "Django," which was --
CUPP: So not "Revenant."
SIDNER: De Niro catching strays.
MORAN: I was rooting for the bear.
(LAUGHTER)
SIDNER: That is an unpopular opinion. S.E.
CUPP: Oh, OK. My opinion is we're France now. And if you've been to France, you know, they like to strike. You don't ever know what museums are going to be open, what restaurant is going to be closed, if the trains are working. They love this. Well, we need an app. They have an app over there for that. We need an app here to tell us when our government is open and what parts of the government is functioning, what airports are going to be working. That's gross and super dysfunctional. We should not want that. But that's where we're at. We're France now.
SIDNER: All right, Nayerra?
HAQ: Honesty is not the best policy. And I'm going to tell you why I told my nine-year-old this. As I was walking up the steps and he was behind me, he said, mama, you got a big booty. To which I said, three things. Number one, nobody wants a tiny booty. Number two, we're calling it juicy, not big.
(LAUGHTER)
HAQ: And three, why did you just say it like that?
[10:55:00]
And he's like, well, it was the truth. I was being honest. I said, well, try to be kind. So kind is the better policy.
SIDNER: Wow, Joe, don't comment on that one. It's not safe.
BORELLI: I'm going to memory hole that for a second.
(LAUGHTER)
BORELLI: My unpopular opinion is about cheese. Cheese is one of humanity's greatest engineering feats. It can be a topping, a filler, a dip. It could be eaten on its own. It makes things creamier, richer, spicier or whatever.
HAQ: I don't think this is unpopular.
BORELLI: But we have to acknowledge that this is up there with the moon landing, with the Gutenberg's Bible.
HAQ: Oh, as a human invention.
BORELLI: Cheese is one of the great feats of human engineering.
CUPP: I think that's universally felt.
BORELLI: You know, then put me on a parade and celebrate me.
(LAUGHTER)
CUPP: Cheese parade. Where's the cheesecake?
SIDNER: That wasn't as unpopular as you thought because we also say cheese and the moon landing. Same, same.
BORELLI: Same thing.
SIDNER: It's all good.
All right, thank you so much for watching "TABLE FOR FIVE" for five. CNNs coverage continues in just a bit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
