Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

CNN Saturday Morning Table for Five. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Criticizes Members of Congress for Calling Iran Conflict a Quagmire; U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Voting Rights Act in Ruling on Districting in Louisiana; Turning Point USA and Charlie Kirk's Widow Erika Kirk Criticizes Negative Media Narratives and Conspiracy Theories about Her; President Trump's Son Donald Trump Jr. Possibly Tapped to Host Reboot of "The Apprentice" on Amazon. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired May 02, 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)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Today, the war's unpopularity is higher. So are gas prices. So are timetables. And now the administration is questioning your patriotism if you criticize the operation.

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: You should know better. Shame on you. Who are you cheering for here? Who are you pulling for?

PHILLIP: Plus, the Supremes are accused of gutting a landmark civil rights law by striking down Louisiana's voting map.

Also --

ERIKA KIRK, TURNING POINT USA CEO: Every morning I wake up to a new headline lying about me.

PHILLIP: Erika Kirk speaks out after a new round of conspiracies following the shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

And, as corporate America continues to cozy up with Donald Trump and his allies, the latest chapter may involve a reboot with junior.

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: You're fired.

Here in studio, Geraldo Rivera, Sabrina Singh, Pete Seat, and John Fugelsang.

It's the weekend. Join the conversation at a "TABLE FOR FIVE".

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Hi, everyone. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.

The war that many Republicans don't want to call a war is facing an inflection point. It's increasingly unpopular with Americans. Gas prices are hitting new highs every day. The administration claims it doesn't need approval from Congress, even though the deadline by statute has already passed.

Allies are fed up, one of them saying that Iran has humiliated the United States. Another theme emerging this week is that in the very first hearing on this war, where lawmakers can ask legitimate questions of the Pentagon, instead of getting a sober and fact-finding scene, it became a circus of shouting, insults and deflections, mostly from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. And in one instance, like he's done with the press, he's questioning the patriotism of anyone who dares to ask questions about the war or anyone who criticizes it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless, and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans.

REP. JOHN GARAMENDI, (D-CA) ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: The president has got himself and America stuck in a quagmire of another war in the Middle East. He's desperately trying to extricate himself from his own mistakes.

HEGSETH: My generation served in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan. The way you stain the troops when you tell them two months in, two months in, Congressman -- you should know better. Shame on you. Calling this a quagmire two months in. The effort, what they've undertaken, what they've succeeded, the success on the battlefield that creates strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront a nuclear Iran, and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies? Shame on you for that statement. And statements like that are reckless to our troops. Don't say I support the troops on one hand, and then a two-month mission is a quagmire. Who are you cheering for here? Who are you pulling for? Our troops are doing incredible work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: So that was the tone in a nutshell over on Capitol Hill. And Geraldo, I mean, I think one of the problems with what Pete Hegseth is saying is that Americans very recently have been in a place where they've been told, support this war effort because it's the patriotic thing to do, only to find out that they were lied to about how they got into the war, only to find out that that war effort was going to last decades. And some of those very troops were asking, why were they there? What was the endgame? Isn't it the patriotic thing to ask questions?

GERALDO RIVERA, PEABODY AWARD-WINNING JOURNALIST: Well, yes, unless you're in uniform in combat and it's a, you know, a violation of your of the chain of command. I think that with Pete's case, the frustration comes because people were saying that the War Powers Act and the various congressional resolutions over the years indicated very strongly that the president of the United States had the ability, the constitutional right, to be commander in chief of our armed forces and to wage a conflict like this if he felt it necessary for -- he or she feels it necessary for the national defense of the country.

[10:05:11]

So I don't think that what Pete did, aside from being maybe overwrought in his dramatic presentation, playing Othello there, just a kind of kind of silly, maybe, but there's real tension, though, between the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States and the Congress, which has the constitutional right to declare war. So you have this you have this tension constantly. And Pete mentioned Afghanistan and Vietnam and Iraq. And yes, it is quagmire in the modern day because we don't do total war anymore. But his frustration, I think, is real over the fact that he feels in that setting, in the setting of Congress, that he's among enemies, not friends.

PHILLIP: But he's frustrated that people are questioning the war. But the polls show that it's pretty widespread. It's not like a niche thing just among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Those conflicts you mentioned, the Iran war is as unpopular as Vietnam, as Iraq. And on top of that, what I thought was fascinating, when you ask Americans, when you consider all the costs and benefits of this conflict, is it worth it? Overall, just 25 percent of Americans say that it's worth it. And among Republicans, where generally you get a lot of support for what President Trump is doing, only 58 percent. So fewer than 60 percent of Republicans say it's worth it. This is more widespread than just Democrats on Capitol Hill.

SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: It's definitely more widespread than just Democrats on Capitol Hill or across the country. It's also independents that you're seeing move towards their discomfort with the war. And I think part of it is not only that we don't have a defined mission, we don't know when we're going to actually leave and pull ourselves out of this war, but it's also when are prices going to go down? And I'm sure we'll talk about, you know, how high gas prices are for Americans around the country. But I think that is sitting very uncomfortably with people as they go to the pump. I mean, that is something that you can see every single day ticking upwards. And the fact that someone is driving by their gas station every single day and seeing that number continue to rise and rise, and you're wondering from this administration when we're going to get clarity about when this ends, and they still can't give it.

I think that's why you're seeing the polling sink for Republicans, and particularly Donald Trump, because people are placing blame on him for not laying out the case for why we went in in the first place to Iran, but also understanding when we get out. So I don't know that, you know, you played the clip of Congressman Garamendi questioning Pete Hegseth and saying it's a quagmire. I don't know if we're there yet, but we're certainly at a place where when does this end? Even if the administration likes to play a creative game with the law and interpretation, I don't think we have an understanding of how this ends and when.

PHILLIP: Pete, is it smart for them to say that anybody who criticizes what they're doing in Iran is unpatriotic? Is that a smart political strategy?

PETE SEAT, VICE PRESIDENT, BOSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS GROUP: Well, there is a line between asking questions and oversight on the part of Congress and the legislative branch, and these Democrat members of Congress calling it a quagmire, calling it a destructive and disastrous war, saying that it is a forever war. Within hours, within days of this conflict starting, they were already saying it was a forever war.

So I understand Secretary Hegseth's frustration at some of the rhetoric that is being used. Questions can be genuine. They can get to the bottom of what's happening. But they're sitting there making it a partisan spectacle.

And look, he's not perfect either. The secretary of defense got defensive and personal in some of his responses and lobbing barbs back across to the dais. But, you know, I look at this and the polling, also "Washington Post" had a poll that showed 79 percent of Republicans said it was the right decision. So there's been all this talk about erosion among the Republican base, the MAGA base, but they still stand with President Trump. They believe it was the right decision.

I would also point out that the very nature of conflict is opaque, that that is just the way conflict goes and goes. But there's a balancing act, but there's a balancing act between disclosure and concealment, and that is one that every administration has to balance. And so in some respects, the public, unless there is a full-fledged PR campaign, which there could have been, maybe should have been, but you also throw away the element of surprise. You also harm operational security.

SINGH: Well, you'll remember with the Iraq, President Bush went to the people, and he asked, I mean, he laid out, even if you disagreed with the war in Iraq and why we went in for the mission set that we did, he still went and laid out the case to the American people.

SEAT: And it didn't turn out that great.

SINGH: Well, I mean, do you think it's turning out that great right now?

SEAT: You're giving the enemy all that leadup time to prepare for an attack.

[10:10:01]

PHILLIP: But I don't think that --

(CROSS TALK)

PHILLIP: That wasn't the thing that made the difference.

SEAT: In this case, I do believe --

PHILLIP: The problem with those wars was that we weren't going to be able to --

SEAT: -- the element of surprise is what we needed. And sometimes --

SINGH: Well, the people are certainly surprised by their gas prices.

PHILLIP: I do think both conflicts, if there is any similarity between both conflicts, it's in that the objective, which in the case of Iraq was nation building, which could not be achieved. And the objective here, which in the case of Iran, is sort of a rehabilitation of the nation, perhaps, they have no nuclear weapons, they stop funding terrorism. It's unclear if that's going to be achieved either. That's what -- that's the only similarities between the --

JOHN FUGELSANG, SIRIUSXM HOST, "TELL ME EVERYTHING": The greatest similarity is that both of these conflicts were built on lies. We had a functioning nuclear deal with Iran. Barack Obama is probably the first person to ever earn his Nobel Peace Prize a few years after he got it. But many nations came together to form this nuclear deal with Iran. And our military swore up and down for years that Iran was complying with the deal up until the moment Donald Trump tore it up.

So if you're going to come out here and say, we have to do this war because we can't let them get a nuke after this is the same team that tore up the deal, keeping them from getting a nuke, they're essentially saying, you have to believe our military was lying for years when they maintained --

RIVERA: You want to bet on that? What if you're wrong? What if, what if, what if Iran is really, as the president indicated, you know, on the verge of creating a shortcut to a --

FUGELSANG: Well, imagine the surprise of all the Republicans who believed him for years when he said, no more wars, no more wars. He swore up and down Kamala Harris would do this. He represents a lit --

(CROSS TALK)

PHILLIP: Well, I would say the one thing --

(CROSS TALK)

FUGELSANG: It is the dumbest thing.

PHILLIP: The one thing that, to answer Geraldo's question, I mean, we don't have a lot of actual hard evidence about what about this one way or another. We do have the sworn congressional testimony of the director of national intelligence, who said that after we bombed their facilities last summer, they had made no efforts to reconstitute their nuclear program.

SINGH: And Secretary Hegseth said that they were obliterated.

SEAT: They have nearly 1,000 pounds of 60 percent enriched uranium.

PHILLIP: But you heard what I said, right, Pete? The DNI said under oath to Congress that after the operation last summer, Iran had made no efforts to reconstitute its nuclear program. And so if that is the case, we know how much nuclear material they have. But what were they doing to move toward a bomb? According to our own government, the answer is between last year and this year, nothing. RIVERA: But isn't the real question who gets the right to determine

what the facts on the ground are?

PHILLIP: Well --

RIVERA: Isn't that the commander in chief's role?

PHILLIP: Well, no. Well, no.

RIVERA: He may be wrong. But he's the commander.

PHILLIP: Here's the thing, I do think that this is the -- I do think this is a central disagreement, right. Does the president just get to say whatever he wants and we just have to say, we trust you? I think the American people -- we live in a democracy. I think the American people deserve the right to ask questions, to demand evidence, to demand proof. And the reason they deserve that right is because they have been lied to before.

RIVERA: But do they?

PHILLIP: And you can't, you can't just say, trust me. OK. You can't just say, trust me.

RIVERA: Do the American people have the right to tell the commander in chief how to wage what he perceives to be a war against them --

SINGH: They do.

PHILLIP: They have to ask. They have --

SEAT: Foreign policy should not be dictated on polling.

SINGH: Wait, hold on. This is taxpayer dollars. This is our money being spent on munitions to go and bomb Iran. Absolutely, I think the American people have a right to at least be explained why we're in this.

FUGELSANG: But we also have a right to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. And there is no reason for anyone to believe anything these men say ever.

SEAT: And it's also --

FUGELSANG: They have lied so much in the course of this conflict. Trump has already come out and said he wants the oil. There is no reason to take them at face value. And Abby, you're one of the best cable news hosts in the world. You're brilliant. You're so great at this. But I would never hire you to a cabinet position overseeing the Pentagon. And you're a good cable news host.

PHILLIP: Thank you.

All right, next for us, civil rights icon Andrew Young says the Supreme Court will, quote, "go to hell" for its decision to gut the landmark Voting Rights law. How it may change elections in this country for decades.

Plus, Don Junior as the new "Apprentice" host? Well, Amazon is apparently considering a reboot in the latest example of corporate America cozying up to the Trumps.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:19:25]

PHILLIP: The Supreme Court invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act this week. So is the nearly 60-year-old law effectively dead? It depends on who you ask. But either way, this decision will have ramifications for decades to come and potentially wipe out progress from decades prior.

In a six-three decision, the justices rejected Louisiana's current congressional map that added a second black majority district in a state that's roughly a third black. The court says that the lines were drawn through race-based discrimination, which violates the Equal Protection Clause. But critics, like former President Barack Obama, says that it limits a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act and opens the door for states to redraw maps to eliminate districts that are majority black or Latino.

[10:20:09]

For Donald Trump's part, he's praising the move that will fuel new fire into the redistricting wars.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to go back to the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act. I know you said you haven't seen it.

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: When did it come out? Just now.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, it came out this morning, but basically very much narrows the Voting Rights Act.

TRUMP: Was he considered a win for who?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A win for Republicans.

TRUMP: I love it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: This is a new era, John, for this country. And I'm not sure people are fully understanding where this puts us.

FUGELSANG: I agree.

PHILLIP: I think that, you know, the reality is that people will start to see states both red and blue start to look dramatically different from the way that they looked like before, and that if you are a person of color in the south, they may eradicate virtually all political representation for you in some of those states. That's an extraordinary thing.

FUGELSANG: Correct. And it's also going to hurt, because of the tit- for-tat element of it, because of the pushback, it's going to hurt conservative voters in majority blue states, because they're going to have their districts chopped up. They're going to have their representative -- their citizens are not going to be able to have conservative representation because of the battle.

These laws exist, the Voting Rights Act exists because people marched and protested and fought and bled and died for these rights. And this week, these six aristocrats took a look at that and said, OK, but it's too much. Now we can't have any kind of race consciousness when it comes to things like education, getting into school. We can't have race consciousness when it comes to politics or to voting. But when it comes to, you know, cops stopping someone, when it comes to immigration policy, we can be as race conscious as we want. They only say colorblind when it's a policy that helps nonwhite people. They never pull that for a policy that hurts nonwhite people.

And these justices, what they've done now is unleash it. We're seeing all the all the red states are now trying to speed redistrict. And what it really is, is racist photoshop. They're putting it all through an Instagram filter to make everything whiter. And you're going to see the blue states come back in kind, saying, we're going to redistrict like Virginia did, like California did. Theres a lot of conservative brothers and sisters in blue states that are going to lose their representation because of this.

PHILLIP: I have already seen some liberals suggesting that there could be maybe as many as 13 seats that could be redrawn in Democrats' favor in blue states, just as a result of what this pandora's box that has been opened up. You know, President Trump is asking states like Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, we know Florida has already started this past week to do it. So we're just in, you know, we're just spiraling at this point.

SEAT: I know the three justices who dissented in this opinion believe that the sky is falling. The six in the majority, however, as I understand it, believe that it was a decision narrowly tailored to this district in question.

And I think any honest broker, we showed it up on the screen. If you looked at that district and did not know the political leanings of it or the racial demographics of it, and saw it snaking from Baton Rouge up to Shreveport, you would say gerrymandered. It is the very definition on paper of a gerrymandered district.

But I would take a step back, because you keep using the word represented. And I think this is really, really critical and key. As many become further entrenched in identity and ideology first mindsets, we seem to believe that we are only represented when somebody has the same attributes as us, whether that be race or gender or physical attributes or ideological leanings.

FUGELSANG: Or someone who cares about your community because they live there. SEAT: No, but the goal of redistricting is to maintain communities of

interest, to respect existing boundaries.

FUGELSANG: No.

SEAT: Yes, that is by the law.

FUGELSANG: This is happening because Donald Trump, Donald Trump demanded Texas rig it a year-and-a-half ago. This is happening because Donald Trump commanded --

(CROSS TALK)

FUGELSANG: It's a response to Trump.

PHILLIP: Let me let Pete finish his thought.

SEAT: -- Republican in New England, not one Republican in New England represents anyone in the U.S. House of Representatives.

FUGELSANG: Wow, the senator from Maine is going to be shocked to learn that, man. Susan Collins needs to be told.

SEAT: She's in the Senate. I said House.

PHILLIP: Well, also, I mean, I also think, you know, one of the interesting things about that point, too, is like when you look at a state like Massachusetts, there are several districts where Republicans can be competitive, but they've never put anyone up to run in those districts. So, I mean, there are places in New England where they could run and potentially win, but they haven't.

I also think that, look, let's take your argument about, what does representation mean? I mean, Republicans just got out of the Virginia situation, redistricting situation, arguing that Republicans ought to have more representation in Virginia just because they exist in the state.

[10:25:11]

I mean, I think that if you oppose what happened in Virginia, you should probably oppose what Louisiana is about to do. You should probably oppose what President Trump is asking Tennessee to do, which is to get rid of the one Democratic district in the entire state of Tennessee. I mean, I think you should, you should oppose it all.

RIVERA: It sounds more alarming, I believe, than it really is in real life. In real life, what are we talking about here? You're talking about not -- you're talking about -- the fear is that you're talking about the exclusion from the equal rights for black people, brown people, other minorities by gerrymander, by rigging districts based on race. When you look at it further, when you go down to just the slightest, go down one inch, what are you talking about? You're really talking about, it's not excluding black people that may be one of the impacts. It's excluding Democrats. It's not excluding white people. It's excluding Republicans. The problem is that everyone sees everything through the -- the

Supreme Court, I think, was very cute in the way it said that you can still gerrymander for political reasons. You just can't do it for race. So, but the impact is exactly the same if you do it for politics. I have changed this district. Now it's going to be all Republicans, because I don't like Republicans. You are allowed to gerrymander based on political affiliation. You can gerrymander for all kinds of different reasons, just not race.

FUGELSANG: Ron DeSantis.

SINGH: I think, I think --

FUGELSANG: Go ahead.

SINGH: Just a one thing that I think Pete brought up is like an honest broker would look at that district from Shreveport to New Orleans, or Baton Rouge, and say that's not a properly drawn district. I think that's the issue is gerrymandering is not honest, and it's not an honest brokering process. And so I think the --

FUGELSANG: Supporting gerrymandering --

RIVERA: Gerrymandering is legal, though. That's the point.

SINGH: But the problem is, that is legal --

RIVERA: Gerrymandering is legal and it's constitutional.

SINGH: -- but the problem with this whole process and the problem with what section two allowed for was about representation and communities having representation in Congress. And that's what people --

FUGELSANG: And they're doing it now en masse because they realize how unpopular their party is, and they're desperately trying to rig a conservative House in 2027 --

SINGH: And this all went back to rigging, right.

FUGELSANG: -- whether the American people want it or not.

RIVERA: Are they unique? Are the Republicans unique? How about the Democrats?

SINGH: Democrats didn't start this. It started in Texas.

SEAT: California did it. Then Illinois did it.

SINGH: In a response to Texas.

SEAT: But you're trying to make it sound like only Republicans --

FUGELSANG: This wave, this madness now. Yes, sir, I am. Donald Trump started this with Texas. Everybody --

RIVERA: It started with the census redraw.

SINGH: You don't do a mid-decade redraw of a map of Texas, a mid- decade redraw.

(CROSS TALK)

PHILLIP: Next for us, Erika Kirk calls out what she says is a serious epidemic of dehumanization that's plaguing this country. We're going to discuss what she says is fueling it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:32:18]

PHILLIP: This week, Erika Kirk spoke out following the shooting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, which she attended. In a video posted to social media, Kirk addressed the attempted assassination of Donald Trump at the dinner and a fresh wave of conspiracies about her husband's murder.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIKA KIRK, TURNING POINT USA CEO: Every morning I wake up to a new headline lying about me. I have comedians dressing up in whiteface, I have people saying I'm not fit to be CEO, and I have Candace Owens claiming I murdered my husband. And the list goes on and on and on. There is a serious epidemic of dehumanization plaguing this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: I have a lot of sympathy for Erika Kirk because she has been through some really extraordinary, bizarre things over the last several months. It is interesting to me, though, that the truth of the matter is that the worst of it, she mentioned Candace Owens, has come from the right, from her former friends. And, I mean, I think that is the part to me that kind of is left unsaid here. It's not true that just sort of major news outlets are writing conspiracies about her. It's true of a specific subsection of the Candace Owens fanbase, which is on the right. And I think that she's right, that it's dehumanization, but it's also the internet and how these people who are loony can just become so powerful.

SEAT: Well, the worst of it that's magnified and amplified online, yes, has been coming from the right, but there's no shortage of people on the left who are saying the very same things. And when I watch this video, I see a woman who is --

PHILLIP: By who?

SEAT: I mean, go on Twitter, go on Threads, go on all those -- people are saying this stuff constantly. There is a dehumanization of this woman who is grieving and will be grieving for the rest of her life. Every time she looks at her children, she will see her husband who was killed in a very, very violent act.

And as I was watching that video, though, who came to mind was Gabby Giffords, the former congresswoman who was shot in the head outside of a supermarket during a "Congresswoman on Your Corner" event by someone who had mental issues but also hated her because she supposedly didn't answer a question to his satisfaction at a town hall once.

[10:35:00]

And I put them in the same category for this reason, I believe that Gabby Giffords has incredible moral authority to talk about gun rights, or gun control, sorry. And I don't necessarily agree with her, but she comes from a place of personal, lived experience, an experience, God willing, none of us will ever have.

Erika Kirk comes from that same place, an experience that I hope no one ever has to live through again. But when she talks about rhetoric, when she talks about free speech, she does have that authority to make that case to people, just like Gabby has the authority to make her case.

SINGH: I don't think anyone is disagreeing with what Erika Kirk said in her video. I think she is someone, I mean, she went through a tragedy that everyone saw play out online. And I think what she said, I mean, to you, to what you were saying earlier, it's her own friends that have been spreading conspiracy theories about her. I mean, I think she needs obviously new friends.

But also, I mean, it's absolutely tragic what's happening and some of the vile that she's facing. I think this is like a larger societal problem though. Conspiracy theories can spread very quickly on Twitter, or X now, and other social media sites. And there's not really this check that I've seen in a way that is sufficient enough to debunk these very quickly. And so you have things spreading like wildfire, and, and she's right to be upset about it. I think that's completely fair. But I don't -- I think the larger question is, what are we going to do about it? And that's on the right and the left.

PHILLIP: Let me play a little bit more of what she said about the dinner itself that she attended on Saturday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIKA KIRK, TURNING POINT USA CEO: And everyone is asking why I even went to the White House Correspondents' Dinner. And it was because many of the journalists in that room have attempted to dehumanize me, and I wanted to meet some of them face to face, quite frankly. Why have a conversation about me when you can have a conversation with me?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIVERA: I think, I feel so sorry for her. I've never really heard her speak, but when you think of what she has been through, this, this visceral tragedy that will be played out.

FUGELSANG: With respect to the unspeakable tragedy that Erika Kirk has lived through, and if we had laws making you secure your weapon in the home, that shooting and Sandy Hook would not have happened. And I wish she would do something on behalf of gun victims and try to prevent future violence.

But I have to be fair here. This is Turning Point USA. I go to their website. I don't see a single teaching of Jesus Christ. I don't see them fighting for anything in the Beatitudes or Matthew 25. I see dehumanization of immigrants, of LGBTQ folks. I see dehumanization of minorities, of professors. I see teachers called groomers. I see Democrats called America haters. This is what Turning Point USA sells. They are grievance merchants pretending to be a Christian organization while fighting for zero of the teachings of Christ.

PHILLIP: We'll leave it there.

Next for us, as Amazon considers Don Junior for a reboot of "The Apprentice," is this just another example of corporate America trying to curry favor with this administration? We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:43:09]

PHILLIP: Welcome back. You've seen corporate America do it a lot over the last 15 months, to cozy up to the Donald Trump administration and those close to the president, from the donations to gifts to billion- dollar deals to the lavish compliments, and even a movie from Amazon starring Melania Trump. Well, now, Jeff Bezos may be making it a family affair. Reports indicate that Amazon's reboot of "The Apprentice" is on the table, potentially with the president's son, Don Junior. Here is the president's reaction to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: He's a good guy. It will be probably good. He's got a little charisma going. You need a little charisma for that sucker. So we'll see what happens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Probably has some charisma. Not exactly the greatest endorsement.

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: I don't know. First of all, I should say, Geraldo, second runner up in "Celebrity Apprentice."

RIVERA: First runner up.

PHILLIP: First -- I'm sorry. Excuse me. First runner, the runner up in "Celebrity Apprentice." Does Donald Trump want to see somebody try to reboot his show?

RIVERA: Well, I know, I've known Don Junior for a long time. Almost his whole life, in fact. And Don Junior Is no Don Senior. Theres a big difference. I mean, just because you're related to --

PHILLIP: I think we got that from his father's reaction. (LAUGHTER)

RIVERA: But is there a market for it? I think that maybe if it goes streaming, there'll be enough -- the audience is fractured enough that there will be a fringe that will dig Don Junior doing Don Senior's act. But there's only one Donald Trump. And he's much bigger than Don Junior. He's much more commanding, much more charismatic. I think of the father as one of the great live performers in the history of performance. Don Junior, I don't consider -- he's a great guy, nice guy, but he's not his dad.

[10:45:00]

SINGH: I don't think it was a ringing endorsement. But I think the larger issue here is the cozying up of Jeff Bezos and Donald Trump. It's a furthering, if this goes through, a closeness of the relationship. But I kind of have to wonder, you know, when Amazon, when everything happened with Amazon and "The Washington Post," you know, so many people canceled their "Washington Post" subscriptions. I don't know that I see that with Prime. I mean, what are people going to cancel their Prime subscriptions and not watch "The Summer I Turned Pretty" movie? I mean, I don't see that happening.

PHILLIP: There have already been attempts to do that that I think have largely not worked, but I think it does -- first of all, I have questions about who the audience is for this stuff. But I mean, maybe it doesn't matter. I mean, I think that's the underlying question of is this just an attempt to add more money to the pockets in terms of royalties or what have you to the Trump family? I mean, the Melania Trump movie was the most money ever paid for a documentary of that sort. And I mean, yes, unprecedented access to the White House. But also, no first lady has made money from, you know, a company that has business before the administration before. Both things are unprecedented.

FUGELSANG: I appreciate that Jeff Bezos has $200 billion and that he's decided the best use of his time is to bribe this particular dynasty any way he can. This is never going to happen. This show, this is all hype. They're never going to do it. What's it going to be? Like, "The Apprentice" with none of the charisma and twice the petulance? Don Junior is going to give people tips on how to inherit money? My dad says you're fired? I mean, it's something for us to talk about right now. I don't --

RIVERA: He could work bitcoins into it.

FUGELSANG: What a shock.

PHILLIP: I'm sure he will. I'm sure he will.

SEAT: Look, I was a huge fan of "Celebrity Apprentice." I remember season seven fondly when you were the runner up, Geraldo. For me, it was appointment TV every Sunday. But it wasn't because of Donald Trump or Don Junior or Ivanka or anyone else that was on. It was the contestants. That's what I watched for. I --

SINGH: Very excited over here.

(LAUGHTER)

SEAT: I'm a sucker for nostalgia, and I missed a little bit of pop culture there for about four years when I was in the Bush White House, didn't really have time to watch. So I was introduced to a whole new cast of characters. And that's why I tuned in. So there is money to be made with the Trump brand, no doubt, but it depends. Are you doing the celebrity version? Are you doing the original apprentice version? And who is willing to be on there? That will be the big question.

FUGELSANG: They had celebrities -- the original and replace it with celebrities.

PHILLIP: And at the time, it was -- well, the original one was a hit too. OK.

FUGELSANG: But then they dropped it.

SINGH: It was entertaining.

PHILLIP: I also think it was apolitical at the time, and there's no way to make it apolitical now. So it is --

All right, next for us, the panel's unpopular opinions, but they're not afraid to say out loud.

But first, this weekend, a look at one of the most powerful and influential people in the fashion industry. "Behind the Bob, Vogue's Anna Wintour" airs on Sunday at 8:00 p.m. on CNN, or you can watch it on the CNN app.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:52:43]

PHILLIP: We are back, and it's time for your unpopular opinions. Geraldo, you're up first.

RIVERA: Well, I've never gone public with this, but, you know, Erica and I moved to Cleveland, Ohio, about eight years ago. I mean, we have family here. Were here constantly back and forth. But the fact of the matter is that I root for the Cleveland Browns over the New York Jets and the New York Giants. Now, that's the first time I've said that publicly. It's my unpopular, I'm sure that would be my unpopular opinion. It will haunt me.

PHILLIP: Well, you're just a visitor here, so maybe you'll get a --

RIVERA: Oh, come on. Oh, that hurts. That hurts.

PHILLIP: All right, Sabrina?

RIVERA: I have New York tattoos.

(LAUGHTER) SINGH: OK, my unpopular opinion is I really detest milk chocolate. It's just it's -- I know, I know. This was the reaction that I knew I was going to get. It's just dark chocolate is the way to go.

FUGELSANG: If you're over 30, yes.

SINGH: Well, I mean, no, milk chocolate is like too sweet.

PHILLIP: I was like, that's a very over 30 unpopular opinion.

SINGH: Yes. Well, no, I've always been a dark chocolate person.

FUGELSANG: Not when you were a kid.

SINGH: I was.

FUGELSANG: You lie, Ms. Singh. You lie.

SINGH: No, I've always been a dark chocolate person. Milk chocolate is too sweet. When you get a chocolate box and you see milk chocolate in there, it's just dilution. And I just I can't stand it. And that's my hot take.

PHILLIP: Hershey is bad, legitimately bad. Yes.

SINGH: Yes.

PHILLIP: All right, John?

FUGELSANG: Oh, I'm appalled at mine. Really -- OK. I never thought I'd come to this, folks. I never thought I'd say -- King Charles is the coolest member of the royal family. It's happened. I don't know how this happened, but somehow the most awkward man on the entire planet has become the most hip and swinging member of this entire clan of inbred German royals. He shows up, this guy is, first off, he is the one of the best speakers in the world about climate change. He and his mother arguably presided over the decolonization of much of the British empire. And this week he got everyone in Congress to stand up and applaud when he said that our president should have checks and balances over him.

PHILLIP: He said a president.

FUGELSANG: A president. But he said it in that room. And Republicans stood up for the concept. For me, the guy, I know he's lame. He got one promotion in his whole life and he had to wait 70 years to do it. But somehow he has become the coolest, which compared to his brother, is not saying much.

PHILLIP: You know what? He won me over when he made a joke about the War of 1812.

FUGELSANG: Right?

PHILLIP: All right, Pete?

SEAT: Well, with all due respect to my friends in the event planning industry, I want 2026 to be the year that we retire fireside chats.

[10:55:07]

We're not fooling anyone at these 2,000 attendee conferences into thinking it's some intimate gathering because we call it a fireside chat. And there's no stinking fire on stage. At least put a screen with the yule log on repeat like Christmas Eve.

FUGELSANG: My bracelet says -- my bracelet says it's intimate, though.

SEAT: I'm tired of it. Just call it a one on one. Call it a conversation. Fireside chat -- enough.

PHILLIP: All right, enough with the corporate jargon.

All right, everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "TABLE FOR FIVE". You can catch me every weeknight at 10:00 p.m. eastern with our Newsnight Roundtable, and anytime on your favorite social media, X, Instagram, and on TikTok.

But in the meantime, CNN's coverage continues right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)