Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

CNN Saturday Morning Table For Five: D.C. Crackdown Brings Deluge Of New Cases; CDC In Crisis After Chief Fired, Top Public Health Leaders Quit; Democrats Win In Three Special Elections; Trump Revokes Secret Service For Kamala Harris; Companies Cracking Down on Activism at Work. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired August 30, 2025 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:29]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: This morning, the crime crackdown in D.C. Arrests and detentions ramp up.

JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: The burden is on us to prove these cases.

PHILLIP: But courts and juries say not so fast.

Plus, special election surprises. Dems win key seats, even in Iowa.

CATELIN DREY (D) IOWA STATE SENATOR-ELECT: We have to get back to policies and messaging that resonate with the working class.

PHILLIP: Is it time for a midterm convention for both parties?

Also, politicizing the CDC.

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has the authority to fire those who are not aligned with his mission.

PHILLIP: When the experts are gone, what does it mean for America's health?

And check your politics and your activism at the door. A new report shows bosses have had enough and speaking out could cost you your job.

Here in studio, Van Jones, Pete Seat, Sabrina Singh and Lance Trover. It's the weekend. Join the conversation at a Table For Five.

Hello, I'm Abby Phillip in New York.

Let's get right to what America is talking about. Trump's D.C. crackdown and whether it's working. It's been over two weeks since Trump took over D.C.'s police force. And although the move is still viewed with skepticism by many D.C. residents, the city's mayor is now praising it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MAYOR MURIEL BOWSER, (D) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: And we greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been able to do in this city. We know that we have had fewer gun crimes, fewer homicides, and we have experienced an extreme reduction in carjackings.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: But it hasn't gone as smoothly as prosecutors may have hoped, at least in the courthouse. Remember that alleged D.C. sandwich thrower? Here is U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro earlier this month talking about that guy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PIRRO: An individual went up to one of the federal law enforcement officers and started jumping up and down, screaming at him, berating him, yelling at him, and then he took a subway sandwich about this big and took it and threw it at the officer. He thought it was funny. Well, he doesn't think it's funny today because we charged him with a felony assault on a police officer. And we're going to back the police to the hilt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Not so fast. Well, a grand jury failed to return a felony indictment in that case. So instead, prosecutors have filed a lesser misdemeanor charge and filed in a way to avoid using another grand jury. It's one of at least three cases where prosecutors have failed to secure a grand jury indictments, which is, to state it lightly, extremely rare.

But that is just a piece of the issues that are facing D.C.'s legal system right now. The courts, they've been maxed out and they've been flooded with all these new cases that they can't hear. One judge in a hearing on Tuesday said, quote, "The systems in place are not keeping up with the volume that's coming in."

Prosecutors have been encouraged to bring the most serious charge to court, meaning they are usually bringing these weaker cases to court. And they've also been told to push to keep more people behind bars, as they wait for their cases to be heard. That is despite longstanding approaches that keep people accused of nonviolent petty crimes out of jail unless they're convicted.

A federal public defender told CNN, quote, "It's a real mess right now." There is both the -- the good and the bad of this, as we've been discussing all along. And the D.C. mayor is, first of all, getting a lot of heat for praising Trump for this takeover. But crime has gone down. But you're also seeing prosecutors trying to overcharge things.

And the system just kind of pushing back and saying, wait, hold on a second. There was another case where a judge said it was one of the most illegal searches that he had ever seen and pushed back on the prosecutors for that reason. So, there's a lot of that happening in D.C. as well. VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I don't like crime. I'm not a part of some pro crime lobby raising kids in Los Angeles. But there's a smart way and a dumb way to do anything. And I think one of the things that you're seeing is you can get crime to go way down if you just flood the system, if you charge everybody with it, even if you want to. But then tomorrow always comes.

What happens when you start overcharging? It's not that it clogs up the courts. It's that people who shouldn't be in the system at all. Suddenly they're not there with their kids. They might lose their job. They suddenly lose their housing. And you can create you can create unintended consequences.

[10:05:08]

And so undercharging is a problem. Overcharging is a problem. Relying on a bunch of -- of troops to come into a city who don't know anyone who's there and who are not going to be there next week is also not a stable way. So, I think the mayor is probably trying to keep Donald Trump happy. She knows if she said that she didn't like it, she'd get more of it.

So, and I'm glad that crime has gone down. But this is -- this is not a stable, dependable way to deal with the problems that are happening in urban America.

PHILLIP: There have been questions from the beginning about the sustainability of all of this, Lance. And -- and I do think that you're right, Van, that the mayor, she understands the dynamics here and she's probably playing this pretty smart, essentially just giving Trump the praise he wants and hoping that at the end of the 30 days, this is just all over and they can do what they know they need to do over the long term to get crime down.

But I don't know that the -- oh, I don't know, I'm not sure that they care whether the feds care, whether or not they're -- this is a long- term solution. They seem to be very interested in the short-term PR wins of a lot of this.

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I don't know how you can say that. This is something this president campaigned on was to get crime under control in these cities. And let's remember, this all started with the left in D.C. saying crime isn't really a problem in Washington, D.C. when everybody and their brother knew it was.

Now their line is you're arresting too many criminals. We can't possibly handle that. I mean, how is that bad? I don't understand. I live in Washington, D.C. Murders are down. Carjackings are down. I walk outside at night. I walk my dog. I don't feel nearly the uncomfortable level that I did four weeks prior before this all started.

SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, I would say to just push back on that. You know, I am a D.C. resident. I have a real problem with crime as well. And as you say, I will --

TROVER: You guys all say that, you guys all say that. But then are you --

(CROSSTALK)

SINGH: No, no --

JONES: Let her finish. Let her finish. Let her finish.

TROVER: OK.

SINGH: Let me -- let me just finish. Thank you. I actually do have a real problem with crime. But the -- the issue that I think you're not addressing is that crime was going down in D.C. before the deployment of National Guard on our streets. And from someone that spent time with our military in the last two years at the Department of Defense, I can tell you, observing their training exercises and what they do. They're trained for war. They're trained to fight our wars abroad and to protect our American citizens from our enemies, you know, foreign.

And so, to put them on the streets of D.C., they're not trained in crime. They don't know these communities. They don't know these streets. And so while crime has gone down and you feel safer walking your dog, and that is a good thing, I also think this is not the long- term solution. And what the long-term solution needs to really be is investing in communities, investing in our police force, putting more officers on the streets and -- and, you know, investing also in education, because some of the crime that's being committed in D.C., as you know, because we're in D.C. together is being committed by youth.

And if you don't have after school programs or fully funded educational programs for these youth, they -- they -- they are going to find ways to entertain themselves. And one of those ways is crime.

TROVER: They have spent zillions of dollars on after school youth programs in Washington, D.C. That's they do that all the time.

SINGH: And so you're saying education programs in D.C. are well funded?

TROVER: I'm saying, yes, they fund every kind of after school program there is. This is what I understand. This is what I understand about the argument you all make. You're saying, I don't I don't like crime. I don't like those. But you're arguing against the very thing that has worked.

SINGH: Just put more officers on the streets.

PETE SEAT, VICE PRESIDENT, BOSE PUBLIC AFFAIRS GROUP: And this is all a deflection. Look, has violent crime gone down in Washington, D.C.? Sure. You are less likely to be the victim of a violent crime now than previously. And this is before the National Guard deployment. But you were also more likely to be killed if you were the victim of a violent crime. Washington, D.C. has a murder rate that is five times the national average.

SINGH: And there are -- SEAT: But no one wanted to talk about that. No one wanted to know --

(CROSSTALK)

SINGH: -- high crime rates.

SEAT: Those statistical facts. So, there is --

PHILLIP: I'm not following you. I mean, I think you're right that the crime was going down. But so were homicides. Homicides were also going down.

SEAT: But it was a -- it was a rate that's five times the national average.

PHILLIP: Yeah, yeah, I understand what you're saying. But I don't want to -- I don't want you to --

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: I think the way that it was sounding was that you made it sound like murders were going up, which they were not.

JONES: But let me just say something. I don't -- I don't like it when conservatives say that we pretend there's not crime.

PHILLIP: Yeah.

JONES: I don't know who you're talking about. I spent my entire life working in very tough neighborhoods. I spent my entire life going to funerals with young people in caskets. So, my entire life in neighborhoods where you see teddy bears on the sidewalk and flowers. Nobody cares more about this issue than the people who have to deal with it. And there has been progress.

One of the things that Biden did -- a lot of criticisms of Biden. But one thing he did, he did get money finally down to the hands of the right people, the violence interrupters at the street level. And we were making real progress. Unfortunately, that money went away. And now you have this other solution, which right now I think is temporarily correct, but it's not long term.

But I just don't like it when you say we weren't talking about crime. Maybe you aren't talking about crime, but the people who actually deal with this, we talk about it every single day.

PHILLIP: You got to leave it there for this conversation.

[10:10:00]

Next for us, chaos at the CDC as the director is fired and top leadership follows her out the door. What does the politicized CDC mean for America's health? We'll debate that.

Plus, President Trump provokes secure a secret service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris. The Los Angeles mayor is calling it an act of revenge. We'll discuss that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:34]

PHILLIP: CDC staff gathered on Thursday to honor the top officials who resigned from their positions after the abrupt ouster of the agency's director, Susan Monarez. The attorneys for the now former director says that she refused to listen to RFK Jr.'s handpicked panel of advisers and rubber stamp vaccine recommendations that flew in the face of science. Secretary Kennedy, for his part, says that her ouster and the appointment of a new political staff aligned with his objectives is necessary.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: The CDC is an agency that is very troubled for a very long time, and anybody who lives with a covid pandemic and all of these bizarre recommendations that were not science is all the misinformation. There's a lot of trouble at CDC, and it's going to require getting rid of some people over the long-term in order for us to change the institutional culture. I'm very confident in the political staff that we have down there now that they're going to be able to accomplish that and ensure the competent functionality of that agency.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: I think a lot of people are probably asking themselves right now, why should the focus be on installing political people in a health agency?

TROVER: Well, I think what bothers me about this whole discussion, I'll get to your to what you're asking in a second is pretending, that we are pretending as if this agency hasn't been politicized for a number of years. There are serious questions stemming from at least back to the pandemic about decisions that this agency, these public health agencies have made. I mean, this goes to trust in our institutions.

I mean, these are the same people who said two weeks to stop the spread. And then lo and behold, it was two years and locked down our government and shut down our schools.

PHILLIP: Remember who was president when that happened?

TROVER: I'm -- again, I'm going to talk about the CDC.

PHILLIP: Donald Trump, who pushed a lockdown, developed a vaccine that RFK thinks is killing people.

TROVER: I'm not arguing against the vaccine.

PHILLIP: Pushed a lockdown, encouraged people to -- to do all the things that you hate, which, by the way, I'm not suggesting are actually inherently bad, because I do think that the very nature of science is that sometimes you don't know all the answers and you learn and your guidance improves. But I think it's just interesting because the journal had a piece about President Trump talking to his donors at his golf club this month, and he told them privately that he believed the coronavirus vaccine was one of his biggest accomplishments, but he couldn't bask in it. He told donors at the dinner they were paying a million dollars to be there and he wished he could talk more about Operation Warp Speed.

He can't because he made a political bargain with RFK Jr. merging himself and the MAHA movement, even though the thing that they are the most against is the thing that he is the most responsible for.

JONES: Yeah, look, I think it's very sad and very scary. First of all, I always have to say I know Bobby Kennedy. He endorsed my first book. I'm close to the Kennedy family. I've been increasingly disappointed in the way that he's conducted him.

So, like science is not perfect and public policy is not perfect. And any of us who have served in government know you make mistakes. You don't get it right. It's not this is not, you know, a heavenly mandate. You know, this is -- this is human beings. People were scared during that pandemic. There were bodies lying up, lying on the streets in New York. There were -- people filling up freezers of human bodies. And there was an overreaction. And it did wind up hurting a lot of kids.

But that's not politicized. That's not the liberals had some agenda they wanted to ruin America with the people made mistakes. I wish progressives would come forward and say we made mistakes and acknowledge that, you know, the overreaction hurt children. But to then turn around and say, because mistakes were made, it's all political, everything's political. So, now we can be political in the other way, blatantly, I think is a mistake.

PHILLIP: I mean, I do think that you're right on -- especially on the schools. But there was a period of time where liberals should have adjusted their stance with the new information. But we're also talking about with RFK Junior, somebody who we only have a few minutes here or seconds here. But let me just play what he said about autism just on Tuesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KENNEDY: Finding interventions, certain interventions now that are clearly almost certainly causing autism. And we're going to be able to address those in September.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[10:20:09]

PHILLIP: So he's --

JONES: What is he talking about?

PHILLIP: Yeah, he's been on the job for seven months, doesn't have a medical degree, doesn't have any science background at all. And he's telling the country that he's going to have a cause, a certain cause for autism by -- by. OK, September is in a couple of days, by September?

SEAT: Yeah, RFK is hell bent on one step forward, two steps back. He takes a good step forward trying to tackle obesity, and then two steps back being anti-vaccine. He takes a step forward trying to eliminate dyes and chemicals from our food supply, and then he takes two steps back saying, I walk through airports, I look at a child and I can tell they're sick.

This is, you can call it pseudoscience, you can call it quack science, I'm going to get in trouble for what I call it. I call it baby boomer science. It's all anecdote.

My neighbor three doors down used essential oils and they cured all their afflictions. Everyone else should do it. That's what RFK is doing.

PHILLIP: I think you're right, but I hate to break it to you. I know so many young people who are the same way. They want to cure everything with some apple cider vinegar.

SEAT: They want an easy -- they want the easy route.

PHILLIP: And it's not the right way.

SINGH: Science should not be political, especially when it comes to developing vaccines or medications or whatever it is that is going to result in life-saving care. And that's what you're seeing here. And the fact that they're putting a, you know, over 65, you can only receive the coronavirus vaccine. I mean, there are so many people that need access to that vaccine that don't have a pre-existing condition but work around kids, work in hospitals. And so, I think to your point, we are taking two steps back, but I don't think it's two. I think it's more like 10.

PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, a surprise win in the deep red Iowa is giving Democrats a jolt of momentum and new hope heading into the midterms. Could this be a sign of things to come?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:26:52]

PHILLIP: Welcome back. A victory for Democrats this week in a red state is giving the party some hope ahead of the midterms. Democrat Catelin Drey won the Iowa Senate's One special election and breaking the Republican supermajority in the state.

Drey won by 10 points, slipping a seat in a district that Donald Trump won in November by 11. Iowa Democrats posted double-digit gains in three other special elections this year. And Drey says that the top issue she heard on the campaign trail was about affordability.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CATELIN DREY (D) IOWA STATE SENATOR-ELECT: We took a message that resonates with Senate District 1. That everyone in this district should have an opportunity to have a good life that they can afford. And that's everything from housing to health care to child care. And those issues resonate with voters.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Pete, what do you think is really happening here? I mean, special elections are sometimes canaries in the coal mine about what the direction of the electorate is going to be. And I don't want to suggest, OK, it's Iowa, right? Like Iowa does things in the presidential cycles that's different from what might happen in these other elections. But there's a directional thing happening. And if you're a Republican, should you be concerned about it?

SEAT: Well, yeah, we need to be very careful to not read too much into this. Only 34% of the 2024 turnout was voting or voted in this special election. And according to the state Republican Party chairman, 30,000 volunteers were deployed to help win this special election --

PHILLIP: For Democrats?

SEAT: Democrats -- yeah, for the Democrats. So, Democrats want --

PHILLIP: Which actually, I mean, that's crazy. That's a lot -- that's a lot of people.

SEAT: It's crazy when you consider that only 7,600 people voted and only 22,000 voted in 2024.

(CROSSTALK)

SINGH: You can criticize us for trying to flip a seat, though.

SEAT: Right, but it's a PR move, right? And it's a manipulation move --

SINGH: I would actually push back on that, though.

SEAT: -- to win this seat.

SINGH: I mean, what Abby just said at the beginning was that, you know, Donald Trump won that seat by 11 points in 2024. In 2025, the Democrat won by 10. That's an over 20-point swing in Democrats.

SEAT: What was the difference between those races? What was the difference?

SINGH: But hold on, let me just say -- the other -- the other thing here is that in other special elections all around the country, Democrats are outperforming by an average of 13 points. And when you look at those numbers, those are the numbers that are indicators to flip the House. You didn't see those type of numbers. Like, those are the type of numbers that we saw in 2018. PHILLIP: This is also potentially why, I mean, look, just look at the actions, right? Like, put aside all the political analysis. In Texas, Republicans are redistricting to try to get five new seats. They want Indiana Republicans to do the same. They -- they already have eight. They are -- Democrats only have two seats in that entire state, and Republicans want to redistrict to get those two seats.

So, it does seem like they realize that there's potentially a problem here. And I will say, for Donald Trump's agenda, the House and the Senate, or even just the House, could be the whole ballgame. Everything may grind to a halt if they don't hold on to those two chambers.

TROVER: Yeah, and I don't think the White House is hiding behind why they want Texas to do what they're doing. They want Indiana, your home state, to do what they're doing. I mean, there's no question. I mean, this is -- this is a fight for the future of this administration going to go down to the wire in 2026.

[10:30:07]

But I do think the White House -- I hear you on the numbers, but we're also talking Iowa, and there were 7,600 votes. I don't extrapolate a lot a year out of a midterm election.

SINGH: There have been over two or three dozen special elections across the country, and Democrats are winning and outperforming in those. And they -- they're outperforming, actually, Kamala Harris as she did in 2024.

SEAT: I want to go back to the question I asked, what's the difference? And the difference is Donald Trump's name is not on the ballot. I admit, that is a problem, but no, that is a challenge, that is a hurdle for Republicans to make that connection for voters, particularly voters who aren't automatic Republican voters.

SINGH: I actually think this reflects the deep unpopularity, not only of Donald Trump, but his handling of the economy.

SEAT: I expect that's what you're going to say. But --

PHILLIP: Next year could be odd in another way, right? Let me just play what Mike Johnson said about an idea that Trump called him about a few days ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON, (R-LA) SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: He called me 15 minutes before that truth and he said, Mike, I've got a great idea. I'm excited. I'm so excited about this. I said, Mr. President, let's go, because I think that would be such a great rallying point right before the midterm election for us to tout all the great successes we've had, to enjoy that. The president loves the idea of it. I do as well. We've got to pick the right location, but look, I'm all for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: So, they want to have a big old convention next year. This year was the parade. Next year will be the convention. Democrats may try to do the same thing. What is that going to look like, Van? Maybe it's a good idea.

JONES: I'm not mad. Look, I mean, well, give us more stuff to cover, but I think they're scared and they should be scared. Listen, it's normal when one party has total control. It's all red or it's all blue. The other party gets very fired up. You said we had 30,000 people. I don't know. We found 30,000 people. But I'm not surprised because, you know, when we have nothing, we don't have nothing. We don't have the Supreme Court. We don't have the White House. We don't have the Senate. We don't have a dog catcher.

So, yes, we are going to try to win these little special elections. And by doing that, you get stronger for the midterms. But listen, if they want to have a big old party and tout all these terrible things that they've done that people are mad about with the big, beautiful bill, let them do it and we'll have our own party, too.

PHILLIP: It's also a recognition. They know Donald Trump's not on the ballot next year. And they need to try to get these voters to think that he is. We'll see how that goes.

Next for us, though, President Trump pulls the plug on his former rival Secret Service protection by summer questioning the timing of the move.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:37:41]

PHILLIP: Former Vice President Kamala Harris is about to launch a high-profile, multi-city book tour this fall, but she won't have Secret Service protection by her side. President Trump just revoked her protection detail, according to a letter reviewed by CNN. By law, former vice presidents received six months of protection after leaving office, which expired for Harris last month.

But here's the thing. Harris had another year left, thanks to a directive that was quietly signed by President Biden right before he left office. Trump's move cut that extension short, leaving Harris unprotected as she hits the road.

This is, in the context of Trump, not the world's most surprising thing. But you used to work for Vice President Harris. I mean, what do you think are the implications of it, or is this just another example of Trump just being Trump?

SINGH: I think -- I think it is an example of Trump being incredibly petty and pulling the protection detail of someone that does need it. I will say, having worked for the vice president, she did, and probably still does, get a ton of threats against her. And so it was clear when the, you know, president and the vice president were leaving office that she did need that extended amount of protection from Secret Service. I don't exactly understand why the president felt the need to pull her detail when she's going on a multi-city tour and will, frankly, need protection at those sites. At the end of the day, she is a former, you know, public servant that served in multiple different roles. People like this, they have threats against their lives. Pulling this detail away, it does, and it could endanger her. And it is, the timing is perfect.

PHILLIP: To your point, I mean, just in June, a man was indicted for threatening her. And last August, another man was charged for threatening her as well. I mean, so there are definitely threats. And I think her, according to the reporting, her aides are, the concern is that not only do they not have the actual protection, but they also don't have the surveillance of threats, which is problematic.

SEAT: What's odd about this circumstance is, as you mentioned there setting up the segment, is that President Biden signed an extension and no one knew about it. We just found out in the last 48 hours that her protection was extended for 12 months beyond the required six months. When protection has been extended previously, and to be clear, that law only came into effect in 2008 is when it was passed. Dick Cheney was the first one who got six months automatically. He requested an extension from Barack Obama. He got that extension.

[10:40:16]

Mike Pence did not have an extension after his first six months. So, why was it a full year after? Why was it 18 months of protection? If there are credible longstanding threats, I understand it. I'm for the protection continuing. But the move that President Biden made was unprecedented. It was odd. And I think we deserve an explanation for why he made it.

TROVER: I got to believe if there were real, true, serious threats, I mean, I think the Secret Service would have come forward. And I'd like to think that the White House would have taken that into account.

SINGH: How do you know that they didn't?

TROVER: I don't know.

SINGH: I mean, John Bolton -- John Bolton, Mark Milley, these are people who have threats against them from Iran. And they pulled their detail. So, I mean, Iran has literally said they're going to target former Trump administration officials. And Donald Trump was petty enough to pull their details.

JONES: Let him finish. At least man's giving us both here.

TROVER: We're all speculating here.

PHILLIP: He's the referee. I'm just sitting here.

TROVER: That's my whole point. We're all speculating. We don't know. We don't know why Joe Biden did it. Gave her like an 18-month thing. Again, I would like to think if she had really serious threats going, the Secret Service would have noted it. I would hope the White House.

PHILLIP: I don't know, I guess my equivalent with that is that, look, we are talking about Donald Trump. And let's not pretend that Donald Trump is not Donald Trump. He doesn't want people coming forward and telling him things that he doesn't want to hear. So, I'm not really sure the Secret Service is going to stick their neck out on an issue like this.

JONES: I just hope nothing happens to her. To me, I just hope nothing happens to her. I mean, look, if you're Donald Trump, you have an opportunity here to do something kind. If you don't, it's on him. I don't like it when Bobby Kennedy is running for office and he begs Biden, give me Secret Service protection. I am a Kennedy. And Biden says no. I thought that was wrong. And I think, frankly, it's part of why Bobby joined the Trump team, because he felt like, well, I'm scared and you're not helping me.

I think any, in this environment, with people getting shot, with all stuff, anybody who says I'm concerned, you're President of the United States, you're President of everybody. Let the Secret Service do their job for another month or two. I just hope nothing bad happens.

PHILLIP: All right, we'll leave it there. Coming up, is the office a place for social activism? Well, some companies are saying, tone it down to those speaking up. We'll debate that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:47:34]

PHILLIP: For some companies, the new message to employees is check your politics and your activism at the door when you come to work. This week, Microsoft fired employees for protesting over issues tied to Israel. And they're not alone. Google, Tesla, and JP Morgan have all cracked down on workplace activism. With job markets tightening and political tensions high, CEOs are making one thing clear. The office is not the public square.

And they're probably not wrong about that. I mean, I do think that there has been this idea that every place in society needs to be about politics. And it's not to say that you can't have free speech in your life. But employers are just like, do your job and don't do anything else.

JONES: This is not going to make me popular, but I'm not mad because it got ridiculous. I'm an employer. And at a certain point, your Slack channel just turned into Vietnam every other day because something happened that had nothing to do with the workplace. And then people are not speaking, not mad. You got to bring in all kinds of counselors. And like, this is not camp, guys. It's not camp. We're trying to make money. So, I enjoyed the moment for a while where we were having our reckonings about everything. We done wrecked. OK, we went from reckoning to wrecked. We need to move on.

SINGH: I -- I -- I take a similar approach. I think what you do in your own free time, whether you want to participate in political activism or whatever it is, whatever cause you take up, I think you have to do that in your own time. I think your place of work, just do your job. Just do your job. You're there, whether it's a company, a nonprofit, whatever it is, you're there to work with your co-workers every single day. And I do think there is a world in which we can pull politics out of it and talk about it. Talk about it later.

PHILLIP: Well, you know, I think about -- and Van knows what I'm talking about. I think about Jesse Jackson, who I wrote a book about. And there was a lot of interaction with corporate America, pushing them to do the right thing on diversity, et cetera, but from the outside. And I do think that that's kind of gotten mixed up. People work inside these companies and they want to make the company like the good guy, but it's still a company and they have different. I don't know. I just -- they have different objectives. And I do think that it's all the paper statements were great while they lasted, but they're still trying to make money. And at the end of the day, I think people may have gotten fooled that these corporations were doing anything other than what they needed to do to survive.

[10:50:03]

TROVER: You need to mark this moment in the showdown. This may be where we all agree here at this table here tonight. I mean, yeah. Welcome to the real world, Gen Z, wokester, I don't want to tell you that people have like you have a job. You're supposed to go there, do your job, go do your if you want to protest Israel and stand by the roadside. I'd go.

PHILLIP: I guess this also goes both ways, though, right? I mean, on the conservative side, they lost their whole minds over Cracker Barrel this week.

SEAT: And we won that war, victory.

PHILLIP: I don't know -- I don't know what Cracker Barrel employees were doing and maybe to their credit, they didn't say anything. But I do think that even on the maybe this has shifted on the right, the right. They want corporations to be lockstep with their identity politics.

SINGH: Yeah.

PHILLIP: Why?

SEAT: Well, I think I think this is a consequence of the flattening organizational chart across corporate America where they wanted you to speak your mind. But a lot of employees confuse that with trashing their employer in public. And this really came to light for me. I teach a class on the American presidency at my alma mater, the University of Arizona. And this past semester, we had a conversation because a lot of my students were surprised that a vice president is just supposed to go along when the president makes a decision. They can give their opinion behind closed doors, offer their advice and counsel. But it's not your job to go behind the podium and say, I think the president is wrong.

JONES: Right.

SEAT: And that's a problem in corporate America. If you don't agree, you're all the way down the totem pole and you disagree with the CEO and president and think that you're entitled to go try and destroy the company that is helping you put food on the table. And this is what's going to happen. It's the natural evolution of this.

TROVER: Amendment.

PHILLIP: Next for us, our panel is going to give us their unpopular opinions, but they're not afraid to say out loud. But first, a programming note. Don't miss back-to-back episodes of Eva Longoria's Searching for Spain this Sunday, 8 and 9 p.m. right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:58:28]

PHILLIP: We're back and it's time for your unpopular opinions. You each have 30 seconds to tell us yours. Lance, you're first.

TROVER: With the exception of maybe one, Terminator 2, I would argue, is better, but no movie sequel is better than its original. Not Godfather 2.

JONES: What?

TROVER: Not Top Gun.

JONES: What?

TROVER: No, no, not at all. Oh, and I would want to add in --

JONES: Goat Cheese sucks too.

TROVER: -- Godfather 2.

SINGH: So, on the theme of sequels, I'm very excited for the Devil Wears Prada 2 sequel that will be coming out, but my unpopular take is that I'm so sick and tired of seeing the paparazzi photos of all the actors all dressed up. I think that whole movie is about the fashion and I want to be surprised and I'm just really tired of opening up Instagram, which I know Van doesn't have, to -- and seeing all these photos of all the actors.

PHILLIP: You've got Instagram, don't you, Van?

JONES: No, look, first of all, I don't know what she's talking about and I am happy that I do not. My unpopular opinion, literally any book is better than any social media app. I don't know anything about, what's his, Taylor Swift got married? I don't know and I don't care. I'm reading about post-mortem China and quantum physics and happy as hell.

PHILLIP: Y'all, that was Van's first unpopular opinion. Good job. All right, go ahead, Pete. SEAT: I'm going to broaden it out to all apps, not just social media

apps, but I'm tired of companies saying, oh, well, if you want discounts and coupons, you have to download our app. If you want to see your x-rays and your medical records, download the portal. No, I don't want your app.

[11:00:03]

PHILLIP: Listen, you just inspired me. I don't want to send any more text messages to get a coupon. Just give me the coupon.

JONES: Just give me the coupon.

PHILLIP: All right, everybody. Thank you very much. Thanks for watching Table for Five. You can catch me every weeknight at 10 p.m. Eastern with our NewsNight roundtable and anytime on the favorite social media apps that Van Jones hates, X, Instagram and TikTok. But in the meantime, CNN's coverage continues right now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)