Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
CNN Saturday Morning Table for Five. Large U.S. Corporations Announce Layoffs as Federal Government Shutdown Continue; Federal Judge Orders Trump Administration to Continue SNAP Benefits While Government Remains Shut Down; President Trump Announces U.S. to Resume Nuclear Weapons Testing; Tucker Carlson Criticized for Hosting Holocaust Denier Nick Fuentes on His Program; President Trump's Media Company Truth Social Announces Rollout of Its New Political Betting Market Platform. Aired 10-11a ET.
Aired November 01, 2025 - 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, unemployment is rising, so are prices, inflation, and the number of days people aren't getting paychecks. But the president says what's down is up.
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: Grocery prices are down. Inflation has been defeated.
PHILLIP: Plus, the U.S. hasn't tested nuclear weapons since 1992. But now Donald Trump demands the Pentagon restart them.
J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT: Sometimes you've got to test it to make sure that it's functioning and working properly.
PHILLIP: As a new movie puts many Americans on edge.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: TriCom is asking for launch instructions right now.
PHILLIP: Also, another MAGA civil war erupts after Tucker Carlson hosts a holocaust denier and the Heritage Foundation defends him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Their attempt to cancel him will fail.
PHILLIP: And want a gamble on scores, stats, and who the next senator will be? The president's company is taking bets, blurring even more ethical lines.
Here in studio Cari Champion, Matt Welch, Lydia Moynihan, and Trip Yang.
It's the weekend. Join the conversation at a "TABLE FOR FIVE".
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Hey everyone. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. There is a crisis brewing in America, and for some reason, not many
people are talking about it. It has been a hell of a week for families across the nation as many Americans got told that they no longer have a job. Just look at this list. It's astonishing. UPS, Amazon, Intel, Nestle, Accenture, Ford, Novo Nordisk, Microsoft, PWC, Salesforce, Paramount, Target, Kroger, Applied Materials, General Motors, and Meta. They, all told, account for 175,000 jobs.
Now, keep in mind the government right now is still shut down. It's been more than 30 days. And a lot of uncertainty is still there around food stamps and food assistance. And speaking of, despite what the president claims, the cost of living in this country is not going down. Inflation is up, grocery prices are up, electricity prices are up too. Health care costs are going to be going up. And apparently so is the likelihood that you or your neighbor's job is at risk.
This shutdown could not come at a more perilous time for a lot of Americans. And I don't know. I mean, it's been the weirdest shutdown in history because everybody seems to be cool with the fact that it's been a month, nobody is getting paid, people are getting laid off. And it's not just, just to be clear, it's not just emanating out of Washington, why these layoffs are happening. Some of this is technology. Some of this is just the economy churning. But it's hurting regular Americans, and nobody in Washington is doing anything.
CARI CHAMPION, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It's interesting because when you all broke down our topics and what we were going to talk about today, I think this is one of these examples that all of us can relate to. And if you don't mind, I think that it's more about an issue of stability. I don't know what sector you work in if you're watching this program and if you're paying attention closely. I think all sectors feel instability. I don't feel like this is about an issue of whether or not we all will be saying the shutdown is affecting us. All of us feel this. A good friend of mine, her mother works at UPS. She just lost her job on Monday. She found out.
I look across the world in which we work in. I see that our colleagues, our peers are losing their jobs at, you know, Paramount CBS. I see if you look at Intel, you're losing your jobs. Pharmaceuticals companies are firing people. And they're saying that it's restructuring. They're saying it's about the economy. They're saying it's about A.I. And I feel that this instability is really starting to take place, and it's affecting everyone.
This isn't, what side are you on? It is truly an issue that is affecting every single person that I know. This reaches us across all boards, and it's unfortunate, because we find ourselves having these conversations right now. Everything in this country right now feels very instable, unstable.
PHILLIP: In the middle of all of that, I mean, the food stamp issue is within the control of people in Washington, and it's 40 million Americans who could lose access to food. They're already sort of on that line, right, between being able to make it and not. Why not just take that off the table in this other fight over the government shutdown? MATT WELCH, EDITOR AT LARGE, REASON: Well, a judge yesterday took it
off the table, at least for the time being. And so we're not going to see it. I think the Trump administration was trying to make this a -- I mean, we've never suspended SNAP benefits during a government shutdown of all the shutdowns that we've had over the last 30 years. So I don't think it was going to happen here.
[10:05:08]
The Trump administration wanted to do that to put pressure on Democrats to go back in and try to settle this, because Democrats would be very responsive to that moment.
But I think what you were talking about speaks specifically to an underrated part of the instability that were facing right now, which is that Donald Trump raised the average tariff in this country by 500 percent this year. We've never seen anything like this in the history of America. That's going to, of course, you know, when you're putting import taxes like that, it's going to affect the prices of goods, and it's also going to affect investment by companies and whether they're going to make long term plans or not. And that breeds a lot of instability.
PHILLIP: The belt-tightening is happening for sure.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK POST": Well, I've got to say on that point of the federal judge, I mean, if a federal judge can rule that the Trump administration reinstates food stamps, why can't she also rule that the Democrats need to reopen the government? Because I'm not just concerned about the 40 plus million Americans who are not going to have food stamps. I am also concerned about the 12,000 FAA employees who are not getting paid, about the 2.2 million military members not getting paid, about the $2.5 billion in SBA loans that are not getting distributed. And the bottom line is the Republicans have voted 13 times to pass a clean C.R., and the Democrats will not do it. And it's because Chuck Schumer thinks --
CHAMPION: But that's a different argument.
MOYNIHAN: -- every day it's getting better for him.
CHAMPION: It's not -- it's not just solely just the Democrats. In fact, there is reserve, you know, that there's reserve that can be used to make sure that these SNAP benefits are.
MOYNIHAN: Agreed, there is reserve for every single thing that we need to do.
CHAMPION: But the reality is, is that --
PHILLIP: Democrats are saying --
MOYNIHAN: -- this is an issue. So you're saying, do I have to make a choice between SNAP benefits or health care? Like, why do we have to make that choice in this big, beautiful America that we live in? It's not fair just to say it's a Democratic issue. MOYNIHAN: Let's have that debate after we open up the government.
CHAMPION: But it's not just a Democratic issue. That's a disingenuous argument. We should not be on any side in this issue. This is about people who won't be able to eat, 42 million Americans that can't eat.
MOYNIHAN: Exactly. So let's reopen the government.
CHAMPION: Children who will not be able to. But it's not about the Democrats. That's not a fair choice.
MOYNIHAN: It is a fair choice. We would have that funding and funding for everything else if the Democrats were willing to vote. As Fetterman has even said, he's called out his own party. Democrats are losing the biggest union who are tired of their dynamic.
PHILLIP: So let me play what Glenn Beck said about this SNAP issue. And this was kind of echoed by President Trump as well. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLENN BECK, HOST, "THE GLENN BECK PROGRAM": Wait, wait, wait a minute. How much are we paying in SNAP. How many people, 40 million people on SNAP? What? When did that happen? So now people going, I don't know if 40 million people should be on SNAP in the first place. We're finally having a real positive, constructive conversation, 40 million people -- guys, we haven't even hit a depression. I mean, this is not like the dust bowl. It's not the 1930s. Why do you have 40 million people?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: You know, this kind of reminds me of when they were debating about whether they should lay people off. Actually, I shouldn't say debating. They were planning to lay people off, and Trump was talking about it as if this was like an extra perk of the government shutdown. Theres a messaging disconnect between saying the shutdown is hurting people, while also saying this is our opportunity to cut people off of government assistance. This is our opportunity to fire federal workers. And that's been happening throughout this government shutdown, which is difficult, it seems, for Republicans.
TRIP YANG, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes. As we get closer and closer towards 2026, it's very clear that this is more and more a Donald Trump shutdown. And the reason why is because November 1st is a critical date. Snap benefits, 40 million Americans, many of them are in red states, many of them are in swing states that voted for Donald Trump in 2024 and multiple times, and many of them working class, rural Americans.
And so look, the reality here is that it has created a situation where all of us, as Americans, want to make sure that working class Americans who need these SNAP benefits, they receive them. It's also created, quite frankly, not that this is a political issue, because I agree with my colleague over here. This should be a bipartisan issue to see Americans get SNAP benefits. But if you talk about a political moment, there have been many governors who actually have their states stepped up. Right here in governor, Governor Kathy Hochul, right here in New York, has already pledged over $100 million in New York state government to feed, you know, families, for example. But we as Americans should all want, you know, needy families who receive these SNAP benefits to receive them.
WELCH: The time to care about the 40 million, 42 million people who are on SNAP and the wisdom of that program is not in the middle of a government shutdown, contra Glenn Beck. And we see this every time the governments get shut down, regardless of which party is the initiative mover here, and the Democrats or the initiative mover of this shutdown. They are simultaneously owning it and sort of deflecting the blame. And at some point, those of us who are neither Democrat or Republican kind of don't care, because this is like the 35th time we've done this in the last 30 years. And none of those shutdowns, including this one, when it ends, sooner rather than later, probably, has affected the trajectory of the underlying political debates at issue, none of them.
[10:10:04]
PHILLIP: Totally. I mean, shutdown is at best a short-term strategy. And everybody loses in a shutdown. But I think this idea that shutdowns don't end with some form of negotiation is not -- is also not accurate, that typically actually they do talk about something. And the lack of talking is part of what makes this shutdown so remarkable. Why don't they just -- I mean, they don't have to actually resolve the health care issue, but they could come up with an agreement to resolve it at a future date in good faith. That seems like a reasonable thing that they could do.
MOYNIHAN: They could. I mean, it's interesting, actually Hakeem Jeffries revealed that Mike Johnson had called him. I think in most cases, Mike Johnson has been intentional. I think the Republicans are being intentional about trying to reach out to folks. And the question is, you know, the minority whip said that she feels this shutdown gives them leverage. So I actually don't know that Democrats are incentivized to shut it down. I think Schumer is worried right now about a potential primary from AOC, from the left flank of his party, and he wants to show everyone else that he's doing something to try and stand up to Donald Trump. That's what ultimately this is about. And so they lose their leverage, and he potentially signals that maybe he's weak if he's willing to reach some kind of deal with the Republicans.
PHILLIP: All right.
YANG: I would respectfully just disagree with that. When you go into a shutdown, House Democrats and House and Senate Democrats have to be united. We did not see this on the Democratic Party, my party, in March. And quite frankly, many Democrats were upset at Leader Schumer at that point in time.
So picking a major issue, which is the Obamacare subsidies, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said over 10 million Americans lose their health care coverage because of one big, ugly bill. Picking one issue, the health care, for example, is a very smart tactical strategy. And yes, of course there should be negotiation. We all want the shutdown to be over. But Republicans led by Donald Trump have to come to the table.
CHAMPION: But at the end of the day, there's money. End of story.
PHILLIP: All right, next for us, the president surprises the world, including his own advisers, with an announcement on nuclear testing.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:16:49]
PHILLIP: Welcome back.
When it comes to nuclear weapons, "surprise" is not a word you want to hear. But in Donald Trump's case, that is exactly what he did to his own officials. The president declared that he's ordering the Pentagon to test Americas nuclear stockpile, breaking a moratorium that's been in place since George H.W. Bush was in office 33 years ago. Why? Well, Trump says that this is in response to rival nations building up their weapons. For one, sources say that that demand caught his advisers off guard. And two, the Department of Energy is the department that historically is actually in charge of those tests, not the Department of Defense.
So here's the explanation from Trumps vice president, which is a bit different from what Trump said, and, frankly, not all that reassuring.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT: We have a big arsenal. Obviously, the Russians have a large nuclear arsenal. The Chinese have a large nuclear arsenal. Sometimes you've got to test it to make sure that it's functioning and working properly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So this is one of those weird issues where you're like, where did this even come from? But I also wonder, I mean, lots of questions here, but I want to play what Trump said aboard Air Force One on Friday about the nuclear testing. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you talking about literally resuming underground nuclear detonation tests?
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: You'll find out very soon, but we're going to do some testing, yes. Other countries do it. If they're going to do it, we're going to do it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. But you can't clarify whether you --
TRUMP: I'm not going to say yet. I mean, I know exactly what we're doing, where we're doing it. But other countries are doing it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Again, I'm not sure what he's talking about because other countries really aren't doing it. Nuclear testing hasn't happened from Russia or China since the 90s also. So where is this coming from? And why is he suddenly putting nuclear testing, which actually the moratorium is designed to be a part of a disarmament posture for the whole globe. Why is he putting that back on the table for all of us, Lydia?
MOYNIHAN: Yes. Well, first, I think it's important context to note that Donald Trump has a platform of peace through strength. I think he's arguably brokered more peace deals than any other president in modern history. So I think that's important to be aware of as we're having this conversation.
And the peace through strength is such an important element of this. So he wants to deter China or Russia from potentially being more aggressive. And I would note, actually, this comes as obviously he was headed to discussions with President Xi. But this week Putin also successfully tested a nuclear-powered drone and announced the trial of a nuclear capable missile. So those reports are --
PHILLIP: That's a totally different situation.
MOYNIHAN: I think those reports are coming out, and he wants to send a message, a signal of strength.
PHILLIP: But those are not even remotely the same thing. I mean, we also test the underlying weaponry that has the potential to carry nuclear weapons, but we don't actually test the weapons. And again, I don't know if it's that Trump doesn't understand this, that he hasn't been briefed. But then the reporting that he's blindsiding his own team, also deeply troubling. We're talking about nuclear weapons. This is not like patty cake.
[10:20:00]
CHAMPION: To your point, I had a chance to speak with David Sanger, who is the nuclear weapons correspondent for "The Times," and he said exactly what you're saying. Perhaps Trump is confused with this delivery system, this vehicle that you just spoke of, that Putin has, and he thinks perhaps, maybe it's the same as testing a nuclear weapon. But they are not the same. And if this person stands on this, this platform of peace, as you speak of, this doesn't promote peace. In fact, that alerts everyone else that it is time to start testing our nuclear capabilities. If you're going to dust yours off, I'll dust my off, too.
PHILLIP: And that's what they're saying. So here's what the Kremlin says. "Up until now, we have not known that anyone was testing. If someone withdraws from the moratorium, Russia will act accordingly." Iranian foreign minister, "A nuclear armed bully is resuming testing of atomic weapons. The announcement of a resumption of nuclear tests is a regressive and irresponsible move and a serious threat to international peace and security." I don't think we should be taking lectures from Iran, but also, why are we doing this when we have been the ones leading and asking other countries not to test?
WELCH: Well, there's a lot of categories of things that America used to lead on and now is not. We've decided as part of this sort of populist revolt on the right and left, but now governing so on the right, that we are not so fond of multinational, multilateral institutions, of those treaties, of those organizations. And so we are selectively, systematically withdrawing from a lot of them in such a way so it's no longer a unipolar world. It is a world that everyone has their little spheres of influence.
PHILLIP: What do you think is the consequence, though, of all of this?
WELCH: Well, it's predictable. I mean, you could have seen this coming 10 years ago when Trump first came on the world stage and talked to his generals at the time about possibly withdrawing from NATO or withdrawing from Article Five duties to defend other NATO countries when attacked. What is going to happen is that he does believe in peace through strength, absolutely, but he also likes to be a little bit unpredictable and erratic, because he thinks that way he can leverage and sort of scare people to the table. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Either way, there's going to be more of an arms race and a nuclear arms race.
PHILLIP: As a result, or it makes him look out of touch, because it makes him look like he doesn't understand his own nuclear arsenal.
YANG: Yes, or his own various agencies. Because as you pointed out, this testing is actually done by the Department of Energy. But look, I find it very ironic that a couple of months ago, Donald Trump's own nuclear official in charge of testing, Syracuse, New York's very own Brandon Williams, actually said I would not advise testing. This is just a couple months ago before Congress.
And so, look, we clearly don't need a global arms race. President Trump is simply wrong. The last time there was explosive nuclear testing, it was done by North Korea in 2017. And so none of us as Americans, as global citizens, we don't need a global arms race.
CHAMPION: Simple as being just unpredictable. Maybe that's what, maybe --
PHILLIP: That's always the, excuse, rationale.
CHAMPION: Create the chaos and see what happens next.
PHILLIP: Have any of you guys you guys seen this Netflix movie?
CHAMPION: Yes, "House of the Dynamite."
PHILLIP: Yes, "House of Dynamite."
WELCH: -- doesn't sleep afterwards.
PHILLIP: Well, it's a very unnerving movie.
CHAMPION: It is very unnerving.
PHILLIP: And it's about -- it's actually it's about our leaders. What they would do, honestly, in a nuclear crisis. And it's not reassuring, at all.
CHAMPION: To say the least.
PHILLIP: But, but it's actually interesting because that movie prompted the Department of Defense to push back on it because, spoiler alert, in the film, the interceptors that are supposed to stop these nuclear bombs don't work. And then --
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: So they said, the missile defense agency said that that based on -- that is based on earlier prototypes, and today's interceptors have displayed 100 percent accuracy in testing for more than a decade. So they're not thrilled about this movie.
But I do think there are other parts of this movie people should be concerned about, which is that this -- our political leaders, the ones who are not, like, experts in this stuff, are going to be the ones deciding who lives and who dies in a situation of a nuclear attack. And that's a very serious question. And Trump, I don't know, it's not very reassuring that Trump doesn't even know what the what agency is responsible.
CHAMPION: Or that someone within his agency is saying that he doesn't think that it's smart .Brandon Williams saying that it's smart to do it. All of these things say that it leads to back to your earlier point of unpredictability, and perhaps he feels like ruling by chaos does keep other countries at bay. I don't know. you asked a really great question. What is the consequence? I don't know what the consequence would be. My hope would think that it would be nothing but disaster for us. Nothing great can come out of it.
YANG: Yes, Donald Trump seems to want to continue to govern like he's negotiating a real estate deal in Manhattan. But at the end of the day, this is the safety and prosperity of hundreds of millions of Americans and the world.
PHILLIP: I mean, Lydia, are you how do you feel about Trump putting our nuclear posture back on the table after all this time? We've -- I mean, we fought so hard to get out of the cold war where everybody was hiding under their desks, concerned that there was a bomb going to be dropped on them. Are we really trying to get back there again?
MOYNIHAN: No, I don't think we're trying to get back there. And I think I would caveat a lot of what he's saying with knowing that he doesn't want war.
[10:25:05]
He's prioritizing peace. And I think, to your point, sometimes he chooses to be a little erratic to keep people on their toes. I would say that's probably what's going on here.
WELCH: He is also, it should be noted, has said several times in the past, and I actually believe him when he says this, that he would love to see a nuclear free world. Ronald Reagan used to say the same things in the 1980s. Democrats mocked him. But we've come to understand that that actually was something that he genuinely believed in. I think Trump has that that idea first. But it is in sort of an incoherent tension with the way that he is approaching the world.
PHILLIP: All right, next for us, the MAGA movement brought President Trump and his allies into office, but now it appears to be fracturing. We'll discuss next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:30:17]
PHILLIP: The MAGA family is starting to look like a tree on Ancestry.com, and not only are there more and more branches, but those branches are breaking. You've heard that many of about many of these feuds, over Epstein, over this Argentina bailout, tariffs, the Qatar plane and base, a third term for Trump, different reasons and different factions. But there's a new one, and it's bubbling up. After Tucker Carlson hosted a white nationalist and holocaust denier, Nick Fuentes, the Heritage Foundation denied the speculation that it is distancing itself from Carlson after that stunt in which America's support for Israel was discussed.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KEVIN ROBERTS, PRESIDENT, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Christians can critique the state of Israel without being antisemitic. Conservatives should feel no obligation to reflexively support any foreign government, no matter how loud the pressure becomes from the globalist class or from their mouthpieces in Washington. I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says, but canceling him is not the answer either. When we disagree with a person's thoughts and opinions, we challenge those ideas and debate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Conservative David French responded, saying, "The fringe is now the mainstream, and one of the most powerful institutions in the American right is bending the knee."
There are so many parts of this that are confounding, but I think the lets just start with the fact that Kevin Roberts put out that video in the first place. I think that was an extraordinary choice on his part. But I also want to just note that after all of this firestorm, and there was plenty of it, he put out another very lengthy statement, and he denounces Nick Fuentes in pretty specific terms. But then he also says, "Our task is to confront and challenge those poisonous ideas at every turn to prevent them from taking America to a very dark place. Join us not to cancel, but to guide, challenge, and strengthen the conversation and be confident, as I am, that our best ideas -- that the best ideas at the heart of western civilization will prevail." Lydia, I'm confused. Why is it not OK to just say, yes, Nick Fuentes, you're canceled. Bye?
MOYNIHAN: Yes, I'm honestly really shocked about all of this. I think one of the tragedies of losing Charlie Kirk is that he was such a voice of moral clarity on the right. Anytime somebody asked him a question that had a twinge of neo-Nazism or racism, he was the first one to say that has no place in the conservative movement. You are not welcome here.
And I think anyone who thinks that embracing somebody like Nick Fuentes is not just immoral, but I think it's also really shortsighted, because Donald Trump has become the towering figure in the 21st century. He has because he has appealed to a wide swath of movements. He's appealed to MAHA moms and black and working class Latinos and people like Tulsi gabbard, who rejected leftist ideology. And that's ultimately how Republicans and conservatives will continue to win. And I, you know, I do --
PHILLIP: There must be something -- I mean, is there I don't know, is there something that that Heritage is afraid of in the Nick Fuentes, you know, wing of the right? I mean --
WELCH: They're afraid of Tucker Carlson's audience.
PHILLIP: Tucker. It's about Tucker.
WELCH: Absolutely. Like, you can live without Nick Fuentes. You can live without Candace Owens, while being disturbed that both of them, who are right of center, have super large audiences and they traffic in antisemitism on a pretty regular -- and conspiratorial nonsense on a regular basis. And I don't levy accusations of antisemitism hardly at anybody. But both of those people deserve it.
PHILLIP: But Nick Fuentes, just to be clear, he's been pretty explicit. He said, I love Hitler. I mean, that's the thing that he has said. So it's not like --
WELCH: It's like Kanye without the mental disorders. It's, no, he's just all out there.
But the Tucker problem is real because, who is Tucker Carlson right now? He is someone who gave a speech at the last Republican National Convention. He sat in the same box as Donald Trump. He's one of the key figures of why J.D. Vance is the vice president of the United States. He has a gigantic audience. And for the last several years, he's been trafficking in cuckoo bananas, conspiratorial stuff, and inviting on -- and not challenging. That was the word in Kevin Roberts statement, that was awful. You know, we need to challenge and dispute these people. No, Tucker Carlson brings on randos as long as they're anti-Israel and sometimes blatantly antisemitic.
PHILLIP: He's like, I'm just asking questions.
WELCH: And he'll say that they're great historians, people that no one has ever heard of. He does this on the regular.
[10:35:00] PHILLIP: He brought on a so-called historian who was basically a holocaust minimizer, and praised him as one of the foremost thinkers of that period of time.
So J.D. Vance was asked a question by a young, a young questioner about Israel. And this person was basically saying that American presidents are controlled by Israel. And Vance was criticized for not pushing back on the premise of the question and answering it by saying, well, other presidents, essentially other presidents have been controlled by Israel, but Trump is not because he's pushing back. And I've seen a lot of conservative Jews saying, what is going on here? Why wouldn't J.D. Vance denounce the premise of that question?
YANG: Right, exactly. Look, this shouldn't be that hard. If someone is a holocaust denier, if someone is clearly, explicitly antisemitic, you don't give that person the platform. You know, maybe that Tucker Carlson, because he doesn't have a certain, you know, late night platform, you have to work a little bit harder to remain relevant. But this is not really that hard at all.
And look, this is -- sometimes you just have to condemn it. What I'll say is that I actually, as a lifelong Democrat, agree with Senator Ted Cruz here. There is a rising amount of antisemitism on the right. I know some folks will talk about the leftist progressive Democrats, the DSA, allegations of antisemitism. I think it's way overblown. The rising amounts of antisemitism are from some of these forces on the conservative right.
MOYNIHAN: I would say. I mean, I think J.D. Vance actually very clearly in an interview with Margaret Brennan disavowed Nick Fuentes, that he has no place in the conservative movement, and I hope we see him say more statements like that.
But I would say there's a frustration that the media only seems to care about this when it's coming from the right. And I know we spoke about Graham Platner last week, but since we spoke about him, the guy with the nazi tattoo, Bernie Sanders has not distanced himself. The entire Democratic Party seems to embrace these people.
PHILLIP: Yes, and we were talking --
MOYNIHAN: Like Platner, like Zohran Mamdani.
(CROSS TALK)
PHILLIP: Bernie Sanders had endorsed him and stood by him. We talked about that. But I mean, I actually, to be honest, I'm going to push back on what you said because I do think that this is not like only a rightwing thing, right? There is rising antisemitism, and it exists on both sides of the political spectrum right now. And you do have to acknowledge that.
But I think the thing about conservatives, and in a way, I actually give the conservatives who have spoken out in this moment a huge amount of credit, because there are many of them who are drawing a bright line. But the conservative movement has been sort of shaped around condemning antisemitism on the left over the last two years. And then for them to just kind of brush it away in the form of Nick Fuentes because it's coming from Tucker Carlson, that is the part that I think is perplexing, because of how vehemently they have spoken out about antisemitism on the left in the last couple of years.
CHAMPION: I feel like we've been having -- and I'll just take it even a broader picture here, we've been talking about free speech, and we know it's not free. When you see something like that happen, and then you have someone come out and say, guess what? You know, fringe, fringe is now more center, and it seems to be OK. There are only so many worlds where you can do that. There is no way in today's media landscape that you were talking about that we could be on the opposite side of that and have that conversation without the right being up in arms.
And so I do feel like there is only a certain conversation that is respected for a certain few that are allowed to have that conversation without there being any real pushback. And it's just disheartening. I don't feel as if you feel like you can speak freely in America anymore unless you are in agreement with those who have a Tucker Carlson, if you were, someone who has a powerful audience, someone who has the ear of the president. And it's not fair in a world that we live in.
YANG: Yes, look, I'll just say this real briefly is that I do think there is some elements of antisemitism on the left. However, it is not the vast majority of the Democratic Party or progressives.
PHILLIP: I don't think it's the vast majority of either party. It's not. But it's a question of who is policing the boundaries of the mainstream of both parties. And I think it's a challenge for both parties to say, yes, some people not allowed in the tent. And they have to be willing to do that. And I think increasingly there's not a willingness to do that. And that is part of the problem that we're facing.
But next for us, the Trump family is betting that it's followers will want to gamble with them. We'll discuss the new way that they're trying to add to their wealth.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:44:15]
PHILLIP: The Trump family is trying its hand at betting markets. Trumps platform, Truth Social, announced this week that it is expanding into the prediction marketplace, and it isn't exactly a gamble. The platform, called Truth Predict, will offer cryptocurrency based gambling on sports events, elections, and other major current events. In a statement, Trump Media CEO and chairman said that the platform could democratize markets held for too long by global elites. Kalshi, a prediction market platform that Trump's platform is expected to compete with, just raised more than $300 million at a $5 billion valuation.
Now, what could possibly go wrong with a betting market on elections run by the son of the sitting United States president who is the leader of one of the major political parties?
[10:45:11]
YANG: Yes. Look, if, as some would say, if a day ends in "y", the Trump family is going to find a way to profit off of politics, because exactly. He is a sitting president, even if he is a former president, he has a massive amount of influence over the modern Republican Party. For his family to be in the position to monetize so explicitly, there's something wrong with that.
Of course, I'll say this as well. There has to be some type of regulation, maybe it's from the SEC, on political gambling, because right now, my understanding --
CHAMPION: Who is going to regulate him?
YANG: Exactly. It's a problem with the Trump family in specifics and a problem, I would say, with the political market in general, because right now, theoretically, if I were, you know, as a Democratic strategist to work on a congressional campaign, I could bet on that campaign and profit from it. This is wrong.
PHILLIP: It is insider trading by another name.
CHAMPION: Yes.
PHILLIP: But it's now we're creating, I mean, the layers of problems here. Again, you're right, not the specifics of the Trump family is one thing, but it's also a broader problem. But also, the specifics of the Trump family are really problematic.
WELCH: It's crazy. Earlier this week, Reuters had a great story about the Trump family income. This year, 2025, the Trump family income, I think, is north of $850 million of revenue. That's up 17-fold over 2024. Let's see, what's different in 2024 and 2025. He's just doing corruption in plain sight. Like he does foreign trips to open golf courses that his son owns. And he gets the British prime minister over to cut the ribbon. And welcomes the media in.
CHAMPION: I'll talk to my son about it.
WELCH: I mean, the scale. Jared Kushner got $2 billion from the Saudis in 2017.
PHILLIP: Trump dished out a pardon to one of their crypto partners. I mean --
CHAMPION: Abby, I have such a hard time believing anything that comes from this administration. And I'm going to say this in my world of sports. Just a week-and-a-half ago, two weeks ago, there's this quote- unquote, big NBA scandal. There's insider trading, if you will. There is this alleged accusation that there are certain people within certain groups that are telling you, you know, LeBron won't play tonight, so make sure you bet on him. And then there is allegedly a poker game that had a lot of very famous, one current coach and other coaches. And they're saying that everything about this was illegal, and we're going to take them down, and somehow they're related to the crime families.
Everything in that indictment seemed so thin to me. Yet you turn around and say, this is what Trump is doing. I have such a hard time believing anything that comes out of this administration's mouth. And the reality is, the reality is he's doing exactly what he claims these players and friends of players have been doing.
PHILLIP: All right, we've got to leave it there. Next for us. Our panel's unpopular opinions. What they are not afraid to say out loud. But first, a quick programing note. This Sunday discovered the breads that bond Wisconsin. A new episode of the CNN original series "Tony Shalhoub Breaking Bread" airs Sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:52:46]
PHILLIP: We are back, and it's time for your unpopular opinions. You each have 30 seconds to tell us yours. Matt, you are up.
WELCH: So you know those Peter Jackson "Hobbit" movies, the ones that came after "The Lord of the Rings"? Everyone hated them. They made three of them even though it's only one book.
PHILLIP: They were like four hours long.
WELCH: They were like four hours long. And they had, like, a long -- they're actually good.
(LAUGHTER)
WELCH: I'm the only person in the world who believes that.
CHAMPION: Not true.
WELCH: And they're interesting. They're interesting. They're anti-war tracks.
PHILLIP: We may never know.
(LAUGHTER)
CHAMPION: There might be two people who agree with you. I think there might be two people who agree with my unpopular opinion.
I think that the Venmo scrolls should be some sort of television show. I want to know why Jim pays his wife $5 back for coffee. I want to know why Terry, whoever Terry may be, every Thursday pays $10 for pizza to a random person named John. Like, I feel as if there is something about me that's obsessed with the Venmo scroll, and I might be the only person who does this, who looks and says, this seems a bit nefarious. What is going on? But it is an entertainment lifestyle. It is something that people would pay attention to. Maybe it's just me, maybe it's just me.
PHILLIP: I don't know if people. MOYNIHAN: Social media is your highlight reel. Venmo is like the
deep, dark history.
CHAMPION: Of what's really going.
PHILLIP: What's really going on.
MOYNIHAN: Why is he charging his wife for a cocktail?
YANG: Dude, just pay for the drink, man.
(LAUGHTER)
MOYNIHAN: I don't like horror movies, and I do not think that they should be allowed to advertise on TV online. I, especially over the Halloween season, I would literally just be minding my own business, watching a happy show on -- and I would be confronted with a horrible image of some demon possessed child who is bleeding. That is so unfair to attack people with those images. I did not opt in, and I do not think that other people should have that fill their heads.
WELCH: Do you need a little safe space?
PHILLIP: I'm kind of with you on that one. Like, I am not a big horror movie fan, and I'm like, I don't I don't want to see that screeching people bleeding. It's just, no, thanks.
MOYNIHAN: Put that on me. Yes.
YANG: Yes, I'm a New Yorker and I'm a big sports fan. So look, I want every politician running for office, whether it's dogcatcher or the president, if -- I want them under oath.
[10:55:01]
When people ask them, who is their favorite sports team, they have to be authentic and give an honest answer. If you like the Boston Red Sox because you grew up in Connecticut or Massachusetts, and you're running for mayor of New York, just say it. The last thing I want to see is another person to be like Eric Adams and have a custom baseball hat with half Yankees and half Mets.
(LAUGHTER)
YANG: No New Yorker wants --
CHAMPION: That's not authentic at all. You're absolutely right. It's like being a Laker and a Clipper.
PHILLIP: What happens if you don't like sports?
CHAMPION: You can say that too.
PHILLIP: Are you not allowed to run for office?
YANG: Authenticity is the big thing. Just say, you know, my favorite team is none of them.
WELCH: Everything has changed with Donald Trump. You can do whatever you want.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: All right, everyone, thank you very much. Thank you for watching "TABLE FOR FIVE". You can catch me every weeknight at 10:00 p.m. eastern with our News Night roundtable, and any time on your favorite social media, X, Instagram, and TikTok. In the meantime, CNN's coverage continues right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
