Return to Transcripts main page

Table For Five

President Trump Continues to Make Promises to American People If Republicans Retain Control of House of Representatives and Senate; President Trump and Vice President Vance Defend Ohio Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy's Controversial Ad Featuring Estranged Mother of His Democratic Opponent Amy Acton; Federal Government Invested Directly in 34 Companies Under President Trump; Billionaire Tax Proposal in California Faces Both Support and Opposition from Some Billionaires. Aired 10-11a ET

Aired October 24, 2026 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[10:00:32]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Today, the closer America gets to the midterms, the longer the list of Donald Trump's promises gets. But of course, it's conditional.

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: It's only if we win. We've got to win.

PHILLIP: Plus, how far is too far? For the president and a controversial ad, not far enough.

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: I'm defending it because I know that if that ad were about my mother, you would love it.

PHILLIP: But does MAGA's own the libs mantra have its limits?

Also, more money, more problems. As the president throws government cash into private companies, will these socialism like moves backfire when Democrats have power?

And as one state gets ready to vote on a billionaire tax, are some of America's richest people starting to come around on it?

Here in studio, Katie Porter, Bill Stepien, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and Geoff Duncan.

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Hi, everyone. I'm Abby Phillip.

Remember the kid in third grade who made wild promises if he became student government president? Chocolate milk in the water fountains, no more homework, pizza Fridays every day. Well, with just ten days to go until the midterms, Donald Trump is wandering the halls delivering a pie in the sky. The president is making a laundry list of promises to voters, but most of them are coming with a catch -- his party has to win. Here's a taste.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: I just sent out nearly 1 million refund checks for $500 each.

20 million seniors on Medicare will soon be receiving a deposit of nearly $100 directly into their bank accounts.

I am going to give all adult citizens in the United States of America $5,000.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: It's only if we win. Don't -- we've got to win.

If the Republicans win, the Department of War will be investing $100 million in the pharmaceutical company.

If we win the House and the Senate, I am directing the Department of Justice to settle all remaining legitimate claims as soon as possible.

With Roger Marshall in the Senate, we will make year-round E-15 permanent. But if Adam Hamilton is in, I'm not doing it. That's it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Now, a lot of this rings hollow because, first of all, some of it is very unrealistic and much of it is expensive. Two, many of the promises that Trump has made have come up empty so far. Think about the tariff and the DOGE cash that people were supposed to get. And three, he and Republicans have had full power for two years now and haven't done any of it.

But it also ignores his biggest weakness, at least in the polls, that most Americans don't believe him when he says it's the greatest economy ever. I think, actually, you know, we kind of chuckle about the cash giveaway, you get a car, you get a car, kind of situation. But there was one in there that I think is actually a little bit darker than that, and it's the Camp Lejeune one, where he says -- I mean, he's in charge of the government. He says, I'll direct the Justice Department to settle these claims, but only if the House and the Senate stay in Republican hands, which has nothing to do with the claims.

And I just want to play this from a family advocate for the Camp Lejeune people who are affected by this. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JILL STEEN DILGARD, ADVOCATE FOR CAMP LEJEUNE FAMILIES: My reaction is it makes me physically sick. To play political games with somebody's lives, not only did these veterans serve our country, their families were stationed on that base also. And they're suffering. To me, it was nothing but bribery for votes, because he's had the opportunity to do something. And if my dad was here today, he would look at it as bribery. You're not going to bribe him for a vote. He served on the dotted line.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[10:05:00]

PHILLIP: It's quite the thing to gamble on in a tight midterm.

ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It feels like a little too late to be doing any kind of handouts at this point. Listen, how people feel about the economy is baked in at this point. The price of gas, inflation, low jobs. We've just had a revision of the jobs report that was pretty abysmal for the last quarter. That's not where you want to be heading into the midterms. So you do kind of have to come up with these free giveaways. There's not really another message to proactively sell, because we heard the vice president say it a few weeks ago. You've got to just give us more time. And I think the American people are balking at that. You've had Republicans have had total control for two years, and it hasn't made people's lives materially better.

This brings me back to, I remember, in 2020, the president wanted to do some kind of health care reimbursement when the polls started to turn against him just to get more money in people's pockets. And I think while people do appreciate relief, I think that they do, frankly, see it as sort of a bribe for their vote.

PHILLIP: And they probably wonder, why didn't you do it before?

GRIFFIN: If you could have done it.

PHILLIP: If you can do it now, you could have done it earlier when it mattered.

BILL STEPIEN, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes, I think, I think these are -- and we can debate the seriousness of the proposals, but these are policy answers or proposals to serious political -- because there are serious, serious political problems right now. 17 million people have voted to this point. And they've really, it's enough of a sample size to expose real problems for Republicans. Dramatic differences in enthusiasm between the two parties, the biggest gap since 2010, when Democrats lost 63 seats.

So I think this is someone who is up in Maine today with Susan Collins talking about reducing tariffs. He's trying to tap into local issues. Kentucky, North Carolina, Maine trying to really wake up Republicans, because right now Republicans are asleep.

KATIE PORTER, (D) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, CALIFORNIA: But I think this helps him in the sense that afterwards, when Democrats win, people, he can be like, well, see, I know you can't make ends meet, but if we won the House, I would have given you $5,000. I know we're not giving you anything for your, you know, being a victim of water, poisoned water, but, you know, if we voted differently.

So to me, he's throwing these things out here knowing full well that he's not going to have to deliver on them because Republicans are very unlikely to win the House. And he's saying, you've got to win the House. You got to win the Senate. Like, I don't think they're going to win either. But I think he's lets himself say now, see, I offered you these things, and you, the American people, he's shifting blame onto the American people for why they're not going to get these things.

PHILLIP: It is a bit of a preview of what the lame duck and the next two years might look like, whether Democrats take the House and the Senate, or just the House or whatever combination it is. Trump basically told us this week what he's going to do if he doesn't have complete control of power in Washington anymore after this midterm.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: I think the Republicans are going to win. But if there was, as you call it, gridlock, what happens is I veto everything. And then the Democrats come and they want to make a deal. You veto, veto, veto, and then they come and they say, how do we get it done? And you make a deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: I'm not sure that's how it works. Like, I don't -- I don't think that's how it works. That's not how you get deals done.

GEOFF DUNCAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think my biggest fear, I think a lot of Americans biggest fear is that the most unhinged version of Donald Trump is, is going to be the next two years. I think we're going to see executive orders that push the envelope further than any of us could imagine. We're going to see reactions, international foreign policy things.

And we are at a very critical point. I mean, we talk about, you know, the political theater of offering all this free stuff, which is just that, it's political theater. Thirty-five percent of America believes that he can actually do it. The rest of us are waking up and have been DOGE and tariffs and the whole list of other things. And so it's not really going to happen. He's not going to win the House, and they're probably not going to win the Senate. So it's impossible.

But the reality is we those programs cost over $1 trillion. The bond market is throwing up on itself right now all over the world. I mean, we've got really, really big critical problems that are affecting everybody. And he's -- the markets are calling him out on it.

PHILLIP: And he's never tried to work with the other side, at least not in these two years. He doesn't even have -- he and Hakeem Jeffries have barely crossed paths.

GRIFFIN: That's always remarkable to me. Ive actually spoken to Hakeem Jeffries about that.

PHILLIP: Yes. I mean -- GRIFFIN: They really don't know each.

PHILLIP: It's a crazy thing to think about.

GRIFFIN: Yes. Because at least with Speaker Pelosi, there were a lot of sort of iconic standoffs and meetings and times they'd get together in the White House. But this is a very just divided relationship. They're not used to working together. There isn't that, like, you know, just kind of baseline rapport that they have there.

But this is also, I don't think what the American people want to hear. even if they're if you're an undecided voter right now who is like, I'm not happy with where things are going, hearing the president say, I'm going to bring everything to a screeching halt and keep the status quo. If my team doesn't win, that's the last thing you want to hear.

PORTER: The status quo doesn't let you make ends meet when you feel like data centers are coming. Like the status quo doesn't feel the war in Iran. The status quo doesn't feel safe to people. So I think his all veto everything, which I actually think he really will do, I think is going to backfire on him. I think the real question for Democrats is, what do you do while he's vetoing everything? Do you just get frustrated and rail against him? Or do you use that time to figure out what your strategy is going to be when Trump's out of office?

[10:10:04]

PHILLIP: Well, there's the affordability thing, right? But Bill, I want you to look at this -- 36 percent in a CNBC poll recently said government corruption is their top issue. This is echoed by other polling that shows very similar results. It wasn't always like this. Something has shifted where the corruption message really has broken through, and it seems to be giving Democrats a mandate to address it. And I wonder what the consequences you think are of that for the Trump administration.

STEPIEN: Yes, that poll was taken on the heels of the Guilfoyle resignation and the weeklong news cycle, which was really, really bad. Yes, I mean, we talked a lot about draining the swamp ten years ago. People wonder what's changed when they see headlines like Guilfoyle and the trappings and the text messages. It's ugly. It's given Democrats an opening.

PHILLIP: All right.

GRIFFIN: Corey Lewandowski being investigated by the Department of Justice.

PHILLIP: And of course, everybody knows how much money the Trump family and the president himself has made in the last two years. So yes, it's top of mind for everyone.

All right, next for us, the era of civil discourse has been hanging by a thread, but after an ugly midterm season, particularly in Ohio, is it officially dead at this point? Plus, when they do it, it's socialism. But when I do it, it's smart

politics. President Trump's latest move has Democrats and even some Republicans calling out the hypocrisy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:16:16]

PHILLIP: Welcome back. For more than a decade, Donald Trump's no apology, no surrender style has dominated American politics. But will it work again? Or is the public sick of the stunts at this point? This week, Vivek Ramaswamy released an ad featuring the estranged mother of his Democratic opponent, who called her daughter a liar.

But here's the context that wasn't included in the ad. That woman's husband was indicted for sexually abusing Amy Acton as a child, forcing the mother to lose custody. And so that's why they haven't had a connection since Amy Acton was 12 years old. Ramaswamy didn't care about that context, and he refused to pull the ad down, despite Republican after Republican denouncing it. But the president and his vice president took the opposite approach.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: I'm defending it because I know that if that ad were about my mother, you would love it.

J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT: Politics is a tough business, and my message to my fellow elected Republicans is, if you actually believe in the things you say you believe in, stop whining about an advertisement and go win the race in 13 days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Katie, do you see the political logic here?

PORTER: I mean, I think this is a desperation move. I don't think you put this kind of ad up if you think you're positioned to win without it, because it comes with risk and blowback. So I think political strategists would tell you, you only make this kind of ad where you're going to -- you really, don't know how it's going to play. And here it's blowing back on Vivek. I don't think he would have done this if he didn't need to make something happen in the race to win. And I just think the miscalculation here is, like, childhood rape is wrong. And I just don't think there's any constituency of Americans who doesn't feel for somebody who has been the victim of that kind of horrific crime.

PHILLIP: That's why it's so, it's bizarre, right? It's bizarre how they -- I don't even see the upside. I'm trying to understand where they're coming from, but I don't see the upside.

GRIFFIN: So for Vivek, it was clearly a hail Mary attempt because he saw himself slipping in the polls. And he was hoping that he'd get it on the airwaves and perhaps the context wouldn't come out. That's what I'm guessing. But the president and the vice president didn't have to defend him.

They could have said, we still support Vivek, but we wouldn't have run the ad, and move on. The double down is just remarkable and horrific. I mean, this is the worst ad I can think of that I've -- with the context that I've ever seen in my lifetime. It is truly indefensible. I'd also say it kind of brings to mind one of the biggest failings of this administration, which was not prosecuting and accountability for Epstein. It brings that back to mind.

PHILLIP: You are reminded when you hear Trump react that way, that he has never voiced any kind of sympathy for the Epstein victims, and similarly, is completely disregarding the actual history of child rape that Amy Acton experienced. And, you know, Vivek Ramaswamy also, again, doubled and tripled down on this. This is the latest from him on Friday. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VIVEK RAMASWAMY, (R) OHIO GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: I want to tell you this directly for the people who are hearing it from the flawed and failed media. We ran an ad about lying. Amy Acton is lying. She has been lying this entire campaign about me, about her record, about her history in this state. The irony is they are lying about an ad that is about lying. That is the truth of the matter. It had nothing to do with childhood abuse, which I will be the number one governor to prosecute when I am the governor of this state. But they're changing the subject because they don't want to answer for their own failures

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: OK, that is -- that is crazy because as, Bill, I know, you know, but just for people who don't understand what he's saying she's lying about, the mothers is saying that she is lying about being raped as a child.

[10:20:6]

That is the only thing her mother knows about her, because they haven't spoken in almost 50 years.

STEPIEN: I do think it's notable that the vice president walked back his comments, or at least stepped away from the issue, because it is, I think, too hot to touch. This race should not be close, right? Trump won the state three times, eight, eight, and 11. It's turned from pink to red. Republicans literally hold every office in the state.

Decisions like this have made the race close when it shouldn't be. A poll came out before this poll -- this ad was released. He was down 25 points among independents. I've said through a lot of focus groups and read a lot of polls over the years. No focus group or poll that I've seen with independents resonate with that. Some ads are bad taste. Some ads are bad politics. This is both.

GRIFFIN: Well, and keep in mind, one in five women will be sexually abused at some point in their lifetime and face childhood sexual abuse. So you're also alienating not a small swath of your voters, just based on the sheer statistics of it.

And, you know, Jon Husted to his credit, Governor DeWine denounced this ad. I don't understand why the White House couldn't have said we wouldn't -- we don't stand by the ad, but we're standing by, Vivek. That would have been the clean place to leave it rather than defend it.

PHILLIP: I don't know, I mean, I don't know if we can give J.D. Vance a pass. I mean, I didn't see him really walking back. He went on a -- he was at a rally doubling down. He brought it up. He wasn't even asked about it. He brought it up at a rally.

PORTER: He said people expressing concerns about it were whining.

STEPIEN: He stepped back from it.

DUNCAN: I think it speaks to the kryptonite that the Republican Party is having to swallow right now. And that's the moral fiber has just eroded completely, led by chief architect Donald Trump. And it just continues. Even if you go into city council races and county commission races and House races, you're watching the moral fiber of what people's decision-making looks like in the Republican Party. It's disgusting.

And this has got no place. And it's certainly not an ad that anybody near the lead is going to run or stand behind. And this is all Ramaswamy's fault. And it's also the fault of Donald Trump leading the way down this this path.

STEPIEN: And her counterpunch, Acton's counterpunch was jarring. It was smart. She was quick. She was smart. It was very --

PORTER: Do you think this hurts candidates like Ashley Hinson in Iowa, who want to like, pull back? Or does this give them a very obvious thing to break with Trump on in this critical moment? So she's trying to separate herself from Trump to win in Iowa.

PHILLIP: Who wants to be Ashley Hinson in a whole other state and have to even --

PORTER: Deal with it?

PHILLIP: Deal with it. It's what --

GRIFFIN: Traditionally, the gubernatorial candidate should be lifting up the down ballot races. They should be the more popular, best-known figure in the state who is helping House races, who is helping the Senate candidate. He's doing the exact opposite. The only upside I see of all of this is when Vivek loses, I think his political career is over.

PHILLIP: So Aaron Blake has some analysis on CNN this week that says, "Trump is essentially asking his party to own something that it's very clearly uncomfortable owning just to help one candidate who might or might not benefit from it. His comments make no bones about this being who the Republican Party is these days, and he's telling his allies to just grin and bear it. Trump clearly doesn't share the qualms about the morality of the ad, and maybe that shouldn't be a surprise from a guy who didn't seem to get the fuss about the Epstein files, and even repeatedly floated a pardon for sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. Praising the courage of Acton's mother is very much in line with all of that."

That's a problem. You know, they spent the whole first year trying to run away from Epstein files. And then to do something like this, where basically, you know, according to Amy Acton's account and the court documents, her mother essentially condoned this, and then fled with her husband, who was a fugitive. And then here comes Trump calling her brave for doing that. That's crazy. I mean, and Republicans are now saddled with that.

STEPIEN: Yes. I think over the years, going back to 2016, September 2016, Trump has kind of defied political gravity on issues like this, which are usually too hot to touch. I think some people think they're Trump, like, like this guy, when they're not. And this shows it, the response shows it, and he's going to pay the price at the polls.

PHILLIP: Theres also the Acton, I mean, the Acton ad where he's on a private jet. I mean, the, the Vivek Ramaswamy kind of, the character that is being presented to voters right now, I can't think of anything that is more damaging on a lot of different levels.

GRIFFIN: I would love Geoff Duncan to give him some swing tips, because he looks like he's never held a baseball bat before in his life.

PHILLIP: Baseball is not the strongest --

DUNCAN: I have only faced him one time.

(LAUGHTER)

GRIFFIN: Right. But listen, this is a candidate, we all saw him in the 2024 presidential primary. The more you saw of him, the less you liked him. I just have to say, he is unkind to people. He name calls. He plays dirty, ugly politics.

And to your point, Teflon Don is a unique force in American politics. Donald Trump gets away with things that no one else will.

[10:25:02]

That is not the same for other candidates, especially someone as off- putting as Ramaswamy.

DUNCAN: But these Republicans deserve what they're getting, and they gave the keys to Donald Trump on the way up, and now they're having a ride with him on the way down. And it's painful.

PHILLIP: All right, next for us, the president has spent most of his time on the campaign trail railing against socialism. But is he now embracing the socialist playbook himself? We'll debate.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:05]

PHILLIP: In his second term, Donald Trump has pulled a page out of the socialism playbook and made the government an investor in private companies. But if Democrats win back power, whether Congress or the White House, will that new precedent ultimately backfire? Trump has used taxpayer dollars to acquire stakes in a variety of companies, from chips to minerals, from copper to steel. But with stakes in companies, it automatically gives the government a say in how those companies are run.

Semafor paints the hypothetical picture. A Democratic president could do the same and then rein in A.I. companies, shrink defense spending, or pressure oil and gas companies. Stephen Moore, one of the president's longtime economic sounding boards, is telling Trump to stop, stop buying into companies. And he likens it to socialism. He says that the nation can't afford it with a $40 trillion debt.

This is a unique moment, I think, for conservatives to decide whether what they really believe in. The Cato Institute had a whole report on this. And if you look at this chart, we're up to 34 companies now that the government has stakes in. Prior to Donald Trump taking office, it was zero. So what are we doing here?

STEPIEN: I think since the 50s was the last time that we saw something like this outside of an emergency or a crisis. I think the government's very bad at managing money. I don't like when they're playing a part like an investor on "Shark Tank". And you look at some of these companies like Intel, where we spent a lot of money, or planned to. I mean, this company lost 50 percent of their stock in 2024, laid off 20 percent of their workforce in 2020. They've been lapped by younger, smarter companies. If we're going to invest anywhere, I'd rather be investing there.

GRIFFIN: Yes, exactly. I mean, Stephen Moore couldn't have said it better. I wish there were more Larry Kudlows around Trump in this administration, people who are giving him sound, free enterprise driven advice.

Listen, there is a way for the government to work in collaboration with private industry. Right now, I don't disagree with the fact that Donald Trump is using the Defense Production Act to try to surge diesel production right now as costs are very high because of the war in Iran. That is an authority that he has, and it's an authority that is not essentially having U.S. ownership in those companies. There's ways to do that, like things like making sure we have the chips that we need. There's ways to do that through legislation, not ownership, government ownership of private companies.

DUNCAN: I think the word that Republicans use most to demonize Democrats, and I've been on both sides of the equation, is socialism, right? It's socialist. It's just thrown out in all types of derogatory ways. Yet Donald Trump seems to be the most living, breathing example of socialism today. And I think it's not only the investments going into these companies,

which is very historically odd, but it's why he's doing it. It's not to come in and bail out some sort of mission critical company or industry that's losing jobs or something safer to keep America safe. It's really more of a vanity play. And I think that's what's most troubling. And there's real consequences to buying pieces of these companies. I think your point is well taken. The government, whether it's Democrats or Republicans, is not very good in the boardroom. They're not very good at making those critical decisions about hiring and firing and investments and capital collection. I mean, they're just not, and they're not going to take good care of the customer.

PHILLIP: Bill Maher made a very similar point recently. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL MAHER, COMEDIAN: It's so interesting, the wrinkle in this story, because now that they're communist, there's an opening for socialism. And you know who is filling it. Donald Trump. Donald Trump -- how else do you explain a 9.9 stake in Intel by the government? Is that not socialism? Nvidia, we took 15 percent cut when we let them sell chips to China. Nippon Steel that's merged with U.S. steel, we have a golden share. We basically run their boardroom now. And you know, this is socialism, I think because Bernie Sanders agrees with it all. He wants to do it with the A.I. companies.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The free market is dead.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: So what do you think is going to happen if Democrats have power, whether it's in the Congress or in the White House? And it maybe it's not Bernie Sanders, but it's his acolytes, AOC and others who are, I mean, are they just going to double down on this. Is this the strategy?

PORTER: I think it depends on the market, which is really unpredictable. So if these deals are playing out and the government is making money off Donald Trump's 34 investments, then it's a good environment for Democrats to say, look, this is our share of the slice of the value that companies produce, in part because of public education, because of transportation, because of infrastructure.

But if the market is tumbling and we're losing money on this, I think it will be a huge setback for the government, who sometimes does need in emergency situations. We think about the foreclosure crisis. We think about G.M. Sometimes we have seen the government step in.

I'll also just point out there's no legal basis here. So even if Democrats wanted to do this, other than the Defense Production Act, which is actually quite limited and doesn't cover most of these 34 investments, despite how he's trying to stretch it.

[10:35:06]

So I think Democrats are going to be hamstrung by the fact that there's no legal authority here. And I think that will trip them up.

PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, Trump is using authorities that don't exist.

PORTER: They're not authorities.

PHILLIP: To be frank. Yes, all of them -- none of them say that you can do things like this. But he's doing them anyway.

DUNCAN: I think Democrats are about to have a golden opportunity with the House, probably the Senate and some other leadership spots around the country. It's their turn to lead by example. If they really want to be mature adults about it, start to find ways to unwind those positions, lead by example. Look for opportunities to be fiscally conservative in as many ways, shapes, and forms as they possibly can. Look for -- look for ways to talk about health care. Look for ways to talk about --

PHILLIP: I mean, it kind of sounds -- forgive me for reading through the lines of what you're saying. It sounds like what Katie is saying is that, actually, the way the Democrats would utilize something like this is to say, yes, Nvidia, let's get a little bit of a, of a slice of you and maybe, maybe all the other A.I. companies. And that's the vehicle for Medicare for all. That's the vehicle for universal basic income or free childcare. I mean, that's a very different world.

DUNCAN: I just think that's a train wreck waiting to happen. The private markets are so volatile. So those stock prices that you build those programs on, those are legacy programs that are going to carry on for generations. Those stock prices ebb and flow. Some of the companies that you mentioned will not be in business in ten years.

PORTER: If they ebb and flow in the short term. In the long term, which the government plays the long term game when they provide benefits, we provide benefits decade after decade after decade. In the long term, if you had a big enough portfolio, if you did an S&P 100, imagine, then historically that has been a really good bet and would let the government have a way to fund things when there's no appetite right now for increased taxes.

PHILLIP: The one thing I would just say is that the other reason this is a bad idea from a free market perspective is that you do end up propping up fundamentally bad companies, and you create distortions in a free market where good companies have to now compete not just against a bad company, but a bad company that is backed by the United States government, which is fundamentally unfair. And I think that is -- that's the other problem with what's going on here with some of these companies and a company like Intel as an example.

PORTER: I think oligarchy is such a concern right now, too, that that becomes -- we become sort of like Ukraine in terms of pre-war Ukraine, where there was all this concern about the lines between government and business and who is really controlling everything.

PHILLIP: Yes. All right, next for us, a wealth tax on those billionaires gets some unlikely supporters, some billionaires themselves. But will that be enough to move the needle in that debate? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:42:21]

PHILLIP: Should billionaires pay extra? That question will be on the ballot for the first time in California, and some of them are sensing a possible tide turn. The CEO of Nvidia supports the tax, calling it a privilege to be that rich. The CEO of United Airlines calls the inequity crisis a danger to society, and he's calling for a national wealth tax.

But on the other hand, some CEOs aren't fans. Mark Zuckerberg reportedly threatened to leave California if voters passed the measure, but Meta has since set up a structure to shield him from it.

So what should we make of all of this? Are some billionaires getting out ahead of public opinion here and potentially a challenge to Washington's power? They certainly, at least those two that we mentioned, seem to read the same polls that that I'm reading. Here's one on the federal wealth tax. Do you support a new federal tax on Americans with a net worth over $1 billion? And 61 percent of Americans support it. So there is some support for something.

PORTER: And I would say, I'm in that bucket. I would say, yes, I support a national wealth tax. I signed up for those in Congress. I fought for those. I think what Scott Kirby said today, the CEO of United, what he said recently is really, really smart. He's saying wealth inequality is a serious problem. Americans clearly believe that.

The problem is California's proposition is not a smart version of the wealth tax that I think there's hunger for. So there's political hunger, I think across the aisle even. And real concern about inequality. I think A.I. data centers, it's popping up in all these different venues. The problem is this ballot proposition is not going to deliver what it promises. It's a one-time tax. All of the money goes to health care, the for-profit health care system that I think there's also a lot of righteous anger at.

So I think the thing for Democrats here is to say, yes, wealth inequality is a serious problem, and we're going to have a plan for it. If not in 2027, we're going to have a plan in 2029, but not to go down this path of a poorly conceived, poorly drafted tax that is, I think, A, hopefully not going to pass. And B, if it does, it's going to fail to deliver and actually set back the cause of addressing wealth inequality.

GRIFFIN: I think that's very well said because broadly, the public does support a wealth tax, I should say a tax on billionaires. You're seeing this more on the populist, right. I think this is something that presidential candidates in 2028 are going to get asked about. But how it's done matters.

And there's a reason that this measure is unlikely to pass and its approvals have in recent polls have gone down. It's written very poorly. It's confusing, and it seems to leave room that it could expand to people beyond just the ultrawealthy.

[10:45:00]

And there's this feeling that people don't trust how their tax dollars are being used already, and they don't want vague, expansive language. But I think if you kept it to the ultrahigh net worth with really tight language, that's something a lot of Americans would favor.

DUNCAN: So I've been behind the curtain on writing and passing a budget at the state level in Georgia, obviously. And the interesting part is if you give -- if you create more revenue, they're going to find ways to spend it. We have to attack this from two angles. If more revenue is needed, then folks need to figure that out. But also we need to figure out ways to cut costs, to streamline government.

And I think there's also another area that we don't have to tax these people. We can maybe start to close some loopholes, right? If you look at what a billionaire makes in a year, I don't know what their tax basis is, but it's probably not the same percentage points that that we all pay.

PORTER: This is a wealth tax. To be clear, it's not an income tax. So that is --

DUNCAN: But they're still sheltering in trusts and things of that nature. There's a very sophisticated --

PHILLIP: That's part of the problem is that they're taxing, they're taxing net worth, which is partially speculative for a lot of these people.

PORTER: Look, the billionaires say like, my, my third yacht might go down in value. I don't find these particularly persuasive arguments. What I find more persuasive is what are we doing with the money? To your point about can we trust Democrats to make good financial decisions? And I think whenever we've passed big taxes, you should get something. So here, what this does, supposedly, the money is supposed to help plug the holes in the Medicaid budget that are created by Trump's big, beautiful bill. And the solution here, I think, is win the House, win the Senate, undo those Medicaid changes, and kind of ride through it and then use a billionaires' tax at a national level to get something transformative.

PHILLIP: Rather than propping up a health care system that is also fundamentally --

PORTER: That Americans also think is corrupt and want to fix.

PHILLIP: I mean, so on the flipside of this, the billionaires are pushing back. "The L.A. Times" reports that billionaires have individually contributed $283 million to oppose this tax measure and to support Proposition 41 and 42, which would nullify the billionaire tax if either receives more votes. Sergey Brin, the co-founder of Google, has given $102 million. That's more than a third of all billionaire money against the measure. But that is less than one percent of his estimated tax bill. So when people see these numbers, they're just like --

GRIFFIN: Your eyes just glaze over.

PHILLIP: You're talking about a guy who is spending $100 million, and that is less than one percent of the tax he would owe.

PORTER: It makes you want to tax billionaires.

PHILLIP: It kind of -- I feel like there's a risk here that some of these guys, they just look out of touch when they push back so hard against even the concept of being taxed more.

STEPIEN: The fact that there are 200 billionaires in the state that this would impact versus 39 million Californians, and the fact that this might not pass is pretty astounding to me. I think Californians have been voting with their feet. They've lost 100,000 millionaires over the last eight years. California, or Texas and Florida have gained 200,000. People vote with their feet. And if there's a national wealth tax, guess what? They won't move states. They'll move countries, right? The Bahamas are a 35-minute plane ride from Miami.

PORTER: Maybe, but that's a lot trickier to do. And there are a lot more consequences.

PHILLIP: But, I mean, look, I think there are there are policy solutions here to deal with the billionaires. I guess I'm unconvinced that the idea that we should be worried about the billionaires fleeing, they're not that many of them. And that's the problem.

GRIFFIN: I also do think, though, that the populist left needs to get the messaging right. When I hear Bernie Sanders, the millionaires and billionaires, a one millionaire has more in common with the lowest income in the country than they do with a billionaire. There is a difference in different markets, different places you're living. Targeting the ultrahigh net worth B, capital "B" billionaires, is very different.

PHILLIP: All right, next for us, the panel is going to give us their unpopular opinions, what they are not afraid to say out loud.

But first, a quick programing note for you. The "Have I Got News for You" crew is never shy about roasting the weeks biggest headlines. Watch the new episode tonight at 9:00 p.m. on CNN and streaming the next day with an all-access subscription.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:53:54]

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

DUNCAN: So since I got drafted by the Marlins in 1996, I've always been in favor of a salary cap. I just thought it made sense. It created parity. I'm no longer for the salary cap. I love watching the Devil Rays and the Brewers playing head to head. Devil Rays are 28th out of in the league in payroll. Dodgers got beat. Braves got beat. Yankees got beat. Mets didn't even make the playoffs. Let them play.

GRIFFIN: That is actually a very unpopular take.

I am over television reboots. We had original "Baywatch". We had original "Glee". We don't need to do it again. I believe that there is so much creative content in front of Hollywood and all across the country. Do something new. Done with the reboots.

PHILLIP: Yes, let's add movies to that too.

GRIFFIN: Yes.

PHILLIP: Done with reboots of movies.

PORTER: I'm anti macaroni and cheese. I know many Americans love this. I think it's glutinous, gross. I ask to be reseated. Please don't order it if you see me coming.

PHILLIP: Are you from another planet?

PORTER: I know. My staff would always say like they'd go to get me lunch and they were so kind to go do it. And the only thing I wouldn't eat, they would be like, what do a lot of people like?

GRIFFIN: Right? That's what --

[10:55:02]

PORTER: They would bring back macaroni and cheese. And I would be like, just, I can't even be around it. So --

DUNCAN: I hope my three boys are not listening right now.

PORTER: I raised three children. They're very -- they're turning out great so far.

PHILLIP: And no mac and cheese.

PORTER: I never served mac and cheese.

PHILLIP: Oh, that's very sad. OK.

STEPIEN: I'm here to stick up for high school reunions. I missed my first two. I went to my 30th. Scary. Recently, the wolf pack. Um, it wasn't a bunch of dudes in their high school varsity jackets talking about the big game or stealing the other team's mascot. It was people from a common place, caring about each other, interested in how we could help each other. It was -- it was. I'm not saying they're cool. I'm just saying they're not uncool.

PHILLIP: Oh.

PORTER: Don't be afraid.

PHILLIP: OK, I do like that. Yes.

All right, everyone, thank you very much for being here.

Thanks for watching "TABLE FOR FIVE". And you can catch me every weeknight at 10:00 p.m. eastern with our Newsnight roundtable.

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)