CNN ‘Table for Five’ Erupts: Pro‑MAGA And Anti‑MAGA Panelists Clash Over ‘Hegseth Derangement Syndrome’ And Strikes On Suspected Drug Boats

CNN Panel Heats Up Over Military Strikes, Media Bias And Data Disputes

On Saturday’s episode of CNN’s Table For Five, pro‑MAGA guest Hal Lambert, CEO of Point Bridge Capital, and anti‑Trump commentator Adam Mockler of the MeidasTouch Network engaged in a tense on‑air dispute about the Trump administration’s strikes on suspected Latin American drug boats and whether criticism of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reflects partisan bias.

Lambert’s Argument: Lambert charged that mainstream media and Democrats suffer from what he called “Hegseth Derangement Syndrome,” arguing that recent strikes—which he said number “more than 20” since early September—target “narco‑terrorists” and that criticism of Hegseth is hypocritical given past wartime strikes under former President Barack Obama. On air, Lambert said the operations had killed “about 87 people,” and contrasted that with what he described as far larger civilian casualties from prior administrations. He also invoked U.S. drug‑death figures to justify the strikes.

“Look, we’re taking out drug boats… I think they’ve killed 87 people doing this,” Lambert said. He added that previous administrations carried out many more strikes worldwide.

Mockler’s Rebuttal: Mockler pushed back, calling it reasonable to question whether a former cable‑news host should oversee the Defense Department and citing differences in legal authority and operational context compared with post‑9/11 strikes. He referenced Coast Guard figures—saying they interdicted 212 boats since 2024 with no violence—and claimed roughly 25% of those interdictions found no drugs. Mockler pressed Lambert directly: would he support strikes if there were a one‑in‑four chance a targeted boat had no contraband?

“Would you be OK striking boats if there is a 1 in 4 chance that there’s no drugs on the boat?” Mockler asked.

The exchange grew contentious as the guests interrupted each other. Lambert began to cite drug‑death statistics—initially saying “60,000 Americans dying—” before being cut off—and later asserted “5,000 Americans are dying a month from drugs.” Mockler pressed him to answer the 25% question and pointed to perceived inconsistencies in the administration’s drug‑policy record, including the pardon of a former Honduran president. Lambert disputed the applicability of the Coast Guard figure, saying the Coast Guard is not operating off Venezuela’s coast and questioned the 25% claim.

Host Intervention and Key Themes: Host Abby Phillip interjected to challenge factual assertions and to seek clarity about the identity of the targets (Lambert repeatedly identified them as Venezuelan gangs, including Tren de Aragua). The segment highlighted several ongoing debates: the accuracy of public data about interdictions and casualties, the legal authority for military strikes at sea, and competing claims about media bias toward senior defense officials.

Context and Caveats: Many of the figures cited on the program—such as the number of strikes, casualty totals, interdiction counts, and drug‑death statistics—were presented as claims by the participants. Independent verification of those numbers was not provided during the segment. The broadcast exemplified how high‑stakes policy questions can become dominated by heated exchanges and competing data claims on cable news.

Bottom Line: The segment underscored stark disagreement over the propriety and consequences of U.S. strikes on suspected narcotics traffickers at sea, and over whether criticism of Secretary Hegseth is driven by partisan bias or legitimate concern about policy, legality, and civilian risk.