What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure. Trailblazing women changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself. Life is short and you just got to think big to accomplish big things. Julia Borsten hosts CNBC Changemakers and Power Players. New episodes every Tuesday, wherever you get your podcasts. Bring in show music, please. Hi, I'm CNBC producer Katie Kramer. Today on Squawk Pod. We've got a special interview with Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, powering the Trump savings accounts for newborns and building the future of money. We're building a financial super app, serving our customers across any asset class, any financial transaction, anywhere in the world. A distributed data center network attached to your house? CNBC's Diana Olick reports on innovation on the grid. SPAN is now making small fractional data centers, or they call them nodes, that can be put on the side of residential homes. And the interview you'll only hear on CNBC and on yesterday's Squawk Pod, GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen gave pretty short answers to some big questions about his bid to buy eBay. I imagine, or I imagined, I don't know which way it goes, that there is a genuine rationale for how he thinks he can get there. Yeah, and he will have to answer all the questions that we pose to him. I'm sure eBay will ask similar questions. Plus, the money and fashion on the red carpet. E-host Kelty Knight was at the Met Gala with Beyonce, Jeff Bezos, Lauren Sanchez, and of course, the Kardashians. This is a very thought out thing. And when you met, you met. Like Kim Kardashian does not come to the Met to not be the most popular person on Instagram. It is Tuesday, May 5th, 2026. Squawk Pod begins right now. Stand and her by in three, two, one. Good morning and welcome to Squawk Box right here on CNBC. We're live at the Nasdaq market site in Times Square. Andrew Osorkin, along with Melissa Lee, Joe and Becky are off today. But boy, do we have a lot to talk about this morning. Let's get right now to the Middle East, though. The U.S. and Iran exchanging fire in the Persian Gulf. And CBC's Dan Murphy joining us now with more from Abu Dhabi. Good morning, Dan. Andrew, good morning. Well, the conflict in the Gulf has deepened, with Iran's latest strikes on the UAE really signaling a potential new phase in this now three-month standoff. The Strait of Hormuz was already under severe strain, with what many describe as a functional blockade in place. The question now is whether this latest escalation that we're seeing pushes the US towards new military action or back onto a diplomatic track. Of course, overnight, the UAE says Iran fired missiles and drones towards the country, with one drone striking the Fajera oil industry zone, sparking a fire there and injuring three Indian nationals. We're still trying to get a clear picture of the damage, but the targeting of Fajera is really significant. This is a key piece of infrastructure that allows the UAE to export crude outside of the Strait of Hormuz, essentially a workaround to that choke point. So by hitting it, Iran is essentially expanding its strategy beyond disrupting shipping to also pressuring alternative export routes and critical energy infrastructure of America's allies here once again. Now, in response, UAE officials have maintained a defensive posture, but say they reserve the right to respond. And there is a real frustration here that Iran can still wage this kind of warfare on civilians and energy assets with little to no repercussions. At the same time, the signals that we're hearing from Tehran remain mixed. Iran's parliamentary speaker warning that a new equation in the Strait of Hormuz is now taking shape and that Iran hasn't even begun yet. The foreign minister Abbas Arakshi saying on X there is no military solution to a political crisis. And as for the markets, the reaction here has been interesting as well. Crude has basically been pricing in this prolonged tension for weeks now, with the US now escorting ships through the strait and Iran also warning that traffic could be targeted. In the last few hours, we've been able to confirm that the Danish shipping giant Maersk was actually able to move a ship through, saying one of its commercial vessels successfully transited under U.S. military protection. That might be part of the reason we've seen oil come off the boil in the last couple of hours. But of course, with crude still trading in the triple digit range here, the risk premium remains firmly in place, even as some traders may be taking profits in the near term. Andrew? And that's the thing I was trying to make some sense of, which is here you have oil prices coming down marginally at a time where here you are talking about things escalating and how much of that is a function of this one ship getting through. And I'm curious, and this is a different kind of math equation, how much it costs effectively to escort that one ship through. And that math is not mathing either, probably. um so i think there's that's that's a little bit of the the equation which is if if every if every ship to get through has to be escorted what is that ultimately maybe prices come down a little bit but there's got to be a huge cost just even doing that and not just the cost but also the insurance premium in particular has skyrocketed as a result of this if we do see direct u.s naval escorts then that could be bearish crude it might help to take some of the heat out of this market But that's not something that the U.S. has signaled at this point either. The president really stopping short of saying that ships will be one-on-one moved through Hormuz with U.S. military assets. Up until now, this Operation Freedom, Project Freedom, has been described as a U.S. security umbrella over those vessels. So what this looks like operationally is still pretty unclear at this point. The other point you could add to the pull lower that we're seeing in oil is probably just the general pullback that we have seen in equity trade. Perhaps there is a little bit more bearish sentiment coming through here, at least in the short term. So oil might be caught up in the crosshairs as well. But you're exactly right, Andrew. This reaction is really interesting to watch. Typically, when we see drones and missiles flying over the UAE and the Gulf states, then that would be a bull case for oil. we would have seen a significant escalation higher in the price that hasn't necessarily materialized or been able to be maintained through the course of the Asia and European trading days today. Okay. Dan, thank you. Appreciate it. And the Trump administration, considering reviewing AI technology before it's released publicly, source telling CMBC and artificial intelligence working group is under discussion, could bring together tech executives and government officials to look into insights, or I should say oversight procedures, really, for powerful AI models. Among the ideas floated a formal review process for the models or an executive order. White House official telling CNBC any policy announcement will come directly from President Trump and talk about potential executive orders amounts to speculation at this point. Neither OpenAI or Anthropic have commented on this so far. This would be a whole new take on all of this. The question is whether Congress ultimately needs to do something like this. Well, I mean, I don't know how it would work. How does the government go into the private sector and say, show us your product before you release it, and we'll tell you if it's okay? A little bit. And what if it's not? Well, it's a little like, I'm imagining this is like the FDA, right? Show us your medicine or pharmaceutical before we're approving it. But you have to build a big apparatus There has to be a committee. There has to be a process. A whole procedure. But that's a whole new level to all of this. And typically, those things have been approved by Congress. And how much longer does this take and does this slow down our progress in the race against, let's say, China? Right. And that's a big question, too. Exactly. Investor Michael Burry made famous by The Big Short, telling subscribers in his sub-stack newsletter he sold his position in GameStop after CEO Ryan Cohen made a $56 billion bid to buy eBay. Burry cited worries about debt that GameStop could take on to complete the deal. His interest in the video game retailer helped fuel its meteoric rise, if you remember, five years ago. We spoke with GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen yesterday right here on SquawkBuck. Here's a little bit of that conversation. I think we can start with the idea that the market cap of GameStop is, call it $11 billion. You have $9 billion on your balance sheet, arguably if you're providing effectively all of your stock. And then the cash that gets you to 20, you have this letter from TD. That's another 20. We're now at 40, but we're still off by, call it, 16. And the 20, as far as I understand, while it's considered a highly confident letter, meaning TD saying they're highly confident that they would provide the financing, it's not locked financing. Yeah, we'll see what happens. I hear you. I understand that. I'm just trying to understand where the rest of the money would come from. It's half cash, half stock. I hear you. I'm just saying that that math doesn't get you to the price that you're offering. That's a pretty straightforward question. I don't get it. Where's the rest of the money coming from? Andrew laid it out pretty clearly. I don't understand your question. We're offering half cash, half stock, and we have the ability to issue stock in order to get the deal done. But the full details of the offer are on our website. But you're on our air. We thought we'd get. So I don't understand your question. So that was a moment as they say in the business it was a moment It kind of interesting to watch to rewatch it in that in that way You know I was hoping to just to understand literally the math There a company that said meaning GameStop, said that they were trying to buy or are trying to buy eBay at a premium to its stock price. What I think he's describing, to be honest, sounds much more like you might call it a merger if you're being polite. Maybe you're saying, I want to merge into this company. You could argue that you're not really acquiring a company, if that's the case, or they're buying you is what we're really talking about. It just seems like there are a lot of hurdles. I mean, yes, in theory, you can issue loads of stock. You can you can issue stock, but it would be extremely dilutive. We don't know if they have permission to, you know, if they're authorized. First of all, it's unclear whether you could actually issue enough shares of stock. But even beyond that, that's you can't make up money out of nothing. It doesn't. You don't print stock. You don't print stock. I mean, the market cap of the company is 11 billion dollars. If you back out the cash that's in the company, I mean, I was probably overselling in some ways what some of the math you could do there, which is technically I think you'd actually probably back out the cash. So if you have 11 billion dollars and you take nine billion dollars out of the equation, not on top of it, which is what I even suggested, then you're actually, you're $9 billion, you have $9 billion less than you had before. I was allowing him to use the stock and the cash. And all I'm suggesting is you can't just make, I mean, yes, you can issue more stock, but that doesn't make the stock more valuable. And it certainly doesn't make the stock desirable by eBay shareholders. Well, that's the other question. If you're an eBay shareholder, why would you do this? Why would you agree to that? Why would you agree to a situation where you're accepting half stock in the deal and the stock is valued at what? And presumably there's going to be a collar. Presumably there are protections to the eBay shareholders in terms of what they get. And so how does that deal even cross the finish line? So there's been a lot of speculation about the math online among the supporters of Ryan Cohen and among the supporters of GameStop. A lot of folks have said, look, he's brilliant because he has bought stock options on eBay and therefore is going to make a fortune because this eBay stock, he's put eBay in play and things like that. The complicated part about that is if he has sold those shares in the past day or two, as this is happening, that puts you in a whole, that puts you in a legal conundrum. Because if he were to have come out on Sunday and Monday, just yesterday and said, I'm buying the company and then was selling the options as he was doing that. You know, that's when the SEC starts to look at whether you're manipulating the stock. And so I don't and I don't believe that he's trying to manipulate the stock. I believe I want to believe genuinely that he wants to that he wants to buy the company. And and the questions I would just suggest to those who who are very supportive of of his answers. The questions were genuine, genuine questions. Sure. Looking, I think, for genuine answers. I think I just want to understand he's a smart guy. He's had a lot of success. I imagine or I imagined, I don't know which way it goes, that there that there is a genuine rationale for how he thinks he can get there. Yeah. And he will have to answer all the questions that we pose to him. I'm sure eBay will ask similar questions. These are not questions. It could be any company in the planet. We would ask the same questions. Right. Typically, by the way, when when companies approach these, what are described oftentimes as bear hugs, they announce that they want to buy a company. And frankly, they're typically pressure campaigns to get shareholders typically of the target, in this case, eBay, to call the board and say, we want you to consider this. Look at this. And so typically that typically the buyer is trying to sell them, those shareholders, on a vision of not just what is possible, but how they can they can make it work. How would you rate his sales pitch? That I think is complicated. There's been a lot of pushback in local communities against data centers. One company's answer puts small versions of the side of your home. So NVIDIA and major small and major public home builders are helping them do it. Diane Olick has a fascinating story in this regard on this week's Property Play. What's going on? Well, Andrew, it's an unlikely partnership. SPAN, which is a small startup that makes smart home electrical panels, is teaming up with NVIDIA and Pulte Group, a major U.S. home builder. SPAN is now making small fractional data centers, or they call them nodes, that can be put on the side of residential homes. The idea is to take advantage of unused electrical capacity on local grids, which the SPAN smart panels can find. Now, a network of these nodes talking to each other across the country is about the equivalent of a mid-sized traditional data center. So these could negate the need to build as many. Hyperscalers and AI cloud providers just tap into the node network like a regular data center. Now, Span collaborated with NVIDIA using its technology in the system. Span claims it can install 8,000 of these units about six times faster and at five times lower cost than the construction of a typical centralized 100-megawatt data center of the same size. Now, Pulte Homes is in the early testing phase with these systems, which they have already deployed in a handful of communities. Now, why would a homeowner want this? Well, because they would just have to pay one flat fee for electrical and Wi-Fi, which Spann said would be roughly $150 total, so a lot less than everybody's normal electric bill. So for much more on this story, as well as my latest podcast with the CEO of a company that is deploying $100 million to put home closings on the blockchain, It is all in this week's Property Play newsletter. Drops in about a half an hour. It's free, cnbc.com forward slash property play. Guys, you want a data center on the side of your house? I don't know. What do you see as the downsides? What do you see as the downsides? The downside, I think, is scaling. Look, they're going to need 8,000 of these little nodes, 8,000 homes to equal one midsize data center. How quickly can you scale that up? It's a fantastic idea. It's just in the beginning. And you do have, you know, 86 million single family homes in the U.S. If you could really get this scaled up, it could work. But I think that's a pretty big left. I'm with Elon. I think we should just do it in space. And no, by the way, Elon and Jeff have both talked about that. I did that, data centers in space. For a long time. Go to the property play. That was our first one. So is Sundar Pichai. I mean, everybody's talking. Everybody's talking about it. This is the next frontier. And if you can effectively get the racks in space, that's what we're talking about. I mean, people talk about data centers. It's effectively getting racks of these things. into space, connecting them effectively with lasers, which is not that different than the, but, you know, Sam Altman thinks it's crazy, I think. So I don't know. Diana, thank you. Cheese will be next. Coming up on Squawk Pod, Robin Hood CEO Vlad Tenev on the rise of prediction markets. Sports actually is probably like one of the few human things where we have high confidence. it's not going to be automated away. You don't want to watch self-driving cars racing around the track. What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure. Trailblazing women changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself. Life is short and you just got to think big to accomplish big things. Julia Boorstin hosts CNBC Changemakers and Power Players. New episodes every Tuesday, wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome back to Squawk Pod from CNBC. Prediction markets are earning big money and big attention as youth skyrockets and regulators try to keep up. But who should regulate? Events-based contracts betting on what might happen in sports, is that up to federal derivatives law? Or is it something states should regulate individually, like they do now with gambling contracts? That question is currently winding its way through the legal system in this country. The head of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Michael Selig, was asked about this yesterday on CNBC. I do see this potentially going to the Supreme Court. We may have a split in the circuits. We will watch these cases closely. But what's important is we continue to adhere to our federal regulatory statutes and adhere to the law. Andrew Ross Sorkin takes things from here. We're going to get into that and so much more with Robinhood, CEO of LAD10, who's at the table this morning. Good morning. Good morning. We got a whole bunch of things to talk about, but maybe we should start there. You're playing the prediction market space in a very big way. What is your sense of what's going to happen? It sounds like this may go to the Supreme Court and what the intentionality of Congress really was originally, you think, when they put the prediction market world into orbit, if you will. Yeah. I mean, first of all, we're building a financial super app, serving our customers across any asset class, any financial transaction anywhere in the world. So Prediction Markets is a new space. It really entered the mainstream with the 2024 election. And the thing that I love about it is it's not only a tool to help traders specialize. Now you can specialize in all sorts of things, but it's a great source of information. It's like a compliment to the news. I think the information piece of it is great, assuming that you believe the information is not being manipulated in some way. Yeah, and that's true. And that's why we're focused. And a lot of talk is about, you know, all these issues that prediction market platforms face. And what we've always been saying is, you know, we're coming into this as a regulated financial services company complying with U.S. laws. And a lot of things get funky when you amalgamate all the offshore platform. But here's the thing that I, I don't know, two pieces to this. One, I don't know if you saw, there was a study done just in the past, it came out in the last 48 hours, at least for Polymark and I think for Calci, where they were suggesting that, you know, it was like the tiniest, tiniest group of people are the ones that are winning, meaning. They make up the bulk of the trades. They make the bulk of the trades and that most people who are participating are effectively net losers. I mean I don I haven dug into the data in detail We offer a suite of products For most of our products they self which means we're not telling people what to trade. We're not making recommendations. We do have some products that we take on a fiduciary responsibility. We trade on behalf of our customers. For example, Robinhood Strategies, which is our digital advisor. We also have human advisors through Trade PMR. But I think you can slice and dice this data in many different ways. And the thing that makes it difficult with these types of derivatives markets is sometimes it's hard to look at them in isolation. You don't know if that person is hedging, if they're speculating, if they have other positions elsewhere, which I think you can always find a way to slice it so that it looks negative. But we're just focused on providing the best access for our customers to this new asset class. I understand that you can slice data so that it looks negative, but there have been a number of studies and academic ones, so not funded by the industry, presumably, that show that, you know, retail investors may guess successfully the outcome of the whatever event you're talking about. Fifty one percent of the time, I think, is a stat by one university study. But they get in late and it's the bots, the algorithms that trade on the on the contract earlier. They make up much more of the volume. And so because they're going earlier and retail investors are getting in at the very last minute, that they're making much more money. There are a number of studies that show that retail investors are at a disadvantage because the activity of algorithmic bots in this market. Is that a concern of yours? I mean, the bread and butter of your platform is helping individual investors, right? And are you setting them up in a situation where the odds are stacked against them to actually make money because of the way, because maybe it's a lack of bar miles? Because of the bots, right. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that the algorithmic bots are a relatively new thing. With a lot of these AI tools that are coming on, you actually are starting to see some retail investors writing these themselves. You know, the last cloud or codex to generate a strategy for them. And we're thinking about, OK, right now you have to be like a quant or an engineer to do this. But can we make it so that everyone can have access to this powerful technology? Let me ask you a different one. Sports. Because there's a bit, you know, sports is now part of the prediction market space that you're playing in. And I don't know if you saw There was a fascinating interview with Gary Gensler Recently who made the argument That's a name I haven't heard in a very long time Right And the argument he made is he said When he was running the CFTC When the laws were actually changed That allowed for all of this He said no senator No congressperson ever discussed the idea That this was going to be used in the context of sports And that had it Had it been uttered even aloud once This would have never been allowed to happen because all of these states' rights and states' rules that had already been put in place, every senator who was from one of those states would have been like, we're not doing this. This is crazy. And so he said, if you actually go look at the intent of what the law is at the time, you couldn't get to this place today. Yeah, I think there's reasonable arguments on both sides of this issue. I'd say the other side of that is that sports is a much bigger chunk of the economy than it was 20 years ago, right? And you have NBA franchises and MLB franchises. I don't disagree. And maybe the law should be updated. I'm just suggesting that the law that's being used to allow for prediction markets to play in the sports space currently, or at least the argument, and right, there's lawsuits over this, is using a law that he's suggesting was never intended for that. I mean, here's the thing. Sports, I think, is going to be an increasing chunk of the business and finance world. They're starting to increasingly converge, and for better or worse. I'm not saying necessarily it's a good thing, but if you think about AI automation and the risks, sports actually is probably like one of the few human things where we have high confidence it's not going to be automated away. So you don't want to watch self-driving cars racing around the track. So I don't know if you saw over the weekend, And Warren Buffett spoke very briefly at the annual meeting with Becky Quick and made an argument that he talked about the church, meaning the market, and then the casino. And he said a lot more people are playing in the casino than they used to. That compared the markets to a church with a casino attached. And people can move between the church and casino. know, and I would say there are more people in the church and more people in the casino. But the casino has gotten very attractive to people. You know, if you're buying one day options or selling them, I mean, that is that's not investing. It's not speculating. It's gambling, you know, just totally. I'm curious as someone who's in your business and space. Introducing new products, including prediction markets and the like, whether you see that part of it as the casino? No. I think that we have a trading side of the business where customers are actively trading and some of them actually are quite systematic and sophisticated about it. And of course, you have some customers who are just trading because they like a certain team. Right. Right. But, um, as with any market, you have lots of participants, but we have people that have strategies, like you mentioned earlier, sometimes they're even systematic and automated. Um, and I think this criticism, you know, the same criticism was given about futures markets 40 or 50 years ago. Um, and you know, you hear it about options markets and even equities markets. So no stranger to it. I think the other thing is, you know, I announced a few days ago, Robinhood retirement is at $31 billion in assets under custody after just a few years. And I think that the unfortunate reality is it's much more enticing to talk about prediction markets than the growth of our passive offerings. Nobody wants to hear or really talk about how fast retirement is growing. I want to talk about how many people are, you know, I want to talk about retirement. And I also want to talk about the Trump accounts in just a moment. But I have one one more question just on the I wouldn't put it in the prediction markets category, but in the maybe trading category. We had this interview yesterday. I don't know if you saw any of it seemed to go a little viral with Ryan Cohen from GameStop. GameStop played a huge role in the history of your company, for better or worse. And I was struck by the reaction to the interview in a way because it was like a Rorschach test for certain people. There were a lot of what I would describe as, I don't know if they're legacy investors, experienced investors, I don't know what, who would say, oh my God, that made no sense. the math doesn't math. This doesn't really work. We don't understand how someone like Orion Cohen's making a takeover bid at a company that's worth $11 billion. How's he buying a company that's worth $56 billion? But there's still a huge number of people online who I imagine are trading on places like Robinhood who are like, you don't understand. This is the man. He's figuring it out. He's doing It was like a flashback to the meme stock mania. And it was sort of wild to watch that. I look at the math and go, you have $11 billion. The company you're trying to buy is $56 billion. I don't know how you get there. But other people seem to think something very different. Well, look, Brian Cohen's an incredible entrepreneur, right? I mean, what he did with Chewy, just an incredible business. So I wouldn't underestimate him. And, you know, he explained half cash, half stock. Right. Do you understand that? Did you read the website? I did read the website. I did read the website. What do you think? I mean, I don't know the details about it. You know math, though. Do you know how to get from $11 billion to $56 billion? Well, my understanding is they've got some cash on the balance sheet. $9 billion of cash. So $9 billion out of $11. So if you were going to do the math, You would actually subtract, frankly, the $9 billion out and then you'd be left with a company that has $2 billion to start. And then there's $20 billion. $20 billion, yeah. From TD. Yeah. So that's $29, right? $29, yeah. And the market cap of eBay is? The offer is $56 billion. So that's more than half by a little bit. Right. But then what would you do to get to the rest? I mean, yeah, again, I think it's unclear how that part is going to be structured. And why would an eBay shareholder accept that, right? I mean, that's, as I'm just saying, is that you look at it, you go, this doesn't. But going back here, I mean, I think that at the heart of that question is how much of that sort of spirit still lives on your platform in the form of trades? I mean, we've seen meme stock mania sort of, we see evidence of it here and there. We see, for instance, the recent action in Avis was crazy. I mean, that company, you know, just recently was like a meme stock, the way it shot higher. And that was also an engineered squeeze, basically. And so do you still see that? Is that powering you or are you completely moved away from that? I mean, retail has continued to be active, even though market conditions in the past three months have been shaky. You know, you've had the macro environment, the crypto winter, the war. but retail has been surprisingly strong. I'd say most of it has been concentrated in the AI trade. Right. Right. You're seeing, you know, traditional disruptors, the big semiconductor companies, a lot of interest in memory, but you know, you do have pockets. We're going to run out of time. Trump accounts. It's going to cost you a hundred million dollars. What kind of advantage are you going to have over every other player by doing this? Yeah. So first about the hundred million dollars, I think there was some confusion around this point. We uh the this program will be profitable in the first year So serving as a government subcontractor this is under a cost plus model And we actually think it go beyond it could go beyond. We see us being able to help various governments with various things. So we're excited about that. And there are, and the reason the number might seem large is we're gearing up to support potentially a very large number of accounts. I mean, there's 60 plus million children under the age of 18. 5.5 million have signed up already. So we have to get ready to serve tens of millions. No question. And then hopefully they're going to all be onboarded onto Robino and stick around. I mean, that's the whole goal. I think we see a big opportunity to serve these customers. I mean, of course, at first, there's going to be a Trump accounts app that we've been designing in collaboration, of course, with BNY and the National Design Studio. And this app is going to be really good. The aspiration is to make this the best product that the government has ever been. That was my question, though. So how do you attract those people onto the Robinhood platform if it's going to be living on another app? I mean, we're very long term focused with this. Of course, right now, the focus is on making the Trump accounts app as successful as possible. But there's going to be rollovers. There's going to be opportunity. Once these children turn 18, the money can move to other types of accounts. And we're serving as the initial brokerage and trustee for the accounts, which, you know, we're very proud of that position. But again, I'm not spending much time thinking about how to market it beyond just getting the word out about how great of a program this is and how much it'll help the next generation really buy into this country and the system that we have. Here is a prediction market run that you get tests that you could put in on the on your prediction market. Do you believe in five years from now they will be called Trump accounts or do you think will be called invest in America? accounts. Yeah, that's a good question. Yeah, that's not one I've spent much time thinking about, but there is some precedent. If you look at the Roth IRA named after Senator Roth, it continued to be called the Roth IRA. By the way, they may ultimately be the Trump accounts. I just don't know because there's all sorts of conversations about whether the Trump-Kennedy Senator will be the Kennedy. Who knows what's going to happen in the future? Right. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we're just proud to be providing the service. We try to stay out of those types of discussions and stay in our lane of just building the best product that the government has ever been associated with. We're up against a hard break. I want to thank you for coming in. So much to talk about. And we can continue this for like an hour and hopefully we get to do it again. Always a pleasure. Thank you. You bet. Still to come on Squawk Pod, e-host Kelty Knight, recapping a night at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the big fashion and big money moments. If Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez want to support the Met, this is where they want to put their philanthropy money. I'm okay with it because the Met is something special and it's special for New York, it's special for the world. We'll be right back. What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before. I have no fear of failure. Trailblazing women changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself. Life is short and you just gotta think big to accomplish big things. Julia Boorstin hosts CNBC Changemakers and Power Players. New episodes every Tuesday, wherever you get your podcasts. This is Squawk Pod. Up and Andrew, cue. Watching Squawk Box right here on CNBC. I'm Andrew Osorkin along with Melissa Lee. Joe and Becky are off today. The Met Gala is New York City's biggest fashion event. It did not disappoint. The invitation-only fundraising benefit had some very big stars and even bigger red carpet looks. E's Kelty Knight covered the event last night and joins us now with more on the whole situation. Tell us about the whole situation. It was all over my my social media feed. It's become a business unto itself in so many ways. And then, of course, there's all of the business behind it. 100%. Listen, it was a fantastic night at the Met, and I think there has been a lot of talk about the Met Gala this year, the chairs, the committee, and we have to remember that the money goes directly to support the Met. The Met is, the Metropolitan Museum of Art is completely supported by this gala, the Fashion Institute, and so it's very important for them. And it was very important for me when Beyonce showed up looking like an absolute queen. Beyonce made her triumphant return to the Met after 10 years. And this time she made it with her daughter, Blue Ivy, in tow. And Blue is the coolest kid you've ever seen. We asked her as she came along the red carpet, you know, how are you feeling? She said, I'm having fun. Jay-Z was also on hand to support his wife. It's Beyonce's world. Listen, she came. This is an amazing piece of art that was designed for her. She did change when she was inside to give her speech. But Beyonce was in a great mood last night And she was actually on time, which is sort of shocking. I have spent many Met Galas waiting for Beyonce and Rihanna in the rain. And so I was thrilled to see Beyonce show up and show out in such a big way. Another standout look. Sorry. No, sorry. I have a question for you. And I know it's not a look, but it's the thing that I was thinking about all as I was watching this whole feed. I just saw Devil Wears Prada 2. Oh! Which, great film. And of course, as you know, the Emily Blunt character with Justin Theroux, I think are modeled, dare I say, on Jeff Bezos and and Lauren. And therefore and then they they were there. Right. And so I was curious how that all went down inside. Listen, I think that Anna clearly is in on all of it. You know, Meryl Streep and Anna Wintour posed on the cover of Vogue just this month to celebrate the mat. And so there's really no way that Anna didn't know what the movie is about, that the script, it was sort of on the nose. The Devil Wears Proud of Two really is about this like billionaire guy coming in and sort of buying the magazine to put his wife on the cover. And so many people thought, oh, this is like a Bezos moment. But again, like, you know, at the end of the day, I'm very happy that we have the Costume Institute. It is very expensive to have these artifacts and pieces as a part of your museum. And I personally love that I can go there. And for $19, I can go see this entire exhibit all year long. These artisans are working on these pieces. This is a part of history, and it does cost money to run these things, and the money has to come from somewhere. And so, listen, if Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez want to support the Met, this is where they want to put their philanthropy money. I'm OK with it because the Met is something special and it's special for New York. It's special for the world. It's special for all of the designers. We had on our show last night an entire audience of students from the Fashion Institute of Technology watching our show. It's a really big deal in the fashion and creative space. And so anything to keep arts alive is, I think, really important. First time visitor in our world since we're on CNBC. Mark Zuckerberg was there last year. And the Instagram team has been going there for years, I think. Yeah, for sure. Meta had a table last night, and I'm sure that Instagram is going wild with this Kardashian look that you're looking at right now. She had seven fittings, flew across Europe to be fit for this look over and over again. We had Chris Appleton, her hairstylist, on our e-show. he discussed that he was bleaching her hair the perfect blonde until 2 a.m in the morning to get the tone right i mean this is a very thought out thing and when you met you met like kim kardashian does not come to the met to not be the most popular person on instagram what do you think the call i was thinking about this what do you think the cost is for the designers and the night and the celebrities per person meaning if you're gonna if if somebody like uh kim kardashian is going to show up in that costume in that costume plate and all of the the makeup artists and hair folks and I mean the whole the apparatus per person is kind of an extraordinary thing yeah for sure I mean this is a really a collaboration if you look at someone like Janelle Monae last night that came in this very AI art taking over uh you know art taking over you know here it is earth taking over ai and this whole like this is a custom piece by christian siriano this is priceless this is a priceless work of art this is hundreds and hundreds of hours from his atelier i mean there is no price you can put on this but the designers actually do these pieces for free for these artists because they get back mega mega millions of dollars in you know knowledge of their brand but i'm talking like these are the best glam teams in the world i It wouldn't be in doubt if her glam team preparation alone was in the $40,000, $50,000 range just for her glam. Kelty, doing math for us this morning as we're all trying to make sense of all of it. Appreciate it very, very much. My glam this morning was free because I slept in my glam from last night's show. So thank you so much. Thanks for waking up early for us. Thanks. And that is Squawk Pod for today. Thanks for listening. Squawk Box is hosted by Joe Kernan, Becky Quick, and Andrew Ross Sorkin. Thanks to Melissa Lee for sitting in today. You can tune in weekday mornings on CNBC at 6 Eastern. Or get the smartest takes and analysis from our TV show right into your ears when you follow Squawk Pod, wherever you get your podcasts. And listen anytime you want. Have a great day. We'll meet you right back here tomorrow. We are clear. Thanks, guys. What made you confident that you could do something that hadn't been done before? I have no fear of failure. Trailblazing women changing the game. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think about what your boss's boss needs. Leadership can look in many, many different forms. It really does come down to just trusting yourself. Life is short and you just got to think big to accomplish big things. Julia Boorstin hosts CNBC Changemakers and Power Players. New episodes every Tuesday, wherever you get your podcasts.
