Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Says, Iran Negotiations Proceeding Nicely; Pope Leo's Warning About A.I.; Ebola Outbreak Becomes Second Largest On Record; GOP Rep. Massie Files Paperwork For Potential 2028 House Race; Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Makes Moves Toward Possible Presidential Bid. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired May 25, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: And welcome to The Lead. I'm Pamela Brown in for Jake Tapper on this Memorial Day.

And this hour, President Trump says negotiations with Iran are, quote, proceeding nicely, but U.S. officials tell CNN there are still disputes over sanctions and the country's nuclear program. CNN's teams are live in the Middle East and at the White House tonight with the very latest details.

Plus, Pope Leo issues an urgent warning about the risks of artificial intelligence while standing alongside the creator of one of the biggest A.I. companies. We're going to walk you through what the pope said just today.

Also, the world is not ready for this Ebola outbreak. That is the warning from an infectious disease expert who treated Ebola patients during the 2014 outbreak. Dr. Celine Gounder will join us live to share her concerns as the World Health Organization warns we don't know how much this virus has spread.

And President Trump backed his opponent and pushed him out of a job. Now, Congressman Thomas Massie is claiming his opponents bamboozled voters. Our panel is here to weigh in.

The Lead tonight, the United States and Iran are once again seemingly inching towards a deal to end the war, even with key details still up in the air. Today, oil prices worldwide dropped sharply in anticipation of the Strait of Hormuz reopening while the U.S. and Iran iron out details around sanctions and Iran's nuclear program.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while in India, emphasized the deal is in its early stages.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: It takes a little while to hear back. So, we have what I think is a pretty solid thing on the table in terms of their ability to open up the straits, get the straits open, enter into a very real significant time-limited negotiation on the nuclear matters, and hopefully we can pull it off. But he's not going to make a bad agreement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Right now, an Iranian delegation is on the ground in Qatar for negotiations, a promising signal, U.S. officials say.

So, I want to bring in CNN's Kevin Liptak at the White House and Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv to talk more about this. Jeremy, I want to start with you. What are you learning about what's in this framework and the status of negotiations to finalize the rest?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pamela, as you know, there is this delegation of senior Iranian officials in the Qatari capital. They include Mohammad Ghalibaf, the speaker of Iran's parliament, who is the lead negotiator on this deal, as well as Abbas Araghchi, the foreign minister of Iran, and the director of Iran's Central Bank.

And as of two hours ago, a source telling us that the negotiations were still ongoing in the Qatari capital, and they're discussing some of the key foundational aspects of this deal. Here's what we know is in the deal so far. It would see the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. It would, in exchange for that, end the United States blockade of Iranian ports. The two sides would then have 60 days to reach a final status agreement, including on that key issue of Iran's nuclear program. But U.S. officials are indicating that they have gotten already commitments from Iranian officials that Iran will not pursue a nuclear weapon.

But what's key to understand here, as these negotiations are still ongoing, is that Iranian officials, through state media largely, are indicating that many of these points are not as the United States is describing them. There are disagreements over exactly how open the Strait of Hormuz will be, whether or not Iran has actually made any commitments on the nuclear front, and then also on the issue of Iran's blocked financial assets, whether those assets would be released as a very first step in any agreement or only after the Strait of Hormuz is reopened.

And then there's the thorny issue of Lebanon. Iranian officials indicating that they believe that this will lead to an end of the war in Lebanon as well, where we have seen, even despite a ceasefire over the last six weeks, daily Israeli strikes, daily Hezbollah attacks against Israeli troops, a back and forth that is continuing and, in fact, escalating even tonight.

The Israeli prime minister, for his part, says that he has gotten assurances from President Trump that he will have the freedom to operate against threats in Lebanon as he sees fit. That is another potential issue that could unravel this deal before it comes to fruition. Pam?

BROWN: Was at this moment. And, Kevin, you're at the White House. How are U.S. officials approaching this next step with Iran, and how long could this realistically take?

[18:05:01]

You heard the Secretary of State said it could take a bit.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes. And President Trump says that he is in no rush to get this finalized. What we've heard from officials is that this could actually take days and days, in part because every word that they change in this memorandum of understanding has to be approved, in their view, by the Iranian supreme leader, and that can be quite a pained process, in part because he's believed to be in hiding.

And you have heard these clashing explanations over the last 24 hours about what exactly has been agreed to, whether it's the financial relief that the U.S. will provide Iran, or what it has been agreed to in terms of Iran's nuclear stockpile. And actually, on that front, Pamela, we have just heard from President Trump just in the last few minutes on Truth Social.

He wrote, the enriched uranium, which he calls the nuclear dust, will either be immediately turned over to the United States or to be brought home and destroyed, or preferably, in conjunction and coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran, destroyed in place or at another acceptable location with the Atomic Energy Commission or its equivalent being witness to this process and event.

So, on the surface, that message sounds like a red line from the president, but, you know, digging into it, it is actually demonstrating a degree of flexibility here. You know, previously, the president has been insistent that the United States take possession of this stockpile. You know, it's almost 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium.

He just said last week that he thought it would be, quote, psychologically important for the U.S. to get its hands on it. This message suggests that the president would in fact be willing to allow it to remain inside Iran if it's destroyed or perhaps to move it to a third country. You know, Russia, for example, has offered to take possession of it. The U.S. has discounted that. China is another country that you hear raised as a potential recipient of the uranium.

And so this message, I think, important as the two sides go back and forth on the wording of this deal, the president just now demonstrating a new degree of flexibility as the U.S. tries to get this over the finish line.

BROWN: All right. Kevin Liptak and Jeremy Diamond, thank you both. We appreciate it.

And here with us now is former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who previously served as national security adviser to President Trump during the first term.

Ambassador, are you feeling optimistic about this memorandum given that we've seen negotiations break down before when it comes to the finer points of Iran's nuclear program? JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Well, I hope the negotiations break down because every day that goes by is a gift to Iran. It gives them 24 more hours to recover from the pummeling they took during the six weeks of U.S.-Israeli attack. It gives them time to try and reconstitute their government, which increasingly looks dysfunctional in decision-making capability. And it postpones the day of reckoning ultimately when the threat that they pose to control over the Strait of Hormuz is resolved in a way that they never come back and do it again.

I think the ceasefire was a mistake. I think these negotiations are a mistake. I think we're on the verge of something that ultimately history will decide was a catastrophic loss for the United States. We have done significant damage to the Islamic Republic of Iran and right now we're letting them undo the damage, and that is a real tragedy, not just for us, but for the people in the region too.

BROWN: So, you think even if a deal is reached and Iran commits to some of these sticking points that the US wants, like moving all the enriched uranium out, that that would still be a failure?

BOLTON: Well, the -- it's very hard to know what the terms they're discussing are since they change day by day. But it seems a constant that the uranium issue is kicked down the road for at least 60 days. This is what Iran wants. They want more time. 60 days turns into 6 months, and then it turns into more than that.

I don't think Donald Trump is analyzing what America's strategic interests are here. I think he's looking at the price of gas at the pump, and he's doing whatever he can to bring it down. You can do that. Just say we're going to acknowledge that Iran can use the threat of military force to close the Strait of Hormuz any time it wants, and the only thing the rest of the world will do in response is beg them to open it again.

That's where they want to be, and that's what we're close to putting them in the position of holding from now as far as the eye can see.

BROWN: All right. So, let's talk a little bit more about that because the president posted on Truth Social that, quote, if I make a deal with Iran, it will be a good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama. Our deal is the exact opposite, but nobody has seen it or knows what it is. But as you know, and you point out, a lot has changed since the Obama administration negotiated the Joint Plan of Action or JCPOA, to kneecap Iran's nuclear program back in 2015. Now, Iran has this added leverage with the Strait of Hormuz.

[18:10:02]

How does the U.S., in that context, create a deal that is the exact opposite, as the president said?

BOLTON: Look, that's all salesmanship by Trump. He's not -- he doesn't offer any idea of what the substance is. It's sort of like Richard Nixon's secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. I mean, you can listen to this day after day. It doesn't say anything. The only way to establish deterrence, again, against Iran trying to close the Strait of Hormuz is to take it away from them militarily, to open up naval traffic on the Arabian side of the Gulf, allow Arab oil out into international markets while keeping a blockade against Iranian oil.

That increases at least continues the squeeze on Iran financially, but by allowing oil to flow from the Arab states, it reduces the pressure on international markets. Iran has to learn the lesson. It cannot get its way in the Gulf by military force.

It's reasonable to ask why didn't the administration think of this at the beginning of the war. I don't know the answer to that question, but the answer now is not to have a diplomatic deal that can be reversed like -- by Iran, like turning a light switch on and off.

BROWN: And you just had the newly appointed leader of Iran's National Security Council saying in his first public message that there will be no retreat in Iran's fight against the U.S. and Israel.

And just to expand a little bit on what you alluded to, I mean, do you think the president fully understands Iran's position here and what it would take for them to reach a deal that would be better than what was previously negotiated?

BOLTON: I don't think the president understands the fanaticism of what's left of the regime and the people who are in power. He is somebody who has spent his whole life making deals with people. He thinks everybody wants to make a deal on just about anything. That's not what these people are into. And they can see that Trump is so palpably desperate to have a deal that he can declare to be a victory and it lowers prices of gasoline, and they're playing him on that. They're stretching him out. They're buying time. All of that works in their advantage.

BROWN: Former Ambassador John Bolton, thank you so much.

BOLTON: Thank you.

BROWN: And coming up, the stark warning from Pope Leo today about the dangers of artificial intelligence and what he thinks needs to happen to rein it in.

Plus, the head of the World Health Organization heads to the Democratic Republic of Congo and warns that Ebola is outpacing rescue efforts. We're going to hear from a doctor who has seen the tragedy of Ebola firsthand and has a warning.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

BROWN: Our Faith and Tech Leads intersect today in our series, A.I., Friend or Foe? Today, Pope Leo XIV, the first U.S. pope in history, issued a new warning about the dangers of artificial intelligence. As CNN Vatican Correspondent Christopher Lamb reports, the pope worries, among other things, that A.I. may be concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a select few.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CHRISTOPHER LAMB, CNN VATICAN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): A pope weighing in on the debate over artificial intelligence. Leo XIV wants the church's voice heard on what he sees as a revolution, taking the unprecedented step of personally presenting an encyclical letter on the issues, one of the highest forms of papal teaching.

POPE LEO XIV: Artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed. The word is strong, I know, but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention, awakening consciences, and indicating paths forward for humanity.

LAMB: Doing so alongside Chris Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic, the leading A.I. firm, which has been in a legal dispute with the Trump administration.

CHRIS OLAH, CO-FOUNDER, ANTHROPIC: Some might believe that matters of A.I are best handled by computer scientists like myself. They are mistaken. The questions raised by A.I. are bigger than the A.I. research community, not just in their implications, but also in their nature.

LAMB: An ethical and human-centered development of A.I. is a top priority for the American pope, who is known to be tech-savvy.

At the heart of his plea, an insistence that technology cannot replace the, quote, grandeur of humanity, nor take the place of God or personal conscience, and that A.I. should not be controlled by a powerful few, and warning about its use in war.

Leo wants to influence those responsible for the new tech after a ten- year dialogue between the Vatican and Silicon Valley over A.I.

The pope sees A.I as raising more than just technical questions. He sees it as asking profound ones about what it means to be human. Now, in the past, the Catholic Church has made mistakes entering into scientific debate, but Pope Leo believes that faith and science, while asking different questions, shouldn't be in opposition, but help one another.

This encyclical likely to be a landmark text for Leo's papacy, a pope seeking to address a defining issue of the age.

Christopher Lamb, CNN, Rome.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: And our thanks to Christopher Lamb.

Here to help us explore a little further is Kim Daniels. She's the director of Georgetown's Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life. Nice to see you, Kim.

So, how much impact do you see this having on ordinary Catholics? KIM DANIELS, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: You know, I think it's going to have a great deal of impact, not just on ordinary Catholics, but on all people of goodwill. Today, Pope Leo delivered something that is urgently needed, and that's a people-first vision of A.I.

You know, we've seen such unease, I think, among all of us over these past months, whether it's college students who are booing commencement speakers who talk about A.I., or workers who are concerned about what's going to happen with their jobs, parents worried about their kids' education.

[18:20:02]

And what Pope Leo did today was enter into that moment, into that unease, and say, I'm going to offer a framework of principles and a moral vocabulary to bring to the conversation, human dignity, the dignity of work, care for the vulnerable, transparency and accountability, and most of all, democratic engagement from all of us that we bring these principles to the conversation.

BROWN: What is the significance of the Pope entering into the arena and being a leader when it comes to A.I. safety, essentially?

DANIELS: It's important to know that the Vatican has been a part of these conversations, as Chris Olah said earlier today at the launch of Magnifica Humanitas for a long time now. But what Pope Leo has said is that this is going to be a priority for his papacy. He took the name Leo in reference to an earlier Pope Leo who responded to the Industrial Revolution, and Pope Leo, our Pope Leo, is saying he's responding to the A.I. revolution.

I think what he brings is a certain moral authority and also the resources of our well-developed moral tradition a global church that is present in communities around the country, and that is accompanying people on the ground as they respond to this kind of transformation that we'll be seeing, and also, of course, a real attention to the vulnerable and those who live in poverty, making sure that everybody is a part of this conversation, not just the wealthy and powerful.

BROWN: And the Pope writes that every technical or economic decision should include spiritual discernment and be an opportunity for assessing whether the advances in A.I. are promoting justice and participation or concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a select few.

And it was notable because one of the co-founders of a top A.I. company was actually there. What do you think? Do you see any chance of that happening, of seeing the Pope's dream come true on that front?

DANIELS: You know, I think what's interesting is the fact that Chris Olah was there really signals that Silicon Valley leaders are listening, that they recognize, and he said, we have incentives in the industry that, that go in the wrong direction, whether it's geopolitical incentives or market incentives, that sometimes drive us to do things that aren't right. He explicitly said that. And so what he called for was a dialogue, again, not just for between Catholics, but between people of all faith traditions and none. These principles, human dignity, the worth of the human person, the dignity of work the idea that we care for the vulnerable, all of these are things that we can all share and that need to be part of the conversation.

BROWN: And it also struck me when he used the word disarm. And initially when you hear that, you might think, oh, so does he want to get rid of A.I. all together? And that's not what his message was. It was about disarming A.I. from power or other corrupt features. What did you make of that? I mean, his acknowledgement that it was a strong word to use.

DANIELS: For sure, and I want to be clear, just what you said, that this is definitely not a sort of Luddite or a rejection of technology. It's not that kind of approach. He definitely says that this transformation is here and it's happening, and there will be lots of good opportunities from it. We shouldn't deny that. Of course, there will be lots of positive developments, but only if we put these principles at the center of the conversation.

That word he used, disarm, was very intentional on his part. It's one he's used since the very beginning of his papacy with this idea of saying really that it's about taking conversations that are too often about money and power and bringing them back to everyday people and the principles that we all hold dear.

The understanding that we're people who are embodied people who live in relationship with others, that we know how to love, that we have a moral conscience. All those things are things that people do, but not machines, and they should be part of this conversation.

BROWN: Kim Daniels, thank you so much.

DANIELS: Thank you.

BROWN: And coming up, the latest on the growing global health crisis of Ebola. Medical experts are warning of two suspected cases in Italy. Up next, we'll be joined by a doctor who says the world is not ready for this outbreak.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

BROWN: In our Health Lead, the Ebola outbreak will likely get worse before it gets better. That's according to the World Health Organization. And today, the head of the WHO said he's heading to the Democratic Republic of Congo on Tuesday to assess the outbreak.

The death toll in the DRC continues to climb. At least 220 deaths in the country are now thought to be linked to the virus, according to the WHO. And this comes as neighboring Uganda has recorded seven confirmed cases and at least one death. The Ministry of Health says Italy is testing two symptomatic people for the virus after they recently returned from Uganda.

So, here to discuss is infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist, Dr. Celine Gounder. So, nice to see you, doctor.

So, you wrote this op-ed for USA Today titled, the world isn't ready for this Ebola outbreak, and you write that this outbreak has every structural condition that turned West Africa's 2014 epidemic into a catastrophe, plus several more. So, walk us through the risk factors we're seeing here.

DR. CELINE GOUNDER, INFECTIOUS DISEASE SPECIALIST: Right. So, what we're seeing is an outbreak that is spreading in urban areas across borders, across different countries with many different migrant workers, and with very weak healthcare systems at baseline. And then on top of that, you have Rwandan-backed armed militia what are called M23, that have been occupying much of this area. So, that is leading to even greater instability. You have the dismantling of USAID, which USAID, our international development agency, they used to fund a lot of the people in country on the ground that would respond to an Ebola outbreak, and they would also help with things like supply chain for personal protective equipment, so your gowns, your gloves, and so on.

[18:30:02]

And so because we have all those other risk factors plus some additional ones, it really predicts a catastrophic outbreak here that we're already falling behind on.

BROWN: And do you see that becoming a huge issue for America?

GOUNDER: Well, it depends on how you think about that. I think, for example, the situation in Iran is a good parallel here. So, we may not see American citizens dying from the conflict in Iran, but it is certainly affecting Americans at the gas pump. And similarly, the minerals that are mined and used in your smartphones, your E.V.s, and numerous other technologies that many of us are dependent on, those minerals come from exactly this part of the world.

So, yes, I think there is a concern in terms of potential spread, sporadic spread outside the borders of the region, but there are also real economic impacts that Americans might be facing.

BROWN: And you spent some time on the ground volunteering as an Ebola aid worker, so you have experience on the frontlines of an outbreak. You say that containing Ebola requires more than functional systems, it requires trust. What do you mean by that?

GOUNDER: Well, you have the loss of trust now because you have these armed militia. There has been some collaboration actually between the U.S. government and the Rwandan government there, which makes the local population in the Congo very angry at the U.S. They -- whether you agree with them or not, they think that we are helping wholesale theft of the mining the minerals in the region. So, they're very angry and distrustful for that reason. They're also very upset by the way in which USAID pulled out. And then you just have other issues around a dysfunctional healthcare system. We know from experience in the U.S., you know, the harder it is to navigate your health system, the more problems you have with your health insurance and so on, the less trusting you are of the system, and you see exactly those same issues there as well.

BROWN: And on top of all of this, sources tell CNN that the Trump administration issued a directive to stop individuals at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases from communicating with the WHO, effectively shutting some of them out of the global discussions on this virus outbreak. What is your reaction to that reporting?

GOUNDER: Well, it's very shortsighted, and it's part of the reason this outbreak was detected late is that we have not had normal communication and conversations between experts in the United States, whether it's with NIH or CDC or USAID. All of those agencies would normally have had people who were -- some of them even in country.

And it's a little bit like why do we have military bases operating overseas. It's partly because it allows you to see the situation on the ground and interface with your analogs with folks in the local government. It's not just about being able to respond in the moment, but also about having information that know -- that helps you understand what is happening and when you need to really kick into gear and respond.

BROWN: How concerned should we be that we're now seeing patients with Ebola that are outside of the epicenter in the DRC?

GOUNDER: Well, the cases in Kampala have me very concerned. Those have been confirmed. And Kampala is a huge urban city. It's one of the biggest transit hubs out of Southern Africa. So, you have a lot of people traveling in and out of there to places like Europe. So, that has me concerned. The cases in Italy have not yet been confirmed, so it's a little bit too early to say about that.

But I think big picture, what we're dealing with on the ground is we're falling behind. Only one in five people who are contacts of cases who should be checked on every day for 21 days to see if they develop symptoms, if they develop symptoms, isolate them and treat them. We're only -- the response is only reaching one in five. And so every person who's missed can become part of the next chain of transmission.

BROWN: All right. Dr. Celine Gounder, thank you so much. I really appreciate your perspective on this important story and all of your expertise.

Well, the incredible true story of how the reporting from a college freshman led to the resignation of Stanford University's president. That young man wrote a book about his experience, and you'll hear from him. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Our National Lead is a freshman at Stanford University. Theo Baker's investigative reporting revealed that research papers co-authored by the university's president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, contained falsified data, and he reported that, and that triggered the resignation of the college president.

In his new memoir, How to Rule the World, An Education in Power at Stanford University, which is out now, Theo Baker takes us inside that reporting and inside Stanford's secret elite society. Theo Baker joins us now.

Theo, I should disclose, I blurbed your book, I'm friends with your parents, but this is the first time we have met, and it is a great book. So, you arrived at Stanford with the hopes of becoming a coder wanting to forge an identity separate from your parents, who are journalists, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser. Still, you ended up joining the student newspaper, and you broke one of the biggest stories a college student has ever broke.

THEO BAKER, AUTHOR, HOW TO RULE THE WORLD: Well, thank you for having me. Yes, it was a pretty eventful year. I showed up thinking I was going to be part of this Tecnalia (ph) at Stanford, you know, where so much innovation and promise have developed, very quickly discovered that things were not exactly as I expected.

TAPPER: So, not only did you take on Stanford, along with its lawyers and its P.R. team, after your reporting, you then decided to write a book about that. And beyond that, you turned it into a broader expose of the Stanford University culture and also just elite college culture in general. What made you want to go beyond the original reporting and take a look at college culture in general?

[18:40:03]

BAKER: Well, very soon after I showed up, I realized that there was this sort of Stanford inside Stanford, that there was this group of students who were courted as the next trillion-dollar startup founders, and for them, there were yacht parties and slush funds and this entire culture that is designed to find talent and exploit it as soon as it arrives on campus.

That culture results not just in the innovation that Stanford is so known for, but as I very quickly discovered, in fraud, in deceit, and all of these unsavory business practices that are the natural result of this incentive structure.

So, in a New York Times opinion essay, an op-ed you wrote you're part of the first college class of the A.I era. ChatGPT arrived on campus about two months after we did. When we graduate next month, the technology will have altered our lives in very different ways. What do you mean?

BAKER: Well, there's this immense stratification. A.I. really is an accelerant for all of these things that were already brimming beneath the surface. Nowadays, you know, if you know how to use A.I. and say the right things, you can make a huge amount of money. The guy who taught me how to shotgun a beer freshman year dropped out. Six months after he started his A.I. company, it was valued at over a billion dollars. But at the same time, for most people, the ladder is being drawn up. The starting positions are disappearing.

TAPPER: So, I'm sure you're tired of this question. I'm sure every college senior has got tired of this question, but I'm going to ask you anyway. What's next? What are you going to do next?

BAKER: You know, I'm not sure, but, you know, I'm really interested in continuing to tell stories that, that to me, you know, seem important.

TAPPER: And if you're wondering, does he look like Susan Glasser? Does he look like Peter Baker? He does. He looks like both of them.

Theo Baker, thank you. Congratulations on all the success.

BAKER: Thank you so much.

BROWN: All right. Just ahead, Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie says Republicans made a major miscalculation on the midterms. Our panel weighs in up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:37]

BROWN: All right. In our politics lead, ousted Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky isn't stepping away from his political career just yet. Nearly a week after losing his primary to a Trump- backed candidate, Massie filed to run for congress again in 2028.

His move coming after his NBC interview where he reflected on his election loss.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): I think the biggest crime I committed against the swamp, Kristen was showing the American people that somebody on the right could join somebody on the left and get something done, which is releasing the Epstein files that everybody knew needed to be done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. Our panel joins us now. We have Rob Bluey and Lulu Garcia-Navarro here to talk about this.

So just to go to you first, you know, is bipartisanship truly a death sentence, essentially, for Republicans in a Ruby Red district like Massie's in Kentucky?

ROBERT BLUEY, PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE DAILY SIGNAL: Potentially. I mean, we'll see if he's able to mount a political comeback. I mean, I remember a few years ago, Lisa Murkowski was in danger in Alaska. Remember, Republicans tried to take her out in the primary, and she was able to mount a comeback and win or win a write in campaign.

And so it's not necessarily a death sentence, although I think in a district that President Trump won by 35 points, its going to be very difficult for Thomas Massie to mount a comeback against a Trump- endorsed candidate.

BROWN: And it was also one of the most expensive primaries in U.S. history. And he noted that in his NBC interview, saying that his opponents essentially bought his seat. He also said that it contributed to mass misinformation. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MASSIE: My daughter, who lives outside of my congressional district, she heard somebody in the voting booth next to her trying to find my opponents name on the ballot, because he didn't even know I wasn't his congressman. That's how much they've bamboozled the people here in Kentucky.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: What do you think of that?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think bipartisanship isn't dead. I think when you drop $30 million on a primary race that's going to kill your chances. And money in politics is still a potent and powerful force, and so is President Trump.

And I think Thomas Massie is making a bet that Trump goes off into the sunset. I don't know that that's a bet I would make, but that is the bet that he is making. And this is really just the first foray of 2028. He is going to be the first of many others, I think, really trying to take the crown.

There is a lot of speculation that he is thinking of running for president because of his name recognition. What I can tell you with absolute certainty is that the next seven months until he leaves Congress, he is going to be a thorn in the president's side, day after day after day. He's going to try and make President Trump's life a misery.

BROWN: Well, and you've seen it also with Senator Cassidy, for example. He's been much more open about his thoughts that go against President Trump. So it will be interesting to hear what else he has to say. And just to follow up on that, you mentioned 2028. He's leaving the door open for that. He's also leaving the door open for President.

And I had a guest on my show, one of the moms last week, and she was saying that there's a whole network around him of the moms and the whole movement. They really, really want him to run for president. Do you think he has a chance at either?

BLUEY: Well, even if he doesn't ultimately win, there's some people who run for president simply because they want to elevate a certain set of issues. And it could be it MAHA, it could be the Epstein files. Who knows what Thomas Massie might have in store in 2028? But I do think that if you look back at past Republican primaries, where there has been a clean slate and remember '16, '18 when Donald Trump was running with that large, crowded stage, maybe Thomas Massie feels like he can appeal to a certain constituency in the Republican Party.

BROWN: Another member of Congress is making some moves as well for a potential presidential bid. New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez, she is on this unofficial tour, if you will. "Axios" noted that just last week, she was speaking about voting rights in Montgomery, Alabama, rallying for progressive candidate in Philadelphia and speaking at the Ebenezer Baptist Church with Senator Raphael Warnock in Atlanta, Georgia.

Lulu, technically, Ocasio-Cortez has three races to choose from the House, the Senate, the presidency. Where do you think she's headed?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, I don't think she's going back to the house. I definitely think she will -- might consider primarying the current, minority leader, which is Chuck Schumer, who has made himself very unpopular.

[18:50:00]

That is a path open to her.

And then there is, of course, a very wide open field on the Democratic side. She's got great name recognition. And I think what she's capitalizing on is a real feeling among Democrats and others that people are tired of politics as usual. President Trump and I will give him credit for this, has opened the door to what is what is the possible.

Can we imagine AOC is president, and I think some people can imagine an AOC as president. I mean, when you look at the polls naming those different candidates, its still Kamala Harris that has the most name recognition and support among the Democratic base. But, you know, it's a very, very wide open field. These numbers are very small. And so she is making clear moves intended on getting her name out there.

BROWN: And you've had Republicans speaking to "The New York Times". They didn't want to go on record because they didn't want to draw Trump's ire. But they talked about how they were worried about Trump's vanity projects when it comes to the ballroom or the weaponization fund, right? That that could actually hurt Republicans in the midterms and, and help Democrats.

And I wonder what you think about that.

BLUEY: Well, I think that ultimately, the American people are probably going to vote on the issues that hit them closest to home, which is the economic concerns. I mean, that was certainly true in 2024, and it was one of the reasons that Kamala Harris was able to overcome some of the challenges that she encountered during her four years as vice president. And so I think that the Republicans need to focus, first and foremost, on doing everything they can in Congress, whether that's another reconciliation bill or pushing through other policies that are going to alleviate some of the concern that Americans are feeling right now.

BROWN: But it was interesting, just given what we've seen from voters, right, Trump, Republican voters, they will go with who Trump wants, right? We've seen it. We saw it in Kentucky. We saw it in Louisiana.

And I had on Byron Daniels, who's -- Byron Donalds, who's running for governor in Florida. He's a Republican congressman. And I pressed him on the weaponization fund. And I said, do you think that rioters who attacked cops should get money from the federal government? And he refused to rule it out?

You know, and I just wonder if that is basically the position of every Republican right now who wants Trump's, you know, blessing.

BLUEY: I think President Trump, the reason you're not seeing them back away from the weaponization fund is because I think that they truly believe that the MAGA movement that he rallied throughout the course of 2024 is firmly behind him on this particular point.

BROWN: Even on attacking the cops?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I don't agree, I don't agree.

BROWN: Like back the blue and --

BLUEY: About MAGA?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: No, listen, I think you're seeing in Congress, there's a lot of people who feel very upset at this. And I think, you know, it's a problematic pitch that he's made.

BROWN: All right. Thank you both.

When we come back on this Memorial Day, the emotional journey of a group of world war two veterans who returned to Normandy decades after their service.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: This Memorial Day, a new CNN film called "Why We Dream", it shares the story of a group of World War Two veterans. It follows their emotional journey back to Normandy, France, in 2024, marking 80 years since D-Day. Seeing where they bravely fought against the Nazis, seeing where they lost friends in the process.

One veteran profile is Betty Huffman-Rosevear, born in 1921. She enlisted in the Army Nurse Corps in 1944.

Here's a bit of her story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

NARRATOR: Women began to respond, convinced they could do factory work or anything within their strength that men could do for Uncle Sam BETTY HUFFMAN ROSEVEAR, ARMY NURSE CORPS: It was really a hard time

for everybody. Those were bad days, you know? We did the best we could. I was in a nursing school, and then I met my husband.

He was a really dear person, and I was a lucky lady. He was a pilot, and he was going to Europe.

As a nurse. I was really, really busy. And then he went overseas and he was shot down over Denmark and he died.

When my Billy died, that's when I enlisted. I went out in the Pacific I was the only woman, and I was the only nurse. Because I had lost my husband, I just stayed with what I could focus on. And that was the patients.

I went there to help them I don't know. I thought nurses just did that. You know? But I couldn't have done it all alone. You know?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: According to her Army Nurse Corps unit, Second Lieutenant Betty Huffman-Rosevear passed away just last month. She was 104 years old.

See her incredible story and so many others like that in the new CNN film "Why We Dream", tonight at 8:00 Eastern on CNN

BROWN: And before we go on this Memorial Day, I want to take a moment to remember someone near and dear to my heart and a true American hero. Chase Comley was one of my best friends growing up in Lexington, Kentucky. He always had a twinkle in his eye and had a lovable, naughty side. He enlisted in the Marines in 2004 and was based at Camp Lejeune.

Lance Corporal Comley was killed on August 6th, 2005, in a suicide bombing in Iraq. He was just 21 years old, and it was just a few months before he was set to return home. In fact, this video, this picture you're looking at right now was taken just hours before he was killed. You can see that big smile.

Our hearts go out to Chase's family today, and the families and friends of every troop who died in the line of duty. May their memories be a blessing.

The news continues now on CNN.