Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump: Won't be Rushed on Iran, "I Don't Care About the Midterms"; TRUMP: "Nobody" Will Control Strait of Hormuz, It Will be Open; GOP Rep's Support for Trump Agenda Under Fire at Town Hall; Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) Discusses About Slush Vote for Republicans; 5 Villagers Trapped in Flooded Cave Found Alive; 2 Still Missing; Mom Says Scammers Used A.I. to Fake Daughter's Kidnapping 3-3:30p ET

Aired May 27, 2026 - 15:00   ET

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

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: ... activism. He has now also been granted asylum in Canada.

A new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Calling in the Cabinet: Alongside the administration's top officials, the President says he's not satisfied with the latest proposal from Iran and he isn't worried about striking a deal before the midterm elections. What we know about where talks stand right now.

So, you're saying there's a chance after Ken Paxton's blowout win in Texas, Democrats see an opening how a historically red state has become November's biggest political battleground.

And a California mom loses thousands of dollars after she says scammers use A.I. to mimic her daughter's voice in a fake kidnapping call. Police say this type of fraud is only growing.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: During his cabinet meeting today at the White House, President Trump signaled that the U.S. could soon reach an agreement to end the war with Iran. But he also vowed to not let political pressure rush him into making a deal. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They thought they were going to outweigh me. You know, we'll outweigh him. He's got the midterms. I don't care about the midterms. Look what happened last night. That was the prelude to the midterms.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's go live now to the White House with CNN's Alayna Treene.

Alayna, Iranian state media is reporting on a draft memorandum of understanding between the two countries, which allegedly would give Iran management over shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. President Trump effectively today said that that is not happening.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: That's right. He argued it was a nonstarter and said that the Strait belongs to international waters. I want you to listen to how he put it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The Strait's going to be open to everybody. It's ...

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And who would control it?

TRUMP: It's international waters. Nobody's going to control it. We're going to watch over it. We'll watch over it. But nobody's going to control it. That's part of the negotiation that we have. They would like to control it. Nobody's going to control it. It's international waters. And Oman will behave just like everybody else and we'll have to blow them up. They understand that. They'll be fine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: Quite a remarkable statement there that the President had at the end about if Oman were to try and assert control over the Strait as well, that the U.S. would have to blow them up. But that comes, of course, as we've heard from Iranian state TV, kind of what their understanding of where the memorandum of understanding, that framework agreement that we know Washington and Tehran have been working to try and finalize, where they believe it is.

Now, we did hear from the White House earlier today their rapid response account on social media pushing back heavily on what it said and you see it here. It says that the U.S. would withdraw troops from the vicinity of Iran and that they would also remove the blockade on Iranian ports in exchange for Iran returning the level of shipping and, you know, passage through the Strait of Hormuz to pre-war levels.

But we did hear the White House come out and argue that -- that all of that was a fabrication. They tried to push back heavily against it. I think the bigger reason for that, of course, is because it didn't address, Boris, what we know remain to be the main sticking points in this. One, Iran committing to not developing a nuclear weapon. And I think a key part of that, of course, is the enforcement mechanism that would be needed to ensure that even if they say they would, that they actually would be unable to do so.

And then, of course, this idea of trying to go in and retrieve the highly enriched uranium that is still in Iran's possession. We did hear the President today argue that he would not accept that enriched uranium going into the hands of China or Russia, for example. That comes despite the President warming in recent days to this idea of having a third country go in and retrieve it and then having it to be destroyed. So, very interesting there.

But all to say, one of the big things that I took away, and you played that clip earlier, is that the President seemed to be reluctant to show that he is overeager to reach a deal. He worked very hard, it seemed today, in the language that he chose to show that he is not in a rush to solve this, that he does not believe he is currently satisfied with where things stand. But he also made clear, and we heard this from Secretary of State Marco Rubio as well, that they still prioritize diplomacy.

So, not really as confident and optimistic, I think, an outlook on the status of negotiations as it was a couple of days ago.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Alayna Treene live from the White House, thank you so much. Brianna?

KEILAR: While President Trump downplays the effects of the Iran war on the midterms, Republican lawmakers running for reelection are facing some tough questions from their constituents about ballooning federal spending. Case in point, this moment from Nebraska Congressman Mike Kelly's recent town hall.

[15:05:02]

Listen to one of the constituent questions that was read out loud.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Iran war, the White House ballroom, security for the White House ballroom, immigration enforcement, Trump arch, returning the pool -- the reflecting pool renovation, slush fund for crooks and the farm bill, how do we pay for all this?

REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): We pay for it by making -- by making decisions.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You tax the rich.

FLOOD: So, your solution is to tax the rich.

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: With us now is Nebraska Republican Congressman, Mike Flood.

Sir, thank you so much for being with us. And I do want to note that as your constituents pressed you on that so-called slush fund, you said that you've never approved it. You do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6 insurrectionist that was in the Capitol. You don't think it should be creating a fund for people that commit physical violence against law enforcement. You -- you told attendees this, but are House Republicans prepared to take action to really oppose that fund?

FLOOD: Well, first of all, we know some Americans in the past have been targeted by the DOJ, most notably pro-life Americans, parents wanting to have a say in their education in front of the school board, and even Republican groups like Turning Point USA. So, yes, has there been weaponization in the past of the Department of

Justice? I think the answer to that is yes. Do I approve of the money going to anybody that was assaulting law enforcement or anybody that ever assaults law enforcement? No.

Listen, this fund is there because Congress can't approve every settlement. But given the attention this is getting, I totally think that Congress has a role in overseeing how these settlements are handled and at least understanding the guidelines a little bit better.

But last night, you know, I made my point about the January 6 insurrectionists, and I was -- I was very clear that I didn't think that they should be given any money from this fund.

KEILAR: Okay, so let's talk about congressional oversight, because the Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, he picks, I think on paper, it's like four of the fund commissioners and the fifth is picked with congressional input. But to hear Blanche tell it, he picks all five himself. That's how he described it. The President can fire them at any time. Is it worth it for Republicans then in the House to actually put some political capital on the line to get some congressional oversight on this nearly $2 billion fund?

FLOOD: Well, what I'm hearing right now is the Senate considers the reconciliation 2.0 package that this conversation is going to start over there. You know, we're going to have communication on our side. I'm sure there'll be lots of different opinions. I'm not in Washington this week. I'm back in Nebraska. But, you know, would this go under the Oversight Committee or the Judiciary Committee? I think that everybody recognizes those who have been targeted of the Department of Justice could get money from this fund.

KEILAR: Okay, I'm not asking -- but, sir, I'm not asking you about -- I don't want to ask you about process on this, because Senate Republicans, they kind of all but revolted against the Acting Attorney General. They left town without taking a vote, an important immigration funding vote for their agenda because they felt so strongly about what many of them feel is a slush fund. Should House Republicans be approaching this the same way?

FLOOD: I think there are a lot of different reasons they left last week, and I don't pretend to know all of them. I'm in the House, not the Senate. But when we get back to Washington next week, I anticipate this will be something we talk about.

Listen, there are Americans who have been targeted by the Department of Justice, pro-life Americans, parents, Turning Point USA. We've seen it. This was an issue in the 2024 Election. Should they be compensated for what they endured? Absolutely. Do we all have opinions on what this money should be used for? I'm sure we do.

For me, a bright line is no money for the January 6th insurrectionists. That is not something that I agree with. I didn't agree with the pardons that were issued at the time. But we've moved on. We've moved on. This fund exists. There will be congressional oversight. What it will look like, I can't predict right now. But I know that I, as one member of the House of Representatives, am willing and looking forward to sitting down and talking about how it will work.

KEILAR: So, the settlement states that the IRS is forever barred from auditing the President and his family and these associated entities. But we've now learned that the deals language goes beyond tax-related reviews to forbid any government claims related to Trump's pre- settlement conduct that fits under the agreement's conception of lawfare or weaponization. Does that raise concerns for you?

[15:10:01]

FLOOD: To be honest, I haven't read the settlement in its entirety. I don't know exactly what matters were covered. I know that I'm reacting to the part about the settlement. And I don't know how it is that the IRS lets someone's tax returns out of its custody. I mean, that is a serious breach of confidentiality. Every American should look at that and say, that's not right. We have been better than that as a country as long as we have been running the IRS for this (INAUDIBLE) ...

KEILAR: Yes. And there's -- there's someone who's faced criminal penalties for that, right? I -- I just want to be clear about that. But what I asked you about was that this goes beyond just not being audited. This is now about being inoculated against government claims related to pre-settlement conduct.

FLOOD: Have not read the settlement agreement. I intend to read the settlement agreement. I'm sure every American that is interested can look at in it. You're not a tax attorney. I'm not a tax attorney. I don't know what the standard practice is in these situations. You might be talking about boilerplate language that is used in a common settlement. We don't know. I'm talking about -- you're asking me questions about a legal document that I have not reviewed.

KEILAR: Yes, it's not ...

FLOOD: I answered your question.

KEILAR: ... it's okay then. We'll move on to the next question, it's not -- it's not boilerplate language.

FLOOD: Do you think the January 6 people (INAUDIBLE) compensated, I said no.

KEILAR: It's not boilerplate language, but I understand that you are not in a position to speak about it. So, let's talk about the Epstein files, because that was something that attendees at your town hall asked you about. They believe that Trump has been protected by his Department of Justice. You said that if the President was in the Epstein files, that would have been released, that it would have previously been released. He's not been accused by law enforcement of wrongdoing. We should be very clear about that. But he is mentioned a lot in the files. He's referred to thousands of times in the files that have been publicly released -- in the parts that have been released. But do you have concerns about all of the documents that have not been released? Do you have concerns about the extensive redactions of the documents that have been made public? Do you understand why that raises transparency concerns for your constituents?

FLOOD: Well, first and foremost, I voted to release the Epstein files. In fact, I didn't just vote, I was presiding over the House of Representatives when the vote was undertaken, and I actually announced that the bill had passed. As it relates to where we are now in the Epstein files, I know that Jamie Comer on the Oversight Committee, I know that Jim Jordan in the Judiciary Committee both have active efforts underway to understand the import of these files.

And what I said last night is that under Joe Biden, president for four years, arch enemies with Donald Trump. Don't you think if Donald Trump were in the Epstein files in the way that some might suggest that they would have already been released? I mean, I have no sympathy for anybody that harms a child. I have no sympathy for anybody that victimizes in the way that Mr. Epstein and his associates did. I certainly do not support that conduct, and I trust that the important -- that the relevant agencies will enforce the law, which is what every American wants done here. And again, I voted to release those files.

KEILAR: Yes, I will just point out the victims and their lawyers, many of whom we've had on this show point out that multiple administrations from both parties dating back to the Clinton administration did not adequately address accusations against Epstein.

Congressman Mike Flood, who I will note, you continue to have these tough town halls when a lot of other lawmakers do not. We appreciate you coming on to speak with us. Thank you so much.

FLOOD: You bet. Have a good day.

KEILAR: You too.

Still to come, found alive. Rescuers locate five of the seven people trapped in a flooded cave in Laos. Ahead, we'll talk about the risky mission to get those people out safely as divers keep urgently searching for the other two.

Plus, a Texas-sized showdown. Ken Paxton crushing longtime Senator John Cornyn in their primary runoff. Some key takeaways from last night's results. We have that and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:18:27]

SANCHEZ: Rescuers say five of the seven people trapped in a flooded cave in Laos have been found alive, healthy and in good spirits. Two, though, remain missing. The video that we're showing now shows the moment when cave divers found the survivors earlier today.

The villagers have been trapped underground for a week after flash flooding blocked their way out, they initially went into the cave searching for gold and now they face a daunting challenge, getting everybody out.

Let's discuss with cave diving expert Edd Sorenson.

Edd, thank you so much for being with us. First, are you surprised that these folks were found alive?

Edd Sorenson: I don't know if surprise is the right word (INAUDIBLE) but I'm very pleased that -- that they were (INAUDIBLE) ...

SANCHEZ: And the -- the search is obviously going to continue for the remaining two. Can you give us an idea of what that might look like?

SORENSON: (INAUDIBLE) your audio is (INAUDIBLE) in and out.

SANCHEZ: Yes, it seems like we're having some issues with the connection to Edd. We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back and finish this conversation on the other side. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:24:07]

KEILAR: It all started with a phone call, and now a California mother is out thousands of dollars. She says scammers used A.I. to mimic her daughter's voice in a fake kidnapping plot and convinced her that she needed to wire money to get her back.

SANCHEZ: Yes, this is a trend that's been called scam -- a scamdemic, experts say it is only getting worse. CNN Tech Reporter Clare Duffy joins us now.

Clare, walk us through how this all played out.

CLARE DUFFY, CNN BUSINESS WRITER: Yes, Boris, Brianna, this is every parent's worst nightmare, right? This mom, Deborah Del Mastro, got a call out of the blue. She picked it up at first. She heard a man's voice saying, I have someone that you'll want to talk to. And then she heard what sounded like her adult daughter in distress. Take a listen to how she described that moment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBORAH DEL MASTRO, VICTIM OF A.I. VOICE SCAM: This male voice said, "Who is this?" And I said, "Well, who is this?" And he said, "Someone that you need to talk to."

[15:25:00]

It was my daughter's voice having an absolute panic attack, trying to breathe, scared, telling me that, you know, I'm -- I love you, mom, I'm so sorry. I'm so scared. And then they just cut it off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DUFFY: The scammers then demanded that Deborah send thousands of dollars to multiple different accounts, which she did. And only after did she call her daughter on -- her daughter's number and her daughter picked up immediately because she was at work like normal.

And Deborah is not alone in being targeted by this kind of scam. This is an increasingly common attack known as an A.I. voice cloning scam where attackers can take even just a few seconds of someone's real voice from social media or from an earlier scam call where they were recorded and create a really convincing replica of their voice. Make a call like this to a loved one where it sounds like their family member is on the other side, having been kidnapped or in jail.

And scammers will often urgently demand thousands of dollars. Americans last year were scammed out of $893 million using A.I.- generated scams that include these voice cloning scams and also things like phishing emails and romance scams. So, very important, Boris and Brianna, for people to be on the lookout for this kind of attack.

KEILAR: Yes, this is so unnerving, this idea, Clare. I mean, how do people -- they have to be ready for this to maybe happen? How do they protect themselves?

DUFFY: Right. For a long time, experts said you could listen for anomalies in the voice, strange pauses or vocal fluctuations. But these A.I. tools have gotten so good that those are no longer reliable signals. So, what you have to do is really look out for the common signs of scams, things like the attacker introducing a sense of urgency or a deadline telling you that you can't talk to anybody about what's going on.

You can also try to contact your loved one through another means. So, even if you stay on the line with that suspected scammer, you can text your loved one. If you have another phone in the house, call them on another line, call someone who might know where they are. And then prior to something like this happening, it's important for people to have conversations around creating a family code word. This is a word that only members of the family would know. It's not posted somewhere online, but it could be used to establish whether somebody on the other end of a phone call really is who they say they are in the event of a scam like this.

KEILAR: Yes, really good advice, Clare, scary stuff. Thank you so much for that.

So, did President Trump just give Democrats their best chance in decades to win a Texas Senate seat? How Ken Paxton came out on top in his Lone Star showdown against Senator John Cornyn and what it means for the midterms in November?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)