Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Iran And U.S. Closing In On Deal To End Conflict; California Chemical Tank At Risk Of Exploding; White House Identifies 21-Year-Old Gunman; Trump Defends Anti-Weaponization Fund, Claims He's "Helping Others"; Harvard Faculty Votes To Cap A Grades For Undergraduates; Artificial Intelligence Takes Over Flight; Memorial Day Weekend Kicks Off Unofficial Start To Summer. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired May 24, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:01:17]

JESSICA DEAN, CNN ANCHOR: You're in the CNN NEWSROOM. Hi, everyone. I'm Jessica Dean here in New York.

And new tonight, both the United States and Iran signaling they could be getting closer to a deal that would turn the current ceasefire into a longer term peace agreement. However, the details of the negotiations still being worked out. Now, at this point, both sides describing those details quite differently. A source tells CNN the agreement would allow more time for the two countries to iron out additional sticking points, including Iran's nuclear program.

President Donald Trump, taking to social media this evening to address skeptics of a potential deal, writing, "If I make a deal with Iran, it will be good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama, which gave Iran massive amounts of cash and a clear and open path to a nuclear weapon. Our deal is the exact opposite, but nobody has seen it or knows what is in it. It isn't even fully negotiated yet."

So to his own point there, we don't know what's in this deal or how it might compare at this moment in time.

CNN's Julia Benbrook is joining us now.

And, Julia, you've been talking with administration officials as these negotiations are actively ongoing. What is the very latest?

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And important to highlight, as you said, the details, the specifics are still being worked out here. But a senior administration official tells me that this potential framework between the United States and Iran, it would allow 60 days to then come to a final deal, and that any deal would make sure that Iran does not have access to a nuclear weapon and that they're willing to commit to giving up their highly enriched uranium, which the president often refers to as nuclear dust.

Now they stockpile how they would get rid of it. That would be decided later in that next step as those go on for 60 days to get to that final agreement. When it comes to the Strait of Hormuz, the official said that it would be demined and open for business. They did not go into detail, though, on how that critical waterway would function going forward.

And I do have a direct quote that I want to read for you now, just giving a little bit more insight into how this is structured. They said, "If Iran doesn't perform, they don't get anything. No dust, no dollars. As the strait opens, the blockade loosens proportionately. This is truly trust, but verify on steroids."

Now, Trump said earlier today that he is not in a rush to come to a deal. I want to pull up that post for you now because in it, he said, "The negotiations are proceeding in an orderly and constructive manner, and I have informed my representatives not to rush into a deal and that time is on our side. The blockade will remain in full force in effect until an agreement is reached, certified and signed. Both sides must take their time and get it right."

This comes after just yesterday he was expressing a lot of optimism to announce an imminent deal. He said that a deal with Iran had been largely negotiated and that he would announce details shortly. Today now he is saying that he is in no rush to get this done. All of this taking place after he had a call with Gulf and other regional leaders, where he said they discussed all things Iran and related to this memorandum of understanding pertaining to peace. He said that that call went well.

We also know that he had several phone calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday, too.

DEAN: All right. Julia Benbrook, with the latest from the White House. Thank you so much for that.

And we are joined now by CNN military analyst, retired Air Force Colonel Cedric Leighton.

Colonel Leighton, good to see you on this Sunday. As we just underscored with Julia there, there are a lot of questions around this.

[18:05:03]

It's still actively being negotiated. We -- there are a lot of things we don't know. There is also the key question of this highly enriched uranium stockpile. What's going to happen with that. But as you see it right now, how would you assess where we are in the process?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Yes. Jessica, great to be with you. I would say that the language is a much more optimistic, has struck a much more optimistic tone on both the U.S. and the Iranian sides. However, the details here are the ones that are potential showstoppers. And that's going to be, I think, a major issue here.

Now, if the negotiators can work this out, where they actually do talk about what happens with the highly enriched uranium, for example, that could move things along. But there's a lot that at least what we're hearing at the moment seems to indicate that that particular aspect is not really being taken care of. And if that's the case, if they're deferring the movement of the highly enriched uranium to, you know, a third country or somewhere else where it's in safe keeping, that is something that, of course, I think needs to be worked out.

It's one of the war aims that the U.S. had and that Israel had. And if that's not one of the things that is part of this agreement, that could then cause some problems. And it is also subject, of course, to misinterpretation by both sides if it's not spelled out properly. So I think we're kind of in that limbo phase right now, Jessica. And that is a place that where things could go either way.

DEAN: In the meantime, U.S. forces are still in that region. Do you see them remaining in the region if this deal gets done? Where -- how do you see that kind of progressing as these negotiations progress?

LEIGHTON: Well, one of the reports that I've seen indicates that the U.S. forces will stay in place as long as the negotiations for the deal continue. I -- now there are the types of forces that they're talking about are the ones that were added to the forces that are already present in the Middle East, that are on standard rotations to that region. So what you're probably looking at here is that U.S. forces would stay in the area at least until a final agreement is reached.

That goes beyond this memorandum of understanding or whatever we're achieving at this particular moment. And that then could result in an increased presence for those forces. Now, what that also means is that these forces, we have to be careful that these forces don't get stretched too thin. And that could also be a problem in terms of readiness. But if they establish some kind of a rotational mechanism, then the numbers would stay the same. But the specific people or specific units might be different.

DEAN: And you mentioned the uranium, obviously a key component of this, a key goal that the Trump administration has said again and again and again from the president to the secretary of state to others, is that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, that they want to stop Iran from ever being able to produce a nuclear weapon. At this stage, would you say they've moved the needle on that? Do you think that that is a realistic outcome here?

LEIGHTON: I think that it's not a realistic outcome, Jessica, at this point, because the Iranians see -- even though President Pezeshkian of Iran has made a statement where he says Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon, there's a lot of suspicion, certainly in the U.S. and in other parts of the world, especially in Europe and in the Middle East, that Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.

When you look at the type of uranium that they have, enriched to 60 percent, you don't need that for medical purposes, for example. So there are certain aspects of the Iranian program that indicate that they are moving forward or have tried to move forward in the direction of producing a nuclear weapon. And that is something that is going to be very, very difficult to undo. The Iranians have the knowledge, technical knowledge leading in that direction, in the direction of a weapon.

And that is something that's very hard to derail, if that, in fact, is going to be the policy of the U.S.. It should be the policy. But whether or not we get there is, I think, questionable.

DEAN: I also want to ask you about Russia targeting Kyiv in this large scale air attack. Ukraine saying 600 drones, 90 missiles, including the powerful hypersonic missile known as the Oreshnik. This is the only time -- this is only the third time Russia has used that missile. What does it say to you that they're using it now and what do you think Putin is trying to say?

LEIGHTON: Yes, Putin is basically telling us that he is prepared to use weapons of this type. And he's basically putting this on for show. Now, the destructive power of the Oreshnik and the other missiles that Russia lobbed against Ukrainian targets is certainly significant.

[18:10:06]

And there's a lot of destruction in Kyiv that happened over the last night. So that's something that cannot be discounted. But the Oreshnik has limited military utility in a conflict like the one that we're seeing in Ukraine. And its use, first of all, is very expensive. And secondly, it does not mean that the Russians are gaining the upper hand here. Yes, there are certain spectacular damages that occur in a case like this. But the Ukrainians are definitely moving forward in many ways that in spite of things like the Oreshnik being thrown at them. So it's a symbolic gesture by Putin. It is not a military significant gesture.

DEAN: All right. Colonel Cedric Leighton, always good to have you. Thank you.

LEIGHTON: Thank you, Jessica. Good to see you.

DEAN: You too.

Still ahead, crews in Southern California trying to avert disaster as a tank holding toxic chemicals continues to overheat. How a crack, though, could be a key to stopping an explosion. Plus, the so-called anti-weaponization fund is causing division between President Trump and his own party. We're going to go inside the GOP revolt over that ahead.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:56]

DEAN: New details out of California. Governor Gavin Newsom has just submitted a request to the White House for federal assistance as officials work to cool down a tank containing a toxic chemical that could leak into the air or trigger an explosion. About 50,000 people are being asked to stay away from that evacuation zone you see there.

Last hour I spoke with the Orange County Fire Authority Division chief, who said a crack in the tank could be the key to preventing a catastrophe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHIEF TJ MCGOVERN, INTERIM FIRE CHIEF, ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY: We know there's a crack. And what we're trying to confirm is that crack releasing the pressure. So our biggest concern right now is, is this tank pressurized? When we remove that element, this is definitely a step in the right direction. We're seeing indicators that we think that the pressure has been released. And by the next couple hours we might have to do another operation for it just to confirm it.

And once we do that, that's when we're definitely going to change our strategic approach and start focusing in on the explosion potential rather than the BLEVE. Right now, we're worried about the BLEVE piece of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: So let's bring in an expert here, Elias Picazo. He's an assistant professor of chemistry at the University of Southern California.

Thanks so much for being here with us. So let's start first explaining to people what this chemical is and why it's a threat. It's known as MMA. Walk people through what that is. I understand it's used to make plastic?

ELIAS PICAZO, USC ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY: Yes. First of all, thank you for having me. Your question is two parts. What is it, why is it useful, and maybe what are the hazards, what it does to us.

MMA is a monomer. And it can react with another version of itself, another monomer, to form a dimer. And you can hear in the prefixes, mono, di, tri, tetra, going up to polymer meaning many. And it's these polymers that are very useful in making thermoplastics like you mentioned. They're durable, they're transparent, they're lightweight. And so they can be used in many applications in our households and in the aerospace or automobile or many other industries, as glass substitutes and many other applications.

And so that's why it is very useful. As a monomer it's a low molecular weight unit. It's volatile. And that's where the hazards come in. At high concentrations it can, if inhaled, cause respiratory damage or irritation. And through prolonged exposure it can cause neurological or organ damage. So that's why usually when we work with this molecule or this chemical, it's under very controlled environments using a fume hood or PPE with lab coats, safety goggles and gloves and all other PPE measures.

DEAN: And so give people a sense of how rare it is that we're seeing what we're seeing. Is this something that happens a lot? I know you said that they're volatile, but this seems pretty extreme. But how would you assess it?

PICAZO: Yes, it's not very common. I think the -- what makes this dangerous is really the scale. Working with this much material at an industrial scale is why the explosion is even in the conversation. So when one monomer reacts with another or a dimer reacts with another monomer, et cetera, it's known as an exothermic reaction, meaning that the reaction itself releases heat.

In a controlled environment, like a laboratory setting, you can add a catalyst or initiate the reaction with heat. You can control it. It's smaller scale. And again, it's just within your control, within your parameters. But here we have a thermal runaway or a potential for a thermal runaway where that's the problem in itself. The reaction produces heat, but heat also initiates the reaction. And it's this vicious cycle.

DEAN: And so -- OK, so to the degree, to your point about the heat, the tanks gauge maxed out at 100 degrees last night. Obviously, they're trying to get that down. And as I just spoke with that fire official, they think they're making progress in stabilizing the situation. But in your expertise, what needs to happen?

[18:20:02]

What are you watching for to see if this is going to be OK, we're going to avert a disaster here?

PICAZO: Yes. I think the same as the people involved have been describing. It sounds like there are two main potential outcomes. One, the runaway gets out of control. It builds up a lot of temperature and pressure within the tank. And you have this explosion. And that's the worst of the two options because you, in addition to having the blast damage, you also have potential fires and flames in California with a history of dry conditions. If it then touches something that's combustible, the compound being flammable, you can also have fire hazards.

The other option is a tank failure. And I know failure sounds really bad, but in this case, it's actually the better of two options where if the tank cracks, then depending on where the crack is, you can either remove the liquid from the tank or the gas can remove itself from the tank, relieving the pressure, buying more time and dissipating or depleting the unreacted monomer from the situation, causing any potential explosion. Well, one going down in probability and two if it happens being less severe.

DEAN: All right. Elias Picazo, thank you for your expertise. We really appreciate it.

PICAZO: Yes, thank you for having me. And best of luck with -- to everyone involved.

DEAN: Absolutely. No doubt about it. All right. Thank you so much.

And tonight, an investigation also underway into the shooting last night near the White House. A law enforcement official telling CNN a bystander who was also hit by gunfire is in critical condition. In the meantime, 21-year-old Nasire Best was shot and killed by agents after opening fire on a checkpoint.

CNN's Brian Todd joins us now from the scene with the latest -- Brian.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jessica, we can give you a logistical update now. It appears that the processing of evidence here at the scene of the shooting has been complete. At least it looks to be, because the streets around the White House have now reopened. I'll step aside and let our photojournalist, Christine Lee, train her lens where we can go right down the block here.

We're at 18th and Pennsylvania. The shooting occurred straight down there, one block away at 17th and Pennsylvania. Now Pennsylvania Avenue now is reopened to traffic several hours now after the shooting. The shooting occurred straight down there where you can see that cone down at the end of the block. That's right near the northwest corner of the White House complex.

To the left of that is Lafayette Square Park. And just beyond it is the walking plaza in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. Those have been closed for several months now for construction. So you really can't get into Lafayette Square Park or on that plaza in front of the White House at all under normal circumstances so that's to say that the gunman, when he approached Secret Service officers and began firing at that point on 17th and Pennsylvania, could well have been about as close as he could get to the White House complex at that time.

We have an update also on the suspect himself, who was struck by Secret Service officers and killed in this exchange of gunfire. According to three sources who spoke to CNN, law enforcement sources, he's identified as 21-year-old Nasire Best. According to one of our sources, he had had previous encounters with the Secret Service, including in June of 2025, when he blocked an entry lane at the White House and at that time claimed he was God.

He was later admitted for psychiatric evaluation. One month later, according to our sources, he was arrested for attempting to enter a White House complex driveway. He had also, according to our law enforcement sources, made several statements on social media, including at least one where he voiced a desire to harm President Trump.

Now, speaking of President Trump, the president has responded to the shooting on Truth Social by coming out and thanking the Secret Service officers for their response and also saying this, quote, "This event is one month removed from the White House Correspondents Dinner shooting, and goes to show how important it is for all future presidents to get what will be the most safe and secure space of its kind ever built in Washington, D.C.. The national security of our country demands it," an apparent reference to the controversial ballroom complex that he is attempting to get constructed on the White House grounds -- Jessica.

DEAN: All right. Brian Todd, for us there in downtown Washington, D.C.. Thank you.

After the break, the major ethics concerns being raised over President Trump's $1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:28:42]

DEAN: President Trump's so-called anti-weaponization fund is now facing two legal challenges. It could soon face an effort from Congress as well to block it. Republican Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick arguing the statute that created the fund basically bypasses Congress.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): Congress appropriates money. The Executive Branch does not have a dime of money in its own right. Every dollar that goes to the Executive Branch emanates from Article One, emanates from Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: The nearly $1.8 billion fund was announced this week after President Trump dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the unauthorized release of his tax returns. Trump says that this fund is for people unfairly targeted by the previous administration.

Now, there appear to be very few constraints on who can apply for the compensation, and the administration has thus far refused to rule out that payments could go to those who stormed the Capitol on January 6th, or even those who assaulted law enforcement officers.

We're joined now by former White House ethics lawyer during the George W. Bush administration, Richard Painter. He's now a professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota.

It's good to have you, Richard. Thank you for being here. Let's just start first for the idea of this fund. Is -- the way it's been explained to me is that there is legal recourse for someone within the legal system to get some sort of compensation if they were charged with something and they were ultimately not convicted of that, and it bankrupted them, let's say. But is there any precedent for something like this?

RICHARD PAINTER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ETHICS LAWYER: Well, first of all, the vast majority of people who are criminally charged and acquitted never recover a dime. Only in the rarest circumstance can a criminal defendant who is charged and acquitted recover against the government for malicious prosecution. Very rarely can someone recover from false arrest in circumstances where they weren't criminally charged.

There are a very few cases, but very, very few exceptions. I've never heard of someone who is criminally convicted who then can recover for malicious prosecution when they were convicted. That makes absolutely no sense. If anybody makes a claim against this fund and the government pays out, it is highly likely that future administration could make a claim to recover the money under the False Claims Act.

We cannot submit false claims to the government to receive government funds. This is just as fraudulent as what's been going on in Minnesota when we hear about people collecting money for services that were never provided. And the False Claims Act specifically provides that the federal government can pursue claims to get the money back. I believe this is a six-year statute of limitations. Private citizens can even bring those types of suits on behalf of the government. So a lot of this money really can't be handed out to anybody.

Now, there are a few people, maybe James Comey, he's a good example of someone who's been maliciously prosecuted and has substantial legal bills. And maybe he could make a claim against the fund. There might be a handful of others, but I can't imagine any of these January 6th prosecutors can say they ought to get paid money for breaking into the Capitol, assaulting law enforcement, and putting their feet up on Nancy Pelosi's desk or something like that.

DEAN: Right. And so that's my question to you. Just the legality of both the setting up of this fund, you know, what is the legal footing? How firm is the legal footing on how this has been set up? And then how firm is the legal footing for the fact that there's going to be five people who are put onto this five, let's call them, I think, commissioners that Congress maybe has, say, over one, that the president can fire any of them at any time for whatever reason he wants. And they get to operate kind of in this -- their own vacuum to decide who gets this money.

How legal is all of that?

PAINTER: Well, there's no legal footing whatsoever. Congress needs to set up funds like this and administer funds like this. And if Congress wants to appropriate funds for specific purposes Congress could do that. They could vote a bill for reparations for slavery or if they want to vote for reparations for January 6th rioters or whatever. Congress I guess wants to do, they could do. But Congress has the power to tax us and also to appropriate the money.

That is the fundamental framework of the United States Constitution. That's an Article One power of Congress. The president of the United States can't just simply take our money, our tax money, and hand it out to his cronies. And he also can't hand it out to himself, which is what he's doing with this IRS settlement if he's going to settle out all of his tax situation and any money he owes the IRS.

The founders anticipated that, too, in the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which says the president cannot receive any profit or benefit or advantage from the United States Treasury in excess of the salary appropriated to him by Congress. That's in the Constitution. That's what the framers intended. And President Trump needs to understand that he is in office pursuant to the Constitution.

He is not a king. And he can't simply dip his hands into the treasury and do with our money whatever he wants to do with it.

DEAN: And just quickly, before I let you go, there is this piece, this term that was quietly added that bars the IRS from auditing any past tax returns of President Trump, any of his family members or any of his businesses moving forward.

How legal is that? And does that hold up over the years? PAINTER: Well, I would expect that a future administration would

challenge that, its validity under the Domestic Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. And that's what the founders anticipated. We can't have a president like the king who dips his hand in the treasury. And under the Domestic Emoluments Clause, the president may not receive any profit or advantage from the United States government in excess of the salary that has been given to him by Congress.

And if he does owe taxes, he's going to have to pay those taxes. And the rule here in the United States is not that if you get enough electoral votes to be elected president of the United States, you certainly don't have to pay your taxes. The Constitution says precisely the opposite.

[18:35:10]

DEAN: All right, Richard Painter, thanks for your time. We appreciate it.

PAINTER: Thank you.

DEAN: When we come back, why Harvard is capping the number of A's given in classes for undergrads.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DEAN: Harvard is making it much harder for its students to ace their classes. Professors voted to limit A grades to just 20 percent of students per class. Faculty who supported the change said university data showed more than 60 percent of undergrads have been getting A's in recent years, and as you might imagine, most Harvard students hate the idea with about 85 percent of them against it in a recent study.

[18:40:09]

With me now, the staff writers for the "Harvard Crimson," Abigail Gerstein and Amann Mahajan.

It's great to have both of you. Welcome to the show.

Abigail, let's start first with you. How is this even going to work? How do you go about just saying no matter what you turn in, only 20 percent of you are getting an A?

ABIGAIL GERSTEIN, STAFF WRITER, THE HARVARD CRIMSON: Yes, absolutely. It's a big question on campus right now and for the faculty. So originally the proposal was that this new policy that 20 percent of undergrads enrolled in each class, plus an additional four undergrads could get an A, was supposed to go into effect this coming fall. But in an edit to those sort of proposal and what they've eventually adopted, it's going to go into effect the next school year. So starting in fall 2027.

So over the incoming school year faculty are set to create sort of an implementation committee that's really going to work on implementing this in the classroom. But the honest answer is we don't really know yet. And they're really working on making that happen.

DEAN: Yes. Amann is A.I. at the root of this and people trying to use that to get A's? What's this all about?

AMANN MAHAJAN, STAFF WRITER, THE HARVARD CRIMSON: Yes. I mean, I think grade inflation here has been -- it's been kind of a long standing issue at the college. So, you know, there was a 2001 report saying grades were on the rise. There was another 2023 report. So I would say like this has been a long standing issue. Faculty have been saying for a while that students aren't prioritizing their classes.

There was a report again last year saying that students are spending more time on their extracurriculars than they are on their coursework. And that's part and parcel of sort of this whole recentering academics initiative, which is also aiming to sort of curb grade inflation as well. So I think A.I. might be part of that as well, because it's making it easier and quicker for maybe them to do some of their school work.

But I would say that the grade inflation has been an issue for quite a while. And this A.I. has only sort of exacerbated it.

DEAN: And so it's kind of all accumulating at this moment in time.

Abigail, as we noted at the beginning of this, students don't seem thrilled about it. What are they telling you?

GERSTEIN: Yes, yes. As we saw earlier, 85 percent of undergraduates, according to a poll given by the Harvard Undergraduate Association, do not support the proposal. I think a lot of students are scared that this is going to increase competition in their courses, that maybe students won't be looking to collaborate as more if they know that A grades are capped. I think a lot of students are also worried about admissions to graduate schools, law schools, medical schools, things like that, that they may be -- by going to Harvard, where it might be harder to get an A that their lower GPAs are going to disadvantage them in that graduate admissions process.

DEAN: Yes. And Amann, to that extent, as the faculty is working through how they're going to implement that, what is your sense of how much they're taking those concerns into consideration?

MAHAJAN: Yes. I mean, I think, for example, on the grad student admissions points, the subcommittee, I think, made a particular effort. The subcommittee that drafted the proposal made a particular effort to reach out to deans of medical schools, law schools, talked to people on different sort of prize committees for the roads and marshals and so on and so forth to make sure that they're aware this change is happening.

So I think the messaging has been a lot of like, we're going to make sure that people across, you know, these grad schools and so on and so forth will know that this is happening and therefore will adjust their, you know, admissions criteria for Harvard accordingly. I think they also have been saying that a lot of the competition that students are afraid is going to come to the classroom is already present at Harvard. It's just taken the form of competition to do well in extracurriculars.

Because everyone's grades aren't inflated, they feel like they have to differentiate themselves, you know, in their clubs and things like that. So they feel this will actually sort of ease some of the competition. That's been sort of the subcommittee's arguments.

DEAN: So it will be interesting to see it all play out.

Abigail. Amann, thanks for your time. We appreciate you both.

MAHAJAN: Thank you so much.

GERSTEIN: Thank you so much.

DEAN: Thanks, guys.

The second tennis grand slam event is underway. The French Open in Paris, the official first round of the main draw today. One major upset as American wild card Nishesh Basavareddy ranked number 148 in the world, beat seventh-seeded Taylor Fritz in four sets. American Coco Gauff is defending -- is the defending champion on the women's side, she's seeded number four. Her match is tomorrow.

Jannik Sinner of Italy is the top seed on the men's side, and last year he lost an epic five set thriller to Carlos Alcaraz, who's out with a wrist injury. Sinner is looking to win the French Open for the first time, which would complete a career grand slam.

Artificial intelligence is finding its way into all aspects of life, including potentially the cockpit of a plane. CNN goes on a test flight. That's next.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:49:31]

DEAN: Could artificial intelligence be coming to a cockpit near you? The startup Merlin Labs wants to eventually fly your plane for you, and the aviation industry is warming up to that idea.

CNN's Pete Muntean hops in the passenger seat to find out, and takes you along for the ride.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): I'm in the co- pilot seat of a Cessna.

MATT DIAMOND, PILOT, MERLIN LABS: One, two, three, good.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): And I'm about to find out what happens when the pilot flying is not human but artificial intelligence.

[18:50:03]

TIM BURNS, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, MERLIN LABS: This is our experimental caravan.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): Tim Burns is the chief technology officer at Merlin Labs, a Boston startup developing a system that can be bolted into existing airplanes. Merlin says its system can fly the plane, talk to air traffic control and even help make decisions about weather and routing.

BURNS: We're trying to capture the judgment and abilities of a real aviator.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): Merlin says it has completed hundreds of test flights to see how the system performs in real world conditions, though it is likely years away from carrying passengers. In the back of the plane, one of the company's engineers is monitoring what the A.I. is doing in real time.

DIAMOND: I don't know if I know exactly what I'm in for here.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): Alongside me is test pilot, Matt Diamond, who on this flight won't be doing much piloting at all.

So this is just a manual takeoff?

DIAMOND: This is going to be an automated takeoff.

MUNTEAN: Oh, this is an automated takeoff.

DIAMOND: Yes.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): Meaning the A.I. system is flying the airplane from the very start.

DIAMOND: Nicely done.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): The next part of the demonstration, communicating with air traffic control.

Merlin System displays its language processing on an iPad as it listens to a mock controller, repeats the instruction and then flies the airplane to match it.

UNIDENTIFIED AIR CONTROLLER: Magic 01, turn left, heading 090, descend 2000.

A.I. VOICE: Left 090 and down 2000 Magic 01.

UNIDENTIFIED AIR CONTROLLER: You're authorized.

MUNTEAN: We're at about 1,500 feet now over Newport, Rhode Island, and we just turned on to the final approach here at Quonset State Airport. Now this is going to be an automated landing and this system will fly the airplane all the way down to the pavement.

DIAMOND: It's a challenging problem for the automation but once you crack the code, then it's so much easier on the pilot.

MUNTEAN: You seem pretty confident over there.

DIAMOND: Oh, yes.

MUNTEAN: You seem pretty relaxed. Should I be this relaxed?

DIAMOND: Yes. Absolutely.

MUNTEAN: OK. All right.

(Voice-over): As a pilot and a bit of a control freak, this is not exactly easy for me. But the system lines up with the runway and flies a gradual descent all the way to touchdown. Smooth, easy.

DIAMOND: Easy. Right on center line.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): Even still, putting A.I. in control of an airplane raises big questions about safety and trust.

Merlin CEO, Matthew George.

MATTHEW GEORGE, CEO, MERLIN LABS: What we're building is certainly very sci-fi but we're doing it in a responsible incremental way.

MUNTEAN: Will this put pilots out of jobs?

GEORGE: It won't. This is sitting alongside pilots, so not necessarily replacing pilots and enabling those pilots to do more of what they do best, which is operate aircraft safely.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): That could be appealing to airlines worldwide, which will need to hire more than 600,000 new pilots over the next 20 years according to Boeing. Merlin has already secured a $100 million contract with the U.S. Air Force to eventually fly cargo planes without pilots on board at all but convincing passengers may be the hardest part.

MIKE TANNENBAUM, PASSENGER: As long as it's safe and more efficient and tested out in advance, I'm for it.

MEG MCKNIGHT, PASSENGER: But I don't know if I trust A.I. in the air. I doubt I trust it.

STEVE COLEMAN, PASSENGER: I like the idea of humans having control. I don't like the idea of machines having control.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): Pete Muntean, CNN, Quonset, Rhode Island.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

DEAN: All right. Thanks so much for that. President Trump says he's in no rush to seal a deal with Iran after

previously announcing just yesterday he believed it had largely been negotiated. We've got details on what could potentially be inside that deal and the very sticky sticking points that still remain.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:15]

DEAN: Many Americans observing Memorial Day this weekend with tributes to our nation's fallen military heroes. The holiday also marking the unofficial start to summer widely celebrated with barbecues, family functions and other events.

Harry Enten runs the numbers.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Hey there, Jessica. Happy Sunday to you.

Look, we are there. We are finally here. It's the start or should I say unofficial start of summer, at least according to the plurality of Americans because what are we talking about here? Well, when does summer unofficially start? Well, the plurality, 45 percent say it's this weekend, Memorial Day weekend. Compare that to 41 percent who say when the schools let out, no, that might have been the case for me when I was, you know, yay high. But the truth is, I have not been in school for a long period of time.

So I agree with the 45 percent who say it is this weekend, Memorial Day weekend. And then of course, you get 10 percent who say when you take your summer vacay. But I ain't taking that until at least July if not August. I ain't waiting that long for summer to start now. Now tomorrow, of course, is Memorial Day, and there are going to be a lot of folks who have it off. But not everyone. Not everyone. Because just take a look here, OK? Memorial Day, a paid holiday off. If you do in fact have tomorrow off, you are part of the 90 percent. The 90 percent of Americans who do have it off. If you don't have it off, well, then you are part of a very tiny minority. Just 10 percent of Americans do not, in fact, have Memorial Day off.

Now, of course, I should note this is amongst those who receive any paid days off. Now, if you do have Monday off, there's a decent chance you might do some barbecuing on Monday and take a look here. Favorite food to barbecue, this is where I'm definitely not part of a plurality, because 39 percent of Americans say that they -- say their favorite food to, in fact, barbecue is -- these look like some pretty decent amount of burgers.