Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Hegseth: U.S. Military Ready To Resume Combat In Gulf If Needed; Netanyahu Directs Israeli Military To Take Over 70 Percent Of Gaza; Trump's $1.8 Billion Fund On Hold After Ruling By Federal Judge; Interview With Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA); Bondi Defends DOJ's Handling Of Epstein Docs; Judge: Trump's Name Must be Taken Off The Kennedy Center; Poll: Most Americans Do Not Agree With Trump Adding Name To Kennedy Center; Meteor Over Massachusetts Causes A "Double Boom" Heard From Delaware To Montreal; United Flight Diverted After Incident With "Unruly Passenger." Aired 6-7p ET

Aired May 30, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: It is something we continue to see that, that real tension between creative artists and this administration.

DOMINIC PATTEN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD": Well, yes, I totally agree. And I would also say it is a great contrast to, for instance, how much of corporate America has the expression is "kiss the ring and bend the knee," you're seeing artists, be they from the point of Bruce Springsteen to Bret Michaels not wanting either to speak out against what they are seeing from the administration, or just not wanting to be associated with it.

And I think in many ways, this is because a lot of these people, because they rely on their on their paycheck from the public that they recognize that all this too may pass, hopefully pass, and that they are going to see a day when being associated with the Trump crowd, the MAGA crowd was a career killer, if not a career damper.

So I think a lot of them are thinking forward to this, but also, too, I think a lot of people like when you talked about Miss McBride there, they said that they were offered something that they thought was a celebration of our country. Bret Michaels said that, and nobody would have a problem with that.

But when it became clear to people that this was a multi-day MAGA fest, well, that just wasn't the Woodstock they wanted to be a part of.

DEAN: All right, Dominic Patten, thanks for your time. We appreciate it.

And the next hour of NEWSROOM starts right now.

[18:01:22]

DEAN: You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Hi, everyone. I am Jessica Dean here in New York, and tonight, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth saying the U.S. is prepared to resume fighting with Iran if needed. This comes as we learn the U.S. is still enforcing its blockade of Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Central Command today, saying after issuing more than 20 warnings, the U.S. military disabled a Gambian-flagged ship headed to Iran by firing a hellfire missile into its engine room.

Right now, President Trump is weighing a potential deal to reopen the Strait in exchange for financial relief for Iran, but that deal does not address Iran's nuclear program, which would be the focus of the next phase of negotiations.

Let's go now to CNN's Julia Benbrook, who is at The White House.

Julia, what is the latest message from the Trump administration on this?

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, as you mentioned, those most recent remarks come from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who said the United States is ready and prepared to resume fighting if needed. But he also said that right now, President Donald Trump is laser focused on coming to a deal with Iran and that he has the patience to see this through in historic fashion.

I want you to take a listen to some of these recent remarks about the talks that Hegseth says have been productive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SECRETARY: I think, they know where it needs to go and I am quite confident with this, with our President, who makes nothing but great deals that ultimately it will be something he is proud to defend that that ensures that Iran, which everyone knows should not have a nuclear weapon, never does.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BENBROOK: So you hear him there reiterating Trump's red lines related to Iran being able to have a nuclear weapon, but there are still a lot of questions about how and when this conflict could come to an end. Just yesterday, Trump hosted high level talks in the Situation Room here at The White House with advisers including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and prior to that meeting, Trump said that he would make a final determination on this tentative agreement that we have been discussing.

We are still waiting on an update, though he did not say what his final determination would be following that meeting.

Sources have told us that that agreement would include a 60-day timeframe to address some of the biggest issues, including Iran's nuclear program, which then includes the fate of the stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which the President often refers to as nuclear dust.

But following that meeting, an official did tell CNN this in a statement. They said, "The Situation Room meeting has concluded and lasted approximately two hours. President Trump will only make a deal that is good for America and satisfies his red lines. Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon."

So a bit of a familiar pattern here at The White House this weekend, the big question still remains, will the United States and Iran be able to come to a deal? And it was just last weekend, Jessica, that Trump said that he was in no rush to come to an agreement.

DEAN: All right, Julia Benbrook, with the latest from The White House this evening. Thank you so much.

We are joined now by CNN political and global affairs analyst and AXIOS correspondent Barak Ravid.

Barak, it is always good to have you here. We have been in what is kind of a holding pattern for several days now. How would you describe where we are at this moment?

BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL AND FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: Well, I think we are in the really last moments of these negotiations or what potentially could be the last moments of these negotiations. I think both parties acknowledge and admit, and I hear it from both U.S. officials and the mediators and the Iranians themselves, who are saying this to their own government-controlled media, that the parties are very close to a deal.

[18:05:23]

And always in the last moments of negotiations, each side is trying to get, you know, his final achievement, his final win, and I think this is where we are at the moment.

DEAN: Yes, and the Defense Secretary said the U.S. is prepared to restart fighting if necessary. What is your sense, though, of the President's willingness to go down that path?

RAVID: Well, it is an option, obviously, and I don't think Trump is ruling it out, but at the moment, my impression, from talking to people around the President is that, the main thing that President Trump wants to solve in the immediate term is the issue of the Strait of Hormuz.

And one of the things that the President has been told, including the Situation Room meeting, is that if he doesn't take the deal, and if now fighting resumes, then it means a scenario of another six to 12 months of a closed Strait of Hormuz with all the implications for the global economy and for the U.S. economy.

And I think this is something that President Trump wants to solve, and I think this is one of his main considerations when he is looking at this deal at the moment.

DEAN: Israel's military is also warning of intensifying clashes with Hezbollah in Lebanon, fighting between Israel and Hezbollah resumed after the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader. It is a second front, but it is a related conflict to all of this. How does this all factor into these negotiations between the U.S. and Iran? RAVID: So for the Iranians, the Iranians are trying to basically link those two conflicts and to make sure that if they get a deal with the U.S., one of the results is that Israel is compelled to stop its attacks against Hezbollah. I think that at the moment, the way that the draft agreement looks like, most chances are that the Iranians are going to get at least part of what they want.

U.S. officials told me that if a deal is reached, it will include a ceasefire in Lebanon. By the way, the ceasefire in Lebanon has been, theoretically in place for several weeks now. On the ground, the fighting has only escalated. So I am not sure what -- you know, it is one thing to put on paper that there is a ceasefire somewhere, it is a whole different thing to actually have one.

And in Lebanon at the moment, it seems that both Israel and Hezbollah are escalating their attacks. It seems that situation there is just getting worse and it could get out of control.

And Israeli forces now have occupied more and more territory in Southern Lebanon. They just, in the last few days, they sent more forces to northern parts, to northern areas than there were before and Hezbollah has intensified its rocket attacks against Israeli cities, increased the range.

Today, Hezbollah fired rockets at places that it did not fire for months, and I think that this escalation between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon could also undermine what Trump is trying to do with getting an agreement right now with Iran.

DEAN: Meantime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also directed the Israeli military in recent days to take over 70 percent of Gaza's territory. What do you read into the timing of that announcement, the relationship that Netanyahu has with Trump and his stake in all of these negotiations as well?

RAVID: Well, first, Netanyahu said that he directed the IDF to do it, at least from what everything I know, there hasn't been any Cabinet decision or any real directive to the IDF to do.

One of the contexts that we need to look at Netanyahu's statement is the fact that in three months, Israel is going for an election. And at the moment, Netanyahu doesn't have a lot of good news to tell his voters, and what I hear from both Israeli officials and U.S. officials is that they look at his statement as a political statement for domestic consumption, and not necessarily as an imminent operational plan.

[18:10:10]

It doesn't mean that it is not going to happen down the road, because once you start talking about taking over more territory in Gaza, you open the door to this, and if the door is not closed by the U.S. or by somebody else, then at the end, somebody walks through that door, so I am not saying that it might not happen in two weeks, in a month, in two months, but at least at the moment, this is mostly a political statement. DEAN: All right, Barak Ravid, always great to have you. Thanks so much.

RAVID: Thank you.

DEAN: Still ahead, sources telling CNN many allies of President Trump now urging him to scrap his controversial Anti-Weaponization Fund as a judge, blocks the $1.8 billion fund from moving forward.

Plus, Newark, New Jersey, now the epicenter of the Trump administration's immigration crackdown, as protesters and supporters of ICE clash outside the detention facility there. Stay with us. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DEAN: Tonight, sources are telling CNN, some allies of President Trump are now urging The White House to scrap the President's controversial $1.8 billion so-called Anti Weaponization Fund. The fund is currently stalled after a federal judge temporarily blocked it from moving forward. It is unclear if all the pushback from Republicans will lead to the President making any changes, but CNN's Katelyn Polantz has more now on the latest legal roadblock.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: A federal judge is blocking for now, the $1.8 billion that the Trump administration wants to give to what they say are people who have faced lawfare or weaponization from the federal government, especially when there are Democratic officials in charge. Now, this is the so-called Anti- Weaponization Fund, something that the Justice Department announced last week, saying it was a settlement so that people who could benefit, if they had been somehow hurt by the federal government. There has been a ton of blowback since then, and very many lawsuits filed against this so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund.

One of those lawsuits, a federal judge has acted very quickly and put a stop on even the ability of that fund to establish themselves and move forward. Judge Leonie Brinkema in the federal court in Alexandria, Virginia on Friday, she decided that no funds at this time should be irreversibly dispersed from the Anti-Weaponization Fund, and she has told the federal government, the executive branch, the Trump administration, that they can't take any steps toward creating the fund, operating the fund, getting claims from people who may want to apply for money from the fund, that includes potentially January 6th rioters who say they want to apply for these claims and they can't disburse any of the claims that may be coming in.

So, that is what is stopped. This is going to be only the beginning of several of these lawsuits. This one is from a group of people challenging this Anti-Weaponization Fund. The group says that they have been discriminated against because they are people that the Trump administration doesn't like, that they may get shut out from the fund, and it is unfair that allies of Donald Trump could get payments from the fund.

The people in this lawsuit that have brought this lawsuit and at least one, this temporary stop from the judge, they include a former January 6th prosecutor, nonprofit organizations, a college professor who was arrested protesting immigration enforcement in recent months, and then also the city of New Haven, a so-called sanctuary city in the United States that they say have been unfairly targeted by the Trump administration.

What they're going to be arguing to Judge Brinkema in the coming days is they are going to say that this is an unconstitutional fund, that Congress should have to have some control over the money that the federal government pays out, that Donald Trump can't just do something like this and it is implicitly endorsing dangerous conduct, such as the involvement of January 6ers in the riot at the Capitol.

And now, those people who have been pardoned for crimes, many of them who were convicted, may be getting money, but we will see exactly where the judge stands on this in two weeks. She is having a hearing on the 12th, and there are other cases moving forward as well, just not as quickly as this one.

Back to you.

DEAN: All right, Katelyn Polantz, thank you for that reporting.

California Congressman Kevin Kiley, who is an independent, joins us now. Congressman, thanks for your time this evening. We really appreciate it.

I know you voted in favor of congressional subpoenas related to the Justice Department's creation of this fund. So what is your reaction to the judge's ruling?

REP. KEVIN KILEY (I-CA): Well, it seems like certainly the right result. This whole scheme was an affront to the separation of powers, saying that we are going to have this essentially unilateral appropriation from the executive branch, no involvement of Congress, no approval by the judicial branch for what was, you know, a lawsuit.

And then, you know, no control on the part of Congress over who actually receives these funds. And so I said immediately when I heard about this, that we need to stop this from happening. That's why I voted to subpoena the agencies that were involved.

And certainly, I don't think this is going to move forward.

DEAN: Yes, and part of that also, too, was this piece that the IRS can never investigate President Trump, his family, his family's businesses moving forward. Do you think that should be in place?

[18:20:08]

Do you think that's appropriate?

KILEY: It seems very unusual to come to sort of an agreement with your own administration on an issue like that.

You know, I think that we need to look into how these sort of things are handled moving forward when you have that sort of inherent conflict of interest. And certainly, I think that we need to have a more active role for congressional oversight. This is a big problem we have, I think, in Washington, is that when one party is in charge of Congress and that same party has The White House, there is a lot less oversight than when the two are different.

And so I think we certainly need to revive the role of oversight. And by the way, I am not sure why we are focusing on these sort of issues at all. When the cost of living in this country remains such a hardship for so many people, in particular in my state, in California.

DEAN: And I do want to ask you about that, because across the country, obviously, Americans are paying higher prices at the pump. It is some of the highest there in California, in your home state. That brings us to the war in Iran as the President and his administration try to negotiate with Iran to wind that down, but with the Secretary of Defense saying that they are willing to go, you know, they are willing to take military action in Iran if that's necessary. What do you want to see the President do?

KILEY: Well, I want to see the President have Congress more centrally involved in the resolution of this conflict moving forward. I have said this from day one that we need to have Congress involved. We need to have our allies involved. We need to have the Gulf states involved.

If we are going to have a durable peace here that achieves U.S. objectives, namely, reopening the Strait of Hormuz so we can see gas prices come down and assuring that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon, which I think that, you know, bipartisan majorities in Congress and the vast majority of the American people agree with, then this needs to be done in a way that includes Congress, that has underlying institutional support, and so, you know, we are at a point now where I think we are past the time when Congress should have stepped up and then actively playing that role.

DEAN: But respectfully, I mean, to your point, the President has thumbed his nose at Congress when it comes to this war the whole time. He has just absolutely done what he wants to do. He has not sought congressional approval, even as some Republicans even have said, that they believe that they should, you know, have to vote on a War Powers Resolution or taking some control back.

So what does that actually practically look like besides saying that you want more control? Because at this point, Congress hasn't really had any control over this.

KILEY: Yes. Well, Congress doesn't need to wait for permission to assert its constitutional authority. So, for example, Congress controls appropriations, and so we can use that leverage to shape policy and to assure that funds are targeted towards, in a way that is going to lead to an expeditious resolution of this conflict rather than a protracted conflict.

Congress also, as we've mentioned before, has oversight authority and should have been conducting much more searching oversight from the very beginning of this conflict, so that Congress could really shape the direction of it. And I will reiterate that, you know, even if we achieve an end point here that is acceptable when it comes to U.S. objectives, in order for it to be durable, we need to have buy in from a lot of different parties. If we are going to have certification, for example, that Iran isn't continuing to develop a nuclear weapon, it needs to rest on a very solid foundation.

So that's why we need to have Congress involved, and we need to have our allies involved.

DEAN: And do you have any sense from your Republican colleagues that they are willing to join with you on what you're talking about?

KILEY: I think so, I think there is broad bipartisan support for ensuring that we have, really robust congressional involvement moving forward, and I think that everyone agrees that we want to move on from this conflict as quickly as possible while achieving these several objectives, making sure that the Strait is reopened and free for traffic, and assuring that Iran simply cannot restart its nuclear program, so that we go back to square that.

Lastly, you've got primaries coming up in your state very soon and in just a few days on June 2nd, that race for governor is quite tight at the top with two Democrats and one Republican continuing to be in the top three there. What do you think that says about where voters are?

KILEY: You know, I think voters have been sort of underwhelmed by the state of this race. We've had a number of very high profile people who were going to run and then decided not to like Kamala Harris and a number of others, even Senator Padilla. You had the front runner who dropped out of the race, whose campaign imploded in a scandal. Others have dropped out.

And I think that people, when they look at, at least the candidates who are ahead in the polls there, Tom Steyer and Becerra, they are thinking, are they really offering the sort of solutions that are going to change the trajectory of California? Because there is broad, widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of our state for very obvious reasons.

[18:25:07]

We have the highest cost of living of any state in the country, highest gas prices, highest electricity rates, close to the highest grocery prices and housing and water bills. We also have the most homelessness in the country, the most poverty in the country, the highest unemployment rate in the country.

And so I think a lot of voters are saying the problems in our state are obvious, and yet what we are hearing from at least, you know, the leading candidates on that side is kind of more of the same or is not sort of change that's going to lead us in the right direction.

So whoever emerges from this race as the winner, I hope, will recognize that Californians really are calling for change, and I think there is underlying, you know, putting this race aside, a coalition for common sense in California that's looking to just restore some basic common sense when it comes to issues like the cost of living, homelessness, crime, and a whole host of other areas.

DEAN: And the top three include a Republican, Steve Hilton. Do you think that he addresses what you're talking about?

KILEY: I think that Steve has, you know, offered some really different policies on things like housing, on things like you know, what we are going to do about the cost of living, about energy costs, about actually expanding domestic energy production. And so I do think there is a pretty clear contrast there. And, you know, if he makes it into the top two, which I think there is a very good chance of, then you will have a clear contrast for voters.

And I think that whoever manages to tap into this growing coalition for common sense in our state and show that they will bring the right kind of change, they will have the upper hand.

DEAN: All right, Congressman Kevin Kiley, thanks for your time.

KILEY: Thanks for having me.

DEAN: And be sure to tune in to CNN on Tuesday for our special Election Night in America coverage on air, and also on the CNN App.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:31:09]

DEAN: Former Attorney General Pam Bondi is defending the Justice Department's handling of the release of the Epstein files, but on Capitol Hill Friday, she reportedly told lawmakers it was her successor, Todd Blanche, who was largely in charge. CNN's Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent, Paula Reid, has more on this.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jess, former Attorney General Pam Bondi made her much-anticipated appearance here on Capitol Hill, where she testified for a little under four hours. Now, this was an opportunity for lawmakers to ask her about a variety of things connected to Jeffrey Epstein, the handling of the investigation, the mistakes that were made in releasing and redacting the files, or even possibly, if they wanted to, able to ask about Ghislaine Maxwell, why she was moved from one prison to the other.

We don't know exactly what happened, because this was not televised, this was not even recorded. We're waiting for a transcript. And until then, we are relying on what lawmakers and Bondi and her team tell us happened inside. Now, Democrats have insisted that Bondi tried to shift the blame for a lot of what happened onto Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Let's take a listen to what Representative Garcia said.

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I want to also say just a few -- a few other things. It -- it is clear, in just this -- this -- this part of the -- of the interview, that she continues to push all of the investigation and the blame on Acting AG Todd Blanche. She said, and I quote, "Acting AG Blanche was managing the entire investigation," end quote. And what you're going to hear in that interview and what she's saying here in her words and remarks is that it was Todd Blanche, the current Acting AG, that was leading the Epstein investigation. And quite frankly, all of the mistakes that we saw, the redactions, not protecting survivors, she continues to push that back onto the Acting AG Todd Blanche, who, by the way, was Donald Trump's former personal lawyer.

REID: But on social media after the hearing, Bondi shot back saying that was not true. She praised Blanche's, quote, "Herculean efforts." Now, when Bondi arrived here on the Hill, you could see she had a bandage on her neck. As we have reported, she is currently recovering from thyroid cancer.

Now, the committee says she is the 13th witness they have spoken to in their investigation into how the government has handled all things Epstein. But we won't know what exactly they learned during this interview until they release that transcript as early as next week. Jess.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Paula Reid, thank you so much for that reporting.

We're joined now by Epstein survivor Jess Michaels.

Jess, we're so glad to have you here. Thank you for your time today.

As we just noted, there wasn't video of Bondi's testimony. Democrats had pushed for that, but we did not get that. But from what we have reported from her appearance and the information that came out, what has stood out to you and how are you thinking about it? About 24 hours or so later.

JESS MICHAELS, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Firstly, thank you so much for having me on, Jessica, and for talking about this. What has struck me as I've listened to several of the representatives comments about the interview is that Pam Bondi continues to evade answering any questions. And in fact, saying I'm -- I'm not under oath. I don't have to answer any questions. And that is the opposite of transparency. It's the opposite of what the act was passed on. And it is -- it's a slap in the face to Congress, actually.

DEAN: She shifted responsibility to the now acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for the administration's handling of the release of these files, including when it came to those redactions. And I remember -- I believe you and I talked shortly after that was released. And you especially were very concerned and very upset about the -- the lack of redactions, the information that made it out there, the -- things that shouldn't have been published that were.

[15:35:09]

How much personal accountability do you think she has here? MICHAELS: She was the attorney general. She was in charge of justice

at every level of our country. She -- she -- the buck ends with her, just like a CEO of a company is responsible for everything that happens underneath them. It is on her. And I -- I remember someone quoting her saying something like, well, to the best of my knowledge. But she is -- the best of her knowledge, be -- better be everything, because she is the acting attorney general.

And if it's not -- if she doesn't know something that's going on, then she's not really acting as the attorney general, is she? Someone else's.

DEAN: Yes. And -- and -- and listen, we've talked about this as well, just -- there's the political piece of all of this, and it is highly politicized at this point. But there is also the very real world, real consideration of survivors like yourself who are known and still unknown, who've been very impacted by all of this and are still waiting for justice.

And so, what -- what do you want to see happen next? And -- and do you -- would you say this has so far been a failure? Do you think it is somehow moved the needle?

MICHAELS: I think it's moved the needle in the hearts of Americans who are also survivors, who are watching this happen, who have gone through it personally in their own towns and in their own cities. And -- and in that way, we are talking about sexual harm and trafficking in ways we have never discussed it before.

We're talking about pedophiles getting away with crimes like we've never, ever discussed it in our country, so we're moving that needle. But as far as this Department of Justice doing anything different than any previous four other administration departments of justice, no, they -- they -- this has been a complete failure.

I actually made a list for you, Jessica. So, since the Transparency Act passed and since the deadline happened on December 19th, it was 161 days ago. So, we watched them miss the legal deadline, withhold half the files, redact beyond what the law allows, and publish new photos of victims, including possible minors, exposing nearly a hundred survivors, identifying names, identifying information, which is a crime. All of those things, child sexual abuse material published to the Internet is a crime. The Department of Justice committed that crime.

Exposing victims' names goes against the Crime Victims' Act. It is a crime. The Department of Justice is repeatedly not only not being transparent, they're committing crimes and they're being sued for it. But then to have these hearings downgraded in transparency from hearings that are videotaped and under oath to being -- cameras being removed and not having to be under oath, it -- that's not just criminal behavior. Like, that's criminal behavior protecting criminal networks and it's the opposite of transparency.

DEAN: And so, knowing all that, what are you hoping happens from here? What the House Oversight Committee does with any new information obtained in this interview? What do you want to see next?

MICHAELS: I -- I can only hope that the absurdity of removing cameras and an oath, a requirement to take an oath from these -- this is oversight committee. This is supposed to be oversight. So, that -- so to remove cameras and to remove the requirements of speaking under oath is absurd. I hope that that one thing becomes obvious after this interview and that we go back to having full oversight committee hearings that where people have to follow subpoenas, they have to speak under oath and they are on video camera.

DEAN: All right. Jess Michaels, always great to have you. Thank you so much for being here with us and being willing to talk about all of this. We appreciate it.

MICHAELS: Thank you, Jessica.

DEAN: Mm-hmm. A judge tells President Trump he has two weeks to take his name off the Kennedy Center, throwing a wrench into the president's Kennedy Center renovation plans. We've got details on that rolling up next. You're on the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:44:15]

DEAN: A federal judge has blocked the Kennedy Center from temporarily closing its doors for a years-long renovation, and says the board violated the law by adding Trump's name to the building. Now, the judge says that the name needs to be removed within two weeks. But how do Americans feel about all of this? CNN's Harry Enten joins us now to run the numbers.

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

Look, earlier this week, a federal judge blocked -- blocked President Trump from being able to add his name to the Kennedy Center and the American people are probably breathing a sigh of relief. That is because, they simply put, don't like the idea that, in fact, government buildings can be named after President Trump while he is, in fact, still in office.

You can see it right here in the polling data.

[18:45:00]

I mean, you rarely ever see polling data this clear. Clear as glass, I would make the argument. Okay, naming government buildings after Trump.

The clear pluralities say it's not acceptable. But then you get about one in five Americans who say, you know what, yes, it is acceptable. But only after he leaves office, 21 percent. But then look at the very bottom of your screen, way down there, just 9 percent -- 9 percent, nine, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, 9 percent of Americans. Well, you can put it on your hands. You know it's a low percentage. Nine percent say it's, in fact, acceptable for government buildings to be named after President Trump while he is still in office. And if you think this 9 percent is low, you're right. It's very low. You rarely ever get that low. And to put that into some perspective for you, just take a look here.

I mean, look, the American people think the idea that Trump's name being added to government buildings while he's still in office is ridiculous. So, I lined it up with some other ridiculous beliefs. Okay, Americans who believe that the moon landing was fake, 12 percent of Americans believe the moon landing was fake. Of course, the moon landing was not fake. It is very real.

How about the Earth is flat? The Earth ain't flat. The Earth is round. But 10 percent of Americans believe that.

And right in that same company, look at this, 9 percent of Americans say it's okay right now as Trump is still in office to name government buildings after him. That's how you know that this is, in fact, a very, very low percentage.

Now, when you get to nine, you know there has to be bipartisan agreement. Because, simply put, yes, Republicans and Democrats are divided. But they ain't this divided. Look at this. Okay. Okay to name government buildings for Trump, yes, as he is president. On this issue, the rock core, that core Republican base that Trump has relied upon, that stick with him through thick and thin, even on this issue, though, just 17 percent, just 17 percent of Republicans say that, yes, it is okay for, in fact, government buildings to be named for Trump as he is president. Three percent, not really so surprising, of Democrats say the same thing. So, you get rare bipartisan unity on this issue.

Of course, I would make the argument that this whole Kennedy Center saga and the government buildings being named after President Trump is part of a larger problem for the President of the United States. And that is his focus, instead of being focused like I should be on the camera, it's off in the distance somewhere. It's not focused on the issues that are important to the American people.

And you can see it here. Just look at this. Trump on issues facing most Americans. Focused enough, just 29 percent -- just 29 percent of Americans say that, in fact, President Trump is focused enough on the issues that are most important to the American people. The clear super majority, 68 percent say no, he is not focused enough. And therefore, it's really not surprising that when it comes to government buildings, just 9 percent say it's okay right now as Trump is president to name him after him, which lines up when you're on the same page as the moon landing is fake and the earth is flat, you know you're focused on the wrong issues.

But Jessica, you're always focused on the right issues, and I'm focusing the attention back on you.

DEAN: Harry Enten, thank you so much for that. Still to come here, we're learning new details about a United flight

that was forced to make an emergency landing after an unruly passenger tried to go inside the cockpit mid-flight.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:53:00]

DEAN: A double sonic boom from a three-foot meteor hitting the Earth's atmosphere over Massachusetts had people calling police all along the eastern seaboard from Delaware to Montreal.

Kind of crazy. That is ring camera footage from a Boston suburb. The boom was loud enough to shake buildings in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Police departments received so many calls with people seeing what looked like a fireball. The Needham Police Department was one of many asking people to please stop calling 911.

Some scary moments last night on a United Airlines plane that was forced to divert mid-flight after the airline says an unruly passenger caused a security concern on board. Air traffic control audio reviewed by CNN captured crew members describing a passenger who'd made multiple attempts to get into the cockpit. Rafael Romo is joining us now with the latest on this.

What exactly happened here, Rafael?

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Jessica. Well, a passenger on the same United Airlines Flight 2005 from Chicago to Minneapolis told CNN that the man who was later detained had stood up during the taxiing at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago and was asked repeatedly to sit down while crew members asked whether anyone on board could speak Russian. He said the man eventually sat down and the flight took off.

Later, while the aircraft was airborne, Rundle said a fellow passenger saw the man at the front of the plane near the cockpit appearing to reach for a flight attendant which prompted multiple men to intervene to restrain him. After the commotion, the passenger said the plane was diverted to Madison, Wisconsin where law enforcement boarded the plane and put the man in handcuffs before taking him out of the aircraft.

This passenger provided photo shows the moment law enforcement get on the plane. We need to clarify that the man in the blue shirt is not the suspect, but someone who helped interpret during the incident, according to Rundle.

[15:55:00]

ATC audio reviewed by CNN captured the moment the flight crew notified a ground controller about the incident.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And is this individual detained or what's his status? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, we had five law enforcement, LEOs on board. They have -- I do not believe they ever cuffed him, but they were able to finally get control of him after multiple attempts to try to breach the cockpit. I believe at this point he is seated in a seat and flanked by law enforcement officers on either side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMO: And Jessica, United Airlines said the plane, a Boeing 737 carrying 147 passengers and six crew members, landed safely and no injuries were reported. Now, back to you.

DEAN: All right, Rafael Romo, thank you for that.

Still ahead, four villagers walked out of that flooded cave on their own after being trapped inside for more than a week and CNN was on the scene for the miraculous rescue in Laos. More on that straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)