Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

'Violent Incident' Between Pilots Sparks Emergency Diversion of Israel-Bound Flight; Trump, Big A.I. Tech CEOs Produce Self-Policing Document; El-Sayed Tries to Attract MAHA Voters with New Health Policy. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired September 30, 2026 - 06:00   ET

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

[06:00:15]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish. We're actually following this breaking news out of the Middle East.

A passenger jet headed for Israel, forced to make an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia. Now, flight tracking data showing that a flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv had to turn around after sending an emergency signal. Sources tell CNN a, quote, "violent incident" between two pilots is to blame.

Joining me now with the latest is CNN correspondent Eleni Giokos. She is in Dubai. What is the latest that we are hearing about what might have happened here?

ELENI GIOKOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, really quite a remarkable story. I mean, what we understand -- and you've said it -- the sources tell us that this is a violent incident that ensued between the pilots.

And over the time, around 1:30 a.m. Eastern, Audie, this is when the plane lost altitude. And I want you to get sort of a sense of this: 34,000 feet, dropping to 16,500 feet in the span of two minutes. We're talking about a descent of over 17,000 feet. And that's a very dramatic drop.

So, big questions around the safety of the passengers. FlyDubai has said everyone's safe. Everyone's accounted for.

And FlyDubai is also not saying that this was a violent incident between the pilots. They were just saying that this is an incident that transpired.

Then we know the plane sent out an emergency signal, and then the Israeli prime minister got together with security officials to discuss this incident.

Initially, there was major concern around whether it was a hijacking. And then, of course, more information came to the fore around the pilots getting into some kind of altercation. We don't know why, we don't know how, but this is what we have right now. The other important thing that we've got to remember here is that

Saudi Arabia and Israel do not have diplomatic relations, but there has been some movement on allowing and opening up airspace for both countries to use their airspace to sort of travel with regards to flights. So that was in 2022.

But in terms of getting passengers now back to Israel, because this flight left Dubai, was meant to go to Ben-Gurion in Israel and then diverted. It's now in Tabuk in Saudi Arabia.

And from what we understand -- this is the latest that we have -- that Israel is now considering sending either a military aircraft or a passenger aircraft to get the passengers back to Israel.

CORNISH: So, just so we're clear, as far as it's known, this plane landed --

GIOKOS: Yes.

CORNISH: -- safely. What's not known is what caused the diversion.

GIOKOS: Yes.

The only thing we know is that the pilots were in some kind of violent altercation that clearly, you know, caused this massive descent. So, it gives you a sense of the -- the urgency that must have happened on this plane.

And I think that this is a big signal of how serious this altercation must have been, Audie, for the plane to just drop so dramatically. And again, I just want to reiterate, over 1,700 zero feet drop in two minutes.

FlyDubai hasn't confirmed this information, which of course, is quite interesting. We are in contact with them. We have reached out to them to give us more information. But right now, we've got -- we're showing the flight radar information. You're seeing this diversion landing in Tabuk. And FlyDubai says everyone is safe.

On the Israeli side of things, this is where we've gotten a lot more information with regards to the sources that we've spoken to that have given us a bit more info.

CORNISH: Yes.

GIOKOS: But one thing I have to say here -- and this is important -- during the war, there was also another flight that was diverted that landed in Saudi Arabia, and those passengers were taken back to Israel.

So, there is going to be a lot of diplomacy in the background to all of this.

And I think a lot of authorities are looking at this as, firstly serious: why did this happen? What happened between the pilots? What was the reasoning? And of course, whether it's just an altercation that caused this diversion or whether there's sort of an underlying issue here that could perhaps be more serious.

CORNISH: So, we'll be listening today for more from the Israeli government. And as you point out, the Saudi government, as well, given the diplomatic relations there, or lack thereof.

Eleni Giokos, thank you so much. We'll check in with you later.

And after the break on CNN THIS MORNING, we're going to turn back to Jack Smith. But then also, basketball player Caitlin Clark. And then this, honestly, Republican perjury trap that failed.

[06:05:11]

Plus, is Abdul El-Sayed having a MAHA moment? Coming up, the Michigan Senate race moves to court RFK's [SIC] Jr. -- RFK Jr. supporters.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:10:01]

CORNISH: So, the president and leaders in the artificial intelligence industry say they've made a deal. A deal which, if the critics are right, could leave the fate of humanity in the hands of big tech.

So, Trump brought together leading executives at the White House on Tuesday. Some of the leaders in that very room are calling for government regulations.

Now, instead, they emerged hours later with what Trump called the White House Accord on Superintelligence, a one-page document with four bullet points of voluntary guardrails.

The document, posted to Trump's social media account, features the signatures of six tech company CEOs alongside the president's name, although the title is misspelled.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: These models are very complex, and again, I believe they're going to be used for the good. And when they're not, we're going to be able to nab them. But there's going to be a tremendous self-policing aspect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Joining me now in the group chat, Alex Thompson, CNN political analyst and national political correspondent at Axios; Maria Curi, tech policy reporter at Axios; Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project; and Antjuan Seawright, Democratic strategist.

So, we went from being, like, we don't need to do anything to, actually, let's have dinner and have a conversation. What came out of this conversation? We see guardrails, but what does that actually mean, based on the document? MARIA CURI, TECH POLICY REPORTER, AXIOS: A lot of the requirements

that they agreed on is actually just what any public company has to do.

So, having an independent board, having outside evaluators come in and check things out once in a while. But it's all voluntary. None of it is actually mandated by the government. And it comes as some of these companies do eventually prepare to go public.

So, the government didn't take any big swings here. And this conversation was more about rebranding artificial intelligence to superintelligence, than taking any real regulatory action.

CORNISH: You're nodding at the rebranding. Why?

ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, because -- because Donald Trump has been really out on his skis and backing artificial intelligence companies in ways that are politically unhelpful, even to members of his own party.

And Trump, if anything, is a marketer. And so, he has been very deliberate about saying, no, we're doing superintelligence. And even before this meeting, you saw Mark Zuckerberg and other executives start actually using this terminology, because all of these --

CURI: Yes, and reporters.

THOMPSON: -- you know, yes, a lot of these executives are taking their -- their cues from Donald Trump as part of a -- you know, a larger sort of making nice with Donald Trump.

CORNISH: Since you mentioned Mark Zuckerberg, here is what he said when asked about the idea of self-policing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, META: We drafted a set of principles and commitments around building robust internal controls and detecting if there are any issues with the technology, coupled with multiple layers of -- of auditing and controls, starting with internal risk review, external auditors and evaluators, and agreeing that we're going to have all of our boards of directors independently review the reports that come from the auditors.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: I want to play one other thing, which is former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who specifically kind of pointed to Zuckerberg, and he said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW YANG, FORMER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is one of the worst outcomes I'd feared, Laura, where we saw what the tech companies did on social media. They self-policed that, too. And what you wound up with was hundreds of thousands of depressed and

anxious teenagers, particularly adolescent girls, and lawsuits showing that Meta knew that their products were destructive and harmful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Given how many whistleblowers, for instance, have come out talking about internal discussions and -- at Meta, for example, what do we know about the culture of self-policing in the tech industry?

CURI: Doesn't really work. I mean, I think, ultimately, this is going to be settled through lawsuits. And if the government does take any action, it's probably not going to be until 2028.

If you remember, when Biden was president, he used the Defense Production Act to compel these companies to just share basic information with the government. It's a standard transparency measure that this administration is clearly not wanting to do.

So, I'm not really expecting any action until there's a potentially a Democrat in the White House.

CORNISH: One other thing. There is this constant refrain -- I'm hearing it more and more -- that the talk and the doomerism around A.I. is somehow a repeat of what people on the right considered a climate hoax: that these are threats, that there is this talk of extinction or job apocalypse, that they aren't playing out.

And there was this tweet from David Sachs, who is maybe the A.I. czar or is thinking of being the A.I. czar.

CURI: Former A.I. czar.

CORNISH: Former A.I. czar.

CURI: Jay Clayton may be the new A.I. czar.

CORNISH: Yes, exactly. He says, look, agent safety, meaning the -- the actual programs. He says it's an engineering problem.

And that recent breakouts or hacks, they're not proof that development must stop. They're proof that the sandbox was too weak.

And the right response, he talks about isolating, controlling. But basically, he's like, we don't need virtue signaling a pause. You know what I mean? We have a solution.

[06:15:08]

CURI: Well, that would certainly be beneficial for Jensen Huang. When A.I. is policing A.I., that means you need more chips, which is what his company manufactures.

And it would also be really good for the open-source industry. Usually, when A.I. is policing A.I., its open-source players policing closed-source players. And so, even though there was a lack of diversity in that room in

terms of outside industry players, a lot of those industry players differ in their motivations and incentives. And --

CORNISH: Very much so. It was the world's most awkward photo op. You have a thought?

ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I'm concerned that there was zero representation of African Americans in that photo and in that room.

Because when you think about the browning of America, the reality is that we're a growing population that's going to be severely impacted by this.

We should not be surprised that Republicans are the party -- are choosing not to regulate an industry, because that is their motto. That's what they -- that's their bread and butter.

But we've also seen, time and time again, when you pull back and roll back regulation, the long-term implications and what that means for the American people, all you have to do is what we see happening with all the food recalls.

They fire -- they fire inspectors. They roll back regulation. And now, we have over 200 food recalls. To me, I'm --

CORNISH: Let me let Terry jump in there. Yes.

SEAWRIGHT: -- much, much. Much, much worried about it.

TERRY SCHILLING, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PRINCIPLES PROJECT: I see it a little bit differently.

Obviously, Republicans are more hesitant about regulation. I think that's not a terrible thing.

But Democrats, on the other hand, regulate our gas tanks. They regulate our toilet tanks. Right? I think there's a happy medium in here.

These A.I. companies, I think the big thing that we need to keep our -- our -- our focus on is human agency, right? I think that's what most people on the right are concerned about, is when the -- when the tools for A.I.

A.I. is great. It's a great tool. It's a great -- it's an intern. It's a glorified intern for me. But when it starts making decisions on our behalf, that's where I think most people get -- get concerned.

And also, you have the suicides that are happening from these chatbots. We obviously need some basic regulations. We don't want to give our competitors an unfair advantage, but I just think it's -- I think they -- you know, actually A.I. companies that police themselves --

CORNISH: I think it's fascinating that you two aren't that far off. It's the distance --

CURI: Right.

CORNISH: -- between constituencies and voters, and the White House and the industry, who keep saying, It's fine; stop freaking out. It's fine.

And the polling is, like, it is not fine. We -- like, we hear -- we hear problems, and we'd like to address them before they do damage.

You know who said that? Actually, I don't have it. Maybe I do have it here. Bill Gates, of all people, he has been speaking up more and more. He called this whole self-regulation thing insane. And then he followed it up with this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's almost like a constitution in a way.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President --

TRUMP: And the biggest -- and the biggest people in the world signed that. And I signed it as president. And it really is a form of protection.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is this accord that everybody signed, is it binding in any way?

TRUMP: I think it's morally binding. Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: That is not Bill Gates, but it is a point people have been looking at, which is it's not just self-pleading [SIC] -- policing. It's like a vibe space document.

CURI: It's trust. It's just complete and utter trust in --

CORNISH: Well, I don't know. So is the Magna Carta. Like, just -- like this is going to be -- I know. I'm just trying to say, like, where else do a bunch of signatures mean something? They can mean something.

CURI: On his use of the word -- of the Constitution, by the way, is a nod toward Anthropic's constitution. Claude's constitution. Dario Amodei was there, as well. So, you can see him reconciling even with his biggest enemy in the industry.

But in terms of the products coming out, at the same time that the White House was having all of these discussions yesterday, you had Development Days, big annual A.I. conference over in San Francisco that Sam Altman was.

Twenty more products were released, including agentic products where you do have A.I., you know, taking actions on its own without humans in the loop.

And so, the products are continuing to come out: 20-plus products.

And in terms of Democrats policing or not policing, it's not going to be Democrats in Congress. It's probably going to have to be a Democrat in the White House, because a lot of these Democratic lawmakers also are taking PAC money from the A.I. industry. And they also are interested.

SEAWRIGHT: Yes, but that doesn't mean they cannot regulate. Because we've had this conversation before.

CORNISH: Oh, ye of so much faith.

SEAWRIGHT: I'm just saying, just because you take a campaign contribution does not mean you cannot do your job.

CORNISH: Yes, although you know that --

SCHILLING: It makes it a lot harder to do your job.

CORNISH: That has -- question has been raised by voters themselves on a variety of issues, right? Like --

SEAWRIGHT: Sure.

CORNISH: What PAC do you accept money from, has become a thing in many different topics. So, I want to say the voters do have doubts about that.

THOMPSON: I mean, like, we live in D.C. A.I. companies are -- are scooping up operatives in both parties left and right.

And to Maria's earlier point, the thing is that it's very difficult to decipher what people are -- what some of these executives are saying that is earnest and honest, and what is just in their self-interest.

CORNISH: Yes.

THOMPSON: And some of it, some of the alarmism they're being accused of actually, well, they want regulations to, basically, so that they can create sort of themselves in the utility.

CORNISH: I hear those arguments a lot. Yes.

THOMPSON: But also, like, you know, to her point about how -- about the -- the Nvidia CEO, he's saying, Oh, no, no, A.I. is good.

[06:20:03]

CORNISH: And I have just the thing to police it.

THOMPSON: Exactly.

CORNISH: It's called Sentry. What could go wrong?

Maria Curi, thank you for talking about this. Always appreciate it. You're so chill while we discuss all of this. CURI: It's early.

CORNISH: It is early, girl.

CURI: Thank you.

CORNISH: All right. I want to turn back to the breaking news, because we're getting more information out of the Middle East. A passenger jet that was headed for Israel actually had to make an emergency stop. It landed in Saudi Arabia. We'll see you soon.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:24:47]

CORNISH: So, Abdul El-Sayed is making a play for MAHA voters. The Michigan Democratic Senate candidate is rolling out a new health agenda that takes on pesticides, ultra-processed food, and corporate influence in America's food system.

He's specifically calling out Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saying RFK and the Trump administration have failed to deliver on their promise to make America healthy again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABDUL EL-SAYED (D), MICHIGAN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: Now RFK Jr., he came to power saying he was going to make America healthy again. He had the opportunity to stand up to the corporations who were putting additives in our food, the corporations who have made so much of the healthy things we should be eating more expensive.

But he didn't. He never was going to, because he's bought off by the same exact corporations who have been buying our food space for a very long time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, can a Democrat win over the MAGA-created movement? Talking to the group chat here.

Terry, can I start with you? I don't know if you're MAHA, but I feel like your best friends might be MAHA. And there has been some disappointment specifically on these issues. Ultra processed food and pesticides, things that they felt like the administration has not made good on.

SCHILLING: Well, look, I am MAHA. I think it's a very good movement, but I want to make two points. And why I don't think this effort is going to work for El-Sayed.

One is MAHA was primarily a response. Where it really blew up was in response to COVID and all the misinformation that our movement felt was being put out there.

Now, here's where it gets problematic for El-Sayed. He was one of the public health officials pushing all of the garbage narratives around COVID, including justifying the George Floyd riots, and saying that those aren't your typical, you know, gatherings that should be regulated; and that racism was the bigger problem compared to COVID.

So, it's just not going to work. And I just want to say, RFK Jr.

CORNISH: Hold on. Can I play for you just some of the moms, just so we have a sense of what they're angry about?

SCHILLING: Oh, no.

CORNISH: Not that I don't trust you, but here's just a sample. Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am freaking pissed.

Did President Trump just hand legal immunity to pesticide companies?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is the most enormous slap in the face to MAHA and all that we've worked for.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What happened to "make America healthy again"? RFK, where are you? Because I shouldn't have to be fighting my own country for my baby's health. But the EPA just greenlit three new pesticides for our food.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If we botch the pesticide stuff, beware of how these women vote in the midterms, if they vote at all.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And what I've heard is a lot of women saying, I'm not even sure that I'm going to be voting, because I'm so upset.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

THOMPSON: I mean, MAHA is MAGA-branded, but MAHA actually began in the Democratic Party. RFK Jr., you have to remember, ran as a Democrat in the 2024 presidential primary and eventually was driven out, and then was running as an independent. Sort of like the crunchy granola left.

CORNISH: Yes. But it's an independent, single-issue constituency.

THOMPSON: Well, which is why Abdul El-Sayed is going after them. And he's not alone either. Senator Cory Booker has done a ton of MAHA- related things.

CORNISH: How interesting.

THOMPSON: AOC has also been meeting privately with a lot of these activists. A lot of Democratic lawmakers do see that these voters are able to be won back after, you know, a lot of them did go for Trump in 2024, in large part because of RFK Jr.

CORNISH: It's giving shades of soccer mom from the past, right? THOMPSON: MAHA moms, yes.

CORNISH: The idea that there's a constituency of independent women. They have certain issues they're interested in. And if you fail them, you can face a backlash.

SEAWRIGHT: So, a couple of interesting things. We don't see any criticism from the far left when Abdul, Booker, AOC, and others are meeting with those in the MAGA coalition.

But we saw differently when it came to Jeffers [SIC]. I just want to make that point for some folks who I know are watching this program.

CORNISH: Is it Jeffries?

SEAWRIGHT: Oh.

CORNISH: OK.

SEAWRIGHT: The second point I want to make, I'm a bit confused about what is make healthy -- make America healthy initiative is broadly speaking to.

Because if we want to make America healthy, then we would not have put in place the largest cut to Medicaid in American history. We would -- we would -- we would not have cut SNAP benefits for families.

We would not have cut jobs that regulate our food so we have food recalls, almost everything we can imagine.

So, when we talk about broadly making America healthy, part of that is providing insurance, research, and all these other things.

CORNISH: And that's helpful to know, because that is not at all what the MAHA movement is. It is not a broad. It is -- there's a narrow set of things that we think have to do with our health, specifically our food infrastructure. That has to do with contaminants.

It is not should there be health care? So, what it means is, if you don't make good on the promises -- on your red dyes, on your pesticides, on the things you said you were going to do --

SCHILLING: I just want to point out --

CORNISH: -- they get upset. They're not going to suddenly turn around and talk about health insurance.

SCHILLING: One point is political. What I think people misunderestimated was how powerful big ag and big pharmaceutical companies actually are. We hear all the time --

CORNISH: Well, MAHA underestimated it. Yes.

SCHILLING: No, that's what I'm saying is we're seeing this -- like, these guys are smart. They know what they're doing. They have their -- their financial means at stake here. But I think that, you know, you're seeing this in Iowa with Zach Lahn.

Zach Lahn is MAHA all the way, and he is failing to raise money from the traditional supporters that fund Republican campaigns there. And it's because he's against big ag, and he's against the big pharmaceutical agenda.

SEAWRIGHT: I get the fact --

THOMPSON: Just really quick, this is a microcosm of, actually, the debate that's been going on inside the Trump administration.

[06:30:00]