Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Officials Say, Six Killed in Hudson River Helicopter Crash; Trump Admits Transition Problems as Markets Drop; House Passes Voting Bill Critics Say Could Disenfranchise Millions. Jury Selection Continues In Karen Read Murder Trial; Supreme Court Says Trump Admin Must "Facilitate" Return Of Man Mistakenly Deported To El Salvador. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired April 10, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. And this hour, we're following breaking News out of New York where a helicopter tragically crashed into the Hudson River. Officials announced just moments ago that all six people on board, including three children were killed. We're going to go live to the scene in just moment.

And President Trump admitting there may be some, quote, transition problems as this trade war leads to another brutal day for U.S. markets.

[18:00:01]

How long could these problems last? How much damage will they do in the meantime and what about the people who can't afford to just blithely dismiss them as problems?

Plus, a bill just passed by the House today that as women across the country concerned about whether or not they're going to have an easy time voting. What are the real implications of the SAVE Act for people who are citizens but might not currently have the same name they had when they were born?

Our Lead Tonight, officials confirming in the last hour that six people were tragically killed in the Hudson River helicopter crash earlier today.

CNN's Brynn Gingras brings us the latest from the scene. Brynn, tell us what we know right now.

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake, this is still very much an active investigation, but as you just said, this is no longer a rescue mission as all six people onboard that helicopter have died. We've just been briefed by officials on that. I do want to quickly show you some video that we have of this moment of the helicopter crashing into the Hudson River. I got to warn you, it is very difficult to watch, but this is something that, you know, of course investigators are also going to be looking at as they try to figure out what happened with this helicopter to make it go down into the Hudson River. It's pretty horrific to see there.

What we've learned from officials is that there were six people on board. I do want you to hear more from Mayor Eric Adams about who was on board.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS (D-NEW YORK CITY, NY): At this time, all six victims have been removed from the water, and, sadly, all six victims have been pronounced deceased.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRAS: Yes. And what we learned from officials from that news conference, Jake, is that there were three adults on board, two adults, and then a pilot, also three children. We're understanding that this was a family who was visiting from Spain, believed to be taking a tourist helicopter up to see some of the sites here along the Hudson River.

Our understanding is that the rescue efforts that took place there really from not far from where we are across the Hudson River, you know, dive teams did recover these bodies. Two people went to the hospital and were deceased at the hospital, and there were CPR efforts done there on the boats in the water. But, sadly, those lives could not be saved.

Now, as we're understanding about where the helicopter came from, we're understanding it took off in the lower part of Manhattan, and it was in the air, according to a CNN analysis, for about 16 minutes. This helicopter apparently went toward the Statue of Liberty, which is in the lower part of Manhattan on the sort of New Jersey -- on the Jersey side also, and then came north towards the George Washington Bridge and then circled back here where it went into the water closer to the New Jersey side of the Hudson River, of course, again, that video that you saw, that moment that it actually crashed into the water.

But, sadly, this is horrific crash that happened we're understanding about 3:00 or so, 3:15, this afternoon, all six people including children on board dead. Jake?

TAPPER: Brynn Gingras in New York, thank you so much. We'll keep following the breaking news throughout the hour, including who these poor victims were.

Turning to our Money Lead now, President Trump escalating the trade war with China, as he can see there may be some transition problems with this trade war. CNN's Jeff Zeleny's at the White House for us. And, Jeff, the White House clarified today that all Chinese goods are subject to at least a 145 percent tariff, higher than we originally thought. What did President Trump say about any trade negotiations with China?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Jake, it is a staggering figure, 145 percent on all imported goods. And you're right, it's something that we did not know before because the White House said they simply miscalculated the math on that.

But even as the president summoned his cabinet for a meeting here, the fears of this trade war deepened. Of course, it has deep economic consequences for the world. But the president insisted he wants to talk to President Xi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We would love to be able to work a deal.

All we're doing is putting it back in shape. We're resetting the table.

I have great respect for President Xi. He's been -- in a true sense, he's been a friend of mine for a long period of time, and I think that we'll end up working out something that's very good for both countries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, Jake, even as the dust settled from yesterday's about- face that the president did that sent markets up yesterday, they, of course, went back down today losing virtually all of their gains. But the question is who is going to blink first, China or the United States, even as other tariffs are in place? So, there is a deep question here of what is the strategy as the trade war with these two superpowers intensifies.

[18:05:06]

TAPPER: All right. Jeff Zeleny at the White House for us, thanks so much.

Let's turn now to CNN Business Editor-at-Large Richard Quest. And, Richard, how are President Trump's pause on reciprocal tariffs, among most of them anyway, impacting both the U.S. and the global economy in the 24 hours or so since he did this?

RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: It's a welcome relief for those countries like Vietnam, Cambodia and the European Union that were facing much higher tariffs. But it doesn't change the overarching equation that the base tariff is three times what it was at 10 percent. And you've got China, which is 14 percent of U.S. imports at this as astronomical level. We're waiting to see, of course, if China retaliates on the last tranche. We'll find that out overnight. The global economy from inflation numbers that we've got, it's slowing, it's going to get worse. It's going to get much worse because everybody has to readjust their supply lines to accommodate this new reality. And for the next three months, nobody is sure where they'll be sitting.

TAPPER: So, Richard, I'm going to ask you this question, and I'm no expert on world trade, but I do know the difference between China and the United States. China has a lower standard of living. China does not have representative democracy. It has an authoritarian rule. So, that makes me think that China is in an easier place than the United States, because here in the United States, people are subject to what voters want. Who do you think is in a better position to handle a trade war, China or the United States?

QUEST: Economically, it's probably Equal Stevens, because the U.S. is such a much bigger economy, and the Chinese economy does have inbuilt problems of debt and real estate issues, all sorts of nasty things. But the points you are making, Jake, which is the capacity for economic pain, oh, there's no question the Chinese, they've been preparing it for months, years, ever since the first Trump administration. They've prepared, they've warned, they've talked. There is little doubt that China is -- they've said in words of one syllable, we're in it to the end. And therefore, I would say they've got no Republican House members up in two years that are going to be worried when prices start to really rise. So, the Chinese are in a much stronger position to see this out to the bitter end.

TAPPER: Richard Quest, thanks so much.

Let's bring in Mike Jones. Mike's a farmer in North Carolina. He's the owner of MAE Farm Meats, which is located in Raleigh. Mike, thanks so much for joining us.

As you know, President Trump with the 90-day pause on most of the reciprocal tariffs except for China, the east still has 10 percent ones, you sell a lot of food, you sell beef, pork, eggs, milk, dairy, how are you doing right now? Are you facing any immediate impacts?

MIKE JONES, OWNER, MAE FARM MEATS: I'm not facing any immediate impacts, but I am concerned with the effects on the economy, how it may affect my customers and their willingness to purchase.

TAPPER: What major concerns do you have about the long-term impact of these tariffs?

JONES: If there is an agricultural back and forth on the tariffs, domestic production could be affected. If my peers who produce corn, wheat, and soy and purchase inputs fertilizers, lime, other agricultural things, energy, if they decide that it's not worth the risk, they may cut back production, which, in a year or two, could drive my cost up considerably if we have less commodities available that we use.

TAPPER: And we heard your senator, Republican Thom Tillis, say something along the lines the other day of that farmers in North Carolina are just one bad crop away from bankruptcy. Does that -- is that reflective of reality in North Carolina the number biggest day in history?

JONES: Very much so. Most farmers have to borrow very heavily for the operation of their farm from day to day. And if they fail, they still have to pay that note and it could force economic hardships upon them.

TAPPER: President Trump expects there are going to be what he calls transition problems because of these tariffs. Can you afford to go through transition problems, through disruptions?

JONES: It will be a hardship on me, but I am better positioned than I had been. I, fortunately, just in my own personal case, retired a lot of debt recently.

[18:10:00]

And I am not rich, but I'm more stable. But, obviously, if we have a big downturn, then I'll have a loss of income and it will be difficult just to live as a regular person.

TAPPER: And how many people do you employ? How many people depend upon your business for them to survive?

JONES: Five.

TAPPER: Have you heard anything about possible aid for farmers, small farmers, big farmers? What kind of help would you need if these tariffs went back into effect?

JONES: I suspect it would be something similar to COVID. In the years prior to COVID, we were struggling very much. And then in COVID, when the grocery stores were empty and our store had plenty of stuff available, we had an increase in sales, and then the aid that came out in 2020 was helpful. Some of the direct benefit checks and the PPP program helped us. So, I believe that we'll probably see some kind of program similar to that again if these tariffs trigger economic setback.

TAPPER: Mike Jones in the Raleigh, North Carolina region, thank you so much for your time, sir.

JONES: Thank you for having me.

TAPPER: Just a few weeks ago, top Trump administration officials were applauding the arrest of an alleged leader of the gang, MS-13. So, why are they now dropping the charge against that man? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Well, I think we're going to try to use these very prestigious firms to help us out with the trade. (END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, President Trump today floating a potential way to cash in on the multiple million dollar deals that he is making with law firms under duress, suggesting that they, the firms, could be essential for him in tariff negotiations. This comes less than 24 hours after his most recent executive order against a law firm that has caused trouble for him and his allies.

My legal experts join us now. So, Paula, just to bring people up to speed his newest target is a law firm, Susman Godfrey, represented Dominion Voting in the defamation suit against Fox, which Fox, at the end of the day, was so eager to settle before any sort of verdict. Dominion paid this and was paid by Fox, an unprecedented sum, $787.5 million because of all the lies that Fox platformed for so long.

The firm released a statement, anyone who knows Susman Godfrey knows we believe in the rule of law and we take seriously our duty to uphold it. This principle guides us now. There is no question that we will fight this unconstitutional order. That's a departure from a lot of other big white shoe law firms, which have basically bent the knee.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. The first question you have to ask yourself is, okay, are we going to fight or are we going to roll over? They're going to fight. But it's been really disturbing, I'm sure you agree, to see how many of these law firms have been willing to play ball with Trump and roll over and come to an agreement.

We're talking about some of the most powerful people in this town. They're wealthy, they're connected, they're literally able to represent themselves. But we have seen several other law firms decide to fight and they have -- all three of them have convinced federal judges to issue temporary rulings blocking parts of Trump's orders, but that litigation is going to go on for a while. So, that's what's in front of them if they want to fight.

We've seen other law firms, Paul Weiss, Skadden, Millbank, they have agreed, made agreements with Trump to do some pro bono work. And maybe there was thinking on the part of some that, well, we will write these checks, but they're never going to be cashed. Well, we heard Trump talking today in his cabinet meeting about using these law firms to help his administration implement their policies.

So, this has been -- again, it doesn't necessarily resonate with Main Street, but it's been one of the more disturbing developments, not only what Trump does, but how some of these firms have responded.

TAPPER: Yes. And, Elliot, yesterday we, as we covered at the time, Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate two of his nemeses, Chris Krebs, who was the head of cybersecurity, and his, quote/unquote, crime was accurately attesting to the security of the 2020 election. Miles Taylor was a critic of the president, first anonymously and then publicly, but, again, no crime. The order claims that Taylor published classified information to advance false narratives, and that Krebs violated the First Amendment. Taylor said on Twitter, dissent isn't unlawful. It certainly isn't treasonous. Trump was talking about him being a traitor. America is headed down a dark path.

But I have to say, how on Earth is this even a thing? Like there's no crime, actual crime. Can't they just go before a judge and say, we demand that they produce the evidence now, and if not, this is obviously malicious prosecution?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. If they come forward with evidence, then, certainly, they're free to prosecute whomever they want. But, no, there is no evidence of a crime so far that we have seen. Who knows what they have. But, look, come on, you know, this seems pretty clear.

Moreover, it is remarkable that the president of the United States is himself directing a prosecution. It's really important to step back and note how noteworthy that is. That is the kind of conduct we have not seen publicly, certainly since Richard Nixon.

Now, many people have tried to make the case that Joe Biden made a comment one day saying that he thought that Hunter Biden was innocent or whatever else, but it is corrosive to us as a nation to have the president out there making statements, directing his Justice Department to be prosecuting people.

TAPPER: So, the Department of Justice is now also restricting DOJ lawyers from participating with the American Bar Association. Why? And does that actually have an impact on an attorney's career?

[18:20:00]

REID: It could. Look, we're not talking about the bar that you pass and you have to be licensed by. We're talking about the Bar Association, which is a professional organization.

TAPPER: Are they considered to be liberal?

REID: A large -- the snooty and leftist, according to the White House. But they have gotten involved in recent litigation opposing the Trump administration and some conservative stances. But it's an organization that, you know, a lot of professionals belong to. They do conferences, speakers here, the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche says because the adversarial nature between the ABA and DOJ, he doesn't want the government paying dues for people, because, usually, your employer often pays dues or going to, you know, conferences spending money for travel.

Look, this doesn't keep me up at night when we're talking about the ways that Trump and his lawyers are pulling the levers of power to retaliate against their perceived enemies. It feels a little petty. It could have a chilling effect in terms of the litigation that the ABA may be willing to get involved with. But there's plenty of other things for the ABA to focus on, in addition to getting involved with political causes that are not directly linked to the profession.

TAPPER: Let me ask you about this, because this has really been confounding to me. Two weeks ago, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, and the director of the FBI, Kash Patel, were touting this raid that their agents did in Virginia that led to the arrest of a man that they called at the time the leader of the East Coast for MS-13, the notorious gang. But yesterday, the Justice Department moved to drop the charge against him. Why? Why are they dropping the charge against this notorious criminal?

WILLIAMS: Well, a couple things.

TAPPER: Alleged criminal.

WILLIAMS: Alleged criminal, and that's important. It's a much higher standard to convict someone of a crime than to remove them from the country. Perhaps they did not have the -- they thought they had the evidence to convict, they couldn't move forward with it and are just moving ahead with the immigration proceeding.

Now, look, it doesn't look great for the administration if they're out there making the case that they are targeting this person because he is a member of MS-13 and therefore seeking, you know, to prosecute him. It's a mix up on their part. It's egg on their face. But, ultimately, it's a much lower standard for getting someone out of the country for immigration purposes.

TAPPER: So, let me just ask you, this does seem to be of a piece of the administration making claims about people that they're deporting people -- you know, foreign students, that they're kicking out of the country, this and that. They're saying all these things and, you know, I'm willing to believe what the government says and I say, show me the evidence, or a judge says, show me the evidence, and they don't have it.

REID: Yes. Even sometimes at the press conferences, I don't know if people notice, but that press conference to announce this was in Manassas, Virginia, and part of that was an effort to get away from the press court that covers the Justice Department day in and day out that would know the questions to ask.

Now, Kash Patel and the attorney general both did a press conference yesterday in Florida, didn't want any off-topic questions beyond the drug seizure they were talking about. I mean, there are questions that they cannot answer in some circumstances when they hold these press conferences and reveal these cases and others where they just won't answer these questions.

So, I think it's important to note that they are trying to, in many cases, avoid the Washington Press Corps.

TAPPER: Right, except for Fox, which doesn't ask the questions.

REID: And Newsmax, yes.

TAPPER: Yes, right. All right, Paula Reid and Elliot Williams, thanks so much for joining us. The legislation passed by the House of Representatives today that critics say, could theoretically disenfranchise millions of American citizen voters. Will it become law? What is the issue here? We'll cover it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, it is already against the law for non- citizens to vote in elections in the United States, particularly for federal elections. But today, legislation passed in the U.S. House of Representatives that aims to curb non-citizens from voting in federal elections passed. It's called the SAVE Act, and it sounds pretty reasonable on its face, but there are those who say married women that could create an unnecessary hurdle for married women, making it harder for American citizens to vote, American citizens who changed their name. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know for a fact that I did not serve this country for women to not be able to have the right to vote.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let's not forget that a lot of women that are married do not have a name that matches their birth certificate anymore.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you are a woman in this country and you have a married name, you need to order your passport. You need to order it today. You need to order it right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: CNN Senior Reporter Marshall Cohen's here now. So, Marshall, there's clear anger out there. What does the act actually do and what is the issue for, let's say, a married woman who doesn't have a passport proving that she's a citizen.

MARSHALL COHEN, SENIOR REPORTER: Right. So, this bill would require proof of citizenship. You got to prove your citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. You can do that with a passport. You can also show a birth certificate. In some states, a driver's license would work too, but, of course, the rub is that the names have to match. And as you just heard, for millions of married American women, the name on their birth certificate might not match what's on their current driver's license. And then on top of that, 50 percent of Americans don't have a passport.

These are the reasons why Democrats have said that this bill, in their view is voter suppression. And to that point, in some ways, this is a solution in search of a problem when you look at the data. The most comprehensive studies out there have looked at 23 million ballots, a study with 23 million ballots and 0.0001 percent were from undocumented immigrants or non-citizens.

TAPPER: So, how are Republicans defending this?

COHEN: Well, the guy who wrote the bill, Chip Roy, Republican from Texas, has said all of this hubbub about possibly disenfranchising women, he says it's, quote, absurd armchair speculation. I should point out that many Republican women voted for this bill today on the House floor. They pointed out that there are provisions in the legislation that tell the states that they need to come up with a plan for people to rectify discrepancies in the documents.

[18:30:08]

And also, Jake, Republicans have defended this bill by saying that it's popular. I looked at some of the recent polls, Gallup and A.P., when they ask people broadly, do you think that Americans should prove their citizenship before voting, it's about 70 to 80 percent that say yes. But, of course, you know, we'll see. It's not law yet. Next stop is the Senate, where Democrats could filibuster it.

TAPPER: All right. Marshall Cohen, thanks so much.

Freshman Democrat from Texas Congresswoman Julie Johnson's here now. We should note we did reach out to Republicans including Chip Roy, the main bill sponsor, and also many Republican women co-sponsoring the bill. They either could not join us or we did not hear back. We're trying to get Chip Roy on the show tomorrow. We hope that they'll join us. Somebody will take us up on this issue on this offer, Congresswoman Johnson.

So, there is a part of this act, as Marshall just noted, that appears to lay out a process where people could appeal if their birth certificate does not match their voter registration. It's titled process in case of certain discrepancies and documentation. We should note that if 50 percent of the American people don't have a passport, this is a -- you know, this is a real problem for millions of women whose married name is not the same as their birth certificate.

REP. JULIE JOHNSON (D-TX): That's exactly right. You know, this really disenfranchises women, it disenfranchises, you know, people with lower economic status. You don't have $160 to get a passport to vote. It kind of equates to a modern day version of a poll tax. But there's a lot of problems with the bill.

One of the thing -- we're not opposed to proving citizenship. You know, definitely, Democrats believe that only citizens should be voting in this country. However, what this bill does is it makes it extremely difficult for people to obtain their voter registration. Just like what you were saying, mismatched current names versus birth certificates. It's only a birth certificate. That was the only I.D. or a passport eligible to prove who you are. You know, there's a lot of other I.D.s out there that could be used.

One of the other big problems is you have to go to a voter registration office in person to register to vote. I had an amendment that was struck down in the committee, and again today on the floor that would've provided for online voter registration to be able to prove your citizenship, upload a copy of your passport or documents, for example, so that people who are working 8:00 to 5:00, which is the vast majority of folks in this country, could still process the paperwork to be able to vote, and Republicans denied that. They also denied modifications for this name discrepancy, to allow women to have these opportunities, and they denied that.

So, this is really a voter suppression tactic wrapped up in the American flag of citizenship only. Democrats saw through that. But the reason why we were having a hard time getting Republicans is they know what they did.

TAPPER: We should also just note that it seems unlikely that this would get through the 60-vote hurdle to get a vote on the Senate, so it might just disappear. But it's still obviously worth highlighting. Just to change the subject a little bit, you're going to host your first in-person town hall later this month. You represent an area outside Dallas. We've seen anger on full display from both -- well, from voters across the, you know, across the political spectrum, mad at Republicans, mad at Democrats. For Democrats, a lot of Democrats are mad at lawmakers for not doing enough to resist President Trump's agenda. What are you expecting and what will your message be to any angry people who show up?

JOHNSON: Well that we're doing everything we can. We have a long list of things we're looking forward to talking about. I've had two teletown halls so far because I've been in Washington. I'm really excited to be back here in the district and see folks. You know, we've had tens of thousands of people reach out to our office cheering us on, you know, seeing me fight on the House floor, seeing other Democrats do things, and also expressing their deep concern for the obliteration of what the Trump administration is doing, to the way of life and to the norms that we have in this country.

And so we're going to talk about it in length, answer all the questions, and I'm really looking forward to getting back out there and seeing the folks,

TAPPER: Texas Congresswoman Democrat Julie Johnson, thanks so much for joining The Lead. We appreciate it.

JOHNSON: Anytime. Thank you for having me.

TAPPER: We're a little more than two hours away from our own town hall. CNN is having a town hall with four members of Congress from battleground districts. I'll be moderating it with Kaitlan Collins. Look for that tonight at 9:00 Eastern only here on CNN.

What Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reportedly told one family of a measles victim while visiting the site of the outbreak, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: In our Health Lead, despite publicly urging folks to get the measles vaccine, earlier this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is still reportedly spreading falsehoods about the vaccine behind the scenes, as he has been doing publicly for about 20 years.

According to a new story that broke The Atlantic Magazine earlier today, the comments came during Kennedy's trip to West Texas on Sunday. He met with the families of the two children who have died from measles for the first time in decades. One of the girls' fathers, who is also a vaccine skeptic, told The Atlantic that he asked Kennedy about the vaccine, to which RFK Jr. replied, you don't know what's in the vaccine anymore, unquote. In response to the story, a spokesperson for HHS told The Atlantic, Secretary Kennedy is not anti-vaccine. He is pro-safety. He has consistently made that clear, unquote.

In addition, an HHS spokesperson told CNN that Secretary Kennedy's position is that the most effective way to prevent the spread of measles is the MMR vaccine from measles, mumps, and rubella.

Let's bring in Dr. Peter Hotez. He's the co-director of Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, Dr. Hotez, is what Kennedy reportedly said to this father that we don't know what's in the vaccine right now, is that true?

[18:40:05]

DR. PETER HOTEZ, CO-DIRECTOR, TEXAS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL FOR VACCINE DEVELOPMENT: Well, Mr. Kennedy may not know what's in the measles vaccine but the FDA does and the scientific community does, and the public health community does. It's one of our oldest and safest vaccines. It's been around for decades. And it's been one of our most effective vaccines that's led to the elimination of measles in the United States and has brought down the number of deaths from 3 million kids a year dying globally to around a hundred thousand.

Unfortunately, now it's coming back because of a disinformation campaign. And now we've got this horrible measles epidemic rampaging not only through West Texas, but it's gone now into New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas. And it looks like we're going to have prolonged sustained transmission and we could lose our measles elimination status. So, this is not a time to be pushing anti-vaccine disinformation.

TAPPER: Right. We should note that RFK Jr., who is now the secretary of Health and Human Services, has been on the tip of the spear of this misinformation campaign, spreading misinformation, whether it's in Samoa or in the United States. The latest data from State Health Department shows around 600 cases as part of this outbreak, but experts say this is likely a severe under count. How widespread do you think this measles outbreak is?

HOTEZ: Well, we've had three deaths from measles in this epidemic, two in Texas and one in New Mexico. So, when you do the back of the envelope calculation based on the case fatality rate of measles, it's likely at least more than a thousand cases, and it could be far higher than that, a couple, a thousand or 3,000 cases. And the other point is there's no end in sight. The numbers continue to climb every time it's been reported. And now it's in four states.

And, unfortunately, the whole Great Plains reach and going from the southern plains in West Texas all the way north to Kansas and further up, it's just under vaccinated. So, this virus, which is the most highly transmissible virus agent we know about, is just ripping through it like a hurricane over warm Caribbean waters.

TAPPER: What would an HHS secretary who actually knows something about science and medicine and vaccines be doing right now differently than RFK Jr. is?

HOTEZ: What he should be doing is saying to all of the state and local health departments in the affected areas of the Great Plains and adjoining states we're here to help in any way to do a catch-up vaccination campaign, both in ensuring that clinics could be established, that catch-up vaccination clinics making vaccine available and helping to launch a very effective public relations campaign on the importance of getting vaccinated and why measles is such a serious and deadly infection. And to keep on emphasizing those and stop bringing up alternative treatment like, budesonide and vitamin A and clarithromycin and all the other nonsense he's been talking.

TAPPER: Dr. Hotez, thanks so much. Good to see you, as always.

We're getting some breaking news out of the U.S. Supreme Court. That story's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:47:15]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: We have some stories for you in the law and justice. The U.S. Supreme Court just handed down a decision, but we are reading that, so we get it correct before we tell you what the decision is.

In the meantime, jury selection is still underway in the retrial of Karen Read. Karen Read is the Massachusetts woman who's accused of killing her police officer boyfriend by hitting him with her car and leaving him to die in the snow.

Her defense alleges that story is a cover up, and that she's being framed by law enforcement officers. The highly publicized case ended in a mistrial last summer. This time around, Read's team is taking a markedly different approach.

And CNN's Jean Casarez is here with more.

Jean, tell us more.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There's a lot of differences. I think this is going to be a totally different trial than the first trial, actually, on both sides. But the defense, they're going to have brand new witnesses. They're going to delve deeper into the forensics aspect of accident reconstruction versus a fight, and of the forensics of all of that.

Also, Karen Read and this is a very precise defense team. She has done so many interviews. She's done local interviews, network interviews, written publications on a national level. The prosecutor has gotten tape of all of those raw interviews, and we'll see where that goes. But she's also added to her defense team, including a former juror from the first trial. It was an alternate, but she's now joined the team.

Listen to Karen Read as she talks about it herself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREN READ, MURDER DEFENDANT: I just -- just feel lucky I'm not paying any of these people. They're not asking for anything. They're spending time away from their children.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: So, she says that she isn't paying for it. A couple of months ago, in a hearing, her attorney said she was paying for everything. But on the prosecutions side, they've got a brand-new special prosecutor. Hank Brennan is his name.

He was Whitey Bulger's lead attorney. He is precise. He is focused. He is all business. It will be a fascinating trial.

TAPPER: And, Jean, the Supreme Court is considering an appeal from Read's team to drop these charges altogether. What are the chances that could happen?

CASAREZ: They -- they are. Well, people are shocked that the Supreme Court on April 25th has decided to look at this case. But our experts in Washington, D.C., with CNN say that it's probably a long shot that they will accept it.

But after the first trial, four jurors went up to the defense and they said, you know, when that jury room, we voted to acquit her unanimously of murder and leaving the scene of an accident causing death.

But their jury notes in court consistently said, and there were three of them, that they couldn't find unanimity on the charges, plural. And so, court after court, from the local level Supreme Court in Massachusetts district court, first circuit, they've all denied her request to have those charges dismissed.

[18:50:08]

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is saying, we're going to look at it.

TAPPER: All right. Jean Casarez, thanks so much.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, we're going to bring you the news from the Supreme Court after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: And here is the breaking news out of the U.S. Supreme Court. They have made a decision regarding that Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration's own admission. Let's get right to CNN's Paula Reid.

Paula, I was trying to make heads or tails of this. I'm not a lawyer, unlike you. It seems like a kind of complicated ruling.

[18:55:00]

What's the bottom line?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It is. Jake, you know, we have the best Supreme Court team in the business. Decades and decades of experience. We've all been on the phone trying to make sense of this.

This is the much-anticipated decision from the Supreme Court after a lower court ruled that the Trump administration had to return this man to the United States. And here, the Supreme Court had several options, and they sort of took this mushy middle road. Instead of saying that the administration does or does not have to return him to the United States, they are saying that instead the administration has to facilitate his return, but does not require the government to return him to the United States.

So they're effectively saying that the Trump administration has to at least try to bring him back. Remember, he was deported back on March 15th, and it also says that part of the lower court's ruling is not clear. So they're tossing the whole case back down to a lower court for further review and clarification.

They also have not given the administration any deadline for when they would need to facilitate his return. So, this is somewhat of a surprising decision from the Supreme Court, mostly because it really lacks clarity on one of the biggest legal questions facing the administration right now.

TAPPER: And let me just ask you, Paula, there's also this question about whether it is possible for the Trump administration to provide due process, as they said is required. In a previous ruling, whether it's possible to do that in a foreign country or whether it has to take place in the United States. And that seems to reveal a real split.

REID: Yes, absolutely. This question of due process, who gets it, what it looks like. That is also one of the top issues in and around how the Trump administration is facilitating deportations.

But this one, they have acknowledged this was a mistake. But when pressed, the administration has not made any effort to return him to the United States and says they don't intend to. And here, we were looking to see if the Supreme Court would agree with this lower court that said, yeah, you made a mistake. You accidentally deported someone to El Salvador. You have to bring them back.

But they didn't say no, he has to stay there or no, he has to come back instead. Again, using this sort of mushy language, they have to facilitate his return, but without a deadline. And the fact that this case is going back to the lower court, it's unclear that this is going to happen any time soon, if at all.

TAPPER: And let's bring in former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams.

Are they saying that -- are they not saying you have to get him back, you have to facilitate him getting back because the man is in the custody of another country?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. And I think part of what is animating that decision is that it's hard for the United States to compel a foreign country to do anything. So, part of the I think what's behind the court's ruling is can they actually get El Salvador to get the person back.

Now, they can direct the government to, quote/unquote, facilitate his bringing him back to the United States. But that's -- that's sort of fuzzy.

If there's anything the Supreme Court loves to do, Jake, it's to kick things down to lower courts so that they don't have to make a decision on it. And they're sort of leaving the dirty work to the court.

But to be clear, this decision had to be made right now, if you remember, the court's original order said that by 11:59 p.m. on Monday, the April 7th, he had to be brought back to the United States. Now, that's already passed. So, the Supreme Court had to say, number one, that's moot. But even though it's moot, you still have to try to get him back to the country. So lower court, take this case back, figure out what to do and figure out how to get him back.

TAPPER: So, the administration has been saying, you know, you can't tell El Salvador what to do, right? Whereas I think a lot of people who are on the other side of this think you of course you can. You have this deal with El Salvador. You're giving them money. They're taking American prisoners. You have the Trump and the president of El Salvador have this great relationship. He's actually coming to the White House on Monday.

Of course, you can. They could have used stronger language. The Supreme Court, they said, have said you have to do everything in your power.

WILLIAMS: Right.

TAPPER: They didn't.

WILLIAMS: They did not. And in fact, the agreement struck with El Salvador said there was this weird language of holding on to them while the government figures out their final disposition or whatever, leaving open the question that maybe they're just temporarily in El Salvador.

So yes, they could actually try to get them back. And this is sort of the three liberal justices raised some concerns. They don't dissent from this opinion. They just sort of say they -- what was the language -- they respect the court's decision, but say that, look, you know, due process is an issue here. We shouldn't have taken this up in the first place and probably should have asked for the guy to come back.

But good. It's good. What we have done today.

TAPPER: Is this -- I mean, I guess one of the questions I have is like, this is an unsigned opinion from the court, right? It doesn't say and its but it presumably from all of them, from all nine.

Is this just because Justice Roberts loves to have unanimity in the court? Like, why do this when they --

WILLIAMS: No, it's not as sinister as that? Maybe not that word, but no, sometimes --

TAPPER: This in a negative way.

WILLIAMS: No, no, I don't mean it. But no, it's -- it's a procedural matter. It's -- what are we doing with the disposition of this simple order? We're going to send it back. We're all going to agree to do that.

TAPPER: All right. Elliot Williams and Paula Reid, thanks to both of you.

We're going to have much more of our breaking news on "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT", which starts now. I'll see you for tonight's town hall in just two hours.