Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

U.S. And Iran Ceasefire Deadline Looms Ahead Of Potential Talks; Apple CEO Tim Cook Stepping Down; Today, U.S. Importers Can File Tariff Reimbursement; Committee Urges Victims Of Sexual Misconduct To Contact Them; NASA Takes Next Step In Preparing For Artemis II Launch. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired April 20, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

This hour we're following breaking tech news. Apple's CEO Tim Cook is stepping down after nearly 15 years of leading the company. Apple, introducing AirPods, Apple watches, Apple T.V. Plus, literally everything you use in your house. So, who will take Cook's place and how big of an impact could this have on the products many of us use every day?

Plus, negotiators are running out of time to make a deal before the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran expires.

[18:00:04]

Vice President J.D. Vance is expected to head to the region tomorrow as President Trump warns the fighting will resume if the two sides can't quickly reach an agreement.

Also, this singer, D4vd, officially charged today in connection with the killing of a 14-year-old whose body was discovered decomposing inside his Tesla. Hear what prosecutors said today and when we can expect to see D4vd in court next.

And the world was captivated by the astronauts of Artemis II, and today we got to look at the rocket that will take the crew of Artemis III into space. NASA moves toward its goal of landing humans on the moon and eventually Mars.

The Lead tonight, the U.S.-Iran ceasefire that was supposed to expire in just a few hours has been giving another lifeline by President Trump, a one-day extension, so tomorrow night, but the president also says if a new agreement isn't reached, it's, quote, highly unlikely the deal would be extended again. And now he's dispatching Vice President J.D. Vance for a second time to Pakistan, suggesting a second round of talks could start Wednesday in Islamabad.

But that doesn't necessarily square with what we've heard from Iran. A spokesman there says there's no plan for talks, quote, as of now. And while it's true, there's little clarity on what will happen over the next two days, one thing that we do know is that oil prices are once again rising, and the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively shut down. We start things off with CNN's Nic Robertson in Islamabad, Pakistan, where the negotiations may or may not be in the days ahead. Nic, fill people in. What's the latest there?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes. The latest we heard many hours ago this evening now was a bit of diplomacy going on. The Pakistan foreign minister, the mediators here, reaching out to the Iranian foreign minister. But there's been a lot of other diplomacy going on in the background. So, there's a big lift to try to get the Iranians out of their current position and to commit to come to those talks.

And I think if you kind of look at the timeline here, J.D. Vance would have to leave Washington maybe in the next 12 or 15 hours and enable him to get here for talks on Wednesday, so that gives the Iranians therefore another 12 or 15 hours to give their answer.

There is a great hope here and even a sort of an expectation that the Iranians are going to come through, but that is not their public messaging in Iran right now. The president of Iran has tweeted in the last few hours, the speaker of the parliament in Iran, their lead negotiator who was here just over a week ago, Ghalibaf, he has tweeted as well, both of them were accusing the United. States of trying to get Iran's surrender.

And the speaker, the lead negotiator is saying, look, you are trying to sort of pressure us at the table. We are not going to negotiate under threats. That's what he's saying. That can work very well for public consumption, and does that get them into this sort of more international space of actually coming for the talks.

So, what are the other atmospherics here? Well, look at the Strait of Hormuz right now. As of about the last, just under 24 hours, there haven't been any spikes in violence. Nobody's shot at any other bodies else's ship, as far as we know. And, in fact, Lloyds of London say that since the United States started its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, 26 Iranian vessels have passed through that strait. So, you know, there is, if you will, in diplomatic terms, a space of understanding between the two countries here that neither of them has crashed out of the talks. So, that's the space we're in at the moment.

And if the talks do happen, I think what we're looking forward to here or what we're expecting to happen, it won't be sort of a marathon 21 hours of talks, like last time all the way through the night, everyone ends up in the morning tired and irritable. I think the expectation here is the talks would happen over a period of days with both sides getting some sleep in between, that all depends on getting the Iranians to the table if they do come.

The real, I think, firm belief here in Islamabad, the mediators, they believe that they can get a deal if they can get all sides here.

MATTINGLY: One person who doesn't get sleep, Nic Robertson in Pakistan has been doing just incredible work. Thank you, as always, my friend.

Well, joining me now is Republican Congressman Michael Baumgartner of Washington. He sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, I really appreciates you coming in.

What Nic was alluding to there I think is a very astute observation, there's a lot of back and forth that we're seeing publicly right now. The Pakistanis are clearly planning for something. The vice president, I don't think, would be getting on a plane if there wasn't an expectation of these negotiations taking place. My question is, what's your sense right now of the potential for an outcome here in the next 48 hours?

REP. MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER (R-WA): Well, I think in the big picture, America's a lot safer than we were six weeks ago because of what we've seen happen with U.S. forces in the Middle East.

[18:05:04]

I'd also say that you don't have to be Tom Clancy to understand that Iran is one of the most penetrated government regimes in the world when it comes to intelligence understanding. So, I think we go into these negotiations with a pretty good idea of the Iranians' positions on things. And you put those two things together, the strength of where America is, the leverage we have, and the reality that Vice President Vance is on the plane, I think you think we're in a good position with a lot of reason for optimism.

MATTINGLY: Square kind of the longstanding goals in the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran in general, which now includes the Strait of Hormuz as well. Nuclear materials, the ability to enrich proxy forces, ballistic missile capability, now they seem to have a level of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, and they're tolling it at the same time. They don't want to give any of that up. What's kind of the pathway here?

BAUMGARTNER: Well, it speaks to the nature of the Iranian regime. I mean, these guys are a fanatical death cult. They have a messianic view of the world. They believe that the hand of God is going to come down and sweep their version of Shia Islam, not just across the Middle East, but across the entire globe. So, of course, they would like to have a nuclear weapon, you know? But that would be the equivalent of having Hitler have a nuclear weapon or Osama bin Laden have a nuclear weapon. Those two individuals wouldn't give up their nuclear weapons very easily nor will the IRCG and the Iranian leadership.

So -- but that is the stakes of what is that taking place right now, how significant that would be, not just for direct attacks, potentially on the United States, but also for proliferation in the region. Because if Iran were to get nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, Egypt, likely Qatar, would all also have nuclear weapons, and that would be an extremely dangerous.

So, this is as high as the stakes can be, and one of the reasons why it is so important, what has happened in the last six weeks and why it's great that the U.S. has so much leverage right now.

MATTINGLY: No question on the high stakes, no question on the threat that could be posed by a nuclear Iran when you talk to intelligence officials in terms of how the U.S. government looks at it. My question is, what would meet your threshold for being enough on that issue? Does the nuclear material, enriched material have to be taken out of Iran or the alternative is the war restarts?

BAUMGARTNER: My preference would be that the that the barricade would stay on until Iran handed over their nuclear material.

MATTINGLY: So, that would have -- that would --

BAUMGARTNER: That would be what I would do. But I would say we have a lot of confidence in President Trump. You know, he is somebody that took an unprecedented step in his first term when he eliminated Iranian terrorist leader Qasem Soleimani. That really changed the face o of the Middle East and what he's done with Midnight Hammer last summer in the strength and leadership he's shown now, I think he is the man of the hour that has the leverage and the strength to pull this over.

So, my preference would be to extremely tough on Iran until the nuclear material is recovered. I think that's something American people can understand. But I also have a lot of confidence in President Trump to look at a wider range of options that we have.

MATTINGLY: We've talked about there's a back and forth between the energy secretary and the president about the price of gas at the end of the year. I'm more interested in having watched the energy secretary, watched all of the policy responses the administration has had to try and mitigate the fallout for U.S. gallons of gas at this point. Do you feel like the administration was adequately prepared on the economic response and the energy response given kind of how fast moving and evolving we've seen their policy responses be? And by that I mean saying for days, tapping the SPR is not an option, tap the SPR. We're not going to raise -- we're maximum pressure on Iran with sanctions, well, we're actually going to pull off Iranian sanctions. We're raising or lifting Russian sanctions once, twice now, a third time on Friday night. Do you feel like they were ready for this?

BAUMGARTNER: Well, I think it's very clear that the price of oil impacts people here in the American economy, and that has impacts on the political cycle. Nobody's naive to that. But America is much better prepared because what President Trump and Republicans did to unleash American energy here at home to secure and reproduce the oil fields in Venezuela. But, again, the big picture, Iran having a nuclear weapon is like Hitler or Osama bin Laden have a nuclear weapon. So, what price would you accept of the price of oil to keep that from happening? In reality, we would accept any price because -- and that's not what's going to happen, but that's the stakes of what is at play here.

And so I think the administration has done a great job overall. I think the American people are well prepared for what's going to happen. I think where we need to improve is the continuing to help people understand that need to get out of the Washington, D.C., political cycle and the cynicism of just next year's elections and think about what is the right policy here.

It used to be when presidents did things that weren't for just political expediency. You know, we call those profiles in courage, whereas our political cycle has become so jaded. It's just -- there's always focused on what's the next election cycle? Let's worry about what's their good policy, keeping American people safe, and the price of oil is going to be just fine.

MATTINGLY: It is a valid point, making it inside your conference sometimes may be a little bit difficult as they look towards the midterm elections. Congressman, I really appreciate you coming in. Thank you for your time.

BAUMGARTNER: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Congressman Michael Baumgartner of Washington.

Well breaking tech news tonight, Apple CEO Tim Cook is stepping down. Much more on what comes next for the tech giant in just moments.

[18:10:02]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: Breaking news in our Tech Lead, Apple CEO Tim Cook announcing he will step down later this year and transition to a new role as executive chairman. Now, Cook has led Apple for 15 years succeeding Apple co-Founder Steve Jobs as CEO. During his tenure leading Apple, the company experienced massive growth, becoming the first $4 trillion company.

Here to discuss, technology journalist, and we are very lucky to say, CNN Contributor Jacob Ward. Jacob, I really appreciate you joining me to share your perspective. We were talking before we came on. I think we've been -- everybody's been expecting this in the tech space. Why now?

JACOB WARD, CNN CONTRIBUTO: Well, Phil it is a weird thing, right? Because on the one hand, you look at this and you think, why would you leave like the greatest CEO job ever, I mean, right? This guy has increased the market cap of that company by a thousand percent, right?

[18:15:00]

I mean, you just could not have done better in capitalism than Tim Cook has done.

But he's also facing an incredibly complicated future. I mean, Apple is built on three things that Cook made possible. One, the China factory, right, the way that China made possible the iPhone, by creating this incredible factory base. Two, the app store, which is where Apple makes most of its money now more than it does on selling handsets. And then three, the iPhone itself, which gets you, you know, excited to be part of all of that, makes all that possible.

All of that is suddenly up in the air, right? I mean, the geopolitical situation, I mean, Apple paid like $3 billion in tariffs already. China is no longer going to be this easy go-to partner that it once was. Two, A.I. is absolutely upending the idea of apps. We may not use apps at all, Phil, in the future, you know, to arrange our lives or our work. We may be using, you know, these A.I. agents to do it, so there goes an incredible amount of money.

And then everyone's trying to come up with a new form factor for the A.I. world. We don't know what the new iPhone is going to be, but it's certainly not going to look like the old one has for the last 20 years. So, it's an entirely new world and that's why this new CEO is going to have to come out and face that new music. Phil?

And what's your sense right now? Obviously, this popped after the markets closed. I haven't had a chance to take a look at pre-market, but what is the expectation in terms of how investors are going to react here?

WARD: Well, I think that they are certainly -- I mean, you know, it's impossible to say, right, what the market will actually do. But I would say that if I were guessing that they're going to take some reassurance from the idea that something new is happening. Because, you know, there's an incredible amount -- you know, the money coming -- this place has been a money machine but its financial future is pretty murky.

And you know, Siri, for instance, which is as close to an A.I. solution as Apple has had, has been something of an embarrassment. And I'm sure that John Ternus, the first -- the new CEO, who's an engineering guy as opposed to an operations guy, I bet he's going to be a reassurance to the market that there's a new plan at least being developed here, you know?

But this has been an incredibly profitable bet for investors for a long, long time. In the short-term, that's going to continue to be true. Hopefully, the market -- you know, hopefully, for Apple's sake, the market looks at this and realizes that Apple is trying to make a move for the future because the future is coming pretty fast here. Phil?

MATTINGLY: To that point, have expectations changed for them? Like does Ternus have to produce some type of A.I. -- we're so far past LLMs at this point, like robotics, some type of product that is as big a hit as everything we've seen over the course of the last 15 years of Tim Cook?

WARD: Well, at the very least, he's got to create something that is capable of running the sorts of LLMs that we've seen, right? The hardware that a lot of us are carrying around right now couldn't necessarily handle everything that you get through a desktop version or a remote version of A.I. And the whole strategy of Apple has been to create A.I. on the phone that would use the data that you've got just on the phone, keep it local. That's been their strategy.

And so, you know, even building the engineering that would make it possible for it to run what they have in mind, that's hard enough. To then make it as sexy as Apple has to make it, to continue to be the world leader in very, very cool hardware, that's really tough, you know? But, again, you know, Cook was an operations guy. He built supply chains. That was his great genius. Ternus is an engineering guy. He's known for getting into the weeds with the engineers in the meetings. And so if there's anyone who is going to be able to try and put together the hardware that can really handle an A.I. future, that's probably him. And then the question will be, can he also then make that thing as sexy as it needs to be to live under the Apple brand. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Yes, no pressure, Mr. Ternus, but certainly matching up as Tim Cook was with his supply chain expertise in that era, certainly matching up with this era in terms of the background.

Jacob Ward, I really appreciate it. Welcome aboard to CNN, my friend. I appreciate it.

WARD: Thanks, Phil.

MATTINGLY: $166 billion plus interest, that's how much companies are owed after President Trump's tariffs were struck down, and today we can start trying to claim some of that refund. I'll speak to the lawyer behind the case that got us here, plus one of the plaintiffs, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Money Lead, today is the first day businesses can apply for refunds if they paid President Trump's tariffs, American importers are owed a collective $166 billion plus interest after the US Supreme Court overturned the president's sweeping tariffs earlier this year. One of those businesses belongs to my next guest. David Levi is the owner of MicroKits, which relies heavily on Chinese products to make educational science kits. He sued the Trump administration claiming the tariffs crippled his business. Jeffrey Schwab also joins us. He represented David in this suit. I very much appreciate both your guys' time.

David, I want to try and get into how this actually works in a minute because it's a little complicated, but just to start with, tell us how the tariffs affected your business before this point.

DAVID LEVI, INVENTOR AND FOUNDER, MICROKITS: Yes. So, those big tariffs came in April, May, and it was just so expensive to get anything that I just had to half my production rate, you know, slow down everything my business was doing. Instead of making 30 percent more science kits like I planned to, I made a quarter less. So, it was just a huge drop in my ability to deliver products.

MATTINGLY: Jeffrey, you know, one of the questions I have had, and it's based in large part on Trump administration officials being very circumspect about whether we'd get to this point, and if we got to this point, what the actual outcome would be if you went through the process, do you have an idea of the timeline here for actually receiving these refunds? When do you think David will actually get his money back?

JEFFREY SCHWAB, SENIOR ATTORNEY, LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER: Well, that's a good question. We're hoping sometime in the next few months. But as you mentioned, there's $166 billion of refunds that are owed and I think something like 330,000 importers that are owed.

[18:25:08]

So, this could be a somewhat lengthy process. I think the administration will probably do the easy ones first and then get into the more complex ones. So, I think the best thing to do at this point if you're an importer is go onto the system and submit your claim.

MATTINGLY: David, to that point, and, again, like uncertainty I feel like has been your life since April of last year on some level. It certainly hasn't ended now as we wait to kind of see how this all plays out to go through it, although, you know, obviously because of the Supreme Court, you will be getting the refund. Are there impacts to your business that can't be undone even when that money comes in?

LEVI: Yes, totally. What I've thought about is that every dollar that I paid in the tariff taxes, I've lost another dollar in my business just from all the disruptions from, you know, having to cut my production and that's -- that other dollar is a dollar I can't get back eventually from the government. It's a dollar that just doesn't exist in the first place because I just, you know, had my workshop here in Virginia running really slow because I didn't -- I wasn't able to get my parts.

MATTINGLY: Jeffrey, the president's answer to the Supreme Court's ruling was a 10 percent global tariff on all countries. A panel of trade and court judges have challenged the legality of this new tax. Do we have any idea where that stands today? Is this all going to kind of come back?

SCHWAB: Yes. So, what you're, I think, talking about is the section 122 tariffs that the president instituted hours after the Supreme Court and validated his IEEPA tariffs. And we're involved with that case too. Oral argument was on April 10th. So, we expect to have a decision from the Court of International Trade sometime in the next week or so.

MATTINGLY: And just to be clear, despite what the president announced, it's still 10 percent, right? Like I have not seen the actual E.O. come through or paperwork raising it to 15, which is what the president announced he was changing it to like 24 hours later.

SCHWAB: That's right. It's still at 10 percent. He hasn't changed anything to 15. So, as of right now, it's 10 percent, but I suppose that could change at any time.

MATTINGLY: That is a very good point, uncertainty, again, coin of the realm. David Levi, Jeffrey Schwab, I really appreciate you guys. Thanks so much.

LEVI: Thank you. MATTINGLY: Well, seven months after a decomposing body was found in his car, the singer, D4vd has been charged in connection with the 14- year-old's death. We're digging into the allegations next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, a short time ago, singer David Anthony Burke, who goes by the name D4vd, spelled D-backwards four-V- D, pleading not guilty to all charges in connection with the killing of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez.

Today's charges come seven months after authorities discovered Rivas Hernandez's severely dismembered and decomposed body inside the trunk of Burke's Tesla.

CNN's Kyung Lah is outside the courthouse in Los Angeles. Kyung, tell us more about the charges here.

KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: The charges are detailed and they're very serious. But before we get to that, Phil, I just want you to take a look at this video that is just coming in right now. This is the arraignment that wrapped up just a short time ago. And in this arraignment, as you said, the attorneys entered a plea of not guilty and D4vd's lawyers say that there will be evidence, that they will present evidence that shows that he didn't kill 14- year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez.

Now getting down to the charges, there are three very serious charges, one count of first-degree murder with special circumstances, sex abuse of a minor and mutilation of human remains.

Earlier today, the Los Angeles district attorney said that what it all came down to was money and D4vd worrying about his career. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NATHAN HOCHMAN, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This murder was committed for financial gain. As the evidence will show in court, the financial gain was for Mr. Burke to maintain his very lucrative musical career that Celeste was threatening on that particular night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAH: Now, the prosecutor went on to say that there is extensive for forensic and digital evidence that they were going to enter into court.

And, Phil, I want you to take a look at this video. It's a Twitch stream that was recorded and livestreamed that we were able to recover from January 11th, 2024. It is picturing D4dv and Celeste. I want you to listen to what Celeste says here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I media trained you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, you didn't.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's controversial.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's controversial of raping kids. No, I needed --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAH: It is important to note here that he hasn't been charged with generally raping children, but it was a specific charge of continuous sex abuse of a child. There is other evidence that the prosecution is certainly indicating, Phil, that they will be entering into this case, but, again, D4vd vehemently saying that he is not guilty through his lawyers. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Kyung Lah live for us with the latest, thanks so much.

I want to turn now to Criminal Defense Attorney Stacey Schneider. And, Stacey, the L.A. County District Attorney's Office did not release what evidence exactly they plan to use to prove their case here. How strong do you think the evidence could be given it's taken them seven months after finding the body to actually file charges?

STACEY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Right, and it is interesting also that they didn't release the results of the autopsy report last week when Burke was first arrested, when David Burke was first arrested, and the reason for that, they typically do, but in this case, they didn't want to compromise the investigation.

[18:35:06]

The D.A. did say that they do have physical forensic and digital evidence in this case that leads me to believe that there's something online that they got, something out of a cell phone, something from an email confirming the story that they were able to put together in addition to the autopsy results, which would allege that this victim went to David Burke's rental house in the Hollywood Hills in April of 2025, and she was not seen since then. That's when they believe she was killed.

Her body was then placed in his car. We don't know yet how they will prove that he was the one who placed her in that car, but they are saying they have forensic evidence. They will also have evidence from the autopsy. They may have DNA evidence even though the body was found so many months later, and actually a summer had passed by before the body was found where it was decomposed. It was also allegedly dismembered in different pieces in two separate bags in the trunk of that Tesla automobile.

And there must be a good deal of evidence for the D.A. to charge him with these first-degree murder charges and adding the special circumstance charge to it, which means that now D4vd is eligible for the death penalty. MATTINGLY: One of the things I think stood out, the L.A. County D.A. said Rivs Hernandez was a witness in an investigation into -- a separate investigation related to Burke, adding that evidence will come out in court. Does that indicate she was cooperating with authorities prior to her killing?

SCHNEIDER: It could mean that, but it also could mean that she might have been an alleged victim to certain acts that were a crime. So, she's a victim to acts that may have been perpetrated on her. There's been some talk from the D.A.'s office that he was involved in alleged inappropriate sexual activity and that activity involved minors. She was 14 when she died. So, I think that will come out eventually. And that was also, again, a special circumstance in this case, which enabled them to allege a special circumstance-type of murder and increase this penalty.

Normally on a first-degree murder charge, he'd be facing life without parole. But having a case where the death penalty is on the table, I'm sure the D.A.'s office has all their I's dotted and their T's crossed with the amount of evidence they would have in their files to be able to bring this serious of an allegation.

MATTINGLY: You know, with that in mind, we heard Kyung give the statement from the defense attorneys obviously vehemently denying, planning to fight. How would you handle this if you were Burke's attorneys in this case?

SCHNEIDER: I think what they're trying to do, or they're going to try to do as this comes up is to distance himself from that vehicle, the Tesla. That Tesla was parked in the vicinity of his rental home. It was left there and abandoned. Apparently, he went on concert tour during one of the months that the car was sitting there and they didn't actually know there was a body in the car until the car was towed. The neighbors called in the car that it was just sitting there. It was towed into an impound lot and there was a strong odor coming from the car.

So, that's how they were able to determined that she was in the car and the defense to this case is going to have to be to distance himself from being anywhere near that car or in possession of that car when her body was placed in that car. That -- I don't know how they're going to do that yet, but they -- it sounds like they have a plan because they've announced they have a plan. So, we shall see.

MATTINGLY: Indeed. Stacey Schneider, always grateful for your expertise. Thanks so much.

Well, breaking news out of the White House tonight where a third cabinet secretary is now leaving the administration in less than two months. Those details in moments,

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

MATTINGLY: We're back with our Politics Lead. President Trump's second term cabinet has remained largely intact until March when he fired embattled Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At the beginning of April, he removed Pam Bondi as attorney general. And today, number three, White House announced labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer is the next cabinet official to leave their post.

My panel joins me now. Neera, you know a lot about the Labor Department. I've covered a lot of things from the Labor Department. It is not normally a very high-profile cabinet post. There has been an unending stream of stories about the cabinet secretary at an agency that most White Houses probably wouldn't have a lot of patience for that. I'm actually more surprised that she hung on this long than anything else. Why do you think that was?

NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I feel like President Trump was basically thinking to himself, he can't, you know, to get rid of any cabinet secretary was to give in, because you're right. I mean, she made a lot of news and just like let's walk through some of that news. It was -- she had investigations of as basically assault complaints, harassment complaints from her family members, not even just her, and, you know, drinking on site, just really above and beyond the pale of anything we've heard from really any agency, you know, in my memory.

So, I think it's -- you know, I'm glad he is done it, but it sort of seems like he is saying no to any firings of anyone, and then all of a sudden, I should note, we've had three women in less than a month, it sounds like.

[18:45:07]

Well, maybe six weeks, but basically Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi, and now, the labor secretary.

MATTINGLY: And it's been interesting, like what's been I think I said it earlier, maybe last hour, like it was a mess. Like the sheer number of allegations and none of it's been proven. They were all allegations there obviously investigations are underway.

But three women in this short period of time, both the decision to finally start pulling the trigger now on removing cabinet secretaries, but also the three of the women in the administration. What's your take on that?

ASHLEY DAVIS, AUTHOR, "THE POWER PIVOT: WITH GRIT, GRACE, AND GROWTH": Well, also, I also think for the labor secretary, remember that she came in because of the union support. And so, I don't know if there was anything there.

MATTINGLY: Not have Republican allies on the Hill.

DAVIS: No. Absolutely not. So, was that reason why he delayed it? Also, he hasn't been paying that much attention. There's been so much going on, in case, you noticed.

(LAUGHTER) DAVIS: That that wasn't a top priority. But listen I think that he realized obviously Kristi Noem was had the nail in the coffin when she testified and lied about some of the things that he knew about the plane. So, she was gone.

I'm not surprised about the latest, but I'm actually was surprised about Pam Bondi. I think that she -- whether you agree with what she believes in or not, she was a strong ally to the president.

I -- listen, as a woman, we have three women here all against you tonight. But I think that it's unfortunate that all three of them. But two out of the three, it was time for them to go.

MATTINGLY: Yeah.

TANDEN: It's just like, what's Kash Patel still doing in his job? I have to ask, but still.

MATTINGLY: Yeah. By the way, I know my place at the table

(LAUGHTER)

MATTINGLY: I'm very aware of who I'm surrounded by in the intellect, which is much higher than mine.

Lauren Fox, I don't think I'm disclosing too much when I would say you and I were texting back and forth, venting a little bit about the state of things on Capitol Hill as it relates to harassment, members doing terrible things despite round after round after, like this time it's different. And this time, we're going to change things.

Today, there was a rare request from the House Ethics Committee urging, quote, "anyone who may have experienced sexual misconduct by House member or staffer, or who has knowledge of such conduct to contact the committee."

What's going on here?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The House Ethics Committee does not put out statements loosely. They are so tight- lipped. They are so careful about their investigations, getting ahead of anything that they're trying to uncover.

What I think is happening is you saw last week, there were so many members of Congress who were sort of shaking their heads at, what are they going to do to actually reform this process? They tried back in 2018. Obviously, there were shortcomings to that. And one of the shortcomings, right, is just people not acting ethically who are elected members of Congress. That's the biggest shortcoming.

But what can you tighten up in terms of the reporting process? And a lot of people were saying the ethics committee, they're just taking too long on these investigations. I don't know if that is why this report came out today or why this press release came out today urging people to come forward. But obviously, they want to make it clear that if you don't know where

to go on capitol hill, you can come to us. And we are professionals at uncovering what is transpiring and doing a fulsome investigation, which they do. Sometimes it can take years for those investigations to be completely wrapped up.

MATTINGLY: You know, like, honestly, why are we still here? Like, this is --

TANDEN: Yes, it is ridiculous. It is ridiculous. It is absurd. I mean, it is absurd that we have these allegations that go on forever. It's -- I would say it's absurd that we have a Democratic member who's accused of, you know, essentially mass fraud. And it's terrible we have a Republican member who's still there, who is under -- who was basically had an investigation by the local police that was kind of quashed. So -- for assault.

So, I think all of this makes the Congress look terrible. And I think they need to quicken up the pace of these investigations. I think honestly, people think there's kind of an old boys network or kind of a members club that protects people instead of trying to get these things out faster and faster.

And look, the truth is they're self-policing. That is the problem with --

(CROSSTALK)

TANDEN: It's like there isn't a separate branch of government that's involved in here. And I think that's one of the challenges.

MATTINGLY: Explain that, because I think sometimes people don't understand, like, how -- would I just ask, like, how is this possible? I think that's a huge part of it.

DAVIS: Right, I mean, the Republican and Democrat chair of the ethics committee, and they're made up of members of congress and the jobs, whoever -- chairs the ethics committee or my, you know, minority chair of the ethics committee, it's like the worst job ever for a member of Congress. You don't want that job because you're always investigating your colleagues. But I actually think that's the problem.

Number two, after their statement today, they better hire a ton more staff, because I would think that they're going to probably get a lot of complaints. But I do think -- can you put this in an outside two outside legal firms to help move this process further quicker and faster? What is the answer? Because I don't know if them policing themselves, which is a perfect way to put it, is the right answer that. But listen, it's a serious committee on both the house and the Senate side.

[18:50:01]

So, we'll see what happens. But we have Gallego, who was actually just put in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. And did he -- you know, how long is that going to take if there's anything there? But one more thing quickly. I do think that it is -- there's been a

call last week and this week for anyone that's been reported, with some sort of allegation that that that person or that member of Congress is identified. I do think that's a slippery slope because what happens if you're just mad at your boss and all of a sudden, you're like, hey, he did X, Y, and Z, and then that there has to be some sort of formal process before people's names are released on either side. I don't think we should go so far.

MATTINGLY: That balance is part of the difficulty on some level, because its politics and people are lobbing things in at all times. How do they find that balance? What do you think?

TANDEN: Yeah, I mean, I think one of the unfortunate parts about what's transpired over the last two weeks is that so much of this is contingent on women coming forward or those who are experiencing, and sometimes its men. The sexual harassment to come forward. And it puts a lot of onus on victims at a moment when it's really scary to come forward.

When you're coming up against a power differentiation that is not equal and loyalty is a paramount value in this town. And if you're not loyal to your boss and you allege something, you really open yourself up to what the future could be for you. And I think that that's so challenging that we're putting all of this focus on victims coming forward. Because sadly, and the ethics committee statement said that it is important that those people come forward, but it's hard to do.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, it's an extremely important point, a good one to end on. I do want to say you have a new book. What's it -- tell people --

DAVIS: Oh, "The Power Pivot". I was on last week, too.

MATTINGLY: I know, I know, but I'm going to mention every time you're on.

Three people I think extremely highly of. Thank you guys very much for coming in, I appreciate it.

Well, today we got a look at the main part of the rocket for the next moon mission. We're going to break down what you need to know about Artemis III, when it could launch, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:56:12]

MATTINGLY: In our "out of this world" lead, on the heels of the history-making Artemis II mission, today, NASA rolled out parts of the rocket that will be used in the Artemis III mission. You're looking at the largest section of the SLS rocket, which will launch the crew into space.

Joining me now to discuss retired NASA astronaut Terry Virts.

Terry, so just start top line. Why is Artemis III so important for the goal of eventually landing humans back on the moon

TERRY VIRTS, RETIRED NASA ASTRONAUT: Well, Artemis III specifically is really critical because it's going to test out the lunar landers for the first time. So, on Artemis II, the whole world watched as the astronauts went around the moon in the Orion capsule, but they didn't have any way to land.

And so, this is going to be the first time that those things fly. If you look back to the apollo mission, Artemis II was the equivalent of Apollo eight. And then Artemis III is going to be the equivalent of Apollo IX, making sure that the lunar landers can work in deep space before they actually go on the surface of the moon on the next flight after that.

MATTINGLY: So, Artemis III is set to launch next year, which was devastating news in my household. Expectations were high for like next week with my kids. But NASA targeting a moon landing in early 2028, do you think that's a realistic timeline?

VIRTS: That's going to be a tough timeline. They have to, you know, launch -- there's two different lunar lander contractors, basically Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, SpaceX and Blue Origin. And so, they have to build their landers. They have to test them, Elon's SpaceX's lander requires refueling, so they have to verify that technology. It has to be test -- tested, unmanned with no astronauts on board, and then they have to land.

And 2028 is -- looking at my watch -- it's not too far in the distance. So, we'll see. You know, I hope -- I hope we can get there as soon as possible. Most importantly, I hope we can get there as safely as possible.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, obviously the most critical element of this, what do we need to learn about the moon before the conversation about a lunar base on its surface can really take place for real?

VIRTS: Well, one of the most important things about these landers where they land, it has to be flat. So, understanding the surface really well, you don't want to land on a mountain top, which on the moon would be the side of a crater. And because the lander would fall over.

So, they need to make sure they can find smooth, flat areas without a lot of boulders. That was a problem in Apollo. If you watched the Apollo 11, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landing, one of the reasons why it was so stressful is that Neil had to maneuver to avoid some boulders. So, they want to find a place where they can land safely. And then also conduct some science activities.

There's some water in certain craters on the moon, and that would be amazing if we could get to that. But if not, there's lots of other scientific reasons. So, they're -- they want to learn the geography and the terrain. Before we go land human beings there.

MATTINGLY: We got about 30 seconds left. Mars -- is that real. Not the planet -- VIRTS: It's real. I've seen it with my eyes. This is red, red planet.

MATTINGLY: No, no, no. Our ability to get there

VIRTS: The -- in my personal opinion, Terry Virts' opinion, not NASA's or anybody else's, we need to get nuclear power first because that significant electrical power will let us make rocket engines that can get us there faster and get us back using a normal rocket engine just takes too long. So, in my view, we got to get the nuclear power working first before we can send humans there.

MATTINGLY: Well, I'm all on board now. So is my entire household. We are die hard, dead set believers in all the things.

Terry Virts, you help us explain or understand all the things. Appreciate your time as always, my friend.

VIRTS: Thanks, Phil, and I know how you feel. I share the sentiment.

MATTINGLY: Great.

Well, I hope you'll join me for my new video series, "CNN Breaks It Down". We're tackling the most pressing questions in business and politics. You can find the episodes on CNN.com watch. You can follow the show on X and Instagram @TheLeadCNN. If you ever miss an episode of the lead, you can watch the show on the CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.