Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

W.H.: Trump Has "No Firm Deadline" For Iranian Peace Proposal; Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, (D-NH), Is Interviewed About RFK Jr.'s Marathon Of Congressional Hearings Come To An End, Lutnick: U.S. Not Sending Its Most Advanced Chips To China, Canada; United Airlines To Raise Summer Fares As Much As 20 Percent; How Artificial Intelligence Is Transforming Medicine; House Dems Open Probe Into Patel's Alleged Excessive Drinking. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired April 22, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. Thanks to my panel. Really appreciate you all being here. Thanks to you at home for watching as well. Don't forget you can now stream The Arena live. You can catch up whenever you want to in the CNN app. Just scan that

QR code below. But don't go anywhere, Jake Tapper is standing by for "The Lead." Not trying to scan our QR code today, but that's OK. Hi Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Hey, Kasie. Good to see you. We'll look more in "The Arena" tomorrow. HUNT: Have a good show.

TAPPER: Thanks.

[17:00:40]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Of all the things going on in the world today, the president decided that he wants you to know his 2004 ratings for the "Apprentice" were juggernaut. The Lead start.

Iran is seizing ships. More talk set for who knows when. What sources tell CNN about a possible plan to get U.S. talks with Iran back on track as we also hear from one of the most well sourced journalists when it comes to the war. And the fight for control of Congress in 2026, as Virginia voters side with Democrats and change the map, another state is now weighing its next steps. Ahead on The Lead, Senate candidate James Talarico, a Democrat from the state where this tit for tat mid-decade gerrymandering war all began.

And a brand new series here in The Lead, AI: Friend or Foe. We've covered a lot of the bad and we will continue to the risks, the out of control ChatBots. But what about the potential for good? Today a behind the scenes look at how AI is making a difference in the world of medicine.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We're going to start in our world lead tonight. Iran says it has seized two non U.S. flagged cargo ships in the Strait of Hormuz just hours after President Trump extended the two week cease fire last night. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt today gave no timetable for how long this extension could last.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president's offering them a little bit of flexibility because we want to see a unified proposal to the president's very strong proposal and he's made his red lines very clear. The president has not set a deadline himself. Ultimately he will dictate the timetable. Iran is in a very weak position and the cards are in President Trump's hands right now. TAPPER: Whether that strategy will work of course remains to be seen.

One Iranian official leading negotiations says, quote, "Trump's ceasefire extension means nothing. The losing side cannot dictate terms," unquote. The White House press secretary today pointed out the internal divisions within the Iranian leadership that U.S. officials believe is behind the breakdown of communication between the U.S. team and the Iranian negotiators after sources say a broad list of deal terms from the U.S. went unanswered for days by the Iranians. The Iranian president did take to social media today to say that

Tehran wants to continue talks, but that the U.S. quote, "breach of commitments, blockade and threats," unquote, are the obstacle to genuine negotiations. He also accused U.S. leaders of inconsistency with endless hypocritical rhetoric and contradiction between claims and actions. And it is true that President Trump's rampant social media posts and sporadic phone interviews with news outlets are causing some confusion, at least among the American public, about his plans for this war. Now, it appears that may be part of what is interfering with his team's efforts to communicate with the leaders of Iran.

As one source familiar with the talks told CNN, quote, "The Iranians didn't appreciate POTUS negotiating through social media and making it appear as if they had signed off on issues they hadn't yet agreed to, and ones that aren't popular with their people back home," unquote. Such as on Friday when President Trump touted, a deal coming in a day or two, in an interview with Axios and told CBS News that Iran had, quote, "agreed to everything, including the removal of its enriched uranium." Followed by this moment at a speech in Arizona. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Most of the points are already negotiated and agreed to. You'll be very happy. The USA will get all nuclear dust. You know what the nuclear dust is? That was that white, powdery substance created by our B2 bombers. (END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The president also told Bloomberg News that Iran had agreed to a, quote, "unlimited" suspension of its nuclear program. Then on Monday, the president told Bloomberg News again that he was highly unlikely to extend the cease fire if there wasn't a deal this week. You know, the ceasefire that he's now extended.

And now, of course, U.S. officials and Iranian leadership are in a stalemate over whether peace talks will even happen, let alone what there is to hash out. The Strait of Hormuz remains a pressure point on both the United States and Iran, not to mention on the global economy and you at home and this ever so fragile ceasefire. More than two weeks later, it's still an open question of it will hold and if it will work to bring the Iranians back to the table at all.

[17:05:11]

By the way, President Trump Friday asked why CNN and the New York Times aren't saying to him, quote, "job well done, Mr. President," unquote. Among other reasons is anything done here? Let's bring in CNN analyst Barak Ravid. He's a global affairs correspondent for Axios.

Barak, what are you learning from your sources in the White House about the status of peace talks right now? BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, first,

there are no peace talks right now. And at the moment, the Iranians still refuse to come to the table. One source I spoke to today, a source who spoke to the Iranians, not a -- not a U.S. official, but a source who spoke to the Iranians, summed it up to me in one line. The Iranians are going crazy about the blockade and that's their main demand, that the blockade will be lifted for them to come to the table. The thing -- the problem is that when Trump and his team, when they

hear how painful the blockade is for the Iranians, they understand that that's actually their winning card, that that's the leverage that they have right now. And this is why they want to use this blockade to get the Iranians to sign the deal. I'm not sure. So now the question is whether they could really take this -- the blockade and turn it into an asset into -- in the negotiation and not get stuck with it as a liability that prevents them from getting to the negotiating table. TAPPER: And meanwhile, Iran continues to lock down the Strait of

Hormuz. They seize two cargo ships in the strait. A top Iranian negotiator says, quote, "Trump's cease fire extension means nothing," unquote. Is using that as a tool to bring them back to the table, the cease fire extension, is that going to work? RAVID: Well, I think for the Iranians, the problem, by the way, is not

that the Iranians are not allowing ships to go through the Strait of Hormuz. The problem is much bigger because the Iranians are now attacking ships and their -- that -- and they said that that's what they're going to do once the ceasefire expires. That happened yesterday. And this is what they did. They started attacking ships in the Strait of Hormuz.

I think they're going to continue doing that. And right now we have the situation where everything is connected to what's going on in the strait. On the one hand, what the Iranian attacks on commercial shipping, on the other hand, the U.S. blockade. By the way the blockade is at the moment, much wider already than only in the Strait of Hormuz or only in Iranian ports. The U.S. is going after Iranian commercial ships, Iranian tankers all

over the world.

TAPPER: Yes.

RAVID: This is the strategy right now, as I understand it. So -- and I think this is what we're going to see in the next days and weeks, and especially once another aircraft carrier strike group will be in the region in a few days, the USS Bush. The U.S. is going to go after Iranian ships everywhere around the world to try and make it even more painful for the regime, hoping that this is what will get the regime to crack and say, all right, we're coming to the negotiation. TAPPER: How much do you sense that the Iranians think that President

Trump is more eager to end this war than they are? Because if I were just watching objectively, I might think, boy, President Trump really seems eager to end this war. It's obviously politically not very popular. He has lots of criticism coming from MAGA commentators. Just the extension even of this deadline, I think, to an objective observer would suggest he really doesn't want to start bombing again. RAVID: I think that's exactly how the Iranians see it, especially that

one of Trump's main cards or the main points of leverage was the credible military threat. The Iranians knew that there's a threat above them of him launching a massive strike against their infrastructure facilities, against their power plants, against their oil facilities. I'm not saying they were not ready to take the hit. They were. But again, this was a point of leverage.

By extending the ceasefire indefinitely, Trump gave up on a point of leverage. He still has the blockade. I think that Trump thinks the blockade is more effective. I don't know if that's true or not. We'll discover that in the coming days.

[17:10:06]

But the U.S. gave up on the credible military threat. It doesn't exist anymore, at least at the moment. It can come back to the table. But at the moment, we all know that Trump got to the point that he was about to strike and he didn't. He extended the ceasefire unilaterally, which I think the Iranians see it as a sign that he wants a deal and he doesn't want to resume the war. TAPPER: Barak Ravid, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

Despite the tense situation with Iran, you wouldn't know that any of this is going on by some of the items in his social media feed. Coming up, we're going to talk about some of the wild things the president's putting out into the world, even in just the last few hours.

But first, the whirlwind of questions for some Trump cabinet members. I'm going to talk with senator about the responses she got from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER (D-DE): Does the president know there is a historic measles surge?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: You want me to answer, people answer no.

[17:15:00]

ROCHESTER: The question -- it's just a very simple question, yes --

KENNEDY: Just want a grandstand. ROCHESTER: You're going to get your opportunity.

KENNEDY: You want a grandstand. ROCHESTER Can you answer that question?

KENNEDY: I can answer that question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In our health lead, one last grilling for HHS Secretary RFK Jr. Today he wrapped up a marathon of congressional testimony. Across seven hearings, lawmakers pressed him on vaccine policy, measles outbreaks, and of course, the Trump administration's proposed budget that would slash health care spending. Yesterday, Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of the great state of New Hampshire pressed RFK Jr. to release $300 million in previously congressionally approved funds for Gavi, G-A-V-I. That's a foundation that helps to vaccinate children against deadly diseases worldwide. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-NH): If this funding is not released, millions of children will die. Are you willing to release this funding that helps vaccinate millions of children? KENNEDY: Gavi is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the WHO,

which we got out of because it was doing such a miserable job. I asked them, is our money going to use so that you can funnel it to WHO? They refuse to answer that. SHAHEEN: Are you willing to appoint somebody from your office who can

work with us to see if we can resolve those questions? KENNEDY: Yes, I am, Senator.

SHAHEEN: OK. (END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Senator Jeanne Shaheen joins us now. Senator, the secretary also raised concerns about Gavi using older vaccine formulations that he says the U.S. and Europe no longer use. Has anyone from his team reached out to your office or you to their office? How do you plan to address these concerns so the funding can be released to save the lives of these kids? SHAHEEN: We have reached out to his office. We're waiting to hear a

response to find out if he's actually going to appoint somebody who will be willing to sit down with us and with the Gavi folks, because that's clearly not their understanding about what the issues are. And as I said in the hearing yesterday, my understanding, based on the sources that we have talked to, is that it is Secretary Kennedy himself who is refusing to release those funds. And I think he basically acknowledged that yesterday.

TAPPER: Secretary Kennedy told Senator Bill Cassidy today. Senator BILL Cassidy, Republican, Louisiana. He's a doctor. He's also the chairman of the Health Committee. He said that the next CDC director, whoever that is, can make decisions independently, regardless of political appointees.

Do you believe with him? SHAHEEN: Well, not based on his past history. I mean, he's been --

he's done everything he can in his position as secretary to raise questions about the efficacy of vaccinating kids to prevent that from happening. Now we're hearing that members of the military aren't being asked to be vaccinated against the flu vaccine. So this is something that is across this administration, and Secretary Kennedy is leading the way. TAPPER: Today. You question the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick.

Lutnick says the U.S. is not selling its most advanced chips to China. You said that that's not what you're hearing, that what he says doesn't match the intelligence. What does the intelligence say about U.S. chip sales to China? SHAHEEN: Well, we've had several very interesting hearings in Armed

services and in the Foreign Relations Committee where we have raised these concerns with members of the administration who have acknowledged that not only are we considering the advanced chips, but we're also considering machines that would help them make those advanced chips going to China. That is a huge concern. As I said in the hearing yesterday that we had on the Indo Pacific Command with Admiral Paparo, we -- he was asked the question about how concerned he would be if he knew that China were being sold those chips that would give them an advantage in reaching their military goals. And he raised concerns as well. So this is something that is very real, and I don't think different

people and branches within the administration are talking to each other, because we're hearing one thing from Secretary Lutnick. We heard another thing from the State Department. We've heard another thing from the Department of Defense. TAPPER: You also asked lot Nick about U.S.-Canada, economic relations.

Obviously, New Hampshire borders Canada. Here's a bit of that exchange. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHAHEEN: Secretary Lutnick, last week you said about Canada's economic strategy, and I quote, "they suck." We have a lot of businesses in New Hampshire, small businesses who work on both sides of the border. We have all those Canadian visitors who are not coming because of your comments and comments by the administration. How does that help our economy? HOWARD LUTNICK, TREASURY SECRETARY: It is outrageous that Canada will

not put U.S. spirits on the shelf. It is insulting.

SHAHEEN: It is.

LUTNICK: It is disrespectful to America. (END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:20:00]

TAPPER: In an address this week, the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, said, quote, "Many of our former strengths based on our close ties to America, have become weaknesses, weaknesses that we must correct," unquote. With the U.S., Mexico, Canada agreement up for review in July, how do you expect Canada is going to approach that moment? How can the Trump administration repair this relationship if they want to? SHAHEEN: Well, they need to stop criticizing our northern neighbor. As

I said in my comments, it doesn't help the businesses of New Hampshire or the U.S. Economy to have Canada go to China to do business deals and not come to the United States. So they need to engage in those talks to reauthorize USMCA. And the United States needs to stop insulting our neighbors who have been allies and partners throughout decades in this country. I think that's where we should start. TAPPER: Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat in New Hampshire, thank you

so much. Appreciate it.

SHAHEEN: Thank you.

TAPPER: Coming up, the staggering amount one airline says it plans to raise airfares just as you get ready to book that summer travel, will other airlines follow suit? We're going to talk to an industry insider next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:32]

TAPPER: The money lead. What you don't expect to hear from an airline executive, perhaps what you don't want to hear. Today, the CEO of United Airlines said, one, the company plans to raise summer fares 15 to 20 percent, which he blamed on the cost of jet fuel doubling. And that was even before the war with Iran started. The United CEO also said that even if jet fuel costs go down, United plans to keep its higher fares.

Let's bring in Mike Sommers. He's the CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.

So, Mike, this news from United, do you think this sets a trend for the other U.S. airlines, American, Delta, Frontier, et cetera?

MIKE SOMMERS, CEO, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE: Well, jet fuel is particularly under pressure right now because of the Strait of Hormuz being closed. It's a major artery point, of course, for all of these fuels, from gasoline to diesel to natural gas, of course. But jet fuel is particularly vulnerable in this region because there are significant growth in the jet fuel market in Southeast Asia. So that is probably the main pinch point that we're going to see both in the United States and throughout the world.

TAPPER: But didn't he say that he was going to have to raise prices even before -- he said the cost of jet fuel doubled even before the war with Iran started? SOMMERS: Well, one of the things that we're seeing is that there is no

demand destruction in the United States right now. People are willing to pay these higher prices at this point. So one of the things that he is reflecting is demand is still very high going into the summer months, not just for jet fuel but for gasoline as well. TAPPER: And also we heard from Lufthansa and some of the European

carriers. They might soon have to cancel flights and ration fuel. How come that is not happening here in the U.S.?

SOMMERS: You're probably not going to see that here in the United States. You'll see elevated prices. But because they're getting most of their jet fuel from areas close to the Strait of Hormuz, the pinch point is really going to be in Europe and Southeast Asia throughout the summer months. TAPPER: And we're not getting it from the -- from Strait of Hormuz?

SOMMERS: There's going to be price pressure, but mainly you will see that in Southeast Asia and Europe. I don't think you'll end up seeing that in the United States. TAPPER: So the price of gas, that's obviously another big one. AAA

reports the national average is now $4.02 a gallon for regular unleaded. That is down nine cents from this time a week ago. It's still far from the $2.98 average from before the war. I asked the Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, about that this past Sunday. Let's play a little bit of that interview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: When do you think it's realistic for Americans to expect that gas will go back to under $3 a gallon? CHRIS WRIGHT, ENERGY SECRETARY: I don't know. That could happen later

this year. That might not happen till next year, but prices have likely peaked and they'll start going down. (END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So I took that as a fairly candid and reasonable answer. It could happen later this year, it might not happen until next year. I mean, just throwing it out there. President Trump was asked about what Secretary Wright told me and he said, no, I think he's wrong on that, totally wrong. Obviously you can't predict and you know. But what did you think of his answer? SOMMERS: Look, I think this is all a question of supply and demand.

When you have a significant portion of oil and these refined products blocked in the Strait of Hormuz right now, you're not going to see relief at the pump or significant relief at the pump. We got to get the strait back open. We have about 700 million barrels of oil that we're short on in the world right now because of this long seven week problem in the Strait of Hormuz. So it's going to take a while for world markets to catch up. So we

have to wait, we have to figure out how long this conflict is going to continue. And once it eases, you're going to start seeing relief at the pump. TAPPER: Honestly a way I think about it, this is just me personally,

this is a war tax. I mean, it's not imposed by the government, but we're all paying higher prices because of this war. I mean --

SOMMERS: Well, I think that's true. But we have to remember what the consequence would be if the president didn't take this action. TAPPER: Sure.

SOMMERS: The truth of the matter is, is that Iran, with a nuclear weapon, with these significant ballistic missiles that they had that we didn't know about, by the way, they were an ongoing threat to the Middle East. So taking out the Iranian regime, taking their ballistic missiles and preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon, I think is in the long term security interest of the United States.

TAPPER: Always needs to be part of the conversation, no doubt. Mike Sommers, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

[17:29:48] Our new Lead series is next. It's called AI: Friend or Foe. We look at the bad and the good. Today we're going to take a look at how AI is transforming the world of medicine.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Now to the first story in a brand new series here on The Lead, "A.I.: Friend or Foe?" In which we'll be exploring the impact of the rapid rise of artificial intelligence. And today we're going to take a look at what A.I. means for medicine and for your health. I visited the Ellison Medical Institute to speak with Dr. David Agus. He founded the organization along with Larry Ellison. And we should disclose Ellison is, of course, one of the primary investors in the paramount bid to purchase CNN's parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery. But I should also note I first reached out to Dr. Agus about this story in January long before that agreement because we wanted to learn more about how Agus is using A.I. to try to develop new treatments and medications for cancer patients.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

[17:35:19]

DR. DAVID AGUS, LEADING ONCOLOGIST AND BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHER: We can literally make shots on goal for disease like never before.

TAPPER: Has that already happened?

AGUS: It's happening as we speak.

TAPPER (voice-over): Dr. David Agus, a leading oncologist and biomedical researcher, says medicine is entering a new era powered by artificial intelligence.

AGUS: The beauty of A.I. is all of a sudden it'll take that X-ray and compare it to a million X-rays that that system has seen. And goes, you know, while you don't think that's appendicitis, it actually is. And here's why. And so it's going to enable everyone to go from good to great. So the greatest doctors probably aren't going to get a lot better. But everybody else is going to rise to that level.

TAPPER: Because they're going to have access to all this information.

AGUS: They'll have access. I just want to show you this because, I mean, this is a cancer, right?

TAPPER (voice-over): Agus says A.I. is already leading to surprising discoveries hidden inside existing medical data.

AGUS: The shingles vaccine. This is an FDA approved vaccine that's already on the market. It reduces Alzheimer's by over 50 percent. Nobel laureates missed it. We all said, well, the plaques accumulate for Alzheimer's, which they do. But it's in response to a virus that affects neurons. That was a staggering observation.

TAPPER: And that was from A.I.? AGUS: A.I. was able to convert our medical records to data to do those analytics. So we're finding out things literally at a pace. Every month or two a discovery is happening from the existing data.

TAPPER (voice-over): The technology behind it all, massive computing power capable of processing vast amounts of information.

AGUS: The new commodity in medicine is GPUs. Do you have enough GPUs, which are the computer chip, the graphics processing unit?

TAPPER (voice-over): At Los Angeles' Ellison Medical Institute, Agus and his team are using that power to go even further.

AGUS: The old day, if I wanted to make a drug, I would take a library, which means a million chemicals, and I would put it on something and say, hey, did it turn it red or green? If it turned it red, I would then take that molecule, try to make versions of it. And several years later, I would get something that would bind to what I wanted it to bind. Now I can say to a computer, hey, listen, here's the protein I want to bind to.

Tell me its structure. Design me something that fits right here. Here's every other protein in the body. I don't want it to bind to those. I just want it to bind here. And with those constraints, I can start to make drugs in months rather than many years. And that's the revolution that's happening.

Thank you, guys. Come on in.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi.

TAPPER: How's it going?

TAPPER (voice-over): Inside the institute's labs, that process is already underway, with A.I. now transforming how new drugs are created.

AGUS: All right. I want to show you something cool, is that I told you before how we can design proteins overnight. And so literally, if we design them in a computer, I then program them in here, and this is printing proteins. Each of these are one of the amino acids.

TAPPER: This is the printing protein?

AGUS: What a protein is, it's a combination of amino acids. So it's printing them together, putting them together, and enabling us overnight to get dozens of proteins.

TAPPER: And then you test them.

AGUS: And then I test them the next day. The ones that work, I tell the model, A.I., hey, listen, these worked and these didn't. And the model goes, ah, I must have got that wrong or that wrong. Let me design you a next generation. So every night, I can make new shots on goal. So by the end of several weeks, I've got a drug.

TAPPER (voice-over): In a separate lab, those experimental drugs are tested on human cells to see how they might work in the body.

AGUS: So these are metastatic prostate cancer cells that are growing. And so they adhere to the plastic here, and you can see they're growing in a certain way. And if I put a drug in, does it stop them from growing? Does it make them grow quicker? Does it kill them? I can do all of that in here. And then presumably, that same drug can act like that in the patient. So the idea that we can game the system with cells before we go into patients becomes game-changing.

TAPPER: That's pretty cool.

TAPPER (voice-over): So just how much faster is A.I. making the process of creating new drugs?

AGUS: The hope is every year, we've got two drugs going into clinical trials over the next many years. I made a drug or helped make a drug for breast cancer that's on the market today. It took me 10 years to make and seven years to test. Now we're making drugs in months.

TAPPER: Months?

AGUS: Months.

TAPPER: So right now, you have how many drugs and what status are there?

AGUS: We have two drugs that will go into the clinic in the next year.

TAPPER: And that's going to happen in the United States?

AGUS: Yes. I mean, the testing happens here. Starting the end of the year is our first drug. And then probably first or second quarter of next year, our second drug. We take them into what we call phase one clinical trials, which is we make sure that they're safe. We figure out what dose to use. And then we scale into larger numbers and we show how it works against the disease.

[17:40:07]

TAPPER (voice-over): But even with the rapid advances from A.I., Agus says change in medicine can take time.

AGUS: It takes a while to make doctors change and adapt to technology. The data is it takes about 12 years for 50 percent of doctors to adopt something new.

TAPPER: Twelve years?

AGUS: Yes. So medicine will change, not from the top down, but the bottom up. And that's what excites me. We're in a new era. And a new era where everybody should be pushing for that change.

TAPPER (voice-over): Agus is optimistic about the potential benefits of medical A.I. But he remains clear-eyed about the technology in general.

TAPPER: A lot of people are fearful of what A.I. will mean. But you, the data says to you that it's going to be good stuff for medicine.

AGUS: Yes, listen, I am fearful about A.I. Don't get me wrong. At night I have nightmares about what A.I. can do. The opposite is I know the power of A.I. to change people's lives today. And it will and it is happening.

TAPPER (voice-over): And as fast as this technology is moving, even experts such as Dr. Agus say the future of medicine has never been harder to predict.

TAPPER: How much do you think you will look back at this conversation and think in two, three years, four years, I didn't even know that this was going to happen?

AGUS: In a profound sense. You know, my entire career in medicine, which I'm old, so it's been decades, I will tell you every year you could say what's going to happen over the next five, six years, and I could tell you, and I'd be pretty darn accurate. Now I have no idea.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: Tomorrow in part two of "A.I.: Friend or Foe?" I'm going to talk to the founder of an AI platform built specifically for doctors. It's already being used by more than half of the physicians in the United States, he says. And we're going to put that A.I. open evidence to the test with a case very close to my heart.

Coming up next, the alcohol abuse screening that House Democrats are demanding of FBI Director Kash Patel after allegations published by "The Atlantic" and his denial and defamation lawsuit that quickly followed.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:46:38]

TAPPER: Our Politics Lead now. Today, House Democrats launched an investigation into the allegations that FBI Director Kash Patel has engaged in a steady pattern of alcohol abuse while FBI Director of the House Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, is leading the charge. He's demanding that the director of the FBI, Kash Patel, submit to alcohol abuse screening and demanding that Patel answer a 10-question screening tool that assesses harmful patterns of alcohol consumption. Now, today's probe comes after Patel filed a $250 million defamation suit against "The Atlantic," which first published these allegations, and he pushed back on its reporting that claims excessive drinking.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: I've never been intoxicated on the job, and that is why we filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit. I've answered your question. It's simply as follows. I was never locked out of my systems. Anybody who says --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your lawsuit says the opposite. PATEL: Anyone that says the opposite is lying.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The panel joins us now. Scott MacFarlane, all of this happening just one day after Patel lost a different defamation suit. This one was against a commentator on "MSNOW" who made a glib comment that he's more likely to be seen in a nightclub than in the FBI or something like that. He says it was just hyperbole. How do you see this lawsuit against "The Atlantic" ending for the FBI director?

SCOTT MACFARLANE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, MEDIASTOUCH NETWORK: Let's see where it begins first, with typos, with bad grammar, with the types of things you don't typically see in a federal civil complaint, as if this thing was rushed or expedited versus thought out and methodically put together. It is charitably, Jake, a distraction for the top law enforcement official at the FBI to be mired in a federal civil lawsuit about his own publicity.

But this 10-question audit survey the House Democrats have given to Kash Patel, demanding he respond by April 28th, it's a pretty forthright set of questions. Have you ever blacked out? Have you ever had drinks in the morning to overcome drinks you had at night? Have you ever been intoxicated to the point that you've injured yourself? It's actually a very impactful set of questions to diagnose problem drinking. There's no earthly way, Jake, he responds to this thing.

TAPPER: Jasmine, on another matter, "Politico" is now reporting that members of the House Oversight Committee are split over whether or not a pardon should be offered to Ghislaine Maxwell. That's the convicted co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein. That would be an extraordinary move if it pans out. Presumably it's in exchange for her testimony, I would think. But what do you make of it?

JASMINE WRIGHT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NOTUS: Yes, I mean, it's a pretty shocking headline, and that comes from an interview they did with James Comer, who oversees that oversight committee. I think a couple things. First is that it's kind of miraculous that he would say this just a week after two House members resigned over allegations of sexual conduct, one of which were allegations that dated back years, kind of stemming from this idea that there is not really enough accountability on the Hill.

Obviously this question about Ghislaine Maxwell and whether or not President Trump should pardon her has come up time and time again when her lawyer initially made that offer in exchange for her testimony. I've talked to multiple people around the President who basically have urged him through the press and through others not to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell because it looks bad, because it sends a bad signal in that interview itself.

[17:50:05]

James Comer said that he believed it looked bad. So I think we need some reporting on exactly who on that oversight committee is saying that, because it obviously is kind of against this idea that there should be more accountability in Epstein when the survivors say that Ghislaine Maxwell was a part of this whole thing.

MACFARLANE: Hoo, boy, try to find a Democrat to vote for that thing. It's like playing the Powerball. You could win, but you're not going to. You could find a Democrat to support giving her clemency. You will not. So let's start there. This thing is politically cancerous to all who touch it. I can't imagine they're going to find a critical mass to support that toxic idea.

WRIGHT: But again, they don't need that if it comes down to whether or not President Trump decides to pardon.

TAPPER: Yes. And maybe he's crazy. Maybe President Trump is thinking about doing it and this is providing cover for him in some way. Like, oh look, members of the House Oversight Committee want it. Although we should note Chairman Comer did not say that he wants it one way or the other. As the country is entangled in war, fighting serious issues domestically, Republicans do also remain focused on honoring President Trump.

Scott, you made a list of some of the Republican Party in the House's bills include carving Trump's face into Mount Rushmore, declaring his birthday a national holiday, mint a $250 bill with his face on it. The list goes on and on.

MACFARLANE: And Flag Day, his birthday would be a federal holiday and they would rename not just Dulles International Airport after Trump, but Palm Beach International Airport after Trump. This is a mechanism you have to message, especially ahead of a primary. We are there, loyal to President Trump, championing him, declaring him a hero. I don't know if that's a good look at a time of soaring gas prices and what we would call some first world problems here.

People don't feel safe. They don't feel economically safe. They want their elected members to perhaps be judicious in what they choose to fight. Trying to get a $250 bill sounds lovely. I actually wouldn't mind one of those, but getting Trump's face on it, maybe not a high priority.

TAPPER: And speaking on focused on these real world issues that you talk about, the President earlier today posted on Truth Social about positive ratings that he got for "The Apprentice" 22 years ago in the year 2004. I mean, I should note that, yes, the first season his ratings were incredible for this T.V. show that a lot of my staff members weren't even alive when it was on in 2004. Why is he doing it? You cover the White House. Why is he posting about this?

WRIGHT: Well, we actually mentioned "The Apprentice" in the Notice newsletter two days ago, so I think that he was reading that. No, but to be serious. I mean, the President has said multiple times when questions have arisen just in the last two months about his use of social media that people send him things and he just posts them. And so this could be the case. He could be feeling nostalgic.

But I think the larger issue here is that at a time when we're at war, at a time where the question about affordability is kind of reigning supreme when it comes to gas prices, higher prices, and things like that, the question of whether or not the President's social media has been purposefully used to advance his agenda and make things better is a question of concern. I mean, just today, Karoline Leavitt at the White House was asked whether or not his posts and his interviews with reporters on Iran have made negotiating worse.

Now, she said the short answer is no, but I think people around him have started to question whether or not he's been contradicting, and I think the social media aspect falls into that of whether or not he's using his time appropriately and focused on the things that Americans want to see him focused on.

TAPPER: Yes, and he is also posting about Iran, of course. We should note that. One of the things he's posting about is that an op-ed writer at "The Wall Street Journal" wrote, Elliot Kaufman, the Iranians take Trump for a sucker. There's the opinion piece right now. And he ranted against Elliot Kaufman. This is sometime in the last day. Trump claims their entire Navy is at the bottom of the sea. Their Air Force is gone. Their anti-aircraft and radar is wiped out. Their nuclear labs and storage areas were obliterated. "The Wall Street Journal" has lost its way.

I mean, we should note, I mean, that's one op-ed writer. It's not the House editorial from the journal. And even if it were, I mean, who cares? Like, why is he posting about this?

MACFARLANE: It's really disorienting not to get cohesive, comprehensive messaging from the White House about a war. I mean, I'm sitting here in CNN, where in 1991, you brought a war to America, told them what was happening. We don't have that luxury.

TAPPER: I was in college at the time, Scott, so it wasn't me, per se, but, yes, keep going.

MACFARLANE: The American people wouldn't mind some transparency since they can't watch this thing and get on the ground reporting from the Strait of Hormuz. It really is disorienting to see him post about 2004 and about op-ed writers.

TAPPER: And you know who's upset about it is a lot of House Republicans who want President Trump to be focused on the issues that their voters care about, especially with the midterms coming out. What are you hearing about the Republican strategy for the midterms?

WRIGHT: I mean, I think it's a big question mark, and that in part is because folks are still trying to nail down exactly where President Trump is. A lot of his focus, yes, it may be on some errant true socials and things like that, but a lot of his focus day in and day out has been on this issue of Iran, and it hasn't been on the things that Republicans want to talk about, which is affordability. It hasn't been about things that the Republicans want to talk about, which is the One Big, Beautiful Bill and the tax cuts that came from that. We had a story that came out.

[17:55:15]

TAPPER: No tax on tips. WRIGHT: Yes, no tax on tips. We had a story that came out about Republicans basically begging the President to start talking about it, including using the accurate name, the Working Families Tax Cut, which they changed it to because polling said that that was better for American families. And so I think you're seeing a large gap for what Republicans want and what they see the President doing.

TAPPER: I think by saying no tax on tips, I've now said it more than President Trump has said it in the last week, at least. Thanks to both of you. Really appreciate it.

Coming up, the baseless claim from President Trump about last night's election results in Virginia. I'm going to talk about the results with both a Republican from the Commonwealth and a Democrat from the Commonwealth.

Plus, the spotlight now on Florida as the fight for Congress, the control of Congress turns up a notch and gets closer to November. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)