Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Xi: Taiwan Could Be "Very Dangerous Situation" If Mishandled; Trump Says Xi Pledged Not To Provide Iran With Military Equipment; Sen. Elissa Slotkin, (D-MI), Is Interviewed About CENTCOM Commander Says Iran Has "Moderate" Capability To Continue Strikes In The Gulf Region; "Meddlesome" Question As Stephen Colbert Prepares To Sign Off; U.S. Supreme Court Allows Telehealth & Mail Access To Mifepristone; Acting AG Todd Blanche Was Told Last Year To Recuse From DOJ Matters Involving Trump. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired May 14, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: -- in the CNN app. You can scan the QR code that is on your screen to find that. You can also catch up by listening to The Arena's podcast. There's another QR code for that. Always forget which way to go on the screen.

You can also follow us on X and Instagram. We are at thearenacnn. But for now don't go anywhere, "The Lead with Jake Tapper" starts right now.

[17:00:28]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: China has a direct warning to the U.S. when it comes to Taiwan. The Lead starts right now.

Xi Jinping making it clear that U.S. could, will pay a price for anything interference with Taiwan. We know that because of what China revealed about the historic summit. Hear what President Trump is saying ahead of his final meeting tonight before heading to home.

Plus, CNN exclusive, a top ethics attorney told acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former private attorney to recuse himself from legal cases that involve the president. But did he? What the Justice Department says about our new reporting.

Plus, a case we've covered for years, Richard Glossip, a former death row inmate whose conviction is highly suspect, he was granted a new trial. And today, finally granted bail. His attorney will be here on The Lead.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We're going to start in our world lead today where we our hours away from the final talks in this critical summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. And in this talks so far Taiwan has emerged as an explosive issue. Here is what we know.

President Xi issued a stark warning to the U.S., do not test China when it comes to Taiwan. This is according to a readout of the meeting shared by Chinese state media. In it, it says Xi said if the issue of Taiwan is mishandled, the U.S. and China could, quote, "collide or even enter into conflict, pushing the entire China U.S. relationship into a highly dangerous situation," unquote. Indeed, given that both the U.S. and China are nuclear powers. For context, China's ruling Communist Party claims Taiwan as its sovereign territory despite never having controlled the self-governing democracy of 23 million people.

Now, under the long standing One China policy, the U.S. acknowledges China's position that Taiwan is part of China. But the U.S. has never officially recognized China's claim to the island. The U.S. has long supported Taiwan with unofficial relations and the U.S. is bound by law to provide Taiwan with defensive weapons. Trump broke with precedent on Monday when he said he would discuss those weapons sales to Taiwan with President Xi. Still, the U.S. has remained intentionally ambiguous on whether the U.S. would ever intervene in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan.

So given all that, how did President Trump react to that warning from President Xi? Well, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he is on the trip, he said this to NBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: And they always raise that issue, and we understand they raised that issue. From our perspective, any forced change in the status quo and the situation that's there now would be bad for both countries.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Rubio also said that the issue of future U.S. arms sales to the island has been discussed in the past, but, quote, "did not feature prominently in today's discussion." Now, when it comes to this summit -- when it comes to Iran and discussions on Iran, President Trump today told Fox that Xi said he would not give Iran military equipment. China, of course, has closed ties to Iran and is the number one consumer of Iranian oil. Here's how President Trump summed up the rest of his discussion with Xi on Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: President Xi would like to see a deal made. He would like to see a deal made. And he did offer, he said, if I can be of any help at all, I would like to be of help. Because --

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: He did say that.

TRUMP: Yes, he did say that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, Secretary Rubio separately said that the U.S. did not explicitly ask for China's help.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TOM LLAMAS, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: Well, we understand, what exactly did President Trump ask President Xi for when it comes to Iran?

RUBIO: He didn't ask him for anything. I mean, we're not asking for China's help. We don't need their help.

LLAMAS: But he raises the issue.

RUBIO: We raise the issue to make clear what our position is and to make it clear so they understand because, I mean, it's logical we would talk about it given how dominant that issue is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: President Trump also said that President Xi agreed to order 200 Boeing jets, describing the move as a commitment from the Chinese leader. CNN has live team coverage of the summit. CNN's Kristen Holmes is in Beijing. CNN's Will Ripley is in Taipei, Taiwan.

[17:05:03]

Kristen, what is the White House thinking behind the scenes about the talk so far and what other big topics are still on the table for the rest of the summit?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, overall, the White House has been thrilled about the trip, just given the fact that President Trump is enjoying all of the pomp and circumstance. But today is really going to be for hammering out the details of what they talked about yesterday. Today has less restrictions because there's not a series of big events that are going to be on camera where the two of them are expected to walk through a park together or have dinner together, give a toast to each other. So that will lead to potentially more sticky topics going back through those during this bilateral meeting.

We're also expecting this bilateral meeting to be much smaller, which we know lends itself to the possibility that President Trump brings back up issues like Taiwan or like Iran. So we're keeping a close eye on that. What comes of this trip is likely just to be seen in the next couple of days, not immediately. We're going to see this rollout. We saw the Boeing deal that President Trump announced, but we're also going to see how China takes its stance with Iran.

We know that one of the things that President Trump said is that China made it clear they were going to continue to have a relationship with Iran or at least continue purchasing oil. What does that relationship look like? Did President Xi actually offer to help? And that's also going to be something that will be fascinating to see when they both get to this room today, because President Xi is not somebody who wants anything that he has said in a private meeting, particularly about Iran, that is a close ally of President Xi's, who does business with President Xi out there in an interview while these negotiations are still taking place.

TAPPER: And, Will, the subject of Taiwan, where you are in U.S.-China relations, look, it's always tricky. Tell us why today's warning from Chinese President Xi, which was really stark, why was that significant, do you think?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It was significant not in that the language has shifted dramatically from what President Xi has said before on Taiwan. But it was significant because that was the first piece of information that China's state media, the Xinhua News Agency, chose to report about the summit. That was leaked out almost immediately. And that is a sign because obviously all of those reports are mandated by the government essentially. This is -- this is what you're going to be talking about.

And they were talking about Taiwan from the get go. That is a sign just of how crucial the Taiwan Issue is for the Chinese. President Trump obviously would have been aware that Xi Jinping was going to be pressing the claim that Taiwan belongs to China. This island that has had its own government and military for more than 75 years since the end of China's civil war, also, by the way, produces almost all of the advanced chips that the American AI industry relies on, not to mention almost all of the tech that we use every day. Those chips are all manufactured here.

So any disruption to the supply chain would be absolutely catastrophic.

Taiwan's foreign minister, ahead of this summit, said he was hoping for no surprises. The deputy foreign minister said he was afraid Taiwan could be on the menu. But publicly, most Taiwanese officials are just saying that they believe that China and the military threat from China is the sole source of instability in this region. And that's their -- that's their line. They're sticking by their alliance with the United States and hoping that President Trump won't be persuaded to further delay the approval of that $14 billion in arms sales that's still pending in Washington, Jake.

Taiwan Relations Act requires the U.S. to sell Taiwan defensive weapons, but this particular package is taking a while to go through all the approvals.

TAPPER: Kristen Holmes in Beijing and Will Ripley in Taipei, Taiwan, thank you so much.

With me now, Jane Harman, former chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, also a former Democratic Congresswoman from California who served as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Thanks so much for being here, Congresswoman.

So, first, obviously, Taiwan, back in 2024, you said that China threatened to invade Taiwan in 2027 next year, and that should be taken very seriously. You heard President Xi's warning today. Are you worried that an invasion is even more possible now?

JANE HARMAN, (D) FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I don't think it's more possible, but I think it's possible. And whether it's an invasion or an annexation or some kind of economic embargo or what flavor it takes, I don't know. But there was good news today. I just want to say that.

TAPPER: OK.

HARMAN: First of all, Epstein is not in the news, thought you should know.

TAPPER: Right.

HARMAN: Nor is the 6 percent inflation rate. Those are good things for Trump, certainly. I also thought that the dinner last night was somber and appropriate. The toasts were good. Trump stayed on his script.

It looked very traditional in a good way, so I liked all that.

TAPPER: Turning to Iran, from what we know about the talks so far, are you at all hopeful that President Xi can help push Iran to make a deal to end this war?

[17:10:00]

HARMAN: Definitely he can. Trump went to great pains to say he didn't ask him. I wonder if he was asked some Rosa. But anyway, he definitely can. He's the biggest user of Iran's oil and he has the relationship, and not only with Iran, but with others in the region.

I think the answer on the Strait of Hormuz is to internationalize it. To have the Arab countries who are interested in doing this, plus NATO, plus Xi, plus maybe even Putin, let's think big, come together to help the U.S. Imagine partners and allies or friends, not friends, frenemies, all working together to internationalize it and prevent either side, either an impulsive president or Iran or maybe Israel, from further mischief. And I think that would be a good answer for the world.

And then let's move on to an arms deal, a nuclear arms deal, the JCPOA, plus a lot more. That was an international deal too. We forget it wasn't just a something that Obama did.

TAPPER: For the seventh time this year, the U.S. Senate rejected a measure that was aimed at restricting President Trump's war powers. It would have required congressional approval for any future military action in Iran. What do you think it would take for Congress to take any real action on this?

HARMAN: Well, another Republican joined the fight, so it wouldn't take too much. It's outrageous that Congress is not authorizing this war or putting guards -- guardrails around it. I was there when we did Iraq, which was highly unpopular and very mixed vote. I unfortunately voted for it, believing the intel, which was wrong. But at anyway, you know, I -- my acronym is CACO, Congress Always Chickens Out.

TAPPER: Right.

HARMAN: Like CACO.

TAPPER: Right. HARMAN: And this is not good. I mean, to have the Article I branch AWOL and not appropriating money or not appropriating money, not using its powers to legislate is embarrassing.

TAPPER: When it comes to negotiating with Iran or with China or with anyone, you know, last month you called Trump's negotiating team inexperienced. I assume you were talking about Witkoff and Kushner in particular. Do you feel like this is the main factor standing in the way of a deal with Iran?

HARMAN: I think it would be helpful to have experienced negotiators. Think Ernie Moniz, who was -- is brilliant and was very helpful in the JCPOA deal, it would be good. Some of them still work for the State Department. That would be good. But if we internationalize this, that's what I just said --

TAPPER: Yes.

HARMAN: -- and get other experienced negotiators around the table too, I think that would add heft and wisdom.

TAPPER: All right, Jane Harman, Congresswoman Harman, thank you so much. Really appreciate your being here.

And later here on The Lead, I'm going to talk to a Republican lawmaker who is also closely watching what is coming out of this historic summit. But first, an admission from the Pentagon today about Iran's current control over the Strait of Hormuz and why they are continuing to be allowed to choke economies around the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:16:55]

TAPPER: Continuing in our world lead, a major and fascinating admission by the Pentagon today about why the U.S. is stuck in this morass when it comes to the Iran war. The head of CENTCOM, Admiral Brad Cooper, told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier today that the stalemate in which the U.S. find itself is at least partly due to policy decisions by President Trump. Why? Well, because despite the U.S. having significantly degraded the abilities of Iran in terms of ballistic missiles and its nuclear program, Iran continues to hold some cards, and that is because of policy decisions by the President. This was discussed in a Q and A led by Senator Elissa Slotkin, Democrat of Michigan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): While militarily we may be able to physically open the straits, that they still retain the ability to affect infrastructure in the region and therefore kind of have a veto power over the world economy right now.

ADM. BRAD COOPER, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: Senator, I would, from a military perspective, I would characterize Iran as having a remnant capability across multiple domains. (END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So here's what you need to know. On May 4, the Trump administration launched Project Freedom to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. In response, Iran struck one of the petroleum sites in the UAE. And the UAE in Saudi Arabia raised alarm about Iran's use of drones and other weapons to punish their fuel and civilian sites through this asymmetric warfare. After that happened, President Trump suspended Operation Freedom.

And according to Admiral Cooper, it would be a policy decision that the U.S. allows Iran to strike both ships in the Strait and this infrastructure in Gulf States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SLOTKIN: If we have the power to militarily open the straits and their threat is, quote, "moderate or small," why wouldn't we just do it?

COOPER: Senator, I really would defer to policymakers in this particular matter. And the strait clearly is in the middle of the negotiation being undertaken now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Senator Slotkin joins us now.

So, Senator, the admiral was speaking in military and diplomatic language that is, I think, purposefully vague. But what I interpreted this exchange that you had with him was that the U.S. military could try to stop the Iranians from striking Gulf States and could escort ships through the strait and try to stop them from bombing ships. But the U.S. is choosing to not do so as a policy matter, even though this is causing economic chaos throughout the world. Am I reading this right?

SLOTKIN: Well, look, I mean, I think he was accurately describing the situation because as you said in your intro, I mean, we tried. We did start escorting ships through the Strait of Hormuz in early May, and the Iranians fired on U.S. military vessels, U.S. commercial vessels, and on oil infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates. So they responded. They didn't like us trying to open the straits, and they responded. And I think that caused some real, you know, potential for escalation, and it was just not, I think, worth the squeeze from, at least from the White House.

[17:20:18]

And the Saudis got nervous, the Kuwaitis got nervous that oil infrastructure in particular was going to get hit. And you can imagine, I certainly can imagine for policymakers, the price of gas in a place like Michigan is already too high. The idea that more oil infrastructure is going to be hit in the Persian Gulf would only drive the price higher. And so the decision was made that we were going to not continue that militarily. And four or five days after we announced Project Freedom and the escorting of ships, the president announced that it was over.

So I don't -- again, I'm -- I know that no one is surprised that the Iranians still have a few cards up their sleeve to play because the Strait of Hormuz isn't open, right? You don't have to be a national security nerd to know that. And they showed it. They fired ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones when we tried to go through the straits.

Now, I think what the general is saying is, look like we're the most powerful military in the world. We can -- we can absolutely handle this militarily. But it comes with risk, and that risk is to the oil infrastructure.

TAPPER: It's just interesting because so many Americans are suffering right now, and I don't know which is the right decision in order to stop that suffering. And the admiral seemed to be saying, and as you note, obviously the U.S. has the firepower to stop these drone attacks or at least target Iran's drone bases. But the question is, which is worse? Do you have an opinion? I mean, do you think the U.S. should be trying to stop Iran from doing what it's doing in terms of this asymmetric warfare against ships in the strait or against infrastructure in the Gulf.

SLOTKIN: Well, look, I think everyone, whether you agreed with getting into the war or not, should want us to get out of it as soon as possible and as safely as possible for U.S. forces. And, you know, this is literally, I mean, as the admiral said, part of the negotiation that I believe is going on in China right now between the president and the Chinese president. They're talking about Iran. I think they have a mutual interest in opening the Straits of Hormuz.

What we're going to do with that negotiation and where that's going to bring us is a different question. But, you know, the -- no one likes to see gallon of gas being $4, especially in Michigan where we drive, you know, a lot. So I think we want it to be over as soon as possible.

But look, here's the deal when you go to war in the Middle East, and it's true, whether it's against Iran or a terrorist group, they're never going to go toe to toe with us. They're just not capable of meeting the U.S. military where we are. But them having any remaining capability, you know, if they can pop off a ballistic missile, a cruise missile, a drone that still has the ability to project power and to score some points, and it is difficult for us in that asymmetric warfare, it's difficult for us to declare victory until and unless we have those straits open. So we want it done. I think that's what they're negotiating right now.

TAPPER: Senator Elissa Slotkin, Democrat from Michigan. Thank you so much.

SLOTKIN: Thank you.

TAPPER: After years of war in Ukraine, Russia chose now to launch its biggest drone attack on that country today while the world's attention is on China. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:27:39]

TAPPER: Back in our world lead as all eyes are on China and the Trump Xi summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin chose this opportunity to flex his lethal muscle, unleashing Russia's largest drone attack of the entire war since 2022 on Ukraine hitting Kyiv overnight, killing at least 16 people. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh is in eastern Ukraine in an area also reeling from fresh attacks.

NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: A particularly huge Russian assault on Ukraine in the last 24 hours. The sirens just going off again here in Kharkiv and the street cleaners here to wash the blood off the streets, injuries here in Kharkiv. But the larger toll in the capital of Kyiv, 1,500 just short of drones fired in the last 24 hours over 50 missiles. And the whole side of a residential building torn down in Kyiv.

Dozens rescued from that site already. Children already among the injured.

And as President Trump visits China, Ukrainian officials pointing to an onslaught like this is a reminder that Russia's offer of a limited ceasefire in the last week isn't a reflection of them actually wanting peace. Ukraine's interceptor drones able to take some of the damage out of these assaults, but ultimately still the threat of constant Russian bombardment, particularly in these horrific images that we're now seeing emerging from Kyiv. That rubble being combed through as the toll of injured and dead rises. A sign of how much Ukraine continues to endure despite now having technological advantages in drone warfare that much of the world is coveted for.

Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, Kharkiv, Ukraine.

TAPPER: And our thanks to Nick Paton Walsh in Ukraine.

[17:29:30]

Ahead, the heavy political pressure as comedian Stephen Colbert gets ready to bid farewell to his late night show after 11 years on the air.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Years ago, when longtime Trump fixer, Michael Cohen, was testifying before Congress, he was asked about the ways that Donald Trump, now President Trump, makes his desires known. It is seldom with direct instructions, Cohen said. It's more with suggestions, obvious hints.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JUSTIN AMASH (R-MI): You suggested that the president sometimes communicates his wishes indirectly. For example, you said, "Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That's not how he operates." Can you explain how he does this? MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: He doesn't give you questions, he doesn't give you orders. He speaks in a code. And I understand the code because I've been around him for a decade.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So that was 2019. It wasn't an original observation because two years earlier, former FBI Director James Comey had testified about how President Trump had expressed to him the hope that the FBI would drop a probe into his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn. Again, not a direct instruction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:35:11]

SEN. JAMES RISCH (R-ID): This is the President speaking. I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go. Now, those are his exact words. Is that correct?

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Correct.

RISCH: He did not order you to let it go.

COMEY: Again, those words are not in order. It rings in my ear as kind of, will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? Comey referring there to the folklore about King Henry II. In the 12th century, King Henry voiced frustration with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, who had excommunicated bishops who defied church law, as depicted in the 1964 film, Beckett.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? And shortly thereafter, assassins came and killed the archbishop. The phrase has come to represent what happens when leaders want immoral actions carried on their behalf. But they also want plausible deniability. Now, there's no evidence that President Trump, who has long railed against Stephen Colbert and other late night comedians who mock him, no evidence that he demanded that Colbert be fired or his show canceled. The final episode of the Colbert show airs in one week, next Thursday, May 21st.

Nor, as King Henry demonstrates, does there need to be direct order. The people who ran Paramount, CBS's mothership at the time that the cancellation was announced last July, Paramount at the time led by Shari Redstone, they were trying to get the Trump administration to approve a merger that would allow Shari Redstone and her team to sell the company to Skydance and they would all make a lot of money. I should note that since then, Skydance has taken over Paramount and the company right now is going through the regulatory process to take over CNN and its parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery.

But in any case, it was in the midst of the CBS Paramount merger last summer when Redstone and her company decided, quite surprisingly, to cancel "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert." They attributed the decision to economic reasons. They denied that it was political. Now, it is absolutely true that the economics of late night television have been challenging for quite some time due to a variety of factors including more streaming competition, declining advertising dollars, and on and on. Conan O'Brien's late night show is no more.

Ditto, the CBS comedy show that used to run after Colbert. But I also want you to consider this calendar. July 1st, 2025, it is announced that Paramount agreed to pay Donald Trump $16 million to settle his lawsuit against CBS alleging unfair editing by CBS of a Kamala Harris interview on "60 Minutes." It's a lawsuit that few, if any respected legal experts thought had any merit. That's July 1st. July 14th, Colbert says this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT": Now, I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles. It's big fat bribe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: July 17th, three days later, CBS announces that Colbert was canceled. One week after that, July 24th, the Federal Communications Commission approves the $8 billion Paramount-Skydance merger. Now, we should note in the midst of all that, on July 18th, Trump posted, "I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next." The Kimmel kerfuffle happened two months after that.

Now, you can make of the timing what you will, but it is inescapable that the decision by CBS Paramount to cancel Colbert pleased Trump. And the folks who owned CBS Paramount at the time got what they wanted, and they were handsomely compensated for it. Now, Trump never posted on Truth Social. Will no one rid me of this meddlesome comedian? But anyone trying to curry favor with Trump surely knew where key pressure points were.

He had been attacking Colbert years before the show was canceled, and in subsequent posts, he took credit for it. Like the social media post I'm showing you right now. Now, you don't have to like Stephen Colbert or Jimmy Kimmel or anyone on that graphic to find this concerning. Because standards once eroded seldom return. We see that with the gerrymandering wars playing out.

The question, would a Democratic president in the future want to use this precedent? What pressure could be put on Spotify, for instance, when it comes to Joe Rogan? What pressure could be put on "Fox" when it comes to "Fox News Channel"? What happens if a Democratic president one day wonders, will no one rid me of this meddlesome podcaster?

[17:40:14]

T.S. Eliot wrote an acclaimed drama about King Henry II and Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury. It's called "Murder in the Cathedral." The first professional American production of it in 1936, I think, was at the Manhattan Theater at 53rd and Broadway. That theater is now known as the Ed Sullivan Theater. It's where Stephen Colbert's show takes place until next Thursday. That meddlesome comedian has been rid.

So who's next? And how long will corporate America's chieftains sully their reputations to please one man? You can join me in reliving some of Stephen Colbert's greatest moments in CNN's latest Flashdoc "The Last Laugh: Stephen Colbert" it premieres on the CNN app tomorrow then here on CNN Sunday at 8:00 Eastern.

We have some breaking news just coming in from the U.S. Supreme Court about access to the abortion pill mifepristone. We're going to have that story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:45:40]

TAPPER: And we have some breaking news in our Law and Justice Lead. A new order from the United States Supreme Court on the abortion drug, mifepristone. Let's get straight to CNN's Paula Reid. Paula?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So Jake here, the Supreme Court has just ruled that women can continue to access the abortion drug mifepristone through telehealth or virtual appointments and have it mailed to them. Now mifepristone is one of two drugs that are prescribed for abortions through medication. During the COVID era, it was made more easy to get this drug because they changed the regulations that had said you had to get this through in person appointments. They said instead, you can have a virtual a telehealth appointment, have this drug mailed to you.

Now, eventually that rule change was made permanent, and that change has been the subject of a lot of ongoing litigation. It is especially significant because after Roe was overturned, many conservative states banned abortions performed in clinics, which increased the demand for this medication. So it's been a very hot issue around the courts. About two weeks ago, the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mifepristone, again, only one of the two drugs must be prescribed in person.

Drug manufacturers appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that block would create chaos, especially for people who already had their appointments booked. The Supreme Court agreed to put a pause or a stay on that ruling, and here they are extending that pause to allow this to continue to be litigated. Now, this is not the final word. This is not a full Supreme Court ruling on the constitutional validity of this way of prescribing mifepristone. Supreme Court could eventually be asked to take up this issue, but for now they're saying access through telehealth appointments and the mail will continue as this is being litigated. Now there were two dissents, one from Justice Alito, another from Justice Thomas. In Justice Alito's dissent, he argues that this is part of a scheme to try to undermine the Dobbs decision to undermine their overturning of Roe v. Wade. He's saying, "These medical providers and private organizations had developed an operation enabling women in Louisiana and other states that restrict abortions to place an online order for a pill called mifepristone that induces abortion."

So he describes that as, "Perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision." But Jake, this is one of the biggest abortion related questions that has come before the Supreme Court since the fall of Roe. And this will be the status quo as this question continues to be litigated in the lower courts.

TAPPER: All right, Paula Reid, thanks so much.

We have some exclusive CNN reporting in our Law and Justice Lead involving acting Attorney General Todd Blanche just weeks after becoming deputy attorney general last year. The Justice Department's top ethics lawyer told Blanche that he would need to recuse himself from Justice Department matters involving President Trump in his personal capacity. Before joining the Justice Department, of course, Blanche served as Trump's personal defense attorney across multiple criminal cases.

Let's bring in our legal minds to discuss CNN's Evan Perez and Katelyn Polantz, who broke the story. So, Katelyn, tell us about this meeting with Blanche and is he complying?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, he says he's complying at this time. He's saying he's doing what he needs to do to adhere to the Justice Department's ethics policies. But this has really been the ethics question that has hung over Todd Blanche for a long time. How, as Donald Trump's former defense lawyer, do you navigate being in charge of the Justice Department when some of the work of the Justice Department is going to be investigating things that Donald Trump wants reopened from when he was being investigated, what happened with the investigators that had brought cases against him, what happened previously?

In the meeting that Evan and I were able to uncover, what happened there was there was this ethics official who told Blanche point blank last March when he became the deputy attorney general, he had to recuse from any matters where Trump had a personal interest, not just those cases, U.S. v. Trump, where he was charged, but anything that would come down along the line from there.

[17:49:54]

Now, one of the things that we're looking at now is that Blanche is the acting attorney general. And one of the ongoing investigations we know of is a look at a so called possible grand conspiracy that there -- that is being investigated out of Florida and that is looking at a large swath of time, including the investigations into Trump as a personal or private defendant. We have asked the Justice Department if Blanche is specifically recusing from those. They said that to the extent the Justice Department is investigating something related to Trump, that Todd Blanche was previously representing him, then hypothetically, yes, he would recuse.

We also have some reporting with Hannah Rabinowitz that Todd Blanche was not attending meetings about this so called grand conspiracy investigation. But it's still a major question for Todd Blanche, especially at a time when Donald Trump hates when his Attorney General's recuse from anything and also when Blanche wants to deliver for him in a way that the previous Attorney General was unable to.

TAPPER: Yes, I mean, Katelyn just alluded to it. But in 2017, then U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused and Trump drove him up a wall.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right. And so that's the consequence. In the Trump era, the R word is a dirty word, right? Recusal is a dirty word. And so we know that this has been an issue, the fact that he put his Justice Department in the hands of his former lawyers. It's not just Todd Blanche, but also Emil Bove, who's now a judge. He oversaw the big purge of a number of Justice Department lawyers and employees who had investigated President Trump and were involved in the January 6th cases.

And he was told specifically that he should recuse from those things and did not. He's now, of course, a federal judge. So we, what we know, Jake, is that the department, these people signed these ethics orders, right? These pledges, but we're not sure and we can't tell exactly how well they followed them.

TAPPER: So Katelyn, CNN's Kasie Hunt just asked former FBI Director James Comey, who's facing, he's under indictment for threatening the President with a seashell photograph, just asked Comey if he thinks Blanche should be removed from the case. Take a listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COMEY: I don't know. I mean, I never imagined a circumstance where a President would have a criminal defense lawyer who was the acting attorney general. So it seems like it might be new ground they got to look at very carefully.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Given this very high profile case, is there a sense that ethics officials may again with Comey, I mean, is there a sense that ethics officials may again try to deliver this recusal message for to Blanche? Because obviously Trump literally hates, hates James Comey.

POLANTZ: Well, one of the things that our reporting we were able to nail down, and this has been out there for a while, is that the Justice Department has gutted the ethics staff. The people who were the conscience of the Justice Department have been fired. Others in the ethics world, there are a couple different offices that deal with that. They've all been essentially sent away from the Justice Department.

There may be a couple people left, but the conscience just isn't there in the same way. And with Comey, we don't know the extent of this case and his lawyers don't at this time either. It's not going to be until further down the line that they might know if something in the 8647 allegation against Comey involves something from the time when Comey was personally --

PEREZ: We anticipate that this is going to be part of this case when this goes to trial, if it goes to trial.

TAPPER: The Comey case.

PEREZ: With the Comey case later this summer. But also off in the distance is the investigation of John Brennan, the former CIA director, which is also part of this grand conspiracy, Jake. And what we know is that those lawyers have already started looking at that question. They've raised it about the judge that was overseeing the case, that has been overseeing, was overseeing the Trump cases and who they would love to handle any case that comes out of this.

And so the question that they've raised is whether they're, all of those people should be recused because of their role in the previous cases. And so what we, we know is that not only is this a question of whether this does damage to the viability of those cases, but Todd Blanche's law license could be on the line. You know, people are going to make complaints about that, and those questions will be examined. If there is a memo inside the Justice Department that explains how he has handled this, all of that will come to pass. All of that will come to the forefront.

POLANTZ: Yes. And the defense lawyers in the Comey case and other cases in this so called retribution agenda that the Just Department has pursued, they can do things like ask judges to dismiss cases for, say, prosecutory misconduct or do what Comey did in his previous case. And we fully expect him to do again to allege that the Justice Department selectively and vindictively prosecuted him because Trump hates him. So --

TAPPER: Yes. At the very least, they should think about whether or not a recusal is in the best interest of going after their enemies even.

[17:50:00]

PEREZ: There are thousands of Justice Department attorneys that could handle these things.

TAPPER: Yes. As opposed to whether or not they should do it for the right reasons. Still, there's just like, well, if you really want to effectively get vengeance, you need to at least have some pretense of objectivity. Katelyn Polantz and Evan Perez, thanks so much.

In just a few hours, President Trump will meet one more time with Chinese leader Xi Jinping before heading back to the U.S. the potential for business deals on the sidelines of the summit. Could any of these deals involve his son, Eric Trump, who's traveling with the U.S. delegation, although he says he's doing so as a son, not a businessman?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, President Trump getting ready for his final meetings in China tonight after a direct warning from Chinese leader Xi Jinping, drawing a red line on the matter of Taiwan. We're going to get reaction from a Republican closely watching this historic summit.

[17:59:59]

Plus, a major victory for one time Oklahoma death row inmate Richard Glossip. First, he was granted a new trial. Now he's even being granted bail. It's a story we have been covering --