Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Interview with Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL): DOJ Indicts Former Cuban President Raul Castro; New Settlement Term Bars IRS Probes into Trumps for Past Tax Issues; NAACP Urges Black Athletes to Boycott Schools Over Voting Rights. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired May 20, 2026 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Back now to the breaking news, the Department of Justice filing criminal charges against former Cuban President Raul Castro. He's being indicted on conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, destruction of an aircraft, and four counts of murder. It stems from Cuba's 1996 attack on civilian planes with humanitarian group Brothers to the Rescue, an attack that killed four people, including three American citizens.

One of the key questions now is will the U.S. try to forcibly remove Castro like they did with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro? President Trump was asked about what happens next with the island a short time ago and said this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Should we expect any escalation here? Or should they expect anything? Yes.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No. No, you won't. There won't be escalation. I don't think there needs to be. Look, the place is falling apart. It's a mess.

And they've sort of lost control. They've really lost control of Cuba.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Joining us now from Capitol Hill, the only current serving member of Congress who was born on the island, Congressman Carlos Gimenez of Florida. Congressman, thank you so much for sharing part of your afternoon with us. Obviously, a historic one with this indictment, three decades in the making, something that you have long advocated for.

If this evidence is strong, why did this not come sooner, even during the first Trump administration?

REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL): It's a great question, and I think that we got some answers today. Mario Diaz-Balart, one of my colleagues, has really good historical, you know, data on this and said that he has information that it was actually suppressed. First off by the Clinton administration. And so, the people were ready to do the indictment way back then. And then they said, no, we're not going to do it.

And so, look, and I understand that the first Trump administration, they didn't, but I also felt that, you know, most people thought, hey, it already, you know, had so much time that it really was never going to happen. But with the new emphasis of President Trump on the Western Hemisphere, you know, as for, for Florida, for Cuban American legislators here signed a letter back on February 13th, asking them to look it over again.

And that if justice is to be served, then Raul Castro needed to be indicted because without a doubt, he did murder those four individuals, three American citizens, one American resident, flying a private plane over international waters, doing humanitarian mission of trying to save people that were in the ocean, trying to flee the Island. That's all they were doing. And Raul Castro, we know we have them on tape and other occasions has admitted to being the one that ordered the shoot down.

So that's a clear, clear, you know, charge of murder is clearly indicated for it. I'm very happy that they did it. I'm not, you know, better late than never.

SANCHEZ: I asked you this question about a month ago and, and I'll ask you today because I wonder if your answer has changed.

[15:35:00]

Do you want the 94, almost 95 year old to be forcibly removed to the United States the way that Maduro was in Venezuela.

GIMENEZ: I think that Raul Castro needs to face justice. There was another question asked for me now that, you know, if Raul decides that he wants to leave and the family and the regime decides that they want to leave, would I be OK with that? You know, for the good of the United States, for the good of the Cuban people, I guess I would be OK with that.

But I'd rather see Raul and his henchmen, you know, face justice. The unbelievable amount of suffering that they've imposed on the Cuban people, not only the four, you know, individuals that were murdered on that day in 1996, but we don't know how many hundreds, if not thousands of people died trying to cross the Florida Straits in whatever they could. The hundreds, if not thousands of people that Raul Castro has had murdered for political dissent, the thousands of political prisoners that he has in his prisons, those are all crimes that Raul Castro should be accounted for and be accountable for. The fact that he's 94-years-old, you know, yes, great, he's 94 years old, but he still should be accountable to everything he's done and everything he's done to the Cuban people.

SANCHEZ: Sure. So when you say he should face justice, you think that the U.S. should go on Cuban territory and bring him to the United States to be in a courtroom?

GIMENEZ: I think that, you know, that's up to the president of the United States. He has this option now available to him. President Trump has always shown that he's a man of action.

I believe that this regime is really at the weakest it's been in its history. The people, people of Cuba are in the streets every single night protesting, and I can see the regime weakening and weakening by the day. It may not be necessary, but again, this certainly gives the president of the United States the legal basis to go and to remove him.

Will he do that? Only the president knows. And so I have confidence that he'll do the right thing.

SANCHEZ: Yes. As you heard him say a moment ago, as he was boarding Air Force One, no, there won't be an escalation in Cuba. The place is falling apart. They've lost control. They've really lost control.

If there is no U.S. action that remakes the regime and the regime has made clear they're not going anywhere. Diaz-Canel, the president says that he's ready to give his life, that there would have to be a blood bath effectively for there to be change. If they're dug in and they're not going to relinquish power and the U.S. according to President Trump is not going to escalate militarily, then where is all of this pressure heading?

GIMENEZ: Pressure's heading that there's internal pressure and that every day, like I just said, every day the demonstrations are mounting more and more. Their hold, their grip on power is loosening every single day. Why?

Because they just don't have the funds. They can't -- they don't have the funds to keep the lights on. They don't have funds for food, medicine, et cetera. The basic necessities of the Cuban people.

The Cuban people I think are starting to rise and said they've had enough. Now again, the president says that right now there are no plans to do, you know, to do a Maduro style of operation in Cuba because he doesn't feel that something is necessary. But again, the president now has at his disposal the ability to do so because he has a wanted criminal sitting in, in Cuba and that criminal could face American justice just like Maduro did.

Now, Maduro said there was going to be a bloodbath too if we ever went into Venezuela. Unfortunately the only people that paid, no -- fortunately the only people that paid the price were the Cubans that were surrounding Nicolas Maduro. And so again, everybody talks with a lot of bravado and yes, you know, we're here and we're going to stay, stick it out.

But he had some of the finest Cuban, you know, security, agents surrounding him and it didn't stop the United States from filling out that warrant for a Maduro's arrest. So I'm not saying that's what's happening, going to happen to Raul, but again, it is an option that the president has.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Carlos Gimenez, we have to leave the conversation there. Thank you so much for being with us.

GIMENEZ: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still to come, new terms in President Trump's settlement with the IRS. The agency will be barred from investigating him, his family or their businesses for past tax issues. We're going to discuss with a former IRS commissioner.

[15:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Moment ago, President Trump addressed backlash over new settlement terms that bar the IRS from bringing claims against himself, his family or businesses for past tax issues. Trump is now saying he may release his own tax returns, which is something he has previously declined to do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I was suing IRS for a lot of different reasons. One of the reasons is they released my tax returns, which you're not allowed to do now. They showed I pay a lot of tax.

I may even release my current returns because they show I pay a lot of money. I released them from the lawsuit and I guess they made a settlement of some kind. I wasn't involved in the settlement.

I could have been involved, but I didn't choose to be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: The settlement between Trump and the IRS was announced on Monday. A day later, additional terms were added, directly benefiting Trump and his family substantially. We're joined now by former IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel.

Danny, thank you so much for being with us. Have you ever seen any sort of agreement like this before?

[15:45:00]

DANNY WERFEL, FORMER IRS COMMISSIONER: I haven't. And that's part of why we need to ask a lot of questions. I mean, when Trump and the president filed this suit, there was actually a really serious problem with respect to the release of his tax returns. That is, the unauthorized release of his tax returns is a serious matter. But the law provides a remedy for that.

First of all, the person that was responsible for the illegal release, they're in prison. And second, there are other remedies that you sue for that the law provides. For example, you can sue for $1,000 in total damages for the release, not $10 billion, and certainly not immunity from audit.

KEILAR: Is that sufficient, $1,000, do you think? WERFEL: Well, look, it is absolutely important that your taxpayer information is protected. And the way the law is set up, it's set up to amplify accountability for the violator. So the person that did it is currently serving a five-year prison sentence.

Whether you want to increase the amount of damages, that's really up to Congress. That's in the law. But right now, what we have is because this lawsuit is no longer in front of a court, there is no mechanism or venue to evaluate the legitimacy of the settlement.

KEILAR: The broad shielding of the president, his family members, trusts, companies, and other affiliates, that's a huge list, right? From any IRS investigation of past tax years. What kind of tax issues could the IRS look at involving those entities in past tax years? What might they want to look into?

WERFEL: It really starts with a very simple proposition. Have you paid the balance that is due? The goal of the IRS is that taxpayers should pay what is owed and not a penny more.

And any time they're looking at someone's taxes, they're trying to assess, is there a gap between what was owed and what was paid? And unfortunately, we have a complex tax system. Some people intentionally shield their income, and you have to really go in and look for it and find it.

Sometimes they're just sloppy or reckless or bend the rules. When you're up for audit, you get questions to determine. And often, a gap is found, and you pay the difference and the fine.

Audits also come with stress and administrative costs. You may have to hire an accountant, a lawyer. So this benefit of no audit in my future for the returns that I filed, there's a lot of benefit there.

And what I'm challenged by is that I've never seen this before. I'm really trying to find a single precedent for it. So this means that if there is no precedent, the first taxpayer that ever received this benefit is the president.

And our country is founded on the principle that everyone should be treated the same under our tax laws. In fact, if you go all the way back to the founding of our nation, the Sons of Liberty, who threw that tea into the Boston Harbor, what they were protesting was an unfair tax break to the East India Tea Company. That's how far back it goes that we want a nation where everyone is getting the same treatment.

So you have all these plaintiffs, who their tax records should not have been released. In fact, the release itself, and this is something that doesn't get reported a lot, that infraction happened when the president was in charge. So in this lawsuit, you have the president suing his own government for an infraction that happened on his watch.

He mused publicly that it's odd, I think I'm going to have to settle this with myself. The court said, this is odd. Can you show me legal cause as to why this lawsuit is legitimate and any settlement would be legitimate?

And rather than have the court review it, they withdrew the case and then created a settlement with two pieces that are, both of which are unprecedented. And so now since there's no --

KEILAR: The fund, the fund that some Democrats are calling a slush fund, some Republicans are too. And then this sort of indemnifying him from them looking at his taxes. The acting AG Todd Blanche, he personally signed this new addendum, the part that protects the president and all these entities affiliated with him, family members, et cetera, from past tax issues being investigated.

He's formerly the president's personal lawyer. What questions does that raise for you?

WERFEL: There are so many important questions coming out of this arrangement. The biggest one is, should it be before a court? Because what happens is when you withdraw the lawsuit and now it's no longer before a court and you settle, who is answering the questions that you just asked?

For example, I raised the question of fair treatment. So I would say that whether you are Joe the plumber or the president, you should get the same treatment from the IRS. Here we have the president getting a particular type of treatment that no other plaintiff along a long line of plaintiffs have gotten.

I would like a judge to weigh in on this and whether it's fair. The president getting a particular type of treatment that no other plaintiff along a long line of plaintiffs have gotten. I would like a judge to weigh in on this and whether it's fair.

But the case isn't before a court. I can raise other questions. For example, with respect to the fund.

The fund is to pay third parties, not the plaintiff, in this case. So another good example would be, let's say a lobbyist, let's say a tobacco lobbyist trips and falls in a federal building and they sue. They are entitled, if the government is found negligent, to medical benefits and maybe lost wages.

But what if they were, as part of the settlement, got a multi-billion dollar fund to advance the interests of the tobacco industry as part of the settlement? That would make no sense, right? And here's what it comes back to.

I'm not an expert on all these matters, but what I do know is that there are judicial experts and lawyers that should have a process to determine whether the settlement coming out of this lawsuit is legal or not. And one of the big questions should be, can a plaintiff and a government get together and shield them from audit? There's a lot of interesting legal questions there, including a law that was enacted after Watergate that says that the White House can't intervene on the audit outcome, whether to audit or not to audit, of an individual.

KEILAR: Danny Werfel, former IRS commissioner, great to speak with you about this. Thank you so much.

WERFEL: Thank you.

KEILAR: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: A growing political divide is now seeping into collegiate sports. The NAACP is calling on student athletes and sports fans to boycott public university athletic programs in states that it believes are restricting black voting rights.

KEILAR: They're targeting eight Southern states in the storied and lucrative SEC. The NAACP is president saying what these states have done is not a policy disagreement. It is a sprint to erase black political power.

The NAACP will not watch the same institutions that depend on black athletic prowess to fill their stadiums and their bank accounts remain silent while their states strip black communities of their voice.

Let's talk about this now with sports journalist Bomani Jones, who is the host of The Right Time with Bomani Jones podcast. Bomani, do you think that black athletes will participate in this boycott?

BOMANI JONES, HOST, THE RIGHT TIME WITH BOMANI JONES PODCAST: I think to answer that question, you have to put a time horizon on it. Do I think that this will have a fast short term effect? Probably not.

Do I think that if there's a plan in place to kind of establish some community around this and to understand that this is probably a long range project, the Voting Rights Act didn't die in one year? You're not going to bring it back in one year. It's going to take some time.

But if this is planned as a long project, perhaps it could have a chance. But I think it would take a while before it truly takes effect.

SANCHEZ: There's no doubt this has presented a dilemma for some of these athletes, right? Because SEC schools, they make hundreds of millions of dollars and they pay top athletes extremely well, especially with NIL now. So this could be a sacrifice for some of these folks that are looking to not only help themselves, but their families as well.

JONES: Well, I mean, that's how boycotts work is the only way that they truly are effective or truly powerful is if people are making a sacrifice. Otherwise, you're probably not going to get anything done. So yes, you could say that there would be a measure of sacrifice that takes place in doing this, but for anything that it's going to take in order to get some of these rights back, there's going to be a measure of sacrifice.

The question that I have about it is, is this an organization asking other people to do their work? This has to be part of something much larger. So if this is the only problem and that's highly unlikely, then it would be somewhat problematic. But how this ties into a larger plan right now is what I'm more curious about.

KEILAR: Yes, definitely. And when you think of past boycotts, like the bus boycott, that worked, right? That worked eventually over time, and they were able to use that leverage, African-Americans. I wonder in this case, if you think it would work, if you think that if athletes and fans boycott these programs, if it actually gives them political leverage, if in these states, football really is more sacred than political power.

JONES: Now, I am a little skeptical of that part. I feel like the sort of simple-minded thinking that makes a campaign think that calling their vice president coach is going to make them more endearing to a certain segment of people, is making the assumption that if you do substitute a football, all of a sudden, they're bowed out. I'm not sold that that's going to work or be as effective in that way. That's the part where I'm a little bit skeptical.

However, I do think, and I have some questions about whether or not you can do this as broadly as eight states at one time, but I would be kind of curious to see what would happen if it just, hey, you know what? Call it Georgia, for example. We think Georgia's out of pocket. Don't go to Georgia, don't go to Georgia Tech. Would something like that, in terms of the scope, be a little bit more effective because it would be a little less unwieldy? I think something like that is possible. But again, this is a 10, 15-year project if it's really going to work. So we can talk about it now, but if this is going to happen, people are going to need to be ready to buckle down for a long time to make it bear fuel.

SANCHEZ: Bomani Jones, thank you so much for joining us and sharing your perspective. Obviously, a story we'll keep an eye on.

JONES: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Of course. A big afternoon, the Raul Castro indictment, the advisory from the Surgeon General telling people to stay off of social media, not people, young kids. I hope your kids will take that advice.

KEILAR: I think they're going to. I'm going to go straight home and tell them, Guys, it's not just me. I'm not just the buzzkill.

[16:00:00]

There's a Surgeon General advisory. Do you think it will work?

SANCHEZ: Surgeon General sounds like an intense role, especially to a kid.

KEILAR: Yes, they're going to believe it.

"THE ARENA" with Kasie Hunt on starts right now.

END