Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

New Cases Of Hantavirus Reported Overnight Linked To Cruise Ship Outbreak; Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) On President Trump's Upcoming Visit To China For High-Stakes Summit; Texas Man Accused Of Killing Pregnant Wife Fights Extradition. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired May 12, 2026 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:31:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Just moments ago the World Health Organization confirmed two new hantavirus cases tied to the cruise ship outbreak. This brings the total number to 11. Now, 18 passengers who were on the ship are back in the United States and will be monitored for weeks.

Among the Americans in quarantine is Jake Rosmarin who posted this photo from inside his room at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. He says he OK and feeling well, and there is no indication that he is positive at this time.

Two other Americans are being quarantined at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta.

With us now is our friend, Dr. Carlos del Rio. He is the chair of the Department of Medicine at Emory University's Medical School. He is also the co-director of the Emory Center for AIDS Research. Dr. del Rio, it has been a long time. It's great to see you again.

This news from the WHO -- two new positive cases. So two new cases of hantavirus from the cruise ship

How surprising is that and what does it tell you about the course of this virus?

DR. CARLOS DEL RIO, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE CHAIR AND PROFESSOR, EMORY UNIVERSITY (via Webex by Cisco): Good morning, John. A pleasure being with you.

I think it's not surprising. I think we're going to see additional cases here and there. I don't think this is going to be -- it's going to spread, you know, like a pandemic or anything like that. But it's clear that we're going to see additional cases -- one or two here and there.

We don't totally understand the transmission of this virus, but we do know from prior outbreaks that what we call the reproductive number -- the number of infections after one case -- is around one or a little bit over one. So in other words, you know, yes, you will see additional transmissions but it's not going to spread.

Just to give you an example, measles has a reproductive number of 16. So every infected person that's 16 additional infections.

So will we see additional cases, yes. I'm not surprised it's going to happen but I'm not worried that this is going to spread beyond a few additional cases.

BERMAN: Yeah, it's largely people who appear to have been on the cruise ship.

If and when it moves beyond that cruise ship -- if it goes to medical workers or people -- and there have been a few cases here and there of people who were in planes and whatnot with people on the cruise ship. But if it starts to spread beyond the cruise ship how much of a concern would that be?

DEL RIO: Again, we have experience from other places. In Argentina and Chile they see a good number of cases every year. Between the two countries they probably see 80 to 100 cases per year. And they don't have outbreaks beyond, you know, small clusters in populations.

Simply, this virus doesn't spread that well. It's not that easy to spread it so the infection dies by itself. And the control measures are pretty limited -- pretty standard. It's basically isolation. It's basically social distancing. Most importantly washing your hands and wearing a mask. So we know exactly how to contain it.

Once there was a big outbreak in 2018-2019 in Argentina -- in Argentina that was what we call a super-spreader event. And when they implemented simple, you know, practices like masking and social distancing, and handwashing, the outbreak basically died.

BERMAN: So you have two people in quarantine at Emory. Just broadly speaking, talk to us about the procedures in place for these two patients.

DEL RIO: Well, you know, as you may remember, at Emory University we have a biocontainment unit which specializes in treatment of individuals with high transmissible diseases. Our team is highly trained. They practice this every year. It's a little bit like the fire department. They're ready to go when this is necessary.

This unit has been in existence since 2002. And it -- you may remember that in 2014 this unit cared for four patients with Ebola disease.

It's a fantastic unit. They know what they're doing, and I have total confidence in their professionalism, their experience, and the patients are going to do fine under their care.

BERMAN: All right, Dr. Carlos del Rio. As I said, always great to see you. Thank you for explaining things so clearly for us -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Thank you so much, John.

Hours from now President Trump will head to China for a high-stakes summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The war in Iran is set to be the focal point of the talks coming at a critical moment.

[07:35:00]

President Trump said just yesterday that resuming military action in Iran is on the table as the already fragile ceasefire is "on massive life-support" according to the president.

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Greg Stanton from Arizona. He serves on the House Foreign Affairs committee.

Look, we just -- you know, we're hearing from --

REP. GREG STANTON (D-AZ): Good morning.

SIDNER: -- the president -- good morning to you. We're hearing from the president that there is a possibility that he starts another bombing campaign against Iran.

If he doesn't come to Congress, what will you do?

STANTON: Well, we're going to keep demanding he comes to Congress because it is legally required. First off, this is a war of choice, so he needed to come to Congress before he even began the military campaign in Iran. But now, certainly under the War Powers Act, the 60- day period is long gone.

So at some point he's going to have to come to Congress and ask for additional financial support for this effort, and that will be the real opportunity for Congress to flex its -- flex its muscles.

But the -- but the truth is, you know, he hasn't really explained what we're trying to do. If he's trying to eliminate the nuclear program in Iran, we have to get the enriched uranium out of the country and that can only be accomplished one of two ways, by having American boots on the ground, which would be completely unacceptable to the American people, risking another forever war, or he's going to have to get back to the negotiating table, which is what should have been done a long time ago.

We had a nuclear agreement in place with Iran under the Obama administration. President Trump took us out of it and now he's paying a heavy price for that horrific, terrible choice in his first administration to get out of the Iran nuclear deal.

SIDNER: Americans are also paying a price for this war in terms of gas prices and prices of goods. The president has proposed or called for potentially having federal taxes that are put on gas removed.

Do you think that's a good idea? Would you support that?

STANTON: Well, if it came to Congress I would likely vote in favor of that, but why do we even have to make this choice?

Everything that has happened in Iran after the president decided to engage in military action -- all of it has been foreseeable. Iranian launching missiles to its nearby neighbors in the Gulf region. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz creating a chokepoint for oil leaving this -- leaving that region -- creating much more power for Iran. All of this was foreseeable.

And the president didn't listen to the intelligence community. He decided to act unilaterally even without Congress, and what a terrible mistake that was.

SIDNER: I want to get your take on something that's sort of on the business front. The president heading to China to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Bloomberg is reporting that the two are considering a deal to allow China to build factories on American soil and invest something like a trillion dollars in America.

Is this a good idea do you think?

STANTON: Well, potentially any time China wants to invest in the United States there has to be a security check to make sure that it doesn't harm U.S. national security. So we have to be very careful about it.

But the question I have is at what price? China is not going to agree to an economic deal investment in the United States without some sort of tradeoff. What I'm very concerned about is what is that tradeoff?

And I'm specifically concerned about what that means for the future of Taiwan. As we know, Xi desperately wants to get an agreement from the United States that we would not respond if they took any action, military or otherwise, against Taiwan. We could never agree to that. We have a military sales pending to Taiwan so that they can engage in their own self-defense and that can never be a deal point.

And as I sit here right now, I'm very concerned not about what investment China might make in the United States but what agreement this president may make. What would we give up in order to receive that investment?

SIDNER: I want to talk to you about some new polling. CNN polling shows 70 percent of respondents disapprove of President Trump's handling of the economy now. And yet, when it comes to voters looking at Congress, they're not showing a huge lean towards Democrats. The polls showing 45 to 42 percent. Democrats edging out Republicans by about three percent.

Should that worry Democrats?

STANTON: No. We're going to win this election and we're going to win it because we are putting forward strong policies to make life more affordable.

This president has made life completely unaffordable for the American people. The tariffs that he slapped on countries across the world has raised prices. The horrific decision-making in Iran, which has raised gas prices now almost $5.00 an hour (sic). And the health care costs are crushing the American people. We wanted

to keep in place tax credits with the Affordable Care Act to keep prices for health care down. This president led the way on eliminating any support to keep health care prices down.

[07:40:00]

So on issue after issue the policies this president has have increased prices on the American people. Democrats are going to be fighting for just the opposite and there's going to be a clear distinction in this election and Democrats are going to be successful. We are going to win the majority in the House of Representatives.

SIDNER: Congressman Greg Stanton, thank you for getting up early for us this morning. I do appreciate it -- Kate.

STANTON: Thank you so much. Happy to do it.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: The war with Iran is testing American foreign policy for sure. It is also testing press freedom in a new way in the United States. Officials tell CNN President Trump is now personally pushed the Justice Department to issue subpoenas for reporters covering the war in an effort to flush out their sources.

CNN reporting that the president printed out a stack of articles on Iran, put a sticky note on top with the "treason" written in Sharpie, and handed it to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche during a White House meeting. DOJ then issued several subpoenas, including to The Wall Street Journal, which first revealed and had first reported these investigations.

CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter joins us now and he's got much more on this. And Brian, what are you learning about this?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yeah, this is certainly another escalation by the Trump administration using a tool that used to be abnormal and normalizing it in a pursuit both of leakers and potentially also of the journalists who are obtaining those leaks.

Our colleagues Hannah Rabinowitz and Kaitlan Collins reporting that when Todd Blanche received that Post-It note with the word "treason" on it, the Justice Department then did issue several subpoenas.

And we don't have a full picture of the full extent of this behavior by the government and that's partly what is so notable and so concerning here.

The Wall Street Journal has confirmed that it received some of these subpoenas and it is fighting against those, trying to stop the government from obtaining its information from reporters, like phone records, text message records, and things like that.

Here's what the Journal said in a statement overnight. "The government's subpoenas to our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering. We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting." Now I'm told by a source that other newsrooms have also received these subpoenas in recent weeks and recent months, but some of those newsrooms have decided not to go public for the time being while they privately try to fight this behind the scenes.

We all remember back in January, a Washington Post reporter's home was raided in connection to a different leak investigation before the war with Iran started. The Washington Post has been really aggressively trying to fight that case and get that reporter's phones and computers back from the government.

So in this case it's a little bit like an iceberg. We see a little bit of what's above the water, but we don't know how much is going on beneath the surface in terms of how many of these leak investigations are going on. How many reporters or how many leakers are being targeted.

And I should note a source told Collins that the investigation is aimed at identifying government employees who leaked, not aimed at the reporters themselves. But I've talked to reporters who have been targeted like this in the past. It's very hard to tell the difference when the government is coming for your phone records trying to figure out who you talked to.

And I mentioned how abnormal this is. In past administrations this was considered an extraordinary step for the government to take. In the Obama years, in the Bush years, in the Biden years there were a lot of rules and guidelines internally to avoid this kind of use of subpoenas to obtain reporter records.

In this case, though, it seems President Trump himself wants this to be done and he's treating it as a very normal course of business to try to figure out who a reporter is talking to, especially when it comes to sensitive information about the war.

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

Brian, thanks so much. It's great to see you. I really appreciate it -- John.

BERMAN: All right. Very shortly refunds from revenue collected from President Trump's most sweeping tariffs are set to start going out -- the refunds are. The Supreme Court declared the bulk of the tariffs illegal. Those refunds will go mostly to businesses and importers, not directly to consumers.

But just last week a group of customers filed a lawsuit against Nike arguing the company should not be allowed to keep the refunds when higher costs were passed on to consumers.

CNN's David Goldman is with us now. So during the tariffs, at their height, we were all told we were paying for all this.

DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Yeah.

BERMAN: How come we don't get the money back? GOLDMAN: Right, exactly. I mean, I totally understand why people are upset about this. On average, the American household paid about $1,000 last year in added taxes because of tariffs. All of that amounted to $166 billion that now needs to get clawed back because the Supreme Court said that they're illegal.

So you would think -- well, that's my money. Give it to me. Well, there's a few problems with that.

BERMAN: That's exactly what -- that's right -- OK.

GOLDMAN: So you're going to get your check. I want my check too. I totally get this. But the problem is that -- well, who paid the tariff and how much was passed on to the consumer? JPMorgan says only 80 percent were -- well, 80 percent were held onto by businesses and only 20 percent were passed on to consumers, so it gets a little complicated.

[07:45:00]

Also, as you noted, the importer paid the tariff, not the retailer. And so the retailer needs to go after the importer to get their money back before it gives their money that they paid back to you. And figuring all of that out is a complete mess.

BERMAN: What about the payments going out? Is it guaranteed though that the payments will go out from the government coffers to the businesses and importers?

GOLDMAN: No. There's a really convoluted system for getting that money back. So you have to basically ask the Customs and Border Patrol for that money back through a form. But so many companies have sued already to get their money back in anticipation that they might not. Costco, FedEx, all these companies that were charged tariffs. They're the ones that want to get that money back through the legal system.

And so I can understand if you're a customer of Nike, you're saying I'm going to sue Nike to try to get my money back because Nike imported a lot of money and they said that it was a lot of -- they paid a lot of money in tariffs when they were importing. They said that they were charged $1 billion in tariffs. But, you know, getting your $5.00 to $10.00 back in the added amount that you paid for your sneakers or apparel, I don't think that that's going to happen anytime soon.

BERMAN: Where's the money? Is it like in a shoebox in the Department of Treasury or, you know, a high-interest money market account? Where is the money literally sitting?

GOLDMAN: It's in an account in the Treasury and it's supposed to be, you know, brought back out into those kind of refunds over the course of time. But it's not that they can't find the money; it's that they don't necessarily know who they owe the money to, and that's the big trick.

BERMAN: Very interesting to watch the path of this money and how much of it does get back out to the people who paid it.

David Goldman, you did a great job of explaining that. Thank you very much -- Sara.

SIDNER: One thing we know, David, is that John wants his cut. That's what we know --

BERMAN: I won't get anything.

SIDNER: -- for sure.

GOLDMAN: That's right.

SIDNER: Who doesn't?

GOLDMAN: We'll get it to you -- don't worry.

SIDNER: Thank you, gentlemen.

All right. This morning new video showing a suspected gunman exchanging fire with police after shooting at multiple cars along a busy Massachusetts road.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(Man firing multiple gunshots)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: What in God's name?

It happened Monday near Harvard University. Police say they received reports of a man "acting erratically and carrying a rifle." Investigators say the suspect, later identified as Tyler Brown, damaged at least a dozen vehicles.

A witness described those chaotic moments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LISA SCHILL, WITNESSED SHOOTING: We saw the guy walking down the street and raising, like, the gun, and he was shooting and shooting. And my driver got out. I tried to crawl underneath the seats and then I saw that he was getting closer and closer, and I could see him coming. So I crawled out of the van.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: It's amazing more people weren't hurt or worse. Police said two people were injured in this, including the driver of a public transit bus and a man driving a car down that road.

Brown was eventually shot by a state trooper and retired Marine who was licensed to carry. This morning he faces charges, including armed assault with intent to murder. All right. Just ahead, in just hours a new twist in the Tiger Woods DUI case. Should his prescription drug records be handed over to the state? The battle over that with his attorneys.

And two guys caught on camera trying to light up a weed shop in the worst possible way and setting themselves on fire.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:52:23]

BOLDUAN: Today attorneys for Tiger Woods are due in court. The focus of the fight right now, his prescription drug records. Prosecutors want access to them following his DUI arrest back in March. His legal team is fighting this. They're arguing that the records are not only private but also irrelevant to the case. Handing them over, they say, would then violate his constitutional right to privacy.

Woods, you'll recall, has pleaded not guilty to driving under the influence.

Let me play for you some of the policy bodycam footage from that day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TIGER WOODS, ARRESTED FOR DUI: I looked down at my phone and all of a sudden, boom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: The police report from that day -- from that arrest says deputies found two pain pills in his pocket and that Woods showed signs if impairment.

Joining me right now is CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson for more on this. So they are pushing for -- prosecutors are pushing for access to these records. Why?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: So Kate, good morning to you.

What prosecutors are arguing is that it's relevant to the actual charges. How? In a normal DWI case you have alcohol involved. But there are instances like here, right -- he blew a 00 for alcohol -- where there may be other substances that are impairing your ability to drive.

Prosecutors have to prove that case. What they're arguing is that there's a connection between the medication he was taking and the alleged impairment that he was exhibiting at the time of the arrest. They're further arguing that these records will shore up that issue.

And as a result of that, prosecutors made a request in a subpoena for records from January to March that would establish what the dosages of the medication were, what the duration of this medication was, and if, in fact, there were any warning signs on it. You know how there's warning signs.

BOLDUAN: Um-hum.

JACKSON: Don't operate heavy machinery.

BOLDUAN: Um-hum.

JACKSON: Don't drive. And so they're doing that.

But, of course, the defense says not so fast.

BOLDUAN: Yeah. They say that not only is it private, they also think it's irrelevant to the charge.

What's the threshold here that -- in how this judge is going to decide one way or the other?

JACKSON: Sure. So remember that when you approach these medical records you approach them from a position of privacy.

Now, in Florida, in particular, they're really strict about whether you get access to the medical records. How? The access in terms of the Constitution that says it's even protected in the Constitution as well as the statute that says you don't get it. You don't get to see my medical records unless I consent.

However -- always a however -- the state has to show a compelling need for them. And courts have ruled that if you're investing or prosecuting criminal activity that's a compelling need.

So where' the balance here?

BOLDUAN: Yeah.

[07:55:00]

JACKSON: The balance here is between do you really need all of these records to establish your case? My view is, based upon cases that said that you can get access to medical records to show that there's a connection between criminal activity, I think January, the argument is it's a fishing expedition.

BOLDUAN: Oh.

JACKSON: I think the judge might say I'm going to give you narrowly tailored records closer to the time where this occurred to determine whether or not that medication could have inhibited his ability to drive. And so that's what the hearing is going to be all about. The defense saying constitutional violation, violation of privacy, not relevant to the issue.

And by the way, judge, there's other evidence you can use. He gave an admission that he was looking at his phone. He failed sobriety tests, you know, at the scene in terms of these field tests --

BOLDUAN: Yeah. JACKSON: -- that they said that he wasn't. And I think there's arguments -- look, he was just in an accident, et cetera.

But I think the argument will be there's enough evidence for the state to prove their case in the absence of these records. And if you release them, judge, do it under seal so that the public doesn't get to see it. It's Tiger Woods. They'll be everywhere. So you've got to protect the person's privacy.

BOLDUAN: Very interesting.

All right, Joey. Let's see what happens. It's great to see you. Thank you.

JACKSON: Thanks, Kate.

BOLDUAN: John.

BERMAN: All right. Quite an episode in Michigan, south of Detroit. So a car rammed into a cannabis store. Two people got out and tried to set the store on fire but in the process, they managed to set themselves on fire. As you can see there, they kind of poured gas everywhere. Oh, now you see the car backing up again.

Take my word for it -- they poured gas around. They tried to set the store on fire, but they lit themselves. There it is! There it is! The guy running off with his feet on fire.

Officials say the car, which had been stolen, was still lodged inside the store when they arrived on the scene.

Now, despite the incident, the shop says it is still open. They joked online that they don't offer drive-thru.

In Florida, a police dog helped track down a missing 96-year-old man.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good boy! Good boy, Boomer! Good boy, Boomer!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: What do the kids say? OK, Boomer.

The sheriff's office said the man was reported missing. Multiple special units took part in the search, including Boomer the dog. Boomer did find the man in a wooded area near the home. He was returned home safely, Sara.

SIDNER: Good boy. All right. Thank you so much. That wasn't to you, John. That was for Boomer.

All right. This morning -- now to something more serious. This morning a Texas man accused of killing his pregnant wife is fighting extradition from Italy. Authorities say Lee Gilley cut off his ankle monitor and fled the U.S. weeks before his trial was supposed to begin. Gilley appeared in an Italian court Monday where he claimed he's innocent and asked for asylum, claiming he fears he will not get a fair trial and maybe even the death penalty in the United States.

Gilley is charged with capital murder for allegedly strangling his wife Christa who was pregnant at the time.

CNN's Jean Casarez is joining me because she's following all the details of this story. My goodness.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN REPORTER: There's so much to this.

So let's start at the most recent. Beginning of May, Houston, Texas -- he cuts off his GPS monitor. Gets himself from Houston, Texas into Canada with a forged Belgium passport and other documents that are completely fake. Canada doesn't catch it. So he gets on, according to the legal documents, and Air Canada flight and makes his way to Italy.

He gets to Italy. Immigration -- they catch it. They catch the forged passport and he confesses. And he said I have been charged with murder in Texas of my wife. I don't know if he included the unborn child because this is double murder. He said but I am completely innocent. I didn't do it at all. I have no faith in the American justice system anymore and I'm very concerned about the death penalty, and I am seeking asylum because of the death penalty in Texas.

Here's one problem. This is the docket right here of the entire case. They're not seeking death in Texas. On capital murder you can seek death or if convicted --

SIDNER: Life in prison.

CASAREZ: -- life in prison without any possibility of parole.

And the trial is set to begin in two weeks. And this is something that is set far ahead because the defense has to prepare a penalty phase.

So now here is the issue. He's in Italy claiming asylum but death is not on the table. But there's more, all right?

SIDNER: There's always more with you, Jean Casarez.

CASAREZ: There's always more. This is capital murder, the top charge in Texas, right?

SIDNER: Yeah.

CASAREZ: The judge gave him bail of a million dollars back in 2024. His family paid it. He made bail. He had that ankle monitor. He lived in his home. He was free to really do whatever he wanted to do whenever he wanted to do it, except for the curfew 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. He couldn't go to a few places.

But last October he asked the court if he could drive in his own car to South Carolina to visit his parents for Thanksgiving. According to the docket and the court, the judge said no. But then in March of this year he said he wanted to drive again to South Carolina because his mother had just been diagnosed with cancer.