Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Embattled British Pm Tells Cabinet He Will Not Resign; Lawmakers Question Hegseth Over $1.5T Defense Budget Request; Health Officials Say Hantavirus Risk to Public Remains Low; Iran War Looms Over High-stakes Talks Between Trump, Xi; Annual Song Contest Marks 70th Anniversary in Vienna; SAM Altman May Take the Stand in Case Brought by Elon Musk. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired May 12, 2026 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAIN ASHER, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: Right, coming to you, live from New York. I'm Zain Asher. Bianna Golodryga is off today. You are watching "One
World". It is not over yet. That is the message from Britain's embattled prime minister as a growing number of lawmakers call for his resignation.
The Cabinet meeting earlier, Keir Starmer said that no formal challenge to his leadership had actually emerged and that he was getting on with the job
of running the country. Any rival would need at least 81 backers to launch a leadership challenge. Dozens of lawmakers and Starmer's own Labor Party
are revolting following disastrous losses in last week's local elections.
And three ministers have quit the government altogether, one of them imploring the prime minister to set a timetable for his departure. CNN's
Clare Sebastian is in Downing Street where she joins us live now. So, Clare, prior to Keir Starmer becoming prime minister, we covered a lot of
revolts within the Conservative Party, with the 1922 committee and needing to sort of instigate a sort of no confidence vote or letter to get the
prime minister out it.
And we saw that over the course of 14 years, because the conservatives were in power for so long. Talk to us about how it would work with a Labor
leader, Clare.
CLARE SEBASTIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Zain, you make a really good point, and I think that's why many are pretty uneasy about this current
sort of messy situation in which we find ourselves, where the Labor Party is not only divided over whether Keir Starmer should leave, but divided
over who could replace him.
And this is a party that has not had a leadership election while in office before. Unlike, of course, the Conservative Party, this is the exact kind
of chaos that they were elected to end. So, it is a very messy situation. The Labor Party has its own specific rules. Either the prime minister
himself could resign, which perhaps could happen if his cabinet turns on him in a very big way.
Or one specific candidate needs to get the support, the backing of 20 percent of Labor MPs. That translates to 81 at the moment. And while we
have seen 80 plus MPs come out and say that they think Keir Starmer should step down, or at the very least set a timetable to leave. They have not in
that those same numbers rallied around one specific candidate.
So that is a fact, and that is what Keir Starmer said in his statement today, which came out of the cabinet meeting. He said, the Labor Party has
a process for challenging a leader, and that has not been triggered. And he continued, the country expects us to get on with governing.
That is what I am doing and what we must do as a cabinet. But of course, since that speech, we've seen several more junior ministers resign,
including Jess Phillips, who was the minister for safeguarding, who came out with a pretty strong statement where she said, I'm going to read you a
portion of it.
She said, I think you are a good man, fundamentally, to the prime minister who cares about the right things. However, I have seen first-hand how that
is not enough. The desire to not have an argument means we rarely make an argument leaving opportunities for progress stalled and delayed.
This is a criticism that we have seen over and over again from those MPs and ministers who have come out and said that he needs to leave that the
change that he promised has not happened fast enough. But the timing here is pretty extraordinary. We're now less than 24 hours away from the State
Opening of Parliament, the king's speech, where the king reads out this government's legislative priorities for its next phase.
Horrendous timing for the prime minister to be facing this kind of challenge. And I think, look, you can't assume anything at this point, he
is still here. He is still defiant, but we still do have this rebellion, which keeps growing, Zain.
ASHER: Right, Clare Sebastian live for us. Thank you for that. Tim Bale is a Professor of Politics at Queen Mary University of London. He joins us
live now from London. Tim, thank you so much for being with us. So, looking back at sort of the last few decades of British political history.
It is sometimes possible for a prime minister to suffer disastrous local election results and still manage to cling on to power that has happened.
But is it possible for Keir Starmer?
TIM BALE, PROFESSOR OF POLITICS AT QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON: Absolutely, that has happened before. People will remember Margaret
Thatcher, who, although she won election after election at a national level, often quite badly at their local elections. For Keir Starmer,
however, I do think that this is probably irrecoverable.
[11:05:00]
It is a question really, of when not if, there are people in the Labor Party would like to delay a leadership contest before their preferred
candidate can get into parliament. But there are some who think really, it just can't go on like this, then it should slip away from the prime
minister sooner rather than later.
ASHER: The thing about being prime minister in the -- I mean, British politics is ruthless, as you well know. And I think about brick being prime
minister is that, of course, it is easy to be popular when you're leader of the opposition, when you're not in the hot seat, but whoever takes this job
runs the risk of being hated very, very quickly. It is, to a certain extent, a poisoned chalice, wouldn't you say?
BALE: I think that has got worse over the last few years to be honest. I think is the electorate has become more volatile, less loyal to a
particular political party. If things begin to go wrong for the government, they can go wrong very, very quickly. I think it's also the case that
politics has become, if you like, more presidentialized, even in our parliamentary system.
So, the man or woman at the top tends to get the blame, perhaps much more quickly than some of their predecessors did when there was a more
collective sense, if you like, of the government. Now it's extremely personal. We have to remember with Keir Starmer that although he won a big
election victory for Labor in 2024, he was never actually particularly popular as an opposition leader.
The main reason that they run so big in 2024 wasn't any great affection for Keir Starmer. It was more just a sense of disillusionment and despair with
the conservative government.
ASHER: Yeah, and whoever is in power, whichever party is in power, always bears the brunt of that disillusion. Just in terms of the other candidates
that people are talking about right now who could sort of launch some kind of challenge to Keir Starmer's leadership, you've got Wes Streeting.
And I mean British -- as I said, British party is so ruthless that you have Wes Streeting crossing the street and journalists shouting at him. Are you
measuring the curtains Wes? And just in terms of other voices, you know Angela Rayner, Andy Burnham, but that's a for Burnham, it's a bit of a
challenge, because he's a mayor. He's not an MP so how would that work for him?
BALE: Well, how that would work would be if he can persuade someone who currently does have a seat in parliament, a Labor MP to step down and
trigger a by election, Andy Burnham would then have to get himself chosen as the candidate for Labor for that by election, and then he would have to
win it.
So that is quite a tortuous process, and it would take quite a few weeks at best to get that to happen. And at the moment, he requires the permission
of Labor's ruling council, the National Executive Committee, and last time he tried to do that, they turned him down.
So, it is going to be quite difficult, although the mood music around Andy Burnham may be getting a by election chance has changed a little bit, but
that's the reason why perhaps Keir Starmer might survive a little bit longer than people think, because many people who want him out don't want
either Wes Streeting or Angela Rayner to take over.
ASHER: So, could he -- could Keir Starmer basically hold on long enough for all of these miracles to align in Andy Burnham's favor.
BALE: He could, I mean, it's possible. We've had multiple MPs come out and say he should go, but we've also just had a letter from 100 Labor MPs
saying it's not the right time for a contest. He's very clear that he's going to tough it out. He's very clear that if there is a leadership
challenge.
He is going to stand, which, of course, I think may put off some of the challenges, because the worst thing for them will be to try and stand
against Keir Starmer and lose. I think they would rather perhaps Keir Starmer resigned, create a vacancy at which point they would then come in
and ask the Labor leadership, sorry, the membership, to vote for them.
Challenging, I think is a problem, because there is this feeling that if you are the challenger, you have stabbed the prime minister in the back
somehow. And that actually won't go down well with some of your colleagues and some of those ordinary Labor members who, in the end, have the final
say.
ASHER: We have to leave it there, Tim. But if I could just get you in one sentence to say, if you will, just look into your sort of crystal ball, how
long do you think Keir Starmer has left here?
BALE: I mean, I was pretty convinced there would be a stay of execution. But I think with the number of MPs preparing to come out and say he should
go, and there are some ministers now who said that he should go. I think all it will take is a couple of Cabinet ministers to resign and then he's
gone. But look, let's see.
ASHER: Let's see. All right, Professor Tim Bale, thank you so much. Appreciate your perspective. All right, when you ask Congress for record
1.5 trillion dollars for defense, chances are they're probably going to have a few questions right now. Defense Secretary Pete Hegtseth and Joint
Chiefs of Staff and General Dan Caine are defending that giant 2027, defense budget request.
[11:10:00]
They're testifying before Senate lawmakers after appearing at the House earlier today. Brian Todd joins us live now from Washington. So just in
terms of this budget request among Democrats, Democrats aren't even sure that this war is technically legally authorized, nor are they sure that
there's even a clear strategy, let alone having to authorize more money for it.
So, give us a sort of summary in terms of what Democrats are saying here.
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Zain, Democrats are giving Pete Hegseth and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dan Caine, some tough
questions about the cost of the war. How they're breaking down those costs, what direction the war is going, and basically kind of lumping them all in
if you're going to talk about the direction of the war.
Does the direction of the war justify the cost that you're talking about, the $1.5 trillion request that they are making for fiscal year, 2027 where
is that money going? How's it going to be spent? You see Pete Hegseth now in the Senate. They just started Q and A in the Senate.
There they just wrapped up the House hearing a short time ago. One update to this, as far as the cost of the war, I can tell you that Jay Hurst, he
is the comptroller of the Pentagon in the House hearing just a short time ago, he gave an updated figure on what the costs of the war have been for
the United States so far.
He said that cost $29 billion now, about a week and a half ago, he had said that the cost was $25 billion. But CNN has been reporting that, according
to our sources in the Defense Department and elsewhere, an analysis that we picked up that that's a low-ball figure, that the cost really is more like
between 40 and $50 billion rather than 25 or $29 billion.
So, you have that, you have Pete Hegseth also kind of pushing back on the idea that the U.S. has depleted its stockpile of munitions. But also,
Representative Pete Aguilar, a Democrat, pressed Hegseth a short time ago in the House hearing about whether everything that they're saying about
Project Freedom, that short lived operation to try to open the Strait of Hormuz by having U.S. ships escort commercial ships through.
Whether that is kind of a distraction from the administration trying to evade the War Powers Act, where Congress has to authorize an extension of
the war. Here's the exchange between congressman Pete Aguilar and Hegseth on that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): Is the theory to create more ceasefires or more projects just to evade the War Powers Act?
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: The theory of the entire case is to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. And if that has to be done,
kinetically and militarily, the Department of War is locked and loaded and ready to do that, if it happens through Project Freedom, where you move
commerce through if it happens through a negotiated deal.
The president was very clear, even yesterday, this is actually quite simple, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TODD: Pete Hegseth also pushed back on CNN's reporting and the reporting of others that the United States has severely depleted its stockpile of
munitions during the Iran war. CNN reporting that precision strike missiles, THAAD missiles, patriot interceptor missiles, have been depleted.
Hegseth saying that is, quote, full heartedly overstated. Also, Zain, Hegseth stating a short time ago that he is going to accompany President
Trump on his trip to China. President Trump leaves on that trip in just a few hours from now, East Coast time here in the United States, on the way
to China.
ASHER: All right. Brian Todd, thank you. Right, still to come, the number of hantavirus cases tied to a cruise ship rises why health officials say
the risk to the public is still, of course, very, very low. Plus, President Trump set to head to China, as Brian Todd was just saying there and a
couple of hours from now will explain why the Iran war will likely loom large over this week's high stakes meeting with Chinese Leader Xi Jinping.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:15:00]
ASHER: Right, the number of hantavirus cases linked to the MV Hondius is rising. The W.H.O. says that 11 cases have been reported among the
passengers and the crew of the cruise ship which is headed to the Netherlands to be disinfected after all remaining passengers disembarked in
the Canary Islands.
Health officials say they are closely monitoring 18 passengers who have now been flown to the United States. They're emphasizing that this variant of
the hantavirus does not spread easily. Joining us live now is CNN's Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.
So, Sanjay, you know, a lot of people have continued, especially officials, to say that the risk to the public is very, very low. And I want to play
our audience what Admiral Brian Christine actually said yesterday, let's roll, and I'll ask you about it on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADMIRAL BRIAN CHRISTINE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH, HHS: Let me be clear. Let me be crystal clear, the risk of hantavirus to the general
public remains very, very low. The Andes variant of this virus does not spread easily, and it requires prolonged close contact with someone who is
already symptomatic, even so, we have taken this situation very seriously from the very start.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: What does prolong close contact actually means? I'm sure that means different things to different people. Does it mean, you know, sitting next
to somebody in a restaurant for 30 minutes? Does it mean sitting next to on a flight with somebody for nine hours? What does it actually mean?
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, so there's a definition from the World Health Organization. It's basically 15 minutes in
close proximity, you know, 15 minutes within two meters of somebody. So that's basically how they define it.
But I think, you know, the point you're raising, I think, is an important one, because if you look at the real-world studies of the Andes virus from
previous outbreaks, for example, it does sort of raise this question of what exactly does the virus do in the real world?
There was this super spreader event that took place in Argentina, Zain. This is back in 2018 and basically, it's a guy who walks into a birthday
party and he's there for 90 minutes. He's sick when he comes in. And he's number one there in the middle of the screen there on this diagram.
This is an actual diagram from the party. During that 90-minute time period he infects five people. Now you can see four of the people all in red
there. They're within a few feet of him, so that kind of tracks, but there is someone who's sort of across the room, certainly more than two meters
away, that he only has sort of contact at all with when one is leaving the restroom and one is going to the restroom.
So definitely not 15 minutes, just a quick sort of pass by there. And I think, you know this sort of raises the question, I think, you know, look,
I think the risk of this becoming something bigger is still very low. But how we define contacts, how we constitute what is a close contact, I think
is something that needs to be analyzed, probably more carefully.
ASHER: Yeah. I mean, he the admiral, did say also that, look, this virus does not spread easily, even the Andes strain, which is obviously known for
human-to-human transmission, just in terms of, you know, once a person has tested positive, once they definitely have been infected with the
hantavirus, what determines how well they do?
I mean, I assume it's obvious things like your age or immune system that determines, you know, whether you end up thriving or obviously go the other
way. But give us your thoughts --
GUPTA: This is a really important question. And look, you know, when you look at things like flu, you can say, hey, look, the very young and the
very old are people who are most likely to get sick from this. You know, there are certain viruses that, because of the way that they impact your
immune system can have a profound reaction to the virus.
So, in that case, people who with more robust immune systems, they may actually be at greater risk.
[11:20:00]
And we saw that sometimes even with COVID, you know, people who were not necessarily have some sort of underlying illness, they could suddenly
become ill. Certainly, people who are older, people with preexisting conditions, they're always going to be the most at risk.
But I think there's always this question of, why does an otherwise young and healthy person start to get very sick from this. Keep in mind, Zain, we
don't have a lot of data on this. There's been only thousands of cases around the world, only hundreds of cases that were actually human to human
transmission.
So, I think we're still learning. And I think also keep in mind that there's not a lot of testing that's going on. You know, not everyone on the
ship, for example, is even being tested. So, are there people who are carrying the virus and who simply never got sick or got really minimal
symptoms?
We don't even know that. So, you know, there's a lot of data that still needs to be collected here to answer some of these questions.
ASHER: All right. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, always good to see you. Thank you so much.
GUPTA: Thank you, Zain. Thank you.
ASHER: All right, President Trump is giving mixed signals as talks between Washington and Tehran remain at an impasse. In an interview earlier with
WABC, he said that Iran is 100 percent going to stop uranium enrichment this one day after Trump described the ceasefire as being on, quote,
massive life support.
Meantime on X, Iran's Parliament Speaker says their armed forces are, quote, prepared to deliver a lesson giving response to any aggression.
Let's discuss all of this with Alayna Treene live for us from Washington. So, President Trump essentially intimating that aggression at this point is
off the table.
And based on what Iran said, I mean, the rhetoric here is moving in the wrong direction, especially when Trump yesterday said that the ceasefire is
on life support. Sometimes, as you well know, Alayna, the president makes these kinds of comments as a negotiation tactic. Does he mean it? Or does
he not? I think is the question.
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, look, it was funny, actually, just to your point, Zain, you heard him yesterday reporters
asking what his plan was, and he said he always has a plan. Of course, he has a plan before, in another breath, saying that he needs to always be
flexible and that plans change.
So that just adds, I think, a little bit to the murky assessments that we keep hearing around Iran overall. But I will tell you what I'm hearing in
my conversations with Trump Administration officials, which is one I think you could also see this kind of play out yesterday in his remarks.
The president is very frustrated. He has grown increasingly frustrated, especially in recent days, with how the Iranians have been handling these
negotiations, and him and others in the White House are now even more concerned about whether or not Iran is ready to take this seriously.
I mean, there's been a growing impatience the president, you know, one of the key people, feeling this impatience with the Strait of Hormuz and the
closure that remains in that key waterway, and also over the divisions that he believes is preventing Iran from coming to the table in a meaningful
way.
And the divisions, I mean, in Iranian leadership at what he called yesterday as being between moderates and lunatics. Now I will say as well
that from the conversations, I've had with Trump officials, they tell me, because of all of this, that the president is now more seriously
considering resuming major combat operations with Iran than he has been in recent weeks.
Now, again, we always have to add a level of skepticism to this, because we know the president has wavered before, but one of the key things I think,
that I've been sharing with you almost on a daily basis has been that he wants diplomacy. He does not want to resume all-out war.
Well, it is starting to get to the point we're told where kind of push is coming to shove, and he may be leaning toward more military action if he
believes that nothing is going to change on the Iranian side from a diplomatic standpoint. So, there's a lot to watch, but all to say, I am
told no big decisions are made before he leaves for China. That comes though now in just a couple hours.
ASHER: All right, Eleni, Alayna, not Eleni, Alayna Treene, I apologize.
TREENE: All right.
ASHER: I can't speak today. Thank you so much. President Trump, as Alayna was just saying, Alayna was just saying head to Beijing in the next few
hours for those very high stakes talks with Xi Jinping, Chinese Leader. The war with Iran is one of many likely talking points they've also expected to
discuss U.S. tariffs and also tensions over Taiwan.
The White House says more than a dozen business leaders will be joining the president in Beijing. This includes Apple CEO Tim Cook and Tesla CEO Elon
Musk as well. Let's bring in Mike Valerio, live for us from Beijing. So, Mike, just in terms of who has, there's been so much discussion about this,
who has the upper hand going into this?
I think that the dynamics have really changed since last year, when it was all about tariffs between the U.S. and China. And Donald Trump was bold
enough to try to launch triple digit tariffs against Beijing.
[11:25:00]
And now that this very different dynamic and is emerging because of the Iran war, and how much control China does have over Iran as their biggest
oil customer. Just walk us through how the dynamics are different this time.
MIKE VALERIO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And I mean the big question, the big X factor, is going to be, what if any help the United States asks
China to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz because, of course, as you alluded to, President Trump walks into these discussions greatly weakened.
He has the February Supreme Court decision that throughout his emergency tariffs levied towards China. And now he has this hugely unpopular war back
at home, the economic damage that has been wrought around the world and without a clear off ramp, and now asking China, over the course of now a
few weeks, what if anything they can do to help mitigate the damage that has been done by the Strait of Hormuz closed.
So again, the biggest X factor, now that these two leaders of the two superpowers are coming face to face Thursday into Friday. You know, Zain,
analysts who we talk to say, if this avenue of conversation gains traction. China undoubtedly will say, perhaps, OK, we're going to do X, Y, Z, to help
the Strait of Hormuz crisis.
What will you, the United States do in return for us. They're not just going to do this without anything offered in return for them. So, you know,
on that front, we talked to myriad Beijingers all throughout the afternoon. What they think of this summit being held here. And I'll tell you, Zain to
a person, none of them want China getting involved in this Iran war. So, let's listen to a couple thoughts, in addition to some sentiments about
President Trump, and we'll talk about them on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a neutral party, I don't think China should interfere too much in those kinds of issues (Strait of Hormuz).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: China's diplomatic principle has always been non- interference. So, it won't do anything. It only calls for something, not take concrete actions or specific measures.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't have a good impression of (President Trump) at all. The U.S.-Iran conflict was stirred up by him too. Look at the trade
and economic war before, wasn't that him too?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VALERIO: So that last gentleman who spoke, his business was personally affected by the chip controls that the United States has put into place
since the second Trump Administration. We'll bit more about him in the next hour when we're with you in terms of what both sides want.
Let's put up the graphic as we wrap up here with you. The U.S.A. wants help with Iran. We have been through that rare earth minerals. It wants
guarantees that the spigot will not be closed, beef, beans and Boeings, perhaps more trade deal announcements on those three subjects.
China wants a different policy or changes in U.S. policy when it comes to Taiwan, access to those advanced AI chips and lower tariffs, Zain, some of
those tariffs, of course, still in effect since the first Trump Administration.
ASHER: Right. Mike Valerio, thank you appreciate it. Right, coming up, a CNN exclusive with all the trappings of a Hollywood thriller, a Russian
ship sinks under mysterious circumstances. Was it carrying nuclear technology to North Korea? We'll lay out the clues next.
Plus, the 70th annual Eurovision kicks off in Vienna. Lot of controversy, though, surrounding this year's song competition. We'll talk about it just
ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
ASHER: Welcome back to "One World". I'm Zain Asher from New York. Here are some of the headlines we are watching for you today. British Prime Minister
Keir Starmer is fighting for his political survival amid a growing rebellion within his own Labor party. But during Cabinet meeting earlier
summer, said that he has no plans to resign and in effect challenged any lawmaker to try to topple him.
In a recent interview with WABC, President Trump claims Iran is 100 percent going to stop Iranian enrichment, and that he has been directly engaged
with Iranian officials during peace talks. Meantime, some aides say that Trump is now seriously considering a resumption of major combat operations
in Iran.
Soon, President Trump leaves Washington for a summit in Beijing on Thursday, he said to hold high stakes talks with Chinese Leader Xi Jinping.
The trip comes amid the U.S. war in Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz. World Health Organization says there are now 11 reported
cases of the hantavirus among the passengers and crew members of the cruise ship MV Hondius.
Officials say the health risks to the public is still very low. The ship is now headed to the Netherlands with no passengers on board to be
disinfected. All right, now to a CNN Exclusive, a CNN investigation finds that a Russian cargo ship likely carrying two submarine nuclear reactors
possibly destined for North Korea sank in unexplained circumstances off the coast of Spain.
The big question is, was that ship trying to bring upgraded nuclear technology to Pyongyang? Here's what Nick Paton Walsh has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): A mystery in the Mediterranean. The possible torpedoing of a Russian ship to stop the Kremlin handing submarine nuclear reactors to North Korea
begins in a quiet Spanish port.
WALSH: This really is the craziest of stories about a Russian shadow fleet ship that sank off the coast here, in the strangest of circumstances, whose
Russian Captain confessed to investigators here that it was carrying two nuclear reactors, possibly for a submarine headed for an unknown
destination, the wreckage of all of which the Russian military spent a huge amount of time and effort destroying.
WALSH (voice-over): The incident is shrouded in silence, but concerns the most serious of issues, weapons proliferation, between two nuclear powers
and force being used to stop it. The Ursa Major shift loaded up near St. Petersburg in early December 2024 on paper, bound for Vladivostok with a
cargo of two huge cranes and over 100 empty containers.
It made another stop loading two large manhole covers. You can see them in blue here, along with two white pill shaped objects which will later prove
important, it set sail a shadow fleet ship used by Russia in Syria. The Portuguese Navy followed it from above. You can see the blue covers here
until just before it ran into trouble in Spanish waters.
WALSH: It was way further out to sea when the Ursa Major on the 22nd of December 2024 suddenly slowed. And Spanish rescuers noticed this, and they
radioed to ask if anything was wrong.
[11:35:00]
The ship insisted it was fine and could deal with the situation.
WALSH (voice-over): But about 24 hours later, it made a sharp deviation and issued an urgent call for help. The boat was listing this video shows
filmed from a nearby tanker, but probably not going to sink too fast. The captain of the ship later told investigators he'd seen a 50 centimeter by
50-centimeter hole in the hull, the damaged metal facing inwards.
A source close to the investigation said the captain said it had been followed by three explosions on the starboard side of the boat, killing two
of his crew.
WALSH: So, the Russian military arrive in force, and they tell everyone to stay two nautical miles away from their ship, the Ursa Major. But the
Spanish know they need to conduct rescue operations, so they send this ship to pick up 14 Russian survivors who were brought back here, and that
includes the Russian Captain, who, it seems, starts to help investigators piece together some of what's happened.
But it's hours later that day that the mood changes over the Ursa Major ship and the Russian military fire flares over it, and then a series of
explosions follow, which Spanish seismic sensors picked up and they send the ship to the seabed floor.
WALSH (voice-over): Moscow demanded their crew back too fast, but it didn't happen immediately.
WALSH: Spanish rescuers brought the 14 Russian surviving crew to this hotel, and it's here where the Russian captain started telling
investigators key information. Now there's been this silence from the Spanish government about this incident, but they recently released this
statement, confirming that the Russian Captain confessed here to investigators his ship was carrying two nuclear reactors.
Probably meant for submarine use, and he also said he simply wasn't sure if those reactors had fuel in them.
WALSH (voice-over): There's no evidence of any contamination. The captain also told investigators he thought he would not stop first at Vladivostok,
but instead be told to divert to the North Korean port of Rason, according to the investigation source, that could explain why the extra cranes were
needed to help lift the reactor safely.
Russia was in North Korea's debt at that time, Kim Jong Un had, two months earlier, sent troops to help Russia's invasion of Ukraine, leaving analysts
curious as to what the Kremlin had given him in return. In December 2025, North Korea would claim to have built this, their first nuclear powered
submarine.
The Spanish investigation surmised a likely reactor would be this, the VM- 4SG shown in a Russian submarine here on state TV. Its dimensions are not public, but CNN analysis shows reactor vessels match the shape of at least
one of the white objects seen in St. Petersburg's container port on December the 4th, both gone by December the 11th when the ship had left.
MIKE PLUNKETT, SENIOR NAVAL PLATFORMS ANALYST, JANES: If these reactors have come out of de commission submarines, then they will be radioactive,
although obviously not as much as if they were fully loaded with fuel.
WALSH: How incredibly rare is this kind of transfer of technology? This is quite serious stuff, right?
PLUNKETT: It's not something that's undertaken likely, and it's only something that's ever done between very close allies.
WALSH: So, it's a major move by Moscow to do this.
PLUNKETT: Absolutely, very, very --
WALSH: Troubling?
PLUNKETT: Potentially, yes, particularly if you're South Korea.
WALSH: Everything may have been on the bottom of the sea, but the Russians weren't done yet, and according to a source familiar with the
investigation, about a week after the incident, a Russian research vessel called the Yantar linked in the past to all sorts of allegations against
Moscow sat over the wreckage for about five days, and four more explosions followed.
Possibly the Russians destroying what was left of the wreckage.
WALSH (voice-over): In the months after, the U.S. may have shown interest in the site twice, sending a rare WC 135R Constant Phoenix, usually
secretly sniffing out traces of nuclear activity in Russia's Arctic or over Iran, over the path of the Ursa Major weaving low at 5000 feet.
One had flown a similar route 13 months earlier, perhaps suggesting its routine. The aircraft's U.S. base declined to provide any details. Spanish
lawmakers have urgently sought answers, but got few.
JUAN ANTONIO ROJAS MANRIQUE, SPANISH OPPOSITION POLITICIAN: When someone doesn't clearly and fully provide the information that you request, you at
least suspect that they are hiding something, of course. We have been told that the black box sank with the vessel and is at a depth of 2,500m and
that due to the high risk, the operation to recover it is impossible.
I think someone has the black box, but we don't know whether it's Spain, or the Russians themselves, who have located it.
WALSH (voice-over): So why did the ship sink? The Spanish investigation said the first impact was likely from a projectile called a super
cavitating torpedo.
[11:40:00]
The -- in front of itself to reach very high speed. Others point to something simpler.
WALSH: The hole in the hole that the captain talked about half a meter by half a meter.
PLUNKETT: Yeah.
WALSH: What could make something like that?
PLUNKETT: From the description I've seen the description you've given that hole to me, sounds like a limpet mine. It sounds like a shaped charge
explosive that was placed against the hole by somebody or something and detonated.
WALSH (voice-over): The Russian owners immediately called the sinking a targeted terrorist attack. They, the Russian, Spanish and British
militaries did not reply to a request for comment, and the Pentagon declined to. There are a few Western militaries operating there capable of
noticing tracking and stopping a cargo like this all sides.
It seems happy for this secret to stay on the sea floor. Nick Paton Walsh, CNN, Cartagena, Spain.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: Dubbed the Olympics of music, Eurovision kicks off today in Vienna. Representatives from 35 countries will be participating in this year's song
competition. The annual contest is marking its 70th anniversary under the shadow of some controversy.
Israel's participation in the contest has marked major protests across Europe. Five countries are boycotting the event in protest of the war in
Gaza. Joining me live now from Vienna is William Lee Adams. He's the author of "Wild Dances: My Queer and Curious Journey to Eurovision".
William, thank you so much for being with us. I mean, this is not the first time that people have sort of been up in arms about Israel's participation
in this particular competition. However, the fact that now you have five. Five countries saying that they are not participating, including Iceland,
Ireland, a number of countries that usually do participate, that is quite a problem for the organizers.
Just give us your take on the fact that tensions have risen this high this time.
WILLIAM LEE ADAMS, AUTHOR OF "WILD DANCES: MY QUEER AND CURIOUS JOURNEY TO EUROVISION": Indeed, you know the theme, the slogan of Eurovision, is
united by music, but the world is more divided than ever, and because Eurovision is a microcosm of Europe and the world, those tensions do bleed
into the contest.
The withdrawal of those five countries that you mentioned there, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, Slovenia and Iceland.
[11:45:00]
These are long standing members of the Eurovision family. They're stalwarts, and they're also financial contributors. Having them leave the
contest, it doesn't exactly bolster the image of Eurovision. However, at the same time, we have smaller countries returning to the competition this
year, Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria.
So, five are out, three are back in. So, it's a loss of two. But of course, organizers of Eurovision would prefer if everyone just stayed consistently
and there was no in and no out.
ASHER: I'm sure they would. You know, this is not the first time there's been sort of political controversies that have overshadowed the
competition. I mean, obviously it's very difficult to sort of separate politics from the Eurovision Song Contest back in 2022. I'm sure a lot of
the Eurovision fans that are watching, remember that Russia was actually expelled because of the fact that they had just invaded Ukraine.
And then that was the year that Ukraine actually won. And so, it is virtually impossible, it seems to me. And I'm sure the organizers have
found this to really separate the competition and make it truly about a celebration of music and spectacle and culture, and separate it from
politics.
ADAMS: You're absolutely right. And I think this is the inherent nature of art. Art is born of the times. So, artists take influences from what's
happening in the news from what they read, what they listen to, the case with Ukraine in 2022 is really interesting, because that song was actually
chosen well before Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
It was called Stefania, and the singer was singing about his mother and how she nurtured him and took care of him. But then a few weeks later, Russia
did invade Ukraine, full scale invasion, and the song took on a whole new meaning. People said, this is about Mother Ukraine protecting its people on
stage, on the LED you had two cheery eyes, and the floor had arms that seemed to -- the singers to protect them.
And it took on a political meeting, but that's not what it was intended to initially, when he wrote it.
ASHER: And just in terms of, I mean, the sort of the Israeli singer at the heart of all this is Noam Bettan, who is singing a song Michelle. I wonder
what it must be like for such a young singer. I understand he's 28 years old. Such a young singer having to, this applies to, by the way, to all the
Eurovision Song Contest singers, because you are carrying the hopes and the dreams of your entire country on your shoulders.
But for the Israeli singer, you are also the symbol of a lot of people's hostility because of your government's choices, which, of course, by the
way, have absolutely nothing to do with you individually. So, I mean, what is he feeling right now?
ADAMS: I really pick up on the word symbol that you use there, because at Eurovision, you don't vote for Jessica or Paul. You vote for the flag the
nation, Spain, Italy, Moldova. So, you're right, the singer does become this big symbol, and that carries so much weight.
I think the pressure that all the contestants feel will be more intense for the Israeli singer, in the past two editions of Eurovision, the first two
to take place since the war in Gaza, you've seen or heard, rather, the audience booing. There have been boos in the arena. I remember distinctly
being at the Eurovision final in 2024 in Malmo, Sweden.
And when the Israeli contestant performed, security guards, officers came out from every single entrance in the arena, and the crowd was jeering. Now
at the same time, other audience members were cheering. And so, you had this back and forth of overt support and really overt disdain.
People wanted to make a message. So, to walk into that fire on what may be the biggest night of your life, that's huge. That's huge. There's so much
pressure there. I think one thing that may work in Noam's favor the Israeli contestant, is that his song cannot be interpreted as political.
The past two entries have, to many people carried a political undertone. In fact, in 2024, the EBU asked Israel to rewrite the lyrics to its song,
which was initially called October rain. People took that as a direct reference to the October 7th attacks. It was later renamed hurricane.
So, the song about perseverance became a bit more generic. You know, it wasn't about overcoming a national tragedy. The song hurricane could be
about a bad relationship, even it could be about, you know, difficult relations with your family. But Noam, his song, Michelle, this is about,
you know, romance, tortured romance, about a toxic relationship.
He stands inside a big ring, you know, it's got glass and mirrors, and it's very hard to interpret that in any political way. It seems like he's
singing of heartache and romance. So that may go a long way in dampening the crowds potentially negative reaction.
ASHER: Yeah, because they can't be political. And I was up last night listening to -- I listened to the Swedish entry Felicia "My System", and
also "Arcade" by Duncan Lawrence, just quickly before we go, who are you most excited about if you're allowed to say?
[11:50:00]
ADAMS: Oh, there's so much joy this year. But Finland is one I have to cite. This is a duo Pete Parkkonen and Linda Lampenius. She's a 50
something, world famous violinist. He is a rather attractive, muscle bound 30 something. And it's about his desire to be with her, but her sort of
rebuffing him.
It's called a flamethrower. And she says, yes, I'm really warm to people, but then they get too close, and I turn to ice, he will be chasing her on
the stage. She'll be stringing those strings. And there is fire, not just literal fire, which there is, but also the passion between two people. And
then I've got a shout out to Greece.
ASHER: Yeah.
ADAMS: Greece is like living a video game. It's not a 1980s eight-bit sound. The character, the singer, wears kitty cat ears, and he is on the
prowl, working the runway. It changes every 15 seconds, like it's a social media story.
ASHER: Right.
ADAMS: It grabs your attention. I think you're going to want to watch out for that one.
ASHER: Yeah, it is beautiful and ridiculous, the Eurovision, that's why we love it, but has launched a lot of careers, including ABBA and Celine Dion.
So, it is weighty as well. Right, William Lee Adams, thank you so much. We will be right back with more after the short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: Right, court just resumed in the clash of the Tech Titans, the case brought by Elon Musk accuses OpenAI Chief Sam Altman of abandoning the
firm's nonprofit roots to become a for-profit company. Altman is in the courthouse, and there's word that he may take the stand today.
Musk says Altman persuaded him to invest $38 million in OpenAI, partially because of its nonprofit goals. But then Musk says the company switch to,
for-profit when it got popular. CNN's AI Correspondent, Hadas Gold joins us live now from outside federal court in Oakland, California.
As I mentioned, there's some belief that it is possible that we may actually hear from Sam Altman today. if he does take the stand, how do we
expect him to defend himself, essentially?
HADAS GOLD, CNN AI CORRESPONDENT: So, we do actually have confirmation that Sam Altman will take the stand today after this current witness. The
current witness is the is the head of the OpenAI foundation. Sam Altman is in the courthouse behind me. He's in the room right now waiting for his
turn to take the stand.
You know, his name has been invoked hundreds of times so far in this now in the third week of this trial, but the jury and the judge have not heard him
speak in his own words, and that will change today when he does take the stand.
[11:55:00]
Just to recap what's going on in this trial so Musk, Elon Musk helped co found and fund OpenAI, more than 10 years ago, with some $38 million to
help what was then a non-profit to get started. He left in 2018 OpenAI says, after a fight with the board. But then he has these allegations that
OpenAI and its leaders breached the charitable trust, deceived him, unjustly enriched themselves when they transitioned from a non-profit to
its current for-profit structure.
They are still run by a non-profit foundation, but they have a for-profit structure now. They're one of the most valuable companies in the world.
What Elon Musk is seeking in this trial could completely change the AI landscape. He wants OpenAI to revert back to a complete non-profit.
He wants Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, and OpenAI's President Greg Brockman, to lose their boards on -- to lose their position on the board.
And he wants more than $130 billion to go back into the OpenAI non-profit. Now OpenAI has said, in their defense, that Musk always wanted a for-profit
structure of some kind.
They're saying he only brought the case because he failed to gain control of OpenAI, when they initially started talking about creating a for-profit
structure, they say he wanted to control he couldn't get it and he left OpenAI 2018. And they say that he's just trying to bring down a competitor
because he has his own company xAI.
So, Sam Altman he takes the stand, we do expect that Elon Musk side is going to try and paint him as somebody who regularly deceives people.
They're going to point to that brief few days in 2023 when Sam Altman was pushed out as CEO by the board because they said that he was potentially
deceiving people.
But Sam Altman is going to make his case that OpenAI is still dedicated to its mission, and that Elon Musk is just an angry competitor, Zain.
ASHER: Right. And I've just been told that Sam Altman has now been called to the stand, obviously defending himself in these accusations from Elon
Musk that the company started off as non-profit, but then they quickly abandoned those goals once it became a bit more popular.
Just Hadas Gold, keep an eye on what Sam Altman says. Hopefully we'll hear from you throughout the day.
GOLD: Yeah.
ASHER: All right, stay with CNN, and I'll have much more "One World" after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
