Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Trump Meets With National Security Team Amid Questions Over Strikes On Alleged Drug Boats; Interview With Rep. Seth Moulton (D- MA); Hegseth Facing Growing Pressure With Boat Strikes Under Scrutiny; White House: Jared Kushner To Join Special Envoy Steve Witkoff In Moscow; WH: Trump's Medical Imaging Was Cardiovascular & Abdominal Systems; Trump: "Whole World Is Watching" Tennessee Special Election. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired December 01, 2025 - 20:00   ET

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

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: It's incredible, a miracle no one was hurt. The driver hospitalized in serious but stable condition. The owner now trying to rebuild. We reached out to the shop owner today and the answering machine message said, "As you may have heard, we had a major accident, a car crashed into our coffee shop. We are in the process of cleanup and restoration, please be patient, we look forward to seeing you and serving you."

Thanks for joining us, AC360 starts now.

[20:00:30]

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Tonight on 360, breaking news, the president holds an Oval Office meeting on Venezuela as questions grow over strikes on this alleged drug trafficking boat with experts and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle raising the specter of a potential war crime.

Also tonight, Jared Kushner, private citizen and the President's son- in-law, on his way to Moscow, along with Steve Witkoff to try to negotiate an end of the war in Ukraine with President Putin. Hours before their planned meeting, new video appears, the Russian President, dressed in military fatigues to visit Russian troops and perhaps send a message to the West.

And later, a day after, the President said that for the MRI he had in October, he didn't know which part of his body was being examined, The White House today finally releases some details.

Good evening, thanks for joining us.

We begin tonight with breaking news on an Oval Office meeting between President Trump and key members of his National Security team, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, chairman of the joint of staff General Dan Caine and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The focus, Venezuela, as the Trump administration intensifies its pressure campaign against the country. Controversy is swirling over the very first U.S. strike on alleged Venezuelan drug trafficker. Now, some Democrats, military scholars and at least one Republican are calling it a potential war crime. This is the video of the strike that was released by the administration at the time. On September 2nd, President Trump posted on social media with a message that read in part, "On my orders, U.S. military forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren De Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.

TDA is a designated foreign terrorist organization operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro. Now, what's not seen in the video and what The White House has now confirmed, is that there was a second strike on the same boat. According to "The Washington Post," initially there were 11 people on board that boat. After the smoke cleared from the first hit, military commanders discovered two survivors clinging to the burning wreckage.

The detail that made "The Post's" report is so stunning is about Pete Hegseth alleged role in all this. When the mission was initially greenlit. I'm quoting "The Post" now. "Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation, the order was to kill everybody, one of them said."

When survivors were discovered. Quoting "The Post" again, "The special operations commander overseeing the September 2nd attack ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth's instructions. Two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.

The reaction on Capitol Hill by some on both sides of the aisle has been outrage, and calls for investigations. This is House Republican Don Bacon and an Independent Senator Angus King.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): If it was as if the article said that is a violation of the law of war, when people want to surrender, you don't kill them.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): If the facts are, as has been alleged, that there was a second strike specifically to kill the survivors in the war in the water, that's a stone cold war crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: President Trump was asked about that reporting last night on Air Force One.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: If there were a second strike that killed wounded people wounded in the first strike, are you thinking that would be legal?

DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Number one, I don't know that that happened. And Pete said he did not want them. He didn't even know what people were talking about. So, we'll look at -- we'll look into it. But no, I wouldn't have wanted that, not a second strike. The first strike was very lethal. It was fine. and if there were two people around. But Pete said that didn't happen.

REPORTER: Does that make you --

TRUMP: I have great confidence.

REPORTER: Are saying that there's no second strike?

TRUMP: I don't know. I'm going to find out about it. But Pete said he did not order the death of those two men.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: So that was last night. By this afternoon, with questions continuing to be raised, the White House denied that Secretary Hegseth had ordered to leave no survivors, and they seem to be trying to shift the focus off Hegseth and on to the Special Operations Commander.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: On September 2nd, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority, and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated.

REPORTER: To clarify, Admiral Bradley was the one who gave that order for a second strike.

LEAVITT: And he was well within his authority to do so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Admiral Bradley is Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, a former Air Force lawyer and Professor Emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, Michael Schmidt called this killing of survivors clearly unlawful according to the A.P.

Now this is just one of many U.S. airstrikes against alleged drug traffickers and boats in the region. The U.S. military has also amassed more than a dozen warships and 15,000 troops in the Caribbean, as part of what the Pentagon has branded Operation Southern Spear.

In announcing the operation in mid-November, Defense Secretary Hegseth wrote the mission, "removes narcoterrorist from our hemisphere and secures our homeland from the drugs that are killing out people."

[20:05:26]

Now, the other development which is interesting from the administration allegedly so concerned about the flow of drugs into the United States is President Trump's surprise pardon, announced on Friday for this man, former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez.

Now, he was convicted just last year of drug trafficking charges in a New York federal court and sentenced to 45 years in prison. At trial, it was revealed he once accepted a one million dollar bribe from El Chapo to allow cocaine to flow through Honduras. Prosecutors said that Hernandez was part of a scheme that led to more than 500 tons of cocaine coming to the United States.

The President was asked about his pardon last night on Air Force One.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: You've made so clear how you want to keep drugs out of the U.S.

TRUMP: Yes.

REPORTER: Can you explain more about why you would pardon a notorious drug trafficker?

TRUMP: Well, I don't know who you're talking about. Which one?

REPORTER: Juan Orlando Hernandez.

TRUMP: Well, I was told I was asked by Honduras. Many of the people of Honduras, they said it was a Biden setup. I don't mean Biden. Look, Biden didn't know he was alive, but it was the people that surround the resolute desk, surround Biden when he was there, which was about very little time.

And the people of Honduras really thought he was set up. And it was a terrible thing. He was the President of the country, and they basically said he was a drug dealer because he was the President of the country. And they said it was a Biden administration set up and I looked at the facts and I agreed with them.

REPORTER: What evidence can you share that he was set up and that he wasn't --

TRUMP: Well, you take a look. I mean, they could say that you take any country you want. If somebody sells drugs in that country, that doesn't mean you arrest the President and put him in jail for the rest of his life.

REPORTER: Mr. President --

TRUMP: And that includes this country, okay, to be honest, I mean, if somebody does something wrong, do you put the President of the country in jail?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Interesting, using the power of the Presidential pardon for a man who, according to a witness at his trial, once said, "We're going to stuff the drugs up to Gringo's noses and they're never even going to know it".

We begin tonight with our chief White House correspondent, Kaitlan Collins, who anchors "The Source" of the top of the next hour. What do you know about tonight's meeting between the President and his top National Security officials? KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: We know what happened, Anderson, inside the Oval Office. It was a lot of the top National Security officials around the President, who have been actively involved when it comes to the strikes, to their goals and what ultimately their agenda is with Venezuela.

And so, really, the question is, as they have been ramping up pressure and they've got a ton of military firepower in the region, what options the President decides to pursue here?

I know one thing he has been wary of that we've been told is, is when it comes to direct U.S. military action, something that he has alluded to is certainly possible. And over the weekend, he said that Venezuelan airspace should be considered to be closed, obviously, as they've been going over what these options could look like. But what we don't know right now is whether or not they've made any decisions.

I mean, very clearly, they want Maduro out of power. They've accused him of funneling all these drugs to the United States. The question is, what means they are going to potentially to try to use to make that happen. And if they ultimately are successful, what that looks like after that?

And so, there are still a lot of questions about this, Anderson, but it also comes as they are facing intense scrutiny over this strike and what exactly happened and how this went down. Because today's press briefing, Anderson, was the first time that we got official confirmation on the record from the administration that, yes, a second strike had happened after "The Washington Post" had reported it, because initially you saw Hegseth kind of defending these strikes in vague terms over the weekend. But we saw his spokesperson saying that the narrative put out by "The Washington Post" was false and then obviously heard from the President last night.

I think given them pointing to Admiral Bradley, as you pointed there, what's notable is something that the secretary is saying tonight, Anderson, he put out this tweet saying he wants to make one thing crystal clear, saying that Admiral Bradley has his complete and total support. But I think the most important sentence in this tweet is Hegseth says, I stand by him and the combat decisions that he has made on the September 2nd mission and all other sense.

So, certainly putting the onus on him while defending him, but essentially arguing that it was his call after "The Washington Post" report had put this on Hegseth, essentially saying that he was the one who ordered the directive and that the admiral was simply following up on that directive.

COOPER: Yes, Kaitlan, thanks very much. We'll see you at the top of the hour.

Joining me right now is Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton. He sits on the House Armed Services Committee and is a Marine Corps veteran.

Congressman, I wonder what you make of what the White House is saying, because to what Kaitlan just pointed out, I mean, they are saying what Admiral Bradley did, there was nothing wrong with it, but they're making it very clear they're putting the focus on Admiral Bradley, not on the reporting by "The Washington Post" that Pete Hegseth is the one who said essentially killed them all.

[20:10:12]

REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): It was very clear is they're throwing the Admiral under the bus. That's exactly what's going on. This administration has no respect for our uniformed services. We've known that from the very beginning and that's exactly what they're showing right now.

COOPER: Admiral Bradley, I mean, do you have confidence in him? I mean, I've heard from people who know him that he is a straight shooter and, you know, by the book.

MOULTON: I don't honestly know. I just don't know him well enough to say, Anderson.

COOPER: As a combat veteran, can you explain for people why members of the military are not supposed to further attack targets who have already been wounded or disarmed in an airstrike?

MOULTON: It's just part of the fundamental law of war. And part of the reason is that we don't want that happening to our own troops. You know, imagine if they start conducting operations with all these Marines off of the coast of Venezuela right now. Venezuela has a lot of missiles that they could shoot at our ships. We don't want a landing craft getting hit. And then Venezuela feeling like they can just go ahead and shoot survivors.

In fact, in World War II, the allies tried several German U-boat officers for doing exactly that, for killing survivors in the water and they were executed by the British because it's a war crime.

COOPER: Do you believe Secretary Hegseth and the administration, when they say that Secretary Hegseth did not say, as the "The Washington Post" said, you know, kill them. And they weren't necessarily saying this was done on a second order knowing about the two survivors, that this was stated, according to "The Post," in the beginning of the operation.

MOULTON: I mean, Anderson, honestly, I don't know. That's why it's so important that we conduct an investigation which both Democrats and Republicans are calling for in Congress to find out exactly what's happened.

But I do know this, Secretary Hegseth never takes accountability for his own actions. Remember, this is the secretary who disclosed highly classified information that put the lives of our pilots at risk over Yemen, something that would get any private under his command thrown in prison and he has yet to take accountability for that gross violation of the law.

COOPER: You've stated that you said, "it may take some time, but Americans will be prosecuted for this either as a war crime or outright murder." Which Americans are you referring to and who would prosecute them, certainly under this administration?

MOULTON: Well, probably not under this administration, because the Department of Justice seems to be, you know, just a group of Trump's personal lawyers. But my point is that people need to be held accountable to the law, and that applies to the Secretary of Defense. It applies to the commander-in-chief, but also applies to the to the chain of command. And that's why it's so important that we remind officers in the chain of command that their oath is to the Constitution and not to the President of the United States or the Secretary of Defense.

COOPER: Does it make any sense to you that the President has pledged to pardon the former Honduran President, who was convicted in U.S. federal court of conspiring with cartels and protecting drug traffickers?

MOULTON: No, I mean, it's completely absurd. It's totally hypocritical and it just shows that they are completely unserious about actually dealing with narcotraffickers. They're not addressing the drug problem. And this Honduran President has been proven in a court of law to be responsible for poisoning thousands of Americans and Trump gives him a pardon? This is not a serious effort by this administration to stop the flow of drugs. It, frankly, is just looking more and more like an extrajudicial killing spree.

COOPER: Congressman Seth Moulton, thank you.

Coming up next, what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is saying tonight after the White House said that a Navy admiral ordered the second strike on the boat, killing two survivors, according to "The Washington Post."

Also ahead, what the White House has revealed about the President's medical imaging tests done almost two months ago, or at least what they're saying about it, after the President said over the weekend that he had no idea what doctors were scanning for, and then told reporters this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: The doctor said some of the best reports for the age, some of the best reports they've ever seen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:18:43]

COOPER: Our breaking news tonight, The White House is denying that Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered a controversial and potentially illegal secondary strike on alleged drug boat in international waters off Venezuela. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said the decision to further attack the boat that was virtually destroyed in a first strike, and survivors who were clinging to debris was keeping with a prior directive from Secretary Hegseth, but that it was Admiral Frank Mitch Bradley who actually gave the order.

Late tonight, Hegseth took to social media to defend the admiral, "Let's make one thing crystal clear, Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100 percent support. I stand by him in the combat decisions he has made on the September 2nd mission, and all others since". Hegseth adds, "America's fortunate to have such men protecting us. When this Department of War says we have the back of our warriors, we mean it.

Joining me now is CNN senior military analyst admiral James Stavridis. He was formerly head of the U.S. Southern command, which includes the Caribbean.

Admiral, clearly, Secretary Hegseth, while seeming to praise the admiral, is clearly saying he is the one who made this decision. What's your reaction to the White House denying that Secretary Hegseth, as reported in "The Washington Post", had priory said to kill everybody on board?

JAMES STAVRIDIS, CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Anderson, it simply screams for a significant, unbiased, bipartisan investigation. The good news is that Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat and Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican, the co-chairs of the Senate Armed Services Committee, alongside their equivalents at the House Armed Services Committee, have pledged, as they put it "vigorous oversight" into this entire campaign. But I hope that vigorous insight includes very detailed kind of tick-tock. What are the tongue lines? Who said what? When did they say it? What were the results that needed to be matched up with the video? I assure you, all that data is there. Let's find out what really happened here and then let's have accountability.

[20:20:52]

COOPER: I mean, just to be clear, based on, you know, publicly available information, which is largely the reporting "The Washington Post" would an order by defense secretary in an operation saying kill everybody? Would that be legal?

STAVRIDIS: It depends on the operation and it is unlikely, in my experience, and I spent eight years as a four-star combatant commander. I never had a Secretary of Defense call me on the phone and say, kill everybody or conduct this specific operation. What happens is these orders are briefed to the Secretary of Defense. He authorizes them. They run through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, they come down to the combatant commanders.

So again, we just need to get to the facts of the case here. Bottom line, it is unlikely, in my view, that there was a direct order from the Secretary of Defense to conduct a tactical piece of operation. But I can't exclude that or include that until there is an unbiased, bipartisan investigation of this, which this absolutely is required.

COOPER: If this was as "The Post" reporting said verbally by the Secretary of Defense, would there be, I mean, if there is an investigation, would there be, you know, follow up memos? Would there be e-mails written by lower level commanders that reflected, oh, this occurred? I mean, would there be evidence of this?

STAVRIDIS: Yes, and generally everything that happens along the lines of an operation like this is done in a command center. It's monitored by, in this case, U.S. Southern Command in Doral, Florida. It is probably also monitored by U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa.

You know, this is why you get to see the video of these boats blowing up. And as any person with common sense will tell you, the video doesn't start when the boat blows up. The video starts much earlier and follows much later. So all of that is preserved. All of that is recorded. All of the individuals and there are dozens at a minimum, who are in command centers, who observed all this, all of them can be placed under oath, provide testimony, give context here and understand what happens.

Again, I mean, this very literally a tick-tock, minute by minute of what happened, who gave what orders, what occurred, boat blows up. Another episode, a second strike, people floating in the water. All that is available. I think when the Senate Armed Services Committee conducts this investigation, they will find it very data rich.

COOPER: Admiral Stavridis, I really appreciate your expertise on this, it's important. Thank you.

Joining me now is David Sanger, White House and National Security correspondent for "The New York Times". His latest story just posted with the headline for Trump Hegseth take no prisoners approach, is a growing liability. David, is it clear how much support Secretary Hegseth has from the White House, not just publicly, but behind-the- scenes as well?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: It's not clear yet, Anderson, but we do know that he certainly rubbed many of his colleagues the wrong way with his approach. And, you know, he started with relatively little support. It was easy to forget because so much has happened since then. But during his confirmation, he made it in only because Vice-President J.D. Vance cast a single tiebreaking vote that got him over the line to become Defense Secretary. Then he was into the Signal-gate controversy, where it appeared that he had taken some classified battle plans and moved them over into a Signal messaging chat that was obviously not a classified channel for The Pentagon.

He survived that, and now we've had what he has declared would be very transparent action in or around Venezuela. But as you've just heard and heard from Admiral Stavridis, it's not been extraordinarily clear what's going on. They release these photographs, but it was only three months later that we learned there was a second strike on one of those boats.

The legal orders that have been put together by the office of legal counsel that give a justification for these attacks on civilians. They may be drug traffickers, but civilians has not been released. It's been classified. So there are a lot of questions about what makes the entire operation legal.

COOPER: It's also interesting. I mean, obviously, it was the President who first put on social media the initial video, which only shows the first strike. He obviously would have been, I assume, briefed at this point that point that there was actually a second strike on the boat. And, you know, clearly they chose not to put that information out there, which doesn't speak particularly well about what they thought about that second strike.

SANGER: That's right and you heard the President in that clip that you played earlier, sort of back away a bit and say, you know, I wouldn't have done the second strike. I would have felt better without that, said Secretary Hegseth assured him he had not ordered it. Maybe that's correct. Our own reporting seems to indicate there was not a specific order to do the second strike, but he did have general orders, which he has repeated on social media in recent days, that these are supposed to be lethal strikes to kill everybody aboard.

Now, you should remember out of all this, that until August, even the Trump administration had a way of dealing with these, the Coast Guard would come out, they'd hail these ships. If they ran, they would send a sniper up to take out the engines. Then when the boat was drifting, they'd go aboard and arrest everyone. That just ended in September when they began blowing these ships up with what many legal experts consider to be extrajudicial killings.

COOPER: Yes, not just blowing them up, but also making it very public, obviously, to send a message.

SANGER: That's right.

COOPER: David Sanger, please stay with me.

Up next, Russia bombing Ukraine hours before Vladimir Putin meets with the U.S. delegation to discuss a plan to end the war.

And a special election tomorrow to fill an open house seat, the Democratic candidate is hoping to flip the district. The President won just a year ago by double digits.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:32:34]

COOPER: Just hours away now from a high-stakes meeting between the U.S. and President Vladimir Putin, President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, along with Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, are set to meet with him tomorrow in Moscow, as the President pushes Russia and Ukraine to reach a deal to end their war. Witkoff, Kushner, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio met in Florida yesterday with delegation -- a delegation from Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Russia said today that it has captured a city, Pokrovsk, after months of heavy fighting. Ukraine has not confirmed that claim, and CNN is not able to independently verify it. Just ahead of his meeting with Witkoff and Kushner, Putin, dressed in military fatigues, visited a Russian military command post.

A lot to talk about with Jill Dougherty, an adjunct professor at Georgetown's Walsh School of Foreign Service, who spent nearly a decade and Russia's Moscow bureau chief, and back with us is David Sanger.

So, David, Witkoff's visit obviously and it comes just a few days after Bloomberg reported he appeared to coach the Russian side in a phone call on how to sell President Trump on a peace plan. What message do you think the White House is sending the Russians by keeping Witkoff as the primary negotiator? I mean, I guess they just don't care.

SANGER: Well, I think the first message they're sending is that they're sending two people who are adjacent to the government. Obviously, Mr. Witkoff is sort of the special envoy for everything. Jared Kushner, of course, is the President's son-in-law, who have reputations as sort of dealmakers who view themselves as trying to do what they did in the Gaza Accord, get everybody to put their claims on paper and then try to go see if they can split the difference.

That's very different from sending your secretary of state, Marco Rubio, who's hanging back in Washington and who has been talking a lot about sovereignty, not about the land issues. And by sovereignty, I think the question really is, Anderson, do you really want to give Russia a veto on how big a military Ukraine can have, on when Ukraine has to hold elections, on how far its missiles can fire?

Can you imagine if another country tried to impose such restrictions on the United States or one of its allies, and with very few of those restrictions applying to Russia itself.

BLITZER: Jill, I mean, if you're Vladimir Putin, how do you interpret, you know, Jared Kushner's role, Witkoff?

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'm close to the President, obviously. And I think, as David's saying, a person who has already been involved in peace negotiations in the Middle East. And but how Putin looks at this, you know, I -- I think both for Mr. Witkoff and for Jared Kushner, they may not know Kushner as well as Witkoff.

[20:35:21]

But I think they -- they figure these are two people who do not know this area that we're talking about, which is Ukraine and the history behind it and a lot of the really intricate details in this. You know, Putin is a person who talks about history. History at this point from the American side has almost no role. It's really business, I would say, and then negotiations to get this decided as quickly as possible.

COOPER: David, I mean, is there a limit to how much influence the U.S. actually has to get Ukraine to accept a peace deal?

SANGER: There's a limit on both sides here. I mean, for Ukraine, I mean, I think President Zelenskyy is limited in part by his own political future. He -- I think he fears rightly that if he gives away part of the country that Russia took by aggressive tactics, he could be gone in that next election. And that is certainly what the Russians are betting on.

If he gives away the sovereignty issues, Anderson, I think it's even harder for him because he's basically got to prove that he's coming out of this war with Ukraine as a viable state. That doesn't necessarily mean it's got exactly the borders it had in February of 2022 when the invasion happened.

You know, North Korea and South Korea changed their borders during the armistice that led to the end of that war. And South Korea emerged from that an enormously successful state, though it took decades. That's the model for the Ukrainians.

But I think it's going to be hard for Zelenskyy to prove to everybody that that's really what's coming at the end of -- of this rainbow here.

COOPER: And Jill, just briefly, I mean, obviously, Zelenskyy is under enormous pressure. He's also just lost one of his key negotiators.

DOUGHERTY: Oh, yes, definitely. And I mean, he's got three things militarily. He's on the back foot in Ukraine. Politically, he's under pressure from the Trump administration to wrap this up as quickly as possible and accept what the Americans want. And then, you know, of course, he's got this political scandal based in a scandal right now of corruption. And all three of those are having a role in how he -- how he plays this.

COOPER: Yes. Jill Dougherty, David Sanger, thanks so much.

Still to come, President Trump weighing in on a surprisingly tight House race in a Tennessee district he won by 22 points last year.

And later, what we're learning tonight about the President's medical imaging test after he said this over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What part of your body was the MRI looking at?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have no idea. It was just an MRI. What part of the body? It wasn't the brain because I took a cognitive test and I aced it. I got a perfect mark.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:42:47]

COOPER: The White House today released the details of President's October medical imaging, saying that the results were, quote, perfectly normal and that it's beneficial for men his age.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Advanced imaging was performed because men in his age group benefit from a thorough evaluation of cardiovascular and abdominal health. The purpose of this imaging is preventative.

This level of detailed assessment is standard for an executive physical at President Trump's age and confirms that he remains in excellent overall health.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, the President told reporters in October he received an MRI, something the White House billed as the President's, quote, routine yearly checkup, though the President had already undergone his annual physical in April. When pressed yesterday on the scan, this is what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What part of your body was the MRI looking at?

TRUMP: I have no idea. It was just an MRI. What part of the body? It wasn't the brain because I took a cognitive test and I aced it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Joining me now, emergency physician Dr. Jeremy Faust. So, Dr. Faust, is there, I mean, are MRIs preventative?

DR. JEREMY FAUST, EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN: Thanks for having me, Anderson. MRIs are not routinely used for prevention. They are not routinely used for anything like this. We use them for diagnosis. When we do advanced imaging, which can be a CAT scan or an MRI, we can be doing them for different reasons, but usually it's for diagnosis.

It's not for screening. Screening is when we are trying to detect disease before there are symptoms. And while I agree it's important for people of the President's age to have thorough assessments, advanced imaging for screening is really not part of that.

COOPER: So if you don't believe the idea that this was some sort of routine preventative measure for a man of his age, what would some of the reasons why a medical team would want to see that kind of imaging?

FAUST: Well, the two reasons that pop into mind, one would be celebrity syndrome, overuse. We do hear about people getting these full-body MRIs, and the results of those almost never help. They always just cause stress and anxiety.

COOPER: Those have become hugely popular, people getting full-body MRIs.

FAUST: Yes. But -- but there's no evidence.

COOPER: Among people who are wealthy and want to pay for it. COOPER: Correct. Correct. But there's no evidence to suggest that they actually help anyone. They actually just cause fear, and the medical literature is very clear on this. This is not a strategy that everyone should have should they be able to afford it.

[20:45:03]

The other thing that we use imaging for is to try to follow up on new symptoms, maybe a new diagnosis or to check the progress of an existing diagnosis. But the idea of using an MRI or a CAT scan for prevention just doesn't add up. And I'm someone who thinks a lot about prevention. As a physician, we -- we've perfect -- there are things we can prevent. We can prevent HIV/AIDS these days.

And Anderson, I'd be remiss to say it's World AIDS Day today. And this administration is the first administration to not mention that since the 1980s. And we can actually prevent HIV/AIDS by sending money overseas. But that's not what you're asking about.

But as a physician, I do think about prevention. And it's hard to talk about prevention that we can do at a time when he's talking about prevention that seems like it's from left field.

COOPER: Yes, obviously, this administration has eliminated HIV prevention in many parts of the world, which has saved, under PEPFAR, some 20 million lives since it was first instituted by the White House's George W. Bush with bipartisan support. The -- the White House announced over the summer that the president was diagnosed with something called chronic venous insufficiency after photos of his swollen ankles began to circulate. Would -- could that play a role in why somebody would undergo a scan? There's also been photos of bruising on his hands.

FAUST: Yes, that's a great question. And I think that really falls into the category of why his physicians could possibly be doing more advanced imaging. So when you have a symptom, such as new swelling or, in this case, venous insufficiency, which is the blood in the legs is not coming back up to the heart, and that -- that causes some discomfort and some skin changes, so that could be a symptom that's a sign of another problem.

And it very well could be that this is a follow-up to that. The thing there is that at the time we were told about that condition and that diagnosis, we were also given a fair bit of information about the tests that he underwent at that time, including tests of his heart. Because one of the things that can happen in symptoms that resemble venous insufficiency is it can also be caused by problems of the heart's efficiency as a pump, and that's called heart failure. So they told us that he'd been thoroughly evaluated, but maybe his symptoms got worse, and we're not being told that.

COOPER: Dr. Jeremy Faust, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

President Trump says the whole world is watching tomorrow's special election for Tennessee's 7th congressional district. Last year, the president carried the district by 22 points, by all accounts should be a safe seat in a ruby red state. Trump-backed Republican Matt Van Epps, a veteran, will face off against a progressive organizer and Democratic State Representative Aftyn Behn.

Behn has made affordability concerns a centerpiece of her campaign messaging, mirroring obviously the playbook for successful Democratic candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey earlier this month. Now, outside groups have poured millions of dollars into advertising, and high-profile Republicans, like Speaker Mike Johnson, turned up to campaign with Van Epps in the closing stretch. Democrats say they feel like they have momentum, and even a narrow win for the Republican candidate may be an ominous sign for Republicans nationwide in next year's midterms.

Joining me now, GOP media consultant and strategist Brad Todd, and former senior advisor of President Biden, Ashley Etienne. So Brad, why -- why is this race even close, do you think?

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first off, it's a special election, and special elections with low turnout in today's realignment, they favor Democrats. You know, voter propensity largely falls along educational lines.

Right now, if you have two or three degrees, chances are you're a Democrat, and you think everybody needs to know your opinion, so you vote in every election. So they have an advantage in the special overall.

COOPER: And Ashley, Behn is running as an unapologetic progressive. How much of a gambler do you think that is in the South?

ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRES. BIDEN: Well, I mean, she's faring fairly well. I mean, the reality is that she's been focusing, as you mentioned in the intro, a hyper-focus on affordability, which is not a red -- red -- or, you know, a right or a left issue. I mean, you -- we've seen both President Trump and Mamdani and others, and the two governors who just won recently in Virginia and -- and New Jersey really run on that particular issue.

And the reality is, is because the economy is so poor. In Tennessee alone, 200,000 people are likely going to lose their healthcare coverage. Nine hospitals, rural hospitals, are on the verge of closing. Moody actually said that the state is -- is treading water right now, so that's why this race is -- is so close, because it's all about the economy, and people are suffering under Trump's failed economy, and it's not going to get any better.

By the administration's own emissions, we're in an actual recession. So this is only going to get bleaker for Republicans if they don't change course.

COOPER: Brad, do you think this is only going to get bleaker?

TODD: No, I think you're going to see tomorrow that Aftyn Behn is going to be a precursor for what's going to happen to Democrats in congressional races all over the country. You know, she is perhaps the most liberal elected official in Tennessee. She said she hates Nashville, she hates country music, prayer makes her uncomfortable, she wanted to bully ICE and state troopers. Those are all her words, and she's not taking any of it back.

[20:50:02]

And so I think you're going to see tomorrow that Democrats are going to be a little bit -- do a little bit better than they thought, but they're going to lose, and they're going to lose because they nominated the most radical left-wing politician, and that's going to happen to them in primaries next year all over the country.

ETIENNE: And here's the reality, Anderson. If we fare close, if this is a close race, that's actually a win for Democrats. I mean, the goal and the objective is not necessarily to win, but to outperform expectations, which we've been doing all over the country in 90 percent of the races so far. So that's actually going to be a victory for Democrats, but I will also be --

COOPER: But wait a minute, losing is going to be a victory? I mean, just because you outperform expectations isn't the goal? I mean, the goal of the election is to win.

ETIENNE: Yes, the goal is always to win, but the point is, is Donald Trump won this seat by 20 points. We shouldn't even be -- Republicans shouldn't even be defending this seat. I mean, it really speaks to their prospects in the midterms, the fact that they're throwing everything they've got at it, from the President to Speaker Johnson to millions of dollars.

I mean, the fact that they're -- they're going all in on this really says more about where they think that they are -- actually are, that there is some blood in the water. So if Democrats perform better than expected, we're going to be watching to see where did the President bleed support, among who, and on what issue, and I think it's going to continue to bolster the party going forward.

COOPER: Ashley, if she -- she doesn't win, and to Brad's point, did the -- I mean, is there a lesson for Democrats in picking what he says is the most progressive Democrat in the state?

ETIENNE: Well, I mean, the reality is, is if you look at the polling now, none of that, none of her progressive stances are registering with voters right now. People are trying to make ends meet. They're trying to put food on their table. So none of these sort of wedge issues that the President recently tweeted about, everything from transgender to open borders, all of that stuff is not registering on with voters right now.

It's kind of falling, you know, right off of the Democrat, and that's primarily because people are hyper-focused on the -- the economy and -- and suffering under this failed economy.

COOPER: Yes, I mean, Brad, the President has used, you know, saying she's going to take away people's guns, wants, quote, transgender for everybody, I think was his term. Do you think those kind of, whether you call them culture issues, do you think they resonate as much with voters?

TODD: You know, I'm a Tennessean, Anderson, and if you say that I hate Nashville and I hate country music and prayer makes me uncomfortable, you have no business representing the state of Tennessee in the federal legislature.

You know, this district does have a Democratic core. The city of Nashville is largely in this district, as is Fort Campbell, you know, and you talked about how President Trump's margin was very healthy, but if you go back and look at the last midterm, Marsha Blackburn, when she ran for Senate against Phil Breslin, she was about 15 or 16 points weaker than Donald Trump was in this district. So there -- it is possible for a Democrat to pull some voters that -- that didn't vote for Kamala Harris.

I don't think Aftyn Behn is going to win, however, because you just can't be that radical on that many cultural issues and win in a state like this. But Tennessee Republicans need to go show up and vote if they don't want her -- someone like her to represent them in Congress.

COOPER: Brad Todd, Ashley Etienne, thanks very much.

Still to come, is the word of the year rage bait, aura farming, vibe coding? If you don't know what any of those mean, you might be in good company. We'll explain ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:57:47]

COOPER: Today, Oxford Dictionary announced its word of the year after it opened voting to the public and the topic could explain why you might have felt more anger this year. After scrolling online, Harry Enten joins me now with more. So what is the Oxford English Dictionary announced as a word of the year?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: I can assure you, I don't need to be scrolling online to feel angry at any particular point, Anderson. But rage bait was the word of the year.

COOPER: Rage bait.

ENTEN: Rage bait. And the two other finalists --

COOPER: Not a word, it's a phrase.

ENTEN: It's a phrase. It's a phrase.

COOPER: It's phrases.

ENTEN: It's phrases.

COOPER: OK.

ENTEN: Rage bait. And then the other finalists were aura farming as well as a biohack. Do you have any idea what any of these things? COOPER: Biohack is that odd person online who is had all his blood removed or replaced like the blood of children or something. I mean, I can't --

ENTEN: For longevity purposes, yes.

COOPER: Yes, the longevity guy. So he's by is all these biohacks.

ENTEN: That -- that's --

COOPER: There's that, right?

ENTEN: That's exactly right.

COOPER: -- him out a long time ago.

ENTEN: Yes. You could also be a biohack me, you know, essentially starving myself during the day with --

COOPER: What is aura farming?

ENTEN: Aura farming is essentially this idea of cultivating an impressive public image by presenting oneself with coolness. That is like me playing up my New York Jewish accent.

COOPER: Yes.

ENTEN: You know, I feel like that to me --

COOPER: That's -- that's real coolness.

ENTEN: Coolness.

COOPER: OK.

ENTEN: And rage baiting might be something along the lines of I hate Santa Claus.

COOPER: So I'm not even going to respond.

ENTEN: Say that is rage bait. I got it.

COOPER: Or phrases becoming more popular than solo.

ENTEN: Yes. So, you know, we mentioned rage baiting, of course, is actually two words. It's a phrase, right? So I actually looked this up and it turns out that four of the six last words of the year were not actually one word. They were phrases.

COOPER: Wow.

ENTEN: So in fact, we are --

COOPER: It's a trend.

ENTEN: It's a trend. It's a trend. We're expanding upon one word apparently wasn't enough. We needed multiple words.

COOPER: OK.

ENTEN: So I do want to quiz you --

COOPER: We've got a minute left.

ENTEN: We have a minute left. This is what I'm told. And I have some quizzes here for you.

COOPER: OK.

ENTEN: You happen to know the year in which the first word of the year came out.

COOPER: 1847.

ENTEN: 1847. There were words in 1847. I didn't in fact look it up. But the first time there was a word of the year was actually in 1990. The American die -- you were alive then. I -- I don't know if I was alive. Mystery. The American dialect society bush lips, bush lips.

COOPER: Bush lips. Oh, like read my -- my lips.

[21:00:00]

ENTEN: Read my lips. No. New.

COOPER: That was a really -- that word caught on like wild fire.

ENTEN: Yes. There's a big one. We're still using it to this day.

COOPER: OK. What else -- what else we got?

ENTEN: I would also tell you, Oxford is not the only one that puts out a word of the year.

COOPER: OK.

ENTEN: Dictionary.com has 6-7, yes, which I looked it up, I have no idea. It was part of a song, basketball videos, but the bottom line is, it makes no sense. It's nonsensical.

COOPER: I'll tell you what it means.

ENTEN: Yes, thank you.

COOPER: Harry Enten, thanks very much. The news continues. Source with Kaitlan Collins starts now.