Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Soon: White House Meeting On Venezuela; Tennessee Special Election Tests Dem Momentum In 2025 Races; White House Releases Statement On Trump's Medical Imaging Results. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired December 01, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:04]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: So maybe if you disengage with it, not only will you be a little bit less mad, but the world might be a better place. Who knows?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah, we could be calmer, people.

Go now to "THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT," which starts right now.

(MUSIC)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Monday.

As we come in the air, we are just an hour away from a critical meeting at the White House. Sources say that President Donald Trump will gather key members of his cabinet and national security team at the top of the next hour. On the agenda, what comes next for Venezuela?

But that meeting has been overshadowed as the White House defends Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his role in strikes on a Venezuelan boat allegedly carrying drugs, strikes that some lawmakers have suggested amount to possible war crimes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Does the administration deny that that second strike happened, or did it happen? And the administration denies that Secretary Hegseth gave the order?

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The latter is true. With respect to the strikes in question, 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Those comments are centered on this airstrike. This was early September. Sources say a first airstrike disabled this boat and it killed some of the people on board. But then a second airstrike killed the survivors, one source saying that before the operation commenced, Defense Secretary Hegseth ordered the military to ensure that everyone on board was killed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): If that reporting is true, it's a clear violation of the DOD's own laws of war, as well as international laws about the way you treat people who are in that circumstance. And so, this rises to the level of a war crime.

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.

REP. TIM TURNER (R-OH): Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious. And I agree that that would -- would be an illegal act.

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. It's also murder.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: It's worth remembering, President Trump also seems to be taking the story very seriously. He confirmed that he would not have ordered the second strike.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So as for Secretary Hegseth, he is responding to the announcement of congressional investigations and potential allegations of war crimes this way. He posted this, presumably A.I. generated, fake children's book cover featuring Franklin the turtle. It's titled "Franklin targets narco terrorists".

All right. Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here. CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist, host of "The Interview", Lulu Garcia-Navarro; CNN political director, Washington bureau chief, David Chalian; CNN's chief political analyst, former senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod; and senior adviser to the Trump 2024 campaign, Bryan Lanza.

And we're also joined by CNN political national security analyst David Sanger.

And, David, I do want to start with you, because you have covered so many conflicts over the years. You have spent so much time with the national security and defense establishment. The White House today seems to be trying to underscore that it was not Pete Hegseth who apparently ordered the second strike, but rather somebody underneath him, a member of the military.

Can you walk us through what your understanding is of what we learned or didn't learn from the White House today and why it might matter?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Kasie, there's some dispute here on what the facts are. So, on one version of events, Secretary Hegseth issued orders that basically said, make sure that there are no survivors from this. This has got to be a lethal strike throughout.

And his response to the first story here, which was in "The Washington Post", seemed to suggest that he wanted to make sure that all of the drug runners were dead. The second version is that after these survivors, he may have issued an order for a second strike. We haven't found any evidence of that yet, but it could well be that the commanders were interpreting his first set of orders.

Either way, Kasie, he's not in a great spot here because, first of all, it's not clear that any of these strikes against the drug runners are legal to begin with, right?

[16:05:07]

There is not a state of war underway with Venezuela. Theres a classified office of legal counsel memorandum that we haven't seen coming up with a justification for all of this. But the fact of the matter is, even drug runners are civilians, and the military's not supposed to be targeting civilians

HUNT: David, on that legal opinion. I mean, you heard the president there in that byte say clearly, he thought the first strike was legal, but he then said he didn't think the second one -- that he would not have conducted that second strike, which seems to raise the question of the difference between the two of them. I'm also interested to know what -- what are you hearing from your sources about how much, how strong that legal counsel opinion is? Because I have to say, I've talked to a number of people across town, some of whom may be inclined to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. And a lot of them seem to have a lot of questions about this opinion

SANGER: Right. We've heard members of Congress who have seen it. It is a classified document, say that the legal analysis is neither compelling nor impressive.

Look, this is a case where, in my view, Kasie, classification is being used to suppress legal debate. I can't think of a reason that that legal opinion is classified. What you've got to do in the U.S. government is if you send the military out to kill, there's got to be clarity about what the authorities are.

Otherwise, members of the services are not going to know whether or not they are receiving legal or illegal orders. And as those senators and representatives pointed out, they are taught from the first time they entered the service academies. They cannot execute illegal orders. Now, not every service member can be their own lawyer here, but that

means that you need to declassify not only the legal opinions, but continue to declassify more detail on these strikes so that we can figure out if the two match up. The administration is playing the game here now of just declassifying bits of the video that show an impressive, you know, explosion of the boats. But you really need to see the whole video to figure out whether this was legal.

HUNT: Really interesting.

David Chalian, David raises this point about the context that this is taking place in, right? This video that has generated this explosion of debate. There's now investigations into Mark Kelly by the Pentagon.

And, you know, FBI interviews requested from other members of congress. This does seem to have I mean, there are Republicans who are looking at this and saying, look, this is not okay. We should not have done this.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF; We'll see how those Republicans behave when it comes time to actually conduct rigorous oversight on the Hill. But I do think it shows, as you make your turn into a midterm election year, just what a different universe this kind of instance would be if there was a chamber controlled by the Democrats, where you have oversight from the opposition party.

I'll just note one other thing here. You know, the -- we don't know whether or not the administration is going to go in on the ground in any way. But the notion of that is widely unpopular with the American people right now.

Part of also to David Sanger's point of not fully explaining everything that's going on here and what it is. So not only is it unpopular, but it also being enmeshed in this politically for this administration takes them off of the place where voters want to see the most action, which is in bringing prices down in their lives.

So, for all of these reasons, I think Trump finds himself and I think he kind of knows it. I think he revealed that in his answer on the plane --

HUNT: It was really revealing.

CHALIAN: -- in a bit of a political morass that he doesn't want to be in.

HUNT: Yeah, I mean, even Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is, of course, now leaving congress, says fix health insurance, not regime change in Venezuela.

David Axelrod, I want to show a little bit. We just got some new comments in from Senator Mark Kelly, who in addition to being someone who was in that video saying that troops should not -- have a duty not to follow illegal orders, also happens to have been a pilot who has experience in missions where he has, and he talked with our Dana Bash about destroying ships while he was in the military. Let's watch. These comments came in just a couple of minutes ago. Take

a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): As somebody who has sunk two ships myself, that folks in the military need to understand, you know, the law of the sea, the Geneva Conventions, what the law says. And I'm concerned that if there were in fact, as reported, you know, survivors clinging to a damaged vessel, that that could be, you know, over a line.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: David, I mean, you've advised -- I mean, I remember when President Obama was using you know, military strikes and came under some criticism from some people for it.

[16:10:03]

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Absolutely.

HUNT: I mean, take us inside the decision making around something like this.

AXELROD: Well, look, there was exhaustive kind of discussion with the appropriate lawyers, about what -- about the bounds of what they could do. There was real care taken to try and spare civilians. There was, you know, there were procedures around identifying the targets, in a specific way.

This is -- this is serious stuff. Obviously, the president knows its serious stuff, too, which is why he's saying, well, gee, I wouldn't have done it.

But, you know, I mean, he's the commander in chief, except when he's not, apparently. But the president, President Obama understood he was ultimately responsible. One of my concerns has been from the beginning, you know, we can have differences over policy, but rules and laws and norms, they matter. And they particularly matter in situations, life and death, situations like this. And there's just this sort of wanton disregard for them that has pervaded the administration. And it always starts from the top.

HUNT: It does seem, Brian, that the White House is aware of the potential ramifications here. I mean, they seem to be, you know, the president with that very revealing soundbite Karoline Leavitt from the podium, kept coming back to a paper statement over and over and over again. She doesn't always do her job that way. It's pretty telling, right? Like they wanted to be on a very certain page.

You talk to folks at the White House all the time. I mean, what is the level of concern here?

BRYAN LANZA, SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: Yeah, there is concern. They know they have an uphill job to alleviate members of Congress, senators and senators and House of Representatives. That becomes a problem, that becomes a distraction. You talk about next November, a potential switch in the House of Representatives. You know, they're worried about that, but they're more worried about losing their own senators.

Right now, there are Republican senators armed, you know, Senate Armed Services Committee. They have real reservations about what took place, are asking real questions and want real disclosures. And they have to get ahead of this. And I don't know that they're ahead of it today. And I don't know that they'll be ahead tomorrow, but they're certainly playing catch up.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: To put this into context, I was a longtime war correspondent. I spent a lot of time with the U.S. military. And the reason that this matters is because it actually -- leaving aside the moral ramifications, leaving aside the legal international legal ramifications, this matters because it puts our own military at risk.

If you are not following the rules of law, that means that if it is your soldiers who are at sea and something like that happens, they can go in and just murder them at will. And so, you know, what is the United States doing? Is it supposed to hold the line and be an example for the rest of the world as to how to conduct operations, or is it now a lawless government that is flouting conventions?

HUNT: Well, and, David Sanger, I mean, to that point, we've reported here at CNN that this, these operations writ large, not necessarily this specific incident that we've been talking about today, that they have impacted our intelligence relationships with the five eyes in Great Britain, for example.

I mean, how would you put all of this in in that greater context of American power writ large across the globe?

SANGER: Well, certainly our allies are nervous about giving us intelligence that might be used to go target some of these ships. And so they're being careful. I haven't found any examples of significant intelligence being withheld.

The question I get the most, Kasie, from diplomats, intelligence officials and so forth regarding the Venezuela operation, is can you explain to me what President Trump and his aides are trying to do? Is this about the drugs? Because if it is, bringing in an aircraft carrier is not the way you stop small drug boats. And it wouldn't explain why he just pardoned or said he would. Pardon somebody who had been convicted of running a very large heroin operation into the United States.

Is it about the oil that is in that is in Venezuela? Certainly. It's got huge reserves. The president talks about that a lot in private, not much in public.

Is it about regime change? Is it about all three? We just don't know what their hierarchy of objectives is here, which you need to know to begin to debate whether or not this is even a conflict that Congress should have to get in and authorize. HUNT: So many questions and so few answers right now, actually.

David Sanger, thank you, sir, as always, for providing what answers you were able to today. I appreciate it.

The rest of our panel is going to stand by.

Coming up next here in THE ARENA, President Trump says he has no idea which part of him doctors were looking at when he had an MRI in October.

[16:15:00]

Ahead, the readout from his physician, just shared by the White House.

Plus, more questions about this U.S. strike on an alleged drug boat. Representative Ro Khanna, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, will join us here to discuss as that committee investigates, and the White House insists that it was all legal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: As I said, I think you guys are sort of not listening fully to the statement I provided. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was totally destroyed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: With respect to the strikes in question, on September 2nd, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes.

[16:20:01]

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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: The man who authorized that so-called double tax double tap strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean in September, identified by the White House today as Admiral Frank Bradley, commander of the U.S. special operations command, not secretary of war Pete Hegseth, the White House defending Bradley's order as being within the bounds of the law and arguing it was, quote, conducted in self-defense to protect Americans.

I'm joined now by Democratic congressman from California, Ro Khanna.

He sits on the House Armed Services Committee. Congressman, always good to see you. Thanks very much for being here

in THE ARENA.

I'd like to start with what the White House is saying. They are laying essentially the blame for this at the feet of Admiral Bradley.

What's your reaction to that?

REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Well, they've realized that their own base is mortified by what happened. They realize that their Republican colleagues of mine on the Armed Services Committee, who are mortified by what happened, and so they're deflecting now. But what will answer this is Pete Hegseth coming to the armed services committee and explaining to the American public what order he gave.

And the admiral should have to answer as well. It could be that they both violated the law. But the American people deserve answers.

HUNT: It's going to -- I was going to ask. I mean, where does the buck stop here?

KHANNA: The buck stops with whoever made the initial order and then if people follow that order, knowing it was blatantly unconstitutional. And so, you could have a case here where you have both Hegseth and the admiral responsible, or maybe it was just headsets call and the admiral felt that he'd be violating the chain of command by not doing it. But the important questions need to be answered about the key decision makers who were involved.

HUNT: Sir, there have been a number of lawmakers who have said that if this happened as reported, that there was a second strike on survivors, that it would amount to a war crime.

Do you believe it amounts to a war crime?

KHANNA: Under the facts, yes. And you know what I've been encouraged by, Kasie, is that there are Republican Armed Service members who are much more hawkish than I am, who are just mortified by what has happened. It's -- the United States of America on our behalf, on your or my behalf, killing two individuals who were unarmed. And that's just shocking.

And I appreciate people like Representative Michael Turner and others on armed services being willing to exercise their oversight.

HUNT: So, speaking of other members of Congress, Karoline Leavitt actually said that Pete Hegseth has been on the phone with some of your colleagues.

Let's watch what she said in the briefing, and then we'll talk about it. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: Secretary Hegseth spoke with members of Congress who may have expressed some concerns over the weekend. And there have also been 13 bipartisan briefings to Congress on the Venezuelan strikes. There have been a number of document reviews for members of congress to review the classified DOJ office of legal counsel, opinion and other related documents, 29 senators and 92 representatives have reviewed those documents, which is about two thirds of those are Democrat members.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Have your colleagues -- have you been happy with how the White House has been speaking to members? Have you heard that the secretary has actually reached out to members of Congress?

KHANNA: Look, I've been part of some of those bipartisan briefings, including the classified ones, and it's left me with more questions. I have no doubt that Secretary Hegseth has made calls to people on the Armed Services Committee, and he should continue to do that.

But this can't be in a closed-door session. He needs to come before the committee. My understanding is Chairman Rogers is going to call him before the committee. The admiral needs to come before the committee, and they need to explain to the American people what happened.

This is not the way America does business. We are not a nation that strikes people who are unarmed. We are not a nation that gives the death penalty for narcotics, when we have laws about interdiction.

We are a nation that follows the rule of law. It's what makes us different than Putin. It's what makes us different than Xi Jinping. And this is what the Armed Services Committee, most people in private really are concerned about.

HUNT: Just to put a finer point on that, you believe that the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is going to call Pete Hegseth and Admiral Bradley to testify before Congress

KHANNA: I do. I have known Chairman Rogers, even when we disagreed. To be fair, I know that there is a bipartisan effort to have hearings on this.

[16:25:04]

I can't imagine those hearings will not start with Secretary Hegseth and Admiral Bradley coming before our committee.

I know there are a lot of members on both sides who want that. I have not spoken directly to Chairman Rogers about this, but ranking member Adam Smith is talking to him. And my belief is those hearings will happen. And the American people will finally get answers on what took place.

HUNT: You mentioned that you've been in a number of these unclassified/classified briefings.

We were speaking with David Sanger, a "New York Times" reporter, earlier. He suggested that the Office of Legal Counsel opinion should be declassified, that having an open legal debate would benefit the country. Do you think that the Office of Legal Counsel opinion that seems to be the legal underpinnings for these strikes should be declassified and made available to the American public?

KHANNA: I err on the side of more things being declassified, but what I would say is that there should be some document put out by the Office of Legal Counsel that explains exactly their rationale, and what their guardrails were, and then explains whether the second strike would violate their guardrails.

So, whether it's the document currently that's classified or some other document that can be made public, the Office of Legal Counsel owes the American people an explanation. They should come testify in front of the Armed Services Committee as well.

You know, the way to resolve this is to have bipartisan hearings with the armed services committee. And as someone, again, who has differed a lot with Chairman Rogers and Congressman Turner, I'm confident if we had bipartisan hearings, they would be fair, they'd be transparent. I believe the colleagues of mine on the Republican side share a lot of these concerns. Let's get Hegseth and Admiral Bradley before the committee, and let's do it soon.

HUNT: All right. Congressman, thanks very much for your time today, sir. I really appreciate it.

KHANNA: Thank you.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, Tennessee's seventh congressional district now, for a day, anyway, the center of the political universe. Why Republicans are pouring millions of dollars into the election there, where Democrats would typically not have a chance.

The Democratic candidate in that race, Aftyn Behn, joins us live in THE ARENA, coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:31:48]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.

Coming off sweeping wins in last month's off-year elections, Democrats tomorrow hoping to eke out one last electoral win before the 2026 midterms, in a special election in Tennessee's seventh district. They're betting on Democratic State Representative Aftyn Behn to beat out the Trump-endorsed Republican Matt Van Epps in what would be a major upset win in a historically solidly red district.

Speaker Mike Johnson joined Van Epps for a tele-rally earlier today. During that, the president called in to tell voters, quote, the whole world is watching Tennessee right now. That after the president weighed in on his Truth Social platform yesterday, posting that Behn was, quote, a woman who hates Christianity will take away your guns, wants open borders, transgender for everybody, men and women, sports and openly disdains country music. And I'm joined now by the Democratic candidate in that race, Tennessee

State Representative Aftyn Behn.

Thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate you being here in THE ARENA.

I'd like to start with your direct response to President Trump. What do you have to say to him?

AFTYN BEHN (D), CANDIDATE FOR TENNESSEE'S 7TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: Yeah, I mean, the negative attacks, the barrage of insults and personal attacks are coming because he doesn't have a plan to make health care more affordable. And so I, you know, it's a distraction from the real issues, which are that Tennesseans are struggling with daily cost of living, and he doesn't have a plan to address that.

HUNT: How would you describe your personal -- your politics in terms of progressive? Do you consider yourself progressive?

BEHN: Yeah, I do, if progressive means feeding kids, fixing roads and funding hospitals, which is our campaign tenet. Then, yeah, I'm a progressive.

HUNT: How would you -- how -- where would you place yourself when you think about all of the other Democrats on the national stage -- and you are taking a turn on the national stage because of the way this race has been going -- the president has labeled you the AOC of Tennessee. Are you the AOC of Tennessee?

BEHN: I resonate with Democrats who have been trying to lower costs for working families and those that don't take corporate PAC money, because Tennessee is a state that has been bought and sold to the highest bidder. And the reason this race is so close is because voters in the seventh district want someone who is not going to sell out to special interests, but will represent the people. And that's why I hope we will be able to pull out this win tomorrow.

HUNT: Are there any policies that the party's presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, held that you disagree with?

BEHN: Honestly, haven't thought about it. I've got 24 hours to -- I don't mean to be flippant, but I have 24 hours to win this race. And, all I've been thinking about is talking to every last voter possible at the doors and trying to make my case as to why I am the best candidate. Once again, this race is close because not only have we mobilized lots of Democratic voters, but they are independents and Republicans that are upset with the chaos of Washington and want to see someone who will be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

[16:35:00]

HUNT: But there's no policy you would identify that -- again, the party's presidential nominee held that you do not agree with?

BEHN: Once again I don't -- once again, I just -- I -- policy positions are, you know, I'm trying to make life more affordable for Tennesseans. I really haven't thought about it just because I've been so fixated on winning this race and trying to lower costs for Tennessee families. You know, healthcare has been a major issue in this race.

I got my start as a community organizer raising awareness about Medicaid cuts to rural hospitals. And unfortunately, with the passage of the big, ugly bill, Medicaid cuts are imminent. And so, like I said, I -- I'm just trying to win this race. I've been super focused and fixated on talking to every voter possible to get to the polls, as polls will open at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow

HUNT: One example, there was a moment on the Democratic debate stage during the primary where all of the candidates were asked if crossing the border in -- as an undocumented immigrant should be decriminalized. Do you think that that should be decriminalized? Quite a few of those candidates said that it should be decriminalized.

BEHN: That's not an issue that I've heard from voters about in the district. The issues of cheaper groceries, cheaper utilities making sure that they have a health care facility close to their home, as what they are thinking about in the seventh district, that hasn't been an issue that's come up.

HUNT: ICE raids has been something that seems to have been an issue at some point in your race. I'm interested to know if you are elected to Congress, would you speak out against the ICE raids in your community?

BEHN: Well, as a as a state representative in the Tennessee legislature, following a massive, unprecedented clandestine ICE operation, I spoke out on behalf of my Hispanic constituents, of which told me their number one issue is racial profiling. And call me a small C conservative, but I don't believe in masked federal agents overstepping their authority in our communities when it's what our communities are going to decide what makes them safe.

So that is an issue, especially with, you know, my Hispanic constituents that has come up. And I'm, you know, I will speak out against federal government overreach as I have my entire career.

HUNT: Crime is, of course, also was a major issue in the presidential election. And I know there are some old posts you've been asked about those old posts a number of times. My question for you today is whether more money for cops on the streets in the district you hope to represent would help fight crime. Would you like more money for more cops on the streets in your district?

BEHN: So those past comments were at a time when I was a private citizen. As an activist and organizer, and now as a Tennessee lawmaker, I represent 40,000 individual opinions and political thought.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: And so what do you think now? Would more money for cops be good or bad? BEHN: I think it depends on what the community wants. And so there -- I've worked with communities, at least my constituents, want to ensure that there is investment in their community for community safety, community protection, mental health services and, that's what I'm hearing from at least my constituents.

HUNT: All right. Fair enough.

Before I let you go, the president has questioned your commitment to country music. What's your favorite country song?

(LAUGHTER)

BEHN: Well, during my state race and my congressional primary, I sang "9 to 5". Once again, these personal attacks are almost satirical at this point. And it's because they don't have a plan to make health care more affordable. But --

HUNT: So, is "9 to 5" your favorite country song or what?

BEHN: "9 to 5", I've got a few, George Strait, "Amarillo by Morning". But fair enough. Country music. Yeah. Anyways taken out of context, but a big, big country music fan. And unfortunately, this is the result of this race being so close and the president having no plan to address the affordability crisis in our country.

HUNT: All right. State Representative Aftyn Behn, thanks very much for your time today. Really appreciate it.

And we should note that we did invite the Republican candidate in this race, Matt Van Epps, to join us here in THE ARENA. He is welcome to come by anytime.

Our panel is back.

David Chalian a little surprised she couldn't name any position where she disagreed with the Democratic nominee. But you know?

CHALIAN: Well, she certainly was on message, though she may not have wanted to play your game, Kasie, ask her that, but she clearly kept coming back to the affordability issue, which is where she is focused her attention and quite frankly, where she will meet with some success.

Listen, the fact that we are even talking about this race is bananas, right? Donald Trump won the district a year ago by 22 percentage points. But we're talking about it because not just this district. We've seen in all the special elections for the House this year, significant Democratic overperformance. Now, it would have to be turbocharged and it would be a political earthquake if she ends up the winner in this ruby red district.

But, you know, she -- taking a 22-point district and getting both sides to spend millions of dollars to say, hey, this is actually competitive, that shows you the political climate that we're in right now. [16:40:08]

AXELROD: Yes. And I think, there are all these arguments now, it may be that Donald Trump, and the Republican Party can defy the laws of political nature, but no one in politics would look at these results from November 4th, from the special elections, would look at a poll that puts this as a two-point race. I don't know if it's a two-point race, but if she's anywhere near that tomorrow, let alone win, people are going to look at that and say, this is a big problem.

And I wonder if what follows then is a lot of post-holiday missives to their constituents from a lot of Republican legislators who decide, you know what, this has been great. I'm going to try something else.

HUNT: I'm out.

AXELROD: Yeah.

HUNT: Let's watch a little bit. I want to show you some of the ads that have been playing in this race. Listen for yes, what they say, but also what they don't. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BEHN: We all know the system is rigged in Washington. Here's how it works: politicians make it easy for their rich donors, tax cuts for billionaires and burying the Epstein files, while hardworking Tennesseans get a rough ride by cutting health care for Tennessee families, doubling health insurance premiums and tariffs that hurt our economy.

AD NARRATOR: Nine combat tours, true American hero.

MATT VAN EPPS (R), CANDIDATE FOR TENNESSEE'S 7TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: Now I'm on a new mission -- to bring down prices, create good paying jobs, and lower health care costs for working families.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Bryan Lanza, you know who is entirely missing from those ads?

LANZA: Republican --

HUNT: President Trump.

LANZA: Oh, that's it. Listen, I think --

AXELROD: You only have 30 seconds.

LANZA: Yeah, yeah, they only have 30 seconds. Listen, I agree it's a lot closer than it should have been, but it will be a lot closer than it should be tomorrow, right? It will be within single digits. And that is earth shattering.

But, you know, my hope is that the administration sees the results tomorrow night and realizes it's a lot closer than it is, and we just start talking about affordability every hour.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah, but --

LANZA: Anytime we're --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- talking about it, it's doing something. This is the -- I mean, I have to say this, the --

LANZA: He has the leverage to do something about it. He can close --

(CROSSTALK)

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, what he chose to do was the Big, Beautiful Bill and that he did that to big, big, terrible disaster in terms of messaging. This was their signature economic policy. The American people don't like it. You know, prices are going up in certain sectors. And so not, you know, also including tariffs.

But you know what I take away from all of this? I am finally so happy that Latinos are getting their just desserts, because finally people are talking about them, are discussing them. There are Latinos in every place in this country, including in Tennessee, and they're not -- and finally, people are looking and saying, these are the ultimate swing voters.

We've seen -- you know, the Trump administration thought that they had them locked down in 2024, and they swung massively. We saw it in New Jersey. And you're seeing that again because they are very, very interested in prices for sure. But talking to my Trump Latino family, as I did over Thanksgiving, a lot of them are also very angry. Not -- the border is resolved now. They didn't like what happened under President Biden in the border.

But I'll tell you where they're really mad. It's not even the ICE raids. It's legal immigration.

LANZA: Correct.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Legal immigration. They're saying, why is this administration, after they've actually resolved the issue of illegal immigration, which they think was unfair, why are they -- why are they now trying to shut down legal immigration.

AXELROD: We always make this mistake. We try and take the results of an election and we project forward, and we think that this is going to carry forward. So you'll remember after Obama won, there were people who were talking about the coalition of the ascendant. This was going to dominate politics for generations.

HUNT: Forever.

AXELROD: And then Donald Trump comes along. And then in this last election, though, it was a rather narrow election, there was the, you know, this is a new governing, and these voters were voting no confidence in the administration that was leaving. They weren't -- and they were hoping that Trump would do something. And he hasn't been able to do it.

And the fact that Van Epps is running his ads on her issues --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Exactly.

AXELROD: -- says everything.

CHALIAN: It says absolutely everything. You almost couldn't tell the issue difference between --

HUNT: It's like the same.

CHALIAN: -- the two candidates. And that shows you that Republicans see Democrats and the White House sees it, too, by the way. That's why they've previewed Donald Trump is going to go out on a tour and talk about affordability. I know you say there needs to be doing something, but also just making this the attention and giving it the attention every day.

They preview it. We'll see if he follows through. But the White House understands where the political conversation.

(CROSSTALK)

AXELROD: There's a big test here. Theres a big test right in front of them, which is what are they going to do about the expiring premiums on the Affordable Care Act? Apparently, the president wanted to make a move on it, and he got whistled off it, at least for the present, from Republicans in Congress. He had the right instinct.

LANZA: He always has the right instinct. Well, I would say that.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I have a question, though, about this. Just -- it brings a thought to me when you're discussing is really the strategy of this administration, which is to sort of program every day something new, something you know, that will get the attention of the media, something that will break through, quote/unquote, to voters.

[16:45:12]

Is that actually hurting them at the moment? Because they are not focusing -- at laser focused on this issue of affordability, and instead, it's a different thing every day. And people are confused and nothing is breaking through.

HUNT: Asked and answered. Totally agree.

All right. Ahead here in THE ARENA what the White House is now revealing about President Trump's health after he himself revealed that he had an MRI but couldn't really point to what doctors were looking for.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: 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?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:50:11]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: But if you want to have it released, I'll release it. Absolutely.

REPORTER: Tell us what they were looking at.

TRUMP: For what? Releasing?

REPORTER: No, no, no. 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)

HUNT: Nearly two months after his trip to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, the White House is finally providing some details about President Trump's medical imaging.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt read from a summary from the president's physician at this afternoons briefing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: As part of President Trump's comprehensive executive physical, 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. His cardiovascular system shows excellent health. His abdominal imaging is also perfectly normal

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Dr. Jeremy Faust joins our panel. He is an emergency room physician.

Doctor, thank you very much for being here. Can you just help us clarify a little bit of what's being said here?

The president is calling it an MRI. The statement from the podium was imaging cardiac. Abdominal. What did you hear in this? Based on your medical expertise? What do you think the president underwent and why?

DR. JEREMY FAUST, ER PHYSICIAN: Thanks for having me.

What we heard was the word advanced imaging, which can mean an MRI, can mean a CAT scan. Those are slightly different technologies. But what I think really stands out to people looking at this in the medical profession is the notion of preventative screening using advanced imaging. There's really no such thing as routine prevention using an MRI.

There is such a thing as using CAT scans for some patients. If you're a smoker for 20 years, you should get a CAT scan of your lungs, depending on your age. But generally speaking, this notion that we can prevent disease with advanced imaging is actually much more difficult.

And that's so important because people hear this and they say, should I be getting that? Do I need that? And that's unfortunate because it is not as though we as the medical community are depriving people of such screens because they're not important enough. It's because the data show us that actually the benefits do not exceed the risks.

HUNT: Okay, so no preventative imaging, but that is, of course, what they're saying. This was if you're saying that we don't do that, then why would the president perhaps have this done?

FAUST: Well, there's some reasons. One would be simply overuse. We see this with celebrities getting full body MRIs, and it leads nowhere other than to scare them, because occasionally they'll see something that looks like something that could be significant but usually is not. And so, overuse is one reason, which is really unfortunate.

And the other reason that people get imaging like this is actually not for prevention, but chasing a diagnosis, chasing symptoms, saying something's changed and we are investigating in that case, lots of tests might be indicated, including a cardiac MRI, including an MRI or a CT Scan of the abdomen or of the chest.

So, if we're not being told that these tests are being done because of a change in his condition, that that would be important information.

HUNT: David Axelrod, this kind of information is often very, very closely held. I mean, why would the president just blurt this out?

AXELROD: Beats the hell out of me. Look, the whole theme of this program from start to finish has been opaqueness. It has been the unwillingness to share information that really should be shared. The health of a president is important. And look, I was critical in the last administration of that.

And I think people need to know, particularly when you're dealing with a president who is nearing 80. And I know how active he is, and we all see the amount of energy he has and so on. But I sat in the office next to a president. I know what that job is like. I know how crushing it is, and it's crushing on people 30 years younger.

So, this is concerning. I don't think we had the whole story on this. I don't think we have the whole story on what we were talking about earlier. For an administration that boasts of its transparency, they are not transparent.

CHALIAN: Listen, I don't think any president of either party likes to be fully transparent with their medical records. I think it's a thing that they tend to resist over time. That being said, the American people deserve it, and the way to do it is to have a doctor stand there and take questions from medical journalists who can poke and prod and be able to ask the right questions, since they have expertise and have the doctor answer on behalf of the president, so that the American people can have full confidence in their health.

[16:55:05]

HUNT: Yeah. All right. Well, maybe -- maybe someday, David, we'll see that.

Dr. Jeremy Faust, thank you very much, sir. Really appreciate your insights.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks very much. My panel. Really appreciate all of you being here.

Don't forget, if you're at home, you can now stream THE ARENA. You can watch it live, or you can catch up whenever you want. It's all in the CNN app. You can scan that QR code. It's right there on the screen.

You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. There's a QR code for that too. You can also follow us on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.

Jake Tapper is standing by for THE LEAD.

Jake, happy Monday. Let me tell you this weekend the football this weekend -- not so great.