Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

WH: Trump Diagnosed with Chronic Venous Insufficiency; WH: Trump "Would Not Recommend" Special Prosecutor for Epstein Case; Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) Discusses About Epstein Files; House Faces Friday Deadline to Approve DOGE Cuts Package; Sen. Scott Wiener (D-CA) Discusses About Reopening Alcatraz; AG Bondi Visits Alcatraz After Trump Call for Reopening Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired July 17, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:43]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We do have breaking news. President Trump has been diagnosed with a medical condition called chronic venous insufficiency, according to the White House. The Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, made this revelation just a short time ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I know that many in the media have been speculating about bruising on the President's hand and also swelling in the President's legs. So, in the effort of transparency, the President wanted me to share a note from his physician with all of you today.

In recent weeks, President Trump noted mild swelling in his lower legs. In keeping with routine medical care and out of an abundance of caution, this concern was thoroughly evaluated by the White House Medical Unit. The President underwent a comprehensive examination, including diagnostic vascular studies. Bilateral lower extremity venous Doppler ultrasounds were performed and revealed chronic venous insufficiency, a benign and common condition, particularly in individuals over the age of 70.

Importantly, there was no evidence of deep vein thrombosis or arterial disease. Laboratory testing included a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, coagulation profile, D-dimer, B-type natriuretic peptide, and cardiac biomarkers. All results were within normal limits.

An echocardiogram was also performed and confirmed normal cardiac structure and function. No signs of heart failure, renal impairment, or systemic illness were identified.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I want to bring in CNN's Kristen Holmes at the White House.

So, Kristen, are we learning anything more about the President's condition? What are you hearing?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're waiting for this doctor's letter, Omar. We were told that it's going to come after the briefing that she's going to release the entire doctor letter, which will go over every test that he took and what the actual results were.

Now, what she said was that the - according to the doctor, that this is completely normal for anyone over 70. But we should note why this is coming now. There were photographers at the White House here that traveled with the President who caught a number of images over the last several days. One of them was of his ankles that looked very swollen. The other was of his hand that had - seemed to have severe bruising on it and discoloration. That led to a number of questions from reporters about whether or not he had some kind of health condition.

This is really the first time we've heard this kind of a detailed walkthrough of President Trump's health. I'll remind you that even in his first term, generally what we get is that he's in perfect health. He couldn't be healthier. He's the healthiest man, et cetera, et cetera.

This is very specific, and it actually goes to a condition that they say that he has, which, of course, they say at this time is benign. Now, there was a follow-up question asked by a reporter in the press briefing just now if he was experiencing any discomfort. She said, no, he wasn't. So, this was all because of the actual swelling there, the physical swelling.

The other part of this is that once that letter comes, apparently whatever he's doing for treatment will be in that letter. Karoline Leavitt did not get into it at that time.

JIMENEZ: All right. So, we'll keep an eye out for that. For now, Kristen, thank you for bringing us those details.

Let's bring in Dr. Chris Pernell, who joins us now. She's a preventative medicine physician and fellow at the American College of Preventative Medicine. So, doctor, how serious is the President's condition from what you're learning?

DR. CHRIS PERNELL, PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE PHYSICIAN: So, it is common in those above the age of 50 and 70. And especially if you have overweight or obesity, you've had a history of blood clots in the veins in your lower extremities or you're a smoker. So, while it is not life-threatening, it is a disease that is progressive.

And what that means that if there aren't conservative treatments, elevation, compression, medication, if needed to treat accompanying ulcers or skin changes, it can worsen and actually put a person at risk for deep venous thrombosis. KEILAR: Help us understand, Dr. Pernell, how we should be thinking

about this. Is it - as we spoke to another cardiologist, it sounds like it might be helpful to think of it as a bit of a symptom.

[15:05:01]

And so, then you really want to know what the underlying cause is. They stressed here at the briefing that it wasn't from a deep vein thrombosis. But there are other questions, right? Whether there's pressure from the heart, if this could be bad valves, heart failure, early stages, kidney failure, sleep apnea, all kinds of things. What kinds of questions then need to be asked and answered?

PERNELL: So, so far, based on what I've heard, the right battery of tests have been done. When a person begins to have a swelling or edema in their lower extremities, you want to make sure that there isn't something significantly impaired in their cardiovascular systems - system. So, we heard that while he did not have a DVT, we also heard that he did not have arterial disease. But if a person is older, a person is overweight, a person is not engaging in regular physical activity or exercise, if a person is sitting or standing for prolonged amounts of time, you can get chronic venous insufficiency. And while it is not life-threatening, it can be debilitating. You can develop ulcers in addition to skin discoloration.

And if a person develops ulcers, you want to make sure that those ulcers aren't infected. There are other types of treatments that are done. Sometimes a person might wear an Unna boot, so a compression and a medicated wrap. If the damage to the veins in the lower legs and extremities are very severe, there are a host of other things to consider like a sclerotherapy or an ablation and surgery if it is very high risk.

Now, we did not hear that the President had any symptoms suspicious of heart failure. That might look like a person who has fatigue. That might look like a person who also has shortness of breath. But we were - it was reported that the echocardiogram was non-remarkable, as we would say in the medical field.

So, I would say, stay tuned for more information for that official record that's coming from the physician who is treating the President and to think about those things that would predispose a person of his age, of his size and habitus to have progressive disease.

JIMENEZ: Dr. Chris Pernell, thank you from two non-doctors. Appreciate you being here.

PERNELL: My pleasure.

JIMENEZ: All right. Of course.

All right, meanwhile, news of the President's health breaking as the administration also confronts new fallout over the Jeffrey Epstein case. I mean, today, the White House further downplaying the growing number of Republicans calling for the President's attorney general to be more transparent. KEILAR: Let's go back now to CNN's Kristen Holmes at the White House

on this.

And you were in that briefing, Kristen. You asked about this. There has been this downplaying amid questions on whether the President should be supporting a perhaps special prosecutor investigation as some of his supporters, who at times do place some pressure on him, have suggested.

HOLMES: Yes, and we heard the answer on this, which is essentially Karoline Leavitt saying in the briefing that President Trump does not recommend a special counsel or a special prosecutor. The reason why this is so critical is yesterday, we were able to ask him the quick question of whether or not he would appoint a special counsel. And he replied he would have nothing to do with that, or he has nothing to do with that.

That is technically true. It would fall on the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. This here is showing that he would not recommend that to Pam Bondi. Now, in the past, we know that the Department of Justice has operated independently of the White House. That is not so much the case underneath Trump's administration. We know that the Department of Justice has really operated as an arm of this White House.

So, this - President Trump saying he doesn't recommend a special counsel is effectively telling the Attorney General that she should not in any way appoint a special counsel. So, I would give it about a 1 percent chance that there's a special counsel in this case now. Now, as you noted, President Trump and his team, Karoline Leavitt, out there today defending him amid all this backlash. Here's what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: It was this president who directed the Department of Justice and the Attorney General to do an exhaustive review of all files related to Jeffrey Epstein, which they did. The attorney general and the FBI, led by Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, these are great patriots, some of the most trusted voices in the Republican Party movement. He has said, in agreement with some of the leaders on Capitol Hill, that if the Attorney General and the Department of Justice come across any other credible evidence, they should provide that to the American people. The President would not recommend a special prosecutor in the Epstein case. That's how he feels.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Now, I also got a chance to ask Karoline Leavitt some questions here, particularly stuff that I had heard from President Trump's supporters, questions like, what does President Trump know? Specifically, does he have any knowledge or understanding of what is in these files that haven't been released? And she said that she didn't know, and that was a question for the attorney general.

Of course, the attorney general would have briefed the President, so it is also a question for the White House. [15:10:04]

I followed up with that asking if she is going to release anything else, does she have to get it approved by the President. And she, again, seemed to say, I don't know, I don't think so.

KEILAR: Yes, that was a really interesting answer to your question.

Kristen Holmes, thank you so much.

We're joined now by Republican Congressman Randy Fine of Florida.

Sir, thank you for being with us.

Do you support this bipartisan discharge to release all of the files?

REP. RANDY FINE (R-FL): Look, I support full transparency on the Epstein files. Jeffrey Epstein was a disgusting human being who has a special place in hell, and I think we should have full transparency on everything that happened.

KEILAR: Okay. So, you want it to come out, but you heard sort of some mixed messaging that we're getting from the White House. The President has said if something is credible, it should be released. It's unclear if he is aware of what has not been released. What do you make of that?

FINE: Well, I trust President Trump's judgment completely on this. I think he's been the most transparent president we've ever had. You talked about the health conditions. We had to have Joe Biden's doctor take the Fifth Amendment last week over their lack of transparency. And so, President Trump has proven to be transparent on everything. If there is anything to show, then I'm sure that they will.

KEILAR: And if there is anything to show, but without putting out some of the information that there is, and DOJ has been certainly giving a rationale about why they're not doing that and concerns for victims, you've heard from so many people, supporters of President Trump's, I'm assuming some supporters of yours as well, who say that's not sufficient for us. What do you say to them?

FINE: Well, look, people believe justifiably that Epstein did terrible things, and they want to hold those people accountable who were part of it. I fully support that, and I want everything to be released that's real, and I trust Donald Trump's judgment to do that. He can't release stuff that doesn't exist, and I know that the President's going to do the right thing, just like he's done on everything else since he became president.

KEILAR: And you did mention the President's health. So, I want to ask you, do you have concerns about it?

FINE: No, I think the President is a man in his 70s. He's going to have the kinds of conditions that people of that age do. But what I appreciate is the fact that, again, they are being transparent about them. I mean, Joe Biden tried to tell us for years there was nothing wrong with his brain when it was obvious there was something to the point that his doctor had to take the Fifth Amendment against self- incrimination of a crime last week. He's basically admitting they committed crimes in covering up Joe Biden's health condition. So, I think we should all celebrate the fact that Donald Trump is willing to tell us what's going on. This is not a health condition that should be cause for alarm, but it's the sort of thing that we need to know so they can manage it.

KEILAR: I do just want to note that this disclosure came after his ankles were visibly swollen and we could see makeup on his hand covering up a bruise, which they say is because of an Aspen regimen and a lot of handshaking.

I want to ask you about this DOGE cuts package, the package codifying it, passing the Senate, needs to pass in the House tomorrow. Are enough Republicans on board?

FINE: I believe so. I mean, I can't speak for my colleagues. I know I'm on board. Look, I think there's some frustration that the Senate didn't just pass what we sent them, but we want to cut. So, even if it's not as much as we sent over there, any cuts are better than no cuts. And the fact of the matter is this is the low-hanging fruit. In a modern world with internet and streaming, we don't need to be funding PBS and NPR, let alone with debt financing. And we shouldn't be sending money all over the world to do silly things that don't benefit the American people.

We could have a debate if we were funding this without deficit spending, but we're spending trillions of dollars a year we don't have. And this is absolutely low-hanging fruit that needs to be cut.

KEILAR: Some of your fellow Republicans feel that it does benefit Americans and their constituents specifically. They aren't pleased about the cuts to public broadcasting, because they say rural communities are going to be especially hard hit, that they're going to see this at the station level.

Republican Mark Amodei voted against it in the House the first time. He said he's taking a closer look at the stations in the Senate version. Let's listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARK AMODEI (R-NV): When you focus on the stations instead of the folks back East and the editorial stuff, it's an entirely different story to be told. And I don't think that was evaluated.

When you look at least in our neck of the woods, John (ph), and overlay it from the 2024 election results, those public broadcasting stations in the West overlay them with who voted for President Trump. And it's like, guess what? These were the President's people in a voter sense. They have done nothing to be punished for their editorial views since they don't have editorial views like the main corporation does.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KEILAR: What do you say to that, sir?

FINE: Look, part of my district is rural, and my constituents, even in that part of my district, are demanding that we cut the federal budget.

[15:15:04]

And frankly, I don't think we should be spending my constituents' tax dollars to create ...

KEILAR: No, I hear you, but that's not what he's - I hear you, sir. And if that's what people are telling you, but that's your colleague, your Republican colleague, who is telling you something very different. He's telling us something very different about what he's hearing and what he's hearing from his constituents. What do you say to that?

FINE: I think he's allowed to have his opinion. I don't agree with the idea of deficit spending to create government TV stations and government radio stations. I don't believe they're necessary at all. I do believe they were necessary 40 or 50 or 60 years ago. But as we bring broadband and all kinds of technologies to rural areas, I simply cannot justify borrowing money from my kids and grandkids to keep these stations in existence. I don't think it makes sense, and I just respectfully disagree with him.

KEILAR: I want to ask you about another funding issue. You are a member of the House Education Workforce Committee and CNN has reporting on this abrupt Department of Education suspension of 21st Century Community Learning Centers' funding. It's a federal program that supports more than 10,000 summer and after-school programs. Some of this money, a lot of it already approved by Congress for summer programs that are currently in effect, so it's really leaving them in the lurch. Is this affecting people in your district?

FINE: Well, I appreciate the question. I can't answer it because this is actually the first I've heard of it. So, if it's affecting people in my district, they haven't reached out to me. What I will say is this, as I've dug into the Department of Education, a huge percentage of the money the Department of Education spends does not benefit students. It is spent on overhead and other things.

I'm not saying that's what this program does, but I think we should all agree, whatever money the federal government is spending on education should actually help benefit kids, whether it's after school, during the summer, or during the school year, and too much of that money is not doing that.

KEILAR: Yes, as we understand it, some of these programs operate in your school district. Curious if they operate in the summer, but maybe we can check back in with you on that, Congressman.

FINE: Yes, again, I represent six school districts. None have reached out to me about this issue thus far, but I am happy to look into it. Because, look, I believe education is a miracle. That's what helps a kid who comes from limited means live the American dream, and it's what I worked on in the Florida legislature, and I'm proud to be on that committee right now. I just don't know the details of the situation that you're asking about. First, I've heard of it.

KEILAR: All right. Congressman Randy Fine, thanks for being with us.

FINE: Thanks for having me.

KEILAR: And still to come, a high-profile visit to Alcatraz decades after it was shut down, why Attorney General Pam Bondi toured the former prison.

Plus, new CNN reporting on how the U.S. government is set to destroy 500 tons of emergency food because it will expire.

And later, the President says Coca-Cola just agreed to use cane sugar in its U.S.-made sodas, but what is the company saying?

We'll have that and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:19]

JIMENEZ: As the White House attempts to downplay the growing outrage over the Justice Department's decision not to release more Epstein files, Attorney General Pam Bondi is in California getting a tour of the historic and notorious Alcatraz prison just weeks after President Trump floated the idea of reopening the island prison.

Now, the Attorney General telling Fox News the former prison needs a lot of work, but could be useful in housing what the President calls the worst of the worst.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Alcatraz could hold the worst of the worst. It could hold middle-class violent prisoners. It could hold illegal aliens. It could hold anything. This is a terrific facility. Needs a lot of work, but no one has been known to escape from Alcatraz and survive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Now, an official says Bondi is there to discuss and, quote, "collaborate on the necessary planning to rehabilitate and reopen the facility," and as we heard from the White House Press Secretary, if it is possible.

Let's discuss this further with California State Senator Scott Wiener.

Appreciate you being here.

You've described this move as, quote, setting taxpayer money on fire. What do you estimate will be the cost of maintaining and running this prison? SEN. SCOTT WIENER (D-CA): I can't even estimate it. First, this is

just an absurd, irresponsible proposal on so many levels. First and foremost, Alcatraz is one of the top tourist destinations in the entire country. People come to see it from all over the country and all over the world. It's an amazing place. And to destroy that in order to build a - some sort of gulag to throw people in, like they're doing in other places, and it'll be so expensive.

One of the main reasons that Alcatraz was shut down by the federal government in the '60s is because it was so expensive to maintain because the prison was sinking, given the terrain on that island. So, it's a ridiculous idea. It's a dangerous idea. It's destructive, and it needs to stop.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, just for clarity on sort of where jurisdictions are, Alcatraz would be under the Bureau of Prisons. But as of now, obviously, it's in the San Francisco area. And as you mentioned, the museum has been really the tourist attraction that has brought in so many people in its most recent form. How - what do you anticipate the impact of this potential shift to be to San Francisco and to the population that typically goes to this island, which is to see it as a museum?

[15:25:02]

WIENER: Well, first, it would be a hit to the National Park Service because it's a big revenue generator. It would destroy a large number of small businesses who service the island. For example, the ferry operators and people who sell things on the island. There's a whole economic ecosystem around the Alcatraz Museum. And, yes, it would be bad for San Francisco. This is one of the tourist attractions that people love when they come here. So, there's enormous downside to doing this and no upside other than just yet another deranged idea from Donald Trump.

JIMENEZ: Yes, as you mentioned, currently under the Department of the Interior, which is why we've been seeing Doug Burgum out there with the Attorney General.

One thing we've heard from Attorney General Bondi, we also heard it from the White House Press Secretary as well, is that this would be housing the, quote, "worst of the worst," which echoes what we've heard from the President. Worst of the worst, American citizens, but also, as we've heard, migrants as well. What are your biggest concerns with potentially housing migrants in a place like this?

WIENER: Yes, so what we know about Trump is that he's a pathological liar. He also told the voters that he was only going to focus on people who are here without documents, who are hardened criminals, violent criminals. That's what he said. Obviously, he's lying. They're running around with these ski mask wearing ICE agents in Southern California, grabbing sometimes U.S. citizens, grabbing mothers who are on their way to work, waiting at a bus stop, people who do not have any criminal record, who are hardworking Californians. And they're grabbing them and sending them to God knows where. They're creating these private prison gulags, whether in El Salvador or this alligator Alcatraz monstrosity they're creating in Florida.

And so, when he talks about putting the quote unquote worst of the worst on Alcatraz, what he's talking about is putting hardworking Californians, immigrants there, mothers, people who are just trying to live their lives, and I think political prisoners. So, I don't - we do not want that in San Francisco Bay, and we need to stop it.

JIMENEZ: And we have seen the majority of those taken into ICE custody, at least, from reporting places like CBS, have not been convicted of violent crimes to this point, at least since January. California State Senator Scott Wiener, appreciate your time. Thanks for being here.

WIENER: Thank you so much.

JIMENEZ: Meanwhile, the U.S. government is set to destroy 500 tons of emergency food meant for starving people around the world. We're going to tell you why, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)