Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Biden Rings Bell After He Completes Course Of Radiation Therapy; Trump Urges Dems To Reopen Govt, Calls Them "Obstructionists"; Bitter Divide On Capitol Hill As Government Shutdown Enters Week 4; Court Allows Trump To Send Oregon National Guard Into Portland; Fate Of Trump's Pick To Lead Office Of Special Counsel In Question; White House's Karoline Leavitt Posts Her Insults To Reporter Online. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired October 21, 2025 - 15:00   ET

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

JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: And men who have a first degree relative with prostate cancer can even start testing even earlier at age 40. So, these are the kinds of timelines and discussions that men should have with their doctors.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And just really quickly, we have 10 seconds. Early signs of prostate cancer to be on the lookout for?

REINER: Maybe no sign. You know, the early -- you know, men can have prostate cancer any sign at all. without

KEILAR: All right, good to know. Jonathan Reiner, thank you so much.

And a new hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts now.

Twenty-one days and counting and while lawmakers are still at odds over the way forward to end the government shutdown, hundreds of thousands of federal workers are furloughed and millions of Americans are at risk of losing benefits.

Plus, Portland bracing for the deployment of troops on its streets after President Trump scored a legal victory that gives him the green light to mobilize the National Guard there. We're going to show you what comes next.

And later, the fate of President Trump's hand-picked nominee to lead the Office of Special Counsel now in question after a report alleges he shared pro-Nazi and racist text messages in a group chat with fellow Republicans.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

We are now 21 days into the government shutdown, but no talking on either side, at least not directly. They're not really negotiating. There is, though, some finger-pointing and name-calling. President Trump, while hosting Senate Republicans in the Rose Garden, referred to Democrats as obstructionists.

Meantime, Democratic Senator John Fetterman has a new name for the shutdown. I can't exactly repeat on the air, but you get where it's going. A crappy groundhog day, let's say.

As for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, he says there is no name for a plan B to end the shutdown because plan B is plan A. It's to open up the government, as he told Manu Raju, CNN's Congressional Correspondent. He also said this just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): Senate Republicans, House Republicans, and the President of the United States are all in favor of reopening the federal government. We're hopeful that this will be the week when we break out of this and the Democrats come to their senses.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's discuss with Chuck Todd, host of The Chuck ToddCast.

Chuck, great to see you.

As always, not a whole lot has changed since we last talked about the shutdown. What do you make of the messaging from both sides? Do you see it as effective?

CHUCK TODD, HOST, "THE CHUCK TODDCAST": Well, I think it's going to have diminishing returns. I mean, number one, we are now 11 days away from November 1. Why is November 1 important? This is when more people are going to see what the price increases will be on the -- on -- on insurance premiums related to the Affordable Care Act, obviously, otherwise known as Obamacare. So, that's a pretty important moment.

The second big thing that's happening is, guess what? The -- the -- the continuing resolution that Democrats have been voting against was only going to take us essentially till the middle of November, just before Thanksgiving. Well, suddenly that's getting closer.

So, you know, if we're going to have a temporary opening of the government, how long is that going to last and how quickly is this going to happen?

I -- I do think Democrats risk that for every day this stays close. I do think they've done a good job getting health care sort of in -- in the front of the conversation. It's not the lone conversation that's being had in politics, but it is now in the, you know, in the old days with this -- we'd call it above the fold, below the fold. I think they've at least gotten health care elevated a bit to above the fold.

But the biggest problem they have is engaging Donald Trump. And until he's involved in these negotiations, they go nowhere because the -- the congressional Republicans aren't going to do anything that Donald Trump doesn't first approve of.

SANCHEZ: To that point, his approval rating and the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll has actually gone up a point or two. It's still within the margin of error, but it hasn't really gone down.

TODD: Yes. SANCHEZ: What do you make of that?

TODD: Well, I -- you know, he's in a -- because I don't think anything moves it. He's been at the same sort of his trading range, right? It's like a 42 to 46. And it's been that way for -- for six, you know, arguably most of his first term and just about so far this term, right? It doesn't really move all of that -- all that much.

The number I continue to focus on in this shutdown is the Democrats approval or disapproval rating or unfavorable rating. And that's to me a bit of a yellow flag here where, you know, the -- the -- it's the Democratic numbers are -- are -- disapproval numbers are higher than the Republican disapproval.

[15:05:05]

Trump is higher than both of them individually, but as a party. And I think that that's the -- that would be something if I were in the Democratic side I'd be concerned about. Look, I think Republicans have a health care problem. They've had a health care problem for over a decade, right? We've seen this in election after election, and that's not going to change here.

I think Democrats could end up diluting whatever gains they get for -- for the longer this goes on because of the way Donald Trump doesn't care. He doesn't have the same motivations. It isn't -- you know, the fact that swing voters are sour on him. He doesn't care.

If Republicans thought opening the government would help them in these elections, maybe they would do it, the elections of -- of New Jersey and Virginia, et cetera. But it doesn't really have an impact there. In -- in his mind, as long as the base is happy, everything's fine. What's ironic now is I think Donald Trump has a bigger problem with his tariffs and the Argentinian -- the promise to buy Argentinian beef. Like, that is more likely to -- to splinter Senate Republicans than anything else. And, you know, this is the type of thing that I think Democrats are failing to take advantage of because they're in the middle of this shutdown showdown.

SANCHEZ: Quickly, Chuck, I - I'm curious to get your thoughts on this op-ed in The New York Times, because it speaks to what you're describing as a conundrum for Democrats. It calls for a moderation among the left. It says the Democrats should, quote, "move to the center," and that would enable Democrats to confront Trump more aggressively and effectively. Voters would see them as credible if Democrats were willing to be less ideological, less beholden to views that many liberal activists, intellectuals and donors genuinely hold, but that most Americans do not. It argues that they would have the opportunity to build the next governing majority.

Of course, the difficulty there is that so much of the energy on the left is with these progressive causes. And we saw some of that over the weekend with the No Kings protests, some seven million people hitting the streets. If they could deal with Republicans after the shutdown, doesn't that potentially hurt the energy that the party can capitalize on? TODD: Right. Well, look, I think that's the -- you know, this is why

you see so many elected Democrats, you know, gravitating towards the base. They're the ones paying -- you know, paying the most attention right now. The vast middle of the electorate who don't like these shenanigans aren't really paying attention, which is why I think it's not popping in the polls as hard, maybe even as it has before, because I do think government shutdowns have become the Chicken Little of American politics, right?

It's constantly being threatened, constantly being talked about. And even when they happen, they don't quite have the impact that all the fear-mongering has because of all the silly ways Congress over the years has -- has actually made it. They've made it actually easier to shut down the government when actually the pain should be tougher and it -- and it should be harder.

Look, what I think the op-ed describes in The Times is the Democrats have a math problem, right, which is this. At the end of the day, there are more base conservatives than there are base progressives. In order for -- for -- for the -- for the left to get political power, they got to win over more of the center than Republicans do. And when, you know, the -- their -- their perfect moment that they had is -- is sort of peak Obama in 2009, right, when they had 60 Senate seats thanks to a party switch and Obama. And it was this -- it was really -- you had pro-life Democrats. You had senators from -- Democratic senators from South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and very -- Nebraska. And then, you also had a -- a -- a president that had progressives thinking he was one of them.

You know, ultimately, that -- the -- of course, if you have a broader message and you can you have this -- you can have this broader mandate, but that's -- that's the problem, right? With all the energies on the left and the current elected officials only cater to that, I don't think they're doing a good job at appealing to what could be a -- a vast middle of this electorate that doesn't like the -- the coarseness of the Trump-led politics of today.

SANCHEZ: Chuck Todd, always great to get the analysis. Thanks for being with us.

TODD: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Brianna?

KEILAR: Riding high off an appellate court ruling allowing him to federalize the Oregon National Guard in Portland, President Trump is now waiting to see if the court will allow him to actually put boots on the ground in the city. Portland officials are bracing for this possibility as protesters continue to stage anti-ICE demonstrations outside a federal facility. CNN National Correspondent Nick Watt is there in Portland.

Nick, how is the city preparing for this?

NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this, Brianna, is the building, the ICE facility that has been the center of this entire issue. And they've been preparing here in the last hour. They've been sort of refurbishing this wood that they've got up there covering the windows.

[15:10:00]

They've been covering up some graffiti, getting ready, I suppose, for any protests that might erupt if National Guard members are, in fact, deployed here.

In terms of how they're preparing, the state and the city do not want these National Guard members to come here. So, what they are doing is they are carrying on the legal fight.

You mentioned, Brianna, that there was one restraining order that was lifted which had said that the President couldn't federalize the Oregon National Guard. He now can do that. But there is another little legal wrinkle. There's still a restraining order saying that the administration cannot deploy National Guard that are federalized in the state of Oregon. We expect that will be lifted and the National Guard will get here in the next few days.

The governor has said that this is unwanted. This is unneeded. The judges, though, the two judges on the three-judge panel, they said it is justified. The President can do this because he can't use existing troops to enforce laws. And this goes back to the protests in the summer when this building was damaged, when it had to be closed for three weeks, and when they had to bring in other federal troops. So, that is the justification. We will see what the reaction is when and if the National Guard come here. But I've been here 12 hours, 18 hours, very quiet, just a handful of protesters here.

Last night I was here, there was a guy in a mask, a protester, chatting amiably to a local police officer. There has been no violence here in the past few days at all. But we'll see what happens if and when, likely when, the National Guard arrives. Guys?

KEILAR: Yes, we'll be watching. Nick Watt, thank you so much live for us from Portland.

And still to come, the confirmation of President Trump's nominee to lead the Office of Special Counsel is on thin ice after reports he allegedly shared racist text messages in a group chat with Republican operatives.

Plus, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is going viral over her text exchange with a reporter. We have that and much more coming up on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:16:12]

KEILAR: Backlash today over pro-Nazi and racist text messages allegedly sent by President Trump's handpicked nominee to lead the Office of Special Counsel, Paul Ingrassia, seen here in his Instagram posts with the President, including one that appears to show Trump's handwritten and signed message saying, "Paul, you are great."

Senate Majority Leader John Thune wants the White House to poll Ingrassia's nomination and says he's, quote, "not going to pass." After Politico exposed the text messages that Ingrassia allegedly wrote in a GOP group chat, this one says, quote, "Martin Luther King Jr. was the 1960s George Floyd, and his holiday should be ended and tossed into the seventh circle of hell where it belongs." In another exchange, a person in the chat says, "Paul belongs in the Hitler Youth with Steve Bannon," in which Ingrassia allegedly responds, "I do have a Nazi streak in me from time to time, I will admit it." Elsewhere, he allegedly declares, quote, "Never trust a Chinaman or Indian."

Joining us to discuss is former U.S. attorney Harry Litman.

Harry, let's start with what this is, the Office of Special Counsel. Explain what that role is that he, Paul Ingrassia, is currently nominated for and why it's so important.

HARRY LITMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: So, Brianna, it's a special, supposedly independent agency within the federal government that handles appeals from people throughout the federal government, of which there are currently thousands, who believe they were discharged improperly or otherwise the subject of unfair or illegal action by the government.

KEILAR: Okay, and so that is a very important role, right? I mean, when Trump described Ingrassia in the spring online as a highly respected attorney, writer and constitutional scholar, is that the kind of person that you would expect to fulfill a role like this?

LITMAN: Well, of course, if he were, that would be one thing. And really, you want someone with a reputation for fairness and impartiality. There was a whole controversy involving the previous person, Hampton Dellinger, whom Trump fired. But that's not who 30- year-old, as you say, lawyer Paul Ingrassia is. And these -- these chat messages are really, really head-spinning. They include the things you said, but also basically he says, blacks behave that way because it's their natural state. You can't change them. And he is, as you mentioned, he also goes after people from China, people from India.

And the thing that really stands out to me is there's nothing sort of jocular or juvenile about them. These are really forthright views. And that's why John Thune has said, he's the Majority Leader, he says he's not going to pass. And for Trump to continue to push the nomination, I think, is a sort of poke in the eye to Thune. I don't see it happening. If I were betting, I would say that this hearing tomorrow, where Ingrassia is supposed to be considered, actually doesn't happen, that he's withdrawn before then.

KEILAR: That'll be really interesting. Now, in a comment to Politico, Ingrassia's lawyer said, "In part, in this age of A.I., authentication of allegedly leaked messages, which could be outright falsehoods, doctored, or manipulated, or lacking critical context, is extremely difficult." He went on to say, "We do not concede the authenticity of any of these purported messages. I wonder what you think about that.

LITMAN: Good luck with that.

KEILAR: Yes.

LITMAN: We have other participants in the chats saying, Paul, you are crazy here.

[15:20:04]

We are out of here. We can't talk to you. He has this widespread reputation. And it really shows if that's your defense, maybe they were made up. You know you're dealing with really incendiary messages.

Look, the Republican Party has worked so hard to try to shed its previous reputation for being bad on civil rights. Some have considered racist. And something like this -- you -- you're -- it's not surprising that the majority leader would stand up and say, don't send us this guy, Mr. President. He is toxic.

And if the defense he's going to try to make is, oh, this is all A.I., I don't think it has a chance of passing. These are -- these are legit and the -- the commentary makes it clear with the whole context and the other participants.

KEILAR: If the hearing really -- really quickly, Harry, we're running out of time here, but if the hearing happens ...

LITMAN: Yes.

KEILAR: ... I mean, what would you expect from it?

LITMAN: I'd expect a no vote. Thune is really, you know, he's the majority leader. This is his house. He's drawn a line in the sand. I don't think he can permit it to happen if he can possibly stop it. So, I would expect him not to get out of committee. There are other three other Republicans have already said they oppose him.

KEILAR: All right. We'll be watching to see what happens between now and then. Harry Litman, thank you so much.

And coming up, a bizarre text exchange between Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and a White House correspondent. That HuffPost reporter on the other side of the exchange is going to join us live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:25:55]

SANCHEZ: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has gone public with her insults to a senior White House correspondent for The Huffington Post. Her online post has so far been viewed some 16 million times on X. Let's walk through how the confrontation began.

S.V. Date from The HuffPost asked her who suggested Budapest as the site of the potential next meeting between President Trump and President Putin of Russia. Budapest, Date points out, is where Russia promised it would not invade Ukraine back in the early '90s.

Leavitt's reply, quote, "Your mom did." Date then asks, "Is this funny to you?" Leavitt then hurls insults, calling Date a far-left hack and directing him to stop texting, quote, disingenuous, biased, expletive questions.

S.V. Date, a senior White House correspondent for The HuffPost, joins us now live.

S.V., thanks so much for being with us.

I'm curious to get an understanding of what it was that you were trying to determine based on the question of who decided Budapest. What -- what was your intent with that question?

S.V. DATE, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, HUFFPOST: Well, to me, the -- the choice of Budapest, as I laid out in -- in the question itself, was interesting because I'm -- I'm sure President Zelenskyy of Ukraine is not terribly fond of that idea because of what happened there in the -- in the early '90s -- I think it was in '94 ...

SANCHEZ: Mm-hmm.

DATE: ... where they agreed to turn over the nuclear weapons that they had, like 1,200 or something like that. And in return, the promise was that, okay, Russia will leave us alone. And the United States, Great Britain and Russia agreed to those terms.

So, that happened in Budapest. And so, the -- the idea of going back there, it seems a little odd. And I just want to know, well, is -- did the President consider that? Did he think about that? Was he aware of that? And if so, then -- then why do it anyway? And I'm -- I'm -- and I'm still genuinely curious. And if they want to, like, fill me in on why Budapest, I'd love to hear it.

SANCHEZ: It seems like a fair question. And we should let our viewers know that it's uncertain whether that meeting is actually going to happen now. Even the preliminary meetings between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov now appear to be postponed. She characterized you in her response, one of her responses, as bombarding her phone. I -- I wonder if you'd had communications with her previously in which there was a dialogue. If -- if this was an aberration, in other words, the kind of response that you got here.

DATE: Well, the kind of response that I got is an aberration, because normally she just ignores all my questions, as does the press office, by the way. And these are the type of questions that, you know, I'm -- I'm emailing them or texting them or trying to go in and talk to them pretty much several times a week, because that's -- every time I write a story about the White House, you know, that's our job is to ask.

And by the way, I'll remind you, she is the press secretary for the White House, so this would be a person I would want to ask. And so, am I bombarding her? No, I don't like harass her and insult her and whatnot. Every time I have a question that I send to the White House press office, I also send it to her in case one of them chooses to respond.

SANCHEZ: I -- I wonder what you make of the accusation that you are a, quote, "left-wing hack" ...

DATE: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... who routinely attacks the President. You -- you did write a book a few years ago called "The Useful Idiot" about President Trump. What do you say to those comments?

DATE: Well, I'll say this, when I started covering Donald Trump in 2015, I did not know him at all. You know, in New York real estate is not a thing that I ever covered. But everything that I've learned about him and having covered his campaign and his presidency, the views I have about Donald Trump now are those that have come from my reporting and from my watching him and from my experience.

And if I don't convey my conclusions about Donald Trump to my audience, then I'm failing them. I mean, people who are -- are watching CNN or reading HuffPost or The New York Times for that matter, they shouldn't be expected to just get stenography and then go back and do all the historical research on -- on what this man has said and done in the past before.

[15:30:01]

I mean, I routinely say that the President lies. He does. He does. What can I do? I mean, that's who he is. And so, I -- I don't apologize for that at all.