Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Pres. Trump To Get Physical Exam At Walter Reed Medical Center; RFK Jr. In New York Post Op-Ed: "We Are Undertaking Radical Change"; Mark Zuckerberg's Blockbuster Anti-Trust Trial Begins Monday; Zuckerberg Needs Trump's Help To End Meta Antitrust Trial; Sen. Bennet Announces Bid For Governor Run In Colorado; Why Three Senate Democratic Dealmakers Are Headed For Exits. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired April 11, 2025 - 12:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:32:08]

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Right now, President Trump is on his way to Walter Reed Medical Center for his annual physical exam. It's worth noting that when 78-year-old President Trump took the oath of office this year, he became the oldest president to ever do so. His physical also tends to spark memorable moments.

Controversial White House physician, Ronny Jackson back in 2018.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

DR. RONNY JACKSON, PRESIDENTIAL PHYSICIAN: It's called genetics. I don't know. It's -- some people have, you know, just great genes. You know, I told the president that if he had a healthier diet over the last 20 years, he might live to be 200 years old.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

BASH: And let's remember President Trump's demonstration of his cognitive health in 2020.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: First questions are very easy. The last questions are much more difficult. Like a memory question. It's like you'll go person, woman, man, camera, TV. So they say, could you repeat that? So I said, yes. So it's person, woman, man, camera, TV.

OK, that's very good. If you get it in order, you get extra points.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

BASH: I'm joined now by a doctor with a lot of experience in this field. Dr. Jonathan Reiner is a CNN medical analyst, also a longtime cardiologist, including a former -- and especially a former Vice President, Dick Cheney. Thank you so much for being here, Dr. Reiner. I know you will never forget, but for our viewers who might not remember, going way back to 2015, when Donald Trump was first running for president, his doctor at the time, Harold Bornstein, he released a letter that said in part, quote, "If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency".

He later told CNN that Donald Trump dictated that whole letter. You understand what it means to be in the position of examining high level politicians, speaking to the press and the public about it. Given all of that, what should happen out of this physical and what do you think will happen?

JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Well, first of all, I'm not expecting to hear anything but superlatives. The Trump team has been, you know, remarkably opaque over the years in disclosing anything about the initially candidate's health or the president's health.

And the note that we received from his physician last fall, a New Jersey doc, basically was three paragraphs with no data, which basically just said he's great and his cognitive function is exemplary.

But I hope we have a more transparent look at the health of the president. As you said at the outset, he's now the oldest man to take the oath of office for president. And as we get close to 80 things, you know, things happen.

[12:35:07]

You know, all kinds of professions require physical exams. I mean, the folks that protect him, you know, the Secret Service agents have to have an annual physical exam. The people that fly his airplane have to have an annual physical exam.

And I think it's really reasonable that the president of the United States who controls the, you know, greatest Armed Forces in the history of the world and nuclear weapons have a physical exam and demonstrate that he or she is fit for service. I think the public has really a right to know sort of the general outline of the president's health.

BASH: And that is obviously true. And this goes without saying, and I know you would agree, no matter if the president is a Republican or a Democrat, especially when that president is, you know, an octogenarian.

And that was definitely true with Joe Biden. We're now learning things that we didn't necessarily know beforehand. So this is a bipartisan, universal need to know these things.

Dr. Reiner, I want to switch gears for a second and get your perspective on a new opinion piece written by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He wrote it in the New York Post, and he described radical changes he's making in the department. And here's what he said in part. He said, "Multiple offices focus on key priorities like women's health, minority health, and HIV AIDS. Too often this results in a lack of focus and uncoordinated resources. By eliminating these redundancies, we will both drive better outcomes and more efficiently use resources".

He also said that they're closing five of the highest cost regional offices in cities from Boston to San Francisco to Seattle. Your thoughts on that?

REINER: Well, what we've seen over the last month is a hollowing out of the health enterprise in the United States. We've seen really massive cuts at NIH. We saw the firing of leaders of NIH institutes like the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.

The director was fired. We've seen the chief regulator for vaccines at FDA fired. We've seen 800 grants canceled at NIH. So this is not just cost cutting. What I think the HHS secretary is doing now is trying to recraft not just NIH, but HHS with his vision.

And I'll remind everyone that Secretary Kennedy has a very unusual vision of health. He does not believe in vaccines. He has said that he's pro safety, but he just does not believe in vaccines. He has never found a vaccine to be safe.

And even in the current measles outbreak in Texas, what he is mostly stressing are unproven treatments. He stresses steroids and antibiotics, which are not known to be treatments for measles. There are really no effective treatments for measles.

So he's trying to reconfigure NIH and FDA with his, I think, very slanted view. And in the process, he's removing the most competent people from agencies that prevent tuberculosis and HIV and react to crises around the world.

BASH: Yes.

REINER: It's a dangerous time.

BASH: And I do want to have you back, because I am interested in your thoughts on the idea that he wants to shift resources to dealing with chronic diseases. Because my question is, and always has been every time I've heard that, why not do both and do it in a smart way? But please come back and talk about that.

Dr. Reiner, thank you.

REINER: Pleasure.

BASH: I appreciate it.

Coming up, why is Meta Chief Mark Zuckerberg making multiple trips to the White House? It may have to do with a massive trial targeting his empire. That is only three days away, and we're going to break it down after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:43:40]

BASH: From friend requests to IRL meetups. Mom and Dad, I'll explain after the show. For months, Mark Zuckerberg has been cozying up to Donald Trump. There was, of course, that post-election dinner at Mar- a-Lago. A prime seat at the inauguration. Multiple White House visits.

The Meta Chief even bought a house here in Washington, D.C. One potential reason for all of that FaceTime? A landmark antitrust trial targeting Zuckerberg's $1.3 trillion empire, and it's set to begin on Monday.

CNN Media Analyst Sara Fischer joins me now. First, Sara, just explain what this case is all about.

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: Yes. So, the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, approved two big mergers when Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012, and then again when Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014.

Then, during the first Trump administration, they sued to block those mergers, essentially saying, we shouldn't have approved them, and now we want to force you to get rid of those two assets.

Dana, this is a huge, huge deal, because the reason that Meta is so powerful, worth over $1 trillion, is largely because of these two companies. Now, of course, they say that they didn't illegally weaponize their dominance. The government has a different case.

BASH: Right. So, this is all about -- this is antitrust.

FISCHER: Yes.

[12:45:00]

BASH: And whether or not this company Meta should be as large as it is, particularly when you're talking about these huge apps --

FISCHER: Yes.

BASH: -- and platforms that everybody uses around the globe. Speaking of that, what impact could it have globally if, in fact, Meta is broken up?

FISCHER: It's a great question. I mean, millions of small businesses around the world are very dependent on Meta, and not just Facebook, but also WhatsApp, which is one of the biggest messaging apps globally, and Instagram.

And it's not just to talk to their friends, Dana. Small businesses use these apps to be able to communicate with customers, to be able to get inventory. So, if you force Meta to break up, it becomes unclear what happens to those apps. It also becomes unclear if they're bought and sold by a different company.

What is the content moderation policies that are going to be used? Remember, Meta pulled back on politics and news. Now it's leaning back in. It would have a huge ripple effect on politics, on society, and on business.

BASH: And then beyond Meta.

FISCHER: Yes.

BASH: You know, one of the many, many questions in the early days of the Trump administration was how the idea that all of these tech giants are so connected to Donald Trump, gave him so much money, they had those great seats at the inauguration, how they will fare.

And so the question is, how this particular case, if Meta loses? And if they have to be split up, how will that impact other big tech companies?

FISCHER: It would set a huge precedent for how the Trump administration treats big business, but specifically big tech. Meta and Google, Dana, are the biggest advertising businesses around the world by far. And those are the two companies that right now the Trump administration is looking to potentially break up.

If they were to go after Meta, force it to do this divestiture, then Google's pending antitrust cases, where they're forcing Google to potentially divest Chrome, biggest web browser in the world, and its ad tech unit, they'd be more vulnerable to that.

You also have to remember Microsoft, Amazon, those are other companies facing antitrust investigations. And so if we set a precedent now that you're going to force breakups, imagine what it could mean for those companies.

BASH: I mean, this is really consequential.

FISCHER: Yes.

BASH: You're going to have a very big week next week, my friend.

FISCHER: Yes.

BASH: Thank you so much.

FISCHER: Thank you, Dana.

BASH: Thanks for explaining it.

And in a world where Democrats can't afford to lose a single Senate seat, Senator Michael Bennet makes a very big announcement.

Plus, three senators who've decided to retire tell CNN's Lauren Fox why their future isn't here in Washington and what that means for the Democratic Party.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:52:05] BASH: It's official. Democratic Senator Michael Bennet is running for Colorado governor.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D), COLORADO: Our best solutions to these challenges will not come from the broken politics practiced in Washington. They will come from us. And that's why I'm running for governor.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

BASH: Now, if he is elected, he, of course, will resign from his Senate seat. Democrats already have three seats opening in 2026. The three other Democratic senators who have already said they are retiring are Senators Gary Peters of Michigan, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Tina Smith of Minnesota.

And look at that. They all sat down with CNN's Lauren Fox for her new piece, aptly titled, "The Middle is Disappearing: Why Three Dealmaking Senate Democrats are Heading for the Exits".

And Lauren joins us now. What's the common thread?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I mean, I think over and over again, every senator remarked on the changing nature of Washington, the reality that it used to be much easier to get deals made than it is right now.

And part of that is not just the retirement of these members, but the retirements that have come before them, the losses of the middle that have come before them, because it's so much harder to win in a red state. If you are a Democrat, it's harder to win in a blue state. If you are a Republican, that's just the reality.

And here's Senator Jeanne Shaheen on the fact that the base is also making that more challenging.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D), NEW HAMPSHIRE: Base has gotten to the point where if you work with the other side, that's considered by some to be a negative character trait of what people are doing. And that's a really bad position for us to be in.

You know, one of the things I learned as governor is that you don't have the luxury of saying, I'm not going to work with this person, and I'm not going to solve this problem.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

FOX: And there's really a twin challenge as well, Dana, with the fact that these lawmakers are facing a reality that if they do try to work with the other side, you saw there, they get a lot of feedback back home from their constituents. BASH: Yes. And sometimes it's good. You know, some of them are -- all of them are in purplish states. But as she was saying, Senator Shaheen was saying, it's not so good from the base if they don't completely go 100 percent in.

New Hampshire is pretty purple, as is Michigan when it comes to the Senate. And Minnesota is maybe, you know, Jeff Zeleny calls it the red is blue state, which means that who knows what's going to happen in these three seats, which are now open. What did they say about the possibility of the Democrats keeping those in their column?

FOX: Yes, they all had really different visions of the best way to win back votes for Democrats. You know, a lot of them are going to have to win back some Trump voters that voted for Donald Trump in the last election. But it was really interesting.

[12:55:02]

Here is Senator Tina Smith when I asked her to lay out really the balance between explaining to the base what's possible in Washington right now and the fact that there's so much energy in the base.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

SEN. GARY PETERS (D), MICHIGAN: We've got a new president. He's already creating a great deal of chaos. I'm confident we're going to have a lot of backlash next year. It's going to be a good democratic year.

People have to stay to their core messages to their core beliefs, particularly on the economics. It's what people care about every day.

SEN. TINA SMITH (D), MINNESOTA: They're craving the understanding that we get that this is not normal. This is not -- these are not normal times. And I think we need to listen to that, and not just patronize people by saying, oh, don't you know, if you only knew what I knew, you wouldn't feel the way you feel. That's why people don't like us.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

FOX: And you saw there, Gary Peters obviously had a really different take, which is the fact that his view is this is going to be a much easier year for Democrats than maybe some people are anticipating, because Donald Trump is doing so much that voters don't like right now, Dana.

BASH: I love this. I love that you did this. Again, I encourage people to go and watch the whole on CNN.com. Thanks for showing some of it to us. It's obviously Friday.

Thank you so much for joining Inside Politics. CNN News Central starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)