Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump To Unveil New Healthcare Plan As ACA Premiums Set To Soar; Confusion Over Who Wrote U.S.-Backed Peace Plan; Trump: "Ukraine 'Leadership' Has Expressed Zero Gratitude"; Pentagon Threatens To Court-Martial Sen. Mark Kelly. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired November 24, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR, INSIDE POLITICS: Is President Trump about to unveil a healthcare plan more than a decade in the making. The livelihoods of millions of Americans hang in the balance.

I'm Audie Cornish in for Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines at Inside Politics.

OK, so on December 31, healthcare premiums are set to spike for 22 million Americans who buy their insurance on the Obamacare exchanges. That's why Democrats shutdown the government. They had demanded Republicans extend subsidies to help offset those costs. Democrats lost that fight. But Republicans know the politics aren't exactly on their side, because higher premiums in January 2026 could mean fewer Republicans in Congress by January 2027.

So today, sources tell CNN, the president will unveil a new plan to temporarily extend subsidies without restrictions, while Republicans keep working to come up with a longer-term health insurance plan. We're going to point out here that Republicans have actually been promising that for about 15 years.

I'm joined now by a terrific group of reporters. Alayna, just a week ago, the president said that he opposed any kind of like, major extension of the ACA subsidies, the existing subsidies that are supposed to be there. What is he offering now? Is it pretty much the same thing, an extension, or is there some trick to this?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: There's some differences. One is a temporary extension. And this is something that I think a lot of Republicans are completely divided on. No one really knows how to approach this, but the framework, what we're hearing and this could change, the White House says, but that there'd be a temporary extension of some of these subsidies.

But also, they would be putting in new income caps and new different requirements that, depending on, you know, the income place where people are on--

CORNISH: So, the amount of money you make would dictate what you would get?

TREENE: Yes, essentially.

CORNISH: OK.

TREENE: And then also, there's some other things to this too. But also, you know, for example, they would offer potentially health saving account -- health saving accounts for lower tier plans, lower tier premiums. And then we've also been told as well that there would be premiums on all of them.

So actually, if you look at the ACA subsidies now, there are some premiums that are offered that are $0 that would essentially go away. They would require premiums for all of the different plans. And so, it's getting a little bit in the weeds. And I know that we're expected to potentially see this framework released today or in the coming days, and that it could change, but this is really the president trying to stave off a lot of the income and they know they are going to be facing on this.

CORNISH: So, just here's where the rubber meets the road. People might just have finished their open enrollment, and they had a nasty surprise, right? The average ACA premium hikes could be 114 increase if those subsidies had expired.

Now here's the thing about what the president had to say in its Truth Social. he said, the only healthcare I will support or approve is sending the money directly back to the people with nothing going to the big fat rich insurance companies. Can you guys walk me through some of this because when Democrats first came up with Obamacare, it was to make it like privatize sort of, and this is how we ended up with subsidies in the first place.

AARON BLAKE, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Yeah. It feels like the president is throwing out a whole bunch of things that he wants out of this process.

CORNISH: But other Republicans have brought this up.

BLAKE: Yeah, exactly, but actually making these things work is extremely difficult. You know, it took a lot of political will and maneuvering to get Obamacare passed in the first place. Obviously, we've seen the Republicans try to repeal and replace that that didn't work out too well early in Trump's first term.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if this is kind of the first move towards just kind of kicking the ball down the road, giving Democrats kind of some of what they want in order to make this not a political liability for Republicans.

The question from there is whether the hard right of the Republican Party would be willing to go along with that because that is a big shift for the party to say, look, we're going to support extending these subsidiaries.

[12:05:00]

CORNISH: Although it's a little confusing right now, if you have Marjorie Taylor Greene with someone out there talking about healthcare subsidies. Josh Hawley was out there, defending Medicare. What a world. So, what do you see and how people are talking about this, especially as I think maybe Democrats were effective in tying higher costs to the healthcare subsidy issues, and now Trump approval ratings on inflation are pretty brutal, especially when it comes to independents.

SEUNG MIN KIM, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, AP & CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right, right. Which is why, when I was talking to Democrats around the time of the shutdown ending, look, Democrats equivocally lost the shutdown fight. Clearly, they didn't get what they wanted in terms of getting these subsidies covered as part of that funding bill. But they're arguing that they're winning the broader war over messaging, because one, you put the issue of these subsidies in the national spotlight, in the national conversation when it wasn't before--

CORNISH: Yeah. Look at this one independents, that's my only obsession. That's a long bar of red--

(CROSSTALK)

KIM: Exactly, exactly. And they kind of lay the groundwork to have the fight in there, to have this fight on a friendlier political ground when Washington actually takes it up. So, you're already seeing people like Maggie Hassan, a Democrat from New Hampshire, who was one of the eight who voted to reopen the government earlier this month. She said, you know, I don't like everything that's been reported, but this is a good starting point. That's a really remarkable statement from a Senate Democrat about a proposal from this White House.

BLAKE: Another note on the politics here. If you look at the polling on this issue, healthcare is an issue that has favored Democrats for a while, but if you look at the way people view President Trump on this issue right now, he's got his worst issues on healthcare of his entire tenure as president. There's polls that show Americans trust Democrats by double digits on the healthcare affordability issue, specifically. So, if you're a Republican you're looking at that. You can understand why they would feel the need to give at least somewhat.

CORNISH: Yeah. OK. You guys stay with us. Coming up on Inside Politics. Look where things stand in potential peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. This after one Republican senator accuses the Trump administration of not drafting the proposal. Plus, what happens when the president tells a female reporter to be quote, quiet piggy, and the world brushes it off. I bet most women can answer that question.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:10:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CORNISH: A diplomatic breakthrough to end Russia's war in Ukraine may be close. Maybe that's according to President Trump. He posted on Truth this morning, quote. Is it really possible that big progress is being made in peace talks between Russia and Ukraine? Don't believe it until you see it, but something good just may be happening.

So, the panel is back. You don't often see a Truth Social post with that many caveats from the president, who tends to be very definitive in how he thought, am I right? Like, he's definitive. He's like, this is going to happen, or this is not going to happen. But there are a lot of question marks to this one. And at this point, we know the administration has a deadline of thanksgiving for Ukraine to respond or does not.

TREENE: It's sort of a deadline, but it's not firm. That's essentially, I mean, that's exactly what they've been saying.

(CROSSTALK)

TREENE: Yeah. Well, the president -- right. I would love to be able to use that with my team, but when I'm running on store, working on deadlines. But anyway, the president has said that he wanted it to be Thursday that he got -- the Ukrainians got back to him on this. Clearly, I think that is potentially going to shift. We'll see where the negotiations go, but there was so much optimism, it felt like whiplash seeing that post that you read from the president this morning, because after the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio met with some of the Ukrainians and Europeans in Geneva, it's completely changed the rhetoric we've seen--

CORNISH: Let me help people out here, because this started this weekend where there was an announcement of kind of like, hey or not, an announcement, a leak, that hey, there's a 28-point proposal. People may remember. The vibe is very similar to the Middle East plan, where it was like, is there a plan out, how many points? Let's look at this. But then you had lawmakers coming out like this.

So, Senator Mike Rounds, he's a Republican from South Dakota, and on Saturday, he's at this Halifax Security conference, and he starts trying to explain the sort of origin story of this document. And he says this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): Secretary Rubio did make a phone call to us this afternoon. I think he made it very clear to us that we are the recipients of a proposal that was delivered to one of our representatives. It is not our recommendation. It is not our peace plan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, the Europeans are all question mark, what? And they start to think it looks way too close to things that Russia would like in terms of holding on to land. I'm going to play -- show you one more thing, which is Marco Rubio then comes out on Saturday in an X post and says, the peace proposal was authored by the U.S. It's offered as a strong framework for ongoing negotiations. It's based on input from the Russian side, also based on previous and ongoing input from Ukraine. Talk about what is out there? How it's perceived as a kind of cleaning up, and whether that actually affects what could be a peace proposal going forward?

BLAKE: I mean, it's very clear that this plan went over like a lead balloon with congressional Republicans, who have for a long time been holding their nose on this subject. You know, they've given President Trump a lot of latitude to try and negotiate this deal, even though a lot of them are much more hawkish than President Trump is.

[12:15:00]

I think the vast majority of Americans are much more hawkish against Russia than Trump is. I think that the tweet from Rubio is really interesting, though, because if you look at the way he phrases it at the end, he says, this was crafted with input from the Russians and also previous input and something else from Ukrainians.

That, to me, suggests that he is conveying that this is largely kind of a wish list of Russian things, without him saying that this was authored by Russia, and maybe suggesting that this is more of a starting point, and now we get more of a Ukrainian input.

CORNISH: I did think that once you have kind of Witkoff and Kushner showing up, I'm sort of starting to perceive them as closers. Like, look, we're going to start to lean in on something. But tell me I'm wrong. Like, what's the meaningfulness of their appearance? And how did it get, frankly, more confused than what we saw with the Mideast program.

KIM: Well, certainly with Gaza, they were the closers. I think when we saw the more active and involvement, particularly of Jared Kushner, it seemed like we were close. But I don't think you get that sense now because of the reaction you've gotten, not only domestically from congressional Republicans, but from Europe.

You've seen some very delicately worded statements from European leaders saying, you know, we applaud sort of this, the start of these discussions, but there are a lot of provisions here that need work. You know, I think we know if we're -- if we were to see President Trump later today or later this week, we'd want to ask, do you actually endorse all 28 points of this plan?

Because there are provisions in there that are pretty aggressive, such as, you know, agreeing to never expand NATO. I think that's a pretty remarkable ask by Putin there. So, I think, you know, if they are acting as the closers, it's hard to see that level of closeness right now, at least publicly, to a peace deal.

CORNISH: And then you've got Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who is sort of a J.D. Vance acolyte. I notice this because Vance has always been a person who's been the person who goes to Europe and says, you're not doing enough, right? Or says to Zelenskyy, have you shown enough gratitude? So, you don't exactly send him in to be like, let's make it better with the Europeans. But Trump, at one point over the weekend, said Ukraine leadership has expressed zero gratitude for our efforts, and Europe continues to buy oil from Russia. If this is an attempt to pressure Ukraine a little bit to get to the table, what's your sense about, is it working or if the White House thinks it's working?

TREENE: In some ways, look, I think what Ukraine has learned, and this is after seeing that blow up Oval Office meeting back in February when Zelenskyy went to the White House, is that they don't want to be the ones rejecting a proposal that is negotiated by the U.S. out right?

CORNISH: Right, right.

TREENE: And I think you can hear that in all of the comments that Zelenskyy has been making in the aftermath of those discussions in Geneva. They had a statement with the White House, kind of saying, we feel like the talks are moving in a positive direction. And that's why you have the Europeans playing such a heavy interference role, really trying to back up the Ukrainians here.

And so, I think when it comes to this, I mean, I think that's why you had Marco Rubio very active. I mean, he said, like, a dozen times yesterday how positive he believes talks are going and how he thinks the Ukrainians are on board. I was told that Rubio was the one who shared with the president that he believes that the Ukrainians are really making progress here.

And so, I think it's a delicate dance. I do sometimes think, though, that a lot of this isn't always strategy. It's the president reacting to what he feels in the moment. And he's been back and forth on who he's been more frustrated with for a long time. It's been the Russians. But there's also a big part of him that believes, potentially, Zelenskyy isn't willing to concede as much as he believes they should be.

BLAKE: I was really struck by Zelenskyy's comments when this plan leaked out, basically saying the choice that we're being left here in Ukraine is, you know, sacrificing U.S. support, or, you know, accepting this plan, which is completely unacceptable to us.

Like that was a very striking comment to me that reinforced one of the key dynamics here, which is, you know, if your goal is to bring this war to an end, and you don't really care how you get to that point, which I think a lot of people think is kind of where President Trump is on this. You know, he doesn't have the same kind of moral hang ups about, you know, combating Russian influence and the geopolitical concerns.

If your goal is to do this and you don't care about how you get to that point, the easiest way to do that is to really put the pressure on Ukraine to accept something that they may not want to do because they are not necessarily in a position of negotiating strength here. And so, this feels like he's kind of testing those grounds and seeing like, how much can we force Ukraine to stomach something that maybe they don't want to do? CORNISH: And the difference is, Ukraine is not standing alone, right? Europe very much is important to looking at its fate. You guys stay with me. I want to bring in this breaking news. The Pentagon threatening to court-martial Democratic Senator Mark Kelly.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CORNISH: Breaking news, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is threatening to court-martial Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. The Pentagon says they've received allegations of misconduct against the retired navy captain but made no mention of the nature of it.

CNN's Natasha Bertrand is following all these developments. And Natasha, thanks for being with us. I understand that this threat comes, of course, after the senator was in a video with other Democrats urging members of the military to disobey unlawful orders. Natasha, what more do we know about what they're alleging is a threat?

[12:25:00]

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Audie, this appears to all stem from that video that Senator Kelly made with other Democratic lawmakers, urging service members to remember that they have a duty to disobey illegal orders. And the Department of Defense, which now calls itself the Department of War.

They posted a statement on X, saying that they have received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly. He was a captain when he retired from the U.S. Navy. And they said importantly that a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which could include recall to active duty for court- martial proceedings or administrative measures. That is extremely serious.

And the bottom half of their statement there, it also kind of gets at why they're doing this. They say that, quote, all service members are reminded that they have a legal obligation under the UCMJ to obey lawful orders, and that orders are presumed to be lawful. And they said that a service member's personal philosophy does not justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.

So just to give viewers a sense of what this is all stemming from. Here's a little bit of that clip from last week that really, really angered President Trump.

(PLAYING VIDEO)

BERTRAND: Now, President Trump has been urging consequences for these lawmakers who made that video, saying that what they did was sedition and treason. And he has been extremely angry about it and urging the department to do something about it for several days now. It's worth noting, though, that service members do have a duty to disobey illegal orders. And the lawmakers who have been in that video, they have said repeatedly that they were simply issuing a statement of the law.

Of course, President Trump does not see it that way, and the Department of Defense now appears to be obliging him with this investigation into Senator Mark Kelly. We should also note one last thing, which is that Kelly is not the only veteran in that video, but because he was a senior officer who retired from the navy, he is required to remain available for recall to the military by law. The other Democratic lawmakers, who are veterans, they completed their service at a lower rank, so they are not eligible for that. Audie?

CORNISH: OK, Natasha. Thanks so much. So, we just heard Natasha there. First give us a good explanation of why Kelly out of this whole group, which is that he's a retired officer. He was a navy captain, and so due to his rank, he's sort of subject to the ability of the UCMJ to be under their jurisdiction.

First, I want to talk about the how this has been extended fallout since this commercial came out from these Democrats. What is it that struck a nerve with this White House?

BLAKE: I mean, it is really interesting that they've chosen to make a really big issue of this. I mean, it's the kind of video that could just as easily have been put out and kind of forgotten a few days later. But this is grounds on which President Trump has decided that he wants to fight. He wants to make an example of these Democrats who are stepping forward.

I think the idea is that, you know, Republicans who haven't gone as far as the president have, you know with the sedition and punishable by death. You know, they do have concerns about the idea that you're kind of transferring this sense to military members, that they can decide what's legal and illegal and make those calls in real time.

CORNISH: They want to know in the Pentagon's announcement on X, they were citing code 10 in particular, which is around treason, sedition, subversive activity. So, there is that word again. And specifically, it's people who counsel urge or in any manner cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty or mutiny. And I do think that that insubordination, I think, was a word I heard a lot on the right last week.

KIM: Right, right. And I do think that it's, you know, Senator Kelly is obviously the biggest target of this now with the Pentagon's announcement earlier today. But the White House has been repeatedly, for example, going after Senator Elissa Slotkin after she discussed this further on the Sunday shows.

And, you know, the president has been incredibly aggressive with this language, to the point that, you know, Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, kind of walked back what he actually, actually meant. And it will be just really -- I mean, I think we're all waiting Senator Kelly's statement on how he responds to this and what he believes -- what he thinks of this investigation.

CORNISH: Yeah. TREENE: No, I agree. And I think one thing that was interesting, I was kind of picking up on in my conversations about this last week, particularly after the president went so far on social media, was that everyone--

CORNISH: Republican (ph) so far, he used the words grounds for execution.

TREENE: Yes. No, no, exactly. We should be very clear about what he said, punishable by death.

CORNISH: Right.

TREENE: When he said, was referring to seditious behavior. But a lot of people within the Trump administration, was kind of telling me, they thought this was a winning argument for the White House, that it was ridiculous, that they thought Democrats, oh, excuse me--

CORNISH: Yeah, no, no. Because I want to add to your point. Pete Hegseth just tweeted the video made by the seditious six. New nickname unlocked was despicable, reckless and false, encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their commanders, undermines every aspect of good order and discipline. Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion, which only puts our warriors in danger.