Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

New Questions Emerge About Trump's Health; White House East Wing Demolished; New Russian Missile?. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired October 27, 2025 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:31:58]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Vladimir Putin says Russia has successfully tested a new nuclear-powered weapon that -- quote -- "no one else in the world has," according to him.

Moscow claims the weapon can stay in the air for 15 hours and can evade missile defenses. The announcement follows yet another night of strikes on Ukraine's capital, President Trump telling reporters on Air Force One this morning that Putin should be more focused on ending the conflict.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't think it's an appropriate thing for Putin to be saying either, by the way. He ought to get the war ended. A war that should have taken one week is now in its soon fourth year. That's what you ought to do, instead of testing missiles.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: CNN chief global affairs correspondent Matthew Chance is in Moscow.

Matthew, what are you learning?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this missile that has been successfully tested, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, it's an interesting missile. It's a cruise missile.

And it's not just capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, but it's actually powered by a nuclear sort of reactor, a nuclear engine. And that gives it all sorts of advantages from a military point of view. It means it basically has an unlimited supply of fuel so it can keep on going.

The Russians say it can circumnavigate the world constantly without having to -- running out of fuel, or at least for a long period of time. It ran for sort of 15 hours on this test and covered something like 8,700 miles, but the Russians say it can go a lot further than that.

The disadvantage of it, though, is that it's --, obviously as it goes through the skies, that nuclear reactor burns the fuel and it potentially releases radioactive waste through its exhaust system into the skies. Because it's a nuclear reactor, it's a little bit unpredictable, potentially unreliable as well.

And it's just an experimental weapon. It's not in full development yet. It certainly hasn't been deployed. But the general context, Pam, for Russia sort of announcing tests like this is that it wants to underline just how much of a nuclear power Russia still is, particularly in a moment where diplomatic talks between the United States and Russia have stalled over the issue of the conflict in Ukraine.

It wants to show that, in the event of an escalation, if, for instance, United States should give Tomahawk missiles, cruise missiles to Ukraine, as been something that's been debated for the past several weeks, then Russia would have the ability and the capability to escalate.

And so it's really just a bit more sort of saber-rattling on the part of the Kremlin when it announces sort of experimental tests like this -- Pam.

BROWN: All right, Matthew Chance, thanks so much -- Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: For more analysis, I want to bring in CNN global affairs commentator Sabrina Singh.

She was deputy Pentagon press secretary under President Biden.

Sabrina, thanks very much for coming in.

Listen to what President Trump said about Putin this past weekend. Listen to this.

[11:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: ... know that we're going to make a deal. I'm not going to be wasting my time. I have always had a great relationship with Vladimir Putin, but this has been very disappointing. I thought this would have gone long before peace in the Middle East.

I could say almost any one of the deals that I have already done, I thought would have been more difficult than Russia and Ukraine. But it didn't work out that way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Does it sound like the president's views on Putin as someone he can strike deals with have changed?

SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, I think maybe the president is coming around to the fact that Vladimir Putin has been stringing him along all this time.

I mean, it is very clear from the Alaska summit that Putin was trying to drive down that clock. And so I think Trump potentially sees that, but Putin is ultimately a master manipulator. And I think it took one call from President Putin before Trump was going to meet with President Zelenskyy to renege on that deal on the Tomahawks.

So it's clear that Trump continues to be played by Putin, but I think he sees some of the writing on the wall. And so it's good that we have announced some additional sanctions. Is it enough? No.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting. As Matthew Chance, our reporter in Moscow, just noted, Putin announced Russia successfully tested its nuclear-powered cruise missile and will work towards deploying the weapon. Russia also launched multiple deadly attacks on Ukraine in the past few days.

What do you suspect is Putin's calculation now?

SINGH: Well, as Matthew said, I think some of it is a bit of saber- rattling. But I think what's even more concerning is the fact that the United States military has pulled a carrier strike group out of the European Command area of responsibility.

And it's actually moving it off the coast of Venezuela. The threat that the Russian military poses to Venezuela's military is completely different. And so to not have that type of firepower and that type of messaging and deterrence in the EUCOM area of responsibility, it allows Putin to do tests like this, not that it necessarily would have stopped him.

But it allows him to continue to saber-rattle, to continue to up the ante a little bit while we don't have a robust presence that we usually would in that area of responsibility.

BLITZER: Interesting.

Your previous boss, President Biden, met face-to-face with Putin back in 2021. A lot of us remember that. What sort of leverage is actually most effective with Putin? How would you advise President Trump right now to act to get Putin to stop these brutal attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine?

SINGH: I think what's going to ultimately stop Putin is showing that strength and commitment to Ukraine. Unfortunately, you have seen some of the language from this administration saying that Ukraine will never be able to join NATO.

I mean, that's taking bargaining chips off the table for Ukraine and not putting them in a position of strength. So I think, during the Biden administration, not only were we continuing to send out packages of military equipment almost weekly -- this administration has not done that, has been weak on some of the language when it comes to Russia -- but, additionally, we were leveraging sanctions all the time, and this administration has not done that. We have seen it just recently as last week, but there's more that

could be done. And there's more that could be done in terms of arming Ukraine. And you're not seeing that here.

BLITZER: As you know, Sabrina, the White House recently placed sanctions on two of Russia's largest oil companies, making some of the Trump administration's most tangible actions against Russia to date.

Do you expect those sanctions will be sufficient to get Putin to stop these attacks against Ukraine?

SINGH: They're not going to be sufficient enough. They're not going to be large enough to really -- they're going to hurt. They will hurt Russia's economy, but they're not going to be enough to stop this war.

Ultimately, Russia is able to expend people at a rate that's much higher than Ukraine, putting people on the battlefield, recruiting people, paying them very high and well. So, these sanctions, while they will hurt, there needs to be additional sanctions.

And there is a large sanctions package that's sitting in the Senate that's ready to be passed that, unfortunately, as you know, has gone nowhere.

BLITZER: Yes.

The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, tells Axios' Barak Ravid -- and I'm quoting now -- "If Putin doesn't stop, we need something to stop him. Sanctions is one such weapon, but we also need long-range missiles."

Could this latest escalation for Putin be what pushes President Trump, do you believe, to give Ukraine those Tomahawk cruise missiles that President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians want so anxiously?

SINGH: You know, it could, but it's not one weapon system that's going to be the silver bullet on the battlefield. It's, one, how they're all knitted together.

You will remember, when we were in the administration, it was the tanks that we were giving them. That was going to change the battlefield dynamics. Then it was the F-16s or the HIMARS. At the end of the day, the lines on the battlefield are kind of stuck in a place right now where the Ukrainians have not been able to breach and move forward.

But it's also putting themselves in the best position at the negotiating table. And to have some of these long-range missiles that are able to strike deep within Russia, that gives them a power at the negotiating table and ultimately does help them in their operations. But it's not just one system that's going to do it or make the absolute difference when it comes to winning this war.

[11:40:08]

BLITZER: Good analysis. Sabrina, thank you very, very much -- Pamela.

BROWN: All right, coming up right here in THE SITUATION ROOM, 123 years of American history demolished, as the final walls of the East Wing are reduced to rubble.

We're going to look at what was lost.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:45:03]

BROWN: Happening now: The White House East Wing is no more, as President Trump builds out a brand-new ballroom.

BLITZER: And with all the rubble comes new questions about what happens to the American artifacts that called the East Wing home.

Joining us now, CNN presidential historian Tim Naftali.

Tim, thanks very much for joining us.

Big picture here, why is this demolition of the East Wing of the White House so significant and resonating, clearly resonating, with the public, in your view?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, it's resonating with the public because the White House is a public state building.

Many Americans, if they haven't been inside the White House, they have been outside the White House. And the idea that the president on his own could just destroy part of it without the involvement of experts, historians, what have you is disturbing.

And it should be disturbing, because President Trump is the first president to undertake a major renovation of the White House without involving the Fine Arts Commission, the American Academy of Architects, Congress, and the White House Historical Association.

BROWN: So I want to -- the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has responded to the criticisms and she has said that nearly every single president who has lived in the White House has done some sort of modernization or renovation of their own, basically saying, look, other presidents have done similar. Why is this such a big deal?

What can you tell us about that and past changes to the White House.

NAFTALI: Every president has the right -- and it's the expectation -- of changing the Oval Office. And, generally speaking, at the end of their term, that Oval Office is reconstructed in their presidential library.

Presidents change the colors of the White -- of the Oval Office, the rug, which presidential portraits they want to display there. There's no doubt that that is certainly part of the expected tradition. What is not part of the expected tradition is that the president will demolish part of the White House campus and, if they do demolish it, will do it without involving the organizations that have been -- that were established in some cases in 1910 to ensure the integrity, historical and otherwise, of the White House.

This set of groups, Fine Arts Commission and then the sort of the assumption of responsibilities by the American Academy of Architects, this was a result of Teddy Roosevelt's creation of the West Wing. And after that, there was a sense that the American people need some buy- in before major changes are made to the White House.

President Trump has apparently ignored all of that. I want to add one more point. As someone who was fortunately responsible for a presidential library for some time, there are ways virtually to preserve structures. I think it was a mistake to go ahead and demolish the East Wing without any buy-in or consultation.

But, at the very least, the Trump administration should have created a virtual tour of that structure so that historians and the American people in the future can visit it online. We have that technology. I don't think they did that, in fact, because, if they had done that, they would have been now celebrating the fact that they had preserved something.

My concern is they did it without any thought to the history of the first ladies and others who walked that building and shaped our country.

BLITZER: Yes, it's really amazing what's going on. As a former White House correspondent who used to walk around the East Wing of the White House all the time, just heartbreaking to see that rubble. I drove over there the other day behind the East Wing, saw those cranes working. It was just awful to see that going on.

The Trump administration, Tim, says that it has taken steps to preserve the historic artifacts from the East Wing as it constructs President Trump's new ballroom. What sort of artifacts are we talking about, and where do we expect they may go?

NAFTALI: Well, the artifacts would be any sculpture. I believe there was a sculpture of Abraham Lincoln, for example, that was in the East Wing.

Paintings, desks, the desks that were used by various first ladies from Eleanor Roosevelt on, those would be the kinds of artifacts the American people would like preserved, and they would like to see them at the National -- the Smithsonian, for example.

We just don't know if anybody actually did an inventory and did any work in advance of the demolition. I mean, how much notice was the National Archives and Records Administration and the Smithsonian given of the fact that these priceless artifacts were imperiled? I don't think they got any, and that's what worries me.

[11:50:00] The president decided to do this while Congress was out of session and the government, federal government, was shut down. I think that was a huge mistake. What difference would a few months have made? I'm not suggesting that the ballroom is a bad idea. That's not up to me. That should be up to preservationists, architects, and in general the American people.

But I know for a fact that tearing down a historic building without any preparation and any sense of what you needed to preserve is against the standard and tradition we have had in this country of protecting and preserving and respecting our past.

BLITZER: Yes, there are plenty of ballrooms here in Washington, D.C., where the president could invite foreign leaders, have a big gala state dinner. You don't necessarily have to tear down the East Wing of the White House. Just go over to the Department of Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of Agriculture.

NAFTALI: Yes.

BLITZER: You will see big ballrooms all over the place here in Washington.

Tim Naftali, thank you very much for that.

And coming up: new questions about President Trump's health after he revealed he recently got an MRI. We will speak to a doctor about that and more.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:55:31]

BLITZER: New this morning, President Trump says he recently had an MRI during a recent visit to the Walter Reed Medical Center.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We had an MRI, and the machine, the whole thing. And it was perfect, the doctor said some of the best reports for the age, some of the best reports they have ever seen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So this was the first time President Trump has provided those details about the tests from that visit. The White House has not provided a definitive reason publicly for why Trump had that second medical exam in the span of a year.

And over the summer, we know that he was seen with a bruised hand and the White House announced he was diagnosed with a circulation issue.

BLITZER: And joining us now to discuss what's going on, CNN medical analyst Dr. Jonathan Reiner. He's the cardiologist for former Vice President Dick Cheney, worked as a White House physician for years.

Dr. Reiner, thanks so much for joining us.

As you know, MRIs are not necessarily always part of a routine checkup. How unusual is this and why might the president have had an MRI during this checkup?

DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Well, an MRI is never part of a routine evaluation, whether you're president of the United States or whether you're just a civilian.

So we don't know why his doctors asked him to undergo that test, and that's a big question. The other question is, why did they decide not to inform the public that they were doing that? Why was that deliberately left out? There are a lot of things that can prompt an MRI, and typically they're prompted by symptoms.

There can be neurologic symptoms that prompt an MRI. There can be back pain that prompts an MRI. There can be issues with the heart that would prompt an MRI. And for those reasons, the public should really be told why did the president undergo the test, what consultants he saw, and what was the result of the testing?

BROWN: If you would just remind our viewers, because maybe not everyone knows what an MRI is, Dr. Reiner, and why that's significant here. And then, also, could it have to do with the bruising we have seen on his hands or the swelling in his legs that's been visible?

REINER: Right.So MRI is magnetic resonance imaging. It's this really spectacular imaging technology that basically involves using a very strong magnetic force and radio frequency waves.

The magnetic force basically aligns all of your hydrogen ions into a certain direction, and then they are basically disrupted by these radio frequency waves, and the way they bounce are specific to different tissues. So this amazing physics allows for really very detailed images.

As for the bruising in his hand, there are a lot of things that can do that. And the most common ideology for bruising in the back of a 79- year-old person's hand are medications. And the typical medication that causes that would be a blood thinner.

I mean, I see this every week when I see patients in clinic. Blood thinners, particularly in the elderly, cause bruising on the back of the hands. But we have not been told that the president takes that. People take blood thinners for a variety of reasons. You could take it if you had a pulmonary embolism in the past.

You can take it if you have a clot in your leg, a DVT. And you can take a blood thinner if you have atrial atrial fibrillation. And people who take blood thinners for A-fib, atrial fibrillation, typically are on them indefinitely.

And the side effect of medications like that are bruising. But why he would have an MRI depends on the underlying reason for either that medication or other undisclosed medical problems. And, to me, I think it's more important why he had -- it's just as important why he had the test as it is what the test showed.

BLITZER: The president, as you know and we all heard, called the results of this MRI scan perfect. What about transparency?

REINER: Yes.

BLITZER: What does the revelation do to the public trust in the president's health?

REINER: Yes, I think about these issues all the time. When I see patients in the clinic, particularly new patients, and you're trying to develop a doctor-patient relationship, it's based on trust. The patient has to trust that not only am I competent to provide care, but that I'm going to tell them the truth. So the relationship is based on trust.

[12:00:00]

And I think the public, when they're trying to understand whether a high elected official is fit for office, they need to trust those that are telling them the data.

And that comes from an understanding that what they're being told is the truth. And it's not just giving the facts, selective facts out to the public, it's a complete, you know, a full recitation of salient date.

BROWN: Dr. Reiner, thank you so much as always.

BLITZER: We always learn something from him.

BROWN: We do.

BLITZER: Thank you, Dr. Reiner. And to our viewers, thanks very much for joining us. You can always keep up with us on social media @wolfblitzer, @pamelabrowncnn.

BROWN: See you back here tomorrow morning, every weekday morning at 10 am Eastern. Inside Politics with our friend and colleague, Dana Bash, starts now.