Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

79-Year-Old Trump Pushes Back Against Scrutiny Of His Health; Ongoing Measles Outbreak In U.S. Threatens Elimination Status; Ukraine: Russia Preparing "Large-Scale Provocation" To Disrupt Talks. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired January 02, 2026 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:31:10]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. This morning President Trump just posted on Truth Social that he is in perfect health. This is after The Wall Street Journal article questioning his health.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the 79-year-old president was asked about recent hand bruising -- very clear in pictures taken. He attributed it to taking a higher daily dose of aspirin than his -- than his doctors recommended, saying, "They say aspirin is good for thinning out the blood, and I don't want thick blood pouring through my heart. I want nice, thin blood pouring through my heart." He goes on to say "They would rather have me take the smaller dose. I take the larger one, but I've done it for years, and what it does do is it causes bruising."

Joining me now is CNN medical analyst and professor of medicine and surgery at George Washington University, Dr. Jonathan Reiner.

I just first want to get your take from a medical perspective about this issue with aspirin where he has admitted that he does not take his doctors' advice and takes more aspirin than they recommend.

DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY (via Webex by Cisco): Boy, you know, like the bruise, this is a story that just doesn't seem to go away.

Well, first of all, the president is very self-conscious of that bruise on his hand. When he sits at the desk in his Oval Office, you know, he typically covers that hand with his left hand. So what doesn't make sense to me is why somebody who is obviously self- conscious of the discoloration on his hand would take a dose of aspirin, which would be more likely to cause bruising. And we know with clarity that a higher dose of aspirin causes more bleeding, which is why we don't use that dose of aspirin.

So why, in the face of something that obviously bothers him, would he insist on taking a higher dose of aspirin? So it just makes no sense to me. The other piece of this, by the way --

SIDNER: Yeah.

REINER: -- is that we have no history of the president having heart disease or prior stroke, so why is he even taking the aspirin? It's not recommended.

SIDNER: That's a really good question.

I do want to ask you about the daily dose he's taking for anyone who has decided to take --

REINER: Yeah.

SIDNER: -- a bunch of aspirin.

REINER: Yeah.

SIDNER: Um, 325 milligrams of aspirin daily, he says he takes. Are there risks to that?

REINER: Right. So this has been studied. Aspirin is a drug that's been around for more than a century. And we know with clarity what dose of aspirin is sort of in the sweet spot with the greatest efficacy and most effective with the least amount of risk, and that dose is -- in the United States, is 81 milligrams -- so a quarter of the dose that he's taking.

So if I -- you know, if I go in and I take care of somebody who is having a heart attack and we fix their coronary artery, the dose of aspirin that they go home on -- this is someone who has had a heart attack -- would be 81 milligrams a day.

So it doesn't make any sense to me why he would be taking 325 milligrams unless there is a medical history that we don't know anything about. And again, it makes zero sense in the -- in the setting of increased bleeding.

SIDNER: I do want to point out something because you just said, like, you know, we don't know any history of him having cardiovascular disease -- heart problems.

The president initially said that he had an MRI. He's now clarified that, saying it was a CT scan. His physician says a CT scan was done to "definitively rule out cardiovascular issues."

What do you make of this? Is it normal to just sort of have a CT scan -- to do such a thing as part of a physical?

REINER: No. So, no. I mean, absolutely not.

You know, we were originally told that the president's assessment where this testing was done in October was done as just sort of, you know, a routine testing. But his routine exam was in April. His routine yearly physical was this past April. So we assume that there must have been a reason why the president was tested then.

[07:35:00]

And now we're learning from Dr. Barbabella, the president's physician, that it was done to rule out -- definitively rule out a cardiovascular issue. So the president must have been having some symptoms.

You know, this is all being dripped out, you know, over the course of very weeks. We should really have the president's physician just come out, answer some questions, and put this issue to rest.

What Dr. Barbabella said, by the way, is that there was -- there was no evidence of any abnormality on the testing, but the president has had a cardiac CT in the past. We know this because Dr. Ronnie Jackson, in 2018 during the president's first administration, stated that the president had this exact test and it showed some coronary calcification, which is an abnormality suggesting perhaps some underlying coronary artery disease. So maybe this is why Dr. Barbabella wanted to repeat this test to see if there's been any change in those assessments.

But again, there's -- there are a lot of questions here, particularly why is the president taking so much aspirin and also why is the president taking aspirin at all.

SIDNER: Yeah. I mean, there are questions there and I think he tried to put it to rest with this, but it actually opened up more questions.

Dr. Jonathan Reiner, it is always a pleasure to have you here --

REINER: Right.

SIDNER: -- to sort of walk us through this medically. A lot of people, you know, look to the president and may want to sort of start taking his own advice. But he admits that he did not follow his doctors' instructions, so at your -- it's a warning for folks and you always help us wade through it. We do appreciate you. Happy New Year -- Omar.

REINER: My pleasure.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: All right, lots to talk about here and beyond. Joining us now are Democratic strategist Matt Bennett and CNN senior political commentator David Urban. Good to see you both, gentlemen.

David, I want to start with you because, look, you don't have to look far back to remember President Biden's health was at the forefront of the conversation. He was defended and then I think really, it was the CNN presidential debate where those dams seemed to break on that front.

Trump is only a year into his presidency. He was already the oldest president to be inaugurated at the time.

Are people fair to scrutinize this latest health reporting and questions about his fitness, and will he be able to escape this type of scrutiny?

DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER Yeah, Omar. So let me just -- let me just say that comparing President Trump's health to President Biden's health is ludicrous. Donald Trump is incredibly healthy.

I just want to read from The Washington Post (sic) story because I think it's really important, this one line. "Trump has been almost omnipresent in his second term fielding questions from journalists, sometimes several times a day, delivering impromptu remarks and regularly hosting dinners at the White House."

That's incredibly important because what Joe Biden did was none of that. Joe Biden hid from the press. He did not invite the media into the Oval Office.

I talked to the reporters in this Wall Street Journal last night -- the story last night. He -- they said that during their interview with the president, you know, he pushed back very vigorously on his health. But they've been present in the Oval Office with him when he's, you know, juggling chain saws. When he's being air traffic controllers on the phone. He is incredibly vigorous. I spent time with the guy.

You may not like his policies, you may not like a lot of things about this president, but his health is one thing that I think is -- gets made a whole great deal about and there is no there there whatsoever.

JIMENEZ: Well, some would say, on the Biden side, there is no there there until people were just noticing at different thresholds. I know many Republicans (INAUDIBLE) from the very beginning.

URBAN: Omar, not even -- not even close.

JIMENEZ: Yeah, yeah.

URBAN: Not even close. Omar, not even close.

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

URBAN: I'm going to push back on this hard.

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

URBAN: Joe Biden did not sit with the media. He -- the media was kept --

JIMENEZ: No, I agree.

URBAN: -- from Joe Biden.

Donald Trump is interviewed --

JIMENEZ: No, I agree with that.

URBAN: -- every day by the White House Press Corps. OK, I just want to make sure we're on the same page. JIMENEZ: I agree. I agree. He has been much more in front of the press and answered way more questions than President Biden did. I'm not disputing that.

And that's part of my question to Matt here is that look, some are going to look at this interview and say this is complete transparency here. His physician has said he's in exceptional health, is fit for office. He's also, to David's point, been out there a lot talking to reporters and delivering unplanned remarks as well.

What do you say to that? And should critics take the administration at its word when they say President Trump is healthy, good to go, ready to roll?

MATT BENNETT, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CO- FOUNDER, THIRD WAY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY ASSISTANT, CLINTON ADMINISTRATION (via Webex by Cisco): No. You can't take this administration at its word on anything.

Look, if you set the bar at Joe Biden then, sure, I think Trump probably clears it. But I will stipulate as a Democrat and a former Biden supporter that the Biden administration and the White House was not clear to the public about his health and that became very evident. But that shouldn't be the bar.

The bar should be is this nearly-80-year-old man totally capable of performing the duties of the president. And I admit he's very vigorous at the moment.

[07:40:00]

But what is going on here? We just heard a medical professional wondering why he's taking four times the normal dose of aspirin. There's all kinds of questions that have been raised about this and they haven't been very clear about it.

I do think as he gets older -- he's going to be into his early 80s by the end of his term -- this is going to continue. And if the White House isn't more transparent about it then these questions are going to continue to get raised. And as we see over and over and over with this White House, they're not transparent about anything.

And when it comes to things that touch on the president personally -- his physical vitality -- that's the kind of thing he is especially touchy about. So this is not going to be anytime soon.

JIMENEZ: And while different from the Biden questions, it is likely a dynamic that's going to be continued to be questioned and scrutinized over the course of this administration.

David, I want to ask you about something else because Trump announced on Truth Social a few days ago --

URBAN: Sure.

JIMENEZ: -- he is removing the National Guard from Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland, saying, "Despite the fact that crime has been greatly reduced by having these patriots in those cities and only by that fact."

But I think the wider question here is look, crime rates in some of those cities were falling before the National Guard were deployed and they weren't necessarily deployed for long, extended periods. Certainly not uninterrupted periods.

But the question more is I just wonder what the significance of pulling back in that manner says to you, David, in terms of how he plans to potentially deploy National Guard troops in the future and how he's sort of -- I don't know what the right word is -- wrestles with Democratic cities and mayors in similar ways that he has to this point.

URBAN: Yeah, I think, Omar -- I think your characterization is correct that wrestling with that issue on how do you keep the citizens of these major cities safe. I think the Trump administration plan was to have the National Guard go in there and supplement the police forces that were on place -- trying to free them up to do more law enforcement. A little bit of a show of force to kind of keep the bad guys at bay. And listen, judges in these different venues have determined the president can't do that.

But what the president can do and what he's hinted at is coming back stronger in a different way. I think you've seen that quote. And that would be the -- mean one thing. It would mean invoking the Insurrection Act is the way the president can do that. Um, and that still remains on the table. I think that's a tool that is viable for the president to put troops in these different cities. And if the -- if the rate -- crime rate or if the circumstances warrant, I think you'll see the administration do exactly that.

JIMENEZ: Yeah. And the president -- or the Supreme Court ruled against one authority, not necessarily all.

Matt, before we go, just -- I wonder your thoughts on that.

BENNETT: Yeah. I think his comments about the Insurrection Act are kind of ominous. The Insurrection Act has not been invoked since 1992. When it has been invoked it's generally with the support of the governor of the state. In '92, it was the Rodney King riots. Before that it was a hurricane.

These are -- that's a very serious thing to do because there's a law --

JIMENEZ: Yeah.

BENNETT: -- against active-duty troops engaging in law enforcement.

So if he's going to do it, he better have a reason, and it better be big -- civil unrest or an insurrection. And there's no sign of anything like that. So if he uses it -- I mean, Democrats are worried that he's going to use it for purposes that are -- that are not appropriate. JIMENEZ: David Urban, Matt Bennett, appreciate you both. Good to see you. Happy New Year -- Sara.

SIDNER: All right. The number of measles infections last year was the highest the U.S. has seen in decades. Now public health experts are fearing the continuous outbreak of cases we saw in 2025 could strip the nation of its long-held elimination status.

CNN health reporter Jacqueline Howard joining us now. Give us some sense of just how many cases there were in the United States in 2025.

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: Well Sara, there were more than 2,000 measles cases confirmed here in the United States in 2025. That number is as of Tuesday. A total of 2,065 confirmed cases.

And just to put that number in perspective, the last time we saw more than 2,000 cases within a year was back in 1992 -- so decades ago. And in 1992, that was just a couple of years after health officials updated recommendations to say that children should receive two doses of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine instead of one dose.

So this is why there are concerns around the nation's elimination status. In the year 2000, that's when measles was declared eliminated here in the United States. And when I say eliminated, elimination means there has been no sustained transmission of the same measles virus for at least a year. But because of the cases we saw in 2025 and the possibility of those outbreaks being linked, that's why elimination status is now at risk, Sara.

[07:45:15]

SIDNER: Yeah. I mean, the -- nothing happens in a vacuum. And this is clearly -- has a link to people who are antivaccine and who have decided not to have their children vaccinated.

What happens though if elimination status is lost in the U.S.? What does that mean?

HOWARD: So we asked the World Health Organization that same question -- this was in October -- and here's the response that they told us.

They said, "There are no formal consequences of losing measles elimination status. However, having measles again as an endemic disease will have a profound negative impact on communities, including preventable deaths among some of the most vulnerable populations."

So there is this concern that we could see more people getting sick. Sadly, more people dying from measles.

Now when elimination status is lost, typically a country is asked to submit an action plan. So we may see a plan outlining steps to correct this loss of elimination status. That could be efforts to get more people vaccinated. What a response to an outbreak may look like. How an outbreak may be contained.

So again, Sara, we may see that happen if elimination status is, in fact, lost in this country.

SIDNER: All right, Jacqueline Howard. Thank you so much, and Happy New Year to you.

Ahead, could the Russia-Ukraine peace talks run into a major hurdle? Ukraine now says Russia is preparing for a large-scale attack. Its mission is to disrupt the negotiations, according to Ukraine.

And pasta fans rejoice. Why a planned 107 percent tariff will not be taking effect.

(COMMERCIAL)

[07:50:52]

SIDNER: All right. Breaking overnight, Ukraine says Russia is "preparing a largescale provocation" to disrupt the U.S.-led talks to end the war. The new comments come after Russian President Vladimir Putin said this week that Ukraine targeted one of his residences in a drone attack, but U.S. officials say the CIA believes that never happened.

Ukraine's Foreign Intelligence Service posting overnight that it predicts an "...armed provocation by the Russian special services, resulting in significant human casualties." Adding, "To falsify evidence of Ukraine's involvement, it is planned to use fragments of Western-made strike UAVs." UAVs are drones.

Joining us now is the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor. Ambassador, thank you for being here.

When you hear Ukraine saying look, the Kremlin is preparing this large-scale attack that was -- that is going to have heavy damages for civilians, would that be surprising to you at all that Russia does this to try to derail talks?

WILLIAM TAYLOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE (via Webex by Cisco): No, Sara. This is what the Russians do. They have lied about -- as you just said, they've lied about these attacks, and the CIA called them out. They lied earlier, Sara. This is a pattern.

They -- Putin said -- when he invaded Crimea in 2014, he said those weren't Russian troops. Well, a couple of months later he admitted that they were Russian troops.

And then before he invaded big-time -- the enormous invasion in 2022 -- Putin and Lavrov, the foreign minister, said no, we're not going to invade Ukraine. Well, we know what happened.

So the point is they do lie about these things, and the Ukrainians are right to be careful about another false flag operation.

SIDNER: I'm curious what you think the United States should do because Ukraine had said look, this peace plan is 90 percent ready, according to Zelenskyy. What should the United States do in response if, indeed, this attack

comes to fruition -- Russia attacking Ukraine in a -- in a major offensive?

TAYLOR: This will demonstrate that the Russians are not serious. We've known this -- that they're not serious -- but this will further confirm they're not after peace. They are after Ukraine and they've said that -- Putin has said that over and over. He wants to eliminate Ukraine -- destroy Ukraine. Have Ukraine capitulate -- surrender. That's what they're after.

They're not interested in these negotiations. They want to derail these negotiations, and that's what's happening.

So in answer to your question, what are the -- what do we do -- what does the United States do? We continue to work with Ukrainians and the Europeans to make Ukraine defensible. To make Ukraine able to defend itself. And we put pressure on Putin to come to the table, stop the war, stop the killing.

SIDNER: I do want to talk about Zaporizhzhia for a while. Reuters reported that Putin has told his generals that they have -- they've got to keep fighting to capture Zaporizhzhia. And we're seeing reports of Ukrainian forces under intense fire there.

If Zaporizhzhia falls to Russia what does the fallout from that mean?

TAYLOR: So the Russians continue to grind forward and Zaporizhzhia is one place. Pokrovsk is another and Donbas. They are making small gains at great costs -- incredible costs. There have been some reports about how the Russians treat their soldiers, and they treat them very badly, and they kill them. They are -- they're at great cost. They are grinding forward.

In order to take all of Zaporizhzhia and all take -- and in order to take all of Donetsk, they will -- it will take months if not a year before they can do that. So they're making grinding, slow progress. They'll try to continue to do that. We can help the Ukrainians stop that progress by providing them the weapons.

SIDNER: I do want to ask you how concerning it is though when analysts say look, there are towns that are slipping into this gray zone, as they call it, neither fully held nor fully lost by Ukraine.

[07:55:05]

How do you deal with that situation?

TAYLOR: You reinforce the advance. You give the Ukrainians the ability to stop this grinding progress -- the grinding movement forward on the part of the Russians. They can -- the Ukrainians have demonstrated for four years now that they can stop the Russians when given support from the Europeans and from the Americans. They can do this.

They don't want soldiers. They don't want American troops on the ground. They want the weapons to be able to stop the Russians, and that's in our interest. That's in the U.S. interest for the Russians not to win -- take over Ukraine, threatening the rest of Europe.

So what we can do? We can support the Ukrainians with the weapons and put pressure -- the economic pressure. Enforce the sanctions on Russia so that they don't have the money to keep pushing forward.

SIDNER: You know the region so well. We do appreciate you coming on this morning, Ambassador William Taylor. Have a Happy New Year. Thanks for being here -- Omar.

TAYLOR: Thank you.

JIMENEZ: All right. Meanwhile on our radar this morning, plans to slap a 107 percent tariff on Italian pasta are now off the table. The Trump administration says it is backing away from the massive hike after reviewing new information from pasta makers. Instead, tariffs are expected to land between 24 and 29 percent -- way lower than first proposed. And the case stems from complaints by U.S. producers who claim Italian companies were selling pasta below fair value. Final rates are expected in March.

But Trump is also delaying new tariffs on upholstered furniture and cabinetry until next year.

And then a dramatic rescue off the coast of North Carolina. Take a look at this. The Coast Guard saving two people, a cat, and a dog from a damaged catamaran about 65 miles off shore near Cape Hatteras. Now, crews battled strong winds and rough seas after the vessel began taking on water. You can see them coming up there. Really unbelievable. Oh, a very happy ending there. A rescue swimmer helped hoist everyone to safety and back to dry land where everyone, including the dog, seems content.

And this morning we're kicking off the new year with Americans dreaming about their next getaway. A Harris poll for Mariott Bonvoy shows 91 percent of Americans plan to travel in 2026 and almost all of them say they'll be on the move in the next six months. Almost half want to travel more this year than last. A lot of new year optimism.

I want to bring in Clint Henderson, the managing editor of The Points Guy to break down the airlines deals travelers can jump on right now.

So Clint, 91 percent of Americans surveyed there say they'll be on the move in the next six months. What should they look out for when booking tickets to keep to that goal of traveling more this year than last year?

CLINT HENDERSON, MANAGING EDITOR, THE POINTS GUY: Yeah. Americans have not let up in their thirst for travel and we're seeing that across the board. A lot of problems with inbound tourism to the U.S. but Americans are still getting out there.

Look for deals -- you know, there's a tool used all the time that I love called "Google Flights Explore." You just put in your home airport. It'll show you an interactive map with all the places you can go. You know, I'm seeing deals to places like San Juan from New York for

$150. So those deals are out there. You know, the Caribbean is a -- is a great spot. Find the cheap airfare deal first and then look for the hotel or the Airbnb because that's where the real expense comes in, in this situation.

Use an airline vacation package. So I like American Airlines' vacations, but all of the airlines have them. JetBlue is working with United on something called "Paisly." Basically, you're booking your hotel, your flight, and even activities and rental cars in one package and saving up to 40 percent. So that's a great way to save.

Of course, I work at The Points Guy so I'm going to tell you use your points and miles. I'll use my points a lot of times to stay in hotels where I can get really outsized value. But, you know, get -- make a goal of getting one credit card with a big sign-up bonus this year. That could pay for a trip all on its own.

So those are a few tips. Obviously, you know, we have a newsletter you can subscribe to with The Points Guy. We share deals with our audience all the time, so you've got to be on the hunt. But flexibility is the key when you're looking for deals for the new year.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, we're kind of -- we're on the other side of the holiday travel chaos and we'll probably see a lot more travel this weekend as well. But what are the best months to travel? And I guess the better question is are there periods where people should be wary of the crowds and wary of a potential spike in prices

HENDERSON: Yeah. So the most expensive times to travel are going to be during the holidays, spring break, and then July, actually, is the -- is the peak of summer travel now. So that's when it's going to be the most expensive.

You know, we used to tell people at The Points Guys book shoulder season. So book this September, October in the fall and then early spring to save the most amount of money. But people are traveling during those periods more than ever. It's still cheaper, though.

And the other tip I would say is travel off-season but then go to secondary cities instead of spending a week in Paris. Maybe you do one night in Paris and then a couple of nights in Bordeaux where it's cheaper.