Trump unloads on CNN & MSDNC; RFK goes BERSERK on Dem accepted $2M Big Pharma; birthing people

Two separate but thematically connected stories defined a single news cycle. President Trump continued his assault on CNN and MSNBC for reporting that suggested the Iran strikes might have been less than “completely obliterating” — calling the networks “gutless losers” and demanding they apologize to the B-2 pilots. Simultaneously, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. confronted Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone at a House hearing about Pallone’s $2 million in pharmaceutical industry contributions — “more than any other member of this committee.” The Kennedy-Pallone exchange became a case study in how the second Trump administration is willing to confront the public health establishment’s financial entanglements. And a congressional exchange about an NIH grant for “birthing people” reproductive justice research revealed the culture-war vocabulary that has survived into the current political moment.

”The B-2 Pilots Did An Unbelievable Job”

Trump’s opening on the Iran strikes characterization was direct. “I think it’s been completely demolished. I think the reason we’re here is because B2 pilots did an unbelievable job.”

The “completely demolished” framing maintains the administration’s maximum damage assessment. Any weakening of that framing — suggestions that the damage was less than complete — is treated as an attack on the mission’s success and therefore on the pilots who executed it.

”CNN In Particular”

Trump then focused the critique on specific outlets. “The fake news, like CNN in particular, they’re trying to say, well, I agree that it was destroyed, but maybe not that destroyed. You know what they’re doing? They’re really hurting great pilots that put their lives in the line.”

The specific CNN framing Trump is objecting to — “destroyed, but maybe not that destroyed” — is the hedging that journalism professionals would defend as responsible caveat. Damage assessments from precision strikes typically require multiple days of analysis. Satellite imagery, seismic data, intelligence collection all take time to converge on definitive conclusions.

Trump’s response is that the hedging, whatever its methodological justification, functions politically as an attack on the success of the operation. If voters who supported the operation are told that its success is uncertain, their support is weakened. If the pilots who executed it are seen as having produced uncertain rather than definitive results, their political standing is weakened.

”CNN Is Scum”

The characterization was blunt. “CNN is scum, and so is MSDNC, they’re all. And frankly, the networks aren’t much better. It’s all fake news, but they should have done that. Those pilots hit their targets, those targets were obliterated, and the pilots should be given credit.”

“Scum” is unusually harsh presidential language. Most presidents reserve the harshest language for adversary governments or for specific policy opponents. Trump’s willingness to deploy it against American media outlets is consistent with his longstanding rhetorical posture but remains remarkable by presidential standards.

”They’re Not After The Pilots Or After Me”

Trump then offered his theory of the media’s motive. “They’re not after the pilots or after me. They want to try and demean.”

The framing is that the media’s motive is not specific — not directed at pilots or at Trump personally. Rather, the motive is generalized institutional antagonism. They want to “demean” — to reduce the apparent stature of the operation and the administration that executed it.

”That Place Is Under Rock”

Trump returned to the damage assessment. “Absolutely not. That place is under rock. That place is demolished. The B2 pilots did their job. They did it better than anybody could even imagine. They hit late in the evening, it was dark with no moon, and they hit that target with every one of those things, and that place is gone.”

“Under rock” is the specific description of Fordow’s structural situation. The facility was built under hundreds of feet of rock precisely to make it impossible to reach with conventional munitions. The GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator is designed specifically for such deeply buried targets.

“Better than anybody could even imagine” is the administration’s framing of the operational performance. No other country has executed a mission of this specific profile. The American capability is unique, and its execution exceeded what most observers would have anticipated.

”CNN Ought To Apologize”

Trump made a specific demand. “And I will say, I think CNN ought to apologize to the pilots of the B2s. I think that MSDNC ought to apologize. Networks, and these cable networks are real losers. You really are. You’re real losers. You’re gutless losers.”

The call for apology is unusual. Presidents routinely criticize media coverage but rarely demand apologies for specific coverage. Trump’s willingness to make the demand reflects his belief that the media’s institutional credibility has weakened to a degree that public demands for accountability can produce results.

Whether CNN or MSNBC will actually apologize is unlikely. But the demand itself is the political event. Voters hearing the president call for an apology from the network that covers the story form their own view of whether the network’s coverage was appropriate.

”I Have No Choice. I Got To Watch That Garbage”

Trump’s aside on his own viewing habits was characteristic. “I say that to CNN because I watch it. I have no choice. I got to watch that garbage. It’s all garbage. It’s all fake news.”

The claim that Trump “has to” watch CNN is interesting. As a consumer, he could choose not to watch. As a president, he presumably has access to any form of media coverage monitoring he prefers. The “no choice” framing suggests that he watches because knowing what is being said about him matters for his political management, even when what is being said is, in his view, garbage.

”Brian Roberts, He Heads It”

Trump then named names. “MSDNC, a guy named Brian Roberts, he heads it. He’s a disgrace. He’s a weak, pathetic disgrace.”

Brian Roberts is CEO of Comcast, the parent company of NBCUniversal, which owns MSNBC. Trump’s direct attack on Roberts is unusual. Most presidents criticize outlets rather than specific corporate executives. The willingness to name Roberts reflects Trump’s understanding that corporate executives respond to personal criticism in ways institutions do not.

Kennedy And Pallone

The video then pivots to the Kennedy-Pallone exchange. The setting is a House hearing. Kennedy, now HHS Secretary, is testifying before a committee Pallone sits on. Pallone, a longtime Democratic member from New Jersey, has a history on vaccine and pharmaceutical policy that Kennedy knows well.

Kennedy opens. “15 years ago, you and I met, you were at that time a champion, or people who had suffered injuries from vaccines, who were very adamant about it. You were the leading member of Congress on that issue.”

The opening is biographical. Kennedy is reminding Pallone — and the hearing record — that Pallone once advocated for vaccine-injury victims. At that earlier moment, Pallone and Kennedy were working on similar issues. Their political paths have diverged.

”$2 Million From Pharmaceutical Companies”

Kennedy then delivered the accusation. “Since then, you’ve accepted $2 million from pharmaceutical companies and contribution more than any other member of this committee. You are enthusiasm for supporting the old ASIP committee, which was completely rife and pervasive with pharmaceutical conflicts, seems to be an outcome of those contributions.”

The charge is specific. $2 million in contributions from pharmaceutical interests, more than any other committee member. The implication: Pallone’s policy positions on vaccine-related matters are influenced by his financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Whether the contributions have actually changed Pallone’s positions is debatable. What is clear is that Kennedy, operating with the credibility of his HHS Secretary role, is willing to publicly document the contribution totals in a hearing setting. That willingness is itself the political event.

The Point Of Order

A Democratic point of order followed. “Mr. Chairman, point of order. Point of order. The chair recognizes Dr. Jim. The gentleman is impugning the reputation of a member of Congress.”

The point of order is the procedural mechanism for members to object to conduct they consider inappropriate. Impugning the reputation of a member is typically understood to include unsupported accusations of corruption or unethical behavior.

”Oh, You Aren’t Paying Attention”

Kennedy’s response was direct. “Who is this? Mr. Pallone. Time to clock for a second. Can you state the point of order? He’s impugning Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I didn’t hear it. Did the joke? Oh, you aren’t paying attention. That’s why. Well, you know, it’s hard to pay attention here when we’re not getting any response.”

The “oh, you aren’t paying attention” exchange captures the administrative reality of congressional hearings. Members are often multitasking — checking phones, reading documents, consulting with staff. When a member raises a point of order about a statement he did not actually hear, the point of order looks reflexive rather than substantive.

Kennedy’s willingness to point out the inattention is characteristic of his direct communication style. Cabinet officers typically defer to the procedural objections members raise. Kennedy is treating the objection as not well-founded and saying so.

The “Birthing People” Grant

The hearing then pivoted to specific NIH grants. The question involved a grant titled “Center to advance reproductive justice and behavioral health among black, pregnant, slash postpartum women and birthing people.”

“Do you think that that makes Americans’ lives easier and more secure?”

Kennedy’s response: “I think that medical and scientific research of all types.”

“Do you think that constitutes critical research according to your testimony? NIH grants are critical research. I think that government research of all types in the medical including a birthing people. I think bench research of all types plays a fundamental role."

"What Is A Birthing Person?”

The pivotal exchange. “What is a birthing person? Sir, I am here to talk about the Doge impact. I’m asking you about this grant and you’re defending it. So I’m asking you, who is birthing people? I am not familiar with this grant. I take a position that all kinds of government research, medical, pharmaceutical, biological, that is outside the scope of my expertise.”

Kennedy’s refusal to answer the “birthing people” question is the expected cabinet officer response when faced with a politically charged question about grant terminology. Acknowledging that “birthing people” is a specific political term would wade into the culture-war territory that cabinet officers typically avoid. Refusing to define it preserves the political space.

”Seems Like Racial Language”

The exchange’s characterization continued. “Seems like a racial language to me. I’ve been told that that type of vernacular constitutes a racial language.”

“Racial language” is a specific charge. The grant specification focuses on “black, pregnant, slash postpartum women and birthing people.” The “birthing people” terminology has become politically charged as a specific example of progressive language that substitutes gender-neutral phrasing for terms like “mothers” or “pregnant women.”

The implicit argument is that the grant’s focus on specifically Black women and “birthing people” combines racial targeting with politically progressive language — a combination that raises questions about whether the research serves general public health interests or specific political constituencies.

Why The Exchange Matters

The Kennedy-Pallone exchange is a signal about how the second Trump administration is willing to handle its relationships with long-serving congressional Democrats. Previous HHS secretaries have generally maintained professional working relationships with committee members even across party lines. Kennedy is willing to use his testimony time to raise specific questions about specific members’ conflicts of interest.

The approach may alienate some congressional Democrats, making cooperation more difficult. It may also reshape how the public understands the relationship between members of Congress and the industries they oversee. Trump is betting on the latter outcome.

Key Takeaways

• Trump on CNN coverage: “CNN is scum, and so is MSDNC…Those pilots hit their targets, those targets were obliterated, and the pilots should be given credit.”
• Trump demands apology: “I think CNN ought to apologize to the pilots of the B2s. I think that MSDNC ought to apologize.”
• Trump’s Fordow description: “That place is under rock. That place is demolished…They hit late in the evening, it was dark with no moon, and they hit that target with every one of those things.”
• RFK Jr. to Rep. Pallone: “You’ve accepted $2 MILLION from pharmaceutical companies, more than ANY other member of this committee!”
• The “birthing people” exchange: “Center to advance reproductive justice and behavioral health among black, pregnant…women and birthing people” — grant defended by RFK but terminology described as “racial language.”