5 things to know about Trump's diagnosis of chronic venous insufficiency
In a press briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a note from Trump's physician that described the exam. The president went through ultrasounds and a 'comprehensive exam,' which included a diagnostic vascular study.
The exam found that the president, who is 79, has chronic venous insufficiency. The condition occurs when someone's leg veins have a difficult time pumping blood back to the heart, causing blood to pool, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
Here are five things to know about the president's chronic venous insufficiency:
Chronic venous insufficiency is a common condition
According to Cleveland Clinic, about 5 percent of adults experience chronic venous insufficiency, with those 50 and older generally being impacted by it.
Johns Hopkins University also states that overweight and pregnant people, as well as those with 'a family history of' chronic venous insufficiency and those who experience leg wounding 'due to injury, surgery, or previous blood clots,' more commonly deal with the condition.
How is chronic venous insufficiency diagnosed?
A diagnosis of chronic venous insufficiency can come from a duplex ultrasound, used 'for assessing blood flow and structure of the leg veins,' or through magnetic resonance venography, 'a diagnostic procedure that produces detailed, three-dimensional images,' according to the University of California, Davis.
How is chronic venous insufficiency treated?
Leg elevation, regular exercise, blood flow-raising medicines and compression stockings are among some treatments for chronic venous insufficiency, according to Johns Hopkins.
The university also said surgery 'is done in severe cases,' with a surgery named ligation possibly being performed.
'The affected vein is tied off so that blood no longer flows through it,' Johns Hopkins said on its website of ligation. 'If the vein or its valves are heavily damaged, the vein will be removed. This is called vein stripping.'
Trump's prior health
In April, the president went through his annual physical exam. His physician, in a memo, declared Trump was in 'excellent health.'
'President Trump exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health and is fully fit to execute the duties of the Commander-in-Chief and Head of State,' White House physician Sean Barbabella wrote, also saying that the president's heart function was 'normal.'
In Trump's first term, he was hospitalized at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center with COVID-19 in October 2020.
In 2021, The New York Times reported Trump had been sicker than previously reported. When he was hospitalized, the president had severely depressed blood oxygen levels, and officials worried he would have to go on a ventilator, according to the Times, who cited two people familiar with the matter.
Aging presidents and health issues
Trump's diagnosis of chronic venous insufficiency is not uncommon among people his age.
He is the second oldest president in U.S. history, with former President Biden being the first.
In July 2024, after Biden turned in a rough debate performance against Trump, concerns about his age and mental fitness quickly arose. Biden's White House physician released a letter indicating he had seen a range of specialists, including a neurology consultant, during his time in the White House. Biden was declared fit to serve.
The former president, who had already been facing questions about his age prior to the debate, dropped out of the race and was replaced on the ticket by former Vice President Kamala Harris, who ultimately lost to Trump in November.
During the 2024 race, Harris's campaign targeted Trump's age, with Harris commenting on interview cancellations by her Republican rival.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Ending LGBTQ+ health research will leave science in the dark
In recent months, the Trump administration has terminated thousands of federally funded medical research grants, gutting $9.5 billion in critical health science efforts. More than half of those cuts — 1,246 grants worth $5.5 billion — targeted studies focused on LGBTQ+ health. These cuts don't just reflect shifting policy priorities. They also risk limiting the scientific insights that inform clinical care and support the health of all Americans. Beginning in February, thousands of scientists received abrupt notices terminating funding for vital research involving LGBTQ+ populations. The justification? Their research was deemed 'based primarily on artificial and nonscientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives.' One letter even claimed that 'research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans.' The grants that were terminated underwent stringent peer review prior to funding and covered a wide range of important issues — from Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer to caregiver well-being and school safety. In many cases, the common factor cited in their termination was simply the inclusion of LGBTQ+ populations within the research scope. When groups of people are excluded from research, it sends a message about whose health is prioritized. The disproportionate elimination of LGBTQ-focused research is more than a policy decision or political maneuver. It weakens the foundation of evidence-based care. Research is essential to understanding health risks, evaluating treatments and improving care for people who need it most. When research funding is withdrawn, medical care falls behind, and collectively we all suffer. LGBTQ+ people make up nearly 10% of the U.S. population, and long-standing research shows they face significant health disparities. Many of these gaps remain poorly understood because of limited studies. For example, lesbian, gay and bisexual populations experience higher rates of substance use disorders, often beginning in adolescence. LGBTQ+ adults are three to six times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual, cisgender counterparts. The incidence of several cancers is also higher, but we don't have a comprehensive understanding of why. Crucial studies investigating possible causes and risk factors were among those recently terminated. We've seen the consequences of neglecting health disparities before. For decades, medical problems unique to Black Americans were understudied and unsolved. For example, the false assumptions that hypertension can be managed the same across racial groups delayed important insights and limited the development of tailored treatment. These delays resulted in worse cardiovascular outcomes for Black patients compared with their white counterparts. Another historical example of the dangers of excluding subpopulations from research is the Food and Drug Administration's 1977 decision to ban women of childbearing age from clinical drug trials. This guideline created a selection bias against women across the research world and slowed progress in understanding their unique health needs. Though the ban was lifted 16 years later, we remain behind in our understanding of cardiovascular disease management in women, and closing that gap will require decades of focused research. And now the Trump administration is repeating this pattern by deliberately excluding a subgroup of the population from research. The neglect of health disparities among LGBTQ+ patients will continue, to their great detriment. The withdrawal of grant funding specific to this group risks condemning millions of people to dangerous health disadvantages for years to come. This move diminishes the pool of researchers dedicated to solving health problems that affect the LGBTQ+ community, as they are forced to follow other funding lines. Lack of research attention to communities with unique needs, such as the LGBTQ+ population, risks increased marginalization and exacerbates stigma. Stigma has long shaped how public health crises are recognized and addressed. In 1981, U.S. health officials became aware of an emerging disease they called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. Contracting this disease came with both a death sentence and the stigma of having the 'gay plague.' The condition was eventually understood to be a serious public health issue affecting a broad range of people and was renamed HIV/AIDS. Yet it took nearly five years before President Reagan made major funding available for HIV/AIDS research. Delays in funding, in part because of stigma, slowed scientific progress and contributed to the spread of the epidemic. To ignore the issues facing any one population is to risk potential harm to all of society. All people deserve quality, evidence-based healthcare that addresses their unique physical, psychological and social needs. That is precisely why medical research is a foundational pillar of a functioning healthcare system. Without it, our understanding of diseases and treatments is dependent on outdated, extrapolated or incomplete evidence — which causes harm. By withholding funding for research that includes LGBTQ+ participants, the Trump administration is sending a message that the health of nearly 32 million Americans simply isn't worth the investment of federal dollars. The cost of that decision will be measured in suffering, inequity and lives lost — not just within the LGBTQ+ community, but across the entire healthcare system. Haley Stepp is the research program manager at the George Washington University School of Nursing. Kathleen Griffith is a professor at the George Washington University School of Nursing and School of Medicine and Health Sciences.
Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
Cleveland Clinic no longer the nation's top hospital for heart care
After many years as the nation's top hospital for cardiology and heart surgery, Cleveland Clinic has fallen to No. 3 in that category, per the U.S. News and World Report's 2025 rankings. Why it matters: The annual report, released Tuesday, is considered the gold standard in hospital rankings. U.S. News evaluated more than 4,000 hospitals across the country in over 30 medical and surgical services. State of play: Cleveland Clinic once again made the U.S. News "Honor Roll," which recognizes the nation's top 20 hospitals overall in lieu of numbered rankings. It is deemed Ohio's best hospital and is Northeast Ohio's largest employer. In ranked categories, the Clinic placed in the top 10 in numerous specialties, including No. 2 in rheumatology and No. 3 in gastroenterology. For decades, it was the country's premier facility for heart care. In the current ranking, both NYU Langone Hospitals and Mount Sinai Hospital leapfrogged the Clinic. What they're saying: " Cleveland Clinic has been honored to be recognized as the nation's No. 1 hospital for heart care by U.S. News & World Report for 30 consecutive years," spokesperson Andrea Pacetti told Axios in a statement. "While this year our rating shifted, we are still proud to be ranked in the top 3 in the country for heart care and are deeply proud of our excellence in quality, innovation, research, and the dedication of our caregivers."
CNBC
13 minutes ago
- CNBC
UnitedHealth says 2025 earnings will be worse than expected as high medical costs dog insurers
UnitedHealth Group on Tuesday issued a 2025 outlook that fell short of Wall Street's expectations, as the company's insurance unit continues to grapple with higher medical costs. The company anticipates it will post 2025 adjusted earnings of at least $16 per share, with revenue of $445.5 billion to $448 billion. Wall Street analysts had expected 2025 adjusted profit of $20.91 per share, and full-year revenue of $449.16 billion, according to consensus estimates from LSEG. Shares of UnitedHealth Group fell more than 3% in premarket trading on Tuesday. The report adds to a growing string of setbacks for the company, which owns the nation's largest and most powerful insurer, UnitedHealthcare, and is often viewed as the industry's bellwether. The stock tumbled in May after the company suspended its 2025 guidance due to higher medical costs and announced the abrupt departure of former CEO Andrew Witty. UnitedHealth Group's report signals that elevated medical costs in Medicare Advantage plans may not ease anytime soon for the broader health insurance industry. UnitedHealthcare, the insurance arm of UnitedHealth Group, is the nation's largest provider of those privately run Medicare plans. Higher expenses in Medicare Advantage plans have dogged insurers over the past year as more seniors return to hospitals to undergo procedures they had delayed during the Covid-19 pandemic, such as joint and hip replacements. Here's what UnitedHealth Group reported for the second quarter compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG: Notably, the report comes just days after UnitedHealth revealed it is complying with Department of Justice investigations into its Medicare billing practices. It marks UnitedHealth's first earnings report under new CEO, Stephen Hemsley, who is tasked with restoring investor confidence and turning around a struggling company that has continued to draw heavy public scrutiny in recent months. Shares of UnitedHealth Group are down more than 44% for the year, fueled in part by the DOJ's investigations and its suspended outlook. The company's 2024 wasn't any better. It grappled with the murder of UnitedHealthcare's CEO, Brian Thompson, the torrent of public blowback that followed and a historic cyberattack that affected millions of Americans.
