Americanswers… On 5 Live! Can Donald Trump be talked down over Greenland?

Summary

---

Americast: Americanswers… On 5 Live!

Date: January 19, 2026
Topic: Can Donald Trump be talked down over Greenland?

Overview

This episode marks a year since Donald Trump's return to the White House and features the Americast team—Sarah Smith, Justin Webb, Marianna Spring, and guest host Matt Chorley—answering pressing listener questions. Key issues discussed include Trump’s fixation on acquiring Greenland, the muted Republican response, the real geopolitical risks, the domestic scene (especially unrest in Minnesota), and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s influence on national health debates. The episode’s lively tone balances in-depth analysis with wry humor and candid moments.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Trump's First Anniversary in Office (01:05–03:08)

• Low-Profile Observance: Despite expectations, Trump is not publicly celebrating his one-year anniversary—he's instead headed to Davos for a major speech, remaining out of public view.
• Quote:

  "I thought Donald Trump would be throwing himself a party for this... But in fact, I don’t think we’re even gonna see him on the anniversary."
  —Sarah Smith (02:41)

2. Republican Response to Trump’s Greenland Ambitions (03:19–06:58)

• Measured Criticism:
  Few mainstream Republicans are openly critical; most hedge carefully, balancing party loyalty and discomfort with Trump's rhetoric.
  • House Speaker Mike Johnson: Emphasized diplomatic channels over military intervention.
  • Thom Tillis: Called Trump’s idea "sick of stupid."
  • John Kennedy (Louisiana): Labeled the notion "weapons grade stupid."
  • Lisa Murkowski: Considered Greenland an ally, "not an asset."
  • The most critical are Republicans retiring or already anti-Trump.
• Why the Silence?
  With midterms looming, few dare alienate Trump’s base for fear of losing primaries.
  • Quote:

    “If you’re a Republican politician looking to come back to Washington D.C., you need first to get over the hurdle of the primary... they are still as hamstrung as they have been before about going for Donald Trump because they run the risk inside the party that they actually lose their careers.”
    —Matt Chorley (05:07)

3. Media & Public Focus: Is Greenland Really on the Agenda? (06:52–08:38)

• Mainstream News: The Greenland story doesn't dominate US headlines outside outlets like the NYT; local media shows little interest.
  • Example: Houston Chronicle's front page is dominated by American football.
• On Social Media:
  Greenland is a meme factory, with the seriousness of the issue blurring into ridicule and confusion.
  • Quote:

    “It’s quite hard to tell what is serious and what is not serious... everyone doesn’t quite know what to take seriously anymore and what not to take seriously.”
    —Marianna Spring (07:16)

4. Is There a Real Security Threat in Greenland? (09:03–10:05)

• Listener Q: Are Russia or China likely to invade Greenland?
  No direct threat identified; the concern is long-term access as ice recedes, allowing new military and strategic opportunities for adversaries.
  • Quote:

    “It’s not so much Russians turning up in Greenland all of a sudden, it’s what happens in the seas around it.”
    —Matt Chorley (09:18)

5. What is Trump’s Endgame with Greenland? (10:16–11:17)

• Withdrawal from NATO:
  Trump’s ultimate leverage is a threat to exit NATO; he sees scant value in European allies’ contributions.
  • He wants to "own" Greenland, augmenting US territory and boosting strategic power, not merely increasing US military presence.

6. Trump’s “Rage-Bait” Letter to Norway (11:17–13:42)

• Content: Trump complains to Norway’s PM about not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, justifies aggressive Greenland policy, and disregards diplomatic norms.
• Reactions:
  — The letter triggers both outrage and disbelief; is it “trolling” or does he mean it?
  • Quote:

    “It feels like peak presidential trolling... maybe the whole point is that we don’t quite know if it’s serious or not.”
    —Marianna Spring (12:04)

7. Domestic “Dashboard”: Minnesota Protests & The Economy (14:55–17:14)

• Unrest in Minnesota:
  Widespread protests over ICE raids and the recent shooting of protester Rene Goode; Trump threatens to invoke the Insurrection Act, with National Guard on standby (major escalation).
• Economic Jitters:
  Trump touts economic gains, but most Americans don’t feel the boost—official stats are murky due to earlier government shutdown.
  • Quote:

    “He’s only got a few months to hope that people’s wallets are feeling much healthier, otherwise it’s really going to get punished in the midterm elections.”
    —Sarah Smith (15:07)

8. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Trump's Diet (17:21–20:36)

• RFK Jr.’s Influence:
  RFK Jr. claims that Trump’s junk food diet is astonishing given his energy and health.
  • Quote:

    “He has the constitution of a deity. I don’t know how he’s alive... he’s just pumping himself full of poison all day long.”
    —Robert F. Kennedy Jr. quoted by Sarah Smith (18:06)

• Dietary Policy:
  Trump’s administration, under RFK Jr.'s influence, favors meat and whole milk, moves away from processed foods—but also scales back vaccine mandates, provoking health debates.

9. Outlandish Trump Ideas—What Could Happen Next? (21:37–27:34)

• Listeners Ask: What ideas once deemed outlandish could become reality?
  • Examples:
    • Making Canada the 51st state
    • Seizing the Panama Canal
    • Turning Gaza into a "Riviera"
  • Actualized Surprises: Far more aggressive ICE tactics than predicted; tariffs much higher and wider-ranging than assumed; expanded executive powers used with little Congressional restraint.
• Generational Change:
  While some changes may be reversed by a future Democrat, Trump has permanently expanded how presidents can act unilaterally.
  • Quote:

    “The only potential check on that is people taking cases to the Supreme Court... once you’ve set this precedent, the next time a Democrat is elected president, he or she can do any of this kind of stuff as well.”
    —Sarah Smith (27:16)

10. Iran: Sabre Rattling or Real Risk? (28:20–32:57)

• Trump’s Iran Rhetoric:
  Suggested US might intervene to protect Iranian protesters, but walked it back as diplomatic pressure mounted.
• Why the Hesitation?
  Reluctant to risk another protracted Middle East conflict; allies warned against military action.
• Learning from Venezuela:
  Successful, flashy operations (e.g. kidnapping Maduro) appeal to Trump’s sense of American omnipotence but may not translate to more complex adversaries.
  • Quote:

    “Donald Trump really does firmly believe, when he says peace through strength, that you need to demonstrate that strength. But you don’t achieve that with military action, which isn’t incredibly successful.”
    —Sarah Smith (32:21)

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Republican Quietude:

  “They are still as hamstrung as they have been before about going for Donald Trump because they run the risk inside the party that they actually lose their careers.”
  (05:07, Matt Chorley)

• On the Greenland Letter:

  “It feels like peak presidential trolling... it provokes the reaction, but maybe the whole point is that we don’t quite know if it’s serious or not.”
  (12:04, Marianna Spring)

• On Trump’s Diet:

  “He has the constitution of a deity. I don’t know how he’s alive... just pumping himself full of poison.”
  (18:06, RFK Jr., quoted by Sarah Smith)

• On Executive Power Creep:

  “Once you’ve set this precedent, the next time a Democrat is elected president, he or she can do any of this kind of stuff as well.”
  (27:16, Sarah Smith)

---

Timestamps for Major Topics

• Trump's Year in Office: 01:05–03:08
• Republican Response / Primaries: 03:19–06:58
• Media Discussion on Greenland: 06:52–08:38
• Security Threat in Greenland: 09:03–10:05
• Trump’s Greenland Endgame: 10:16–11:17
• Trump's Letter to Norway: 11:17–13:42
• Minnesota Protests & Economy: 14:55–17:14
• RFK Jr. & Trump’s Diet/Health: 17:21–20:36
• Outlandish Trumpism & Executive Power: 21:37–27:34
• Iran: Threats and Restraint: 28:20–32:57

---

Conclusion

The episode offers a whirlwind tour through Trump’s second-term America at its most unpredictable:

• Republican leaders largely toe the line, nervous of primary challenges.
• The Greenland saga, once a punchline, triggers real diplomatic and media waves, blending meme culture and geopolitical anxiety.
• Meanwhile, Trump’s domestic policy—immigration, economic data, dietary guidelines—remains contentious or chaotic.
• RFK Jr. exerts surprising sway on health and vaccine policy.
• The team closes with broader questions: What once seemed impossible can, under Trump, swiftly enter the realm of the possible—often with lasting impact.

Tone: Wry, skeptical, often incredulous—yet meticulously informative.

---

Transcript

[Matt Chorley]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk. This message comes from Schwab. At Schwab how you invest is your choice, not theirs. That's why when it comes to managing your wealth, Schwab gives you more choices. You can invest and trade on your own. Plus get advice and more comprehensive wealth solutions to help meet your unique needs. With award winning service, low costs and transparent advice, you can manage your wealth your way at schwab. Visit schwab.com to learn more.

[Sarah]

Hey, this is US Olympic gold medalist Tara Davis Woodhull and I'm US Paralympic gold medalist Hunter Woodhull. As athletes, our lives are about having a clear path and a team that you can absolutely trust. So when it came to getting the.

[Marianna]

Best mortgage, we chose PennyMac.

[Sarah]

PennyMac is proud to be the official mortgage provider of Team USA and you learn more at pennymac.com pennymac loan services llc/housing lender nmls id 35953 licensed by the Department of Innovation under the California Residential Mortgage Lending act, conditions and restrictions may apply.

[Matt Chorley]

20Th January 2026 marks a year since Donald Trump took office for his second term. What a year it has been. A year of activity, no question about that. A year of talk, some of it quite wild. A year of achievement. Well, we'll come to that in just a second. So for this anniversary week, there is of course a lot of news. A lot of news as well. A lot of things that are happening, never mind the anniversary. And we're going to answ some questions about that news right now. So how far is Donald Trump actually prepared to go when it comes to getting what he wants in Greenland? Are the Republicans who can talk him down? People are also asking about the threats to impose tariffs on countries that oppose his plans for Greenland. And we're talking about RFK as well. Really interesting question about whether RFK after he said that he was surprised the president was still alive, given what he ate, whether RFK is actually managing to change the diet of the whole country. So we've been answering your questions. Marianna, Sarah and Matt Chorley on Five Live. Welcome to America Answers.

[Sarah]

AmericasT AMERICAST from BBC News.

[Justin]

When Donald Trump calls, they say, yes, sir.

[Sarah]

Right away, sir. Happy to lick your boot, sir. We are the sickest country in the world.

[Justin]

Oh dear.

[Sarah]

Are you worried that billionaires are going to go hungry? Of course the president supports peaceful protests.

[Marianna]

What a stupid question.

[Matt Chorley]

Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epste?

[Justin]

Does a year in office get marked in Washington?

[Sarah]

Sarah surprisingly not. I thought Donald Trump would be throwing himself a party for this and not least to crow about all the achievements that he says he's made over the course of the last 12 months and to point out how much he's gotten done. But in fact, I don't think we're even gonna see him on the anniversary. I think he's gonna be which is technically tomorrow he's gonna be on a plane to Davos where he's giving a speech on Wednesday. And he's out of sight today as well down at his residence in Florida because it's a public, so we're not gonna see very much of him at all.

[Marianna]

You wonder whether it's because he thinks, well, I can talk about these achievements, but also people will use it to evaluate whether I've actually delivered on the things I said I would, which isn't always that helpful.

[Justin]

Well, we have had a lot of questions about Greenland, so let's just sort of lump them all together and then we can pick through them. Jason asked, what of senior U.S. republicans, will they speak out on the question of Greenland? Steve's email, could you explain, please? What are the other politicians doing? Are they whimpering in their offices? Let's start with the Republicans. Where would on this, Sarah?

[Sarah]

Well, a few are sort of making clear that they're not terribly comfortable with what Donald Trump's saying about Greenland without being too heavily critical. So the House speaker, for instance, Mike Johnson, was actually on the BBC on Laura Kuenssberg's show when he said that he doesn't foresee a military intervention and that diplomatic channels are the way to go. Well, I mean, Donald Trump may not actually have heard that from Mike Johnson given the slightly undiplomatic language he's been using more recently about Greenland. But that's kind of typical of mainstream Republican not attacking Donald Trump, but sort of basically hinting they don't agree with it. A few more fourth border Republicans have come out. Thom Tillis says he is sick of stupid when he talks of the advice that's been given to the president on this matter. Republican John Kennedy of Louisiana says that the idea of invading Greenland is weapons grade stupid. And a few others have come out and said similar things. Lisa Murkowski saying Greenland needs to be viewed as an ally, not as an asset. But I have to say the list of Republicans prepared to be really critical about this are a kind of list of usual suspects, people who are retiring at the midterms or have been critical of Donald Trump before. What's not happened yet and actually I suspect may not happen, is People using this as the final straw to say, right, Donald Trump has now gone so far, I'm going to have to publicly start criticizing him because I don't think the strength of feeling among politicians in America is quite where it is at as it is in Europe.

[Matt Chorley]

There's a really good example of that with John Cornyn. So he's the Texas senator, been around forever, weighty figure, but he's facing a primary if he wants to carry on in the Senate. So it's really interesting. You know, we've got these midterms that we constantly talk about in November of this year. If you're a Republican politician looking to come back to Washington, D.C. you need first to get over the hurdle of the primary either not to be primaried. So you keep your ability to go to the general election or win that primary. And in those terms, those primaries starting actually pretty soon, I think. So in those terms, they are still as hamstrung as they have been before about going for Donald Trump because they run the risk inside the party that they actually lose their careers. And it's a proper risk as well. So that sort of explains just the other reason why, which I think we sometimes I know Americans all know this and people who've been to the States sort of do. But you can't overestimate how big America is and how much you are not constantly wondering about Greenland or indeed about Ukraine or indeed about the Middle East. And so as a politician, you don't need to have necessarily a view on all this stuff in the way that here people do and the politicians do, and you're liable to be asked about it, et cetera, et cetera. You can get through most of your life, particularly if you're a House of Representatives, but you just don't this stuff doesn't come if you live in Baton Rouge or Normal, Illinois, or I don't know, anywhere the middle bits or indeed on the coast as well. Frankly, there's an awful lot else going on and we sometimes our perspective, I think sometimes in this country of America and of the importance of all of this is too much.

[Justin]

I was checking out this morning, I went on the New York Times website and the Greenland story was sort of halfway down the homepage. I mean, it's now at the top, I think.

[Matt Chorley]

And that's the New York Times. I mean, they are really interesting. They're super interesting. So, you know, you go to the, the Houston Chronicle or the thing is there aren't that many local papers left, but you go to somewhere where the New York Times is not read, and I can guarantee you they're not talking about Greenland, certainly at the top of the agenda.

[Marianna]

But one thing that's quite interesting is there you're talking about traditional newspapers, which, if we're honest with ourselves, quite a lot of people don't read anymore. And actually the places that they're looking for, what's going on. Social media feeds are full of Greenland memes. But these memes are almost either making a complete joke of the whole thing or people in an absolute meltdown like, oh, my gosh, how is this happening? Why is this happening? Lots of people outside of America, but lots of Americans will be seeing that content popping up on their feeds. And I think it's quite interesting that it feels like it's such a central topic of conversation online. And I don't know, for me, it's felt like that ultimate tension between the sort of, like, memeification of politics, which is like everyone can kind of take. Take the Mick out of things all the time, and then suddenly reaches a point where everyone kind of goes, oh, hang on, hang on. Is this fun? Is this funny? It's a bit like when Maduro, you know, when everything happened with Venezuela and Maduro and there are all those memes of him in his tracksuit and everything else, it was kind of like, oh, okay, this is like being made funny, but also it's kind of quite, like, politically serious. How are we gonna deal with that? That's what this all feels like. It's like everyone doesn't quite know what to take seriously anymore and what not to take seriously.

[Justin]

I've just looked at you on the homepage of the Houston Chronicle. Why DeMecco Ryan's stood by C.J. stroud despite four turnovers in playoff loss is the.

[Matt Chorley]

I don't actually understand any of that. I rest my coat.

[Marianna]

I feel like I don't speak.

[Justin]

I believe it is American football. And, yeah, their top story is. Yeah, it's still the subheader. Doesn't make a lot of sense. You have to go sort of two or three chunks down before you get to Greenland. So interesting insight there, right. On the subject of Greenland, we've also had this voice note from eracaster Sara in Australia.

[Sarah]

I keep hearing Donald Trump talking about the risk for Greenland to be invaded.

[Matt Chorley]

By Russia or China, and now Europe.

[Sarah]

Is increasing the military presence there in response to it. I haven't heard discussions about the actual risk for Greenland. Is it real? Are Russia or China really planning to invade it? Thank you very much.

[Matt Chorley]

No, it's not real in as much as they're not planning to invade it. We know of no current plans to invade it. But the issue isn't really that. The issue is the extent to which, as the ice melts because of climate change, the extent to which those countries can not only use the territory around Greenland, the sea around Greenland, more for their offensive, potentially military operations, and particularly against the United States, because it's a place where they could base weapons that could reach the US very quickly, but also in the longer term, they could have their own bases there because this place was largely ice. And in the longer term, future, it seems, won't be. So that's the issue. It's not so much Russians turning up in Greenland all of a sudden, it's what happens in the seas around it.

[Justin]

We've got Eddie in Leighton Buzzard on the line. Are you there, Eddie?

[Sarah]

Yeah.

[Justin]

Eddie, what is your question for the Americas?

[Marianna]

What do they think is Trump's endgame? Will he ultimately decide that?

[Matt Chorley]

Well, the ultimate threat as a reliance on the States is to withdraw from NATO.

[Sarah]

Yeah. His great threat is pulling out of NATO, because Donald Trump doesn't think that would do America any harm. He says again and again and again it is only because America's part of NATO that anybody, Russia, China, any other adversary is scared of it in any way. That without America, there is no NATO. And he obviously doesn't think that Britain, Germany, Denmark, whomsoever's contribution to NATO is terribly valuable. So I don't think he thinks he would harm America's defence or strategy in any way at all. And I think he would rather have Greenland because his end game is not to get Greenland better defended or to have more American bases there or bigger military presence. He can do any of that right now without making any changes whatsoever. I mean, it would appear to be that his end game really is to own Greenland in order to enlarge the territory of the United States in order to have added something significantly to the land mass as well as the strategic value he sees in Greenland.

[Justin]

Eddie, good to speak to you. Thank you very much for your question. We need to move on because we've got so many questions on a number of topics. Marianne, can I ask you about the reaction to the letter to the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jonas Gar Storr. So this is the letter which says, dear Jonas, this is from Donald Trump, Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Prize Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus in capitals, I no longer feel an opportunity, an obligation, to think purely of Peace, although it'll always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from west or China, and why do they have a right of ownership? Anyway, he goes on to say, and then he finishes it off with, the world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland. Thank you.

[Marianna]

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[Matt Chorley]

It's disappointing you didn't see that.

[Marianna]

You didn't have that. But Matt's mug does.

[Justin]

I've still got it on my mug.

[Marianna]

No, he only does that for social media posts, not letters. For me, it feels like quintessential rage bait. Everybody who doesn't like Donald Trump has, quote, tweeted it saying, look at this, can you believe he's done this? I mean, it feels like peak presidential trolling. But it kind of comes back to that question of what I was saying, which is, it's quite hard to tell what is serious and what is not serious. And so with this letter, you're like.

[Sarah]

Is it, Is he serious?

[Marianna]

Is he kind of joking? Like, is he not joking? Is he trolling? Is he? And it gets the reaction, it provokes the reaction. But maybe the whole point is that we don't quite know if it's serious or not. And. And nor do the world leaders of.

[Sarah]

Any of these other countries interested.

[Justin]

That is the line which is leading the New York Times now. Yeah. So it has pushed it back up to the, you know, the news outlets.

[Marianna]

Yeah, yeah. Because it's, it's a new thing and it, it gets attention and it grabs headlines and it gets loads of eyeballs on places like X, because people are resharing it. You know, we're all used to seeing those sort of formal letters that are shared by, you know, like when someone resigns or something in the UK government, it's like that, except in. It's completely not following any of the usual etiquette.

[Matt Chorley]

And if you make, as I've seen some media outlets say, if you make a distinction between the Norwegian government and the actual committee prize, people of the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Sarah]

Yeah.

[Matt Chorley]

And you say, hang on a second, he's wrong, because the government doesn't actually award the Nobel Prize. The committee members award it. You are falling into a massive trap, which, of course, we've all fallen into at various stages, which is trying to fact check Donald Trump. Wait, wait.

[Marianna]

The point of it, he doesn't want. He knows if you start saying things like that, everyone will just completely switch off from what you're saying here's.

[Justin]

A question, Sarah. Would the world be in a different place if they had just given him the Nobel Peace Party?

[Sarah]

Possibly, Although I don't think it would have stunted his ambitions for Greenland. It might just mean that he wasn't, you know, sending communications like that to the Norwegian prime minister. Maybe he'd be so happy. He would have waited six months before he delved into this. But had he been given the Nobel Peace Prize, would he still have sent forces in to capture the president of Venezuela? Because it was many ways the success of that operation that has spurred him on to be thinking about the other things he wants to achieve on the world stage. He's really, really buoyed up by what happened in Venezuela. And, you know, there are a lot of people saying, doing that sort of thing, capturing, kidnapping presidents of other countries, not necessarily what you should be doing. If you're still campaigning for a Nobel Peace Prize, would it have stopped him doing that? Probably not. So, yeah, I mean, I. There's a couple of things that have happened in the last weeks we wouldn't have seen if he'd been given the Peace Prize. But ultimately, no, he's desperately serious about Greenland. I think it's just. It's taken us a year to work that out. It's only in the last fortnight or so. It's really the pennies dropped in our heads that he really, really means this, whereas he's been serious about it all along, I think.

[Justin]

Right, let's move on because we've got another question. This is from Andrew in Edinburgh.

[Matt Chorley]

Good morning. There is much current focus on foreign matters by President Trump. How is his domestic dashboard looking?

[Justin]

Yeah, how do things look domestically, Sarah?

[Sarah]

So what's going on in Minnesota is an ongoing issue after the shooting, what was it 10 days ago, of Rene Goode, the woman who was protesting against the ice raids in Minnesota. There have been protests every single day. There are now something like 3,000 ICE agents in the city compared to somewhere that has 600 police officers in it. The governor has readied the National Guard in case they need to come in to keep. Donald Trump is talking about invoking the Insurrection act so that he can send military forces into Minnesota. The mayor and the governor are being investigated by the Justice Department to see if they've committed any criminal offenses, as they've apparently been getting in the way of federal officers doing their work. I mean, it is an astonishing tinderbox in Minnesota, and I wouldn't be surprised if we hear more about that in the coming days or weeks as well. Because there are protests, counter protests, all sorts of things going on in the city as the ICE raids are continuing all the time and more and more protesters are being arrested. So that is a huge focus of debate still inside America. And as ever, questions about the economy rumble on with Donald Trump insisting basically that Americans have never had it so good and that they should be grateful for falling prices and rising wages, whilst most people are saying that they fundamentally do not feel that when they're at the grocery store. And, you know, he's only got a few months to hope that people's wallets are feeling much healthier, otherwise it's really going to get punished in the midterm elections for that, I think.

[Matt Chorley]

And you have this weird thing, which we mentioned before, where the inflation figures haven't been fiddled, but they are probably not very reliable at the moment because of the government shutdown that there was. So there wasn't the ability to get the detail of what price changes there were. So a lot of the stats just reflect a zero price change, where actually there probably was one. So, in fact, even the official picture inflation is hazy. And in some things, particularly electricity, it is unquestionably higher than is comfortable for Donald Trump. So, yeah, no, he's not out of the woods on the economy by any means.

[Justin]

Before we go, I want to finish on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Because we had this voice note from Priscilla.

[Sarah]

So my question is, Robert F. Kennedy built much of his public profile on reforming the U.S. food and health system. I just want to know, since he entered the political mainstream, has he actually maintained any of these reform positions? Has he gone soft of them? Which ones has he abandoned? Which ones is he still working on? Thank you.

[Justin]

One thing we do know is one thing that he is working on is Donald Trump's own diet. Here's RFK Jr. Speaking on the Katie Miller podcast last week.

[Matt Chorley]

You know, the interesting thing about the.

[Sarah]

President is that he eats really bad.

[Matt Chorley]

Food, which is McDonald's, and then, you know, candy and Diet Coke.

[Sarah]

Drinks the Diet Coke at all times. He has the constitution of a deity. I don't know how he's alive. If you travel with him, you get this idea that he's just pumping himself full of poison all day long and you don't know how he's walking around, much less being the most energetic person than, you know, any of us have ever met.

[Marianna]

I'd like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. To know that I have a normal Coke to drink every day.

[Justin]

Full fat, full fat.

[Matt Chorley]

She also has the constitution of a deity. It Tells you something of it.

[Justin]

Sarah, you must have been when you read about Donald Trump, you must have seen him eating.

[Sarah]

I have never in all honesty seen a meeting. I have, however, once or twice managed to speak to people who an occasion where he was being hosted, if he was giving a speech, was the person sent out to get him his rider, essentially what he needs. And it's always two Big Macs and two Cokes. So there is no doubt whatsoever that that is what he lives on. And well cooked steak with ketchup when he's in a restaurant. So I mean, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is absolutely right about that. Now, one of the things that he has done is come out with new dietary guidelines and Donald Trump slightly goes along with them because he's very into Americans eating more protein and particularly more meat. So Donald Trump does all right on that, but he is very against processed foods and added sugar. So the Coke wouldn't work there. But he's kind of inverted the pyramid of foods that people are supp. So it's not grains anymore and it's certainly not low fat food that often has a lot of sugar added to it. And whole milk, they're very, very into whole milk. This administration and people are advised to have three portions of full fat dairy a day now in America. So there's been a big emphasis on changing what the food recommendations are. And a lot of people in this space who are, you know, left, right wing or none of the above are much in agreement with Robert F. Kennedy when it comes to food and getting food dyes out of what we eat and other additives on, on the other hand, he's actually moved very fast to change the vaccine regimen as well. And a whole bunch of vaccines that were either strongly recommended or compulsory for kids to get aren't anymore. So although they will still get measles, mumps, rubella, polio vaccinations like that, no longer will they necessarily get hepatitis A, hepatitis B, other meningitis vaccines, that kind of thing. So there's been a massive controversy about that. So in many ways this is exactly what RFK is about. People who are very, very worried about the way in which he's anti vaxx, but also very, very pleased in what they think he's doing for the health of Americans when it comes to food and nutrition.

[Justin]

And I suppose that's an example of that being a sort of purely domestic policy. It doesn't break out internationally quite the same way. I did see that clip of Donald Trump when he was talking about whole milk and he said, it's whole with a W for those of you that have a problem. And I wondered whether he'd only just learned that it wasn't hole spelled H O L E.

[Matt Chorley]

Okay, we've just come off the air with Matt Chorley on five Live, the live bit of the show. Marianne has gone to do other things. Sarah's still here. We're still answering your questions. And we want to go back to a year of Trump because we've had this voice note from Jonas in Denmark on five Live. I believe it was Sarah who said that Trump had a habit of doing outrageous things that you could not possibly believe he would ever do for him to then turn around and actually do this. My question to you then is, what other outlandish things has Trump said that you didn't believe at the time, but he might actually do anyway?

[Sarah]

Oh, that's interesting, isn't it, Justin? So, I mean, the first things that come to mind in terms of outlandish things that have not yet come true are making Canada the 51st state. For a long time, he wanted to seize Panama and the Panama Canal, make that American again. And then, of course, there were some of the things he said about Gaza early in the Middle east peace process, where he was talking about turning it into, into the Riviera of the Middle East. And there were sort of ideas of Trump towers and hotels and things lining the Gaza Strip, which all seemed very, very fanciful. And none of those have come to pass yet, although they do probably still give us an idea of the direction of travel that he's going in, even if we don't literally accept that that's some of the things he wants to do. A year in, though, Justin, what else has he done now that began to seem normal, but at the beginning, we just couldn't believe.

[Matt Chorley]

Well, I suppose, I mean, ice on the streets of Minnesota and other places as well, other states as well, the degree of violence employed. We were told at first that it was just going to be the people they were going to chuck out of the country. And this was always the plan to chuck out people from America who did not have the legal right to be there. But then they would say, well, we're going to start with the criminals, obviously, and then we'll think about the others somewhere down the line. And to an extent, that has been the case. They have chucked out some criminals and they would say, I think that they're still prioritizing criminals, but it's obviously gone a lot further than that. And I think that so, you know, on the serious side of the ledger, as it were, I think he's done much more and much more violently there than we realized. And that, in a sense, almost that he's comfortable with. And he's got this advisor, Stephen Miller, and other people behind the scenes who suggested to him it's a good idea. He hasn't always suggested, at least in public, that he's completely comfortable with people being chased around the parking lots of big stores or people working on farmland, et cetera, et cetera. But I think it's fair to say it has gone further than people thought at the time, or a lot of people thought at the time it would go. But a lot of the other stuff, some of those things you just mentioned, Sarah, I mean, obviously birthright citizenship, they were going to stop people being born in America being simply having the right to be citizens because they were born in America, which is this great sort of American iconic thing. I mean, they still sort of want to do it, don't they? It's gone to the Court. It's gone to the Supreme Court.

[Sarah]

Yeah, we're waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on that before they decide.

[Matt Chorley]

They'Re not going to let him do it, are they?

[Sarah]

I don't think realistically seems very unlikely.

[Matt Chorley]

So, I mean, there are, although that.

[Sarah]

Will be unusual in itself if the Supreme Court does step in to stop him doing something. And the other thing that we're waiting for them to rule on at the moment, of course, is whether or not he really does have the power to impose trade tariffs unilaterally without going through Congress. And I guess actually thinking about where we were a year or so ago, I don't think we believed he would be quite so sweeping in the tariffs or put them quite as high as he has done on some countries like China. I don't think we really expected even that the UK would be paying a 10% tariff, let alone being threatened with an extra 10% now that there's this row over Greenland and an extra 25% on top of that, potentially. So, yeah, he's gone further in a whole lot of things than I think we thought it was rhetoric at the time. And he was saying, hey, you know, 25, 50% tariffs. And we thought, yeah, that that was just gross exaggeration, but he certainly doubled down on that one.

[Matt Chorley]

It's funny, isn't it, though, because there's a sort of juxtaposition of all the noise and the muzzle velocity stuff and the flood the zone and some of those things we just meant to mentioned that he says he wants to do, you know, free IVF was a thing once, wasn't it? I don't know if it still is, which upset quite a lot on the evangelical wing of the party who wondered about it and didn't expect that that would come from this president that they voted for. But actually he throws these things out, one or two of them stick, one or two of them might even be the case at least until the next Democratic president. I just wonder whether one of the things we're blinded to, I don't know what your view is of this, Sarah, is that the paucity of things in the first year of the second term, that he has genuinely changed, as it were, for a generation. And you think of his first term, he had those appointments to the Supreme Court. They went ahead and he did it in the full knowledge that they would go ahead and get rid of Roe v. Wade and that, you know, whether you approve it or disapprove of it, that is a big change and it's generational because the court isn't going to make a different decision probably in our lifetimes. But in this first term with all of this stuff happening, is there stuff that is not ever going to return to how it was that he's done?

[Sarah]

Yeah, the power of the presidency, I think. So the way he has used his executive office to issue these orders or has claimed that various different laws give him the power to act without Congress on all sorts of things, from capturing a Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, imposing trade tariffs, sending the National Guard onto the streets of American cities, pursuing the kind of revenge agenda he has been against his enemies in many, many ways he's pushed and reshaped the powers of the presidency. And the only potential check on that is people taking cases to the Supreme Court and then ruling whether or not the president can do this on his own. And as we say, they've got these rulings coming up on birthright citizenship and on tariffs, but on a whole bunch of other things. He has basically established that the can do this stuff on his own. And you don't hear that many Republicans publicly talking about how worried they are about this. But anyone on the right who like the idea of smaller government, less government power should be quietly, very, very worried about this. And not least because once you've set this precedent, the next time a Democrat is elected president, he or she can do any of this kind of stuff as well and change the country much quicker and much more fundamentally because they don't need to wait to Pass legislation to do it.

[Matt Chorley]

Yeah, that's a really interesting point, isn't it? That there are some things that have changed. Not necessarily policy things, but just the ability to do things. Things that aren't put back in the box for a bit anyway. Okay, change of subject to Iran. We've had a question from John in Yorkshire via WhatsApp. Trump last week told the Iranian people help is on its way. Previously said the US Would come to the rescue if violence was used against him. The best decision he ever made was not hanging more than 800 people two days ago. Trump told Politico on Saturday. That was about the Iranian regime, of course, and about the supreme leader, Khamenei. So John's question is, is this another taco moment? Trump always chickens out. Or not, Sarah?

[Sarah]

I think not. Around the corner, down the road, possibly. Donald Trump would very much like to take action on Iran. He would do quite a lot in order to try and topple the regime. And he sees a moment of weakness now. But whether he chickened out or changed his mind or however you want to characterize, there clearly was a change last week. Now, we believe it's in part because he was being lobbied by allies in the region, by Israel, but also by Qatar and some of his other Arab allies who didn't think that now was the time for some kind of military strike on Iran and that it would actually complicate things in the Middle east more than make it better. But I think you could actually hear, as Donald Trump was talking to us, day by day, him going off the idea. He started strong with true social messages saying, you know, that he would come and rescue protesters if violence was used against. Well, it was in huge numbers and he was getting talked about that. But then he was asked a question by CBS who said about one of the protesters who was due to be executed, and he leapt on that and said, yes, if they execute any of the protesters, then we'll have to go in and do something. And you thought, ah, once you start imparting the language like that and making the suggestion about what it would take you to act really, really narrow, that's when, you know, he's looking for an excuse not to do it. It was very easy for the regime to say, okay, well, we won' with any of those executions. And I mean, it seemed like a mass exaggeration when he said 800 executions had been stopped. And yet again, that was him trying to get away from having promised to take action and now backing from it. But it was, yeah, it was unusual I would say of Donald Trump to behave like that, but you could kind of, you could kind of hear him reasoning it out in public.

[Matt Chorley]

And why, what's the reason, do you think that he didn't do it or isn't doing it at the.

[Sarah]

I don't think it would have had the desired effect. I don't think there is an easy target or targets that you could hit that would definitely destroy the regime. He's already done what he could last year, bombing nuclear installations and believes that he's completely set back Iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. Beyond those targets, it's much harder to see that there is an easy clean strike that would topple the regime. And what he doesn't want to do is get involved in some kind of long and embroiled conflict. So that's one reason not to do it. And the lobbying of friends in the region as well, I think who really didn't want him to do it was another good reason not to get involved. And so, I mean, if that's true, then that's a fascinating glimpse into Donald Trump listening to international diplomats, listening to wiser, cooler heads and being persuaded.

[Matt Chorley]

Yeah. And the other side of that is the Maduro thing that I think has quite excited him in as much as it was an extraordinary. And whatever you think of the rights and wrongs, the legality or illegality of what they did, it was incredibly successful and used an array of American power, including weapons whose provenance we don't fully know, the ability for real time surveillance, minutely from, you know, satellites in geostationary orbit down to drones that apparently can't be spotted, but all kind of stuff coming together and being used in that way that will have unquestionably excited in his mind the idea that America is actually more powerful than it has recently convinced itself than it is. So in a way, you have to put, if you're trying to answer this question properly about what happens, for instance, in a month or two months or six months, you've got to put those two things in distinction to each other. On the one hand, the real risk of that quagmire, but on the other hand, this kind of nagging sense of, oh goodness, we're a bit more powerful than we thought we were and we are able to do extraordinary things that no other country on earth probably could do.

[Sarah]

Yeah. And Donald Trump really does firmly believe, when he says peace through strength, that you need to demonstrate that strength. But you don't achieve that with military action, which isn't incredibly successful. And getting in involved in some kind of hideous Black Hawk down scenario is the last thing that he wants because that would vastly complicate firstly the idea that America is this ultimate strongman that can do whatever it wants with its military forces, but also starts to betray his promise to his supporters that America's not going to get involved in lengthy forever wars in parts of the world exactly like the Middle East.

[Matt Chorley]

Ready? Ho. We're out of here, Sarah. See See you soon. Bye Bye.

[Sarah]

Thank you for listening to another episode. It's you, the Ameracaster that makes AmericasT the community it is. If you like what you've heard, please do subscribe to this podcast on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts. We always want to hear your feedback and we look at every single bit of correspondence we get. You can send us an email americastbc.co.uk our WhatsApp is 444-33-0123 9480 and of course you can get involved in the AmericasT Discord server. The link to that is in the description. Until next time. Bye.

[Justin]

There's no championship league for small business owners, but if there was, you'd be.

[Sarah]

At the top of the standings.

[Justin]

Because going pro with Lenovo Pro means you've got the winning formation. One on one Advice IT solutions and.

[Sarah]

Customized hardware powered by Intel Core Ultra.

[Justin]

Processors help you stay ahead of the competition. Business goes pro with Lenovo Pro Sign up for [e-mail] Pro Lenovo Lenovo.

[Sarah]

Pro.

[Justin]

Drivers live for race day, but for small business owners, every day is race day.

[Sarah]

That's why going pro with Lenovo Pro matters.

[Justin]

One on one Advice IT Solutions and customized hardware powered by Intel Core Ultra processors keep your business on the right track. Business goes probably with Lenovo Pro. Sign up for [e-mail] pro.