Americanswers… on 5Live! Why is Trump’s White House comparing the war in Iran to a video game?

Summary

---

Americast – Americanswers on 5Live!

9 March 2026
BBC News with Justin Webb, Sarah Smith, Marianna Spring, Anthony Zurcher, and Matt Chorley

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Americast, aired in a special Americanswers Q&A format, focuses on the ongoing war in Iran under President Trump, the administration’s controversial use of social media and cinematic propaganda, divisions in the Republican base over foreign policy, the sacking of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S.-UK relations amid calls to cancel King Charles’ White House visit, and the persistent question: is the war about oil? The hosts tackle listener questions and play audio from political figures and viral clips, offering expert commentary and vivid behind-the-scenes insight into unfolding U.S. policy and political culture.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Trump, the War in Iran, and the Elusive “Plan”

(Timestamps: 02:16–06:31)

• Lack of Clear Strategic Vision:
  • Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, speaking on Newsnight, praises Trump’s direction in Iran but harshly critiques the administration’s failure to present a clear case for regime change or articulate its objectives to Congress, allies, or the American public.

    “Not laying out the very strong, compelling case for regime change more in advance of the attack… I’m most worried about the extent to which we’re cooperating with and providing assistance to the opposition inside Iran.”—John Bolton (recap by Matt Chorley, 02:45)

  • Anthony Zurcher describes mixed messaging in White House statements: “You ask what is the plan? … it depends on what time of day it is from this administration.” (03:51)
• Contradiction with “America First”:
  • Marianna Spring discusses MAGA base splits between unwavering support for Trump and critics, especially those influenced by fringe figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who oppose new foreign wars. (06:48)
• The Realistic Endgame:
  • Justin Webb emphasizes that a full overthrow of Iran’s regime was never Trump’s “plan”—the strategy aims for a settlement with a pliable, business-friendly subset of the current regime. (05:12)

---

2. Gamification of War: The White House’s Social Media Blitz

(Timestamps: 07:45–13:21)

• Blockbuster Propaganda:
  • The Trump White House released a video montage combining war footage with scenes from Superman, Iron Man 2, Gladiator, and Braveheart, including video game references (“flawless victory”).

    Clip: “I’m here to fight for truth and justice and the American way… Flawless victory.” (08:53)

• Algorithm Gaming and Outrage Tactics:
  • Marianna Spring highlights how Trump, followed by other political leaders (even Keir Starmer), use “rage bait” and meme culture to dominate online narratives—even as it trivializes war:

    “That display of strength gaming thing… Donald Trump is the only person who seems to be quite good at that sort of content.”—Mariana Spring (06:48) “Social media forgets taste quite a lot of the time.” (11:22)

• Listener Question (Mike, Birmingham):
  • “Isn’t this a double standard compared to the Obama era (e.g. tan suit scandal)? Or just a sign of the times?” (09:21)
  • Hosts agree the outright trolling is now the norm. Trump’s team “package war” to maximize reaction, but could face backlash if consequences mount at home—gas prices, casualties, market shocks (Anthony Zurcher, 13:21).

---

3. U.S.-UK Relations and European Allies

(Timestamps: 13:44–16:21)

• British Influence Overstated:
  • In response to a question about whether Trump cares that Keir Starmer opposes America’s “illegal war,” Justin Webb asserts Britain’s importance is minimal:

    “You can’t overestimate how unimportant Britain is in the thinking of the White House… The idea that there’s a sort of special relationship that means they look first to what’s happening in Britain… is just wrong.” (13:55)

  • Trump is more interested in cooperation from other European leaders (e.g., Mertz in Germany, Macron in France), particularly those who are pragmatically supportive.
• On Royalty and Soft Power:
  • The significance of King Charles potentially cancelling his state visit: “Donald Trump clearly loves the pageantry… Americans… like following [the Royal Family] almost as a kind of a soap opera… it would definitely get some attention here.” (Anthony Zurcher, 15:38)

---

4. Is This War About Oil?

(Timestamps: 16:28–18:57)

• Listener Question (James, Leighton Buzzard):
  • Speculation on whether the invasion is motivated by control over Iranian oil; links to previous Trump targeting of oil-rich states.
  • Justin Webb and Anthony Zurcher dismiss the “oil grab” conspiracy, noting most Iranian oil goes to China, and U.S. oil majors would “rather be in Russia because they can just turn on spigots.” (16:28)
  • Anthony: “Donald Trump talked about the oil in Venezuela from the very beginning. There was no conspiracy theory—he was open about that.” (18:29)
  • The war does impact China and Asia’s oil supply, but evidence shows broader geopolitics, not just oil profiteering, drive policy.

---

5. “Department of War” Name Change: Bureaucratic Branding or Substantive Shift?

(Timestamps: 19:11–20:56)

• Listener Question (Rachel, Leicester):
  • Asks if Pete Hegseth is formally “Secretary of War” or “Secretary of Defense.”
  • Anthony Zurcher clarifies: The White House and Pentagon have rebranded the department and website, but Congress has not legally changed its name; mainstream media and official records still use “Department of Defense.”

    “Legally written… it is still very much the Department of Defense. It’ll be interesting to see… if a Democrat takes control in 2029, whether they just go back.” (19:43)

---

6. Kristi Noem’s Firing: Scandal, Loyalty, and the Trouble With Trump’s Cabinet

(Timestamps: 21:02–34:36)

• Controversy Snowballs:
  • Fired after disastrous Senate hearings—partly over a $220 million TV ad campaign showcasing herself and also over past personal scandals, including a bizarre admission in her memoir about shooting her own dog (“the murder of the dog, as I might put it, as a dog lover, was thought to be… a remarkably strange thing.” – Justin Webb, 23:02).

    Sen. Thom Tillis, 22:23: “You decided to kill that dog because you had not invested the appropriate time in training. And then you have the audacity to go into a book and say it’s a leadership lesson about tough choices.”

• Why She Was Really Dismissed:
  • Noem’s claim that Trump personally approved her ad campaign is contradicted by Trump, who tells Reuters, “I never knew anything about it.”
  • “Getting undercut like that by Donald Trump, getting Republican senators who normally stick with Donald Trump angry at her—I think that was the last straw.” —Anthony Zurcher, 30:03
• Deeper Cabinet Dynamics:
  • U.S. Cabinet members are “not meant to be a politician while you’re in that role” (Justin Webb, 32:42). Presidential loyalty now trumps competence, which makes for risky governance.
  • Anthony notes: “If you’re a Cabinet secretary, you have to do a good job. If you don’t do a good job, it is a high risk, high reward. You could end up tanking your political career. And I think Noem… her star… has fallen to earth.” (34:36)

---

7. Noem's Replacement: Markwayne Mullin and the Challenges Ahead

(Timestamps: 34:36–39:08)

• Who is Markwayne?
  • Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma senator, known for his cowboy persona, picked for his loyalty and optics rather than bureaucratic experience.
  • “He once picked a fight with a teamster during a committee hearing. I mean, literally a shouting match where they almost came to blows…” (Anthony Zurcher, 34:43)
  • Trump’s preference for loyalists over experienced managers contrasts with his first term (e.g., John Kelly as DHS Secretary, who later had a falling-out with Trump).
• Can He Do the Job?
  • Hosts express concern about his ability to run such a large, complex bureaucracy; past inexperience among appointees may have contributed to policy missteps (e.g., in Minneapolis’ immigration crackdown):

    “The issue is whether you can run a big department, isn’t it? Whether that feistiness and cowboy attitude to life… is actually the thing you need.” —Justin Webb (35:31)

---

8. What’s Next for Immigration Policy?

(Timestamps: 38:40–40:14)

• Changes After Minneapolis Scandal?
  • Minneapolis’ high-profile immigration enforcement brutality and the deaths of two US citizens led to significant backlash.
  • Anthony Zurcher assesses: “They have turned down the temperature… across the country while still trying to detain as many people as possible… not quite in as high profile, demonstrative sort of way.” (39:08)
  • The Trump White House appears to be recalibrating, at least in optics, after public opposition.

---

Memorable Quotes

• Anthony Zurcher on Propaganda Videos:

  “It is a remarkable kind of a change in the way wars are being packaged and presented by a country. And whether it works or not… if Americans are watching service members come home in coffins… then seeing an administration kind of playing around and having fun with this… that could end up being something that hurts them more than it helps them.” (13:21)

• Justin Webb on British Influence:

  “The idea that Britain really matters at all to Trump outside the Royal Family, I think, is for the birds.” (15:27)

• Anthony Zurcher on Cabinet Loyalty:

  “Cabinet appointee works at the pleasure of the president… You have to do a good job. And if you don’t, it is high risk, high reward. You could end up tanking your political career.” (32:42, 34:36)

• Sen. Thom Tillis on Kristi Noem (re: dog incident):

  “You decided to kill that dog because you had not invested the appropriate time in training. And then you have the audacity to go into a book and say it’s a leadership lesson about tough choices.” (22:23)

---

Notable Timestamps

• 02:16 – Discussion of John Bolton’s critique and Trump’s lack of plan
• 06:48 – MAGA base splits, social media war “trolling”
• 08:53 – White House gaming-style war video clip
• 09:21–13:21 – Listeners question propaganda, hosts discuss social media strategies
• 13:44–15:27 – UK’s actual relevance to U.S. foreign policy; Royal Family
• 16:28 – Question and discussion: Is the war about oil?
• 19:11 – Explanation of “Secretary of War” vs. “Secretary of Defense”
• 21:02–34:36 – The firing of Kristi Noem: ads, scandals, and inside politics
• 34:36 – Markwayne Mullin’s nomination and questions of competence
• 38:40–40:14 – Shifting immigration enforcement approaches post-Minneapolis

---

Tone and Language

The language is direct, analytical, and occasionally sardonic, with the hosts bringing humor to dark political developments. The episode maintains a mix of serious policy analysis, sharp critiques of political theater, and a conversational, accessible tone—even in technical explanations.

---

For Listeners Who Missed It

This episode provides a vivid, accessible window into how Trump-era U.S. policy is shaped, communicated, and occasionally derailed—from chaotic war messaging to loyalty-driven Cabinet shakeups and the cultural spectacle of propaganda. The panel’s blend of insider perspective, listener interaction, and sharp wit make complex news not just digestible, but unmissable.

---

Transcript

[Justin Webb]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk Puerto Rico is having

[Anthony Zurcher]

a moment of global attention as companies

[Justin Webb]

reshore and rethink supply chains. They're choosing a U.S. jurisdiction operating under federal law with competitive tax incentives designed for long term growth, not culture or business. Culture and business. Puerto Rico. It's not what's next, it's where. Visit investpr.org business 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. Is Iran's oil a factor in Donald Trump's decision to start a war? Is he after that oil? Some of you are asking this. It is Monday afternoon here in the uk we are answering your questions with Matt Chorley on five live. We're also talking about whether Donald Trump needs the help of European countries and and indeed whether they want to help him. Plus, what do Americans think of British royalty? With calls for King Charles upcoming White House visit to be cancelled, we also talk about Kristi Noem, Donald Trump's Homeland Security Secretary, who he has got rid of after a disastrous performance in a Senate hearing last week, something we did sort of predict on our own pod last week. So Anthony, Marianne and I discuss all of this and more. Welcome to to America answers

[Anthony Zurcher]

AmericasT America from BBC News.

[Justin Webb]

You hear that? Oh, I think when I hear that

[Anthony Zurcher]

sound, it reminds me of money. We didn't start this war, but under President Trump, we are finishing it.

[Marianne]

This is a big cover up and this administration is engaged in it.

[Anthony Zurcher]

This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. I have four words for you. Turn the volume up.

[Matt Chorley]

As you would expect, we've had an awful lot of questions about the situation in the Middle east, the war in Iran and what is the plan. And I was quite struck on the subject of what is the plan was on Friday on Newsnight. I spoke to John Bolton, former National Security Advisor, President Trump. He was sacked in part because of disagreements over Iran. He's long been an advocate of regime change in Iran, but he gave me this assessment of how Donald Trump had handled the war so far.

[Anthony Zurcher]

I think he is headed in the right direction, although the idea that somehow the current regime could come up with a new supreme leader, that he could talk with is delusional. I think he's got a real problem within his administration and with his political base. The isolationists up to and including J.D. vance, I think, are in meltdown right now as to what's happening. The administration can and should be criticized on several respects. Number one, not laying out the very strong, compelling case for regime change more in advance of the attack to the American people, briefing to Congress, consultation with allies. And I'm most worried about the extent to which we're cooperating with and providing assistance to the opposition inside Iran.

[Matt Chorley]

Now, Anthony, I was just struck by this is a man who supports the exact thing that they're doing, laying the charge sheet of he's not made the case the American people not made the case for Iran, not made clear what regime. There's quite a lot there. And this is someone who's supporting what he's doing.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Yeah, he likes what they're doing, but he doesn't like how they're doing it. John Bolton obviously has spent a lot of time thinking about the best way to topple the Iranian government. And the fact that he is saying that they're going about it all wrong or just not thinking about how to do this, that's pretty damning. And you ask what is the plan? And I chuckled and it is because it depends on what time of day it is from this administration. You've heard them talk about regime change. You've heard them talk about taking down Iran's military so they're no longer a threat in the region. You heard Donald Trump just recently again point towards just removing the nuclear arms threat, the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons as a purpose for this. It is a hodgepodge of things. And all of these ideas are being kind of thrown out there. But they weren't, as Bolton rightly notes, they weren't really substantively aired and detailed in the run up to the war. So trying to do all of this after the fact and tell the American people that the sacrifices they're making for the economy, for higher gas prices are worth it. It's hard to do that after those sacrifices are already being made.

[Matt Chorley]

Justin, is there a counter argument that says if he does have a plan, he wouldn't necessarily say it all in public, and that is the nature of war.

[Justin Webb]

Well, also that if he has a plan, it probably isn't John Bolton's actually, because John Bolton's, as you sort of heard in that clip with you, I mean, he'd like to get rid of the entire regime. It'd like to go back to Iran as it was back in the days of the Shah, or indeed before that. So given that most people think that's unrealistic or not achievable without kind of enormous cost and people on the ground and all the rest of it, and that isn't the Trump plan, then the White House plan is different. The White House plan is to win. And when they will define winning, when they've decided, along with the Israelis, what winning could reasonably be, be. But it was always going to be considerably less than the overthrow of the mullahs. It involves whether or not it's realistic or not is you can sort of put to one side, but it involves managing to find some sort of subset of the current regime in Iran that would be pliable and able, that they're able to do business with. And that I think, you know, that is still the plan in as much as how you get to the plan, of course, is a different matter. And that does seem to be really up in the air at the moment with the possibility that they've utterly underestimated the ability of the Iranian regime to fight back.

[Matt Chorley]

Mariana it's one of these things where we've talked before about how Donald Trump said he wants to end forever wars and bring the troops home in America first and all that, and then he embarks on the things which seem to contradict that. And up until now, what we've seen is that actually his supporters will go along with almost anything.

[Marianne]

But then there is a section of the MAGA base that we've spoken about before who the ones who were very critical of Donald Trump over Jeffrey Epstein, the ones who kind of listened to Marjorie Taylor Greene, who you remember has sort of gone her separate ways from Donald Trump and who are much more critical of this kind of the war this seems to have provoked rather than ending it. Like you say, the promise that, you know, it, the fighting's going to stop and we're not going to be spending American money elsewhere. So there's that kind of divide going on in the, in the, in the social media world within maga. But what I would say is, and I think one of the most interesting things has been watching how the official channels of, you know, Donald Trump et al, everyone else involved here are posting about this and that real kind of like trolling approach to war or that display of strength gaming thing which loads of other world leaders are kind of following suit with, including Keir Starmer, actually with varying responses, because Donald Trump is the only person who seems to be quite good at that sort of content.

[Justin Webb]

Just to add to that, one of the things that Bolton said to you was it goes all the way up to J.D. vance, what Mariana's just been talking about those people. She's just been talking about. And that's the interesting thing, the extent to which those people exist in a more powerful way than just out there doing all these memes and all the rest of it and people either enjoying it or hating it or whatever. But actually, do they have a hotline to the Vice President? Because in theory they would have because he is very much, as Bolton was saying, sort of of their thinking when it comes to these things. But. But has he sealed them off? Do they still have an influence? I. I don't know.

[Matt Chorley]

Well, on the subject of the sort of click bait, rage bait approach to social media, there's this extraordinary clip that the White House released a video, this was on Friday. We'll play a bit of it, although it might not be totally clear. It's basically film clips interspersed with footage of the war around. So it's sort of a clip of Superman followed by footage of a bomb going off. You've got Iron Man 2, Gladiator, Braveheart. Let's take a listen.

[Anthony Zurcher]

I'm here to fight for truth and justice and the American way. I am the danger. Time to find out.

[Justin Webb]

Maximum effort.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Permission.

[Justin Webb]

Here it comes.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Flawless victory.

[Matt Chorley]

And in fact we've got. Mike from Birmingham is on the line now. Hello, Mike.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Hi Matt and team.

[Matt Chorley]

What is your question for the team off the back of that extraordinary clip?

[Anthony Zurcher]

Yes, my question relates to the sort of barrier for controversy in the U.S. so back in the day Obama wore a tan, so almost a checker, which broke the American news machine for a couple of weeks.

[Justin Webb]

But now it feels like we have

[Anthony Zurcher]

daily AI and movie based propaganda videos with little to no consequence on news coverage. Is it a double standards for Democratic presidents or is it just a sign of the times?

[Marianne]

I would say, Mike, that I think it is actually. Well, I think there's, there's two layers, that there's, there's layers to this. I think that in some ways it is a sign of the times. Like this is how politicians are doing politics across the political spectrum. Because it's about gaming the algorithm, because it's about getting your content pushed to as many people as possible, sparking outrage or a reaction or what have you. And then people either love it or they hate it or they find it funny or they find it disgusting. And that in turn gets it, you know, more eyeballs and more attention. Now we can It's a separate question whether that is a good or a bad thing, particularly when it comes to war. People are being killed, there's violence on the ground. It can feel like there's this huge gap between what's going on on social media. Like I say, this kind of hyper. Hyper realist gaming type. Yeah. Sort of gamification of war online and then. And then the reality of what war is and people losing their lives and what those actions mean politically. But I think Donald Trump in many ways pioneered that rage bait approach and was held perhaps to different standards at times because he made a kind of virtue of it. It's like, this is what I'm. Like I'm a bit of a troll online and this is the kind of content I post. But now everyone is copying him. And like I kind of mentioned earlier, but like, Keir Starmer posted this montage about Iran, which really felt geared up for more so a US Audience than a British one in terms of, you know, it was. It was very similar to Donald Trump's style, but that's different because Keir Starmer is not Donald Trump. And so, you know, you then have questions about the sort of how genuine or disingenuous those kind of posts seem and whether they actually land with the people you want them to and whether they actually seem like they're not very tasteful. But again, the taste point, I guess social media forgets taste quite a lot of the time.

[Matt Chorley]

But I suppose the point is, Anthony, is the Barack Obama didn't wear a tan suit to outrage people and have a whole sort of national discourse about it. Whereas it's almost the very purpose of these clips.

[Marianne]

Yeah. Is to raise.

[Matt Chorley]

Is to create the row. Often to drown out debate about other things.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Yeah. Donald Trump and his team. Because it's not just Donald Trump. I mean, it's the people around him as well, using these things and tapping into kind of cross currents of social media and gaming culture that Donald Trump probably has no idea about. But they are. They're doing it in a way that no one has done it before. I mean, the Obama administration and tan suit gate and all of the kind of scandals of past administrations, cultural scandals of past administrations or incendiary things. It seems so far removed from what this is now, the justice the American Way slogan that was put on that video after it all played out. And there was another one that showed a clip from an actual video game where someone was calling up an airstrike on the video game and then clips of actual real bombing and buildings being Destroyed, were played after it. That is a remarkable kind of a change in the way wars are being packaged and presented by a country. And whether it works or not, I think there are people who probably are bravago. America sees that, but I think there is a pushback to it. Maybe it's a reaction like Mariana says that they want, but there is a chance that if Americans are watching service members come home in coffins, if they're watching their gas prices go up, if they're watching their stock market portfolios drop precipitously, then seeing an administration kind of playing around and having fun with this and making these slick package videos of what they're doing, I think that could, that could end up being something that, that hurts them more than it helps them.

[Matt Chorley]

Mike, great question. Thank you for that. That's Mike in Birmingham. His question. Let's move on because we've had absolutely loads of questions. We've got a question from John, different to John Bolton, sentence email. Is Trump so annoyed with Starmer's decision not to support America's illegal war because it demonstrates the White House is losing international influence and by extension, that Trump's policy of bullying America's allies is beginning to come undone?

[Justin Webb]

Justice? No, I suspect not. I think you can't overestimate how unimportant Britain is in the thinking of the White House. And Anthony's too polite to say this out loud.

[Anthony Zurcher]

No, but you're right.

[Justin Webb]

I'm right, aren't I? Yeah, yeah, there you are. You got it from, from, from the mouth of a real American there. Not only a real American, a Texan American. So he's telling it like it is. I just, I mean, it's not just this, it's not just now, it's not just in this crisis, it's in previous crises as well. This, this constant sort of rather bleating thing that some British politicians have and some British commentators, this endless special relationship stuff that it's all one sided. Not to say that there aren't deep and abiding security cooperations and love and interest among peoples and all the rest of it and cultural togetherness and whatnot, but the idea that there's a sort of special relationship that means they look first to what's happening in Britain and then the rest of the world is just wrong. And it's borne out really by what's going on at the moment. So our questioner mentions sort of European leaders, etc. Look at the European leaders that Trump is turning to now. Mertz in Germany, who seems not to be worried about the legal side of things very much. Trump will approve of that and does approve of that, and would regard Mertz now, I think, as more of an ally than Starmer. But also Macron, who takes the opposite view, actually says very openly, more openly than the British government, we think this is illegal, they shouldn't have done it. But he's now where is he? He's in Cyprus. He's talking about defending the Strait of Hormuz with Western military assets, et cetera, et cetera, because he can, because France has still got those assets. So, you know, the idea that Britain really matters at all to Trump outside the Royal Family, I think, is for the birds.

[Matt Chorley]

Well, that's a big question because there's been talk in Westminster, Anthony, of the Lib Dems calling for the King to cancel his state visit. Is that the sort of thing that Donald Trump.

[Justin Webb]

Take that, Anthony?

[Anthony Zurcher]

I mean, Americans love the royalty. Donald Trump clearly loves the pageantry and the pomp and circumstance that goes along with the British Royal Family. So I think, yes, I think if King Charles backed out of this, Donald Trump would be upset, he would be angered by it. I think Americans who like seeing the Royal Family and like following it almost as a kind of a soap opera that we don't have a, an invested interest in, we watch it purely for entertainment purposes. I think that would, that would definitely get some attention here. Even if the long term consequences would not be that great. I think it would definitely be something that we took note of.

[Matt Chorley]

Well, we'll see. I mean, there's really prospect of it, but so many questions have been asked. Let's crack on. We've got a voice note now from James in Leighton Buzzard.

[Justin Webb]

In all the discussions about the war in Iran, no one has really mentioned the big O oil. Iran is an enormous oil producing country. Surely it cannot be a coincidence that Trump has attacked yet another country renowned for it. Venezuela is too. And while very different, Greenland has many valuable natural minerals. Is this not all very suspect? I think I'm right in saying most Iranian oil anyway goes to China, so it doesn't have a big impact on the rest of the world. Would the American oil majors like to be in Iran again, as they once were? Yes, but it's probably easier for them to get to be in Russia again, which they'd much prefer, because it's sort of easier because they can just turn on spigots that are already operating. So, I mean, you know, oil is obviously hugely important. I think that's true. But the idea that this is sort of an American effort to seize Iranian oil, I don't think is right. It's an interesting one. Anthony, are people talking about the impact on China? Because Trump, of course, is about to go to China. And one impact would be that the Iranian oil doesn't get to China and China has considerable difficulties. Is this. Because, I mean, could you argue that this is all about China? It's an effort to put pressure on China.

[Anthony Zurcher]

China also gets a lot of oil from Russia. So honestly, it's Japan and South Korea and the other Asian nations that are particularly panicked over having the Gulf oil cut down because their economies rely on it. I think there is thought within this administration on how these sorts of moves, the moves on Venezuela, for instance, and the attempt to exert more influence throughout the Western Hemisphere, the moves in the Middle east, how they affect this kind of larger game between great powers, the United States and China. Whether this move in the Gulf was particularly an attempt to address China, I'm not sure there's quite as much evidence there. But getting back to the conspiracy theories about oil, I mean, Donald Trump talked about the oil in Venezuela from the very beginning. There was no conspiracy theories.

[Justin Webb]

He was open about that.

[Anthony Zurcher]

People would see that.

[Matt Chorley]

So he probably wouldn't hide it if he was. If that was the motivation in. In Iran.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Exactly.

[Matt Chorley]

Well, thank you, James.

[Anthony Zurcher]

You know, there is a concern about. About, you know, the Gulf, the Arab state nations and their oil supply, and this would be a way of keeping Iran from threatening that. So oil does play a part in this action, clearly, but maybe not designed over the, what, 4% of the global production that Iran has right now.

[Matt Chorley]

Thank you for that, James. James Leighton Buzzard there right now. In the last week, we've had several messages from listeners on the same topic. One of them is Rachel, who's on the line now in Leicester. Hello, Rachel.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Hi there. Hi, Martin and everybody. Yeah.

[Matt Chorley]

What is your question for the team?

[Marianne]

My question is about Pete Hegseth.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Is he the Secretary of for Defence

[Marianne]

or is he the Secretary of for War? I know there was an executive order

[Anthony Zurcher]

signed apparently last year that he was

[Marianne]

to be given the title Secretary of War.

[Anthony Zurcher]

So which is it? Or does it have to go through Congress?

[Matt Chorley]

Now, this is particularly important because basically listeners were telling me off last week, so I kept calling the Secretary of Defense. So, Anthony, can you clear this up?

[Anthony Zurcher]

Well, Congress would be the one that officially changes the name of the Department of Defense to the Department of War, and they haven't done that yet. What the Trump administration and the Pentagon have done however, is change one of the alternate names of the department to the Department of War, which is why they've been able to change the branding on their website and the signs outside the Pentagon. And why Pete Hegseth has decided to start referring to himself as the Secretary of War. So that's why it's not inaccurate for us to use that as a means of referring to him, because that's how he refers to himself. But legally written in the defense authorization bills, by statute, it is still very much the Department of Defense. And it'll be interesting to see what if the Congress manages to change that sometime in the next few years. And two, if a Democrat takes control in 2029, whether they just go back to calling it the Department of Defense and try to erase everything that Donald Trump has done with that name change.

[Matt Chorley]

And lots of media organizations have stuck with, including the BBC, seem to have stuck with Secretary of Defense. Is that right?

[Anthony Zurcher]

I mean, I think, you know, we've said that on the podcast kind of both ways. But yes, in writing we say secretary of Defense, Department of Defense.

[Matt Chorley]

There we are. Wait till has that helped you helped you with your conundrum?

[Anthony Zurcher]

That's helped me because it's been driving me crazy all week.

[Justin Webb]

But thanks for clearing that up.

[Matt Chorley]

Let's turn our attention to the departure of the Homeland Security secretary, Kristi Noem. Mandy sent an email saying, well done people for predicting a termination in a recent podcast. But you should all be ashamed of yourselves. Anthony, for slipping the phrase Kirsty Gnome is on thin ice into the conversation and the rest of you for letting it pass about the obligatory bad pun grown so she was fired because of her disastrous performance the last few last week's committee hearings in Congress. The big thing caused her sacking were the TV ads that cost $220 million, which she said Trump had signed off. Here's a bit of the ad.

[Marianne]

Our greatness calls people to us for

[Anthony Zurcher]

a chance to prosper, to live how they choose to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always

[Marianne]

find a home here.

[Anthony Zurcher]

But that freedom's a precious thing and we defend it vigorously.

[Marianne]

You cross the border illegally, we'll find you.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Break our laws, we'll punish you. Harm American citizens, there will be consequences. But if you come here the right way, your American dream can be as big as these endless skies.

[Matt Chorley]

And also, we can't not mention this specific audio from the senator Thom Tillis, who also berated cursed having bad judgment picking up on something she wrote in

[Anthony Zurcher]

a book, the passage where you talk about killing a dog that was 14 months old. I trained dogs, all right? And you are a farmer. You should know better. You should know that if you're going out to a hunting lodge and you're putting pheasants out and you're putting dogs out, you don't take a puppy out there. A 14 month old dog is basically a teenager in dog years. You decided to kill that dog because you had not invested the appropriate time in training. And then you have the audacity to go into a book and say it's a leadership lesson about tough choices.

[Matt Chorley]

Normally we try to play clips to sort of help illustrate a point and bring some clarity. And I feel like our listeners might be even more confused.

[Justin Webb]

JUSTIN okay. She wrote a book in which she admitted, acknowledged, actually boasted about, in a way, killing a dog from memory. ANTHONY the dog's name is Cricket, which I always thought was a bit odd. But anyway, she killed Cricket, shot Cricket because she got annoyed with Cricket. And she, she, so she's the South Dakota governor at the time and she grows up on a farm and it's all very Midwestern countryfied and you do brutal things. But this, the killing of the dog, the murder of the dog, as I might put it, as a dog lover, was thought to be at the time that she put it in the book. A remarkably strange thing for someone who wanted to be a top politician to stick in the book. And it is amaz amazing that actually it sticks with her all the way through to these Senate hearings that frankly are about in many respects more important things.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Yeah, she also killed a goat, but no one talks about the goat.

[Justin Webb]

No one talks about the goat.

[Anthony Zurcher]

It's all about the dog.

[Justin Webb]

But Americans, Americans killed a few spiders in her time.

[Matt Chorley]

What's the significance of her departure?

[Anthony Zurcher]

ANTHONY well, I mean, she heads the third largest department in the federal government. She had been a lightning rod of controversy not just for the ad campaign that we heard the clip of, but also for her handling of the immigration crackdowns in Minneapolis where the two American citizens were killed by immigration enforcement officers. She had taken on a very visible role throughout the first year plus of Trump's second term going down and posing in front of those that seekot prison cell in El Salvador, but also traveling around the country on a private jet. And there were allegations that she was having romantic liaisons with Corey Lewandowski, who was her chief of staff. And that came up in that hearing as well. There were a lot of things that were attracting attention to her in a way that I think not Embarrassing for Donald Trump. Not what he wanted, bad attention. And I think finally she has been reassigned to the liaison to the Shield for the Americas, which is a made up rule for, like the U.S. a new organization of cooperating between different U.S. and different Latin American countries.

[Justin Webb]

In the first administration, he had loads of people who were not loyal to him but were competent, and then he found them annoying and he got rid of them. This time around, he's got loads of people who are loyal to him, but you could argue are much less competent with one or two exceptions, like Marco Rubio. But basically he's saddled himself now loyalists, but he's finding out that they find it difficult to run things and make things happen. And that, I think is what's happened with Christine. Right. We are done with five Live. At least the live bit of our show. Answering your questions on five Live. Marianne has had to go because she always does, because she's so busy. Anthony and I. Well, Anthony, you're pretty busy as well. But anyway, I'm here. And Anthony has very kindly agreed to stay because. Because we wanted to talk a little bit more about the firing of Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, because it is actually a very big deal. I mean, the first thing to say, Anthony, just to emphasize this point, two US Citizens were shot by the immigration authorities. That is not why she was fired.

[Anthony Zurcher]

No, it's kind of remarkable, isn't it? She was definitely in trouble because. Because of that. Because she was the face of the administration's policies, the crackdown in Minneapolis. But it was more because of that hearing that we played clips from last week where she showed up and was peppered by questions, not just on Minneapolis from Democrats, but from Republicans on other topics as well. John Kennedy, a senator from Louisiana, really pressed her on this ad campaign, the millions of dollars that was spent on this ad campaign for the Homeland Security Department. Kristi Noem's face was plastered all over it and asking if that had been approved by Donald Trump. And she assured the senator that it had Donald Trump within 24 hours contradicted her. And that felt like that was the proximate cause. But it was. Obviously there was a lot more going on than just that. But getting undercut like that by Donald Trump, getting Republican senators who normally stick with Donald Trump angry at her. I think that was the last straw.

[Justin Webb]

Let's listen to that exchange, or at least a bit of it between Kennedy and Noem.

[Marianne]

Sir, the president tasked me with getting

[Anthony Zurcher]

the message out to the country and

[Marianne]

to other countries where we were seeing the invasion come from? With putting commercials out that told them

[Anthony Zurcher]

that if they were in this country

[Marianne]

illegally that they needed to leave or

[Anthony Zurcher]

we would detain them and remove them

[Marianne]

and they'd not get the chance to come back to America the right way.

[Anthony Zurcher]

That has been extremely effective. Ask you to run these advertisements, is that right? We had that conversation, yes.

[Marianne]

Before I was put in this position and sworn in and confirmed.

[Anthony Zurcher]

And since then as well, you're testifying that President Trump approved this ahead of time.

[Marianne]

So my understanding, we had conversations about

[Anthony Zurcher]

making sure that we were telling people, no, ma', am, I'm asking you. Sorry to interrupt, but the President approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?

[Marianne]

Yes, sir, we went through the legal processes.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Did it correct the President? Yes, he did. Yes. Okay.

[Marianne]

And one thing, Senator, I think would be helpful to know is how effective

[Anthony Zurcher]

that communications has been.

[Marianne]

That overwhelming?

[Anthony Zurcher]

Well, they're effective in your name recognition. I mean, I personally just. I mean, to me, it puts the President in a terribly awkward spot and it. And I just, I'm not saying you're not telling the truth. It's just hard for me to believe, knowing the President as I do, that you said, Mr. President, here's some ads I've cut and I'm going to spend $220 million running them. That he would have agreed to that.

[Justin Webb]

Okay, two points, Anthony, two really important points. Number one, when Kennedy says, knowing the President as I do, he does. I mean, he's an ally of the president, friend of the president who talked to him, doesn't he? So that's number one, that's getting her into hot water when she makes this claim. Number two, then Trump calls Reuters, doesn't he? He actually calls them and says, and I'm quoting from him now, I never knew anything about it. So this is what ditches her, isn't it?

[Anthony Zurcher]

Yeah, I think so. And let's be honest, she probably did have conversations with the White House. They certainly were aware that this ad campaign was ongoing. Maybe they weren't signing off on the exact content of the ads, how prominently Kristi Noem was featured in those ads. But it wasn't like she went off and freelanced us and spent all these hundreds of millions of dollars just on her own, without the administration knowing or approving of the concept of it, saying that Donald Trump personally signed off on 200 plus million dollars worth of ads and personally signed off on the way they were put together with Kristi Noem taking Kind of center stage on it. That was where I think she really got into trouble. And, you know, Donald Trump, we've had this conversation before. Donald Trump's not a big fan of other people kind of stealing the limelight and elevating themselves, possibly at his expense. And I think that also cut against her because the president looked at it and may have concluded that she was focusing too much on herself. And it wasn't just this, but just in general, that she was taking too prominent a. A role in being the face of the administration and that she wasn't doing a very good job of it. She was costing him politically. And that's when, at least in the past, he's been perfectly willing to cut

[Justin Webb]

people loose to make a slightly nerdy point, Anthony, and you're the man to do it. But let me at least sort of kick us off in this direction. But it's a really interesting one, particularly for Brits listening to this. The Cabinet in America is not a Cabinet like a British Cabinet, where we have this thing first among equals. The prime minister and the rest of the Cabinet and other Cabinet members might conspire against the prime Minister and bring him or her down. And it has quite regularly happened in Britain in recent times. In the American system, you're not generally kind of going for high office, are you, after the Cabinet? You're more like what a Brit would call, I think, a permanent secretary in a. In a civil service department. You're meant to be running it really well and then keeping your head down because you're doing the business of the White House. And I suppose the nerdy point is that politics is the White House, is the executive, and you're doing the executive's bidding. You're not meant to be a politician while you're in that role. And that, it seems to me, is partly where Kristi Noem comes unstuck because she's very obviously trying to campaign. I don't know, I mean, possibly to be a candidate in 28, I suppose, or something. But that just isn't your job as a Cabinet member.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Certainly a Cabinet appointee works at the pleasure of the president. They are appointed by the president. They can be removed by the president. Cabinet in the constitution, in the 25th amendment, has a certain amount of power. If they all got together, they could remove a president temporarily or permanently because of some sort of incapacity, but that's never been invoked, and that would be a very high bar. But, yes, it's the president and the president's Cabinet. And if one member of the Cabinet becomes an embarrassment. It can be. You know, it can be the decision of that president to remove them certainly has happened plenty of times before. Now, that's not to say that there aren't Cabinet members who are politicians. A lot of them are. Kristi Noem was a politician. Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, is a former politician, a former senator, and before that, a member of the Florida state legislature. And as politicians, they all have a certain amount of ambition. And some of them do view that role in the Cabinet as a means of bouncing off and going on to higher office. I don't think there's any secret that Marco Rubio has presidential ambitions. I mean, he ran for president in 2016, and his name comes up constantly when we're talking about 2028 Democratic or Republican presidential candidates. And in the same way that Hillary Clinton, when she was Secretary of State under Barack Obama, used that position to help solidify her hold on the Democratic nomination in 2016. So you have to be careful, though. You know, if you're a Cabinet secretary, you have to do a good job. And if you don't do a good job, it is a high risk. High risk, high reward. You could end up tanking your political career. And I think Noem, at this point now, if she had much of a star in the Republican Party, it has fallen to earth.

[Justin Webb]

We ought to talk a bit about Kristi Noem's replacement, shouldn't we? First, what's going on with his name?

[Anthony Zurcher]

Mark Wayne. Mark Wayne? Yeah. He's from Oklahoma. I guess that's kind of an Oklahoma name. Growing up in Texas, I didn't know any Mark Waynes, but it certainly would be the kind of two first name thing that wouldn't surprise me if I ran into them outside of the big city on a ranch somewhere. And he's definitely country. He's definitely very Oklahoma. He wears a cowboy hat even sometimes in committee hearings. He once picked a fight with a teamster during a committee hearing. I mean, literally a shouting match where they almost came to blows. He's got this kind of rugged Western personality, which may be one of the reasons why Donald Trump likes him and has picked him as Kristi Noem's successor. If he can be confirmed by the U.S. senate, which he's a member of. He's an Oklahoma senator.

[Justin Webb]

Yeah. The thing that worries me about him a bit from Trump's perspective is almost the same thing as with Kristi Noem, that he's obviously been picked because he's enormously loyal to Trump and Trump likes him. And they've got this long term relationship, haven't they, where they talk to each other and, you know, their families and all the rest of it. But actually the question then is, can he do the job? And it's not that. I've seen some rather kind of snobbish stuff about him not having a degree or whatever. I think that's the issue. The issue is whether you can run a big department, isn't it? Whether that feistiness and cowboy attitude to life, which may or may not be useful and attractive in some circumstances, is actually the thing you need when you're running a very large department. As the Department of Homeland Security is a bureaucracy. And that's, I suppose, the question.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Again, it's a daunting task. It is one where if you screw up, the consequences can be severe because it could result in some sort of a terrorist attack on the United States or immigration enforcement that goes wrong. And we saw that with Kristi Noem. Clearly that became a huge problem for her, what happened in Minneapolis and the, the way the American public has turned against immigration enforcement activities of this administration. And it seems like while it is a big job and an important job and one that requires a lot of knowledge of the bureaucracy and handling all of these different agencies under the Homeland Security Department, that Donald Trump doesn't necessarily see it as such. Picking Noem, who doesn't have, didn't have any experience. She was a governor of North Dakota, South Dakota. One of the South Dakota.

[Justin Webb]

South Dakota, yeah. I've even read a book. Not both of them. Anthony. She's done two autobiographies, possibly one too many, but I have actually read one of them and I can tell you

[Anthony Zurcher]

it's South South Dakota. She was a member of Congress before that, but didn't have a huge wealth of experience to draw on to run such a massive agency. And Mark Wayne Mullen also, as you mentioned, doesn't have the kind of resume that would scream out someone who is competent to take control of this agency. I mean, Trump's first pick back in his first term was John Kelly, the former general who went on to appoint as his chief of staff before they had a falling out. He seems more cut of the mold of what a Homeland Security secretary looks like. Someone who has a lot of experience handling large organizations that understands national security, domestic security issues. But that's not the direction he went this time around. It seems like after that falling out with Kelly and the problems he had, like you said, Trump was looking more for a loyalist who would follow his instructions on immigration enforcement and not someone who would push back.

[Justin Webb]

Yeah. And that of course, leaves open the whole business of Minneapolis and what happened there and whether or not there has been or there is in train a genuine change in policy, that there is a realization within the Trump administration that what happened there should not have happened and they need to do things differently. I mean, is it clear to you, Anthony, is it clear to people you talk to whether or not there has been a kind of fundamental change?

[Anthony Zurcher]

Well, there's been certainly a drawdown in Minneapolis and less news coming out of that city. Although if you talk to people in Minneapolis, they will say that the immigration enforcement there is ongoing. And maybe one of the reasons why it's not in the news as much is because there's been so much other massive news stories coming out of the world and coming out of Washington that it has kind of been passed over by current events. But it does seem like they have turned down the temperature there. They have turned down the temperature on immigration enforcement across the country while still trying to detain as many people as possible and keep up the level of detentions. Just not quite in as high profile, demonstrative sort of way as we saw in Minneapolis. I think there is a realization in the White House at this point that that surge and the way they were attempting to own the streets in the description of the immigration enforcement officers who were there, that has turned the public against them.

[Justin Webb]

Anthony, I know you've got to go. You've got other things to do. We will talk again soon. Bye bye.

[Anthony Zurcher]

My pleasure. Talk to you later. Justin,

[Justin Webb]

thank you for listening to another episode. If you liked what you heard, why not subscribe to AmericaSt on BBC Sounds or indeed wherever you get your podcasts. That way you will be notified every time we publish a new episode. We also want to hear your thoughts, your feedback, questions, anecdotes, ideas. So do keep them coming in. We do look at every single bit of correspondence that we get. So you can email us americastbc.co.uk the WhatsApp is 443-301-239480 and you can get involved in the AmericasT Discord server. The link for that is in the description and you can also watch us on YouTube. You just search for Ameracast. Until next time, Bye bye.

[Anthony Zurcher]

Support is available 24.

[Justin Webb]

7 with VRBoCare.

[Anthony Zurcher]

We're here day or night, ready whenever you need help. Because a great trip starts with the right support. You know that goal you set at the start of the year. You can still do it. Whether you're committed to a thru hike with friends, lifting heavier, or simply walking more, it's not too late to stick with it and make your future self proud. Especially with the all in One Nutrition Shake from Cachava. Because quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated. Just two scoops of Cachava's all in One Nutrition Shake and you've got 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, adaptogens, and so much more. Plus, it actually tastes delicious. No fillers, no nonsense, just the good stuff your body craves. So instead of adding to your backstock of supplements that overpromise and under deliver, simplify your progress with just two scoops of the highest quality ingredients. Stick with your wellness goals. Go to kachava.com and use code NEWS for 15% off. That's kachava.com and use Code NEWS K-A-C-H-A-V-A.com Code NEWS.