← Americast
Americast
Everything you need to know about Donald Trump’s Board of Peace
00:31:40
What’s on the agenda of the inaugural meeting?
Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:00]
Sarah
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.
- [00:06]
Podcast Narrator
How are weight loss drugs changing our world? In the span of just a few short years, weight loss jabs have become so prevalent in our culture that they've transformed the way we live, move and eat. Restaurants are serving smaller portions and there's more protein rich food in grocery stores. Does all of this speak to a renewed obsession with skinniness? Listen to the global story on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:38]
Sarah
So, Anthony, you spent the weekend, Valentine's weekend, no less, with Donald Trump in West Palm Beach.
- [00:43]
Anthony
Yeah, my wife wasn't thrilled, but duty calls. And, and I spent most of the weekend waiting around while Donald Trump played golf or had dinner with Melania at his Mar A Lago club. But one of the benefits of being on press pool is that you do travel with the President to and from on Air Force One. And we were able to travel on the way back and talk to Donald Trump.
- [01:05]
Sarah
And you asked him about the Board of Peace. I know. Which is of course potentially going to be a huge deal this week because it's having its inaugural meeting in Washington on Thursday. So we better explain who's coming, who, who's involved in this, what it's going to do and why Donald Trump is so invested in it. Welcome to AmericasT.
- [01:27]
Jeanne Shaheen
AmericasT.
- [01:29]
Sarah
AmericasT from BBC News.
- [01:32]
Donald Trump
You hear that sound? Oh, I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money.
- [01:37]
Marco Rubio
Nicolas Maduro yeffed around and he found.
- [01:40]
Sarah
Out this is a big cover up.
- [01:41]
Anthony
And this administration is engaged in it.
- [01:43]
Sarah
This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.
- [01:46]
Anthony
I have four words for you. Turn the volume up.
- [01:56]
Sarah
Hi, it's Sarah here in the BBC's bureau in Washington.
- [01:59]
Anthony
And it's Anthony right next to Sarah here in Washington D.C. on a fine Wednesday morning.
- [02:04]
Sarah
And we're going to be talking about the first meeting, the inaugural meeting of President Trump's Board of Peace that is taking place here in Washington tomorrow. So we better explain first exactly what this Board of Peace is. It's a slightly confusing body, isn't it? Because it's not been officially announced everything that it's going to do. Let's start at the beginning. Donald Trump said about six months ago, back in September, that he was going to set up this Board of Peace in order to supervise the ceasefire he had negotiated between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. And then he had a big ceremony to inaugurate it in Davos in 2026. And it started out, it seemed its remit was just to deal with Israel, Hamas and Gaza, but it started, grown and spread beyond that.
- [02:51]
Anthony
Yeah, Trump has bigger ambitions for this Board of Peace than just peace in Gaza. And that was what it was authorized to do by the United Nations. The Security Council gave it power to help implement the peace agreement, to help move forward into phase two, which is Hamas laying down its weapons and taking over some technical governing duties there, as well as directing foreign aid and the rebuilding process. But now, according to leaked documents, including the charter that was published, the ambitions of Donald Trump for this Board of Peace is a kind of an international organization that would rival the United nations, that would ensure peace around the world, not just in the Middle east, but possibly in Ukraine, possibly anywhere that conflicts breaks up. Now, the White House has said that this Board of Peace is focused on Gaza right now. It's part of Donald Trump's vision of transforming Gaza from a region plagued by conflict and despair into one defined by opportunity, hope and vitality. But now we've seen that the remit of it, in Donald Trump's mind at least, is much larger than that.
- [04:08]
Sarah
And he's appointed some board members, including Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, his son in law, Jared Kushner, and his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, who've been involved, of course, in negotiating the Israel Hamas ceasefire and as well as are involved in negotiating between Russia and Ukraine also. And then he's invited the leaders of different countries to join. If you get an invite, you can sit on it for three years, I think, but you can buy a permanent seat for a billion dollars. Some countries have accepted their invitations and they include Israel, Saudi Arabia, uae, Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt. So critical countries in and around the Gulf and the Middle east, but also some states like Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Hungary, Kazakhstan. Less significant players should we stay on the global stage? But quite a few countries, including the United Kingdom, have said no, thank you.
- [05:03]
Anthony
Yeah, I think they've looked at what this is and they see this as one, as you mentioned, a rival to the United nations, also an organization that is dominated by the United States was dominated by Donald Trump. If you read through that charter that was published, as I mentioned, Trump is the Chairman of the Board of Peace and he's for life chairman. And he gets to a point hand pick his successor. He's also the United States representative to the Board of Peace. And in theory, once he leaves the presidency, he will no longer be the U.S. representative. Another president, whoever follows him could be that member or could appoint someone to it. But Donald Trump would stay the chairman. And as chairman, he has incredible powers. He can decide when The Board of Peace is going to meet, decide the agenda. He can invite new members, he can kick members out. Essentially he is the one man boss of this Board of Peace. And it's interesting, they also came out with their logo on it. And the logo of the Board of Peace was kind of like the UN globe, but it was focused just on the United States and North America. So not surprisingly, some of these other countries that you mentioned, even China, Western allies, Russia has hinted that maybe they'd join, but only if they could use the billion dollars from frozen assets that they don't control right now anyway. But a lot of these more powerful countries aren't entirely sure that they want to sign up for an organization where Donald Trump, one man is calling the shots.
- [06:36]
Sarah
Yeah. That's why France, Norway, Sweden along with Britain, have said no. And of course, a lot of the countries that have joined, Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, they're doing it to curry favor with Donald Trump, one assumes, because he is very much in favour of people agreeing to sit on the Board of Peace. And it's not at all clear, is it, with Russia, because Trump said they were going to join, but then actually the Kremlin said, well, no, they weren't quite so sure the invitation was under control considerations. So he can't even necessarily persuade Putin to join or even the Pope.
- [07:06]
Anthony
Yeah, the Pope. That was the breaking news today, right, is that the Pope turned it down. The Secretary of State of the Vatican told reporters that their concern is that at the international level, it should above all be the UN that manages these crisis situations. This is one of the points on which we have insisted. Now, the Board of Peace was authorized by the Security Council of the UN to manage the Gaza ceasefire and to implement it. So it had the imprimatur, in that narrow kind of scope to be involved in Gaza and the Hamas Israel conflict. But they didn't sign off. The UN didn't sign off on this kind of star chamber that Donald Trump could run that would determine peace across the globe.
- [07:54]
Sarah
And there is, it's an executive committee, I think part of the structure of the Board of Peace is actually getting on with that work. They've been meeting with Hamas officials, talking, talking about disarmament. That is a slightly separate process which does seem to be ongoing and you hear the odd report about the work that's going on there. But the big meeting here in Washington tomorrow is going to be this kind of star chamber, isn't it, with the countries that have agreed to join and Tony Blair, who's one of the Members of the Board of Peace appointed directly by Donald Trump. He's going to be in time for it.
- [08:25]
Anthony
Right. And this is what will be interesting to see what they do during this meeting, what kind of actions they take. There was an announcement that Trump made on Sunday, I believe, that they had 5 billion that the board was pledging towards rebuilding Gaza and personnel that were going to be dedicated towards international stabilization and some sort of a possible police force that could manage things in the territory. I mean, it's important that the Gulf states, these principalities are involved because they are the ones that will make or break this peace deal. They're the ones that were intimately involved in the negotiations. Qatar, uae, Saudi Arabia. And they need to commit money in order to rebuild Gaza and they need to be able to convince Hamas one way or the other to lay down their arms. Because that is one of the big sticking points that we've seen from the very beginning of this phase two implementation. It's great to have the ceasefire and hostage releases, but if Hamas doesn't lay down its weapons and willingly cede power to the Board of Peace and the authorities that they're designating to run the west bank, then this all falls apart.
- [09:44]
Sarah
So on the speculation that this is an attempt by Donald Trump to set up a body that he controls, that that would be an alternative to the United nations, possibly take over from it, how could that possibly work? I mean, how can you have just a brand new body that he has invented, have any power or influence internationally to try and say resolve conflicts or in the Charter of the Board of Peace says it's mandated to carry out peace building functions under international law. Well, it can claim that it's mandated to do that. What power or authority does it really have?
- [10:20]
Anthony
I mean, I guess if it has money, if it has billions of dollars that gives it a certain amount of influence and authority, it can distribute that money and nations might be willing to accede to its requests, its demands, however you want to phrase it, in order to get access to that. I mean, it's all backed up in theory by American power, economic, military, diplomatic, and it'll be a reflection of America's ability to enforce this. I mean, if you look at the other countries on this Board of Peace, as you mentioned, it's kind of a hodgepodge of countries looking to curry favor with Trump. Argentina, Hungary too, where the leaders Orban and Malay are very friendly to Trump. Some of these other countries are very small. They're not going to be ones having any influence on this. So I think the border peace will rise and fall based purely on American power, unless Trump manages to convince some of these other countries that we discussed before joining in. And as I said, it doesn't seem like they would want to do that, because Trump is the ultimate authority here. Why join an organization unlike the UN where you don't have a veto, you don't have the same kind of joint influence? It's an unusual construction, but I guess Trump seems to think this is something that he could have involvement with even after he leaves the White House in three years.
- [11:44]
Sarah
So we mentioned at the beginning, Anthony, that you were on Air Force One with Donald Trump over the weekend, and you actually got to ask him about the border peace.
- [11:51]
Anthony
As we discussed, I was down in Mar a Lago for the weekend. We were flying back on Air Force One. Donald Trump came back to talk to those of us in the press pool and the Board of Peace, because its meeting on Thursday was what was on my mind. And I wanted to know from him what he thought could be accomplished in this first meeting of the Board of Peace. And this is what he had to say.
- [12:12]
Donald Trump
Well, I think it can be. We're going to have all world leaders. They're putting up tremendous amounts of money, and I think it's going to go far beyond Gaza. I think it'll be peace all over the world. And we're working in conjunction with the United Nations. Look, the United nations is there. They haven't lived up new potential. United nations has great potential. They haven't lived up to the potential, but I think they might aid us a little bit. But we have the greatest leaders in the world joining the border peace, and we'll be doing it in conjunction with, in some cases, the United nations and see if we can get the United nations to get on the ball.
- [12:50]
Sarah
Yes. So he's been much more rude about the United nations in the past, saying that they could possibly work together. That seems pretty unlikely.
- [12:57]
Anthony
Yeah. I think that may be tipping his hat to the fact that the Board of Peace has been designated, as we discussed, by the United nations, to handle this. And so, at least with this particular meeting on Gaza, there might be some interplay between the UN and what the Board of Peace is trying to do. But he made it very clear in that answer early on that he sees this as a much bigger thing. I think it's going to go far beyond Gaza. He said, I think there will be peace all over the world. I mean, he talked about all the world leaders gathering, which I think was typical Trump exaggeration, as We've said these are not all the world leaders. In fact, these are not some of the biggest players in world order. Although having Israel or representative from Israel there is important, having the Gulf states there is important. I don't know if there's going to be any kind of a representative of the Palestinians at this meeting. There hasn't been in the past. We'll have to see if they do something to change that. But that's been a big critique, right? It's this board that is deciding the fate of these millions of Palestinians living on the Gaza Strip and they're not getting a say in this.
- [14:08]
Sarah
Yeah, I'm trying to imagine the Board of Peace reaching beyond Gaza and say, trying to come up with a resolution to Ukraine and Russia. There just aren't countries who are members of that, apart from the United States, who've got any diplomatic or military power to try and impose or negotiate a solution on Russia, is there? And whilst Donald Trump is President of the United States, obviously he has the country's military and economic might that he can threaten in order to try and strong arm somebody into doing what he wants. Once he has left the presidency and somebody else is in the White House, he'll still be the chair of the Board of Peace, but what does he have to. What leverage does he have then?
- [14:52]
Anthony
Right. I mean, the money, I suppose, but not much else. This is living and breathing, based on American power. And I guess you could see if it's an administration that's friendly to Trump, then they might continue to back up what he wants. If it's one that is critical to Trump, that may not be the case. It is interesting, though, this does seem like an effort by Trump to create some sort of an alternative to the un, something that isn't as bogged down in bureaucracy. The way he sees the UN that is able to act more forcefully and the people who are involved are players who can get things done. And again, the more people you invite in and the people who are important to this, if they get a seat at the table, that's going to be harder and harder. I mean, the Security Council is a small organization as well. It doesn't get a whole lot done because invariably one of the major powers doesn't want something to be done, whether it's the United States vetoing resolutions on Israel, Russia vetoing resolutions on Ukraine, China vetoing resolutions for various other other international conflicts. It's hard to get everyone on the same page and operating together, whether it's the UN or this Board of Peace.
- [16:12]
Sarah
So, Anthony We've actually had a listener question on this. One of our Amerikasters, Andy in Winchester, has asked us, say, the Board of Peace, with his lifetime chairman, Donald J. Trump, gains traction and establishes a multibillion dollar agenda over the next three years, and that it's a Democratic candidate who wins the election in 2028. What sort of conflicts could arise in 2029 as the two personalities, power bases and policies go head to head? Well, that, of course, would be fascinating because you'd have a situation there, wouldn't you, where Donald Trump remains the chair of the Board of Peace, but is not necessarily the American representative and doesn't necessarily have any say over what the American President is going to do with his military or economic might.
- [16:53]
Anthony
Right. You have the American representative being someone who's hostile to Donald Trump and maybe advancing an entirely different agenda. But Trump has a veto power over what the American President does. It sets up a really strange scenario where the Board of Peace is divided between different American agendas, one that's Trump's and one that's the Democrats. And I think that is an inherent problem with this. And the Democratic president may not appoint anyone to the Board of Peace, saying, this is stupid. I'm not going to do it, let Donald Trump spend the billions that he has, but I'm not going to invest any kind of power or authority into this. There is some power and authority, as we discussed, over management of the ceasefire. We'll see what happens in three years, whether it's still involved in running things. But you could see a greatly curtailed Board of Peace if a Democrat wins, if a Republican wins. President J.D. vance might be perfectly happy to allow Donald Trump to run some American foreign policy through the Board of Peace and to back up what he wants to do. So that might give it a little more longevity. But I can't imagine that a Democrat would want to get too deeply involved in this. They're more committed to the United Nations.
- [18:02]
Sarah
Yeah. And so it's easy to see how it becomes potentially irrelevant once Donald Trump leaves office. But he has got three years in which he seems pretty determined to use this body to increase his international influence, to burnish his peacemaking skills, and probably to, you know, put together various deals that would suit him and suit the United States very well. And do we think it has a real chance of being able to do that, that he could give it some.
- [18:26]
Anthony
Muscle, maybe in the short term, maybe particularly with Gaza, if he can prove that this thing can operate effectively in Gaza, if it does move towards that second phase and takes over helping to manage and govern and rebuild Gaza, then I think, yeah, it might be able to have a little more standing internationally after three years, if they are able to get it involved in Ukraine. And I'm hard pressed to see how that might work given the current makeup of the board. I mean, Belarus is on it, and Belarus is a close Russian ally. That was a staging location for the Russian invasion. But if it gets some sort of imprimatur to manage a ceasefire in Ukraine and expands, then you could see it having more staying power. But as it's currently constructed with the membership it has and with the assignments that it has at the moment, it feels like this is a billion dollar plaything for Donald Trump and not much more than that.
- [19:24]
Sarah
The other thing I thought was interesting in Andy's question was talking about Democratic candidates who could potentially win the 2028 election, because he's asking that at a point where we've just seen quite a number of them parading themselves on the world stage, burnishing their defense and diplomatic credentials. A whole bunch of Democrats turned up at the Munich Security Conference at the weekend, for instance, including the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, who was there.
- [19:49]
Gavin Newsom
This is what we're proving at scale that we can implement, we can compete and we can dominate. But Donald Trump is trying to turn back the clock. And so we're showing up, but we're also showing what can be accomplished, the power of emulation. We are in the great implementation in my state. Final word, I hope if there's nothing else I can communicate today, Donald Trump is temporary. It'll be gone in three years.
- [20:20]
Anthony
So the Munich Security Conference annual meeting focused on international security. A lot of generals, a lot of defense ministers and secretaries go there. America and its allies has traditionally been a place to sit down and kind of hammer out what sort of international security policy should be implemented. It has also become a source of tension during the Trump years. If you remember, last year, J.D. vance showed up, this was early in Trump's second term, and took the Europeans to task, really dressed them down and set the stage for a lot of Donald Trump's foreign policy over the past year, which is questioning long held alliances, using trade and tariffs to pressure America's allies economically, asking them to put more money in to their defense spending, and reorienting American foreign policy in a way away from Europe and towards the Western Hemisphere. So now you see this time around, a lot of Democrats like Gavin Newsom, who clearly has presidential ambitions, show up and start trying to provide some sort of a Contrast and almost reassure some of the Europeans that as you heard from Newsom right there, Trump is going to be gone in three years. Things might go back to maybe not normal, maybe not the way they used to be, but something that might be a little more palatable to our allies.
- [21:42]
Sarah
Yeah. And he's been berating other world leaders, hasn't he, there in Munich, also at Davos, for being too obsequious to Donald Trump, telling them that they need to stand up to him, not just back down and give Donald Trump whatever he wants. He's been going around handing out knee pads, in fact, hasn't he, for world leaders, because he says they've been getting down on their knees to give Donald Trump whatever he likes, when in fact he will be gone in three years. But he didn't have the stage all to himself in Munich. There were other Democrats, all of whom we assume are lining themselves up to try and get the nomination in 2028, including AOC, who was there. She didn't do herself that many favors though, did she?
- [22:18]
Anthony
She was asked about Taiwan and whether the United States would intervene militarily in Taiwan. And Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who is a. A Democratic member of Congress from New York, a rising star, a progressive star. She kind of fumbled that answer, which shows the risks of going out on the world stage and being asked these kind of questions on the spot. Here's what she had to say. Congressman, I'll start with you.
- [22:42]
Sarah
Would and should the US Actually commit.
- [22:45]
Anthony
US Troops to defend Taiwan if China were to move?
- [22:50]
Jeanne Shaheen
You know, I think that this is such a, you know, I think that, that this is a, this is, of course, a very long standing policy of the United States. And I think what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure that we never get to that point. And we want to make sure that we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation. And for that question to even arise.
- [23:29]
Sarah
Yes. It's not exactly an answer to the question, let alone a concise and direct answer to the question. I think this is really fascinating because that's not what she sounds like normally. She's normally incredibly articulate and very, very forceful in what she says. These are the dangers of stepping out of your own backyard, aren't they, and tackling global issues. Yet it is fundamentally important that anybody who wants to run for president is able to do that, isn't it? They need that credibility.
- [23:59]
Anthony
Right. You have to clear a certain hurdle in order to be taken seriously by Some people, some Americans, some American voters clearly don't care about that. I mean, Donald Trump bungled questions time and time again on foreign policy. When he was running in 2015 and 2016, I think in a debate, he was asked about the nuclear triad, and it became very clear he had no idea what the nuclear triad was, and people criticized him and he went on to win anyway. So, you know, I think on one hand, yeah, it's important to get on the world stage and show that you have heft, that you can stand up, that you can represent the United States. But it also has become clear that is not going to be something that will totally derail your presidential campaign. And actually, aoc, as you mentioned, had some good answers. It's usually very quick on our feet and, and had some interesting things to say in Munich about authoritarianism and the importance of countries getting their economic houses in order and addressing the concerns of the working class and people who feel like democracies aren't answering to them, and if they don't, then they start looking for answers from authoritarians and start leaning towards finding people, finding leaders who promise quick results, even if they aren't ones that are going to help improve the democratic order in the world.
- [25:19]
Sarah
Yeah. And they weren't alone. I mean, there was a bunch of other Democrats there, wasn't there? Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Warner, Mark Kelly, Alyssa Slotkin, Ruben Galeo. I mean, that's a slate of 2028 potential candidates, isn't it?
- [25:32]
Anthony
Yeah. And a lot of them were saying things similar to what Gavin Newsom said, which is there are other people there, dissenting voices on foreign policy in the United States who are in Congress, who are in positions of power, who are aspiring to leadership, that Donald Trump's trade policies, that his reorientation of American foreign policy is not necessarily permanent, that there is an active debate going on and not to give up on the United States. I mean, don't give up on what the United States can offer as an ally just because of what Donald Trump is doing. Yeah.
- [26:07]
Sarah
So it's a clear attempt to try and reassure allies about the United States, which was similar to the message Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, was delivering in his big set piece speech, I thought. I mean, it was an incredible contrast with JD Vancy's address at the same venue last year, which you mentioned earlier. It's a really, really strong critique, harsh criticism, actually, of European values and way of operating. And instead, Marco Rubio was, well, certainly trying to smooth away a little bit. Have a listen to this.
- [26:41]
Marco Rubio
Acting Together, in this way, we will not just help recover a sane foreign policy. It will restore to us a clearer sense of ourselves. It will restore a place in the world. And in so doing, it will rebuke and deter the forces of civilizational erasure that today menace both America and Europe alike. So, in a time of headlines heralding the end of the transatlantic era, let it be known and clear to all that this is neither our goal nor our wish. Because for us Americans, our home may be in the Western Hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe.
- [27:24]
Sarah
I got a standing ovation. So, obviously, people received it as a message that was meant to be a little bit more welcoming, a little bit more reassuring than what the vice President had done the year before. But I was surprised, actually, that it went down with European leaders as well as it did.
- [27:42]
Anthony
Yeah, I mean, he didn't get up there and punch them in the nose, which is what J.D. vance did. So the.
- [27:47]
Sarah
But he did kind of slap them on the cheek.
- [27:49]
Anthony
Yeah. I mean, it still wasn't exactly, you know, we're all buddies now, nevermind what we've been doing for the past year. There were things, and you heard it in that clip, talking about civilizational erasure. I mean, he did talk about the perceived threat to European culture. He talked about the shared Christian values of the United States and Europe and framed it particularly early in that speech in a way that I think a lot of Europeans are still not comfortable with. And when you heard after that standing ovation and after the dust had kind of settled, you did hear from some European diplomats, Germans and French, saying, well, this is all well and good, but we still have concerns. And one speech does not change everything that has happened over the past year.
- [28:38]
Sarah
I mean, he said things like warning European leaders unchecked migration is destabilizing Western civilization and eroding national sovereignty. He was very critical of the manufacturing policies of many European countries, as well as how they trade internationally. He was basically telling European nations how to run their own countries and to get their policies more aligned with those of the Trump administration, otherwise they would suffer in some way.
- [29:06]
Anthony
That is a stern rebuke of the way Europe has been operating now for decades. And to say, you're in danger of losing your culture, it's pretty blunt still.
- [29:20]
Sarah
Yeah, I know. And yet it was reported as a conciliatory message. If that speech had been delivered a few years ago, it would have been felt like the punch in the nose that J.D. vance's speech had been. It would have been highly criticized, thought to be pretty inappropriate in terms of interfering with other countries, how they run their own affairs, but also quite offensive. Many people would have seen it as. And instead we're now in a place where people think, oh, well, he softened the tone a bit.
- [29:47]
Anthony
Yeah, it would have been shocking. And, yeah, now we are. Well, there's just another speech. And, boy, you know, Rubio is much more diplomatic than J.D. vance is. But, I mean, that whole Munich thing was fascinating because you did get a very distinct contrast between what the Trump administration is trying to do and what Democrats who are aspiring to replace the Trump administration in three years want to do. And we're going to see that play out over the next three years as the presidential campaign, first the midterms, but then the presidential campaign takes up more and more oxygen here in the United States. It's going to get up and going in 2027, if not after the day after the midterms in November of this year. And American voters are going to have a choice that is going to affect America, but is really going to affect the world. And Europeans have to sit there and think, well, can we really believe that Democrats might win, that things might change, or should we do even more to adjust to this new reality that Trump has created?
- [30:45]
Sarah
All themes that we'll doubtless be picking up when we're watching very carefully what happens at the Board of Peace meeting at the White House on Thursday.
- [30:51]
Anthony
Right. We're talking about elections, but this is something that is being constructed by Donald Trump that will last beyond elections. That could be some sort of a permanent organization that is involved in international affairs that guarantees that Donald Trump and the people that he associates with are going to be determining global policy for the rest of his life, if not for, you know, as far as the eye can see. And it all starts on Thursday. So let's watch carefully and see where it goes from here. Bye, y'.
- [31:17]
Podcast Host
All.
- [31:17]
Anthony
Bye.
- [31:18]
Sarah
Bye.
- [31:22]
Podcast Host
Thank you for listening to another episode. It's you, the ameracaster that makes americast the community.
- [31:28]
Anthony
It is. If you like what you've heard, please.
- [31:30]
Podcast Host
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 433-01-239480. And of course, you can get involved in the AmericasT Discord server.
- [31:55]
Anthony
The link to that is in the description.
- [31:57]
Podcast Host
Until next time, bye.
- [32:21]
Podcast Promo Narrator
If you can't keep up with all the Epstein news, you're not alone. This week, the files have nearly, but not quite brought down a British prime minister. There have been allegations that Epstein was a spy and surprising countries have been drawn into the scandal, from Norway to Poland to Israel to France. It's a lot. So we're recapping all the main developments and making sense of them. Listen to the global story on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcast.