← Americast
Americast
Trump vs the BBC…what happens next?
00:29:24
And the US president is mentioned in new Epstein emails
Loading summary
Transcript85 lines
- [00:00]
Mariana
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk. Vanity Fair calls Britbox a delicious streamer. Collider says everyone should be watching. Catch Britain's next best series with Britbox. Streamer claim new originals like Code of Silence, you read lips right and Lynley, based on the best selling mystery series see hi Lindley. Take it from here and don't miss the new season of Karen Pirie coming this October.
- [00:27]
Anthony
You don't look like.
- [00:28]
Mariana
Please see, I'll take that as a compliment. See it differently when you stream the best of British TV with BritBox. Watch with a free trial today. New school year, new routines and somehow your calendar is already full. When life gets hectic, cauliflower's got your back. We make the food you crave made better for you. Like thin and crispy cauliflower crust pizzas, all natural chicken tenders and nostalgic pizza snacks ready in minutes in something the whole family can agree on. Cauliflower is available in freezer aisles nationwide. Eatcollypower.com to find a store near you. Donald Trump has doubled down on this threat he made to sue the BBC for the way it edited a section of his speech that he gave on January 6th in 2021. The edit of that speech was part of a Panorama documentary that came out before the election in October of last year. This is what Donald Trump has now told Laura Ingram on Fox News this week.
- [01:26]
Anthony
But tonight you are saying to our viewers that you will go forward and file a defamation lawsu against the BBC.
- [01:33]
Ellie Hoenig
Well, I think I have an obligation.
- [01:34]
Anthony
To do it because you can't get.
- [01:36]
Ellie Hoenig
People, you can't allow people to do that.
- [01:38]
Mariana
So the BBC says it has seen the legal letter from President Trump's people and that is going to respond directly in due course. That's to quote the BBC. But the question now is how exactly will the BBC respond? How strong a case does the president have against the BBC when it comes to an issue like defamation? And what could happen if the BBC decides to take him on in court? We are going to try and answer all of those questions and lots more on today's episode. Welcome to AmericasT. AmericasT. AmericasT from BBC News.
- [02:11]
Anthony
When Donald Trump calls, they say, yes, sir, right away, sir.
- [02:15]
Ellie Hoenig
Happy to lick your boot, sir. We are the sickest country in the world. Oh, dear. Are you worried that billionaires are going to go hungry?
- [02:22]
Mariana
Of course the president supports peaceful protests. What a stupid question.
- [02:25]
Ellie Hoenig
Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?
- [02:35]
Anthony
Hello, it's Anthony at the BBC bureau.
- [02:37]
Mariana
In Washington, D.C. and it is Marianna in the worldwide headquarters in London.
- [02:42]
Anthony
All right, in a little bit we're going to be talking to a friend of the podcast, CNN senior legal analyst Ellie Hoenig. He has covered a lot of Donald Trump's legal cases and he's going to be able to explain a little bit about what kind of case Donald Trump would have against the BBC if he does follow through with his threat to bring a lawsuit.
- [03:03]
Mariana
Trump is threatening this legal action against the BBC. He hasn't actually filed it yet, but he's, he's threatening it. And he did this interview, it was recorded on Monday. But the bit that was about the legal case and the BBC was released on Tuesday night. It was an interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News. Here it is going ahead and suing the BBC.
- [03:23]
Anthony
Well, I guess I have to, you.
- [03:24]
Ellie Hoenig
Know, why not because they, they defrauded the public and they've admitted it. And their top echelon director, general, CEO. This is within one of our great.
- [03:35]
Anthony
Allies, you know, this is our supposedly a great ally.
- [03:39]
Ellie Hoenig
BBC have, the government has a chunk of that one, I guess. But that's a pretty sad event.
- [03:45]
Anthony
They actually changed my January 6th speech, which was a beautiful speech, which was.
- [03:49]
Ellie Hoenig
A very calming speech and they made.
- [03:51]
Anthony
It sound radical and they actually changed it. What they did was rather incredible.
- [03:56]
Ellie Hoenig
They're showing me the results later on, the results of what they did, how they butchered it up, but it was.
- [04:01]
Anthony
Very dishonest and the head man quit and a lot of the other people quit. We're actually going to play it. But tonight you are saying to our viewers that you will go forward and file a defamation lawsuit against the BBC.
- [04:13]
Ellie Hoenig
Well, I think I have an obligation.
- [04:14]
Anthony
To do it because you can't get.
- [04:15]
Ellie Hoenig
People, you can't allow people to do that.
- [04:18]
Anthony
I think I have an obligation to do it. I guess I've got to do it. I mean, he doesn't sound entirely certain that this lawsuit's gonna go ahead. And maybe that is because there's a deadline for the BBC to respond on Friday. This letter spelled out what the BBC has to do which is issue an apology and a retraction and some form of compensation for harm done to Donald Trump. So maybe he's just waiting for the BBC to respond. But we've had these lawsuits in the past against media companies here in the US And Donald Trump hasn't telegraphed them in advance, he's just done it. So it's a little different here.
- [04:59]
Mariana
Yeah, I was gonna say, Anthony, that that was my first impression when I heard this interview as well, was that he didn't seem as certain and forthright as he has in relation to some of the other legal cases that he's taken about media. And to that point as well, that he hasn't tended to take this two pronged approach of making a threat and then seeing how the organization responds and then deciding to take action. Before we move on to this wider discussion about the legal case, I do think that there are a couple of things that Donald Trump says that is worth us talking about or mentioning. Just where he says the government has a chunk of that one about the BBC. The BBC is funded by the license fee payer and it's not a government run, state run broadcaster. That's just not how the BBC works. And the BBC has acknowledged that there has been a mistake. And then also it's interesting, I mean, Donald Trump describes his speech as beautiful, a very calming speech. It made me sound radical. There are lots of things that Donald Trump says that are much more conciliatory. But it is also worth saying that there are things that he says he uses the word fight on multiple occasions and there's other language that's very inflammatory that he uses. And after that speech happened, the Capitol was stormed, in effect by quite a lot of his supporters. And as we all kind of know what happens next, right?
- [06:16]
Anthony
And that speech, and I remember listening to it live, it was a typical Donald Trump speech. It was all over the place. There were portions of it, as you mentioned, that talked about fighting, talked about losing the country, talking about how important it was to stop the steal in his view of the election. And this was the moment that they could do that. And he did on multiple occasions talk about peacefully demonstrating. And that is something that those of us who cover Donald Trump deal with frequently, is that when he makes public comments, they can be taken different ways, depending on how you look at it. And listening to the whole thing can often give you multiple different impressions of what he really means. And sometimes there's confusion about what he means. But all of that could come out in a lawsuit and all that could become the focus of a lawsuit if Trump decides to bring it.
- [07:10]
Mariana
We've obviously spent quite a lot of time discussing the other legal cases to do with the media. And to be honest, I didn't actually imagine a world where we would be talking about it in relation to the BBC. But now we are. And it's important for us to understand what that means both in terms of how Donald Trump works as a president and his sort of tactics and strategy and response. And then also what this kind of means for the media more generally, the standards that they're held to, what it means for their freedom and ability to express themselves or not. And what happens when. Yeah, when mistakes are made.
- [07:42]
Anthony
Right. And as I mentioned, the BBC has until Friday, according to Trump's lawyers, to make a decision on this. And if the BBC follows the precedent set by other major media groups here in the United States, at least some of them that have been sued by Donald Trump and. And strike some sort of a deal, you could see a similar kind of way that Donald Trump will respond to that. He claims vindication with the settlement with ABC News, where George Stephanopoulos talked about Donald Trump being convicted of rape, but in fact, it was a sexual assault. Civil settlement. He claimed victory and vindication in his lawsuit where CBS settled the editing of an interview with Kamala Harris before the 2024 presidential election that Trump alleged changed or misrepresented things that Harris said in a way that was positive for the Democrats. And he now points to that and says, see, the media is attempting to tilt the playing field towards the Democrats. And you could see him pointing to whatever resolution, if it's a positive one for him in this case, saying, see, this was a perfect speech. See, what I said on January 6, prior to the attack on the Capitol did not contribute to the violence that took place afterwards. But in fact, he was giving a calm speech, as he characterized it there. So there's the legal aspect of it, the media aspect of this, but there's also a much larger kind of political battle on how history looks at January 6th and how history judges Donald Trump and the actions he took prior to the attack on the Capitol. And public perception, I will say, has changed fairly significantly from those days, weeks, months after January 6th in 2021, to where it is now, where the views of what happened on that day are very sharply divided along partisan lines, where if you talk to Donald Trump supporters, they will agree with Trump, saying that he didn't instigate those attacks. And if you talk to people on the left, they will say, listen to the context of the entirety of that speech. Look at what happened afterwards. Look at everything that Donald Trump did leading up to that speech. And they will say, in their view, that Donald Trump certainly did contribute to the violence. So you have a very, as with many things here in this country, a very, very sharply divided, polarized on political alliance kind of view of facts and. And incidents that are in the public record.
- [10:21]
Mariana
Yeah, I think that change in the perception of January 6th. And what that therefore means in terms of reputational damage or not is a really interesting one and something along with lots of other things that we are hoping to get into with our guest Ellie Hoenig, who I think has joined us now. Ellie is CNN's senior legal analyst and friend of the pod. Hi, Ellie.
- [10:42]
Ellie Hoenig
Great to be with you. Thank you for bestowing the status upon me. Officially a friend of the BBC pod. That's an honor.
- [10:48]
Mariana
There you go.
- [10:49]
Ellie Hoenig
Do people have to call me sir now or is that not how it works?
- [10:53]
Mariana
No, not they have to go. No, I'm joking.
- [10:57]
Anthony
Well, let's start off with the, I guess the $1 billion question here. And that is, does Donald Trump have a case against the BBC?
- [11:05]
Ellie Hoenig
Right. So the basis of this threatened lawsuit is a piece that the BBC ran doing a sort of after the fact look back at January6. And the crux of the matter is there's a point where the BBC show shows an edited piece of the speech that Donald Trump made on the Ellipse outside the White House shortly before the actual attack on the Capitol. And Trump's stated allegation and concern here is that that speech that he gave, which lasted close to an hour, was selectively edited in a way that makes it sound like he said something that he did not say, in a way that makes it sound like he more explicitly called for violence than he actually did. So that's the crux of the dispute here, clearly. I mean, there's no dispute that the clip was edited. And the question is, was the dispute edited in a way that's misleading and damaging to Donald Trump and in a way that could give him rise, we'll see, to a defamation lawsuit. Will he win? Who knows? There's all sorts of gray area we can get into that. It's really important, though, to understand how defamation law works here in the United States because it is different from how it works in England. In fact, the bar is higher here. It's harder to prove and win on a defamation lawsuit in the United States than it is in England and I think other parts of the world. So the phrase, the key phrase to keep in mind is called actual malice. That comes from a U.S. supreme Court case from 50 some years ago. It's New York Times versus Sullivan. If you ever hear people refer to it, that's what they're talking about. The burden, first of all, of proof is on the plaintiff. So if there's a lawsuit, Donald Trump is going to have to prove his case, not beyond a reasonable doubt. That's for criminal cases here, it would just be the more likely scenario. What we call a preponderance, 50.1%. He'd have to show as the plaintiff, two things. One, that the statement made about him, or I guess in this case the editing was false, that a false statement was made about him, or that the clip of him was edited in a way that falsely portrays what he said. So falsity is the first element, and the second element is that that that false statement was made knowingly by, in this case, the BBC or with reckless disregard of the truth. So you'd have to show here that BBC made or created a false statement and that they knew it was false or they were recklessly in disregard of whether it was true or not.
- [13:32]
Mariana
One thing that interests me, Ellie, is like, when we talk about defamation here in the uk, we, we try and understand what someone's reputation might be with regards to something and therefore what, what the damage could be. It feels like how people felt about January 6, even last October, was kind of different to how they feel about it now. And then also there's this added thing of this is a British documentary which I think was not easily available in the U.S. do any of those things play into like, for example, the suggestion that there wasn't reputational damage at the time or that it wasn't available to people in, in the States, Would that affect his case at all?
- [14:12]
Ellie Hoenig
So it will not affect whether the BBC is liable. What it will affect is damages. So let's assume in a case like in any case, if a plaintiff can show those elements that I just talked about, the falsity and the knowing falsity or the reckless falsity, then you have to get to a question of, well, how much money has to be paid to this person. And really here in the United States, there's two main components of that. One is financial loss. So if, for example, you were a plaintiff and you could say these harmful statements were made about me and I lost a job opportunity as a result, or I was fired and therefore I lost X number of dollars. The second part of that is what you were just talking about, Mariana, which is reputational damage. Now, there's no calculator that can mathematically calculate this. You have to argue it to the court. And I think, you know, how widely seen a piece is could certainly factor in on that. I mean, if it was on CNN here in the United States and everyone saw it, it would arguably be different than something like you described, which was done in a different country and wasn't widely available or perhaps widely viewed here. I guess there's a question, though, as to how long a time period that reputational damage. Right. Because if it wasn't seen back then, it certainly is being seen now, although people do know now that the allegation is that it was false. So, yes, reputational damages do matter, and they would be something that the plaintiff, again, would have to prove in convincing a judge or a jury how much should be awarded.
- [15:38]
Anthony
So. So if this took place entirely outside the US Say no one, and you can't prove that, obviously, but no one in the United States saw this at any point, you know, when it aired, can you still sue for reputational damage of something that happened purely overseas? Oh, well, it may be damaged his reputation in the UK but not in the US not in Florida. Is that still a cause of action to bring a lawsuit in Florida?
- [16:02]
Ellie Hoenig
You still could. I mean, look, the BBC has operations, extensive operations in the United States. That's why it's possible to sue them in the United States. It's an interesting question you raise about reputational damage. I think what Trump's team would probably argue here is if his reputation takes a serious hit in England, in, you know, Europe. Look, we live in a modern world and everybody, everything's sort of interconnected. It's not like the old days where you had to send messages by, you know, by, by horse or by boat. People see things and people, you know, cross cultures. And reputational damage in one country is, is necessarily going to spill into another. So there's an interesting wrinkle in that, though, and that would be something that would have to be litigated while we.
- [16:44]
Mariana
Talk about money and damages, when it comes to this $1 billion figure, how is he. How has he come up with that thin air?
- [16:51]
Ellie Hoenig
I mean, and that's not necessarily a knock, but how would one precisely calculate reputational damage or economic damage? And look, you see this in lawsuits all the time when you're the plaintiff. And Donald Trump might end up, you know, if he does bring the suit, he'll be the plaintiff. You just drop a number into your complaint. And those numbers are ridiculous. And I do think it's worth noting just for those of us in media. Yes, we should report, and we need to report. Well, the claim here is for $8 billion or $150,000, whatever. There's no science to those numbers. They're not binding. It doesn't mean the judge, for example, would ultimately have to decide, well, it's all or nothing, as in some instances. But, yeah, no, it's more of a placeholder. People get carried away with those. People put in outrageous numbers, maybe sometimes to raise eyebrows. But ultimately, the amount of the damages has little to nothing to do with whatever number the plaintiff claims. It's really up to the individual fact finder, the judge or the jury.
- [17:50]
Anthony
Now, Marianne and I talked about some of these other instances, the ABC case, the CBS 60 Minutes case, ones that were settled by the media companies with Donald Trump. There are some other instances, like Wall Street Journal lawsuit, that still seems kind of up in the air, New York Times one that a judge throughout, none of them ever saw the inside of a courtroom during trial. Why is that? I mean, is there, is there a greater likelihood, you think, that, that this BBC case, if it does happen, will, will somehow go away before we get to a courtroom as well?
- [18:22]
Ellie Hoenig
So that's actually going to be up to the BBC if there's a lawsuit, because each of these corporations has to make a decision. Do we, and this applies to any defamation case, any civil lawsuit, is it better for us? Is it worth our time? Is it better risk management to agree to some settlement payment for X, or do we want to take the risk of going to trial and potentially getting hit with a much bigger verdict? I do want to note one thing. You just peeled off three or four different defamation lawsuits that Donald Trump has brought and threatened to bring. This is completely unlike anything we've seen in US History. I believe certainly no modern president, but I believe there has never been any US President while sitting in office who has sued a media organization for defamation. It's long been just accepted. Well, if you're the president, you're going to take slings and arrows and you're the number one target of press conference coverage and number one subject of press coverage, and just sort of goes with the territory. So the fact that Trump is. There's nothing in the law that prohibits him from bringing these cases, but the fact that he's bringing them is fundamentally different. And as to those cases you mentioned before, the cbs, the abc, Wall Street Journal, and New York Times, all of them, I think, have different merits. I think some of those lawsuits had some legitimacy. I think others had close to zero legitimacy. But, you know, as to why, let's take the CBS, the 60 Minutes lawsuit, which, which CBS settled for. I forget if it was 15 or 16 million dollars. The argument there was that CBS had selectively edited an interview not with Donald Trump, but with Kamala Harris, his electoral opponent, shortly before the 2024 election. I think virtually every legal expert And I join in. This has said that Trump had almost nothing there in terms of substance. You can't sue because they make someone you don't like look better. That's not what defamation law is. Nonetheless, CBS made the decision to settle, and I, I would imagine I would, I would speculate that their reasoning was better to just pay this amount than to a risk going to trial and getting hit with a bigger verdict and be having to tangle with the President of the United States, the most powerful person in the country and probably the planet. So these are complicated calculations that have to be made.
- [20:35]
Mariana
And what happens if the BBC just don't engage at all, if they just don't get back on this pending threat? I mean, I think that that option is probably unlikely, but nonetheless.
- [20:45]
Ellie Hoenig
So now, now I guess we're getting into the poker element of this, right? The question I would be raising if I were behind the scenes and had been threatened, well, if you don't respond by Friday, I will sue you is do we believe this? And then if we do, then back to the calculation I just talked about. But I guess there's a perspective or an approach of we think he's bluffing. We don't think he's actually going to sue. If I was in that room, I'd say, look at his history in the past. I mean, he's been very aggressive in suing, including in some cases. I mean, the New York Times case, for example, is ridiculous. It's basically just, I don't know, they're negative to me, and it's not fair. I mean, that thing is going nowhere, in my view, going nowhere. So I would say if you have any doubts about whether he will actually sue, look at the history. It doesn't guarantee a result, but he has no compunction about, no hesitation about suing.
- [21:36]
Mariana
We spoke about the other cases, like cbs, for example, and the, you know, the decision to settle. Do you think that there were other forces at play, other dynamics at play in terms of why settlements were reached and that that calculation is, Is different for the BBC in that way, in terms of, like, parent companies or other. Other background noise? I guess the flip would be that we've got a more complex diplomatic situation on our hands, even though the BBC are separate from the government?
- [22:02]
Ellie Hoenig
Well, so let me say this. In any case involving Donald Trump, any defamation case, in addition to all the elements that we've talked about, all the risk calculations, trial and discovery, there's an extra factor, which is this guy's the president and he has the levers of power at his control. And he has at times used and threatened to use the fcc, for example, the Federal Communications Commission, to punish, regulate media outlets. Certain types of corporate transactions and mergers need approval from the federal government, the federal executive branch. So it's an extra layer of complication that has to be factored in here. I mean, this is not just your average celebrity or movie star or even just average, you know, member of Congress. This is the President of the United States. So, sure, there are political factors that you'd want to take into account. There are, you know, the usual economic factors, there are diplomatic factors. So, yeah, it's, you know, like you said earlier, and I agree with this, Mariana, we do overuse, and I really try to not use the word unprecedented, but there is not a precedent for a string of defamation lawsuits brought by a modern sitting US President.
- [23:16]
Anthony
Yeah, he is the President, Ellie. I mean, White House is just about 15 minute walk down the street from here. That's where he lives. I see him there pretty regularly. Why is this lawsuit being filed thousand miles away in South Florida?
- [23:30]
Ellie Hoenig
Because he's a resident of South. He's legally a resident of Florida. He actually moved his official residency a few years ago from New York. He used to live in the tower there down to Florida. And so generally speaking, under US Law, if you're a plaintiff suing and claiming you've been damaged, you do have the option of suing in your state of residence. So, you know, there was speculation at the time, why is he, why is he doing this? And one of the theories is he thinks it gives him a better forum to bring lawsuits and maybe to defend himself in lawsuits. So, but I think as a practical matter, if I was on Donald Trump's team, I would say you're going to get a much, just in terms of your popularity, you're going to get a much better jury in Florida. Donald Trump won Florida both, I think all three times he ran 20, 16, 20 and 24. And he got creamed in D.C. i think it was his actual worst state. He got something like 15 to 20% of the vote in D.C. all three times. So I would say, look, this jury, you know, we pull our juries from randomly, from civilians, and odds are you're going to have a lot more Trump voters and Trump supporters on a Florida jury than you will on a D.C. jury.
- [24:32]
Mariana
Thank you so much, Ellie, for that. It was so interesting and I answered so many of the questions that I have certainly been thinking about sitting in my desk.
- [24:40]
Ellie Hoenig
Thank you both. I appreciate it. Have me back if There's a lawsuit. We can talk about it then.
- [24:50]
Anthony
All right, well, let's change the subject now to another topic that we've spent a lot of time focusing on here at AmericasT, and that is Jeffrey Epstein and the ongoing investigations and calls for files that the Justice Department, the government, has on those investigations be publicly released. Because as we were getting ready to come into this recording studio today, the House Democrats on the Oversight Committee released some new documents, excerpts of new documents that further alleged ties between Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. Marianne, you've had a chance to take a look at those. What have we learned from them so far?
- [25:32]
Mariana
Yeah, this is something that we'd been anticipating that some of this correspondence would come out at some point. And the most significant emails, the stuff that's really caught people's attention, are private correspondence between Ghislaine Maxwell, who was an associate of Jeffrey Epstein, from these emails are from 2011. And in them, Epstein appears to suggest that Donald Trump, quote, spent hours at my house with a victim of sex trafficking. Trafficking. And there's a reference to Donald Trump as the dog that hasn't barked, which seems to suggest that it's kind of the bit of the story that's not come out yet into the public domain. I don't know what you make of those, Anthony.
- [26:13]
Anthony
Yeah, I mean, it is interesting to see what Jeffrey Epstein, how he viewed this in these emails. Obviously, one, Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Two, he's a convicted sex offender, convicted sex trafficker. So you have to take what he's saying in that context. But there's been a lot of attention paid to possible ties to Donald Trump who lived in Palm beach, had to Jeffrey Epstein, who also lived in Palm Beach. They were clearly associates and I think you could even characterize it as friends during certain periods over the 1990s and early 2000s. They had a falling out at some point. But Jeffrey Epstein, as his legal troubles mounted and as the allegations and later convictions piled up, he did clearly was thinking about his relationship with Donald Trump and as Donald Trump became a higher profile political figure, what that might mean. So this does kind of pull the curtain back a little bit on that. But again, you have to take all of this in the context of what Epstein's motivations were and the circumstances that were surrounding him.
- [27:24]
Mariana
Now, as we've been recording, we've heard from the White House, they've responded to this. So the press secretary, Caroline Leavett has said, quote, the Democrats selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump the unnamed victim referenced in these emails is the late Virginia Giuffre, who repeatedly said President Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever and couldn't have been friendlier to her in their limited interactions. The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Giuffre. These stories are nothing more than bad faith efforts to distract from President Trump's historic accomplishments. And any American with common sense sees right through this hoax and clear destruction from the government opening back up again.
- [28:06]
Anthony
That's kind of interesting because Donald Trump himself has said that the reason why he had a falling out with Jeffrey Epstein was Epstein was hiring away some of his female employees. So there's been multiple explanations for that falling. Now, other people have looked towards a real estate deal where both Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump were trying to buy a Palm beach property and that that was the source of their falling out. But clearly a pretty across the board denial by the White House. And since this statement has come out, the Oversight Committee, which is controlled by Republicans, because Republicans are in the the majority in the House of Representatives, they have now released a trove of 20,000 documents from which these excerpts that the Democrats released earlier today have been drawn. So there's a lot of new information to pour through which we are doing here at the BBC and other media outlets are sure to be doing. So this story could move relatively rapidly from here as this, as these emails and documents and all the other things that have been released or handed over to the Oversight Committee by Jeffrey Epstein's estate, I should add, as those enter the public domain and we start to get a look at what's in them.
- [29:20]
Mariana
Right. Well, I think that brings us to the end of this episode, not least because Anthony, like you say, we've got to go and get our head around 20,000 documents, which is no mean feat. So we will leave it there. But we'll see you later.
- [29:33]
Anthony
Bye.
- [29:36]
Mariana
AmeriCast, AmeriCast from BBC News. Well, look, thanks for listening all the.
- [29:41]
Ellie Hoenig
Way to the end of today's AmericasT. You are now officially an AmericasT. It is, of course, a ride, a wild ride, navigating the US News, particularly.
- [29:50]
Anthony
In the era of Trump.
- [29:51]
Ellie Hoenig
But you have made it. If you have a comment, a question about the things we've talked about or anything at all, actually, get in touch with us. The email is americastbc, the WhatsApp is 033-01-239480. We answer your questions every single week, actually on the podcast.
- [30:09]
Mariana
So keep them coming.
- [30:10]
Ellie Hoenig
You can join the online community as well on Discord. The link is in the podcast description on your app. We will be back with another podcast very soon, so until then, see you later. By Foreign.
- [30:31]
Anthony
You ever feel that deep pull to the land to know it? To build something that lasts, that itch.
- [30:37]
Mariana
For your own wild country?
- [30:38]
Anthony
Well, it ain't just a daydream.
- [30:40]
Mariana
In 2025 it matters more than ever.
- [30:43]
Anthony
Whether you're a lifelong hunter or just.
- [30:45]
Ellie Hoenig
Starting out, dreaming of land to explore.
- [30:47]
Anthony
To leave something real.
- [30:49]
Mariana
Or there is a trailhead where you can start.
- [30:51]
Anthony
It's called land.com the biggest online network for rural property. Find the right agent and explore everything.
- [30:57]
Ellie Hoenig
From timber tracks to ranches.
- [30:59]
Mariana
Get the tools you need to buy.
- [31:01]
Anthony
That dream generational property. Stop dreaming about it and head to land.com. it's your place to find your open.
- [31:08]
Mariana
Space for period protection you can put on and forget about nothing. Beats Nyx Leak Proof Underwear North America's number one leak proof underwear brand. Let's face it, life can be unpredictable, but your leak proof underwear shouldn't be. That's why millions of people choose NYX for periods, for light leaks, for everyday freshness. Nyx undies are super comfy, super absorbent and made to handle whatever your day throws at you. Day two of your period covered your daily run no problem. That big sneeze? You know the one? Yep, we've got you. And with styles like bikinis, boy shorts, thongs and high rise plus sizes from extra small to 4XL, NYX makes it easy to find your perfect fit. Say goodbye to stress and leaks and say hello to undies that work just as hard as you do, no matter the leak. Find the style and level of protection you want@nyx.com and use code flow15 for 15% off. That's kn Ix.com code flow15 for 15% off nix for your leaks for your life. It's 5:23pm One of your kids is asking for a snack. Another is building a fort out of your clean laundry and you're staring at a half empty fridge and thinking what are we even going to eat tonight? Or you could just hellofresh it with over 80 recipes to choose from every week, including kid friendly ones. Even for picky eaters, you'll get fresh ingredients and easy step by step recipes delivered right to your door. No last minute grocery runs. No. What do we even have? Fridge staring. And the best part? You're in total control. Skip a week. Pause anytime. Pick what works for you. It's dinner on your terms. The kids can even help you cook. Yeah, it's gonna be messy, but somehow they tend to eat the vegetables they made themselves. Try HelloFresh today and get 50% off the first box with free shipping. Go to HelloFresh CA and use promo code Dinner50. That's HelloFresh CA promo code Dinner50. HelloFresh CA HelloFresh, Canada's number one meal kit delivery service. America is changing, and so is the world. But what's happening in America isn't just the cause of global upheaval.
- [33:22]
Ellie Hoenig
It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.
- [33:26]
Mariana
I'm Asma Khalid in Washington, D.C. i'm Tristan Redman in London, and this is the Global Story. Every weekday, we'll bring you a story from this intersection where the world and America meet.
- [33:38]
Ellie Hoenig
Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.