Americanswers… on 5 Live! Can we trust what Donald Trump says about Ukraine?

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

0:30West Indiana Honda dealer today. Based on 2025 Consumer Choice Awards from Kelly Bruegel, visit kbb.com for more information. Save big money when you shop in Menards. Transform your home in one weekend with exterior wood stain and sealer from Dutch Boy. It provides one coat protection on decks, fences, siding, and outdoor furniture. It repels rain after just four hours of application. That means quicker results, saving you both time and money. Our knowledgeable team is ready to help bring your dreams to life One gallon at a time. Stop by your local Menards today. Save big money at Menards. We've just come off the air with Matt Chorley doing our live Q &A episode on Five Live.

1:12We were all there, unusual and very pleasant for us. We answered a load of questions, by the way, on this incredible range of subjects that just naturally comes up when you're looking at modern America. So among them, Tylenol, Cetaminophen, Paracetamol, as we call it in Britain. Should it or should it not be used by pregnant women? Donald Trump, of course, saying this week that it shouldn't. Lots of doctors saying he's absolutely wrong. Why did he say that? What was his motivation was one of our questions. We also talked about the UN and the things he had said about the UN. We had quite a long discussion about the escalators and whether they had or had not been deliberately fixed to annoy him.

1:52plus, of course, what he thinks of Vladimir Putin. And we also had a lengthy discussion about freedom of speech because that almost always comes up, doesn't it, when you're discussing modern America. So all of those things covered in AmeriCast. But arguably the biggest news of the day when Donald Trump addressed the United Nations was when he posted online that Ukraine could win back all the territory it has lost to Russia since the start of the war. And that is how we kick things off with Matt. So let's get to it. Welcome to AmeriCanswers.

2:53Let's turn our attention to Donald Trump's appearance at the UN on Tuesday, where he gave, I think what was described last night as a wide-ranging speech, taking shots at his opponents and their ideas, including the UN itself. And then later in the day, he posted a message on Truth Social, where he said, after getting to know the Ukraine-Russia situation and seeing the economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the EU, is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form. The original borders from where this war started is very much an option, he said, which prompted our first question from Michelle on Discord.

3:33A few short months ago, Donald Trump said Russia handled all the cards in the Euro-Okraine-Russian conflict. Now he says that Ukraine can win back all the land from Russia. What's changed in the last couple of months? It's a big question, Sarah. What's changed? Well, nobody could accuse Donald Trump of being consistent on the messages he sends out about the Ukraine conflict. He has said kind of positive things like this before, shortly after he has met President Zelensky, and he usually reverts back to his support of Russia and the idea that Ukraine will have to give up some kind of land in order to get any kind of peace deal or ceasefire negotiated.

4:13At the moment, he's clearly very frustrated with Vladimir Putin because it was about five weeks ago he hosted him at that summit in Alaska, really thought that they had agreed something that they could move forward with. And there's been no movement from Vladimir Putin. So he's also been talking up new economic sanctions as well against Russia, although he says he won't do that until European countries stop buying Russian oil. Otherwise, it's all rather counterproductive. So, I mean, from what he said yesterday, it sounds very positive for President Zelensky, who met him at the UN. But there's two things.

4:44One, I think it's entirely likely he'll change his mind again, probably as soon as he next speaks to Vladimir Putin. But also, even if he doesn't, he said it's possible Ukraine could win back all its land. He said nothing about helping them in any way to do so. And obviously, that's what they've been trying to do for over three years now. Without really significant support, largely from the United States, it's not going to be possible. So it was more of a kind of theoretical conjuring, I think, that was coming from Donald Trump rather than a plan to assist them to win back all their land. And that's the issue sometimes, Justin, is that people, when Donald Trump says the thing that people want to hear, they're, oh, that's great news.

5:22Forgetting that it's quite hard to lock him into that position before he goes to the thing. Yeah. I mean, look, none of us know how locked in he is. I was talking to a friend of his, someone who knows him well. He was at that banquet in Windsor Castle, a guy called Chris Ruddy, who is the boss of Newsmax, Fox, the right wing kind of competitor to Fox, but years ago was at the LSE and knows Britain well and, you know, talks quite openly about Trump. And what he says is that Trump was genuinely disappointed by Putin. So, you know, you can take it with a pinch of salt. You can take it how you like.

5:58But he Ruddy is a friend of I mean, a friend of 30 years of Donald Trump. And he says he really has changed. Something snapped. He was really annoyed. Well, and again, we have to see, is this the locked-in position, or will he become unlocked later? He also, Donald Trump yesterday, one of the features of his speech at the UN was taking on the UN itself. Let's take a listen to some of that. Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should too often, it's actually creating new problems for us to solve. The best example is the number one political issue of our time, the crisis of uncontrolled migration.

6:36It's uncontrolled. Your countries are being ruined. The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders. So Mark has also been in touch on the Discord. He asks, is Trump right in his critique of the UN? Anthony? Well, I think even if you talk to people who work in the UN, people who believe that the UN is a valuable institution, They're going to say that the UN does need to change, does need reform. It's not functioning up in the way that it was designed to or should. So I think there is some validity in Trump's critiques. Now, what he's specifically pointing to there, saying that the UN is contributing to mass migration.

7:20I think he didn't really drill down into the details of that. But I think probably talking about UN support for refugees, which I think anyone who believes the UN is a good institution would say the UN should be doing more to support refugees and to help address core issues in these countries where people are moving out of because of famine or war or economic unrest. So I think you'll get a very real disagreement on that. But Trump isn't the first American politician to criticize the United Nations and he won't be the last. But it was pretty dramatic to see him standing there on stage, basically berating all of these different leaders from around the world, saying that they were ruining their countries by focusing on immigration and by spending money on climate issues and trying to embrace green energy policies.

8:14It showed the divisions between Donald Trump, America at this point in time, and Europe, definitely, and much of the world, honestly. One of the mistakes people often make about the UN is that, no, it can be very inefficient, it can be very bureaucratic, but it isn't really, it's not a nation on its own. It can't go out and solve any wars, sign any peace treaties or send troops in without the member nations. It is as strong as the member nations want to make it at any given time and what they want to contribute. So often when you're criticising the UN for not solving conflicts, what one's actually saying is the countries that could do something about this haven't stepped up through the auspices of the UN to do anything about it.

8:59You'll have noticed, Matt, that one of the other things Donald Trump was complaining about was that the building doesn't work either, largely because he wasn't allowed to refurbish it, he says. But he got on the escalator to go up to the General Assembly Hall to make his speech and it stopped pretty much as soon as he stepped on it. And he was furious. He and Melania and his team had to walk up the steps. Then when he got into the hall, the teleprompter wasn't working. And he used this as an example of how broken and useless the UN is, which meant for most of yesterday, there was a huge search going on to find out what had happened to the escalator.

9:34And the best guess, after people have reviewed all the security footage and everything, is that the videographer from the White House, who was walking backwards in front of Donald Trump to get video of him coming up the escalator, accidentally tripped it himself. And it turns out it was a White House person who was operating the teleprompter. So for all of his complaints about how this showed how rubbish the UN is, it was largely the White House's fault that all of these things happened to him, it would appear. Very good. Well, I'm glad we've sorted out the escalator business. Now, there was a big story only at the start of the week.

10:05Well, it's only Wednesday now, but this was on Monday when Donald Trump had the White House said that doctors in the US will soon be advised not to prescribe the pain reliever Tylenol, known as, we call it paracetamol in the UK, to pregnant women. Let's take a listen. First, effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of acetaminophen, well, let's see how we say that,

10:34acetaminophen, acetaminophen, is that okay? Which is basically commonly known as Tylenol. during pregnancy can be associated with a very increased risk of autism. So taking Tylenol is not good. I'll say it. It's not good. We should say that medical experts have strongly pushed back on the claims with some calling the President's comments dangerous. Rod's on the line. Hello, Rod. Hello. Where are you in the world, Rod? I'm in Poole in Dorset. Go on. What's your question? My question is, do the people in the American administration really believe what they say about vaccines and Tylenol? And if not, what is their agenda?

11:23What do they get out of pushing this anti-science? It's a great question, Rod. Sarah? Yeah, it's a fascinating question. Do they actually believe it? Some of them do, I think. others are very happy to go along with an anti-science agenda because it fits in with a sort of wider world view that they have and as Matt was saying I mean experts have pushed back there is not a huge amount of evidence at all one very tiny study that suggested there might be a connection between taking Tylenol in pregnancy and possibly a tenuous link to autism I don't know if the president cares particularly how accurate any of this is.

12:06They had said way, way, way back six months ago that they would make a big autism announcement in September. We're getting towards the end of the month and they seem to have just grasped at one study that would allow them to make an announcement like this. A lot of people have been complaining. well, I mean, not just about the anti-science of the whole thing and the medical dangers, but that, you know, it sounds like you're blaming mothers for taking medications during pregnancy for their children's autism and people complaining that, you know, it's an anti-woman agenda when you're blaming mothers like this.

12:37There's all sorts of politics that swirl around the fact that, yeah, these announcements are made without a strong scientific backing. But if the suspicion that you may be hinting at that perhaps there's some kind of financial interest in this somewhere, nobody's been able to uncover that. It's not immediately obvious to see that, you know, people own shares in companies making alternative drugs or something. But, you know, who knows what might be uncovered at some point? Indeed. It's really interesting. What is the upside? If the science suggests it's safe, there's a risk that people could die as a result of following the...

13:15I don't know. We should hear from Mariana whether people are giving proper, cogent reasons. I think Sarah's right that people go along with it even if they don't believe it. So a lot of it's about massaging the ego of Robert Kennedy Jr. I think it is as simple as that. Trump brought him in. Remember he was a Democrat. very pro-choice when it comes to abortion, someone who, in many respects, is a very uncomfortable figure in a Republican administration. But Trump brought him in, thought he was kind of kooky and interesting, and wants to give him the ability to do some things he wants to do. And I think Sarah is exactly right.

13:55Does Trump really care about this stuff, think about it much? No. But I also think there's this tribalism that leads a lot of people, including scientists who are inside the administration or advising the administration, just to keep quiet about it, because the wider mission is something that they approve of. Everyone is so tribal and they are tribal and they feel that they have to back, you know, the kind of opposition that there was. A lot of it goes back to Covid and, you know, scientists who opposed the vaccine mandate or who opposed lockdowns and all the rest of it now feel they sort of have to be on board for anything that Robert Kennedy Jr.

14:41and his people come out with. And that, I think, is why you've got this this herd following into this kind of mad place. yeah I think that we've reached this point where people essentially inhabit their own realities really rather than the objective factual reality and so it means that whatever happens there always seems to be another reason or another excuse and I think it's really important when we talk about all of the situation with Tylenol to to focus on Robert F Kennedy Jr because like both Justin and Sarah were saying um you know he appears to be the the focal point for an announcement like this He is someone who has previously been very criticised for anti-science and anti-medicine views he's held.

15:20He's very strongly pushed back on that, said he's not anti any of those things. He's not anti-vaccination and that he just mainly is concerned about big pharmaceutical companies, which is a valid position to hold. But the problem is, is when some of these recommendations and decisions are either contrary to the body of scientific evidence or there's just not enough sufficient evidence to back up what he's saying. And it does have a real world consequence. I mean, when it comes to something like Tylenol, that could mean that, you know, someone has a really high fever and they choose not to take it.

15:50And that could also impact their unborn baby. You've then also got, and I think this is really important to say, it wasn't just Tylenol they spoke about. Donald Trump also spoke about vaccines and actually the comments that he made about the MMR vaccine. And so the one for measles and basically suggesting that you should kind of have it separately rather than altogether. Again, is something where there's just not the science about that. up it harks back to some um really debunked theories around autism and the mmr vaccine from andrew wakefield people might remember him um uh and um that that people have been very concerned about their impact and remember we've there's been this measles outbreak in texas in the us and kids have died and yet these comments are still being made so on your point about well is there any accountability for when there are misleading or false suggestions made that could impact public health.

16:37Not really. And I think some of that is a result of the mainstreaming of anti-medicine ideas online as well. They're kind of becoming normal. Well, it's a fascinating topic. And I know you're going to cover it in more detail on tomorrow's AmericaCast. But let's move on to Jimmy Kimmel, who made, after being pulled off the telly, made an emotional return to late night US television last night with his late night chat show on ABC. This is what he had to say about his suspension following his comments about the killing of Charlie Kirk. You understand that it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man.

17:14I don't think there's anything funny about it. I posted a message on Instagram on the day he was killed, sending love to his family and asking for compassion. And I meant it. I still do. Nor was it my intention to blame any specific group for the actions of what it was obviously a deeply disturbed individual. that was really the opposite of the point I was trying to make but I understand that to some that felt either ill-timed or unclear or maybe both and for those who think I did point a finger I get why you're upset if the situation was reversed there's a good chance I'd have felt the same way I have many friends and on he went Jimmy Kimball he also made a point about the importance of free speech and the way President Trump was targeting his fellow late night hosts so we've had this voice note from John in London about the free speech debate have been ignited in the US since Kimmel's initial suspension from his talk show.

18:06Hi, AmeriCast. Americans bang on about how free their speech is and bang on at us for not following their example. But after Jimmy Kimmel, how free is speech in the land of the free? Or is it now, in AmeriKee, your speech is free as long as you agree with me? Bye. How poetic. Excellent rhyming question, John. I think all questions should rhyme in future. Anthony how free is free speech in the land of the free? I think there's a very real concern that what happened after Jimmy Kimmel made those remarks last week the way the federal government used its powers of regulation in order to pressure not just the network ABC but ABC's affiliates the stations that run Jimmy Kimmel and other ABC programming to object to that and to get them off the air, I think there's very real concern that that is an abuse of federal power and also a violation of free speech rights that are embedded in the Constitution.

19:06Those free speech rights say that the government cannot restrict free speech. So it wasn't just concerns expressed by people on the left, even people on the right, like Ted Cruz, a Republican senator, and Mitch McConnell, a senator from Kentucky, former Senate leader in the Republican Party. they expressed concerns as well. And so you could also see the pushback against that and the fact that ABC decided to bring Kimmel back on and that there's been a lot of criticisms of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission chair, Carr, and others in the administration. I think that shows that Americans are sensitive to this, that they are concerned about it.

19:48That was apparently an overstepping of power. But I will also note that while Kimmel was back on the air last night, those affiliates, some of those affiliates chose not to air him. So he didn't air, for instance, here in Washington, D.C., on the local ABC station, didn't air in some major cities across this country. And that is because there still may have been concern among some of these stations that they could feel pressure, They could get punished by this federal government in regulations, increased regulations, or maybe restrictions on business activities that encourage them to try to speak out and keep Kimmel off the airwaves.

20:31To which people on the right in America say, well, hang on a second. Yeah. I mean, if you're a Ted Cruz, as Anthony's mentioned, and quite a few other people on the right, you said this is crazy. You can't go censoring Jimmy Kimmel and trying to get TV stations to take comedians off the air and all the rest of it. And there is a debate about that. And Kimmel is back on the air of, as Anthony says, not everywhere. But what they would say as well is, hang on a second. Google has just admitted in a letter to a congressional committee that during the Biden administration, they censored at the behest of the Biden administration.

21:07They've apologized for doing it. People on YouTube who had views on COVID that didn't fit the U.S. government view. And I think there is a lot of this kind of sense that on both sides there is extraordinary hypocrisy, actually. And this isn't a kind of one-sided thing. Everyone wants to censor things. So, you know, the kind of liberal media and all of us saying, oh, Jimmy Kimmel... Twitter and Facebook took Donald Trump off because he didn't like his politics. Exactly. So, you know, there's a kind of Jimmy Kimmel warmth because he's a handsome fellow and he doesn't like Donald Trump and lots of people don't like Donald Trump, etc.

21:37But as soon as it's something a bit more difficult, like, you know, should you be allowed to go on YouTube and say crazy things about COVID, which I imagine some of it at least was, are we OK with that being censored? And just another point about free speech. It's not all political, of course, and when it comes to other kinds of free speech, as Anthony will know well, they are much freer than we are. It's just simply factually, empirically true that you can say whatever you like, for instance, about court cases. Court cases, exactly. We've discussed that. And if Jimmy Kimmel left, he could probably find a platform to say what he wants to say.

22:14I think he'll do OK. That brings us to the end of AmeriCast. We've covered a lot of ground there. Marianna Spring, Sarah Smith, Justin Webb and Anthony Zurcher. And, of course, if you want to catch up with what else they're talking about, you can find AmeriCast wherever you listen to your podcasts, including on BBC Sounds. We're not mentioned that way.

22:37Right, we are off the air, as it were, off the live air with Matt Chorley. and Sarah has stayed behind, as it were. She's in New York, as she told us right at the beginning, and I'm in a different studio now in Westminster. And it's an opportunity for us, Sarah, just to have a brief conversation between ourselves, I suppose, about not only the fallout from the killing of Charlie Kirk, but actually the memorial service itself, because you were there. It's been a few days now since it happened. And there's been, my goodness, some discussion about it, to put it mildly. And it was an extraordinary event, which we discussed at the time.

23:15Your thoughts now, a few days on? Well, I'm so glad that I took the time to actually go to the memorial service, because this was an event the like of which I don't think I've ever been at before. And, you know, I went to a lot of Donald Trump and MAGA rallies through the election campaign. For about two years, I was going to those things. This was bigger than any political rally I've ever seen. It was in the State Farm Arena in Phoenix. That's where Taylor Swift kicked off her era's tour. And it was three times the size of the Republican National Convention when you were there, Justin, to see that.

23:51It was so much just on a wholly different scale. And people have been told not to come wearing sombre funereal black but in red, white and blue outfits. So it was tremendously colourful as well as, you know, and the people were there enjoying themselves and being part of this huge MAGA event. But, you know, obviously somberly reflecting on what had happened to Charlie Kirk, which gave it a very, very charged atmosphere. I think the thing that surprised me the most about the mood of it was that everybody I spoke to there did think that this was a big turning point in American politics. and not just because of the fear of violence being introduced into American politics, but they all said that from now on, as a result of Charlie Kirk's murder, they would no longer censor themselves when they wanted to express conservative views, no longer feel that if you agreed with Donald Trump, you had to keep quiet and not say things that weren't politically correct in case you upset somebody or got accused of being a racist or whatever.

24:53They clearly didn't think Donald Trump being reelected to the White House had given them permission to live out and speak out about their right wing views. But they did think that Charlie Kirk's murder was going to be a cultural turning point for them. Yeah. And what Anthony and I were discussing this week, and I'd be interested in your view on this, having actually been there, is whether or not that kind of sense of, OK, this gives us political permission, as it were, to do something and we are going to use this politically and it's going to make a real difference. Does that carry through to 2026?

25:36Does it mean that there are going to be a load more really enthusiastic people going to the polls who might not have gone to the polls in the Republican cause? Of course, Donald Trump himself not on the ballot, but Republicans on the ballot everywhere. And the House of Representatives very much in the balance when it comes to who wins. And so, I mean, it's obviously too early to say in a way, but you get the impression, I suppose the question is that this is a political moment that lasts. I think it certainly has the potential to. And Charlie Kirk's widow, Erica, who's taken over his organisation Turning Point, obviously is a very charismatic figure who will be able to carry on the work.

26:15It certainly appears from the speech she gave at the memorial service. And the number of young people that were there who were really excited and enthused about politics because they learned about it via Charlie Kirk was also quite striking, actually. Very articulate and well-informed young people who would probably never have been interested in politics, they said, if they hadn't found Charlie Kirk. Now, if their excitement and enthusiasm can continue to be harnessed. And of course, you remember what it was like being young and idealistic and maybe learning about politics for the first time. If something like this, something as dramatic and as tragic as this happening, I think, early in your political development, this martyr figure being created, that's bound to have a pretty deep impact, isn't it, on your politics and possibly do things that drive youngsters in their late teens, early 20s to the polls, even in a midterm election, in a way that normal political arguments wouldn't.