hello, i'm carl nasman. welcome to this special programme on president—elect donald trump's transition into power. this week, we've seen a flurry of announcements, featuring some divisive choices for his team before he takes office injanuary. shortly, we'll speak to a public health professor about trump's pick of the environmentalist and vaccine sceptic robert f kenneder to lead the department of health and human services. one of the most controversial choices is former florida congressman matt gaetz as attorney general — he faced an ethics investigation as a member of the house of representatives. and a fox news tv host, pete hegseth, is being nominated as secretary of defense — he is a military veteran but has never held political office. and north dakota gov. doug burgum will lead the interior department, an agency whose portfolio includes both on—shore and off—shore drilling. we'll speak to congresswoman

melanie stansbury, who serves on the house committee on natural resources. we'll get reaction to all those appointments in a few minutes�* time from our panel. for more on the nominations, i spoke to our correspondent jessica parker, who is near trump's residence in west palm beach, florida. we have another name we need to discuss. , ., �* , discuss. gap, that's obviously a super important _ discuss. gap, that's obviously a super important role. - discuss. gap, that's obviously a super important role. that i discuss. gap, that's obviously | a super important role. that is the person audiences will be familiar with. audiences will be familiar with the role who stands behind the lectern and the white house, giving briefings, fielding questions from journalists, speaking essentially on behalf of the president. now, we think she appears to be the youngest ever person

to hold that role in the first person to do so under 30 since the time is of richard nixon, so quite a striking appointment. she has had a role on his campaign team as well back of the first trumpe administration, and i wasjust watching a video tape of her recently, talking about about donald trump's picks. she was really giving a full third a defence for those cabinet nominations that i know you're going to be discussing to the programme, and she said that donald trump had made fantastic picks. so really coming out to bat for the president, and that will essentially now be herjob to do so. he went through quite a few press secretaries in the last administration, presumably hoping this one sticks. and pete hegseth had stiffed was already a divisive choice. now there are reports coming out that he was involved in a police investigation into an alleged sexual assault in 2017. what more can you tell

us about that? pete hegseth, as you say, tapped earlier this week to be defence secretary. to be defence secretary, heading up the pentagon in charge of running the world's was powerful military. his appointment because of some raised eyebrows. he didn't really have any government experience. he's a former combat veteran, outspoken on exposing woke military culture. but now what's a mortgage within the last hours or show but now what's a mortgage within the last hours or so is he was investigated for sexual assault in 2017 in california. he has denied wrongdoing and he

was never arrested or charged. there is reporting in us media tonight that this allegation has caught the trump transition team off guard. but what his lawyer has said is it shouldn't impact the confirmation process in their view. confirmation process in their view. some of the more controversial appointments could face opposition in washington — so can get them through? our correspondent tom bateman explains. it is one of the big powers of the us president, the ability to appoint hundreds of topjobs in the us government. now, some of those people will end up at the heart of power here at the white house without needing the stamp of approval of other politicians in washington. they are in the president's gift alone. and already in that group looked likely to be some of his more controversial choices, including elon musk, who he has appointed to/ so—called government waste. the appointment of others, including most of his cabinet will have to be approved first by the senate. now, after the election, the republicans will have a majority. so here on capitol hill, most of mr trump's choices will sale through. a few names could face

a tougher challenge. we are inside the senate building now and here, even among some republicans, there is deep scepticism over some of the choices donald trump is making, especially that of the attorney general. now, senators can reject a nomination, although that is very rare. it is more likely they would attempt to force mr trump to withdraw someone's name. the president—elect has a nuclear option of trying to bypass the senate confirmation�*s process entirely. this is known as recess appointments, but there are very strict rules about these, and for previous presidents when they've done them, even for lower—level jobs, some have ended up challenged here at the supreme court. mr trump may already be trying to test both his party's loyalty is the constitution. doug burgum says he's grateful mr trump may already be trying to test both his party's loyalty is the constitution.

—— loyalty and the constitution. doug burgum says he's grateful to president—elect trump for the opportunity to achieve energy dominance as secretary of the department of the interior. the department manages hundreds gas and mineral reserves. mr burgum, who helped develop the trump campaign's energy policy, will also be the head of the newly formed national energy council — which will coordinate energy policy across the federal government. those combined roles put mr burgum at the helm of trump's effort to ramp up energy production — or "drill, baby,

drill" as he would say. i've been discussing burgum's nomination with democratic congresswoman of new mexico, melanie stansbury. i believe you sent on social media recently, you think the trump administration wants to, quote, burn it all down. what are you referring to? i quote, burn it all down. what are you referring to?- —— and it is very governor doug... that is what he said on the campaign trail every single day. it's what he promised. we know it's a plan that was outlined in project 2025. we know that doug burgum helped set up a meeting in his home in mar—a—lago or donald trump promised he would resend all of the biden executive orders and climate policies if they gave

him $1 billion in campaign donations. i think it's very clear that they plan to take us at an international climate agreement, they plan to resend on the energy bills. we know the gop on capital health —— capitol hill plans to revoke the largest climate plan in american history. really poised to do this and this going to the architect. i to do this and this going to the architect.— to do this and this going to the architect. i think a lot of this may _ the architect. i think a lot of this may not _ the architect. i think a lot of this may not come - the architect. i think a lot of this may not come as - the architect. i think a lot of this may not come as a - the architect. i think a lot of. this may not come as a surprise given the way donald trump ran drill, baby, drill. he did really well including in your own state of new mexico. is this basically the mandate that americans were hoping for? ida. americans were hoping for? no, absolutely _ americans were hoping for? no, absolutely not. _ americans were hoping for? no, absolutely not. i— americans were hoping for? iirr, absolutely not. i think the vast majority of americans are deeply concerned about costs, about costs of gas, groceries, housing. but it may not be

entirely evident to them that the cost of the pump are not really related directly right now to drilling. we're seeing the largest expansion in american history and it has not corresponded to lower gas prices. we are being gouged at the pump. expanding oil and gas drilling is not about the american people, it's about expanding opportunities for multinational corporations to benefit at the expense of the taxpayer. i think it's also worth noting that not only did the plan to open these lands, they plan to resend the endangered species act, they plan to take away planning and public comment for opening public comment for opening public lands and waters for drilling. we're talking about a wholesale remaking that they try to the first trump administration, but they didn't complete it. they plan to do it here in the second administration and we're not

messing around —— they're not. if you look at the record of burgum himself, he is more. you want to make the state carbon neutral by 2030. —— he wanted. he does support climate change and the human subsidies donald trump wants to do away with. as an environmentalist, would that give you hope? for an environmentalist, would that give you hone?— give you hope? for me personally. _ give you hope? for me personally, what - give you hope? for me personally, what gives| give you hope? for me . personally, what gives me give you hope? for me - personally, what gives me pause is to see the ways in which is personal evolution has changed since he's been on the campaign trailfor donald trump. during his time as governor and where he started in policy, it was a more open minded and divers point of view around energy, he has really come to embrace the maga point of view. we

literally had us officials at cop right now, that donald trump promised to take us out of. our major oil and gas companies want us to stay in the agreements. this is not normal. this may be more a moderate choice, but it really is not. ., ,, ., ., ., is not. congresswoman, one minute left. — is not. congresswoman, one minute left, but _ is not. congresswoman, one minute left, but i _ is not. congresswoman, one minute left, but i wanted . is not. congresswoman, one minute left, but i wanted to| minute left, but i wanted to touch on the bureau of indian affairs, that would fall under doug burgum. first ever native american member, he will be replacing, but he prioritise engagement with local tribes in north dakota. do you think that gives him credibility with native americans across the country? native americans across the count ? ~ , , country? we believe there is success in — country? we believe there is success in helping _ country? we believe there is success in helping to - country? we believe there is success in helping to serve l country? we believe there is l success in helping to serve our communities. i think our

communities. i think our communities are hoping they will make good on their treaties and trust responsibilities. his stance on the united states power of healing, it is hard to imagine another trump ministration. while i am hopefulfor our country because my future, i'm not particularly optimistic. another nomination that has captured headlines is the president—elect�*s choice for health and human services secretary. former political rival turned loyalist robert f kenneder is a prominent vaccine sceptic and environmentalist. he's been criticised for making false medical claims, including that vaccines are linked to autism more recently, rfkjr made headlines after suggesting he would ban

fluoride in drinking water. kennedy believes it is quote associated with arthritis, bone fractures and bone cancer — although studies show most negative effects happen at much higher concentrations. if confirmed, he will head up a nearly $2 trillion federal agency that is responsible as medicare and medicaid, approving drugs, medical devices and vaccines and regulating hospitals, physicians and other health—care providers. for more on this, i spoke to dr leana wen, an emergency physician and former health commissioner for the city of baltimore. thank you forjoining us. i want to start with something you wrote earlier today. he said the top reason that robert f kennedyjunior is unqualified to legal nation's health agencies is what you call his, quote, willful disregard for the scientific process. what do you mean by that? at, the scientific process. what do you mean by that?— you mean by that? a lot has been made _ you mean by that? a lot has been made about _ you mean by that? a lot has been made about some - you mean by that? a lot has been made about some of i you mean by that? a lot has i been made about some of the outlandish comments that he has made. these are outlandish, they are absurd, but what is they are absurd, but what is the worst of all in my mind is the worst of all in my mind is the fact that he will assert his opinions as fact and

nothing will be able to change his nine. that is the opposite of the scientific process. his questioning that vaccines cause autism in itself is not the problem. i think it's a good thing to rest and scientific dogma and to ask questions and to say what's the research, can you prove to me what this is the case. with there are dozens and dozens of higher quality studies, you have to be able to change her mind. if you don't, that illustrates either you don't understand that scientific process or you willfully ignore the process —— change your mind. instead you are an activist, not a scientist, and that's really dangerous. somebody with that kind of mindset leading the nation �*s top kind of mindset leading the nation �*stop scientific agencies. nation 's top scientific agencies-— nation 's top scientific agencies. nation 's top scientific auencies. , ~ ., ., agencies. he is known as a vaccine _ agencies. he is known as a vaccine sceptic, _ agencies. he is known as a vaccine sceptic, he - agencies. he is known as a vaccine sceptic, he has - agencies. he is known as a . vaccine sceptic, he has denied that, but claimed that childhood vaccines are linked

to autism, which has been debunked as you mentioned. will be the effects of those beliefs if he were approved to this role? how would that affect the overall us health systems? childhood immunisations have saved countless lives. we may even have account because there was a lengthy article published this year that found that in the last 50 years, the childhood vaccines save 154 million lives global. in 1900, is to be that 30% of children, or all deaths occurred in under five—year—old children. the three top causes here were all infectious diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis and diarrhoea. this is what used to happen. we know that vaccines are life—saving, extremely safe, they have been the course of many years given to many millions of people around the world, and to question that is

really unbelievable. we actually know exactly what will happen because we've seen in other countries, even here in the us, what happens when there is vaccine scepticism, misinformation and this is that you have a drop in the number of people whom marketing childhood music regions and ended up getting ill —— childhood immunisations. other people are affected as well, including babies who are too young to get immunised, people who are immuno compromised, kids on campus or treatment and it's really heartbreaking to see diseases —— cancer treatment. i learned of these as remnants in the past that i thought i would never see, what to think these diseases can come back, we could see children who are disabled from polio or brain damage because the measles, that's really unthinkable.— the measles, that's really unthinkable. there's another take care. — unthinkable. there's another take care, dr— unthinkable. there's another take care, dr wen, - unthinkable. there's another take care, dr wen, when - unthinkable. there's another take care, dr wen, when it. take care, dr wen, when it

comes to fluoride in the drinking water, he said one of his top priorities would be to take that out of us water supply. you've written about this as well. you said any sort of health effects here, the science is less settled that many people think. the issue about fluoride _ many people think. the issue about fluoride in _ many people think. the issue about fluoride in water, - many people think. the issue about fluoride in water, we i about fluoride in water, we know that fluoride prevented many dental cavities before we had widespread use of fluoride toothpaste. we also know that fluoride in general is pretty safe at low levels, but at fluoride and higher levels can be associated with a range of negative health impacts, including problems with the bones, discoloration of the teeth and even some association potentially of brain development when consumed in high quantities by pregnant women. i think it's high quantities by pregnant women. i think its reasonable to say maybe we should re—examine fluoride policy. i think that the key here is

people who spread misinformation and disinformation, they're able to do this because they have kernels of truth. they don't lie all the time, they don't always perpetuate false information. they get you to believe them because was somewhat this is true. it's provocative and it's true. it's difficult to sort out what is true versus what is not, and this is why that belief is so this is