here in washington. this is bbc news, we will have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme. i'll get some more plants. build on this greenhouse vibe. i'll get a chair, i promise. yeah, you get a chair, sumi, that would be a starting point. so welcome to this episode of path to the presidency. we're back. we're moving away from election and towards inauguration. so welcome to this episode of path to the presidency. we're back. we're moving away from election and towards inauguration. but lots still going on and lots to discuss. and we are absolutely delighted to have a colleague with us today who hasn't been on this podcast before, but hopefully will again. nada tawfik, our new york correspondent. hi, nada. great to be with you guys. yeah, it's really good to see you. it feels like we get to cross paths with you at the big events, the conventions, and then whenever

we're in new york. butjust if you're wondering, by the way, i am sitting on the floor once again here in the dc office because i realise, actually, it's pretty comfortable. but, caitriona, you look like you're in a jungle. i am in a jungle, yes. i'm in a very boring edit suite, tv edit suite. i don't even know what's on the side of me here, so please forgive me. i'll make it look prettier next time. and i'm obviously not in thejungle, but they are real plants, they're not plastic plants, so i will just say that. there we go. that's great. it's like the covid era of rating backdrops. yeah, yeah, i think we all probably fail miserably, actually. i think we really crash rate my room. well, yeah, i mean, good that we're all sitting together because there's so much to talk about on the domestic and also international stage. i was also, you know, looking out for both angles of the trump transition this week, looking at what it will mean for the rest of the world, and of course, what we're seeing here domestically.

but if we look at for the rest of the world, i wonder what you guys were thinking seeing president biden now with just about a month left in this presidency, going to angola, his first time in sub—saharan africa, and we were covering this week on the programmes how he unveiled the fact that the us is backing this long, massive railway project that links angola with mining areas in the democratic republic of congo and zambia. and it's this railway that's about 800 miles, 1,300 kilometres long. and it was really interesting because this is all part of this effort to counter china's influence in africa. and of course, you know, china has invested billions in its belt and road initiative, and has invested in africa's infrastructure in many countries. and so, you know, the criticism has been that the us is a bit late to the game. but what it got me thinking was, "ok, where does all of this go when donald trump takes office? "is this going to be a priority for him"? and is he going to even keep the project running right?

because that's the big question. you know, you think aboutjoe biden and making these commitments to africa, and he kind of waited right until the last minute to make a trip there. i mean, donald trump didn't visit africa at all in his first term. you know, if you look at the fox headlines of biden's trip, they again kind of said, "look, here's biden's spending billions in africa, whereas those recovering from hurricane helene in north carolina are still getting the help they need". so we know donald trump when he comes in, he's very transactional. like you say, sumi, you know, he's going to understand that there is competition there. there's the need for lithium, cobalt, those minerals that africa is so rich in, but he's going to want to know what's in it for the united states. so is he going to continue that investment? he won't like that china is also going to be benefiting, right, from that railway. it's notjust something that the united states is going to be benefiting from. and his relationship with the african continent, you know, he's had some pretty harsh descriptive words for the continent in the past.

so it'll be interesting to see when he gets in whether africa will even get a look, honestly, from the trump administration. i mean, for both administrations, you can't really say that africa has been a priority for them. i mean, joe biden has come under a lot of criticism for saying africa was a priority, and yet here we are, just weeks from the end of his administration, and he's making his first trip there. so, you know, actions speak louder than words in many ways. and if you go through all of the policy papers and platforms and so on for the incoming trump administration, you really do have to struggle to find much in it in a concrete way that's talking about africa. and, you know, the whole world is guilty of ignoring sudan, right? i mean, nada, you know, that from being around the un. you know, and in recent times, yes, usaid has committed a lot of money there, but all countries have made pledges of aid to sudan

and they haven't delivered on it. when you speak to ngos working in that area, they're really, really struggling for humanitarian relief — millions of people displaced, millions of people starving — and it's almost a forgotten conflict in many ways. and if, you know, if you think about the fact that donald trump might look at africa through the prism of china's influence and through that transactional lens that you were mentioning, nada, you wonder what the benefit is then for some of these african countries, of course, for angola, you know, a railway project and through the region will be beneficial, can create jobs. but if that project is then ended, you wonder what would replace it. but i also thought it was interesting that if you look at how international relations are starting to develop as world leaders like canadian prime ministerjustin trudeau going to mar—a—lago to meet with donald trump, how that is all playing out, because we've already seen, you know, this flurry of activity on tariffs, which was a big part of donald trump's campaign,

wasn't it, on raising tariffs another 10% on china. that was the proposal. and then tariffs on canada and mexico in order to get them, to force them, as he put it, to stop migration across the us�* borders. i mean, that was kind of the opening salvo to those two countries, so it gives us a bit of a sense of how things are going to be. and it's about fentanyl as well, isn't it? i mean, that's, you know, the other big prong of the point of the tariffs on canada and mexico. but i think it's so interesting that justin trudeau, you know, hopped on a plane and headed down to mar—a—lago unannounced, which was a really interesting point to me when you know, someone's president elect, their day is very tightly scheduled and they're appointing and nominating people and so on. and, you know, justin trudeau sort of playing the domestic political game as well there by, "oh, i'm going down there to talk to this guy about what he's doing," because, of course, he was still in office for the first trump administration, justin trudeau.

so they do have that long relationship together and they know each other, and you know, this is an escalation of what we've heard from donald trump. i mean, i'm just back from ireland. i was there last week. and, you know, there's a realfear and a real concern in europe on the financial front about donald trump with the tariffs, corporate taxation rates, about companies that are based overseas, creating jobs and making profits overseas and repatriating those. and the one thing about donald trump is when he says he's going to do something, he does do it. and he's spoken about his, you know, animosity towards trade surpluses for many decades now at this point. and, i mean, i know about you guys, but i really noticed that leaders are laying the flattery on very thick when it comes to donald trump the second time around because they know that that is a key way to get things done. and you mentioned justin trudeau going to mar—a—lago.

i mean, donald trump will have gotten a kick out of that. you know, canadian officials described how it was a veryjoking, fun atmosphere there at mar—a—lago, how they think it went down positively, but i mean, just remember thatjoke that trump said if the tariffs were going to be so devastating to the canadian economy, maybe they should make canada the 51st state of the united states. i mean, officials said that they, you know, they thought it was a good sign that trump felt comfortable joking like that. but you could just imagine justin trudeau's nervous laugh. i don't yeah, i don't think any canadians are laughing at that one, were they? and the image that donald trump posted with himself beside the flag and all of that, yeah. yeah, and i mean, if you look at the french president, emmanuel macron, it's the same thing. you know, he's had a mixed relationship with donald trump, but the first time around, again, he laid on the flattery. we're seeing it again this time. whether that really lasts when key issues come up in regards to the war in ukraine, nato, we'll have to see.

but certainly, president macron getting the kind of message as well that perhaps it's a good idea to, you know, be the first to tweet to congratulate him when he won, even before the uk, despite the special relationship, inviting him, you know, to go this weekend to notre dame as it reopens in that big ceremony. so even... it's really noticeable, i think, to me to see how people understand how best to get through to donald trump _ nada, i'm wondering how things are at the un right now, because donald trump has tapped congresswoman elise stefanik, one of his most vocal supporters on capitol hill and someone who campaigned heavily for him as well, to be his ambassador to the un. i mean, how are people there preparing for that change between the administrations? because obviously, there will be a change in how the trump administration deals with the un. yeah, look, i think there are kind of two points here. you know, the first is it's been a really tough few years, i have to say, for the united nations — even before

the trump administration. so they're coming in at a very different place in the world, right? we have a situation where, you know, the un security council has really been paralysed when it comes to the war in ukraine, when it comes to gaza. you have accusations of hypocrisy flying around constantly between the us, the uk, france and russia, and china, for example. elise stefanik, in a way really reminds me of a nikki haley figure, you know, somebody who wasn't actually a trump loyalist to begin with, but very much became a maga foot soldier who is seen as a fighter. you know, it's interesting because many people questioned why she would want to leave congress and head to the united nations. she doesn't have much foreign policy experience the way nikki haley didn't, and she was kind of seen as a rising star, so many thought politically, actually, it would help her to have those fights in congress instead. but perhaps she wants to shore up those foreign policy credentials.

nikki haley was only there for two years. that's not unusual for un ambassadors, but perhaps you could see the same thing with elise stefanik, you know, coming in saying she's taking names for donald trump, that the world has to, you know, fall in line behind the united states. but she's going to run into, i think, many issues. you know, one of nikki haley's successes was getting a few security council resolutions — increasing sanctions on north korea, for example. i don't see a world in which elise stefanik is going to make any progress on north korea. i mean, you had russia closing down, vetoing, essentially, an extension of the panel of experts that were monitoring the sanctions in north korea. you have china essentially blaming the united states, that it'sjust relying on sanctions and not diplomacy when it comes to north korea. and as we know, there's the issue of north korean soldiers now kind of shoring up putin's forces in ukraine — the us and uk accusing them of that. so elise stefanik comes to the un at a very different time.

republicans in general aren't as friendly to the un as democrats in terms of funding different agencies. so i think we're going to see all of that play out this time around with the kind of trump 2.0 as well in the background, during a time where there's more global conflicts than ever. and that's a good point. i mean, when we hear the various people who are going to be part of donald trump's foreign policy team, we're not hearing them talking about the un at all, really. sure or not. i mean, we're barely hearing them talk about nato except in disparaging terms. and it's all back to this kind of i mean — america first writ large — but this very unilateral policy of american interests, american self—interests, and, of course, all countries take care of their self—interest first, that's what they have to do, but it's country first, everyone else second. and we're just we're not really seeing that, i think, from america in terms of figuring out where is its place going to be in this trump world order.

i mean, the difference, ithink, in trump 2.0 to trump 1.0, if you like, is now perhaps he's chasing legacy. i mean, the line we heard so much in the campaign trail — and we've heard again from, um, officials now that they're being sort of nominated to positions — is, "oh, there were no wars when donald trump was in office." that this is kind of the point that they're striving for and the point that they're pushing for and, you know, donald trump seems to be promising a lot of things and trying to figure out what the priority issue. i mean, ijust finished interviewing sebastian gorka, who is the incoming director for counterterrorism, and i asked him, "what is the main priority on a national security front? "what is the thing you're going to be looking at on day one or concerned about on day one"? and he said, "actually, the immigration crisis in the united states," and talked about that line that we've heard from the president elect himself about mass deportations stations

on the first day and so on. and interesting that their positioning that ahead of everything else. interesting that that's a very domestic issue, but we're kind of seeing some international lines on that. i mean, this idea that donald trump has proposed to some caribbean nations to potentially take in some immigrants. and you already have the bahamas saying, "look, we've looked at the proposal. "we're not interested". i don't know about you guys, but it really gave me a kind of a felt very similar to what the uk just recently went through with the whole idea of rwanda. rwanda. exactly. and then keir starmer's labour government coming in and saying, you know, we're getting scrapping that, it was an epic waste of money, you know. so again, donald trump, it's all about the money, right, when it comes to immigration policies and how to actually implement these plans. i think there's going to be a real focus on that moving forward. and i think, you know, when you say, caitriona, when you say it's about legacy, i think it's also very much what we've seen from the nominees for this trump administration.

it's also very much about actually implementing the agenda. you know, we've heard time and again that during trump 1.0, his inner circle felt that he was hamstrung by a number of people in the, quote—unquote, institutions that were holding him back. and if you look at the types of picks that we're seeing this time, these are people who are not only 100% donald trump loyalists, which is very important to him and to his team this time around, but also people who have vowed to, quote—unquote, clean up the agencies that they will be leading. you know, if you look at someone like kash patel, who's a pretty controversial pick to lead the fbi, he's talked about using the authorities of the government to go after who h�*s called enemies, with a list of people that he's named or considered enemies of the state. and so, you know, these are people who i think will, he hopes — from what we see from donald trump — will do his bidding far more than during the first term. and i guess what will be interesting in the weeks ahead as well is how many of them do get confirmed. you know, we saw this

with matt gaetz, the struggle over his confirmation then he dropped out. now the attention has moved to pete hegseth for defence secretary. can he get confirmed? i mean, right now it's very much up in the air. i mean, think about somebody like rfkjr as well. there are still a lot of questions being asked. i saw mike bloomberg, the former mayor of new york, earlier this week, putting a call out to republican senators in a speech saying, "do not confirm rfkjr because he's a vaccine sceptic and he would cause damage to our health institutions". so at the moment, it looks like a number of the picks do have an avenue to get confirmed in the senate, but there are a few where it's still very unclear. yeah, i mean, pete hegseth is an interesting one. i mean, the last few days he's been around capitol hill, as hasjd vance, the vice president—elect, trying to get the support. and there are many republicans who are speaking kind of quietly on background about, you know, not being happy about any plan to sort of rush through pete hegseth.

i was at an event this week with the incoming national security director, congressman mike waltz, who is one of the names being circulated to potentially be the defence secretary nominee should pete hegseth not make it, or should donald trump decide that there's just too much heat and attention around his nomination and that he should want to replace him. so, i mean, it's a kind of, in a way, unstable time, isn't it, for the incoming administration and for the world in terms of trying to figure out who's going to be there, who's not going to be there, who are they going to have to talk to, and figuring out what needs to be done around that. and when you're talking about the fbi there and kash patel, sumi, i mean, we have to remember that christopher wray is still technically in thatjob until 2027. donald trump appointed him the first time round. it's a ten—year term. he hasn't given any indication that

he's prepared to resign. so, you know, it would have to be up to donald trump to potentially fire him, which is something, speaking to people within the trump administration, that he's potentially prepared to do at 12.01am on the 20th of january. and that leads us, i suppose, to this other issue of the pardons, right, and that huge, huge, huge decision thatjoe biden took this week to pardon his son, hunter biden, having said he wasn't going to do that. and notjust pardon him, but give him basically a blanket ban against any possible prosecution in a ten—year window. it was such a broad pardon, wasn't it? i mean, what did you guys think of the reactions we saw from democrats in particular? because it seemed like some chuck schumer, for example, refused to answer any questions on it. there were a few, or actually a good number by now who have come out to criticise president biden, but some others who have also defended him.

it seems like it also gives us a sense of where the democrats are right now. yeah, i thought michael bennet from colorado, making the point that this is just going to further distrust in the criminal justice system. i think he kind of got right to the heart of the matter, right? because ultimately, if you have now democrats and joe biden, with that pardon, saying that raw politics has infected the process, that there's no other way to look at hunter biden's case. well, doesn't that sound exactly what donald trump has been saying about his cases all along? and what we saw was donald trump's legal team actually using that in his new york criminal case, the only case that went forward, the only case where he was convicted. it's, of course, not a case that was brought by the department ofjustice. it's a new york state case. but nevertheless, they have actually argued that former doj officials went over to the new york district attorney's office, that this has always been about stopping him getting back into the white house.

and they say that ifjoe biden is making these comments about the department ofjustice and the legal system, that it just proves that they've been right all along. so that was quite something to see written to a judge. i mean, we often see in these legal filings by donald trump's team, them sticking in things for political purposes as well. you can almost understand that donald trump kind of wants them to insert these things in. and of course, their bigger argument is one about presidential immunity. but that aside, it does show that this is now the pardon issue, what you said, caitriona, about thisjust blanket pardon of ten years, not a specific, you know, crime even listed. how that has... it's unprecedented in how the pardon has been used, and that could be something that we see moving forward with joe biden with others. i mean, there's talk about democrats shielding other people from... preventative pardons, like doctor fauci, for example, for his role in the covid pandemic, and senator—elect adam

schiff from california, liz cheney, you know... it seems like the gloves are off. it's open season now. but it is exactly that point, nada, i mean, it's hard to see beyond it being an acknowledgement byjoe biden that the department ofjustice can be weaponized and that he, you know, you can't separate the fact that he is the father of an addict. and, you know, would any parent do anything they can to keep their child out ofjail? i mean, yes, is probably the answer, right? particularly if that child is an addict and clearly needs help and support and so on. i think if we're honest, you know, joe biden probably saw that donald trump was quickly seeing his legal troubles swept aside, and felt that, you know, there was no loss on his end. he's leaving. he's no longer going to be president. no loss to, you know, protecting his son. and i think that's why we also saw some democrats say this was an issue that kind of put the personal

above principle here. you know, the fact that biden had said numerous times he wouldn't pardon. exactly, but if he pardons those people we've just been mentioning, like liz cheney and dr fauci and whoever in this same preventative way that, i think, takes the american political system onto a different level entirely. and, i mean, you can have a bigger conversation about should presidents have pardoning powers anyway? does that make them too sort of god—like? and, you know, traditionally they've been used in a way to kind of erase the record, right, as like an apology for people that were convicted of things that are no longer crimes or there were very sort of specific, sensitive reasons to it, but this is just something totally different. well, that was what neal katyal, who's a former us solicitor general in the 0bama administration — we had them on our programmes this week — and he said, "look, you know, i think generally the pardon power has to be reformed to actually reflect what it used to be used

for", which is exactly what you said, caitriona, "for pardoning specific offences". and if you look at the way that donald trump used his pardons, you can, of course, raise many questions about what he chose to pardon and for whom, but they were targeted for specific offences that those people committed. whereas as we all mentioned here with president biden's pardon of hunter, again, it's this broad kind of sweeping pardon. and if we were to do so, preventatively for dr fauci, for example, it is a completely different game. and it might raise those questions again of, "0k, should this power be revisited"? but it doesn't look like that would be likely, of course, anytime soon. with donald trump now entering the white house, he'll be keen to use his pardon power in his second term. both parties will say it's a privilege we should have because, you know, the other had it during theirterm. i wonder, "doesjoe biden pardon himself or pardon donald trump"? i've seen a lot of chatter about that. i mean, ijust think it's... this country is so politically

divided and toxic that i don't think democrats would look too kindly onjoe biden doing that. no, that doesn't look very likely at this point at all. but it looks like that's all we have time for, guys. but it's been great to chat. this was great. thanks for having me. great to have you with us, nada. yeah, yeah. you'll have to come back and tell us more. anytime. bring us the scene from new york. i'll get a better backdrop next time, promise. city skyline. yeah, i'll get some more plants. i'll build on this greenhouse vibe. i'll get a chair, i promise. yeah, you get a chair, sumi, that would be a starting point. 0k. see you guys soon. bye. take care. bye— bye. hello. the weather conditions continue to deteriorate across many parts of the uk, but especially out towards the west as storm darragh begins to batter the uk and ireland. the red warning of wind

from the met office has been issued for parts of wales and also parts of southwestern england, and is valid from 3am on saturday to 11am on saturday. that's when the peak of the winds will occur — danger to life, travel disruption, power cuts, and ferocious conditions out to sea — winds could be gusting to around 90 miles an hour. now, rest of the day, a much wider amber warning will also be in force across many western parts of the uk, with winds up to about 80 miles an hour, also bringing damage and disruption and nasty conditions around coastal areas as well. on top of that, heavy rain is expected across southern parts of wales. throughout this period here, the amber warning is in force and we could see as much as 90mm of rain. so let's have a look at the weather map, then. here's that circular storm with the pressure lines, storm darragh, as it barrels across the uk. in the centre of the storm, it's calm, so there will be a period of calm, for example, across northern england

and eastern england before the winds start picking up as we head towards lunchtime. now, the peak of the winds will start to ease out towards the west, but they will be picking up across central and eastern parts of the country, so 50, 60 mile an hour gusts are certainly possible, bringing disruption and also the potentialfor damage — again, some trees down, perhaps damage to buildings as well. and then we have to wait until early sunday before the winds really start to die down. so storm daragh will move into the near continent, still a big pressure gradient here, you can see these isobars are tightly packed, so gale force winds will be certainly around coasts with some rain showers. but out towards the west, the sun should come out, the winds will ease and it'll actually be, relatively speaking, a pleasant end to sunday — temperatures will be around single figures on sunday. and then eventually sunday into monday, a high pressure topples over the uk, nasty conditions in the mediterranean, but we've

got that high pressure, and that means some sunshine and much calmer weather. do take care wherever you are.

live from washington. this is bbc news thousands flee as syrian rebels reach the city limits of the country's third largest city — homs. new video of the man who killed a top us health executive is released as officials say the manhunt is a multi—state operation. millions of people are warned to brace for storm darragh — which could bring life threatening conditions to parts of the uk. hello, i'm carl nasman. tens of thousands of people are fleeing the syrian city of homs, as rebel islamist fighters close in. it is the third major city under seige by opposition fighters since they began a surprise operation against government forces last week — the latest chapter in syria's

thirteen—year civil war.