♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program

is provided by... brett: you know as someone coming out of college it can be very nerve-racking not knowing what to expect, whether you'll like your job or not, whether you'll make friends, whether you'll fit in, and here i feel like it's so welcoming and such an inclusive place to work, you just feel like you're valued. announcer: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation, pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. announcer: and now, "bbc news" ♪ >> hello. this is "the context" on bbc news, live from new york. >> mr. kennedy has embraced conspiracy theories, waxed char la tans, especially when it comes to the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

>> out of all of the picks that president trump has made for his cabinet, arguably this is one of the most controversial ones, robert f. kennedy, he provokes opposition from both sides. >> he lacks any relevant government, financial, management or medical experience. his views on vaccines are dangerous and willfully misinformed. these facts alone should be disqualifying. >> i was told that i was a conspiracy theorists. that label was applied to me because i said that the vaccines, the covid vaccine, didn't prevent transmission and it wouldn't prevent infection. ♪ >> hello. you are very welcome to "the context" with me, where this hour we'll be focusing on president donald trump's second

term. we're coming to you live from the u.s. all this week right now we're in new york. but over in washington, d.c., on capitol hill, robert f. kennedy jr., president trump's pick for u.s. health and human services secretary, has been accused of embracing conspiracy theories and char la tans in his often heated confirmation hearing. he was interrupted by protesters twice as he struggled to convince lawmakers that he isn't anti-vaccine. we'll have the latest from capitol hill and we will unpack it all with our panel right here. the president has signed his administration's first bill on immigration issues. the laken riley act. we'll discuss this issue and so much more in this hour of "the context" so do stay with us. welcome to the program. a heated confirmation hearing

has been taking place in washington, d.c., for president trump's pick to leeland the u.s. department of health and human services. appearing before the senate finance committee, robert f. kennedy jr. appeared visibly frustrated at times as he repeatedly denied accusations by democrats that he's anti-vaccine. the 71-year-old faced a bruising series of questions from lawmakers, stumbling in a long exchange about medicaid policy and repeatedly confusing us with the medicare program. proceedings were also interrupted twice by protesters. >> are you lying to congress today when you say you're pro-vaccine? or did you lie on all those podcasts? we have all of this on tape, by the way. >> yeah, senator, as you know, because it's been repeatedly debunked, that statement that i made on the podcast was a fragment of the statement.

he asked me and anybody who looks at that podcast will see this. he asks are there vaccines that are safe and effective and i said to him, some of the live virus vaccines are. and i said, there are no vaccines that are safe and effective and i was going to continue for every person, every medicine has people who are sensitive to them. caitriona: i didn't think hearings could get any more spiky than they did with pete hegseth, but this one has been quite heated. clashing on quite a few key issues. talk to us about the back and forth on vaccines. reporter: yes, it very heated and pretty bruising at times for r.f.k. as he is known. the vaccine is the big issue with mr. kennedy who has long

said that he's anti-vaccine and spread a lot of misinformation about it. and this is what democrats really wanted to hold his feet to the fire on. but he said that he was not anti-vaccine, that he was misrepresented and that led to some protesters shouting saying, you lie. they were taken out of the hearing. he said that he'd been -- they'd all been taken out of context, he wasn't able to finish what he'd been saying on these podcasts but as we saw there, a lot of the senators brought out transcripts of the interviews that he's given. it's also worth mentioning that he's built up, you know, a bit of a national following over his views on vaccines. and also many republicans like his position on it, particularly after covid-19. within the hearing itself, it was a bit confusing at times because while he said he was pro-vaccine he also said that he didn't believe in vaccinations for 6-year-olds.

but that was one of the big main issues that came up in the hearing. caitriona: the other issue is around abortion. the position that r.f.k. jr. has is really in quite stark contrast to the position held by most members of the republican party. reporter: well, this is the other confusing position that r.f.k. has taken. so initially he had said that he was pro-abortion. even last year he said in an interview that he believed that women can have an abortion at any time they wanted, which was brought up in the hearing. he's now saying that he doesn't believe in abortion at any time and then when he was pushed on it, he deferred to donald trump, to the president, saying that he backed him. remember, r.f.k. ran for the presidential candidate, for the democratic party, last year. then dropped out and plenged his full -- pledged his full allegiance to donald trump. when he was asked about the abortion pill, that's been an attempt to try and ban it, the

supreme court tossed it out of court last year saying that it didn't meet legal standing. he said that he would just, you know, he would agree with whatever donald trump's position was. so very much deferring on that. so if you were a republican senator who wanted to know what his definitive position was on abortion, probably didn't get that in this hearing. caitriona: and one of the other areas of responsibility that r.f.k. jr. would have if confirmed is relating to agriculture, ag food in terms of chemicals, etc., allowed. was there much questioning about that? reporter: it did. and it's worth remembering that he's a critical g.m. -- he was critical of g.m. crops. he also wants to restrict the use of synthetic pesticides and ban corn syrup. chuck grassley, he's a republican farm state senator, he warned him about his criticism of the agriculture industry saying to him that essentially butt out, that is

not your field of expertise. remember, ultimately mr. kennedy, if all the democratic senators went against the nomination, he could only afford to lose three republicans in order for the nomination to go through. but also he does have some bipartisan support on some food issues that he has. he believes in getting rid of chemical additives to food. he has these sort of popular positions that do go down well with members of both parties. but, look, this is the first hearing. he will have a second hearing tomorrow with another committee, then both committees will have to decide whether to vote to send it to the full senate for a vote to see if he will be confirmed and get him over the line. caitriona: ok, thanks for that. we'll do it all again tomorrow, as you say. let's get the views of our panel now. we're joined by a former u.s. assistant secretary of state for

international organization affairs and a senior fellow in global governance at the council of foreign relations. and we're also joined by jim, former governor of virginia, and former u.s. ambassador to the organization for security and cooperation in europe. that was during president trump's first administration. great to have you both with us. lots to talk about and we'll get in it in detail in just a moment. just to get your first thoughts on it, though, jim, to you first. is r.f.k. looking confident here at getting through this process, do you think? >> i think he has. i think that he's certainly been under a lot of attack. i must admit i didn't watch every minute of it because i was otherwise engaged. but it's my impression that he was certainly attacked. and that's all right because that gives him an opportunity to state his true views and what he really feels. then it's going to be up to the senators to assess that and exercise their senatorial duties as to whether to confirm him or not. i believe airing his views out, i think he's had a fair opportunity that, is a healthy

thing. caitriona: and esther, to you, i don't know if you watched those many hours of the committee hearing or if you had other parts of your life to attend to at that time, but what's your first take on what we heard today? >> first, no, i did not have an opportunity to actually sit and listen to all of the hearings. but it is an extremely important part of our process. which is the congress giving its consent to the president's selection for senior positions. and so this is what's supposed to happen. you should have a vigorous debate. you should have serious questions asked. in that sense, that is part of the process. what you learn are then important insights that the senators will take onboard as they make their important votes. but the confirmation process should be a vigorous discussion of policy and that's what we're seeing. caitriona: that is truly what we saw today and we can expect more of that again tomorrow. but let's get the views now of someone who is paying extremely close attention to what r.f.k.

jr. is saying and that's professor laurence from georgetown yoort. he's a director -- university. he's a director of the world health organization collaborating center on public health law. thanks so much for being with us. lots to discuss in terms of the positions held by robert f. kennedy jr. but just on that i suppose most controversial one, the issue of vaccines. some of his views, what he has said and done in the past, if that was writ large, if he's confirmed, what impact would that have on the u.s. population? >> i think it could have an enormous impact. not only on the u.s. population, but i think actually worldwide. because he would be sowing public discontent with vaccines. let's not forget that the u.s. c.d.c. has called childhood vaccinations the greatest public health achievement in a century. so we're talking about something that saves thousands if not

millions of lives in the u.s. and abroad and is pretty much wiped out -- has wiped out dreaded childhood diseases. he's been the vaccine skeptic in chief in the united states and the world and he says he won't take away vaccines and i do believe that, that he won't ban them, but i think that there are a lot of things he can do, such as take away tort immunity for the vaccine industry, to cherry-pick data, to redirect studies away from vaccines -- vaccinations and for interfering from the childhood immunization schedule made by experts at the c.d.c. all in all this is not good for science, public health and childhood vaccinations. caitriona: he did say today that he's not against all vaccines and he also said he had vaccinated his own children. so again, some gray area there

in terms of what policies might look like. but another thing that he stands for is regarding health research and how the national institutes of health are constituted in this country. he says he's going to immediately replace hundreds of scientists. what would that mean for, again, the health system in the u.s. and what the future might hold? >> let me begin by saying that the national institutes of health is the envy of the world. it's been the biomedical technology engine of the american economy. nishioka scientists have had -- n.i.h. scientists have had countless numbers of nobel prizes. they've created life-saving vaccines, treatments, medical devices. they've had enormous breakthroughs in genetic technology, mrna technology. and this is a caricature of

n.i.h., c.d.c., w.h.o., that we've seen over and over again, of them being faceless bureaucrats or ideologues but i've worked with these people for decades and i can tell you, they're doctors and nurses, scientists that get up every day with little recognition and little pay to just try to make the world a little healthier and safer. and to vilify them, to fire them, to sideline them and to create animosity toward them is just not good for america, it's not good for the world. and just as a matter of pure morals and ethics, it's wrong. we really do have to stand up for science and public health at this moment. caitriona: indeed we've seen huge public ad campaign here in the u.s. from all quarters calling on the republican senators in particular not to confirm robert f. kennedy jr. but there are some areas of things he wants to see where there is some public health support.

particularly around food, around the quality of food that's in schools in america, about the adtives and chemicals that are permitted in american food or in the production of american food. some of which are not allowed elsewhere, for example, in the e.u.. >> yeah. i know. if he did that, it would be a wonderful thing. and i would be 100% supportive of it. i'm doubtful and the reason i'm doubtful is that he's not shown any fidelity to science. he says he wants to do nutrition but he's going to fire n.i.h. and f.d.a. nutrition experts. he's going to redirect research to alternative medicines and other things at n.i.h. so i'm skeptical. i've not seen one single policy that he's going to put forward that's going to do that but i'll say this, if he's confirmed and if he has a serious attempt to

improve the nation's nutrition, particularly among our children, that will be a wonderful thing and we should all line up in his support. but i really don't believe him given his track record on science and public health and his animosity toward public health science. caitriona: ok, laurence, director of the o'neill institute at georgetown university. thanks for joining us here on "bbc news". >> thank you. caitriona: let's bring in our panel here on this. jim, i want to go to you first. as a supporter of president trump and robert f. kennedy jr. is obviously his pick, what do you make when you hear the concerns of someone, a health professional like we just have there? >> well, i think that we need to get away from this sense of misdirection. there's sort of a theme that's going along here that says that

if you're in favor of vaccination, you must be against robert kennedy jr. i don't think that's a legitimate approach to the public policy and to the senatorial discussions and so i disagree with that. and by the way, nobel prizes in my view are not necessarily a symbol of legitimacy i might add. but i think that this is a misdirection. you have to listen to what kennedy is saying. you have to understand that he's vaccinated his own kids and here's my point. my point is that all government ought to be subject to oversight. and maybe it's time for a fresh look and let's see what people are saying and people are doing and whether they're really serve the public interest in the best possible way. you can't do that without a fresh -- caitriona: jim, just to jump in there on what you're saying about that. would you be happy with the situation where there's interference with the childhood immunization scheme in this country, where potentially chinks start to appear in what we call herd immunity in really

critical diseases like measles? >> no. i think that's an appropriate way that we've handled that vaccination. and i think that my family's been the subject to the same vaccinations. but you shouldn't stop a secretary from doing oversight and making sure that the programs that are in place have efficacy and that they're doing the job in the best possible way. and this is going to be a fresh look at it. but i don't think he's going to be able to do inappropriate things that's against public health and be able to do that. and i don't think he says he's going to in the hearings. caitriona: esther, what's your view? do you think there's sufficient oversight there if robert f. kennedy is confirmed and he would decide to make these sorts of changes? >> i think we have real concerns here because as we know, the public health is one of the examples of the cohesion of society. we all need to care about the health of the person next to us, across town, across the country or across the world.

and we need to be able to use those tools which we've learned succeed in helping human life. vaccines fall into that category. one of the greatest changes over the past century is the extension of life because of life-saving medicines, including vaccines. this would have been a sensitive issue anyway, but then of course you have the pandemic, we all think it's important that we put a priority on the benefits of health care-based on -- based on research. caitriona: ok. esther and jim. do stay with us. we have lots more to talk about. president trump has been as busy today as he has been every day since he was sworn in to office last monday. do stay with us here. around the world and across the u.k., this is "bbc news." ♪

caitriona: you're watching "the

context" with me, caitriona perry, here in the u.s. on bbc nuz $-- "bbc news." in the last hour, a big moment for president trump, his second temple in office, as he has signed the fist bill into law of this term. the laken riley act. the bill will require the detention of immigrants who lack legal status and are accuse of crimes but -- accused of crimes with the potential of deportation before they are convicted. the bill was passed with bipartisan support in both house and the senate, after the death of laken riley, a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed by an immigrant without legal status in february, 2024. her death fueled the immigration debate ahead of the presidential election. before signing the act, president trump said he would be opening a detention center in guantanamo bay to hold up to 30,000 illegal migrants in the u.s. president trump: today i'm also signing an executive order to instruct the departments of defense and homeland security to begin preparing the

30,000-person migrant facility at guantanamo bay, most people don't even know about it, we have 30,000 beds in guantanamo to detain the worst criminal illegal aliens threatening the american people. some of them are so bad we don't even trust the countries to hold them. caitriona: now, just to bring this to our panel. again, there is an understanding that now that this act is law, it will allow for much greater powers for the immigration authorities here to deport people who have been arrested and charged but not convicted of crimes. murder and very serious crimes, but also smaller crimes like shoplifting will be included in that. esther, what's your view of this new change? it's a signature policy, of course, of president trump and now it's law. >> of course defending the borders is one of the main activities that a government undertakes. however, how you do it matters.

what my concern would be is making sure that those who are arrested are actually the individuals who are expected, no the just caught up in the fray and that there is a systemic way to identify those who might actually be violent criminals. and separate those from the vast majority of people who are here doing jobs that are crucial to be done in the united states. so what we want to see to make sure that the united states lives up to its own standards of criminal justice, when prosecuting and that it follows up on convictions and then penalizes those who have been convicted of crimes. caitriona: this bill we should say had bipartisan support. the country was shocked in the wake of the killing of that young nursing student, laken riley, in georgia earlier in the year. but, jim, there are concerns that this perhaps is too harsh. that it removes the innocent

until proven guilty if you're deporting individuals who have not actually been convicted of any crimes. >> i don't think the standard ought to be just people who have been convicted of crimes here in the united states. the question is, is the law going to be enforced or not? i did some immigration cases at the northern border and the law was strenuously enforced. and now all of a sudden the president has pointed out that we're just suspending the congressional acts and the law of immigration and just saying, if you get here and you behave yourself, you ought to be able to stay here. that's not the law. that's not the law. and i'm astonished really at people on the left who just think that they can just forget the congressional acts and just enact their own law by just behaving in a particular way. now, it's perfectly clear when you have people who are here illegally and commit crimes that they have to go, that's perfectly clear. but frankly, i think that it's time to enforce the law and i think the president is the first one to actually -- who actually

made this an issue back when he started running for president in 2016. i think he's providing decisive leadership. the american people are frustrated with this. over the last four years they saw the violation of the law almost becoming customary law in the united states. and that's not democracy. that's not congressional leadership. caitriona: and just to get a quick thought from you, esther, on what we heard from president trump about using guantanamo bay for detention centers, for 30,000 or 40,000 immigrants. you have great experience working on a global scale, what will the view of that be? >> i think there will be concerns both domestically and internationally. particularly domestically about the use of guantanamo bay. it is a military installation and the ability to actually have lawyers there to work with people will be difficult. it's offshore. it will be difficult to cover what's actually going on there. so i think there will be real

concerns. obviously the united states needs to defend its borders but it needs to be smart in how it does it. it's not about showmanship. it's about results according to american law. caitriona: ok. and of course lots of what we've been discussing impacts federal workers. president trump is looking for at least 10% of them to leave their jobs. we'll talk about that in just a moment. do stay with us here on bbz news $-- "bbc news." plenty more to come. announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by... announcer: funding was also provided by, the freeman foundation. and by judy and peter blum kovler foundation, pursuing solutions for america's neglected needs. ♪ ♪ announcer: "usa today" calls it, "arguably the best bargain in streaming." that's because the free pbs app

lets you watch the best of pbs anytime, anywhere.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ announcer: funding for presentation of this program is provided by...