Global News Podcast - US Presidential Election - your questions answered

Episode Date: October 20, 2024

The Global News Podcast, The Global Story and Americast join forces to answer your questions about the US presidential election. We look at what the result could mean for the Middle East, Ukraine and climate change.

Hello, this is the Global News podcast from the BBC World Service with reports and analysis from across the world. The latest news seven days a week. BBC World Service podcasts are supported by advertising. If you're hearing this, you're probably already listening to BBC's award-winning news podcasts. But did you know that you can listen to them without ads? Get current affairs podcasts like Global News, AmeriCast and The Global Story, plus other great BBC podcasts from History to Comedy to True Crime, all ad-free. Simply subscribe to BBC Podcast Premium on Apple Podcasts or listen to Amazon Music with a Prime membership.

Spend less time on ads and more time with BBC podcasts. You're listening to the Global News podcast from the BBC World Service. Hello, this is a special edition recorded on Friday the 18th of October. With just over two weeks to go until the US presidential election, we have brought together three BBC podcast presenters to answer your questions about the vote on the 5th of November and what it all means for America and the rest of the world. Hello, I'm Oliver Conway from the Global News Podcast. This is Sumi Somaskanda.

I present the Global Story Podcast. And it's Anthony Zirker. I help present AmeriCast. Yeah, thanks both of you for joining us from the US. I was a reporter many years ago in Washington, way back in the era of George W. Bush, but American politics has changed a lot since then. So you guys are going to be doing most of the work. And we'll start off with a question about work, or at least least school work from Sam Oppenheim, a teacher in New York. I'm wondering, since I teach students in high school who are going to college, how did Miss Harris and Mr. Trump do in high school? How did they do in college?

Did they go to grad school? How did they pay for college and grad school? I'm curious how they were when they were younger since I teach students who are younger. Well, lots of questions there, but interesting ones because a college education is part of defining who these two candidates are both transferred from their original college to a new one while they were studying. Donald Trump started in Fordham university, which is in Manhattan, and transferred to the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Kamala Harris started in Vanier University in Montreal and then transferred to Howard University in Washington, DC, which is a predominantly African American school. She was in a

sorority there. She was on the debate team. She went on to law school at the University of California, a very prestigious law school. Donald Trump, his undergraduate degree in business at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania was his highest attained degree. We don't really know what grades they got. In fact, Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, in 2015 threatened lawsuits against Fordham and Penn if they released his grades or his SAT scores. So that's kind of a mystery.

How they paid for it, we don't really know, although Donald Trump's dad was a wealthy real estate dealer. So you probably did not have any problems footing the bill even at an Ivy League college like Penn. Of course, they both went on to highly successful careers in different fields. Now they are both competing for the top job. So let's turn to the election itself. And Darius from Lithuania asked us, how is it that US presidential elections are so close?

Why do we never see a 70-30 or an 80-20 split instead of 50-50? With such a divide, we might expect to see some sort of civil unrest almost constantly since there is no clear majority on any issue. So what's going on? Yeah, that's a really important question. And at the moment, it's because the US is also so split ideologically along party lines. So that means that half the country votes Democrat and half the country votes Republican. There is a great book published a few years ago by a US journalist named Ezra Klein called Why We're Polarized. And he talks about the fact that in the last three, four decades, we've seen this hardening of political identities.

For example, if you drive a Toyota Prius and you order a cafe latte in the morning, it's not very likely that you're going to vote Republican, meaning there are certain cultural signifiers that make you a Democrat or make you a Republican. And it has become a cemented part of people's identities in the U.S. That being said, I think it's also really important to say, if you look at specific issues, most people agree in the center. So if you look at, for example, gun control, most Americans when polled do want to see

common sense, things like background checks, for example. Most Americans do want to see some access to abortion. So although voters are split ideologically along political party lines on the issues, there is a big chunk in the middle where they seem to share similar views. Yeah, I think Sumi makes a good point about the cultural divisions that are apparent in American politics now. Things like college education is a huge determiner in whether you vote democratic or Republican people with college degrees, much more likely to vote Democrat.

If you live in a big city or you live in the rural areas, that's a big division. Even gender now is becoming an indicator about one's politics. But one of the other things to consider, I think, is that we have two major parties in this country and the parties do adapt and adjust to the political realities on the ground. We can't get to a point where it's 70-30, even 60-40, because the party that's on that 40% side will modulate and adjust in order to win back supporters at law. So if you look like an issue like international trade, for instance, or immigration. These were issues that the Republicans in 2016 made a lot of inroads on in winning over Democratic voters. Well, you've seen the Democratic Party become much more

in favor of tariffs and protectionism than they were, say, during Barack Obama's presidency. You've seen Kamala Harris modulate considerably on immigration because she knows where the votes are. So there is this driving force that helps keep these two parties in balance. The talk of division seems a good point to bring in a couple of questions from Judith in Germany and first Anthony Torres in the US. In 2020, we saw Trump and mega Republicans spread lies, abuse their power, and even incite

violence in an attempt to overthrow the results of an election that they lost. What are the threats some of these same forces pose to ensuring that the will of the people ultimately prevails? Hi there, this is Judith. I would like to ask if the security agencies in the United States took any measures to prevent something like the attack on the Capitol on January 6, because I think if Donald Trump is not going to win the elections, it's very likely that something like that could happen again. You know, see, we were both in Washington, D.C. on January 6. It was

remarkable how much of a surprise that was and how off guard the security apparatuses around the Capitol were that there was such violent unrest. This time around, they're not going to be caught surprised. There have already been warnings and notices put out by the security apparatuses in Washington, D.C. So the idea that a January 6 attack on the Capitol could happen again seems unlikely. I would be more worried about individual states and state capitals and the process leading up to January 6 where they're tabulating election results and certifying them because it's a lot

harder to secure a bunch of different places all over the country and you don't know quite which one is going to become the flashpoint versus one location in Washington DC that quite honestly has the sort of resources if they're applied to prevent unrest. And one thing that's different this time around then four years ago, of course, is that Donald Trump isn't president anymore. He's a former president and he doesn't have controls of the reins of power. There was a lot of talk leaning up to January 6th about Donald Trump using the military to confiscate voting machines or declare some sort of state of emergency where they would force the retabulation or force the results to be thrown out and

delegate to local state legislatures to determine who really won. That is a big difference. It's going to be Democrats who are in the White House leading up to the election and after the election. Donald Trump is, at least for now, a private citizen. Now, if it is a close result, could well be a legal battle. And Anthony, you were saying on Americast the other day, the Trump campaign is already spending big on preparations

for a possible challenge. But that brings us to the subject of campaign finance. Hello, my name is Chris Ashby. I'm a Canadian living in Oslo, Norway. How much money have each of the campaigns put into the election so far? And how much money do you think they each have for the remaining days of the election? Interesting to see there's a massive amount of money being put in, and I'd like to hear where

that is right now. Thank you. Huge amount of money. Where are we? Kamala Harris has only been in this presidential race since the end of July, but she did inherit the fundraising that Joe Biden and her accumulated. And she has by now raised over a billion dollars, that's with a B, to fund her presidential campaign. And actually we have the latest records by the end of August, she had about $235 million cash on hand. Now, of course she is, I'm sure burned through that and no point saving any money up for the years ahead, but that's a considerable amount of money

for television advertising, for on the ground campaigning, for grassroots organizing and the like. Now, Donald Trump hasn't been quite as prolific in his fundraising. He's brought in maybe about $700 million, which seems still like an incredible amount between him and his associated campaigns which he has been spending over the course of this year and as of August 31st he had about a hundred and thirty four million dollars left in cash on hand so these are vast amounts but you also have to remember that the United States is a massive country with 360 million people

I think was the last number so It costs a lot of money to run a presidential campaign and both campaigns have raised an enormous amount of money. They are mind boggling sums, aren't they? And it is certainly something to note that the fundraising isn't over. We are seeing continued fundraising efforts by both candidates as they've been holding a number of events because this final stretch is going to be one of the most expensive stretches for them as they continue to put out ads and to hit the road and of course engage as many volunteers and members of the campaign as well as they can to go out and knock on doors and convince voters who might be undecided in those key battleground states, those seven swing states to convince voters to cast their

ballots for them. So that money that is left will certainly be spent in the coming weeks, and it's going to be right down to the finish. So that's the campaign. We also had a question about America's finances going forward. Hi, I'm Maurizio from London. My question is, which will be the difference between Trump's economics and Kamala's economics?

Thank you. That's a really interesting question, because there are actually a few points where we've heard Donald Trump and Kamala Harris express similar ideas about economic policy if they were to be in the White House. And one of those, Donald Trump introduced this first was no taxes on tips. That is actually something that's a direct appeal to voters. For example, in a state like Nevada, you have a huge,

huge hospitality industry there. Think about Las Vegas and hotel workers and casino workers on the strip. These are people for whom tips are an essential part of their income. Nevada is a battleground state. So this idea of no taxes on tips is something that we then heard Kamala Harris echo. And of course, the Trump campaign accused her of simply lifting that from his economic plan. But beyond that, you know, what we've heard from Kamala Harris's side is she said that she would try to reduce the costs for working families. She's promised to help, for example, first time home buyers with a down payment assistance of up to $25,000. Remember that one of the big issues that people have complained about in terms of affordability in the US right now is just the cost of housing, whether it's renting or being able to buy, which in the U.S. is

considered part of the American dream. So making that more accessible to people. She's also talked about a child tax credit of up to $6,000. She believes that that is something that will take a burden off of working families. And she also talked about raising taxes on corporations and the highest earners. But she did, for example, if you compare her to President Biden, she broke with him on raising the capital gains tax rate. She reduced that a bit. So that's a bit of an adjustment compared to the current administration. And Donald Trump, well, he's promised to end inflation.

He has promised to deliver lower interest rates. We should say that the president doesn't actually control the Federal Reserve. So that's not something that he necessarily can control. But he has said, for example, that he will also slap tariffs on all goods coming from other countries and that that will raise money to pay for other things like he has also said he would introduce a child tax credit. And he's talked about how deporting undocumented immigrants would relieve some of the housing costs. That has not necessarily proven to be true,

that the influx of immigrants into the country has been the chief driver of housing costs going up. But still, he has said that through his plan that that would be a way to reduce housing costs. So you talked about Donald Trump's tax policies and the no tax on tips is a big one. He's actually been throwing out a variety of different tax breaks. It seems like every week he's got a new proposal, no tax on Social Security, that's elderly retirement benefits, no tax on overtime pay, reducing taxes on

Americans who are paying foreign taxes while living abroad, and then also having people be able to deduct interest they pay on car loans. All of these seem pretty narrowly targeted, as you mentioned, to key constituencies, whether it's waitresses in Nevada or auto workers in Michigan or suburbanites in Pennsylvania. I think big picture Donald Trump wants to lower taxes and then use tariffs and immigration as tools for improving the economy and also increasing energy development. That's another thing he says about reducing inflation by making the cost of energy lower in this country.

While Kamala Harris, all of her proposals seem more geared towards broadening the social safety net and providing more government services and government support for Americans. That's kind of the big ideological, at least on the economy, divide between these two candidates. Now it's often been said this is the most gender divided election ever and Brandon Santulli in New York City has this question. I'm just really confused by the stark opposition of some to a woman's president when throughout the world there have been many countries that have elected women to their highest office. I would just love to get your perspective on why you think that is.

I mean, how much opposition is there really to having a woman as president and why is it an issue? Now, I don't know if you've noticed it, Sui, but it seems like Kamala Harris this time around really hasn't been emphasizing her gender much on the campaign trail or during the Democratic convention in Chicago, particularly compared to what Hillary Clinton was doing when she ran as the first major party woman nominee in 2016, where she was talking about breaking the glass ceiling. It is a change of strategy, although we are still seeing, as I had mentioned earlier in these polls, that there's a big gap between gender on who they're supporting with women in the 50 something percent backing Kamala

Harris while 50 something percent of men are backing Donald Trump. I mean, is that something you've noticed, Sumi? Oh, 100 percent. And if you think about Hillary Clinton's campaign, as you rightly said in 2016, she lead into being a woman. In fact, the slogan of her campaign was, I'm with her. And this time around, Kamala Harris barely if at all leans into the fact that she is a woman. In fact, the slogan of her campaign was, I'm with her. And this time around, Kamala Harris, barely if at all, leans into the fact that she is a woman. I think there are multiple reasons for that. I lived in Germany through almost the entirety

of Angela Merkel's term as chancellor. And for many people in Germany at the time when she came into office, it was unthinkable for a woman to be chancellor, but she obviously through her time there proved to be one of the most popular chancellors they had. Now, of course, very different political system, and that's important to say. But that being said, there are structural disadvantages. There are certain scrutiny that I think women face that have to do with the way that the media maybe covers female candidates. And if you also look at kind of the bench from both parties and the Democrats and the Republicans, that in itself can sometimes be very hard for women to rise up within their

parties to reach that highest level to be the nominee. And even though we can say very openly that we've seen sexist coverage and sexist statements throughout this campaign, you would think that if there is a time that the US would be ready for a female candidate, it would be now. But I'm not sure that that has anything to do really with the fact that Kamala Harris is a woman. It's maybe more that people, as we've talked about already, are very polarised and they won't to vote for the Democrat. to vote for the Democrat. You're listening to a special edition of the Global News Podcast, the Global Story Podcast and AmeriCast. We had an email from Rose Mersky from Zürlingen in Germany and it's something she's been wondering about for quite a while now. And she says, I know the American president

can serve for no more than two consecutive terms, but can Trump, if he wins election this year, serve for yet another third term, since the first term wasn't followed by a consecutive one? The answer is no. The 22nd Amendment prohibits that. So Donald Trump can only serve two full terms. Who's to say that that wouldn't change down the road? But at this point, no, Donald Trump can only serve those two terms. We've got a slightly trickier question from Michelle Hack or Hatch about what might happen if Donald

Trump wins and becomes president again. Let's say Trump gets a simple majority and wants to deliver his 12 pledges. In America the president does not sit in Congress and three-quarters of Republican candidates are part of project 2025. So will Trump actually be able to pass legislation due to his current stance on Project 2025, or will neither his 12 pledges or Project 2025 be passed through Congress? So could Congress block Trump's agenda and what will be the fate of this now infamous Project 2025, this ultra-conservative set of proposals from the Heritage Foundation?

Donald Trump has made a lot of promises on the campaign trail and those promises will be very difficult to enact if he doesn't have a sympathetic Congress coming into power alongside him. Republicans currently control the House of Representatives by a narrow margin. They would have to keep control of that chamber and maybe even expand it in order to enact his agenda and the US Senate is controlled by Democrats. Now it looks good for Republicans who want to take control of the Senate but they would actually have to make large inroads there if they want to overcome a procedural obstacle called the filibuster that requires

60 votes out of 100 in order to enact major policy agendas or they would have to do away with the filibuster entirely. So there are some very real obstacles. This project 2025 that Michael referenced, that actually is not something that Donald Trump has campaigned on. It's something that Democrats have pointed at because it is a very detailed governing agenda that was put together by a conservative group called the Heritage Foundation that is staffed by a lot of former Donald Trump campaign and administration operatives. But Donald Trump has renounced some of those positions, but it is a detailed conservative

plan, sometimes controversial, particularly on things like abortion and social policy, gay rights that Democrats have pointed to and said, this is something Donald Trump secretly wants to do. Whether that could be enacted again would require Republican control of Congress and Donald Trump essentially going back on his denunciations of the plan in order to push it through. There are, and I think Sumi will agree with me on that. There are some things that presidents can do without Congress, things like changes on immigration and tariffs. So there is possibilities that he could enact some of his proposals, even without a Republican controlled Congress,

but to do big sweeping things, particularly on things like taxes and fundamental changes in government policy that requires legislation passed through Congress and signed into law by the president. You mentioned immigration. This is obviously a big issue, not just for Republicans, something Democrats have been grappling with as well. And we have this question from a self-described legal immigrant to the US from Canada. Hello, my name is Shoss. I have family back in Canada who are elderly. So my question here is, has there been any talks on keeping borders open, not just for trade and business, but for people like me? I'm also deeply concerned

about the illegal immigrants who can't have a voice and who can't speak. Their children, the dreamers, are they going to actually now have protection. We often hear about the US-Mexico border. I'm not sure there is so much concern about the US-Canada border, but what about immigration going ahead, depending on who wins? Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have promised to tighten border restrictions. We have seen differing answers to this, however. And if you look at what Kamala Harris has said, she says that she will prioritize a piece of legislation that did not pass through Congress that was a bipartisan border bill. Now, this was one

that Democrats accused Donald Trump of actually killing, as they put it. They say that he called Republican members of Congress to get them to vote against this bipartisan border legislation because it would have given Democrats a win on immigration. That's something that he denies. But what Kamala Harris has said is that she wants to make sure that that bill passes through Congress and then she would sign it into law as president. Of course, she can't control whether it would pass through Congress. But what that would do, it would toughen asylum standards. It would involve hiring a lot more border agents, immigration judges, and also asylum officers. And she has said that she would further crack down on asylum claims because remember, this

has been one of the weaker points for her in her campaign where we've seen a lot of criticism from Republicans. There have been record numbers of immigrants crossing unlawfully into the US across the southern border. And so Kamala Harris has said, well, she would crack down on asylum. One of Donald Trump's key policies, it's important to say, is that he would launch the largest deportation in US history. He said he would use a National Guard, he would use police to do so, and he said that he would also invoke the Alien Enemies Act

that would allow a president to deport any non-citizen from a country that the US is considered to be at war with. So how all of that would be implemented, we don't really know because we're talking about a massive effort that he says would involve millions of people deported. But Anthony, the details of that still are pretty unclear. Yeah, the idea of deporting tens of millions of people. I mean, that is impractical kind of the way that Donald Trump's promise of building a wall along the entirety of the U S Mexico border back in 2016 was impractical and never even realistically made any kind of progress towards

achieving this more of one of those promises that he makes in order to convince his supporters and others that he is very serious about addressing Undocumented migration now to answer Joss's question. I think as a Canadian with legal status here in the country I assume she has a green card or some sort of permanent normalized status. She shouldn't have to worry She should be able to go back to Canada and visit her parents her parents could probably come to the US whenever they want and visit her although one of the things that Republicans have talked about, maybe not Donald Trump specifically, but a lot of Republicans and people in Trump's orbit is curtailing not just undocumented migration, but even legal migration.

They want to see the American population be more stable as far as people who have been here for a long time. If you listen to JD Vance and some of his speeches and his Republican convention speech, he said, America is more than an idea. It is a people with connection to the land. And he talked about all his ancestors who lived in Kentucky. So there's a different kind of an emphasis among Republicans on a natural, long-time American residence and a suspicion of immigration and the changes that they say immigration, legal or otherwise, are bringing to this country.

We're going to look at wider international issues now and Temofi from Switzerland sent us three questions. We'll start with one and see if we can get to the others later. Temofi says, how come US citizens do not see the broader world's view on Trump's abilities when it comes to foreign affairs? It seems discussions in the US are focused only on what the election means for the US itself and not the rest of the world. While Grace Nduwimana asks, in what ways do you foresee international events like the situation in the Middle East or climate change influencing voter priorities and the overall electoral landscape? Well, I suppose the wider world has mixed views on Donald Trump, but do global events

figure when Americans get to the bowling booth? Yeah, Americans kind of focus on the things that are right in front of their noses and concern them. And part of that is we're a continental power. We have oceans between us and Europe and Asia. That has kind of been America's thing going back throughout the history of America. We came over here and settled America

to get away from over there. So I think when you talk to Americans, you talk about foreign policy, sometimes they're interested in it, they're paying attention sometimes to what's happening in Ukraine or the Middle East, but that does not affect their vote in a way that the economy or domestic trade concerns or crime or abortion or cultural issues do.

When push comes to shove, if you see the polls showing what people rank as their most important issues, all of those foreign policy issues are way down below and they stay there unless the United States is actually engaged in a war and Americans are dying overseas, which is not the case at this point. There is a big caveat to that this election cycle, of course, which is the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. And there is a sizable Arab American and Muslim American population in the battleground state of Michigan.

And they have expressed deep, deep frustration and anger with the Biden administration over its continued support for Israel and its military operation in Gaza and now in Lebanon. And by the way, there's a big Lebanese population in Michigan as well. And you have seen voters there say that this will 100% impact how they cast their ballot. We're not talking about massive groups of people that could swing the vote one way or the other, but enough of a vote if you just think about the uncommitted movement. So this is a movement that has said, for example, in the primary in Michigan earlier this year,

when Joe Biden was still on the ticket, 100,000 people there did not cast their ballot for Joe Biden in that primary to send a message to his administration over the policy in supporting Israel. And many of them, and we've been speaking to them in Michigan, and also some of the national figures who represent this community who say they still feel like Kamala Harris is not listening to their concerns and demands. So this is perhaps for this population in particular, one issue that could affect how they vote and could affect the outcome of the election in a state like Michigan. And talking about the Middle East, some like our next listener

thinks US policy there will remain the same, no matter who wins the election. I'm Saxena from India. Why does the American administration always support Israel, which is committing modern day genocide by killing thousands of innocent civilians, destroying their homes on the pretext of eliminating militants. Second question is why can't the American administration control Israel? Of course Israel denies it is committing modern-day genocide but there's no doubt its actions are unpopular in many parts of the world. So why such strong support from seems almost all politicians in the US?

Yeah, it is pretty remarkable how Kamala Harris, despite the pressures that Sumi noted in places like Michigan among Muslim voters and Arab-American voters who are traditionally democratic, that she is essentially stuck hip to hip with Joe Biden in supporting Israel. She has repeatedly said that the United States supports Israel's right to self-defense. She has talked about the things that the United States are doing to support Israel. And part of that, I think, is because there is also a very large constituency within the Democratic Party

and among the American public in general, supportive of Israel and views Israel as a close ally of the United States. So a break there, while it might help Kamala Harris in certain places, might come with political prices elsewhere. Donald Trump, when he was president for the four years, he was very supportive of Israel as well. He has had a close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu and in fact he called Netanyahu after Israel launched their incursions into Lebanon

and attacked Hezbollah and according to the Israelis he congratulated them on their new offensive. So it's part of American foreign policy over decades and US support for Israel seems to be something that neither leadership at least for the moment wants to stray from. Well staying with foreign policy we had an email from Miguel Angel Fernandez from Venezuela saying there's much fear in Ukraine and Europe that Donald Trump seems to be too comfortably in sync with Putin's interests. But it's unclear what he, Trump, stands to gain from directly or indirectly benefiting the Russian tyranny. And Miguel Angel says, surely Donald Trump would only act in his own political interests. So how would a Putin victory in Ukraine or a weakening of NATO help

him? And is there any evidence of ties to Putin's regime? The question of ties is an interesting one because this has come up recently, where it was revealed through a journalist here in the US who's releasing a book that Donald Trump has had conversations, it is alleged in this book, with Vladimir Putin since he left office. And he was asked about this during an event on stage the other day, and he said, if I had, it would have been smart, in so many words. So the question of his actual ties to Vladimir Putin, well, of course, you know, Donald Trump was president and in his capacity as president did meet with Vladimir Putin. Well, of course, you know, Donald Trump was president and in his capacity as president did meet with Vladimir Putin. And he has said on the war in Ukraine that he would end the war within 24 hours. Now, how exactly he would do that is not entirely

clear. In September, Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, came to the US as part of this diplomatic blitz. And he was meeting world leaders at the UN in New York. And he also met with Donald Trump. And there was this press conference moment where the two of them stood together. And Donald Trump talked about having a good relationship both with President Zelensky and with President Putin. And there was this bit of an awkward moment where President Zelensky interjected and said, I hope our ties are better in so many words.

And Donald Trump kind of brushed that aside. So it's not really clear where Donald Trump would come down on whether he thinks what is good for Ukraine is good for the US. We know that if you look at his track record, Donald Trump did not pull the US out of NATO, although there were many fears that he would do so. And indeed he did arm Ukraine as well. So whether he would involve the US in making Ukraine cede territory in some sort of peace negotiations, he's been guarded about that, about what exactly his plan would be. But Anthony, it's certainly one that has a lot of people in Kiev very nervous.

Yeah, Donald Trump has a certain affinity for Vladimir Putin, it's clear, and he has for quite some time. And the Republican Party and conservatives seem to be more sympathetic towards Russia, and there may be some cultural and ideological connections between the two. They view Russia as a culturally conservative country that has a strong kind of religious influence on their government. They view that as a model for the United States, which helps create this bond between the two. I remember I was at a conservative conference right after Russia invaded Ukraine, and a lot of the people there just were not interested in talking about Russia,

and felt kind of caught on their back foot when public opinion across the country had turned against the Russian invasion. And now you're seeing in polls that many Republicans are ready for the U.S. to cut off support from Ukraine and end the war. I think they would be perfectly happy to see the United States try to reestablish ties with Russia. With the Democrats, I think if Kamala Harris wins, you will see a continuation of U.S. support for Ukraine going forward, although it will be tricky getting too much more funding through Congress if it's controlled by Republicans in either chamber. Talking about the US wielding its power around the world, we have a question about two regional alliances, the Quad involving Australia, the US, India and Japan, and the other one, AUKUS,

which brings together Australia, Britain and the US. Joel from Melbourne here. The Quad is still in its infancy and can potentially commit more US military forces to Asia. The AUKUS agreement promises to be the biggest transfer of US technology in the history of the Anglo-Alliance. What might a second Donald Trump presidency mean for these initiatives? It's an interesting question because Donald Trump has been very skeptical of multilateral organizations like NATO, multilateral alliances. This obviously is only the United States, Australia and the UK. So he might be somewhat more sympathetic to continuing this relationship.

And also while he was president, his foreign policy establishment did try to reorient US foreign policy towards positioning against China and containing China in some way, something that Joe Biden and his administration have continued. So I wouldn't jump to any kind of conclusion about the US abandoning support for the Australia-UK alliance and some of the progress that has been made during the Biden administration on that. But with Donald Trump, you never quite know what he's going to do. And there is always a possibility

that something could get under his skin. He could have a spat with the Australian prime minister, which he's had with previous Australian prime ministers, and that could undermine the alliance going forward. I would just add that Donald Trump does see China as the US's, if not the biggest foe, then certainly one of its biggest foes on the international stage. And AUKUS is essentially intended in a way to be a counterbalance to

China and the Indo-Pacific, so it could be something that Donald Trump would support. I mean, certainly our listeners do seem more interested in what a Donald Trump presidency might mean for the world rather than a Kamala Harris one. And Felipe from Sao Paolo in Brazil asks, if Donald Trump is elected, what would it mean for the LGBTQ plus community in the US and the rest of the world? We haven't actually heard Donald Trump say much about LGBTQ rights in particular. There are LGBTQ Republican groups, for example,

and he's not necessarily aligned with some of his more Christian conservative supporters. We know that, for example, Melania Trump, the former first lady, she has held fundraisers with these LGBTQ Republican groups, and we know that Donald Trump, for example, in the past has had fundraisers as well with these groups. So I would say what's more clear is that we have seen more of a focus on transgender rights, and that is something where we've seen the former president shift some of his rhetoric. If you look at Project 2025, which Anthony talked about

a little bit earlier, you see some of those really harder, culturally conservative elements. And that's where Donald Trump has said that he would support kicking providers out of Medicaid, for example, if they offer gender transition care to minors. That's one aspect of what he has said about transgender rights. So that is where he's been more specific. But on gay rights in particular, we haven't heard a whole lot from Donald Trump on what

his agenda would be. One of the things that you've seen from the Trump campaign, just down the stretch here, some really harsh negative attacks on Kamala Harris on transgender rights particularly her past support for a law that required the US government to fund gender-affirming surgery for prisoners in US federal prisons that has been something that the Trump campaign has hit on time and time again so at least in that regard they are making transgender rights an issue and they view it as a winning issue for them and something that will deter people from supporting Kamala Harris.

Right, just time for one more question and it's a rather big topic. Hello friends from the BBC. My name is Alejandra Agurto and this is my daughter Victoria. Hello, we are from South America, Chile. If one of the candidates became president for and second term in this case, our precious planet might go on a reversal downward path as per the gains that have been made in the fight against rising global temperatures. Is there a way to make a projection about the increase in global temperatures if one

or the other candidate sat in office. We shall look forward to your analysis. So guys, your analysis on what this election could mean for the planet? Well, I'm not a climate scientist, so I can't give you an exact number, but it's pretty clear that Kamala Harris and the Democrats take climate change much more seriously than Donald Trump does. Donald Trump has called it a hoax in the past. He has talked about increasing U.S. energy production, maximizing it, which would create more carbon emissions, which would lead to an increase in global warming. Of course, Kamala Harris is part

of the Biden administration, and they appropriated and have been spending a considerable amount of money transitioning the United States to a cleaner, more green economy support for things like solar power and wind power and electric vehicles. That's something that Donald Trump has condemned that electric vehicle push. He says it endangers American jobs in Michigan and has used that as a campaign issue to try to win support from autoworkers. So depending on who wins this November, the direction of U.S US policy and the seriousness with which US policymakers take climate change will be vastly different.

I also don't have those model projections for how much global temperatures might rise under one candidate or the other, but I can say that it has been notable how little a role climate change has actually played on this campaign trail. Kamala Harris, of course, and the Democrats are certainly more embracing of green technologies and climate friendly policies. That being said, we haven't heard her talk about climate change really at all on the campaign trail. One thing is important to note that when Donald Trump came into office, he pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord. President Biden came into office, he put the U.S. back in. And so that is just a point to say

that for Donald Trump, the global cooperation and that framework of world powers working together to curb climate change is something that he didn't take as an important issue in his first term. And I think it's pretty fair to say at this point that we could expect something similar in a second term. That's all we've got time for. Thanks to all those who sent in questions and sorry, we couldn't fit them all in. Thanks also to Sumi and Anthony. My pleasure. Those were a great range of questions from your listeners. Really appreciate it and they covered a wide range of issues.

Thank you so much for having me and I agree. Great questions and I hope you guys all stay tuned to the BBC for our coverage of the election. And you can hear plenty more from Sumi and Anthony on the Global Story and AmeriCast, wherever you get your BBC podcasts. And that's all from us for now, but the Global News podcast will be back very soon. This edition was mixed by Ben Andrews and produced by Nikki Virico. Our editor is Karen Martin, I'm Oliver Conway, until next time, goodbye. without ads. Get current affairs podcasts like Global News, AmeriCast and The Global Story plus other great BBC podcasts from history to comedy to true crime all ad free. Simply subscribe to BBC Podcast Premium on Apple Podcasts or listen to Amazon Music with a

Prime membership. Spend less time on ads and more time with BBC podcasts.