Ros Atkins with an innovative take on the latest global stories.
Browse content similar to 25/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Hello, I'm Ros Atkins, this is Outside Source.
Let's look through some of the main stories here in the BBC Newsroom.
Donald Trump has signed into action orders to build his wall and limit
funds to cities that protect illegal immigrants, and says building
I would say in months, I am planning to start immediately.
We'll also be picking apart what Donald Trump's latest
policies means for abortion, the environment and immigration from
A lot to get through - if you want to get in touch,
It is hard to predict which subject areas will generate interest from
your questions and most of the questions are about Executive
orders, what the presidents can use them for, if there are any checks,
can they sign of funding or of Congress needs to get involved. We
have been looking at the questions on Executive orders, Anthony will
join us in about 15 minutes and we can work through a lot of these
issues. We must turn to some other really significant developments. Let
us do that. Bit by bit. There are reports that Mr Trump might intend
to lift a ban on CIA black site prisons, secret prisons or non-US
territory used for interrogations and well President George W Bush was
in power. The New York Times says
there is a draft executive order that would roll back a series
of restrictions that Barack Obama set on the treatment of detainees -
other media has this But let's take note of this -
the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer says this document isn't
from the White House. Can you shed any light on this draft
memo going around about interrogation practices? Yes. What
agency did this originate from? I don't know, it is not a White House
document and for those who have reported on this, this is the second
day that a document that was not from the White House has been
reported on as factual. I have no idea where that came from. It is not
a White House document. Donald Trump has been asked about water boarding.
If he feels it might prompt some useful information. This was his
reply... Absolutely, I feel it works.
But he'll "defer to the Defence Secretary and CIA Director"
But he is quite clear that he believes it is something the United
States can justify and that it works. We can speak to Barbara Plett
Usher. That statement on water boarding, is that a significant
shift? He has saying that -- been saying that throughout the campaign,
that enhanced interrogation techniques can be effective and he
said that terror suspects deserve it but the caveat is significant. That
he would take the advice or defer to the head of the military and the CIA
and the head of the military has been clear that they will stand
against enhanced interrogation techniques, this is something that
do not advise, in keeping with government policy. At the moment we
are looking at Mr Trump's opinion. If we see that enhanced in any
Executive what we will have to question what will come from this.
If he says he would refer to the Cabinet members and intelligence
officials, it seems unlikely he will move forward on this. I wanted to
mention reports on black sites, CIA prisons, we have seen organisations
saying that they oppose this what I wanted to emphasise the caveat, we
cannot confirm this is happening. What have you been hearing? This is
something that is in the Pentagon and intelligence areas and I am at
the State Department so there has not been a lot of talk here. But the
document circulated talks about are a few of those black sites, it is
something that President Obama did away with, something that was very
much criticised at home and especially abroad and at Whitby at
big step to bring them back but what does review mean? It means Mr Trump
is thinking about it, he wants to signal he is ready to go in that
direction and the question is, what do his key officials in the security
team advise him? And if he is going to take the opinion of the top
people on that, particularly the head of the military, he will be
told he needs to temper that kind of approach. The next thing, I want to
bring up some copy on the screen... Each of the stories would be
considered significant on their own. This is from Reuters, the draft of
an Executive order has been seen directing the Pentagon and State
Department to create plans for safe zones for civilians in Syria.
Barbara? What are you hearing? I can tell you that the State Department
is scrambling to keep up with not only these executive orders but the
reports about executive orders that might get issued so we're not
getting any official reaction but I can say that this is consistent with
what Mr Trump said during his campaign. He supported the idea of
safe zones in Syria for civilians, essentially at the time he presented
them as a way to keep Syrian civilians in Syria or east of the
region as a way to stem the refugee crisis and another thing he said he
-- is he would get the Gulf countries to pay for that. Would
they do that? He has never detailed how this would work militarily and
the government has not gone for them so far because to have a real one
you have to have military muscle behind it, planes in the sky ready
to shoot down any threat. This is quite a big deal to set up a safe
sun but that will be studied, apparently. One last story of huge
significance, if it happens. Reports that immigrants from seven
countries, including Libya, Yemen, Iran, Syria and Iraq will be
incredibly restricted in their ability to come into the US. What
have you heard? That is part of Mr Trump 's promise to restrict
immigration from countries that are seen as a real security threat
because they have Islamic State or Al-Qaeda operatives in them and he
says he is not convinced the betting is good enough to make sure there is
no threat so this has not been announced from -- but from what we
hear, the idea is to block immigrants or bases from seven
countries, all of them North African and Middle Eastern, for at least a
period of one month or more. In order to look at what the vetting
practices should be. That would be something that falls to the State
Department briefed and you can hear people here saying we have stringent
practices already and we are not sure how far we can go unless that
it is something he turned to instead of his initial promise, which was to
block Muslims from coming to the United States. As it can see from
the countries mentioned, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, they are all
Muslim countries anyway. But it would be some specific countries
rather than a blanket ban and the way it has been presented is this
would be a temporary block to begin with, based on reviewing vetting
procedures. It has been quite a day. Thank you for helping us for that.
Barbara Plett Usher live from the State Department. We're spending the
entire hour looking at developments with the Trump administration. We
are taking you through these one by one. And also any questions you have
on the stories we are covering. You can find me on social media and we
have an e-mail address on screen. Mr Trump has already fundamentally
shifted US policy on trade, energy, and immigration next
to federal communication. Two departments have been
on the receiving end of a de These are memos released
to the media - they show the President has banned US
Environmental Protection Agency employees from "providing updates
on social media or to reporters". Similar guidance has been
issued to Department That didn't go down well
with someone with access Today, the amount of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than at any time
in the last 650,000 years. The point was to say, please take
climate change seriously. That and a couple of
others were deleted. Matt McGrath is the BBC's
environment correspondent. I wanted to know from him whether it
would be normal for an environmental agency like this to communicate
directly with journalists Pretty much so and what has happened
in the United States under President Trump is very unusual. If you look
at what he said about what he wants the EPA to be, he wants to be about
clean air clean water. Not to be doing so much stuff on climate
change. At the moment they have put in place a block on the EPA
furthering grants and doing business and they have asked employees not to
communicate about that. Whether that will be reviewed and what will
happen, we don't yet know. Clean air and what is important but regarding
climate change the suggestion is the White House will take a more central
role on how America responds? You must understand the EPA has played a
crucial role under President Obama on climate change, the Supreme Court
Judge -- judged that carbon dioxide gas was a blatant and President
Obama used EPA to regulate that. President Trump and his team believe
the EPA is involved on putting up too much regulation that stop the
oil and gas industry and the coal industry and he wants to remove
those. The battle over climate has practical applications and President
Trump sees this as key to the way he revives industry throughout the US.
Is one of the applications that EPA will get smaller? That is what
people fear, if not shut down, at least curtailed in many ways. Scott
Pruitt, the Oklahoma Attorney General, who was likely to be the
head of the EPA, has taken lawsuits against EPA. The belief is they will
curtail this and its role in carbon dioxide production. We have talked
about Federal Communications and immigration and trade and
international security. We can talk about what he did on Monday.
On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order cancelling funds
for groups that offer abortions or abortion advocacy, even if they
This means that aid agencies working in foreign countries will lose
Today we've heard that the Netherlands is launching
a global fund to try and cover the lost funding.
The country's foreign ministry said "Where decisions are taken that
are bad for women in developing countries we should
"It's not about the politics, it's about those women."
PAI is a global reproductive health organisation and says "This
is a policy denying women life-saving services -
it will cut off funding for groups providing HIV testing kits
to teenagers, it will cut malaria programmes".
But Donald Trump and his supporters argue this move is justified.
The White House Press Secretary took on the issue on Monday.
This is Sean Spicer. I think the President has made it clear he is
pro-life. He wants to stand up for all Americans, including the unborn,
and the reinstatement of this policy is not just something that echoes
that value but respects Nick Sayer funding and ensures we stand up not
just for life and the life of the unborn but for all taxpayer funds
being spent oversized to perform an action that is contrary to the
actions of this President. -- overseas. This continues to grow.
Nancy Kacungira in Nairobi updated me on what this means
for aid organisations in developing countries.
Countries like Kenya. Simply, they are worried they will have to reduce
the number of services they offer to some of the oppressed people on the
continent. The thing about this iteration of the global bank is it
has spread the net wider and it encompasses not just family planning
at all global health funding. This means organisations working with
malaria programmes here and with maternal health programmes, whatever
it is, they have to ensure there is not a single part of any of those
programmes that does so much as offer the suggestion of abortion.
There is quite a lot of concern that this is going to impact them heavily
in terms of the services they can offer. There might be some Americans
who want to ask, why is it us that is required to provide the funding
for this? That is a long-standing commitment that the US has
continually made and abortion is a very contentious issue. Here in
Africa, there are 1.6 million cases related to unsafe abortions that are
tended to across the continent every year and there is not much funding
coming from anywhere else. Aid organisations have traditionally
relied on the United States for help with some of this funding,
especially in countries where the restrictions and the law allowed
abortion is very complex or very ambiguous. So it is for the longest
term partnership but the United States has been involved in with the
continent and many will be sad to see that change. Thank you. Let us
continue on the coverage of all the developments today involving the
Trump administration. I want to talk about Gary Cohn -
he's Mr Trump's pick to lead the US Until that job offer came, he's been
President of Goldman Sachs. His selection has sent the sent
Goldman Sachs shareprice soaring It has gone up. This is January and
it has been going up. He's going to have to divest
himself from the bank - The Wall Street Journal
puts a figure on it. It estimated that his exit will top
$100 million. First of all, what is this job? What will he be doing? You
will remember under the Obama administration he assembled a
council so people who were within the business community and also
economists who got around and talked a lot about what the direction of
the US economy and what should be done about it. This is an extension
of that same kind of idea. What is interesting is when you look at the
wider Trump economic team, including other members of that team, there
are a few Goldman Sachs veterans and that is part of the reason why we
see the stock value going up so much and that is probably one of the
biggest lifts to the Dow since the election, we have seen them entering
the Trump administration. That might lead to a lighter touch regulation
for the banking sector and perhaps we could see after the crash in
2008? Exactly right. But just for banks in general and Mr Trump has
spoken about this and his colleagues, about rolling back some
of those backing regulations but specifically regarding Goldman
Sachs, when you have more than a few people who are veterans of that bank
as part of the demonstration, there could be a lighter touch
specifically regarding that bank. Thank you for joining us twice. We
have been getting lots of questions for you. Specifically about
executive orders. We will get to those in a few moments.
Women are experiencing widespread discrimination when it comes
to dress codes at work, according to a parliamentary report.
MPs heard from hundreds of women who reported that the dress codes
She was told to wear high heels on her first day
Scarlet Harris is the women's equality officer at the TUC.
Melanie Bramwell runs a recruitment agency.
I caught up with them to hear about dress code discrimination
and how Nicola refused to toe the line.
When I realised that they were insisting that all women wore high
heels to portray their desired image, it made me realise that,
actually, my employer didn't want me to just look smart and professional,
And I didn't want to be seen as attractive in the workplace.
So, Scarlet, how widespread is the issue?
The committee found lots and lots of women talking
about their experiences of being made to wear,
not just high heels, but certain types of make up, being asked
to wear sheer blouses, being asked to wear skirts
The government said Nicola's dress code was unlawful,
But MPs said that the law wasn't effective enough, leaving employers
It is open to interpretation, as we say, the word reasonable
is used there and that is open to interpretation.
Is it so bad to ask a woman worker to wear a heel when we ask male
I think they are two entirely different things.
They took lots of evidence from women saying they were going
home with bleeding feet, they were taking painkillers
at night to be able to sleep because they were in so much pain
from the shoes they'd been wearing during the day.
That's just not comparable to wearing a tie or a suit jacket.
Some might say this is all a bit of a storm in a teacup.
They might very well do but you have to look at the bigger picture.
There are plenty of women who like to wear heels to work,
like to wear a face full of make-up to work.
This issue, the high heel thing, is symbolic of a hangover from that
1950s kind of era where women were only seen as secretaries
and receptionists, and now we are running the companies.
Let us wear what we want, as long as we are smart.
This is Outside Source live from the BBC newsroom.
Donald Trump has signed executive orders launching plans to build
a wall on the US-Mexico border and limiting funds to cities that
We can go back to Washington, Anthony Zurcher is here. We have a
lot of questions for you about executive orders. A couple of people
want to say, what about the funds? If you order something with
executive orders, can you worry that the funding is in place? You cannot
create new funding with executive orders but you can move the funding
around so Trump might be trying to move some funds for the wall
building previously allocated for other reasons into wall construction
or something for subsidies and aid to Mexico into wall construction but
Congress has the power and the purse and originally brings new funding
into existence and Congress has to pass an appropriation. Someone asks,
are the examples that fall outside the scope of executive orders? Well,
anything that creates new law, take an example, immigration, Congress
originally was trying to legalise what permanently normalise the
status of children who had come to the country as undocumented and make
them permanent residence or give them some immigration status and
they did not do that so Barack Obama used an Executive order to say, we
will not deport them, given temporary status. That was only a
temporary move, he could not make a lot to say these people are not
legal. In the same way he try to get Congress to pass laws increasing
regulation of firearms. He wasn't able to so he executive orders that
used some of his Presidential authority to increase scrutiny on
gun sales but he could not outright ban assault rifles or have larger
background checks at gun shows and things like that. Some people have
picked up on this point... How long do these executive orders last, I
have a prominent? Be last until they be repealed. Executive orders that
Barack Obama put into place lasted through the expiration of his term
into Donald Trump's term but because one President can do one thing,
another can it so Donald Trump can enter them when he wants as has done
with the abortion counselling and that he stated. We appreciate your
help. What about tomorrow? More on immigration, particularly taking a
look at people coming from other countries. There was talk about a
ban on Muslims, I don't think we will see that but we could see some
immigration visa bans on certain countries and also that could be
further looking at refugees, perhaps a ban on Serbian refugees and a
suspension of the US refugee programme. We will see. You will
help us through that. Thank you. We appreciate that. Thank you for all
of us who stayed with us. Lead story is President Trump has begun the
process of building a wall along the US Mexico border but there have been
many other developments besides. All the updates online. I will see you
tomorrow. Goodbye. This time yesterday John was
explaining how dry it has been in the last couple of months because of