Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
Soon: British PM To Speak On Increase In Defense Spending; E.U. Pushes To Boost Its Access To Ukraine's Minerals As U.S. Pressures Kyiv To Sign Deal; Israeli Tanks Deployed In The West Bank; U.K. PM Addresses Media About Increase In Defense Spending; U.S. National Parks In Crisis After 1,000 Workers Laid Off; First Lady Absent From Washington As Trump Begins Second Term. Aired 12-1p ET
Aired February 25, 2025 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[12:00:27]
ZAIN ASHER, CNN ANCHOR: It hasn't happened since the Cold War. The British government announces a huge increase in spending on defense.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: ONE WORLD starts right now.
2.5 percent of the GDP. The U.K. pledges it will accelerate defense spending as Keir Starmer prepares to go toe to toe with Donald Trump.
ASHER: Also ahead, the latest news from the Vatican. What we know about Pope Francis condition.
GOLODRYGA: And later, noticeably absent, Melania Trump returns to the White House after four weeks away from the spotlight.
ASHER: All right. Coming to you live from New York, I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. You are watching ONE WORLD.
And at any moment now, we're expecting British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to lay out details of a major increase in defense spending billed as the
biggest in decades.
ASHER: It comes ahead of the prime minister's crucial meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on Thursday. Mr. Starmer says he
wants Britain's relationship with the U.S. to go from strength to strength.
At issue here, Mr. Trump's startling change in U.S. policy over the war in Ukraine, putting him at odds with European allies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEIR STARMER, U.K. PRIME MINISTER: So starting today, I can announce this government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defense spending
since the end of the Cold War.
We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5 percent of GDP on defense, but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027.
Let me spell that out, Mr. Speaker. That means spending 13.4 billion pounds more on defense every year from 2027.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: CNN's international diplomatic editor Nic Robertson joins us live now from Downing Street. So you heard Keir Starmer there. 2.5 percent of
GDP by 2027 in terms of raising defense spending. That's an equivalent of 13 billion pounds.
Just walk us through, because obviously the British prime minister is meeting Donald Trump this week. Just walk us through what his approach will
be in terms of really getting Donald Trump to side with Ukraine in this war instead of Russia, and how his approach will differ from Emmanuel Macron.
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: You know, I think Keir Starmer goes into the White House on Thursday with his own set of issues.
You know, Elon Musk, who's very close to President Trump, of course, has actually been calling for Keir Starmer's ouster for poor handling of
various events in the country.
There is a feeling, certainly here in Downing Street, that this could be a potentially bumpy, potentially defining moment where Keir Starmer goes into
a White House that is not particularly predisposed to him and by forwarding and advancing the lines about increasing defense spending may go away to
ameliorate that $17 billion a year extra defense spending from 2027 going forward.
Those are the figures that Keir Starmer's talking about. And, of course, this is what President Trump has been asking for from European partners.
But what Keir Starmer was put on the table falls short of the five percent of GDP on defense spending that President Trump has been talking about.
So everyone recognizes that this could be a very strained meeting and witnessed that moment between Emmanuel Macron and President Trump when
Macron had to lean over and correct the record as he saw it with President Trump, that the money he's given to Ukraine are not loans.
You know, there will be pressure on Keir Starmer equally when he's in the room going through similar types of conversations in front of the cameras
to be firm on his position.
But the way that Starmer sees himself right now, he sees himself as a bridge, if you will. He said this is not, or he doesn't want a situation he
doesn't believe there should be a situation where the allies are choosing between are they, you know, reaching towards one side of the Atlantic or
reaching towards the other side of the Atlantic. They shouldn't be choosing between allies and partners.
And in that context, he really wants to have that relationship between Britain and the United States, as he says, go from strength to strength.
And that's the message that he'll be taking into that room with President Trump.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and something that works to Macron's advantage, perhaps not the same with Keir Starmer, is that there is a history and a relationship
between Emmanuel Macron and Donald Trump, going back to his first term in office, to where Macron felt comfortable enough to reach out and touch
Donald Trump and gently there correct him on the record about how much money has been appropriated by Europe towards Ukraine and their support
there.
[12:05:18]
Nic, can you talk about the issue of supporting Ukraine to the extent that Britain has since the war began, and large part even more significantly
than other European countries?
And this is coming at a time when there are a lot of economic challenges and concerns for the country, obviously, still coming out of Brexit,
definitely united with its European allies in terms of defense of Ukraine.
But how do Britons themselves feel about this support and this renewed message now from Keir Starmer stepping up, actually, the amount of defense
that will be going and allocated to Ukraine?
ROBERTSON: Yes. I think on the issue of the support for Ukraine, you know, there's a Ukrainian flag flying above Downing Street right now. 24th of
February yesterday, that third anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. There were a lot of commemoration events across London and other
parts of the country.
So I think Britain and its leaders and its people have seen themselves stepping into the breach to support Ukraine at the key time, being on a
front foot for it, providing vital weapons when they were needed. And still feel that that's a -- that's a very important position to be in.
So, I think Keir Starmer today, when he speaks in this upcoming press conference, will be his message, will be perhaps more to the people of
Britain than what he said in Parliament there and explain out why the U.K., and perhaps European partners need to up their defense spend because it's a
necessary step for security.
You know, the U.K. only has to look back a few years and see Russian agents on British soil trying to poison a former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal and
his daughter. These are -- these are very real and live issues in the U.K.
Where does the money come from? And, of course, this is the difficulty for Keir Starmer. He laid that out in parliament today. He said, this is a very
difficult choice because, you know, budgets are tight in this country at the moment.
The health service is in a difficult situation. You know, where does -- where does the Prime Minister turn to, to get the money? Well, he's turned
to the international development aid budget, and that was at 0.5 percent of GDP, is taking it down to 0.3 percent of GDP.
And, of course, that is not traditional for a Labour Party to take away that sort of social support internationally, and is already getting
criticism from some NGOs for it.
ASHER: All right. Nic Robertson, live for us there. Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Britain's move comes as Washington pressures Kyiv to sign a deal to access Ukraine's mineral rights as payment for any U.S. military
support. The European Union is also trying to boost access to Ukraine's minerals by expanding on a 2021 memorandum of understanding with Ukraine.
CNN's Nick Paton Walsh joins us now live from Kyiv. And, Nick, we heard from President Trump yesterday signaling that a deal could be imminent and
that we could see President Zelenskyy coming to Washington effectively to sign this deal.
Just how close are we from what you're hearing from sources there in Ukraine to seeing a deal finalized?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, to be honest, the public statements on this have been less today, but
I do feel, given the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, yesterday, and asked Trump how close is it, they said the one-yard line. And Zelenskyy
was invited by Trump to Washington to sign it in the Oval Office, that it is simply a matter of time.
But the issue really is going to be if Trump holds to that statement of inviting Zelenskyy to sign that he did previously say he'd meet Zelenskyy,
and the meeting never actually occurred. And then the contents of that deal.
The last information we had about that was that a lot of the trickiest stuff is to be left to later discussions, later deals, and that the
security guarantees that Ukraine so urgently wants won't be in that first draft, which a Ukrainian source familiar with the negotiations described as
a framework for Ukrainian reconstruction.
But I think there's also a lot to be said about how these two men get along if indeed they do meet in the Oval Office.
The bonhomie between Macron and Trump, well, remarkable to see, frankly, how we've managed to see the French president pull Trump so much more, it
seems, back into the European security orbit.
Macron did a lot of the talking in French next to Trump, outlining the what he believed was going to be American solidarity with European peacekeepers
or initiatives to provide security assistance to Ukraine. We don't know how much of that Trump necessarily will end up implementing, but it was a stark
change from two weeks where Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, had basically said, Europe, you can't rely on America to have your back in an
alliance going forwards, where the Vice President, J.D. Vance, had said that many of the Western democratic allies of the United States were
basically, I paraphrase here, tyrants afraid of their own voters.
[12:10:27]
Now we did have that extraordinary moment between Macron and Trump, and where Trump grabbed Macron's arm and called him a very -- he's a smart
customer, was the phrase that he said.
So, clearly, bringing Washington closer back towards European interests in that meeting, how that translates into Washington's separate discussions
with Moscow, which are moving on it seems relatively well and fast, according to many Trump officials, we don't know, and how much of that
sticks. We also don't know.
We've had a whiplash, frankly, from the past week. In terms of the Trump administration's policy towards Ukraine, it does look like a deal is
imminent. It does look like it will be watered down. It does hopefully mean that this first sort of obstacle is something they can step over and go
back to perhaps trying to improve the relationship.
It will probably make many in Kyiv here less concerned about the idea that we'll see an immediate freeze or stall in aid from the United States.
But so many questions unanswered. The Europeans now desperately trying to step in and suggest that they can help answer these to present a plan,
essentially, and ask the Americans what it is that they're willing to do to assist their plan.
But it is hard often to keep track of how fast the ground is changing here, and all of that is a gift to the Kremlin, who will be watching this
alliance pretty steadfast for three years, now looking shaky.
GOLODRYGA: Oh, watching closely, it was not an accident that just within the last 24 hours, Vladimir Putin seemed to counter with an offer for a
minerals deal with the United States and Russia separate of this between the U.S. and Ukraine.
Nick Paton Walsh, thank you so much.
And we want to tell you we will bring you that statement from the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer when it happens in just a few moments' time.
ASHER: Right. For the first time in two decades, Israel has deployed tanks to the West Bank.
GOLODRYGA: It comes amid Operation Iron Wall, which was launched by the IDF in the northern West Bank just last month, two days after the Gaza
ceasefire began.
Now, under the operation, some 40,000 Palestinians in the West Bank have been displaced, according to the U.N. One local official says the aftermath
resembles that of Gaza.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BASHER MATAHEN, SPOKESMAN, JENIN MUNICIPALITY (through translator): Jenin camp is a repeat of what happened in Jabalia. The number of houses that we
saw completely destroyed is in the hundreds. And the houses that were not destroyed were completely burned. And the houses that were not burned were
partially demolished. The camp has become uninhabitable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Israel says it's rooting out terrorists and their infrastructure. Jeremy Diamond takes a look at the destruction.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: As the Israeli military expands its military operation here in the occupied West Bank, we are
getting a first-hand look at some of the destruction that's been wrought in the Nur Shams refugee camp.
You can see all around me really, this entire area has been dug up by those D9 bulldozers. And we're also seeing evidence of powerful blasts that have
ripped open, for example, the front of this residential building.
The Israeli military began its expanded operation in the West Bank over a month ago, but it expanded it here to Nur Shams about two weeks ago.
And you can see here, for example, this used to be a pharmacy. And this kind of destruction is happening increasingly frequently in the West Bank,
resembling the type of military operations that the IDF has been carrying out in Gaza.
You also don't hear any people around me. We haven't seen many civilians in the area. And that's because of the displacement that has been happening
here in the Nur Shams refugee camp and Tulkarm and the Jenin refugee camp as well, where, overall, about 40,000 people have been forced to flee their
homes.
We spoke to some of those people earlier today who said that they really don't know when they're going to be able to return home. That's because the
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has said this military operation could last for over a year and that until that operation is over, the residents
of camps like this one, they will not be allowed to return home.
Jeremy Diamond, CNN, Nur Sham's refugee camp in the West Bank.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ASHER: All right. I want to bring in Firas Maksad. He's the managing director for Middle East and North Africa at the Eurasia Group and really
an expert on this region. Firas, thank you so much for being with us.
So the headlines, of course, are the fact that Israel is sending tanks into the West Bank, essentially for the first time in two decades. I just want
to get your take on the timing of all of this. Obviously, Israel is saying that they're rooting out terrorists. They're rooting out terrorist
infrastructure. At the same time, though, this is, of course, happening while there is this fragile ceasefire in Gaza, and also while Netanyahu is
under a lot of pressure by the far-right members of his government. Just give us your take on the timing here.
[12:15:12]
FIRAS MAKSAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, EURASIA GROUP: Absolutely, Zain. I mean, I think we have to put this in the broader
context of what Israel views as its confrontation with Iran's ring of fire. And obviously, over the past year and a half or so, everybody's been
focused on what's happening in Gaza with Hamas there, but also the war with Lebanon and Hezbollah.
And really, the Israeli views that this is a multi-front war, that there's at least seven fronts there, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen with the Houthis
there, Iran itself, and the West Bank.
Now, in terms of the most kind of immediate imperative as to why we're seeing tanks moving into the West Bank, we have to remember that about five
days ago, three buses blew up in Israel. There were another two that were supposed to blow up and did not.
ASHER: All right. Firas --
MAKSAD: And so there is --
ASHER: Firas, I'm so sorry I have to interrupt you because the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is speaking now. Let's listen in.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STARMER: Our continent united by freedom and democracy. If you told me then for then my lifetime, we would see Russian tanks rolling into European
cities again. I would not have believed you. Yet, here we are, in a world where everything has changed. Because three years ago in Ukraine, that is
exactly what happened.
Just reflect on that for a second. I think it's worth it. Just imagine you're walking to work, taking your kids to school. Just another February
morning like any other. Then suddenly, missiles, sirens, explosions, not in the distance, not on television, in your town, hitting your community,
killing your friends, and invading army in your country.
Now, the people of Ukraine have woken up to this nightmare for three years now. Their courage is inspiring. And Britain can be proud of its response.
British families have opened their doors to fleeing Ukrainians.
The yellow and light blue flag flies on church halls and churches, the length and breadth of this country. And I will put on record again that I
respect the robust response taken by the previous government. I supported it in opposition. And we have built on it in government, taking our support
for Ukraine to record levels.
But as the nature of that conflict changes, as it has done in recent weeks, it also brings our response into sharper focus. And I believe we must now
change our approach to national security so we are ready to meet the challenges of our volatile world.
The reason for this is straightforward. Putin's aggression does not stop in Ukraine. Russian spy ships menace our waters. Russian planes enter our
airspace. Russian cyber-attacks hit our NHS.
And just seven years ago, there was a Russian chemical weapons attack in broad daylight on the streets of Salisbury. We can't hide from this. And I
know people have felt the impact of this conflict through rising bills and prices. But unless Ukraine is properly protected from Putin, then Europe
will only become more unstable. And that will hurt us even more.
Furthermore, the great lesson of our history is that tyrants like Putin only respond to strength. So today, I have announced the biggest sustained
increase in defense spending since the end of the Cold War. We will keep our manifesto commitment to spend 2.5 percent of our GDP on defense.
But in light of the grave threats that we face, we will bring forward that target so we meet it in 2027. That is an increase of 13.4 billion pounds
year on year, compared to where we are today. And we will go further.
I have long argued that in the face of ongoing and generational challenges, European countries must do more for their own defense. That is
incontrovertible, a completely reasonable point. It is a generational challenge, of course it is, but one we must now take on.
[12:20:08]
So subject to economic and fiscal conditions. We will also set out a clear ambition for defense spending to rise to three percent of GDP in the next
Parliament.
Clearly, this is the first and foremost a security imperative. But I also believe that it's a tremendous opportunity. We can use this investment to
rebuild Britain's industrial base. The first test of defense policy is always whether it keeps our country safe. But the second should be whether
it improves the condition of the British people. Does it help provide the economic security that working people need? Because ultimately, that is
fundamental to national security as well.
So mark my words. We will make sure this investment maximizes British jobs, British growth, British skills, and British innovation. And we should be
optimistic about the change that it will deliver.
Nonetheless, in the short term, this investment can only be funded through hard choices. And so today, I've decided that we will fund the initial
increase in defense spending by cutting our spending on overseas development, moving from north 0.5 percent of GNI to north 0.3 percent.
I want to be clear. That is not an announcement that I'm happy to make. I'm proud of Britain's pioneering record on overseas development. And we will
continue to play a key humanitarian role in war-torn countries like Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza in tackling climate change and supporting international
efforts on global health challenges like vaccination.
And we will do everything to move towards a world where we can rebuild our development capacity. However, the realities of our dangerous new era mean
that the defense and national security of our country must always come first.
That is what I campaigned on in the general election. It is what we are delivering today, a new approach on defense, a revival of our industrial
base, a deepening of our alliances. The instruments of our national power brought together, creating opportunity, assuring our allies, delivering
security for our country.
That moments like this in our past, Britain has stood up to be counted. It has come together and it has demonstrated strength. And that is what the
security of this country needs now. And it is what this government will deliver.
I will now take questions from the media. I've got Beth from Sky first.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For months, you've refused to give a timeframe of when you'd hit spending 2.5 percent of GDP on defense, and now you've
accelerated that. Isn't the simple reality that a Trump White House has now bounced you into that acceleration and that decision?
And you say this is a generational moment, you referenced the Cold War. You sound like a Prime Minister in the war footing.
Should viewers be alarmed at how significant this moment is? And what does it really mean for our national security? Thank you.
STARMER: Well, Beth, this is a significant moment, and that is why we've got to rise this generational challenge. It is a moment where we have to
fight for peace through the action that we take.
And in relation to your question about the timing, I think in our heart of hearts, we've all known that this decision has been coming for three years,
since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine.
The last few weeks have accelerated my thinking on when we needed to make this announcement. And I'll be very clear about that. Because it is
absolutely clear to me now that the decision that, as it were, started life three years ago needs to be taken now to rise to the challenge that we have
to face.
The conflict in Ukraine is about the sovereignty of Ukraine. It's also about security and defense in Europe, and our security and defense. And the
first duty of government is to ensure that its citizens are secure, and that is why I'm taking that as a matter of duty and responsibility today.
[12:25:11]
Thank you, Beth. Can I go to Carl, ITV?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Prime Minister. I mean, the Russians have been in Ukraine for three years now. What has changed is the response from
the White House. You wouldn't be making this announcement today if you weren't going to see Donald Trump on Thursday, would you?
And could I also ask, is he the reason why you've decided to take the money for defense from the aid budget?
STARMER: Well, on the timing, I do think that this is a decision that's three years in the making. I do think that we've known that this decision
had to be taken.
Of course, the discussions about talks between the parties, a possible peace, what that might mean for European security, the role the U.K. would
have to play in that, has brought our response into sharp focus.
I have made a commitment for the safety and security of our country that we will play our full part in any security guarantees if we get that far. And
that includes a commitment, if necessary, to use capabilities such as putting our boots on the ground, subject to a U.S. backstop. But it is that
context and in that context that, yes, I have pushed our system to move this date forward because I think it's vital that we take this decision
now, that we rise to the occasion and we show the leadership that's needed across Europe in response to a very changed context. And that's why I've
made this decision today. Thank you.
Chris Mason (PH).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Prime Minister. Chris Mason (PH) from BBC News, picking up on Carl and Beth's question.
What do you say to those people who might think that Donald Trump is now effectively setting U.K. government policy?
And have you done an assessment on the impact of the cutting of the aid budget? Thank you.
STARMER: I've been arguing for some time in most of the meetings I've been to, since I've been Prime Minister for seven or eight months now, that
European countries, including the United Kingdom, needed to do more for our own collective self-defense and security. So that is not a new argument.
Yes, it's true, President Trump thinks we should do more. And I agree with him. It chimes with my thinking on this.
And by more, I mean more capability. I mean more coordination. And I need more spending. And we have to learn the lessons of the conflict,
particularly when it comes to capability and coordination.
The war being fought in Ukraine, I felt this very strongly when I was there a few weeks ago, is being fought now in a very different way to the way it
was being fought just three years ago. We're seeing firsthand what conflict looks like in Europe in 2025. We have to respond to that for the safety and
security of our country. So this is very much my decision, based on my assessment of the circumstances that we face as a country. And it is taken
first and foremost to ensure that the United Kingdom and its citizens are safe and secure. That is the first duty that I have as prime minister. It
is my duty, my responsibility, and that is why I have taken this decision today. Thank you.
Chris Hope (PH). Chris.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prime Minister, I'm from GB News. In July, Reform U.K. fought the election on a policy to increase defense spending to 2.5 percent
of GDP by 2027 and three percent of GDP after 2030, funded by a six billion pounds saving in the aid budget.
You said you would do the similar. You'll increase defense spending to 2.5 percent by 2027, three percent after 2030, funded by a six billion cut in
the aid budget.
Are you Nigel Farage in disguise?
Nigel Farage didn't even turn up for the debate in Parliament today. Nigel Farage just folding over Putin. That's not patriotism. That is not what
working people need.
What I have done is take the duty of Prime Minister seriously, which is to ensure that our citizens are safe and secure. And this decision is made to
ensure they are safe and secure.
It is a decision intended to ensure that we fight for the peace that we've enjoyed for the last 80 years. So that for generations to come, they can
enjoy the freedoms that we have enjoyed. So I've taken this with only one thing in mind, and that is the citizens of this country for whom I am
responsible.
Thank you, Chris. Theo (INAUDIBLE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Theo (INAUDIBLE). Are you concerned, Prime Minister, that come the spending review in the -- in the spring, later in the spring,
that you've taken this tough decision when it comes to defense spending, but you're also going to have to take tough decisions when it potentially
comes to tax rises, spending cuts across Whitehall, and that your own MPs and your own voters are going to turn to you and say, well, hang on a
moment, you can find the money for defense. Why can't you find the money for the things that we're really worried about?
STARMER: Look, I have taken tough decisions. We took tough decisions in the budget. We took decisions I didn't want to take in terms of national
insurance, winter fuel allowance, but we took those tough decisions as a political choice so we could put the money into the NHS and deliver the
reduction, for example, that we've seen in waiting lists.
[12:30:14]
And that is a choice. And you can't have both. You can't argue no tax rises, no winter fuel changes, but please, can we have the money for the
NHS as well? It's one or the other. So we've taken that choice. And we will have to make other choices.
I've taken a difficult choice today because I believe in overseas development. And I know the impact of the decision that I have had to take
today. And I do not take it lightly. I do not want to take it.
But the choice I've taken is that if we are going to ramp up defense spending in the way that I believe we have to, which underpins the decision
I've made, then it is important that on the same day that I set out the extra spending, I set out pounds and pence precisely how we're going to
fund it.
What you saw from the last government going into the election was a plan to increase defense spending by 2030 that was full of holes, that didn't have
credibility, that when probed had nothing material there.
This is too serious for that kind of politics. This is about a credible plan put forward to ensure the security and defense of our country and of
Europe. And that's why I've taken the difficult decision today to do a switch spend from development aid into defense, not a decision that I, as a
British Labour Prime Minister, would have wanted to take, but a decision that I must take in order to secure the security and defense of our
country.
Jason.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: All right. We've been listening to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer explain and really defend his decision to increase defense spending
to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2027.
Currently in the U.K., it's about 2.3 percent. He says this is a decision that he has not taken lightly, but obviously all roads point to Moscow and
Putin for causing this change in policy and spending by the British prime minister.
A few notable statements. He started out today by stating that if you had told him in his lifetime that Russian tanks would be rolling through
European cities, he would not have believed you.
And perhaps the most alarming of statements that we've heard from, not just the British Prime Minister but other European leaders, interestingly though
not by the current U.S. president, is that Putin's aggression doesn't stop at U.K. borders and going through the list of hybrid warfare tactics that
Russia has been exposing and really attacking its neighbors with over the course of the last few years, the most notable seven years ago and that is
the Skripal chemical poisoning with Novichok.
But this is coming at a really pivotal moment for the British prime minister, just two days before his meeting with Donald Trump here in
Washington. And the timing, obviously, no coincidence here, laying out a plan, a path for the United Kingdom and following suit with many other
European countries that have been alarmed over the course of the last few weeks and the developments coming out of Washington as it relates to the
war in Ukraine.
ASHER: I think it's important to note that the 2.5 percent of their GDP that he's increasing in terms of going towards defense spending, amounts to
about 13 billion pounds. And that is coming. This is where it gets kind of controversial, especially among the British press. And a lot of people in
the country are talking about this.
He's taking that money from overseas development aid. And that is one of the questions that he was asked there. He said, as a Labour government
leader, he's not proud of that at all, but it has to be done, given the circumstances that we are in.
Obviously, this comes after the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine. Macron and Starmer are both stepping up, trying to show a united front,
leadership, sort of trying to fill the shoes that have been left by the United States.
Keir Starmer is traveling to Washington this week. He's going to be meeting with President Trump. Telling him essentially that he needs to stand
shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine at this particular time and should not cave in to Vladimir Putin.
I want to bring in CNN's international diplomatic editor, Nic Robertson, who's been listening to this right outside Downing Street.
So what was interesting as well is the questions that he was asked there, the questions that Keir Starmer was asked there. A lot of the journalists
were trying to get him to sort of blame Donald Trump directly for this dramatic sort of shift in terms of the budget, but he wouldn't really go
there. He kept on sidestepping. Just walk us through what stood out to you, Nic, on that front.
ROBERTSON: Yes. Look, first and foremost, this was an absolute pitch to the British public, putting the story in their living rooms, beginning by
saying, imagine this scenario. You're walking your child to school, you're on the way to work, you hear the crashing of the bombs and the missiles,
and it's not in the distance, it's not on the television, but it's actually close to you, it's affecting your lives.
[12:35:15]
He wanted to make this real. He wanted people to understand why he feels that the country has come to this point a decision three years in the
making, he said, and what really turned him and to your point about journalists sort of trying to have him say that this was under pressure of
President Trump, in effect, to have him appear as if he's on the back foot, as if he is weak, as if the decision has been taken out of his hands, as if
it's President Trump that's dictating how the British government's budget should be divvied up. That's in essence the thrust of it.
And his pushback on that was very clear. War has changed. Russia is acting in British skies, in British seas, in British cyberspace, and on British
soil, as you pointed out the Novichok poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury in 2017.
The point that he made was, I have been there to Ukraine. I've seen it with my eyes. This is different. This is not the war of 2022. This has changed.
I see the reality. I've made the decision. It's a decision that's been coming over a long period of time. And this is not the pressure of Donald
Trump.
Keir Starmer here is doing something that is huge, as you noted there, in essence, in a way, telling the country that it is sort of going to a more
serious war footing. We need to take money from other places. It's a serious, big decision.
It is very hard for governments in an incremental war like the three-year war in Ukraine to explain to people why they're making such a significant
change. That's what he's doing here right now. That's the thrust. And as you say, not to show weakness in the face of President Trump. These are
decisions he has come to in national security interest. There must be benefits. He played up how, for example, this could benefit the economy,
benefit jobs. He would make sure that this defense spend is money spent in the U.K.
These are important cells. This is not going to be easy for him to push this concept over the line with the British public. They're receptive to
it. But here's a politician making tough choices, taking a step -- signaling a step change from the end of the Cold War, saying we must do
this if we want our children to have the peace and stability we have had over the past 80 years since World War II.
This is a significant speech. He is saying, we now need to step back to a time past we didn't have to expect to do. Not a lot of people kind of
perhaps get that at the level he's trying to explain it.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. Also really notable is that he praised his predecessors here. I believe he is the third prime minister, over the course of this war
now, who has been in office and has been a staunch defender and supporter of aid for Ukraine, going back to Boris Johnson when this war began.
And it was notable, given the rhetoric you hear from President Trump against his predecessor, to hear the current prime minister really giving
credit to his own predecessor by saying he supports the position that they took in supporting Ukraine. And if anything, he is increasing that support
with this announcement today.
Nic Robertson, thank you so much.
ASHER: Thank you, Nic.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be right back with more news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:40:18]
ASHER: All right. Donald Trump's own administration can't say who's in charge of DOGE or what exactly it does. But the clock is ticking for
millions of federal employees afraid that they'll be fired if they don't comply with an email ultimatum from the White House unit known as the
Department of Government Efficiency.
GOLODRYGA: Over the weekend, Elon Musk threatened workers with termination if they didn't justify why they should keep their job. That directive
triggered confusion and chaos as a growing number of agency heads told their own employees not to respond.
Well, hours before the original deadline was set to expire, Musk said workers would be given a second chance, but failure to comply then would
result in termination.
Despite widespread skepticism over DOGE's claim of fraud stamped out and money saved, the U.S. House Speaker has nothing but praise for the tech
billionaire.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Elon has cracked the code. He is now inside the agencies. He's created these algorithms that are constantly crawling
through the data. And as he told me in his office, the data doesn't lie.
We're going to be able to get the information. We're going to be able to transform the way the federal government works at the end of this. And that
is a very exciting prospect.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: If you ask Americans what parts of the federal government they like, you won't get many positive answers.
For the FBI, the Centers for Disease Control, and most other agencies, the up votes barely outweigh the downs.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. But one clear exception is the National Park Service. Poll after poll shows Americans love their parks and respect the hard work of
rangers and guides. Still, that hasn't stopped Elon Musk from wielding his chainsaw even there.
The Park Service has fired 1,000 workers in recent weeks. And now many parks are reducing the hours they are open and cutting guided tours.
ASHER: Yes. Over the weekend, several park rangers at Yosemite National Park hung an American flag upside down, the universal sign of distress, on
top of the famous El Capitan climbing mountain.
Park workers say they're being treated unfairly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDRIA TOWNSEND, FORMER CARNIVORE SPECIALIST AT YOSEMITE: There was the guise of this is done based on merit but it was not. It was arbitrary. And
it made me really angry. I work really hard at my job. I have two degrees. I studied fishers my entire life. And to tell me that I'm not meeting the
standards of my job, yes, like I said, it's the complete lie.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Time now for The Exchange. And joining us is Liz Crandall. Liz was recently laid off after nine years with the National Forest Service.
She was a forestry protection officer tasked with ensuring the health and survival of trees and wildlife and even risking her life while fighting
forest fires.
Liz, thank you so much for joining the show. I wish it was under better circumstances. I'm so sorry for you losing a job in an industry you clearly
love and have spent nearly a decade working in.
I understand you had just received a permanent position in your post when you got an email saying that you were just -- you were fired for poor
performance. Tell us your reaction, what happened subsequently, and why you want the viewers here to hear your story.
LIZ CRANDALL, LAID OFF U.S. FOREST SERVICE EMPLOYEE: Absolutely. And thank you so much for having me. I wish it was under better circumstances as
well.
Yes, so everything's been happening so quickly. I work for the Forest Service and I'm out of the shoots out of Oregon. And I learned on Friday
first that they were going to be letting go of one-year probationary employees. And I'm a two-year under Schedule A disability hire. So I
thought I was safe.
And then going into the weekend on a Saturday, at 3:00 P.M. I got a phone call from our forest supervisor who said, I'm so sorry, but you are being
terminated. This is not the forest decision. This is coming from higher up from the administration and she felt terrible.
[12:45:12]
And then reading my letter, my termination letter, it said, it indicates that I have poor performance and that I haven't demonstrated that my
further employment at the agency would be in the public interest, which was pretty bizarre to see because of the low performance evaluations.
ASHER: Right. So the poor performance, you know, based on what you've said, just in terms of your evaluation, the poor performance was literally an
excuse and clearly wasn't true based on what you're saying here.
What are your legal options at this point, Liz?
CRANDALL: Yes. So I'm going to be working with the union. I am a bargaining unit employee, since I'm not a supervisor. I was a government salary GS-6,
which is pretty low on the scale compared to, you know, our district ranger, which is a GS-12 plus. So I don't make much money. So I'm --
luckily, I'm protected by the union and they are going to be filing agreements to try to get our jobs back and to give us back pay and we give
our benefits back and, yes, just give us some maybe some damage pay. Who knows?
But I will definitely be fighting it because I love my job. And it's really sad that I had to lose it under these circumstances.
GOLODRYGA: Liz, and while we are -- so sorry that you are going through this. There are thousands of Americans who find themselves in similar
positions all the time.
If you can explain to our viewers why the work that you do and your colleagues as well, as we noted, a thousand had received similar
termination notices. Why this is important for the general public to be alarmed about? How is this impacting Americans, let's say, that love to go
to our national parks for vacations to see -- to the the beauty of it all?
CRANDALL: Yes. Thank you for asking because that's a really important thing for people to think about going into this year. So we're going to be seeing
more trash in the forest not being cleaned up as often, since I'm a field ranger or I was. That was my main jobs was going into remote areas and
cleaning up trash dumps. And now that people like myself aren't going to be out there as frequently due to these firings, we're going to see more
trash.
We're also going to see less amenities and facilities opening or they will be open for shorter seasons, longer wait times, overcrowding due to places
being closed and then some areas being open. So people are having to reroute.
There's definitely going to be more illegal activity that's going to be not accounted for because again -- like I'm a forest protection officer, so I
write citations for people doing illegal activity like natural resource damage or dumping of household trash, et cetera.
And then also projects being delayed. Like we have big projects in our forests like restoration and things like that are going to be delayed or
just canceled because we don't have enough personnel to carry them through, as well as prolonged wildfire incidents, because many of us that were fired
are militia, which means that we are qualified to fire fight, but we are not firefighters in our job title.
So I'm a firefighter type two, a resource advisor and a security incident manager. And now there are people like me and myself that will not be able
to go on these incidents and help.
And then lastly, I would say there's going to be a strain on law enforcement because we already have short staff with law enforcement on
national forests and now they're going to have a lot higher demand without more workers out in the field.
ASHER: I'm so glad that you lay that out because I think sometimes it can be difficult for people to understand, well, you know, how is this actually
going to affect me. They hear the sort of headlines that a number of people have been laid off at the forest service, at the park service, but they
don't really understand how it affects them.
And I'm so glad that you also pointed out that part of your job was to fight fires, you know. Maybe you weren't a firefighter technically, but
that is such an important aspect of the job that you were carrying out. And as Bianna was saying, we are so sorry that you were a casualty in all of
this. And I, you know, we hope that it works out. Obviously, you are taking legal action and you're enlisting the union's help. So hopefully, fingers
crossed, it does work out for you. We wish you all the best.
GOLODRYGA: Thank you, Liz.
ASHER: Thank you.
We'll have much more news after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:50:01]
GOLODRYGA: First Lady Melania Trump has been absent, as President Donald Trump had a whirlwind first month in office welcoming world leaders.
ASHER: She has also missed the signings, the countless executive orders, and other major events as well. The First Lady returned to the White House
Saturday after four weeks away from the spotlight. So what exactly is the explanation?
Let's bring in CNN senior White House producer Betsy Klein. Where is Melania Trump? Why haven't we seen her as much this time around, Betsy?
BETSY KLEIN, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE PRODUCER: Well, I think it's a remarkable break in precedent for a first family, but it shouldn't be
surprising to those who have long observed Melania Trump.
We had reported during the presidential transition that the first lady was expected to spend a majority of her time between New York, where of course
Barron is in school and college, and Trump -- at Trump -- living at Trump Tower, as well as Palm Beach staying at Mar-a-Lago, where the president
himself has spent a majority of his weekend since taking office.
But sources at the time during the transition said that she certainly would be at the White House present for major events and have her own platform
and priorities. But so far, we have seen her skip a number of those major executive order signings, signings of major legislation and accomplishments
for the president in his first days in office, as well as the visits of the prime ministers of India, as well as Israel, Japan, the King of Jordan. She
has not been present for any of those.
The extent of her absence is really more significant than previously expected. So we saw the First Lady have a very robust start to her first
days in office. We saw her at the inauguration in that hat.
And then again, as she joined the president in North Carolina, in California, meeting with people who had been impacted by wildfires and
hurricane and other natural disasters. But after that, that day, she flew to Pacific Palisades, and at LAX, we saw the First Lady and her team split
off from the president, who went on to do a number of additional stops himself, and she returned to Florida, according to White House Press
Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
From January 24th until this Saturday, she did not return to Washington at all, at a four-week period. Really remarkable and surprising.
But what she hasn't done so far, I think, is more notable. She has not spoken publicly. She has not done any solo or domestic travel. She also
hasn't really offered any hints on how she's going to expand or redeploy her Be Best platform. So a lot of unanswered questions from this
notoriously private First Lady who's clearly doing things on her terms this time around.
ASHER: All right. Senior White House producer, Betsy Klein. Thank you so much, Betsy.
GOLODRYGA: There's breaking news to bring you out of Chicago. A Southwest Airlines plane and a private jet experienced a close call at Midway
International Airport this morning.
This video of the incident was just released. And you can see the small plane on the runway -- we can show you the video. There you go. Just under
the Southwest jet.
Now, the flight crew had to perform a go-around to prevent a potential incident. According to Southwest, the flight landed safely after avoiding
the other aircraft on the runway.
[12:55:09]
We should note that near misses have always occurred and so not to spark added alarm here given the number of --
ASHER: It's been quite a crazy few weeks --
GOLODRYGA: Yes, yes.
ASHER: -- in terms of air travel.
GOLODRYGA: Air travel and safety concerns there. But that is a bit too close to call watching that video.
Also bringing you this. Legendary hip hop group, Wu-Tang Clan, will set out on their final tour later this year. Write down the dates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know what forever means? There's no beginning or ending babe. It doesn't stop, OK? The future is now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: Takes me back to high school, doesn't it?
GOLODRYGA: We need to bring those videos from high school.
ASHER: Wu-Tang Forever: The Final Chamber, kicks off June 6th in Baltimore, Maryland. The group is going to be performing shows in a number of American
and Canadian cities through the end of July. Stops include Atlanta, L.A., Chicago, Toronto, and right here in New York.
GOLODRYGA: See? We can make a date out of it. Tickets are available starting on Friday. And there will be no presale. Rapper RZA says the group
will be playing songs they've never played before with a stage production unlike anything you've ever seen.
There's a sell. Yes.
ASHER: All right. That does it for this hour of ONE WORLD. I'm Zain Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. And I'll be right back after a quick break with "AMANPOUR."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:00:00]
END
