← The Daily
The Daily
The U.S. Keeps Killing Venezuelans on Boats. Is That Legal?
00:35:25
The U.S. military has blown up three boats in the Caribbean Sea in the past three weeks, killing 17 people aboard. Each time, President Trump has claimed that the boats were carrying drugs to the United States and that those killed were “narcoterrorists.” But he has offered no concrete evidence to back up this claim. Charlie Savage, who covers national security for The New York Times, tells us what he has learned about what may be the true objective behind these airstrikes and whether any of this is even legal.
Loading summary
Transcript87 lines
- [00:00]
Capital One Announcer
Brought to you by the Capital One Savor Card. With Savor, you earn unlimited 3% cash back on dining, entertainment and at grocery stores. That's unlimited cash back on ordering takeout from home or unlimited cash back on tickets to concerts and games. So grab a bite, grab a seat and earn unlimited 3% cash back with the saver card. Capital One what's in your wallet? Terms apply. See capitalone.com for details.
- [00:26]
Natalie Kitroeff
From the New York Times, I'm Natalie Kitroweff. This is the Daily One by One. Over the past few weeks, three boats in the Caribbean Sea have been blown up by the US military, killing all 17 people aboard each time. President Trump has claimed three that the boats were carrying drugs to the US and that those killed were narco terrorists. But he's offered no concrete evidence to back up that claim. Today, my colleague Charlie Savage on what he's learned about what may be the true objective behind these airstrikes and whether any of this is even legal. It's Thursday, September 25th. Charlie, it's great to have you.
- [01:36]
Charlie Savage
Thanks for having me on.
- [01:38]
Natalie Kitroeff
We've come to you to talk about what's been happening off the coast of Venezuela over the past month. We've now seen three separate US Military strikes on boats that American officials say were carrying drugs. And those strikes have come after Trump has been building up a military presence in the Caribbean Sea for weeks now. You cover national security, so help us understand what's going on here.
- [02:04]
Charlie Savage
President Trump and the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, have ordered military special operations forces in the Caribbean to attack boats in international waters, at least for now, that are suspected of smuggling drugs for certain cartels and gangs that Trump has controversially designated as terrorist organizations. And this is a fundamental shift in how the United States has been dealing for years and years with the problem of drug smuggling coming out of Latin America, across the water towards the United States. In a really dramatic and legally disputed shift, the United States is claiming a right to summarily kill everyone on a boat it suspects of drug running in international waters to essentially treat the issue of drug smuggling as if it's an armed attack on the United States and to kill people suspected of participating in that activity as if they were combatants on a battlefield in a war.
- [03:13]
Natalie Kitroeff
Safe to say, these are extraordinary and unprecedented moves.
- [03:18]
Charlie Savage
Absolutely. There's been pushing and tugging on the laws around armed conflict and the use of force in the 21st century because of the war on terrorism and the notion of a war against a non state actor like al Qaeda. But this is fundamentally different than that. This is treating people who are civilians, even if they are suspected of being criminals, as if they were combatants and killing them without any kind of due process.
- [03:47]
Natalie Kitroeff
Okay, so take me to the beginning of this story. Where does all this start?
- [03:54]
Charlie Savage
Well, for me and my colleagues like Colleen Cooper and Eric Schmidt, who cover the Pentagon, and Julian Barnes also, who covers intelligence, we've all been working on this a lot together. It starts in August when we picked up chatter and were able to confirm that Trump had secretly signed an order in late July directing the military to use military force, that is to target with lethal force suspected drug smugglers from groups that his administration had designated as terrorists. Normally, when Trump does something like that, he touts it, he puts it up on the Internet, he signs it with a flourish in front of cameras. It was very unusual that this was happening without any publicity. And so throughout August, we were watching as, number one, an enormous amount of naval firepower was moved into the South Caribbean Sea. And as the Trump administration ratcheted up its rhetorical attacks on Venezuela's government, its strongman, President Nicolas Maduro, they kept calling him a cartel leader, illegitimate, et cetera, suggesting the focus was going to be Venezuelan. And indeed, on September 2nd, Trump is talking to some reporters in the Oval Office when he suddenly says, we just over the last few minutes literally shot out a. About drug carrying boat, a lot of drugs in that boat. That just that same day, the United States had conducted a military strike on a boat came out of Venezuela and coming out very heavily from Venezuela. A lot of things are coming out of Venezuela.
- [05:41]
Natalie Kitroeff
So.
- [05:41]
Charlie Savage
And that we would be hearing more about that. And soon after, on his social media platform, he posted a description of this strike. He said he'd killed 11 people who were aboard the vessel and which he said was smuggling drugs on behalf of the Trenda Aragua Venezuelan gang, which he had designated as terrorists. And there was a video from different views of aerial surveillance, showing a boat on water, not clear exactly who or what is on board, and then it explodes. And the scale of the death 11 people, was also very striking because a boat that is smuggling cargo, one of these sort of go fast boats, does not need a crew of 11 that just takes up space. You could put more drugs on the boat if that's what, indeed what was happening. And so it also immediately raised questions about who was actually on this boat, how good the intelligence was. Was there some human trafficking going on, too, Some migrants or something on the boat who had nothing to do with drugs and were also now killed. But it was clear at that point that this secret order we had written about and this buildup of forces in the Caribbean Sea had now been used for the first time.
- [07:08]
Natalie Kitroeff
Charlie, it sounds like, one, this was a remarkable moment, and two, that you were actually skeptical that this was even a drug boat. It wasn't clear based on the evidence.
- [07:20]
Charlie Savage
Well, there was no evidence. There was just an assertion. And then there was this oddity of why are there so many people on this boat? And there was an immediately a reaction among experts in the law of armed conflict, retired Senior Judge Advocate General officers who used to be in charge of telling the military where the limits lay and what was permissible in terms of using force. And. And a hallmark of the entire ethos is you do not deliberately target civilians, even criminal suspects, unless they are directly participating in hostilities. And the Trump administration has not put out a detailed legal rationale for how this isn't just murder. They've gestured at the outlines of a rationale.
- [08:08]
Natalie Kitroeff
What have they said exactly, Charlie, about the rationale behind this?
- [08:14]
Charlie Savage
They have said that at a time in which 100,000Americans a year die from drug overdoses, Trump has the authority to lawfully decide that the criminal problem of drug smuggling and drug trafficking is essentially an armed attack on the United States, that the United States can use military force in self defense against drug trafficking, and that therefore he has constitutional authority to kill these people.
- [08:48]
Natalie Kitroeff
The argument is that these drug trafficking groups are threatening Americans, are killing Americans with the drugs that they smuggle into the United States, and that that is enough to declare them terrorists.
- [09:02]
Charlie Savage
At this point, all we have is, for the first attack, especially September 2nd, is President Trump's assertion that the intelligence was confident that this boat was carrying drugs that would eventually be bound for the United States. Further complicating that is just because if there are drugs on a boat, just because they're leaving one country down there doesn't necessarily mean they're bound for here. It looked like it was going to Trinidad and Tobago from Venezuela, and that's often a transshipment point to Europe. In any case, all we have is Trump saying, we have recordings. We know it was on the boat.
- [09:37]
Natalie Kitroeff
Take our word for it.
- [09:38]
Charlie Savage
Basically, take our word for it. And then it turns out that the video he released, which shows a boat moving in the water and then blown apart, is not the whole story because it was edited. And the people who have been briefed on the unedited video say that, number one, the boat had turned around before the United States military attacked it. It had apparently seen an aircraft Kind of stalking it and gotten freaked out. Whoever was piloting the boat and turned around and was pointed back towards Venezuela. And two, that it didn't just take one strike to settle the matter. Even after the first strike disabled the boat, they struck it several more times to make it sink.
- [10:27]
Natalie Kitroeff
And you're saying the boat was actually facing away from the United States when those strikes happen?
- [10:34]
Charlie Savage
That's apparently what the unedited surveillance video shows. And there was such controversy surrounding this thing the US Military had done that it wasn't clear whether this was going to be a one off or they were going to keep going. But then last week, Trump announced a second and then a third strike on two more boats. Each time in those cases, he said they had killed three people aboard each of those vessels.
- [11:04]
Natalie Kitroeff
So we know it's not a one off. It's now something of a pattern.
- [11:08]
Charlie Savage
That's right. And we actually know less about them in some respects. In the second attack, Trump said that it was Venezuelans aboard, didn't identify a particular organization. Third attack, he didn't even give a nationality for who was aboard or identify a particular cartel or gang he said was behind the smuggling. We do know that they have said each of these attacks so far has taken place in international waters, and the third attack took place off the coast of the Dominican Republic. And interestingly, the Dominican Republic forces went out to the site of the attack and over the weekend and have said that they were able to recover some floating bales of what appear to be drugs. And they released some photographs of that. And that's the first evidence we have that there was, in fact, drugs on board, apparently at least one of these vessels.
- [12:02]
Natalie Kitroeff
The point is, in each of these cases, the Trump administration is not giving us enough information to independently assess really what happened. If we are to take them at their word for a moment that these were drug traffickers smuggling a bunch of drugs into the U.S. can the U.S. military just shoot boats like this out of the water? Is that allowed?
- [12:28]
Charlie Savage
Not under any traditional understanding of how constraints, both in domestic law and international law and the use of force works, any more than a police officer who sees someone he thinks is dealing drugs on a street corner can just pull out his gun and shoot the person dead. Drug smuggling is a crime, a serious crime, but it is dealt with as a law enforcement measure. And for many years, the way the United States and other countries have dealt with the problem of drug smuggling in the Caribbean Sea and elsewhere is that the US Coast Guard, with assistance from the US Navy, interdicts these Boats, boards them, searches them. If it turns out the suspicions are accurate, it seizes the drugs and arrests the crew for prosecution. And if it turns out the suspicions are not accurate, it lets the people go. It doesn't kill them on suspicion.
- [13:26]
Natalie Kitroeff
Well, how is the Trump administration legally justifying this, then? Like within the general outlines of the rationale that you mentioned, what's the legal basis that they're using to say, you know, this is okay, this is permissible?
- [13:41]
Charlie Savage
Traditionally, an administration doing something this edgy and novel would seek to justify itself by putting out a long legal memo, probably written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. And you may or may not agree with it, but at least you would have something to talk about. You could sink your teeth into it and people could say, well, this is where they're really pushing it, and we disagree, but there would still be something there. In this case, they haven't really put out anything like that. There's some stray comments and a terse statement. The White House put out a couple sentences of after people like me pushed them to say something. And so we are sort of left to fill in the blanks for them. And their argument seems to hinge on the idea that they can expand who counts as a terrorist and expand what a government can do to someone it is deemed a terrorist.
- [14:44]
Natalie Kitroeff
We'll be right back.
- [14:53]
Capital One Announcer
Ollie knows the back to school chaos all too well. Schedules, carpools, relearning algebra 2. It's a lot for you and your crew. Ollie makes wellness an easy and delightful part of your routine. Need immune support? Kids will enjoy. Try Kids Multi plus Probiotic. Is bedtime a struggle? Go with kids, Sleep for gentle support Moms support your immune system, nutrition and more with women's multi. Grab these products@ollie.com or retailers nationwide. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
- [15:27]
Jonathan Swan
I'm Jonathan Swan. I'm a reporter at the New York Times. You know, when people think about the media, your favourite podcast, you know, cable news panels and different things, I think it's fair to say that myself and my reporting colleagues at the New York Times exist at the more unglamorous end of that spectrum. Our job is to dig out the facts that provide a foundation for these conversations. These facts don't just come out of the ether. It requires reporters to spend hours upon hours talking to sources, digging up documents. Also, if the story is a story that a powerful person doesn't want in print, there's threats of lawsuits and all kinds of things. So it's a really massive operation. There aren't that many places anymore who invest at that level in journalism. Without a well funded and rigorous free press, people in power have much more leeway to do whatever the heck it is that they want to do. If you think that it's worthwhile to have journalists on the job digging out information, you can subscribe to the New York Times, because without you, none of us can do the work that we do.
- [16:29]
Natalie Kitroeff
You said, Charlie, that the Trump administration's justification for these strikes hinges in part on the administration defining drug traffickers as terrorists. Are they terrorists? Like, what's the definition of a terrorist?
- [16:47]
Charlie Savage
So in everyday language, a terrorist group is an organization that is using violence to advance some kind of ideological, religious, political goal. They're trying to coerce a government into changing its policy. They're trying to overturn a government and replace it with something new. They're trying to intimidate a population into changing its attitude towards something. And because that seems so insidious and sort of different than ordinary crime, it is treated differently by the law. And one of the ways it's different is that Congress has empowered the executive branch to designate foreign organizations as terrorists organizations. And so the precursor to this eruption of violence in the Caribbean Sea is that several months ago, after the Trump 2 administration came into office, it began designating drug cartels and Latin American gangs as foreign terrorist organizations. And that had never been done before.
- [18:01]
Natalie Kitroeff
Right.
- [18:02]
Charlie Savage
Because these are not groups that are motivated by religion or politics. They are groups that are motivated by the pursuit of illicit profit.
- [18:10]
Natalie Kitroeff
Right. I remember I was in Mexico at the time as a foreign correspondent, and this was major news for the cartels in the region. They were all trying to suss out what this meant, what it meant that they were now being compared to suicide bombers.
- [18:25]
Charlie Savage
Well, it's a major escalation. And these are not what we think of as terrorists. And they're not actually trying to kill Americans with their products, even though that clearly does happen, especially with fentanyl. They want people to keep buying their product, and therefore they don't prefer to kill them. That is not to say that these are good people. These are obviously not moral, upstanding people who are making positive contributions to human society.
- [18:52]
Natalie Kitroeff
Right. And their motivation is also not to change policy, it's not to change a government. It's not ideological. But Trump, once he's declared that them terrorists, whether that fits the traditional definition or not, can he order them to be killed? By the military at that point.
- [19:10]
Charlie Savage
No. And this is part of what is fundamentally a disconnect here with the extent to which the administration has offered any kind of legal theory. They have suggested that the act by the executive branch of designating an organization as a foreign terrorist group brings with it legal authority to attack that group militarily. And it's just not true. As a description of legal reality.
- [19:36]
Natalie Kitroeff
Right.
- [19:36]
Charlie Savage
That authority is limited to imposing economic sanctions, freezing accounts, making it a crime to provide material support to such an organization. It does not come with the authority to attack them as if it were a war. And I think it's worth pausing here to recall since we've had 20, 25 years of a war on terror now, what that really is, which is that after 9 11, Congress enacted a broad authorization for the use of military force against essentially Al Qaeda in countries that harbored Al Qaeda, which meant the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that therefore meant the United States was engaged in an armed conflict with a particular group of terrorists, not all terrorists everywhere in the world, but Al Qaeda. And in the years since then, the war on Al Qaeda has expanded as the original Al Qaeda has splintered and morphed and moved around the world to failed states like Somalia and rural Yemen and groups like what we now call the Islamic State. That use of military force to target them for death has continued because there is a congressionally authorized war against this particular group of terrorists. But that doesn't mean that the executive branch has open ended authority to kill people it deems any kind of terrorist anywhere in the world it might find them. It doesn't even mean that the executive branch could kill Al Qaeda suspects in a place like Paris or London where there's a police force that could arrest them. There's constraints on the use of armed force, both as a matter of domestic and international law, that are not overcome by the executive branch saying we're going to designate this group as a foreign terrorist organization.
- [21:40]
Natalie Kitroeff
Given that what we're seeing here off the coast of Venezuela sounds pretty far, far away from being legal.
- [21:50]
Charlie Savage
I have been struck by how widespread the alarm for what is happening is among the various spectrum of people who pay attention to the laws of armed conflict. We've had 20 years of arguments over the war on Al Qaeda and all of those people, from the left to the right, from the dovish to the hawkish, are agreed, as far as I can tell, that this has crossed a line. And it's not just something that Trump is doing on his own, but he and Pete Hegseth are causing the troops, American troops under their command, to cross this line themselves.
- [22:32]
Natalie Kitroeff
So does this then get challenged? How does it get challenged? Whose job is it to do something about the illegality of these strikes if.
- [22:44]
Charlie Savage
These strikes are illegal? You know, we don't have a court ruling that says that. I'm just describing the conversation outside the government.
- [22:51]
Natalie Kitroeff
Sure.
- [22:52]
Charlie Savage
It's difficult to see a forum where this gets cleanly adjudicated. The most obvious place as a matter of international law would be the International Criminal Court in the Hague, which notably right now is prosecuting the former president of the Philippines for crimes against humanity and murder for his war on drugs, which included gunning down people in the street who were suspected of being drug dealers. But the United States has not joined the International Criminal Court, and so there's probably not ever going to be jurisdiction there. And the legal experts I've spoken to all think it's incredibly unlikely that domestically soldiers would ever be prosecuted for obeying the president's orders. And thanks to the Supreme Court last year, the president now, of course has immunity for his official actions. And so I don't think there's going to be a lawsuit or a prosecution anywhere that will give us a definitive answer. So I think what we're talking about more is just a political reaction and just a thought of what does this mean for the soldiers under the command of these people who are executing these orders, to say nothing of what does this mean for people on boats in the Caribbean.
- [24:17]
Natalie Kitroeff
Yeah, you're painting a very complicated road to any potential accountability here. But what about Congress? I mean, they have the oversight role here. Can they do anything?
- [24:29]
Charlie Savage
Theoretically, yes, if there were political will. And that's a huge question right now, obviously, under the War Powers Resolution, which is a Vietnam era law that gives Congress some tools, it could, for example, vote on a resolution directing the executive branch to end its military operation. And in fact, there is such legislation being introduced right now by Senators Adam Schiff and Tim Kaine. You will notice that they are both Democrats and there is not a majority of Democrats in either the House or the Senate right now. And Trump could veto such a resolution directing him to end the operation. So you would need two thirds majorities in both chambers.
- [25:13]
Natalie Kitroeff
Not likely to happen.
- [25:14]
Charlie Savage
The flip side is one of the things we learned last week is that there is a slightly mysterious draft bill that is circulating within the executive branch and within Congress that would authorize use of armed force against groups that Trump deems to be narco terrorists. And it's interesting that that's floating around and Whether it could in fact pass Congress to at least legalize this as a matter of domestic law is questionable in a period in which there's a lot of fatigue over the forever war, open ended war on terror.
- [25:47]
Natalie Kitroeff
Is this draft bill you're describing, basically an authorization for a war on narco terror similar to the post 911 war on terror in the Middle East? Is that what we're looking at, this bill?
- [26:00]
Charlie Savage
Yes. And, you know, we're so used to thinking about the war on drugs going back to the 80s as this sort of metaphor. And so, yes, this would be a literal war on groups and people that Trump deems to be narco terrorists and countries he deems to have harbored or aided them. And so to the extent that all this military hardware in the Caribbean and the discussion of cartels as terrorists also seems to be pointed at Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela, who the Trump administration very clearly would like to see not in power.
- [26:38]
Natalie Kitroeff
Well, let's talk about Venezuela and what the Maduro regime has to do with all of this, because you hear the Trump administration saying this is about fighting drug trafficking. But, but Venezuela is not a major source of fentanyl coming into the United States. So what's this about? Why the focus on Venezuela right now?
- [27:00]
Charlie Savage
Yes, I think that is perhaps the most important question in trying to make sense of all this from the outside and to really start to peel it back. I think we have to go back in time a couple months before this military operation started to really see how focused Trump and people like Marco Rubio around him are on Maduro and Venezuela in particular. Right after Trump comes into power, your listeners may remember there was a giant controversy over the Alien enemies Act, an 18th century wartime deportation law that allows the government to summarily remove people who are citizens of a country from that we are at war with or that is invading us. And Trump tried to, in fact, successfully sent a couple plane loads full of Venezuelans to this notorious prison in El Salvador without giving them due process hearings under a claim that he could do so under this law that had not been used since World War II. But as part of that, Trump declared in an official document that he signed that this Venezuelan gang that he had designated as terrorists, trend Aragua, was controlled by Maduro, was coming to the United States and committing crimes here at the direction of Maduro.
- [28:24]
Natalie Kitroeff
Is there any evidence of that, Charlie?
- [28:26]
Charlie Savage
Right. So part of what's fascinating about that is that it turns out that the US Government does not believe that's true, that the intelligence community actually has produced memos, evaluating the available evidence, and thinks the opposite is true, that this gang, for one thing, is not organized enough to pass on orders to anybody. It doesn't have a sort of central hierarchy, command and control structure. But two, it's actually at odds with Maduro. And Maduro forces are get into gunfights with them and so forth. And one of those memos was eventually declassified. And so we can see it. This is not just source reporting, and.
- [29:02]
Natalie Kitroeff
Yet this is used as part of this broader campaign targeting Maduro and Venezuelans. The deportations in the US and now these strikes, you're saying?
- [29:11]
Charlie Savage
Yes. Notwithstanding all that, Trump continues to say this gang is, you know, being controlled by Maduro, keeps calling Maduro illegitimate and saying justice is coming. And the Justice Department doubles a reward for his capture. He was indicted in the first Trump administration for drug trafficking. And the. Then they move all these naval assets off the coast of Venezuela. And these are not things that you would really use to interdict or even blow up little boats that you think are carrying drugs. These are things that carry cruise missiles and thousands of marines. You know, the obvious question is, are they thinking about something to remove Maduro from power in Venezuela?
- [29:53]
Natalie Kitroeff
Meaning what? Meaning capture him. Meaning regime change.
- [29:59]
Charlie Savage
Right. So we don't think they have enough troops there to go in and take over the country, like 1989, when the Bush administration invaded Panama to remove Noriega from power. But certainly you could see a capture operation or a lethal operation. We don't really know what we're looking at here, but it certainly is a striking buildup of force. It's a striking amount of rhetoric, and now it's a striking use of force under this narco terrorism rubric.
- [30:31]
Natalie Kitroeff
It seems from everything you've said, that what Trump is doing in ordering these strikes on these boats off the coast of Venezuela, it has a lot of audiences and potential objectives. They threaten the cartels on the one hand, they threaten Maduro on the other. They also send a message to all the people in the United States who are affected by drugs in one way or another, you know, by over overdoses, that they are taking this seriously. There's a way in which this policy really has some benefits for the Trump.
- [31:03]
Charlie Savage
Administration, I think, absolutely, that, you know, drug traffickers, suspected drug traffickers, are not at all a popular victim. And certainly Maduro administration is not a group of people that elicits much sympathy. And to the extent that this is like we're getting tough with some visuals that play well on television, you can see the political attraction of it. But the details like, are these people on this particular boat or that particular boat actually engaged in drug smuggling? Does fentanyl actually come from South America? Are also then standing alongside moral and abstract rule of law issues. Does Trump have the power to just summarily kill people he says are suspected drug smugglers? Is this extrajudicial killings prohibited by laws against murder, not even war crimes, because there is no armed conflict. You need an armed conflict before you can have a war crime. And it points also to questions about what's coming next, not just in the South Caribbean Sea, but even closer to home. Because, I mean, this is a time in which Trump has been expanding his powers in all kinds of ways. And one of those big categories is his use of the military, not just what we're talking about here in international waters. He has sent troops under federal control into the streets of Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. and by all indications, intends to do more of that. And just this week claimed that he was designating the antifa movement as a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no law that allows the designation of domestic groups as terrorist organizations for First Amendment reasons. And even though antifa is not really an organization, it's just an idea or a stance or a protest style. And so all kinds of lines that seem like they exist. You don't use troops inside the United States for police functions, you can't designate a domestic movement as a terrorist organization are getting crossed. And so what's the next line?
- [33:21]
Natalie Kitroeff
What you're pointing to is the fact that what Trump has already been doing has pushed the bounds of what's normal in terms of the use of US Military forces both abroad and at home, and that these strikes may lead to. To another slippery slope on what becomes permissible.
- [33:44]
Charlie Savage
Well, I think the very idea of what's permissible and normal, to use your word, right now, is all open to question. This is an administration that is unlike any we've seen before, including the Trump 1 administration. It is demonstrably feeling radically unconstrained, strained by limitations that previous presidents and aides felt some need to adhere to. And so we are eight months into a situation in which where all this is going remains very much open to question.
- [34:31]
Natalie Kitroeff
Charlie, thank you so much for your time.
- [34:34]
Charlie Savage
Thank you.
- [34:39]
Natalie Kitroeff
We'll be right back.
- [34:47]
Charlie Savage
Hi, it's Alexa Weibel from New York Times Cooking.
- [34:49]
Capital One Announcer
We've got tons of easy weeknight recipes, and today I'm making my vegetarian mushroom, shawarmapitas.
- [34:55]
Charlie Savage
This recipe is just built for efficiency.
- [34:58]
Natalie Kitroeff
You toss your mushrooms and red onion.
- [35:00]
Charlie Savage
In your spices, throw them in the oven. By the time they're done, you've chopped.
- [35:03]
Capital One Announcer
Your cabbage and you're ready to assemble.
- [35:05]
Natalie Kitroeff
It feels crazy that this takes just 20 minutes of active time. It's just delicious.
- [35:10]
Charlie Savage
New York Times cooking has you covered with easy dishes for busy weeknights. You can find more@nytcooking.com.
- [35:20]
Natalie Kitroeff
Here'S what else you need to know today. On Wednesday, a shooter opened fire on a U.S. immigration and Custom Enforcement facility in Dallas, killing one detainee and critically wounding two others. The gunman died of a self inflicted gunshot wound. Officials said he left behind ammunition bearing the phrase Anti ICE in blue writing and that the attack had targeted immigration enforcement agents. But investigators didn't release many details about the shooter or his motives, and no law enforcement agents were harmed in the attack.
- [35:58]
Charlie Savage
Violence is wrong. Politically motivated violence is wrong.
- [36:04]
Natalie Kitroeff
At a news conference after the shooting, Texas Senator Ted Cruz called for an end to acts of political violence.
- [36:11]
Charlie Savage
To every politician who is using rhetoric demonizing ICE and demonizing cbp, stop and.
- [36:20]
Natalie Kitroeff
Cast blame on harsh rhetoric attacking federal immigration agents.
- [36:25]
Charlie Savage
Because here's what happens when Democrats like Gavin Newsom did say that these people are part of an authoritarian government.
- [36:33]
Natalie Kitroeff
When the left wing media Speaking at an event in North Carolina Vice President J.D. vance accused Democrats like California Governor Gavin Newsom of encouraging violent acts against ICE.
- [36:45]
Jonathan Swan
If your political rhetoric encourages violence against our law enforcement, you can go straight.
- [36:51]
Charlie Savage
To hell and you have no place in the political conversation of the United States.
- [36:56]
Natalie Kitroeff
On social media, President Trump vowed to crack down on what he called deranged radical leftists and promised to sign an executive order to dismantle these domestic terrorism networks. Today's episode was produced by Carlos Prieto and Olivia Natt. It was edited by Chris Haxel and Paige Cowett with help from Devin Taylor and Patricia Willins. Fact checked by Susan Lee and was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. That's it for the Daily. I'm Natalie Kitroweff. See you tomorrow. This is an advertisement from the Propane Education and Research Council. Everyone deserves access to clean, affordable energy.
- [38:01]
Charlie Savage
Everyone.
- [38:02]
Natalie Kitroeff
Millions of Americans rely on propane for dependable energy that is independent from the electric grid. Propane is safe, reliable, versatile energy produced in the United States that powers school buses, hospitals and our homes with lower carbon emissions than conventional fuels. The path to a low carbon future includes cleaner energy like propane and the production of renewable propane, which is made from used cooking oils and plant oils, is growing rapidly. Propane is the energy for everyone. Learn more@probane.com.