Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Gaza, with conflict unfolding in so many places, first-hand reporting has never mattered more. NPR Plus supporters power that work. They make it possible for our journalists to go where news is happening. And supporters get perks for NPR podcasts, things like bonus episodes, archive access, and more.
You can sign up at plus.npr.org. Hi, it's Terry Gross. Before we start the show today, I want to make sure you know it's a special time at NPR because yesterday was giving Tuesday, and as we like to think of it, this is Giving Tuesday week. NPR celebrates this time of generosity every year, but we've never had a year quite like this one before.
You've probably heard by now that federal funding for public media was eliminated as of October 1. That means NPR is now operating without federal support for the first time in our history. That's more than 50 years. It's a big change and a big challenge, but it's one we can overcome together.
You count on fresh air to bring you interviews that help us get to know the writers, directors, and musicians who are making their mark on American culture and investigative journalists who are revealing politically related stories we otherwise might never know about. And we're so grateful to the listeners who have already stepped up to donate. Like Emily from New York, who says, quote, public radio provides access to good, reliable information and thought-provoking entertainment. Fresh air got me through tedious experiments in graduate school.
Since NPR is no longer receiving federal funding, I want to do my part to support this important resource, unquote. Thanks, Emily. I'm proud we helped you get through graduate school. No matter how and when you started listening, I hope you'll make your Giving Tuesday gift now by signing up for NPR Plus.
It's a simple recurring donation that gets you perks to NPR's podcasts, like bonus episodes from Fresh Air and other shows. So join us at plus.npr.org. Thanks again for your support, and let's get on with the show. This is Fresh Air.
I'm Terry Gross. My guest, Alex Horton, is the reporter who broke the story that's been dominating the news since last Friday when it was published on The Washington Post. It's about what happened on September 2nd when the US military carried out the first deadly strike on a Venezuelan boat in the Caribbean. All 11 aboard were killed.
The Trump administration alleged the targets were narco-terrorist and that the boat was carrying drugs despite providing no evidence. However, two of the crew actually survived the initial strike. They were alive in the water holding on to the wreckage when they were killed in a subsequent strike. Horton and his colleague Ellen Nakashima reported that the command to kill the survivors was issued by Admiral Frank Bradley, the special operations commander, overseeing the mission, and that he was complying with Defense Secretary Pete Hexes' verbal command to kill everyone on board.
But Hexes' order came before the actual strikes. The Washington Post report led to House and Senate lawmakers from both sides of the aisle to call for reviews of the boat strikes, some are raising the question of whether this amounts to a war crime or murder. The US military has conducted strikes on at least 20 other vessels of alleged drug smugglers killing dozens in the last few months. This may be part of the Trump administration's pressure campaign to get Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to relinquish power and the possibility that the US could go to war with Venezuela if he doesn't.
That's something we'll discuss later in the interview. Alex Horton is a Washington Post national security reporter focused on the US military. We recorded our interview yesterday morning. Later in the day, President Donald Trump and Secretary Pete Hexes commented on the story during the cabinet meeting.
So we spoke to Horton again this morning to get his response to what was said. We'll hear that in a few minutes. But the first part of this interview sets up what happened during the September 2nd attack. Alex Horton, welcome to fresh air.
I want you to describe the story that you broke on Friday. Yeah, thanks for having me, Terry. The strike was the first one that the Pentagon undertook and its mission directed from the White House to stop drug trafficking and drug traffickers for bringing their drugs into the United States. So there was this entire apparatus that was surged into the Caribbean, his warships, there's aircraft carriers, and what you describe is a buildup for this pressure campaign.
But at the same time, there was a parallel mission to go after drug traffickers, particularly in speedboats and in semi-submersibles, you know, that really the business and the last few miles to get to their distribution point. So what we know from our reporting now is this first mission and some of the ones that followed were not undertaken by these forces that were in the region. This wasn't a matter of fighter jets and destroyers. It was an elite team of special operators from SEAL Team 6.
This is the same unit that went on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. These are the ones you call for the most high-stakes missions that can be done. So in September 2nd, they observed a boat that they grew increasingly confident, had drugs. And once they reached a certain level of confidence that this boat was scaring drugs, Secretary Haggseth, who was overseeing the operation that day, he is what's known as the target engagement authority, what he says goes on to strike a target.
And he authorized the strike to be taken. So once that decision was made to strike the boat, Admiral Frank Bradley, who was at the time to join Special Operations Commander authorized a missile to hit that boat. The commanders had watched it for some time, burned, and they felt pretty good that everyone would have bored, was killed. But watching it live stream?
They were watching a live drone surveillance video of it. But once it's most clear, they saw there were two survivors. Admiral Bradley acting on his orders and guidance from Exeth that he wanted people in that boat to be killed, ordered a second strike. And his rationale at the time during that moment was they could be picked up by other traffickers, and the drugs could be picked up too, and the drugs are the ultimate mission, so they need to do something about that.
So Admiral Bradley authorized that second strike on those survivors, and from what we heard from someone who watched it, those two men were blown apart in the water. So you served in the Army infantry in Iraq, and you're familiar with certain rules of engagement. And you know the difference between attacking survivors at sea versus on land. So tell us what the rules of engagement are in the sea with a shipwreck like this, where the survivors are clinging to the remains of the ship for their life.
Yeah, there's a lot of distinction between two. And like you said, I'm a land guy. Maritime domain is less familiar to me, but here's how I understand it. And I'm a lot more expert to have laid out.
When you're fighting someone on land in combat, there's a number of places you can go. You can retreat to another room. You could patch yourself up in a corner if you're shot. You have the ability to call other people on the radio to come get you in a vehicle.
There are other circumstances of where you could conceal yourself and maybe rearm and regroup before your enemy has a chance to figure out what has happened to you. It's a pretty low standard to re-attack someone. Can you give us an example of what you mean? Sure.
You know, one moment comes to mind when I was with my platoon in the Alipravans in 2007. So this was the most violent year of the surge. We were fighting straight to street in house the house with the group that would become the Islamic State. And we were on patrol on a particularly heavy fighting day.
And we set up in a school to sort of look out over some rooftops. And we watched a two-man machine gun team set up and put their gun in our direction to get ready to fire. So several of us shot them while they were setting up. They stopped moving for the most part.
We kept shooting just to make sure that they were dead. We could go there and check. And then after a few minutes, we called in a patch of gunship to shoot a hell fire into the building. Two, two things.
One, to make sure they were dead. And two, to kill any other militants that we weren't even sure about that we didn't see at the time. And that was, that's permissible because we had an engagement. We knew there were armed militants in the area.
We knew civilians were by and large and evacuated. And you know, we couldn't be sure that they were killed until we got closer to them. If we were to get out and closer to them, this calculus would change. You know, there would be people who were wounded.
And if they cannot reach a gun or if they don't have explosives on them, then it would become our obligation and responsibility to help them. Compare that to the rules at sea after a shipwreck. There's a very stark line between these two. And it's much less forgiving for this type of environment.
If a US ship strikes a Navy vessel and it goes down or it's basically a wreck that can't function or move or fire back and there are sailors in the water, unless they are engaging you with a weapon, they are essentially, as the law says, shipwrecked. They have no ability to do anything except wait in the water and try to survive. They have no ability to retreat. They certainly don't have an option to get away from you.
And they have very few, if any, ways where they could play a trick on you and try to ambush you if you came to retreat them. So there are very clear protections in this game out of World War II when this happened on both the Allies and the Axis side of people who were shipwrecked getting engaged when they couldn't do anything about it. So now the rule for international war and lawfare is you need to protect people who are shipwrecked and you can't shoot them again in a circumstance like this. Now there is room for nuance.
You know, how destroyed was that boat? Did Bradley make a determination that it was still seaworthy? That part is unclear at this moment. So there is some wiggle room if you want to say they were legitimate targets because they could have gotten out of there.
Was Secretary Hexa's order ambiguous? Did the order need to be more specific? We're still trying to understand the contours of that order, that verbal order. You know, the manner of which you gave it, was it a swashbuckling swagger type of thing as he is prone to do as the Defense Secretary?
Was it a formal directive to Bradley and how many people heard it? These are all things we're still trying to figure out. Speaking of swashbuckling orders, I want to play something Hexa said to military leaders when he gathered military leaders from around the globe in Quantico, Virginia on September 30th. We fight to win.
We unleash overwhelming and punishing violence on the enemy. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement.
Just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters. So Alex is Hexa saying we're just ignoring the rules of engagement now because we decided to? Yeah, this is something that the Senate and the House Armed Services committees are looking to entangle is any number of things to include what were the authorities taking and do they violate any rules of engagement. I think it's important to remember, I think it made it pretty crucial clear his view on this.
As you may know, before he was Defense Secretary, one of his priorities while he was a Fox News host on the weekends was to champion Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that he felt were unfairly prosecuted for war crimes. There were a number of that weren't just accused, but were convicted. He talked about this consistently that he feels military attorneys who offer the advice of how to conduct yourself lawfully. It's too overbearing.
It's too bureaucratic of a process and too soft. He would prefer that war is left to what he calls the warfighters and not to the military lawyers. The consensus of military law experts have said that all of this talk about the rules of engagement, that all of that is an academic exercise that's besides the point that these are civilian traffickers who are alleged criminals but not lawful combatants. So therefore, everything that it laid out about what it's like to be in combat and make any decisions and the distinctions, what they're saying is this is all moot because this is homicide or murder on the high seas rather than this trying to pick apart the nuances of military law.
That is a separate thing entirely. If you're just joining us, my guest is Alex Horton. He's a Washington Post National Security Reporter. We'll be right back.
This is fresh air. Let's get back to my interview with Alex Horton, a Washington Post National Security Reporter. He was the lead reporter on the story he broke with his colleague, Ellen Nakashima, last Friday about the US military strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug smuggling boat in early September. When nine of the 11 people on board were killed, two survivors were in the water clinging to the wreckage.
They were killed in a subsequent strike. According to Horton's reporting, the admiral who gave the command to kill the survivors was in compliance with Defense Secretary Pete Hexas's order to kill other people aboard. The order was issued before the attack. We recorded our interview yesterday morning.
Later in the day, President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hexas commented on the story in a cabinet meeting. Horton returned to fresh air this morning so I could ask him about his reaction to what they said. Well, let's hear what Trump and Hexas had to say at yesterday's cabinet meeting. Start with Hexas.
Here's his comment. Now, the first couple of strikes, as you would, as any leader would want, you ought to own that responsibility. So I said, I'm going to be the one to make the call after getting all the information to make sure it's the right strike. That was September 2nd.
There's a lot of intelligence that goes into that building that case and understanding a lot of people providing information. I watched that first strike last. As you can imagine, the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. So I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever where all the sensitive side exploitation visually occurs.
If I moved on to my next meeting, a couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the... Which he had the complete authority to do. And by the way, I would rather make the correct decision. But I was able to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.
He sunk the boat, sunk the boat, and eliminated the threat. And he was the right call. We have his back. And the American people are safer.
Because narco terrorists know you can't bring drugs from the water and eventually not land necessary. To the American people, we will eliminate that threat and we're proud to do it. So you didn't see any survivors to be clear or happy about that? I did not personally see survivors, but I stand...
The thing was on fire. That was exploded in fire. You can't see anything. You got digital.
This is called the fog of war. This is what you and the press don't understand. The air conditioned offices are up on Capitol Hill, you nitpick, and you plant fake stories in the Washington Post about kill everybody. Phrases on anonymous sources not based in anything.
That based in any truth at all. And then you want to throw out really irresponsible terms about American heroes, about the judgment that they made a whole book on this topic. Because of what politicians and the press does to the warfighter. President Trump has empowered commanders, commanders to do what is necessary.
Which is dark and difficult things in the dead of night on behalf of the American people. We support them and we will stop the poison of the American people. Okay, that was Pete Hecks up yesterday at a cabinet meeting with President Trump. So he attacked the Washington Post reporting.
I'm assuming he's referring to the article that you were the lead reporter of last Friday about the strike. Has he single that any facts that you reported in that investigative article? As untrue. Yeah.
Depending on the White House have contended that HEXF did not say in so many words to kill everyone on the boat before the first strike occurred. But everything else, they've essentially corroborated reporting. This bit about HEXF not being around for the second strike. That was our understanding and belief, but we didn't have enough reporting to put that in the story the first time.
He confirmed that he was out of the room when Admiral Bradley made the decision to strike the two people in the water. And we reported as such that Bradley made that call himself and ordered that strike. Our reporting was that HEXF made it clear to Admiral Bradley that he wanted to kill everyone in the boat. So what our reporting says is Bradley executed that first strike.
And then minutes later when it was clear there was survivors ordered the second strike to comply with that intent to kill everyone on board. And do you stand by the fact that he did say kill them off? Yes. We don't know his exact verbiage.
But that was his message to folks like Admiral Bradley. This makes sense to you that HEXF would leave without seeing the final results of the strike because he has a busy job and needed to go to a meeting. He is right that he has a busy job and there's a lot to do. What he's talking about is what we reported to that everyone believed that the strike was a lethal success and they did the original intent, which was to kill them.
And since the boat was on fire and obscured what was happening there that I think based on folks I've spoken to that people just assumed that the mission was over. There's nothing else to do. It sounds like he watched it. He saw it.
He was on fire. He believed it was mission accomplished and he went on with his day. Let's move on to what President Trump said at the cabinet meeting yesterday. So here's President Trump.
As far as the attack is concerned I still haven't gotten a lot of information because I rely on Pete. But to me it was an attack. It wasn't one strike, two strikes, two strikes. Somebody asked me a question about the second strike.
I didn't know about the second strike. I didn't know anything about people I wasn't involved in. I knew they took out a vote. But I would say this.
They had a strike. I hear the gentleman that was in charge of that is extraordinary. I let Pete speak about it. But Pete didn't know about second attack having to do with two people.
I guess Pete would have to speak to it. I can say this. I want those votes taken out. And we have to attack on land also just like we attack on sea.
So that was President Trump yesterday speaking at a cabinet meeting. So he said he hadn't gotten a lot of information. He's the commander in chief. Shouldn't he be like demanding a detailed briefing right after what?
I mean he's not a passive recipient of these things. I mean it really depends on how this was packaged for everyone. You know when a mission like this happens there's the after action review. And a lot of times it's a very short and succinct summary of what happened.
And it could be that when this was rolled up for hex death review or for Trump's review, if it even went to the White House, would say something to the effect of, you know, on September 2nd the task force carried out a mission targeting one vessel with 11 crew, 11 crew KIA with four weapons released. It might say something to that effect. Does it go into a complete narrative of decision making? Maybe and maybe not.
So it could be that they didn't understand the finer details of the offense just that the overall ending was the same of 11 people were killed. And that's what Trump put on true social later that day was 11 people killed. And that is an accurate summary of what happened. Didn't get into how they got there, but that is true.
It's my understanding that the policy on survivors changed after the first attack on Venezuelan boats in early September. When did it change and how did it change? We don't know. We're still trying to figure that out.
You know we reported in our first story that there was a greater emphasis in planning and strikes to account for the possibility of survivors after that first strike. We don't know who directed it and what form it took, but we do know that it later on in other strikes it led to a rescue mission to recover two survivors. I think just as likely and maybe even more likely is they didn't think clearly enough through the process to account for survivors because they were confident that when you hit an armored essentially fishing boat at sea with a missile that everyone's going to die. But here's the very first strike that didn't happen.
So I think what is pretty possible here is they regrouped after the first strike was over and everyone was dead. And they said perhaps we should account for this in our planning to what do we do if there's a survivor? What are some of the things? We need to be more deliberate about that.
I think that's probably the more likely event is they realize that this was a potential gap in their planning and they addressed it after that. So there are people in Congress, the military, legal experts, former jags, thinking that this attack wasn't legal. And there's a debate between whether it was a war crime or murder, whether it's a war offense or a criminal offense. So how significant is that?
The difference between those two? It's pretty significant and it has to be one of the other. It can't be both really. Just because you use the military doesn't mean whoever you're attacking is a combatant or lawful target.
You have to be attacking other combatants. So that's one thing underlined. It's just because the US military was involved. Doesn't mean it automatically is in this basket of permissible or impermissible conduct in military operations.
It would be the same thing if they shot protesters downtown LA. They're not lawful military targets in that way. Then the question becomes, well, is it this other thing? Are they saying that they're fighting a group of combatants and they're really just killing civilians who are criminals?
I'm not a legal expert. I don't know what venue this would be discussed. But these are the questions that the Hill and others are trying to ascertain where do we go from here? Who's culpable and for what?
So Admiral Bradley is a former head of JSOP, the Joint Special Operations Command, whose work includes the military's most sensitive and dangerous missions. So you'd think that he would know what is illegal and illegal order. And you'd also think he'd know that you're not supposed to obey an illegal command. During that operation, he was operating in the position of Joint Special Operations Commander since then.
He has been promoted to the four-star position of Special Operations Commander, which is above what he was doing before. So now he oversees all matters of Special Operations within the military. But an important point about his background is a couple things. One, he's in the Navy, right?
So he is a tune and has the cultural and institutional fluency of what you do in a maritime situation. It's part of the culture. I was in the Army. I didn't know the stuff.
I was a land guy. He's a sea guy. He would understand this much better when it comes to the maritime restrictions and legalities of who you can strike and when you can strike them in the water. The second part of that, though, is throughout his Navy career, he came through that Navy Seal pipeline.
He was a member of Seal Team Six, the same group that carried out the mission. So his career has been defined by two decades of low-intensity conflict against insurgents who are often fighting in austere environments and fighting in a very specific way. And I spoke to some military lawyers about this, the idea that I mentioned before about being on land is a lot more permissible when you can re-attack somebody. You have to wonder how much of Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and any number of other conflicts that the US has been in over the last two decades.
How much of that understanding and that finesse of dealing with it in that way has seeped into the rest of the military? It sounds as if HEXS might be trying to blame Bradley for what happened as opposed to taking responsibility for it while praising Bradley at the same time. Let me read the social media post that he wrote on Monday of this week. Let's make one thing crystal clear.
Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he's made on the September 2nd mission and all other since. America is fortunate to have such men protecting us. When this Department of War says we have the back of our warriors, we mean it.
Okay, so it's a very praiseworthy thing to say of Bradley, but it's also blaming him. He stands behind him, but he wants to footstop that. Admiral Bradley was the one who took that second strike. And by the way, this is something we articulated pretty carefully and clearly in the story that Bradley on his own determined he was going to take that second strike.
But his justification in the framing in his mind was he was going to fulfill the original order that exit that. Getting back to the two survivors of the first attack on a boat from Venezuela allegedly carrying narcotics, allegedly fentanyl. Do you think that that puts the US military at risk? If we can kill two survivors against our own rules of engagement, our survivors of an attacked boat that is shipwrecked, an American boat, are they more likely to be killed with the US sending the example that it's okay?
And I'm asking you this both as a journalist, but also as a former member of the military in Iraq. You know, I think it's a bit of hypothetical. I mean, there's reasons why you conduct yourself in a professional manner in a war. And you do that not because it's the right thing, but the US as always and not perfectly, though, has tried to set a different standard that is more than the avoceros like Russia and China and Iran that, you know, we have a tough military, we have a lethal military, we will kill you with force.
But when the hurricane comes, we're going to help you out too, right? And setting the difference and distinction of what a world leader is and how it conducts itself is also just a good example to set because in a conflict, say with China, if you put torpedoes into 10 boats and in all 10 boats, there were there were Chinese sailors in the water. And the next order was to strafe them with fighter jets and kill them without any ability for them to be rescued or patched up or wounded or whatever. And China sees that and says, well, why do we have to follow the rules?
If the US doesn't do it, then it doesn't matter what we do. And there is this warfare. There is sometimes a tip for that that they do it and therefore the gloves are off. And that could happen in small ways and in big ways.
And you do not want to be an American sailor who goes down with the ship and see a Chinese plane coming and be like, man, I really wish my buddies and the other squadron didn't shoot up those survivors because that pilot's going to feel a whole different set of ways about whether he can kill him or not. That is a concern. I mean, it's still hypothetical, but this is why we want to have these guardrails in warfare. So we can set an example, but also we need to be able to say we're doing the right thing.
That we're following orders that are lawful. We have confidence there are leaders and we will execute those orders. If you're just joining us, my guest is Alex Horton. He's a Washington Post National Security Reporter.
We'll be right back. This is fresh air. So who might be liable for violating the law of armed conflict or liable for murder? That's something that really needs to be unspooled.
The fair and accurate answer is I don't know. I can tell you what law experts have speculated on, but they still need more information because the other things that matter have consequences to that answer. Did Admiral Bradley misinterpret what Access said? Did Bradley figure that that boat would see where they needed to attack the drugs and the people were just collateral rather than trying to kill the people themselves?
It's another thing. During the ISIS war, there was a permissible target because fuel was being sold to finance their operations, that you could strike fuel depots. And if civilians or others got caught up in it, they would do a calculate assessment, but there is a world where some civilians would be acceptable to risk and something like that if they determined it was worth it. So you have to determine what you're shooting at and whether that was the point of shooting in the first place.
But we need Bradley and we need Access to make that clear, whether that's on the hill. And does it still get back to that the order was ambiguous? It didn't say if there were survivors after the shipwreck, shoot them too? It could be.
I mean, we do not know if that original strike had a contingency or planning on what to do in these kinds of operations, sometimes it's detail, but sometimes it's not as detail as you would like. But there is a line or some sort of mention of what do you do if this happens? And one thing that should or could have happened is what do we do if someone survives a strike? And if they're 10 feet from shore or if they're 100 miles from shore, does it matter what we do?
Do we just let them go back to what they're doing or? Like once in global waters? I mean, like in environmental waters? You know, we didn't say where this was.
You know, we have a decent idea. We said it was off the coast of Trinidad. But I'll tell you, I think where the strike likely occurred, it would make getting back to Venezuela probably an impossible task. There was not a clear option for them just to go home.
So that matters too, whether they're going to fight another day. But like I said before, a lot of this is besides the fact that the administration is the only one with confidence saying that these guys are part of an armed conflict with the United States and intend on doing the United States home like a harm and therefore lethal military forces authorized. The way this has always happened is the coast guard has interdicted drugs because it's illegal and it shouldn't happen. And they board the vessels and they take the drugs and then they arrest them for prosecution either in the United States or their home country or another country.
That's the way it's always been done, that this is a criminal enterprise, but it is a law enforcement matter not a US military as you put it, get an extra strike matter until now. This is what the six democratic lawmakers warned about in their video. Was it last week or two weeks ago about the oath that members of the military take saying they are required to decline orders that are illegal? Yeah, I mean, this certainly could fall under that.
Like I said, I'm not the adjudicator. I will say the Department of Defense's manual has lines in there that says you should not follow an order that is illegal. And the example it gives is firing on someone that is shipwrecked. It just so happens that what we're talking about is an example, but then it just goes back to where they shipwrecked or where they're not.
Trump has threatened to recall democratic Senator Mark Kelly to act of duty in the military and then have him court martial. Yes, to put him on active duty to try him on military court, yes, to say he has incited the military and he needs to come back and face discipline under military law. And what he said was that you have to follow the rules. I mean, that was the just know what he said.
Yeah, that's right. I mean, the message they delivered was, you know, there is a responsibility for everyone to follow the orders and when the time comes for a legal order to dissipate. That's not a controversy. I mean, it is because it's political and these are Democrats.
This is just the age we live in. But when you strip all that way, that is what you expect US servicemakers to do. So do you think that these attacks on people who Trump is labeling us, not go terrorists, this part of Trump's efforts to oust Venezuela's president, Nicholas Maduro? You know, it's hard to say what the connective issue is between these missions and like the larger military buildup.
You know, because as I mentioned, like 99.9% of the forces that are in the Caribbean are not striking the boats. This is done by a very small select elite crew of targetters and intelligence operatives. So that it becomes okay, well, if they're not doing anything about the boats or maybe they're supporting it in some ways like Intel or whatever, what are they actually accomplishing in the Caribbean? And then there's this priority that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump, you know, going back to his first administration.
You know, they have been fixated on Nicholas Maduro and getting him out of power. You know, he's backed by Russia, you know, the US Considers in the Pacific region in a point of instability. And they want to see him out of office and they've said as much in the last few months. So these two things are kind of related, but you know, you have to take a step back and say, well, why are they related?
Because Trump talked about every boat has like so many thousands of deaths. What he means is fentanyl. These boats are not carrying fentanyl. They can't cocaine.
You're carrying cocaine. Fentanyl precurs come from China. They go to Mexico where fentanyl is produced. And then from Mexico, they go to the United States and other markets.
Cocaine comes from two key places, Ecuador and Colombia. And cocaine that comes from Venezuela is if it's not very small numbers produced in the country, it's coming from those two countries as part of a, you know, elaborate trafficking operation. But Venezuela is not a drug player. You know, every official I've spoken to about this with experience in the region says Venezuela is not on the radar for any kind of considerable drug trafficking.
A lot of it do have a lot of it goes to Europe, not the United States. And they certainly don't do anything with fentanyl. So this thing that where Trump is doing the connective tissue between drug deaths are happening in their out of control, I.E. fentanyl to Venezuela, to Maduro orchestrating or supporting drug traffickers that help give fentanyl and other drugs to the United States.
They have made that line go all through those points. And some of it is very tenuous because they're really on the fact that they're trying to kill Americans intentionally, right? And therefore we're non-conflict and they're backed by Maduro and therefore Maduro is the necessary that we have to do something about. Yeah.
Trump has accused Maduro of being the head of the cartel, D'Lossol, which the State Department has designated as a terrorist organization. What do you know about the cartel? There's not a ton that's known about him. I mean, the origins of the group are people in the government who had some sort of handshake wink-wink deal that would engage in illicit activity to include drug trafficking.
But as part of a formal organization, there is a lot of discussion about this. Whether this group is an actual group, is it a real thing or sort of this is sort of collective of hiring people in criminals that's an amorphous thing and not Islamic State or al-Qaeda or even like the Cinello cartel that has a structure, has a boss and has economics on the Bay of all the scientists and they have distribution networks and they're essentially a company. This is not that as far as we can tell. They are not in the same realm of any of these groups.
I mentioned terrorists or drug cartels in particular. If you're just joining us, my guest is Alex Horton. He's a Washington Post national security reporter. We'll be right back.
This is fresh air. Trump has made it clear that he's willing to use military force against Venezuela on land as well as sea in the name of the war on narco-terrorist. What can you tell us about Trump's threats to continue this war on land? We know there's already warships off the coast of Venezuela.
But he's willing to use military force. Does that mean he wants to get us into war with Venezuela? How can he do that without informing Congress? What can a commander in chief do without consent?
The commander in chief at this moment can carry on what he has justified as actions taken against an armed group of combatants. That's the way he describes some of these drug trafficking organizations. There's a Chinese menu somewhere in the Pentagon of who to attack and where. That matters on Trump's preference.
If he wants to have these cartels in a more meaningful way, like a lab or a facility or a storage place, perhaps that is one option rather than striking military forces in Venezuela. You know, an air defense system or military barracks. That would be far different than hitting a drug lab or hitting a distribution point. If President Trump wanted to attack military targets in a limited campaign that ramped up, he is certainly able to do that with what he has in the region now.
If he wants to strike cartel and drug-type groups in Venezuela short of hitting military targets, he can certainly do that. He has the capability and it seems like he has the desire to. Whether that all comes to play as anyone's guess. But the pieces are in place for something like that to happen.
Is narco terrorism possibly a pretext to justify his campaign against Maduro? Are there other reasons he wants Maduro out? I can't get to the President's head, but we do know. If his stated goal is to, and an excess goal, is to adversely impact the ability of drug traffickers to move product, Venezuela is probably among the last on the list in the region that you would focus on.
Does Colombia, Ecuador, or US allies send the vast majority of cocaine up and not just in the Caribbean, they send it in the Pacific. So if your stated goal was to do drugs and you had no designs about Venezuela or regime or anything like that, you would construct an operation focused solely on the Pacific and maybe a little bit of the Caribbean to get your money's worth of traffickers. The volume of drugs and the volume of ships is in the Pacific. And a few strikes have happened there, but not all of them.
And certainly not some of the more consequential ones like this first one. So one of President Trump's comments yesterday, the cabinet meeting, was that if we have to attack on land, we would. And so how close are we to going to war with Venezuela? I think strikes in Venezuela are, you know, it's hard to say if it's becoming more or less likely as time goes on and the diplomatic talks go the direction.
But from his comments, he didn't make it clear whether he was interested in attacking land targets for drug traffickers or Venezuelan military targets. Those are two different things that would invite very different responses from the Venezuelan government of whether they are in actual war with the United States. You know, strikes like that may be an off-ramp for further action, right? Like sort of how when the US and Israel shot down drones and missiles heading to Israel, that was an off-ramp that allowed Iran after strikes hit their country to take shots and sort of publicly settle the score.
This could be something similar for the US and Venezuela that will attack bad guys in the area and will get what we want, will have the public narrative of taking some targets out, but we're not going to blow up military targets. So let's do it and you know, we both get what we want. So while we're talking about trying to, you know, basically get rid of a president that Trump doesn't like, Trump has pardoned a former president of Honduras. He was convicted last year of working for cartels to flood the US with cocaine, of conspiring to possess destructive devices, including machine guns and taking bribes during his campaign from Joaquin Guzman, the former leader of the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico.
He was known as El Chapo. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison in federal district court in Manhattan and Trump just pardoned him. I don't understand how he's going after allegedly carrying narcotics, allegedly narco-terrorists, allegedly carrying fentanyl when it's probably not fentanyl, it's probably cocaine. And yet somebody who was sentenced in the US and Manhattan, he was sentenced to 45 years in prison.
So how do we square that? Yeah, how do we square that? Well, I mean, when you said about probably not fentanyl, I mean, I would say what they're carrying is more likely marshmallows than fentanyl. Wow, okay.
That's unlikely. It's fentanyl. You know, it's okay. You know, it's smuggled cherries out of Iowa.
You smoke a corn, right? Yeah. This is what they do. This is the region.
So how do you square these two things? The message from Trump and the rest of the government is we are at war with drug traffickers and cartels and people who are intent on doing this harm by sending deadly products to the United States. And then you see, you know, the steel with someone who's convicted in the US court of these crimes, you know, for a very long time. And you contrast that with killing, you know, these people in these boats that have the smallest amount of drugs you could get to transport to effect.
I mean, we're talking on fractions of a percent of the trafficking volume that comes in, hundreds of tons and tons and hundreds of tons of cocaine, maybe thousands of tons of cocaine a year. You know, these are drops in the bucket that you're focused on. But meanwhile, you know, the big fish is getting another deal entirely. So, you know, I don't know how it squares.
I don't know what their relationship or any sort of deal that was made, but there is, you know, we are looking for more consistency in the Trump's, what they describe as the hard line approach to drug trafficking. I want to thank you so much for your reporting and for being with us today. Yeah, I really appreciate it. Alex Horton is a Washington Post national security reporter focused on the military.
Our interview was recorded yesterday with an update we recorded today. Tomorrow on Fresh Air, our guest will be George Clooney. He became famous at 34. Lady Nuffy says that he learned how to live before he learned how to be famous.
His new character, Jake Kelly, wasn't so lucky. He'll talk about playing a movie star who has the fame part down, but the father, partner, friend, part, not so much. I hope you'll join us. Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller, our technical director and engineer is Audie Bentham.
Our managing producer is Sam Brigger. Our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers and Reboldenato Lauren Crenzel, Theresa Madden, Monique Nazareth, Faya Challener, Sisanyan Yucundi and Ann Abowman. Our digital media producer is Molly C. B.
Nesberg. Our consulting visual producer is Hope Wilson. Roberta Shurock directs the show. Our co-host is Tanya Mosley.
I'm Tari Grent.