The NPR Politics Podcast - Trump Calls Cartels Terrorists. Is That Enough To Go To War?

Episode Date: October 13, 2025

From Consider This from NPR:Nearly a quarter century after the September 11th attacks, the Trump administration is using the language of terrorism to target a new enemy: Latin American drug cartels.The president says the U.S. is in armed conflict with drug cartels.Scott Detrow talks to a Bush-era lawyer who says the powers of war are too extraordinary to use against crime.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

This message comes from the BBC with their new podcast, The Global Story. With Asma Khalid in D.C. and Tristan Redman in London, the global story brings you daily news from where the world and America meet. Search for the global story from BBC podcasts. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. And today, we want to highlight some reporting from our friends at Consider This from NPR. Nearly a quarter century after the September 11th attacks, the Trump administration is using the language of terrorism to target a new enemy. Latin American drug cartels. President Trump says the U.S. is in armed conflict with drug cartels. Scott Detrow spoke with a Bush-era lawyer who says the powers of war are too extraordinary to use against crime.

That conversation comes after a short break. This message comes from Rince. Who knows that mastering the perfect house-party table spread takes time? But so does laundry. So rinse takes your laundry and hand delivers it to your door, expertly cleaned. And you can take the time once spent sorting and waiting, folding, and queuing, to finally pursue your real passion, rolling delicate roses of capacola alongside meandering ribbons of Amon Serrano,

transforming a humble plank of weathered barnwood into a show-stopping charcuttery spread. rinse, it's time to be great. Support for this podcast comes from Dignity Memorial. For many families, remembering loved ones means honoring the details that made them unique. Dignity Memorial is dedicated to professionalism and compassion in every detail of a life celebration. Find a provider near you at Dignitymemorial.com.

In the U.S., national security news can feel far away from daily life. distant wars, murky conflicts, diplomacy behind closed doors. On our new show, Sources and Methods, NPR reporters on the ground bring you stories of real people, helping you understand why distant events matter here at home. Listen to sources and methods on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. Nine days after the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush laid out a roadmap for a new kind of war. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes.

Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. The enemy was not a nation state, but rather an armed group. And more than that, it was an idea. Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated. And as the decades have gone by, that open-endedness has become a defining feature of the war on terror. Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. More than a decade after 9-11, President Obama used some of the same legal reasoning and the same congressional authorization.

to justify attacks on the Islamic State or ISIL, a sworn enemy of al-Qaeda, and also a drone strike that targeted and killed an American citizen. In 2020, in President Trump's first term, it was yet another enemy, Iran. Last night of my direction, the United States military successfully executed a flawless precision strike that killed a number one terrorist anywhere in the world, Qasem Soleimani. Trump, too, cited Bush-era legal authority. Today, nearly a quarter century after the September 11th attacks, the Trump administration is using the language of terrorism to target a new enemy,

Latin American drug cartels. The president has designated these as terrorist organizations, which is what they are. When you flood American streets with drugs, you are terrorizing America, and that's going to end. That is Secretary of State Marco Rubio in September after the first of several U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean that the administration says we're trafficking drugs. Consider this. The president says we are in armed conflict with drug cartels. We will talk to a Bush-era lawyer who says the powers of war are too extraordinary to use against crime. From NPR, I'm Scott Detrow.

We've got some more details about the Trump administration's legal justification for recent attacks on alleged drug. in the Caribbean in the form of a notification sent to Congress and obtained by NPR. It says that the president has determined the U.S. is an armed conflict with unspecified drug cartels. That argument has found many critics, including law professor John Yu. He was a lawyer in the Bush administration's Justice Department and played a key role in developing the legal justification for the war on terror after 9-11, as well as the ways the U.S. government interrogated people captured during that war.

John, you, welcome to the program. Hi, great to be here. I want to start with something that you wrote recently. You wrote that war invokes powers too extraordinary to be used against crime. Walk me through what those powers are and why it's important to you and to many legal scholars to keep them separate. Our Constitution and our laws distinguish between war and crime. For example, if you are arrested by the government because you're suspected of a crime, you get all the protections of the Bill of Rights. You have the right to be presented to a judge, to learn the charges against you, to get the Miranda warnings, a lawyer, ultimately be tried by a jury before you're sentenced. Think of war. We try to kill the enemy or detain members of the enemy if they can't fight. You don't have to have evidence. You don't present it to a judge. You don't go out and arrest people and give them a trial because you're fighting a foreign enemy that threatens a national security.

The most important problem is identifying who's really an enemy versus what's part of just a perpetual social problem we have. I mean, arguably, illegal drugs and overdoses have killed way more people than terror attacks in the United States. Should that be part of the consideration? Do you think there's a clear cut? This is a standard crime, even if it has deadly effects, and this is a war? you're definitely right the harms that our country suffers from crime are definitely higher i think last year or the last two years we've lost about a hundred thousand a year maybe two hundred thousand every two years just to fentanyl and other drug overdoses which is way more than the casualties in korea vietnam iraq or afghanistan but that the harm to the country itself does not define

whether something's war or crime. You could say murders inflict way more harm on the United States than a lot of the wars that we fought. But we don't use the military to fight murders at home. Instead, I think what you need to see is a foreign entity that is using force against the United States because of a political agenda, because of disagreement with our ideology,

to take territory for political objectives. is that what to you is the main difference then between an international terrorist group like al-Qaeda and a big drug trafficking group is it just the the overall end goal that each of them has yes in part so i was at the justice department as you said on 9-11 and we had to actually face the question that we were facing the united states before whether we could have a war against something that was other than another country and we decided that al-qaeda and other terrorist groups were much like a foreign country and the level of force they could use against us,

why they used force against us for political reasons. I think that that decision with drug cartels that are not connected, they're not fighting for Venezuela, for example, but just drug cartels don't pass that test because they aren't using force against us because they disagree with us politically, because they want to harm the country,

because they have some ideological agenda. They just want to make money. The Trump White House is drawing a clear line between what it is doing here and what the Bush administration first articulated 20-some years ago and what the Obama administration in many ways continued as policy. And I'm wondering, as you have seen this played out and used in different ways, have you had any second thoughts about the standards that you and others put into place in the wake of 9-11? I don't. And I'm not saying that, right, we have the perfect answers. You know, we were under a lot of pressure on September 11th itself while we were suffering attacks from al-Qaeda.

But the way we thought about it was, can we ever use the military against something other than a nation? And look, there were a lot of people in Congress and in the academy and media who were critical of that view. And that's why we went to Congress and within a week got an authorization to use military force. And we went to the Supreme Court. when the very first detainees were captured out of Afghanistan, and the Supreme Court agreed. I think that's something that the Trump administration should do if they really, because I think they're going out way on a limb, way beyond what we did. They're going to have to get Congress to agree, and I think that would then have a big influence on the way the Supreme Court will view it

when these cases start to come up later this year. How much of a difference do you would congressional authorization make here? Would it make a difference at all, or do you think this is? is still a clear-cut case that they are using powers that they don't have? I think it makes a big difference in this sense. I think everyone agrees no matter where you fall on the debate over whether Congress has to authorize force or not, I tend to think it doesn't. But everyone agrees that if the United States is attacked, the president can automatically

respond without having to go to Congress. But the problem here is that it's not clear whether the United States is being attacked by the operations of drug cartels. And so if you're going to go out as the White House and really push this argument into new territory, then congressional support becomes all important because the Supreme Court wants to see the president and Congress in agreement if it's going to bless some new kind of war that we've never seen before. I tend to think the Supreme Court is going to be very leery of it because they see as their mission, the protection of the individual rights of Americans and everyone who lives here under the Bill of Rights.

and this argument that the government can wage war against drug gangs has such obvious implications in policing in the United States that the court's going to be very skeptical. That is John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Thanks so much for talking to us. Thank you. Great to be with you. That was Consider This from NPR. You can listen to that and a bunch of other podcasts on the NPR app.

Check it out. We'll be back in your feeds tomorrow. as usual. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. Making time for the news is important. But when you need a break, we've got you covered on all songs considered, NPR's music podcast. Think of it like a music discovery show, a well-deserved escape with friends, and yeah, some serious music insight. I'm going to keep it real i have no idea what the story is about your new episodes of all songs considered every tuesday wherever you get podcasts