The Philip DeFranco Show - The Dave Chappelle Free Speech Situation is Pathetic & Trump’s Portland & Chicago Invasions Escalate

Episode Date: October 6, 2025

Kickstart your passion project with a free trial today: https://www.Squarespace.com/Phil  & enter offer code “Phil” to get 10% off your first purchase!  LISTEN TO THE SHOW iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-philip-defranco-show/id1278424954 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ESemquRbz6f8XLVywdZ2VWATCH CRASHING OUT w/ PHILIP & ALEX Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCergKLoy-Yv9zlPk3XQYK7Q?sub_confirmation=1 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/2DkU87umhGH9mH1z24Bi9w?si=6sSdjhVNQjyVeBQDLiXcyg Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/crashing-out-with-philip-defranco-and-alex-pearlman/id1843429519 WATCH/LISTEN TO MY NEW PODCAST w/ Tim Miller Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2CePXwDrvdQTes844wflKp?si=55a6b6049c4841ed Youtube: https://youtube.com/acw?sub_confirmation=1 iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/in-good-faith-with-philip-defranco/id1827016835 JOIN OUR COMMUNITY 📸Instagram: https://instagram.com/PhillyDeFranco  🐦Twitter: https://twitter.com/phillyd  🎵TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@philipdefranco  TODAY’S STORIES 00:00 - Trump Authorizes Nat’l Guard in Chicago as Judge Blocks Portland Deployment  04:35 - Jessica Kirson Apologizes for Riyadh Fest, Louis C.K. & Bill Burr Double Down  09:47 - Sponsored by Squarespace 10:51 - Supreme Court Rejects Appeal from Ghislaine Maxwell 15:48 - House of South Carolina Judge Critical of Trump Goes Up in Flames 19:01 - Trump Says U.S. Struck Another Boat Accused of Carrying Drugs off Venezuela THE TEAM Produced by: Cory Ray Edited by: James Girardier, Maxwell Enright, Julie Goldberg, Christian Meeks, Matthew Henry Art Department: William Crespo Writing/Research: Philip DeFranco, Brian Espinoza, Lili Stenn, Maddie Crichton, Chris Tolve, Star Pralle, Jared Paolino   ———————————— #DeFranco #BillBurr #Portland Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

TD Bank knows that running a small business is a journey, from startup to growing and managing your business. That's why they have a dedicated small business advice hub on their website to provide tips and insights on business banking to entrepreneurs. No matter the stage of business you're in, visit td.com slash small business advice to find out more or to match with a TD small business banking account manager. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco show. into the news, it is Monday, it's been a weekend, and there's a lot to talk about today, starting with this. It seems like all hell's breaking loose in Portland and Chicago, and that is very likely what Trump wants. Because even as both cities are fighting his efforts to send in the military, federal agents already in them, they've been accused of escalating the situation.

They're seemingly trying to make them resemble the crime-ridden war-ravaged wastelands that he's made them out to be. So in Portland, for example, what we've seen has been a few months, a pretty small protest based around a building used by ice in the southwest part of the city. But instead, you've got Trump claiming that what's been taking place is the destruction of the city. And with that, he's vowed to deploy troops to protect what he's called war-ravaged Portland, as well as ice facilities under attack by, quote, Antifa and other domestic terrorists. In all this attention, it's reportedly spurred people from outside the city to come there, including right-wing counter demonstrators.

And in fact, this weekend, you had what appeared to be right-wing activists and influencers waving, banners, and cheering when federal agents shot tear gas, flashbangs, and pepperballs toward a crowd of more than 100 protesters gathered outside of the ice building. All of which appear to be a significant escalation by ice on the demonstrators without really anything spurring that on. The reports are doing that agents had previously kept their crowd dispersal efforts to the driveway and the street immediately outside of the building, but this time they extended their efforts by several blocks. Right, and as that was happening in one small corner of the city, you also had a legal battle playing out. And with that, on Saturday, you had a Trump-appointed judge issuing a temporary restraining order

blocking the administration from sending in Oregon's National Guard. Or with the judge pointing to what she called substantial evidence at the protests at the Portland Ice Facility were not significantly violent or disruptive in the days or even weeks leading up to the president's directive. And with that, saying that she expected a trial court to agree with the state that the president had exceeded his constitutional authority. And while the administration, they quickly appealed, you also had Trump trying to get around her order by trying to send in 200 members of the California National Guard. Who notably, one, had already been sent to Los Angeles. And two, a different federal judge already ruled last month that the troops sent to the L.A. area had been used illegally as a national police force. And actually, in response to Trump's effort to turn them on another state, you had California saying that,

it would be joining Oregon and suing Trump. But then also you had the judge in the Portland case quickly calling an emergency hearing. And there, she revised her restraining order to cover the quote, relocation, federalization, or deployment of members of the National Guard of any state or the District of Columbia in the state of Oregon. But they're also telling lawyers from the Justice Department that the president was in direct contravention of her order. Then despite all that, you also had Trump on Saturday ordering the activation of 300 National Guard troops to Chicago against the wishes of Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. But then Pritzker last night, claiming at the guard in his state had been informed that Trump had ordered 400 members of the Texas National Guard

to be in his state, as well as others, including Oregon, although that was before the judge's revised order. But in any case, the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago are now suing the Trump administration as well. And so, you know, we wait to see if they also get the National Guard deployment blocked. We've also seen outlets reporting that federal agents in Chicago have become increasingly aggressive. Right, and with that, you've got videos of agents deploying tear gas, pepperballs, and roughly throwing protests to the ground going viral. And so on Friday, for example, you had federal agents reportedly throwing a tear gas canister at people on a busy street and then leaving the scene with that also happening right in front of an elementary school. Also on Saturday,

there was this highly contested thing that happened. You had an agent shooting and injuring a driver who Trump officials claimed rammed her car into a federal law enforcement vehicle. But then DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin describing the shooting incident as a response to an ambush that was carried out by domestic terrorists who also threw gas rocks and bottles at law enforcement. Also, law enforcement alleged the driver had been armed with a semi-automatic weapon, but charging documents didn't mention a weapon. And so, And with that, you had Pritzker saying he wanted more information and didn't really trust the official account. It's really hard to know exactly what the facts are, and they won't let us access the facts.

They are just putting out their propaganda, and then we've got to later determine what actually happened. Right. And then with that, you also had Pritzker saying that he had directed state agencies to investigate a recent raid at an apartment building on Chicago's south side. And there, he was referring to reports that children had been zip tied and held and that elderly people had been thrown into a U-Haul for three hours. And Pritzk were adding that he believed that some of the people detained were, also U.S. citizens. And so, you know, with all that, you had Pritzker making the argument that this chaos is what Trump wants. They are the ones that are making it a war zone. They want mayhem on the ground. They want to create the war zone so that they can send in even more troops. But ultimately, that's where we are with the situation right now. Obviously, we're going to have to

wait to see what happens, both legally and on the ground. Especially because in this part's my opinion, it does feel like Donald Trump is like trying to set up the chaos for something to happen really big so it could kind of justify him to do something even bigger. also feels crazy to say at this point because essentially it feels like Donald Trump is having Texas invade Illinois. But that's said, you know, that's the news, a little bit of my opinion. And of course, I'd love to hear from you, your thoughts, opinions, reactions, especially if you're in the states being affected right now. But the next step in the news, let's talk about the continued fallout that we're seeing from the Riyadh Comedy Festival. And while it's generally been

kind of a PR nightmare, how different people are managing it is very interesting. Some are doubling down on their choice to perform and others are actually apologizing for it. I mean, you just had Jessica Carson telling the Hollywood reporter that she's donating her paycheck from the event to a human rights group, saying my mission has always been to help people feel less alone. As an openly gay person, when I was asked to perform in Riyadh, I was surprised. I requested a guarantee that I could be openly out as a lesbian on stage and perform gay material. I hoped that this could help LGBTQ plus people in Saudi Arabia feel seen and value. I am grateful that I was able to do precisely that, but then adding at the same time,

I deeply regret participating under the auspices of the Saudi government. Remember, they're noting that the government continues to violate fundamental human rights, and so she decided to donate her money to, quote, an organization that can help combat these severe issues. Though there she didn't say which one, but she then addressed her fans saying, I will take full responsibility for my actions and dedicate myself to making amends so that my words and choices reflect the respect and care you deserve. And so what you saw was among a number of the reactions here, you had some comics who have been critical of the festival, now applauding her for donating the money that she earned. Because in addition to just everyday

people and human rights organizations saying, you know, why are you doing this? Reporting to things like Jamal Khashoggi being murdered, the human rights abuses in the country, and arguing at these sorts of events, they whitewash those issues. So then also inside of the comedian community, you had many comedians slamming the event and their fellow stand-ups who participated, especially as you had people learning about the comics that had been offered the gig but then turned it down on principle. But how it played out, what Kerson is not how played out for everyone. Right, many of the stars who were involved are standing by their choice to perform with, for example, Louis C.K. being the latest. Right, you had him recently telling Bill

that he was actually surprised by the backlash and adding. When this came up, they said there's only two restrictions, their religion and their government. I don't have jokes about those two things. It used to be when I got offers from places like that, there would be a long list and I just say, no, I don't need that. But when I heard it opening, I thought, that's awfully interesting. That just feels like a good opportunity, and I just feel like comedy is a great way to get in and start talking. And actually, Luis E.K. pointing to Jessica Carson when trying to demonstrate the positive things that could come from the festival, saying there's a woman who's a lesbian and Jewish who did a show over there,

and she got a standing ovation. So there's stuff going on that's unexpected in this thing. Right, and his words, they're kind of similar to what we heard from Bill Burr last week on his podcast. It was a mind-blowing experience. Definitely top three experiences I've ever had. I couldn't. Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, I could not have a better time doing shows for you guys. And it was great to experience that part of the world and to be a part of the first comedy festival over there in Saudi Arabia. I think it's going to lead to a lot of positive things. I literally think I'm going to fucking land, you know, and everybody's going to be screaming, death to America. And they're going to have like machetes and want to, like, chop my head off.

We end up driving into town. It's a city, everything, right? and everybody's just regular they're dressed different but they're regular like people just shooting the shed hey how you doing you know welcome we're saying hey we know we're happy to be here and we're driving around

and then I'm just like going like I thought this place was going to be like really tense and I'm thinking like is that a Starbucks next to a Pete's coffee next to a Burger King, next to a McDonald's,

next to a Pizza Hut, next to a Dunkin' Donuts, next to a Krispy Cream, next to a cheesecake factory, next to a KFC, next to a Chili's? They got a fucking Chili's over here? Then we go into the mall

because I want to get my kids something. It was a Timberland store. I could have bought Timberlands like I was in Brooklyn, New York. And then, in addition to that, you had Dave Chappelle apparently using his set to not necessarily defend himself, but to take shots at free speech in America compared to speech in Saudi Arabia.

Or because according to the New York Times, he said, quote, Right now in America, they say that if you talk about Charlie Kirk, that you'll get canceled. I don't know if that's true, but I'm going to find out. It's easier to talk here than it is in America. With that, then, unsurprisingly, being met with backlash. Or because repression of free speech, it's one of the most heavily talked about human rights abuses there. Or Chappelley apparently gets angry or is annoyed by people having an adverse reaction to his words, but in that country, like, they've arrested and executed journalists.

People at times protesting you in the States because they didn't like what you did, but that attention also got you an eight-figured Netflix deal. That's not the same thing. How many people six feet under right now would love to have been canceled that way? But also with that, apparently that's not where he ended because, according to the Times, he also spoke about his critical stance on Israel and then said that he's afraid of coming back to the U.S. because, quote, they're going to do something to me so that I can't say what I want to say. But hey, ultimately, that's where we are with this situation. And I guess where I want to leave it is, has any of this actually changed anything for you? When this blew up, I've largely predicted that I think this is,

going to leave most of the comedians unaffected. Their career is going to go on. This is going to be a play. That said, it's greatly changed my opinion of many of them. I see them as kind of just stand-for-nothing whores. It's like a reminder to not put certain people on a pedestal because life has taught us numerous times not to do that and then we just forget. But yeah, I guess my question is, does this actually change stuff for you? Right, are you as likely or less likely to watch or listen to something from one of these people to actually spend your dollars and go see them in person? Right? And I ask because that's really the only thing that would make 90% of these people introspective in the least bit. Yeah, I'd love to know your thoughts. And then there's more

we're going to dive into in just one minute, but first let me say, listen up. You with that passion project, that side hustle, that list of business ideas, just rotten in your notes at. I want you to make today the day you commit to making that thing real. Because I get it. I procrastinate on a lot, including building my book club website. Like, it was forever, but I kid you not, the DeFranco Book Club. It went from someday to launched an under an hour with today's sponsor, Squarespace. Right. And it just couldn't be easier to build a site to start selling content, courses, physical or digital products, I mean, really, whatever you've got in mind. So whether you want to just make and showcase stuff, or you want to charge a one-time fee,

offer a subscription, both done and done. And they've got beautiful templates that look like you hired a designer and their fluid engine editor. It lets you drag, drop, customize, no coding, no stress, no excuses. Oh, my team even uses Squarespace for our Daily Dip newsletter where tens of thousands of y'all every day get your PDS fix in your inbox. News polls, giveaways, PDS, show notes, all run through Squarespace. And like clockwork, another daily dip issue went out today and your project vision could be next. Say, hey, take that first step today with a free trial at Squarespace.com slash Phil or just scan that QR code.

Today is launch day. When it's ready to go live, just use code Phil to get 10% off and let them know he sent you. But the next up today, Galane Maxwell just got some bad news from the Supreme Court. Because they just officially returned to the bench today to kick off what is going to be a very, very consequential term. One of the first things that they did was reject Maxwell's attempt to appeal her criminal conviction for sex trafficking girls for Jeffrey Epstein. Because back in April, you had Maxwell filing a petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction. And you had Maxwell arguing that she should have never been prosecuted because of the infamous plea deal that Epstein had reached with Florida prosecutors back in 2008 to resolve allegations that he had molested dozens of girls. And specifically, under that deal, you had Epstein agreeing to plead guilty to state criminal charges of soliciting prostitution.

And in exchange, prosecutors agreed to not bring more criminal charges against him related to the sex trafficking investigation. But also, very notably there, the prosecutors also agreed to not charge any of Epstein's co-conspirators. And so after Maxwell was convicted for her sex crimes in New York, she attempted to appeal the decision, arguing that Epstein's plea deal protected her for her for. from prosecution. But we saw was an appeals court rejecting that claim, ruling that the authorities in New York were not bound to an agreement made by prosecutors in Florida. And so now, by declining to hear her case,

the Supreme Court basically put the final nail in the coffin. Though you also had a lawyer issuing a statement saying that this fight isn't over and adding, serious legal and factual issues remain and we will continue to pursue every avenue available to ensure that justice is done. But with that said, it's also not clear what exactly they can do right now.

You have experts saying that with the Supreme Court decision, it seems likely that Maxwell's only hope for an early release would actually be Trump granting her clemency, which, on that note, I'll say, for his part back in July, he said, you know, he hadn't considered pardoning Maxwell, which you can believe him or not at that point, but he also added, I'm allowed to do it. But also say, you know, for whatever it's worth, his administration did urge the Supreme Court not to take up Maxwell's appeal. Though, I will say, since we're on the topic of Epstein-related news, we need to then talk

about House Speaker Mike Johnson. Right, and that, because Democrats are accusing him of refusing to swear in a new representative and denying hundreds of thousands of people a voice in Congress because he wants to continue to block the Epstein files from being released. Because we've talked about many times before, representatives Thomas, Massey, and Rokana, they proposed a bill to release the Epstein files, but Johnson has refused to even bring it to the floor for a vote. And so instead, Massey and Kana, they've been circulating what's known as a discharge petition, which would allow them to bypass leadership and force a floor vote as long as they can collect signatures from a majority of House members. And for a while now,

they've been just one vote away because several prominent Republicans even joined their charge. And then, it seemed like they got their final vote that they needed. Because Adelita Grijalva, she won a special election in Arizona, and she's a Democrat. And Grijalva vowed to sign the discharge petition once she got sworn in. But apparently, that's easier said than done, because even though she was elected two weeks ago, Speaker Johnson has repeatedly refused to swear her in. Where the House was at a session all last week in an effort to pressure the Senate to pass the GOP's stopgap spending bill to keep the government open, which is an attempt that obviously failed.

But also, before the government shut down, Johnson held what's called a pro forma session, which basically is a brief meeting for members of the House to discuss, procedural matters without conducting legislative business. And so Grijalva, she went to Washington early last week and hopes of being sworn in during that session. Hopes, I should say, that are not unreasonable because earlier this year Johnson swore in two Republican representatives during another pro forma session just one day after they won special elections. But apparently Johnson's only willing to do that for members of his own party or people, I guess, who don't want to release the Epstein files because he refused to do the same for Grijalva. With Johnson arguing that for some reason, he doesn't want her to take office until the House resumes its normal legislative business with him telling CBS on Thursday. The house is not on the floor doing business this week, but we will do it immediately early next week as soon as everyone returns to town, but we have to have everybody here and

we'll swear her end. But then the next day, you had Johnson going back on that promise as well. We're denouncing that he won't actually be holding a session this week. Instead, designating a district work period, which allows Congress members to return to their home states from October 7 to the 13. But then also, the day after that, Johnson signaled that he would be laying Grie Halva swearing in even more. Retelling reporters that the House won't come back into session until the shutdown ends and the government reopens. And of course, right now, we have no idea when that's actually gonna happen.

And so as a result, you have many, including many Democrats, condemning Johnson, arguing that he could call a pro forma session whenever he wants to make her election official. Noting that a shutdown doesn't actually prevent members from being sworn in. In fact, the entire house was sworn in when a new Congress started during the month-long shutdown

that bled into January of 2019, which is then why you have tons of people accusing Johnson of intentionally refusing to swear Grijalva in so he can continue blocking the House from even voting on releasing the Epstein files. And that's also something that Grijalva herself says she believes is the only explanation here. At first, I was trying not to be a conspiracy theory.

Yeah, I also have been the same. Like, maybe there's something I'm missing here. Right. It doesn't have anything to do with these files, but that is literally the only thing I can point to. It's not like me getting sworn in is going to change. You know, now the Democrats will be in the majority. I mean, there are certain things that are not going to change where Democrats will still be in the minority. That is literally the only thing that is different.

For now, we'll have to wait to see how this plays out because while it's very important to look at the insane lanes that Johnson is going to to just make sure this plays out a certain way. Whether it is days or weeks from now, Grijalva will eventually be sworn in. When she does, that discharge petition will have enough signatures, and the House will be voting on releasing the Epstein files. It is just a matter of time. But the next step in the news, we should talk about how the beach-run house of a South Carolina judge who recently ruled against President Trump just went up in flames yesterday, and it's led to multiple injuries and accusations. And while the authorities, they're still investigating, the information is tight. Here is what we do know

for service. At about 11.30 a.m. on Saturday morning, Judge Diane Goodstein was out walking her dogs when her home went up in flames. And reports have indicated that our 81 year old husband, former Senator Arnold Goodstein, and another person had to escape via an upper floor window. Then he was reportedly airlifted to a hospital for injuries, and in total, three people were taken in. The actual cause of the fire right now, that's unknown, but whatever it was, it quickly burned the house down with just, you know, aerial footage from the scene showing almost nothing left. And well, officially, we do not know the cause. Online, there was plenty of speculation, and many have concluded that this was definitely a politically motivated attack.

Right, and that, because recently, Judge Goodstein had ruled against the Trump administration in an immigration case. Right, because the DOJ, they recently wanted South Carolina to hand over personal data for about 3.3 million voters. Data that would reveal the names, addresses, birth dates, driver licenses, and the last four of Social Security numbers to the Trump administration. Right, and then they would use that information to cross-reference another database to try and see if any undocumented people were unlawfully allowed to cast votes in state election.

And following a ruling to block that move early last month, her family reportedly received multiple death threats. So also, I'll say, ultimately, her ruling didn't matter as the state Supreme Court overturned her decision. You know, as you can imagine, with how high political tensions are right now in the string of attacks and assassinations we've seen on political figures, to some, her house burning, it just seemed like too much of a coincidence. And to do it a lot, including politicians speculating about the motivations behind the alleged arson. Right, I mean, New York Congressman Daniel Goldman writing on X yesterday. Trump, Stephen Miller, and Maga World have been doxing and threatening judges who rule against Trump, including Judge

Goodstein. And adding, today, someone committed arson on the judge's home, severely injuring her husband and son. Will Trump speak out against the extreme right that did this? However, at the time he wrote that, there wasn't a confirmed suspect or motive, just heavily assumed given the circumstances. Which then resulted in Stephen Miller writing, you are vile, deeply warped and vile, while the Trump administration has launched the first ever government-wide effort to combat and prosecute illegal doxing, sinister threats, and political violence, you continue to push despicable lies, demented smears, malicious defamation, and foment unrest. Despicable. With him then going on to try to flip the situation,

saying, meanwhile, the Democrat AG nominee in Virginia is fan. fantasizing about murdering his opponents and a Biden federal judge is showing radical leniency to a monster who tried to assassinate a Supreme Court justice. While you post your libelous madness, we will keep focused on delivering public safety and fighting domestic terror. Then, you had Goldman pushing back saying that Miller didn't actually answer his question, and he once again asked, do you condemn all political violence or only that against your supporters? But again, I want to stress at least as a recording right now, there is no public confirmation about what happened. But also, one of the reasons that Miller might be so defensive about the accusation is because he just wrote a day before the fire. The issue before us now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of left-wing terrorism in this country. It is well-organized and funded, and it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors, and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks. With many feeling like posts like that, motivate people to act on behalf of the Trump administration. Right, arguing there that even though he was careful and he used legitimate state power in that statement,

that when paired to the numerous other things he's been saying, it seems like it's something else. But again, right now there's a lot of. We don't know and we'll have to wait to see. But then next up in the news, the United States has now killed at least four more people off of the coast of Venezuela that it's claimed without evidence were drug traffickers, and actually, according to Trump, strikes on Venezuelan territory might be next. Right, and all of this, it's coming as he's attempting to justify these and future attacks by arguing that the U.S. is literally at war with drug cartels that his team has designated terrorist organizations. You know, all of this, it's been building toward this point for nearly the entirety of Trump's second term. It was back in February that Trump designated eight Latin American criminal organizations as foreign terrorist. terrorist organization, six from Mexico, one from El Salvador, and one from Venezuela. Right, Trin de Eiragua was the Venezuelan-based group, which Trump has claimed is directed by Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. And that's even though, one, U.S. intelligence assessment has said that that is not true,

and two, experts have also noted that the group is not deeply involved in narcotics trafficking. But regardless, we then saw Trump invoking wartime powers to deport migrants at the administration accused of being members of TDA without due process. Right, and there, he argued that the group was engaged in irregular warfare against the U.S. at the direction of Maduro. Then, fast forward in July, you have Trump signed. a secret order directing the Pentagon to begin using military force against these recently designated terrorist organizations. And then in August, you start seeing a buildup of American firepower in the

Southern Caribbean Sea. And then in September, the U.S. launched at least three strikes against alleged drug traffickers in the region, killing at least 17 people, according to the administration. With it also being reported that at least one of those votes that the U.S. took out may have actually turned around before being hit. But again, regardless of that, you had the administration describing these strikes as an active self-defense. Right. And their argument was basically that they had the legal authority to kill these people without due process because they were smuggling drugs into the U.S. for terrorist organizations, though again, they haven't provided any evidence for that. And all of that, it led to last week, where he had Trump doubling down on that argument

and even taking it a step further, right, Trump sends a formal notice to Congress, framing those strikes as part of an ongoing conflict rather than isolated acts of self-defense, blaming that the cartels kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and constitute an armed attack against U.S. citizens. And then adding that Trump thereby determined that members of drug cartels are unlawful combatants with whom the United States is engaged in non-international armed conflict. Right, and that's actually a key thing, and an armed conflict, as it defined by by international law, at least. A country can lawfully kill enemy fighters

when they pose no threat, detain them, and definitely without trials, and prosecute them in military courts. And you know, it's worth pointing out here that the term unlawful combatants, it's the same term that the George W. Bush administration used to describe al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks. And that's also been a comparison

that we've repeatedly seen made. Where you had Defense Secretary Pete Hegsef doing it over the weekend when asked about the legality of the strikes by Fox News. Oh, we have every authorization needed. These are designated as foreign terrorist organizations. They're effectively designated just like al-Qaeda, which if I saw al-Qaeda,

and the conduct of doing something that was going to threaten and kill Americans, I had the right to do that in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're in our hemisphere and you're in the Caribbean, if you're north of Venezuela and you want to traffic drugs to the United States, you are a legitimate target of the United States military. And in each one of these strikes, we know where they're coming from, we know who they work for, we know where they're going, we know what they're carrying.

We know how many people are on that boat. And that's why these are legitimate clean kills in pursuit of defending the homeland. Except this isn't the same, right? After 9-11, Congress explicitly authorized the use of military. force against terrorist organizations specifically responsible for that attack. It hasn't authorized the use of military force to target drug cartels. And it's why you've got folks like one retired military lawyer who's the current director of the National Security Law Program at Georgetown University Law School explaining,

declaring an organization as a foreign terrorist organization does not bring with it any additional authority to use force against those organizations. And with that, you also have the likes of John B. Bellinger III, a lawyer who served in the Bush administration explaining. Claiming that the U.S. is engaged in a non-international armed conflict with Venezuelan drug traffickers based on the facts provided so far is an enacting. legal analogy that makes a mockery of accepted international law terms, and perhaps that's what the Trump administration intends. And that then brings us to Senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat of the

Senate Armed Services Committee, slamming the administration for offering what he called no credible legal justification, evidence, or intelligence for the strikes and dadding. Every American should be alarmed that the president believes he can wage secret wars against anyone he chooses. Congress alone has the constitutional power to decide when America goes to war. The president cannot launch military campaigns and invent legal cover after the fact. But of course, words are words and actions are And in the meantime, no one's stopping it. Right, on Friday, the same day Reid made that statement, you had Heggseth announcing that the military had targeted another vessel off the coast of Venezuela,

and he said that four male narco-terrorists had been killed, bringing the total to at least 21. With Hexed said, also claiming, again, without evidence, at least thus far, that the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics, headed to America to poison our people and adding. Our intelligence, without a doubt, confirmed that this vessel was trafficking narcotics, the people on board were narco-terrorists,

and they were operating a known narco-trafficking transit route. And saying these strikes will continue until the attacks on the American people are over. And you also had Trump posting the clip that day, and adding, a boat loaded with enough drugs to kill 25,000 to 50,000 people was stopped early this morning off the coast of Venezuela from entering American territory. And that's actually a claim that he repeated on Sunday while delivering a speech for the Navy's 250th anniversary with him, then also saying that another strike had been carried out the previous night. Although I will say there, it's not clear if he was actually thinking about the one from Friday. In recent weeks,

the Navy has supported our mission to blow the cartel terrorists the hell out of the water. You see that? And you know, there are no. boats in the water anymore. We can't find any. We're having a hard time finding them. Every one of those boats is responsible for the death of 25,000 American people and the destruction of families. So when you think of it that way, what we're doing is actually an act of kindness. But we did another one last night. Now we just can't find any. You know, it's the old story. We're so good at it that there are no boats. In fact, even fishing boats, nobody wants to go into the water anymore. Sorry to tell you that. But it's, uh, we're stopping drugs coming into America.

But then with all that, it's not clear at all right now how he figured that all those boats would be responsible for those deaths. So notably, you also had him repeating the claim that he's made before that more than 300,000 U.S. citizens die of drug overdoses annually. That doesn't appear to be right that. The CDC reported only 87,000 overdose deaths for the year ending in September 2024, which I will say is still a shit ton of people, but obviously also way less than 300,000. And actually, it was almost 27% less than the previous year. Also, on the note of overdose deaths, I mean, that surge that we've seen on recent years, it's been driven by fentany.

And drug trafficking experts say that that comes from Mexico. And even cocaine, that's mostly coming from Colombia and to a lesser extent Peru and Bolivia. You know, while some cocaine does leave South America through Venezuela, the country isn't a primary source of drugs coming to the U.S. I mean, at least according to our own DEA and a 2020 report. And so ultimately, besides the legal rationale for all this being widely criticized, the basic facts that he's trying to back it up with, they just aren't there. But still, you had Trump suggesting that this might just be the beginning.

Well, they're not coming in by sea anymore, so now we'll have to start looking about the land because they'll be forced to go by land. And let me tell you right now, that's not going to work out well for them either. And actually with that, it was first reported a couple of weeks ago that U.S. military officials are drawing up options to target drug traffickers inside of Venezuela. You've got sources reportedly telling NBC news that strikes potentially begin in a matter of weeks. And so since there's a lot to suggest that this really isn't all about drugs, it leaves open the question, well, what is it really about?

And well, there, you had the Venezuelan president repeatedly alleging that this is all really aimed at driving him out of power. And in fact, several top officials in the Trump administration, they've reportedly been pushing for regime change. We're talking Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio as well as CIA director, John Ratcliffe, and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. So understandably, while there's a lot of attention on what's happening in the United States domestically, and it makes sense that there is attention and it is important. This is also something we've got to keep tabs on, one, because it matters generally, and two, it could spiral out of control. And that, actually, it brings us to the end of this. though, there's even more to watch just to click away. You've got the first episode of my brand new podcast crashing out with myself and Alex

Perlman. And also the next episode of that is out Wednesday, so definitely subscribe if you haven't already. There's also the latest episode of my interview podcast, In Good Faith, this one with Tim Miller. There's a new episode of that coming out this Thursday. Definitely subscribe to that as well. And I've even got links in the description if you want to watch on YouTube, Spotify, or Apple Podcast. But with that said, I'm going to give you back your day. Thank you for watching.

I love yo faces and I'll see you right back here tomorrow.