Up First from NPR - Coast Guard Pursues Tanker, Epstein Files Release, Immigration Court No-Shows

Episode Date: December 22, 2025

The U.S. Coast Guard is pursuing an oil tanker in the Caribbean that it says has links to Venezuela. The Department of Justice has released a limited number of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. And, an analysis by NPR finds thousands of immigrants without legal status aren’t showing up to immigration court, leading to a rise in deportation removals.(00:00) Cold Open(01:37) Introduction(02:34) Coast Guard Pursues Tanker(06:53) Epstein Files Release(10:42) Immigration Court No-ShowsWant more analysis of the most important news of the day, plus a little fun? Subscribe to the Up First newsletter.Today’s episode of Up First was edited by Tara Neill, Anna Yukhanonov, Lisa Thomson and Adriana Gallardo. It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Nia Dumas and Christopher Thomas.We get engineering support from Neisha Heinis. And our technical director is Carleigh Strange.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Layla. Hi, Steve. You sound a little impatient with me already. No, no. Whoops. It's just really early. I'm tired. Well, it's good to hear your voice.

It's good to hear your voice. You too. And before we get started, we're supposed to, and I'm happy to, make a note here, that public media has not only brought you the news this year, we've been part of the news this year. Yeah, we don't like to be part of the news, but we're happy to still be here, happy to still bring you up first and all the podcasts you love from NPR, public media, it's made for you. We're not thinking about shareholders or advertisers. We're thinking about what you need to know and what we need to ask to help you understand the world we're living in. Federal support was canceled for public

media this year and yet stations across this country, and I've visited a bunch of them, by the way, are in good shape for now, are all right for now because so many Americans have stepped up to support what we do. Yeah, it has touched us so much and we hope that you continue to support us. So many listeners are stepping up. People like Greg and Arizona who say, I listen to Up First to start my day while walking my dog. It is spiritual. Spiritual. I hope the dog likes it too. Thanks, Greg. And thank you if you already go the extra mile as an NPR Plus supporter. If not, you can join the Plus community and get a bunch of perks like bonus episodes and more from across NPR. podcasts, and you also, this is the big thing, you support public media by signing up for NPR

Plus, and you can do it today at plus.npr.org. The United States says the Coast Guard is pursuing an oil tanker in the Caribbean. The U.S. sees a different tanker over the weekend. What justification does the administration offer for its actions off the coast of Venezuela? I'm Lila Faudil. That's Steven Skipe, and this is up first from NPR News. Lawmakers are far from satisfied with the limited number of Epstein files released in time for a legal deadline. Pam Bondi is breaking the law, and this is the corruptist of the Epstein class that people are sick of. What consequences would the Attorney General face?

Also, an analysis by NPR finds thousands of immigrants without legal status are not showing up to immigration court, and that is leading to a rise in deportation orders. Stay with us. We've got the news you need to start your day. day. This message comes from Wise, the app for using money around the globe. When you manage your money with Wise, you'll always get the mid-market exchange rate with no hidden fees. Join millions of customers and visit Wise.com. T's and Cs apply. The Trump administration says the Coast Guard is pursuing an oil tanker linked with Venezuela. That's one of several developments. over the weekend in the U.S. campaign against the government of President Nicolas Maduro. The U.S. is trying to enforce a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers traveling to and from Venezuela.

Okay, there's a lot to catch up on here. So NPR's Kerry Kahn is tracking it all from Rio de Janeiro. Carrie, welcome. Hi. Terms to define here, what does the United States mean when they say they are pursuing a tanker? Right. We have limited official information on the situation right now in the Caribbean, the Pentagon, and the coasts. Guard is referring all inquiries to the White House, which is not commenting.

But late yesterday, one U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly, did tell NPR, the Coast Guard was in, quote, active pursuit of a ship. The official said that ship, the tanker was, quote, a dark fleet vessel attempting to illegally evade sanctions. The official also stated that the tanker was flying a false flag and under a judicial seizure order. What's a dark fleet vessel? Usually these are oil tankers that use a lot of deceptive practices to evade international sanctions,

like they fly fake flags, they can disable their transponders, send out fake signals, all to hide where they've been and where they're going. But this is not the only ship the U.S. targeted over the weekend. In the pre-dawn hour Saturday, and this is according to a social media post by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristy Nome, She said the Coast Guard with the help from the military that's out there in the Caribbean apprehended a different oil tanker that was last docked in Venezuela. According to data from the monitoring group tanker trekkers.com, the ship was not under U.S. sanctions, though. A White House spokeswoman later than posted on social media that the tanker was flying under a false flag. And again, tanker trackers.com says it was a Panamanian flag.

Okay, so we've got two ships, one seized, one being pursued in some fashion. There was also this third ship earlier this month that the U.S. seized. What does this add up to? What is the United States really doing? Department of Homeland Security Secretary Christy Noem said in that posting on social media that the U.S. is combating narco-terrorism, which the U.S. says Venezuela funds through its oil sales. That's what they've been saying. But then when that White House spokeswoman also posted Anna Kelly in her social

media post. She gave another argument that we've been hearing a lot from President Trump that the oil in these tankers is stolen from the U.S. And if you remember last week when President Trump announced that he was going to put this total and complete blockade against Venezuelan oil and the sanctioned tankers, he said more military pressure would come. And I'm going to quote, until they return to the United States of America, all of the oil, land, and other assets that Venezuela stole from us. It's not entirely clear what President Trump is referring to. Venezuela did nationalize U.S. oil assets in the 1970s and some more in the 2000s. Venezuela, of course, denies they've stolen anything and says Trump's true intentions are out in the open now. He just wants Venezuela's natural resources and its vast oil reserves among the largest in the world. How's Venezuela responding? Publicly, Steve, the government put out a statement condemning Saturday seizure.

Maduro put out a video accusing the U.S. of Pied. piracy and theft. He's called for the UN to intervene. Remember, the U.S. is also striking small boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific that it claims are transporting drugs, killing at least 104 people in at least 28 strikes so far. Maduro mentions all of this in rallies that he's holding a lot these days, and he's also giving long speeches on state TV, where he insists he just wants peace, not war. He really likes saying that in English, and lately he's even printed it on a mega-style red hat. You see him wearing a lot, too. And Pierce, Carrie Khan is in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Carrie, thanks so much.

You're welcome, Steve. Over the weekend, the Justice Department continued its partial release of files from the life and criminal cases of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender. The DOJ changed some of its redactions. That means people were able to read files that were originally blacked out. Lawmakers criticized the department for missing its deadline to release all the files. Some are threatening to hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt. And Pierre's Luke Garrett has been reading over the weekend and is here with us. Luke, good to see you. Good morning, Steve. Glad you got the scarf on to deal with the cold here

in Washington, D.C. What did you learn over the weekend? In short, not a lot. The DOJ did release two more data sets, and the department posted on X that a previously blacked out grand jury document was released with, quote, minimal redactions. But after a really close reading, the 119-page document did not have any major revelations such as new co-conspirators or crimes. While Epstein's crimes and conspiracy were described in brutal detail, the names remain largely redacted. But taken together, Steve, these files do show that people reported Epstein's criminal behavior to the government decades before it was federally investigated. Okay, the Justice Department is calling all of this online material, the Epstein Library. I did notice the problems over the weekend.

if you search the search engine for Epstein, you found no results. They also deleted some files that had previously been released and then brought them back. What's going on? That's right. The department deleted more than a dozen files from their original release this weekend. On Sunday morning, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche acknowledged this on NBC News. There were a number of photographs that were pulled down after being released on Friday. That's because a judge in New York has ordered us to listen to any victim or victim rights group

if they have any concerns about the material that we're putting up. Now, NPR found that at least one of these removed files included a photo of President Trump. By Sunday afternoon, the DOJ republished that Trump file saying no victims were depicted in that photo. In short, the DOJ says they were under a huge time crunch to put these files out, so they're asking the public to help them identify anything that should or shouldn't be there. And this review process is causing this back and forth. But some members of Congress aren't buying it. There was a legal deadline.

passed by Congress, almost unanimously. Can they enforce the law in any way? The lawmaker who authored the law says he's going to try. Take a listen to California Representative Roe Kana on CBS News. Pam Bondi is breaking the law, and this is the corruptist of the Epstein class that people are sick of. So I believe we're going to get bipartisan support in holding her accountable. And Steve, Kana's not alone.

His co-sponsor, Republican Thomas Massey, of Kentucky, wants to hold Bondi in congressional contempt, which would mean she'd face consequences. for not releasing these files. Here's Massey. And I think most expeditious way to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi. Kana and Massey say they're drafting this text now. And it's worth noting here, Steve, that inherent contempt has not been successfully used since 1935. But if passed, the House could jail someone inside the Capitol building or find them without going through the courts.

Why not just go to the courts, though? Well, individual members can't sue on behalf of the entire Congress. How should you just share committee ranking member, Jamie Raskin, told CNN, you know, he'd like to sue, but he just can't. It's not clear that we've got standing to do that. Speaker Johnson would clearly have standing to do that on behalf of the whole House of Representatives. Now, Speaker Johnson has given no indication he will sue the DOJ. But Steve, setting aside the legality of all this, the politics also looms large for the White House. And this Epstein file issue has already contributed to Trump losing support from one of his fiercest allies in Congress, namely Marjorie Taylor Green.

So I'll be watching if there's any more political follow-out for the president over these files. NPR's Luke Garrett. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thousands of immigrants without legal status have been no-shows in immigration court this year. And NPR has found those absences are leading to a rise in deportation cases. People lose their cases in absentia without coming to court to argue. their cases. Immigration courts are under pressure. Fire judges. Immigration agents milling about in hallways to make arrests. And some people deported to countries they've never lived in.

NPR immigration policy reporter Jimena Bastillo and data reporter Rahul Mukherjee calculated just how many times people are not showing up for these appointments. And Jimena is the one who gets to come here early in the morning to talk about this face-to-face. Hemana, good morning. What is going on here? Well, let's say you're in the country illegally. You may get a notice to a here in an immigration court with a specific place and a specific time. So basically, that's your chance to make your case as to why you should stay. That notice is not a deportation order, but if you don't show up, the government may have the right to order your deportation, and that's called an in absentia removal. Okay. And when you looked at these in absentia removals,

what did you find? We found that in nearly every immigration court in the country, more people are getting these orders, saying they basically didn't show. That's early analysis. is unique to NPR that relied on data from January through November. It's more than 50,000 people in that time, nearly three times the number from the last fiscal year, and it's a big jump from trends of prior years. The spike is really noticeable starting in summer around June, and that lines up with anecdotal observations I've been hearing. This is really interesting because in the past, people generally have showed up for

these hearings. So what happened in June? That's around the time when immigration and customs enforcement officers began making arrests in immigration courts. Here's Ruby Powers and immigration attorney in Texas talking about these arrests. They weren't consistent around the country. They were in some places, but at least the word had spread. The fear had spread. And so the individuals were really hesitant to going to court. Okay. What does that tell you about the whole idea of due process of law for people who may claim they have some right to be here? Due process and immigration

can already be fairly limited. This administration has thrown into question whether these courts are even needed. And if immigrants want to participate, here's Andrew Arthur from the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit that advocates for lower levels of migration. In essence, by failing to appear, they were given their due process. They simply opted not to take the government up on the offer and are now amenable to removal. He said the more removals in absentia ordered by judges, the more are available to be arrested by immigration officers. And this all helps the administration's goal to curb illegal and legal migration. Powers and the Texas immigration attorney said immigrants do want to participate in the process and most people do show up. You know, it is pretty unlikely

that you're going to be arrested if you come one nonprofit, mobile pathways, puts the odds at less than 1%. But still, that broader uncertainty of if officers might be making arrests or where officers might be making arrests looms over immigrants and their lawyers, you know, who are thinking about these next steps. Yeah, when you say less than a 1% chance of being arrested when you're at court, that's not the impression people get from media reports. You hear about these dramatic arrests and confrontations in courtrooms. And it brings in the question that risk.

NPR's Amanda Bastillo. Thanks so much. Thank you. And that's up first for this Monday, December 22nd. I'm Steve Inskeep. And I'm Lela Faudill. For your next listen, why not try to consider this from NPR? We hear it up first give you the three big stories of the day. Consider this colleagues take a different approach.

They dive into a single news story and what it means to you in less than 15 minutes. Listen now on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. Today's Up First was edited by Tara Neal, Anna Yucaninoff, Lisa Thompson, and Adriana Gallardo. It was produced by Zad Batch, Nia Dumas, and Christopher Thomas. We get engineering support from Misha Highness, and our technical director is Carly Strange. Join us tomorrow. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Up First sponsor-free through Amazon music.

Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Upfirst Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.