The Intercept Briefing

Greg Grandin, a renowned historian and Yale professor, digs into the implications of Trump's intervention in Venezuela. He argues that the administration has redefined the Monroe Doctrine as a tool for U.S. interests, essentially a 'universal police warrant.' Maureen Tkacik shares insights on the economic crisis in Venezuela and the complexities of replacing Maduro. Together, they explore tensions within U.S. foreign policy, the influence of Marco Rubio, and broader aims to curb China's influence in Latin America.

In a compelling conversation, tech reporter Karen Hao unveils the alarming implications of AI expansion. With her background in investigative journalism, she draws parallels between AI companies and historical empires, emphasizing labor exploitation and environmental costs. Hao critiques the rapid growth of AI infrastructure, highlighting its negative impacts on vulnerable communities. She challenges the narrative of AI's utopian promises, warning that without proper regulations, this may lead to growing inequality and potential industry collapse.

We're excited to share another episode of The Intercept’s new podcast Collateral Damage. The investigative series examines the half-century-long war on drugs, its enduring ripple effects, and the devastating consequences of building a massive war machine aimed at the public itself. Hosted by Radley Balko, an investigative journalist who has been covering the drug war and the criminal justice system for more than 20 years, each episode takes an in-depth look at someone who was unjustly killed in the drug war. Veronica and Charity Bowers, a young Christian missionary and her daughter, are killed when the Peruvian Air Force shoots down a small passenger plane in 2001. The plane had been mistaken for a drug smuggling plane and was shot down as part of a joint anti-drug agreement between the CIA and the Colombian and Peruvian governments.President Donald Trump has made the Bowers's deaths newly and urgently relevant since he began ordering the U.S. military to strike down alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean in September 2025. By early November, the U.S. had launched a total of 17 strikes, killing at least 70 people, and those figures seem to grow almost by the day. The attacks are illegal under both U.S. and international law. The administration also provided no documentation of the alleged drug trafficking. The attack on the Bowers family pierced the veil that obscures drug war foreign policy because of their nationality, skin color, and relatability. More than 20 years ago, House Oversight Committee hearing members Jan Schakowsky and Elijah Cummings demanded accountability after U.S. drug interdiction forces killed the Bowers. They demanded to know how such a mistake could happen, and how we could prevent the loss of innocent life going forward.“The kind of action we saw in Peru … amounts to an extrajudicial killing,” said Schakowsky at the time. Cummings added, “The Peruvian shootdown policy would never be permitted as a domestic United States policy precisely because it goes against one of our most sacred, due process principles — namely, that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty.”Now, a new administration openly celebrates summary execution of alleged drug smugglers without a hint of due process, and is now threatening to topple another government to prevent the U.S. from sating its appetite for illicit drugs. The story of Veronica and Charity Bowers is a stark reminder of how aggressive drug policy is wasteful and futile, how we never seem to learn from past failures, and how the generations-long effort to stop people from getting high also — and necessarily — treats human lives as expendable.Subscribe and listen to the full series on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The most defining feature of Donald Trump’s first year back in office has been the brutality of his deportation machine and his administration's numerous attempts to upend due process. Back in March, the Trump administration wrongly deported Kilmar Ábrego Garcia to a notoriously violent prison in El Salvador. Ábrego Garcia’s legal status protected him from deportation to his home country for fear of persecution.“I think most Americans are intelligent enough to recognize that everybody deserves due process,” says Ábrego Garcia’s attorney Benjamin Osorio. “There's a process. They get a jury of their peers. And the same thing in immigration: This guy had a lawful order protecting him from being removed from the United States, and the government violated that.”This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Akela Lacy speaks to Osorio about Ábrego Garcia’s case. After months of being shipped around detention centers, he is free and fighting deportation orders from home with his family. “I think the courts have probably never seen more immigration habeases in their life.” says Osorio. “In the habeas sense, I would think that Kilmar’s case has had a lot of effect in the immigration practice.”Ábrego Garcia’s story epitomizes the unlawfulness and cruelty of the Trump administration’s deportation agenda and for that reason his story has become a political flashpoint. But what’s less understood is the scale and scope of fulfilling the administration’s vision of mass deportation.A new investigative video series from Lawfare and SITU Research called "Deportation, Inc.: The Rise of the Immigration Enforcement Economy,” maps out a vast web of companies that make up the rapidly growing deportation economy, how we got here, and the multibillion-dollar industry driven by profit, political power, and a perverse incentive structure.“The creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002 was a pivotal moment. It was a major restructuring of immigration, and that was also a point at which the framing of immigration went from more of a civil matter to more of a national security concern,” says Tyler McBrien, managing editor of Lawfare. “And with that transition, the amount of money and contracts began to flood in.”Gauri Bahuguna, deputy director of research at SITU, adds, “It was in the Obama administration where the detention bed quota comes in, and that's really the key unit of measurement that drives this particular part of the immigration enforcement industry, is 'How much money can you make per detained individual?’”“Even though the bed quota is gone formally from the law there, it still exists in contracts with companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group,” says Bahuguna. “There is payment for detaining a certain number of people, whether or not the beds are occupied, and then the perverse incentive to keep those facilities filled because there's an economies of scale.” McBride underscores that the current immigration system is “treating people as these products and units and to maximize profit.”Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.You can support our work at theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In September, The Intercept broke the story of the U.S. military ordering an additional strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.Since then, U.S. boat strikes have expanded to the Pacific Ocean. The Intercept has documented 22 strikes as of early December that have killed at least 87 people. Alejandro Carranza Medina, a Colombian national, was one of the dozens of people killed in these strikes. His family says he was just out fishing for marlin and tuna when U.S. forces attacked his boat on September 15. On behalf of Medina’s family, attorney Dan Kovalik has filed a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.“We're bringing a petition alleging that the U.S. violated the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, in particular, the right to life, the right to due process, the right to trial, and we're seeking compensation from the United States for the family of Alejandro Carranza, as well as injunctive relief, asking that the U.S. stop these bombings,” Kovalik told The Intercept.In the midst of this massive scandal, the so-called Department of War is cracking down on journalists’ ability to cover U.S. military actions. Back in October, Secretary Pete Hegseth introduced major new restrictions on reporters covering the Pentagon. In order to maintain press credentials to enter the Pentagon, journalists would have to sign a 17-page pledge committing to the new rules limiting press corps reporting to explicitly authorized information, including a promise to not gather or seek information the department has not officially released.This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Jessica Washington speaks to Kovalik about Medina's case. Intercept senior reporterNick Turse and Gregg Leslie, executive director of the First Amendment Clinic at Arizona State University Law, also join Washington to discuss the strikes off the coast of Latin America, subsequent attacks on shipwrecked survivors, and the administration’s response to reporting on U.S. forces and the Pentagon.Leslie raised concerns about the administration’s attempts to erase press freedoms. “It's just that fundamental issue of, who gets to cover the government? Is it only government-sanctioned information that gets out to the people, or is it people working on behalf of the United States public who get to really hold people to account and dive deep for greater information? And all of that is being compromised, if there's an administration that says, ‘We get to completely put a chokehold on any information that we don't want to be released,’” says Leslie. “You just don't have a free press if you have to pledge that you're not going to give away information just because it hasn't been cleared. It just shouldn't work that way, and it hasn't worked that way. And it's frightening that we've gotten an administration trying to make that the norm.”With a president who regularly targets journalists and critics, Turse adds, “What's to stop a lawless president from killing people in America that he deems to be domestic terrorists? … These boat strikes, the murders of people convicted of no crimes, if they become accepted as normal. There's really nothing to stop the president from launching such attacks within the United States.”Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing onApple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.You can support our work at theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As of December first, officials across the U.S. have executed 44 people in 11 states, making 2025 one of the deadliest years for state sanctioned executions. In this week’s episode we talk to Malcolm Gladwell, whose new podcast series dives into one case to understand how the system operates and the reality that who gets sentenced to die often depends on things that have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Intercept reporter Liliana Segura also joins the conversation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Brian Goldstone, a journalist and author of "There Is No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America," sheds light on the troubling reality of working homelessness. He discusses how full-time jobs often fail to prevent housing instability, leading many to live in cars or motels. Goldstone also shares poignant stories, like that of Celeste, who faced eviction after a house fire. He critiques the bipartisan approach to homelessness, emphasizing that government policies and private equity are exacerbating the crisis. His call to action centers on reimagining housing as a fundamental human right.

Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor and expert on economic inequality, shares insights on the current state of the economy and Democratic politics. He emphasizes the struggles faced by the bottom 90% as real wages fall and critiques the Democratic leadership for lacking backbone against corporate influence. Reich calls for new leadership to connect with everyday Americans, endorsing grassroots progressive candidates and highlighting the urgent need to combat wealth concentration and corporate power. His reflections on past trade policies and the necessity for a fresh Democratic vision are particularly compelling.

Saikat Chakrabarti, a progressive organizer and co-founder of Justice Democrats, discusses his vision for political change as he runs to replace Nancy Pelosi. He emphasizes the need for new leadership to combat economic inequality and corporate power. Chakrabarti critiques Democratic leaders for missed opportunities and highlights his 'Mission for America' plan, advocating for housing as infrastructure and comprehensive reform. He calls for grassroots movements and bold strategies to challenge authoritarianism and remake the Democratic Party.

On Tuesday, voters in Virginia, New York City, New Jersey, Texas, California, and Mississippi overwhelmingly supported Democratic candidates and ballot initiatives.In New York, despite facing racist opposition from both Republicans and much of the Democratic establishment, Zohran Mamdani sailed to victory. The new mayor-elect won over 50 percent of the vote in a three-way race. And in Virginia, Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger won with an even greater margin over her opponent, Winsome Earle-Sears, whose campaign weaponized transphobia in a vain attempt to defeat Spanberger.In California, as of Wednesday, nearly two-thirds of the vote favored redrawing the congressional map to counter Republican gerrymandering in Texas.The Intercept Briefing spoke with Amanda Litman, co-founder and president of the PAC Run for Something, and Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, to discuss what lessons Democrats and progressives should take heading into the midterm elections. Mitchell pointed to Mamdani’s and other Democrats' success last night at driving home a positive economic message for working-class voters as an important roadmap for next year.“There’s elements of [Mamdani’s] victory that are very particular to New York, that are very particular to him, but the politics and the conditions that are a part of the victory are happening all across the country,” said Mitchell. “It's clear that this was a wave election. And inside of that wave are a number of independent, progressive-minded folks who didn't wait their turn, who are willing to fight for working people.” Similarly, Litman argued that Democrats need to embrace a big tent that includes progressive voices. "You need candidates who know what they believe, who know how to communicate, who love the place they're running, and who can articulate why voters should want them to win,” she said.Litman continued, “Does every candidate need to have the exact same ideological profile? No. But also, the person who's running and winning a seat on the Iowa City Council is probably not a good fit for the New York City Council, and vice versa. And that's OK. To be a party that can win everywhere, which is what we need to be in order to stop authoritarianism and stop what the Republican Party has done, we need to have a big tent.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.You can support our work at theintercept.com/join. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.