Saturday, January 31, 2026
ICE Expands Power of Agents to Arrest People Without Warrants - The New York Times
ICE Expands Power of Agents to Arrest People Without Warrants
"An internal memo changed the standard from whether people are unlikely to show up for hearings to whether they could leave the scene.
Amid tensions over President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota and beyond, federal agents were told this week that they have broader power to arrest people without a warrant, according to an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo reviewed by The New York Times.
The change expands the ability of lower-level ICE agents to carry out sweeps rounding up people they encounter and suspect are undocumented immigrants, rather than targeted enforcement operations in which they set out, warrant in hand, to arrest a specific person.
The shift comes as the administration has deployed thousands of masked immigration agents into cities nationwide. A week before the memo, it came to light that Todd M. Lyons, the acting director of the agency, had issued guidance in May saying agents could enter homes with only an administrative warrant, not a judicial one. And the day before the memo, Mr. Trump said he would “de-escalate a little bit” in Minneapolis, after agents fatally shot two people in the crackdown there.
The memo, addressed to all ICE personnel and signed on Wednesday by Mr. Lyons, centers on a federal law that empowers agents to make warrantless arrests of people they believe are undocumented immigrants, if they are “likely to escape” before an arrest warrant can be obtained.
ICE has long interpreted that standard to mean situations in which agents believe someone is a “flight risk,” and unlikely to comply with future immigration obligations like appearing for hearings, according to the memo. But Mr. Lyons criticized that construction as “unreasoned” and “incorrect,” changing the agency’s interpretation of it to instead mean situations in which agents believe someone is unlikely to remain at the scene.
“An alien is ‘likely to escape’ if an immigration officer determines he or she is unlikely to be located at the scene of the encounter or another clearly identifiable location once an administrative warrant is obtained,” Mr. Lyons wrote.
The Times shared a description of the memo’s contents with several former senior ICE officials from the Biden administration. Claire Trickler-McNulty, a former senior adviser at ICE, called the new definition “an extremely broad interpretation of the term ‘escape.’”
“It would cover essentially anyone they want to arrest without a warrant, making the general premise of ever getting a warrant pointless,” she added.
Mr. Lyons’s memo explicitly portrays the revised interpretation of “likely to escape” as a change from how ICE had “previously applied the phrase.” But Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said that “this is not new.”
“This is simply a reminder to officers,” she wrote in a statement, to keep “detailed records on their arrests.”
The Trump administration has pushed ICE to significantly increase arrests per day as part of its mass deportation campaign. The agency has carried out more indiscriminate sweeps — like rounding up people in Home Depot parking lots looking for work — rather than targeted operations in which agents set out, warrant in hand, to arrest specific people.
Such roundup operations could still involve administrative warrants if supervisors on the scene quickly fill out the paperwork, known as a Form I-200. The change lowers the standard for arrests even without a supervisor’s approval.
Mr. Lyons’s memo lists factors agents can consider when deciding whether the standard has been met, including whether someone obeys commands or tries to evade them; has access to a car or other means to leave; has identification or work authorization documents agents suspect are fraudulent; or provides “unverifiable or suspected false information.”
The memo tells agents who make warrantless arrests to fill out a form afterward that documents the factors they considered in determining that someone was “likely to escape.” That includes situations in which agents set out to arrest a particular person and then take others in the vicinity into custody. Mr. Lyons called that group “collateral aliens.”
“If an immigration officer encounters and arrests multiple collateral aliens, his or her analysis as to the likelihood of escape must be specific to each alien arrested,” the memo said. “That one collateral alien is likely to escape does not necessarily mean another collateral alien is also likely to escape.”
But this kind of assessment requirement only goes so far: The memo stresses that “particular factors may be common to multiple aliens arrested at the same time.”
During the first Trump administration, a class-action lawsuit claimed that agents had been illegally profiling in traffic stops as a pretext for warrantless arrests. In 2022, the Biden administration agreed to a settlement that included a three-year nationwide policy. Plaintiffs last year accused the second Trump administration of violating the agreement, prompting litigation.
The policy standard in the 2022 settlement included factors that resembled Mr. Lyons’s list. But it also included “ties to the community (such as a family, home or employment) or lack thereof, or other specific circumstances that weigh in favor or against a reasonable belief that the subject is likely to abscond.”
But Mr. Lyons’s memo noted that when agents encounter people they suspect are in the country illegally, the agents are not likely to be able to know much about them. “This on-the-spot determination as to the likelihood of escape is often made with limited information about the subject’s identity, background or place of residence and no corroboration of any self-serving statements made by the subject,” he wrote.
Scott Shuchart, a former head of policy at ICE during the Biden administration, said the memo would open the door to more frequent warrantless arrests.
“This memo bends over backwards to say that ICE agents have nothing but green lights to make an arrest without even a supervisor’s approval,” he said. The memo, he warned, said that “even that supervisor’s note can almost always be sidestepped so long as the officer can say anything remotely plausible about the person being arrested possibly leaving the area.”
Hamed Aleaziz covers the Department of Homeland Security and immigration policy for The Times.
Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy for The Times."
Friday, January 30, 2026
Thursday, January 29, 2026
Judge rips into ICE but backs off demand for agency head to appear in court - POLITICO
Judge rips into ICE but backs off demand for agency head to appear in court
“ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence,” Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz wrote.
A federal immigration officer knocks on the door of a residence Jan. 28, 2026, in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota. | Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo
The top federal judge in Minneapolis backed off a plan to haul the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement into court Friday, but delivered a brutal condemnation of the agency for repeatedly defying judges’ orders in cases stemming from the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota.
Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz tore into the agency in a Wednesday order for what he characterized as a pattern of unprecedented defiance — violating dozens of court orders in ways that abused the rights of immigrants facing deportation proceedings.
“ICE is not a law unto itself,” Schiltz said in a four-page order.
Judge rips into ICE but backs off demand for agency head to appear in court - POLITICOJudge in Minnesota Says ICE Has Violated Nearly 100 Court Orders
Judge in Minnesota Says ICE Has Violated Nearly 100 Court Orders
"A federal judge said ICE had disobeyed more judicial directives this month than “some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”
The chief federal judge in Minnesota excoriated Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, saying it had violated nearly 100 court orders stemming from its aggressive crackdown in the state and had disobeyed more judicial directives in January alone than “some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”
The extraordinary broadside by the judge, Patrick J. Schiltz, came in a ruling in which he temporarily rescinded an order he had issued on Tuesday, summoning Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, to appear in front of him to explain why he should not be held in contempt for violating so many orders arising from the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration actions in Minnesota.
While Judge Schiltz, a conservative jurist appointed by President George W. Bush, let Mr. Lyons off the hook for the moment, he cautioned that he might change his mind and order him to appear again to answer questions if ICE continues to violate court orders.
“ICE is not a law unto itself,” the judge wrote. “ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated.”
Judge Schiltz attached to his ruling a list of 96 court orders from 74 different immigration cases that ICE has failed to follow since Jan. 1. He noted that his tally was “almost certainly substantially understated” because it had been “hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges.”
“This list should give pause to anyone — no matter his or her political beliefs — who cares about the rule of law,” Judge Schiltz added.
The federal courts in Minnesota have been deluged this month by legal cases filed by immigrants swept up in the administration’s dragnet. Some of the immigrants have sought to avoid being sent out of the state by federal agents, while others have complained they were wrongfully detained.
Judge Schiltz’s initial order demanding that Mr. Lyons appear in front of him on Friday arose in the case of Juan Hugo Tobay Robles, an Ecuadorean man who entered the United States illegally nearly 30 years ago and was taken into custody by immigration agents on Jan. 6. Judge Schiltz determined that ICE had detained Mr. Tobay Robles under an improper reading of federal law and two weeks ago instructed federal officials either to let him challenge his detention or release him.
After that failed to happen, the judge told Mr. Lyons to appear in front of him. But he provided a way out. He said that if Mr. Tobay Robles were quickly released, he would cancel the hearing with Mr. Lyons.
Mr. Tobay Robles was, in fact, released from ICE custody in Texas on Tuesday afternoon, his lawyer, Graham Ojala-Barbour, wrote in a letter to Judge Schiltz on Wednesday. But even though his client was free, Mr. Ojala-Barbour asked Judge Schiltz to hold a contempt proceeding with Mr. Lyons, saying the administration’s “failures to comply with this court’s orders” had led to “significant hardships” for the immigrants involved.
Alan Feuer covers extremism and political violence for The Times, focusing on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump."
Wednesday, January 28, 2026
Pressure grows on Stephen Miller after Alex Pretti killing but Trump unlikely to cut ties | Donald Trump | The Guardian
Pressure grows on Stephen Miller after Alex Pretti killing but Trump unlikely to cut ties
(The evil architect behind Trump administration autocracy)
"Outrage followed ‘would-be assassin’ lie but experts say architect of ICE drive too dominant a figure to be shunned
Pressure is growing on key White House senior adviser Stephen Miller over the killing of intensive care nurse Alex Pretti by border patrol agents in Minneapolis and its politically divisive aftermath.
Miller, the architect of Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policy, finds himself in the rare position of being contradicted and excluded from crucial decisions by the US president.
About three and a half hours after the tragedy on Saturday, Miller used social media to describe Pretti, 37, as a “would-be assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents”. On Tuesday, when asked if he believes Pretti was an assassin, Trump said: “No.”
The president had held a two-hour meeting with homeland security secretary Kristi Noem in the Oval Office on Monday evening at Noem’s request. Miller was conspicuously absent.
Meanwhile, the Axios news site, citing four unnamed sources, reported that Miller was responsible for the Department of Homeland Security’s baseless claim that Pretti intended to “massacre” officers, parroted by Noem. “Stephen heard ‘gun’ and knew what the narrative would be: Pretti came to ‘massacre’ cops,” one of the sources said.
But on Tuesday, in a statement to CNN, Miller admitted that the border patrol agents “may not have been following” proper protocol before the fatal shooting of Pretti – a rare reversal by a man known for typically reinforcing and intensifying his positions.
On this occasion not even the Trump administration could create its own version of reality. Multiple phone videos made by witnesses exposed its false narrative and prompted an outcry from the public, business leaders and even some Republicans, forcing the president into a partial climbdown on Monday.
He decided to pull border patrol commander Greg Bovino out of Minneapolis and send in border czar Tom Homan, who has been critical of Miller’s approach, to “recalibrate tactics” and improve cooperation with state and local officials. The president also held cordial phone calls with Minnesota governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey.
That raised a question mark over Noem’s future. More than 160 Democrats in the House of Representatives have signed on to an effort to impeach her. Asked on Tuesday whether the homeland security secretary would step down, Trump insisted that she would not. “I think she’s doing a very good job,” he said. “The border is totally secure.”
But arguably the true culprit of the Minneapolis debacle is Miller, who is officially the White House deputy chief of staff but has been likened by some to Trump’s prime minister. Axios reported: “His reach, sources say, includes effective oversight of Noem, despite her cabinet-level seniority. ‘Everything I’ve done, I’ve done at the direction of the president and Stephen,’ Noem is said to have told one interlocutor.”
Last May, for example, Miller told Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that he wanted 3,000 immigration arrests a day – a nearly tenfold increase on the previous year. His abuses of power have discredited Trump’s deportation policy, argues Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
“Stephen Miller is the architect,” Jacobs said. “He’s the guy who has been haranguing ICE to get tougher and deliver more numbers, bring people in and we’ll sort them out as to whether you got the right people later. The recklessness, the brutality, the lack of legal process – all of that has its roots with Stephen Miller.
“So the fact that he was locked out of the White House meeting is a strong message to Washington that the president does not approve of this process and that there has to be a change. I do not expect Stephen Miller to be fired because Donald Trump supports the policy, just not how it was done.”
Miller, 40, has proved a master at converting Trump’s impulses into policy. He has been so central to the Make America Great Again project, and so ostentatious in his loyalty, that there seems little chance of him losing his job. But Minneapolis was a rare misstep in which he got ahead of his boss and, some observers believe, he will now take a back seat until the storm passes.
Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center thinktank in Washington, said: “He’ll have much less of a public role in the foreseeable future. It’s clear that Trump personally does not like the PR aspect of what’s been going on, and he’s sensitive to that and always has been, and he knows from both his instinct and from what the data is telling him, that Miller and Noem did not do themselves any favours with how they immediately came out to address the killing.”
Olsen does not believe that Miller is in danger of becoming the fall guy, however. “Miller’s been with him for quite some time. Trump has no problem getting rid of non-performing subordinates but one suspects that Miller in many ways is performing and he is not going to toss him over the side lightly.”
Miller performs where it matters for Trump: on television. He is a pugnacious defender of the president, given to colourful language that characterises Democrats as a “domestic extremist organisation” and America leading a world “that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power”. His wife, Katie Miller, is striving to carve a niche as a Maga podcaster.
Rick Wilson, co-founder of the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group, said: “Stephen Miller is too dominant in Trump’s mental schema about what the Maga base wants to truly be cut out of a loop. I don’t think there’s a world where Stephen Miller doesn’t retain his authority and his power with Trump.”
Wilson, a veteran political strategist who has worked on Republican campaigns, added: “Strategically he may step back a half step, but this is not a world where Stephen Miller is going to give up power. He’s worked too hard to get to where he is.
“The problem with Stephen Miller is that evil is resilient. He doesn’t feel any shame. He doesn’t think that this is a bad thing. He’s convinced that other people have embarrassed him but not that he’s running a vast assault on the constitutional liberties of Americans.”
As Minneapolis Rages, Legislators Move to Restrict ICE in Their States - The New York Times
As Minneapolis Rages, Legislators Move to Restrict ICE in Their States
"Efforts to curtail federal law enforcement tactics began last year, but with the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, Democratic lawmakers are pushing harder.
After the deaths of two American citizens in Minneapolis at the hands of federal agents, Democratic legislators across the country, aided by libertarian groups, are redoubling their efforts to restrict and challenge federal immigration tactics in their states.
A Colorado bill that was introduced in mid-January would enable individuals to sue federal law enforcement officials for civil rights violations.
In Delaware, a bill similar to one that was filed in New York last spring would prevent commercial airlines from receiving jet fuel tax exemptions if they transport people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement without warrants and due process.
And in the wake of the killing on Saturday of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, a California lawmaker said he would sponsor two bills, one to require that any shooting by ICE agents be subject to an independent state investigation, and another to bar ICE from using state properties as a staging area for federal operations.
Ever since the second Trump administration embarked on its large-scale deportation effort, Democratic-leaning states have proposed — and passed, in some instances — countermeasures, such as banning masked or unidentified law enforcement officers. Last month, a dozen legislators from seven states announced that they would coordinatelegislation in 2026 to complement the litigation already being used by Democratic attorneys general to challenge immigration policies.
But after the killings of both Mr. Pretti and Renee Good, a resident protesting ICE’s presence in the Twin Cities, those endeavors have gained more urgency, according to lawmakers and immigration rights groups.
“I do think that we are starting to see legislators who, last session, were afraid of being a thorn in the side of an ascendant Trump administration — they were so afraid of poking the bear,” said Naureen Shah, who leads the American Civil Liberties Union’s immigration and advocacy work. “The tide is now turning, and maybe they feel that they’ve got nothing to lose.”
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, questioned the motives of all those state-level Democrats.
“Democrats don’t care about the rule of law,” she said. “If they did, they would support the president’s law-and-order agenda, which includes enforcing federal immigration law. Instead, Democrats are openly undermining the rule of law to protect criminal illegal aliens.”
Some states that are controlled by Republicans have gone the opposite direction. A new bill in the South Carolina legislature would mandate that all county sheriffs enter into formal agreements to work with ICE. Tennessee Republicans want government agencies to check the legal status of all residents as a condition of receiving public assistance, and also to verify the immigration status of elementary and secondary school students, despite a decade-old Supreme Court ruling that forbade it.
With most state legislatures back in session, patterns are emerging out of the dozens of bills that are active or being discussed, said Gaby Goldstein, the founder of State Futures, which organizes progressive lawmakers nationally and tracks legislation.
Many are related to rule-of-law concerns and civil rights protections.
The Colorado proposal, for instance, mirrors ones in California, Washington, Wisconsinand elsewhere that seek to establish a private right of action, which would give individuals or organizations the ability to file civil lawsuits for constitutional violations in state court, rather than on the federal courts, said State Senator Mike Weissman, the bill’s primary sponsor and a lawyer by trade. He represents the Denver suburb of Aurora, which Mr. Trump has said has been “taken over” by Venezuelan gangs. His bill would take aim at civil immigration enforcement, he said, “not police officers doing ordinary work.”
Though the legislation would apply to ICE and other branches of the Department of Homeland Security, he emphasized that the bill focuses on conduct that would violate constitutional rights rather than on employees of any particular branch of government.
“I mean, to use a crazy example, if Trump starts mobilizing park service employees to go crack heads and violate the Fourth Amendment, they’re going to find themselves answerable as well,” he said.
He has been working with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group that has long battled against federal overreach. One of its cases involves a construction worker in Alabama of Mexican descent who, despite being a U.S. citizen and showing his REAL ID, was detained twice by masked agents.
Under current legal standards, Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, said individuals find it hard to sue state and local officials, and all but impossible to sue federal ones, who have broader immunity. And with the Supreme Court and Congress showing no appetite to step in, she said it is incumbent upon a state to “protect its own citizens.”
“Power works in a way that once you have it, you try to accumulate more and more and more of it,” she said. “And it’s really important to be able to fight back and to be able to enforce the rights that are guaranteed to us as individuals. That really shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”
That sensibility is also guiding State Senator Anthony Broadman, a first-term Democrat who represents a swing district in Bend, Ore., and is trying to appeal to conservatives who might remember when they were the ones outraged by federal recklessness.
Oregonians, Mr. Broadman said, still remember the armed sieges in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon, he said, “where conservatives have been harmed by the federal government.” So he hopes to introduce a bill similar to the one in Colorado that would apply to federal constitutional violations, but would not be limited to immigration.
“It’s not just liberals and immigrants who get hurt by the United States, when they violate people’s rights,” he said.
Other targets of state-level Democratic bills include banning agreements that delegate some federal immigration powers to state and municipal law enforcement agencies (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont) and banning masked or unidentified law enforcement officers (Maryland, Arizona, Virginia).
A bill in Washington would limit the ability of federal immigrant agents to enter child care centers, health care facilities and election sites without a warrant or court order. And in Maryland, one lawmaker wants to prevent ICE agents who were recruited by the Trump administration from later working for any state law enforcement agencies.
Democrats are also hoping to gain more traction on bills introduced last year that would use fiscal tools to clamp down on immigration tactics, such as by restricting public contracting with companies that work with ICE.
Lawmakers in Maryland and New York have proposed that if the federal government withholds money that the state is owed, in defiance of court decisions, then they would place liens on federally owned properties.
The Trump administration has already begun to fight back. The Department of Justice sued Illinois in December after the Democratic governor, JB Pritzker, signed a law making it easier for state residents to sue immigration agents. Federal lawyers argued that the law placed the agents in physical harm and at financial risk.
One state whose legislature is not scheduled to meet until Feb. 17 is Minnesota. But already, legislators are hammering out bills in response to Ms. Good’s death, such as prohibiting or limiting ICE agents from entering sensitive places such as hospitals, schools and group homes, said State Senator Erin Murphy, the chamber’s top Democrat, a nurse by training.
Another proposal — which she believes has not been introduced elsewhere — would require that federal agents operating in Minnesota meet the same kind of training requirements now in place for local law enforcement — including providing first aid. ICE agents appeared to reject offers to aid Ms. Good after she was shot, including from a man who identified himself as a doctor.
There are no Republican co-sponsors yet for any of the proposed bills. But Ms. Murphy did note that Representative Marion Rarick, who represents a reliably Republican district about 45 minutes northwest of Minneapolis, had posted on Facebook that “ICE must stop racial profiling and violating civil rights as has been experienced and documented by LAW ENFORCEMENT. Full stop. No excuses. Just stop.”
Laurel Rosenhall contributed reporting
David W. Chen is a Times reporter focused on state legislatures, state level policymaking and the political forces behind them."
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Families of two men killed in Trump’s military boat strikes sue US government
Families of two men killed in Trump’s military boat strikes sue US government
“Families of two men killed in a US military airstrike on a boat in the Caribbean Sea are suing the US government. The lawsuit, filed by civil rights attorneys, claims the strikes are illegal and lack legal justification. This is the first federal lawsuit filed in connection with the attacks, which the Trump administration claims are legal under a secret justice department opinion.
First-of-its kind suit filed by civil rights attorneys on behalf of families centers on 14 October strike in Caribbean Sea that killed six
Civil rights attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against the United States government on Tuesday on behalf of the families of two men from a small fishing village in Trinidad who were killed in a US military airstrike on a small boat in the CaribbeanSea on 14 October.
The lawsuit, shared in advance with the Guardian, says that Chad Joseph, 26, and Rishi Samaroo, 41, both of Las Cuevas, Trinidad, were returning to Trinidad from Venezuela when they and four other people were killed in the strike. It was the fifth attack announced by the White House under Donald Trump’s campaign against the small go-fast boats the administration claims are connected to cartels and gangs.
The suit was filed four days after the administration announced the 36th such boat attack on Friday, this one in the eastern Pacific. The death toll of the boat strikes stands around at least 117 people dead so far.
The lawsuit said the strikes were illegal. “These premeditated and intentional killings lack any plausible legal justification,” the lawsuit said. “Thus, they were simply murder, ordered at the highest levels of government and obeyed by military officers in the chain of command.” Legal scholars have said the strikes, launched against civilians in boats far from the US, are violations of domestic and international law. The Trump administration maintains they are legal, under a secret opinion written by the justice department that argues the US is in an armed conflict with cartels and that the laws of war apply to the strikes.
The suit over the October attack was filed in federal district court in Massachusetts under admiralty law, which addresses maritime disputes and violations, and was brought by Lenore Burnley, Chad’s mother, and Sallycar Korasingh, Samaroo’s sister. It cites the Alien Torts Act, which allows foreign nationals to sue in US courts in certain cases, and the Death on the High Seas Act.
In a separate case in December, the family of a Colombian national, Alejandro Carranza Medina, who was killed in another one of the strikes, filed a human rights complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, part of the Organization of American States.
But the case filed on Tuesday is the first federal lawsuit filed in connection with the attacks. Families of the dead men are represented by attorneys from the ACLU, Seton Hall University, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Jonathan Hafetz, of Seton Hall law school, said the lawsuit is the first of its kind because the US has never conducted this type of bombing campaign. “This is uncharted water. Never before in the country’s history has the government asserted this type power,” he said in an interview. “This is a clear example of unlawful killing by the Unites States. The US is assuming the prerogative to kill victims in international waters.”
In a press release, Korasingh is quoted as saying: “If the US government believed Rishi had done anything wrong, it should have arrested, charged, and detained him, not murdered him.”
Little is known about the attack that killed Samaroo and Joseph. That day, Trump posted a video of a small open vessel boat floating in the water but not moving, when it was suddenly engulfed in flames. He wrote on social media: “Under my Standing Authorities as Commander-in-Chief, this morning, the Secretary of War, ordered a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO).”
Trump said “six male narcoterrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike”, but did not explain which group authorities believed they were affiliated with, and did not mention whether authorities believed there were either drugs or guns aboard.“