The Intercept Briefing

Cuba is spiraling into a humanitarian crisis. The country’s long-standing economic and political turmoil reached new heights this week as the effects of the Trump administration’s oil blockade took hold. The president’s targeting of Cuba is part of the administration’s broader attacks on the region, where the U.S. kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores earlier this year and has executed more than 140 people in boat strikes. As the U.S. hurtles toward war with Iran and further military action in the Middle East and continues to fund Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Cuba is just the latest foreign policy arena where the Trump administration has further ensnared the U.S. This week on The Intercept Briefing, senior politics reporter Akela Lacy speaks with fellow reporter Jonah Valdez about how U.S. foreign policy is impacting the upcoming midterm elections and Valdez’s recent reporting on how a new anti-Zionist PAC has associated with influencers that have made statements that are outright antisemitic. Lacy also speaks to University of Miami history professor Michael Bustamante and Andrés Pertierra, a historian of Cuba specializing in post-1959 regime durability, about the crisis unfolding in Cuba. Missing from mainstream news coverage of Trump’s attacks on Cuba and U.S. efforts to impose regime change in the region is a recognition of how Trump’s policies fit into his attacks on immigrants in the U.S., Bustamante says. “One of the, I think, subtext of why this administration might be keen on government change in Cuba, like in Venezuela, it's not just about being able to plant the flag and say, ‘We buried communism in the Americas. Something that no other president could do,’” Bustamante says. “It's also about, we can deport more people. And we can deport more people. And so how does the Cuban American community react to that? That, I think, is an open question. Something that I haven't seen linked yet to the conversation about regime change, per se.” The Trump administration’s strategy is likely to backfire, Pertierra says. “You don't get long-term cooperation stability through fear,” he says. “So I don't think it's actually going to solidify the U.S. position in Latin America. I think it's going to further weaken it.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Keep our investigations free and fearless at theintercept.com/join. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Cut through the noise with The Intercept’s reporters as they tackle the most urgent issues of the moment. The Briefing is a weekly podcast delivering incisive political analysis and deep investigative reporting, hosted by The Intercept’s journalists and contributors including Jessica Washington, Akela Lacy, and Jordan Uhl. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, defending the Justice Department’s widely criticized rollout of the Epstein files against accusations that her department is shielding powerful men, including President Donald Trump, at the expense of survivors. Democrats, who reviewed the unredacted files for the first time this week, revealed that the names of “wealthy, powerful men” were improperly redacted, while the names of victims were left exposed. This week on The Intercept Briefing, co-hosts Jessica Washington and Akela Lacy gave their rundown of the politics stories they’re watching right now. Washington also spoke with Spencer Kuvin, an attorney representing nine of Epstein’s victims, about the failures of the Department of Justice to protect survivors. “From the beginning of this case, the government, both from a state and federal level, have been trying to bury this, cover it up, and avoid any full exposure of the extent of the operation that was involved here,” Kuvin said, “and they're doing it … because of all the both political, wealthy, and powerful individuals who were involved with Epstein and knew what was going on with these young women.” Kuvin also spoke about the DOJ’s failure to redact the names of victims in the files, including two of his clients who were victimized as children. “The current Department of Justice has a focus on something different than victims and helping victims and prosecuting bad people that victimize these young girls,” he said. “Their focus instead appears to be on the important people — powerful people that are contained within these files and protecting them instead of protecting who needs the protection, the young victims in this case.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The word “terrorist” wasn’t coined on September 11, 2001, but the defining event of the early 21st century ushered it in as the United States’ go-to term for demonizing outsiders and dissenters alike. The so-called “war on terror” transformed the way the U.S. wields power at home and abroad, enabling mass surveillance and a crackdown on the right to free speech. It became reflexive for the U.S. to disparage immigrants and protesters as supporters of terrorism. President Donald Trump has embraced this model and manipulated it for his own ends, as author Spencer Ackerman points out. The Trump administration often peddles spurious accusations of terrorism against the targets of its immigration raids. “There's nothing about any of their action that's remotely anything at all like terrorism,” Ackerman says. “But that is the fire in which ICE, CBP, and the Department of Homeland Security was forged. You are going to find this in its DNA.” This week on the Intercept Briefing, host Jordan Uhl speaks with Ackerman, a leading expert on the concept of terrorism and its weaponization by the state. Ackerman’s 2021 book, “Reign of Terror, How the 9/11 Era Destabilized America and Produced Trump,” traces the legal and cultural evolution of the last 25 years, and how the boomerang has come back home. “Before 9/11, not only was there no ICE, there wasn't really much in the way of a robust internal mechanism for finding and deporting people who were in the country illegally. When it did exist, it was for people who were serious criminals, traffickers, and so on,” says Ackerman. Now, he says, the contemporary terrorism paradigm has transformed immigration enforcement into something “operating like a death squad.” “What we are seeing on the streets of Minneapolis is what ICE has done to the undocumented for a very long time,” he says. “And now we're seeing this happen to white people on the streets of Minneapolis for little more than filming ICE.” With the recent killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, “I worry that a tremendous amount of our political system is geared toward either, on the Republican side, rationalizing it, justifying it, or on the Democratic side, pretending as if this is some kind of abuse that can be exceptionalized, rather than something that has to do with this 25-year history of coalescing immigration enforcement in the context of counterterrorism.” As Democrats in Congress struggle to leverage DHS funding for changes to ICE policy — like a ban on face masks for ICE agents, an idea on which they’ve already softened — Ackerman says the parallels with the early 2000s are clear. “We can't move in reformist directions when the thing talked about being reformed laughs at killing Americans,” advises Ackerman. “Reformist politics under two Democratic administrations got us to where we are now. These are accommodationist politics, and the thing being accommodated wants to kill you.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the two months Minnesota has been under siege by federal agents, immigration officers have shot and killed two U.S. citizens, poet and artist Renee Good and ICU nurse Alex Pretti. Local and state law enforcement say they’ve been blocked from properly investigating the shootings of Good and Pretti. “The federal government has blocked our state BCA, so that's the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. They are the state law enforcement agency that has authority to investigate any kind of deadly use of force involving police,” says Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who is leading local investigations into the killings of Good and Pretti. “We've not gotten anything from the federal government,” Moriarty says. “To tell you how odd this situation is, we are getting our information from the media ... we are not getting that from the federal government.” This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Akela Lacy speaks with Moriarty, whose office has jurisdiction over both killings. Moriarty says federal agents have blocked local and state law enforcement from properly investigating the killings. Even Moriarty, the top prosecutor in Minneapolis, does not know the identity of the agents who killed Pretti. In response, Moriarty says, “We set up a portal and asked the community to send any kind of videos or any other kind of evidence so that we could collect absolutely everything that we possibly could.” The BCA, she says, was even “blocked physically, actually, by federal agents from processing the scene where Alex Pretti was shot.” Meanwhile, attacks by the administration on Minnesota’s Somali citizens persist. At her first town hall of the year in Minneapolis, an attendee sprayed Rep. Ilhan Omar with an unidentified substance on Tuesday. Trump has backtracked on some of his bluster and removed Border Patrol Gregory Bovino from Minnesota, replacing him with border czar Tom Homan. None of that has changed things on the ground yet in Minneapolis, says Moriarty. “Minnesotans care about their neighbors. They're delivering meals to people. They are there and they do not approve of the fact that their federal government is attacking them and their neighbors. “We hear a lot of people talking to us about how they understand the threat from the administration or from DHS on their neighbors and on their communities, and it's really much more rooted in an understanding that they think their freedoms are under threat, even if they are not an immigrant or even if they don't really have deep ties to immigrant communities, that this really matters to them and it really bothers them,” says Jill Garvey, co-director of States at the Core, an organization that leads and runs ICE Watch training programs. “So we hear a lot from folks who just haven't been engaged previously. But this for all those reasons is enough for them to step up.” Garvey says her organization is training community members in how to properly document ICE. “We also know that we can't stop all this aggression,” Garvey says. “The aggression is the point of these operations. So we can't guarantee that people aren't going to be targeted with violent actions from federal law enforcement. What we can say is, if you're doing this in community, other people are going to be watching.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The people of Iran are in the midst of one of the country’s biggest uprisings — and harshest government crackdowns — since the Iranian Revolution. It started with shopkeepers in bazaars closing their doors at the end of December in protest of the plummeting Iranian rial and economic distress. But demonstrations soon spread to universities and across the country to every single province. Working-class Iranians wanted relief — both from the inflation crisis and U.S sanctions. This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Akela Lacy speaks with Hooman Majd, an Iranian American writer and journalist, who explains what sparked the protests and the government’s brutal response. “I don't think in the history of Iran, even during the Islamic Revolution, have we seen this number of fatalities.” says Majd. “The death toll is staggering. Really, because that death toll is staggering, what's happened is there are no more protests. And that's where we are right now. No more protest, heavy security on the streets. Massive security on the streets, on every corner. It isn't martial law. But it feels like martial law to people living there.” The path forward is unclear, Majd says. But a few things are certain. “The idea is no to shah, no to an ayatollah, no to theocracy. Let's just, finally, after 120 years of demonstrating — which is what the Iranians have been doing since 1906 — after 120 years of looking for democracy, can we just do that? Can we just get a democracy? That is probably the biggest sentiment in Iran: wanting a democratic rule, wanting the repression to end, wanting better relations with the rest of the world so these sanctions can be lifted.” Some people inside and outside Iran have called on President Donald Trump to intervene. The idea that the U.S. should — or could — impose regime change militarily is folly, Majd says. “Sure, we were able to impose a regime change in Iraq militarily. They can do that again in Iran, possibly with the help of Israel or even without the help of Israel. But then what do you have? Do you have another basically authoritarian, autocratic government?’” Meanwhile, Trump has threatened to intervene in another international arena. He has set his sights on taking over Greenland. Despite walking back his statements pledging to do so by force, Trump has now said he’s forming a plan with the secretary general of NATO for Greenland’s future. We’re joined by independent investigative journalist Lois Parshley, who explains the financial interests behind Trump’s obsession with the Arctic island, the billionaires and tech moguls plotting to exploit Greenland’s natural resources, and how the people of Greenland have responded to the president’s pledge to violate their sovereignty. Shortly before Trump first expressed an interest in Greenland during his first term, his ambassador to Denmark and Greenland visited a major rare earth mining project on the island, Parshley reported last year. “More recently, The Guardian reported that it was Ronald Lauder, heir to the global cosmetics brand [Estée Lauder] who was also a longtime friend of Trump's, who first suggested buying Greenland. He has acquired commercial holdings there and is also part of a consortium who want to access Ukrainian minerals.” Fresh off the invasion of Venezuela, the idea that Trump wants to take over Greenland is even more alarming, Parshley says. “I'm not the first person to report on these kinds of major tech interests in things like crypto states or special economic zones. People have been pointing this stuff out for a long time, but it's not until President Trump started saying the quiet part out loud that people have really been registering some of these absurd concepts that seem to now be creeping toward reality.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Hosted on Acast. See...

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, in Minneapolis last week, unleashing a wave of anti-ICE protests and sentiment throughout Minnesota and the rest of the United States. On Wednesday evening, federal immigration agents shot and wounded a man in Minneapolis, adding to the tension in the Twin Cities. President Donald Trump threatened to send in troops to crush the unrest. “What should be very clear to all Americans now is that there is no way to wage war on ‘illegal immigration’ without also waging war on American citizens,” says Adam Serwer, staff writer at The Atlantic. This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Jessica Washington examines how the Trump administration’s brutal deportation agenda is unfolding in Minnesota, sparking national backlash and renewed demands to abolish ICE; the historical legacy of immigration enforcement in the U.S.; and the administration’s racist vision of reshaping American society. First, Minnesota Public Radio reporter Jon Collins shares an update on the Trump administration’s siege. “The national audience needs to understand this is not just unrest, this is not just protests. … This is an invasion,” says Collins. “The justification from this administration, the way that they’re portraying what's happening here in Minnesota — it almost turns on its head how we think about our constitutional rights in this country. Instead of protecting the citizens from the government, what they're arguing for is protecting law enforcement from any transparency, from any accountability to the people.” “The biggest organization of terror in this moment is the Department of Homeland Security,” says Rep. Delia Ramirez, who shared exclusively with The Intercept that she is introducing legislation to limit the use of force by DHS agents. The Illinois congresswoman described the bill as the “bare minimum” to curb DHS’s abuses, calling for Democrats to use the appropriations process to “hold” funding to the agency and ultimately dismantle it. “Every single Democrat and every single Republican should be able to sign on to this bill,” says Ramirez. “Because it’s basic, bare minimum, and not signing on is indicating that you're OK with what's happening on the streets.” “What we're seeing today has a long history,” says Adam Goodman, a historian at the University of Illinois Chicago. Federal immigration agencies’ budgets depend “on apprehensions, detentions, and deportations.” That “institutional imperative,” he says, “is going to lead to all kinds of problems, including incredible discretionary authority … and tremendous abuses.” Serwer points out “the violence that you're seeing that federal agents are engaging in against observers, against activists, not just against immigrants, is a reflection of [an] ideological worldview. Which is that those of us who do not agree with Donald Trump are not real Americans and are not entitled to the rights that are due us in the Constitution, whether or not we have citizenship.” He adds, “The truth is, a democracy cannot exist when it has an armed uniformed federal agency who believes that its job is to brutalize 50 percent of the country.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How long will the United States claim control over Venezuela? “Only time will tell,” President Donald Trump told the New York Times on Wednesday — potentially years. U.S. troops invaded the country over the weekend, kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Maduro and Flores pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism charges in New York on Monday. They now sit in a Brooklyn jail, awaiting trial. Trump and administration officials have justified ousting Maduro by claiming it was consistent with the Monroe Doctrine — a doctrine that through the years “has been expanded into something like a universal police warrant that allows the United States to intervene,” says historian Greg Grandin. “Trump has redefined the Monroe Doctrine to mean, the Monroe is as a weapon that the United States can use in order to protect its interests wherever it wants, whenever it wants. So it's a substitute for liberal international law.” This week on the Intercept Briefing, host Jessica Washington discusses the Trump administration’s attack on Venezuela, its larger aims of controlling the Western Hemisphere, and bringing Latin America to heel with Grandin, the author of numerous books, including most recently "America, América: A New History of the New World." “There's an affiliation between the Monroe Doctrine and American First nationalism,” says Grandin. “They imagine United States sovereignty expanding well beyond its borders within its hemisphere.” The administration’s vision is outlined in the National Security Strategy the White House released in December. “This is a strategy that announces that the Monroe Doctrine is back in the especially bellicose form. But what's also interesting, if you read further, the United States is not withdrawing from any of those old regions. … It's reserving the right to treat the rest of the world like it treats Latin America.” Trump and administration officials — from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a longtime advocate for Venezuelan and Cuban regime change, to White House chief of staff Stephen Miller — have threatened to expand military operations to Colombia, Mexico, and other Latin American countries that don’t fall in line. Maureen Tkacik, investigations editor at The American Prospect, who recently wrote a profile of Rubio headlined “The Narco-Terrorist Elite,” also joins the conversation to discuss the former Florida senator’s history and ambitions. Tkacik points out that Rubio, a driving force behind Maduro’s ouster, represents a wing of the Republican Party fixated on battling nominally left leaders in the region. That mentality is at odds with a key faction of Trump’s base, who say they’re against foreign intervention because they think the government should keep its attention on U.S. soil. Trump’s attack on Venezuela and fixation on so-called “narco-terrorists,” Tkacik says, “represent an attempt to reconcile these two poles — the Steve Bannon guys and the Marco Rubio neocons — that really have different definitions of America First.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After OpenAI CEO Sam Altman launched ChatGPT in 2022, the race for dominance in the field of artificial intelligence hit warp speed. Silicon Valley has poured billions of dollars into developing AI, building data centers, and promising a future free from the chains of unfulfilling work across the globe. But in “Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI,” tech reporter Karen Hao pulls back the curtain, unveiling the human and environmental cost of artificial intelligence and the colonial ambitions undergirding Silicon Valley's efforts to fuel the rise of AI. This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Jessica Washington speaks to Hao about her book and the dawn of the AI empire. “Empires similarly consolidate a lot of economic might by exploiting extraordinary amounts of labor and not actually paying that labor sufficiently or at all,” says Hao. “So that's how they are able to amass wealth — because they're not actually distributing it.” “The speed at which they're constructing the infrastructure for training and deploying their AI models” is what shocks Hao the most, as “this infrastructure is actually not technically necessary, and ... somehow the companies have effectively convinced the public and governments that it is. And therefore there's been a lot of complicity in allowing these companies to continue building these projects.” “They have effectively been able to use this narrative of [artificial general intelligence] to accrue more capital, land, energy, water, data. They've been able to accrue more resources — and critical resources — than pretty much anyone in history,” Hao says, warning of "the complete aggressive and reckless” growth of AI infrastructure, but stresses that none of this is inevitable. “There is a very clear path for how to unlock the benefits of AI without accepting the colossal cost of it.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. If you want to support our work, you can go to theintercept.com/join. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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 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.

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.

This week on The Intercept Briefing: What does it mean to work full-time in America and still not afford a place to live? We're resharing our conversation with journalist Brian Goldstone, whose new book “There Is No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America,” examines this growing crisis. Goldstone's book — a finalist for the Carnegie Medal for Excellence in Nonfiction — reveals how people holding down jobs are increasingly living in their cars, motels, shelters, or on the streets. This episode originally aired August 29, 2025. Episode Description: Homeless sweeps have become the go-to, bipartisan performance of “doing something” about the U.S. housing crisis — a spectacle embraced by Democrats and Republicans, city halls, and the White House alike. But sweeps are not a solution. They’re a way to make homelessness less visible while the crisis deepens. The roots stretch back decades. President Ronald Reagan’s Tax Reform Act of 1986 pulled the federal government out of building and maintaining public housing, paving the way for a fragmented patchwork scheme of vouchers and tax credits. The result is the system we live with today — one that does little to stem the tide. Last year, more than 700,000 people were officially counted as homeless, the highest number ever recorded. Nearly 150,000 of them were children. And that number leaves out the “hidden homeless”: families doubling up in cramped apartments or bouncing between motels. “What causes homelessness, in the 1980s as now, is a lack of access to housing that poor and working-class people can afford,” says Brian Goldstone, journalist and author of the new book “There Is No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America.” This week on The Intercept Briefing, Goldstone tells host Laura Flynn that the housing emergency is no accident; it’s the product of deliberate political choices: “It's an engineered abandonment of not thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of families.” 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.

The Labor Department reported September jobs numbers on Thursday, showing employers added 119,000 jobs to the economy but also an increase in unemployment to 4.4 percent. “The September report shows fairly good job growth, but every other report we have for October shows a slowdown,” says Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. “Real wages — that is, wages adjusted for inflation — are going down for most people. The bottom 90 percent of Americans are in very bad shape,” says Reich. This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Akela Lacy speaks to the professor, author, and longtime commentator about the economy and the state of Democratic Party politics under Trump. “The only people who are doing well, who are keeping the economy going through their purchases, are the top 10 percent, and they're basically doing well because they're the ones who own most of the shares of stock,” says Reich. “What happens when and if the stock market implodes?” Reich has been beating the drum on poverty and inequality for decades. And while that message took some time to hit the mainstream, it seems to be hitting home now more than ever, but Democratic leadership continues to fall flat in conveying they understand the urgency of the economic hardships ordinary Americans face. The answer, Reich says, is new leadership. He is disappointed in Democrats who caved to Trump on the government shutdown. “It's another example of the Democrats not having enough backbone,” Reich says. “I think Chuck Schumer has to go. And Jeffries too.” He adds, “I'm 79 years old. I have standing to speak about the fact that there is a time to move on. And I think that the Democratic leaders today should move on.” Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing. 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.

It’s the end of an era. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who counts among her legacies in Congress successfully undercutting the push for Medicare for All, announced last week that she is retiring from Congress. The two-time former speaker of the House made her announcement after Democrats made remarkable gains in nationwide elections, campaigning on affordability and standing up to the Trump administration. “We are in this era where we need new ideas, we need new leaders, we need people who are going to push the party in a new direction,” says Saikat Chakrabarti, who is running to replace Pelosi and represent San Francisco in Congress, making economic inequality and corporate power the focal point of his politics. This week on The Intercept Briefing, host Akela Lacy speaks to Chakrabarti, the co-founder of the progressive outfit Justice Democrats who helped run the primary campaign of one of its first candidates, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, becoming her first chief of staff. Answering Lacy's question as to how he'll get it done, Chakrabarti says, “In the 1930s, we had a really powerful, far right in this country. We were actually seeing Nazi rallies in Madison Square Garden, it was filling the stadium. And the way we defeated that was FDR came in with the New Deal movement. He built this whole new economy and a whole new society that improved people’s lives so dramatically, it just killed this idea that you need an authoritarian to do it for you.” FDR “wasn’t advocating for going back to a pre-Great Depression era. He was advocating for something new. So that’s the way we get it done, and I see some movement towards that.” Chakrabarti has been openly calling for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., to be primaried and tells The Intercept that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer should be too, following the end of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, after eight Democratic senators — none who are up for reelection — joined forces with Republicans to pass a spending package. “My goal, honestly, is to replace a huge part of the Democrat establishment,” says Chakrabarti. “I'm calling for primaries all across the country. ... I think we actually have to get in there and be in a position of power where we can do all that, so it's not going to be this constant compromising with the establishment, trying to figure out how we can push.” He adds, “I tried the pushing strategy — that's what Justice Democrats was: We were trying to elect people to try to push the Democratic Party to do the right thing. It's not going to work. We have to replace them.” 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.

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.

Illinois congressional candidate Kat Abughazaleh was charged earlier this week with federal conspiracy charges for protesting outside of Broadview ICE Processing Center last month. Along with five others, Abughazaleh was indicted on felony charges for assaulting and conspiring to injure law enforcement officers. The 11-page indictment alleges the protesters “banged aggressively” on a federal agent's car and “pushed against the vehicle to hinder and impede its movement.” They also allegedly scratched the word “pig” onto the vehicle. Abughazaleh, a candidate in the Democratic primary for Illinois’s 9th Congressional District, spoke to The Intercept Briefing just days after the charges were unsealed. “This case against me, this indictment, is a clear attack on free speech, freedom of association, the right to protest,” she says. “This indictment is so breathtaking in just how obviously it is trying to criminalize the right to protest. And it's ludicrous to me that any elected official that's sworn to protect the Constitution wouldn't look at it and think, where the hell are we right now?” At an earlier protest at the same facility, the former journalist was filmed being slammed to the ground by ICE agents. That video went viral sparking outrage, and she’s urging other elected officials to fight back. “I feel like we as citizens are told to do so much — and then our leaders aren’t matching that. Part of it is they’re scared. This is a scary time. And there are threats from the administration, but also supporters. We've had a rise in political violence,” Abughazaleh challenges. “And this sounds callous, but you asked hundreds of thousands of people to vote for you. You asked to represent them. This is a job. You need to do your job even if you're scared, because that's what people deserve from their leaders.” The protesters are set to appear in court for their arraignment on November 5. If convicted, they could face up to six years in prison. 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.

Once again, Israeli bombs rained down on Gaza. The latest wave of strikes killed more than 100 people, mostly women and children, according to health authorities. The bombardment marked the deadliest day since the weeks-old U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas began on October 10 — a ceasefire Israel has repeatedly broken with impunity. “As the Trump administration likes to say, the ceasefire is still in place. And the media has parroted that as well. But an overwhelming amount of people that we spoke to on the ground are saying that there is no ceasefire with killings being at this rate. This is a continuation of the genocide,” says Intercept reporter Jonah Valdez. Palestinians “have a very crystal-clear view of Israel's policy and their goal of wanting mass expulsion from Gaza. ... Those who are surviving it and living it are seeing through the propaganda that the ceasefire is still in place.” On The Intercept Briefing, Valdez joins host Jordan Uhl and reporter Matt Sledge to explain why President Donald Trump “has a lot to gain from continuing to tell the public that there is a ceasefire” and to discuss the news stories published on The Intercept this week. “It's important to mention this layer of hope that exists. No one wants to call the ceasefire dead prematurely because if it surviving allows for other Palestinians and Gaza to survive,” Valdez adds, “then, you know, of course they have vested interest in seeing the truce live on.” And back in the United States, Trump’s pay-to-play approach to running the government continues unabated. Trump recently pardoned the billionaire crypto king, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, whose company has done business benefiting the Trump family. “Binance overnight became the biggest customer of the Trump family venture, which is called World Liberty Financial,” Sledge points out. “I think a lot of skeptics out there are saying, like, ‘Boy, this sure just looks exactly like pay to play, like quid pro quo.’” 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.

New York City is on the cusp of an election in which what once looked impossible has begun to seem inevitable. Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist member of the New York state Assembly, is heavily favored to beat Andrew Cuomo, New York’s onetime Democratic governor and a former icon of the party establishment, in a race for mayor that has become among the most-watched in the nation. Cuomo and Mamdani articulate two vastly different visions for New York City — and where the Democratic Party is going overall. This week on The Intercept Briefing, Akela Lacy speaks to people hoping to see each of those two visions fulfilled. “Traditionally, we've thought about politics as left, right, and center,” says Alyssa Cass, a Democratic strategist who has worked on local and national campaigns. “Zohran offered a message that was less about ideology and more about disrupting a failed status quo that is working for almost no one.” Cass, who worked on Andrew Yang’s mayoral campaign in 2021, isn’t working for Mamdani but says his candidacy indicates “that Democrats can win when we have ideas.” In the view of Jim Walden, a former mayoral candidate who is now backing Cuomo, those ideas are “dangerous and radical policies.” He says Mamdani’s popularity is an indication that “there's going to be a flirtation with socialism and maybe some populist push” among Democrats. But “ultimately,” Walden says, “the party will come back closer to the center.” Chi Ossé, a City Council member who endorsed Mamdani, sees Mamdani’s success as evidence of the opposite. “We could have gone back to or continued this trend of electing centrist, moderate Democrats,” Ossé says. Instead, he thinks that New Yorkers want “someone who ran as a loud and proud democratic socialist who has always fought on the left.” While New York City is preparing for a general election, Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa is unlikely to win — turning the race almost into a second Democratic primary. “The party is now confronted with a choice,” said Lacy, “between a nominee who has become the new face of generational change in politics and a former governor fighting for his political comeback. The results could reveal where the party’s headed in next year’s midterms and beyond.” 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.