threat

WASHINGTON — Entering the third week of a government shutdown, Democrats say they are not intimidated or cowed by President Trump’s efforts to fire thousands of federal workers or by his threats of more firings to come.

Instead, Democrats appear emboldened, showing no signs of caving as they returned to Washington from their home states Tuesday evening and, for an eighth time, rejected a Republican bill to open the government.

“What people are saying is, you’ve got to stop the carnage,” said Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, describing what he heard from his constituents, including federal workers, as he traveled around his state over the weekend. “And you don’t stop it by giving in.”

Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz said the firings are “a fair amount of bluster” and he predicted they ultimately will be overturned in court or otherwise reversed. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, speaking about Republicans, said the shutdown is just “an excuse for them to do what they were planning to do anyway.” And Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer of New York said Wednesday that the layoffs are a “mistaken attempt” to sway Democratic votes.

“Their intimidation tactics are not working,” added House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. “And will continue to fail.”

Democratic senators say they are hearing increasingly from voters about health insurance subsidies that expire at the end of the year, the issue that the party has made central to the shutdown fight.

Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said that the impact of the expiring health insurance subsidies on millions of people, along with cuts to Medicaid enacted by Republicans earlier this year, “far outweighs” any of the firings of federal workers that the administration is threatening.

Republicans, too, are confident in their strategy not to negotiate on the health care subsidies until Democrats give them the votes to reopen the government. The Senate planned to vote again Wednesday and Thursday on the Republican bill, and so far there are no signs of any movement on either side.

“We’re barreling toward one of the longest shutdowns in American history,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said earlier this week.

Moderate Democrats aren’t budging

In the first hours of the shutdown, which began at 12:01 a.m. EDT Oct. 1., it was not clear how long Democrats would hold out.

A group of moderate Democrats who had voted against the GOP bill immediately began private, informal talks with Republicans. The GOP lawmakers hoped enough Democrats would quickly change their votes to end a filibuster and pass the spending bill with the necessary 60 votes.

But the bipartisan talks over the expiring health care subsidies have dragged on without a resolution so far. Two weeks later, the moderates, including Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire and Gary Peters of Michigan, are still voting no.

“Nothing about a government shutdown requires this or gives them new power to conduct mass layoffs,” Peters said after the director of the White House’s budget director, Russell Vought, announced that the firings had started on Friday.

D.C.-area lawmakers see advantages to shutdown

Another key group of Democrats digging in are lawmakers such as like Kaine who represent millions of federal workers in Virginia and Maryland. Kaine said the shutdown was preceded by “nine months of punitive behavior” as the Republican president has made cuts at federal agencies “and everybody knows who’s to blame.”

“Donald Trump is at war with his own workforce, and we don’t reward CEOs who hate their own workers,” Kaine said.

Appearing at a news conference Tuesday alongside supportive federal workers, Democratic lawmakers from Maryland and Virginia called on Republicans to come to the negotiating table.

“The message we have today is very simple,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. “Donald Trump and Russ Vought stop attacking federal employees, stop attacking the American people and start negotiating to reopen the federal government and address the looming health care crisis that is upon us.”

Thousands are losing their jobs, and more to follow

In a court filing Friday, the White House Office of Management and Budget said well over 4,000 federal employees from eight departments and agencies would be fired in conjunction with the shutdown.

On Tuesday, Trump said his administration is using the shutdown to target federal programs that Democrats like and “they’re never going to come back, in many cases.”

“We are closing up Democrat programs that we disagree with and they’re never going to open again,” he said.

On Capitol Hill, though, the threats fell flat with Democrats as they continued to demand talks on health care.

“I don’t feel any of this as pressure points,” Jeffries said. “I view it as like the reality that the American people confront and the question becomes, at what point will Republicans embrace the reality that they have created a health care crisis that needs to be decisively addressed?”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., held firm that Republicans would not negotiate until Democrats reopen the government.

The firings, Thune has repeatedly said, “are a situation that could be totally avoided.”

Jalonick and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writer Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

China has accused the United States of “double standards” after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose an additional 100 percent tariff on Chinese goods in response to Beijing’s curbs on exports of rare earth minerals.

China says its export control measures announced last week were in response to the US restrictions on its entities and targeting of Beijing’s maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries.

Trump’s tariff threats, which come weeks ahead of the likely meeting between the US president and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping, have the potential to reignite a trade war months after Washington lowered the China tariffs from 125 to 30 percent.

The actions by the world’s two largest economies threaten to ignite a new trade war, adding further uncertainty to global trade. So what’s the recent history of US trade measures against China, and will the two countries be able to resolve their differences?

Why did China tighten export controls on rare earths?

On October 9, China expanded export controls to cover 12 out of 17 rare-earth metals and certain refining equipment, effective December 1, after accusing Washington of harming China’s interests and undermining “the atmosphere of bilateral economic and trade talks”.

China also placed restrictions on the export of specialist technological equipment used to refine rare-earth metals on Thursday.

Beijing justified its measures, accusing Washington of imposing a series of trade curbs on Chinese entities despite the two sides being engaged in trade talks, with the last one taking place in Madrid, Spain last month.

Foreign companies now need Beijing’s approval to export products containing Chinese rare earths, and must disclose their intended use. China said the heightened restrictions come as a result of national security interests.

China has a near monopoly over rare earths, critical for the manufacture of technology such as electric cars, smartphones, semiconductors and weapons.

The US is a major consumer of Chinese rare earths, which are crucial for the US defence industry.

At the end of this month, Trump and Xi are expected to meet in South Korea, and experts speculate that Beijing’s move was to gain bargaining advantage in trade negotiations with Washington.

China’s tightening of restrictions on rare earths is “pre-meeting choreography” before Trump’s meeting with Xi, Kristin Vekasi, the Mansfield chair of Japan and Indo-Pacific Affairs at the University of Montana, told Al Jazeera.

How did Trump respond?

On October 10, Trump announced the imposition of a 100 percent tariff on China, effective from November 1.

“Based on the fact that China has taken this unprecedented position … the United States of America will impose a Tariff of 100 percent on China, over and above any Tariff that they are currently paying,” Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform.

He added that this would come into effect on November 1 or before that. Trump added that the US would also impose export controls on “any and all critical software”.

Earlier on October 10, Trump accused China of “trade hostility” and even said he might scrap his meeting with Xi. It is unclear at this point whether the meeting will take place.

“What the United States has is we have a lot of leverage, and my hope, and I know the president’s hope, is that we don’t have to use that leverage,” US Vice President JD Vance told Fox News on Sunday.

How did China respond to that?

China deemed the US retaliation a “double standard”, according to remarks by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce spokesperson on Sunday.

China said that Washington had “overstretched the concept of national security, abused export control measures” and “adopted discriminatory practices against China”.

“We are living in an era of deeper intertwining of security and economic policies. Both the US and China have expanded their conceptions of national security, encompassing a range of economic activities,” Manoj Kewalramani, chairperson of the Indo-Pacific Studies Programme at the Takshashila Institution in Bangalore, India, told Al Jazeera.

“Both have also weaponised economic interdependence with each other and third parties. There are, in other words, no saints in this game.”

Kewalramani said that China started expanding the idea of “national security” much earlier than others, especially with its “comprehensive national security concept” introduced in 2014.

Through this, China began to include many different areas, such as economics, technology, and society, under the term “national security”. This shows that China was ahead of other countries in broadening what counts as a national security issue.

China threatened additional measures if Trump went ahead with his pledge.

“Willful threats of high tariffs are not the right way to get along with China. China’s position on the trade war is consistent: we do not want it, but we are not afraid of it,” the Chinese Commerce Ministry spokesperson said in a statement.

“Should the US persist in its course, China will resolutely take corresponding measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests,” the statement said.

What trade measures has the US taken against China in recent history?

2025: Trump unleashes tariff war

A month after taking office for his second term, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 10 percent tariff on all imports from China, citing a trade deficit in favour of China. In this order, he also imposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada. China levied countermeasures, imposing duties on US products in retaliation.

In March, the US president doubled the tariff on all Chinese products to 20 percent as of March 4. China imposed a 15 percent tariff on a range of US farm exports in retaliation; these took effect on March 10.

Trump announced his “reciprocal tariffs,” imposing a 34 percent tariff on Chinese products. China retaliated, also announcing a 34 percent tariff on US products. This was the first time China announced export controls on rare earths.

Hours after the reciprocal tariffs went into effect, Trump paused them for all his tariff targets except China. The US and China continued to hike tit-for-tat levies on each other.

Trump slapped 145 percent tariffs on Chinese imports, prompting China to hit back with 125 percent tariffs. Washington and Beijing later cut tariffs to 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in May, then agreed to a 90-day truce in August for trade talks. The truce has been extended twice.

December 2024: The microchip controls are tightened

In December 2024, Trump’s predecessor, former US President Joe Biden, tightened controls on the sale of microchips first introduced on October 2022.

Under the new controls, 140 companies from China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore were added to a list of restricted entities. The US also banned more advanced chip-making equipment to certain countries. Even products manufactured abroad with US technology were restricted.

April 2024: Biden signs the TikTok ban

Biden signed a bill into law that would ban TikTok unless it was sold to a non-Chinese buyer within a year. The US government alleged that TikTok’s Chinese parent company ByteDance was linked to the Chinese government, making the app a threat to national security.

ByteDance sued the US federal government over this bill in May 2024.

In September this year, Trump announced that a deal was finalised to find a new owner of TikTok.

October 2023: Biden introduces more restrictions on chips

In October 2023, Biden restricted US exports of advanced computer chips, especially those made by Nvidia, to China and other countries.

The goal of this measure was to limit China’s access to “advanced semiconductors that could fuel breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and sophisticated computers that are critical to [Chinese] military applications,” Gina Raimondo, who was secretary of the US Department of Commerce during the Biden administration, told reporters.

Prior to this, Biden signed an executive order in August 2023, creating a programme that limits US investments in certain high-tech areas, including semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence, in countries deemed to be a security risk, like China.

October 2022: Biden restricts Chinese access to semiconductors

Biden restricted China’s access to US semiconductors in October 2022. The rules further expanded restrictions on chipmaking tools to include industries that support the semiconductor supply chain, blocking both access to American expertise and the essential components used in manufacturing the tools that produce microchips.

Semiconductors are used in the manufacturing of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The US government placed these restrictions back then to limit China’s ability to acquire the ability to produce semiconductors and advance in the technological race.

The restrictions made it compulsory for entities within China to apply for licences to acquire American semiconductors. Analysis by the US-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace described these licences as “hard to get” back then.

Recently, some US lawmakers are calling for even more restrictions, warning that China could quickly reverse-engineer advanced semiconductor technologies on its own, outpace the US in the sector, and gain a military edge.

May 2020: Trump cracks down on Huawei

In May 2020, the US Bureau of Industry and Security intensified rules to stop Huawei, the Chinese tech giant, from using American technology and software to design and make semiconductors in other countries.

The new rules said that semiconductors are designed for Huawei using US technology or equipment, anywhere in the world, would need US government approval before being sent to Huawei.

May 2019: Trump bans Huawei

Trump signed an executive order blocking Chinese telecommunications companies like Huawei from selling equipment in the US. The Shenzhen-based Huawei is the world’s largest provider of 5G networks, according to analysis by the New York City-based think tank the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Under this order, Huawei and 114 related entities were added to a list that requires US companies to get special permission (a licence) before selling certain technologies to them.

The rationale behind this order was the allegation that Huawei threatened US national security, had stolen intellectual property and could commit cyber espionage. Some US lawmakers alleged that the Chinese government was using Huawei to spy on Americans. The US did not publicise any evidence to back these allegations.

Other Western countries had also cooperated with the US.

March 2018: Trump imposes tariffs on China

During his first administration, Trump imposed sweeping 25 percent tariffs on Chinese goods worth as much as $60bn. In June of 2018, Trump announced more tariffs.

China retaliated by imposing tariffs on US products. Beijing deemed Trump’s trade policies “trade bullyism practices”, according to an official white paper, as reported by Xinhua news agency.

In September 2018, Trump issued another round of 10 percent tariffs on Chinese products, which were hiked to 25 percent in May 2019.

During the Obama administration (2009-2017)

In 2011, during US President Barack Obama’s tenure, the US-China trade deficit reached an all-time high of $295.5bn, up from $273.1bn in the previous year.

In March 2012, the US, European Union, and Japan formally complained to China at the World Trade Organization (WTO) about China’s limits on selling rare earth metals to other countries. This move was deemed “rash and unfair” by China.

In its ruling, the world trade body said China’s export restraints were breaching the WTO rules.

In 2014, the US indicted five Chinese nationals with alleged ties to China’s People’s Liberation Army. They were charged with stealing trade technology from American companies.

What’s next for the US-China trade war?

Trump and Xi are expected to meet in South Korea on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), which is set to begin on October 31.

But the latest trade dispute has clouded the Xi-Trump meeting.

On Sunday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, downplaying the threat: “Don’t worry about China, it will all be fine! Highly respected President Xi just had a bad moment. He doesn’t want Depression for his country, and neither do I. The U.S.A. wants to help China, not hurt it!!!”

In an interview with Fox Business Network on Monday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, “President Trump said that the tariffs would not go into effect until November 1. He will be meeting with [Communist] Party Chair Xi in [South] Korea. I believe that meeting will still be on.”

When it comes to which of the two players is more affected by the trade war, Kewalramani said that he thinks “what matters is who is willing to bear greater pain, endure greater cost”.

“This is the crucial question. I would wager that Beijing is probably better placed because Washington has alienated allies and partners with its policies since January. But then, China’s growing export controls are not simply aimed at the US. They impact every country. So Beijing has not also endeared itself to anyone,” Kewalramani said, pointing out how Trump’s tariffs and China’s rare earth restrictions target multiple countries.

“The ones affected the most are countries caught in the midst of great power competition.”

On Sunday, US VP Vance told Fox News about China: “If they respond in a highly aggressive manner, I guarantee you, the president of the United States has far more cards than the People’s Republic of China.”

Kewalramani said that so far, Beijing has been more organised, prepared and strategic than the US in its policies.

“That said, it has overreached with the latest round of export controls. US policy, meanwhile, has lacked strategic coherence. The US still is the dominant global power and has several cards to play. What matters, however, is whether it can get its house in order.”

Beijing says it will not back down in the face of threats, urging the US to resolve differences through negotiations.

China has called United States President Donald Trump’s new tariffs on Chinese goods hypocritical as it defended its curbs on exports of rare earth elements and equipment, while stopping short of imposing additional duties on US imports.

In a lengthy statement on Sunday, China’s Ministry of Commerce said its export controls on rare earths, which Trump had labelled “surprising” and “very hostile”, were introduced in response to a series of US measures since their trade talks held in Madrid, Spain, last month.

“China’s stance is consistent,” the ministry said in a statement posted online. “We do not want a tariff war but we are not afraid of one.”

Trump on Friday retaliated to the Chinese curbs on rare earth exports by announcing a 100 percent tariff on Chinese exports to the US and new export controls on critical software, effective from November 1.

Beijing cited Washington’s decision to blacklist Chinese firms and impose port fees on China-linked ships as examples of what it called “provocative and damaging” actions, calling Trump’s tariff threat a “typical example of double standards”.

“These actions have severely harmed China’s interests and undermined the atmosphere for bilateral economic and trade talks. China firmly opposes them,” the ministry said.

Unlike earlier rounds of tit-for-tat tariffs, China has not yet announced any countermeasures.

Rare earths have been a major sticking point in recent trade negotiations between the two superpowers. They are critical to manufacturing everything from smartphones and electric vehicles to military hardware and renewable energy technology.

China dominates the global production and processing of these materials. On Thursday, it announced new controls on the export of technologies used for the mining and processing of critical minerals.

The renewed trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies also risk derailing a potential summit between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea later this month. It would have been their first face-to-face encounter since Trump returned to power in January.

The dispute has also rattled global markets, dragging down major tech stocks and worrying companies reliant on China’s dominance in rare earth processing.

HAMAS does not believe in peace and still poses a chilling threat to the West, analysts have warned.

The terror group signed up to Trump’s peace plan which says it must disarm, but has not specifically pledged to do so – and experts have taken this as a bad omen.

12

12

A ceasefire officially came into force on Friday – clearing the way for the first phase of Donald Trump’s sweeping peace plan to return the hostages and demilitarise Gaza.

The US announced it would deploy up to 200 troops to Israel to help support peacekeeping efforts in Gaza.

However, signs of trouble are already brewing after a Hamas official rejected the idea of Tony Blair running the strip – one of Trump’s cornerstone measures.

Egyptian-born scholar Dalia Ziada said the much-heralded Gaza ceasefire could prove a deadly illusion.

Ziada, who defied her country’s consensus by backing Israel and was forced to flee after death threats, told The Sun: “Part of me is very happy because finally this brutal war is coming to an end.

“The hostages will be returned. The people in Gaza will be relieved from the horrors of the war.

“Hamas is obviously defeated to the point that they had to finally accept a ceasefire deal.”

But she praised Washington’s muscular return to Middle East power politics: “I am excited to see the United States coming back to the Middle East with its heavy weight and being involved on that level as a partner.”

Ziada’s optimism about a deal stops there, however – warning that the world is underestimating the nature of the enemy.

“This deal is being made with a terrorist organisation, Hamas,” she said.

“Hamas adopts the jihad ideology, violent resistance ideology. They do not believe in peace.”

Even the language, she noted, betrays Hamas’s intent.

“Actually, what they believe in is Hudna. Hudna is truce,” Ziada explained.

“It’s mainly: ‘Let’s take a break so we can rearm, regroup and come back and kill you again’.”

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, an experienced war journalist and researcher, agrees that Hamas will “absolutely not” honour disarmament.

He pointed to their reluctance throughout negotiations to relinquish weapons – and emphasised they have agreed to “freeze their activity and take a break” rather than “give this up for good”.

Abdul-Hussain believes the ceasefire will hold for a while, but not forever.

He ominously warned: “It [fighting] will come back. We just don’t know when.”

12

12

Ziada argues that Hamas only accepted Trump’s ceasefire plan because they ran out of options.

She said: “Actually, it’s the last card in Hamas’ hands. The last card in Hamas’ hands was hostages. And that’s why they did everything they can to avoid giving away this card.

“But now Hamas has no other option but to accept, especially after President Trump’s very clear and very direct threatening to them that in case they do not agree, there will be total obliteration.”

But the deal is being struck with “Hamas leaders in suits” in Doha, not the hardened fighters still embedded in Gaza.

That split could prove explosive.

Ziada warned: “I don’t expect that the militia on the ground will be very cooperative.

“We started to see the first sign of this lack of cooperation from the very confused reports coming out of Hamas.”

‘Heavyweight murderers’ loose on the streets

While the remaining Hamas leaders have decided to make enough of the right noises to satisfy the peace deal conditions, they have had no contact with the prisoners who are to be released from Israeli jails.

As part of the deal, Israel will release 250 life sentence prisoners – who likely harbour a severe grudge against Israel and the West.

Richard Pater, CEO of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), said: “250 heavyweight murderers, Palestinian terrorists, are being released,

“They’re not being released back into the West Bank and they’ll never be allowed to enter Israel – but some of them are going to be moved to Gaza.”

12

12

He said it is a major concern that one of the released convicts will become the new Yahya Sinwar – the terrorist mastermind of October 7.

Sinwar was himself released in a similar prisoner exchange.

Pater fears this deal is “kicking the can down the road”, because “there will be the motivation and the ability of these hardened terrorist leaders to potentially rebuild”.

‘Zero trust’

Asked whether she believed Hamas would stick to the deal, Ziada was brutally clear: “There are no guarantees. First of all, I have zero faith or zero trust in Hamas.

“One hundred per cent. I mean, zero, zero trust in Hamas.”

Even with heavyweights like Egypt, Qatar and Turkey leaning on Hamas to comply, she believes this first stage — halting fighting and releasing hostages — will be the easy part.

The rest of Trump’s 20-point peace plan will be far harder.

She said: “This is, by the way, the easiest step because this is mainly about stop the war, release the hostages, exchange prisoners. That’s it.

“The most difficult part is the other 19 points on the plan.”

Pater warned “there are 101 problems that can still occur” throughout stages two and three of the peace plan – when Hamas is supposed to disarm and the IDF eventually withdraw entirely.

12

12

‘They will never disarm’

If anyone imagines Hamas laying down its weapons, Ziada said, they are deluding themselves.

“At this moment Hamas did not say very clearly that they will disarm,” she said.

“They will not disarm under any condition or any pressure. I cannot even picture it like Hamas going and handing their weapons because this means their end.”

Even a temporary pause in violence could serve to revive Hamas’s jihadist ambitions.

“Hamas was drained in the past month to the extent that they started to reach out to the camps of the people displaced inside Gaza and recruit teenagers,” Ziada revealed.

“This will once again revive Hamas appetite to go back to this jihadist struggle.”

And Hamas has already signalled its intent.

Ziada said: “Only days ago in the anniversary of October 7, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad issued a celebratory statement wherein they said, ‘we will continue our Jihad, we will continue our violent resistance’.”

12

12

The terror within

Ziada’s most chilling warning, however, goes far beyond Gaza.

She said the threat has now metastasised into Western societies themselves.

“People are so focused on Gaza like we are all zooming in into Gaza, but we fail to see the consequences of what the past two years has done to our world,” she said.

“The threat to the UK is coming from inside the UK. The threat to the US security is coming from inside the US.

“The attack on the West will continue — the attack on Western values and Western principles and Western way of life will continue in different forms, either by violence or even through nonviolent means as we see in political arenas.”

Abdul-Hussain reminded us that violent Islamist attacks predate October 7, and similarly warned that threat is not going away.

He said: “This is an issue that the West will have to deal with, with or without peace or ceasefire or whatever arrangement exists between Israel and the Palestinians.

And Pater insisted that the UK needs a programme of deradicalisation just as much as Gaza.

He said: “For example, the UK banning the Muslim Brotherhood movement, proscribing it as a terror organisation, not being afraid to call out Islamic extremism for what it is, will be important steps to deradicalise the population.”

12

12

“Palestine has become the all-encompassing flag and image for this Islamist global movement. But this movement exists.

“It exists in the West and Gaza is just an extension of it.”

A fragile hope

Yet even amid the warnings, Ziada said there is reason to hope.

She said: “The tears I saw in the eyes of the hostages’ families, their excitement that their children and family members will finally be coming back from this hell… it puts a smile on my face.”

For now, she admits, the world will celebrate a pause in the bloodshed.

But her message is clear: Hamas is not finished — and the West ignores that reality at its peril.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) asked for an unprecedentedly massive drone flight ban over Chicago due to a “credible threat” that law enforcement would be attacked by uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) amid large scale detentions and protests. Their statement was in response to our questions about why such a large Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) was requested. You can catch up with our original story about the TFR here.

“CBP requested a Temporary Flight Restriction due to a credible threat of small, unmanned aircraft systems being used against law enforcement during Midway Blitz,” CBP told us. Midway Blitz is the name of the operation taking place in the Chicago area. The flight restriction extends for a 15-mile radius over the greater Chicago area and into Lake Michigan.

The CBP statement did not mention any specifics, but referenced prior incidents of violence during protests against the ICE immigration enforcement wave that has resulted in more than 1,000 arrests in several cities around the country. 

“Our brave law enforcement is facing a surge in assaults and violence, including a domestic terrorist shooting in Dallas and Antifa riots in Broadview,” the statement read.

Last week, a sniper opened fire on an ICE detention facility in Dallas. The shooter died of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, while two detainees were wounded.

In Broadview, as we mentioned in our previous story, protests against the ICE arrests have been aimed at a federal facility in this suburb located about 10 miles west of Chicago. The facility is being used to detain hundreds of people arrested on suspected immigration violations. At least five people have been arrested amid clashes between protesters and agents in which chemical agents have been deployed to disperse crowds.

“The Trump administration will utilize every tool to keep our law enforcement safe,” CBP added. “The TFR will be in effect until October 12th.” 

We asked CPB for proof of a threat from small drones, whether any officers had ever been attacked this way before, and if this was the first time they issued such an explanation. We also contacted a lawyer’s group representing protestors and the Chicago mayor’s office. We will provide updates with any pertinent details we get.

It is unclear if there have been any situations where protestors have used or attempted to use drones to attack officers. The proliferation of small and often commercially available weaponized drones for nefarious purposes is a story we have covered deeply over many years. There is increasingly concern that these systems could be used in kinetic attacks within the homeland by non-state actors. They are already in common use with drug cartels and foreign terror groups, for instance. Yet this is the first time we have heard of claimed intelligence linking them to protests or that these capabilities exist with groups participating in them.

We will continue to push for answers.

Contact the author: [email protected]

Oct. 1 (UPI) — Oktoberfest in Munich, Germany, was closed Wednesday after a bomb threat and an explosion in a residential building that also damaged nearby cars.

At least one man is dead.

Special forces were sent to Lerchenau, a northern area of Munich, where residents reported shots and explosions. Oktoberfest is on the west side of the city.

There had been a bomb threat from the suspected attacker early Wednesday, city officials said. Munich police said the explosion was part of a domestic dispute and the building had been “deliberately set on fire.”

Munich police said on X that the Oktoberfest grounds, Theresienwiese, have been fully searched, and there was no danger found. It said Oktoberfest would reopen at 5:30 p.m. CEST.

A man was found severely injured near Lerchenau Lake, and he later died, police said. Another person was missing. It wasn’t clear if the person who died was the suspected attacker.

“I woke up around 5:00 because there were a few bangs. I got up, looked, and then there was a fire,” The Independent reported a resident said.

A middle school near the scene was closed, and police diverted traffic from the area.

Munich mayor Dieter Reiter said the closure of the festival followed “a perpetrator threatening the Oktoberfest.”

Oktoberfest, known as “the Wiesn” by locals, runs from Sept. 20 to Oct. 5. It’s the world’s largest beer and folk festival.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil Pinto has told the United Nations General Assembly that the United States has an “illegal and completely immoral military threat hanging over our heads”, as reports emerge that the US is planning to escalate attacks on the South American country.

Pinto told the gathering of UN member states on Friday in New York that his country was grateful for the support of governments and people “that are speaking out against this attempt to bring war to the Caribbean and South America”.

The minister claimed US threats towards his country were aimed at allowing “external powers to rob Venezuela’s immeasurable oil and gas wealth”.

He also accused Washington of using “vulgar and perverse lies” to “justify an atrocious, extravagant and immoral multibillion-dollar military threat”.

Earlier on Friday, US broadcaster NBC News reported that US military officials are drawing up plans to “target drug traffickers inside Venezuela” with air attacks, citing two unnamed US officials.

US President Donald Trump said last week that US forces had carried out a third strike targeting a vessel he said was “trafficking illicit narcotics”. At least 17 people have been killed in the three attacks.

Experts have cast doubt on the legality of US attacks on foreign boats in international waters, while data from both the UN and the US itself suggest that Venezuela is not a major source of cocaine coming into the US, as Trump has claimed.

In an address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump said of drug smugglers: ” To every terrorist thug smuggling poisonous drugs into the United States of America, please be warned that we will blow you out of existence.”

By contrast, Colombian President Gustavo Petro used his UNGA address to call for a “criminal process” to be opened against Trump over the attacks on vessels in the Caribbean, which had killed Venezuelans who had not been convicted of any crime.

The US has so far deployed eight warships to international waters off Venezuela’s coast, backed by F-35 fighter jets sent to Puerto Rico, in what it calls an anti-drug operation.

Washington has also refused an appeal for dialogue from Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro, whom the Trump administration has accused of drug trafficking – a claim Maduro has strenuously denied.

Maduro and his late predecessor, Hugo Chavez, had once been regular presences at the annual UNGA meetings taking place in New York, but Maduro did not come this year, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio describing him as a fugitive from justice over a US indictment on drug-trafficking allegations.

Back home in Venezuela, Maduro has called for military drills to begin on Saturday, to test “the people’s readiness for natural catastrophes or any armed conflict” amid US “threats”.

‘Our fishermen are peaceful’

Venezuelan fishers who spoke to the AFP news agency said that the US strikes on Venezuelan boats have made them fearful to venture too far from shore.

“It’s very upsetting because our country is peaceful, our fishermen are peaceful,” Joan Diaz, 46, told AFP in the northern town of Caraballeda.

“Fishermen go out to work, and they [the US] have taken these measures to come to our … workplace to intimidate us, to attack us,” he said.

Diaz said most fishers stay relatively close to shore, but that “to fish for tuna, you have to go very far, and that’s where they [the US forces] are.”

Luis Garcia, a 51-year-old who leads a grouping of some 4,000 fishermen and women in the La Guaira region, described the US actions as “a real threat”.

“We have nine-, 10-, 12-metre fishing boats against vessels that have missiles. Imagine the madness. The madness, my God!” he exclaimed.

“We keep contact with everyone … especially those who are going a little further,” he said.

“We report to the authorities where we are going, where we are, and how long our fishing operations will last, and we also report to our fishermen’s councils,” Garcia said.

But, Garcia added, they would not be intimidated.

“We say to him: ‘Mr Donald Trump, we, the fishermen of Venezuela … will continue to carry out our fishing activities. We will continue to go out to the Caribbean Sea that belongs to us.’”

MEXICO CITY — To help justify a sweeping deportation campaign, an extraordinary U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean and unprecedented strikes on boats allegedly trafficking drugs, President Trump has repeated a mantra: Tren de Aragua.

He insists that the street gang, which was founded about a decade ago in Venezuela, is attempting an “invasion” of the United States and threatens “the stability of the international order in the Western Hemisphere.” Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump described the group as “an enemy of all humanity” and an arm of Venezuela’s authoritarian government.

According to experts who study the gang and Trump’s own intelligence officials, none of that is true.

While Tren de Aragua has been linked to cases of human trafficking, extortion and kidnapping and has expanded its footprint as Venezuela’s diaspora has spread throughout the Americas, there is little evidence that it poses a threat to the U.S.

“Tren de Aragua does not have the capacity to invade any country, especially the most powerful nation on Earth,” said Ronna Rísquez, a Venezuelan journalist who wrote a book about the gang. The group’s prowess, she said, had been vastly exaggerated by the Trump administration in order to rationalize the deportation of migrants, the militarization of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, and perhaps even an effort to drive Venezuela’s president from power.

“It is being instrumentalized to justify political actions,” she said of the gang. “In no way does it endanger the national security of the United States.”

Before last year, few Americans had heard of Tren de Aragua.

The group formed inside a prison in Venezuela’s Aragua state then spread as nearly 8 million Venezuelans fled poverty and political repression under the regime of Nicolás Maduro. Gang members were accused of sex trafficking, drug sales, homicides and other crimes in countries including Chile, Brazil and Colombia.

As large numbers of Venezuelan migrants began entering the United States after requesting political asylum at the southern border, authorities in a handful of states tied crimes to members of the gang.

It was Trump who put the group on the map.

While campaigning for reelection last year, he appeared at an event in Aurora, Colo., where law enforcement blamed members of Tren de Aragua for several crimes, including murder. Trump stood next to large posters featuring mugshots of Venezuelan immigrants.

“Occupied America. TDA Gang Members,” they read. Banners said: “Deport Illegals Now.”

Shortly after he took office, Trump declared an “invasion” by Tren de Aragua and invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 18th century law that allows the president to deport immigrants during wartime. His administration flew 200 Venezuelans to El Salvador, where they were housed in a notorious prison, even though few of the men had documented links to Tren de Aragua and most had no criminal records in the United States.

In recent months, Trump has again evoked the threat of Tren de Aragua to explain the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops and a small armada of ships and warplanes to the Caribbean.

In July, his administration declared that Tren de Aragua was a terrorist group led by Maduro. That same month, he ordered the Pentagon to use military force against Latin American cartels that his government has labeled terrorists.

Three times in recent weeks, U.S. troops have struck boats off the coast of Venezuela that it said carried Tren de Aragua members who were trafficking drugs.

The administration offered no proof of those claims. Fourteen people have been killed.

Trump has warned that more strikes are to come. “To every terrorist thug smuggling poisonous drugs into the United States of America, please be warned that we will blow you out of existence,” he said in his address to the United Nations.

While he insists the strikes are aimed at disrupting the drug trade — claiming without evidence that each boat was carrying enough drugs to kill 25,000 Americans — analysts say there is little evidence that Tren de Aragua is engaged in high-level drug trafficking, and no evidence that it is involved in the movement of fentanyl, which is produced in Mexico by chemicals imported from China. The DEA estimates that just 8% of cocaine that is trafficked into the U.S. passes through Venezuelan territory.

That has fueled speculation about whether the real goal may be regime change.

“Everybody is wondering about Trump’s end game,” said Irene Mia, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think tank focused on global security.

She said that while there are officials within the White House who appear eager to work with Venezuela, others, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, are open about their desire to topple Maduro and other leftist strongmen in the region.

“We’re not going to have a cartel operating or masquerading as a government operating in our own hemisphere,” Rubio told Fox News this month.

Top U.S. intelligence officials have said they don’t believe Maduro has links to Tren de Aragua.

A declassified memo produced by the Office of Director of National Intelligence found no evidence of widespread cooperation between his regime and the gang. It also said Tren de Aragua does not pose a threat to the U.S.: “The small size of TDA’s cells, its focus on low-skill criminal activities and its decentralized structure make it highly unlikely that TDA coordinates large volumes of human trafficking or migrant smuggling.”

Michael Paarlberg, a political scientist who studies Latin America at Virginia Commonwealth University, said he believes Trump is using the gang to achieve political goals — and distract from domestic controversies such as his decision to close the investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Tren de Aragua, he said, is much less powerful than other gangs in Latin America. “But it has been a convenient boogeyman for the Trump administration.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on Monday accused Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr of unlawfully intimidating television broadcasters into toeing a conservative line in favor of President Trump, and urged him to reverse course.

In a letter to Carr, Bonta specifically cited ABC’s decision to pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air after Kimmel made comments about the killing of close Trump ally Charlie Kirk, and Carr demanded ABC’s parent company Disney “take action” against the late-night host.

Bonta wrote that California “is home to a great many artists, entertainers, and other individuals who every day exercise their right to free speech and free expression,” and that Carr’s demands of Disney threatened their 1st Amendment rights.

“As the Supreme Court held over sixty years ago and unanimously reaffirmed just last year, ‘the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,’” Bonta wrote.

Carr and Trump have both denied playing a role in Kimmel’s suspension, alleging instead that it was due to his show having poor ratings.

After Disney announced Monday that Kimmel’s show would be returning to ABC, Bonta said he was “pleased to hear ABC is reversing course on its capitulation to the FCC’s unlawful threats,” but that his “concerns stand.”

He rejected Trump and Carr’s denials of involvement, and accused the administration of “waging a dangerous attack on those who dare to speak out against it.”

“Censoring and silencing critics because you don’t like what they say — be it a comedian, a lawyer, or a peaceful protester — is fundamentally un-American,” while such censorship by the U.S. government is “absolutely chilling,” Bonta said.

Bonta called on Carr to “stop his campaign of censorship” and commit to defending the right to free speech in the U.S., which he said would require “an express disavowal” of his previous threats and “an unambiguous pledge” that he will not use the FCC “to retaliate against private parties” for speech he disagrees with moving forward.

“News outlets have reported today that ABC will be returning Mr. Kimmel’s show to its broadcast tomorrow night. While it is heartening to see the exercise of free speech ultimately prevail, this does not erase your threats and the resultant suppression of free speech from this past week or the prospect that your threats will chill free speech in the future,” Bonta wrote.

After Kirk’s killing, Kimmel said during a monologue that the U.S. had “hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Carr responded on a conservative podcast, saying, “These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Two major owners of ABC affiliates dropped the show, after which ABC said it would be “preempted indefinitely.”

Both Kirk’s killing and Kimmel’s suspension — which followed the cancellation of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” by CBS — kicked off a tense debate about freedom of speech in the U.S. Both Kimmel and Colbert are critics of Trump, while Kirk was an ardent supporter.

Constitutional scholars and other 1st amendment advocates said the administration and Carr have clearly been exerting inappropriate pressure on media companies.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, said Carr’s actions were part of a broad assault on free speech by the administration, which “is showing a stunning ignorance and disregard of the 1st amendment.”

Summer Lopez, the interim co-chief executive of PEN America, said this is “a dangerous moment for free speech” in the U.S. because of a host of Trump administration actions that are “pretty clear violations of the 1st Amendment” — including Carr’s threats but also statements about “hate speech” by Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and new Pentagon restrictions on journalists reporting on the U.S. military.

She said Kimmel’s return to ABC showed that “public outrage does make a difference,” but that “it’s important that we generate that level of public outrage when the targeting is of people who don’t have that same prominence.”

Carr has also drawn criticism from conservative corners, including from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC. He recently said on his podcast that he found it “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”

Cruz said he works closely with Carr, whom he likes, but that what Carr said was “dangerous as hell” and could be used down the line “to silence every conservative in America.”

The key NATO front-line state is bolstering its defence as the threat of a Russian incursion into its territory grows.

The United States State Department has announced it has approved the sale of Javelin Missile Systems and related logistical equipment to Poland for an estimated $780m, as the key NATO front-line state bolsters its defences with the threat of Russian incursions growing.

Announcing the potential sale in a statement on Thursday, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said the Polish government had requested to buy 2,506 FGM-148F Javelin missiles and 253 Javelin Lightweight Command Launch Units.

Javelins are a portable, shoulder-fired missile system used to target tanks, lighter armoured vehicles, bunkers, and low-flying aircraft.

In addition, Poland will receive non-MDE (Major Defense Equipment) as part of the package, including missile simulation rounds, battery coolant units, toolkits, spares support, as well as training and US government and contractor technical assistance.

The US agency said it had already notified Congress of the potential sale for approval.

“This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is a force for political and economic stability in Europe,” the DSCA said in a statement.

“The proposed sale will improve Poland’s capability to meet current and future threats by upgrading its existing legacy Command Launch Units and increasing its defence inventory, thereby reinforcing its capability to protect Polish sovereign territory and improving its ability to meet NATO requirements,” it added.

Also on Thursday, Polish Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said Poland would sign a cooperation agreement with Kyiv for Ukraine’s military to train Polish soldiers and engineers in drone defence methods.

The announcement came just a week after Polish and NATO forces shot down more than 20 drones violating the country’s airspace during a Russian aerial attack on neighbouring Ukraine.

The September 10 incident was the first time that Polish and NATO forces had become engaged in the conflict, with Ukraine claiming that Moscow was using drone incursions to test the West’s willingness to respond to aggression.

Russia said its forces had not intended to hit Polish targets and had been attacking Ukraine at the time of the aerial incursion.

Denmark also announced this week that it will acquire long-range, high-precision weapons for the first time to deter Russia, in what Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen described as a “paradigm shift in Danish defence policy”.

Frederiksen said Russia constitutes a threat to Denmark for “years to come”, even if there is no imminent danger of an attack.

“With these weapons, the defence forces will be able to hit targets at long range and, for example, neutralise enemy missile threats,” she said.

Ukraine, meanwhile, is hoping to soon receive $3.5-3.6bn worth of weapons through the Priority Ukraine Requirements List initiative, a new mechanism allowing NATO states to finance the transfer of US-sourced weapons and technology to Kyiv.

The abrupt suspension of comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show on ABC might seem like the least of our worries amid the shuttering of government agencies, the collapse of congressional checks on executive power and bands of ICE agents detaining people on the basis of race or language. But humor matters.

While the news media is sometimes referred to as the fourth estate, alongside the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, few think of stand-up comedy as a pillar of democracy. But jokes allow a society to mock itself, spotlight uncomfortable truths, bridge differences and say what cannot otherwise be said. Humor is a crucial bulwark of a free society. To play that role, comedians need the leeway to embarrass, provoke and take risks, sometimes crossing the line into offense.

In the wake of Kimmel’s suspension it is hard to imagine any mass market humorist poking fun with abandon that biting satire demands. One of the most powerful salves for people under stress, and a particular lifeline during the Trump era, is the ability to laugh at the ridiculous or unfathomable. Lowering a curtain on comedy will not only dim one of our country’s most treasured cultural forms, but also accelerate the dark turn of American democracy.

Dating back to pre-revolutionary times, political satire has been a mainstay of American culture. Rebellious colonists skewered British taxation policies, military blunders and parliamentary pomposities through plays, songs and cartoons that rallied others to the cause of independence and made mass mobilization fun. Benjamin Franklin’s 1773 “Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One” used irony to lampoon British policy, undermining authority while avoiding direct flouting of the era’s harsh sedition laws. The juxtaposition of a lighthearted format with a pointed commentary has marked America’s comedic tradition ever since, encompassing literary humorists such as Mark Twain and Edgar Allan Poe, satirical magazines like Puck and MAD, political cartooning, vaudeville, radio satire, stand-up and the late-night juggernauts of variety shows, talk shows and, since 1975, “Saturday Night Live.”

While our 1st Amendment tradition has mostly protected satire over the years, it hasn’t prevented heavy-handed politicians from occasionally trying to silence their comedic critics. When Thomas Nast, known as the father of American political cartooning, took on New York City’s Boss Tweed and his Tammany Hall political machine in the 1870s, Tweed reportedly said: “Let’s stop those damned pictures. I don’t care so much what the papers write about me — my constituents can’t read, but damn it, they can see pictures.” But Nast kept up a furious pace of cartooning, hastening Tweed’s downfall on corruption charges.

Charlie Chaplin’s satire of capitalism and authoritarianism in films including “Modern Times” and “The Great Dictator,” alongside his outspoken politics and alleged communist ties, drew FBI surveillance. In 1952 his re-entry permit to the U.S. was revoked, effectively exiling him for nearly 20 years.

Around the world, autocrats have recognized the power of comedians to puncture preferred narratives, undermine authority and stoke dissent. The Nazi regime’s Reichskulturkammer, or chamber of culture, tightly censored cabaret and comedy. Cabaret performer Werner Finck opened a club in 1929 and dared Gestapo members in the audience to write down his every word. Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels ordered the venue shuttered in 1935 and sent Finck and his colleagues to a six-week stint in a concentration camp. In the Soviet Union, jokes about Joseph Stalin or the Communist Party were treated as serious crimes against the state, warranting time in the gulag.

In the age of international television and social media the potency, and the perceived threat, of comedy has only grown. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky built national stature as a television satirist playing a fictional president. His predecessor’s government, which did all it could to derail its political opponents, did not see Zelensky coming; until it happened, few imagined his leap from sound stage to presidential podium. In 2013 the Cairo government issued an arrest warrant for television comic Bassem Youssef, known as the Jon Stewart of Egypt, for jokes about President Mohamed Morsi and Islam. He was hounded into exile and has lived in the U.S. for the last decade.

In an increasingly polarized America, the place of comedy has been under attack from all sides. A decade ago Jerry Seinfeld said he would no longer do shows on college campuses because of ferocious politically correct backlash against his jokes. In 2019 the New York Times announced it would no longer publish political cartoons after apologizing for an antisemitic caricature of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This year the White House Correspondents’ Dinner canceled a planned appearance by comedian Amber Ruffin, the latest in a series of kerfuffles over controversial emcees of that event. The rising cost of reprisals, in the form of offended constituencies, online outrage and direct threats, is increasingly rendering humor too hot to handle.

The public threats issued by Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr against Kimmel and ABC, based upon comments by the comedian that were neither incendiary nor menacing, marks a sharp escalation in the battle against humor. The immediate capitulation of Disney, one of America’s largest and most revered corporations, is a shocking sign of just how quickly private, independent institutions are melting down under heated threat by a vindictive administration. If a comedian as mainstream as Jimmy Kimmel is not safe from silencing, it is hard to imagine who is.

In helping audiences understand what is happening around them and reckon with their fears, comedy is both a collective coping mechanism and a catalyst for unfettered, clear-eyed thought. Autocrats around the world understand this.

Suzanne Nossel is a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy and international order at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the author of “Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday that the U.S. military again targeted a boat allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela, killing three aboard the vessel.

“The Strike occurred while these confirmed narcoterrorists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the U.S.,” Trump said in a Truth Social post announcing the strike. “These extremely violent drug trafficking cartels POSE A THREAT to U.S. National Security, Foreign Policy, and vital U.S. Interests.”

The strike that Trump says was carried out Monday came two weeks after another military strike on what the Trump administration says was a drug-carrying speedboat from Venezuela that killed 11.

The Trump administration justified the earlier strike as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States.

But several senators, Democrats and some Republicans, have indicated dissatisfaction with the administration’s rationale and questioned the legality of the action. They view it as a potential overreach of executive authority in part by using the military for law enforcement purposes.

The Trump administration has claimed self-defense as a legal justification for the first strike, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio arguing the drug cartels “pose an immediate threat” to the nation.

U.S. officials said the strike early this month targeted Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. And they indicated more military strikes on drug targets would be coming as the U.S. looks to “wage war” on cartels.

Trump did not specify whether Tren de Aragua was also the target of Monday’s strike.

The Venezuelan government did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the reported strike.

The Trump administration has railed specifically against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro for the scourge of illegal drugs in U.S. communities.

Maduro during a press conference earlier on Monday lashed out at the U.S. government, accusing the Trump administration of using drug trafficking accusations as an excuse for a military operation whose intentions are “to intimidate and seek regime change” in the South American country.

Maduro also repudiated what he described as a weekend operation in which 18 Marines raided a Venezuelan fishing boat in the Caribbean.

“What were they looking for? Tuna? What were they looking for? A kilo of snapper? Who gave the order in Washington for a missile destroyer to send 18 armed Marines to raid a tuna fishing vessel?” he said. “They were looking for a military incident. If the tuna fishing boys had any kind of weapons and used weapons while in Venezuelan jurisdiction, it would have been the military incident that the warmongers, extremists who want a war in the Caribbean, are seeking.”

Speaking to Fox News earlier Monday, Rubio reiterated that the U.S. doesn’t see Maduro as the rightful leader of Venezuela but as head of a drug cartel.

“We’re not going to have a cartel, operating or masquerading as a government, operating in our own hemisphere,” Rubio said.

Following the first military strike on a boat allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela, America’s chief diplomat said Trump was “going to use the U.S. military and all the elements of American power to target cartels who are targeting America.”

AP and others have reported that the boat had turned around and was heading back to shore when it was struck. But Rubio on Monday said he didn’t know if that’s accurate.

“What needs to start happening is some of these boats need to get blown up,” Rubio said. “We can’t live in a world where all of a sudden they do a U-turn and so we can’t touch them anymore.”

Madhani and Garcia Cano write for the Associated Press. AP writer Matthew Lee in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

SALT LAKE CITY — Authorities in Utah say two men have been arrested on suspicion of placing an incendiary device under a news media vehicle in Salt Lake City. The bomb didn’t go off.

Police and fire department bomb squads responded Friday when a suspicious device was found under the vehicle parked near an occupied building.

Investigators determined the bomb “had been lit but failed to function as designed,” according to court records cited by CBS affiliate KUTV on Sunday.

The FBI identified two suspects and served a search warrant at a home in the Magna neighborhood west of the city’s downtown. Two men, ages 58 and 31, were arrested and could face charges related to weapons possession and threats of terrorism, ABC affiliate KTVX reported Sunday.

Neighboring homes were evacuated during the search, which turned up explosives and “explosive-related components,” firearms, illegal narcotics and other paraphernalia, court records say. Authorities say they also found at least two devices that turned out to be hoax weapons of mass destruction.

There was no information about a possible motive and the relationship between the two suspects wasn’t immediately known.

News media have descended on Salt Lake City following last week’s killing of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University in nearby Orem.

Sept. 12 (UPI) — Tropical Storm Mario is small but strengthening off the west coast of Mexico Friday.

The latest update from the National Hurricane Center was at 4:23 a.m. Friday. It said Mario is a small tropical cyclone about 20 nautical miles off the coast of Guerrero, Mexico. The tropical depression was boosted to Tropical Storm Mario with maximum winds estimated at 40 mph.

Because of Mario’s closeness to the coast of Mexico, the Mexican government has issued a tropical storm watch for a small segment of the coast from Lazaro Cardenas to Punta San Telmo.

NHS said it’s having trouble predicting Mario’s trajectory because of its small size and closeness to land. Some models show the system moving inland and dissipating Friday, but others show Mario reaching hurricane strength. Mario is expected to reach colder waters by day five and become a post-tropical cyclone.

Mario has been moving faster toward the west-northwest at 14 mph, parallel to the coast of Mexico.

Heavy rainfall will affect southern Mexico through Sunday, which could result in flash flooding, particularly in areas of higher terrain.

Tropical storm conditions are possible along portions of the coast of Michoacan Friday. Gusty winds are possible elsewhere along the coasts of western Guerrero, Michoacan, and Colima through Friday night.

Sept. 11 (UPI) — A bomb threat has been reported at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., police said.

The threat was reported around 1 p.m. Thursday. Metropolitan Police Department’s Explosive Ordinance Disposal squad were requested by the U.S. Capitol Police.

Capitol Police are checking the building, and so far nothing has been found, said Fox 5.

The DNC building is in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Southeast D.C.

The threat comes one day after political activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed in Utah at a speaking event.

Multiple historically Black colleges and universities, including two in Virginia, are also on lockdown Thursday in response to various threats, WUSA9 reported.