Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Pentagon Asks Defense Firms To Make Weapons Faster; Interview With Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC); Trial Set To Begin In Tupac Shakur's 1996 Murder; A "Kill Switch" Stop A.I. Gone Rogue; Who Are The Victims Of The U.S. Boat Strikes; Poll Says Most Americans Think Job Market On "Wrong Track." Aired 6-7p ET

Aired August 09, 2026 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[18:00:00]

JULIA BENBROOK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The deputy defense secretary, Steve Feinberg, was asking some of these industry leaders to look for ways to increase production and make delivery a more aggressive process. He gave them up to 21 days to present some of those plans.

Now, this was first reported by the "Washington Post." It's since been confirmed by CNN. And in a statement, a Pentagon official spokesperson told us this, quote, "Deputy Secretary Feinberg is a generational leader in that effort, driving the hard work of fixing our broken, antiquated, and immensely complex acquisition systems so we can actually produce the weapons our warfighters need at the pace the threat demands."

While Trump has in recent days admitted that certain munitions are, quote, "tighter than before," he has been adamant that the United States has what it needs to continue fighting if that is what he deems necessary. He says that he has massive amounts of ammunition at his disposal, and this comes as we have been reporting, that for several weeks now that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Caine, has privately urged other top officials, some of those discussions taking place with CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance.

But he has privately urged them to find an offramp to this conflict. Sources have told our team that he's been a little less direct when it comes to Trump, really carefully communicating any potential downsides to the military options that are on the table.

Now we are watching right now Trump just traveled from here in New Jersey where he spent most of his weekend. He is headed back to Washington.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: All right, Julia Benbrook, really appreciate the reporting as we watch the president there at Joint Base Andrews, as Julia mentioned, on his way back to Washington, D.C.. Appreciate the reporting.

All right. I want to bring in South Carolina Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace. She's on the House Armed Services Committee. And Congresswoman, let's just start with the news about U.S. munition

stockpiles, but also just the continuing developments with this war. You have publicly stated you don't support this conflict with Iran escalating. Are you concerned about the direction this war is headed, and do you believe the administration needs to find an offramp?

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Well, we were initially told this would be six weeks. We're now six months in. And if this is going to continue, then I expect the president and the White House to come to Congress to continue this conflict and this war. We should be concerned as a country about our munitions and our ammunitions, and hopefully we've learned something from the mess in Ukraine about, you know, how drones are manufactured, how quickly munitions can be manufactured, and that they are less expensive in some ways.

And so I applaud the White House and the administration for going back to our defense contractors, the military industrial complex, to see how we can do this bigger, better, faster, more, because that is in part the future of warfare, making sure that we're nimble and we're fast. And this isn't the only region of the world where there is conflict or potential conflict. We also have the Asia Pacific Region.

And so ensuring that our forces have everything they need, both during conflict and peace, are very important during this time.

JIMENEZ: You just said that if this continues, you would want the president to come in front of Congress. Correct me if I'm wrong. Why is that not now? What are you waiting for?

MACE: Well, it's been over six months, so we're past the 90-day threshold, and I support a War Powers Resolution that requires the White House and the administration to come to Congress to declare war and continue this conflict. We need to be -- we need to have a say in it. That's what our role is in an endeavor that goes beyond 90 days.

We've given other presidents and other administrations that 90-day window. We've given the Trump administration that. And so now it's time to come to Congress.

JIMENEZ: You know, as you know, South Carolina has a special primary election coming up in a few days here. And this one, including for late Senator Lindsey Graham's seat. Graham's sister, Darline Graham, does have the endorsement of President Trump for this. You went a different direction and endorsed Congressman Ralph Norman.

Is your decision at all to break from President Trump here tied to your unhappiness with how the Epstein files were released?

MACE: No, not at all. And may Lindsey Graham rest in everlasting peace. I see this race as a special election, which is on Tuesday for all the voters in South Carolina. This is a historic opportunity. We have not had an election for a U.S. senator in over two decades. And Ralph Norman has a 100 percent conservative voting record. He actually has a voting record. He will be in a runoff with someone who does not have much of a voting record at all, except for the last two weeks. I think it's very important that we know what we're getting. We know

who we're getting. There are no surprises. Everyone knows how Ralph Norman is going to vote. He's going to vote for South Carolina. He's been fighting for our values. He's voted to lower taxes. He's done all the kitchen table things that are important to South Carolina.

[18:05:01]

The cost of living here is higher than it's ever been. Affordability is on the ballot. And ensuring that our seniors get good care, get medical care, all those things so they can afford to keep their homes. Those are definitely on the ballot. And he's been there. So that's who I support.

JIMENEZ: One of the reasons I brought up the Epstein files is also, as I'm sure you saw Friday evening or Friday night, I can't remember the exact timing, but Todd Blanche essentially confirmed as attorney general by the Senate. You've been critical of him in the past, specifically regarding his early comments on Epstein files when he was acting AG and actions as deputy as well. What is your reaction to his now confirmation?

MACE: Well, that was the Senate's job. The House has no say in that. But I will tell you, I think the Epstein files, I don't think they're going to go away. I'm a survivor. I lost a lot politically and professionally because I was one of the only four Republicans to vote on that discharge petition. I signed my name to the paper and I paid for that. I paid for that dearly.

Now, I believe since the administration and the -- they won't go after any of the co-conspirators in the Epstein files, I think the states need to be up to the task for it to continue the investigations and ensure that no co-conspirator walks free here. We see in other countries like England, the U.K., do more to hold men accountable, potential predators accountable than we have here in the United States.

We had lots of women who were underage who were victims. And if we can't do this one thing for the Epstein files, for those victims, we can't do it for anybody else in this country. And I've been fighting for women and girls and their rights to be protected for a very long time. And I think it will be up to the state attorneys generals to continue those investigations and hold those people accountable to the letter of the law.

JIMENEZ: Congresswoman, before we go, I want to ask you about something you posted online a few days ago. You wrote, quote, "Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse and a threat to both national security and our republic." And then today you essentially added, "If not wanting to be blown up, stabbed or rammed by a car by a radical Islamist in the United States of America makes us Islamophobes, then so be it."

Are you saying that anyone who is Muslim is a threat to this country?

MACE: That's not what I said. And -- that's not what I said. Number one, I think we do have a real issue with radical Islamic --

JIMENEZ: I mean, it sounds like that's what you're saying.

MACE: No, I was talking about elected officials. When you look at what has just happened in the last couple --

JIMENEZ: So any Muslim elected officials. Sorry to cut you off, but just to be clear, any elected Muslim officials.

MACE: Yes, Muslim elected -- Mamdani campaigned with an unindicted co- conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. You have Abdul El-Sayed, who was campaigning with Hasan Piker, who said America deserved 9/11. Yes, we should be very concerned about --

(CROSSTALK)

JIMENEZ: He said he regretted those comments. But I take your point.

MACE: But that believe in this radical Islam ideology where women are covered head to toe, it's very oppressive where we've seen grooming gangs over Europe --

JIMENEZ: But, Congresswoman, there's no indication that Mayor Mamdani has brought any of those ideals to New York City governance, or that just being Muslim allows you, brings those in.

(CROSSTALK)

MACE: If you're playing footsie with an imam here in America who's an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, yes, we have a real problem with that kind of ideology seeping into government.

JIMENEZ: But, Congresswoman, when you make a blanket statement like that, it implies that every Muslim member of Congress or leadership, folks who, by the way, are elected by American citizens.

MACE: I am deeply concerned about Michigan Democrats nominating a guy hanging out with Hassan Piker who said America deserved 9/11, who has a framed photo of the Twin Towers being blown up.

JIMENEZ: Which he's responded to and says he regrets those comments. But, yes, keep going.

MACE: Yes, but, I mean, this is who he's hanging out with. This kind of person who's promoting, you know, communist ideology. This is not something -- America is not built on those values. And in the future, when our granddaughters are wearing burqas to school, we're going to look back and say, how did this happen?

JIMENEZ: There's no indication that that is happening on a wide basis. Folks that are getting into office --

MACE: Have you seen -- have you seen the parade in Chicago today? Have you seen Dearborn. In Dearborn, Michigan.

JIMENEZ: An expression of culture, Congresswoman, is different than a blanket city policy.

MACE: You know, called a parade -- if the guy complaining about the call to prayer five times a day, they're trying to push these people out and our values out. And that's wrong. I think this is a conversation that we have to have. What are our values and what do they look like? I don't want to hear the call to prayer five times a day in an American city. I think that's wrong. It's not our values.

JIMENEZ: Well, if you don't want to hear it, that's OK. The first religion protects -- the First Amendment, excuse me, protects from freedom of religion. If you don't want to hear it, fine. You know, I grew up in a Christian household. I grew up in the South. Islam is not my religion, but I have Muslim friends who, if that is how they worship, even if I don't want to hear it, that is their right to hear.

MACE: In the privacy of their own mosque or their own home, not on the streets of America. I think that we're speaking a very different vibe.

JIMENEZ: If it's an expression --

[18:10:06]

MACE: We shouldn't be having that kind of thing going on. And if you look at the parades that are happening, I look at the women who are covered head to toe with little slits for their eyes. As a woman, that's scary to me that that is coming towards --

(CROSSTALK)

JIMENEZ: But you're not being -- that's not being forced on you, Congresswoman.

MACE: All across the country. What's that?

JIMENEZ: But that's not being forced on you to do, Congresswoman. And it's not happening at a congressional legal level.

(CROSSTALK)

MACE: It's being forced on women and underaged girls. A 6-year-old girl doesn't get a say on whether she should wear a hijab or not. I mean, this is very I think dangerous ideology that's seeping into American culture.

JIMENEZ: It's up to a family's decision on how they govern their kids.

All right, Congresswoman --

MACE: You can't -- I don't -- yes.

JIMENEZ: I appreciate you taking the time and explaining your tweet as best you could there, but, you know, the First Amendment is pretty clear on freedom of religion. Article Six also, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office culture.

MACE: I don't want this seeping into American culture. We have Christian foundations as a nation, and this does not --

JIMENEZ: That's your opinion. The First Amendment disagrees that it needs to stay that. If someone wants to express their religion, it's right there. It's number one in terms of the Constitution.

MACE: Then go back to that country is all I have to say. Go back to that country of origin. It doesn't need to be here.

JIMENEZ: Congresswoman, America has a long history of expressing cultures from various countries. You know that. We have seen that play out in generations of immigration. But I got to leave the conversation there.

Congresswoman, thank you for being here.

MACE: I think we should ban all immigrants from those countries. Thank you.

JIMENEZ: And that is your opinion, Congresswoman.

Tomorrow, a trial 30 years in the making will begin. We'll tell you what to know about the murder of Tupac Shakur, the trial and the suspect, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:16:28]

JIMENEZ: After nearly 30 years, the man accused of being the ringmaster in the 1996 murder of famous rapper Tupac Shakur is going to trial. A grand jury indicted Duane Keefe Davis back in 2023 after investigators say they were able to gather enough evidence against him, much of it coming from Davis's own mouth.

Now, throughout various interviews and a memoir he authored about gang life, Davis described the events that led up to Tupac's murder, admitting to being one of four people in the infamous White Cadillac the night Shakur was shot four times.

Now the shooting happened while Shakur was leaving a boxing match on the Las Vegas Strip. He died six days later. Shakur was just 25 years old at the time, and his murder has been the subject of conspiracy theories, huge public interest ever since.

Joining us now, civil rights attorney and legal affairs commentator Areva Martin.

And Areva, this has been the culmination of decades of real investigative work. And it really seems like it was just waiting for the right moment and the right amount of evidence to come through. How do you expect the defense will handle this case when the prosecution has Davis's own words to use against him?

AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY AND LEGAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, one thing we should note, Omar, is this is a cold case. The investigators were no longer pursuing leads, at least actively, until Duane Davis wrote this memoir in 2019 and started this media tour. He went on podcasts, he went on television, he did a documentary talking about the fact that he was involved in the murder.

So in many ways, he handled the prosecutors a case and the case that's being made by the prosecutors against him is one based on his own words, his own testimony. The defense, however, is going to claim that this is a book, that it's a fiction book, and that it was written by a ghostwriter and that Duane Davis never read the contents of the book and never sanctioned the book.

Duane Davis's theory is that or his position is that he told his life story to this ghost writer and the ghost writer just kind of ran with this narrative and that these -- that he did not admit to killing Tupac.

Now, interestingly enough, Omar, this ghost writer is on the witness list. So we're going to hear from the ghost writer and we'll get to see -- the jury will get to see who's telling the truth because both things can't be true at the same time.

JIMENEZ: I mean, and look, as we have seen time and time again, what you say publicly is different type of scrutiny than actually in a courtroom, which we will likely see play out over the course of this trial.

You know, legally speaking, after the indictment, there's a former police detective who worked on the case that told CNN that Davis actually confessed to the crime back in 2009, but police couldn't use the information because of what's called a proffer agreement.

Can you just explain what that is and how that previous admission, at least according to this detective, might play into the case, if at all?

MARTIN: So a proffer agreement is an agreement, almost like a contract between prosecutors and a witness. When they are trying to determine who committed a crime, they go to certain individuals who may have knowledge and say, look, if you tell us what you know, we will not use what you tell us to prosecute you. So that's what a proffer is.

Now, in this case, the judge sitting in Nevada said that proffer isn't valid in Nevada because Nevada prosecutors weren't involved in that proffer, that that was a proffer made in Los Angeles between LAPD and federal officers who happened to be investigating the death of Biggie Smalls. It wasn't even involved -- it didn't involve the investigation of Tupac Shakur.

[18:20:02]

So the Nevada court has ruled that that information, that testimony, that admission made by Duane Davis back in 2009 can also be admitted during the trial that's going to start on Monday. You can expect the defense to continue to object. The defense has been saying all along that for, you know, decades Duane Davis has been promised immunity, promised that he would not be prosecuted for telling, you know, law enforcement what he knew about the death of Tupac Shakur. So this is probably a case, Omar, no matter what happens at the trial

level, this is definitely going to be up on appeal because this is a big issue, using this testimony, this alleged admission that was given to Duane -- that Duane Davis gave when he thought he wouldn't be prosecuted by his own words.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, to that point, I mean, do you think that agreement had anything to do with just his openness and writing and doing interviews, including in that 2019 memoir and beyond, if you sort of have that perceived confidence that, oh, I'll be fine? Is there a time limit for these agreements? I mean, I just -- walk me through that process of what it looks like after a proffer agreement is sort of made.

MARTIN: Well, the problem is when you make a proffer, you tell law enforcement information, you know, you can't then go and make that information public because that kind of defeats the purpose of the proffer. And what we're hearing from the defense lawyers for Duane Davis is, look, this was a sick old man. He was watching everyone else make money on the Tupac Shakur story. So he kind of wanted to get in on it.

And he made up this narrative to make money because, you know, he needed -- he was desperate and needed money. So they're trying to dismiss both what he said during that proffer as well as what he has said during these interviews and in his book as just being this fiction that was created by someone who was trying to cash in on knowing Tupac Shakur.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, in any case, regardless if it's a high profile like this or otherwise, if it's something that's revived after decades, you know, if you're trying to prosecute this, you run into all sorts of issues, including main witnesses that may have passed which is the case here, where all other witnesses in the car are dead.

Does that help or hurt the defense for someone like Davis?

MARTIN: Well, it's going to make the prosecutor's case more difficult. We don't have the shooter. The shooter was actually Orlando Anderson, was Duane Davis's nephew, who's dead himself. We don't have the vehicle. We don't have the gun. So the prosecutors are basically going to say to this jury, this case is about the words spoken out of Duane Davis's mouth. And again, you're going to have the defense stand up and say, this was one big fiction. This guy was just trying to make money.

And jurors are going to have to decide, with the absence of that kind of corroborating evidence that you would expect to see, whether this was just, you know, a big way for Duane Davis to cash in on what he thought was one of the most important, you know, murder investigations of the last century or so. So jurors are going to have to grapple with that. But it definitely does not help the prosecutors that they will not have that traditional evidence that you would expect to see, the murder weapon, the actual person that shot Tupac Shakur, because we know Duane Davis was not the shooter. So the prosecutors are going to have to explain to jurors how that

should not matter and why they still should convict him based on his own words.

JIMENEZ: And, you know, as we look toward the beginning of this formal process coming up, I know you mentioned this will likely go to appeal just based on some of those legal sticky issues. But how long do you expect this trial to actually go? Do you see this as a complicated case on prosecution?

MARTIN: There are 200 or so witnesses that have been identified in this case that may take the witness stand, including someone like Suge Knight. Let's not forget Suge Knight. Suge Knight is serving a time in a prison in California, and he has said he has been vehement about the fact that he is not going to testify. So I think there are going to be a lot of issues that come up about who is willing to testify, who will not testify.

But the estimate, Omar, is that this trial is going to last about four to six weeks.

JIMENEZ: Based on the strength of evidence, and I promise this is not a direct examination as we go through list of these questions here, but based on the evidence that we've seen to this point, do you see a strong case here? I mean, what is the most likely outcome for Davis, just based on what you've seen before we get into the actual trial itself?

MARTIN: I think it's going to be difficult for jurors to put aside the fact that this man has been bragging about the fact that he was involved in this murder, that he -- you know, very vivid details about what happened that night.

[18:25:02]

So, you know, he just didn't paint some broad -- paint with a broad brush. He's given a lot of details about that night, where they were, the altercation that happened between Tupac Shakur and his nephew, the fact that this was retaliation. And, you know, there are a lot of details that he has that he's been talking about in these interviews and in his memoir, I think jurors are going to have a hard time believing that this was just one big made-up story for the purpose of, you know, cashing in on his on the notoriety of this case.

So I think going into it, I'd say the scales are tipped probably in favor of the prosecution getting a conviction, but always have the possibility that Duane Davis takes the stand himself and comes off as a sympathetic witness and jurors believe that he did not do this, had no real knowledge of it, and was just making all of this up.

JIMENEZ: All right. Areva Martin, really appreciate the analysis. I promise there's no cross-examination coming up. You're done. Thanks for being here.

MARTIN: You're good, you're good, Omar. Go to law school.

JIMENEZ: Good to see you.

And be sure to stay with CNN All Access for our special coverage of the Tupac murder trial. You're going to be able to stream it all on the CNN app. So stay tuned for that.

Meanwhile, coming up here, stories of A.I. going rogue have been all over the news lately. I'm sure you've seen it, but the question, though, is could a kill switch keep an A.I. from creating a doomsday scenario? Wait until you hear what my next guest thinks.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:55]

JIMENEZ: In just the last few weeks, we've seen a lot of alarming headlines really like these coming out of the A.I. world. Multiple test models hacking into other companies, A.I. agents targeting real people, A.I. creating 16 new viruses from scratch, and the godfather of A.I., as he's known, warning to brace for more rogue A.I. models.

Now, Congressman Ted Lieu renewed calls to pass his A.I. kill switch. But my next guest says that's not going to help. University of Florida law professor Derek Bambauer joins me now. He focuses mostly on artificial intelligence and cybersecurity.

You also, though, co-wrote an op-ed in the "Washington Examiner" that says, quote, "an A.I. kill switch won't stop doomsday. It will cause it."

So let's just start there. Why?

DEREK BAMBAUER, IRVING CYPEN PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: Well, we think that actually the kill switch idea, well, sort of facially attractive, has four pretty significant problems when we think about it from a national security perspective. The first is simply that the kill switch won't actually solve the problem that it purports to address. Modern -- agentic A.I. is made up of two components.

It's made up typically of a large language model and a much smaller piece of code known as a harness, and the harness can run on almost any network attached device. So it could run on the Wi-Fi router in your home, it could run on your laptop. And the clever thing about the harness is that as it interacts with the large language model, which is a general purpose set of code and devices, it can actually switch which model it's using in real time.

So if, for example, it were to be disconnected by the kill switch from OpenAI, it could use a foreign LLM such as China's Kimi. So, the fact that modern A.I. is capable of distributing attacks and of adjusting to countermeasures in real time is the first problem. The second is really that the kill switch comes too late. It's difficult to detect modern cyberattacks. Often they're not found for weeks or even months. And so really what the kill switch does is it closes the gates after

the attackers are already inside the castle. And so the difficulty here is that it's actually hard to identify who the attacker is. And so it's fairly easy to conceal an A.I. that is sophisticated enough to break into Hugging Face, for example, can certainly hide its tracks. Third, I actually think it makes the national security problem worse. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

JIMENEZ: No, no, no, I was just going to say, just to toss something in there as you as you go through your reasons there was, you know, you talked about or you mentioned some of the tests that these A.I. companies have been running. And that's how we've been able to see some of the capabilities that these particular models or agents have actually been able to do.

Do you think these A.I. companies bear any legal responsibility for these models even -- and their actions even if it's not the way that they intended, as they sort of balance innovation versus safety?

BAMBAUER: I think that they do under existing law. And that's one of the reasons that I think the kill switch may be not only counterproductive, but unnecessary. We've had federal anti-hacking laws since 1986. They were actually inspired by the movie "War Games." And virtually every state has a counterpart that governs unauthorized access to someone else's computer systems.

So we have a set of fairly well-developed legal tools that protect people and data. And so I think that that is a reason to be cautious about moving forward with something as drastic as a kill switch.

JIMENEZ: Derek Bambauer, thank you for taking the time. I really appreciate it. Enjoy the perspective.

BAMBAUER: Thank you so much for having me. It's a pleasure.

JIMENEZ: Of course.

All right. Coming up, while trying to keep illegal drugs out of the United States, American military strikes killed 221 people and destroyed at least 66 boats.

[18:35:03]

But there are still questions over who exactly is being targeted. We'll talk about it coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JIMENEZ: We're nearing the one-year mark since the Trump White House began its campaign against alleged drug boats, carrying out military strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and the Pacific.

In a new report, CNN's Jake Tapper is shedding more light on who the Trump administration is targeting and why.

[18:40:03] (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA): They're murder victims.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): That's Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kaine's assessment of the Trump administration's campaign targeting people that the administration calls narco-terrorists. In a letter to the White House this week, Kaine accused the Pentagon of going far beyond its original goals in Operation Southern Spear, and killing people who are, "entirely unaware that they are marked for execution."

Operation Southern Spear, which began nearly a year ago, has killed 221 people and destroyed at least 66 vessels. But the results do not seem to have been effective. U.S. Customs and Border Protection data analyzed by the think-tank the Washington Office of Latin America does not show a meaningful decrease in cocaine seizures.

During the 10 months before the boat strikes began, CBP reported seizing more than 56,000 pounds of cocaine. During the 10 months following the beginning of the boat strikes, September 2025 through June 2026, CBP's reported seizures actually increased 2 percent.

Fentanyl, which President Trump claims this operation is targeting, is largely produced in Mexico, not Venezuela or Colombia, according to the Drug Enforcement Agency. And CNN reporting shows military officials do not always know whom they're targeting, some of whom may even be innocent.

Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo were believed to have been killed in the October 14th strike last year. Their families are suing the Trump administration for wrongful death and extrajudicial killing. The complaint says, "Mr. Joseph and Mr. Samaroo were not members of or affiliated with drug cartels." And Trinidad's government says, there's no evidence drugs were on board.

Chad and Rishi's families told ACLU attorney Jeffrey Stein they were fishing and doing farm work in Venezuela and boarded a boat to get home to Trinidad.

JEFFREY STEIN, STAFF ATTORNEY, ACLU NATIONAL SECURITY PROJECT: Rishi wanted to come home to help care for his elderly mother who had fallen ill. Chad wanted to come home to see his wife and three young children.

TAPPER (voice-over): In response to our request for comment on this lawsuit, the White House said, "All of these decisive strikes have been against designated narco-terrorists bringing deadly poison to our shores." But they have provided absolutely no evidence to back up any of the strikes, which is not to say everyone on these boats had nothing to do with the drug trade. Some were clearly fishermen trying to make extra money.

We sat down with two investigative journalists who have looked into who is being killed. They uncovered the stories of 19 of the dead. JOSE LUIS PENARREDONDA, EDITOR, EL CLIP: Many of them are reporting

shows, are somehow involved in drug trafficking business, in drug transportation business, in very low levels of the chain.

TAPPER (voice-over): Journalist Lorena Melendez told us one of the stories really stuck with her.

LORENA MELENDEZ, EDITOR, REBEL ALLIANCE INVESTIGATES: In the case of Juan Carlos, he was a bus driver. And he bought his bus damaged and he couldn't repair it. He said, I have to do bad things. So he traveled to Trinidad.

TAPPER (voice-over): Juan Carlos's wife told the journalist at consortium El Clip, she did not want him to get on the boat, but he insisted.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I'm leaving. I can't take it anymore, what desperation. I'm leaving to live or die, but I'm leaving. That's how he told me.

TAPPER (voice-over): She also remembered the moment she knew he'd been killed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through text translator): But since I'm making empanadas here, the phone is ringing too much. When I see an international call, I say, no, something has happened. Something happened to Juan Carlos. The mistake was seeing the video they sent me where they were blowing up boats.

TAPPER (voice-over): Juan Carlos was believed to have been killed in the October 3rd strike. He leaves behind three children and a grandchild, according to El Clip.

Does that sound to you like a narco- terrorist?

Another victim was a fixture of his community. Here's investigative journalist Jose Luis Penarredonda.

PENARREDONDA: I think about a Venezuelan guy called, I mean, his name was Pichirilo, managed to speak to people who knew him very well. One of them told me, just tell everyone he was a super nice guy.

TAPPER (voice-over): Eduardo Jaime, or Pichirilo, was a beloved local athlete. A family member tells El Clip he was also on the boat that was blown up on October 14th. None of these individuals seem to have even been mid-level drug traffickers. At worst, they seem like couriers.

Remember when the U.S. struck what Trump called a drug submarine? There were two survivors. The U.S. military held them, then released them to their home countries, again, raising questions about whether the Trump administration knew who they were targeting.

Andres Tufino Chila was one of those two men. His sister told CNN he was not a criminal. Last month, "The Los Angeles Times" followed the stories of eight fishermen from Mexico who vanished after the February 16th U.S. strikes. Quote, "The men sometimes earned extra cash by transporting gasoline to the high seas, where they would refill speedboats ferrying cocaine from South America." They were all killed.

[18:45:00]

A mass was held for the men at sea a few days later. This video provided by the "L.A. Times" shows mourners drinking beer and singing songs.

There are many more of these stories from Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and Trinidad and Tobago. Maybe couriers caught in the crosshairs of the Trump administration's so far fruitless quest to end drug trafficking, often going after the lowest on the chain. Men who felt they had no other choice and were executed by the United States.

We asked the Pentagon if they knew who they were targeting, exactly who they were targeting. And the Pentagon maintains, quote, "Targeting decisions are deliberate based on comprehensive assessments and reviewed through established processes. Every narco-terrorist killed in Department of War operations was an affiliated member of a designated terrorist organization, actively transporting illicit material," unquote.

But U.S. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine tells me that the Trump administration is, quote, "lying." And the ending or transitioning out of southern spear will make way for an 18-country collaboration to go after drug traffickers.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JIMENEZ: All right, Jake Tapper, appreciate the reporting.

Meanwhile, coming up in the CNN NEWSROOM for us, the economy is losing jobs. But is President Trump losing any popularity over it? We're going to run the numbers coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:51:00]

JIMENEZ: New today, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett is defending job growth under President Trump after last month's data revealed the economy lost 23,000 jobs in July. Here's what he had to say earlier today on CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN HASSETT, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL DIRECTOR: Bottom line is that if you look at the overall economy, then things are really, really booming. As an example, there are 83,000 construction workers building factories right now. That's a number that we've never seen before. Initial claims for unemployment insurance are the lowest they've been since World War II. There are more job openings than there are unemployed workers.

(END VIDEO CLIP) JIMENEZ: But has the recent dip in jobs actually shaken America's confidence in President Trumps and his economy?

CNN's Harry Enten joins us to run the numbers.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Hey there, Omar. Happy Sunday to you.

Look, Friday had a disappointing jobs report. It wasn't just that the report itself was disappointing, but the revisions from the prior months were also disappointing. And indeed, I think it can get sometimes lost just how much ground President Trump has had with the American people when it comes to jobs given all the problems that we've had with inflation.

But you can see it right here. President Trump's job approval rating on jobs has really taken a tumble, my goodness gracious, from where it was at the beginning of term number two, as well as at this point in term number one. Just take a look here. OK. Right now, in my aggregate of polls when it comes to President Trump's net approval rating on jobs, look at this. He's 22 points under water. A very unlucky two-two for President Trump.

Get this. That is a 31-point decline from where he was at the beginning of term number two. And more than that, look at where he was at this point in term numero uno. He was 10 points above water. That is his approval rating was 10 points greater than his disapproval rating. So right now, President Trump, when it comes to jobs, is very much, well, dare I say, in the red as the font color is right here on this screen.

And the big question is why? Why is President Trump's job approval rating on jobs underwater in the deep red sea in this particular case? Well, simply put, Americans just don't think that we're on the right track when it comes to jobs. I mean, just look at these numbers. Hello. OK. On jobs and employment, we are on the wrong track or the right track. Well, back at the beginning of Trump's second term, the clear plurality of Americans said that we were on the right track, 40 percent, just 32 percent we were on the wrong track.

Those numbers just haven't only flipped. The percentage has gone way up in terms of the flipping. Look at this. Wrong track number. Now, the majority of Americans when it comes to jobs and employment believe that we are on the wrong track as a country, 51 percent. That is a jump of nearly 20 points from where we were at the beginning of Trump's second term, when it was 32 percent.

That right track number, that number has absolutely dipped right into the Hudson River. Look at this. Less than a third of Americans, just 29 percent of them, now say that the country is on the right track when it comes to jobs and employment.

Now, here's the big question. Why is it? Why is it that the country believes that we are, in fact, now on the wrong track when it comes to jobs and employment? Simply put, I don't know if you know anybody who's been looking for a job, Omar, but Americans very much don't think that it's a good time to get a quality job. But look at this. I mean, these numbers are terrible. Good or bad time to find a quality job. You go back to the beginning, just before the beginning of Trump's second term. Look at this.

You had the plurality of Americans, 48 saying it was a good time to find a quality job, slightly less, 45 percent, said it was a bad time to find a quality job. Look at this percentage who say bad. Up like a rocket. Now up to 63 percent it was at the beginning of quarter two this year.

[18:55:01]

Look at that good number, that good number, again way down. We're talking about just 33 percent. So what was a three-point advantage in terms of the percentage of Americans saying it was a good time to find a quality job, has turned into a 30-point advantage for the percentage of people, in fact, now saying it is a bad time to find a quality job. Indeed, these numbers are absolutely awful.

The only good number that I can say with this is, Omar, you always do a good job and therefore I throw it back to you.

JIMENEZ: All right. The only number I can think of for you, Mr. Harry Enten, number one, always. I appreciate you sticking around.

And for you all sticking around, we got some more news coming up, including bucking President Trump. Specifically I'm talking about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejecting the latest U.S. backed peace plan for Gaza. We'll talk to you about those details coming up.

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)