Ivanka Trump Doesn’t Believe Her Father Authorized Lethal Force Against Migrants. He Did.

“He’s not talking about innocents,” she later clarified.

Ivanka Trump says she was heartbroken after seeing images this week of US Border Patrol agents firing tear gas into crowds that included migrant children. In an interview on Good Morning America Wednesday, she also claimed the ongoing situation at the border makes her “angry.” 

But when asked about the president’s recent decision to authorize the military to use lethal force on migrants, the first daughter—who serves as a senior adviser to her father—appeared to be learning the news for the first time. Visibly perplexed, she also suggested it was likely untrue.

“I don’t believe that’s what he said, but his primary role as commander in chief is obviously to protect the nation’s borders,” Ivanka Trump said. “He has to protect our country’s security. But lethal force, in this case, that is not something that anyone is talking about.”

One problem: That’s exactly what her father is talking about.

“If they have to, they’re going to use lethal force,” Trump told reporters from Mar-a-Lago on Thursday. “I’ve given the okay, if they have to. I hope they don’t have to.”

When producers confronted Ivanka Trump with the clip of the president confirming he had authorized lethal force on migrants attempting to enter the country, the first daughter quickly attempted to clarify her remarks. “So, lethal force under any circumstance would be the last resort,” she said. “But he is the commander in chief of the armed forces of this country, so he always has to be able to protect the border.”

“He’s not talking about innocents,” she added. “So, he’s not talking about innocent asylum-seekers.”

This isn’t the first time Ivanka Trump has demonstrated a lack of understanding regarding her father’s immigration policies. Though she made headlines this summer by calling the Trump administration’s family separation policy a personal “low point,” a closer look at her remarks revealed that she didn’t appear to understand the timeline of the controversial policy. She also went on to echo the administration’s various defenses of it.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend