ReportWire

Tag: U.S. military

  • Contributor: A Senate war powers resolution on Venezuela actually could curb Trump

    [ad_1]

    President Trump seemed angry after the Senate voted last Thursday to pass a war powers resolution to the next stage, where lawmakers could approve the measure and seek to curb the president’s ability to wage war in Venezuela without congressional authorization.

    Trump said that day that five Republican senators who supported bringing the measure to a vote — Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rand Paul (Ky.), Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Todd Young (Ind.) — “should never be elected to office again.”

    Why should he get so riled up about this, to the point where he could put his own party’s control of the Senate at risk in November? Even if this resolution were to pass both houses of Congress, he could veto it and ultimately be unrestrained. He did this in 2019, when a war powers resolution mandating that the U.S. military cease its participation in the war in Yemen was passed in both the Senate and the House. Many people think that such legislation therefore can’t make a difference.

    But the president’s ire is telling. These political moves on the Hill can get results even before the resolution has a final vote, or if it is vetoed by the president.

    The Trump administration made significant concessions before the 2019 resolution was approved by Congress, in an attempt to prevent it from passing. For instance, months before it was approved, the U.S. military stopped refueling Saudi warplanes in midair. These concessions de-escalated the war and saved tens of thousands of lives.

    A war powers resolution is an act of Congress that is based on a 1973 law of the same name. That law spells out and reinforces the power that our Constitution has allocated to Congress, to decide when the U.S. military can be involved in hostilities.

    The U.S. military raid in Caracas that seized Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is illegal according to international law, the charters of the Organization of American States and the United Nations, as well as other treaties to which the United States is a signatory. According to our own Constitution, the government violates U.S. law when it violates treaties that our government has signed.

    None of that restrained the Trump administration, which has not demonstrated much respect for the rule of law. But the White House does care about the political power of Congress. If there is an expanded war in Venezuela or anywhere else that Trump has threatened to use the military, the fact that Congress took steps to oppose it will increase the political cost to the president.

    This is likely one of the main reasons that the Trump administration has at least promised to make concessions regarding military action in Latin America — and who knows, possibly he did make some compromises compared with what had been planned.

    On Nov. 5, the day before the Senate was to vote on a war powers resolution to halt and prevent hostilities within or against Venezuela by U.S. armed forces, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and White House counsel had a private briefing with senators.

    They assured lawmakers that they were not going to have a land war or airstrikes in Venezuela. According to news reports, the White House counsel stated that they did not have a legal justification for such a war. It is clear that blocking the resolution was very important to these top officials. The day after that meeting, the war powers resolution was blocked by two votes. Two Republicans had joined the Democrats and independents in support of the resolution: Murkowski and Paul. That added up to 49 votes — not quite the needed majority.

    But on Thursday, there were three additional Republicans who voted for the new resolution, so it will proceed to a final vote.

    The war powers resolution is not just a political fight, but a matter of life and death. The blockade involved in the seizure of oil tankers is, according to experts, an unlawful use of military force. This means that the blockade would be included as a participation in hostilities that would require authorization from Congress.

    Since 2015, the United States has imposed unilateral economic sanctions that destroyed Venezuela’s economy. From 2012 to 2020, Venezuela suffered the worst peacetime depression in world history. Real (inflation-adjusted) GDP, or income, fell by 74%. Think of the economic destruction of the U.S. Great Depression, multiplied by three times. Most of this was the result of the sanctions.

    This unprecedented devastation is generally attributed to Maduro in public discussion. But U.S. sanctions deliberately cut Venezuela off from international finance, as well as blocking most of its oil sales, which accounted for more than 90% of foreign exchange (mostly dollar) earnings. This devastated the economy.

    In the first year of Trump sanctions from 2017-18, Venezuela’s deaths increased by tens of thousands of people, at a time when oil prices were increasing. Sanctions were expanded even more the following year. About a quarter of the population, more than 7 million people, emigrated after 2015 — 750,000 of them to the United States.

    We know that the deadly impact of sanctions that target the civilian population is real. Research published in July by the Lancet Global Health, by my colleagues Francisco Rodriguez, Silvio Rendon and myself, estimated the global death toll from unilateral economic sanctions, as these are, at 564,000 per year over the past decade. This is comparable to the worldwide deaths from armed conflict. A majority of the victims over the 1970-2021 period were children.

    The Trump administration has, in the last few days, been moving in the direction of lifting some sanctions to allow for oil exports, according to the president’s stated plan to “run Venezuela.” This is ironic because Venezuela has for many years wanted more investment and trade, including in oil, with the United States, and it was U.S. sanctions that prohibited it.

    Such lifting of sanctions would be a big step forward, in terms of saving lives of people who are deprived of food, medicine and other necessities in Venezuela, as a result of these sanctions and the economic destruction that they cause.

    But to create the stability that Venezuela needs to recover, we will have to take the military and economic violence out of this campaign. There are members of Congress moving toward that goal, and they need all the help that they can get, before it’s too late.

    Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of “Failed: What the ‘Experts’ Got Wrong About the Global Economy.”

    [ad_2]

    Mark Weisbrot

    Source link

  • Trump announces potential meeting with Iran amid ongoing protests

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump announced over the weekend that Iranian leaders have reached out to negotiate as protests challenging Iran’s theocracy continue.On Sunday, Trump told reporters that a meeting with Iran is being arranged after the country called to negotiate. “We may meet with them. I mean, a meeting is being set up. But we may have to act because of what’s happening before the meeting. But a meeting is being set up. Iran called, they want to negotiate,” Trump said.Iran’s foreign minister claimed Monday the situation is now under total control following a crackdown on nationwide protests. He also alleged that the protests “turned violent and bloody to give an excuse” for Trump to intervene, though he provided no evidence for this claim.At least two major outlets reported that Trump has been presented with military options for a strike on Iran but has not made a final decision. Iran’s parliament speaker stated that the U.S. military and Israel would be “legitimate targets” if America launches a strike.The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that at least 572 people have been killed in Iran, including at least 496 protesters.Around the world, people have been rallying in support of protests in Iran. In Los Angeles, a driver of a U-Haul truck sped through an anti-Iran demonstration on Sunday. Police say one person was hit by the truck, but nobody was seriously injured. The driver of the truck has not been identified, but officials said they were being detained “pending further investigation.”Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump announced over the weekend that Iranian leaders have reached out to negotiate as protests challenging Iran’s theocracy continue.

    On Sunday, Trump told reporters that a meeting with Iran is being arranged after the country called to negotiate.

    “We may meet with them. I mean, a meeting is being set up. But we may have to act because of what’s happening before the meeting. But a meeting is being set up. Iran called, they want to negotiate,” Trump said.

    Iran’s foreign minister claimed Monday the situation is now under total control following a crackdown on nationwide protests. He also alleged that the protests “turned violent and bloody to give an excuse” for Trump to intervene, though he provided no evidence for this claim.

    At least two major outlets reported that Trump has been presented with military options for a strike on Iran but has not made a final decision. Iran’s parliament speaker stated that the U.S. military and Israel would be “legitimate targets” if America launches a strike.

    The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that at least 572 people have been killed in Iran, including at least 496 protesters.

    Around the world, people have been rallying in support of protests in Iran.

    In Los Angeles, a driver of a U-Haul truck sped through an anti-Iran demonstration on Sunday. Police say one person was hit by the truck, but nobody was seriously injured.

    The driver of the truck has not been identified, but officials said they were being detained “pending further investigation.”

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • More than 150 U.S. military aircraft were used in the operation to capture Venezuela’s Maduro, including stealth fighters and bombers | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    In a Saturday morning interview on “Fox & Friends Weekend,” Trump laid out the details of the overnight strike, after which he said Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were flown by helicopter to a U.S. warship. Later Saturday, Trump and other officials gave more details during a news conference from his Florida residence.

    Maduro was in a ‘fortress,’ Trump says

    Trump described Maduro as being “highly guarded” in a presidential palace that was “like a fortress.” Maduro had nearly made it to a safe room inside it, Trump told reporters, although “he was unable to close it.”

    American forces were armed with “massive blowtorches,” which they would have used to cut through steel walls had Maduro locked himself in the room, Trump said earlier.

    “It had what they call a safety space, where it’s solid steel all around,” Trump said. “He didn’t get that space closed. He was trying to get into it, but he got bum-rushed right so fast that he didn’t get into that. We were prepared.”

    US military prepared for months

    Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces had rehearsed their maneuvers for months, learning everything about Maduro — where he was and what he ate, as well as details of his pets and the clothes he wore.

    “We think, we develop, we train, we rehearse, we debrief, we rehearse again, and again,” Caine said, saying his forces were “set” by early December. “Not to get it right, but to ensure we cannot get it wrong.”

    Earlier, Trump said U.S. forces had practiced their extraction on a replica building.

    “They actually built a house which was identical to the one they went into with all the same, all that steel all over the place,” Trump said.

    ‘We turned off all the lights’

    Trump said the U.S. operation took place in darkness, although he did not detail how that had happened. He said the U.S. turned off “almost all of the lights in Caracas,” the capital of Venezuela. At the news conference, he said the city’s lights “were largely turned off due to a certain expertise that we have.”

    “This thing was so organized,” he said. “And they go into a dark space with machine guns facing them all over the place.”

    At least seven explosions were heard in Caracas. The attack, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described as part of “massive joint military and law enforcement raid,” lasted less than 30 minutes.

    Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, who under law takes power, said some Venezuelan civilians and members of the military were killed.

    Trump says ‘a couple of guys injured’

    Trump said a few U.S. members of the operation were injured but he believed no one was killed.

    “A couple of guys were hit, but they came back and they’re supposed to be in pretty good shape,” he said.

    The Republican president said the U.S. had lost no aircraft, but that a helicopter was “hit pretty hard.”

    “We had to do it because it’s a war,” he added.

    In his news conference, Trump did not mention the injuries or helicopter damage, stressing that no American lives had been lost. Caine said the helicopter that was struck was able to safely fly on its return.

    The weather was a factor

    Trump said U.S. forces held off on conducting the operation for days, waiting for cloud cover to pass because the “weather has to be perfect.”

    “We waited four days,” he said. “We were going to do this four days ago, three days ago, two days ago. And then all of a sudden it opened up and we said, go. And I’ll tell you, it’s, it was just amazing.”

    Caine said that on Friday night, “the weather broke just enough, clearing a path that only the most skilled aviators in the world could move through.” He said helicopters flew low to the water to enter Venezuela and were covered above by protective U.S. aircraft.

    Operation ‘Absolute Resolve,’ by the numbers

    Caine detailed the aircraft and U.S. forces involved in the operation, which he said was named “Absolute Resolve”:

    —more than 150 aircraft launched from across the Western Hemisphere, including F-18, F-22 and F-35 fighter jets, B-1 bombers and drones.

    —Trump gave the go-ahead at 10:46 p.m. EST Friday.

    —U.S. forces reached Maduro’s compound at 1:01 a.m. EST Saturday and were back over water headed away at 3:29 a.m. EST.

    —U.S. service members involved in the operation ranged in age from 20 to 49

    Where is Maduro now?

    Trump said that Maduro and Flores were flown by helicopter to a U.S. warship and would go on to New York to face charges. He later posted on Truth Social a photo of the Venezuelan leader, wearing in a gray sweatsuit, protective headphones and blindfold. The caption said: “Nicolas Maduro on board the USS Iwo Jima.”

    The Justice Department released an indictment accusing the pair of having an alleged role in a narco-terrorism conspiracy.

    Months of escalating actions

    The raid was a dramatic escalation from a series of strikes the U.S. military has carried out on what Trump has said were drug carrying boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean since early September. There had been 35 known strikes that killed at least 115 people.

    On Dec. 29, Trump said the U.S. struck a facility where boats accused of carrying drugs “load up.” The CIA was behind the drone strike at a docking area believed to have been used by Venezuelan drug cartels. It was the first known direct operation on Venezuelan soil since the U.S. began its strikes in September.

    [ad_2]

    Meg Kinnard, Michelle L. Price, The Associated Press

    Source link

  • The US has captured Venezuelan leader Maduro. Here’s what to know

    [ad_1]

    Caracas (CNN) — President Donald Trump announced Saturday that the US will “run” Venezuela after capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in a large-scale military operation, a stunning development that plunged the country into uncertainty after weeks of spiraling tensions.

    “The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolás Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country,” he wrote on Truth Social early Saturday morning.

    Trump later said the US would play a central role in running the country indefinitely until a formal transition of power can take place, while declining to rule out the possibility of longer-term military involvement in Venezuela.

    “We’re going to be running it,” he said from his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.

    Venezuela requested an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council in response to the attack, Foreign Minister Yván Gil Pinto said.

    “No cowardly attack will prevail against the strength of this people, who will emerge victorious,” he said on Telegram, sharing the letter sent to the UN.

    Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez demanded the “immediate release” of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Rodríguez, who Trump said earlier was sworn in as president, said Venezuela’s territorial integrity was “savagely attacked” by the US operation.

    Trump on Saturday morning posted a photo of Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima, where the Venezuelan president and his wife were held before being transported to New York, where they face charges. The ousted leader and his wife were brought to New York on Saturday evening, and Maduro is being held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn.

    A new indictment filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and shared by Attorney General Pam Bondi alleges that Maduro ran “state sponsored gangs” and facilitated drug trafficking in the country.

    Trump said he did not notify members of Congress until after the strike, saying at his news conference at Mar-a-Lago that “Congress has a tendency to leak. It would not be good if they leaked.”

    Democratic lawmakers demanded an immediate briefing and criticized the administration for not seeking congressional authorization before the attack, while Republican lawmakers largely applauded the action.

    Here’s what we know:

    What happened?

    A CNN team witnessed several explosions and heard the sounds of aircraft early Saturday in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, and reported that some areas of the city were without electricity.

    Videos verified by CNN showed helicopters roaring over Caracas, with plumes of smoke rising into the night sky. Footage also showed a large blaze and explosions at an airport in the city of Higuerote.

    Hours after the strikes, CNN’s Mary Mena said from Caracas that the capital was calm.

    “We listened to many airplanes and helicopters passing by, but right now the city remains quiet, for the past two hours,” she said. “We haven’t heard people for example coming to the streets, and the state channel keeps repeating this message from the ministry of defense saying they want people to remain calm and they will deploy military forces across the country.”

    The first blast witnessed by the CNN team was recorded at approximately 1:50 a.m. local time (12:50 a.m. ET).

    “One was so strong, my window was shaking after it,” CNN en Español correspondent Osmary Hernández said.

    US Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine later described an extensive overnight operation to capture Maduro and his wife that involved more than 150 aircraft launching from bases across the Western Hemisphere.

    Among them were helicopters carrying an extraction force that entered Venezuela at low altitude before arriving at Maduro’s compound around 1 a.m. ET. The US soldiers came under fire, spending several hours on the ground before successfully capturing Maduro and his wife and flying out of Venezuela about 3:29 a.m. ET, Caine said.

    Two sources familiar with the matter said Maduro and his wife were dragged from their bedroom by US forces during the raid. The couple was captured in the middle of the night as they were sleeping, the sources said.

    The raid, carried out by the US Army’s elite Delta Force with the assistance of an FBI unit, did not lead to any US deaths. However, a handful of troops sustained bullet and shrapnel wounds, a source briefed on the matter told CNN. Caine also said that one aircraft “was hit, but remained flyable” and was able to make it out of Venezuela.

    Maduro and his wife were then transferred to the USS Iwo Jima, beginning a trip that ultimately ended in New York, where they’re expected to stand trial on drug-trafficking charges.

    Smoke raises at La Carlota airport after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard in Caracas, Venezuela on January 3, 2026. Credit: Matias Delacroix / AP via CNN Newsource

    Why is it happening?

    The Trump administration has for years said that Maduro was a criminal and has sought to prosecute him through the US legal system.

    In 2020, during Trump’s first term, the Department of Justice charged Maduro in the Southern District of New York for “narco-terrorism,” conspiracy to import cocaine, and related charges.

    The Trump administration offered a $15 million bounty for Maduro’s arrest. That bounty was increased to $25 million in the waning days of the Biden administration, in early January 2025, and was increased again, to $50 million, in August 2025 after Trump took office for a second term and designated Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization. The administration has claimed that Maduro is the leader of that group, which it describes as a criminal organization.

    Trump had repeatedly warned for months that the US was preparing to take new action against alleged drug-trafficking networks in Venezuela and that strikes on land would start “soon.”

    Trump’s pressure campaign on Maduro has included strikes destroying more than 30 boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean in what the US has described as a counter-narcotics campaign. Trump last month ordered a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers coming to and leaving Venezuela, and the US has seized multiple vessels since the announcement.

    The CIA carried out a drone strike in December on a port facility on the coast of Venezuela, CNN reported last month, citing sources, marking the first known US attack on a target inside that country.

    Trump said Saturday he also directly urged Maduro to surrender voluntarily.

    “I said, ‘You got to surrender,’” he said. “And I actually thought he was pretty close to doing so, but now he wished he did.”

    Pedestrians run after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard in Caracas, Venezuela on Saturday. Credit: Matias Delacroix / AP via CNN Newsource

    Several world leaders, including US allies, have reacted with concern to the US operation.

    British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he “wants to establish the facts” and speak to Trump about the military operation in Venezuela, according to the UK’s PA Media news agency.

    “I always say and believe we should all uphold international law,” Starmer said, adding that Britain was “not involved in any way” in the strike on Caracas, PA Media reported.

    Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, said in a post on X that the commission “stand(s) by the people of Venezuela and support(s) a peaceful and democratic transition. Any solution must respect international law and the UN Charter.”

    Many leaders across Latin America expressed concern to the US attack on Venezuela, with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel slamming what he called a “criminal” attack by the US. Meanwhile, Argentine President Javier Milei, a Trump ally, appeared to welcome the capture of Venezuela’s leader with a message on X: “Freedom advances! Long live freedom, damn it!”

    Venezuela’s allies Russia and Iran condemned the US attack.

    The Russian Foreign Ministry denounced what it called an “act of armed aggression against Venezuela” by the US, calling any “excuses” given to justify such actions “untenable.”

    “We reaffirm our solidarity with the Venezuelan people and our support for the Bolivarian leadership’s course of action aimed at protecting the country’s national interests and sovereignty,” a statement from the foreign ministry said.

    Similarly, the Iranian Foreign Ministry said the attack violates Venezuela’s sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the UN Charter, Iranian state news outlet Press TV reported.

    What comes next?

    What happens next in Venezuela is far from clear. The country’s constitution states that power passes to Maduro’s vice president, Rodríguez.

    Trump said that Rodríguez spoke with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and that “she’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again.”

    However, in a defiant address broadcast from Caracas, Rodríguez asserted that Maduro is “the only president of Venezuela” and that Venezuelans “must not become slaves again.”

    Trump said he planned to have the US effectively run Venezuela for an indefinite period as it works toward a formal transition of power. Top US officials, including Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, will work with a “team” to assist in leading the country, he said, without offering specifics.

    Trump could not say how long the US would be centrally involved in Venezuela’s governance, but suggested that he was open to a longer-term process that could include a US military presence.

    He repeatedly asserted that his administration would partner with US energy companies to take control of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, arguing that the US was owed oil as “reimbursement for the damages” that he alleged had been inflicted on the country by Venezuela.

    “We’re going to take back the oil that, frankly, we should have taken back a long time ago,” Trump said.

    That leaves the future of the current Venezuelan regime in serious doubt, yet little clarity on whether its opposition — within and outside the country — will be positioned to capitalize on the opportunity.

    If the US ultimately follows Venezuela’s constitutional path, elections are supposed to be held within 30 days. The newly elected president then serves a full six-year term.

    The most likely opposition candidate is Edmundo González Urrutia, who ran in the 2024 election. González, an academic and longtime diplomat, is now in exile in Spain. He is supported by the recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, democratic activist María Corina Machado.

    On Saturday, Machado said the time has come for “popular sovereignty” in Venezuela and the installation of González as the country’s leader.

    “Nicolás Maduro from today faces international justice for the atrocious crimes committed against Venezuelans and against citizens of many other nations,” she said in a letter posted on X. “Given his refusal to accept a negotiated solution, the government of the United States has fulfilled its promise to enforce the law.”

    But Trump declined to endorse any immediate successor or lay out a plan for holding elections and restoring stability in Venezuela, while rejecting the possibility that Machado could serve as an interim leader.

    “She doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country,” he said. “She’s a very nice woman, but she doesn’t have the respect.”

    Instead, Trump appeared comfortable in the immediate aftermath of Maduro’s ouster with maintaining control over Venezuela for as long as he deemed fit.

    “It’s not going to cost us anything,” he said. “We’re going to be rebuilding.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    CNN’s Osmary Hernández, Mary Triny Mena, Tim Lister, Jennifer Hansler, Alejandra Jaramillo, Isaac Yee, Michael Rios, Billy Stockwell and Laura Sharman contributed to this report

    [ad_2]

    Stefano Pozzebon, Simone McCarthy, Adam Cancryn and CNN

    Source link

  • US military says 2 strikes on alleged drug boats kill 5 in eastern Pacific

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. military said Thursday that it had conducted two more strikes against boats it said were smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing five people.U.S. Southern Command posted on social media, “Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” though it did not provide evidence. It posted videos of each boat speeding through water before being struck by an explosion.The military said three people in one vessel and two in the other were killed.The attacks brought the total number of known boat strikes to 28 while at least 104 people have been killed, according to numbers announced by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and asserted the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.The administration is facing increasing scrutiny from lawmakers over the boat strike campaign. The first attack in early September involved a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat after the first hit.

    WASHINGTON —

    The U.S. military said Thursday that it had conducted two more strikes against boats it said were smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing five people.

    U.S. Southern Command posted on social media, “Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and were engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” though it did not provide evidence. It posted videos of each boat speeding through water before being struck by an explosion.

    The military said three people in one vessel and two in the other were killed.

    The attacks brought the total number of known boat strikes to 28 while at least 104 people have been killed, according to numbers announced by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States and asserted the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

    The administration is facing increasing scrutiny from lawmakers over the boat strike campaign. The first attack in early September involved a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat after the first hit.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says the US has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the United States has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela as tensions mount with the government of President Nicolás Maduro.Using U.S. forces to take control of a merchant ship is incredibly unusual and marks the Trump administration’s latest push to increase pressure on Maduro, who has been charged with narcoterrorism in the United States. The U.S. has built up the largest military presence in the region in decades and launched a series of deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The campaign is facing growing scrutiny from Congress.“We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, a large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually,” Trump told reporters at the White House, later adding that “it was seized for a very good reason.”Trump did not offer additional details. When asked what would happen to the oil aboard the tanker, Trump said, “Well, we keep it, I guess.”The seizure was led by the U.S. Coast Guard and supported by the Navy, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official added that it was conducted under U.S. law enforcement authority.Storming the oil tankerThe Coast Guard members were taken to the oil tanker by helicopter from the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, the official said. The Ford is in the Caribbean Sea after arriving last month in a major show of force, joining a fleet of other warships.Video posted to social media by Attorney General Pam Bondi shows people fast-roping from one of the helicopters involved in the operation as it hovers just feet from the deck.The Coast Guard members can be seen later in the video moving throughout the superstructure of the ship with their weapons drawn.Bondi wrote that “for multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations.”Venezuela’s government said in a statement that the seizure “constitutes a blatant theft and an act of international piracy.”“Under these circumstances, the true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. … It has always been about our natural resources, our oil, our energy, the resources that belong exclusively to the Venezuelan people,” the statement said.Half of ship’s oil is tied to Cuban importerThe U.S. official identified the seized tanker as the Skipper.The ship departed Venezuela around Dec. 2 with about 2 million barrels of heavy crude, roughly half of it belonging to a Cuban state-run oil importer, according to documents from the state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., commonly known as PDVSA, that were provided on the condition of anonymity because the person did not have permission to share them.The Skipper was previously known as the M/T Adisa, according to ship tracking data. The Adisa was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2022 over accusations of belonging to a sophisticated network of shadow tankers that smuggled crude oil on behalf of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group.The network was reportedly run by a Switzerland-based Ukrainian oil trader, the U.S. Treasury Department said at the time.Hitting Venezuela’s sanctioned oil businessVenezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves and produces about 1 million barrels a day.PDVSA is the backbone of the country’s economy. Its reliance on intermediaries increased in 2020, when the first Trump administration expanded its maximum-pressure campaign on Venezuela with sanctions that threaten to lock out of the U.S. economy any individual or company that does business with Maduro’s government. Longtime allies Russia and Iran, both also sanctioned, have helped Venezuela skirt restrictions.The transactions usually involve a complex network of shadowy intermediaries. Many are shell companies, registered in jurisdictions known for secrecy. The buyers deploy so-called ghost tankers that hide their location and hand off their valuable cargoes in the middle of the ocean before they reach their final destination.Maduro did not address the seizure during a speech before a ruling-party organized demonstration in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital. But he told supporters that the country is “prepared to break the teeth of the North American empire if necessary.”Maduro has insisted the real purpose of the U.S. military operations is to force him from office.Democrat says the move is about ‘regime change’Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. seizing the oil tanker cast doubt on the administration’s stated reasons for the military buildup and boat strikes.“This shows that their whole cover story — that this is about interdicting drugs — is a big lie,” the senator said. “This is just one more piece of evidence that this is really about regime change — by force.”Vincent P. O’Hara, a naval historian and author of “The Greatest Naval War Ever Fought,” called the seizure “very unusual” and “provocative.” Noting that the action will probably deter other ships from the Venezuela coastline, he said, “If you have no maritime traffic or access to that, then you have no economy.”The seizure comes a day after the U.S. military flew a pair of fighter jets over the Gulf of Venezuela in what appeared to be the closest that warplanes had come to the South American country’s airspace. Trump has said land attacks are coming soon but has not offered more details.The Trump administration is facing increasing scrutiny from lawmakers over the boat strike campaign, which has killed at least 87 people in 22 known strikes since early September, including a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat after the first hit.Some legal experts and Democrats say that action may have violated the laws governing the use of deadly military force.Lawmakers are demanding to get unedited video from the strikes, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told congressional leaders at a classified briefing Tuesday that he was still weighing whether to release it.The Coast Guard referred a request for comment about the tanker seizure to the White House.

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the United States has seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela as tensions mount with the government of President Nicolás Maduro.

    Using U.S. forces to take control of a merchant ship is incredibly unusual and marks the Trump administration’s latest push to increase pressure on Maduro, who has been charged with narcoterrorism in the United States. The U.S. has built up the largest military presence in the region in decades and launched a series of deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The campaign is facing growing scrutiny from Congress.

    “We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, a large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually,” Trump told reporters at the White House, later adding that “it was seized for a very good reason.”

    Trump did not offer additional details. When asked what would happen to the oil aboard the tanker, Trump said, “Well, we keep it, I guess.”

    The seizure was led by the U.S. Coast Guard and supported by the Navy, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. The official added that it was conducted under U.S. law enforcement authority.

    Storming the oil tanker

    The Coast Guard members were taken to the oil tanker by helicopter from the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, the official said. The Ford is in the Caribbean Sea after arriving last month in a major show of force, joining a fleet of other warships.

    Video posted to social media by Attorney General Pam Bondi shows people fast-roping from one of the helicopters involved in the operation as it hovers just feet from the deck.

    The Coast Guard members can be seen later in the video moving throughout the superstructure of the ship with their weapons drawn.

    Bondi wrote that “for multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organizations.”

    Venezuela’s government said in a statement that the seizure “constitutes a blatant theft and an act of international piracy.”

    “Under these circumstances, the true reasons for the prolonged aggression against Venezuela have finally been revealed. … It has always been about our natural resources, our oil, our energy, the resources that belong exclusively to the Venezuelan people,” the statement said.

    Half of ship’s oil is tied to Cuban importer

    The U.S. official identified the seized tanker as the Skipper.

    The ship departed Venezuela around Dec. 2 with about 2 million barrels of heavy crude, roughly half of it belonging to a Cuban state-run oil importer, according to documents from the state-owned company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., commonly known as PDVSA, that were provided on the condition of anonymity because the person did not have permission to share them.

    The Skipper was previously known as the M/T Adisa, according to ship tracking data. The Adisa was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2022 over accusations of belonging to a sophisticated network of shadow tankers that smuggled crude oil on behalf of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group.

    The network was reportedly run by a Switzerland-based Ukrainian oil trader, the U.S. Treasury Department said at the time.

    Hitting Venezuela’s sanctioned oil business

    Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves and produces about 1 million barrels a day.

    PDVSA is the backbone of the country’s economy. Its reliance on intermediaries increased in 2020, when the first Trump administration expanded its maximum-pressure campaign on Venezuela with sanctions that threaten to lock out of the U.S. economy any individual or company that does business with Maduro’s government. Longtime allies Russia and Iran, both also sanctioned, have helped Venezuela skirt restrictions.

    The transactions usually involve a complex network of shadowy intermediaries. Many are shell companies, registered in jurisdictions known for secrecy. The buyers deploy so-called ghost tankers that hide their location and hand off their valuable cargoes in the middle of the ocean before they reach their final destination.

    Maduro did not address the seizure during a speech before a ruling-party organized demonstration in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital. But he told supporters that the country is “prepared to break the teeth of the North American empire if necessary.”

    Maduro has insisted the real purpose of the U.S. military operations is to force him from office.

    Democrat says the move is about ‘regime change’

    Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. seizing the oil tanker cast doubt on the administration’s stated reasons for the military buildup and boat strikes.

    “This shows that their whole cover story — that this is about interdicting drugs — is a big lie,” the senator said. “This is just one more piece of evidence that this is really about regime change — by force.”

    Vincent P. O’Hara, a naval historian and author of “The Greatest Naval War Ever Fought,” called the seizure “very unusual” and “provocative.” Noting that the action will probably deter other ships from the Venezuela coastline, he said, “If you have no maritime traffic or access to that, then you have no economy.”

    The seizure comes a day after the U.S. military flew a pair of fighter jets over the Gulf of Venezuela in what appeared to be the closest that warplanes had come to the South American country’s airspace. Trump has said land attacks are coming soon but has not offered more details.

    The Trump administration is facing increasing scrutiny from lawmakers over the boat strike campaign, which has killed at least 87 people in 22 known strikes since early September, including a follow-up strike that killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of a boat after the first hit.

    Some legal experts and Democrats say that action may have violated the laws governing the use of deadly military force.

    Lawmakers are demanding to get unedited video from the strikes, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told congressional leaders at a classified briefing Tuesday that he was still weighing whether to release it.

    The Coast Guard referred a request for comment about the tanker seizure to the White House.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The US House OK’d the 2026 NDAA. How are officials across the DC region reacting? – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. House of Representatives approved the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act in a 312-112 vote late Wednesday, advancing the policy bill to the U.S. Senate for possible clearance by next week.

    The U.S. House of Representatives officially approved the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act in a 312-112 vote late Wednesday, advancing the policy bill to the U.S. Senate for possible clearance by next week.

    The 3,000-plus page bill includes legislation that offers a pay hike to service members, increasing congressional oversight over the U.S. Department of Defense and language in favor of reopening up the District’s airspace to the military.

    Restrictions for military flyovers were put in place in January following the midair collision between an American Airlines Flight 5342 and an Army helicopter near D.C.’s Reagan National Airport. The fatal collision killed 67 people.

    Ahead of the NDAA’s passage in the lower congressional house, National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said she “vehemently” opposed the Section 373 provision, explaining it rolls back essential safety measures.

    “This section to the lay reader is drafted to seemingly enhance safety,” she said. “I want to be very clear that it does not, in any way, enhance safety.”

    Adam Tuss, the transportation reporter with NBC4, told WTOP that a key question surrounding the legislation is how it wound up in the defense bill in the first place.

    “Nobody has the answers. So, in the days and weeks coming up here, we’re going to have to start digging and see who really wants that provision in there for military training operations around our airports, and why?” Tuss said.

    Reaction from families of Flight 5342

    In a joint statement, the families of Flight 5342 said Section 373 “does not resolve the visibility and coordination failures that contributed” to the January midair collision.

    “Section 373 applies only to training missions — even though military helicopters in the National Capital Region fly a wide range of missions that routinely place them near commercial aircraft. It focuses narrowly on TCAS-compatible alerts rather than true visibility and broadcast requirements, and it preserves broad national-security exceptions similar to those in place at the time of the Flight 5342 collision,” the statement reads.

    “These gaps mean the provision does not meaningfully mitigate the risks that proved fatal for our loved ones,” the families wrote in the statement.

    “We urge Congress to strengthen Section 373 by requiring real, enforceable visibility standards for all military aircraft operating near civilian traffic,” it continues.

    In separate remarks, Tim and Sheri Lilley, whose son, Sam, was the first officer of the jetliner, said the current version of the provision that was cleared by the U.S. House “has several unsatisfactory provisions related to aviation safety.”

    “Safety that depends on exemptions cannot be the foundation of a secure airspace system,” their statement reads. “The flying public and all those that utilize our airspace deserve better than what this bill provides.”

    DC Mayor Muriel Bowser

    D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser blasted the inclusion of Section 373, saying the measure “disregards” airspace restrictions and safety factors that were implemented in the wake of the midair collision.

    “It is now clear that this provision was included without consultation from the NTSB, the agency leading the investigation into the crash, and without regard for the safety of D.C. residents, visitors, and our military personnel,” she said in a statement.

    “I urge Congress to strike Section 373 from the NDAA and to follow the recommendations of safety experts. I will continue working alongside our federal partners to ensure compliance with safety protocols and to protect the integrity of our airspace,” her statement added.

    Virgina Senators

    U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) shared similar sentiments and concerns about the NDAA’s impact on D.C.’s airspace safety.

    “The language in this provision could allow rolling back crucial new safety practices I fought to implement after the Jan. 29 tragedy and give the Department of Defense more discretion over safety procedures in the region,” Warner said in a statement. 

    He added that the Department of Defense needs more supervision and regulation, not less.

    “It’s clear that we cannot rely on the DoD alone to be the safety authority over its flights in this area,” he stressed in the statement.

    U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who also serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Seapower, weighed in on the NDAA’s failure to include language on restoring the names of military bases, an action that was backed by a bipartisan commission.

    “I’m glad that the House voted to pass this year’s defense bill, which includes important provisions that will support service members, military families, Virginia’s defense community, and our allies,” he said in a statement.

    “However, I’m extremely disappointed that a provision I fought for to restore a bipartisan commission’s names of our military bases was taken out at the last minute because President Trump threatened to veto the entire defense bill — just like he did in 2020, even though it included a pay raise for service members — to prevent changes to bases named for Confederates.”

    “Virginians were proud to honor Tech. Sgt. Van T. Barfoot, Lt. Gen. Arthur J. Gregg, Lt. Col. Charity Adams, and Dr. Mary Walker. It’s shameful that the Virginia bases won’t continue to be named after these four amazing individuals,” Kaine’s statement added.

    Kaine’s statement notes that both a bipartisan committee and the House Armed Services Committee cleared the language in efforts to restore the names of the Virginia bases.

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Gaby Arancibia

    Source link

  • US military carries out second strike, killing survivors on suspected drug boat, sources say

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.“I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF , because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.“They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”“Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

    The U.S. military carried out a follow–up strike on a suspected drug vessel operating in the Caribbean on Sept. 2 after an initial attack did not kill everyone on board, sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

    That September strike was the first in what became a regular series of attacks on alleged drug boats.

    While the first strike appeared to disable the boat and cause deaths, the military assessed there were survivors, according to the sources. The second attack killed the remaining crew on board, bringing the total death toll to 11, and sunk the ship.

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had ordered the military prior to the operation to ensure the strike killed everyone on board, but it’s not clear if he knew there were survivors prior to the second strike, one of the sources said.

    The strike and deaths were announced by President Donald Trump on the day of the attacks, but the administration has never publicly acknowledged killing survivors.

    Trump said on Thursday that action on land to stop suspected drug trafficking networks in Venezuela could “start very soon,” amid ongoing questions about the legality of the U.S. military’s campaign around Latin America. Officials have acknowledged not knowing the identities of everyone on board the boats before they are struck, CNN has reported.

    “I have been alarmed by the number of vessels that this administration has taken out without a single consultation of Congress,” Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean told CNN this week. “Just last week, I took a look in a SCIF [sensitive compartmented information facility], because I’m a member of foreign affairs, at some documents around the sinking of these vessels and the murder of the people on those boats. Nowhere in there was there evidence of what was going on.”

    People briefed on the “double-tap” strike, said they were concerned that it could violate the law of armed conflict, which prohibits the execution of an enemy combatant who is “hors de combat,” or taken out of the fight due to injury or surrender.

    “They’re breaking the law either way,” said Sarah Harrison, a former associate general counsel at the Pentagon who now serves as a senior analyst at the Crisis Group think tank. “They’re killing civilians in the first place, and then if you assume they’re combatants, it’s also unlawful — under the law of armed conflict, if somebody is ‘hors de combat’ and no longer able to fight, then they have to be treated humanely.”

    Details of the strikes were first reported by The Intercept and the Washington Post.

    Hegseth in a social media post Friday continued to defend the strikes on alleged drug boats, writing, “Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict—and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers, up and down the chain of command.”

    “Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization,” Hegseth said.

    The U.S. military was aware that there were survivors in the water following the first strike on Sept. 2 and carried out another to both sink the vessel and kill the remaining crew, the sources said. Pentagon officials told lawmakers in briefings afterward that the second strike was done to sink the boat so it would not pose a threat to navigation, the sources said.

    The U.S. military has hit boats multiple times in several instances to sink them, the sources said, but the Sept. 2 strike is the only known instance where the military deliberately killed survivors.

    It is not clear why the survivors were not picked up, as they were following another strike in the Caribbean in October. In that instance, the Trump administration rescued two survivors and repatriated them to their home countries.

    In a post announcing the Sept. 2 strike on Truth Social, President Donald Trump said that the U.S. military had conducted “a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility.”

    The administration has tried to legally justify its strikes on the boats by claiming they are carrying individuals linked to roughly two dozen drug cartels engaged in an armed conflict with the U.S. The White House has said repeatedly that the administration’s actions “comply fully with the Law of Armed Conflict,” the area of international law that is designed to prevent attacks on civilians.

    Many legal experts, however, say the suspected drug traffickers are civilians, not combatants, and that the strikes therefore amount to extrajudicial killings.

    Before the U.S. military began blowing up boats in September, countering illicit drug trafficking was handled by law enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard, and cartel members and drug smugglers were treated as criminals with due process rights.

    But in a classified legal opinion produced over the summer, the Justice Department argued that the president is legally allowed to authorize lethal strikes against 24 cartels and criminal organizations in self-defense, because the groups pose an imminent threat to Americans, CNN has reported.

    That argument has potentially been undercut by the behavior of the suspected traffickers who have been targeted: in at least one instance, a boat had turned around and was moving away from the U.S. before being struck. Survivors of the strike on Sept. 2 also posed no imminent threat, since they were effectively incapacitated, the sources briefed on the strikes and Harrison noted.

    Senior U.S. defense officials and U.S. allies have expressed skepticism of the legality of the military campaign. The commander of U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Alvin Holsey, offered to leave his post during a tense meeting last month with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff after he raised questions about the legality of the strikes, CNN has reported. Holsey will leave his post in December, just one year into his tenure as the SOUTHCOM chief.

    Lawyers specializing in international law within DoD’s Office of General Counsel have also raised concerns about the legality of the strikes. Multiple current and former uniformed lawyers told CNN that the strikes do not appear lawful.

    The United Kingdom is also no longer sharing intelligence with the U.S. about suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean because it does not want to be complicit in U.S. military strikes and believes the attacks are illegal, CNN has reported.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top US military officials are visiting Caribbean leaders as Trump weighs next steps

    [ad_1]

    Top U.S. military officials are meeting leaders of Caribbean nations this week as the Trump administration has escalated its firepower in the region as part of what it calls a campaign against drug trafficking.Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will travel to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and meet Wednesday with the country’s top leaders, including President Luis Abinader, Minister of Defense Lt. Gen. Carlos Antonio Fernández Onofre and other officials, the Pentagon said Tuesday.The announcement came the same day that Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Donald Trump’s primary military adviser, met with Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.They “exchanged views on challenges affecting the Caribbean region, including the destabilizing effects of illicit narcotics, arms, and human trafficking, and transnational criminal organization activities,” according to a summary released by Caine’s office.The U.S. military has built up its largest presence in the region in generations and has been attacking alleged drug-smuggling boats since early September. To date, the military, under Hegseth’s command, has carried out 21 known strikes on vessels accused of carrying drugs, killing at least 83 people.The actions are seen by many as a pressure tactic to get Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down. The visits by Hegseth and Caine this week come as Trump evaluates whether to take military action against Venezuela, which he has not ruled out despite raising the possibility of talks with Maduro, who has been charged with narcoterrorism in the U.S.The Trump administration added extra pressure by officially designating the Cartel de los Soles, or Cartel of the Suns, as a foreign terrorist organization on Monday, although the entity that the U.S. government alleges is led by Maduro is not a cartel per se.While a majority of Caribbean leaders have been muted in their response to the strikes on alleged drug boats, urging peace and dialogue, Persad-Bissessar has stood out for her public praise of the deadly attacks.In early September, she said she had no sympathy for drug traffickers, adding that “the U.S. military should kill them all violently.” Her remarks and support of the strikes have been condemned by some opposition leaders and regional officials.Amery Browne, Trinidad’s former foreign affairs minister, told the local newspaper Newsday that Persad-Bissessar’s stance is “reckless,” and that she has isolated herself from Caricom, a regional trade bloc.According to the Pentagon, Hegseth’s trip to the Dominican Republic will aim “to strengthen defense relationships and reaffirm America’s commitment to defend the homeland.”Meanwhile, Caine also used his time in the region to visit American troops in Puerto Rico and on at least one U.S. Navy ship, thanking service members for their service and sacrifice over the Thanksgiving holiday, the Pentagon said.Caine and Hegseth also visited the region in September, going to Puerto Rico after ships carrying hundreds of U.S. Marines arrived for what officials said was a training exercise.

    WASHINGTON —

    Top U.S. military officials are meeting leaders of Caribbean nations this week as the Trump administration has escalated its firepower in the region as part of what it calls a campaign against drug trafficking.

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will travel to Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and meet Wednesday with the country’s top leaders, including President Luis Abinader, Minister of Defense Lt. Gen. Carlos Antonio Fernández Onofre and other officials, the Pentagon said Tuesday.

    The announcement came the same day that Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Donald Trump’s primary military adviser, met with Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

    They “exchanged views on challenges affecting the Caribbean region, including the destabilizing effects of illicit narcotics, arms, and human trafficking, and transnational criminal organization activities,” according to a summary released by Caine’s office.

    The U.S. military has built up its largest presence in the region in generations and has been attacking alleged drug-smuggling boats since early September. To date, the military, under Hegseth’s command, has carried out 21 known strikes on vessels accused of carrying drugs, killing at least 83 people.

    The actions are seen by many as a pressure tactic to get Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to step down. The visits by Hegseth and Caine this week come as Trump evaluates whether to take military action against Venezuela, which he has not ruled out despite raising the possibility of talks with Maduro, who has been charged with narcoterrorism in the U.S.

    The Trump administration added extra pressure by officially designating the Cartel de los Soles, or Cartel of the Suns, as a foreign terrorist organization on Monday, although the entity that the U.S. government alleges is led by Maduro is not a cartel per se.

    While a majority of Caribbean leaders have been muted in their response to the strikes on alleged drug boats, urging peace and dialogue, Persad-Bissessar has stood out for her public praise of the deadly attacks.

    In early September, she said she had no sympathy for drug traffickers, adding that “the U.S. military should kill them all violently.” Her remarks and support of the strikes have been condemned by some opposition leaders and regional officials.

    Amery Browne, Trinidad’s former foreign affairs minister, told the local newspaper Newsday that Persad-Bissessar’s stance is “reckless,” and that she has isolated herself from Caricom, a regional trade bloc.

    According to the Pentagon, Hegseth’s trip to the Dominican Republic will aim “to strengthen defense relationships and reaffirm America’s commitment to defend the homeland.”

    Meanwhile, Caine also used his time in the region to visit American troops in Puerto Rico and on at least one U.S. Navy ship, thanking service members for their service and sacrifice over the Thanksgiving holiday, the Pentagon said.

    Caine and Hegseth also visited the region in September, going to Puerto Rico after ships carrying hundreds of U.S. Marines arrived for what officials said was a training exercise.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Map shows US “strategic triangle” to contain China

    [ad_1]

    A United States commander said treaty allies South Korea, Japan and the Philippines could form a “strategic triangle” to contain China if military planners view the region from a nontraditional perspective, with east orientation at the top.

    General Xavier T. Brunson, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, wrote in a Sunday article that the east-up map, rather than the standard north-up one, shows the collective potential of connecting the three allied nations as a triangle, creating what he called “an integrated network” for situational awareness and coordinated responses.

    Newsweek reached out to the Chinese Foreign Ministry for comment.

    Why It Matters

    The U.S. has long leveraged the territories of allied and partner nations in the western Pacific to deter potential Chinese aggression. Under its island chain strategy, Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines form a north-south defensive line east of China, intended to help U.S. forces project power in the region amid China’s growing military presence.

    Brunson’s concept of the east-up map comes as the U.S. and South Korea modernize their 72-year alliance to address security challenges outside the Korean Peninsula. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently suggested that the U.S. Forces Korea could be deployed for “regional contingencies” in addition to deterring North Korea’s threats.

    What To Know

    In an article published on the U.S. Forces Korea website, Brunson said the Indo-Pacific is a region where geographic relations determine “operational possibilities and alliance effectiveness,” noting that hidden strategic advantages could be revealed by simply rotating the standard north-up map to show Japan and the Philippines above China.

    “When the same region is viewed with east orientation toward the top, the strategic picture transforms dramatically,” the general wrote, adding that this new perspective revealed his forces are no longer “distant assets” but are “positioned inside the bubble perimeter that the U.S. would need to penetrate in the event of crisis or contingency.”

    The U.S. military deploys about 28,500 troops in South Korea, along with fighter jets and unmanned aircraft. Its primary mission is to deter aggression and defend South Korea to maintain regional stability, a role the U.S. has held since the Korean War.

    “This shift in perspective illuminates [South] Korea’s role as a natural strategic pivot,” the commander said, noting that the ally is positioned to address threats from Russia while providing reach against Chinese activity in the waters between the two nations, demonstrating its significant strategic potential to influence adversary operations.

    The U.S. general was referring to China’s military presence in the disputed waters of the Yellow Sea, where Beijing and Seoul have yet to establish a maritime boundary.

    Regarding the strategic triangle framework, Brunson said South Korea has what he called the “added advantage of cost-imposition capabilities” against both Russian and Chinese forces, due to its strategic depth and central position on the east-up map.

    While Japan has advanced technologies and controls key maritime chokepoints along Pacific shipping lanes, the Philippines provides southern access points and oversight of vital sea lanes connecting the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the general explained.

    The commander urged military planners to experiment with east-up mapping when analyzing opportunities for alliance coordination and existing force positioning advantages in the Indo-Pacific, which traditional north-up mapping still obscures.

    What People Are Saying

    General Xavier T. Brunson, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea, wrote in an article on Sunday: “The geographic advantages we seek may already exist, waiting to be recognized through a simple shift in perspective. The question for military planners is not whether geography matters, it is whether we are seeing it clearly enough to recognize the strategic opportunities it provides, and whether we have the courage to view familiar perspectives through fresh eyes.”

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on November 4: “There’s no doubt flexibility for regional contingencies is something we would take a look at, but we are focused on standing by our allies [in South Korea] and ensuring the threat of the [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea] is not a threat to the Republic of Korea and certainly continue to extend nuclear deterrence as we have before.”

    What Happens Next

    It remains unclear how the U.S. Forces Korea will adjust its posture to respond to regional contingencies while continuing its mission to deter North Korea’s aggression.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US military’s 20th strike on alleged drug-running boat kills 4 in the Caribbean

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. military’s 20th strike on a boat accused of transporting drugs has killed four people in the Caribbean Sea, the U.S. military said Friday, coming as the Trump administration escalates its campaign in South American waters.The latest strike happened Monday, according to a social media post on Friday by U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military operations in the Caribbean and Latin America. The latest strike brings the death toll from the attacks that began in September to 80, with the Mexican Navy suspending its search for a survivor of a strike in late October after four days.Southern Command’s post on X shows a boat speeding over water before it’s engulfed in flames. The command said intelligence confirmed the vessel “was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics.”Southern Command’s post marked a shift away from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s practice of typically announcing the attacks on social media, although he quickly reposted Southern Command’s statement.Hegseth had announced the previous two strikes on Monday after they had been carried out on Sunday. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is expanding the U.S. military’s already large presence in the region by bringing in the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. The nation’s most advanced warship is expected to arrive in the coming days after traveling from the Mediterranean Sea.Hegseth on Thursday formally named the mission “Operation Southern Spear,” emphasizing the growing significance and permanence of the military’s presence in the region. Once the Ford arrives, the mission will encompass nearly a dozen Navy ships as well about 12,000 sailors and Marines.The Trump administration has insisted that the buildup of warships is focused on stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S., but it has released no evidence to support its assertions that those killed in the boats were “narcoterrorists.” The strikes have targeted vessels largely in the Caribbean Sea but also have taken place in the eastern Pacific Ocean, where much of the cocaine from the world’s largest producers is smuggled.Some observers say the aircraft carrier is a big new tool of intimidation against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faces charges of narcoterrorism in the U.S. Experts disagree on whether American warplanes may bomb land targets to pressure Maduro to step down.Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. doesn’t recognize Maduro, who was widely accused of stealing last year’s election, as the leader of Venezuela and has called the government a “transshipment organization” that openly cooperates with those trafficking drugs toward the U.S.Maduro has said the U.S. government is “fabricating” a war against him. Venezuela’s government this week touted a “massive” mobilization of troops and civilians to defend against possible U.S. attacks.Trump has justified the attacks by saying the United States is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels and claiming the boats are operated by foreign terror organizations that are flooding America’s cities with drugs.Lawmakers, including Republicans, have pressed for more information on who is being targeted and the legal justification for the strikes.Rubio and Hegseth met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers who oversee national security issues last week, providing one of the first high-level glimpses into the legal rationale and strategy behind the strikes.Senate Republicans voted a day later to reject legislation that would have put a check on Trump’s ability to launch an attack against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

    WASHINGTON —

    The U.S. military’s 20th strike on a boat accused of transporting drugs has killed four people in the Caribbean Sea, the U.S. military said Friday, coming as the Trump administration escalates its campaign in South American waters.

    The latest strike happened Monday, according to a social media post on Friday by U.S. Southern Command, which oversees military operations in the Caribbean and Latin America. The latest strike brings the death toll from the attacks that began in September to 80, with the Mexican Navy suspending its search for a survivor of a strike in late October after four days.

    Southern Command’s post on X shows a boat speeding over water before it’s engulfed in flames. The command said intelligence confirmed the vessel “was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics.”

    Southern Command’s post marked a shift away from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s practice of typically announcing the attacks on social media, although he quickly reposted Southern Command’s statement.

    Hegseth had announced the previous two strikes on Monday after they had been carried out on Sunday. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is expanding the U.S. military’s already large presence in the region by bringing in the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. The nation’s most advanced warship is expected to arrive in the coming days after traveling from the Mediterranean Sea.

    Hegseth on Thursday formally named the mission “Operation Southern Spear,” emphasizing the growing significance and permanence of the military’s presence in the region. Once the Ford arrives, the mission will encompass nearly a dozen Navy ships as well about 12,000 sailors and Marines.

    The Trump administration has insisted that the buildup of warships is focused on stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S., but it has released no evidence to support its assertions that those killed in the boats were “narcoterrorists.” The strikes have targeted vessels largely in the Caribbean Sea but also have taken place in the eastern Pacific Ocean, where much of the cocaine from the world’s largest producers is smuggled.

    Some observers say the aircraft carrier is a big new tool of intimidation against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who faces charges of narcoterrorism in the U.S. Experts disagree on whether American warplanes may bomb land targets to pressure Maduro to step down.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio says the U.S. doesn’t recognize Maduro, who was widely accused of stealing last year’s election, as the leader of Venezuela and has called the government a “transshipment organization” that openly cooperates with those trafficking drugs toward the U.S.

    Maduro has said the U.S. government is “fabricating” a war against him. Venezuela’s government this week touted a “massive” mobilization of troops and civilians to defend against possible U.S. attacks.

    Trump has justified the attacks by saying the United States is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels and claiming the boats are operated by foreign terror organizations that are flooding America’s cities with drugs.

    Lawmakers, including Republicans, have pressed for more information on who is being targeted and the legal justification for the strikes.

    Rubio and Hegseth met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers who oversee national security issues last week, providing one of the first high-level glimpses into the legal rationale and strategy behind the strikes.

    Senate Republicans voted a day later to reject legislation that would have put a check on Trump’s ability to launch an attack against Venezuela without congressional authorization.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China’s newest aircraft carrier Fujian compared to USS Gerald R. Ford

    [ad_1]

    China has recently commissioned its most advanced warship, the aircraft carrier CNS Fujian, which is considered to rival its United States counterpart, USS Gerald R. Ford.

    Newsweek has emailed the U.S. Navy and the Chinese Foreign Ministry for comment.

    Why It Matters

    China is undergoing rapid naval modernization under President Xi Jinping, who has set an ambitious long-term goal of building a “world-class” military by 2049. The Chinese military operates the largest navy in the world by number of ships, with more than 370 vessels, including three aircraft carriers, according to a Pentagon report last year.

    Facing China’s growing naval threat, the U.S. maintains a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers, as required by federal law. Serving as the most visible symbol of U.S. military power, American aircraft carriers are regularly deployed overseas, particularly in the western Pacific, to signal Washington’s security commitment to regional allies and partners.

    What To Know

    One of the common features of the Gerald R. Ford and the Fujian is that both are the first aircraft carriers in their countries to be equipped with electromagnetic catapults, which allow them to launch heavier aircraft, thereby bolstering their combat power.

    Like the older 10 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, which use steam-powered catapults to launch aircraft, the Gerald R. Ford, the first of the U.S. Navy’s newest generation of aircraft carriers, has installed four catapults across its flight deck, while the Fujian has three.

    Another shared feature relates to carrier-based stealth aircraft. While the Gerald R. Ford is designed to operate F-35C fighter jets, it still requires modifications to support their long-term deployment, according to the military aviation website The Aviationist.

    Official footage shows the Fujian can launch and recover J-35 fighter jets, which share design similarities with the F-35C aircraft. Both stealth jets—capable of evading radar detection—are regarded as the most advanced Chinese and U.S. naval combat aircraft.

    However, the Fujian uses steam turbines with diesel generators for propulsion, the same as the two Chinese ski-jump style aircraft carriers, CNS Liaoning and CNS Shandong, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ ChinaPower project.

    All American aircraft carriers in active service are nuclear-powered, allowing them to operate for long periods without refueling. The Gerald R. Ford can operate for 20 to 25 years before refueling its two nuclear reactors, which occurs only once in its lifetime.

    While the Fujian is the largest warship China has ever built, with a displacement of more than 80,000 tons, it is still smaller than the Gerald R. Ford, which has a full-load displacement of 112,000 tons. Their respective lengths are 1,036 feet and 1,106 feet.

    The difference in size allows the Gerald R. Ford to carry a larger aviation force, with more than 75 aircraft, including fighter jets and early warning aircraft, according to Reuters. The ChinaPower project estimates the Fujian can operate 50 to 60 aircraft.

    The Gerald R. Ford is homeported on the U.S. East Coast at Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, indicating it is usually deployed to the Atlantic Ocean, the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East via the Suez Canal, supporting U.S. forces in those regions.

    The Chinese navy has confirmed that the Fujian will be the second aircraft carrier—after the Shandong—homeported at Yulin Naval Base near Sanya in Hainan province, north of the South China Sea, where China has territorial disputes with other countries.

    The locations of their home ports mean the two aircraft carriers would not operate in the western Pacific at the same time. The U.S. has stationed another aircraft carrier, USS George Washington, in the region as part of its forward-deployed forces in Japan.

    What People Are Saying

    U.S. President Donald Trump said at USS Gerald R. Ford‘s commissioning ceremony in July 2017: “Wherever this vessel cuts through the horizon, our allies will rest easy and our enemies will shake with fear because everyone will know that America is coming and America is coming strong…Our true strength is our people. Our greatest weapon is all of you. Our nation endures because we have citizens who love America and who are willing to fight for America.”

    Xinhua News Agency reported on Friday: “The Fujian, [China]’s first aircraft carrier with electromagnetic catapults and its third overall, was launched and named in June 2022. Its hull number is ’18.’ The Fujian was designed and built entirely independently by [China], and its electromagnetic catapult technology is among the world’s most advanced.”

    The Pentagon’s Chinese military power report 2024 read: “Fujian is larger than the ski-jump carriers and fitted with an electromagnetic catapult launch system. This design enables it to support additional fighter aircraft, fixed-wing early-warning aircraft, and more rapid flight operations, thus extending the reach and effectiveness of the [People’s Republic of China]’s carrier-based strike aircraft.”

    What Happens Next

    It remains to be seen when the Fujian will conduct its maiden deployment. The Gerald R. Ford was deployed for the first time in 2022—five years after its commissioning—and is now operating in the U.S. Southern Command’s area of responsibility, which covers Latin America and the Caribbean, supporting counter-narcotics missions.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Contributor: Don’t count on regime change to stabilize Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    As the USS Gerald Ford aircraft carrier sails to the Caribbean, the U.S. military continues striking drug-carrying boats off the Venezuelan coast and the Trump administration debates what to do about Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, one thing seems certain: Venezuela and the western hemisphere would all be better off if Maduro packed his bags and spent his remaining years in exile.

    This is certainly what Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado is working toward. This year’s Nobel Prize laureate has spent much of her time recently in the U.S. lobbying policymakers to squeeze Maduro into vacating power. Constantly at risk of detention in her own country, Machado is granting interviews and dialing into conferences to advocate for regime change. Her talking points are clearly tailored for the Trump administration: Maduro is the head of a drug cartel that is poisoning Americans; his dictatorship rests on weak pillars; and the forces of democracy inside Venezuela are fully prepared to seize the mantle once Maduro is gone. “We are ready to take over government,” Machado told Bloomberg News in an October interview.

    But as the old saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. While there’s no disputing that Maduro is a despot and a fraud who steals elections, U.S. policymakers can’t simply take what Machado is saying for granted. Washington learned this the hard way in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, when an opposition leader named Ahmed Chalabi sold U.S. policymakers a bill of goods about how painless rebuilding a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq would be. We all know how the story turned out — the United States stumbled into an occupation that sucked up U.S. resources, unleashed unpredicted regional consequences and proved more difficult than its proponents originally claimed.

    To be fair, Machado is no Chalabi. The latter was a fraudster; the former is the head of an opposition movement whose candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, won two-thirds of the vote during the 2024 Venezuelan presidential election (Maduro claimed victory anyway and forced González into exile). But just because her motives are good doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question her assertions.

    Would regime change in Caracas produce the Western-style democracy Machado and her supporters anticipate? None of us can rule it out. But the Trump administration can’t bank on this as the outcome of a post-Maduro future. Other scenarios are just as likely, if not more so — and some of them could lead to greater violence for Venezuelans and more problems for U.S. policy in Latin America.

    The big problem with regime change is you can never be entirely sure what will happen after the incumbent leader is removed. Such operations are by their very nature dangerous and destabilizing; political orders are deliberately shattered, the haves become have-nots, and constituencies used to holding the reins of power suddenly find themselves as outsiders. When Hussein was deposed in Iraq, the military officers, Ba’ath Party loyalists and regime-tied sycophants who ruled the roost for nearly a quarter-century were forced to make do with an entirely new situation. The Sunni-dominated structure was overturned, and members of the Shia majority, previously oppressed, were now eagerly taking their place at the top of the system. This, combined with the U.S. decision to bar anyone associated with the old regime from serving in state positions, fed the ingredients for a large-scale insurgency that challenged the new government, precipitated a civil war and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis.

    Regime change can also create total absences of authority, as it did in Libya after the 2011 U.S.-NATO intervention there. Much like Maduro today, Moammar Kadafi was a reviled figure whose demise was supposed to pave the way for a democratic utopia in North Africa. The reality was anything but. Instead, Kadafi’s removal sparked conflict between Libya’s major tribal alliances, competing governments and the proliferation of terrorist groups in a country just south of the European Union. Fifteen years later, Libya remains a basket case of militias, warlords and weak institutions.

    Unlike Iraq and Libya, Venezuela has experience in democratic governance. It held relatively free and fair elections in the past and doesn’t suffer from the types of sectarian rifts associated with states in the Middle East.

    Still, this is cold comfort for those expecting a democratic transition. Indeed, for such a transition to be successful, the Venezuelan army would have to be on board with it, either by sitting on the sidelines as Maduro’s regime collapses, actively arresting Maduro and his top associates, or agreeing to switch its support to the new authorities. But again, this is a tall order, particularly for an army whose leadership is a core facet of the Maduro regime’s survival, has grown used to making obscene amounts of money from illegal activity under the table and whose members are implicated in human rights abuses. The very same elites who profited handsomely from the old system would have to cooperate with the new one. This doesn’t appear likely, especially if their piece of the pie will shrink the moment Maduro leaves.

    Finally, while regime change might sound like a good remedy to the problem that is Venezuela, it might just compound the difficulties over time. Although Maduro’s regime’s remit is already limited, its complete dissolution could usher in a free-for-all between elements of the former government, drug trafficking organizations and established armed groups like the Colombian National Liberation Army, which have long treated Venezuela as a base of operations. Any post-Maduro government would have difficulty managing all of this at the same time it attempts to restructure the Venezuelan economy and rebuild its institutions. The Trump administration would then be facing the prospect of Venezuela serving as an even bigger source of drugs and migration, the very outcome the White House is working to prevent.

    In the end, María Corina Machado could prove to be right. But she is selling a best-case assumption. The U.S. shouldn’t buy it. Democracy after Maduro is possible but is hardly the only possible result — and it’s certainly not the most likely.

    Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.

    [ad_2]

    Daniel R. DePetris

    Source link

  • US alliance receives submarine boost

    [ad_1]

    The United States and its treaty ally Japan recently conducted a submarine exercise as they continue to strengthen their defense posture amid China’s growing naval threat.

    The Chinese Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Why It Matters

    China has the world’s largest navy by hull count, part of a military buildup meant to challenge U.S. military dominance and its allies in the western Pacific. Japan, which hosts about 60,000 American troops, plays a key role in the U.S. island chain strategy aimed at defending against potential Chinese aggression by projecting military power.

    Facing China’s expanding military presence and reach through naval deployments, the U.S. Navy has deployed its nuclear-powered submarines across the western Pacific as a deterrent. Meanwhile, Japan is considering building submarines powered by nuclear reactors, as the U.S. ally strengthens its counterstrike and standoff defense capabilities.

    What To Know

    In a set of photos released on Monday by Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, a key U.S. military facility in Japan, the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force submarine JS Unryu was seen docking at the base’s harbor for a resupply operation on October 27.

    According to local media, it was the first time a Japanese submarine had visited Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni. The base said its harbor offered “multiple ports of entry” to U.S. and Japanese forces and that the operation demonstrated logistical capabilities.

    The resupply operation was part of a larger joint exercise conducted by Japan’s Air, Ground and Maritime Self-Defense Forces from October 20 to 31, local media reported. The war game was held across the country, including at U.S. military facilities.

    While pier-side at the base, the Unryu was loaded with torpedo-shaped test equipment. The move sought to verify whether resupply operations could be conducted at ports other than the submarine’s home port, expanding the scope of operations, the report said.

    A Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force official told local media that the ability to resupply a vessel and get it back on deployment as quickly as possible was a significant advantage, particularly when U.S. military facilities are used instead of civilian ports.

    Meanwhile, USS Hawaii, a Virginia-class fast-attack submarine, was spotted arriving at Yokosuka Naval Base in Japan on Sunday, a move confirmed by the local Japanese government. The U.S. nuclear-powered submarine remained at the base as of Friday.

    Loading twitter content…

    According to the U.S. Navy, the Hawaii is designed to conduct missions, including anti-submarine, anti-surface ship and strike warfare, as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The submarine is homeported at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam.

    What People Are Saying

    U.S. Pacific Submarine Force spokesperson Commander Rick Moore previously told Newsweek: “We are making historic investments in our undersea warfare capabilities and continue to work with allies and partners to maintain a secure, prosperous, free, and open Indo-Pacific.”

    Japan’s 2025 defense white paper said: “China has been intensifying its activities across the entire region surrounding Japan, including in the East China Sea, particularly in the area around the Senkaku Islands, the Sea of Japan, and the western Pacific Ocean, extending beyond the so-called the first island chain to the second island chain.”

    What Happens Next

    It remains to be seen whether the U.S. will provide assistance if Japan moves forward with its nuclear-powered submarine program. U.S. President Donald Trump recently voiced support for South Korea’s development of nuclear-powered submarines.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mexican president condemns U.S. attack on alleged drug boats off Mexico’s coast

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — The Trump administration has widened its war on alleged drug boats, announcing on Tuesday that it had attacked four vessels off what Mexico said was its Pacific coast, a move condemned by Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.

    The Pentagon said 14 people were killed in several strikes carried out Monday in international waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean. One survivor was rescued by Mexico’s navy, according to the Pentagon and Sheinbaum.

    At her daily news conference Tuesday morning, Sheinbaum denounced the attacks and said she had asked Mexico’s ambassador to the United States to address them with officials in Washington.

    “We do not agree with these attacks, with how they are carried out,” Sheinbaum said. “We want all international treaties to be complied with.”

    The Pentagon did not give exact geographic coordinates of the attacks. In a post on X, Mexico’s navy said that at the behest of the U.S. Coast Guard, it conducted a search-and-rescue operation 400 miles south of the Pacific resort city of Acapulco.

    The latest strikes mark a new theater in the U.S. military campaign against alleged drug traffickers. In recent months, the military has massed thousands of troops, war ships and fighter jets in the Caribbean ocean to combat drug traffickers, which White House officials have branded “narco terrorists.”

    At least 57 people have been killed in a series of U.S. strikes on supposed traffickers in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Many experts say the strikes violate U.S. and international law.

    The strikes have provoked outcry throughout Latin America. After Colombian President Gustavo Petro criticized the U.S. for “murdering” Colombian civilians in strikes off the coast of his country, the U.S. Treasury Department responded by sanctioning him and several members of his family.

    U.S. officials have been warning for months that they may carry out strikes on drug trafficking targets in Mexico. Sheinbaum has repeatedly said that she opposes unilateral U.S. military action in her nation and that Mexico would treat such a strike as an act of war.

    But with her government currently locked in negotiations with the White House over President Trump’s aim to increase tariffs on Mexican imports, Sheinbaum has had to tread carefully. On Monday, she said that she spoke with Trump over the weekend and that the U.S. had agreed to give Mexico more time to make trade policy changes to avoid an increase in tariffs that had been set to go into effect this week.

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted footage of Monday’s strikes to social media in which two boats can be seen moving at speed through the water. One is visibly laden with a large amount of parcels or bundles. Both then suddenly explode and are seen aflame.

    The third strike appears to have been conducted on a pair of boats that were stationary in the water alongside each other. They appear to be largely empty with at least two people seen moving before an explosion engulfs both boats.

    Hegseth said “the four vessels were known by our intelligence apparatus, transiting along known narco-trafficking routes, and carrying narcotics.”

    [ad_2]

    Kate Linthicum

    Source link

  • US missiles stationed in Philippines can reach China: official

    [ad_1]

    A Philippine general said on Friday that the United States Typhon missile system deployed in the country since April last year is capable of striking China.

    The Chinese Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Why It Matters

    The Typhon Mid-Range Capability system is a land-based missile system operated by the U.S. Army. It can launch two types of missiles—the Tomahawk and the Standard Missile-6—against aerial, surface and land targets, with respective ranges of about 1,000 and 290 miles.

    The U.S. Army initially deployed the Typhon missile system in the Philippines for drills, but the U.S. and the Philippines, allies under a mutual defense treaty, later decided to keep it there indefinitely. Eastern and southern China and parts of the South China Sea—where Beijing and Manila have territorial disputes—fall within range of the system.

    What To Know

    Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief General Romeo Brawner Jr. said in an interview that deploying the Typhon missile system is part of the military’s effort to strengthen its capability to defend the country against any invasion attempt, the Daily Tribune reported.

    While acknowledging that mainland China and China’s artificial islands in the South China Sea are within range of the system, the general said the weapon’s range does “not matter to others” as the Philippines focuses on building defenses against “any threats.”

    “It is not specifically targeting China, but these missile systems are here so we can train. Once we acquire these capabilities, we must be ready to use them,” the general said. Manila revealed its interest in buying the Typhon missile system last November.

    The Philippine military chief said that even without hosting the U.S. missile system, the country is already a target because of its “very strategic” location, close to Taiwan and serving as a chokepoint between the South China Sea and the broader Pacific.

    China’s communist government has claimed sovereignty over the self-governed island of Taiwan and has threatened to use force to achieve reunification. The Typhon missile system could strike Chinese invasion forces in the air and at sea from the Philippines.

    The Philippines and Taiwan form part of a north-south defensive line known as the First Island Chain, along with Japan, under a U.S. containment strategy that aims to project military power to deter and defend against potential Chinese aggression.

    The Chinese defense and foreign ministries have been urging the U.S. and the Philippines to withdraw the Typhon missile system from the Philippines, saying the deployment undermines China’s legitimate security interests and warning that it would take necessary countermeasures.

    “This is a significant step in our partnership with the Philippines, our oldest treaty ally in the region,” the U.S. Army previously said of the “landmark” Typhon missile system deployment, saying it has enhanced interoperability, readiness and defense capabilities.

    What People Are Saying

    Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief General Romeo Brawner Jr. said in an interview on Friday: “These are medium-range missiles, meaning that if they are launched, they can reach mainland China and even their artificial islands. But for us, they do not matter to others; we are strengthening the [Armed Forces of the Philippines] to defend our country against any nation attempting to invade or seize our territory.”

    Guo Jiakun, spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry, said at a press conference on February 12: “China will not sit idly by when its security interests are harmed or threatened … We call on the Philippines to change its course, and make a strategic choice that truly serves the fundamental interest of itself and its people, rather than staying on the wrong path and hurting the Philippines itself when it comes to issues like Typhon.”

    What Happens Next

    China is likely to continue pressuring the Philippines over the Typhon missile system deployment, which could further increase tensions in the contested South China Sea.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.S. sanctions Colombia’s president, deploys aircraft carrier in new escalation in Latin America

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — The United States slapped sanctions on Colombian President Gustavo Petro on Friday and said it was sending a massive aircraft carrier to the waters off South America, a new escalation of what the White House has described as a war against drug traffickers in the region. Also Friday, the U.S. military conducted its 10th strike on a suspected drug-running boat, killing six people in the Caribbean Sea.

    The Treasury Department said it was sanctioning Petro, his wife, his son and a political associate for failing to stop the flow of cocaine to the United States, noting that cocaine production in Colombia has risen in recent years. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent accused Petro of “poisoning Americans.”

    Petro denied those claims in a statement on X, saying he has fought to combat drug trafficking for decades. He said it was “quite a paradox” to be sanctioned by a country with high rates of cocaine consumption.

    The sanctions put Petro in the same category as the leaders of Russia and North Korea and limit his ability to travel to the United States. They mark a new low for relations between Colombia and the United States, which until recently were strong allies, sharing military intelligence, a robust trade relationship and a multibillion-dollar fight against drug trafficking.

    Elizabeth Dickinson, a senior analyst for the Andes region at the International Crisis Group, a think tank, said that while Petro and the U.S. government have had disagreements over how to tackle trafficking — with the Americans more interested in eradicating coca fields and Colombians focused on cocaine seizures — the two countries have been working for decades toward the same goal.

    “To suggest that Colombia is not trying is false and disingenuous,” Dickinson said. “If the U.S. has a partner in counternarcotics in Latin America, it’s Colombia. Colombian forces have been working hand in hand with the Americans for literally four decades. They are the best, most capable and frankly most willing partner the U.S. has in the region.

    “If the U.S. were to cut this relationship, it would really be the U.S. shooting themselves in the foot.”

    Many viewed the sanctions as punishment for Petro’s criticism of Trump. In recent days, Petro has accused the U.S. of murder, saying American strikes on alleged drug boats lack legal justification and have killed civilians. He has also accused the U.S. of building up its military in South America in an attempt to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    The quickened pace of U.S. airstrikes in the region and the unusually large buildup of military force in the Caribbean Sea have fueled those speculations.

    On Friday, a Pentagon official said the U.S. ordered the USS Gerald R. Ford and its strike group to deploy to U.S. Southern Command to “bolster U.S. capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States.”

    The USS Ford is currently deployed to the Mediterranean Sea along with three destroyers. It would probably take several days for the ships to make the journey to South America.

    The White House has increasingly drawn a direct comparison between the war on terrorism that the U.S. declared after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the Trump administration’s crackdown on drug traffickers.

    Trump this month declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and said the U.S. was in an “armed conflict” with them, relying on the same legal authority used by the Bush administration after 9/11.

    When reporters asked Trump on Thursday whether he would request that Congress issue a declaration of war against the cartels, he said that wasn’t the plan.

    “I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We’re going to kill them, you know? They’re going to be like, dead,” Trump said during a roundtable at the White House with Homeland Security officials.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Kate Linthicum

    Source link

  • The war in Gaza cost the US over $30B—Most of it sent to Israel: Report

    [ad_1]

    The United States has spent more than $30 billion on the war in Gaza and associated conflicts in the Middle East, with more than half of this figure devoted to military support for Israel, a new report shared with Newsweek has found.

    The study, released early Tuesday to mark the two-year anniversary of the Hamas-led attack on Israel that sparked the still-ongoing conflict, was overseen by the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. While the scale of death and destruction emanating from the war has captivated audiences across the globe, the findings reveal a lesser-known yet significant cost to U.S. taxpayers.

    Between October 2023 and September 2025, the U.S. devoted $21.7 billion in military aid to its top Middle East ally, Israel, while an additional range of $9.65−$12.07 billion has been spent by the U.S. on operations conducted in Yemen, Iran and elsewhere in the region in relation to the spillover of the conflict.

    Altogether, the final figure is estimated to be between $31.35 billion and $33.77 billion, excluding additional sales still slated for Israel, which has already witnessed a historic increase in U.S. military assistance at the onset of the conflict.

    “In a normal year, Israel would get $3.8 billion in U.S. military aid, pursuant to a 10-year agreement reached during the Obama administration,” William Hartung, co-author of the Costs of War report and senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Newsweek. 

    “In the first year of the Gaza war, that figure skyrocketed to $17.9 billion, the highest level ever,” he added. “The second year of the Gaza war reverted back to the usual $3.8 billion. This was partially because the flood of aid for the prior year will be spread over a number of years, meaning that some of it could be used to finance the second year of the Gaza war.”

    A Divisive Debate

    On October 7, 2023, Hamas and allied Palestinian factions launched a surprise attack against Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking around 250 more hostage, according to Israeli officials. Israel responded by launching its largest-scale war in Gaza to date, resulting in the deaths of more than 64,000 people in the Palestinian territory.

    The conflict is the longest and deadliest of its kind for both sides and quickly spread across the region as factions of the Iran-led Axis of Resistance joined the fray in support of Hamas from Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Israel and Iran have also clashed directly on three occasions, the latest and most intensive of which erupted in June, with the United States also conducting strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as part of what President Donald Trump has called the “12-Day War.”

    Although both Trump’s administration and President Joe Biden’s before him have largely backed Israel throughout the conflict, recent polling shows that views of the U.S. public have shifted significantly since the war began.

    A New York Times/Siena survey published last week shows that, while 47 percent of respondents said they sympathized more with Israel than Palestinians in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas-led assault two years ago, that figure has now dropped to 34 percent, with 36 percent more sympathetic to Palestinians. The poll also found that a slight majority of 51 percent oppose providing additional economic and military support to Israel.

    The trend has been accompanied by a growing international outcry and persistent protests in the U.S. over allegations of Israeli war crimes, including the targeting of civilians and the withholding of aid to Gaza. Israeli officials deny any systematic violations of international law and assert that Hamas routinely used noncombatants as human shields and smuggled humanitarian assistance, accusations denied by the militant group.

    Hartung was among those who have criticized Israeli actions throughout the war, as well as the sharp increase in U.S. military spending associated with the regional conflict.

    “Recent U.S. aid does not serve U.S. interests,” Hartung said. “The bulk of it has gone into enabling Israeli attacks on Gaza, which are disproportionate to aggression by Hamas and will create enmity towards the U.S. in the Middle East and beyond for years to come, complicating our ability to get support on other issues.”

    “And other than missile defense systems, additional U.S. support has gone into attacks in the region like the bombing of Iran, which are more likely to spur retaliation and escalation than stabilize the region,” he added. “This is different from decades ago when U.S. aid was focused on deterring Arab states from attacking Israel, as they had done int 1967 and 1973.”

    Newsweek reached out to the Israeli Consulate General in New York and the U.S. State Department for comment.

    Direct U.S. Involvement

    U.S. intervention in the Middle East has tested Trump’s electoral promise to avoid costly U.S. military endeavors abroad and oversee a more peaceful international order.

    In addition to defending Israel against Iranian attacks and striking three Iranian nuclear sites in an unprecedented operation in June, the U.S. has also targeted Yemen’s Ansar Allah, also known as the Houthis, and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq throughout the conflict. Attacks against Iraqi militias largely ceased last summer following an unofficial truce under the Biden administration, while Trump announced a ceasefire with Ansar Allah in May that temporarily halted the group’s attacks on international shipping.

    Operations against Iran and its Ansar Allah ally were particularly expensive. The Costs of War report found that both foes and their weapons were targeted with hundreds of multimillion-dollar munitions fired from even pricier platforms such as the $70 million F/A-18 Hornet, three of which were lost amid the battle with Ansar Allah.

    Media reports have also indicated that the extensive use of interceptors, both those fired directly by the U.S. and others transferred to Israel, has substantially depleted the Pentagon’s supplies. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to pledge arms shipments to partners on other fronts, including Ukraine in the midst of Russia’s ongoing war, and Taiwan, which is claimed by top U.S. geopolitical rival China, threatening additional stockpile strains.

    Linda Bilmes, a senior lecturer at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, who co-authored the Costs of War report with Hartung, argued in her conclusion that her work was motivated by an effort to inform the U.S. public about the scale of funds devoted by the U.S. to conflict in the Middle East.

    “The American public has a right to know how U.S. funding is used in conflict, and to recognize that U.S. military activities in the Middle East carry significant financial costs for taxpayers,” Bilmes wrote. “These costs are often hidden and should be weighed alongside how well they advance the goal of peace in the region.”

    She also noted that “the full budgetary impact is likely to increase as replacement and sustainment requirements mature,” meaning that “the fiscal burden is substantial and should be material to discussions on U.S. policy.”

    Prospects for Peace

    The second anniversary of the devastating conflict comes amid renewed hopes for peace following a 20-point proposal unveiled last week by the White House that would result in a permanent end to the conflict, the release of hostages and prisoners, an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the replacement of the territory’s Hamas-led government with an independent committee comprised of Palestinian experts and led by Trump, among other conditions.

    The plan was met on Friday with a positive response from Hamas that Trump characterized as indicating the group was “ready for lasting peace.” He called on Israel to “immediately stop the bombing of Gaza” and, on Sunday, reported “very successful” talks among the parties and mediators.

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Monday that “technical talks” were currently underway in Egypt as the administration “is working very to move the ball forward.”

    Yet U.S. regional commitments may only grow even in a postwar scenario. Trump’s recent decision to guarantee Qatar’s security after the nation that hosts the largest U.S. base in the Middle East was struck by both Iran and Israel in the past four months has raised questions about the extent to which Washington was adding to its existing posture in the Arabian Peninsula.

    The U.S. also continues to conduct strikes against Islamic State militant group (ISIS) targets in Iraq and Syria, where recent clashes between the interim government and the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces mark another challenge for U.S. policy in the region.

    And should the precarious Israel-Hamas peace process once again unravel, as it has on many past occasions, Trump emphasized Sunday on Truth Social that the alternative would be escalation.

    Trump wrote: “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE OR, MASSIVE BLOODSHED WILL FOLLOW — SOMETHING THAT NOBODY WANTS TO SEE!”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s New Core Mission for the Military: ‘Enemy Within’

    [ad_1]

    Yikes.
    Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

    In his long, even-more-rambling-than-usual address to Pete Hegseth’s peculiar assemblage of military brass this morning, President Donald Trump talked about a lot of non-germane things, as the New York Times reported:

    There does not seem to be a clear point or purpose in President Trump’s address to military generals today. It’s a garden variety tear; he’s talking about tariffs, Joe Biden and the autopen, the southern border, CNN, his personal feelings about President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and his anxieties that he won’t be given a Nobel Peace Prize he feels he deserves. These are things he talks about almost every day regardless of audience or setting. Every so often he throws in a statistic or observation he has about the military. 

    “I think we should maybe start thinking about battleships by the way,” he said at one point, pausing a riff about tariffs to bring up a 1950s documentary series about naval warfare. “I used to watch ‘Victory at Sea.’ I love ‘Victory at Sea.’”

    But there is one highly germane instruction to the vast crowd of warriors that can be discerned by piecing together several passages in his remarks: Get ready to spend a lot of time fighting right here in America, as Jonathan V. Last observes:

    President Trump did not have many bad things to say about America’s foreign adversaries. He spoke about Vladimir Putin in largely neutral terms (only saying he was “disappointed” in him) and barely mentioned China.

    He did, however, speak with great moral clarity about certain classes of Americans whom he views as a grave threat….

    The most consequential parts of the commander-in-chief’s speech were the sections in which he attempted to prepare flag officers for increased deployment of the military in American cities….

    He called “inner cities” “a big part of war.”

    He said America is “under invasion from within.”

    That cities “that are run by the radical left Democrats” are dangerous places and “we’re going to straighten them out one at a time” and that “the people in this room are going to help with that.”

    “They need the military desperately,” he said of cities with Democratic mayors.

    Trump spoke of these enemy-occupied cities as a “training ground” for American war fighters, claiming that other great presidents had used the military to maintain peace and order on the home front.

    The key thing to note here is that Trump is seeking to make military deployments at home routine. George Washington was dealing with a military uprising when he deployed troops during the Whiskey Rebellion. Abraham Lincoln was fighting a massive civil war. Occasionally other presidents have called up National Guard units to deal with sporadic emergencies ranging from riots to state defiance of federal laws. But these were rare exceptions to a very important bedrock American principle (and one of the grievances that led to our founding as a country) that a free society doesn’t use military force against its own population. It’s an exception that Trump wants to turn into the rule by labeling his political opponents as the “enemy within” and American cities as enemy territory.

    It’s unclear whether Trump’s listeners today perceived his remarks as signaling a fundamental change in their core mission, given the largely incoherent nature of the rest of the speech. But in combination with Hegseth’s clear message that Trump’s “Department of War” would do everything differently than its “woke” predecessors, it put them on notice to gird up their loins for a different kind of war:

    In this profession, you feel comfortable inside the violence so that our citizens can live peacefully. Lethality is our calling card and victory our only acceptable end state.

    And if “the enemy” happens to live in the midst of “our citizens” or, worse yet, if “our citizens” treasonously work for “the enemy within,” collateral damage is just an unfortunate but inevitable by-product of all that righteous lethality.

    As Last notes: “The generals understand that Trump sees their fellow Americans as his enemies. And they must now realize that at some point, they are likely to be forced to choose between Trump and their oaths to defend the Constitution.”

    [ad_2]

    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • Trump and Hegseth declare an end to ‘politically correct’ leadership in the US military

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump revealed that he wants to use American cities as training grounds for the armed forces and joined Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday in declaring an end to “woke” culture before an unusual gathering of hundreds of top U.S. military officials who were abruptly summoned to Virginia from around the world.Hegseth announced new directives for troops that include “gender-neutral” or “male-level” standards for physical fitness, while Trump bragged about U.S. nuclear capabilities and warned that “America is under invasion from within.”“After spending trillions of dollars defending the borders of foreign countries, with your help we’re defending the borders of our country,” Trump said.Hegseth had called military leaders to the Marine Corps base in Quantico, near Washington, without publicly revealing the reason until this morning. His address largely focused on his own long-used talking points that painted a picture of a military that has been hamstrung by “woke” policies, and he said military leaders should “do the honorable thing and resign” if they don’t like his new approach.Meetings between top military brass and civilian leaders are nothing new, but the gathering had fueled intense speculation about the summit’s purpose given the haste with which it was called and the mystery surrounding it.Video below: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gives remarks in QuanticoAdmirals and generals from conflict zones in the Middle East and elsewhere were summoned for a lecture on race and gender in the military, underscoring the extent to which the country’s culture wars have emerged as a front-and-center agenda item for Hegseth’s Pentagon, even at a time of broad national security concerns across the globe.‘We will not be politically correct’Trump is used to boisterous crowds of supporters who laugh at his jokes and applaud his boasts during his speeches. But he wasn’t getting that kind of soundtrack from the generals and admirals in attendance.In keeping with the nonpartisan tradition of the armed services, the military leaders sat mostly stone-faced through Trump’s politicized remarks, a contrast from when rank-and-file soldiers cheered during Trump’s speech at Fort Bragg this summer.During his nearly hour-long speech, Hegseth said the U.S. military has promoted too many leaders for the wrong reasons based on race, gender quotas and “historic firsts.”“The era of politically correct, overly sensitive don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings leadership ends right now at every level,” Hegseth said.That was echoed by Trump, who said “the purposes of America military is not to protect anyone’s feelings. It’s to protect our republic.″″We will not be politically correct when it comes to defending American freedom,” Trump said. “And we will be a fighting and winning machine.”Loosening disciplinary rulesHegseth said he is loosening disciplinary rules and weakening hazing protections, putting a heavy focus on removing many of the guardrails the military had put in place after numerous scandals and investigationsHe said he was ordering a review of “the department’s definitions of so-called toxic leadership, bullying and hazing to empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second guessing.”The defense secretary called for “changes to the retention of adverse information on personnel records that will allow leaders with forgivable, earnest, or minor infractions to not be encumbered by those infractions in perpetuity.”“People make honest mistakes, and our mistakes should not define an entire career,” Hegseth said. “Otherwise, we only try not to make mistakes.”Bullying and toxic leadership has been the suspected and confirmed cause behind numerous military suicides over the past several years, including the very dramatic suicide of Brandon Caserta, a young sailor who was bullied into killing himself in 2018.A Navy investigation found that Caserta’s supervisor’s “noted belligerence, vulgarity and brash leadership was likely a significant contributing factor in (the sailor)’s decision to end his own life.”Gender-neutral physical standardsHegseth used the platform to slam environmental policies and transgender troops while talking up his and Trump’s focus on “the warrior ethos” and “peace through strength.”Hegseth said the department has been told from previous administrations that “our diversity is our strength,” which he called an “insane fallacy.”“They had to put out dizzying DEI and LGBTQE+ statements. They were told females and males are the same thing, or that males who think they’re females is totally normal,” he said, adding the use of electric tanks and the COVID vaccine requirements to the list as mistaken policies.Hegseth said this is not about preventing women from serving.“But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral,” he said. “If women can make it excellent, if not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result.”Hegseth’s speech came as the country faces a potential government shutdown this week and as Hegseth, who has hammered home a focus on lethality, has taken several unusual and unexplained actions, including ordering cuts to the number of general officers and firings of other top military leaders.Hegseth has championed the military’s role in securing the U.S.-Mexico border, deploying to American cities as part of Trump’s law enforcement surges, and carrying out strikes on boats in the Caribbean that the administration says targeted drug traffickers.

    QUANTICO, Va. —

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth summoned hundreds of U.S. military officials to an in-person meeting Tuesday to declare an end to “woke” culture in the military and announce new directives for troops that include “gender-neutral” or “male-level” standards for physical fitness.

    Hegseth and President Donald Trump had abruptly called military leaders from around the world to convene at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, near Washington, without publicly revealing the reason until this morning. Hegseth’s address largely focused on his own long-used talking points that painted a picture of a military that has been hamstrung by “woke” policies, and he said military leaders should “do the honorable thing and resign” if they don’t like his new approach.

    Meetings between top military brass and civilian leaders are nothing new, but the gathering had fueled intense speculation about the summit’s purpose given the haste with which it was called and the mystery surrounding it.

    Admirals and generals from conflict zones in the Middle East and elsewhere were summoned for a lecture on race and gender in the military, underscoring the extent to which the country’s culture wars have emerged as a front-and-center agenda item for Hegseth’s Pentagon, even at a time of broad national security concerns across the globe.

    Video below: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gives remarks in Quantico

    During his nearly hour-long speech, Hegseth said the U.S. military has promoted too many leaders for the wrong reasons based on race, gender quotas and “historic firsts.”

    “The era of politically correct, overly sensitive don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings leadership ends right now at every level,” Hegseth said.

    He said he is loosening disciplinary rules and weakening hazing protections, putting a heavy focus on removing many of the guardrails the military had put in place after numerous scandals and investigations

    Hegseth said he was ordering a review of “the department’s definitions of so-called toxic leadership, bullying and hazing to empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second guessing.”

    He called for “changes to the retention of adverse information on personnel records that will allow leaders with forgivable, earnest, or minor infractions to not be encumbered by those infractions in perpetuity.”

    “People make honest mistakes, and our mistakes should not define an entire career,” Hegseth said. “Otherwise, we only try not to make mistakes.”

    Bullying and toxic leadership has been the suspected and confirmed cause behind numerous military suicides over the past several years, including the very dramatic suicide of Brandon Caserta, a young sailor who was bullied into killing himself in 2018.

    A Navy investigation found that Caserta’s supervisor’s “noted belligerence, vulgarity and brash leadership was likely a significant contributing factor in (the sailor)’s decision to end his own life.”

    Hegseth used the platform to slam physical fitness and grooming standards, environmental policies and transgender troops while talking up his and Trump’s focus on “the warrior ethos” and “peace through strength.”

    Hegseth said the department has been told from previous administrations that “our diversity is our strength,” which he called an “insane fallacy.”

    “They had to put out dizzying DEI and LGBTQE+ statements. They were told females and males are the same thing, or that males who think they’re females is totally normal,” he said, adding the use of electric tanks and the COVID vaccine requirements to the list as mistaken policies.

    Hegseth said this is is not about preventing women from serving.

    “But when it comes to any job that requires physical power to perform in combat, those physical standards must be high and gender neutral,” he said. “If women can make it excellent, if not, it is what it is. If that means no women qualify for some combat jobs, so be it. That is not the intent, but it could be the result.”

    Hegseth’s speech came as the country faces a potential government shutdown this week and as Hegseth, who has hammered home a focus on lethality, has taken several unusual and unexplained actions, including ordering cuts to the number of general officers and firings of other top military leaders.

    [ad_2]

    Source link