Newly released photos show the United States is making progress on constructing a new dry dock at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to support its nuclear-powered submarine fleet in the Pacific Ocean amid a naval arms race with China.
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, located within Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, said on Wednesday that Dry Dock 5 was more than one-third complete. It will replace a dry dock built in 1942 and will be used to service Virginia-class attack submarines and larger surface ships.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While at least 35Chinese shipyards have known ties to the country’s military or national security projects, the U.S. Navy operates only four public shipyards—built in the 19th and 20th centuries—including the one at Pearl Harbor, to maintain its combat ships, making it vulnerable in a conflict with China, the world’s largest navy by hull count.
What To Know
Photos shared by Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on Facebook show the current progress of the construction of Dry Dock 5. The $3.42 billion project, began in August 2023, is scheduled for completion in 2027 and will support projected fleet maintenance requirements.
“The new dry dock will support the #Readiness and #Lethality of our U.S. Navy Fleet, ensuring our naval strength remains unmatched. [Dry Dock 5] is more than just steel and concrete, it’s a commitment to the future of naval #readiness,” the shipyard said.
A dry dock is designed to service a vessel’s hull. After floating a vessel into a three-sided basin, the seaward end is closed and all the water removed, allowing the vessel to settle on a cradle. When work is completed the basin is re-flooded and the seaward end opened to float the vessel out.
Once completed, Dry Dock 5 will be 657 feet long. It is being built next to the 497-foot Dry Dock 3, the smallest of the four dry docks at Pearl Harbor. Dry Docks 1, 2 and 4 are 1,001, 975 and 1,099 feet long, respectively, according to an official document.
The existing dry docks were built between 1919 and 1943. Dry Dock 5, designed for 150 years of use, is part of the Navy’s Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP), which aims to expand shipyard capacity and improve maintenance capabilities.
Built during World War II, Dry Dock 3 lacks the size and floor strength needed to service Virginia-class submarines, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard said. It will become “functionally obsolete” once older Los Angeles-class attack submarines are retired.
Both Virginia– and Los Angeles-class submarines are homeported at Pearl Harbor. The former, a next-generation attack submarine, is 377 feet long and has a displacement of 7,800 tons, while the latter, deployed since 1976, is 360 feet long with a displacement of 6,900 tons, according to the Navy.
What People Are Saying
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard said in a Facebook post on Wednesday: “Dry Dock 5, now over 1/3 complete, is a critical investment in our ability to fix, repair, and maintain ships, keeping them #FitToFight for generations to come.”
The U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Pacific said in March 2023: “The Navy is investing heavily in shipyard infrastructure for nuclear-powered warships. The Navy established SIOP to increase throughput at the four public shipyards by updating their physical layout, upgrading and modernizing their dry docks, and replacing antiquated capital equipment with modern tools and technologies.”
What Happens Next
It remains to be seen how the U.S. will further boost maintenance for its Navy. Some American naval vessels have been serviced in U.S. ally South Korea, reducing downtime and costs and enhancing readiness by conducting maintenance in theater.
A U.S. military attack against what officials called a drug-carrying boat from Venezuela is raising questions about the strike’s legality.
On Sept. 2, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. military had struck the vessel in the southern Caribbean, killing 11 people on board. Moments later, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on X that the boat had come from Venezuela and was being operated by a “designated narco-terrorist organization.”
Trump later posted on Truth Social what he said was video footage of the strike, saying the boat had been heading to the U.S. and the people on board were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang that the Trump administration has designated a foreign terrorist organization. (Venezuela counter argued that the footage was made with artificial intelligence.) The Trump administration has also alleged that Tren de Aragua is under the control of Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro.
Some legal experts said the attack was illegal under maritime law or human rights conventions; others said it contradicted longstanding U.S. military practices.
When asked by a reporter Sept. 4 what legal authority the Pentagon had invoked to strike the boat, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, “We have the absolute and complete authority to conduct that.” He did not detail the legal authority used; he said it was done in defense of Americans at risk of being killed by drugs trafficked into the country.
Sign up for PolitiFact texts
White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told PolitiFact on Sept. 5 that the strike was in defense of U.S. national interests “against the operations of a designated terrorist organization.” Kelly said it was taken “in the collective self-defense of other nations who have long suffered due to the narcotics trafficking and violent cartel activities of such organizations. The strike was fully consistent with the law of armed conflict,” meaning it complied with international law and U.S. policy.
As of late afternoon on Sept. 8, the administration hadn’t released the identities of those on board; how the U.S. learned that they were Tren de Aragua members carrying drugs; what kind of drugs were on board; and how the strike was carried out.
Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the vice chair of the committee that oversees U.S. intelligence agencies, said Sept. 7 on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he expects to be briefed this week about what happened.
“My fear is there are still international laws of the sea about how the process of interdicting these kinds of boats — there’s supposed to be a firing of a warning shot,” Warner said. “You’re supposed to try to take it peacefully. “
Here are some of the key questions about the incident.
What is Tren de Aragua?
Tren de Aragua is a criminal gang that operated with the government’s knowledge out of a prison run by Venezuela government officials, Ronna Risquez, a Venezuelan investigative journalist who published a book about Tren de Aragua, said in March. It has established a smallfoothold in some parts of the U.S.
A March 15 White House proclamation said, according to evidence, Tren de Aragua has invaded the U.S. As a result, Trump said any person 14 years or older who is a Tren de Aragua member and who has neither U.S. citizenship nor permanent residency can be arrested, detained and deported using the Alien Enemies Act.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 allows the president to detain and deport people from a “hostile nation or government” without a hearing when the U.S. is either at war with that country or the country has “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened” an invasion or raid legally called a “predatory incursion” against the U.S.
He used the act to deport suspected members of Tren de Aragua or send them to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, a controversial use of the law. Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled that the administration cannot quickly deport Tren de Aragua members using the Alien Enemies Act.
A U.S. intelligence report cast doubt on the notion that the gang is run by Maduro.
In late August, Trump began sending warships to Venezuelan waters, including at least 4,500 military troops, in an effort to combat drug trafficking. In turn, Maduro has ratcheted up Venezuela’s military footing, including mobilizing 8 million citizens.
Was the recent U.S. attack on the vessel unusual?
It’s rare but not unprecedented for the U.S. to use lethal military force to target suspected drug traffickers, said Mike LaSusa, deputy director of content at InSight Crime, a think tank focused on crime and security in the Americas. He cited the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, in which the U.S. intervened to overthrow Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega after he was indicted on drug charges in the U.S.
“The U.S. has more commonly supported other countries with intelligence, equipment and training to carry out their own lethal operations against suspected drug traffickers,” LaSusa said.
Anthony Clark Arend, a specialist in international law at Georgetown University, agreed. “While the U.S. has seized vessels on the high seas that were allegedly engaging in drug trafficking, to my knowledge the U.S. has not engaged in a direct attack against such a vessel previously,” Arend said.
Separately, under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the U.S. “would only have the right to use military force against a foreign vessel on the high seas if it could be demonstrated that the vessel was engaging in an armed attack against the United States or that such an armed attack was imminent,” said Anthony Clark Arend, a Georgetown University specialist in international law.
That section of the charter prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” unless it has been approved by the United Nations Security Council — which this attack was not — or if force is used in self-defense of an “armed attack” or an imminent armed attack.
“There has been no evidence presented that the vessel was engaging in an armed attack or was about to be engaging in an armed attack,” Arend said.
Some experts said less lethal options were available.
“I am not adamantly opposed to considering this a threat, but we had recourse short of armed attack, most notably disabling the ship and arresting the crew,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “So in that sense, I believe we did not act consistently with the laws of war.”
Even if the U.S. action was illegal, it’s unlikely administration officials would face consequences, experts said.
“In the real world, it is probably a bit fuzzy,” said John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, a think tank. Beyond the 2024 Supreme Court decision granting presidents broad leeway from prosecution for official duties, Pike said, “the Supreme Court has typically ruled such matters as nonjusticiable — political rather than legal.”
Should the administration have informed Congress?
Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the Trump administration was supposed to provide Congress with information on Sept. 4 about why the strike was carried out. The law requires congressional notification within 48 hours of sending U.S. armed forces into certain situations abroad.
We asked Kelly Sept. 5 if the White House had submitted a response yet, but she did not answer the question. PolitiFact also checked theReiss Center on Law and Security database, which keeps track of threat reports the president has submitted to Congress. The last one submitted was in June.
“Congress and the courts have historically been very deferential to presidents when they assert the authority to use military force, especially when the president invokes ‘terrorism’ as the threat being addressed,” LaSusa said.
Trucks transport tanks east from Valencia, Venezuela, on Aug. 27, 2025, after the government announced a military mobilization following the U.S. deployment of warships off Venezuela. (AP)
It’s possible to envision further escalation, said Susan H. Allen, a George Mason University international affairs professor.
“Blowing up a boat on international waters is an aggressive act — one that Venezuela may take as an act of war,” Allen said. “This is how wars start. If Venezuela responds with similar violence against a U.S. ship, what stops this from escalating into all-out war?”
(CNN) — The deployment of US warships in the Caribbean to counter drug-trafficking could simply divert the problem to the Pacific, experts in the region warn.
While much attention has focused on the political tension between the United States and Venezuela – even more so after a strike on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat on Tuesday – security specialists warn that the focus on Caribbean trafficking routes by American ships could have serious, unintended consequences for countries struggling to prevent drug flows on the Pacific corridor – such as Ecuador, Peru and Colombia.
“What’s going to happen is that, by blocking this Caribbean corridor, drug traffickers will avoid continuing to transport drugs through that route, because it’s more dangerous, and they’ll incur greater losses. They’ll redirect the flow of drugs,” former Ecuadorian Army Intelligence chief Mario Pazmiño told CNN.
Ecuador is one of the most violent countries in Latin America due to transnational organized crime and has the third-highest drug seizures after the United States and Colombia, according to the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.
Various drug trafficking routes operate from the South American country to Central America, the United States and Europe, where a series of Ecuadorian, Colombian, Mexican and European criminal networks converge.
Pazmiño thinks these routes will get only more popular with traffickers as the Caribbean routes are squeezed off.
“This flow of drugs will no longer leave through Colombia or Venezuela. They will try to use Ecuadorian ports, which are one of our country’s greatest weaknesses and through which drugs are constantly leaving,” he warned.
Indeed, Pazmiño believes this effect is already in play.
On August 25, Ecuador’s Guayaquil Port Authority declared a state of emergency due to rising insecurity and constant extortion threats, which it claims are putting the integrity of the port infrastructure and personnel at risk.
“The facilities of the Guayaquil Port Authority, as well as the personnel working there, are in imminent danger, given that threats have been made to kidnap the crew and pilots and attack vessels,” it said.
Pazmiño believes the situation is closely linked to the military tension in Caribbean waters, and shows the ability of transnational crime to divert its trafficking routes.
The Ecuadorian Navy recently reported that it has intensified its patrols and military operations against drug traffickers.
On August 24, authorities seized 10 tons of drugs with the help of the US Coast Guard, which is providing support under military agreements signed in 2023.
Traffickers ‘take advantage’ as threat to Maduro grows
Daniel Pontón, an expert in criminal policy and crime control at Ecuador’s Institute of Advanced National Studies, said that controlling the Pacific corridor was becoming a much more complex task.
“Drug traffickers know how to take advantage of any moment or vulnerability. Ecuador and other countries in the region need capabilities and cooperation. Joint action is required because the Navy’s capacity is limited,” Pontón added.
Meanwhile, Michelle Maffei, a researcher on international organized crime, conflict, and violence, warned that militarizing the fight against criminal gangs could have the opposite effect to what is intended.
“What this will force is another political conflict. It won’t be a strategy against organized crime. The United States is focused on the Maduro government (in Venezuela). While they’re focused on removing Maduro, the illegal and criminal economy will move more drugs, using semi-submersible vessels or contaminated containers with greater vigor, because they know their focus is on something else,” warns Maffei.
Maffei said authorities should instead focus on fighting corruption.
“We need to implement a radical reform of the judicial system in Ecuador. We have prosecutors who don’t work, judges who are bought off, and lawyers who are also bought off by organized crime groups. If this doesn’t happen in Ecuador, nothing good will come of it,” she added.
Pazmiño also had suggestions for how to combat the problem: “Strengthening the northern border with Colombia, creating a joint task force to cover the entire northern border and making it difficult and impossible for cocaine to spill into Ecuadorian territory.”
Even without increased drug flows, Ecuador is experiencing severe internal violence and recently reported record homicide numbers amid fighting between organized crime gangs. So far this year, the Ministry of the Interior has recorded 5,268 intentional homicides. In 2024, the year ended with 7,062 violent deaths. In 2023, there were 8,248.
The Daniel Noboa administration has called on the international community to support the fight against transnational crime.
But while the region’s eyes are focused on the Caribbean Sea, experts hope this will not lead to an increase in violence and mafia activity in the key areas of cocaine trafficking in the Pacific.
(CNN) — The United States conducted a deadly military strike against an alleged drug boat tied to the cartel Tren de Aragua, President Donald Trump said Tuesday.
The US president said 11 people were killed in the strike in “international waters.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the “lethal strike” as taking place in the “southern Caribbean” against “a drug vessel which had departed from Venezuela.”
The use of military force against Latin American drug cartels represents a significant escalation by the Trump administration and could have serious implications for the region.
“Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. TDA is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
“Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!” he wrote.
The State Department designated Tren de Aragua, which originated in Venezuela, as a foreign terrorist organization and specially designated global terrorists in February.
The US has amassed a large number of military assets around the Caribbean and Latin America, drawing the ire of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.
CNN has asked the Venezuelan government for comment.
In remarks before he departed on a trip to Mexico and Ecuador on Tuesday, Rubio said the “counter-drug mission” would continue.
“We are going to wage combat against drug cartels that are flooding American streets and killing Americans,” Rubio said. He said the route from Venezuela was a “common” one.
Asked by CNN about the legal authority for militarily targeting the cartels, Rubio said, “I’m not going to answer for the White House counsel, suffice it to say that all of those steps were taken in advance.”
“The president has designated these as terrorist organizations, which is what they are,” he said.
Trump on Tuesday afternoon said the US military “just over the last few minutes, literally shot out a boat, a drug carrying boat.”
“It just happened moments ago, and our great general, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff … he gave us a little bit of a briefing,” Trump said.
“There’s more where that came from,” he said, noting that “a lot of drugs” are “pouring into” the US from Venezuela.
A senior defense official confirmed a “precision strike” against an alleged drug vessel in the southern Caribbean, but did not offer further details about the operation.
CNN previously reported that the US military was deploying more than 4,000 Marines and sailors to the waters around Latin America and the Caribbean as part of a ramped-up effort to combat drug cartels, according to two US defense officials — a show of force that has given the president a broad range of military options should he want to target drug cartels.
The Trump administration has taken an aggressive approach to combating Latin American drug cartels, designating many of them as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists.
Tom Karako, a senior fellow of the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said while he didn’t know of an instance of such action being taken against a drug cartel in the past, “on the other hand I’m not sure that we would (know).”
“It would not surprise me in the slightest if there were a dozen instances that we don’t talk about,” he said.
On Friday, Rubio visited the headquarters of US Southern Command, which has responsibility for the deployed assets. The top US diplomat had previously suggested that military action against the cartels was a possibility.
The robust military presence in the region has drawn heated remarks from Maduro. The Trump administration has increased the bounty for the Venezuelan president to $50 million for drug trafficking.
“It is an extravagant threat… absolutely criminal, bloody. They have wanted to move forward with what they call maximum pressure, and in the face of maximum military pressure, we have prepared maximum readiness,” Maduro said Monday, adding that he will not “bow to threats.”
CNN’s Kylie Atwood, Natasha Bertrand, Haley Britzky, Stefano Pozzebon, Ivonne Valdes Garay, Sol Amaya and Lauren Kent contributed to this report.
This story and headline have been updated with additional details.
A U.S. spy plane has flown missions to Northeast Asia on five consecutive days to monitor potential missile launches from nuclear-armed North Korea, flight data showed.
Newsweek has reach out to the U.S. Pacific Air Forces for further comment via email. North Korea‘s embassy in Beijing did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Why It Matters
North Korea, which refuses to abandon its nuclear weapons, frequently launches missiles for tests and exercises over the Sea of Japan, known as the East Sea in South Korea. It has also developed long-range missiles capable of striking the U.S. mainland with nuclear warheads.
The U.S. Air Force operates a range of reconnaissance aircraft for different missions and often deploys them to Kadena Air Base on Okinawa Island in Japan‘s southwestern waters. It is a key U.S. military hub in the Western Pacific for projecting power in contingencies.
The recent American spy flights come as satellite imagery revealed suspected activity at a rumored secret site linked to North Korea’s nuclear program, and as leader Kim Jong Un toured a missile factory before departing for a military parade in China scheduled for Wednesday.
What To Know
Using aircraft tracking data from the online service Flightradar24, a Newsweek map shows that an Air Force RC-135S reconnaissance aircraft—also known as Cobra Ball—began the first of five flights over the Sea of Japan from Kadena Air Base at around 2:30 a.m. local time on Friday.
The “rapidly deployable” aircraft, which is designed to collect optical and electronic data on ballistic missiles, was tracked flying northward and reaching the waters west of Japan’s main island of Honshu. The aircraft returned back to Okinawa after an almost 13-hour mission.
The same Cobra Ball aircraft flew similar early morning missions over the next four days. @MeNMyRC1, an open-source intelligence analyst on the social media platform X, said the aircraft was supported by an aerial refueling tanker to extend its time over the Sea of Japan.
Except for the mission on Saturday, for which Flightradar24 did not provide flight hours, the Cobra Ball aircraft flew close to 13 hours on three of the five flights. The most recent mission on Tuesday lasted six hours and was not supported by an aerial refueling tanker.
According to @MeNMyRC1, the Cobra Ball aircraft, registered as 61-2662, was deployed to Okinawa from Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska on July 15 but did not fly its first mission until August 8. Its second mission, tracked over the Sea of Japan, took place on August 14.
The U.S. Air Force said the Cobra Ball fleet, currently consisting of three aircraft, conducts missions directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that are of national priority. Data collected is critical to the development of U.S. strategic defense and theater missile defense concepts.
A United States RC-135S Cobra Ball reconnaissance aircraft takes off from Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska on May 8, 2019. A United States RC-135S Cobra Ball reconnaissance aircraft takes off from Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska on May 8, 2019. Senior Airman Jacob Skovo/U.S. Air Force
What People Are Saying
The U.S. Air Force said in a fact sheet: “The RC-135S, equipped with a sophisticated array of optical and electronic sensors, recording media, and communications equipment, is a national asset uniquely suited to provide America’s leaders and defense community with vital information that cannot be obtained by any other source.”
The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said in its missile threat assessment report: “Missile threats to the U.S. homeland will expand in scale and sophistication in the coming decade. […] North Korea has successfully tested ballistic missiles with sufficient range to reach the entire Homeland.”
What Happens Next
It remains to be seen whether North Korea will conduct missile tests or exercises during Kim’s visit to China. The U.S. military is likely to continue deploying reconnaissance aircraft near the Korean Peninsula to monitor North Korea’s nuclear and missile activities.
On Aug. 13, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration corralled 26 narcotraffickers onto planes destined for the United States, where they will be prosecuted for a litany of drug and violent offenses. One was wanted in the killing of a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy nearly two decades ago. This wasn’t the first prisoner transfer from Mexico to the United States. In February, Sheinbaum handed over 29 cartel figures to the U.S. Justice Department.
All of this is coming at a time when the Mexican security forces are accelerating counter-narcotics operations throughout the country. According to Mexico’s secretary of public security, homicides have declined by more than 25% during Sheinbaum’s first 10 months; more than 1,200 drug labs have also been dismantled.
If the Trump administration is impressed with the progress, officials haven’t shown it. In fact, Washington is enlisting the U.S. military to help with the problem of cartel violence next door. President Trump signed a directive ordering the Defense Department to begin using force against Latin American drug cartels that Washington previously designated as foreign terrorist organizations. Six of those cartels are in Mexico. As if to underscore the point, the Pentagon ordered 4,000 Marines and sailors to the waters of Latin America and the Caribbean, alongside Navy destroyers, reconnaissance aircraft and a nuclear-powered missile cruiser.
None of this is exactly a surprise. Trump, after all, flirted with bombing cartel fentanyl labs in Mexico during his first term. His senior advisors, from Vice President JD Vance to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have broached the possibility of using U.S. military force to degrade the cartels’ power. And the Central Intelligence Agency, with the cooperation of the Mexican government, has increased surveillance flights over cartel-dominated territory to better map the terrain.
But let there be no mistake: pulling the trigger on U.S. military force inside Mexico would be about as effective as putting a Band-Aid over a gaping wound.
We can say this with a high degree of confidence because military force has already been deployed against the cartels for years, with no discernible impact other than more violence, death and a continuation of the very drug trafficking the United States wants to stem. Successive Mexican governments since the turn of the century bought into the notion that, with the right amount of military pressure, the cartels would either fold up shop, bargain with the state or collapse under their own weight.
In 2006, Mexican President Felipe Calderón declared a full-scale war against narcotrafficking organizations, complete with the deployment of tens of thousands of Mexican troops to the country’s most violent states and looser rules of engagement. Calderón’s successor, Enrique Peña Nieto, had implemented the same strategy with a special emphasis on targeting the cartels’ leadership structure. Even Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who campaigned on a “Hugs, Not Bullets” approach, came to rely on the Mexican army during the latter years of his presidency.
The result was precisely the opposite of what Mexico hoped to achieve. Although some high-profile narcotraffickers were captured, the cartels as a whole increased violence against the state and did so more brazenly. Politicians, police officers, soldiers and senior government officials have all been targeted by the cartels, and the massacre of civilians is now the norm. Last year, Mexico experienced its deadliest election campaign in history, with around 200 politicians, candidates and public servants murdered in the lead-up to June elections.
The so-called “kingpin strategy,” centered on neutralizing cartel leadership, has also fractured Mexico’s cartel landscape, making it even more difficult for the state to contain the problem. As my colleague Chris McCallion and I wrote in a new paper, taking out senior cartel figures tends to cause intense internal competition within the targeted group and between replacements who fight among themselves for power. Smaller groups affiliated with larger cartels may use the absence of authority at the top to go their own way. As a consequence, more people have died; areas of Mexico previously insulated from the cartels are now on the front lines. And states like Sinaloa that have been at the epicenter of the drug trade have seen an exponential rise in killings. In 2006, when Calderón declared war on the cartels, Mexico registered approximately 10,000 homicides; today, the figure has more than tripled.
If the Trump administration green-lights military operations, the United States is unlikely to mimic the Mexican government’s heavy-handed strategy entirely. U.S. troops won’t be patrolling on Mexican soil anytime soon. It’s more likely the United States will stick with airpower; indeed, U.S. military officials have already discussed the option.
Airstrikes, however, won’t be any more effective at degrading the cartels or diminishing the flow of drugs into the United States than ground operations would be. Bombs can destroy labs and kill cartel members but are highly unlikely to alter the profit motives these criminal organizations operate on. The drug business is, in a word, big. The cartels rake in billions of dollars every year from the trade. The rate of return, particularly on fentanyl, is huge; according to a 2023 indictment, hundreds of dollars in precursor chemicals can net profits 200 to 800 times larger. It’s very difficult to believe the Sinaloa cartel, the New Jalisco Generation cartel or any other criminal group would give all of this up, particularly when competitors are waiting in the wings to increase their own market share.
There is no magic bullet to stopping the drug trade. Washington has been pursuing a war on drugs for decades now, and the verdict is pretty clear: The drugs have won.
This doesn’t mean the United States should be complacent. For instance, the Drug Enforcement Administration should come out of Washington’s budget fights adequately resourced. Border control officers need more technology to detect drug shipments. Washington and Mexico City must strengthen their bilateral intelligence cooperation, which has already picked up during the first 10 months of Sheinbaum’s term. And while sanctions aren’t a panacea, they can deter some Americans from working with the cartels.
Bombing Mexico, however, won’t do anything but jeopardize the very relationship with Mexico the Trump administration needs to contain the problem.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
Shane Croucher is a Breaking News Editor based in London, UK. He has previously overseen the My Turn, Fact Check and News teams, and was a Senior Reporter before that, mostly covering U.S. news and politics. Shane joined Newsweek in February 2018 from IBT UK where he held various editorial roles covering different beats, including general news, politics, economics, business, and property. He is a graduate of the University of Lincoln, England. Languages: English. You can reach Shane by emailing s.croucher@newsweek.com
🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
The U.S. Air Force said an airman assigned to the 374th Airlift Wing at Yokota Air Base was found dead in Shimoda, Japan.
He was found on Wednesday, August 20. The cause of death is under investigation, the Air Force said.
Officials did not immediately name the airman out of respect for his loved ones. His next-of-kin have been notified.
“Today is a difficult day for Team Yokota,” said Col. Richard McElhaney, 374th Airlift Wing commander.
“Thank you to our installation law enforcement officials and local community partners within the Shimoda Police Service for their assistance.
“Those affected are on the front of our minds, and our base support agencies are standing by to support members of the community suffering from this loss.”
The US Military is structured into several branches, including the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force. Each branch has a specific hierarchy of officer ranks, and at the top of this structure are the general officers.
US Army generals is 231
US Navy generals is 162
US Air Force generals is 198
US Marine Corps generals is 62
Totaling of 653
General officers hold ranks from one-star brigadier generals to four-star generals in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps, while the Navy equivalents are rear admirals lower half to full admirals.
These officers possess substantial responsibilities which include leading large units, making strategic decisions, and overseeing military operations. They also represent the military’s highest level of command and have considerable influence over military policy and national defense.
Key Takeaways
The U.S. military, comprising five branches, is led by 653 general officers.
Generals are pivotal in leadership, strategic decision-making, and overseeing operations.
Becoming a general involves paths like the USMA, ROTC, OCS, and direct commission.
The highest military rank, four-star general, is for those in key positions, selected through a rigorous process involving the President and Department of Defense.
Civilian oversight of the military is maintained through legislative actions.
Generals have historically and currently played crucial roles in military strategy.
US Military Structure
The United States military is a complex organization structured to provide national defense across various domains—land, sea, air, and space. It consists of five main service branches:
Army
Navy
Air Force
Marine Corps
and the recently established Space Force.
Each branch serves a specific operational role but works in conjunction under the coordinated oversight of the Department of Defense (DoD).
The Army is the oldest and largest branch, responsible for ground-based military operations.
It is complemented by the Navy, which handles warfare at sea and has the unique ability to project power across the oceans.
Marine Corps, often working closely with the Navy, specializes in amphibious operations and rapid response.
Air Force focuses on air superiority, space operations, and strategic deterrence, while the Space Force, as the newest branch, is tasked with organizing, training, and equipping space forces.
Organizationally, these branches fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, headed by the Secretary of Defense and further subdivided into various departments and commands.
Strategic direction is provided by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a body of senior military leaders advising the President and the Secretary of Defense according to this Gov source.
Each service branch also maintains its own civilian-led executive department, ensuring civilian control over military operations as highlighted by JSTOR. Together, they form an integrated and adaptive military structure capable of responding to a spectrum of global challenges.
Rankings of General Officers
1. Brigadier General
Serving as the second-in-command to the Commanding General of a division, the Brigadier General assists in overseeing the planning and execution of all missions as noted by Military Rankings. In the context of an infantry brigade, this role is filled by the Brigadier General as the unit commander, with a Colonel serving as the deputy commander. In the Navy, they are known as rear admirals, lower half.
The role of Lieutenant General encompasses commanding corps-sized units, which include 20,000 to 45,000 soldiers. Additionally, a Lieutenant General might hold a senior staff officer position within major command headquarters or operate as a department head at the Pentagon. The Navy equivalent of this rank is vice admiral.
Interesting Fact: Superintendents of US service academies hold the rank of lieutenant general.
4. General
A General oversees all military operations within a designated geographical area and occupies the most senior position within the Department of Defense (DoD). Key positions for Generals include Chief of Staff and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Throughout the history of the US Army, there have been 248 individuals who have reached the rank of 4-star general as noted by CFR. Of these, 234 were promoted during their active duty in the branch, 8 received their rank upon retirement, 5 were posthumously promoted, and 1 served in the Continental Army, the predecessor of the US Army.
Interesting Fact: George Washington holds the distinction of being the sole General appointed in the Continental Army.
The 248 4-star generals also joined the Army from different routes.
157 were commissioned through the USMA (US Military Academy)
50 through the ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) at a civilian institution
16 through direct commission, 13 through OCS (Officer Candidate School)
8 through ROTC at a senior military institution
1 through ROTC at a junior military institution
1 through direct commission in the ARNG (Army National Guard)
1 through the aviation cadet initiative, and
1 through battlefield commission
5. Four-Star Generals
Four-star generals hold the highest rank typically attainable in the U.S. military. This rank is reserved for officers holding positions of significant responsibility, and there are only a select number of these positions available, making this rank quite exclusive. In the Navy, officers of this rank are known as admirals.
General officers are the pinnacle of military leadership and command. They are responsible for large units and have a broad scope of influence over their service’s operations. These highly ranked officers lead from the front, setting standards for discipline, training, and combat readiness.
Brigadier Generals, Major Generals, Lieutenant Generals, and full Generals typically oversee thousands of personnel and large military installations or divisions, each progressively responsible for larger and more complex formations.
Joint Positions and Combatant Commands
At the joint level, General officers may serve as Combatant Commanders or in senior positions within the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They manage joint military efforts across different branches, ensuring interoperable and coordinated actions in various operational theaters.
The U.S. military’s unified combatant commands, such as U.S. Space Command, Africa Command, Central Command, Cyber Command, Pacific Command, European Command, Northern Command, and Special Operations Command, are each led by a four-star General or Admiral who reports directly to the President and Secretary of Defense according to DOD.
Strategic Planning and Advice
General officers are instrumental in strategic planning and providing military advice to national leaders. They analyze potential threats, create military strategies to deter or contain conflicts, and ensure the U.S. military remains a dominant force globally. Generals engage in complex evaluations of geopolitical situations and defense resources, offering expert advice to the President, Secretary of Defense, and National Security Council to shape the nation’s military and security policies.
How To Become A General?
Individuals may obtain a commission in the United States Army, Air Force, and other branches through several avenues. The United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point and the Air Force Academy offer rigorous four-year programs culminating in a Bachelor of Science degree and a commission as a second lieutenant.
Alternatively, students may enroll in the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) at civilian colleges, leading to a commission upon graduation. There’s also the Officer Candidate School (OCS) that serves college graduates who did not participate in ROTC or attend a military academy.
Promotion and Advancement
The trajectory from officer to general is marked by successive promotions, typically beginning as a second lieutenant. Officers are evaluated on their leadership abilities, job performance, and potential to handle greater responsibilities.
Promotion to general officer ranks— brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general, and general—requires a demonstrated record of exceptional service, leadership, and the endorsement of senior military leadership.
Each promotion brings increased responsibility and typically involves a selection board process.
Senior Leadership Selection
To reach the general officer ranks in the United States military, officers must distinguish themselves markedly from their peers.
The selection for one-star general and above is a highly competitive process, influenced by an officer’s service record, leadership performance, education, and professional military education.
These selections are often approved at the highest levels, including the Department of Defense and the President of the United States. Advancement to four-star general requires nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate.
The roles and responsibilities of general officers vary significantly across different services and commands within the Army and the Air Force.
The United States Army has had many generals who played pivotal roles in shaping world history through their military leadership and strategic acumen. During World War II, General Dwight D. Eisenhower served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Western Europe, orchestrating the successful D-Day invasion and subsequently the defeat of Nazi Germany as per National Archives.
Another significant figure was General George C. Marshall, who, as Army Chief of Staff during World War II, oversaw the U.S. Army’s expansion from a modest force to one of the most powerful in history. He later served as Secretary of State, crafting the Marshall Plan which helped to rebuild Europe after the war.
Moving towards a more contemporary context, General Lloyd J. Austin’s pioneering leadership merits mention.
First African American combat brigade commander in Iraq, opposed Islamic State
General Vincent K. Brooks, as the Commander of the U.S. Army Pacific, had a significant role in managing military relations with China, ensuring regional security through diplomatic and military channels.
Generals of the United States Army have been essential in executing wartime strategies and maintaining global peace and security. Their roles often transcended beyond mere combat, impacting diplomatic and geopolitical landscapes worldwide.
Retirement and Post-Military Careers
Upon retiring from the military, many generals transition to new career paths, leveraging their leadership experience and extensive networks. Retirement from military service often comes with a transition period where these leaders must navigate their entry into civilian roles.
Career Paths
A significant number find opportunities within the defense industry. Many retired four-star officers take on roles as board members or advisers to various defense contractors.
Some generals pursue federal civil service positions, which allow them to continue contributing to government operations outside of uniformed service.
Statistics
While definitive numbers vary, reports indicate a pattern of military leaders joining the defense industry. For example, a Government Accountability Office report noted that over 1,700 military and government officials transitioned to the defense sector over five years according to Responsible Statecraft.
Challenges and Considerations:
The transition from military to civilian roles, especially in the defense industry, is often scrutinized to ensure ethical compliance and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.
Adapting to the civilian sector can be challenging, requiring generals to acclimate to different organizational cultures and operational tempos.
Military and Defense Budget
The pay grade of military personnel, including generals, is an integral part of the defense budget. Generals are at the top of the military pay scale, receiving salaries under their rank and years of service. In addition to the base pay, they are eligible for various allowances and benefits, which can include housing, healthcare, and retirement plans.
These compensations are part of the overall budget managed by the Department of Defense and are factored into the annual financial planning for the military.
Funding for these expenses comes from the overall defense budget, which includes both the base defense budget and supplemental war funding.
The Defense Health Agency, for instance, is responsible for the administration of healthcare benefits to service members, which is a significant line item in the overall budget. Pay grades and associated allowances are categorized and standardized across the military branches to ensure uniformity and equity in compensation.
Legislative and Civilian Oversight
The Senate Armed Services Committee plays a critical role in overseeing the U.S. military, including its general officers.
This committee is responsible for holding hearings that review and evaluate military activities and policy, and it also considers nominations of the President for positions such as Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff as reflected in this source.
Detailed discussions and testimonies can focus on the appropriateness of the number of generals based on current defense strategies and global commitments.
National Defense Authorization Act
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is a key piece of legislation that specifies the budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense. One of its purposes is to regulate the size and structure of the military, which may include a stipulation on the number of generals.
For example, the 2017 NDAA included a provision to reduce the number of generals, aiming to streamline military efficiency and adapt to modern needs.
Role of the President
The President of the United States, as Commander-in-Chief, wields direct authority over the military but works within the constraints of policies and laws enacted by Congress. The President’s influence extends to appointing the most senior military leaders, upon the advice and consent of the Senate, thereby influencing military practices and the culture of leadership. Civilian control is further maintained by the President’s ability to set broader defense-related policies that shape military operations and strategy.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the different ranks of generals in the U.S. Military?
In the U.S. Military, the general officer ranks are categorized loosely from one-star to four-star: Brigadier General (one-star), Major General (two-star), Lieutenant General (three-star), and General (four-star). The U.S. Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps use this ranking structure, whereas the Navy equivalent would be Rear Admiral lower half to Admiral.
How many officers attain the rank of 5-star general?
The five-star rank, formally known as General of the Army or Fleet Admiral, is a special wartime designation with only nine individuals ever promoted to this level in U.S. history. No officers currently hold this rank as it was last awarded in the mid-20th century, following World War II.
What is the total number of active 4-star generals currently serving?
The exact number of active four-star generals fluctuates based on retirements and new appointments. As of the last publicly available information, there are generally around 40 to 44 active four-star officers across all military branches.
Who holds the highest command position in the U.S. Military?
The highest military command position in the U.S. Military is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This position is held by a four-star general or admiral who serves as the principal military advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council.
How does the number of 1-star and 2-star generals compare in the U.S. Army?
In the U.S. Army, there tends to be a larger number of one-star and two-star generals compared to their three-star and four-star counterparts. For instance, there are over a hundred in each rank of one-star and two-star generals, with precise numbers varying due to changes in military structure and retirements.
Has there ever been a 6-star general, and if so, who was it?
The rank of a six-star general has never been authorized or used in the U.S. Military. However, it’s worth noting that General George Washington was posthumously awarded the title of General of the Armies of the United States, which is often informally mentioned as equivalent to a six-star rank to honor his leadership during the Revolutionary War.
Final Words
General officers in the U.S. Military are pivotal to national defense and global security. Their strategic leadership, extensive responsibilities, and commitment to service underpin the effectiveness and readiness of the armed forces.
As defense challenges evolve, so will the roles of these high-ranking officers, ensuring the U.S. Military remains adaptable and capable of addressing future threats.
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson slammed two Republican senators over their social media posts appearing to call for the United States to attack Iran in retaliation for a drone strike that killed three U.S. troops in Jordan.
U.S. President Joe Biden announced on Sunday that a drone strike had killed three U.S. military personnel and wounded 34 others who were stationed in northeastern Jordan near the Syrian border. The president blamed Iran-backed militant groups for the deadly blast. Officials said that the attack had been launched from Syria on Saturday night.
In response to news of the attack, Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John Cornyn both posted on X, formerly Twitter, calling on the U.S. to act.
Graham, a South Carolina Republican, wrote on X: “Hit Iran now. Hit them hard.”
While sharing a CNN article on the news of the drone strike, Cornyn, a Texas Republican, posted on X: “Target Tehran.”
Carlson appeared to disagree with the idea of retaliating against Iran on X where he shared an image of the posts by Graham and Cornyn and referred to the senators as “f****** lunatics.”
Former Fox News television personality Tucker Carlson speaks at the Family Leadership Summit on July 14, 2023 in Des Moines, Iowa. In a January 28, 2024, post on X, Carlson slammed Senator Lindsey Graham and… Former Fox News television personality Tucker Carlson speaks at the Family Leadership Summit on July 14, 2023 in Des Moines, Iowa. In a January 28, 2024, post on X, Carlson slammed Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John Cornyn over their calls to attack Iran after three United States military personnel were killed and at least 34 more injured by a drone strike in Jordan.
Scott Olson/Getty
Newsweek reached out via email on Sunday night to representatives for Carlson and Graham for comment.
A spokesperson for Cornyn responded to Newsweek‘s request for comment by sending a “follow-up tweet from the senator.”
In the post, Cornyn responded to an X user who was questioning if he suggested that the U.S. “bomb Iran.” The Texas Republican responded, “No. IRGC and Quds Force terrorist facilitators.”
The attack of U.S. troops in Jordan, a Middle Eastern ally of the U.S., comes as the Israel-Hamas war has caused tensions to escalate across the region in the months following Hamas‘ surprise attack on Israel in October 2023.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas led the deadliest Palestinian militant attack on Israel in history, resulting in the Middle Eastern nation to launch its heaviest-ever airstrikes and ground offensive on Gaza, home to more than 2 million Palestinians. Israeli officials have said that roughly 1,200 people in Israel were killed and some 250 hostages were taken in Hamas’ attack, according to the Associated Press. As of Sunday, more than 26,000 Palestinians have been killed, officials from the health ministry in Gaza said.
Carlson has previously spoken out against the U.S. potentially heading into war with Iran.
Just a few weeks after Hamas’ surprise attack on Israel, Carlson lashed out at Republicans, saying that they weren’t doing enough to fight against the Biden administration, which he accused of “pushing” for the country to head into a war with Iran.
“We seem to be heading to war with Iran, certainly the Biden administration is pushing us in that direction,” Carlson said. “What’s new and interesting and ominous is that very few Republicans, the opposition party, are pushing back. Instead, those party leaders are encouraging it.”
The conflict in the Middle East has grown increasingly precarious for the U.S. and its forces stationed in the region. Biden’s administration has continued to support Israel throughout the war. In response, Iran-backed groups have targeted U.S. troops. Since mid-November, the Iran-aligned Houthi militants in Yemen have launched drones and missiles at vessels in the Red Sea. The U.S. has responded by carrying out a series of strikes against Houthi targets.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Legal experts are said to be planning to push back against Donald Trump‘s potential efforts at a broad military takeover in the event that he is reelected in November, according to a new report.
The former president is among the field of candidates seeking the 2024 GOP presidential nomination as part of his bid to retake the White House. National polling averages have consistently suggested that he leads the pack by a wide margin, regularly giving him around or above 50 percent support from likely Republican voters.
In a report published on Sunday, NBC News found that “a loose-knit network of public interest groups and lawmakers is quietly devising plans to try to foil any efforts to expand presidential power,” amid recent comments and moves from Trump indicating his intention to pursue his political agenda if reelected this year.
In November 2023, The Washington Post published a report outlining Trump’s alleged plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on the very first day of his hypothetical second term in the White House, allowing him to use military force to quash protests against his presidency. During the last months of his presidency, Trump was reportedly told by lawyer Jeffrey Clark that the Insurrection Act could be used to shut down protests if he had attempted to remain in office despite losing to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
Former President Donald Trump attends a military academy graduation in June 2020. A new report has revealed a developing plan among legal experts to combat Trump’s potential military takeover if reelected this year. David Dee Delgado/Getty Images
Meanwhile, during a town hall event hosted by Fox News host Sean Hannity last month, Hannity pressed Trump to pledge that he would never “abuse power as retribution against anybody,” as had been suggested in recent reports, if he’s reelected. In response, Trump suggested that he would only behave in such a way on the first day of his hypothetical second term.
“Except for day one,” Trump said. “No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.” His drilling comment was a reference to his vow to expand oil drilling in the U.S.
Speaking with NBC News, Mary McCord, executive director of the Institution for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law and participant in this initiative, said that they are preparing to bring any number of lawsuits against the former president depending on the actions he might take if reelected.
“We’re already starting to put together a team to think through the most damaging types of things that he [Trump] might do so that we’re ready to bring lawsuits if we have to,” McCord said.
The group’s plan for the moment, according to the report, is to identify and connect like-minded individuals and organizations who will be able to confront Trump’s potential overreach “from day one.”
The report also mentioned participants “combing through policy papers being crafted for a future conservative administration,” likely referring to the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” a plan being crafted in the event of a Republican presidential victory this year to greatly expand the powers afforded to the executive branch of the U.S. government.
Political analyst and historian Julian Zelizer previously told Newsweek that Trump allies could “go very far” with the ideas being put forward by the project, which says that Article II of the U.S. Constitution makes it “abundantly clear” that the executive branch’s powers are solely invested in the president.
Newsweek reached out to Trump’s office via email for comment.
While Trump is heavily favored to once again clinch the GOP presidential nomination, the outlook for the general election remains less clear-cut. While news cycles have been recently dominated by coverage of President Joe Biden’s troubled approval ratings, polls so far have shown that he and Trump are neck-and-neck in a hypothetical November rematch, with some giving Biden the edge and some skewing for Trump.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
General Charles Q. Brown Jr., the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. military, warned in a Sunday interview that everyone should be “worried” about a war with China.
Brown is the 21st and current chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, having taken over the role in October following the retirement of General Mark Milley. During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Brown was asked by host Shannon Bream about growing concerns over a war between the United States and China, citing recent Reagan Institute polls finding that 51 percent of Americans view China as the biggest foreign threat to the country and 74 percent are concerned about such a conflict breaking out within five years.
In response, Brown first stressed the strength of the U.S. military, while also conceding that everyone should be concerned about such a conflict with China, specifically with regard to a possible invasion of Taiwan.
“The first thing I’d tell them is they ought to be very proud of their military, we’re ready for whatever comes our way,” Brown said. “At the same time, we want to be so ready that we don’t have a conflict. And you know, as we’re here, it says ‘peace through strength.’ Our strength that we demonstrate as a military will bring that peace.”
General Charles Q. Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is seen. Brown on Sunday warned that everyone should be “worried” about a potential invasion of Taiwan by China. Alex Wong/Getty Images
He later added, on the subject of a possible Taiwan invasion: “The first thing I would say is we want to be, and we all should be, worried whether it’s going to happen or not. And [that is] part of the reason why deterrence is so important, so that conflict does not occur.”
In response to another poll finding concern from a majority of respondents that China will soon outpace the U.S. both militarily and economically, Brown said that it’s his “real role here and job…to actually make sure that…on the military side that doesn’t occur.”
Newsweek reached out to foreign defense experts via email for comment.
Taiwan has long been a contentious facet of relations between the U.S. and China. The latter’s official policy is that Taiwan is part of China as a whole, a claim that the Taiwanese government strongly dismisses. While the U.S. does not recognize Taiwan as its own country, the island territory is considered a key American ally in the Indo-Pacific region. President Joe Biden pledged in late 2022 that the U.S. army would deploy troops to help Taiwan in the event of an invasion from China.
“We are not moving—we’re not encouraging their being independent….That’s their decision,” Biden told 60 Minutes at the time, later stressing that the U.S. would provide military support, “if in fact there was an unprecedented attack.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
