Tag: donald trump

The Return of Drug War Imperialism

The Trump administration is escalating U.S. drug wars in Latin America as a cover for imperialism.

While the administration directs a military buildup in the Caribbean, killing people who it claims are drug smugglers, it is preparing to intervene in Latin American countries for the purpose of opening their markets to U.S. businesses. The administration’s priority is gaining access to Latin American resources, a main focus of its foreign policy, just as the highest-level officials have indicated.

“Increasingly, on geopolitical issue after geopolitical issue, it is access to raw material and industrial capacity that is at the core both of the decisions that we’re making and the areas that we’re prioritizing,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in June.

Drug War Imperialism

One of the major contributions of the United States to imperial history is drug war imperialism. Developed as part of the so-called “war on drugs,” which the Nixon administration began in the 1970s and the Reagan administration expanded in the 1980s, drug war imperialism has been one of the primary means by which the United States has intervened in Latin America.

During the late 1980s, the United States set the standard for drug war imperialism in Panama. After discrediting Manuel Noriega with drug charges, officials in Washington organized a military intervention to remove the Panamanian ruler from power.

Under the direction of the George H. W. Bush administration, the U.S. military invaded Panama, captured Noriega, and brought him to the United States, where he was tried, convicted, and imprisoned on drug charges. U.S. officials framed the operation as part of the war on drugs, but their primary concern was bringing to power a friendly government that acted on behalf of U.S. interests. U.S. officials valued Panama for its location and for the Panama Canal, a critical node for U.S. trade.

In the following decades, the United States exercised other forms of drug war imperialism in Latin America. In 2000, the administration of Bill Clinton implemented Plan Colombia, a program of U.S. military support for the Colombian government. U.S. officials framed Plan Colombia as a counter-narcotics program, but their objective was to empower the Colombian military in its war against leftist revolutionaries, especially the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

In 2007, the administration of George W. Bush pushed forward a similar program in Mexico. With the Mérida Initiative, the Bush administration empowered the Mexican government to intensify its war against drug cartels. U.S. officials saw the program as way to forge closer relations with the Mexican military and confront the country’s drug traffickers, who were making it difficult for U.S. businesses to operate in the country.

Multiple administrations faced strong criticisms over the programs, especially as drug-related violence increased in Colombia and Mexico. A Colombian truth commission estimated that 450,000 people were killed in Colombia from 1985 to 2018, with 80 percent of the deaths being civilians. There have been hundreds of thousands of drug-related deaths in Mexico, with the numbers still increasing by tens of thousands every year.

Although most U.S. officials insisted that criminal organizations in Latin America bore primary responsibility for drug-related violence, some began to question the U.S. approach. They wondered whether U.S.-backed drug wars were ignoring root causes of the drug problem, such as the U.S. demand for drugs.

“As Americans we should be ashamed of ourselves that we have done almost nothing to get our arms around drug demand,” Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly said in 2017. “And we point fingers at people to the south and tell them they need to do more about drug production and drug trafficking.”

In recent years, some critics have even cast the drug wars as a failure. Decades of U.S.-backed military operations, they have noted, have brought terrible violence to Latin America while failing to stop the flow of drugs to the United States.

“Drugs have kept flowing, and Americans and Latin Americans have kept dying,” Shannon O’Neil, who chaired a congressionally-mandated drug policy commission, told Congress in 2020. “Something is not working.”

Keep reading

President Trump Goes Scorched Earth on Ilhan Omar, Accuses Her of Committing Immigration Fraud by Marrying Her Brother

On Thursday evening, President Trump went scorched earth on Muslima Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar and accused her of potentially committing immigration fraud by marrying her own brother.

“Ilhan Omar’s Country of Somalia is plagued by a lack of central Government control, persistent Poverty, Hunger, Resurgent Terrorism, Piracy, decades of Civil War, Corruption, and pervasive Violence. 70% of the population lives in extreme Poverty, and widespread Food Insecurity. Somalia is consistently ranked among the World’s Most Corrupt Countries, including Bribery, Embezzlement, and a Dysfunctional Government. All of this, and Ilhan Omar tells us how to run America! P.S. Wasn’t she the one that married her brother in order to gain Citizenship??? What SCUM we have in our Country, telling us what to do, and how to do it. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” President Trump said.

Earlier Thursday, President Trump responded to the Justice Department’s announcement it charged eight people with wire fraud for their roles in Minnesota’s Housing Stabilization program.

Here are the defendants:

  • Defendant Moktar Hassan Aden, age 30
  • Defendant Mustafa Dayib Ali, age 29
  • Defendant Khalid Ahmed Dayib, age 26
  • Defendant Abdifitah Mohamud Mohamed, age 27
  • Defendant Christopher Adesoji Falade, age 62
  • Defendant Emmanuel Oluwademilade Falade, age 32
  • Defendant Asad Ahmed Adow, age 26
  • Defendant Anwar Ahmed Adow, age 25

“Does Ilhan Omar know these people? Are they from her wonderfully managed Home Country of Somalia?” Trump said on Truth Social.

Keep reading

Trump’s Ukraine Envoy Says the US Could ‘Kick Russia’s Ass’

Keith Kellogg, President Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, had strong words for Russia at a conference held in Ukraine, saying that the US could “kick Russia’s ass,” Remix News has reported.

Kellogg made the comments in the context of a conversation he had in the Oval Office about Russia’s military might. “They were talking about the primacy of the Russian military and how they were, you know, pretty good. And I said to the people in the room, we’d kick their ass,” Kellogg said at the YES Annual Meeting in Kyiv on September 12.

“What I mean by that is don’t take their statements at face value. They’re not as good as Putin says they are, and for that, I give great credit to the Ukrainian military because they’ve knocked them down a couple notches,” Kellogg added. He brushed off the fact that Russia was a nuclear-armed power, pointing to the fact that the US and its allies also have nuclear weapons.

The US envoy also claimed that Ukraine would win the war despite the fact that Russia continues to make gains in eastern Ukraine and has the clear advantage when it comes to manpower and weapons supplies. “Ukraine will not lose this war. Ukrainians have a moral superiority over Russia, that’s obvious,” he said.

Kellogg said that both he and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine recently advised President Trump that Russia is not winning the war.

“If Putin thinks Russia is winning, his definition of winning and my definition of winning are absolutely two different things,” Kellogg said. “If he was winning, he’d be in Kyiv. If he’s winning, he’d be west of the Dnipro River. If he was winning, he’d be on Odessa. If he was winning, he would have changed the government. Russia is, in fact, losing this war.”

Kellogg called Russia a “junior partner” of China and claimed that if Beijing cut off Moscow, the “war would end tomorrow.” The Trump administration has failed to get either India or China to reduce its trade relationship with Russia despite the threats of tariffs and sanctions.

Kellogg’s comments come as a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine seems increasingly unlikely as the two sides remain far apart on the terms for an agreement. In his role as a special US envoy, Kellogg has repeatedly met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and has pledged continued US support for the proxy war.

Keep reading

Trump Is Embracing ‘Daddy State’ Economics

The question of whether President Donald Trump has turned the United States toward a new “state capitalism”—one in which the government is not just economic referee but active player—has been answered. His second term brings policies that go well beyond traditional Republican pro-market orthodoxies, such as tax cuts and deregulation, and into direct involvement with production and capital. Yet this doctrine is less a coherent grand strategy than a set of ad hoc deals, sometimes pro-market and sometimes interventionist.

Some Trump policies—tax cuts, deregulating, talk of budget-deficit reductions—retain a traditional Republican tone. On the other hand, this administration’s protectionism and tariffs would have been inconceivable a decade ago. Republicans would also traditionally label the government’s acquisition of a 10 percent stake in Intel as socialism if proposed by anyone other than Trump. And other policies have the feel of mafia tactics made possible by the exercise of leverage, like letting Nvidia and AMD sell their chips to China in exchange for a 15 percent cut back to the U.S. government.

Trump also departs markedly from the past GOP playbook in his lack of recognition that the market allocates resources much better than politicians and bureaucrats do. He treats the market as a stage for negotiation to reorganize the world’s economies. Old-guard Republicans were globalists, whereas Trump built his appeal on “America First” nationalism and protectionism.

Earlier Republicans valued predictable rules, but as Cambridge legal scholar Antara Haldar noted in a Project Syndicate symposium this month assessing the direction of “Trumponomics,” the president “is willing to break any rule, norm, or promise…in the name of striking ad hoc corporate-style ‘deals.'” Where conservative-minded leaders of the past obscured the state’s role, Trump “flaunts it.”

Yet Haldar correctly argues that Trump’s approach differs from other forms of heavy-handed state control. It is neither the Chinese model nor that of the developmental state. It is “erratic, transactional, and short-sighted” and a rejection of the “quietly overbearing ‘Nanny State’…in favor of a commanding, patriarchal ‘Daddy State.'”

Princeton University historian Harold James, another participant in the symposium, sees Trump as a break from the past due to his revival of state-directed “industrial policy.” This started under former President Joe Biden’s administration, but there is no doubt that Trump’s pursuit of a manufacturing revival and reshoring of global supply chains, along with his tariffs and equity stakes in private companies and his overall aim to rebuild U.S. strategic capacity, fall well into that category.

Unfortunately, as James argues, Trump’s brand of industrial policy encourages “hyper-activist corporate lobbying, with large and well-connected enterprises getting the best ‘deals.'” In my opinion, all industrial policies end up this way, not just Trump’s.

Keep reading

The Trump Administration Misses Key Deadlines for Imposing Restrictions on Gain-of-Function Research

Biosafety hawks were initially optimistic that the incoming second Trump administration would at last place binding constraints on so-called “dangerous gain-of-function” research, in which pathogens are manipulated in laboratories to be more virulent or transmissible in humans.

The administration’s picks for top health policy jobs—most notably National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—are both gain-of-function critics who have asserted that this type of research created SARS-COV-2 in Wuhan, China.

In May, the White House issued an executive order creating a broader definition for dangerous gain-of-function research and promising that new restrictions on it would be issued within a few months.

“The conduct of this research does not protect us from pandemics. There’s always a danger that in doing this research, it might leak out by accident even and cause a pandemic,” said Bhattacharya at the Oval Office press conference when the order was signed. With the order, “the public can say ‘no, don’t take this risk.'”

But the deadlines for the new restrictions called for in that order have since come and gone without any new policy being released. Meanwhile, there are indications that the NIH is continuing to fund risky virological research.

Gain-of-function critics who were optimistic that this research would finally be put back in the box are now concerned that the Trump administration will fail to implement meaningful restrictions.

“There was a promise to deliver these policies. It’s very disappointing to see that not emerge,” Bryce Nickels, a professor of genetics at Rutgers University, tells Reason. Nickels briefly served as a contractor advising the NIH on new gain-of-function policy before being let go in August.

In his role as an NIH contractor, Nickels reviewed draft policies on gain-of-function research that the May executive order called for. He said that there was no practical reason why the White House shouldn’t have been able to meet its deadline to issue the new policy.

The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which is responsible for issuing the new gain-of-function regulations called for in the May executive order, did not respond to Reason‘s request for comment.

While arguments about COVID-19’s origins have polarized discussions about gain-of-function research, fears that it could cause a pandemic via a laboratory accident were once mainstream.

The past three presidential administrations issued policies imposing some restrictions on it. That included the 2014 “pause” on gain-of-function research involving MERS, SARS, and influenza viruses issued by the Obama administration.

This was followed by the implementation of a 2017 framework in the first Trump administration that allowed funding for gain-of-function research to start again, provided that the riskiest experiments received risk-benefit vetting by a department-level panel within HHS.

Finally, in 2024, the Biden administration issued a new framework on “dual-use research of concern” that was supposed to clarify when experiments involving enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential should receive that HHS-level review.

Critics have long argued that these policies failed to actually restrict the most dangerous gain-of-function experiments.

Keep reading

Trump Says He Is Trying to Get Bagram Air Base Back from the Taliban

President Donald Trump said he was working to reestablish America’s largest military base in Afghanistan. While Trump negotiated an agreement with the Taliban to end the Afghan War, he has argued that President Joe Biden made a mistake by withdrawing from the Bagram Air Base. 

While discussing Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, Trump explained that the US made a mistake by withdrawing from the Bagram Air Base, and he had planned to keep the facility. However, Trump signed an agreement with the Taliban to end the Afghan War and withdraw from the country. 

Trump says he is now working to establish the military facility. “We gave it to them for nothing. We’re trying to get it back, by the way. That could be a little breaking news, we’re trying to get it back because they need things from us,” The President said Thursday.

While Trump did not elaborate on what he may offer the Taliban, the US maintains crippling economic sanctions on Afghanistan, and the country faces intense poverty. 

The President went on to say that the base will give the US a military position near China’s nuclear weapons facility. “We want that base back but one of the reasons we want the base is, as you know, it’s an hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons,” he added.

It’s unclear how the Taliban will respond to Trump’s proposal to reoccupy part of Afghanistan. Last week, Washington made a prisoner exchange deal with the Taliban that is part of a larger effort to normalize US-Afghan relations. 

Keep reading

President Trump Rebukes Colombia Over Drug Trafficking Cooperation

The United States has placed Colombia on its list of countries that “fail to co-operate” in fighting drug trafficking — the first time since 1997 — blaming President Gustavo Petro’s government for record cocaine output, according to the Financial Times.

In a statement to Congress, Donald Trump said Colombia’s “coca cultivation and cocaine production have reached record highs” and that the government “failed to meet even its own vastly reduced coca eradication goals.” He argued Bogotá had undermined “years of mutually beneficial co-operation between our two countries against narco-terrorists.”

Colombia, the world’s top cocaine producer, had 253,000 hectares of coca under cultivation in 2023, yielding more than 2,600 tonnes, according to UN figures.

Petro, a former guerrilla who has floated legalising cocaine, denounced the US move: “Decades of our police, soldiers and civilians [dying] . . . in order to stop drugs reaching North American society,” he said, insisting “Everything we do really isn’t about the Colombian people — even if they get affected. It’s about stopping North American society from smearing its noses.”

The Financial Times writes that while criticising Petro’s approach, Trump praised Colombia’s security forces, who he said “continue to show skill and courage in confronting terrorist and criminal groups.” Washington also issued a waiver allowing continued programs that “advance US interests,” potentially preserving military co-operation.

The move reflects rising tensions. For years, Colombia was Washington’s closest anti-narcotics ally, receiving more than $10bn in US military aid under Plan Colombia (2000–2016). But Petro has shifted focus from eradication campaigns to intercepting drug shipments at sea, while violence and production have grown under his “Total Peace” policy.

Keep reading

President Trump Designates ANTIFA as a “Major Terrorist Organization”

It’s about time!

President Trump on Wednesday evening announced he designated Antifa a “major terrorist organization.”

“I am pleased to inform our many U.S.A. Patriots that I am designating ANTIFA, A SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER, AS A MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. I will also be strongly recommending that those funding ANTIFA be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump said on Truth Social.

President Trump on Monday told reporters that he is “100%” willing to designate Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week.

“I think it would start with Pam [Bondi],” Trump said.

Charlie Kirk, 31, was assassinated by a leftwing terrorist, later identified as 22-year-old Tyler Robinson, during a speaking event at Utah Valley University last Wednesday. The shooter was revealed by law enforcement to have engraved his ammunition casings with Antifa and transgender slogans.

Trump said he will designate Antifa and other far-left radical groups as domestic terror organizations and said he wants RICO charges brought.

“Are there other groups that you can think of?” a reporter asked President Trump.

“There are other groups, yeah, there are other groups. We have some pretty radical groups, and they got away with murder. And also, I’ve been speaking to the Attorney General about bringing RICO against some of the people that you’ve been reading about that have been putting up millions and millions of dollars for agitation. These aren’t protests. These are crimes what they’re doing, where they’re throwing bricks at cars of ICE and Border Patrol. They come in a beautiful new car. They’re so proud and it’s Border Patrol, ICE, you know, it’s got whatever it is, and they’re throwing rocks at it. And after 50 yards, it looks like an old, beat up vehicle. It was just brand new. It was just bought for the purposes, and they don’t have to take that anymore. Let it be known, we’ll take responsibility. They don’t have to take it anymore, and they don’t want to take it. They were told by a past administration, it became almost a culture, if somebody throws a rock at you, do nothing. If somebody spits in your face, do nothing. And I say when they spit, you hit. Do whatever you want. You do whatever the hell you want,” Trump told reporters.

Keep reading

Trump Admin Expands Targets Across Global Narco Networks 

President Trump’s “America First” strategy – also described as “Hemispheric Defense” and alignes with the century-long Monroe Doctrine of the early 1800s – has expanded through increased border security, elevated pressure on allies such as Canada and Mexico, punitive measures against adversaries including China, Venezuela, Colombia, and Afghanistan, and declaring fentanyl crisis as well as both a public health crisis and national security threat, while also expanding list of nations designated as major drug transit or illicit drug-producing countries. 

A White House statement to begin the week announced that the Trump administration invoked Section 706(1) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228) to designate Afghanistan, The Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Burma, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela as major drug transit or illicit drug-producing countries.

Trump’s new designation for the countries listed above provides the administration with additional leverage, including the ability to impose severe consequences on foreign assistance programs if those governments fail to meet counterdrug obligations.

In effect, the designation gives Trump another bold tool to bring into line countries it views as complicit in the global drug trade network with drugs that eventually end up on the streets of U.S. cities, which have fueled an overdose crisis killing more than 100,000 Americans annually.

Keep reading

Trump Has a Habit of Asserting Broad, Unreviewable Authority

In separate attacks this month, the U.S. military blew up two speedboats in the Caribbean Sea, killing 14 alleged drug smugglers. Although those men could have been intercepted and arrested, President Donald Trump said he decided summary execution was appropriate as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

To justify this unprecedented use of the U.S. military to kill criminal suspects, Trump invoked his “constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive” to protect “national security and foreign policy interests.” That assertion of sweeping presidential power fits an alarming pattern that is also apparent in Trump’s tariffs, his attempt to summarily deport suspected gang members as “alien enemies,” and his planned use of National Guard troops to fight crime in cities across the country.

Although Trump described the boat attacks as acts of “self-defense,” he did not claim the people whose deaths he ordered were engaged in literal attacks on the United States. His framing instead relied on the dubious proposition that drug smuggling is tantamount to violent aggression.

While that assumption is consistent with Trump’s often expressed desire to kill drug dealers, it is not consistent with the way drug laws are ordinarily enforced. In the absence of violent resistance, a police officer who decided to shoot a drug suspect dead rather than take him into custody would be guilty of murder.

That seems like an accurate description of the attacks that Trump ordered. Yet he maintains that his constitutional license to kill, which apparently extends to civilians he views as threats to U.S. “national security and foreign policy interests,” transforms murder into self-defense.

Trump has asserted similarly broad authority to impose stiff, ever-changing tariffs on goods imported from scores of countries. Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected that audacious power grab, saying it was inconsistent with the 1977 statute on which Trump relied.

The Federal Circuit said the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not mention import taxes at all and had never before been used to impose them, does not give the president “unlimited authority” to “revise the tariff schedule” approved by Congress. The appeals court added that “the Government’s understanding of the scope of authority granted by IEEPA would render it an unconstitutional delegation.”

Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) against alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua has also run into legal trouble. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit concluded that Trump had erroneously relied on a nonexistent “invasion or predatory incursion” to justify his use of that 1798 statute.

Trump argued that the courts had no business deciding whether he had complied with the law. “The president’s determination that the factual prerequisites of the AEA have been met is not subject to judicial review,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told the 5th Circuit.

Trump took a similar position in the tariff case. As an opposing lawyer noted, it amounted to the claim that “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants, so long as he declares an emergency.”

Keep reading