Tag: donald trump

Hegseth Doesn’t Rule Out Regime Change in Venezuela, Suggests More US Strikes on Boats Are Coming

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on Wednesday didn’t rule out the possibility of the US military pursuing regime change in Venezuela and suggested more US strikes on boats in the region were coming.

Hegseth made the comments in an interview on Fox News on Wednesday morning, the day after the US bombed a boat in the Southern Caribbean that it claimed without evidence was carrying drugs, marking the first US kinetic military action in the name of combating drug trafficking, though the real purpose of the attack may be part of a new push to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

“We have assets in the air, assets in the water, assets on ships because this is a deadly serious mission for us, and it won’t stop … with just this strike,” Hegseth said. “Anyone else trafficking in those waters who we know is a designated narco-terrorist will face the same fate.”

When asked if the goal was regime change in Venezuela, Hegseth said that was a “presidential decision” and added that “we’re prepared with every asset that the American military has.”

Brandan P. Buck, a historian and Foreign Policy Research Fellow at the Cato Institute, told Antiwar.com that it was unlikely the Trump administration would have much success trying to combat drug trafficking with military strikes.

“The US military’s strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat is a significant escalation in the long and failed war on drugs. It is unclear if the administration’s goal of deterring drug trafficking through lethal force will be achieved, but such a strike is unlikely to succeed in this way,” Buck said. “As long as the United States remains a multi-billion-dollar drug market, criminal organizations will continue to take risks for massive profits. One strike on one drug-running boat is unlikely to change that calculus.”

Buck also noted that it was unclear what the administration’s real goal is. “The strike also raises alarming questions about its true near- and long-term objectives. It is plausible that the Trump Administration is using the strike as a trial balloon for expanded military action against cartels throughout the region, or against the Maduro regime in Venezuela,” he said.

“Either would present troubling questions about executive authority to authorize military action in a post-Global War on Terror world and significantly raise the likelihood of plunging the US into another prolonged war,” Buck added.

The US has claimed that Maduro is the leader of the Cartel of the Suns, a term used to describe a network of Venezuelan government and military officials allegedly involved in drug trafficking, but it does not actually exist as an organization. Despite the lack of a structured organization, the US recently labeled the Cartel of the Suns as a terrorist group and increased the bounty on Maduro’s head to $50 million over claims of “narco-terrorism.” Maduro and other Latin American leaders have strongly denied the US claims.

Keep reading

Trump Again Suggests He Could Back European Troops in Ukraine With Air Power as Part of a Security Guarantee

President Trump suggested in an interview with the Daily Caller published on Tuesday that he would be willing to back a European troop deployment in Ukraine as part of a security guarantee for a potential future peace deal, an arrangement Russia has made clear it would never accept.

Trump was asked if he was considering using US troops for security guarantees, and he said “no,” but made clear he was open to the idea of using US air power, something he has previously suggested.

When asked if he would use US planes for the security guarantees, Trump said, “Maybe we’ll do something. Look, I’d like to see something get solved. They’re not our soldiers, but there are, five to 7,000, mostly young people, being killed every single week. If I could stop that and have a plane flying around the air every once in a while, it’s going to be mostly the Europeans, but we, we’d help them. They, you know, they sort of need it, and we’d help them if we could get something done.”

The insistence from European officials on sending troops to Ukraine could be what ends up sinking the peace process. Russia has said that it must be involved in talks on security guarantees for Ukraine, but European leaders continue to discuss the idea with Ukrainian officials without Russian involvement.

Trump was asked how his support for the potential security guarantees squares with an “America First” foreign policy and pointed to the fact that NATO countries are now purchasing US weapons for Ukraine, although a recent deal that will arm Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles will be partially funded by US military aid.

“Look, we were spending hundreds of billions of dollars in that war. Now we sell equipment to NATO. I got them to go from two to five. Nobody thought that was, and pay. We sell equipment to NATO. We don’t sell it to Ukraine. We sell it to NATO. They pay for the equipment. We’re not spending any money on the war,” Trump said.

Keep reading

Trump gives green light for $2m ICE deal with notorious Israeli spyware company

The Trump administration appears to have unfrozen a stalled $2 million Biden-era contract with Paragon Solutions (US) Inc., a spyware company founded in Israel whose products have been accused of facilitating the surveillance of journalists and activists.

On Saturday, a public procurement database showed that a stop work order on the September 2024 deal with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had been lifted, technology journalist Jack Poulson reported on his All-Source Intelligence Substack.

The deal does not specify what ICE will be getting as part of the deal, beyond describing an agreement for a “fully configured proprietary solution including license, hardware, warranty, maintenance, and training.”

An individual who answered a phone number listed for Paragon on the contract declined to comment.

Keep reading

Trump’s DOJ Seeks Access to Voting Equipment Used by Missouri Clerks Following 2020 Election

Two Missouri clerks reported they were contacted by the Trump Department of Justice recently. The DOJ is seeking access to election machines used by the clerks in the 2020 election.

The two county clerks were contacted in recent weeks by Andrew McCoy “Mac” Warner, a Trump DOJ official.

According to far left Missouri reporter Jason Hancock at NPR the two clerks were identified as Jasper County Clerk Charlie Davis and McDonald County Clerk Jessica Cole.

Jasper County is a rural southwestern county in Missouri on the border with Kansas. It’s largest city is Joplin, Missouri. And the county seat is in Carthage, Missouri. This is a VERY red area in the Show Me state that went for Trump in 2020 72% to 26% to Joe Biden.

McDonald County is located in the southwest corner of southern Missouri. The county seat of this rural county is Pineville. McDonald County voted for President Trump 82.3 percent to 15.9 percent for Joe Biden.

President Trump won the former bellwether state by 15.4 percentage points in 2020 – it was too big to steal.

The Trump DOJ reportedly wants access to the voting machines in these two counties to physically inspect and possibly take into custody.

Charlie Davis told Jason Hancock that he was also contacted by Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft about the machines.

Davis said he replaced the machines after the 2020 election.

Keep reading

Trump calls Epstein files ‘irrelevant’ as Massie petition picks up steam

President Donald Trump on Wednesday cast the Jeffrey Epstein controversy as “irrelevant” amid an effort on Capitol Hill to force a vote to release all files related to the deceased sex offender.

“This is a Democrat hoax that never ends,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office when asked about the push for more transparency in the Epstein matter.

“From what I understand, I could check, but from what I understand, thousands of pages of documents have been given,” the president said. “But it’s really a Democrat hoax because they’re trying to get people to talk about something that’s totally irrelevant to the success that we’ve had as a nation since I’ve been president.”

The comments came as a group of survivors joined House members in a push to compel the Justice Department to release records so far withheld from Congress.

ABC News Capitol Hill Correspondent Jay O’Brien asked the victims for their reaction to Trump’s characterization that it is a “hoax.”

Keep reading

Department of War?

Last week President Trump took steps to re-name the Department of Defense the “Department of War.” The President explained his rationale for the name change: “It used to be called the Department of War and it had a stronger sound. We want defense, but we want offense too… As Department of War we won everything… and I think we… have to go back to that.”

At first it sounds like a terrible idea. A “Department of War” may well make war more likely – the “stronger sound” may embolden the US government to take us into even more wars. There would no longer be any need for the pretext that we take the nation to war to defend this country and its interests – and only as a last resort.

As Clinton Administration official Madeleine Albright famously asked of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell when she was pushing for US war in the Balkans, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

So yes, that is a real danger. But at the same time, the US has been at war nearly constantly since the end of World War II, so it’s not like the “Defense Department” has been in any way a defensive department.

With that in mind, returning the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is how it started, may not be such a bad idea after all – as long as we can be honest about the rest of the terms around our warmaking.

If we return to a “War Department,” then we should also return to the Constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the US requires a Congressional declaration of war. That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.

Dropping the notion that we have a “Defense Department” would free us from the charade that our massive military spending budget was anything but a war budget. No more “defense appropriations” bills in Congress. Let’s call them “war appropriations” bills. Let the American people understand what so much of their hard-earned money is being taken to support. It’s not “defense.” It’s “war.” And none of it has benefited the American people.

Keep reading

The Case for an Interim Agreement With North Korea

Striking a nuclear deal with North Korea is the most courageous foreign policy project left unfinished from President Donald Trump’s first term. The arc from war scare and “fire and fury” to détente and “love letters” stretched over three years until its engagement phase was derailed by the failed Hanoi summit and the onset of Covid-19. Six years on, statements by the White House and the Kim regime indicate a willingness to return to talks. That is welcome, because progress toward establishing a stable U.S.–DPRK relationship remains in the interests of both sides, even accounting for the dramatic improvement in the North’s international position since 2021. 

The South Korean president Lee Jae Myung’s visit to Washington last week would have been a good opportunity for the White House to begin to adopt a new approach. Frontloading heavy demands on denuclearization foreclosed progress on other worthy issues in 2018–2019. To make headway in 2025, the U.S. must shift from “denuclearization first” to “regular engagement first,” and accept that complete denuclearization is a long-run aspiration. Trump should pitch the North on an interim deal that couples three public unilateral U.S. concessions with a private offer of sanctions relief calibrated to verifiable limits on the North’s fissile material production.

Kim Jong Un’s reciprocation is never guaranteed, but it is in America’s interests to broaden his horizons beyond fighting Russia’s war against Ukraine, international cybercrime, and untrammeled development of nuclear missiles that can strike the United States.

The 2019 Hanoi summit, the last substantive high-level U.S.–DPRK meeting, was meant to implement the four aspirations of the 2018 Singapore Joint Statement: establishing a new U.S.–DPRK relationship, building a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, working toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and repatriating the remains of American soldiers who died in the Korean War. Pending a leader-level accord on denuclearization, both sides were reportedly ready to make unprecedented progress on the other three goals by signing agreements declaring a symbolic end to the Korean War, establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals, facilitating economic investment, and repatriating remains of more U.S. soldiers.

But talks on denuclearization quickly collapsed. Trump walked away from a DPRK offer to dismantle at least part of its Yongbyon plutonium and enriched uranium facility and formally halt nuclear and missile testing in exchange for the lifting of all post-2016 UN sanctions on its civilian economy. The U.S. position began with a demand for the North to freeze and dismantle all its nuclear production facilities—not only Yongbyon—in a definite period in exchange for relief from the UN sanctions. At some point the U.S. side reportedly increased its demand to include total relinquishment of North Korea’s nuclear program, including all facilities and all weapons. This “Libya model” offer bore the imprint of John Bolton, Trump’s then-National Security Advisor, and was probably designed to sabotage the talks, since Kim certainly knew of Muammar Gaddafi’s grisly death less than a decade after he relinquished his nuclear program.

Trump and Kim both gambled that the magic of a leader-level summit would allow them to achieve sweeping goals. Each devalued pre-summit talks that could have produced a more incremental, more achievable deal. Kim refused to even authorize his working level diplomats to discuss denuclearization. And the White House went ahead with the summit knowing a viable deal was not on the table. 

What is unclear from the public record is the extent to which either side, facing maximalist requests, toned down their own position to try bridge the gap. That incremental approach, which tends to de-emphasize the goal of complete denuclearization, is the best path forward.

North Korea’s willingness and capacity to harm U.S. interests is now greater than ever. Its arsenal of warheads has reportedly grown from 15 to 50 since 2016 and it is estimated to have sufficient fissile material for 40 more. It continues to test and refine ICBM designs that can strike the continental U.S., including solid-fueled models that can be dispersed and launched at short notice. North Korea’s geopolitical ambit has also spread to Europe. It has sold Russia billions of dollars’ worth of ammunition to support its war effort in Ukraine. In June 2024 Russia and North Korea signed a mutual defense treaty, and 15,000 North Korean soldiers were sent to fight in Russia’s Kursk region. In return, Russia has granted the country access to advanced missile and reconnaissance technologies. At the same time, Russia and China have relaxed their enforcement of the post-2016 UN sanctions, reducing pressure on the North’s civilian economy.

Keep reading

Trump’s Attack On The Federal Reserve Reminds Us Why The Fed Shouldn’t Exist At All

President Trump’s relentless attacks on the independence of the Federal Reserve help remind us why the Constitution established a totally different monetary system than the one under which we have all been born and raised.

The reason that the Federal Reserve — or central bank — was established as an independent federal agency was because it’s a very bad idea to have a president deciding monetary policy. That’s because presidents inevitably want to use the monetary system to benefit themselves politically, which ordinarily means expanding the money supply to create an artificial sense of economic prosperity, which then enables a president to exclaim, “Do you see how beneficial my tariffs and other economic policies are?” Then, when prices of things start rising in response to the expanded quantity of devalued money in the system, a president can easily blame the rising prices on such things as greed, profiteering, Big Oil, and so forth, with hardly anyone realizing that the president’s monetary policies are the reason for the price rises.

By making the Fed independent of presidential control, the idea is that the people at the Fed would manage the money supply in a responsible, non-political way. Of course, this is pure nonsense. Throughout the long history of the Federal Reserve, there have been instances where Federal Reserve officials have responded and reacted to political events, oftentimes with the intent to benefit one political party over another.

But the most important thing to understand about America’s central bank is that it is based on the socialist principle of central planning, which, as Ludwig von Mises pointed out, produces “planned chaos.” That’s what we have had during the entire existence of the Federal Reserve — planned monetary chaos. That’s because no one, no matter how smart, can centrally manage something as complex as money, especially in a very complex market economy like that of the United States.

Thus, the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 was a bad idea from the very start. While the ostensible purpose was to have a governmental entity that would stabilize money and the banking system, the result has been the exact opposite.

The Framers established a totally different monetary system — one that had no central bank as well as no paper money. Our American ancestors knew that if they established a paper-money system, the president or the central bank would end up printing vast quantities of paper money to finance their schemes and their wars. They knew that the inflation of the money supply would end up going on forever. The government would be able to plunder and loot the citizenry through monetary debasement — i.e., the indirect tax of inflation.

So, the Constitution established a monetary system based on the official money being gold coins and silver coins rather than paper money. The federal government was only given the power to coin money, not print money. Moreover, the states were expressly prohibited from making anything but gold coins and silver coins legal tender or official money.

In this way, presidents would not be able to play political games to benefit themselves by printing up more money because gold and silver cannot be printed. While the Constitution authorized the federal government to borrow money by issuing debt instruments such as bills, notes, and bonds, everyone understood that these debt instruments were not money but instead promises to pay money, with the money being gold coins or silver coins.

That monetary system, which lasted for more than 100 years, was one of the important factors (along with no income taxation, welfare state, Social Security, Medicare and economic regulations and minimal immigration controls) that contributed to the extraordinarily high level of economic prosperity in the late 1800s. In fact, people were actually using their savings to invest in 100-year bonds issued by corporations because they knew they would retain their value since they were payable in gold coins.

It all came to an end with President Franklin Roosevelt’s extraordinary “emergency” decree in 1933 that effectively amended the Constitution by ending America’s gold-coin/silver-coin monetary system in favor of a monetary system based on irredeemable paper money. Combined with the Federal Reserve, which had been launched in 1913, FDR’s paper money system put America on the road to planned monetary chaos, including booms and busts, ever-expanding quantities of money, and constant debasement of paper money.

Keep reading

Trump Orders U.S. Military Strike on Drug Boat, Killing 11 Tren de Aragua Terrorists in Warning to Traffickers

On direct orders from President Donald Trump, U.S. military forces launched a precision strike on a drug-laden vessel in international waters, killing 11 Tren de Aragua narcoterrorists en route to the United States. Trump declared the operation a clear warning to traffickers that those who smuggle poison toward American shores will face swift and lethal consequences.

“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,” President Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States.

The president included a video showing an aerial view of the panga boat. At the 20-second mark in the video, the boat explodes and bursts into flames. The boat quickly sank.

The commander-in-chief added, “The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action. No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE! Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!!!!!!!!!”

Breitbart News contacted the Pentagon for additional information regarding what type of munitions and delivery platforms were utilized in the attack. A senior U.S. Defense official responded, saying, “As the President announced today, we can confirm the U.S. military conducted a precision strike against a drug vessel operated by a designated narco-terrorist organization. More information will be made available at a later time.”

The White House reposted the president’s Truth Social comments, adding, “Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!”

Keep reading

‘Trump Zone’ Would See Southern Lebanon Occupied, Depopulated

The more information we get about the “Trump economic zone” proposal in southern Lebanon, the worse it seems for the people who live there. The latest reports reveal the plan to totally depopulate the south of the country, to place the whole area under US military control, and to grant Israel to right to build “permanent” bases in what are currently Lebanese towns and villages.

The plan first appeared a little over a week ago, with the US presenting it as their proposal while Israel maintains they came up with the idea. The broad strokes are that it is meant to replace border villages with Lebanese government-run industrial zones.

But the plan would involve no less than 27 villages being depopulated, spanning the Israel-Lebanon border from Naqoura to Marjayoun. Among those, Israel is demanding it be granted permission to construct permanent military sites within 14 of the former villages.

Keep reading