Pete Hegseth

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares23 Views

    Mark Kelly: call for troops to disobey illegal orders is ‘non-controversial’

    by

    Senator Mark Kelly said it was “non-controversial” for him and other congressional Democrats to implore military personnel to disobey “illegal orders” from the Trump administration – hitting back at accusations of “serious allegations of misconduct” leveled against him by the Pentagon.“I said something that was pretty simple and non-controversial – and that was that members of the military should follow the law,” the Arizona Democrat senator, a former US navy officer and astronaut who flew on four separate space shuttle missions between 2001 and 2011, told MS Now on Monday night.Kelly then alluded to how the president went on social media to say Kelly and the others had engaged in “seditious behavior, punishable by death” – while also republishing another user’s post containing the phrase “hang them”.“And in response to that, Donald Trump said I should be executed, I should be hanged, I should be prosecuted,” Kelly said to political talkshow host Rachel Maddow.He added: “If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work. I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the constitution.”Kelly’s remarks came after the Pentagon announced it was launching an investigation into the senator after Trump protested that Kelly and the other five Democratic lawmakers “should be in jail right now” for releasing a video advising service members that “threats to our constitution” are coming “from right here at home”. The video also said military members can “refuse illegal orders”.On Tuesday, Fox News reported that the FBI had contacted US Capitol police in Washington DC to schedule interviews with the six Democrats in question.The Pentagon warned that it could recall Kelly to active duty to be court-martialed and cited a federal law that bans military retirees against interfering “with the loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces”.In a statement of his own, the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, argued that the video at the center of the controversy was “despicable, reckless, and false”.“Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline,’” Hegseth said.Trump weighed in with his own point of view, calling the senators’ statement “seditious behaviour at the highest level” and for an example to be set. “Their words cannot be allowed to stand – We won’t have a Country anymore!!! punishable by DEATH!”Active military members in the US – whose oath is to the constitution rather than the president – can face execution for the crime of sedition. Civilians, meanwhile, can be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years if found to have engaged in seditious conspiracy.Meanwhile, the US Manual for Courts-Martial states that military requirements to obey orders do not apply “to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime” – while also prohibiting “contemptuous speech”.The dispute between the Trump administration and Kelly – whose wife, Gabrielle Giffords, narrowly survived an attempted assassination in 2011 while she was meeting her congressional constituents – comes amid claims from Democrats that the Pentagon has issued illegal orders. Democrats allege that the purported illegal orders include sending military personnel to the seal the US-Mexico border and in carrying out deadly strikes on so-called fast boats in the Pacific and the Caribbean that the administration claims were carrying illegal narcotics.Elizabeth Beaumont of Middle Tennessee State University’s Free Speech Center told the Associated Press that US military regulations “have been used to restrict political expression as well as other activities”.The dispute also hits a nerve on the use of “sedition” after Trump supporters were accused of precisely that by carrying out a deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 – when the first of his two non-consecutive presidential terms in ended in defeat to Joe Biden.Some of the mob members even called for the hanging of Mike Pence, Trump’s vice-president at the time, who oversaw a congressional session certifying Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.Trump then granted presidential clemency to more than 1,500 Capitol attackers shortly after his second term began in January.In his remarks on Monday to MS Now about Trump and the video, Kelly said “sending a mob to round me and the other folks up … says a lot more about him than it says about me. He doesn’t want accountability.”Retired air force officer and Nebraska Republican congressman Don Bacon offered some measure of calm to the political mud-slinging, calling the Democrats’ video “unnecessary and foolish” but also drawing attention to the Pentagon’s response with an insult over its formal Department of Defense name.“Amateur hour once again at the Department of Dense,” Bacon wrote on X.Bacon added that Kelly and his fellow Democrats in the video “said don’t follow illegal orders – that is the law by the way”.“Good luck prosecuting someone who is quoting the law,” Bacon continued. “The administration should have just pointed out how dumb it was. The threats looked dumber.” More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares20 Views

      in US Politics

      Pentagon investigating US senator over call for troops to refuse illegal orders

      by

      The Pentagon says it is investigating the Arizona senator Mark Kelly for possible breaches of military law after the federal lawmaker joined a handful of other Democrats in a video calling for US troops to refuse unlawful orders.It is extraordinary for the Pentagon to directly threaten a sitting member of Congress with investigation. Until Donald Trump’s second presidency, the institution in charge of the US military had usually strived to appear apolitical.In a statement on Monday on social media announcing the investigation into Kelly, a veteran, the Pentagon cited a federal law that allows retired service members to be recalled to active duty on orders of the defense secretary for possible court martial or other measures. Kelly served in the US navy as a fighter pilot before going on to become an astronaut. He retired at the rank of captain.The Pentagon’s statement suggested that Kelly’s statements in the video interfered with the “loyalty, morale, or good order and discipline of the armed forces” by citing the federal law that prohibits such actions.“A thorough review of these allegations has been initiated to determine further actions, which may include recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures,” the statement said.In the video that was posted last Tuesday, Kelly was one of six lawmakers who served in the military or intelligence community to speak “directly to members of the military”.Kelly told troops “you can refuse illegal orders” – and other lawmakers said that they needed troops to “stand up for our laws … our constitution.”A statement on Monday from Pete Hegseth, Trump’s defense secretary, said Kelly was the only video participant who remained subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).“The video … was despicable, reckless and false,” said the statement from Hegseth, whose defense department has rebranded itself the war department. “Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline’.“Kelly’s conduct brings discredit upon the armed forces and will be addressed appropriately.”A statement issued by Kelly said he learned of the investigation into him when the Pentagon posted about it on social media.“If this is meant to intimidate me and other members of Congress from doing our jobs and holding this administration accountable, it won’t work,” Kelly’s statement said. “I’ve given too much to this country to be silenced by bullies who care more about their own power than protecting the constitution.”Kelly’s statement alluded to having experienced combat during his military career as well as having served as an astronaut for the US space agency, Nasa.“I had a missile blow up next to my jet and flew through anti-aircraft fire to drop bombs on enemy targets,” his statement said. “At Nasa, I launched on a rocket, commanded the space shuttle, and was part of the recovery mission that brought home the bodies of my astronaut classmates who died” during the 2003 Columbia space shuttle explosion.“I did all of this in service to this country that I love and has given me so much.”The US Manual for Courts-Martial states that the military requirement to obey orders “does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime”.Nonetheless, Trump reacted furiously to the video in question, writing on his Truth Social platform that Kelly and the others had engaged in “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH”. The president also reposted another Truth Social user who wrote, in part, “HANG THEM”.Active military members in the US – whose oath is to the constitution rather than the president – can indeed face execution for the crime of sedition. Civilians, meanwhile, can be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years if found to have engaged in seditious conspiracy.Generally, Republican allies of Trump have supported his response while his philosophical opponents have condemned it.Kelly has since said Trump’s accusation of sedition made him fearful of his family’s safety, especially after his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, narrowly survived an attempted assassination while she was in Congress and meeting constituents in 2011.“This kind of language is dangerous, and it’s wrong,” Kelly said on Friday on MS NOW’s Morning Joe, when he also alluded to a number of instances of deadly political violence across the US in recent months.On Sunday’s edition of Face the Nation, Kelly added: “We’ve heard very little, basically crickets, from Republicans in the United States Congress about what the president has said about hanging members of Congress.” More

    • 175 Shares92 Views

      in US Politics

      Plastic surgeons wrestle with requests for ‘Mar-a-Lago face’: ‘You’re going to look like Maleficent’

      by

      Picture a plastic surgeon’s office. You might imagine a sleek Los Angeles practice, with discreet entrances meant to conceal celebrities from the paparazzi. Maybe a Dallas high-rise, where monied housewives spend on postpartum “mommy makeovers”. Or a Miami location, where influencers and OnlyFans stars film TikToks of their BBLs. One city you might not think of is Washington DC. But its buttoned-up reputation belies a newly buzzing industry.Much has been made of the so-called “Mar-a-Lago face”, or the uncannily smooth and artificially voluminous features seen on the likes of Maga elite such as Kristi Noem, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Laura Loomer and Matt Gaetz. The bee-sting puffy lips, frozen brows and taut necks have been compared to Real Housewives stars, sleep paralysis demons and – ironically, considering the Republican party’s anti-LGBTQ+ culture war – drag queens (minus the campy fun).As of January, plastic surgeons in Washington DC have seen a “surge in ‘Mar-a-Lago face’ requests from Trump insiders”, Axios recently reported. Surgeons told the outlet that more Washingtonians want their procedures to be not unnoticed but obvious and overdone.Axios attributed the aesthetic shift to the influx of transplants from south Florida (where Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s gaudy private club, is located), who are no strangers to nip-tuck tune-ups. Others theorize that going through these procedures is a calculated act of political deference to Trump’s preferred (and unnatural) beauty standards.Dr Anita Kulkarni is a plastic surgeon who practices out of DC’s West End neighborhood and specializes in postpartum body contouring. Enter her office, and you will be greeted by staff who look good, but not worked on – and that is the effect most of her clients have gone for. “Before this second Trump term, I just didn’t see a lot of patients coming in making unreasonable requests,” Kulkarni says. But since the inauguration, she has fielded half a dozen or more – not a large sample size, but enough for the surgeon to take note.She says nobody comes in asking for Mar-a-Lago face by name; the most obvious clue is when a patient with visible lip filler comes in wanting more. “I have to say: ‘I cannot put any more in there safely.’” Or they will want more cheek or jawline filler. “‘To my eye, if I put any more in there, you’re going to cross over from looking like the best version of yourself to looking like Maleficent.’ I have to say no in a way that I have never seen before.” And still patients will try to talk their way into more. But placing fresh filler over an existing layer too soon can cause lumpiness, and Kulkarni does not want to risk being known for that look.“My aesthetic doesn’t necessarily have to be your aesthetic for me to give you what you want,” she says. “But when you go outside the range of what a normal human face should look like, that’s not a place I’m willing to go.”More still might shrug their shoulders and say Mar-a-Lago face is part of society’s wider embrace of body contouring. Kris Jenner’s ageless, 70th-birthday facelift may look less garish than Laura Loomer’s balloonish attributes, but both are just as fake. It comes at a time when the American Society of Plastic Surgeons reports there were more than 28.5m minimally invasive procedures done in 2024; lip augmentation, dermal fillers and neuromodulator treatments (such as Botox) cracked the top five.Dr Troy Pittman, a plastic surgeon based in DC, says that across the country, people are more willing to talk about the work they have had done. “That’s not a bad thing,” he sys. “But in a town like DC, there is this glamming up of Washington with this new administration, so it’s become more prevalent. They’re OK with looking enhanced.”Dr Kelly Bolden is also a DC-based plastic surgeon. Most of her clients are people of color – she is the medical director of Cultura Dermatology, a practice that specializes in cosmetic treatments for deeper skin tones – and she is not seeing a boom in Mar-a-Lago face requests. But she has noticed a shift, especially among her younger clients in their 20s and 30s.View image in fullscreen“They come in and actually tell me that they like the artificial look. A couple of my patients have said those exact words to me,” Bolden says. Some of the most visible Trump officials are young, such as press secretary Karoline Leavitt and her deputy Anna Kelly (both 28, and the latter is a former pageant queen), and they’re always camera-ready. “I think most of [Trump’s] administration is on the younger side compared to traditional ones, so that’s probably a little bit of where the trend comes from.”Those who want a Mar-a-Lago face have to be able to handle needles: Bolden says it is most often achieved via shots and injectables underneath the skin. “It’s overdone filler and Botox that gives them that mask-face type of appearance.”This is not a look Bolden is known for. Sometimes, she outright denies these requests. Or she will compromise. “Usually I’ll look at them and say: ‘Let’s balance you out, let’s make it more even.’ It’s almost like just as long as they get a little bit more, it will satisfy them,” she says.After the Duchess of Sussex announced her engagement to Prince Harry in 2017, Pittman said women would bring photos of Meghan to appointments and ask for her nose. “That’s a trap,” Pittman says. “We’re not trying to make people look like clones of each other.” He would similarly talk down someone who brought in a picture of Ivanka or Melania Trump. “Whenever people come in asking for a branded look, that can lead to either very unrealistic expectations or artificial results.”Other plastic surgeons advertise Mar-a-Lago face. A practice out of Boca Raton, Florida – less than an hour away from Mar-a-Lago – calls it a procedure that “doesn’t scream surgery. Instead, it whispers refinement.” Dr Shervin Naderi, based in the DC area, described the look as “a modern aristocratic mask” in his practice’s blog.When does a patient know it’s time to ease up on the procedures? Bolden says it’s common not to; the industry term is perception blindness. “The first time someone gets filler, the majority of the time, it looks good,” she said. “Then people get used to it, and they see a wrinkle come back or some sagging, and they’re like, ‘I need more.’ They’re chasing after something without realizing it. A little bit more, a little bit more, and you can’t really see the evolution.”The aesthetics of politics have long been an uneasy topic, especially as it relates to women. Nicole Russell, a columnist at USA Today, called jokes about Mar-a-Lago face “cruel attacks” on conservative women. To others, the face has come to symbolize an allegiance to Trump and his policies. See Noem wearing full glam to an ICE raid, beach waves tumbling over her bulletproof vest. Or Leavitt at the press podium, insisting Trump’s name in Jeffrey Epstein’s emails means nothing, as she purses overlined pink lips to match her shimmery eye shadow.Men are not spared the political aesthetic shift either. Ninety-two per cent of surgeons report treating male patients, with facelifts and sculpted jawlines being top picks. Pittman told Axios his male patients want to look “younger … more virile and masculine” like Pete Hegseth, via Botox, liposuction and eyelid rejuvenation. A fitting counter to Maga’s leading women.But, just like trends, administrations ebb and flow. Mar-a-Lago face won’t last forever – literally. “Nothing in plastic surgery is permanent,” Bolden says. “Filler goes away. Most people will say you get a good eight to 10 years out of a facelift. Everything has a lifespan.” More

    • 163 Shares85 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is turning the US military into a political prop | Jan-Werner Müller

      by

      Of all the reasons Americans have been losing sleep recently – hunger, canceled flights, Democrats betraying them – the most ominous has to do with an institution usually absent from discussions about the fate of our democracy: the military. No need to be starry-eyed about US imperialism and what has long been criticized as an ever-expanding “national security state”; one can still appreciate that it is a good thing if generals do not take sides in politics – just ask anyone from the many countries around the world where they do. But a pattern is becoming clear: Donald Trump is purging the higher ranks based on his prejudices and demands for loyalty; the military is being turned into a partisan instrument and a political prop; more dangerous still, the president is instilling the logic of impunity that has come to characterize his entire approach to governance.Figures deemed too close to Trump critics, such as Gen Mark Milley, have seen promotions delayed or canceled; those targeted by far-right influencers might face professional backlash. Trump used Maga-fied soldiers as background to a Fort Bragg speech, violating longstanding norms against instrumentalizing state institutions for partisan purposes. Every violation becomes a test of who will be loyal: critics – the potentially disloyal – will identify themselves.With every illegal order, such as attacking boats in the Caribbean, he manages to have those who carry them out compromise themselves morally and potentially render themselves liable for criminal prosecution, thereby generating an incentive for members of the military to make sure Trumpists stay in power. At the same time, prominent pardons – most recently of those trying to steal the 2020 election – establish the promise of impunity. As plenty of observers have pointed out, under Trump, law will protect the Maga faithful but will not bind them; those declared the president’s enemies will be bound by the law, but not be protected by it. It is not an accident that Pete Hegseth’s first 15 minutes of fame consisted of passionate pleas on Fox to let those accused of war crimes go unpunished.Hegseth has carried the primacy of the performative from TV into the Pentagon. Just think of his self-branding through dress and over-the-top speeches littered with alliterations – suggesting that words drive thinking, as opposed to thinking leading to choosing the right words (most prominently, there is “lethality” having to replace “legality”). The great 18th-century writer and feminist Mary Wollstonecraft drew a surprising parallel between stereotypes about women and a certain type of soldier in standing (and largely underemployed) armies. She observed that soldiers might acquire manners before morals: “Like the fair sex, the business of their life is gallantry. They were taught to please, and they only live to please.”The point is not that Hegseth’s ideal soldiers are effeminate; rather, it is that the song and dance about a “warrior ethos” is pure made-for-TV-affectation, as if hand-to-hand combat were the essence of 21st-century warfare. Central Command becomes subject to the logic of “central casting” (Trump’s own words when looking at the officers Hegseth assembled in Virginia in September). The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz’s memorable dictum that war is the continuation of politics by other means is replaced with something like “war is the continuation of fitness and fashion by other means” (as Hegseth made it a priority to remove personnel deemed fat).Yet sending soldiers into Democratic cities should not be dismissed as purely performative. It serves to normalize the image of soldiers on the street; it blurs the distinction between military and civilian life, and, as the Israeli scholar Avishay Ben Sasson-Gordis has argued, it sends a message that citizens can be treated as enemies. In the process, it is also becoming increasingly unclear which uniformed personnel belong to which unit and who is really authorized to do what, since the Pentagon and homeland security are explicitly encouraged to be in “lockstep” as part of a shared “homeland mission”. Trump is merging everyone into something the political scientist Dan Moynihan terms the “omniforce”, the kind of omnipresent army, combined with what James Madison called an “overgrown executive”, which the American founders rightly dreaded.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe effect is twofold: impunity is made more likely, since those who cannot be identified will not be held accountable, and the omniforce will feel like Trump’s personal creation and loyal guard (as one investigation revealed, at least six of Trump’s political appointees now live in military housing). The image of Trump as padrone was reinforced by his trying to grab funds appropriated by Congress for other purposes in order to pay soldiers during the shutdown – not to speak of having a pro-regime oligarch fund the military with private wealth. Other aspiring autocrats have made similar moves, though at a much smaller scale: Viktor Orbán has instituted a special counter-terror unit, headed by his former bodyguard and aide, that is widely seen as primarily loyal to the Hungarian prime minister.Many remember the great democratization wave of the 1970s and 1980s, forgetting how easily things might have turned out differently. We are often oblivious to how critical the role of the military was in transitions to democracy. Not only because juntas were willing to relinquish power but also because individuals made the right moral choice. Augusto Pinochet, after losing a plebiscite in 1988, had been ready to declare an emergency and keep himself in power by force. One general, Fernando Matthei, rejected the plan and told journalists that Pinochet had lost the plebiscite. The US is not Chile, but the question of what those in uniform will do in pivotal moments for democracy is, alas, becoming more relevant by the day.

      Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University More

    • 200 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      US strikes another alleged drug boat bringing death toll from campaign in Latin America to 70

      by

      US forces struck another alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean, killing three people, defense secretary Pete Hegseth has said, bringing the death toll from the Trump administration’s controversial campaign to at least 70.The US began carrying out such strikes – which some experts say amount to extrajudicial killings even if they target known traffickers – in early September, taking aim at vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.The US strikes have destroyed at least 18 vessels so far – 17 boats and a semi-submersible – but Washington has yet to make public any concrete evidence that its targets were smuggling narcotics or posed a threat to the United States.Hegseth released footage on X of the latest strike, which he said took place in international waters like the previous strikes and targeted “a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization.”No US forces were harmed in the operation, he said.“To all narco-terrorists who threaten our homeland: if you want to stay alive, stop trafficking drugs. If you keep trafficking deadly drugs – we will kill you,” he wrote.Like some previous videos released by the US government, a section of the boat is obfuscated for unspecified reasons.President Donald Trump’s administration has built up significant forces in Latin America, in what it says is its campaign to stamp out drug trafficking.So far it has deployed six Navy ships in the Caribbean, sent F-35 stealth warplanes to Puerto Rico, and ordered the USS Gerald R Ford carrier strike group to the region.On Thursday, the US Senate blocked a Democratic war powers resolution that would have forced Donald Trump to seek congressional approval to launch strikes in Venezuela, allowing the president to remain unchecked in his ability to expand his military campaign against the country.The administration has developed a range of options for military action in Venezuela, according to two people familiar with the matter, and Trump’s aides have asked the justice department for additional guidance that could provide a legal basis to strike targets other than boats.The governments and families of those killed in the US strikes on alleged drug boats have said many of the dead were civilians – primarily fishers.Venezuela’s president Nicolas Maduro has repeatedly accused Trump of seeking to oust him.US bombers have also conducted shows of force near Venezuela, flying over the Caribbean Sea off the country’s coast on at least four occasions since mid-October.Maduro – who has been indicted on drug charges in the United States – insists there is no drug cultivation in his country, which he says is used as a trafficking route for Colombian cocaine against its will.The Trump administration has said in a notice to Congress that the United States is engaged in “armed conflict” with Latin American drug cartels, describing them as terrorist groups as part of its justification for the strikes.With Agence France-Presse More

    • 163 Shares190 Views

      in US Politics

      Three killed in US military strike on alleged drug vessel in the Caribbean

      by

      The US military has carried out another lethal strike on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean Sea, US defense secretary Pete Hegseth said.Hegseth said on Saturday the vessel was operated by a US-designated terrorist organization but did not name which group was targeted. He said three people were killed in the strike.It’s at least the 15th such strike carried out by the US military in the Caribbean or eastern Pacific since early September.In a posting on X, Hegseth said the vessel “was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics.”The US military has now killed at least 64 people in the strikes.Trump has justified the attacks as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States. He has asserted the US is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, relying on the same legal authority used by the Bush administration when it declared a war on terrorism after the 11 September 2001 attacks.US lawmakers have been repeatedly rebuffed by the White House in their demand that the administration release more information about the legal justification for the strikes as well as greater details about which cartels have been targeted and the individuals killed.Hegseth said in the posting that “narco-terrorists are bringing drugs to our shores to poison Americans at home” and the Defense Department “will treat them EXACTLY how we treated Al-Qaeda.”Senate Democrats renewed their request for more information about the strikes in a letter on Friday to secretary of state Marco Rubio, director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Hegseth.“We also request that you provide all legal opinions related to these strikes and a list of the groups or other entities the President has deemed targetable,” the senators wrote.Among those signing the letter were senate minority leader Chuck Schumer as well as senators Jack Reed, Jeanne Shaheen, Mark Warner, Chris Coons, Patty Murray and Brian Schatz.The letter says that thus far the administration “has selectively shared what has at times been contradictory information” with some members, “while excluding others”.Earlier Friday, the Republican chair and ranking Democrat on the senate armed services committee released a pair of letters sent to Hegseth written in late September and early October requesting the department’s legal rationale for the strikes and the list of drug cartels that the Trump administration has designated as terrorist organizations in its justification for the use of military force. More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      US military kills 14 in attacks on vessels in the Pacific, according to Hegseth

      by

      The US military killed 14 people and left one survivor in more strikes on alleged drug-trafficking boats in the eastern Pacific, the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, said on Monday, as the Trump administration continued to expand its campaign beyond the Caribbean.The latest strikes mean the US has now attacked at least 13 vessels and brought the officially acknowledged death toll to 51 people since the campaign began at the start of September.Hegseth did not provide geographic details beyond saying that the strikes took place in the eastern Pacific, in international waters. Last week, the administration started targeting boats on the western side of the Americas after initially focusing on boats off the coast of Venezuela.The four boats were hit on Sunday in three strikes, Hegseth said in a social media post announcing the matter. His said the boats were “known by our intelligence apparatus, transiting along known narco-trafficking routes, and carrying narcotics”. He also acknowledged there was a survivor.In perhaps an effort to avoid the legally thorny questions that could come with detaining that person, Hegseth said the US enlisted Mexico to take on search-and-rescue responsibilities – which Mexico accepted.Hegseth sought to justify the attacks by comparing the US strikes against alleged drug traffickers to conducting strikes on al-Qaida targets during the global “war on terror”.“The Department has spent over TWO DECADES defending other homelands. Now, we’re defending our own. These narco-terrorists have killed more Americans than Al-Qaeda, and they will be treated the same. We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them,” Hegseth said.Even so, the justification for the strikes has been widely disputed by legal experts. For one, when the US killed al-Qaida members, Congress had authorized the use of force. In targeting drug cartel members, the administration has relied on Trump’s Article II powers to defend the US against an imminent threat.Republican senator Rand Paul, who has been at odds with Trump in recent weeks, on Tuesday expressed criticism with the unilateral strikes and the prospect of a wider escalation with the Venezuelan government.“I am disturbed by the actions with blowing up boats, with people whom we don’t know their name, we’ve been presented with no evidence of a crime,” Paul told reporters. “We don’t even know if they’re armed, frankly, and that’s more indicative of a war. It may be a prelude to war, but I hope it’s not.”Still, the latest boat strikes come as the US appears destined to start hitting land-based targets in the coming weeks, after the Pentagon sent its most advanced aircraft carrier and its strike group to the Caribbean – a major escalation in the Trump administration’s stated war against drug cartels.The move is expected to bring the USS Gerald Ford, with its dozens of fighter jets and its accompanying destroyers, to the coast of Venezuela by roughly the end of the week, according to a person familiar with the matter.Sending the carrier strike group to the Caribbean is the clearest sign to date that the administration intends to dramatically expand the scope of its lethal military campaign from hitting small boats alleged to be carrying drugs bound for the US to targets on land.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe supercarrier has dozens of F-18 Super Hornet jets that increase the offensive firepower and ability for the US to hit air-defense systems in Venezuela. That would clear the way for US special operations or drones to destroy land-based targets, current and former officials said.Donald Trump confirmed to reporters at the White House on 23 October that the next stage of the campaign was to hit targets on the ground. “The land is going to be next,” the president said. “The land drugs are much more dangerous for them. It’s going to be much more dangerous. You’ll be seeing that soon.”Trump did not discuss which targets in which countries the US intended to strike. But he directed Hegseth, who was seated beside him at the White House event about curbing the flow of illegal drugs into the US, to notify Congress about the administration’s plans.Asked whether he would declare war against the cartels, Trump suggested he would continue with individual strikes. “I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK?” he said. “We’re going to kill them, you know? They’re going to be, like, dead.” More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Pentagon names new press corps from far-right outlets after reporter walkout

      by

      After the recent departure of Pentagon reporters due to their refusal to agree to a new set of restrictive policies, the defense department has announced a “next generation of the Pentagon press corps” featuring 60 journalists from far-right outlets, many of which have promoted conspiracy theories.Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell posted the news on X but did not provide any names.The Washington Post, however, obtained a draft of the announcement, which stated that the new reporters, who agreed to the department’s new policies, were from outlets such as Lindell TV, started by Trump ally Mike Lindell; the Gateway Pundit; the Post Millennial; Human Events; and the National Pulse.The list also includes Turning Point USA’s media brand Frontlines, influencer Tim Pool’s Timcast and a Substack-based newsletter called Washington Reporter, the Post reported.The Pentagon did not immediately respond to the Guardian’s request for the list of journalists.Parnell described the group as a “broad spectrum of new media outlets and independent journalists”.“New media outlets and independent journalists have created the formula to circumvent the lies of the mainstream media and get real news directly to the American people,” Parnell wrote. “Their reach and impact collectively are far more effective and balanced than the self-righteous media who chose to self-deport from the Pentagon.”The new press corps includes rightwing outlets that have promoted conspiracy theories. For example, the Gateway Pundit spread false information about the 2020 election and then settled a defamation lawsuit with two Georgia election workers it falsely accused of wrongdoing and admitted that there was no fraud in the election.Similarly, Lindell denied the results of the election and was ordered to pay $2.3m to an employee of a voting machine company who sued him for defamation.Pool, a conservative podcast host, was among the influencers who allegedly were associated with a US content creation company that was provided with nearly $10m from Russian state media employees to publish videos with messages in favor of Moscow’s interests and agenda.Pool said they were “deceived and are victims”.The journalists who turned in their press credentials earlier this month did so after the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, introduced a policy that required that they agree not to obtain unauthorized material and restricted access to certain areas unless accompanied by an official.Outlets including the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Atlantic, as well as reporters from rightwing outlets such as Fox News and Newsmax, all refused to sign on to the new rules.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“We believe the requirements are unnecessary and onerous and hope that the Pentagon will review the matter further,” Newsmax told Times journalist Erik Wemple.The Guardian also declined to sign the revised Pentagon press pass policy because it placed unacceptable restrictions on activities protected by the first amendment.During a White House press briefing, Pool, a member of the new Pentagon press corps, asked Karoline Leavitt to comment on the mainstream media and “their unprofessional behavior as well as elaborate [on] if there’s any plans to expand access to new companies?”In a segment on Wednesday on the rightwing television network Real America’s Voice, defense department spokesperson Kingsley Wilson thanked the show’s host, Jack Posobiec, for joining the press corps.Wilson misstated the policies that caused journalists to leave the Pentagon. She did not mention that it included a requirement that they not obtain unauthorized material.“They walked out because they refused to sign an agreement that was simple. It was common sense. It said, wear a visible press badge. Don’t go in classified spaces, stay in the correspondence corridor and follow the building’s rules,” Wilson said.“That was their right, but also their loss, because now we get to have incredible journalists like yourself who are going to be here in the Pentagon reporting on what the Department of War is doing every single day,” Wilson said. “It’s really the next generation of journalism at the Pentagon.” More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Ukraine peace talks: Europe must ensure Zelenskyy can resist Trump’s bullying | Editorial

      by

      It wasn’t quite the calamity of February, when Volodymyr Zelenskyy was publicly humiliated in the Oval Office by Donald Trump and his vice-president, JD Vance. But the Ukrainian president’s latest visit to the White House on Friday was, by all accounts, a disquieting experience. Mr Trump’s public musings before the meeting suggested that his stance had hardened towards Vladimir Putin, to the strategically significant extent of being willing to sell long-range Tomahawk missiles to Kyiv. But by the time Mr Zelenskyy arrived in Washington, the US president had changed his mind, instead lecturing his guest on the need to make territorial concessions to Russia.So far, so familiar. Since being re-elected, Mr Trump has repeatedly resiled from following up tough talk on Russia with meaningful action. Faux deadlines for Mr Putin to make substantive steps towards peace have come and gone, treated with indifference by the Kremlin. Last week, the US secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, stated that Washington was ready to “impose costs” if Russia continued the conflict. But a two-hour phone call at Mr Putin’s request was enough to defuse that threat, and for Mr Trump to once again position himself as a neutral arbitrator between two warring parties.The return of that insidious and amoral framing signifies a moment of diplomatic peril for Mr Zelenskyy. In language that is more suitable for describing a contested real-estate deal than an illegal invasion costing hundreds of thousands of lives, Mr Trump told Fox News that Mr Putin was “going to take something … he’s won certain property”. Should a planned meeting in Budapest take place between the US and Russian presidents – to be hosted by Hungary’s Putin-friendly leader, Viktor Orbán – discussion of a potential carve-up will dominate the agenda, as it did in the failed Alaska head-to-head.That prospect should concentrate minds ahead of a EU leaders’ summit later this week in Brussels. In the wake of the signing of the Gaza peace agreement – in relation to which Mr Putin was careful to offer fulsome congratulations – Mr Trump has taken to describing himself as “the mediator president”. In grimly paradoxical fashion, there is every possibility that he will try to bully Mr Zelenskyy into an unacceptable deal that rewards Russia’s aggression, in order to burnish his supposed credentials as a supreme peacemaker.It is critical that Europe provides Ukraine with the resources and staying power which allow it to resist such pressure. Progress is reportedly being made on proposals backed by the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, which would use frozen Russian assets to secure an interest-free £122bn loan to Kyiv. Such money, however it is sourced, will be fundamental to supporting Ukraine’s defence effort into next year. At a more symbolic level, there are also signs of a new determination to find ways to circumvent Mr Orbán’s opposition to advancing Ukraine’s bid for EU membership.As Mr Trump pursues his mercurial path, guided only by vanity, mercantilism and admiration for the exercise of brute force, EU leaders will need to be creative and determined in ensuring that Ukraine’s interests are adequately defended in the weeks and months to come. Mr Putin is playing the US president again, exploiting the absence of a moral compass in Washington. More than ever, a robust counterweight is required on the other side of the Atlantic. More