Venezuela

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares166 Views

      in US Politics

      US admiral to retire amid military strikes in Caribbean and tensions with Venezuela

      by

      Amid escalating tensions with Venezuela and US military strikes on suspected drug smugglers in the Caribbean, the US admiral who commands military forces in Latin America will step down at the end of this year, defense secretary Pete Hegseth announced on social media.The admiral, Alvin Holsey, just took over the US military’s southern command late last year for a position that normally lasts three years.A source told Reuters that there had been tension between him and Hegseth as well as questions about whether he would be fired in the days leading up to the announcement.The New York Times reports that an unnamed US official said that Holsey “had raised concerns about the mission and the attacks on the alleged drug boats”.Hegseth, in his social media post, did not disclose the reason for Holsey’s plan “to retire at year’s end”.The post noted that Holsey began his career “through the NROTC program at Morehouse College in 1988”. Morehouse is a private, historically Black college in Atlanta.In February, Donald Trump abruptly fired the air force general CQ Brown Jr as chair of the joint chiefs of staff, sidelining a history-making Black fighter pilot and respected officer as part of a campaign to purge the military of leaders who support diversity and equity in the ranks.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn 2021, Holsey recorded a public service announcement urging Black Americans to get the Covid-19 vaccine. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump confirms that he authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela

      by

      Donald Trump confirmed reports on Wednesday that he authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela, marking a sharp escalation in US efforts to pressure President Nicolás Maduro’s regime.The New York Times first reported the classified directive, citing US officials familiar with the decision.The US president said he authorized the action for two main reasons.First, he claimed Venezuela had been releasing large numbers of prisoners, including individuals from mental health facilities, into the United States, often crossing the border due to what he described as an open border policy. Trump did not specify which border they were crossing.The second reason, he said, was the large amount of drugs entering the US from Venezuela, much of it trafficked by sea.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I think Venezuela is feeling heat,” Trump added, but declined to answer when asked if the CIA had the authority to execute Maduro. More

    • 200 Shares165 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says six were killed in US strike on another boat allegedly carrying drugs near Venezuela

      by

      Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that the United States has struck another small boat that he accuses of carrying drugs in waters off the coast of Venezuela, killing six people aboard.“The strike was conducted in International Waters, and six male narcoterrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the strike,” Trump said in a statement on his Truth Social social media platform. “No U.S. Forces were harmed.”Trump wrote that “intelligence confirmed the vessel was trafficking narcotics” and said that it was “associated with illicit narcoterrorist networks” but did not provide any evidence. Trump said that defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, ordered the strike on Tuesday morning and also shared video footage of the strike, as he has with prior strikes.This marks the fifth deadly US strike in the Caribbean, according to the Associated Press since the beginning of September, and comes just weeks after Trump administration officials said that the US is now in a “non international armed conflict” with drug cartels.An internal Trump administration memo obtained by the New York Times earlier this month reportedly stated that Trump has deemed cartels engaged in drug smuggling as “non-state armed groups” whose actions “constitute an armed attack against the United States”.The US has defendedthe boat strikes as countering “narco-terrorist” members of Tren de Aragua, which has been designated a foreign terrorist organization. The White House has argued that military action is a necessary escalation to disrupt the flow of drugs into the US.However, some lawmakers and human rights groups have questioned the legality of the attacks. In September, experts at the United Nations condemned the US strikes on small boats it believes to be trafficking drugs as extrajudicial executions.“International law does not allow governments to simply murder alleged drug traffickers,” the experts said. “Criminal activities should be disrupted, investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rule of law, including through international cooperation.”Last week, Colombian president Gustavo Petro said that there were “indications” that one of the recently targeted boats was Colombian “and had Colombians onboard”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe White House quickly pushed back against Petro’s claims, demanding that he retract his statement, which the White House described as “baseless and reprehensible”.Also last week, an attempt in the US Senate to prevent further US strikes on alleged drug-carrying boats off the coast of Venezuela without congressional approval failed, after nearly all Republicans and Democratic Senator John Fetterman voted against the measure. More

    • 150 Shares128 Views

      in US Politics

      Senate Republicans vote against check on Trump using deadly force against cartels

      by

      Senate Republicans voted down legislation Wednesday that would have put a check on Donald Trump’s ability to use deadly military force against drug cartels after Democrats tried to counter the administration’s extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers to destroy vessels in the Caribbean.The vote fell mostly along party lines, 48-51, with two Republicans, Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski, voting in favor and the Democrat John Fetterman voting against.It was the first vote in Congress on Trump’s military campaign, which according to the White House has so far destroyed four vessels, killed at least 21 people and stopped narcotics from reaching the US. The war powers resolution would have required the president to seek authorization from Congress before further military strikes on the cartels.The Trump administration has asserted that drug traffickers are armed combatants threatening the United States, creating justification to use military force. But that assertion has been met with some unease on Capitol Hill.Some Republicans are asking the White House for more clarification on its legal justification and specifics on how the strikes are conducted, while Democrats insist they are violations of US and international law. It’s a clash that could redefine how the world’s most powerful military uses lethal force and set the tone for future global conflict.The White House had indicated Trump would veto the legislation, and even though the Senate vote failed, it gave lawmakers an opportunity to go on the record with their objections to Trump’s declaration that the US is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels.“It sends a message when a significant number of legislators say: ‘Hey, this is a bad idea,’” said the senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who pushed the resolution alongside Adam Schiff, a Democrat of California.Wednesday’s vote was brought under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was intended to reassert congressional power over the declaration of war.“Congress must not allow the executive branch to become judge, jury and executioner,” Paul, a Kentucky Republican who has long pushed for greater congressional oversight of war powers, said during a floor speech.Paul was the only Republican to publicly speak in favor of the resolution before the vote, but a number of Republican senators have questioned the strikes on vessels and said they are not receiving enough information from the administration.The senator Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, acknowledged “there may be some concern” in the Republican conference about the strikes. However, Republican leaders stridently argued against the resolution on the Senate floor Wednesday, calling it a political ploy from Democrats.“People were attacking our country by bringing in poisonous substances to deposit into our country that would have killed Americans,” said the senator Jim Risch, the chair of the Senate foreign relations committee. “Fortunately most of those drugs are now at the bottom of the ocean.”Risch thanked Trump for his actions and added that he hoped the military strikes would continue.Members of the Senate armed services committee received a classified briefing last week on the strikes, and Cramer said he was “comfortable with at least the plausibility of their legal argument”. But, he added, no one representing intelligence agencies or the military command structure for Central and South America was present for the briefing.“I’d be more comfortable defending the administration if they shared the information,” he said.Kaine also said the briefing did not include any information on why the military chose to destroy the vessels rather than interdict them or get into the specifics of how the military was so confident the vessels were carrying drugs.“Maybe they were engaged in human trafficking, or maybe it was the wrong ship,” Schiff said. “We just have little or no information about who was onboard these ships or what intelligence was used or what the rationale was and how certain we could be that everyone on that ship deserved to die.”The Democrats also said the administration has told them it is adding cartels to a list of organizations deemed “narco-terrorists” that are targets for military strikes, but it has not shown the lawmakers a complete list.“The slow erosion of congressional oversight is not an abstract debate about process,” the senator Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate armed services committee, said in a floor speech. “It is a real and present threat to our democracy.”The secretary of state Marco Rubio visited the Republican conference for lunch Wednesday to emphasize to senators that they should vote against the legislation. He told the senators that the administration was treating cartels like governmental entities because they had seized control of large portions of some Caribbean nations, according to the senator John Hoeven of North Dakota.Rubio told reporters at the Capitol: “These drug-trafficking organizations are a direct threat to the safety and security of the United States to unleash violence and criminality on our streets, fueled by the drugs and the drug profits that they make. … And the president, as the commander in chief, has an obligation to keep our country safe.”Still, Democrats said the recent buildup of US maritime forces in the Caribbean was a sign of shifting US priorities and tactics that could have grave repercussions. They worried that further military strikes could set off a conflict with Venezuela and argued that Congress should be actively deliberating whenever American troops are sent to war.Schiff said, “This is the kind of thing that leads a country, unexpectedly and unintentionally, into war.” More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Venezuela on edge over Trump regime change whispers: ‘If it does happen we are ready’

      by

      The mayor of Caracas had come to one of her city’s busiest tube stations wearing a camouflage T-shirt declaring herself a card-carrying combatant – and with a message to match.“They think they’re the owners of the world,” Carmen Meléndez complained of the Trump administration and its pressure campaign against Venezuela’s government. “But if they dare [to invade] we’ll be waiting for them here.”Meléndez said she hoped a US invasion was not on the horizon, even though they had shown themselves to be “a bunch of crazies, who are capable of anything”. “But if it does happen we are ready,” she added, “and we will use all of the weapons we have to defend the homeland.”Mayor Meléndez was at La Rinconada station to supervise an early morning drill: a practice response to fictitious cyberattack on the Caracas underground that had brought its trains to a halt.The rehearse evacuation, ordered by President Nicolás Maduro as part of a nationwide “civil protection and preparation of the people” exercise, came as Donald Trump turned the heat up on Venezuela’s leader to levels rarely seen before.Since early August, when Trump signed a secret directive authorizing military action against Latin America drug cartels, the US president has labelled Maduro a “narco-terrorist” fugitive and advertised a $50m reward for his arrest; deployed marines and warships off Venezuela’s Caribbean coast; and ordered at least four deadly strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats which have killed at least 21.Last week Trump again upped the ante, declaring a “non-international armed conflict” against drug cartels whose members were now considered “unlawful combatants”.View image in fullscreenWashington has justified its strikes as part of a crackdown on Venezuelan narco-traffickers who the US accuses of flooding its streets with drugs, supposedly at Maduro’s behest. “They’re the enemies of all humanity,” Trump told the UN last month, vowing to blow such “terrorist thugs … out of existence”.But many observers suspect Trump’s counter-narcotics crusade is really a pretext to depose Maduro, either by sparking an internal rebellion against Hugo Chávez’s authoritarian heir or perhaps through direct military intervention within Venezuela itself.Speaking to the New York Times last month, Venezuela’s vice-president, Delcy Rodríguez, said she was convinced one of Trump’s “strategic objectives” was “what they call ‘regime change’”. “We will never handover our homeland!” Rodríguez vowed as she announced that Maduro would declare a state of emergency in the event of a US attack.Rodríguez and Meléndez are not the only Maduro allies talking tough in the face of US pressure. One recent evening, the interior minister Diosdado Cabello, appeared on television clutching a heavily annotated copy of a book about the “military thinking” of the Vietnamese revolutionary, Ho Chi Minh. The message was clear: any attempt to topple Maduro’s regime would suck US troops into a bloody quagmire such as the one that unfolded in Southeast Asia in the 60s and 70s, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and nearly 60,000 American soldiers.Phil Gunson, a Caracas-based analyst for Crisis Group, doubted Trump had immediate plans to target Fort Tiuna, the military base where Maduro is thought to live.But Gunson did think Trump’s bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities in June had left Venezuela’s leaders genuinely alarmed. In a recent letter to Trump, Maduro tried to defuse the situation, writing: “I respectfully invite you, President, to promote peace through constructive dialogue and mutual understanding throughout the hemisphere.”View image in fullscreen“What Trump did to Iran was a wake up call to the people in government here,” said Gunson. “A lot of analysts thought that wasn’t going to happen … But they did it – and the Iranians had no response. And I think that that was quite sobering for the Chavistas.”The idea of a US intervention is music to the ears of some of Maduro’s political foes, who are desperate to end his 12-year rule during which Venezuela’s economy and democracy have crumbled and millions have fled abroad.In a recent interview, the prominent conservative politician María Corina Machado – whose ally, Edmundo González, is widely believed to have beaten Maduro in last year’s election – hailed Trump’s “visionary” stance. “I totally support his strategy … I’m in favour of the US dismantling this criminal structure,” Machado, who is in hiding in Venezuela, told the Sunday Times.The exiled opposition leader Leopoldo López has said their movement supports “any scenario that helps us transition to democracy”.Robert Evan Ellis, a Latin America specialist who advised the state department on Venezuela policy during Trump’s first administration, saw a “50-50” chance of the opposition’s wish coming true.Trump’s failure to unseat Maduro with a “maximum pressure” campaign during his first term, made it more likely the US president would try to finish the job now, Evan Ellis said. “I think there’s … a certain determination not to essentially feel that he loses this time around as well – so I think that creates incentive,” he said.After the Caribbean boat strikes, Evan Ellis anticipated a “graduated escalation” of US pressure – perhaps air strikes against “narco-planes” or “narco-leaders” on Venezuelan soil: “You don’t just unnecessarily jump from blowing up a couple of ships to pulling the trigger on a major air-land campaign.”View image in fullscreenBut Evan Ellis did not rule out a large-scale “multi-pronged attack”, involving F-35 fighter jets destroying Venezuela’s aerial defences before troops “grab[bed] Maduro wherever he is, based on probably good insider intelligence” and took him to the US. On Thursday, Venezuela’s defence minister, Vladimir Padrino López, said five US “combat aircraft” had been detected flying off his country’s coast.Four days later, on Monday, another key Maduro ally, the national assembly president, Jorge Rodríguez, announced that he had informed US and European authorities of plans for an alleged “false flag operation” attack on the US embassy in Caracas. Rodríguez claimed right-wing extremists had been plotting to target the building with “lethal explosives”.The prospect of a US intervention fills many Venezuelans – even those opposed to Maduro – with dread. “If there’s a war, what will we do?” said Naide González, 58, a cleaner from 23 de Enero, a working class community in Caracas long considered a stronghold of Chavismo.In a recent Guardian interview, Juan González, the White House’s top Latin America official under Joe Biden, called Trump’s military buildup “political theatre” designed to convince Maga voters that he was taking a hard line on drugs and migrants coming from South America. But González feared that if Maduro was deposed, the US could stumble into a protracted guerrilla war, involving a variety of armed groups including government-linked paramilitaries, criminal organizations and Colombian rebels from the National Liberation Army (ELN).“The conditions are ripe here for some kind of protracted low-intensity conflict, if the US gets it wrong – which they may well,” Gunson warned. “This country is absolutely packed from end to end with armed groups of various kinds, none of whom has any incentive to just surrender or stop doing what they’re doing.”David Smilde, a Tulane University Venezuela specialist, said neoconservative Trump officials and hard-line members of Venezuela’s opposition seemed convinced by the “absolutely absurd” idea that Maduro was “hanging on by threads” and that regime change could be achieved “with just a few limited strikes”.“This is the mentality that thought that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a house of cards and Iraq would be a cakewalk once you got rid of Saddam Hussein or took Baghdad,” Smilde added.At La Rinconada, government supporters vowed to resist any foreign intervention as commuters streamed out of the underground into a sunny Caracas morning.Amelia Contreras, a 68-year-old seamstress who is part of Maduro’s Bolivarian militia volunteer group, said she had been receiving first aid and firearms training in preparation for a possible attack. In the event of an incursion, Contreras had been tasked with defending Caracas’s electricity pylons. “We don’t want anyone coming along and interfering here – we won’t allow it,” she said.Kristian Laborín, a 48-year-old member of Maduro’s socialist party, had spent the last three Saturdays undergoing military training but still hoped the US would recoil. “President Trump, there’s still time for us to continue building friendly ties between our peoples,” Laborín said.But if the US president insisted on attacking, Laborín’s comrades would have no choice but to fight back. Parroting a government propaganda line, he said: “You’d be talking about a Hundred Years’ War!” More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      US struck another boat illegally carrying drugs off Venezuela coast, Trump says

      by

      US forces on Saturday evening struck another vessel illegally carrying drugs off the coast of Venezuela, Donald Trump said on Sunday to thousands of sailors at a ceremony celebrating the US navy’s 250th anniversary. He added that the US would also start looking at drug trafficking happening on land.Trump made the comment during a speech at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, next to the Harry S Truman aircraft carrier. It was not immediately clear if he was referencing a strike announced on Friday by defense secretary Pete Hegseth.During his speech, Trump said the navy had supported the mission “to blow the cartel terrorists the hell out of the water. There are no boats in the water anymore. You can’t find them.”The navy has also been utilized to join an armed conflict with drug cartels, leading to four strikes in the Caribbean on what the administration says are fast-boats engaged in drug trafficking.Trump added that if drug smugglers were not coming in by sea, “we’ll have to start looking about the land because they’ll be forced to go by land. And let me tell you that’s not going to work out out well for them either.”The United Nations has condemned the US strikes – which the US defends as countering “narco-terrorist” members of Tren de Aragua, designated a foreign terrorist organization, in international waters – as extrajudicial executions.“International law does not allow governments to simply murder alleged drug traffickers,” the UN said last month. “Criminal activities should be disrupted, investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rule of law, including through international cooperation.”The navy celebrations come amid a shutdown of the federal government that has left some military personnel working without pay. Trump has accused Democrats of enabling the shutdown and attempting “to destroy this wonderful celebration of the US Navy’s Birthday”.“I believe, ‘THE SHOW MUST GO ON!’” Trump posted on Friday night on his social media site. “This will be the largest Celebration in the History of the Navy. Thousands of our brave Active Duty Servicemembers and Military Families will be in attendance, and I look forward to this special day with all of them.”Trump has pledged to rebuild the navy’s shipbuilding capacity after warnings that the service is in danger of losing its status as the world’s dominant naval power.The US fleet is at its smallest size since before the second world war, while state-subsidized Chinese shipyards have surpassed the productivity of US shipyards.Navy secretary John Phelan, who was confirmed in March, has identified “urgency” as a missing element in naval shipbuilding and ordered an accelerated production schedule for the Columbia- and Virginia-class submarine programs.The navy celebrations come after months of turmoil at the Pentagon as Hegseth rearranges the military’s top leadership of the army, navy, air force and coast guard.In a controversial speech to military leaders last week, Hegseth declared an end to “woke” culture and announced new directives that include “gender-neutral” or “male-level” standards for physical fitness.Hegseth said: “The only mission of the newly restored Department of War is this: warfighting, preparing for war and preparing to win, unrelenting and uncompromising in that pursuit not because we want war, no one here wants war, but it’s because we love peace.”At the meeting, Trump proposed using US cities as training grounds for the armed forces and he spoke of needing military might to combat what he called the “invasion from within”. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The US government is facing a crisis of legitimacy | Daniel Mendiola

      by

      Between anti-immigrant zeal and a general disdain for any rules whatsoever, the Trump administration has shredded the constitutional order that makes government legitimate.This is now a legitimacy crisis.There are different philosophical approaches to government legitimacy, but in the United States, the most straightforward explanation is the social contract. Often associated with Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau and extremely influential with US founders, the social contract refers to the idea that the government requires the consent of the governed to be legitimate.Crucially, in exchange for this consent, the government accepts certain limits on what it can do. In other words, the government also has to follow the rules.The US has suffered crises of legitimacy before. Arguably, the 1964 Civil Rights Act emerged from just such a crisis. At a base level, the act conceded that to be legitimate, the government needed to actually recognize the rights of all its citizens – not just those of a certain race. It didn’t fix everything, but it was an important step in creating a stronger social contract for the next generation.The Trump administration, however, has reversed course on civil rights, abandoned limited government and eviscerated the social contract beyond recognition. From defying courts, to attacking judges, to capriciously revoking legal immigration statuses, to executing suspected drug smugglers, there is no shortage of examples.One example that deserves a lot more attention than it is currently receiving, however, is the horror story of Trump’s collaboration with a megaprison in El Salvador.To summarize, in March, the Trump administration forcibly sent more than 250 people, mostly Venezuelans accused of having ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, to El Salvador to be detained in a paid arrangement with Salvadorian president Nayib Bukele. Investigative reporting quickly confirmed that the entire operation – ostensibly to target dangerous criminals – was based on lies: only a small percentage of the targets had any criminal record at all, accusations of gang affiliations came from spurious evidence, and many of the detainees had followed the rules to enter the country legally.Nonetheless, instead of enjoying the rights guaranteed by US law, they suddenly faced imprisonment and alleged torture. Lower courts tried to halt the flights, but the Trump administration acted anyway.All of this would be horrifying enough as an isolated incident, but the legal saga surrounding the case has further disturbing implications. At first, the administration justified its actions through a controversial 18th-century law allowing the government to expel “alien enemies” in times of war – even though the country was not at war, and these were not “alien enemies”.However, the administration soon switched to a different argument that might be described like this: it doesn’t matter how many laws we broke – as long as the victims end up in a prison in a foreign country, US courts have no power to stop us. Also, we may do the same to US citizens.When the Trump administration first made these claims, news agencies covered them with much alarm. However, commentators since have avoided stating an uncomfortable truth: the administration was right. Apparently, it didn’t matter how many laws they broke. No one stopped them, nor have they faced any consequences.Significantly, the supreme court has played a critical role in this legitimacy crisis, not only by giving the Trump administration an unprecedented series of wins – often employing mind-boggling logic and blatant distortions of plain text – but also gutting the mechanisms that courts have to stop the executive branch when it gets caught doing illegal things.Here the battle over injunctions is revealing. In normal times, if the government gets caught doing something illegal, then judges have the power to issue an injunction to make the government actors in question stop. Government officials may appeal to a higher court, but in the meantime, the injunction prevents them from continuing to do harm while the case plays out.Now, think about a reality where injunctions don’t exist. If courts can’t issue an injunction to stop the government from doing illegal things, then no matter how blatantly the government is violating people’s rights, it can keep doing it unimpeded so long as the case stays tied up in appeals – a process that often takes years. In this scenario, law exists in theory, but there are virtually no limits to what the government can do in practice.This is shockingly close to the reality that the supreme court has now created. By rushing to overturn injunctions with no regard to who is being harmed, as well as creating seemingly arbitrary technicalities to prevent future injunctions, the message from the supreme court is clear: It doesn’t matter how many laws they broke. Now that Trump is in office, courts are simply not supposed to stop executive officials from putting Trump’s agenda into practice, regardless of how unlawful those practices might be.The extreme inability of our government to police itself becomes even clearer when it is placed alongside Brazil – the second-largest democracy in the Americas – where the former president Jair Bolsonaro was recently convicted for an attempted coup: after losing re-election in 2022, Bolsonaro tried a variety of tactics to stay in power, including inciting his followers to swarm government buildings to physically stop the peaceful transfer of power. If that sounds familiar, that’s because it was, indeed, strikingly similar to what Trump did in the January 6 riots after losing the 2020 election.Now, consider the difference in how our respective constitutional systems handled this. In the US, the supreme court not only blocked any potential trial for Trump’s role in the highly visible attempt to overthrow the government; it also took the opportunity to give him sweeping immunity for just about anything else. According to the logic of the majority decision, it doesn’t matter how many laws he broke. Being president is hard, and it is even harder if he has to worry about getting in trouble for breaking the law. So he should just have a virtual license to commit crimes. That way, he can take “vigorous, decisive” action.The Brazilian supreme court took a strikingly different approach. Apparently, it does matter how many laws Bolsonaro broke. Prosecutors presented strong evidence that he broke the law, so the supreme court decided that he should be prosecuted.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTellingly, this infuriated the Trump administration, which heaped criticism and sanctions on Brazilian judges in response. Brazilian courts refused to back down, however, and the trial ultimately resulted in a conviction.After watching this play out, I can’t help but wonder: what would it look like if my country had the courage to hold a lawless executive accountable?Here I want to be clear that in posing this question, I am calling for peaceful action. People will have to decide for themselves what this peaceful action looks like, though there is strength in numbers, and I think those numbers exist. As I have written previously, the nationwide protests against capricious and unlawful immigration raids are a testament to how many people are already fed up, and looking for ways to remind the government that it owes us rights.I also don’t think that questioning the government’s legitimacy right now is radical, partisan or even unpatriotic. In fact, nothing I am saying here contradicts what I was taught about legitimate government in my fifth grade social studies class at a conservative, patriotic public school in rural Texas. It is simply our civic duty to call out the government when it strays from the social contract.What’s giving me hope nowIn the classic Latin American protest anthem Me Gustan los Estudiantes, the celebrated Chilean composer Violeta Parra lauds the indomitable spirit of students. “Long live the students!” the song declares. They are the “garden of our joy” because they fearlessly defend truth, even when those in power try to force them to accept lies.Students give me hope as well.Overwhelmingly, the students that I have worked with over the years have shown themselves to be insightful thinkers with an unyielding dedication to truth, empathy, and solidarity. This is hopeful for many reasons, not the least of which being that this seems to terrify the people in power. Indeed, the same architects of our legitimacy crisis are also waging an aggressive campaign to squash campus protests, restrict institutional autonomy, and generally abolish academic freedom. Clearly, academic institutions have the potential to serve as a counterweight to government abuses. Otherwise, why would a lawless government be trying so hard to suppress us?Sadly, too many university leaders are now sacrificing academic legitimacy by caving to government pressure. The situation is bleak on this front as well, yet the battle is far from over.Our best hope: we need to be as fearless as our students.

      Daniel Mendiola is a professor of Latin American history and migration studies at Vassar College More