Smarting from the humiliation of a report published at The Atlantic about his time in office, FBI Director Kash Patel did what conservatives have done over and over in the age of Trump: He sued for defamation. 

The Atlantic’s story detailed allegations about Patel’s mismanagement of the office and FBI staffers’ concerns that his behavior has become borderline dangerous. According to the magazine’s reporting, staffers have observed that the director frequently drinks to the point of intoxication and has been unreachable behind closed doors multiple times, at one point necessitating agents breaking down a door. In his lawsuit, Patel said that the allegations are demonstrably false. 

Patel’s case — which names the publication and the writer as defendants and demands $250 million in damages — doesn’t appear very strong; it’s unlikely he’ll win in court. But a legal victory isn’t necessarily the goal. Such lawsuits apply financial pressure and ensure newsrooms think twice before publishing critical articles in the future.

Related

Blackwater Founder Erik Prince Sues The Intercept Over Russian Mercenary Report

For all the modern right-wing movement’s bleating about its commitment to free speech, in practice they’re anything but, with a demonstrated penchant for using the legal system as a cudgel against people who say things they don’t like. Known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP, they are a tool of the powerful — and have multiple levels of use.

Most immediately, SLAPP allows plaintiffs the potential to muzzle their critics, who will be less likely to launch attacks against someone who has already proven litigious. This applies not only to the defendant, whether it’s an individual or an institution, but also to others like them who will think twice rather than risk a protracted (and expensive) legal battle.

Typically, the more deep-pocketed someone, or their backers, are, the more they can bleed out defendants by dragging on court cases for as long as possible, racking up legal bills that will have to be paid. Most publishers and newsrooms have lawyers on retainer or in-house, but their legal insurance deductibles are still high, potentially running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars per case. 

Even if these anti-free speech crusaders don’t win a judgment, they have a good chance of draining their opponents’ bank accounts — and breaking their spirits. 

Federal action is is sorely needed to make sure the use of SLAPP doesn’t spiral further out of control. Many states, including New York and Minnesota, have anti-SLAPP laws on the books, but their application in federal courts remains unsettled. Patel filed his suit in D.C. federal court, where the appellate court says the anti-SLAAP statute does not apply. 

Universal application of these laws is needed so the powerful can’t turn to federal courts for meritless filings, and some lawmakers, like Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have introduced legislation to that end. So far, however, those bills have not made it to law. 

Patel is far from the only conservative figure to deploy the courts as a weapon against his critics, and this isn’t even his first shot at it; he has an ongoing 2019 lawsuit against Politico, for that outlet’s reporting on his time with the National Security Council during Donald Trump’s first term, and another defamation action, against former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi for comments on MS NOW, was dismissed on Tuesday.

Related

The Real Danger of ABC News Settling Its Lawsuit With Donald Trump

Trump’s manipulation of the legal system to punish detractors predates his time in politics, but it’s gone into overdrive since his first term. The president has filed multiple defamation suits against members of the media and their organizations, including $475 million against CNN in 2022 (which was dismissed in 2023); the Pulitzer Prize Board for an award he objected to in 2022 (ongoing); journalist Bob Woodward and his publisher Simon & Schuster in 2023 (dismissed); ABC News in 2024 (settled for $15 million); CBS parent Paramount in 2024 (settled for $16 million); the Wall Street Journal in 2025 (dismissed), the New York Times in 2025 for $15 billion (ongoing), the BBC in 2025 for $10 billion (ongoing); and others. To be clear, this is not an exhaustive list. 

Trump and Patel are two of the better known conservative figures attacking free speech via the courts, but it’s a mainstay tactic in MAGA world. Laura Loomer, an Islamophobic off-and-on ally of Trump, sued late-night personality Bill Maher over comments he made about her relationship with the president (the case was thrown out on Wednesday evening). In 2013, Trump sued Maher for breach of contract after the HBO pundit promised $5 million to charity if the then-real estate magnate could prove his mother was not an orangutan. (Trump withdrew the case.) 

Elon Musk, the tech billionaire with close ties to the White House, used his X social media platform to file a suit against Media Matters for America over its reporting on ad content running alongside antisemitic posts on the site. And David Sacks, another tech billionaire who worked as Trump’s crypto and AI czar, threatened the New York Times over its reporting on his conflicts of interest in a public legal letter last December. 

Closer to home, I’m currently being sued, along with my publisher, Hachette, for more than $1 million by conservative pundit Matt Taibbi over my book, “Owned: How Tech Billionaires on the Right Bought the Loudest Voices on the Left,” which delves into his ideological shift to the right. And the editor of this piece you’re reading now, Katherine Krueger, was sued for $100 million alongside her former employer Splinter by 2016 Trump spokesperson Jason Miller for a story about a court filing that alleged he drugged a woman with an abortion pill. Miller refuted the allegation, but that case was thrown out on summary judgment because it accurately reported what was in the court filing; mine is ongoing.

In some circumstances, as Trump found after he was elected to a second term in 2024, SLAPP lawsuits can succeed, irrespective of the strength or weakness of the claim. ABC News and Paramount settled with Trump in what are widely regarded as payoffs to a powerful figure who can control their corporate future. Corporations have made the calculation: Better to get on his good side than risk four years of retribution, and, after all, what’s a few million dollars compared to the benefits of having the world’s most powerful person looking kindly on you?

But for the right wing, SLAPP suits also serve to make an ideological point. Whether or not Patel expects to win a $250 million judgment, a central claim in his lawsuit is that his word is enough to shut down speech. 

Because he told The Atlantic the claims in their article weren’t true, they shouldn’t have published it, the complaint argues: “Defendants published the Article with actual malice, despite being expressly warned, hours before publication, that the central allegations were categorically false.” The objections of a powerful man should be enough to avoid bad press, this line of reasoning goes; publishing anything to the contrary is wrong. 

That’s the animating principle behind the right-wing’s relationship with the media. If they disagree with it or find it embarrassing, you shouldn’t publish it; if you disobey, you must be punished. 

It wasn’t until Trump — and decades of ideological capture of the courts — that there was the potential to regularly use the legal system as a weapon against critics. Until there are First Amendment protections against SLAPP, we can expect the powerful to continue dragging their detractors to court. 

The post Kash Patel Is Using MAGA’s Favorite Tool to Muzzle the Free Press appeared first on The Intercept.

For the first time in history, the Lebanese ambassador to the United States, Nada Moawad, and Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Yechiel Leiter, sat in the same room at the State Department in Washington, D.C., facing one another as two states ostensibly on equal ground, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other officials presiding over the talks. Lebanese and Israeli officials had been in the same room before, having held indirect negotiations in 2022 and direct talks last in 1993, but this was the first time that Israel and Lebanon’s flags were hung next to one another — a high-level public meeting of a kind never before attempted.

A 10-day ceasefire inside Lebanon was finally implemented on Friday, one previously agreed to during the Iran ceasefire talks in Pakistan and then almost instantaneously undermined by Israel. The United States, and the Israeli state to a certain extent, have portrayed this ceasefire as the result of this breakthrough, a direct negotiation with an enemy nation that, as Netanyahu said on Thursday, could lead to the “opportunity to forge a historic peace agreement” with Lebanon. 

Many Lebanese have been able to return to their home villages under the ceasefire, but this was also the case in 2024, which then was followed by the implementation of an Israeli military buffer zone that left much of the south even more in ruins than from the war itself. The danger of these negotiations lies not in the immediate short term, as the residents of Beirut’s southern suburbs and the south experience a reprieve from intensive bombardment, but in the long term, beyond the 10 days.

Related

Putting Fuel on a Ceasefire: Israel Tries to Kill U.S.–Iran Talks

Israel has now reaped the fruits of unilaterally declaring Lebanon outside of the Iranian ceasefire, against its previous agreements, and has now made permanently ending the war, as Iran has desired, a much more difficult prospect. Such a long-term cessation is now reliant on the ability of the Lebanese government to do what America and Israel demands, dismantling Hezbollah by any means necessary even if it means speeding headfirst into a civil war.

While Lebanese President Joseph Aoun hailed the ceasefire as evidence Lebanon is “no longer a card in anyone’s pocket,” Hezbollah members of Parliament, as well as Iranian officials, have told a different story. Even if Hezbollah “will cautiously adhere to the ceasefire,” the deal did not come about from these talks but instead from Iranian pressure to reach a ceasefire as a precondition to another round of negotiations between Tehran and Washington, now set for Monday, albeit looking increasingly fraught. Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf announced after the ceasefire that it was the result of the “resistance and steadfast struggle of the great Hezbollah and the unity of the Axis of Resistance.” Hezbollah MP Ibrahim Moussawi was more blunt, telling Drop Site News that this was the “same ceasefire agreement” reached in Islamabad days ago, only now stamped with Israel’s belated co-sign.

While Hezbollah had significant leverage to force a ceasefire on its behalf — with Iran’s threats to return to war with missiles already reportedly on the launchpad if Lebanon was not included in the deal — it is unclear what leverage the Lebanese government had to negotiate a ceasefire on its own. Throughout the previous ceasefire and into this war, Israel argued Lebanon’s government was incapable of disarming Hezbollah, with Israeli government-aligned newspapers deriding the state’s inability to even expel the Iranian ambassador after Lebanon’s foreign minister ordered him out in March. Israel’s Foreign Ministry routinely criticized the Lebanese government for being “all talk and no action” on disarming Hezbollah, and Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz threatened that the Lebanese state itself would pay a “very heavy price” by way of Israel destroying “Lebanese national infrastructure” and the “loss of territory” to Israeli occupation.

After Israel’s military launched “Operation Eternal Darkness” on April 8, killing more than 300 Lebanese civilians and bringing war to places in Beirut that had not been attacked since the 1980s, Lebanon’s Prime Minister Nawaf Salam came out and insisted that “no one but the Lebanese state can negotiate on behalf of Lebanon.” Aoun further said Lebanon could not accept negotiations on its behalf by anyone else, and that this was a “sovereign matter” above all else, even amid ongoing Iranian military pressure to bring Lebanon into the ceasefire. Israel, whose diplomats refused to speak with the Lebanese government in early March on the basis that Lebanon was not “credible,” and whose U.N. ambassador said “dialogue with the Lebanese government cannot stop the fire from Lebanese territory,” suddenly decided to focus all its efforts on arranging unprecedented negotiations.

Lebanon’s ambassador claimed after talks concluded that she had raised the ceasefire with the other representatives (Axios confirmed the prospect was brought up “informally”), but neither the Israeli nor the American officials stated the talks were to achieve a ceasefire. The prospect was in fact “peace,” a long-term settlement between the two nations, or as Leiter, Israel’s ambassador, put it, to affirm “we are on the same side, we and the Lebanese” and that Lebanon would “no longer be occupied by Hezbollah.”

Leiter has made the issue of peace with Lebanon one of his top priorities since being appointed in early 2025, saying in an interview with PragerU last May that he was “upbeat” about Lebanon, as well as Syria, potentially joining the Abraham Accords, perhaps even before Saudi Arabia. He also told reporters this week that he had spoken with Lebanese officials about a future in which one could cross the border in a “swimsuit to vacation on the beaches of both countries.” Beyond these liberal platitudes, Leiter himself has had a significant past — one deeply intertwined with Israeli expansionist politics that he now strenuously denies applies to Lebanon.

The first West Bank settler to be selected as ambassador to the United States, Leiter was an early member of the Jewish Defense League, an organization the FBI later described as a right-wing terrorist group and led by Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose members committed mass shootings of Palestinians, plotted to bomb American mosques, and attempted assassinations of U.S. politicians. Leiter was then a member of Kach, Kahane’s political party, which was later banned as a terrorist organization inside Israel itself. During this period, Kahane advocated for a wide-scale deportation of Arabs from Israeli-occupied areas as well as from Israel itself, and labeled southern Lebanon as part of Israel’s “minimal” borders. Leiter left the party in the 1980s, claiming Kahanism came from “a weakness of character,” but made these criticisms in his capacity as a leader of the Hebron settlement movement in the occupied West Bank, attempting to paint those who advocated peace with the Palestinians as just as misguided. 

As ambassador to the United States, Leiter told the Lebanese news outlet This is Beirut in late 2025 that Israel and Lebanon “have a history,” recalled the disastrous economic conditions in Israeli-occupation southern Lebanon with a smile, and said southern Lebanese used to line up in early in the morning at the border every day to seek economic opportunities in northern Israel. “We’d be more than happy to see that again,” Leiter said.

While the Israeli government has constantly demanded the Lebanese Army do more to disarm Hezbollah and impose Lebanese sovereignty over the country’s south, Leiter has made no indications that Israel would accept any military build-up, even by Lebanon, at the border with Israel, saying in a visit to occupied Syrian territory last November alongside Netanyahu and Katz that Israel could no longer tolerate “foreign armies” on its border. Leiter has also warned certain other Lebanese allies, such as France, should stay “far away” from these negotiations, and said, “they are not a positive influence, particularly not in Lebanon.” France had previously advocated for direct talks between the Lebanese government and Israel but had also condemned Operation Eternal Darkness and called for the Iranian ceasefire to apply to Lebanon as well.

Related

Israel Will Keep Occupying Lebanon Despite Ceasefire

While the Israeli negotiating team has been explicit that the talks were intended to get the Lebanese government to ally with their country against Hezbollah, there was another goal at work, one not reflected by the photo ops: to legitimize the indefinite occupation and depopulation of southern Lebanon. 

In an interview on Israeli TV about Israel engaging in negotiations with Lebanon, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich asserted that “no one will disarm Hezbollah for us” and said a peace agreement between the two countries would serve to “greatly legitimize” Israel’s position. He also said he would push for the Israel Defense Forces to remain up until the Litani River, which Smotrich last month described as the location where Israel’s “new border” must be. 

Israel’s Channel 14, which is considered close to the right-wing Israeli government, has also reported that Israeli diplomats had been promoting a “Yellow Line” plan of their own for Lebanon modeled on Gaza’s as part of a long-term settlement. Under such a plan, Israel would dismantle “Hezbollah infrastructure” up to the Litani, only giving the Lebanese Army control after they had completed destroying it in one particular area, and with no timetable to hand back control to the Lebanese Army the area behind the Yellow Line, 7–8 kilometers from the area. Israel’s Defense Ministry has justified the complete razing of villages in southern Lebanon by saying that the homes themselves count as Hezbollah infrastructure.

Netanyahu has since affirmed the existence of a “Yellow Line” in Lebanon post-ceasefire, and in the ceasefire text, there is also no mention of any withdrawal for Israeli troops — only that the ceasefire’s extension relies on “Lebanon effectively demonstrat[ing] its ability to assert its sovereignty.” Israel, for its part, “shall preserve its right to take all necessary measures in self-defense, at any time, against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks” and that such actions would not violate the agreement.

The groundwork is being rapidly laid for further and further demands on the Lebanese state — more disagreements, more violations — and potentially binding the future of the Lebanese state with an Israeli one that seeks to impose the depopulation of wide swathes of its territory, and considers its Shia population as its enemy. In response to criticism that he was being deceived by the Lebanese government, Smotrich replied that amid peace negotiations, Israel was still acting to annihilate towns and cities where tens of thousands lived: “We are erasing Khiam, and we are erasing Bint Jbeil.” Amid all of this outpouring of peace, those supposedly advocating for it are in the same government as those advocating Lebanon’s destruction.

The post How the Lebanon Ceasefire Could Make It Harder to End the War on Iran appeared first on The Intercept.

President Donald Trump recently threatened genocide as political leverage on social media, which begs the question whether there are even more extreme conversations happening in private in the Oval Office, or if anyone in Trump’s orbit is cautioning him against this immoral threat of mass violence.

Access to these discussions is critical not only for accountability, but also for future administrations who want to re-engage in rational diplomacy. That’s why the Department of Justice’s recent opinion that grants Trump, and every president who follows him, a license to steal American history is so dangerous.

In a sweeping new memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel, the DOJ claims the Presidential Records Act is unconstitutional. The department’s edict, which is already facing legal challenges, argues that a president’s records are private, rather than public, property. This is an extreme reinterpretation of executive power that seeks to undo nearly 50 years of transparency.

Related

The Secrets Presidents Keep in Their Garages and Luxury Resorts

The PRA was signed into law after the abuses of the Watergate era and established that the records of every president since Ronald Reagan are public property and must be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA, at the end of a president’s term. 

This law is the reason the public has insight into the inner workings of everything from President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and the George W. Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina to records on the nomination of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and other Supreme Court nominees.

That’s because the PRA states that, starting five years after the end of a presidential administration, those records become subject to public release under the Freedom of Information Act. 

This history-killer memo attempts to undo this route for public access to presidential records and build a brick wall where there once was a window into the highest office in the land.

By declaring the PRA unconstitutional, the Justice Department is effectively claiming that the presidency has private ownership over the American story.

The timing of this memo adds insult to injury. Just days before its release, Trump’s son Eric unveiled renderings of a “Trump Presidential Library” skyscraper in Miami, which appears to be designed primarily to solicit private investment for the president’s personal foundation. News outlets parroted this branding, even though there’s no indication the Trump foundation will work with NARA to build a proper library. So while there may be a building where the public can go to gaze at a gold statue of Trump, it’s not clear there will be a physical place for journalists and others to file declassification requests and research his administration.

It’s no surprise that a president who spent his first term repeatedly violating the PRA now wants to eviscerate it. But the danger to our democracy cannot be overstated: The president’s decisions are the most consequential in government, and the PRA is the only reason we have a front-row seat to them, even belatedly.

At Freedom of the Press Foundation, we know what is at stake. We have filed more than a dozen FOIA requests for key records from the first Trump term that are currently held at the digital Trump Presidential Library run by NARA (not to be confused with whatever monstrosity is being built in Florida). These include:

• A copy of the Senate’s 2014 report on the CIA’s torture program, which the Trump administration helped keep secret in 2017.
• Records concerning election integrity, voter fraud, the certification of the Electoral College, and the events of January 6, 2021.
• Documents about the violent clearing of protesters from Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 2020.
• Communications documenting Trump’s reaction to the 2019 and 2021 impeachment proceedings.
• Memorandums of conversation with foreign leaders, including Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, as well as written correspondence, such as Trump’s “love letters” with the North Korean leader.

If the DOJ succeeds in claiming presidential records are private, these chapters of our history could vanish, and Trump will be able to do whatever he wishes with these records — whether that’s storing them in his bathroom or selling them to the “highest bidder.”

This isn’t just a Trump problem; it is a bipartisan emergency. If the Justice Department’s memo stands, it won’t just be this administration’s secrets that are locked away — it will allow every future president, Democrat or Republican, to operate with total impunity.

We cannot let the presidency be transformed into a black box. Democrats and Republicans must work together, in Congress and in the courts, to ensure that no president has free rein to hide their own corruption or claim that American history belongs to them alone. Because if we lose the right to know what the president has done in our name, we lose the ability to call ourselves a democracy.

The post DOJ Wants to Scrap Watergate-Era Rule That Makes Presidential Records Public appeared first on The Intercept.

Neither Josh Hartnett nor Ewan McGregor was there, but the way the mainstream media is telling it, they might as well have been. The Sunday morning rescue of a U.S. airman shot down over Iran launched a thousand breathless tick-tock retellings from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CBS News, and many, many more — helpful water-carrying for an administration prosecuting a deeply unpopular war without a clear end in sight.

“The rescue had unfolded with near‑perfect precision. Under cover of darkness, U.S. commandos slipped deep into Iran, undetected, scaled a 7,000‑foot ridge and pulled a ​stranded American weapons specialist to safety, moving him toward a secret rendezvous point before dawn on Sunday,” Reuters’ report on the rescue opens. “Then everything stopped.”

The operation was a “harrowing race against time,” according to the Times. As Politico put it, citing an anonymous senior administration official, it was “the ultimate ‘needle in a haystack’” mission, made possible by a CIA “deception campaign” in the country disseminating the misinformation that the airman had already been located and was being extracted by ground to confuse the Iranians’ search.

The White House frequently hosts widely attended “background briefing” calls for large groups of reporters. Maybe that’s how Axios chimed in with the same evocative “needle in a haystack” line, which it also attributed to a senior administration official.

“This was the ultimate needle in a haystack but in this case it was a brave American soul inside a mountain crevice, invisible but for CIA’s capabilities,” the unnamed source told Axios.

Related

Far-Right Religious Leaders Advising Trump See Iran as an End Times Holy War

CBS News called locating and extracting the service member, who was aboard a craft known by the call sign “Dude 44,” “a herculean U.S. government effort.” Even The Associated Press characterized the mission as “a daring rescue,” and multiple publications reported that when the airman was able, they radioed the line “God is good” just ahead of Easter Sunday — a plot point that would make even devotees of the show “24” groan.

As government sources are telling the tale to eager reporters at national publications, the F-15E Strike Eagle was the first jet shot down Friday over enemy territory in this war on Iran. After coming under Iranian fire, the two-man crew ejected themselves, and the aircraft’s weapons systems officer was separated from the pilot, who was “quickly” rescued, according to the Journal.

While the initially missing service member’s identity has not been revealed, Trump said he is a colonel who was injured but managed to hide out in a mountain crevice to await rescue. Two Black Hawk helicopters involved in the search were also hit by incoming fire; in another incident, an A-10 Warthog was hit and crashed in a neighboring allied country, where the pilot was rescued.

“When airmen go down, you can’t get them in very tough countries, like in Vietnam,” Trump told the Journal, in a revealing comparison.

“He was able to climb, climb up as wounded as he was, he was able to climb up into a crevice,” Trump went on. “A lot of great things happened.”

To say it would be naive to take the Trump administration at face value is an understatement. Yet the complete lack of any skepticism of this Hollywood story from mainstream news would make even Breitbart writers blush.

Even the timing of the premiere was perfect for the Trump administration, which is acutely aware of how unpopular this war is at home. Is America winning this war? Don’t worry about that, check out this action sequence.

One of the ironies of all this is that it exposes exactly why the Trump administration can’t be trusted. Just two days before the fighter jet was shot down, Trump was blustering about how U.S. strikes had left Iran with “no anti-aircraft” capabilities. The daring rescue, however, is predicated on the very clear fact that Iran absolutely still has the ability to shoot down American planes.

The U.S. can certainly bomb Iran “back to the Stone Age” — a line both Trump and Hegseth deployed — but all that hellfire rained down on civilian targets won’t yield the political dividends they so desperately desire.

Related

The Architects of the Iraq War: Where Are They Now?

It’s all eerily reminiscent of the way the media covered the lead-up to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when papers of record like the Times and The Atlantic and respected broadcast outlets like “Meet the Press” were more than happy to launder the Bush administration’s quarter-baked intelligence to make the case for war to the American public.

Even voices from the emergent, supposedly left-wing media — like the wonks making their name through a new format called “blogs” — were overjoyed to fall in line with the war effort. After all, the logic seemed to go, how could you be taken seriously if you were reflexively anti-war — the province of far-left nuts who are cast into the political wilderness? It was far safer and, in the long term, professionally beneficial to sell out any principles you had to enlist as junior partners in the pro-war coalition.

Even if, in this moment, the media is vaguely more skeptical of the war with Iran, national reporters simply couldn’t resist retelling the story of a Great American Rescue Mission, consequences, or the broader truth, be damned. Americans’ memories, especially for failing wars, are short.

As the fog clears and a fuller picture emerges, maybe we’ll see whether it shakes out the same way these serial liars sold it to huge swaths of the media.

The post The Media Just Can’t Help Turning Iran Fighter Jet Rescue Into “Black Hawk Down” appeared first on The Intercept.

Since the Trump regime launched its war on Iran, his administration has gotten a lot more biblical.

In the last few weeks, Trump and his circle have delivered a chorus of mandates — many sounding as if sent from the Almighty himself — from encouraging lawmakers to support legislation “for Jesus” to billing America’s 250th anniversary as a moment to rededicate the nation under a single, unified God.

Trump has surrounded himself with a constellation of evangelical advisers who not only support his policies but also frame them as divinely sanctioned. Their specific strand of evangelical theology interprets global conflict, especially in the Middle East, as a precursor to the end times. For Trump, this alignment may well be transactional, another way to energize and consolidate a critical voting bloc. But for many of the religious figures now orbiting him, the stakes are far more cosmic: The war is not simply geopolitical; it is eschatological.

And it’s already bleeding influence into America’s war machine. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has overseen a steady infusion of Christian symbolism and practice into military life — hosting prayer gatherings, elevating hard-line evangelical figures, and pushing a more overtly religious tone across the force.

Reporting shows his tenure has included efforts to reshape the chaplain corps and integrate his Christian worldview more directly into military culture. The aesthetic is not subtle: Hegseth has embraced Crusader iconography — he has tattoos of the Jerusalem cross and the phrase “Deus vult,” which means “God wills it” — while framing America’s conflicts in civilizational and religious terms. In a prayer given last week at the Pentagon, Hegseth asked God to aid in pouring down “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

Even some on the right have begun to voice their unease. One conservative commentator, reacting to the growing influence, bluntly described Trump’s leading faith adviser Paula White-Cain as a “psychopathic doomsday cultist,” warning about the theological currents shaping the administration. 

As someone well-versed in Christianese — I was raised deep in the evangelical Bible Belt of Texas, and even met a young Paula White growing up — this dialect signals a real shift.

In evangelical media ecosystems, Iran is not just a strategic adversary but part of a prophetic story — one tied to interpretations of the Book of Revelation and the battle of Armageddon. Suffering, in this worldview, is not merely tragic; it is necessary to actuate the return of Christ.

And as White-Cain, now the head of the White House Faith Office, put it: “To say no to President Trump would be to say no to God.”

This tension — between political expediency and apocalyptic belief — is no longer theoretical. It is being operationalized.

Prophetic Gospels

Days after launching unilateral strikes on Iran, Trump convened nearly two dozen evangelical leaders for private counsel. The pastors stood around him, laying hands to pray for strength and protection for his latest military campaign. At the center of that circle is White-Cain, a longtime Trump ally who has served as his “spiritual adviser” since his first presidential run.

White-Cain’s rise is emblematic of the fusion now underway. Once a televangelist with deep ties to charismatic Christianity, she built a following through prosperity gospel preaching — a theology that links faith with material success — before being elevated as a key Trump confidant.

Early on, she rose to prominence through her connections to figures like Bishop T.D. Jakes and appearances on networks like BET, positioning her within both Black churches (which is where I met her) and evangelical media spaces alike. During his first term, Trump established the White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative and appointed White to lead the newly minted office.

But White-Cain is not just a political ally. She is part of a broader network of evangelical leaders who have long framed global conflict in explicitly prophetic terms. Figures in this sphere have publicly described Middle East wars as signs of the “last days,” argued that geopolitical upheaval fulfills biblical prophecy, and emphasized that spiritual warfare is inseparable from physical conflict.

White-Cain’s own writings and appearances wrap modern politics in stark, spiritually dispensationalist end-times framing. Dispensationalism, for the uninitiated, is a strain of evangelical Protestant theology that reads the Bible literally, divides history into distinct eras of God’s plan, separates Israel from the Church, and anticipates a coming rapture and a thousand-year kingdom on Earth.

In an April 2025 interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, White-Cain opened by asking whether the world was ready to kick off Armageddon itself.

Related

Trump’s Holy War Abroad and at Home

“The Christian vision of the End of Days foretells of some profound transformation and redemption,” she said in the interview, as reported by the Times of Israel. “Based on the events that are unfolding today, do you feel that we are seeing these signs of that vision come to fruition?”

The stakes, by her telling, are nothing less than annihilation. This matters when those voices are whispering prayers into the decisions of a president directing military force.

She’s not alone. She’s brought others into Trump’s religious power network — including Alabama pastor Travis Johnson, who has been spotted around Trump’s religious events and moving in the same circles. 

He presents himself as a global traveler spreading Christian “love” and “peace.” On X, he also told his followers, “Islam is not just a religion, but a system of military conquest” — casting American Christianity as a necessary bulwark against it.

After Israeli missile strikes — which coincided with the start of Ramadan — decimated Iranian leadership, Johnson posted with a glib jab: “Bye, Felicia. Khamenei has left the building.”

Robert Jeffress, pastor of megachurch First Baptist Dallas and one of Trump’s most visible religious defenders, is also among those lending supernatural support to the president. Jeffress has spent years advancing a worldview that injects Christian nationalism with cultural and religious exclusion. He has described Islam as “a false religion” that is “inspired by Satan,” and once declared, “America’s collapse is inevitable and there is nothing we can do to stop it.”

Others in Trump’s spiritual cadre push similar lines with parallel prophetic and apocalyptic bluster. California pastor Greg Laurie, another regular in Trump’s prayer closet, linked the assassination of Iran’s ayatollah to end times gospel in a video he posted on X.

“As far as I can see the next event on the prophetic calendar would be the rapture,” he told his audience. “Then of course the great tribulation period … culminating in the Battle of Armageddon.” 

Laurie, like many evangelicals, reads Iran as biblical Persia, which is named in the book of Ezekiel as an ally of Magog, a prophesied war machine that will one day converge on Israel in the final chapter of human history.

Related

Military Leaders See Iran War as “God’s Divine Plan” — a Chilling Turn for Trump’s Fascism

There are those in Trump’s religious sphere who haven’t given up hope — but only because they see themselves as locked in a holy war for the soul of a nation. Josh McPherson, a rising voice in Christian nationalist circles, has been blunt in his preaching for a theocratic military force, often teaching in camouflage and combat boots. He has advocated that “godly righteous men and women submitted to the Heavenly Father” should be running the most powerful military in the world.

In a recent podcast interview, McPherson frames American Christians as a critical line of defense against the spread of Islam, which he describes as “demonic” and a “scourge” while advocating for mass deportations. If action isn’t taken now, he predicts the apocalyptic vision where future generations of Christians will have to respond to an “Islamic Jihadist invasion, where the only way to push back is with bullets and guns.” 

Taken together, this is not a random assortment of fringe pastors. It is a coherent theological ecosystem, one that frames war as prophecy, opponents as demonic, and global collapse as necessary to bring about the return of Christ.

That convergence — of theology, rhetoric, and military power — is now drawing scrutiny on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have formally called for an investigation into Hegseth and the Defense Department, warning that “extreme religious rhetoric” may be seeping into the chain of command and shaping how the war on Iran is being prosecuted.

The danger is not just metaphysical. There is a long body of research showing that when political power fuses with religious certainty, war intensifies. Religious framing makes wars far more difficult to end, not easier. Conflicts become existential, not negotiable. Identity replaces strategy. Destiny replaces diplomacy. 

And for volunteer troops fighting in a pluralistic democracy, intention matters.

For a soldier, sailor, or Marine who pulls the trigger or launches the missile, it muddies the distinction between national defense and participation in what could amount to religious ethnic cleansing.

Where strategic decisions are guided not by how to end wars, but how to beget new prophetic ones.

Where the end result could mean dying not in service of your country, but instead as a preordained martyr. 

A soldier should not be asked to die for a religion he does not serve, to usher in an ending he does not want, or to fight for a vision of the world rooted in prophecy rather than policy. That is not national defense; that is ideological conscription. And when a state begins to wage war on those terms, it is no longer defending itself — it is surrendering its power to something far more dangerous than any enemy abroad.

The post Far-Right Religious Leaders Advising Trump See Iran as an End Times Holy War appeared first on The Intercept.

“What we did in Venezuela, I think, is the perfect, the perfect scenario,” U.S. President Donald Trump told the New York Times in a March 1 interview about his plans for war on Iran. Things have not gone as Trump hoped, to put it mildly. Trump’s search for the Iranian Delcy Rodríguez — a regime insider willing to comply with U.S. demands, as Rodríguez has since she ascended from Venezuela’s vice president to acting president following the January 3 U.S. attack on Venezuela and kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro — hit a snag when the U.S. and Israel killed most of the would-be successors to Ayatollah Khamenei in the opening days of the war. During a March 3 meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Trump told reporters, “Most of the people we had in mind are dead.” (Trump omitted the crucial fact that the U.S. is to blame.)

As the war passes the four-week mark, it is abundantly clear Iran will not be the next Venezuela. Operation Absolute Resolve, the code name for the U.S. attack on Venezuela, was a spectacular success in tactical terms. The U.S. achieved its military aim of removing Maduro in just a few hours and suffered zero U.S. service member fatalities and only a handful of injuries, although the operation cost the lives of around 70 Venezuelans and 32 Cuban security forces. While this toll should not be minimized, it pales in comparison to the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran, which as of mid-March has led to at least 3,000 deaths in Iran, Lebanon, and beyond. In contrast to Trump’s “brilliant operation” in Caracas, the war on Iran has exploded. Well over a dozen countries are now involved, and the war threatens to bring the global economy to a halt due to the ongoing closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a pivotal passage for oil, liquid natural gas, fertilizer, and other crucial commodities.

As the world’s eyes remain fixed on Iran, it is important to ask: What has the Venezuela model actually achieved in Venezuela? The short answer is a new form of colonialism in which Venezuela has lost its national sovereignty. Trump’s pledge to “run” Venezuela, made in the hours after the January 3 attack, has not come to pass. The attack instead led to regime change without a change of regime, in which the U.S. removed Maduro but left his regime almost entirely intact. Trump has boasted of this fact, telling the New York Times, “Everybody’s kept their job except two people,” i.e., Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, both of whom have spent the past three months awaiting trial in a Brooklyn jail. The officials who now run Venezuela come directly from Maduro’s administration: Rodríguez; her brother Jorge, who heads the National Assembly; and the minister of interior, Diosdado Cabello. In a possible sign of future changes to come, Rodríguez on March 18 replaced Venezuela’s longstanding minister of defense, Vladimir Padrino López, all but surely in coordination with the U.S.

Related

The U.S. Desperately Wants Back in the Business of Empire With Venezuela

The flip side of this overall continuity is the Trump administration’s stunning and continuing sidelining of far-right opposition leader María Corina Machado, who won the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize and infamously gifted it to Trump in an unsuccessful attempt to curry his favor. Trump has supported Rodríguez because she offers that which he most wants: stability. A handover to Machado threatened to plunge Venezuela into chaos and civil war. Strictly speaking, this is not because Machado “lacks the respect within” Venezuela, as Trump claimed during his January 3 press conference. Polls indicate Machado remains the most popular politician within Venezuela. The problem, for Trump, is Machado’s longstanding opposition to any form of “collaboration” with the Maduro administration and Chavismo (the political movement associated with the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez) more broadly. This radical stance makes Machado a major threat to Venezuela’s military and state apparatus. Machado may be reevaluating her hardline position as she plans to return to Venezuela. In a March 12 press conference, Machado spoke of a “grand national agreement,” presumably a power-sharing accord, a possibility she had long rejected. Trump, for his part, has reportedly told Machado, who fled the country in 2025, not to return to Venezuela. This is purportedly out of concern for her safety but is more likely due to Trump’s (not unreasonable) fear that Machado’s presence in Venezuela would undermine the continuity Trump has sought to preserve.

For now, Venezuela remains in the hands of former Maduro officials, who have presided over a transformation of Venezuela’s domestic and foreign policy that is both stunning and limited. The details of this transformation, and the way it is happening, lay bare Venezuela’s profound lack of national sovereignty. While Trump is not “running” Venezuela in an operational sense, the U.S. is now effectively dictating the country’s policy. This is evident in many ways, starting with the fact that the Rodríguez administration must submit a monthly budget to the U.S., which has the discretion to approve or reject Venezuela’s requests. The Trump administration has also seized at least 80 million barrels of Venezuelan oil and controls the sale of this oil, with the proceeds held not in Caracas but in a U.S. Treasury account (prior to that, they were held in a U.S.-controlled account in Qatar). American Democratic Party leaders have repeatedly questioned this arrangement, which is not only blatantly colonial and opaque but also creates the clear potential for corruption and malfeasance.

Under direct pressure from the Trump administration, Venezuela’s National Assembly has implemented sweeping oil and mining reforms. In late January, the National Assembly passed a major reform of Venezuela’s hydrocarbons law regulating oil production. The reform institutes three fundamental changes: First, it dramatically lowers the taxes and royalties foreign oil companies pay to the Venezuelan state. Under the 2006 hydrocarbons law, the Venezuelan state took up to 65 percent of oil proceeds. The reform permits this to be reduced to 25 percent, lowers income taxes to 15 percent (from 30 percent), and caps royalties at 30 percent, with the executive given discretion to lower it even further. Second, the reform allows foreign oil companies to operate independently, instead of the previous mandate that foreign companies operate through joint projects with Venezuela’s national oil company, PDVSA. Third, the reform allows arbitration over disputes to occur in foreign courts, eliminating the earlier requirement that disputes be resolved within Venezuela. These changes give foreign oil companies dramatically greater material benefits and control over the country’s oil.

Foreign oil companies are already taking advantage. Shell and Chevron are reportedly close to signing major new deals for production in Venezuela. Chevron is the only U.S. oil major that remained in Venezuela throughout the Hugo Chávez and Maduro years, with Shell (like Exxon and others) having left the country in the wake of the 2006–2007 nationalization process under Chávez. Despite these deals, it will take significant time and resources — upward of $100 billion and a decade of work, according to experts — for Venezuela’s oil industry to approach its previous levels of production. These latest deals come in the wake of the second recent visit by a Trump Cabinet member to Venezuela. Energy Secretary Chris Wright toured Venezuela in mid-February, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum traveled there in early March, when he gushed about Washington’s desire to access Venezuela’s mineral resources. CIA Director John Ratcliffe and U.S. Southern Command General Francis Donovan have also recently traveled to Venezuela. During Burgum’s visit, Rodríguez promised to work at “Trump speed” to ramp up the U.S.’s access to Venezuela’s mineral resources. Rodríguez has been as good as her word, with the National Assembly swiftly moving to approve a new mining law that, like the hydrocarbons reform, will roll back decades-old nationalist legislation.

Related

It’s a War With Iran, Not an “Intervention”

The U.S. has also pushed Venezuela to sever its relations with its rivals China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba. A statement from Venezuela’s foreign ministry late last month about the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran shows the profound changes underway. The statement (which was later taken down) condemned Iran but failed to condemn or even name the U.S. or Israel. This is a major shift from the Chávez and Maduro years, when Venezuela stood with Iran and regularly condemned the U.S. and Israel. The change in Venezuela’s foreign policy is most clear on Cuba, which for more than a decade relied heavily on highly subsidized Venezuelan oil. After Maduro’s capture, Venezuela ceased all oil shipments to Cuba, directly contributing to the profound energy crisis it is now facing, marked by regular nationwide blackouts. The Trump administration has done everything it can to deepen this crisis by applying heavy pressure on Mexico and other countries to stop providing oil to Cuba. Trump’s open goal is regime change.

While Venezuela’s economic and foreign policy has shifted quickly and decisively, political change since Maduro’s capture has been much more slow going. There is still no timetable for elections, and the Trump administration is not pushing for a democratic transition any time soon. According to a New York Times report, Rubio and Rodríguez have discussed the possibility of holding elections in late 2027, and Rubio has made clear that there must be a new democratically elected government in Venezuela before Trump leaves office in 2029. Rodríguez has taken a few steps toward political liberalization. She has pledged to close the notorious El Helicoide prison, and on February 19 the National Assembly passed an amnesty law, which has been greeted as a positive development but criticized for limiting the time period and offenses covered by the law. According to a March 17 report by the Venezuelan human rights organization Foro Penal, as of February 24 the government had released over 400 political prisoners.

A key question is: How do ordinary Venezuelans feel about the changes happening in their country? One answer comes from the first in-person poll conducted in Venezuela following Maduro’s removal, with 1,000 respondents interviewed between January 24 and 30. The poll indicates Venezuelans largely support the January 3 operation and feel cautiously optimistic about the future but deeply unsatisfied with their economic situation and wary of the Rodríguez administration. Fifty-five percent of respondents approve of Maduro’s removal and 77 percent view him unfavorably. Rodríguez fares a tad better, with 73 percent viewing her unfavorably, while 37 percent approve and 41 percent disapprove of her performance as acting president. 

This suggests many Venezuelans are in a wait-and-see holding pattern with Rodríguez. Tellingly, 62 percent of respondents list cost of living as their priority versus just 7 percent prioritizing democracy. The poll also indicates Venezuelans are evenly split in their views of the U.S. government and Trump, with roughly half supportive and half opposed. Of the respondents, 72 percent reported they feel Venezuela is moving in a positive direction and 83 percent feel optimistic about the future.

Related

Pentagon Reveals Attacks in Latin America Are Just the Beginning

These findings are in line with recent public comments by Venezuelan scholars and journalists. In a February 3 online Atlantic Council forum, Guillermo Aveledo, a political science professor at Universidad Metropolitana in Caracas, said most Venezuelans were feeling cautiously optimistic but continue to fear government repression. Aveledo also spoke of how citizens and the government will be testing the waters in the coming weeks and months to see what is acceptable in terms of public speech and protest.

During a March 11 interview I conducted with him, Andrés Antillano, a member of the anti-imperialist leftist organization Corriente Comunes and professor at the Universidad Central de Venezuela, expressed a similar but more critical view. Antillano said, “I believe Trump is more popular in Venezuela than in the United States,” and added, “there’s a consensus that what happened [on January 3] is for the better of the country.” He noted, “Government actors are happy because they’ve preserved their power. The right is happy because Trump, their great hero, is ruling. And the people are happy because of their expectation … that their life conditions are going to improve.” Antillano feels this is mistaken: “Not only have we not seen an improvement but in material terms, in economic terms, the situation has gotten worse and worse.” 

Antillano views Venezuelans’ continuing immiseration — due to years of government mismanagement and punishing U.S. sanctions (which Trump eased on March 18, in a major policy shift allowing U.S. oil companies to deal directly with PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company) — as the reason for their acquiescence to Venezuela’s subordination to the U.S.

“People don’t care about the idea of sovereignty or nationhood when they’re dying of hunger,” he said.

Antillano remains deeply pessimistic about Venezuela’s future. “We are in a subordinate, colonial relationship. We’re a protectorate,” he said. He also said: “[Machado] wants to return to the country to defend the idea of the political transition. Thus, we could see the great irony of María Corina becoming the anti-imperialist figure and the Bolivarian government, with its anti-imperialist origins, becoming the great defender of Trump. It’s crazy, very strange. Everything that’s happening is very sad.”

He continued: “As a friend told me, Venezuela has gone from being a laboratory for emancipatory practices to being a laboratory for the new colonialism.”

But Antillano doesn’t believe all is lost, and said he believes “an important cycle of protest is coming.” He said Corriente Comunes “is actively driving the processes of struggle as the illusion of improvement — stemming from the colonial relationship with the United States — gradually fades away.” Antillano said that Corriente Comunes had recently “held a workers’ gathering, and we believe a very significant mobilization is about to take place in all the country’s major cities, a mobilization for wages, wage increases, and labor rights, which will be the largest in many years.”

The mobilization occurred March 12, the day after we spoke, and videos show it was large and contentious. Protesters broke through a line of police blocking the National Assembly and forced legislators to listen to their salary and pension demands. While Trump and Rodríguez are seeking economic liberalization without democratization, Venezuela’s workers and leftist activists have other ideas. Venezuelans will seek to write their own story, despite being mired in conditions not of their own making. Time will tell what vision of the country will prevail, and for the foreseeable future, all actors in Venezuela will have to reckon with the imperial behemoth to the north.

The post Trump Wanted to Replicate His Venezuela “Success” in Iran. What Has It Even Looked Like? appeared first on The Intercept.

A judge last week struck down the Pentagon’s restrictions on journalists seeking “unauthorized” information, siding with the New York Times in its lawsuit against the government. In response, the Pentagon on Monday added some meaningless window dressing and essentially reissued the same restrictions. The administration pledged to “immediately” appeal the decision on the original policy, and on Tuesday, the Times filed a motion to compel the administration to comply with the judge’s order. 

As alarming as the Pentagon’s antics are, the Times’ lawsuit is not the only case about whether reporters have the right to ask questions. It’s not even the only one in the news this week. 

In 2017, police in Laredo, Texas, arrested citizen journalist Patricia Villarreal under an obscure and never previously used law making it a felony to ask government employees for nonpublic information for personal benefit. Her supposed crime was asking a police officer about two local tragedies — a suicide and a deadly car wreck.

Her arrest was widely ridiculed, and a judge quickly threw out the charges. When Villarreal sued over her arrest and mistreatment by officers, the legal question wasn’t whether the charges against her were permissible but whether they were so obviously bogus that she could overcome qualified immunity, the unjust and expansive legal shield that protects government employees from liability for all but the most blatant violations. That issue went to the Supreme Court twice, but on Monday, the Court declined to review a federal appellate court’s ruling that the officers were shielded from liability. 

Related

FBI Raid on WaPo Reporter’s Home Was Based on Sham Pretext

No matter what our severely compromised Supreme Court thinks, the local cops who arrested Villarreal were embarrassingly ignorant of the Constitution. But they were also ahead of their time: The Department of Justice is making the same claims that turned the Laredo police into a First Amendment laughingstock — that reporters simply asking questions to the government is criminal — to federal district Judge Paul Friedman. 

Most discussion of the Pentagon’s restrictions has focused on their conditions for reporters to receive press credentials, which the Pentagon says can be revoked if reporters publish “unauthorized” information. That policy is wildly unconstitutional on its own, and every mainstream outlet gave up their press passes rather than sign on, leaving war coverage inside the Pentagon to the likes of Turning Point USA’s Frontlines and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s LindellTV streaming service. 

But the Pentagon’s legal filings imply that reporters who don’t follow the rules risk more than their press passes. On March 12, the DOJ filed a brief to clarify its lawyers’ earlier comments in a discussion with Friedman at a hearing of “whether asking a question was a criminal act.” The government argued that although journalists may lawfully ask questions of “authorized” Pentagon personnel, “a journalist does solicit the commission of a criminal act, and that solicitation is not protected by the First Amendment, when he or she solicits … non-public information from individuals who are legally obligated not to disclose that information.”

There you have it. What was once a fringe, failed legal theory concocted by some local cops in one Texas border city is now the official position of the federal government’s lawyers, which it felt compelled to put in writing in case anyone wasn’t sure where it stood after the hearing. Both the rogue cops and the DOJ’s lawyers contend that journalists merely asking questions to government officials constitutes unlawful solicitation. 

As JT Morris, supervising senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (which represents Villarreal) told me in an email last week, the First Amendment “unquestionably protects our right to ask questions, whether it’s a citizen asking police about a local crime or the New York Times asking Pentagon officials about matters of national security. Officials can always respond, ‘no comment.’ But they cannot jail Americans for asking.”

The government’s argument would have turned countless Pulitzer-winning national security reporters into criminals. As Friedman put it in his ruling, the “role of a journalist is to solicit information. … [A] journalist asking questions is not a crime!” (You can tell a judge is miffed when scholarly language fails and they resort to exclamation points.)

The DOJ’s “concession” in its clarification brief (and later in its revised policy) — that journalists can direct questions to authorized spokespeople — makes no difference. That the administration even felt the need to state something so obvious, presumably because they thought it would make them sound more reasonable, signals the extent to which they’ve threatened the First Amendment. 

Government agencies have long routed journalists’ inquiries to PR flacks and instructed non-public-facing staffers not to answer reporters’ questions. That’s unconstitutional in its own right; earlier this month, the Village of Key Biscayne, Florida, became the latest government agency to settle a lawsuit over its employee gag rule. But until this administration, the government at least placed the burden on its own employees to comply with restrictions on talking to reporters. 

Now, the government expects journalists to make themselves a party to its censorship directives, and ignore Supreme Court precedent that they can print any government information they lawfully obtain, even if it shouldn’t have been released. “A contrary rule … would force upon the media the onerous obligation of sifting through government press releases, reports, and pronouncements to prune out material arguably unlawful for publication,” the Court reasoned. 

Journalist Kathryn Foxhall, who has for years sounded the alarm about “censorship by PIO,” including in collaboration with the Society of Professional Journalists, says the press has failed to meaningfully oppose these policies. “The media have done little to fight the ever-tightening rules at federal agencies and elsewhere banning reporters from buildings and prohibiting employees from speaking to journalists without the authorities’ oversight. With amazing negligence journalists just assume whatever reporters get is the whole story, even in the face of the many thousands of gagged staff people. Now these Pentagon policies remind us that people in power will stop literally at nothing to control the story,” she told me.

The Pentagon’s position that newsgathering is a prosecutable offense is not just theoretical. Although the DOJ’s brief didn’t explicitly reference it, just like the officers in Laredo, federal prosecutors have their own archaic and constitutionally dubious law on the books to sane-wash their nonsense arguments — the Espionage Act of 1917. Read literally, that law (Rep. Rashida Tlaib recently introduced a much-needed bill to reform it) arguably prohibits reporters and anyone else from obtaining or attempting to obtain national defense information.

But reading it that way to go after journalists would be unconstitutional and politically toxic, which is why past administrations have refrained. Had the Supreme Court denied the Laredo officers’ qualified immunity in Villarreal’s case, it would have signaled that arguments for expansive interpretations of arcane laws to criminalize routine reporting are a nonstarter. 

Related

Trump Wants to Put You in a Massive, Secret Government Database

The Court ducked the issue despite being fully aware that the present administration is looking for any excuse to punish reporters that dare to undermine its narratives. They’ve already claimed Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson — whose home they raided, seizing terabytes of data — violated the Espionage Act by obtaining leaked information. The Trump administration is barging through the door the Biden administration left wide open, when, despite warnings from First Amendment advocates, it extracted a plea deal from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Espionage Act charges for obtaining and publishing government records, including about Iraq war crimes. 

The DOJ’s adoption of the Laredo police’s discredited theory is an extension of the Assange and Natanson cases; the claim that publishing leaked documents is criminal has evolved into a theory that merely asking questions is, too. The administration lost in court this time, but it said it will appeal, and may be emboldened by the Supreme Court’s cowardice in the Laredo case. 

If this administration succeeds in chipping away at constitutional protections for journalistic practices as basic as asking questions, reporters who wish to do anything more than regime stenography may risk imprisonment just by doing their jobs. In her dissent to the Villarreal ruling, Justice Sotomayor put it well: “Tolerating retaliation against journalists, or efforts to criminalize routine reporting practices, threatens to silence ‘one of the very agencies the Framers of our Constitution thoughtfully and deliberately selected to improve our society and keep it free.’” 

The post Pentagon Wants It to Be Illegal for Reporters to Ask “Unauthorized” Questions appeared first on The Intercept.

“Take a picture of a bus, if you see one, because it’s the last one you’ll see here in Cuba,” my taxi driver said. We were headed into Havana in his Chinese electric car during a trip I made to the island earlier this month.

The car is a novelty on Cuba’s crumbling streets, which are crowded with bikes and electric motorcycles and flanked by new solar parks and in-demand diesel generators. It’s also a lifesaver now more than ever amid a near-total oil blockade that has plunged the island’s residents into a profound state of uncertainty, fear, and hopelessness.

As the Trump administration starves Cuba of fuel in an attempt to force political and economic change on the island, conditions on the ground have grown more dire than I’ve ever witnessed in the 11 years I’ve been traveling there — including several years working as a journalist during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the country’s tourism-dependent economy was brought to a standstill.

Signs of the oil blockade are everywhere you look. Street corners are turning into trash dumps, transportation is prohibitively expensive, inflation is climbing, food is rotting in ports and refrigerators, and access to running water is intermittent, at best. 

A friend will not get to see his child be born, as his wife — one of many Cubans with dual Spanish citizenship — has flown across the Atlantic to give birth in Spain due to the dire state of Cuba’s state-run hospitals, once among the region’s best. 

Another friend with severe cataracts, who had undergone months of tests and lab work ahead of a surgery finally scheduled for February, learned the week before that it had been postponed indefinitely. Now, she can no longer see out of her left eye.

A third friend saw the cost of the wedding for which he’d been saving up for years double from one day to the next, as prices soared when the small reserves of fuel his vendors had got down to the last drops.

The Trump administration’s wager that depriving Cuba of oil would either provoke a mass uprising, browbeat the island’s authorities into subservience and a change in leadership, beget a free-market paradise — or some ill-defined combination of the three — is just the most recent in a series of “maximum-pressure” actions Secretary of State Marco Rubio has devised in an attempt to dislodge Cuba’s rulers from power, a longtime goal for him and for many Cuban Americans. 

Related

Pentagon Reveals Attacks in Latin America Are Just the Beginning

This campaign has been ongoing since Trump’s first term, when Rubio, the president’s de facto secretary of state for Latin America, helped restrict Americans’ ability to travel and send money to the island; cut off Cuba’s access to international finance; shutter the U.S. Embassy in Havana; and deploy dozens more sanctions over everything from hotel contracts and cruise lines to banking and investment, most of which were kept in place under the Biden administration. 

Now, in Trump’s second term, the maximum-pressure strategy for which Rubio has taken full credit has accelerated into full gear. Not only has the administration coerced Venezuela and Mexico, until recently Cuba’s two largest fuel suppliers, into halting oil shipments to the island, it has also pressured Central American and Caribbean countries to drop their medical services contracts with Cuba, privately encouraged regional neighbors to sever diplomatic ties with the country, and stopped issuing most visas for Cuban nationals, including for family reunification, scientific and business exchanges, humanitarian parole, and other purposes.

In part due to these sanctions, the island’s economy is projected to shrink by more than 7 percent in 2026, while over the past several years, Cuba’s infant mortality rate has nearly doubled, and some 20 percent of its population has left.

And yet, the Cuban people — adaptive, proud, and resilient as ever — have found ways to eke out a living on the island, despite being subjected to the longest and most comprehensive U.S. sanctions regime anywhere on Earth and stymied by insufficient Cuban government efforts to kickstart an outdated economy.

Thousands of private businesses, which have also been hamstrung by Trump’s oil siege, continue to sell imported, even American, goods, albeit at prices that are exorbitant for the majority of the population. Community projects, churches, and civil society organizations organize ad-hoc soup kitchens to feed the most vulnerable. Foreign governments, even those that have buckled under U.S. pressure like Mexico, continue to send vital aid to the island, as do U.S.-based activists, religious groups, and Cuban Americans.

Despite limited access to the most basic supplies, engineers are rolling out new solar infrastructure faster than any other country in the world, electrical technicians are restoring the country’s collapsed power grid even quicker than before, doctors are saving lives against all odds, and Cubans are inventing workarounds to conditions that seem totally unworkable.

Trump’s gambit is to once again make the island dependent on the United States by simultaneously engineering state collapse while controlling the resources entering the country’s nascent private sector. This strategy will only exacerbate rising inequality on the island by drawing clear lines around who gets to live and who is condemned to die.

Related

What Does Trump Want With Cuba?

As the president floats “taking over” Cuba by means “friendly” or not — amid secret negotiations rife with speculation, misinformation, and trial balloons — it’s those who depend the most on public services to survive, rather than well-connected, middle-class entrepreneurs, who will have no other choice but to seek refuge on U.S. shores or perish before making it that far, if the state collapses.

Despite these dire circumstances, Cubans are increasingly optimistic that a negotiated solution with the U.S. that avoids military action and tangibly improves quality of life on the island — not entirely dissimilar from the one President Barack Obama pursued a decade ago — might be possible.

While Rubio has disputed recent reports that the U.S. only seeks to remove Cuba’s president and keep the rest of its power structure intact, he also indicated he may be open to gradual, economic reforms on the island, as opposed to the maximalist, unconditional political changes he has long demanded — a red line for Cuban authorities. To prevent outright humanitarian collapse, the administration has authorized fuel sales, including from Venezuela, to Cuba’s private sector — some of which are already arriving — and sent humanitarian aid to hurricane-stricken eastern Cuba through the Catholic Church.

Cuban authorities — with their backs up against the wall and no assurances that a Russian crude oil tanker barreling toward the Caribbean won’t be intercepted by U.S. Coast Guard cutters off the island’s northeast coast — have responded to U.S. pressure by releasing political prisoners, loosening restrictions on private enterprise, and making important, if long-overdue, overtures to Cuba’s diaspora to reconcile with their homeland. Rubio has responded that these changes aren’t “dramatic” enough and the island needs “new leaders,” while other administration officials prepare indictments against Cuban leaders and threaten that the switch from negotiation to military action could be imminent.

No matter what agreement, if any, ultimately emerges between the two governments, what’s clear is that the Cuban people want a deal — whether economic or political — to happen now, not later. As the situation on the ground becomes increasingly unsustainable for the Cuban people, that may mean leaving in place for the time being the regime that Trump has promised to topple and allowing fuel to flow once again in exchange for a few meaningful concessions, even if further-reaching reforms get pushed down the road.

As prominent Republicans grow concerned about the potential for humanitarian catastrophe and a migration crisis brewing just off U.S. shores, nothing is stopping Trump from achieving the deal with Cuba he has always wanted — one that’s hammered out, as Rubio has said, by “mature and realistic” negotiators on both sides who understand the country “doesn’t have to change all at once.”

With tensions continuing to mount, military preparations underway on both sides, and Trump assuring he’ll be turning to Cuba “very soon,” it’s more urgent than ever that an agreement — the contours of which are still not publicly known — be reached as soon as possible. Countless Cuban lives may very well depend on it.

The post U.S. Oil Blockade Could Condemn Cubans to Die Without a Deal appeared first on The Intercept.

The Trump administration is on its way to creating every authoritarian’s dream: a centralized database containing intimate details about every resident of this country, fully searchable by artificial intelligence. This powerful tool would empower the government to conduct previously unimagined levels of surveillance and harassment against its own people. 

Freedom of the Press Foundation is suing the administration for documents behind the database. We know that this isn’t just something that the Trump administration would exploit; once built, it’s unlikely any administration could resist the urge to weaponize our personal information. 

This nightmare privacy scenario began one year ago, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order that expanded data sharing across the federal government. The administration touted the order, “Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos,” as a way to target fraud within a supposedly bloated government.

The order was no such thing.

Instead, it took a machete to long-standing privacy protections that mandate agencies can only share our data when absolutely necessary, to install a massive data-mining operation in their place. 

To do so, Trump’s executive order required agency heads to submit reports to the Office of Management and Budget on the following:

1. Which agency regulations governing unclassified data access should be eliminated or modified.
2. Which policies governing the sharing of classified information need to be scrapped to meet the administration’s goals.
   

The public has never seen the reports agencies submitted by OMB, despite their impact on our privacy. However, thanks to intrepid reporting and litigation, we do have glimpses of how this is starting to play out:

• The Central Intelligence Agency has been granted increased access to domestic law enforcement databases, further blurring the line between foreign intelligence and domestic policing.
• The so-called Department of Government Efficiency got direct access to Treasury Department payment systems, including Social Security numbers, names, and birthdays, according to a whistleblower.
• Immigration and Customs Enforcement got access to Medicaid recipients’ data and banking information. 
• The Transportation Security Administration is now sharing biometric passenger info with immigration enforcement, turning every airport check-in into a potential trap.
  

But these incursions are only the tip of the iceberg. 

Reports indicate the administration’s goal for dismantling privacy protections is to build a centralized national database, which would allow the administration to create detailed reports on every American, potentially for political purposes, including retaliation, harassment, and imprisonment. 

At the same time this database is becoming a reality, the Department of Homeland Security is rapidly expanding its surveillance capabilities, and the administration is unleashing AI across federal systems to analyze the data points they are harvesting from our private lives. 

Perhaps worst of all, by “eliminating information silos,” the administration is creating a single point of failure for the privacy of every American. A centralized database that compiles our most intimate information, from our health to our finances, doesn’t just make us vulnerable to government abuse; it creates a massive, singular target for hackers and foreign adversaries.

“‘Information silos’ aren’t an inefficiency. They are a bulwark against the exact kind of abuses and negligence the Trump administration has engaged in,” said Ginger Quintero-McCall, a public records attorney with the Free Information Group. “Preventing easy, frictionless, unaccountable access to troves of sensitive data isn’t a bug — it’s a feature.”

And while the Trump administration recklessly seeks and compiles our data, it has simultaneously stopped sharing its data with the public. Vital information about the climate, immigration, federal spending, and the economy has been pulled from public view. 

The government is turning into a one-way mirror: They see everything, while we see nothing.

This is an untenable and anti-democratic information imbalance. To fight back, we need to fully understand just how badly our data and our privacy has been compromised. The agency reports submitted to the OMB are essential for this investigation — which is why Freedom of the Press Foundation is filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against OMB for these records.

This suit will not only force the disclosure of these important documents, but it will also serve to remind the administration that the federal government is required to safeguard the personal data we entrust to it. It is not allowed to become a data-mining firm that leverages our information for political gain while hiding its work from the public.

Related

Federal Agents Are Intimidating Legal Observers at Their Homes: “They Know Where You Live”

As Kevin Bell, one of our counselors at Free Information Group, said, “This threat to Americans’ very right to an individual identity has never been so dire. The Trump administration is correlating each of its citizens’ with their transactions, emails, location tracking, missed car payments, online views or posts, and entire personal histories; the President has ordered the collection and free dissemination of every bit of data about every one of us held anywhere for any reason.”

The public deserves to see these documents. We intend to compel them to show us — and all Americans.

The post Trump Wants to Put You in a Massive, Secret Government Database appeared first on The Intercept.

Maine oysterman-turned-politician Graham Platner has been drawing consistently packed crowds across the rural state for months as he aims to take on longtime incumbent Republican Susan Collins in this year’s Senate race. He’s regularly outpolling his only other viable competitor for the Democratic nomination, Gov. Janet Mills. At 41, he could hold a seat for decades that Democrats have long had their eyes on. 

Since Mills joined the race last fall (Platner announced he was running that August), her support has stagnated and even slipped in some polls as Platner’s numbers continue to rise. Collins and Mills are in a statistical dead heat, with Collins having the edge, while Platner has a few points difference ahead of the incumbent. 

For Maine voters concerned with electability, those polls lend credibility to Platner’s campaign. He’s in position to take on an entrenched Republican whose feigned objections to Donald Trump’s excesses — usually expressed as “concern” — have long driven liberal Mainers insane. So why is he still facing resistance from Senate Democratic leadership?

Platner’s town hall tour of Maine is further raising his profile, even after a number of controversies, most notably a Nazi tattoo, threatened his campaign. The more voters get to know him, the more they like him; he’s gone from underdog to favorite in the race. And despite establishment antipathy, he’s finding some friends in other corners of the party. 

Three Democratic senators — Vermont’s Bernie Sanders, Arizona’s Ruben Gallego, and New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich — have endorsed Platner. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., is backing him, as are individual members of the progressive wing, like Robert Reich and David Hogg, and groups like Our Revolution and the Maine People’s Alliance. Platner also has the ear of the Pod Save America crew, a group of influential Democrats aligned with the Obama wing of the party. 

Related

Dem in Maine House Primary Funneled PAC Money to Republicans

But the Democratic establishment is trying to draw a line in the sand on the future of the party. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand, both Democrats from New York, are actively working to elect Mills. There is speculation that the governor, who has pledged to only serve one term in Washington, is Senate leadership’s preferred candidate because she would be a more pliable member of the delegation, while Platner is seen as more independent and willing to take populist, further left stands.

The race bears similarities to the 2016 Democratic primary for president, when Sanders went up against Hillary Clinton and offered a progressive alternative. As in this contest, the machine politician was pitched by the party’s establishment as the more deserving candidate, while the populist candidate to her left ran an insurgent campaign. 

It’s another chapter in the intraparty civil war that has been simmering and often boiling over for decades. The Clinton wing, the Obama wing, the Sanders wing, and every other part of the sprawling political coalition that is the Democratic Party are all still vying for dominance. In 2008, the main dividing line was Iraq; in 2016, the failure of the Obama presidency; in 2020, Trump and Covid. 

In 2026, the party is still reeling from defeat at the ballot box just two years ago, one that was driven by a perception that the party was out of touch with voters on economic issues as well as, reportedly, its complicity in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The latter issue has become a flashpoint for conflict between the base and the establishment, especially with Schumer — who has described one of his roles in leadership as ensuring Israel gets “all the aid” it needs from the U.S.

For centrist Democrats, Mills is their pick for Maine. Seniority means a lot to a certain kind of centrist Democrat. According to Platner, he was told in no uncertain terms that he was expected to stand down — “I was skipping the line,” he told Slate earlier this month — when he notified Democratic Senate leadership that he was considering running for the seat; the response he received came with a threat to turn his life inside out.

“They essentially said, if we do this, they’re going to come after me,” Platner said. “They’re going to rip my life apart.”

It’s not hard to see what’s off-putting about Platner to the moderate wing of the party. He’s running an anti-war, economically populist campaign with rhetoric aimed at the elites who fund the DSCC and the party’s corporatist wing. He’s come out forcefully for trans rights at a time when Democratic centrist think tanks, friendly to the party’s donor class, are all but arguing the party should throw marginalized groups under the bus. He’s also been forthright in calling Israel’s genocide in Gaza what it is. 

Unfortunately for the party establishment, the issues Platner is running on are popular with voters — especially the Democratic base. The party has been shifting left since Trump’s first term and Platner, like Sanders and members of the Squad, among others, is taking advantage of those rising tides of progressivism. 

Related

The Left Put Its Faith in Graham Platner. Will He Break Its Heart?

This isn’t to say that Platner doesn’t have his own significant challenges. His posts on Reddit, which span a decade, included some language seen as misogynistic, prejudicial, and insulting to Mainers, though clearly antifascist in general and anti-Nazi in particular. Most notably, a scandal last fall became a national news story over his tattoo of a Totenkopf — a skull-and-bones symbol commonly associated with the Nazis — which led him to publicly apologize and have it inked over. Platner has claimed he got the tattoo in a drunken haze while on leave in 2007 when he was a Marine and that he didn’t know its ties to the Nazis until last October.

The tattoo has dogged him ever since, with media outlets bringing it up whenever Platner makes the news, and the controversy hasn’t stopped there. Recently, Platner was criticized for appearing on a right-wing podcast hosted by a fellow veteran, Nate Cornacchia, who has endorsed conspiracy theories like far-right streamer Nick Shirley’s attacks on Somalis in Minnesota and tying Israel to the murder of Charlie Kirk. 

But the governor has her own baggage. Mills is already 78, and if elected, she would be 85 at the end of her six years in office. It’s a hard sell to Democrats in Maine, who, like their counterparts around the country, are still smarting from the humiliation of watching a visibly declining Joe Biden spend his presidency hidden from the public and the media and, when he did appear, fumbling answers onstage or staring off into space. 

Plus, after more than 30 years in Maine politics, which also includes serving in the statehouse and as attorney general, Mills is compromised in this race in specific ways that Platner is not. As governor, Mills has had to work with Collins to get things done for the state. There’s nothing unique about that, but it has provided soundbites of Mills praising Collins — one of which, “I appreciate all that she is doing,” the incumbent already used in an ad last fall. 

Maine voters will make the final decision on who the Democratic nominee will be. Right now, that looks like Platner — so much so that local labor leaders are urging Schumer to withdraw his support for Mills. 

If he wins the primary, Democrats in leadership will have a simple decision to make: Do they want to flip the Senate with a left-leaning veteran whose message resonates, even if it’s not how they wanted to do it? Or do they want to ride out another six years of even more razor-thin margins in either direction in the chamber and bet on 2032? Let’s hope they don’t think another six years of Susan Collins is better than winning with a candidate that outran their candidate from the left.

The post Senate Dem Leaders Are Trying to Sink Graham Platner. Voters Aren’t Convinced. appeared first on The Intercept.

Key Democrats in Congress are, once again, vaguely opposing a war instead of forcefully opposing it on moral or ideological grounds. Just as Democratic leadership slow-rolled a war powers vote for two weeks after President Donald Trump began amassing his armada to attack Iran, and four days after the bombing was underway, Democrats are refusing to speak out clearly against the war, instead resigning themselves to process-based criticism and demands for “more information” and “plans.” 

With strong indications that Trump may soon send ground troops, we are long past the time for begging to see the “plans.” Democrats need to forcefully call for an end to this war now.

Still, this “We need to see Trump’s plans for Iran” talking point has taken hold, either through top-down messaging discipline or a very unfortunate series of coincidences. Democrats in the House and Senate have been echoing some version of this line for the past week:

This messaging often comes after closed-door briefings with Congress, followed by a consternating Democrat in front of a camera lamenting a lack of a “plan” or “exit strategy.” Let us examine this clip, for example, of Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., as he “demands answers” and does a lot of posturing and Plan-Mongering but, strangely, never actually says the war is wrong and should end immediately. 

On Thursday, Democratic Reps. Yassamin Ansari, Sara Jacobs, and Jason Crow released a 1,100-word letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanding accountability for war crimes committed in Iran that makes no demand to end the war causing the war crimes.

Similar to the Biden White House’s strategy of demanding Israel “allow in more aid” in Gaza while continuing to arm and fund the destruction of Gaza, there’s a surplus of performative outrage and handwringing over the logical outcome of the war without opposing the war causing the war crimes in question. Countless other Democrats are repeating this script with varying degrees of normative content, but typically without much at all, instead keeping the conversation purely in the realm of process and strategy.

“[President Trump has] not shown us any plans for what he wants to do for the day after,” Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-N.V., told reporters earlier in the week. “We have to have a plan,” Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., said to NOTUS on Tuesday. “I’m still not convinced that the administration has a plan to execute the rest of the war and have an exit strategy.”

Some of those pushing this line may argue that we can make process criticisms and demand an end to the war. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with this approach –– and some have done it –– for the vast majority, this is simply not the case. The only message that’s pushed out to the public is the how and when of the war, not the fact of it. 

An extension of this messaging is a call for “hearings” or “investigations” on the war. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is aggressively pushing this line, telling reporters earlier this week that “the story from the administration changes by the hour.”

“When it comes to sending our service members into harm’s way, the American people need to understand why,” he said. “But right now, they don’t even have a ‘why.’ … That needs to change. We need testimony. We need accountability.”

It’s unclear why anyone needs “testimony.” The war is illegal, immoral, killing countless Iranians, and needs to end immediately. The implication in this constant Plan-Mongering is that some brilliant Aaron Sorkin speech from Hegseth or Marco Rubio in front of Congress would somehow change these underlying basic facts. This is a criminal war being carried about by openly violent racists and needs to stop at once. It is not an abstract policy proposal up for debate at the Oxford Union Society that requires further deliberation.

“Senate Democrats vow to force Iran war votes if Republicans don’t hold hearings,” an exclusive from Semafor informed us on Tuesday. “Senate Democrats are threatening to force repeated votes on President Donald Trump’s war with Iran unless Republicans agree to hold committee hearings about the ongoing war,” the report continued.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., did make a clear statement in the Semafor article against the war, saying, “Now is the time for Democrats to use all the leverage we have to try to stop this unnecessary war.” But this is an outlier in these Plan-Mongering PR roll outs. Indeed, the entire premise that Democrats would force more war powers votes unless “Republicans hold hearings” is nonsensical. If the war powers votes are meaningful leverage, why not use them to make a clear, consistent moral case to the public, rather than indulge the idea this is an unsettled debate to be hashed out in drawn-out hearings? What more is there to learn? The war is illegal, unjust, and immoral. What functional purpose would hearings serve, other than to mine for viral content of Dems Owning Trump Administration Officials? 

It’s true that every Democrat in the Senate — save for Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman — supported a war powers resolution on March 4. And while this would have triggered congressional authority to vote for or against war with Iran, it is not, itself, a vote against war — it is an assertion of Congress’s authority to decide the matter. This conditional element, combined with the fact that its failure in both the Senate and House was likely a fait accompli, permitted Democrats to be on the record as appearing to oppose the war without running afoul of the pro-war, pro-Israel lobby.

It’s telling that the Plan-Mongering strategy is being promoted by centrist, corporate, and billionaire-funded groups like Third Way, who released talking points detailing how Democrats should talk about the war on the first day of the bombing, the substance of which is an almost carbon copy of how top Democrats have subsequently spoken about it.

“President Trump is refusing to answer a number of grave and urgent questions,” leads off the memo, which proceeds to lay out the familiar talking points: Is Iran truly an imminent threat? (The answer, one assumes, is TBD.) Why did Trump tell us in an address to the nation in June that Iran’s nuclear assets had been “completely and totally obliterated”? Is this a “Wag the Dog” war? Is this a war for regime change? (Again, the normative substance remains elusive.) Why has Congress been bypassed? The memo ends with this muddled statement of support but skepticism about process: “We strongly support our troops and hope this mission succeeds. But these unanswered questions mean we don’t know what success looks like, and that should deeply worry every American.”

What’s missing is a clearly articulated message against the war, or any demand to end it now. Instead, a “hope the mission succeeds,” and a lot of hand-wringing, deflections, and concerns that Congress is being left out of the war. The influential liberal group National Security Action released similar, if marginally better, process-focused talking points last week in their “messaging guide.” While the guide conditionally opposes new funding, it still makes no demand to end the war immediately, instead suggesting Democrats should refuse to fund it until “Donald Trump makes clear how and when we are getting out of this reckless war.” 

Rather than a clear objection to funding this illegal and immoral war in any form, these talking points continue to leave open the possibility Democrats could support it, if only there was an acceptable “plan.” Central to this incoherent messaging is the implication that there exists a “plan” Trump could proffer that would satisfy Democrats. And if that’s the case, after the 900th demand by Democrats that he produce one, one is left wondering: Why don’t the Democrats provide one, or at least a rough outline? What would a good “plan” for a surprise and unprovoked attack on Iran look like, exactly? What’s to stop Schumer’s office from offering one? What’s left unsaid is that there’s no plan in the universe that would justify this war of aggression that’s already killed over 1,300 civilians, including 200 children. 

Those pushing this argument would likely make a pragmatism defense: These types of process critiques play better with the public, they might insist. But it’s unclear on what basis this could be said, as the war is already historically unpopular. Polls show the public overwhelmingly wants the war to end; they are not asking for more refined “plans” or “explanations” or “hearings.”

Related

It’s a War With Iran, Not an “Intervention”

The real reason why this line is popular is almost certainly because it creates the appearance of unified party opposition while permitting those who soft-support the war to find something to criticize, namely the lack of a sufficiently good “plan.”

This focus on process criticism — which defined Democratic leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries’s superficial response to the war in the immediate lead-up and first days of the war — does not build any moral narratives, or undermine the logic of regime change, which remains the bipartisan consensus, or run afoul of AIPAC and other major pro-Israel Democratic donors. But it may help placate Democratic voters who are overwhelmingly opposed to the war to the tune of 89 percent. When Democratic message-shapers are tasked with opposing a war without opposing the moral logic of the war, confusing and often contradictory process criticism is all they have left. 

Democrats, as a minority party, could not unilaterally end the war if they wanted to, but this appeal to their powerlessness doesn’t tell the whole story. When the House voted on a separate war powers resolution the day after the Senate’s failed, four Democrats — Reps. Henry Cuellar, Jared Golden, Greg Landsman, and Juan Vargas — broke ranks and opposed it. Had they voted the party line, it would have passed due to two Republicans joining the effort, and the war would have likely ended — at least until a subsequent authorization vote took place.

When is Jeffries, the supposedly anti-war House minority leader, going to discipline these four pro-war Democrats who ruined the party’s nominal opposition to this war? So far, there have been no reports of any such measures, so we’re left to understand that opposing the war is important, but it’s not important-important. A potential upcoming vote on supplemental war funding should be more clarifying, with the potential to differentiate between real opposition and senators Who Just Want to Look Outraged. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., indicated he will oppose any more funding, while others, such as Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., have not ruled out more funding, ostensibly to “support the troops.” Jeffries, true to form as a party leader, refuses to say what he’ll support.

What generic Plan-Monger language does is permit seemingly genuine antiwar voices like Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to run the same basic script of AIPAC stalwarts like Booker and Schumer. The “No Plan” sandbox provides cover for Democrats with a record of supporting Israel and being “tough on Iran” to appear anti-war without all the mess of saying anything substantive against the war.

A party that built its message around a strong, firm, and unequivocal case to end this war now would very suddenly draw attention to the undoubtedly dozens of congressional Democrats who would not echo this line. So what we get instead is limp process critiques, demanding pointless hearings, and bizarre attacks that Trump is not doing regime change fast enough. Polls repeatedly show the most common criticism of Democrats is not that they are too far left or too anti-war, but that they are too weak, that they don’t stand for anything.

Centering criticism of a deeply unpopular war on those carrying it out for not filling out the right paperwork or producing a satisfactory slideshow — rather than making clear, normative objections to a war of aggression — feeds directly into this perception. But perhaps it’s a perception Democratic leaders, and the pro-war, pro-Israel donors who fund their political careers, would prefer over the alternative.  

Update: March 16, 2026

This article has been updated to clarify Rep. Jim McGovern’s stance on the Iran War.

The post Why Dems Keep Saying Trump Has “No Plan” Instead of Calling to End the War With Iran appeared first on The Intercept.

Wars have been distinctly out of fashion as of late, especially since the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether those quagmires are to be blamed on “dumb, politically correct wars” in the eyes of War Secretary Pete Hegseth or not, the idea of putting boots on the ground, doing regime change, occupying a country, and putting American lives in danger is political suicide.

By now, President Donald Trump isn’t shying away from calling the war he launched against Iran a “war” as he seeks the trappings of what a powerful president is meant to be doing. But Trump was more obfuscating in his speech to the nation announcing the beginning of the conflict, instead using the phrase George W. Bush used in his infamous 2003 “Mission Accomplished” speech, saying the U.S. had launched “major combat operations” against Iran, before obliquely referring to it later on as a “war” to prepare the viewers at home for “courageous American heroes” being killed in the fighting to come.

Trump has since gleefully argued that “wars can be fought ‘forever’” to those worried about America running low on munitions to use against Iran. When asked whether Americans should be concerned about retaliatory strikes on the homeland, Trump responded, “I guess,” and added, “When you go to war, some people will die.”

Related

U.S. Military Refuses to Endorse Trump Claim That Iran Bombed Girls’ School

After American stealth bombers struck Iranian nuclear facilities last June, Vice President JD Vance claimed the United States was not at war with Iran, or even Iran’s government, but only with “Iran’s nuclear program.” Absent the ability to split such fine hairs, Republicans have by and large stuck to calling the war a “decisive action,” an “extraordinary mission,” or an “intervention” — but have faltered under basic scrutiny when asked what those phrases mean in an effort not to trip wires with the American people, a majority of whom do not support the war.

Some have been slightly more agile, with House Speaker Mike Johnson insisting Operation Epic Fury is just that, an “operation” that is “limited in scope, limited in objective.” Some have taken the line that Iran has in fact been the one waging the forever war, against the United States, with the House Republican Foreign Affairs Committee publishing an image boasting that “President Trump is ending the forever war that Iran has waged against America for the last 47 years.” Others have simply tripped over themselves, with Sen. Markwayne Mullin declaring “This is war,” before correcting himself after being pressed by a journalist, saying “They’ve called it war” and “We haven’t declared war,” and that him saying it was a war “was a misspoke.” Mullin has since been nominated to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

Strangely, though, this allergy has also been exhibited by many of the war’s ostensible critics, though these lines rarely go much further. Certain Democratic members of Congress, like Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., and Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, have outright supported the war, borrowing language from the Republicans — the latter called it a “military intervention” — and saying targeting “missile systems and core infrastructure” apparently does not count as a war.

Others attempted some sort of bizarre middle ground, with Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, warning the “hostilities” against Iran were “not an illegal war — but could become one.” Even those straightforwardly against the war have made bizarre missteps, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., still borrowing Trump’s preferred framing in the headline of her statement condemning the war, calling it “combat operations” against Iran.

The root of this hesitation by both Republicans and Democrats stems from the memory of Iraq and Afghanistan, and how estimates of operations stretched from weeks and months to years and years, in which thousands of American soldiers died and hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. Already the estimated duration of the war with Iran has stretched from four weeks to six to even potentially eight, according to Hegseth.

Related

Facing Years in Prison for Drone Leak, Daniel Hale Makes His Case Against U.S. Assassination Program

Barack Obama understood Americans’ fears about reentering open-ended conflicts, choosing instead to greatly expand the drone program that has informed how this war is now being executed. It also led him to describe his military interventions against the Islamic State as being explicitly nothing like Bush’s open-ended wars, where “ground troops” for combat purposes would not be returning to Iraq after the much-heralded withdrawal. Of the thousands of U.S. troops Obama ended up sending to Iraq, 2,500 still remain, with the Trump administration rejecting votes in the Iraqi Parliament that declared the U.S. military must withdraw, threatening to seize 90 percent of Iraq’s national budget (in oil revenues held at the Federal Reserve) if such measures were taken, and again threatening the country with similar punishment if it includes anti-American parties in its next government.

The war against Iran is being talked about in similar terms, of an operation that will involve no ground troops, will involve no “nation-building quagmires,” and in the words of Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., will be a “conflict that should be very short and sweet.” As Iran proves it is not willing to immediately capitulate, reports have emerged of preparations being made for potentially months of bombardment. Ground troops, once off the table, were almost immediately put back on the table. Trump at one point saw an off-ramp within only a few days, and now demands Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” with the White House as the decider of Iran’s next leader after their assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His son Mojtaba Khamenei, the new Supreme Leader of Iran as elected by the Assembly of Experts, is apparently “unacceptable,” according to Trump.

In another echo of recent history, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld used similar language about Iraq. He insisted troops were not bogged down in a “quagmire” like Vietnam and said Saddam Hussein should only be discussing “unconditional surrender” with the United States, with no other type of deal being acceptable. Rumsfeld, however, said the latter at the beginning of April 2003, days after the war against Iraq was launched, where American troops were rapidly advancing toward Baghdad.

Related

With World’s Eyes on Iran, Israel Locks Down the West Bank

Trump is making these pronouncements as his allies conversely insist that this not-at-all-a-war will be brief, targeted, precise, and still sink the “mothership of terrorism,” as Sen. Lindsey Graham has put it. Trump has signaled he wants to “go in and clean out everything,” to wipe out Iran’s leadership structure, and install a new leader to his liking. The only way this was possible in Iraq was after the U.S. invaded with hundreds of thousands of ground troops and built a new administration from the ground up with an American viceroy, himself on the ground in Baghdad in a militarily-secured compound, constantly battling with the populace.

The promise of an airpower-only regime change war, innately at odds with reality, is dissolving. Trump is reportedly considering a ground operation, potentially even with Israeli special forces, to seize the enriched uranium in Isfahan that was buried after America’s strikes last June.

Just as soon as such talk floated in the air, reports began to emerge of a potentially much larger operation to seize Kharg Island, where thousands of Iranians live, and which 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports run through. Reports continue to oscillate between plans for such expansions, including being open to assassinating the younger Khamenei, and Trump’s renewed insistences that the war is “very complete, pretty much” and that they are “very far” ahead of schedule (while in the same breath proposing a military operation to take over the Strait of Hormuz).

Despite these claims of already decimating Iran’s military, Iranian missiles continue to strike Israel with only hours, sometimes even minutes, between attacks, even as its barrages have become smaller. Every indication suggests war against Iran will not be quick like removing Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. The country’s resolve is clear: When NBC News anchor Tom Llamas asked Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi last week if he feared a potential American invasion, Araghchi replied, “No, we are waiting for them.”

The post It’s a War With Iran, Not an “Intervention” appeared first on The Intercept.

A high-profile election denier is leading election integrity work at the Department of Homeland Security. Trump and congressional Republicans are pushing the SAVE America Act and threatening to “nationalize” elections, purportedly to prevent undocumented immigrants from voting. But despite an occasional murmur from Democrats that they are concerned about Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents deploying to polling places around the country, they’re doing almost nothing to stop this nightmare scenario. 

In response to the horrific killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Democrats have partially shut down the government, holding DHS spending in limbo as they demand reforms to ICE. But instead of looking ahead to the midterms, Democrats have drawn most of their demands from the same well of “community policing” policies that became popular during the Black Lives Matter era, like better use-of-force policies, eliminating racial profiling, and deploying more body cameras. The rest of the Democrats’ wish list are proposals to ban things that are already illegal (like entering homes without a warrant or creating databases of activists) or are almost comically toothless, like regulating the uniforms DHS agents wear on the street. 

The department is quickly metastasizing into a grave threat to the midterms, public safety, and our democracy — and Democrats are wasting time worried about their uniforms. Although Heather Honey, who pushed the theory that the 2020 race was stolen from Trump and serves in a newly created role as the administration’s deputy assistant secretary for election integrity, told elections officials on a private call last week that ICE would not be at polling sites, state officials reportedly weren’t reassured. Advocacy organizations have warned that even if that holds true, just the possibility could have a “chilling” effect on turnout. If Democrats want to prevent ICE from being used to interfere with elections, they have to be prepared to demand more — and be willing not to fund DHS until next year if they don’t get these concessions.

First and foremost, Democrats need to stop the department’s heavily politicized “wartime” recruitment drive. Thanks to H.R. 1, otherwise known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, ICE has more than doubled the number of officers and agents in its ranks since Trump took office. In spite of merit system principles which prohibit politicized recruitment, DHS has used its massive influx of cash to target conservative-coded media, gun shows, and NASCAR races, and has used white nationalist, neo-Nazi iconography in its recruitment advertising. The Department of Justice has similarly focused its recruitment efforts on those who demonstrate loyalty to Trump’s agenda.

Related

ICE Removes Spanish-Language Training Requirement for New Recruits

Purposely recruiting right-wing extremists should be reason enough for Democrats to act — neo-Nazis aren’t going to be mollified by a use-of-force policy. But just as dangerously, DHS’s rush to fill its ranks with ideological zealots could leave the department addled by corruption for decades to come. 

That’s exactly what happened to the Border Patrol, which has never recovered from a post-9/11 hiring surge in which standards were lowered, training was shortened, and background checks were rushed. Back in 2016, an independent task force led by former New York Police Department Commissioner Bill Bratton and former Drug Enforcement Administration head Karen Tandy found Border Patrol was so vulnerable to corruption that it posed a threat to national security. A former internal affairs official at Border Patrol told The Intercept in 2020 that he estimated between 5 and 10 percent of the force was actively or formerly engaged in some form of corruption.

What is happening today could be orders of magnitude worse. Consider who is in charge: Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, reportedly promised to steer immigration enforcement-related government contracts in exchange for $50,000 in cash in a paper bag, which he was recorded accepting from an undercover FBI agent at a Cava in suburban Maryland. (Trump’s DOJ shut down the case shortly after taking office.)

In November, ProPublica reported just-axed Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem directed $220 million in contracts to an advertising firm whose CEO is married to outgoing DHS chief spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin. Noem also came under fire from Congress during her testimony this week on DHS’s contracting practices and whether Corey Lewandowski — her top aide, former Trump campaign manager, and widely rumored paramour — had any role in approving them.

Among the rank and file, at least two dozen ICE employees and contractors have been charged with crimes since 2020 ranging from sexually abusing people in custody or taking bribes to remove detention orders. The corruption eating away at DHS, combined with fiscal mismanagement even Republican appropriators called “especially egregious” last year, is an urgent crisis.

DHS’s surveillance capabilities, along with its clear penchant for using them to suppress dissent, should also alarm Democrats about ICE’s potential role in future elections. Although the Privacy Act of 1974 explicitly prohibits federal agencies from maintaining records on how individuals exercise their First Amendment rights, there is growing evidence of rampant databasing of people based on their political beliefs. Last year, DHS issued a Privacy Act notice on its expanded records systems, which now include “individuals who have made credible threats against ICE personnel or facilities.” It’s not hard to imagine that DHS may be internally defining “threat” to encompass all kinds of nonviolent protest activity, and we are seeing the consequences of that in cities across the country.

Related

Federal Agents Are Intimidating Legal Observers at Their Homes: “They Know Where You Live”

In Minneapolis and elsewhere, DHS officials and line-level agents have gleefully threatened activists with “making them famous” — going so far as to show up at legal observers’ homes to taunt and intimidate them — labeled protesters as “domestic terrorists,” and revoked one activist’s Global Entry and TSA PreCheck privileges.

Documents released in AAUP v. Rubio, a lawsuit challenging visa revocations of university students and faculty for their pro-Palestinian advocacy, revealed that DHS and the State Department were investigating, detaining, and attempting to deport students and faculty based solely on their political speech. 

None of these abuses of people’s privacy, data, and constitutional rights has stopped Silicon Valley from rushing in to build surveillance tools for DHS. Palantir, which has already built databases for immigration enforcement, inked a billion-dollar deal with DHS last month. ICE used technology from Clearview AI to scan protesters’ faces in Minneapolis. Although Meta doesn’t have a contract with DHS, there have been several reports of individual CBP agents using Meta’s AI smart sunglasses to record activists while on the job.

Democrats should fully expect this administration — and DHS specifically — to use its propaganda tools to influence an election. Consider, for example, DHS utilizing targeted advertising to intimidate or mislead voters and stigmatize organizations that mobilize Democratic voters. During the last government shutdown, the administration used government websites and even employees’ out-of-office email messages to blame Democrats for the shutdown. 

Some of DHS’s influence peddling should be prohibited by restrictions on using appropriated funds for “publicity or propaganda” routinely placed in annual appropriations legislation. The Government Accountability Office typically investigates claims of funds being misused for propaganda after receiving a request from a member of Congress — but there has not been any public request for such an investigation into DHS or ICE. Although many of DHS’s propagandistic excesses — like shooting a photo op for Noem riding horseback at the foot of Mount Rushmore — are comical and seemingly unserious, some, like Facebook running ads for DHS urging immigrants to self-deport, are distasteful but pale in comparison to its more violent and abusive tactics. But if left unchecked, government propaganda could become another tool in DHS’s arsenal to undermine the will of the American people. 

If Democrats are genuinely worried that Trump will use ICE to interfere with an election, then the issue could not be more pressing. Clawing back some of the $150 billion DHS reportedly has left unspent from HR1 would be a place to start by making it much harder for Trump to pull it off. 

Democrats should not count on getting another chance to stop the Trump administration from stealing an election. DHS is more than an out-of-control law enforcement agency — it is quickly becoming a threat to democracy and national security. They need to act now before it’s too late.

The post ICE Poses a Real Threat to Our Elections appeared first on The Intercept.

The United States is waging a religious war. This is, at least, how dozens of fanatical U.S. military commanders understand President Donald Trump’s illegal assault on Iran: a messianic battle to bring about Jesus Christ’s return.

“President Trump has been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” one military commander told his combat unit, which could be deployed to fight in Iran “at any moment,” according to a complaint reportedly filed by one of the unit’s officers to a military watchdog group.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation says it has been “inundated” with more than 200 calls across dozens of military installations, including 110 complaints filed between Saturday morning and Monday evening, from service members reporting their commanders have invoked similar extremist rhetoric of Christian Zionist messianism when justifying the unprovoked war on Iran.

The complaints, which were first reported by independent journalist Jonathan Larsen and have garnered international media attention, offer disturbing insight into the eschatology driving this murderous operation for a significant number of military leaders. Perhaps this is unsurprising, given that U.S. War Secretary Pete Hegseth is an open evangelical Christian nationalist who has remade military leadership to align with his extremist worldview.

It would be a mistake, though, to take these chilling end times invocations as some skeleton key to understanding the foundational, undergirding reason behind Trump’s reckless death-dealing in Iran. The U.S. and Israel-led decimation of the Middle East region is overdetermined; too many causes, all reprehensible, account for Trump’s waging war. To properly understand Trumpian fascism is to not reduce one cause to another, but to appreciate how they function in a chaotic constellation. Factors at play include: annihilatory Christian Zionism; Israel’s genocidal Zionist project of territorial dominance; the American president’s unrestrained and irrepressible narcissism and drive to be a Great Man of history, idiocy, and miscalculation; and the continuity of bipartisan willingness to shed Arab and Muslim blood in the service of flailing U.S. hegemony.

Related

Trump’s Pick for Israel Ambassador Leads Tours That Leave Out Palestinians — and Promote End of Days Theology

All of these factors have played a part in previous illegal U.S. assaults on the Middle East, albeit to different degrees. As Larsen, the journalist, noted, President George W. Bush “referred to the American ‘crusade’ against terrorism” to justify his forever wars. Still, the open Christian extremism of Hegseth’s military leadership marks a certain shift. So, too, does the extremity of Trump’s derangement and self-regard. But Islamophobic blood lust, the framework of civilizational clash between Judeo-Christian forces and Islamist threats, and an arrogant and foolish U.S. leadership are not new, even if the worst elements are now heightened and unvarnished by earlier myths of spreading democracy and nation-building.

Political and military leaders do not need to share in apocalyptic theological commitments to enable and enact end times. The U.S. and its allies have been willing to unleash apocalyptic destruction without a driving religious belief in Jesus’s imminent return. With bipartisan support, and under the leadership of a Democratic president, U.S.-backed Israeli forces reduced Gaza to a wasteland. We can hardly place blame for the U.S. role in that genocide on American Christian Zionists alone.

Related

Trump’s Orwellian Board of Peace Consists Entirely of Human Rights Abusers

I’m not saying that nothing is new here: It is a genuinely disturbing development that so many service members have described, according to the watchdog, their commanders speak with “unrestricted euphoria” about “how bloody all of this must become in order to fulfill and be in 100% accordance with fundamentalist Christian end of the world eschatology.”

Authors Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor described the far-right ideology of Trump and his followers as one of “end times fascism.” Klein and Taylor note that European 20th-century fascism may have had what philosopher Umberto Eco called an Armageddon complex, “a fixation on vanquishing enemies in a grand final battle,” but these earlier fascist movements had a “vision for a future golden age after the bloodbath that, for its in-group, would be peaceful, pastoral and purified.” According to Klein and Taylor, Trumpian fascism is marked instead by an orientation only to destruction.

In one sense, Trump’s Iran war confirms this hypothesis. It is obliteration without vision or any appreciation for consequences. But what the bombardment really shows is not the way Trumpian fascism embodies some new embrace of apocalypticism. It is, like Trump’s regime and its adherents, a gruesome pastiche of American fascistic tendencies old and new, including white nationalism, evangelical Christianity, Zionism, imperialism, authoritarian techno-capitalism, and genocidal war. As ever, the actual end times will be reserved for the whole civilian lifeworlds wiped out by our war machines.

The post Military Leaders See Iran War as “God’s Divine Plan” — a Chilling Turn for Trump’s Fascism appeared first on The Intercept.

Shortly before CNN’s launch in 1980, founder Ted Turner — displaying what could politely be described as impressive foresight – instructed that a special video be prepared. The tape, which was leaked online by a former CNN intern in 2015, portrays members of the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine bands performing a melancholy rendition of the hymn “Nearer, My God, to Thee.” As the legend goes, this somber sign-off was meant to be the last thing broadcast by CNN should the end of the world become assured. In light of recent events, CNN employees may be considering digging it out of the archives.

CNN has beheld a pale horse; the rider’s name is David Ellison, and Bari Weiss follows closely behind. After confirmation last week that Warner Bros. Discovery, of which CNN is a subsidiary, would accept Paramount Skydance’s $111 billion takeover bid, the network is set to be swallowed by the father-and-son oligarch duo of Larry and David Ellison, whose naked alignment with the Trump administration predicated their earlier absorption and regime-friendly retooling of CBS News. (Larry, the Oracle CEO, was also pivotal earlier this year in the purchase of TikTok’s U.S. operations from its Chinese owner, installing a new CEO who earlier took credit for the app designating the term “Zionist” as “hate speech.”) Many now look to CBS as a preview of what is to come. Speaking to the Daily Beast, a senior CBS News staffer said, “It can — and will — always get worse,” and added CNN staffers were right to be fearful, as “it is hell over here.”

Related

“CBS Evening News” With Tony Dokoupil Is a Right-Wing Show for Absolutely No One

When it became apparent that the Ellisons’ bid for Warner Bros. would win out after Netflix declined to further raise its offer, Weiss was attending a Free Press debate between Ross Douthat and Steven Pinker on God — an event that would move even the most militant atheist to sympathize with the Almighty — but giggled trollishly on X: “I hear there’s some news?” At CNN, reports indicate the mood is less chipper. “No one wants to work for the Ellisons,” one CNN employee told NBC News. “If Bari is going to be running CNN, expect people to leave.”

This is further proof that there is seemingly no amount of money or power that can force any journalist not married to her to like or respect Weiss, a tool in every sense of the word, whose blatantly ideological interventions and ham-fisted incompetence since being installed at CBS have repeatedly provoked contempt from her underlings. But competence was never part of Weiss’s job description — her role was to act as sugar in the gas tank of a news network against which Donald Trump has long held a grudge. Now, CNN — which has long been even higher on Trump’s enemies list — also faces being press-ganged into a circus where a clown is also the ringleader.

Still, this would not be the first time CNN employees have been forced to tolerate an idiot boss, and if the Ellisons plan to copy their CBS blueprint and disfigure another network into something less objectionable to the average American fascist, they will find some of the work has already been done.

Prior to CNN’s then-CEO Jeff Zucker’s forced resignation in 2022, the Warner Bros. Discovery board was already grumbling about the network’s perceived liberal bias and brought in Chris Licht as Zucker’s replacement. Licht entered the job determined to tone down CNN’s anti-Trump coverage and win back Republican viewers. The latter of these ambitions has been a spectacular failure — as of March 2023, CNN’s prime-time ratings had tanked by 61 percent compared to the previous year — while the former led to an infamous CNN town hall with Trump himself, ahead of which Licht reportedly told the president to “have fun.” The result was a ritual humiliation which obliterated what little support Licht had among CNN staff and presaged his departure after little more than a year in the job.

Writing in The Nation in 2023, Jeet Heer observed that “whether out of genuine conviction or out of a desire to please the plutocrats who own Warner Bros. Discovery, Licht has mastered the art of deploying centrist rhetoric for reactionary ends.” This strategy — of attempting to meet MAGA where it is, or at least nearer to halfway — is bafflingly popular, not just with establishment media organizations but among prominent mainstream Democrats, despite the fact it has never been shown to work. After all, why would Trump and the Ellisons tolerate media that is merely amenable when they can force it into groveling supplication?   

The Warner Bros. deal now must get past antitrust regulators, but any challenge would be at the discretion of the courts and Trump’s Justice Department. Anyone putting their faith in this possibility should remember the Justice Department’s erstwhile antitrust chief Gail Slater was forced out of her role last month after frustrating the Trump administration with her resistance to corporate mergers. This may account for why Paramount, even before the deal was closed, declared its “confidence in the speed and certainty of regulatory approval for its transaction.”

Always right on time, numerous Democrats are now expressing grave concerns over what this next major act of consolidation would mean for the media landscape. But if America genuinely had a problem with such monopolies, media empires from Rupert Murdoch to William Randolph Hearst would never have come into being; instead, American capitalism operates on the belief that a cyberpunk dystopia ruled over by vast, unaccountable mega-corporations constitutes an environment of healthy competition, provided there is more than one mega-corporation at any given time.

Related

Bari Weiss Is Doing Exactly What She Was Installed at CBS to Do

You do not need to be a fan of CNN to consider its embattled future a grim prospect, any more than you need to be a fan of the Washington Post to be dismayed by its gutting at the hand of boorish gazillionaire Fauntleroy Jeff Bezos. Both are indicative of a prevailing philosophy shared by the uber-wealthy and the far right. If media has influence, they want to control it. If media no longer has influence — or worse, has the kind of influence they don’t care for — it can and must be destroyed, or else reshaped in their own image and for their own ends.

This all raises the question of what a healthy media landscape should look like, and what, if anything, can be done to bring it about. Transcending cable news’ version of ideological diversity — a spectrum that runs from Tucker Carlson to Anderson Cooper and treats anything further to the left the same way local news reports on wild bear attacks and UFO sightings — might be a start, but most immediately, it would require breaking the ability of the billionaire class to buy, control, or dismantle media on a national or international scale.

Achieving this, however, would require a political class with the will and the desire to do so. If CNN staffers and Americans at large aren’t holding their breath, it is hard to blame them.

The post CNN Could Be Next Up for a Right-Wing Reboot Thanks to the Ellisons appeared first on The Intercept.

Days before embarking America on another foreign war, Donald Trump spent more than 90 minutes speaking endlessly about America being back during his State of the Union, leveling racist accusations of Somali American fraud, and expounding on the beauty of America’s raid to arrest Nicolás Maduro in Caracas. It was a master class in testing the attention span of Americans hoping to hear anything at all about the danger that has loomed in the background now for months: the threat of armed conflict with Iran. Those who made it to the finale — and who have conscious memories of the George W. Bush years — would have noticed a similar tenor to the State of the Union in 2003, the one which paved the way for the justification of the invasion of Iraq less than two months later.

In that speech, Bush outlined the alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the myriad ways in which Iraq had supposedly deceived international investigators, and the staggering human rights abuses committed by Saddam Hussein against his own countrymen. Secretary of State Colin Powell, the president boasted, would soon outline to the United Nations the threat the United States, and indeed the world, was up against in Baghdad.

Related

Bush’s Iraq War Lies Created a Blueprint for Donald Trump

However, while many of the claims made by Bush were spurious at best and outright deceptions at worst, the claims Trump made in his speech were even less believable — and much more scattershot. Trump claimed that Iran would “soon” have intercontinental ballistic missiles that would “reach the United States of America,” that more than 32,000 Iranians had been killed in recent protests (NGOs estimated the number to be much lower, and an Iranian human rights group put the death toll at 6,488), and that the Iranian military had somehow killed “millions,” somewhere in history, with roadside bombs it pioneered. Perhaps most plainly false of all, Trump contended he just wanted the Iranians to say “those secret words, ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon,’” despite Iranian officials constantly making such insistences.

Before the U.S. and Israeli military launched strikes Saturday, the specter of an Iranian war has become something of a national miasma, the build-up having gone on now so long that its cause is imperceptible, yet perhaps everything at once. The build-up to the Iraq War was similarly argued under many causes, with Saddam’s authoritarian governance very much part of the discussion, but the aftermath of 9/11 and the supposed threat Iraq posed to the homeland was chief among them — the fire that led Americans to line up front and center behind the cause. While Iran has been on the wish list for American neoconservatives and foreign policy wonks for decades, this escalation has happened over a much shorter time frame, much more suddenly, and much more obvious in how the government is desperately in search of a compelling cause.

Stretching back into December, the cards were being laid out. Benjamin Netanyahu had made plans to meet with Trump at the White House to discuss what he saw as the threat posed by Iran’s conventional ballistic missile program, seeking a green light to initiate another devastating war, with hoped-for American support. Israel’s reasoning was not based on Iranian human rights abuses or about threats to the American homeland, but threats to Israel and “U.S. interests,” according to NBC News. Netanyahu had wanted a post-war situation similar to Lebanon’s, where Israel has been able to continue striking that country daily with Hezbollah unable to respond. Iran still retained deterrent military capacity to prevent this from happening. A greater threat, however nonexistent, needed to be communicated.

The rollout of news stories to back up Netanyahu’s claim was well-telegraphed, with reports suddenly emerging in the Israeli press that Iran was planning to use an imminent military exercise as a diversion to strike Israel. At the same time that Netanyahu was meeting with Trump, reports again suddenly emerged that Iran was seeking to develop and purchase “biological and chemical warheads” for its missiles, eerily echoing the false claims Powell made before the U.N. about Iraq.

Related

Israel Is Cynically Capitalizing on the Iranian Protests for Its Own Ends

As attention shifted to the burgeoning protests in Iran, suddenly the United States and Israel had a much stronger casus belli: supporting anti-government demonstrators to overthrow the government. Only a few days after the protests began, Trump promised the “United States of America will come to their rescue” if the Iranian government killed protesters, “which is their custom.” As the death toll mounted, far exceeding the toll of previous protest movements, the threats of intervention continued but never actually materialized. Western officials brought in Starlink satellites to keep protesters connected (SpaceX’s CEO Elon Musk has joked that he supports Secretary of State Marco Rubio becoming the shah of Iran), and unnamed foreign intelligence agencies allegedly brought in firearms used to kill over 200 members of government security forces. Yet Trump continued to promise that he was planning something, saying “help is on the way,” and demanding protesters “take over institutions” even as protests dissipated.

Trump wanted war, as did Netanyahu, but there was no conception of when it should happen, for what cause it should exactly be waged, and what would even be done. There was want, but there was no will, and there was no way. Everything had to be cobbled together in the background, sometimes to seemingly even get Trump on board with the plan he himself put into motion.

Related

The Bloody U.S. Legacy in Iraq

Reports of considering strikes on “symbolic military targets” were followed by Trump commending Iran for supposedly halting hundreds of planned executions. Declarations of an “armada” being sent to Iran’s shores were accompanied by demands to stop killing protesters, even though the protests had ceased days earlier. More reports poured in of plans for special ops raids and strikes to assassinate Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (and perhaps also his son), with reports of imminent attacks being just as suddenly thrown out as more and more military assets moved in to allow for greater and greater operations, a build-up not seen since Bush’s full-scale invasion of Iraq 23 years ago.

With attacks underway, the plan now seems to revolve around a complete decapitation of the Islamic Republic’s leadership and the overthrow of the entire system via the air — followed by a populist uprising Trump hopes will topple the regime. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,” Trump said in a video address. “This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

The campaign of airstrikes comes only hours after the United States insisted it wanted to have a civil diplomatic conversation.

As with the diplomatic talks that preceded Iran’s war with Israel in June, these negotiations are set up to fail, and the scope of demands is now far wider and even more contradictory. Reports emanating from the discussions seem to oscillate between a willingness to resurrect some version of the Obama-era nuclear deal and a demand for what amounts to complete capitulation — with Rubio demanding restrictions on ballistic missile range and ending of support to Hamas and Hezbollah; Israel demanding the full dismantling of said ballistic missile arsenal; and Trump plainly stating “no nuclear weapons, no missiles, no this, no that, all the different things you’d want.”

There is also no consensus about what the threat from Iran is even supposed to be in the American imagination. Trump’s accusation of near-imminent ICBM production is a recent invention, clearly meant to steer things in a familiar, concrete direction. But the Trump administration cannot seem to agree on whether or not Iran is even developing its nuclear program at all — with Rubio telling reporters there is no enrichment happening, even as special envoy Steve Witkoff told Fox News that Iran was merely “a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.”

Bush administration officials infamously claimed they did not want “the smoking gun” to be “a mushroom cloud,” but officials had always kept that estimate in months — the way the threat of Iran making a nuclear bomb has often been phrased as “months away” for the better part of two decades. Now, the threat is somehow both days away and barely off the ground.

Related

Would-Be Iran Monarch Reza Pahlavi Declares a Civil War in Iran

While opposition figures like Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah, as well as Mojahedin-e-Khalq leader Maryam Rajavi, have jostled for the attention of Trump’s circle, there seems to be little attention paid to their efforts, with the president dismissing Pahlavi as “very nice, but I don’t know how he’d play within his own country.” Those who remember Ahmed Chalabi and the motley crew of Iraqi opposition cronies may rest easy, as there seems to be little care at all about what would even come next. Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the brewing war’s strongest supporters, scorned the idea of even considering the day after in an interview with an Emirati newspaper, saying: “You gotta quit saying we. It’s not we, it’s them. It’s not my job to construct a new Iran. It’s my job to give them the opportunity to construct a new Iran.”

The feeling at home, despite oversaturation in the media, could not be more different than it was before Iraq. Just before the bombs fell, 64 percent of the country supported the invasion; more than two decades later, only 21 percent of Americans currently favor an attack on Iran, with only 40 percent of Republicans supporting it. The Trump administration is apparently so concerned about the optics of the scenario they have walked themselves into that, according to reporting from Politico, officials were hoping Israel would attack Iran first, leading Iran to attack American troops, thereby rallying the country behind the war effort after the fact.

One would think that such a drive toward an unpopular war-in-the-making would galvanize Democrats, but so far, anti-war voices have been limited. Lawmakers like Rep. Ro Khanna have found themselves drowned out by demands from Democratic leaders that the Trump administration simply provide a clear explanation, apparently seeking to avoid the embarrassment of pundits and politicians after the disaster of Iraq, who blamed their initial support on buying the Bush administration’s flimsy case.

It is an unshakeable belief that consistency of logic is the primary issue with a war to cement Israel’s military hegemony, one that may cost thousands of lives. While some prominent progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders attempted to hamper Trump’s funding to execute the war without congressional approval in June, Sanders has not made any public comments on the march to war in over a month, and other progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who have also supported anti-war initiatives, were seen applauding as Trump railed against Iran this week at the State of the Union.

The world is now watching a devastating war rage with no real reasoning, already no end in sight, and its chief belligerent making promises it cannot keep to a population it will surely massacre in the process. Unpopularity has not stopped the Trump administration before, whether it be in Venezuela or in Minneapolis, but the United States finds itself in a uniquely baffling position, where its opposition party, much like how it goes in Israel, instead begs for a better execution of the government’s evil plan.

The post Fool Me Twice: The Case for War With Iran Is Even Thinner Than It Was for Iraq appeared first on The Intercept.

The images from Mexico looked like a modern global battlefield. Security forces engaged in torrents of gunfire on the beach. Commercial flights into Puerto Vallarta promptly canceled as military helicopters took up airspace to run strafing fire on narco positions below. Highways filled with stalled traffic as buses burned along major routes, the smoke sending visible plumes across the city.

The torrent of violence followed a Mexican military operation Sunday that killed Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes, known as “El Mencho,” the leader of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, or CJNG, one of the most powerful criminal organizations in the hemisphere. Retaliation moved quickly. Cartel organizations launched an onslaught of armed convoys and road blocks that torched buildings and gas stations in at least 20 states around the country, grinding an entire nation to a halt. In the violence, at least 70 people have died, 25 of which were Mexican military forces. 

Related

Trump Demanded El Mencho’s Head. Mexicans Are Paying the Price.

In an after-action press conference, Mexican authorities were quick to frame the operation as a strategic success — a symbol of cross-border intelligence cooperation and another blow against organized crime.

But when reporters asked about the weapons recovered during the raid targeting El Mencho, Mexican Defense Minister Ricardo Trevilla Trejo offered a more unvarnished assessment. “Eighty percent are of North American origin,” he said plainly, roughly the same proportion of the nearly 23,000 firearms Trejo said the Mexican administration has confiscated since October 1.

Narco organizations have evolved from illicit trafficking networks into heavily armed forces capable of blunting military grade law enforcement across entire regions. That escalation is not an anomaly. The United States — with its vast civilian gun market, weak barriers to arms trafficking, and law enforcement gaze fixed largely northbound — has helped create cartels more heavily armed than at any point in their history, a transformation that has destabilized Mexico, cost billions of dollars, and claimed thousands of lives on both sides of the border.

And while America watches from next door — calmly stirring its tea as cartel violence becomes political currency for tougher borders and even fantasies of military intervention — it has largely avoided confronting its own role in arming its supposed adversaries to the hilt.

The Iron Pipeline 

There are only two highly regulated legal gun stores in the whole of Mexico, so it is hardly controversial or new within law enforcement circles that America has long been an armory of illicit firearms for Mexican organized crime. In 2006, after the Mexican government began deploying soldiers to combat organized crime, cartel fighters began sourcing American firepower to near parity with the Mexican military. This coincided with a liberating time for American gun owners after the U.S. assault weapons ban lapsed in 2004. As a 2013 Cambridge research report found, the re-release of American assault rifles coincided with murder rates spiking in Mexico. This supply chain, through which America effectively dumps 200,000 firearms into Mexico each year, is known among gun policy experts as the “Iron Pipeline.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, a law enforcement agency long constrained by political pressure and an aggressive gun lobby, could do little more than document the flow. Between 2014 and 2021, the agency reported that nearly 70 percent of firearms submitted for tracing by Mexican authorities originated back in the U.S., a figure federal agents and trafficking experts have consistently warned understates the true scale of weapons moving south.

While American gun companies reported record profits, their weapons were simultaneously transforming Mexican criminal mobs into paramilitary cells able to rout state military forces.

Related

Mexico: How 43 Students Disappeared in the Night

The result of that armament has been staggering: Mexico has recorded more than 463,000 homicides since 2006, alongside a parallel crisis of more than 130,000 people missing or disappeared. Much of the bloodshed has come at the muzzle of weapons trafficked north-to-south across the U.S. border.

In a previous attempt to arrest El Mencho back in 2015, cartel forces shot down a Mexican military helicopter with a .50-caliber rifle. The crash killed nine soldiers, with the gun later being traced back to a gun store in Washington state. In 2019, Cartel del Noreste conducted a two-day campaign of terror, pouring gunfire into the small town of Villa Union. In the aftermath, 23 people were dead, and authorities recovered a cache of weapons sourced from Houston. That same year, three American women and their six children were killed while living in Sonora when their Mormon community was besieged by sicarios. Two of the rifles used to kill them were bought from New Mexico and Arizona. Just last year, The Intercept recovered made-in-America rifle ammunition, including spent rounds from a factory owned by the U.S. military, at the the scene of a bloody cartel gun battle at a village in Michoacán. 

Related

Trump Calls Cartel Members “Terrorists.” They’re Armed With Bullets From a U.S. Army Factory.

In the aftermath of El Mencho’s killing, a video appears to show CJNG fighters in Jalisco mounting an ambush, with one gripping a Barrett .50-caliber rifle — a weapon manufactured in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Another clip posted on X shows what appear to be narcos unleashing a barrage of gunfire at Mexican authorities with an FN SCAR, a rifle assembled in Columbia, South Carolina.

Too Little, Too Late

There was no federal arms trafficking law on the books until 2022, which left U.S. authorities with few tools to charge gun runners for over a century. Meanwhile, a politically beleaguered ATF spent decades failing to properly inspect America’s nearly 80,000 gun dealers, allowing repeat violators to stay in business. While Customs and Border Protection has the clear authority to stem the outbound flow of weapons, their institutional fixation on migration and drugs has meant they intercept only a small fraction of the firearms flowing into cartel hands. 

Related

Inside Mexico’s Historic Lawsuit Targeting U.S. Gun Companies

When Mexican authorities filed a landmark lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers in hopes that Washington might finally intervene, the U.S. Supreme Court — backed by a conservative majority installed during Trump’s first term — effectively shut the case down, ruling that federal law shields gunmakers from liability.

As a direct result of America’s blind eye to arms control, these hyper-armed Mexican syndicates have diversified their criminal portfolio. By capitalizing on America’s orchestrated thirst for opioids, Mexico became the leading source of fentanyl, shifting the drug war’s deadliest toll north of the border. In 2023, more than 105,000 Americans died from drug overdoses, far exceeding Mexico’s roughly 20,000 to 30,000 cartel-linked homicides annually — a grim inversion of the drug war’s human cost.

In a bid to bring stability to their country — and in doing its due diligence over America’s overdoses — Mexican authorities have dismantled more than 2,000 clandestine drug laboratories in recent years, many linked to fentanyl production raids that routinely uncover compounds armed to the teeth with U.S.-sourced firepower. Each lab, a Mexican diplomat once told me, is a “mini-Waco” in terms of firepower.

Even if America could snap its fingers and stop the drug trade tomorrow, the cartels have branched out. Extortion — taxation imposed at gunpoint — has become a multibillion-dollar pillar sustaining their criminal fiefdoms.

Related

Trump’s War on Drugs

Human lives have borne the brunt of this violence, but the financial toll has been staggering as well. Since 2007, the United States has spent more than $3 billion in bilateral security assistance to Mexico under the Mérida Initiative and roughly $400 billion more on domestic immigration and border enforcement — a backward attempt to shield itself from the consequences of its own weaponry and the displacement driven by that violence.

For years, Washington has framed cartel brutality as a threat arriving from elsewhere, something to fortify against, sanction, or even confront militarily. Yet the defining asymmetry of the modern drug war is not migration or narcotics, but American guns: The United States has poured hundreds of billions into containing the fallout while leaving largely untouched the marketplace helping to produce it.

Americans enjoy the constitutional right to keep and bear arms — a right that’s deeply embedded in the country’s political identity and culture. But keeping arms carries a much larger obligation: being responsible for where those weapons ultimately end up. Until the United States learns to build a wall against the outward flow of its own firepower, the drug war will remain a shared tragedy — sustained not by inevitability, but by what America allows to leave its hands.

The post Made-in-America Guns Are Fueling Death and Destruction in Mexico appeared first on The Intercept.

Despite these findings, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement declined to punish the facility’s politically connected operator, GEO Group. Instead, records show the agency gave GEO even more money to run the facility after the man died: $4 million in additional funds, just three months after the death review was completed. After an April 2024 visit at the facility, ICE’s acting director called GEO a “valued partner.” 

Serial Falsification of Safety Checks 

Frankline Okpu died in solitary confinement at GEO Group’s Moshannon Valley ICE Processing Center in Clearfield County on December 6, 2023. According to the detainee death report, two days before his death, staff sent the 37-year-old Cameroonian father of three to solitary confinement following an altercation with a guard in which he allegedly swallowed an unknown substance they believed to contain “k2,” a synthetic form of cannabis, “mixed with a tranquilizer.” 

A physician who treated Okpu upon his placement in segregation instructed facility staff to take him to the emergency department. According to GEO, Okpu refused informed consent for this course of treatment; the doctor ordered GEO to house him in the facility’s infirmary for observation. GEO staff claim Okpu refused this course of treatment, too. The provider ordered prison staff to conduct 15-minute visual checks to ensure his safety.  

But records show that did not always happen before Okpu died, according to ICE’s death review. 

Surveillance footage revealed 94 of 219 required visual inspections (42 percent) did not occur as ordered. In 23 instances, GEO staff recorded checks that never occurred at all. In another 33, staff logged visual inspections without looking in the cell window to personally observe Okpu. And in 38 logged events, the checks staff claimed to perform every 15 minutes occurred outside that required timeframe.  

Federal prosecutors have previously indicted GEO staff for falsifying visual inspection logs during the period preceding an incarcerated person’s death in custody.

The Intercept sought comment and posed a series of detailed questions to ICE and GEO. An ICE spokesperson said the agency was unable to provide a response by deadline, citing “the blizzard in the Northeast.” GEO Group did not respond.

Other Falsified Records Violated Standards

ICE’s reviewers found discrepancies between the chain of events on the morning Okpu died and GEO’s documentation. According to the death report, Okpu was due to have a routine dental appointment, but when a resident adviser went to bring him in shortly after 7 a.m., Okpu did not respond. The resident adviser reported to a dental assistant that Okpu had refused his appointment, and the dental assistant completed and signed a refusal form, however, she “acknowledged she did not witness Okpu’s refusal, visit Okpu to explain the risks associated with refusing the appointment, nor attempt to obtain Okpu’s signature on the form.” ICE concluded GEO “failed to comply” with the medical care standard requiring providers to obtain a signed refusal form after counseling patients.

The dental assistant also told ICE “it is common practice to have another staff member sign as a witness on refusal forms when patients refuse appointments, then deliver the completed form later.”

The death review also found facility medical staff violated ICE standards by failing to conduct a face-to-face encounter with Okpu less than an hour before he was found unresponsive, despite documenting that they had done so. Video revealed that when three nurses conducted their rounds shortly after 10:30 a.m., they “knocked on Okpu’s cell and then all three briefly looked in the window of Okpu’s cell, then walked away without conducting a face-to-face encounter.”

And although GEO staff documented that Okpu ate both breakfast and lunch on the day he died, ICE investigators found prison staff did not confirm he ate the breakfast staff slid inside his door, and he was found unresponsive as lunch was being distributed. By 11:15 a.m., a nurse arrived at Okpu’s cell and found him lying on his side, with a “clear frothy liquid coming from his mouth.” Nurses administered Narcan and CPR and summoned EMS. Okpu was declared dead at 12:02 p.m.

Related

Deportation, Inc.

In all, ICE investigators found GEO staff failed to comply with four of the agency’s detention standards, committed two additional facility policy violations, and noted one area of concern. “These deficiencies,” the report notes ICE notes, “are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as contributory to the detainee’s death.”  

A Larger Pattern

ICE’s findings that GEO failed to follow informed consent protocols in Okpu’s case mirrors a pattern observed in March 2024 by ICE’s Office of Detention Oversight, or ODO. In its compliance review of operations at Moshannon, ICE inspectors found medical staff violated ICE standards by failing to explain the need for treatment to detained immigrants, allowing non-medical resident advisers to carry out refusals and sign as witnesses — thus preventing detained people from asking follow-up medical questions, and failing to ensure medical staff obtained signed refusal forms. ODO deemed these failures “a priority component.”  

The ODO inspection report also found GEO staff failed at least six times to perform required 15-minute safety checks in one of 13 files reviewed involving detained immigrants on suicide watch, suggesting the serial failures to conduct safety checks in Okpu’s case were not an isolated occurrence.

Related

Chinese ICE Detainee Dies by Suicide at Pennsylvania Detention Center

Since Okpu’s death in 2023, at least two more men have died in custody at Moshannon. Chinese national Chaofeng Ge, 32, died by hanging himself in a shower room at the facility on August 5, 2025. His hands and feet were bound behind his back, according to Ge’s autopsy and first reported by Scripps News. 

Then, on December 14, 2025, 46-year-old Sheikh Fouad Saeed Abdulkadir, a beloved imam in Ohio who was originally from Eritrea, died at Moshannon from unspecified causes. A one-page Detainee Death Report ICE released last week claims he “declined recommended admission to the medical housing unit for monitoring,” following an abnormal EKG reading “in early December,” after he’d reported chest pain, numbness, and tingling. The detainee death report does not explain why Abdulkadir was not rushed to the Emergency Department following the abnormal EKG.

The fact pattern is similar to what happened after the death of 57-year-old Jaspal Singh, who died of a heart attack on April 16, 2024, at GEO’s Folkston ICE Processing Center in south Georgia. An ICE Health Service Corps mortality review found that GEO’s care in Singh’s case “deviated beyond safe limits and directly contributed to his death,” according to records obtained by The Intercept through Freedom of Information Act litigation. But, as it did with Moshannon following Okpu’s death, ICE subsequently awarded GEO millions more in federal funding — a $50 million expansion deal of Folkston was finalized in 2025, when ICE received an influx of money from Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill — after Singh died under circumstances where ICE reviewers found violations.

The post Private Prison Falsified Records in Detainee’s Death in ICE Custody appeared first on The Intercept.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s high-profile trip to the Munich Security Conference earlier this month sprouted 1,000 takes, counter-takes, editorials, op-eds, and analyses from the right, the center, and the left. Ocasio-Cortez, along with her new foreign policy adviser Matt Duss, attempted to paint a vision for a “progressive foreign policy” that would embrace “working class-centered politics” to “stave off the scourges of authoritarianism.”

It’s a perfectly sensible, and potentially appealing, narrative that speaks to a real truth: There is little doubt rising inequality and decades of neoliberal policy have fueled the rise of the far right. But it was nevertheless jarring to watch an American Democratic politician immediately pivot to a vision of the future where a progressive U.S. president could usher in an era of consistently applied Liberal Rules Based Order without reckoning with their own party’s role in supporting a genocide for 15 months. Aiding and abetting a genocide makes you a war criminal, and progressive Democrats should, in principle, have no issues explicitly condemning war criminals. Genocide is a central moral transgression that needs to be faced head-on, not just referenced opaquely, or in passing, or as an abstraction we need to avoid in the future. Its culprits within the party need to be called out by name and admonished before anyone can move on to this newer, kinder version of the Liberal Rules Based Order. 

Progressives acknowledging the fact of genocide is a good first step, and it’s useful that Ocasio-Cortez and others have done so — “I think [unconditional aid to Israel] enabled a genocide in Gaza,” she said in Munich — but it is not in and of itself sufficient. Before anyone in the party can move on to selling a post-Biden vision of human-rights-first foreign policy, they must address what accountability for the war criminals in the Biden administration — those who aided, armed, and funded genocide — should look like.

Despite her now-infamous lie at the 2024 Democratic National Convention that then-Vice President Kamala Harris was “working tirelessly to secure a ceasefire in Gaza,” Ocasio-Cortez has a comparatively solid record on Palestine. She was early to call for a ceasefire and to use the word “genocide,” and has been consistent and vocal in her opposition to new military aid to Israel (with a mixed record on Iron Dome funding). But it seems clear that anyone attempting to be a progressive foreign policy leader needs to address a central issue before we move on to articulating a broader vision for the years ahead: What is the plan to hold the Democrats responsible for genocide accountable?

Beyond Ocasio-Cortez, any progressive looking to present themselves as a party leader needs to answer this question. Committing to holding Republicans — who are just as guilty — responsible is an easy “yes.” Committing to holding the previous Democratic administration responsible is far more politically difficult but just as necessary.

Related

“A Final, Deadly Exclamation Point”: Biden Backs Down on 30-Day Israel Arms Ultimatum

There’s been a total erosion of trust between the Democratic Party and large sections of its base on this issue, and there’s reportedly new evidence in the party’s still-secret “autopsy report” that shows Gaza may have been a significant factor in handing the White House back to Donald Trump. But so far, there’s been no discussion or plan from progressives in Congress to lay out what accountability would look like for Biden officials, namely Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Director of Policy Planning Jon Finer, national security adviser Jake Sullivan, and the president himself. These officials, among others, not only armed and funded genocide, but worked to cover it up, lied to Congress about it, and repeatedly misled the public.

The Intercept reached out to five members of Congress who are broadly considered leaders on progressive foreign policy and have also called Gaza either a genocide or an ethnic cleansing — Reps. Ro Khanna, Rashida Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez, and Sens. Chris Van Hollen and Bernie Sanders — to ask what their vision for accountability would be for Biden and Trump officials alike. 

Tlaib, who sponsored the Gaza genocide resolution in the House last November that both Khanna and Ocasio-Cortez co-sponsored, made clear that Biden officials, specifically Blinken, should not only be banished from Democratic Party politics, but also investigated and prosecuted for their role in the genocide. 

Related

After Historic Ruling, Lawyers Vow to Keep Fighting Biden Over Complicity in Gaza Genocide

“U.S. officials should absolutely be held accountable for their role in the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza,” Tlaib said in a statement to The Intercept. “Genocide is the crime of crimes. It is not something you can commit or enable and just move on from without facing justice. This is true for Biden administration officials and Trump administration officials alike. The evidence is clear that high-level Biden officials, such as Secretary of State Blinken, knew exactly what was happening in Gaza, silenced internal reports of war crimes and forced starvation, and proceeded to lie to the American people and continue to arm, fund, and enable mass atrocities.”

Tlaib would go on to demand “the U.S. to fulfill its binding legal obligations as a party to the Genocide Convention, including by investigating and prosecuting individuals in the United States implicated in these crimes.”

Van Hollen, who has called what occurred in Gaza as “ethnic cleansing” (but, somewhat conspicuously, has not labeled it a genocide), offered a firm rebuke of Biden and Trump officials, albeit in vaguer terms than Tlaib, telling The Intercept: “Officials of both parties should be held accountable for U.S. complicity in the man-made humanitarian disaster, indiscriminate killings, and massive destruction we have witnessed in Gaza. Those who have chosen to bury the truth, whitewash the facts, and directly facilitate American complicity should be disqualified from positions in the current and future administrations.” 

Sanders did not return multiple requests for comment. Khanna and Ocasio-Cortez, who are both seen as strong contenders for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. 

Discussing accountability for an ongoing atrocity might seem premature, especially given that key Democratic leaders, chief among them Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Sen. Chuck Schumer, are still supporting Israel. But for the purposes of giving shape to this topic, holding up Biden’s lockstep backing of genocide in Gaza for 15 months is worth isolating and discussing in its own right.

Related

Bush’s Iraq War Lies Created a Blueprint for Donald Trump

The reason why it matters, aside from the intrinsic virtue of justice, is that the assumption that those covering up, arming, and funding a genocide could do so, half-heartedly mumble some excuse, and everything would eventually go back to Business As Usual in the coming years was the exact dynamic they were counting on when they helped Israel carry out its genocide. They knew full well this dynamic would play out, as it did for Vietnam, post-9/11 CIA torture, and Iraq before it. Those who unleashed untold horrors, mass death, starvation, and wiped out entire families could — in the event it became a minor PR headache— feign powerlessness, insist they were actually changing things from the inside or index it as a “mistake,” then eventually ease their way back into the liberal foreign policy establishment.

This plan appears to be working, as key supporters of the genocide and its cover-up are filling elite jobs without any meaningful pushback. Finer and Sullivan started a chummy podcast for Vox and the latter has joined the left-leaning Foreign Policy for America as well as Harvard Kennedy School. Blinken has joined the board of directors of the influential liberal think tank Center for American Progress, with Finer joining him there as a distinguished senior fellow. No harm, no foul; everything is going back to business as usual.

That’s why it’s incumbent upon anyone from the left wing of the party running in 2028 to not only openly reject this dynamic, but also to articulate what real accountability ought to look like for the Democrats who co-authored the deaths of at least 75,000 Palestinians including over 17,000 Palestinian children. It’s not the only step, but it is a requisite first step before anyone can begin to define a populist and humanitarian foreign policy.

The moral minimum would be to support war crime prosecutions, as Tlaib explicitly does, and refer top Biden officials to the International Criminal Court for prosecution. The optical minimum — the bottom of the barrel, the floor under the floor of the barrel — is the wholesale rejection of the genocide’s top architects from polite society, to declare that they ought to have no role in any future Democratic Party event, administration, consultancy, or top think tank.

This, of course, is in no way a sufficient punishment, but it’s the bare minimum for anyone who believes Gaza is a genocide. Any embrace of Blinken, Finer, Sullivan, or Biden in these circles is to desecrate and belittle the very concept of genocide. It is to mock the intelligence of their supporters and the suffering of Palestinians in equal measure.

During the 2024 presidential election, anti-genocide progressives framed their falling in line to support genocidal actors as an unfortunate but pragmatic form of harm reduction — that Biden, and later Harris, were the only realistic alternative to Trump, who very much also supported genocide (a claim that has certainly proven to be true). Since the fact of genocide was baked into our electoral duopoly, playing along was a necessary evil to mitigate harms elsewhere, we were told.

Regardless of whether this logic was morally sound, it no longer applies in February 2026, two years away from the presidential primary. There is no need for Biden, Sullivan, Finer, and Blinken. A progressive campaign, whether for the Senate or the White House, can function without them. The only reason why any progressive would condemn a genocide, but refuse to explicitly reject Biden-era war criminals, is because they do not believe their own words. They evoke the word to signal maximum outrage but do not believe it carries inherent obligations and implications. 

Related

Democratic Party Unites Under Banner of Silence on Gaza Genocide

Under the banner of “unity,” many will insist that rejecting, much less demanding prosecutions of, Biden officials is simply not possible. We’d like to in the abstract, they may insist, but Savvy Pragmatism has once again forced us to “bridge the divide” and unite the left and liberals. This was, albeit in the “bipartisan” context, the logic former President Barack Obama used when he refused to prosecute any Bush administration war criminals for their widespread use of torture. “Look forward, not back,” Obama infamously insisted in 2009 under the auspices of “unity” and “healing.”

This culture of not looking backward helped create the circumstances under which the genocide in Gaza could foment. Biden officials could do whatever they wanted to do, regardless of the depravity and cruelty, knowing full well this cycle of impunity would be fiercely backstopped by elites in both parties.

“Healing” without accountability is simply another word for cover-up. Biden officials knew this, Trump officials currently know this, and the next administration that seeks to dispossess, starve, and kill Palestinians will no doubt know it too. If progressives in Congress can’t break this cycle of elite impunity, who will? If they can’t draw a line in the sand, name names within their own party, and have a principled opposition to genocide and its authors, what is the point of having a left wing of the Democrats at all? There will always be some existential election just around the corner to deploy as pretext to discipline the left wing into complying and accepting the unacceptable. Years out from 2028, no such excuse exists now. Biden and his officials remain either obscure or unpopular. 

Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Khanna not replying to requests for comment on this topic is not, of course, evidence they have no plans to address the matter of accountability at some further date. But at some point in the near future, it’s an issue they will have to confront. Accusations of genocide carry certain obligations and implications. It’s not an abstract moral claim or a box to be checked; it’s a duty to stand in clear opposition to the architects of genocide. If those attempting to articulate a progressive foreign policy cannot do this, if they can’t name names and commit to — at the very least — purging Biden officials from the party and liberal spaces, then how can any progressive vision for foreign policy be seen as remotely credible?

The post There’s No “Progressive Foreign Policy” Without a Reckoning for Dems Who Supported Genocide appeared first on The Intercept.

At the Milan Cortina 2026 Winter Olympics, competing under the American banner has put some athletes at odds with their own government, transforming them — in a handful of candid remarks — from cereal-box patriots into political liabilities swiftly pilloried by the conservative establishment.

When reporters asked American freestyle skier Hunter Hess how it felt to wear the U.S. flag in front of the world in this moment, he said it “brings up mixed emotions.” Hess drew a clear line between the country he competes for and the policies coming out of Washington, saying, “Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.”

Hess’s plain, honest answer triggered one of the most striking political crosscurrents of these Games: President Donald Trump logged on to Truth Social to call Hess “a real loser” who shouldn’t have tried out for the Olympic team at all. 

Hess wasn’t alone in speaking out. Curler Rich Ruohonen, an attorney and Minnesota native, criticized recent federal law enforcement actions in the state, saying the operations were “wrong” and violated Americans’ constitutional rights. Snowboarder Chloe Kim, whose parents immigrated to the United States from South Korea, defended her fellow teammates, saying Trump’s immigration policies “hit pretty close to home” and that athletes are “allowed to voice” their opinions.  

The response from conservative media was instant: shame, dismissal, and, at times, openly cheering against the very athletes carrying the American flag.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters that Olympians are “not there to pop off about politics” and said they should expect “pushback” if they do. Florida Rep. Byron Donalds went further on social media, telling U.S. athletes that if they don’t want to represent the flag, “GO HOME.” 

Conservative commentators also charged in on behalf of the administration. After U.S. figure skater Amber Glenn, who won gold in the team event, voiced support for her LGBTQ community, conservative podcaster and former Fox News host Megyn Kelly branded her “another turncoat to root against” to her 3.6 million followers. The outrage snowballed, and Glenn said she received a “scary amount of hate/threats,” prompting her to take a break from social media altogether. (She later returned to TikTok with a carousel of images of her and teammate Alysa Liu wearing their team gold medals and addressing her critics: “They hate to see two woke bitches winning.”)

The intensity of the backlash illustrates how symbolic these Games have become — not just for who wins medals, but for who gets to define what national representation means on the international stage. While the Olympic Committee and the U.S. government prefer to present the Games as a neutral display of discipline, athletic poise, and national pride, the truth is less tidy. The Olympics have always served as a global window into the political and social conditions athletes come from — and when that window opens, protest has rarely been far behind.

Seen, Not Heard  

Although the modern Olympic Charter’s Rule 50 aims to ban political, religious, or racial “propaganda” from competition, the idea that the Games have ever been apolitical ignores more than a century of history. Long before the International Olympic Committee tried to censor athletic competition, athletes and states recognized there was no separating sports from politics. At the 1906 Athens Games, Irish track and field star Peter O’Connor protested being listed as a British competitor by climbing a 20-foot flagpole and unfurling a green flag bearing the words “Erin Go Bragh” — Ireland forever — and went on to win gold. 

As the Olympics entered the broadcast era and the audience stretched far beyond the stadium, political leaders were acutely aware they could use the Games’ reach to bolster their legitimacy. By the 1936 Berlin Olympics, Adolf Hitler and his propagandists transformed the Games into a showcase for the Nazi regime’s image and ideology. The widely publicized spectacle of a nation unified under Nazism was engineered to sanitize the Third Reich at home and abroad, cementing the modern Olympics as a global platform for state propaganda — and, inevitably, for those willing to resist it. Jewish organizations, labor leaders, and civil rights groups in the United States and Europe tried to organize a boycott of the event, warning that participation would validate Hitler’s regime and its persecution of Jews, but the effort ultimately failed. Athletes responded with the most direct act of resistance available to them: by winning, in open defiance. Jesse Owens — an African American runner — shattered Hitler’s carefully staged narrative of “Aryan” superiority by winning four gold medals, turning his victories into a de facto rebuke of the regime’s racial ideology. 

Decades later, the 1968 Mexico City Games delivered one of the clearest political statements in Olympic history: sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos raising black-gloved fists on the medal stand in protest of racial injustice in the United States — an enduring image that turned the podium into a site of public dissent in front of the world.

The backlash was swift. Olympic officials expelled them from the Games, much of the press cast them as radicals, and both men faced threats and professional fallout for years afterward. Their protest remains one of the most controversial moments in Olympic history — and, as Smith later put it, entirely necessary: “We had to be seen because we couldn’t be heard.”

At the 2024 Paris opening ceremony, Palestinian boxer Waseem Abu Sal wore a shirt depicting the bombing of children in Gaza and told AFP it was meant to represent “the children who are martyred and die under the rubble,” bringing the war’s human toll visibly into the Olympic spotlight.

Across decades and continents, athletes and nations alike have used both participating in and abstaining from the Olympics to make statements about war, occupation, racial oppression, and human rights. This long history underscores a simple truth: When the whole world is watching, both governments and their critics understand the Games are too powerful a platform to leave unused.

More Than a Podium

It’s important that dissent shows up at the Olympics for more than just symbolic reasons: The conditions that shape who gets to compete are deeply connected to the social and political structures in the athletes’ home countries. Sports in America are advertised, sold, and draped in red, white, and blue so completely that they become impossible to separate from nationalism, transforming competition into a ritual where athletic achievement is inseparable from the story the nation tells about itself.

American Olympic success is not a vacuum. An analysis by researchers at George Mason University found that roughly 3 percent of athletes on Team USA at the 2026 Winter Games were born abroad and another 13.5 percent are children of immigrant parents — meaning nearly 17 percent of the delegation has direct ties to immigrant communities. That reality reflects how the United States develops and recruits athletic talent across communities, including immigrant families and underrepresented groups whose contributions have long powered American sports on the world stage.  

For athletes whose families or personal histories intersect with immigration pathways, this shift is not an abstraction. It’s about who has secure status in the United States and who faces potential removal or legal uncertainty. The ways in which these forces shape an athlete don’t stop when they step on the snow or ice, no matter what flag is on their back.

The Games are built on spectacle, but beneath the pageantry is a hard truth: Athletes do not compete only for themselves, they compete as symbols of the nation they represent. When Americans step onto that global stage, they are presented as proof of what the United States claims to stand for — freedom, dignity, equality — even as the country itself struggles to live up to those ideals. That contradiction carries a real moral weight. Competing under the flag is not just an honor; it’s a responsibility to confront the distance between national image and national reality.

The post It’s Correct and Moral to Use the Olympics to Speak Out About Politics appeared first on The Intercept.