Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump’s deadly strike on a boat from Venezuela was an act of war

Published

on

Trump’s deadly strike on a boat from Venezuela was an act of war

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump said the U.S. military blew up a vessel in the Caribbeankilling 11 people. The administration said the boat had departed from Venezuela and described the operation as a narco-trafficking bust against Tren de Aragua gang members. To anyone who knows the tragic history of U.S. interventionism in Latin America, it was an act of war.

This isn’t the first time a mysterious explosion at sea has been used to shape American public opinion and drum up pro-war sentiments. In 1898, the battleship USS Maine blew up in Havana Harborkilling more than 260 sailors. The cause was never proven, but American newspapers exploited the ambiguity to blame Spain, stoking outrage that fueled the Spanish-American War. Within months, the United States had radically recast power in the Caribbean, a grip it has maintained ever since, even when such power was challenged during the Cold War.

The timing of the attack, which experts are calling a violation of international law, is no coincidence.

The strike on what U.S. officials insist was a drug boat carries the same kind of ambiguity. The Trump administration quickly produced a blurry video of the explosion, but the images don’t prove who was aboard, what they were doing or whether drugs were even present. The White House has offered no hard evidence that the dead were members of a gang. “Pentagon officials were still working Wednesday on what legal authority they would tell the public was used to back up the extraordinary strike in international waters,” The New York Times reported.

But for a president who has promised to “pursue our manifest destiny,” this is part of a larger script already in motion. “In the Trump era, a new manifest destiny is here, accelerating protectionism and expansionism at the cost of the powerless,” I wrote at the start of Trump’s second term. This worldview, shaped by a 19th-century ideology that also fueled the war against Spain 127 years ago, treats the Western Hemisphere as territory still to be controlled.

Under Trump, as in recent decades, the so-called war on drugs provides the cover. Never mind that America remains an incredibly lucrative drug market — fighting trafficking has been good for American interventionism. Plan Colombia poured billions into militarization that fueled displacement and bloodshed. The Mérida initiative coincided with record homicides and human rights abuses in Mexico. In the Caribbean, counternarcotics has long served as the rationale for an expanded U.S. naval presence, including the current deployment of warships off the coast of Venezuela.

The timing of the attack, which experts are calling a violation of international lawis no coincidence. Trump has built his return to power on projecting American strength abroad, and Venezuela offers a ready stage. The United States has deployed more than 4,500 sailors and Marines, along with seven warships, in the Caribbean. Casting the South American country as a narco-state justifies force, rallies his base and signals to the region that Washington still wants to dictate the rules to Latin America.

And the messenger matters. Fully supporting Trump is Marco Rubio, the country’s first secretary of state of Latino descent. Defending the decision to reporters in Mexico City on Wednesday, Rubio said that “instead of interdicting it, on the president’s orders, we blew it up — and it’ll happen again.” He argued that ordinary seizures don’t deter traffickers, adding, “What will stop them is if you blow them up. The president is going to wage war on narco-terrorist organizations.”

Maduro isn’t popular, but the left-wing authoritarian knows history and how to use it.

Rubio’s words were less a policy blueprint than a posture. They reflected Cuban exile politics that have long pushed Washington toward confrontation in the region and that Rubio, as a longtime senator from Florida, is deeply familiar with. And that posture does have an audience, particularly among U.S. Latinos. Social media analysis from the Digital Democracy Institute of the Americas (DDIA) notes that “online discourse among U.S. Latino communities this week continues to be dominated by escalating U.S.-Venezuela tensions, with prominent social media accounts driving narratives of imminent military action and growing calls for [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro’s Venezuela to be designated a narco-terrorist state.” In fact, Venezuela doesn’t really produce that much cocainealthough The New York Times reports that “U.S. indictments and leaked Colombian records describe Venezuelan security forces as overseeing drug shipments worth billions of dollars.”

As expected, Venezuela has made sure to paint Trump and the United States as Yankee imperialist warmongers. Maduro isn’t popular, but the left-wing authoritarian knows history and how to use it. He said the U.S. buildup “threatens the entire region,” and warned he would declare a “republic in arms” if American troops crossed into Venezuelan territory.

As far-fetched as that may seem, the Trump administration is ramping up the tension, instead of toning it down. History shows how quickly moments like this can escalate. The Maine in 1898, U.S. troops in the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989 — each framed as defensive, each ending in military intervention. This week’s strike carries the same risk, wrapped in similar justifications.

The question isn’t whether a corrupt, authoritarian figure leads Venezuela. It’s whether the United States is again using a familiar script to justify actions that will destabilize a hemisphere, with Latino communities in the U.S. now serving as both amplifiers and targets of the narrative.

This week’s strike was an act of war. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to blind ourselves to what the United States has done time and again in Latin America and the Caribbean. If we are serious about learning from the past, we should call it what it is.

Julio Ricardo Varela

Julio Ricardo Varela is an award-winning journalist and the founder of The Latino Newsletter.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Truth Social leadership shake-up: Kevin McGurn steps in amid stock collapse

Published

on

Truth Social leadership shake-up: Kevin McGurn steps in amid stock collapse

NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump business behind Truth Social is replacing a former congressman and big supporter of the U.S. president as the leader of the social media platform after a stock collapse that wiped out billions in investor wealth.

Devin Nunes, a former California congressmen in Donald Trump’s first term, is being replaced temporarily by digital media executive Kevin McGurn as chief executive officer. The company, Trump Media & Technology, didn’t give a reason for Nunes leaving or provide a timeline for his permanent replacement.

After soaring shortly before Trump’s re-election in November 2024, stock in the company plunged 67%, wiping out more than $6 billion in investor wealth.

Trump Media was formed by the Trump family as an alternative to social media giants that had barred him from posting on their platforms after the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots. It said it would not only take on Facebook and Twitter as a “free speech” alternative, but eventually could become a media giant competing with streaming services such as Netflix.

AP AUDIO: Trump media company replaces ex-congressman Nunes as CEO after stock plunge that wiped out billions

AP correspondent Jennifer King reports on a leadership shuffle at the Trump media company.

The stock soared, but it never gained traction with a wide audience despite the president’s frequent use of it for major political announcements, slammed by government ethics experts as a conflict of interest with the presidency.

Since it went public two years ago, Trump Media has lost more than $1.1 billion. Nunes got total compensation of $47 million in 2024, the last year for which figures are available.

The new CEO McGurn said in statement that the company was “poised to take off.”

“In carrying President Trump’s unique, singular vision and message, Truth Social stands for the most powerful brand and voice in history of social media and beyond,” he said.

The Trump Organization didn’t immediately responded to a request for comment.

The company has recently branched into cryptocurrency and another hot business, prediction markets. The latter are online betting venues where people can wager on sports, entertainment and political events.

Both cryptocurrencies and prediction markets have gotten boosts from the Trump administration, in terms of lighter regulation and outright promotion. Last year, for instance, the Trump established a national bitcoin reserve, pushing up the value of that currency.

McGurn, has worked at NBC Universal, Hulu and DoubleClick, among other companies, according to his LinkedIn profile. He is also the CEO of a new shell company that Trump’s two oldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, joined last year to buy U.S. manufacturers. That company originally stated in regulatory filings that it would be targeting businesses hoping to tap federal contracts, which would be awarded by the same government run by their father.

The Trump Organization and the White House have repeatedly denied that there are conflicts of interest between Trump’s role as president and the family business.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

What the DOJ’s Southern Poverty Law Center indictment is really about

Published

on

ByMichael Edison Hayden

As one of the most high-profile employees of the Southern Poverty Law Center for five years — and as someone who has been outspokenly critical of the organization — I never once heard of the program that allegedly involved paying sources within the Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance and Aryan Nations until the Justice Department published its indictment this week.

What I did hear, frequently, was people in the MAGA movement saying we were some kind of criminal syndicate — part of a sustained propaganda effort to delegitimize the work we did tracking and labeling extremist groups.

Although I find the notion of paying extremists distasteful, even unethical, the indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda. And, the SPLC, for its part, has called these charges “false allegations.”

One quote from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s press conference about the charges against the SPLC stood out to me as particularly absurd:

“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” he said on Tuesday afternoon.

Imagine, for a moment, believing the SPLC — or any other civil rights organization — needed to fraudulently manufacture racism to sell it in today’s America. Just two months ago, the president shared an artificial intelligence-generated video depicting his Black predecessor and his predecessor’s Black wife as primates. In early 2025, the Trump administration suspended refugee admissions from majority non-white countries while investing in a special program to fast-track white South African Afrikaners into the United States. Racism is not a rare commodity in this country to be manufactured — it’s cheap and easy to find.

A closer look at the indictment raises more red flags. For one, the KKK, National Alliance and Aryan Nations have been largely defanged for years. You rarely hear those names now unless you’re a historian focused on the white supremacist movement. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of criminal wrongdoing on its own, but it does show that this DOJ, in 2026, had to reach back as far as 2013 to find a relatively obscure SPLC program — one that, as a former spokesperson, I had never even heard of.

Another issue is the indictment’s suggestion that the SPLC played a role in planning the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, based on the claim that an informant was “part of a leadership group.” The idea that an informant could have planted the seed for a gathering of white supremacists of that magnitude is completely implausible. We don’t need to speculate about the origins of that deadly event: Unite the Right was effectively a sequel to a similar rally in Charlottesville in May 2017, driven by widespread outrage within the movement over the removal of Confederate statues. Unicorn Riot preserved reams of Discord logs attesting to it.

The indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda.

So, leaving open the possibility that something comes out in the trial that I don’t know about yet, these charges look like a piece of political theater to shore up a wayward MAGA base beleaguered by the scandal around Jeffrey Epstein and an increasingly unwieldy debacle in Iran. It’s a MAGA base that understands the SPLC as one of the primary villains in its propaganda stories and enjoys seeing it suffer.

But if the DOJ argues that paying informants furthers hate, and that this makes the use of paid informants fraudulent, won’t the SPLC’s lawyers simply demonstrate how those efforts contributed to these groups no longer being around? If the SPLC propped up the National Alliance to defraud donors, why is it essentially defunct? Why does the once robust Aryan Nations group no longer exist?

If you’ve read this far and assumed I have an incentive to support my former employer, I don’t. I have a different life now — with a book out, a podcast and teaching. After producing some of the SPLC’s more notable investigative stories from 2018 to 2023, I’ve repeatedly criticized them in media appearances.

As chronicled in my book, “Strange People on the Hill,” the SPLC settled with me out of court after I raised allegations of racial discrimination and union busting against them. I have also publicly accused the organization of deliberately taking a lower profile during President Donald Trump’s second term — hoping to evade the kind of targeting that is befalling it now. The SPLC has done many things over the years, good and bad. It has been invaluable in tracing how MAGA brought fringe racist ideas into the mainstream conservative movement. It has also been clumsy, reactionary and, at times, foolish. This program involving paid informants may indeed be one of those clumsy and foolish chapters.

But to understand why a weaponized DOJ might choose this particular case amid all of the white-collar crimes it isn’t pursuing in America today, you first need to understand the narrative that’s been built around the SPLC for years — and how useful it has become to the corrupt men who run this country.

Michael Edison Hayden

Michael Edison Hayden is a leading expert on far-right extremism in the United States. His debut book, “Strange People on Blue Light News”— a chronicle of a West Virginia town in the five years following a white nationalist group’s purchase of a local castle — will be published by Bold Type Books/Hachette on April 7, 2026. Hayden also co-hosts the podcast, “Posting Through It,” with new episodes released every Monday and Thursday.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum

Published

on

Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum

A Virginia judge on Wednesday blocked the certification of a redistricting referendum that allows the state to redraw its congressional and legislative maps, less than 24 hours after voters approved the measure.

The rulingissued by Tazewell County Circuit Court, halts state officials from finalizing the results of the ballot measure, which sought to overhaul Virginia’s redistricting process.

This latest move prevents the Virginia Department of Elections and other officials from implementing the new redistricting referendum unless it is overturned by a higher court.

Other states attempting similar redistricting moves have faced lengthy legal battlesleaving the ultimate outcome uncertain.

Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled Wednesday that the redistricting referendum violated parts of Virginia’s Constitution, including how such amendments must be approved and submitted to voters.

Hurley said the proposal had not been properly authorized by the General Assembly before being submitted to voters. The judge also called the ballot language “flagrantly misleading” and did not accurately describe the measure to voters.

The attorney general’s office said in a statement that it plans to immediately appeal the decision.

“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”

Redistricting has long been a contentious issue in Virginia, as in many states, with debates often centered on partisan gerrymandering and the fairness of electoral maps.

The move was considered a victory for Democrats and could offer a potential boost for the party as they head into the midterms because the proposed redraw could expand their advantage to 10-1.

For now, the judge’s order leaves Virginia’s redistricting process unchanged and raises new questions about the viability of reform efforts moving forward. Both sides are likely to press ahead with a prolonged legal fight.

The Virginia Supreme Court paused an earlier rulingby Hurley ahead of the referendum, which allowed Tuesday’s vote to move forward while it reviews the case, which remains pending.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending