The Dictatorship
Trump’s Venezuelan boat strikes are reminiscent of Obama’s ‘signature strikes’
Last week saw an escalation of the ongoing U.S. military strikes against supposed drug smugglers in international waters. The string of attacks on unidentified targetsall of whom the Trump administration has labeled “narco-terrorists,” in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean are without parallel in American military history. But the closest comparison, last decade’s campaign of drone strikes against targets in Central Asia and elsewhere against suspected terrorist cell members, serves as an ominous prelude to the current lawless enterprise.
Much like Trump’s string of extralegal killings, the signature strike program allowed the military to rain death down on its targets regardless of whether their identity was fully known.
President Donald Trump has claimed that the strikes are part of an ongoing war against drug cartels bringing fentanyl into the United States. “Every boat kills 25,000 on average — some people say more,” he claimed in September when addressing the military’s top brass. “You see these boats, they’re stacked up with bags of white powder that’s mostly fentanyl and other drugs, too.” That language is shared across the administration when defending the attacks, even as they’ve provided no evidence to back up their claims that the boats were even carrying drugs, let alone making their way to the United States.
Moreover, as The Washington Post reported last weekthe routes that the U.S. has struck most frequently off the coast of Venezuela are not used to traffic fentanyl as Trump claims. Most of the synthetic drug that makes its way to America, causing an estimated 48,000 overdose deaths last year, is produced in Mexico and most often smuggled across the border by American citizens. And even if they were, as the ACLU’s Brett Max Kaufman recently notedthe bombings against these potentially innocent civilians are “extrajudicial killings that are flagrantly illegal under both domestic and international law.”
His assessment echoes those of human rights groups and others who similarly protested the Obama-era use of so-called “signature strikes” as part of the Global War on Terror. Much like Trump’s string of extralegal killings, the signature strike program allowed the military to rain death down on its targets regardless of whether their identity was fully known. Drone operators were cleared to fire at people and locations that matched up with “signature” behaviors that marked them as likely members of a terrorist cell.

President Barack Obama’s foreign policy team spent much of his two terms trying to legally justify the drone warand signature strikes especially. New systems were developed, reviews launched, guidelines issued in the name of reducing civilian casualties and raising accountability. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) drafted internal memosfinding ways domestic laws allowed the strikes to continue apace. But the underlying nature of the program remained firmly in placeeven as the criteria to be added to kill lists remained opaque or vague.
When he first took office in 2017, Trump immediately moved to loosen or outright revoke many of the rules constraining the drone program his predecessor installed. The result was a major increase in the number of drone strikes in general and a lack of clarity on how many civilians were killed as a result. President Joe Biden signed a classified policy in 2022according to The New York Times, “limiting counterterrorism drone strikes outside conventional war zones.”
The cavalier sentiment undergirds the disgregard for the law or even accuracy that the bombing campaign is being given within the administration.
Since Trump returned to office, no similar official policy shift or similar top-level internal debate has been reported surrounding the use of force against boats far outside any official combat zone. What few military lawyers remain in place at the Pentagon with concerns about this lawlessness have reportedly been ignored or silenced. Charles Young, Trump’s nominee to be the Army’s general counsel, told the Senate earlier this month that the OLC has drawn up a memo to justify the operation, but neither the White House, Justice Department, nor Pentagon have provided any hint at how the office reached its conclusions. Instead, the administration has leaned on claims that the U.S. is acting in “self-defense,” a real international law concept that in no way applies to bombing alleged drug smugglers.
The GOP-controlled Congress doesn’t seem particularly interested in investigating those claims. Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, told reporters last week that he has no plans to hold hearings on the strikes as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. There is a vote in the Senate lined up to disapprove of the strikes and any military action towards Venezuela, where Trump has claimed many of the boats fired upon originate. Even if the resolution passes, with the House still in perpetual recess during the shutdown, and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., unlikely to bring the matter to a vote, it may be dead in the water.
It may be a moot point, as Trump said Thursday that he doesn’t intend to seek any formal approval for these strikes, as he is constitutionally required to if this were really a “war” as he claims. “I don’t think we’re going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war,” the president said. “I think we are going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country, OK? We are going to kill them, you know? They are going to be, like, dead.”
The cavalier sentiment undergirds the seeming disregard for the law or even accuracy that the bombing campaign is being given within the administration. There is no care for whose bodies are washing up on the shores of Trinidad, not so long as the president gets to flaunt the might of the United States against an enemy that doesn’t even know it’s being targeted.
Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for BLN Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.
The Dictatorship
Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.
In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.
Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.
In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”
A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.
Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.
Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.
In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.
It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.
On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring
About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.
All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.
The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.
The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.
The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
The Times summarized the broader context nicely:
Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.
Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.
In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.
The article added:
Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.
Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.
This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.
* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”
* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.
* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.
* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.
* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.
* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?





