All posts tagged "national security"

You thought Trump couldn't go any lower. Guess what?

President Donald Trump disgraced America again on Tuesday.

That’s business as usual, in most contexts. But this time Trump projected his psychosis beyond the customary bounds of American politics.

Trump stood before the United Nations General Assembly and delivered a rant filled with insults and lies that might go down in history as the vilest of its kind.

Presumably speaking for all of us Americans, Trump told the entire world to f––– off.

Among the most vile lowlights of Trump’s tantrum:

  • He dismissed climate change as a “con job,” mocking decades of scientific consensus in front of world leaders who have committed themselves to fighting rising seas and burning forests.
  • He framed immigration as a global poison, attacking nations that take in refugees while offering no solutions — just fear, contempt and seething xenophobia.
  • He claimed Christianity is the most persecuted religion on Earth, an inflammatory lie intended to stoke division and grievance while pandering to his White Nationalist base.
  • He vomited falsehoods that he had presumably “resolved” seven major conflicts — including Israel-Iran and India-Pakistan, rewriting reality while of course offering no proof since none exists and drawing eye-rolls, not applause.
  • He told U.N. diplomats their countries are “going to hell” for permitting too much immigration, then basked in the moment like he was inflaming a rally crowd, not representing all Americans at a global forum.

Here’s how the Wall Street Journal news report characterized the speech:

In an hour-long speech filled with grievances about ongoing wars, windmills and malfunctioning escalators, it was Trump’s attacks against what he called a “double-tailed monster” that rang loudest in the ornate General Assembly room.

“Immigration and the high cost of so-called green, renewable energy is destroying a large part of the free world and a large part of our planet,” he said.

“Countries that cherish freedom are fading fast because of their policies on these two subjects. Both immigration and their suicidal energy ideas will be the death of Western Europe.”

Immigration in particular was ruining other nations, Trump insisted: “Your countries are going to hell.”

(Now, if you’re wondering about the escalator references, Trump was whining like a toddler about how an escalator in the UN building had stopped for a moment, briefly stranding him and First Lady Melania Trump. All our hearts go out to Melania.)

Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with a U.S. president calling out the UN for perceived ineffectiveness. Many Americans share that concern — and while some of us would rather see constructive, adult engagement to improve the UN’s efforts, that would remain perfectly within the bounds of propriety.

But that’s not what Trump did yesterday. He put on world display a level of hatred and boorishness — and a cringeworthy lack of gravitas — that certainly had diplomats the world over shaking their heads. Even beyond what they have come to expect.

Two days before the UN speech, Trump delivered one just as toxic at the memorial service for slain conservative icon Charlie Kirk. There, he proclaimed, “I hate my opponent, I don’t wish him well.”

That, of course, was a message to the sizable majority of Americans — at least 60 percent and counting — who disapprove of Trump today. Without apology, he let hundreds of millions of Americans know of his hatred for them.

But Trump didn’t just stop with us today. He also let it be known that he hates the world.

“Your countries are going to hell! Trump raged.

That’s the only way he’d ever get to know them better.

The world watched Trump rave at the UN. What it learned is no laughing matter

It is beyond ironic that Donald Trump names so many of his clubs "Trump International," because he never seems more out of place than when forced to address global matters. His very small world comes across as laughable, but it matters.

Whatever it is that fires up the Trump mystique among the MAGA movement, capturing the support of 40 percent of Americans at any given moment, it certainly doesn't travel. He is never found more wanting than when addressing global matters. The most recent humiliation actually occurred here at home — his home, New York City, but in front of the world at the United Nations.

Standing at the same podium on which Khrushchev banged his shoe, Castro held court for four hours, and JFK aspired to "explore the stars," Trump announced to an attentive world that while he was personally "really good at predicting things," immigration was causing their countries to go to hell. Nice.

It would be almost impossible for him to sound older. While there is room to discuss ways a country keeps its original culture in an evolving world, or the mechanisms for orderly immigration, the very idea that nations can isolate in a connected globe is both mystifying and unwanted. Given that Trump was primarily directing his immigration animosity toward Europe, he's essentially telling them to stay "white" or descend into Satan's flames. Nice.

Were that his only problem.

Not only did Trump float out his ugliest of ideas, the "great replacement theory,” but he also went fact-free in addressing one of the most sophisticated audiences he'll ever entertain, and did so when addressing the topic about which that audience was most interested — trade. He claimed that in his second term so far, the United States has "secured commitments and money already paid for $17 trillion," a statement so laughable as to bring a drink to the nose, given that America's entire GDP last year was $29 trillion.

The laughable lie is akin to telling a domestic audience that drug prices will go down 1,500 percent. If Trump could be believed, Walgreens will now pay us $52.25 to pick up the Klonopin needed to survive this post-fact world. And yet there he is, this time speaking to international leaders, laying out another statistical impossibility. Nice.

Did he whine? Of course, he did. Trump complained that no one has given him any credit for ending wars around the world — he seems stuck on seven, though no one can name them, and then noted that "everyone says I should get a Nobel Peace Prize." He did not say, "After all, they gave a Nobel to the Black president," but he may as well have. This column is more likely to win the Nobel Prize for Literature than this unserious man winning a prize for peace. But he whined anyway. Nice.

Now, do not doubt for a second that despots around the world do tell Trump such stupid stuff and will laud him in private over his powerful UN oratory. No question, when he hears from leaders in the Middle East, Latin America, China, or other authoritarian strongholds, he is showered with praise, told that the United States is "strong again," and most certainly, he deserves that white whale, the damn Nobel.

It is just that easy for other dictators to pick our pockets while filling his with flattery. Nice. To him, at least.

This is all just so awful on so many levels. American foreign policy over the decades, while fallible to a fault, was better than nearly any alternative, largely a force for good. And while that is nice, it also benefited Americans in more ways than we can count. From military bases in the Far East and Europe, to wall-sized televisions for $500, attracting the smartest people on Earth, and cutting-edge tech, Americans benefited tremendously from being "the good guys," the enlightened ones, science-centered, fiscally powerful, with a sensible long-term outlook. No more.

We look as stupid as he sounds.

Many might say, "Well, it's still just a speech and can't matter in the long run," but they're wrong. It does matter. Because the audience extends beyond the delegates. Imagine CEOs in Germany, Korea, or India, power players considering a major infrastructure move in the United States. Big business craves stability. Foreseeability. Reliability. They hear this crazed American and his policy and see only liability.

Banks, too. Entire economies ride the back of the 30-year mortgage, the bet that the next three decades will look "similar enough" to the last three that banks will extend loans, providing the American dream — home ownership. But again, as Wall Street looks on in wonder, muttering "WTAF," moguls here and around the world consider gripping their money tighter, putting our economy in peril, making everything more expensive.

Kind of funny. If the U.S. actually took in $17 trillion "every few months," the federal government could probably buy everyone a house. And that would be nice.

But that won't happen because it's not a serious number, nor based on a serious trade policy. It matters because trade is what underlies the UN's greatest purpose, peace throughout the globe. It is hard to go to war with the country that makes your phone. Simply put, we cannot afford to wage war with China. Global trade is essential to peace and prosperity, but do you suppose that any world leader sitting in that audience believes that he or she can enter into a beneficial, solid trade agreement with the United States?

No, and now your car just got more expensive and the world more unstable. Not nice.

But it certainly is expected when the president of the United States, once considered the leader of the free world, the most powerful man on Earth, takes to the podium whining, lying, and sounding like a petulant man-child, or exactly what happened this week. Skip the horror movie this Halloween and instead watch a side-by-side comparison of a typical Barack Obama UN speech next to that. Then think about the next 30 years.

For the last 30 years, the world has been pretty good to the United States, and the United States has been good to much of the world. Our military owned the seas and the skies, our crops had intercontinental buyers, our stuff was fairly cheap, oil flowed too freely, and economic progress was essentially baked in. Nice.

No longer.

Standing at the same podium from which Ronald Reagan brought along the Soviets, Nelson Mandela fought apartheid, and Pope Francis argued for drastic action on climate change, current American president Donald Trump talked about hats that said he's right about everything, then repeated, "And I don't say that in a braggadocious way, but it's true. I've been right about everything."

Just what the world ordered. The know-nothing playing the know-it-all all. Nice.

Because it is not just a speech. It is a direction, one that encompasses 340 million citizens, a powerful military, backed by a powerful GDP, and against that juggernaut, it is hard for the world not to sit back and think, "That's the wrong direction," and then work around us. Perhaps Americans remain largely unaware of the UN and our global prosperity because of it, in part because we've never had to live without it.

But with speeches like that, laying out a direction as such, we — along with the CEOs, banks, and farmers — may have to now factor in such a world. Unfortunately, it may only hit us when the television is $1,400, a mortgage far out of reach, and our mighty military is fighting at home and alongside despots. Is there any other takeaway from such a speech?

Alas, "Trump International" is now laughable. Sadly, it is more than just another speech and actually does matter. Eventually, the laughter turns to tears. Nice.

  • Jason Miciak is a past Associate Editor at Occupy Democrats, author and American attorney. He can be reached at jasonmiciak@gmail.com

These strikes clearly show Trump is a war criminal. Where's the media?

On Sept. 2, the Trump administration shared footage purporting to show a US strike on a Venezuelan fishing boat. Even if we take the incident entirely at face value (and there are a lot of reasons to question the video itself) — the US Navy attacked a fishing boat off Venezuela, killing 11 people. On Monday, another strike was allegedly conducted on a boat, killing three people. The way the media has handled these strikes is an indictment of the state of American neoliberal reporting in a neofascist age.

Why hasn’t the mainstream media pressed the administration on these strikes being illegal and dangerous (and unpopular)?

Why has no one in Washington considered the implications of calling a fishing boat carrying civilians a legitimate military target?

Why isn’t the media calling the Venezuelan boat strike an abhorrent war crime at every turn?

It’s simple: they don’t care about defending the truth or holding the powerful accountable. They have no principles to stand on besides profit and access.

Within hours of these strikes breaking, major outlets were repeating the Trump administration’s line that this was a strike on a “drug boat.” According to this framing, the attacks were justified, necessary, and part of a broader war on drug trafficking.

Virtually none of these outlets even entertained the obvious legal and ethical questions. Instead, they served as stenographers for the administration. This is not what an objective (not neutral) press in an advanced democracy does.

This is reminiscent of the Iraq War era, when corporate media parroted the Bush administration’s ludicrous arguments, paving the way for invasion and occupation that would kill at least 200,000, maim millions, and destroy American democracy further.

Legal experts across the spectrum have already stood up to say the killings were illegal.

Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University’s conservative Antonin Scalia Law School, called the strike “unjust and illegal.”

Jeremy Wildeman, an adjunct professor of international Affairs at Carleton University and fellow at the Human Rights Research and Education Centre in Ottawa, described it as “part of the dangerous and ongoing erosion of due process and the very basic principles of how we interact with each other in domestic and foreign affairs, regulated by accepted norms, rules, and laws, that the Trump administration has been pointedly hostile toward following and specifically undermining.”

Wildeman added that “this is definitely about regime change and domination.”

Even the Atlantic Council hedged, acknowledging that the legality was at best murky and in some cases advancing arguments to justify it.

Meanwhile, US Vice President JD Vance bluntly stated that he does not care if the strikes are war crimes at all.

The available evidence does suggest this was an outright criminal massacre. The first boat was, we now know thanks to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), turning back to shore, not threatening US forces when it was fired upon. Those killed would be civilians. Even if they were transporting drugs, drug couriers are not lawful combatants. They are criminals under domestic law, not combatants in an armed conflict.

Due process was ignored. There was no trial, no arrest, no attempt at interdiction — just summary execution. And the strikes occurred in Venezuelan territorial waters, not in an international conflict zone.

If another country did this, say Russia bombing a fishing boat in the Baltic, or China attacking smugglers near Taiwan, the Western media would have declared it a war crime the same day. Add this to the list of Western double standards in the international arena — we are seeing the destruction of the “liberal order” in real time.

These strikes are not a one-off. They fit into decades of US policy toward Venezuela, including economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and repeated regime change attempts.

For 25 years, Washington has tried to topple the governments of Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro through economic sabotage, coups, and support for far-right opposition. The humanitarian toll of those sanctions has been devastating. They have themselves emboldened repression by the Maduro government, which has used America as a scapegoat, with reason, for all its faults.

Now, with this attack, we see a dangerous escalation from economic to military means. If the precedent is set that the US can strike targets inside Venezuela (this was in Venezuela’s national waters) with impunity, it opens the door to a broader military campaign. That is exactly what think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies have been preparing for. One CSIS report, now deleted, explicitly laid out “options for regime change” in Venezuela, against the “Maduro narco-terrorist regime.”

So why is the media so unwilling to call this what it is?

Major outlets fear losing access to government sources if they challenge the official narrative. They also simply don’t want to admit that America is committing crimes, and may not be the moral actors in every major geopolitical event, as they were taught throughout their lives.

Going back to Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent 101, corporate interests are also important, with companies like Exxon and Chevron having billions at stake in Venezuela’s oil fields (and a US-backed government running things in Caracas). US military action that destabilizes or topples Maduro could directly benefit those firms.

Many of the analysts quoted in media coverage are from think tanks funded by the defense industry or oil companies. They have an interest in exaggerating Venezuela’s threat and downplaying US abuses, to make the US intervention seem justified and good. And reporters too often repackage leaks from US intelligence agencies as fact, without independently verifying. A lot of the “analysis” on the strikes in mainstream news has been from the intelligence agencies, who have a direct incentive to lie and manipulate information in favor of regime change.

Even respected outlets have contributed to this dynamic. The New York Times and Wall Street Journal have both amplified the claim that Venezuela is a “narco-terrorist state.” That claim has been debunked by organizations like InSight Crime and the International Crisis Group, which show that while drugs transit Venezuela, it is hardly unique; Colombia and Mexico play a much larger role in global cocaine markets, yet they remain US allies.

Meanwhile, outlets like the Christian Science Monitor are pushing a narrative that “more Latin Americans welcome US intervention,” based on flimsy and cherry-picked anecdotes that, once again, helps the Trump administration lay the groundwork for more meddling and war.

Would the Marines be greeted as liberators in Caracas? The hope is to expand the “War on Drugs” into the “War on Terror,” giving the US military more tools to intervene in Latin America, and then bringing repression to the home front (also called the Imperial Boomerang theory).

In reality, the region is increasingly turning away from Washington’s militaristic and blusterous approach, seeking alternative frameworks to the failed War on Drugs.

  • Joseph Bouchard is a journalist and researcher from Québec covering security and democracy in Latin America. His articles have appeared in Responsible Statecraft, Reason, The Diplomat, Le Devoir, and RealClearPolitics, among others. He is a PhD student in Politics at the University of Virginia and a SSHRC doctoral fellow on Latin American Politics.

We were warned Trump would sell out key allies. A year later, here we go

Exactly one year ago last night, Vice President Kamala Harris confidently walked up to Donald Trump, looked him in his bloodshot eyes, offered her hand, and then proceeded to spend the next 90 minutes dragging him all over the stage of Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center in their one-and-only 2024 presidential debate.

Harris was prepared, disciplined, and clearly demonstrated her keen understanding of both domestic and foreign policy issues. She wasted no time stating her key plans for her administration, and effortlessly illustrated a command of the Constitution. She made it clear that she, not her opponent, who was a convicted felon, had spent an entire professional career upholding our nation’s laws, not violating them.

She even predicted how the debate would go down telling the world that Trump would haul out “the same old, tired playbook,” and warning he would resort to “a bunch of lies, grievances and name-calling.”

While Harris strongly defended a woman’s right to choose, Trump stammered and lied saying, “As far as the abortion ban, no, I’m not in favor of an abortion ban. But it doesn’t matter because this issue has now been taken over by the states.”

Then he weirdly said, “I have been a leader on fertilization.”

With an incredulous look, Harris stared at him and then the camera, and said without speaking, “I have no idea what the hell he is talking about, either.”

This was repeated several more times, as Trump used the shovel Harris casually tossed him to bury himself.

When she wasn’t relentlessly fact-checking and battering the haggard Trump with the facts, she was nonchalantly casting a line and patiently waiting for the two-ton sucker fish to hit it, before setting the hook, and reeling him in.

By the time she was done, the orange, flapping fish was bleeding out all over the stage, and screaming, “They’re eating the dogs! They’re eating the cats!”

Harris also effortlessly dog-walked Trump into the very racist trap that he set weeks earlier when he questioned Harris’s “Blackness.”

“All I can say is, I read where she was not Black, that she put out. And I’ll say that, and then I read that she was Black. And that’s OK. Either one was OK with me. That’s up to her. That’s up to her.”

That’s up to her … How kind.

Harris again looked at the camera, with a “you decide” look.

When the ass-kicking was finally over, Harris had masterfully humiliated Trump. She had proven she had the capacity to be one damn fine president, and knew how to stand up to fascist bullies, not roll out the red carpet for them.

So badly was Trump beaten, he actually flat turned down an offer from Republican state media at Fox TV to host a second debate, saying “there will be no rematch.”

It’s fitting then, that on the one-year anniversary of Harris’s knockout of Trump on that Philadelphia stage, we are getting news of Russia President Vladimir Putin’s incursion into Polish airspace today. High-ranking Polish military officials are decrying an “unprecedented violation” as a “huge number” of Russian drones were shot down by Polish and NATO forces over that country.

This is the first time in the history of NATO that alliance fighters have engaged enemy targets in allied airspace.

Read that again.

As I type this, Poland’s government has invoke Article 4 of the NATO treaty, that states alliance members “will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.”

Without invoking Article 4, there cannot be Article 5, which could entail military action.

From reporting in The New York Times this afternoon:

Since NATO’s founding in 1949, Article 4 has been invoked eight times. Before Wednesday, the last was on Feb. 24, 2022, the day Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

What we know for sure right now is that the world is less safe today than it was yesterday, and certainly one year ago. We still don’t have a clue what Trump has to say about any of it, except what he posted on his social media account:

"What’s with Russia violating Poland’s airspace with drones? Here we go!"

Here we go? Good God.

This is the terrifying stuff of world wars, but of course, Harris was on top of this issue, too, during that debate, because unlike Trump, she read her national security briefings, and could tell our friends from our enemies.

At one point, Harris turned to Trump and said this:

“Why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up for the sake of favor, and what you think is a friendship with a known dictator (Putin) who would eat you for lunch?”

She wasn’t done:

“If Ukraine loses, Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe, starting with Poland.”

Holy hell …

And let me remind you that Trump promised to end Russia’s war with Ukraine on Day One of his presidency. Of course, anybody who was paying attention, and/or really loves this country, knew that like so much of the heated bilge that pours out of his lying mouth, it was all complete bulls–––.

Instead, just last month he surrendered to Putin on American soil by giving the murdering dictator the red-carpet treatment Harris had predicted.

But if we are really being accurate here, all of this was forecasted on another debate stage in 2016, when Trump was dragged around by another smart, tough, unflappable woman.

When Hillary Clinton went after Trump’s bromance with Putin, the man who would violently attack America only four years later said this:

“He (Putin) said nice things about me. He has no respect for her (Clinton), he has no respect for our president (Obama). I’ll tell you what, we’re in very serious trouble.”

Clinton responded this way:

“Well that's because he'd rather have a puppet as president of the United States.”

Truer words have never been spoken.

Both of these patriotic women were right about everything, and we should all be reminded of that every single day.

Trump's extrajudicial killings point to something even more chilling

The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits military troops from committing unlawful killings, defined at 10 USC et. seq. Troops can kill enemy combatants on sight, but only when engaged in armed conflict, or when there is an imminent threat. Even when we are at war, it is a war crime for troops to deliberately kill civilians unless it’s an act of self-defense in response to imminent danger.

On September 2, in international waters, on suspicion that a small boat off the coast of Venezuela was carrying drugs to Trinidad, President Donald Trump ordered a strike. The boat was carrying 11 people, all of whom were killed.

There were no efforts to speak to, arrest or interdict the traffickers. There was no sharing of intelligence, no imminent threat, and no diplomacy. Instead, Trump, unencumbered by constraints of law, ordered the boat blown out of the water.

The next day, the New York Times reported that “Pentagon officials were still working… on what legal authority they would tell the public was used to back up the extraordinary strike in international waters.”

Reckless violence

After the strike, Trump posted, “Earlier this morning, on My Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!”

Pete Hegseth, the U.S. “Secretary of War,” took his own victory lap with, “We're going to go on the offense, not just on defense. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality.” His Neanderthalic bleating tracks similar talk from ICE and DHS as theyglorify militarism and violence to recruit new agents, for whom a criminal background is not an automatic disqualification.

Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has consistently defended war criminals, dismissing military law as an inconvenient intrusion onto combat authority. If his disdain for “tepid legality” in favor of maximum “lethality” in killing 11 people was not an admission of guilt — meaning he knew the order was illegal but didn’t care — nothing is.

Equally chilling, when Brian Krassenstein, a social influencer, noted online that “killing citizens of another nation who are civilians, without any due process, is called a war crime,” Vice President JD Vance wrote back, “I don’t give a s--- what you call it.”

Extrajudicial killings

When testosterone highs from the strike finally dissipated, military analysts began questioning the maneuver. They questioned, in particular, its legality.

Administration officials explained that narcotics on the boat posed an “imminent national security threat.”

But that claim doesn’t hold up, given that the boat was headed for Trinidad, even if drugs were on board. Worse, unlike typical drug interdictions by the U.S. Coast Guard, this strike was carried out without warning shots. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said simply that, “Instead of interdicting it, on the president’s orders they blew it up,” and promised more violence in the near future.

Whether drugs were on the ship or not, drug runners are criminal civilians, not enemy combatants. The closest thing I’ve seen to a law-adjacent defense is the administration’s bootstrapping claim that Trump could order a strike on Tren de Aragua because Trump has designated it a terrorist organization. But that’s like claiming the right to kill civilians by association. Experts appear to agree:

  • Frank Kendall, former secretary of the Air Force, said the kill targets, “weren’t engaged in anything like a direct attack on the United States” and weren’t afforded a trial to determine their guilt. He added: “Frankly, I can’t see how this can be considered anything other than a nonjudicial killing outside the boundaries of domestic and international law.”
  • Geoffrey Corn, a retired lieutenant colonel and former Army senior adviser on the law of war, said, “I don’t think there is any way to legitimately characterize a drug ship heading from Venezuela, arguably to Trinidad, as an actual or imminent armed attack against the United States, justifying this military response.”
  • Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer, agreed that even the designation of drug cartels as terrorist groups doesn’t translate into authority to use military force against them. Such designation enables the U.S. to levy sanctions and pursue criminal prosecutions, not to just open fire and kill them.

American lives at risk

The Venezuelan government is now legitimately accusing the U.S. of extrajudicial murder, and preparing for escalating violence. In response to Trump’s attack, President Nicolás Maduro ordered the deployment of 25,000 soldiers to Venezuela’s coastal regions, more than doubling the country’s military presence in those areas.

Maduro has said that he suspects Trump is really threatening regime change with the strike and the buildup of U.S. naval forces in the area, because Venezuela holds the world's largest proven oil reserves.

Others believe Trump’s escalating use of military force is an attempt to divert public attention away from the Epstein files, corruption and tanking economy.

Still others say Trump is dangerously unhinged, projecting imagery of power to mask his administration’s widespread ineptitude. While these motivations are not mutually exclusive, Venezuela’s long term allies, China and Russia, are watching closely.

Whatever his true reason, if Trump has the authority to unilaterally redefine civilian suspects as “combatants” even though they pose no imminent threat, he can redefine any group as a terrorist organization, and order them killed.

That may present a tidy solution to Trump’s stubborn due process problem, but it is the stuff of Nazis. Even though today’s victims are brown and Black, trapped in poverty, and therefore disposable to men like Trump, killing them extrajudicially is murder.

I don’t give a s--- what the administration calls it.

  • Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

Marines' shocking ties to pro-Russian neo-Nazis exposed after Raw Story sues Trump agency

The U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) probed a Marine assigned to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina for ties to a pro-Russia neo-Nazi group in Poland, according to internal military files exclusively obtained by Raw Story.

The Marine was arrested when the FBI disrupted a plot to attack an energy facility on U.S. soil. Authorities found that a co-defendant in the case, also a Marine and a Russian linguist, was in possession of classified material. The links to the pro-Russian group and details of the classified materials investigation are reported here for the first time.

NCIS initially refused to provide records in response to a Raw Story Freedom of Information Act request, citing an exemption to protect privacy. Raw Story sued the federal agency, and the courts found in its favor.

“‘Disclosure of the requested records would likely reveal a great deal about law enforcement policy,’ including how defendants handled investigations related to the mishandling of classified information and how the ‘military is addressing extremism in the ranks,’” Judge Lori AliKhan, a federal judge on the D.C. bench, wrote in 2024.

“‘Thus, disclosure would offer the public visibility into defendants’ ‘performance of [their] statutory duties’ and would further ‘let citizens know ‘what their government is up to.’”

‘Insider threat’

NCIS began investigating the case in April 2020, following a Newsweek story exposing Lance Cpl. Liam Collins as a member of Iron March, a global neo-Nazi online forum.

The investigation uncovered messages exchanged between Collins and two self-identified members of the Polish group, Falanga, discussing potentially coordinating paramilitary activity.

By the time the NCIS began investigating Collins’ links to Falanga, he had organized a neo-Nazi paramilitary group that was illegally manufacturing guns and stealing military gear from Camp Lejeune, while plotting an attack on critical infrastructure designed to spark a race war, according to federal prosecutors.

In October 2020, while Collins was under investigation for his links to the Polish neo-Nazi group, he was arrested on firearms charges, along with Cpl. Jordan Duncan, a Marine and Russian linguist assigned to the 2nd Radio Battalion of the II Marine Expeditionary Force. The two Marines had met at Camp Lejeune in late 2018.

When the FBI raided Duncan’s home in Boise, ID, they seized his laptop and an external hard drive. Authorities discovered classified material on the devices, and the NCIS and FBI opened a new investigation for potential violation of a federal law regulating the handling of national defense information.

As the NCIS and FBI reviewed the classified material as part of an “insider threat” investigation, the case widened to include a new charge of conspiracy to damage an energy facility, and three co-defendants, including another Marine and a New Jersey Army National Guard member.

In August 2021, while Duncan was in jail awaiting trial, investigators determined that the files discovered on his devices included a secret “capabilities brief” for the 2nd Radio Battalion, according to another set of investigative files exclusively obtained by Raw Story.

The files included other documents labeled “FOUO,” or “For Official Use Only,” a designation that denotes sensitive material exempt from public release, though not classified. The documents included “Standard Operating Procedures and tactics” specific to the battalion that a special security officer determined “would be detrimental to the Signals Intelligence and Electronic Warfare community as a whole if obtained by an adversary,” according to the investigation.

The investigation revealed that the FOUO materials were commingled with “a large library of improvised explosive device schematics, chemical weapons schematics” and other manuals on Duncan’s hard drive.

“It appears that Mr. Duncan’s hard drive was kind of a source for the entire group,” NCIS Agent Christopher Little testified during a detention hearing for one of Duncan’s codefendants in August 2021. “There was multiple documents from that hard drive on multiple other group members’ devices.”

‘Fresh and ready’

Before Collins met Duncan or started assembling his paramilitary group, he communicated with two self-identified members of Falanga, the neo-Nazi group with roots in the Polish skinhead scene, according to a data set of leaked Iron March chats reviewed by Raw Story.

When Collins began communicating with Falanga members in June 2016, he was a rising senior in New Jersey still more than a year out from entering Marine Corps bootcamp at Parris Island, SC.

Collins told other users on the forum his mother was Polish, that he was proud his “great-grandparents were Nazi collaborators,” and that he didn’t dispute Jews who claimed “Poland helped with the Holocaust.” In fact, it was a point of pride.

“I have a deep interest in creating a sort of ‘alliance’ with you and any members of Falanga that might be able to talk to me,” Collins wrote to a self-identified Falanga member with the username “Phalanx22” in August 2016.

“Like being able to relay information and propaganda between Poland and the United States. I will be serving in the military soon, so I want to come out fresh and ready to train my Polish brothers how to defend their blood and soil.”

Falanga made no secret of its anti-American stance.

The group was founded because of its leader’s perception of “liberalism, capitalism and USA/NATO as the greatest enemies,” a member with the username “Bombenhagel” told Collins.

Collins’ comments in the Iron March chats do not reveal his position on Russia, but he disparaged NATO — a bulwark of the US military alliance with Poland — for its role in the Balkans war of the 1990s.

“Opportunists like NATO wanted a reason to build more bases in Eastern Europe after the Cold War,” Collins wrote, “so they stopped Serb and Croats from genociding every last Muslim in the Balkans.”

Addressing an Iron March user in Canada, Collins said he was forming a “paramilitary.” In April 2017, Collins told “Bombenhagel” his group would be “purchasing a lot of land soon for training, so if Falanga ever organizes a trip to the U.S., you are welcome to come train with us.”

“Bombenhagel” thanked Collins for the invitation. It’s unclear if Falanga members ever traveled to the U.S. to train.

The last documented exchange between Collins and Falanga on Iron March took place in May 2017, but an NCIS investigative report noted that Collins expressed concern about the security of the forum, while suggesting they continue to communicate through a different platform. It is unclear how long the relationship between Collins and Falanga lasted.

In early 2018, three Falanga members were detained by the Polish Internal Security Agency on suspicion of carrying out an arson attack against a Hungarian cultural center in Ukraine.

The three were convicted, according to Przemyslaw Witkowski, a Polish scholar who researches the far right and pro-Russia influences at Civitas University in Warsaw, and who described the attack in the book Russia and the Far-Right: Insights from Ten European Countries as “the most infamous act of terror committed by Polish citizens in the last 20 years.”

Polish prosecutors argued that the purpose of the crime was to “publicly incite national hatred between Ukrainians and Hungarians” and to cause “disruption of the political system in Ukraine.”

The clear beneficiary was Russia, which in 2014 had annexed Crimea from Ukraine, and was backing separatists in the Donbas.

Three years later, Russia launched a full-scale invasion that continues to exact a bloody toll.

Witness testimony in the trial for the 2018 terror attack implicated Manuel Ochsenreiter, a German journalist active with the far-right Alternative for Germany party, according to Witkowski. Ochsenreiter reportedly denied involvement but relocated to Moscow, where in 2021 he died suddenly of a heart attack, aged 45.

‘Exchange of information’

Falanga members have addressed the Duma in Moscow, visited Russian-backed separatists in the Donbas, and interviewed Aleksander Dugin, a Russian intellectual close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Witkowski noted.

Witkowski told Raw Story he finds it unlikely that Falanga would be able to maintain such high-level contacts without some kind of approval from Russian intelligence services.

“For sure there is an exchange of information in this environment,” Witkowski said.

The secret “capabilities brief” and other sensitive U.S. military information Duncan obtained through his assignment to the 2nd Radio Battalion in the II Marine Expeditionary Force would likely be of interest to Collins’ counterparts in Falanga, Witkowski said.

He noted that Falanga members have demonstrated an interest in infiltrating the Polish police, national guard and army.

Duncan is now serving a seven-year sentence in Pennsylvania, for illegally manufacturing a short-barrel rifle. His lawyer declined to comment.

Collins, who is serving a 10-year sentence in South Carolina for aiding and abetting the interstate transportation of unregistered firearms, could not be reached for comment.

Emails to Bartosz Bekier, the leader of Falanga, went unreturned.

NCIS told Raw Story the investigation yielded no evidence that any military information on Duncan’s devices was transferred to Falanga or wound up in Russian hands.

“NCIS has determined, in coordination with the FBI and [the U.S. Department of Justice], that there were no indications that classified information was provided to other groups or to foreign entities,” said Meredith March, an NCIS spokesperson.

March added that NCIS was “unable to provide information that may be contained in the FBI’s investigative files.”

The FBI National Press Office and FBI joint terrorism task forces in Wilmington, NC and Boise, ID, declined to comment.

The NCIS “insider threat” investigation on Duncan for potential violations of the federal law on communicating, transmitting or retaining national defense information was closed in November 2021. Federal prosecutors agreed to refrain from mention of the classified materials on Duncan’s devices, to avoid prejudicing a jury if he were to go to trial on firearms charges. Duncan pled guilty to the gun charge shortly before his trial was scheduled to begin.

While the National Security Division Counterterrorism Section prosecuted Duncan, alongside federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the Department of Justice opted to not charge him for mishandling classified materials.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina, where Camp Lejeune is located, declined to comment. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump just became a murderer — let's say it like it is

When the Supreme Court says Donald Trump is above the law, who speaks for the 11 dead on that boat U.S. forces blew up in the Caribbean? Their lives ended not in a battlefield crossfire or a clash between nations, but at the whim of one man emboldened by six justices who declared him untouchable.

Trump simply ordered human beings erased, confident the Court had given him immunity from any consequence and the leaders of his military would obey an illegal order. Eleven souls were sacrificed not just to his cruelty, but to a judicial betrayal that transformed the presidency into a license to kill.

For most of our history, American presidents have at least gone through the motions of cloaking lethal force in some form of legal justification.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War but sought Congress’s approval. Franklin D. Roosevelt went to Congress for Lend-Lease before escalating aid to Britain, and sought a declaration of war against Japan. George W. Bush and Barack Obama leaned heavily on the post-9/11 Authorizations for Use of Military Force to justify everything from Afghanistan to drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia to killing Osama Bin Laden.

The principle has always been that the United States does not simply kill people without some kind of legal process. It may be stretched, it may be abused, but it has been invoked.

What Trump has now done with the strike on a small boat off Venezuela’s coast is to break that tradition in a way that is both lawless and unprecedented. He gave the order to kill 11 human beings with no congressional approval, no international authorization, and no visible evidence justifying it.

This was simply murder on the high seas. And the world knows it.

He did it in the full knowledge that six Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have granted him immunity for crimes committed while in office, even international crimes. That ruling opened the door to precisely this sort of extrajudicial killing and stripped away one of the last guardrails protecting both our law and our global standing.

The official claim is that the boat carried members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. But 11 people on a small vessel that couldn’t possibly travel as far as America doesn’t sound like a cartel’s drug shipment (typically there’s only one or two people manning such a boar); it sounds like desperate migrants fleeing a collapsing country.

That possibility makes the strike even more chilling when paired with a story Miles Taylor has told about Trump’s senior advisor Stephen Miller.

Taylor recounts traveling with Miller and a Coast Guard admiral after a drug war event in Key West.

On that trip, Miller asked the admiral if it would be legal to use a Predator drone to obliterate a boat full of migrants in international waters. Miller’s reasoning was that migrants weren’t covered by the Constitution, so what was to stop us from blowing them out of the water?

The admiral reportedly shot back that it would violate international law, that “you cannot kill unarmed civilians just because you want to.”

At the time it was an alarming glimpse into the sadistic mind of a man who saw immigrants as less than human.

Now it looks like Trump has taken Miller’s reported hypothetical and turned it into policy. What was once an outrageous musing has become a bloody precedent.

This has profound legal and moral implications.

By attacking a vessel flying the flag of a sovereign state, Trump risked triggering a direct military confrontation. Venezuela could have fired back at American forces in the region. A firefight at sea can escalate quickly into a regional war, and Venezuela’s leader Nicolás Maduro would have every incentive to turn to Russia and China for protection.

Leaders of both of those nations are eager to deepen their presence in our hemisphere, and this gives them an opening. It’s not inconceivable that Moscow or Beijing could send ships or aircraft to Venezuela in response.

That would put foreign military forces hostile to us within 1,300 miles of Miami. If shots were fired between American forces and Russian or Chinese deployments in the Caribbean, the slide toward a larger war would be real, very much like the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963 (except then we had a statesman as a president, instead of a corrupt buffoon).

World War I began with a simple assassination that pitted one nation against another and then the sinking of the civilian boat the Lusitania; this is how great power conflicts can begin. Trump’s reckless strike doesn’t just risk Venezuelan lives. It risks American troops, regional stability, and, in the most ominous scenario, world peace itself.

Meanwhile, at home, the timing is impossible to ignore. Authoritarians throughout history have turned to foreign crises to distract from domestic scandals.

Nixon expanded the war into Cambodia as Watergate began to close in. Reagan invaded Grenada days after hundreds of Marines were killed in Beirut. Trump has lived for decades under the shadow of allegations of sexual predation, including reports that Jeffrey Epstein recorded him with underage girls during the years he owned and ran Miss Teen USA.

If new evidence of that were to surface, Trump would need a distraction on a scale large enough to blot out the outrage. Creating a crisis with Venezuela, complete with martial language and threats of escalation while renaming the Department of Defense to Department of War, serves that purpose. It’s the oldest play in the authoritarian book: wag the dog.

Except this time the stakes are far higher. This time we’re dealing with a president who’s been told by six corrupted members of the highest court in the land that he’s above the law.

When Miles Taylor first revealed Miller’s macabre question about bombing migrant boats, some dismissed it as idle cruelty. It now looks like a glimpse into the inner workings of Trump’s policy mind. In this worldview, immigrants are vermin, human rights are optional, Democrats are “extremists,” and lethal force is just another tool of politics.

Combine that with the Supreme Court’s gift of immunity and you have a recipe for lawless violence on a scale America has never contemplated. The entire edifice of international law is designed to prevent precisely this sort of conduct.

Extrajudicial killings, violations of sovereignty, the targeting of civilians: these are the acts that international courts prosecute when they can, and that history condemns when courts cannot stop them.

And now we’re learning that Trump did something similar in 2019 when he was last president. He authorized a SEAL Team strike against North Korea, where they killed three civilians in a boat who were simply out fishing.

If America embraces this new Putin-like assertion of America’s power to bomb anybody, anywhere, on the whim of the president, we’ll have abandoned any claim to moral leadership.

Worse, we will have normalized the authoritarian logic that anyone the president labels an enemy can be eliminated without trial, without evidence, without process. We’ll have handed Xi Jinping a rationale to attack Taiwan; all he has to do is claim that a non-governmental gang within that nation is importing drugs into China (or something similar).

The international reaction has already been severe. America’s allies are horrified, our adversaries have been emboldened, and human rights groups are openly appalled.

But the real test is here at home. Do we still believe in the principle, famously cited by our second president, John Adams, that America is a nation of laws and not of men? Do we still insist that presidents cannot kill at will? If Trump can strike a boat off Venezuela today, what is to stop him from ordering lethal force against dissidents, protesters, or political opponents tomorrow?

Keep in mind, the same Stephen Miller — who reportedly wanted to blow up boats of immigrants to kill more brown people — just in the past week claimed that the Democratic Party is a “domestic extremist organization.”

The doctrine of immunity means there is no legal backstop. The only remaining check is political will. And Trump’s fascist toadies are all in on more extrajudicial killings.

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete “Kegger” Hegseth said:

“We’ve got assets in the air, assets in the water, assets on ships, because this is a deadly serious mission for us, and it won’t stop with just this strike.”

Secretary of State “Little Marco” Rubio echoed the sentiment, saying during a speech in Mexico City that similar strikes “will happen again.”

This is why Democrats, independents, and every American who values the rule of law must call this out for what it is: an atrocity against eleven people, an assault on international norms, and a direct threat to American democracy.

Trump has shown us exactly how far he’s willing to go. He’s willing to risk a war in our hemisphere. He’s willing to put our troops in danger. He’s willing to risk drawing Putin and Xi into a confrontation with us that could spiral out of control. He’s willing to destroy lives to protect himself. And he’s doing it because six Republicans on the Supreme Court told him he could.

If Congress doesn’t act now to confront and contain this lawless behavior, if we don’t restore accountability to the presidency, then we’ll have surrendered not just our moral authority but our future.

The question is not whether Trump wants a distraction from his scandals; of course he does. The question is whether we’re willing to let Trump and his fascist toadies drag America and the world into catastrophe to get it.

This isn’t just about a boat off Venezuela. It’s about whether America will allow a president, blessed by the Court, to kill without evidence, without process, without even the pretense of law.

Eleven dead migrants are the proof of what immunity means in practice: impunity. If Trump can slaughter refugees today, what stops him from targeting dissidents, protesters, even political opponents tomorrow?

The answer, unless Congress and the people act, is nothing. And “nothing” is what those justices have left to protect us, our laws, and our humanity.

This Trump move is illegal and immoral and should chill you all to the bone

There is arguably no better canary in the coal mine for the death of democracy than a president who seizes for himself the power to wage war.

We seem to be headed there.

President Donald Trump’s recent — and ongoing — unauthorized military aggression against Venezuela fails to meet even the minimal legal standard for presidential war powers.

Trump and his henchmen have largely dispensed with pretexts.

Citing no particular provocation, Trump blithely declared Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro America’s latest mortal enemy. That sort of gratuitousness is brought to you with a shrug by corporate media increasingly committed to a mission of stenography.

The administration has designated Tren de Aragua a “foreign terrorist organization” — which may well be accurate but does not seem to have come with any provable link to Maduro other than rhetorical. Even if true, nothing in U.S. law permits unilateral military action on that ground alone by a U.S. president.

But following the law has always ranked below the bottom of Trump’s “things to do” list in life.

Here’s how the United States has apparently begun to launch an illegal war almost overnight, without a millisecond of congressional debate. And with scant attention at best in the news media.

The Escalation — One Week, One Direction

  • August 8, 2025 — Trump designates Tren de Aragua as a foreign terrorist organization under the 2001 AUMF framework.
    (AP)
  • Late August — U.S. naval and marine units mobilize in the southern Caribbean under an “anti-cartel” initiative.
    (The Guardian)
  • September 2A U.S. drone strike sinks a speedboat allegedly linked to Tren de Aragua, killing 11. The administration justifies it as a drug interdiction.
  • September 3, 2025 — Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro denounces the U.S. strike as a violation of sovereignty, orders militias to mobilize, and warns that Washington is laying the groundwork for regime change.
  • September 3–4 — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth calls the strike “just the beginning.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio signals more strikes are being considered.
  • September 5Trump orders the Pentagon rebranded as the Department of War in communications and signage. Hegseth becomes “Secretary of War.”
  • September 5–6 — Ten F‑35 stealth fighters are deployed to Puerto Rico. Trump publicly states he’s weighing strikes inside Venezuela.

Trump’s posture toward Maduro wasn’t always so hostile. During his first term, he told Axios on June 21, 2020, he was “open to meeting” with Maduro and even called him “very smart.”

The timing was just astonishing, especially in today’s context. Trump publicly praised Maduro fewer than three months after his own Department of Justice had issued a press release headlined: “Nicolás Maduro Moros and 14 Current and Former Venezuelan Officials Charged with Narco-Terrorism, Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Criminal Charges.”

Apparently narco-terrorism didn’t concern Donald the First as much as it seems to concern Donald the Second.

Back in 2020, Trump did reverse himself on Twitter, but only after heads exploded among Florida Republicans. Taking issue with fellow strongmen has never ranked as one of Trump’s strengths.

Trump has always positioned himself as an isolationist — and his repeated campaign pledges of “no more endless wars” — arguably garnered more votes than most analysts credited. Trump mocked “globalist” entanglements, vowed to bring troops home and end foreign adventurism.

That’s all a thing of the past now that Trump openly aspires to become the world’s most dominant dictator.

He drools about invading and seizing Greenland. He muses obscenely about annexing Canada, or at the very least, waging a mindless economic war with it and many other close allies. He obsesses about seizing the Panama Canal.

His MAGA base has always been animated by extreme nationalism — ethnically and economically grounded — and it’s widely presumed that instinct mutates into isolationism. Even among those whose political philosophies can only be captured in five words or less.

It remains to be seen how Trump’s abandonment of isolationism might play out with the base. But never underestimate the power of a cult leader.

What’s more, we should not discount similarities to the dicey motives of previous U.S. adventurism — “war for oil” in Iraq springs to mind — especially given that Trump is exponentially more transactional than all previous U.S. presidents combined.

On Saturday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller defended Trump’s Venezuela policy by calling the country “so rich in resources, so rich in reserves,” while describing Maduro as “the head of the cartel.”

In poker, that’s known as a “tell.”

Let’s hope I’m wrong in thinking this Venezuelan adventure is far graver than a few news cycles of an unstable Trump cosplaying as a warlord. But, to me, this one has real potential for disaster.

I don’t like the looks of that canary.

This Trump surrender was the worst yet

Lindsay Graham says he believes Donald Trump is ready to “crush” the Russian economy if that country’s leader, Vladimir Putin, doesn’t agree to peace talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“Trump believes that if Putin doesn’t do his part, that he’s going to have to crush his economy,” the US senator told reporters in South Carolina last week. “Because you’ve got to mean what you say.”

This is an amazing thing to say.

Just three days prior, Trump met with Putin in Alaska for three hours. Beforehand, he said there would be “severe consequences” if Putin didn’t agree to a ceasefire in the war in Ukraine. Trump said he “solved six wars in six months,” implying that this one would be no different.

Then he choked.

His demands melted into the air. He was all smiles, all handshakes, all deference verging on reverence. The leader of the world’s most powerful military emerged from his meeting with a cut-rate tyrant as if he’d been dogwalked. It was so bad even a Fox reporter had to admit it looked like “Putin came in and steamrolled, got right into what he wanted to say and got his photo next to the president and then left.”

The Washington Post’s George Will, who is not a liberal, also saw the plain truth.

“The former KGB agent currently indicted for war crimes felt no need to negotiate with the man-child,” Will said (my stress). “The president’s thunderous demands — a 50-day deadline, a 10-day deadline, 'severe consequences,' a ceasefire before negotiations — all were just noise."

So yes. Senator Graham is right. You’ve got to mean what you say. Trump doesn’t. Indeed, he never does. That’s why he choked.

Because of that, he and other Trump allies have spent their time in the days after that disastrous “summit” trying to rewrite history in order to protect the president from the consequences of his own weakness.

Graham now says Trump is ready to “crush” the Russian economy, as if Trump really were the big strong man he portrays himself to be, rather than the milksop who actually called Putin “the boss” and later phoned him during a meeting with European leaders, as if getting permission.

But Graham isn’t alone.

“The president has this uncanny ability to bend people to his sensible way of thinking,” US envoy Steve Witkoff told Sean Hannity last night.

“He does it each and every time,” he said. “I've never seen anything quite like it and I've been around some master dealmakers. He is the legend as far as I'm concerned. His policy prescriptions are so pragmatic and so sensible and in a distorted world, he’s recalibrating it all. It’s simply remarkable. And every single leader that I have met in my travels, they say the same things I do. Every single one of them.”

Witkoff is the envoy who Anne Applebaum said was “an amateur out of his depth” who “misunderstood his last meeting with Putin in Moscow if he thought that the Alaska summit was going to be successful.”

On Fox, noted international relations expert Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke said: “President Trump has done an unbelievable job against long odds,” before speculating, oddly, that “it'll end up probably with a land bridge between the Crimean peninsula and Russia.”

He also said that Trump “hasn’t changed where his mission focus is. It’s peace.”

Peace through surrender.

Isn’t that the most striking thing? The US is unrivaled in its military and diplomatic might. We could end this war, now. As Applebaum said, “arm Ukraine, expand sanctions, stop the lethal drone swarms, break the Russian economy, and win the war. Then there will be peace.”

But Trump chooses weakness.

He chooses to look strong, not be strong.

And no matter what his Republican allies in the Congress do to cover up that fact, they themselves cannot make him. They, too, are weak.

Graham said the clock is ticking and that Trump must “impose steep tariffs on countries that are fueling Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by buying its oil, gas, uranium, and other exports,” according to the AP, and such threats might push Putin to the negotiating table.

“If we don’t have this thing moving in the right direction by the time we get back, then I think that plan B needs to kick in,” Graham told the AP.

Plan B would be Congress acting without Trump.

Which means there is no plan B.

The Republicans are weak, because they surrendered their power, first to the rightwing media apparatus, then to Trump, who surrendered his power to Putin, who dominates the rightwing media apparatus.

And has for a decade.

We can speculate about the dirt Putin has on Trump, but fact is, he could mortally wound the president by turning the world’s biggest firehose of disinformation away from his “woke” enemies and toward him. Trump’s base is already confused by his refusal to release “the Epstein files.” Russian propaganda could be deployed to savagely widen the already broad gap between him and the MAGA faithful.

More likely, though, the Kremlin could sow doubt about Trump’s alleged strength. He’s all talk, no walk. We saw it. Russian state media brags about it. Echoes are now bouncing around mainstream media.

While Graham was shielding Trump from his weakness, the UK’s biggest conservative paper ran this hed and dek: “European rearmament is pushing Trump into irrelevance on Ukraine. This vain, vacillating, gullible US president no longer commands the West.”

The importance of the rightwing media apparatus to the Republicans is evident in their efforts at damage control. Trump showed his whole ass. Now it’s up to allies to persuade his supporters that they did not see what they saw or if they did, it was the most amazing thing ever.

They have a lot of work to do. The Economist reported that Americans have a -14 approval rating of his handling of foreign policy. The public knows next to nothing about global affairs, but we know what fear looks like. After meeting Putin, Trump looked scared. And I think he looked scared, because Putin reminded him of something important.

He who can destroy a thing controls it.

So Trump chooses weakness.

And the rest of his party follows.

This groveling surrender to Trump might be the worst of all

Let’s start here today: Our legacy media is dead.

For some, this pronouncement is long overdue, and might be best labeled “old news.” For people like me, who spent their professional life in a newsroom as part of a team that turned around timely content called “real news” to their readers, while also calling power into account, this declaration officially wipes out everything I once believed in and held dear.

Watching our old, tired legacy media like The New York Times and The Washington Post cover this Russia charade, mislabeled a “summit,” and Trump's meeting with European leaders in Washington this week has completely knocked me over the edge. I’ll let you tell me how badly the gushing toothies on TV are botching this up, because I quit watching their 24/7 screeching with any regularity years ago.

We have reached the point where these incompetents can’t even get the nut of the story right. It’s no longer news that the nuclear-powered narcissist, Donald Trump, is posturing to get every spotlight turned in his direction no matter how big or small a story. Yet the media comes running with their hair on fire every time he beckons.

However … It IS news — URGENT NEWS — when European prime ministers and presidents drop everything they are doing and fly into the United States with their hair on fire to oppose the actions of its unstable, authoritarian leader, and back the man who is fighting for his life and his country’s democracy, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

It’s news because THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

Yet, in their breathless play-by-play coverage you never saw it reported that way. Instead, here is what we got all day Monday and into Tuesday as these incompetent morons, who dare to call themselves “journalists” were led around by their noses, which are always in the general vicinity of Trump’s two-ton ass:

"Trump just said this!"
"Now Trump said that!"
“Trump is doing this!”
“And now Trump is doing that!”
"What will Trump do next????”

There was literally no fact-checking, nor important context. They just repeated his endless bullshit that was all designed to go absolutely nowhere, because the most important person in these negotiations wasn’t even on location. And why should he have been? Russian President Vladimir Putin had already emasculated the President of the United States after getting red-carpet treatment in Alaska on Friday, and had gone home to Russia to resume bombing the bejesus out of Ukraine.

So Trump did what he does best, and spoke on behalf of Putin, while arguing against everybody else.

It was appalling.

But there was our legacy media, who somehow thought reporting all that bullshit in real time was some sort of journalistic feat, when in reality they just come off like a bunch of drunken parrots.

Things are no better than they were on Thursday, when it comes to Russia’s inhumane, illegal attack on Ukraine, they are miles worse. Because God only knows what the two most dangerous leaders in the world talked about while the cameras were mercifully shut off during their dangerous, private meetings the past five days.

I can guess it sounded something like this:

PUTIN: “Never forget who put you in office, Donald.”
TRUMP: “No worries there, sir. I got everybody, but mostly the idiots in the media, eating out of my hand.”

Here is the vitally important context I didn’t read ONCE in all the legacy media’s atrocious coverage of this sh–– show the past 24 hours:

“Putin, who Trump actually asked for help in the 2016 campaign …”

Or

“Putin, who Trump has repeatedly fawned over, even calling the murderous dictator among other things ‘a genius' …’”

Or

“Putin, who Trump surrendered to in Helsinki in 2018, when pressed if there was Russia interference into the 2016 election, when his own Republican Party had determined there was …”

Or

“Putin, who after winning the 2007 Time Magazine Man of the Year Award, received a letter from Trump that gushed: “As you probably have heard, I’m a big fan of yours!”

Or

“Putin, who allowed Trump to host his Miss Universe beauty pageant in Moscow in 2013, and received yet another note from Trump which read: “Will you become my new best friend?”

I could go on and on here, but you get the point, even if the dangerous dummies in our legacy media don’t: Any relationship Trump has with his BFF Putin is at best suspect, but most likely is completely compromised.

Shouldn’t readers and viewers be aware of this right off the top and reminded of it repeatedly?

And what of the 50-plus times Trump said on the 2024 campaign trail that he would end Russia's attack on Ukraine during his first 24 hours in office. I read scores of stories in the legacy media Monday, and this was never reported even ONCE. Further, he was not asked about this even ONCE in those weird sit-downs with the press in that grotesque, golden room, where his tie drags on the floor and he does that weird accordion thing with his hands.

They aren't even bothering to try to hold this lying SOB accountable anymore.

And what about that lying? Because it is all this blabbering loudmouth does.

In just the last 10 days he’s told preposterous lies about Russia, the 2020 election, Jeffrey Epstein, jobs, crime, inflation, Project 2025, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and mail-in voting.

Add this to the tens of thousands of times he has lied in his professional life about all things big and small, and you’d think he would have lost ALL benefit of the doubt 10 years ago.

Instead, our legacy media still hangs on his every word.

It is ABSURD.

They don’t even make lying a small feature of the story, when in fact all his lying IS THE DAMN STORY.

There is not one report or story about about Trump that should make it past the third paragraph without this being inserted for context:

“Trump, who has a long history of lying about <insert subject> …”

WHY isn’t this being done?

Here is the thing that should keep us all awake at night: If Trump, a convicted felon, can wipe out the truth — and he is well on his way — he can wipe out everything this country was founded on, and begin working to wipe us out, and everything we once stood for.

This is exactly what Putin, and every other fascist leader on earth wants.

It can never stop being headline news that Trump is the most notorious liar in the history of the United States.

It should have never become headline news that our legacy media decided to quit reporting that.

But here we are, and neither one should ever be trusted again.