Politics

Hegseth Calls WaPo Report on Venezuela Drug Boat Complete “Fake News”

Published

2 months ago

December 6, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a fierce burst of social media posts that has echoed from Pentagon corridors to cafés in Caracas, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has dismissed a major Washington Post investigation as “fake news”. He is standing by a disputed U.S. military strike on a suspected Venezuelan drug-smuggling speedboat, calling it a lawful act of self-defence against narco-terrorists.

The Post report claims Hegseth gave a verbal order to “kill everybody” on the vessel. The allegation has thrown the Trump administration into a fresh partisan clash. Democrats are talking impeachment, while conservative media figures accuse major outlets of teaming up to destroy Hegseth’s reputation.

As deaths linked to Operation Southern Spear rise past 80, the incident has deepened a bitter divide. Supporters praise the strikes as a hard-hitting move against cartels that flood American cities with cocaine and fentanyl. Opponents call them extrajudicial killings that skirt the line of war crimes.

The storm broke on 29 November, when The Washington Post released a detailed reconstruction of a 2 September strike in international waters off Venezuela. Citing unnamed officials inside Special Operations Command (SOCOM), the story says an initial drone-launched missile barrage tore apart a 40‑foot go-fast boat, killed nine suspected traffickers, and scattered wreckage across the Caribbean.

Drone feeds then showed two survivors clinging to burning debris, with one allegedly calling cartel allies for help over a radio. The Post says SOCOM chief Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley then ordered a second “tap” strike, meant to reflect Hegseth’s reported pre-mission demand to “eliminate all threats without mercy”.

According to the article, the follow-up hit, carried out with precision-guided weapons, wiped out the last survivors and guaranteed there were no witnesses left to recover an estimated 50 million dollars of cocaine bound for the United States.

Hegseth, a former Fox News host turned hard-line cabinet figure, moved quickly to tear into that account. In a flurry of posts on X that drew millions of views, he accused the Post of pushing “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting” aimed at “discrediting our incredible warriors”.

“The strikes on these narco-boats are in compliance with the law of armed conflict, and approved by the best military and civilian lawyers up and down the chain of command,” Hegseth wrote, attaching grainy drone video of the boat exploding in flames. “The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Fake news will not stop us from protecting the homeland.”

President Donald J. Trump then reinforced Hegseth’s defence from the White House podium.

“I believe Pete 100%,” Trump said on 1 December, standing beside a row of stone-faced generals. “These are bad hombres bringing death to our kids. The second strike? I would not have wanted it, but Pete says he did not order it, and that is good enough for me.”

The president’s backing, delivered in his usual mix of swagger and deflection, has only fed claims of a cover-up. A handful of Republicans are now quietly requesting full, unedited footage of the incident.

A Legal Balancing Act: War, Policing, or Assassination?

At the core of the clash sits a knotty legal issue: can U.S. forces legally bomb civilian-flagged vessels in peacetime waters and call it counter-narcotics? The Trump administration says yes, according to a classified Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo that has been shown to selected congressional staff. The argument rests on a new reading of international law.

By labelling major Venezuelan and Colombian cartels as “foreign terrorist organisations” (FTOs), in an executive order signed by Trump on 20 January, the White House claims the strikes are a form of “collective self-defence” in support of partners like Colombia and Mexico that are fighting those groups.

The OLC opinion, which cites the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Law of War Manual, argues that drug profits bankroll armed attacks by cartels on security forces in the region. This, it says, allows the United States to treat cartel members at sea as “unlawful combatants” and use lethal force against them.

“This is not law enforcement, it is warfare,” a senior Pentagon official told reporters off the record. “We are cutting off their war chest, 50 million dollars per boat, before it hits our streets.”

So far, Operation Southern Spear has destroyed 22 vessels, mostly Venezuelan speedboats packed with cocaine, in a campaign that began quietly in July and ramped up after Trump branded the “Cartel of the Suns”, a Venezuelan military-linked network, as terrorists.

Civil liberties groups and legal academics reject this approach as a “dangerous sweep” that erases the boundary between counterterrorism and the long-running “war on drugs”.

“There is very little public evidence that cartels are running an ‘armed conflict’ funded by cocaine, instead of the drug trade feeding existing criminal violence,” said Sarah Knuckey, a human rights lawyer at Columbia University. “Bombing survivors breaches the Conventions’ protections for the wounded. This is not self-defence, it is summary execution.”

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, a long-time Trump adversary, has condemned the strikes as “state terrorism”. He has ordered extra coastal patrols and warned of retaliation against U.S. interests in the region.

Unease has also surfaced inside the U.S. military. In closed sessions on Capitol Hill last week, Adm. Bradley told lawmakers the second strike was aimed at the wreckage to stop cartel reinforcements from recovering cargo or equipment, not at the surviving men as such.

Members of Congress saw an unedited video that showed the two survivors trying to flip floating debris in an effort to right what was left of the vessel. Interpretations split along party lines.

“I saw two narcos trying to stay in the fight,” said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee. “Hegseth’s hands are clean.”

Big Media on the Attack: Personal Crusade Against Hegseth?

Within hours of the Post story going live, a wave of major outlets joined in, turning Hegseth’s conduct into headline material.

CNN ran a prime-time special, “Targeted: The Hunt for Truth in the Caribbean”, complete with animated reconstructions of the alleged double-tap strike and former Obama officials calling it “a war crime in slow motion”.

The New York Times followed with a front-page article on Hegseth’s “Signalgate” mess, a March incident where he shared details of Yemen airstrikes in a Signal chat that mistakenly included The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. The piece claimed this fit a wider pattern of “reckless command”.

On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow joked, “If this is Trump’s idea of draining the swamp, he is flooding it with napalm.”

Right-leaning commentators see a plot.

“The MSM is working overtime to take down Pete Hegseth because he dares to fight back against the deep state and the cartels they coddle,” complained Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Fox & Friends.

Hegseth has embraced that narrative. He posted a meme of Franklin the Turtle, the children’s book character, firing an RPG at cartoon drug runners, captioned: “When fake news attacks, we target the terrorists.” Trump liked the post, which gained 2.7 million interactions and kicked off a viral #StandWithHegseth campaign among his base.

Critics say this media surge is less about facts and more about weakening Trump’s national security inner circle as he shifts to a more aggressive foreign policy.

Hegseth, confirmed in January on a narrow 51-49 Senate vote after harsh hearings over his lack of combat service, has long drawn fire. His on-air blasts against “woke” Pentagon policies and his push for a “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) upset many Washington insiders.

Now his supporters say the press is trying to sink him just as the strikes begin to show results. U.S. Customs reports a 15% drop in Caribbean fentanyl seizures, which officials partly credit to Southern Spear. Opponents counter that media scrutiny is overdue for a man they see as reckless.

Impeachment Gambit: Are Democrats Overreaching to Hit Trump?

Democrats were quick to answer with their own move. On 4 December, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), an Indian-American businessman turned outspoken progressive, filed two articles of impeachment against Hegseth.

The first accuses him of “murder and conspiracy to murder” in relation to the boat strikes. The second charge, “reckless and unlawful mishandling of classified information” over Signalgate.

“War crimes have been committed,” Thanedar told a crowd at a Union Station rally, standing beside activists holding placards reading “Hegseth = War Criminal”. “He is unfit, putting our troops at risk so he can play cowboy for Trump.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has kept his distance, calling the effort “procedurally hopeless” in a chamber under Republican control. Even so, the move has fired up the party’s left flank.

Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have called for formal hearings. “If Republicans will not act, we must,” Warren wrote on X. “Defending due process is not weakness, it is America.”

Republicans scoff at the charges. They see a stunt aimed at tarnishing Trump by targeting one of his most loyal lieutenants.

“Democrats are willing to shield narco-traffickers if it means taking down the Trump administration,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. “They blocked serious border security for years, now they are impeaching the guy finally fighting back.”

Republican strategists note that Thanedar once filed an impeachment bid against Trump over immigration enforcement, which went nowhere.

“This is theatre,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “While kids overdose in Ohio, Democrats defend Venezuelan thugs.”

The impeachment drive is unlikely to move past the committee stage, but it highlights rifts inside the Democratic Party. Grassroots progressives want strong action against what they call war crimes. Moderates fear alienating swing voters worn down by the opioid wave.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll in mid-November found just 29% of Americans support extrajudicial killings of suspected traffickers, with 51% opposed, a clear rejection of Trump’s most aggressive stance. Yet when the issue is framed as “stopping cartels”, support jumps to 58% among Republicans and 42% overall, according to a Politico/Morning Consult survey.

Public Mood: Voters Back Trump’s Crackdown on Cartels

While Washington trades accusations, public opinion appears to lean towards the core goal of the operation, crushing the cartels behind the fentanyl surge that killed 112,000 Americans last year.

A Gallup poll released on 3 December reported 70% approval for Trump’s “aggressive action against drug smugglers”. Among independents, 72% agreed the United States must “do whatever it takes” to limit the flow of hard drugs.

Focus groups in Ohio, West Virginia, Arizona, and other states hit hard by opioids voiced similar views.

“My nephew died from that poison,” said Maria Gonzalez, 52, a nurse from Phoenix. “If bombing boats saves one kid, I am all in.”

This support gives Trump cover for his 2024 promise to treat cartels as terrorists and use the military against them, a pledge he has now acted on through Southern Spear.

Even in Latino-majority districts, backing is stronger than many Democrats expected. A Univision poll found 55% of Hispanic voters favour the operations, up from 48% before the election. Many respondents praised Trump for tackling border chaos without putting U.S. ground troops into large-scale conflicts.

“He is hitting them where it hurts, at sea,” said Javier Ruiz, a Miami lorry driver whose cousin runs a rehab centre. “Democrats talked reform, Trump delivers results.”

Sceptics warn that the picture is more complex. Security experts like Jake Braun, a former Homeland Security counter-fentanyl lead, say most of the targets so far are low-level couriers, not cartel leaders. That could drive prices up and spark more violence.

“We are swatting flies while the elephants roam free in Mexico,” Braun said.

Venezuelan officials report civilian deaths, including fishermen mistaken for smugglers, and threaten to take complaints to the United Nations. For now, though, the numbers help the White House message. Officials highlight a 20% rise in seized cocaine and an 8% drop in overdose-related A&E visits in areas tied to pilot programmes.

Hegseth’s Future: Under Fire, but Digging In

As inquiries gather pace, with the House Armed Services Committee promising a “full accounting” before year-end, Hegseth has gone on the offensive.

In a 5 December Wall Street Journal op-ed, he blasted what he called “elite outrage” from “coastal scribes who sip lattes while our heartland bleeds”.

His allies, including Vice President J.D. Vance, predict he will be cleared. “Pete is the tip of the spear, the media is just angry we are winning,” Vance said.

For Democrats, the impeachment attempt is a risky move. A win could wound Trump and cast doubt on his security record. A loss would feed Republican claims that Democrats care more about the rights of cartel suspects than about families torn apart by overdoses.

As one Capitol Hill aide put it, “They are going after narco strikes to hurt a Fox guy, good luck selling that in swing districts.”

In the end, the Venezuela boat incident is about more than a single strike or one defence secretary. It has become a test of how far America is willing to go in its drug war. Do leaders bomb first and argue law later, or keep the fight inside courts that are already stretched and infiltrated by cartel money?

Trump is already hinting at a broader campaign, with quiet talk of strikes on airfields in Venezuela.

For parents who have buried children lost to fentanyl, Hegseth’s “fake news” blast sounds like justified anger at a press they see as out of touch. For the dead men who clung to wreckage in the Caribbean, and for others caught in the crossfire, it feels like a stark example of unchecked power at sea.

Politics

Chatham House in Panic Over Trump and Western Alliance

Published

12 hours ago

January 21, 2026

VORNews

LONDON – In her annual lecture at Chatham House last week, Director Bronwen Maddox delivered a blunt message about the world under President Donald Trump’s second term. She said the United States is driving what she called “a revolution” in policy, and she didn’t soften the conclusion. “It is not grandiose to call this the end of the Western alliance.”

Her comments spread fast across diplomatic circles and transatlantic news outlets. They land as the Trump administration rolls out moves that, to many observers, break with decades of US-led cooperation. New tariffs aimed at European partners, sharper pressure on the Federal Reserve, and high-profile factory-focused visits at home all point to a different kind of America on the world stage. Critics like Maddox see a widening split with allies. Supporters see a course correction after years of drift.

Maddox’s talk, promoted under the theme “Trump: the end of the Western alliance?”, described a world shaped by major power rivalry, with the US and China at the center. In her view, old alliances hold less weight in this setup. She also defined the Western alliance as more than a defense pact. To her, it is a group tied by shared beliefs: personal liberty, freedom of thought and religion, constitutional democracy, and free trade.

In lines shared widely from the lecture, Maddox said the break is already happening. She described the alliance as a group of countries that once felt they shared principles, not just interests, and that those principles helped fuel prosperity and global influence.

She pointed to rising tariffs against allies and what she described as open contempt for Europe appearing in official US security language. She also raised fears about bigger escalations. Maddox said that if the US took aggressive action toward territory such as Greenland, it would breach the UN Charter and could end NATO as it exists today.

Her delivery stood out for how direct it was. After the lecture, Maddox said many Europeans had hoped the shift would fade. She argued that recent actions make that hope harder to defend.

Trump’s Detroit Stop Puts Manufacturing Front and Center

A few days before Maddox spoke, Trump visited Detroit, Michigan, on January 13, 2026. The trip highlighted his main domestic message: bring industry back and reward US workers. He toured Ford’s River Rouge Complex, long seen as a symbol of US manufacturing, then spoke to the Detroit Economic Club.

Trump praised what he called a rebound in manufacturing and linked it to tariffs and efforts to move jobs back from overseas. He pointed to low gas prices, a strong stock market, and signs that the trade deficit was narrowing. Speaking to business leaders and autoworkers, he said US workers were doing well, and the auto industry was coming back home.

Protests followed the visit, but the trip fit his “America First” storyline. Analysts say that approach collides with the post-World War II model, where US leadership often meant open markets and major security support for allies, even when it felt costly at home.

A Growing Fight With the Federal Reserve

An added source of tension is Trump’s conflict with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. In recent weeks, the administration has opened a criminal investigation into Powell, tied to testimony about the Fed’s headquarters renovation. Powell pushed back in public. He called the investigation a “pretext” meant to sway interest-rate choices, and he warned that it threatens the Fed’s independence.

The dispute has escalated in a way the Fed rarely sees. It has included subpoenas and talk of possible charges. Trump has criticized Powell for years, saying rates should drop faster to support growth, especially with tariffs reshaping trade and prices. In a rare video statement, Powell said the administration is trying to force monetary policy to match the president’s goals.

Markets have taken notice. Critics across parties warn that weakening central bank independence can raise inflation risks and add instability. Some former Fed officials and a number of Republicans have also said the pressure campaign is dangerous.

America’s Role Abroad, From Global Leader to Narrower Focus

These moves connect to a broader Trump argument: that the US has been in decline for decades and needs a reset. The administration’s direction puts more weight on domestic industry, less dependence on foreign supply chains, and tougher demands on allies. Backers describe it as moving the US toward a more regional focus, instead of acting as the main global backstop.

Supporters say the shift is meant to help households and workers. Policy ideas floated in recent weeks include a one-year cap of 10% on credit card interest rates, a ban on large institutional investors buying single-family homes, and healthcare changes aimed at lower premiums and drug costs through direct payments and more price transparency.

Trump has also talked about lowering electricity costs through deals with tech firms, along with other cost-of-living steps, including possible stimulus checks. Those ideas have drawn pushback from industries such as banking and drug makers.

Maddox and other critics argue that this kind of one-sided approach comes at the worst time. They say China’s rise calls for tighter coordination among US and European partners. In her view, even if some moves strengthen the US in the short term, driving away allies can hand rivals more room to grow.

Across Europe, the message is sinking in that a more inward-looking America may not be a temporary phase. Calls are growing for stronger European independence on defense and foreign policy. Maddox urged the UK and other countries to take firmer positions toward both Washington and Beijing.

Debate continues over whether Trump’s changes will rebuild US strength or speed up global fragmentation. Maddox’s lecture offered a clear marker either way: the post-1945 order that many leaders treated as stable now looks like it is breaking apart.

Politics

President Trump Addresses ICE Actions Amid Minnesota Unrest

Published

13 hours ago

January 21, 2026

VORNews

Trump Addresses ICE Actions Amid Minnesota Unrest

WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Donald Trump backed aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions in Minnesota during a tense White House press briefing on January 20, 2026.

His comments came as protests over federal immigration raids grew into major unrest across the Twin Cities. The push is part of a large federal effort called Operation Metro Surge, which has sent thousands of agents into the state and triggered riots, lawsuits, and a nationwide political fight.

During a long briefing that marked one year into his second term, Trump praised ICE operations in Minnesota. He said agents had made more than 3,000 arrests of people he described as criminal suspects in recent weeks. He framed ICE agents as loyal public servants doing tough work, while saying errors can happen when situations move fast.

Trump also spoke about the fatal shooting of Renee Good, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident who was killed earlier in January during an ICE action. He called the death “a tragedy” and said he felt “horribly” when he heard about it. He added that he understood “both sides,” but argued agents often work in dangerous conditions and shouldn’t be blamed without context.

Insurrection Act Talk, Court Limits, and DOJ Appeal

Trump described some anti-ICE protesters as “insurrectionists,” comparing the unrest to past episodes of violence. He signaled he could consider using the Insurrection Act if the situation worsens.

Protests have included disruptions at public events, calls for economic blackouts from labor unions and community groups, and clashes with federal personnel. A federal judge recently issued an injunction that limits certain enforcement tactics, including arrests of peaceful demonstrators and the use of crowd-control measures without clear justification. The Department of Justice has appealed that order.

Operation Metro Surge has centered heavily on neighborhoods with large Somali immigrant communities. That focus has drawn strong criticism from local leaders, including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who represents the area. Trump has made Minnesota a central testing ground for his mass deportation plans, deploying about 3,000 federal agents even as state officials pushed back.

Tensions have grown as Rep. Ilhan Omar and her husband, Tim Mynett, face scrutiny from House Republicans and federal authorities over their personal finances. The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.), opened an inquiry into what Republicans call Omar’s “skyrocketing family wealth.”

Disclosures, Rose Lake Capital, and Fraud Questions

Financial disclosures from 2024 reportedly show a sharp jump in household assets. The increase is tied to Mynett’s consulting firm, Rose Lake Capital LLC, with values reportedly rising from small amounts to between $5 million and $25 million in a short span. Some reports claim the couple’s net worth may have reached $30 million.

Investigators are reviewing whether the gains were properly reported under federal ethics rules and whether they connect to wider concerns in the district. Those concerns include a reported $9 billion fraud scandal tied to Somali social services.

Trump has publicly called Omar “crooked,” tying the investigation to claims of fraud and questionable business dealings. Omar has denied being a millionaire and says Republicans are targeting her for political reasons. The Oversight probe could lead to subpoenas for Mynett, adding another layer to the ongoing fight over ethics and transparency in Washington.

Trump also used the briefing to revive his long-running push to acquire Greenland, a Danish territory. He threatened new tariffs on several European countries as pressure for a deal.

He said the US plans to impose a 10% tariff on imports from Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Norway, and the United Kingdom starting February 1, 2026. He warned the rate would rise to 25% by June 1 if no agreement is reached for what he called the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland.

Europe Calls It Blackmail as Retaliation Plans Form

The tariff threat has angered European leaders, with some calling it “blackmail.” The EU is preparing possible countermeasures, including the use of its anti-coercion tool, which could target US exports or limit market access.

The standoff has shaken markets and added strain inside NATO. Leaders such as French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have signaled they’re ready to respond if the tariffs take effect. Trump first floated the Greenland idea in his first term, and it has returned as a clear sign of his hardline approach abroad.

Together, the Minnesota ICE crackdown, the investigations surrounding Omar, and the tariff fight with Europe show how turbulent the start of 2026 has been under Trump’s second administration. It’s a mix of domestic enforcement battles at home and economic pressure campaigns overseas.

Politics

Jasmine Crockett Accused of Pandering After Appearing With Drag Queen Drag

Published

1 day ago

January 20, 2026

VORNews

HOUSTON, Texas – U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) drew heavy online attention after she appeared at a RuPaul’s Drag Race watch party in Houston on January 17, 2026. The event was hosted by local drag performer Rachel Bitchface and doubled as a fundraiser for Meals on Heels, a group that provides meals to people in need across the Houston area. Organizers raised $1,150, beating a $900 goal.

Jasmine Crockett, known for speaking out on LGBTQ+ rights, joined the crowd and even took the stage for karaoke. Video from the night shows her singing Alicia Keys’ “You Don’t Know My Name” and talking with attendees.

The appearance landed as Crockett pushes for the Democratic nomination in the 2026 Texas U.S. Senate race. She announced her run in late 2025 and has framed her campaign as a challenge to business-as-usual politics. Her pitch focuses on everyday Texans, with messaging that stresses independence from strict party-line thinking.

With the Democratic primary set for March 3, 2026, Crockett is also facing competition inside her own party, including State Rep. James Talarico. In a high-stakes statewide race, turnout across key groups could make the difference.

Jasmine Crockett Supporters Say It Fits Her Track Record

Jasmine Crockett has a public record of backing LGBTQ+ priorities in Congress, including support for marriage equality protections, gender-affirming care, and anti-discrimination measures. She has also been recognized for that work, including receiving the Eleanor Holmes Norton Civil Rights & Justice Award at the Center for Black Equity’s BE Gala.

Supporters say her stop at the Houston watch party matches that history. To them, it looked like real community time, not a one-off campaign move.

The watch party took place at a nightclub and mixed entertainment with fundraising. Rachel Bitchface introduced Crockett warmly, and attendees shared clips that spread fast on social media. Much of the online buzz focused on the karaoke moment and Crockett’s interactions with the crowd.

Conservative commentators and online critics framed the visit as political theater aimed at boosting LGBTQ+ support ahead of a tight primary and a tough general election. The Gateway Pundit mocked the appearance, spotlighting the karaoke performance and arguing it won’t play well with many Texas voters.

Pandering Claims Disputed

Posts on social platforms added fuel, with some users calling it pandering and others saying it could turn off more moderate voters in a state that often rewards conservative candidates.

Commentators on YouTube and X (formerly Twitter) also tied the moment to campaign pressure. Some pointed to survey results that show Jasmine Crockett performing strongly with Black voters but weaker with white Democrats in the primary.

Critics argue that focusing too much on smaller or targeted voting blocs, including LGBTQ+ communities, could narrow her path in a statewide contest.

Defenders push back with a simple point: showing up isn’t a stunt when it lines up with years of policy work. They also point to the fundraiser angle, saying the hunger-relief goal gets ignored when the story is framed as a culture-war fight.

Texas has been a difficult state for Democrats in recent Senate races, with Republicans holding the advantage statewide. Crockett’s campaign talks about economic concerns, family support, and pushing back on extremes. Still, high-visibility moments like a drag watch party appearance can draw outsized attention and trigger familiar culture-war arguments.

As the primary season moves forward, Crockett’s challenge is clear: keep core supporters energized while also building a wider coalition. Whether this Houston appearance helps boost LGBTQ+ turnout or becomes fodder for attack ads later will depend on how voters read it in the months ahead.