Politics

Trump’s Narco-Takedown is Sqeezing Global Finance’s Dirty Secrets

Published

21 minutes ago

December 6, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C– In the heavy Caribbean heat, U.S. Navy jets slice across the night sky, their missiles slamming into fast-moving boats far below. What started as quiet, unacknowledged strikes on suspected trafficking vessels has grown into President Donald Trump’s boldest move yet, a broad military and financial campaign against what he brands Venezuela’s narco-state.

Called “Operation Southern Spear”, the mission has sunk more than two dozen boats and killed at least 87 suspected traffickers, according to U.S. officials. The shockwaves are shaking drug networks across the region. Yet behind the dramatic footage of explosions at sea, another target is feeling the squeeze, the global financial system that has long fed off cartel profits.

From the misty lanes around London’s Square Mile to the skyscrapers of Wall Street, top-tier bankers have, for years, helped recycle cartel cash into respectable assets. That pipeline is now under heavy pressure. Trump’s mix of sanctions, asset freezes, and terrorism designations is cutting into the flow of dirty money, triggering a frantic response from many of the same global power-brokers who once mocked him as a loud, unserious populist.

Trump has not softened his language. “We’re going to start doing those strikes on land, too,” he said at a White House cabinet meeting this week. “You know, the land is much easier… We know where the bad ones live.”

As in his first term, he casts Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, as the boss of a “narco-terrorist” empire. He accuses Maduro and his allies of pumping fentanyl-laced drugs into U.S. communities while amassing huge personal fortunes. The Cartel de los Soles, a murky group of senior Venezuelan officers named for the sun badges on their uniforms, has just been labelled a foreign terrorist organisation.

That move opened the floodgates for aggressive U.S. Treasury sanctions. Tren de Aragua, the vicious Venezuelan gang that has spread across Latin America and beyond, is expected to receive the same terrorism label, turning its leaders into internationally hunted fugitives.

The policy is not just bluster. Since September, U.S. aircraft and ships have destroyed 22 boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. Pentagon briefings claim those hits have cut sea-based drug traffic in the region by about 85 per cent. Many of the strikes have been carried out by F/A-18 Super Hornets flying from the USS Gerald R. Ford.

The campaign has sparked anger abroad. Venezuela accuses Washington of “extrajudicial killings”, and human rights groups complain that the U.S. offers little proof that those killed were traffickers or combatants.

Trump, however, sees it as a straightforward calculation. Every destroyed go-fast boat, he argues, weakens Maduro’s grip on power. Every seized account, in his view, cuts deeper into the global money-laundering networks that keep narco fortunes safe.

The Venezuelan Pipeline: From Jungle Coca Fields to Global Bank Vaults

Venezuela has long sat on a key smuggling route. Its coastline and borders make it a natural path for Colombian cocaine heading north to the United States. Under Maduro’s rule, Washington says that role has shifted from transit corridor to something far darker, a state-backed criminal enterprise.

The Cartel de los Soles, according to U.S. indictments and intelligence assessments, includes generals and officials who swapped military uniforms for gold watches and luxury homes. They are accused of controlling coca processing in areas like the Orinoco Basin and running smuggling corridors across the Caribbean and into Central America.

The U.S. Justice Department indicted Maduro himself in 2020 as a “drug kingpin”. Court documents portray a vast network allegedly responsible for sending tonnes of cocaine to the United States, earning billions in illegal revenue for loyalists, officers, and their business partners.

That money does not sit in jungle hideouts. It surges north in waves of bundled banknotes and complex transfers, in search of clean entry points into mainstream finance. At that point, the street dealers step aside, and the respectable players appear. Not payday lenders or backstreet money shops, but well-dressed bankers in London, New York, Miami, and beyond.

These institutions build and maintain the plumbing that turns blood-stained cash into apparently honest capital. Offshore shell companies, trade-invoicing tricks, trust structures, and layers of international accounts help dirty bolivars and pesos re-emerge as crisp dollars, pounds, and euros.

The FinCEN Files, a major leak published in 2020 by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, highlighted how banking giants like JPMorgan Chase and Standard Chartered processed huge amounts of suspicious Venezuelan transactions. Some of that money came from PDVSA, the state oil company that has sat under U.S. sanctions since 2019 and has long been plagued by corruption claims.

The stories behind the figures are stark. The Ceballos family, members of Venezuela’s elite, allegedly stole more than 100 million dollars from anti-poverty schemes such as Misión Che Guevara. Their money moved through a shell company registered in London before arriving at Banco Espírito Santo in Portugal. That bank was later shut down by regulators following money-laundering scandals.

Another case involves Raúl Gorrín, the owner of the TV channel Globovisión. He was indicted in 2018 for allegedly bribing Venezuelan and U.S. officials while moving around 1.2 billion dollars from PDVSA fraud through Florida property deals and Miami bank accounts.

These are not isolated stories of a few corrupt clients slipping past sleepy compliance officers. They reflect a wider pattern in which “boligarchs” (wealthy Chavista insiders) exploit Venezuela’s warped currency markets and weak institutions. Western banks and professionals provide the tools that help them shift their gains abroad.

The numbers are huge. A 2025 United Nations report estimates that drug trafficking worldwide generates about 1.6 trillion dollars in laundered funds each year, with Venezuela accounting for a significant share. Much of this passes through London, often described as the “money-laundering capital of the world”.

A 2020 Politico investigation showed how UK money service businesses, including simple remittance shops on high streets like Oxford Street, have become channels for cartel funds. Those shops move cash into crypto or disguise it as regular transfers, then send it on to banks. This cycle feeds gang violence and drug markets in Britain itself.

In the United States, financial giants have their own scandals. HSBC paid a 1.9 billion fine in 2012 after U.S. authorities said it had laundered money for Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel through local exchange houses. Wachovia, later absorbed by Wells Fargo, was caught processing about 378 billion dollars in suspicious Mexican transfers between 2004 and 2007, much of it linked to drug routes.

Banks and brokers do not simply sit and accept deposits. They help design the routes. Chinese underground banking groups, now central to fentanyl laundering, often rely on U.S. accounts as temporary waystations.

They split deposits into sums below 10,000 dollars, known as structuring, to dodge reporting rules. In 2022, a single bust in San Gabriel, California, uncovered about 50 million dollars in cartel profits channelled through Chinese brokers and American banks.

For many international financiers, from Davos regulars to IMF insiders, this river of illicit money has acted as a hidden support for global markets. During the 2008 financial crisis, former UN drugs chief Antonio Maria Costa remarked that cartel cash had helped keep some banks afloat by feeding their liquidity at a moment of stress.

The Trump Squeeze: Sanctions as Financial Pressure Point

Trump’s offensive against Venezuela runs on two tracks: military action and financial warfare. While jets and warships target physical routes, the U.S. Treasury is targeting the money itself.

Since Trump entered office again, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has put more than 300 Venezuelan-related individuals and entities on its blacklist. Those on the list see their U.S.-based assets frozen, and American citizens and companies are barred from dealing with them.

PDVSA is at the centre of the pressure. Sanctions that Joe Biden eased in 2023 were slapped back on in April, according to administration officials. Venezuela’s oil revenue, which stood at about 4.8 billion dollars in 2018, dropped to just 477 million dollars last year.

The Central Bank of Venezuela, blacklisted in 2019, lost access to dollar clearing. Maduro has since tried to keep the country afloat through barter deals with Russia, Iran, and other partners outside the Western system.

The noose is tightening around the networks that process cartel and corruption funds. OFAC’s December sanctions against Tren de Aragua associates went beyond gang leaders and gunmen. Targets included Venezuelan influencer “Rosita” and her links to nightclubs accused of funnelling drug money through entertainment projects. These measures hit the front companies used to disguise millions in proceeds.

Foreign banks that assist blacklisted individuals or firms now risk “secondary sanctions”. These penalties can cut them off from U.S. markets, dollar clearing, and correspondent banking services. That threat is powerful. Standard Chartered, already hammered in past cases over Iranian and Venezuelan transactions, has closed several high-risk accounts. JPMorgan has tightened screening for any transfers with even a faint Venezuelan link.

In Britain, money service businesses that once moved cash for cartel-linked clients are facing raids and shutdowns. Under “Operation Destabilise”, the National Crime Agency has seized about 25 million pounds in crypto and cash tied to Venezuelan-linked flows.

There are signs of strain on the cartels’ financial arrangements. U.S. intelligence and regulatory reports suggest that long-standing fentanyl routes, which relied on Venezuelan nodes and Chinese chemical suppliers, are being disrupted.

A FinCEN advisory notes that U.S. banks are now “overwhelming” the system with suspicious activity reports related to cartel money, flooding traffickers with extra obstacles and higher costs. Some groups are shifting back to bulk cash smuggling and local laundering, which is slower, less efficient, and easier to detect.

Many of the global elite who push free trade and light-touch regulation spent years arguing that harsh sanctions hurt ordinary people. They warned against isolating PDVSA or freezing Venezuelan gold sales.

Now they are watching as banks in places like the Cayman Islands and Dubai pay growing fines for fraud, misreporting, and sanctions breaches. Wall Street Exchange in Dubai, for example, recently accepted a 9 million penalty over financial misconduct.

Banker Backlash: Global Finance Fights for the Flow

The financial sector is not taking this pressure lying down. In Canary Wharf boardrooms and New York conference rooms, protests and lobbying are quietly picking up pace.

Executives complain to regulators that sanctions have gone too far. The Bank of England and the U.S. Federal Reserve have received repeated warnings that “overcompliance” is strangling legitimate Venezuelan trade. Some banks are so fearful of OFAC punishment that they block even authorised humanitarian transactions, deepening shortages of food, medicine, and fuel.

A leaked memo from a London hedge fund branded Trump’s approach “economic warfare” and blamed it for volatility in emerging market bonds. The firm warned clients that heavy U.S. sanctions on Venezuela could ripple across Latin America and hit commodities, shipping, and regional banks.

In Washington, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has joined the resistance. The powerful business group, often aligned with globalist interests, lobbied Congress last month to re-examine secondary sanctions. It cited estimates of about 200 billion dollars in lost or disrupted trade linked to U.S. measures on Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.

European institutions are also pushing back. Banks stung by EU-aligned sanctions regimes have launched legal challenges against OFAC, arguing that Washington is reaching beyond its legal powers. Lawyers for one group of lenders claim that blocking Venezuelan gold sales, which they value at around 2 billion dollars a year, has hit diaspora communities and refugees harder than cartel bosses.

Political tensions mirror these arguments. In the U.S. Senate, Democrats such as Tim Kaine have condemned Trump’s recent pardon of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández. Hernández is a convicted trafficker accused of allowing Venezuelan and Colombian coke flights to cross his territory. Kaine called the pardon “unconscionable hypocrisy,” given Trump’s rhetoric on drugs.

Republicans like Marco Rubio, by contrast, have embraced the new escalation. Rubio links Maduro’s alleged narco activities directly to the U.S. migration crisis. “Maduro’s narcos fund the invasion at our gates,” he declared on Fox News, without mentioning that banks sanctioned in past years for handling cartel money, such as HSBC, profited from those same flows.

For critics of both Trump and the financial elite, this is the real battlefield. It is less about one Latin American strongman and more about the powerful institutions that profit from instability and smuggling.

“The strikes are theatre,” says Dr Laura Grayson, a Georgetown University economist who studies illicit finance. “The sanctions are the scalpel, cutting out the bankers’ share.”

Grayson cites a 2025 Government Accountability Office report that reviewed U.S. cases of Venezuelan money laundering. The review found 35 convictions over several years, but only after billions had already moved through the system.

A London trader, speaking anonymously, put it in blunt terms. “Trump is not draining the swamp,” he said. “He is dragging our filth into the light and throwing it back at us.”

Collateral Damage: A Region on Edge

The consequences go far beyond executive suites and trading floors. Across Venezuela, sanctions and economic collapse have driven the humanitarian disaster even deeper.

Roughly 7.9 million people now need food or medical aid, according to aid groups. Inflation sits around 200 per cent. Fuel shortages have crippled transport and public services. Hospitals struggle to secure basic supplies.

Maduro, facing both internal dissent and external pressure, has responded with defiance. His government courts Russian and Iranian support and has hinted at seeking advanced missile systems as a deterrent. Officials in Caracas brand the U.S. campaign an “imperialist blockade” and blame it for all of Venezuela’s troubles, ignoring years of mismanagement and corruption.

Nearby Caribbean states feel exposed. Countries like Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Curaçao brace for more refugee arrivals as Venezuelans take to the sea in unsafe boats. Local economies that relied on trade with Venezuela or PDVSA-linked activity are scrambling to adjust.

In the United States, the stakes are measured in lives lost to synthetic drugs. Fentanyl overdoses killed around 100,000 Americans last year. Investigators trace a growing share of the supply chain back to networks that pass through Venezuela and link up with Chinese chemical brokers and Mexican cartels.

If the naval strikes and sanctions keep biting, the volume of poison entering the country may fall. That is the hope among some law enforcement officials and community leaders in struggling areas, from small towns in Ohio to city districts in Los Angeles. Yet no one expects the cartels to give up easily. They constantly test new routes, new chemicals, and new financial workarounds.

As the USS Gerald R. Ford prepares for more sorties and OFAC lawyers draft fresh designation lists, one uncomfortable fact remains. In the global drug economy, the most powerful cartels often sit in corner offices, not jungle camps.

Trump’s offensive may weaken Maduro or even contribute to a change of regime in Caracas. Any lasting shift, however, will depend on whether regulators and prosecutors are willing to hit the financiers who made fortunes from laundering narco profits.

If that happens, the biggest losers in this phase of the drug war may not be the street-level traffickers or even the generals in Caracas. It may be the bankers and brokers who assumed they could profit from dirty money forever, with no real consequences.

Politics

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

Published

50 minutes ago

December 6, 2025

Jeffrey Thomas

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.

Related News:

House Republicans Continue to Back Mike Johnson as Speaker

Politics

House Republicans Continue to Back Mike Johnson as Speakers

Published

1 hour ago

December 6, 2025

Jeffrey Thomas

House Republicans Continue to Back Mike Johnson as Speakers

WASHINGTON D.C. – House Republicans insist that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is secure in his role, at least for now, even after a bruising week of public infighting, stalled bills, and raw internal anger.

Members from across the conference, from moderates to hardliners, are openly criticising their own leadership, launching procedural moves that chip away at the Louisiana Republicans’ already fragile grip on a thin majority.

The rising tension reflects a nervous House GOP, staring at narrow margins and the real risk of losing seats in the next election. That fragile backdrop increases the strain on Johnson, who must deal with a restless conference while trying to manage sensitive talks with the Senate, especially with Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.).

Fading Discipline: Public Bust-Ups And Discharge Petitions

The internal strains in the Republican majority have become impossible to ignore, raising fresh doubts about Johnson’s control over his colleagues. A speaker’s power is usually measured by control over the floor schedule and party message. On both, Johnson appears to be slipping.

One of the most damaging rows featured Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), a member of Johnson’s own leadership team. The dispute was over a national security measure she backed for the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). When the provision was left out, Stefanik went public, using social media and interviews to accuse Johnson of lying and running a “rudderless” operation.

The clause was later reinserted after outside pressure, reportedly following a call involving former President Donald Trump. Even though the policy win was restored, the episode showed that senior Republicans are willing to condemn the Speaker in public and put him on the spot.

Beyond insults and public swipes, the growing use of the discharge petition as a key tactic shows a deeper breakdown in Johnson’s authority. A discharge petition lets a majority of House members (218) force a bill to the floor, going around the Speaker and the committee process. For decades, that move was rare and seen as a blunt act of rebellion against party leaders. Now it is becoming a go-to tool for restless Republicans.

A high-profile petition to force the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files succeeded and secured a vote.
Another petition to bar members of Congress from trading stock, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and backed by lawmakers such as Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), is picking up support.

As Mace has pointed out, relying on discharge petitions signals deep frustration inside the party. It lets individual MPs drive the agenda and robs the Speaker of the usual power to control which bills move, or to protect colleagues from politically risky votes.

Mike Johnson’s Tense Partnership With Senate Majority Leader Thune

While dealing with a rebellious House, Johnson also faces trouble across the Capitol in his dealings with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). Their clashes show the different pressures on each chamber. The House is pushed by more ideological politics and rapid demands from the base. The Senate puts more weight on process, cross-party alliances, and longer-term stability.

A recent example is the fight over the MEGOBARI Act, a bipartisan House bill that would put sanctions on Georgian government officials. The House backed the measure by a wide margin, but it stalled in the Senate. Johnson personally urged Thune to fold the sanctions into the annual NDAA, a must-pass defence package.

Thune refused and blocked the request. He cited objections from Republican senators who favour a softer, more incentive-based approach with the Georgian government, rather than immediate sanctions.

Aides say Thune responded with a simple “flat no”. That response underlines the limits of Johnson’s reach outside his own chamber. For a Speaker already struggling to keep his conference together, a failure to move House priorities through a Senate run by his own party adds to the image of a weakened leader. It was also the second time Thune had stood in the way of adding the MEGOBARI Act to major legislation, highlighting a clear gap between the two men’s legislative strategies.

Mike Johnson

Safe For Now, But Far From Secure

Most House Republicans say Johnson’s gavel is safe for now, but their reasons are more about fear than loyalty. The memory of the chaotic, weeks-long scramble to replace former Speaker Kevin McCarthy still haunts the conference. Few members, even among Johnson’s harshest critics, seem ready to repeat that spectacle with an election year fast approaching.

Security, however, is very different from stability. Johnson is boxed in on almost every side. He has to keep conservative hardliners on board, since they can topple his majority and his speakership, while also passing bills to avoid a government shutdown and keeping working ties with the Senate and the White House.

Members continue to air their grievances in public, sign on to discharge petitions, and force blow-up fights over key bills. All of these points point to a majority that struggles to function. Johnson has urged colleagues to bring complaints to him privately, but many now ignore that request. They are more focused on their own campaigns and seats than on presenting a united front.

The Speaker is racing to advance major measures, such as the Pentagon funding bill and a long-promised health care package. Those efforts will be the next big tests of his authority. With his power under constant strain and key legislative routes slipping out of his control, Mike Johnson’s future as Speaker may depend less on affection inside the GOP and more on whether he can keep this fractious majority just steady enough to reach the next election.

For those interested in his wider outlook, there is an interview with Speaker Johnson on threats to the US-led world order here: Speaker Mike Johnson on the Threats to the US-led World Order. The video sheds light on his views on foreign policy and global security, which shape much of his approach to legislation.

Politics

Ending the Indoctrination: Why School Choice Is The Only Way To Save US Education

Published

2 days ago

December 4, 2025

Leyna Wong

Walk into almost any school board meeting today and it feels less like a talk about reading and math, and more like a political rally. Parents argue about “radical indoctrination.” Lawmakers argue about “patriotic education.” Teachers feel caught in the crossfire.

In 2025, a new executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K‑12 Schooling” promised to crack down on lessons about systemic racism, white privilege, and gender identity, and to push a more patriotic story of America instead. Supporters said it would protect kids. Critics said it was itself a political attempt to control what children learn.

Both sides are afraid that the other side will use schools to shape kids’ beliefs. That fear is not crazy. When almost every child must attend a system controlled by a small group of leaders, the risk of indoctrination is always there, no matter who is in charge.

School choice, where money follows the student instead of the system, offers a different path. It gives families the power to walk away from schools that push one narrow worldview, and to pick places that match their values and help their kids think for themselves.

This article breaks down what indoctrination really is, how the current system makes it possible, why school choice protects kids and improves learning, and what steps parents and voters can take right now.

What Indoctrination in Schools Really Means (And What It Does Not)

A lot of people use the word “indoctrination,” but they don’t always mean the same thing. So let’s start simple.

Indoctrination means teaching students what to think, instead of how to think.

It shows up when:

Only one answer is allowed on big questions about history, race, gender, or politics.
Students feel afraid to ask honest questions.
Kids are shamed, punished, or graded down for disagreeing with the teacher’s beliefs.

Both the right and the left accuse each other of this. Some conservative groups say schools are pushing “woke” ideas about race and gender, and dividing kids into victims and oppressors. Some progressive groups say schools are being pushed to hide honest history, silence LGBTQ students, and replace real debate with flag-waving slogans.

The 2025 executive order against “radical indoctrination” is a good example of this tug of war. It threatens to pull federal money from schools that teach ideas like systemic racism or gender identity, and it brings back the 1776 Commission to promote a patriotic version of U.S. history. Supporters see this as a fix. Critics see it as top-down political pressure on classrooms.

Honest teaching looks different. Honest teaching:

Covers hard topics like slavery, racism, and discrimination.
Shares more than one viewpoint where experts disagree.
Invites questions, even tough or unpopular ones.
Helps kids test ideas with evidence, not just feelings.

Indoctrination, by contrast, allows only one “correct” view and treats questions as a threat.

Teaching kids how to think vs telling them what to think

Picture two versions of the same classroom.

In the first classroom, the teacher writes a statement on the board, like “The United States has always been a force for good in the world,” or “America is a racist country.” Then the teacher says: “Your job is to explain why this is true.” Students who raise doubts get shut down. They learn quickly that the safe move is to agree.

That is telling kids what to think.

In the second classroom, the teacher writes the same statement, but adds: “Do you agree or disagree? Why?” Students read different sources, maybe a speech by a civil rights leader, a piece from a veteran, a historian’s article. They work in groups, question each other, and share what they find.

That is teaching kids how to think.

Critical thinking means:

Asking questions.
Looking at evidence.
Comparing different sides.
Changing your mind when the facts change.

Kids do not need a college-level philosophy lesson to do this. They need space to speak, listen, and think out loud without fear of being labeled or punished.

Why both political sides fear bias in public schools

People from different parties worry about different kinds of bias.

Many conservatives fear that:

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) lessons paint all white students as oppressors.
Lessons on gender identity confuse kids or push ideas that clash with their faith.
Schools teach kids to distrust police, the flag, or their own country.

Many progressives fear that:

New rules will censor honest teaching on slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing racism.
LGBTQ students will be erased when schools avoid talking about gender or identity.
“Patriotic education” will turn into one-sided cheerleading that hides mistakes.

There are real cases on both sides. Some states have told teachers to avoid “divisive concepts.” Other districts have used training materials that treat some kids as automatic victims and others as automatic oppressors. Leaders in both camps have tried to block ideas they dislike.

When one system controls almost all kids, every group fights to control that system. The school system itself becomes the prize in a never-ending culture war.

What research really shows about political bias in classrooms

Headlines often make it sound like every classroom is a political echo chamber. The research paints a more mixed picture.

Surveys of teachers often show that:

Many try to present more than one view on hot topics.
Most say they avoid pushing their personal politics.
They report feeling pressure from both sides to “stay safe” or “stay quiet.”

Student surveys suggest that:

Some students do hear political opinions from teachers.
Many say teachers allow discussion, but some topics now feel off-limits.
Laws about “banned concepts” or fear of complaints can lead schools to skip hard but important lessons.

In other words, there is less proof of mass indoctrination than social media claims. But the structure of the system is fragile. A single election, law, or executive order can tilt things quickly.

That fragility is the real problem. If one group gains power, it can use a centralized system to push its ideas from the top down, to every classroom at once.

How the Current US Public School System Opens the Door to Indoctrination

You do not need a grand conspiracy to end up with political classrooms. You only need a structure where a few people control what millions of children hear all day.

Right now, that is how U.S. public schooling works.

Centralized rules, strong unions, and large agencies shape what happens far more than individual families do. Funding, tests, standards, and approved textbooks mostly sit in the hands of lawmakers and education departments, not parents.

At the same time, academic results are sliding. National tests like the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that reading and math scores for high school seniors hit historic lows in 2024. About 45 percent of 12th graders scored below basic in math and about 32 percent scored below basic in reading. The drops are worst for struggling students.

So while adults fight about ideology, many kids cannot read, write, or do math at the level they need for real life.

Centralized control: when one system decides what every child hears

Centralized control sounds abstract, but kids feel it every day.

In practice, it looks like this:

State boards pick curriculum standards that say what topics teachers must cover.
Those standards drive which textbooks big publishers create and sell.
Federal rules and grants offer money if states follow certain priorities.
Local districts must fall in line if they want that money.

A single law can decide whether teachers can talk about systemic racism, gender identity, or climate change, or whether they must teach a certain version of U.S. history. A single executive order can push schools toward one “approved” story of America.

That means millions of kids can have their lessons changed overnight by people they will never meet.

Teacher unions, politics, and who really runs the classroom

Teacher unions are groups that represent teachers when they bargain over pay, job security, and working conditions. They give teachers a voice, and many members see them as a shield against unfair treatment.

But unions are also big political players. They:

Endorse candidates.
Spend money on campaigns.
Support or fight education laws.

Unions and advocacy groups often push back hard against orders they dislike, or push just as hard for policies they do like. Parents, school boards, and lawmakers join the tug of war. Classrooms sit in the middle.

Most teachers care deeply about kids. Many hate the politics. The problem is not that teachers are bad. The problem is that they work in a system that is big, rigid, and highly political by design.

Culture wars vs student learning: reading and math scores are slipping

While adults argue, student learning is not keeping up.

NAEP results in recent years show long-term struggles in reading and math, with sharp drops after COVID and only slow recovery. In 2024, nearly half of high school seniors tested below basic in math. Large gaps between the strongest and weakest students keep growing.

Education leaders share plans, task forces, and slogans, yet many students still leave school unready for college or skilled work.

When every news story about schools focuses on race, gender, or flags, less attention goes to basics like:

Early reading instruction.
Strong math teaching in middle school.
Mental health support.
Career and technical pathways.

The more centralized and political the system becomes, the harder it is to focus on what kids truly need.

Why School Choice Protects Kids From Indoctrination and Boosts Learning

School choice flips the script. Instead of funding a system and assigning kids to it by zip code, it funds students and lets families choose.

In simple terms, school choice means public money follows the child. Families can use that money at:

Traditional public schools.
Public charter schools.
Private schools.
Online or hybrid schools.
Home-education programs, in some states.

This does two big things.

First, it acts like a safety valve against indoctrination. If a school pushes a one-sided worldview, parents can leave, and the funding goes with the child. No group can hold kids captive inside one system.

Second, it pushes schools to earn trust. When families can walk, schools must focus on quality, respect, and real results.

School choice is not owned by one party. Conservative parents, progressive parents, and politically independent parents can all use choice to find schools that match their values and still teach kids how to think.

What school choice is (and what critics get wrong)

There are a few main types of school choice:

Vouchers: The state gives a set amount of money for each child, which parents can use for private school tuition.
Education savings accounts (ESAs): Parents get a portion of their child’s education funding in a controlled account and can spend it on approved uses, like tuition, tutoring, or online classes.
Charter schools: Public schools that are free to attend but run by independent groups under a contract, with more flexibility and more accountability for results. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has basic guides on how these schools work.
Open enrollment: Families can choose public schools outside their assigned zone if seats are open.

Critics worry that school choice will:

Drain money from neighborhood public schools.
Help only wealthy or well-connected families.
Spread radical content with taxpayer funds.

Poorly written laws can create problems. But well-designed programs can require:

Clear admission rules.
Strong transparency about curriculum and results.
Basic safety and anti-discrimination standards.
Extra support for low-income and special-needs students.

The goal is not to blow up public education. The goal is to give families real options and make every school earn its students.

How choice breaks the monopoly on kids’ minds

Think about how you pick a doctor.

If one clinic treats you badly, ignores your questions, or pushes treatments you dislike, you can switch. Because you can leave, clinics have a strong reason to listen and respect you.

Now imagine if the government assigned you one clinic based on your address, and it was almost impossible to change. That clinic could get lazy, rude, or political, and you would still be stuck.

That is close to how many school systems work today.

School choice breaks that monopoly. If one school leans too far into politics or censors key facts, parents can move their child. Funding follows. Schools that listen and teach well grow. Schools that ignore families shrink.

You do not have to clean every bit of politics out of the system. You give families the power to pick learning spaces that match their values and still focus on academics. That balance is far more realistic in a diverse country.

Evidence that school choice can raise achievement and satisfaction

Research on school choice is large and still growing. It is not perfect, but patterns are clear enough to see.

Studies of charter schools and voucher programs in several states find that:

Many charter schools, especially those serving low-income students and students of color, improve graduation rates and college entry compared with nearby district schools.
Some voucher programs show gains in reading and long-term outcomes, though short-term test score results can be mixed.
Parent satisfaction almost always rises when families have more options, even when test score gains are modest.

A good entry point into this research is the EdChoice research library, which groups studies by program and outcome.

The key idea is simple: when families have information and real choices, they can match kids to programs that fit their needs. That helps both freedom and learning at the same time.

A Parent’s Guide: How to Use School Choice to Protect Your Child From Indoctrination

Big policy talks matter, but parents need concrete steps too. Even if you live in a state with limited school choice, you still have tools.

Questions to ask any school about values, curriculum, and free speech

When you visit a school or talk with leaders, bring questions like these:

How do you teach controversial topics such as race, gender, and politics?
Do you present more than one side when experts disagree?
Are students free to share different views, as long as they are respectful?
Can parents see curriculum, lesson plans, and reading lists?
How do you choose guest speakers or outside programs?
What happens if a student feels pressured to agree with a certain view?
How do you handle bullying or harassment tied to beliefs or identity?

You are listening less for a perfect script and more for an attitude. Look for openness, humility, and respect for both students and parents.

How to compare school options: public, charter, private, and home education

Different types of schools have different strengths. From an indoctrination and freedom point of view, here is a quick snapshot:

Option	Pros for freedom and fit	Possible concerns
Neighborhood public	Free, local, known structure; some choice of programs	Less flexibility, district politics, assigned by zip code
Public charter	More flexibility in teaching, mission, and schedule	Waitlists, quality varies by school
Private	Clear value or faith focus, strong culture options	Tuition costs, scholarship access, uneven quality
Home education	Full control over content and pace, strong family input	Time demand on parents, social and activity planning

Whatever you pick, do three things:

Visit and sit in on classes if possible.
Talk with other parents and older students.
Look at student work samples, not just scores or brochures.

Ask yourself: “Does this place respect my child’s mind, my family’s values, and honest debate?”

What to do if you feel your child is being pressured or silenced

If you sense a problem, act, but stay calm and focused on your child’s wellbeing.

Talk with your child. Ask open questions. “What did the teacher say?” “How did you feel?” “Did you feel safe to speak up?”
Gather examples. Save assignments, emails, and notes. Write down dates and what was said.
Meet with the teacher. Share your concerns in a respectful way. “My child felt pressured to agree with this idea. Can we talk about how to handle disagreement in class?”
Go to the principal if needed. If things do not change, bring your notes and ask for a plan. Ask about alternative assignments or a classroom change.
Know your child’s rights. Groups like the ACLU’s student rights page explain free speech protections for students.
Consider a school change. If the culture does not improve, look at charter, private, or home-based options, or at least supplement at home with books and discussions that balance what your child hears in class.

Your goal is not to win a political fight. Your goal is to protect your child’s mind and keep their love of learning alive.

Conclusion: Saving Education by Trusting Families First

The real danger in U.S. education is not only one side’s ideology. It is the power of a single, centralized system over millions of children. Indoctrination becomes possible whenever families cannot walk away.

School choice is the most peaceful and fair way to protect kids from political games and raise learning at the same time. It breaks the monopoly on children’s minds and lets parents choose schools that respect both their values and their child’s curiosity.

If you care about honest education, start local. Learn what your state allows, support policies that expand choice, talk with other parents, and stay involved in your child’s learning.

A freer, more honest, and more effective school system is possible. It starts with a simple belief: families, not distant bureaucrats, should decide what kind of education their children receive.