

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In the opening days of the assault on Libya, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a barrage of at least 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles to flatten Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses and pave the way for coalition aircraft.
In fiscal terms, at a time when Congress is fighting over every dollar, the cruise missile show of military might was an expenditure of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Each missile cost $1.41 million.
In the opening days of the assault on Libya, the United States and the United Kingdom launched a barrage of at least 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles to flatten Moammar Gadhafi's air defenses and pave the way for coalition aircraft.
In fiscal terms, at a time when Congress is fighting over every dollar, the cruise missile show of military might was an expenditure of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Each missile cost $1.41 million.
Raytheon Corp. is the manufacturer of the Tomahawk Block IV, a low-flying missile that travels at 550 miles per hour. During a decade of war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya, the Pentagon has increasingly relied on the Tomahawk. A year ago, Raytheon boasted of its 2,000th Block IV delivery to the Navy.
The 20-foot missile is particularly attractive for the military in current conflicts because it can be launched from submarines and surface ships at a safe distance and can be used to take out air-defense systems that could pose a threat to manned aircraft.
William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation and author of the book Prophets of War, said the use of the Tomahawk helps explain, in part, the high cost of the operations in Libya. "The no-fly zones in Iraq averaged about $1 billion or so per year, while the Libyan operation cost $100 million or more on the first day, largely due to the use of cruise missiles," Hartung said.
"I would stop short of calling it a boondoggle, as it does seem to be getting the job done, just at a very high cost," Hartung told the Center for Public Integrity.
Some members of Congress are nervous about yet another war, cost being one of their complaints.
"It is hard to imagine that Congress, during the current contentious debate over deficits and budget cutting, would agree to plunge America into still another war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, in a statement. "Our nation simply cannot afford another war, economically, diplomatically or spiritually."
The Tomahawk was first used operationally in the 1991 Gulf War, when 288 cruise missiles were fired at Kuwait and Iraq to destroy Iraqi forces. The Navy claimed the missiles, which were used to target everything from air defense sites to Saddam's presidential palace, had an 85 percent accuracy rate.
The low-flying cruise missile was used again, in 1998, against Serb forces, and over 325 Tomahawks were launched against Iraq that same year in Operation Desert Fox. During the Iraq war in 2003, the number of Tomahawks used more than doubled compared to the first Gulf War, with over 725 of the cruise missiles launched at Iraq, according to Richard Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The Tomahawk, which is guided to its target by GPS, has tended to work well for fixed sites, like air defense systems, but perhaps less well for so-called fleeing targets, which depends on precise and up-to-date intelligence. In August 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered U.S. Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea to strike suspected Al Qaeda sites in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the Africa embassy bombings.
"Though most of them hit their intended targets, neither Bin Ladin nor any other terrorist leader was killed," the 9/11 Commission wrote in its final report. "[Former National Security Advisor Sandy] Berger told us that an after-action review by [CIA] Director [George] Tenet concluded that the strikes had killed 20-30 people in the camps but probably missed Bin Ladin by a few hours."
In some cases, it's hard to judge the Tomahawk's record: Amnesty International claims 41 civilians were killed by a U.S. Tomahawk strike against Yemen in 2009, but neither U.S. nor Yemeni officials ever confirmed the attack, which was reportedly directed against Al Qaeda sites.
In Libya, the government claimed the recent Tomahawk strikes killed 48 civilians, though those reports have not been confirmed.
From the standpoint of helping set up the no-fly zone, the Tomahawk's use has been a success, according to U.S. officials.
The most current version of the Tomahawk has some noted improvements, most significantly its ability to be reprogrammed in flight via two-way satellite communication. It that sense, the Tomahawk is roughly similar to an unmanned drone aircraft, except that it doesn't ever come back.
It's not clear, however, how often its ability to be reprogrammed is actually used.
"In the real world, you're just not going to have the sort of precise intelligence that would tell you, after you launch a Tomahawk and it's halfway there, that now there's a bus full of widows and orphans" and it needs to be diverted, said John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org. "That just doesn't happen."
The cost of the Tomahawk has long been an issue. The Navy, according to a public fact sheet on its website, places the price tag of a Block IV missile at $569,000, but that's in fiscal year 1999 dollars. However, Rob Koon, a spokesman for the Navy, on Wednesday placed the current price tag at $1.41 million, close to three times the cost listed on the Navy's website.
A spokesman for Raytheon, citing current operational use of the Tomahawk, directed all questions about the Tomahawk to the Navy.
Whether the increasing use of the Tomahawk will translate to more orders is unclear. The Navy declines to discuss inventory numbers, citing operational security, but in February 2010, Raytheon announced that it had delivered its 2,000th Tomahawk Block IV missile to the Navy. The company's trademarked motto is "Customer Success is Our Mission."
With $25 billion in revenues and $1.84 billion in profits companywide in2010, Raytheon is one of the five largest defense contractors and has benefited from the military's increasing reliance on cruise missiles. Missile sales have also been paralleled by its lobbying effort. Raytheon, now the world's biggest producer of guided-missiles, spent just shy of $7 million on congressional lobbying in 2010, compared to $2.32 million a decade earlier, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org.
Raytheon has liberally sprinkled campaign contributions across Congress, including more than $2.1 million in 2009-2010. The contributions were balanced between parties, with 53 percent going to Democrats and 46 percent to Republican candidates, according to OpenSecrets.
Even in an era of staggering weapons costs, the price tag for a Tomahawk stands out because it's only used once. So, is the Tomahawk worth well over $1 million a shot?
"They are expensive rounds, but they give you the potential to attack heavily defended targets up front," said Barry Watts, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
"How do you value not putting a bunch of pilots in harm's way?"
The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit organization dedicated to producing original, responsible investigative journalism on issues of public concern. The Center is non-partisan and non-advocacy. We are committed to transparent and comprehensive reporting both in the United States and around the world.
"Protesters... are furious, and tensions are exploding," said one independent journalist. "This is escalation, not policing."
Amidst peaceful demonstrations and shows of empathy and solidarity in Minneapolis and other US cities following the killing of Renee Nicole Good by a federal agent last week, videos appearing online over the weekend also show increasing levels of outrage directed at immigration officers who community members say they no longer want to see terrorizing their streets.
While Trump has reportedly ordered more officers to Minneapolis in the wake of Good's killing—even as local and state officials have called for the end of operations in order to tamp down tensions in the city—the clips circulating online reveal mounting frustration by neighbors no longer willing to tolerate the situation.
On Sunday, journalist and documentarian Ford Fischer posted video from Minneapolis he described as ICE agents being "followed by dozens of activists on foot and in vehicles" in the city.
While agents are seen holding bear spray and warning people to stay back, the procession of civilians following them heckled the officers and made it clear they are not wanted in the city.
"You are murderers!" yells one man at the officers. Several others can be heard screaming, "Go home!" and "Fuck you!"
Just now: ICE followed by dozens of activists on foot and in vehicles in Minneapolis. pic.twitter.com/vFXmZIr0TA
— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) January 11, 2026
In another video, posted by FreedomNews.TV, federal agents are seen pulling two people from a vehicle on a residential street and placing them under arrest before being confronted by neighbors and onlookers telling them to "Get out of our fucking state!"; "Get the fuck out!"; and "Get a real job!"
🚨 HOLY SMOKES: New video shows ICE agents smashing the window of a protester’s vehicle and forcibly pulling him out in Minneapolis and he was immediately detained.
Protesters in the area are furious, and tensions are exploding.
This is escalation, not policing. pic.twitter.com/CfHMQyPOOg
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) January 11, 2026
"Protesters in the area are furious, and tensions are exploding," said independent journalist Brian Allen in response to the video. "This is escalation, not policing."
The latest scenes appear to indicate growing anger by the public towards President Donald Trump's authoritarian deployment of federal agents to cities nationwide over the last year. With Good's killing, the growing tensions are palpable.
While many state and local lawmakers and other officials calling for calm and peaceful protest in response, many—including Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) also believe that Trump and members of his administration are intentionally trying to provoke the civilian population in order to justify an ever harsher repressive response.
In comments on Saturday, as Common Dreams reported, Omar warned that the ultimate goal is "to agitate people enough where they are able to invoke the Insurrection Act to declare martial law."
While the individual episodes documented above reveal the very real anger that many are feeling as masked federal agents target people in their communities, the overall protests against the policies that led to Good's killing—which took place in hundreds of cities over the weekend—have been resoundingly peaceful.
🚨 JUST IN: Families, including parents with children, are present at PEACEFUL protests in Minneapolis, underscoring that these are community demonstrations, NOT riots.
If federal agents escalate force against crowds that include families, that will be a choice by the state, not… pic.twitter.com/SKoHKleGFb
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) January 11, 2026
"A peaceful night in Minneapolis," the city posted to its social media accounts following Saturday night's demonstrations. "As more demonstrations are planned today, we appreciate and thank the community for using its collective voice in harmony and love."
"Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. Nobody dictates what we do," said Cuba's President Miguel Diaz-Canel in response to the latest threat from the authoritarian US president.
President Donald Trump was ripped by humanitarians and anti-war voices on Sunday after he again threatened Cuba by saying the US military would be used to prevent oil and other resources from reaching the country, threats that come just over a week after the American president ordered the unlawful attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
In a social media post Sunday morning, Trump declared:
Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela. In return, Cuba provided “Security Services” for the last two Venezuelan dictators, BUT NOT ANYMORE! Most of those Cubans are DEAD from last weeks U.S.A. attack, and Venezuela doesn’t need protection anymore from the thugs and extortionists who held them hostage for so many years. Venezuela now has the United States of America, the most powerful military in the World (by far!), to protect them, and protect them we will. THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA - ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT
Cuba's President Miguel Diaz-Canel rejected Trump's latest comments and threat of military force, saying the island nation was ready to defend itself.
"Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. Nobody dictates what we do," Diaz-Canel said in a social media post. "Cuba does not attack; it has been attacked by the US for 66 years, and it does not threaten; it prepares, ready to defend the homeland to the last drop of blood."
Progressive critics of the US president were also quick to hit back. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the anti-war group CodePink, said the "true extortionist" in this situation is Trump himself, as she detailed the mutual benefit of the relationship between the Venezuelan and Cuban governments over recent decades:
Trump says Cuba is “extorting” Venezuela.
Yet, it was Cuba that sent 250,000 health workers to Venezuela, lowered infant mortality, restored eyesight, and trained local doctors.
The true extortionist is Trump. pic.twitter.com/79b9IafeSH
— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) January 11, 2026
"What is extortion?" Benjamin asks. "It's what Donald Trump is doing: taking over those oil tankers, confiscating 30-50 million tons of oil—that is extortion. And saying to Venezuela, 'We're going to run your country." Donald Trump is the greatest extortionist our country has seen."
Reuters reports Sunday, citing shipping data, that Venezuela has been Cuba's "biggest oil supplier, but no cargoes have departed from Venezuelan ports to the Caribbean country since the capture of Maduro.
Speaking with CBS News on Sunday, Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) said that Trump's threats to strangle the people of Cuba by enforcing a resource blockade were "like magical" in her ears and those of her right-wing constituents who live in Miami's large community of Cuban exiles.
Welcoming Trump's efforts to bully Cuba into submission, Salazar claimed that Cuba's government is "hanging by a threat" she said, before correcting herself, "a thread, I should say."
Oddly—but notably—Salazar continued her remarks by saying it was Cuba that has been an "immense" threat to the United States, as she described it as a nation "with no water; they have no electricity; they have no food—nothing. So if you think Maduro is weak, Cuba is even weaker. And now they do not have one drop of oil coming from Venezuela."
President Trump announced on TruthSocial that “there will be no more oil or money going to Cuba,” Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) responded saying “those words are like magical.”
“Cuba is really a center of power for our enemies,” Salazar told @margbrennan. “Now, I think… pic.twitter.com/CSZNRI30lZ
— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) January 11, 2026
But progressive voices opposed to Trump's authoritarian violations of international law, his bullying of allies and enemies alike with claims that the US can do whatever it likes in the name of national security and claims of national interest, are warning that the threats against Cuba and other nations represent a chilling development that must be met with international opposition and condemnation.
"The US blockade of Cuba is the longest-standing act of collective punishment in the world," said David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International, pointing to Trump's remarks. "It is condemned by the entire international community every year at the UN. And now, the US president is doubling down on this cruel and illegal punishment. Enough."
"This is an emergency," Progressive International explained in a dispatch last week, warning about Trump's overt hostility toward Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and other nations in the wake of the US attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores.
"The United States is rapidly escalating its assault on the Americas—and the principle of self-determination at large," warned the international advocacy group. "Under the banner of the Monroe Doctrine, Donald Trump and his cronies are leading a campaign of imperial aggression that stretches from Caracas to Havana, Mexico City to Bogotá."
According to the dispatch:
What we are witnessing today is class struggle played out through imperial violence. The United States stands as the political and military instrument of capital: Big Oil bankrolling politics; arms manufacturers profiting from destruction; and financial power thriving on plunder and permanent war. These sections of capital pay for the policies they desire and are richly rewarded. The share prices of US oil majors soared around 10% following Maduro’s kidnapping, representing a return of around $100 billion on an investment of $450 million in the last US elections.
The government serves its donors, so aggression can proceed without consent. Public opinion has repeatedly shown opposition to U.S. military action in Venezuela — a gap between elite appetite and popular will bridged by force, not democracy.
Venezuela — like many nations before it — represents a different possibility: that the popular classes might govern themselves, control their resources, and chart a future beyond imperial command. And that possibility represents an existential threat to empire.
The group said Sunday's latest threat by Trump against Cuba—openly saying that the US military might will be used to prevent life-sustaining resources from reaching the island nation—should be seen for what it is: a coercive "threat to strangle Cuba of critical energy and resources" at the end of a barrel of a gun.
"Through manipulation, coercion, and now direct military action," the group warns, the US government under Trump "has made absolutely clear its intention to dominate Latin America."
"It should be terrifying to every American how Noem lies," said one critic. "She doesn't sweat or move uncomfortably. She just doesn't care. This is what Trump has created. An environment where you only get in trouble if you don't lie."
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sat for a live interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday morning about the killing of Renee Nicole Good by a federal immigration agent last week and lied straight through her teeth to the American public about what happened.
Since Good was shot and killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jonathan Ross on Wednesday, members of the Trump administration have consistently tried to portray the shooting as justified despite indisputable video evidence contradicting their false claims and narratives.
Noem, who released her first statement on the shooting within three hours of Good's killing, has joined Vice President JD Vance as the leading liars and propagandists—with plenty of help from people like Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the US Department of Homeland Security, and Border Czar Tom Homan—within the Trump administration.
In her exchange with Tapper, who confronted Noem over the blatant chasm between her claims about what happened—she called Good a "domestic terrorist" who "attacked" federal agents—and what anyone with two good eyes who watches the variety of videos made public of the shooting can plainly see for themselves.
Tapper: Why did you not wait for an investigation before making your comments?
Noem: Well, everything that I've said has been proven to be factual, and the truth.
Tapper: With all due respect the first thing you said was not what happened.
Noem: It absolutely is pic.twitter.com/0yGeWSr9aa
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 11, 2026
Various angles of the video, including audio from Good's final moments, have shown that she was not "yelling" at officers or "attacking" them in any way. Video shows several vehicles driving around her car in the minutes prior to the shooting. Good has a visible smile on her face when she says, directly to Ross as he circles her car, "That's fine, dude. I'm not mad at you." Detailed analyses of the footage shows Ross could just as easily have stepped aside—without drawing and firing his weapon—in order to dodge the moving car, which he did—even with firing the fatal shots—without injury or harm to others.
Asked by Tapper why she did not wait for the full facts before speaking out publicly to demonize Good and defend the officer, Noem falsely claimed that "everything that I've said has been proven to be factual, and the truth."
That's a lie.
"With all due respect," Tapper responded, "the first thing you said was not what happened."
"It is absolutely what happened," Noem said, lying once again about her initial comments and their relationship to what factually transpired.
"It should be terrifying to every American how Noem lies," said James Abrenio, a criminal defense attorney, in a social media post on Sunday. "She doesn't sweat or move uncomfortably. She just doesn't care. This is what Trump has created. An environment where you only get in trouble if you don't lie. Even about an officer shooting a woman in the face on video."
Noem, in the interview, goes on to claim that Good's behavior fits the textbook definition of "domestic terrorism," despite scores of law enforcement and civil liberties experts who have reviewed the video saying that Ross' behavior betrayed basic police training about how to deal with a routine traffic stop or de-escalate a situation involving a motor vehicle in a roadway.
When Tapper tries to pin Noem down, asking her to explain what she thinks Good was trying to do when she moved her car, the secretary deflects by saying the real "question" should be why are people—in this case a broadcast journalist—"arguing with the president who is trying to keep people safe?"
Noem's overt gaslighting—telling the public something objectively contrary to available facts—has become part and parcel of the Trump administration's Orwellian approach in the president's second term.
"Kristi Noem is a stone-cold liar who has zero credibility," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the minority leader in the House, on Friday in reaction to her earlier comments about the case. "There is nothing to suggest the shooting of an unarmed woman in Minneapolis was justified. This heinous killing must be criminally investigated to the full extent of the law."
On Friday, The Guardian documented a litany of false claims made Noem, Trump, McLaughlin, and others, comparing them against what is factually known based on video evidence and eye-witness accounts:
The claim
“ … rioters began blocking ICE officers and one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them – an act of domestic terrorism” – post on X by the Department of Homeland Security.
The reality
There is simply no evidence that Good was “a violent rioter” or “domestic terrorist”. No riot was taking place before her encounter with the ICE agents, and the department could not yet have been certain of her identity at 12.43pm, the time the message was posted. There is no evidence that Good – a poet and mother – was a terrorist.
The claim
“ … the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer” – post on Truth Social by Donald Trump.
The reality
Video of the incident shows that Good was not “disorderly”, and had reversed her car and allowed at least one ICE vehicle to pass before other agents confronted her. A separate video clearly shows that the officer who fired the fatal shots walked up to the front of Good’s car, which was turning away from him as it began to move forward, and he remained on his feet as the vehicle passed him.
The claim
“An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots … The ICE officers who were hurt are expected to make full recoveries” – Tricia McLaughlin, homeland security assistant secretary, in a post on X.
The reality
The officer who killed Good was not in the pathway of her car when he began firing, analysis of the video shows. Two other officers were beside the car, and no members of the public were seen to be in harm’s way. There is no evidence that any ICE officer was injured.
According to The Atlantic's Adam Serwer, such "blatant lies" by the administration in the wake of Good's killing serve various purposes:
They perpetuate the false narrative that federal agents are in constant peril and therefore justified in using lethal force at the slightest hint of danger. They assure federal agents that they can harm or even kill American citizens with impunity, and warn those who might be moved to protest Trump’s immigration policies of the same thing. Perhaps most grim, they communicate to the public that if you happen to be killed by a federal agent, your government will bear false witness to the world that you were a terrorist.
Following the DHS secretary's latest comments on Sunday, Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, also speaking on Tapper's show, said Noem "needs to resign or be impeached."