

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.
The Obama administration is set to "exclude Pakistan" from its publication of total casualties resulting from covert drone strikes, according to a report in the Washington Post.
The Obama administration is set to "exclude Pakistan" from its publication of total casualties resulting from covert drone strikes, according to a report in the Washington Post.
If accurate, this would mean that as many as 72% of known covert drone strikes would be excluded from the tally, along with 84% of recorded casualties, according to figures from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
In March this year, the White House announced that in "the coming weeks" it would release an assessment of civilian casualties resulting from strikes taken outside of warzones. Drones operated by the CIA and US Special Forces are believed to have carried out hundreds of these strikes in secret, in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan, where the US is not at war. However, to date, the US Government has provided no public estimates of the resulting civilian death toll.
Yesterday's report in the Post, based on anonymous sources in the US Government, claims that the tally is "likely to exclude Pakistan" because the Obama administration "still does not publicly acknowledge CIA attacks inside Pakistan."
This would mean not only excluding the bulk of known drone strikes outside of warzones, but also some of the worst reported errors of the program, including an attack on a funeral in June 2009 that killed as many as 50 civilians and a strike on a meeting of tribal elders in March 2011 that killed 41.
Pakistan has also reportedly seen the use of some of the most controversial aspects of the program, including "signature strikes," where groups of people are killed on the basis of patterns of behaviour rather than being individually identified as targets.
The Post's report also raises questions over whether CIA strikes will be excluded en bloc from the assessment, which would mean that a significant number of strikes undertaken in Yemen and elsewhere would not be assessed.
Commenting, Jennifer Gibson, staff attorney at international human rights organization Reprieve said:
"Over three years ago, President Obama promised the world more transparency about his deadly covert drone programme, because, in his words 'no one should take my word for it that we're doing things the right way.' Yet, once again, that's exactly what he's asking us to do.
"Excluding the vast majority of drone strikes from this assessment means that it will hardly be worth the paper it is printed on.
"Numbers, without faces, were never going to tell us the true cost of this deadly programme, but they were a step in the right direction. Now it looks like even that little step into the light was one too many for this administration."
Reprieve is a UK-based human rights organization that uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantanamo Bay.
“None of these acts of brazen aggression, violence, and violations of international law have, in any sustained or meaningful way, been referred to as acts of war, a coup, or invasion in US mainstream media reporting."
By the time the Trump administration began its operation this weekend to illegally kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro before taking control of the country and its oil reserves, two of the United States’ most storied media outlets were well aware that the attack was about to happen.
According to a Saturday report from Semafor, “the New York Times and Washington Post learned of a secret US raid on Venezuela soon before it was scheduled to begin Friday night—but held off publishing what they knew to avoid endangering US troops, two people familiar with the communications between the administration and the news organizations said.”
Semafor wrote that the decision "to maintain official secrecy is in keeping with longstanding American journalistic traditions." But critics say it's part of a different tradition: One in which corporate media outlets act as dutiful stenographers for the US military establishment to help legitimize lawless, imperialist military adventures.
Prior to this weekend, the leading example of this deference was seen during the lead-up to then-President George W. Bush's war in Iraq, where legacy media outlets had been criticized for parroting the government's claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false.
In 2023, the 20-year anniversary of the invasion, which led to the deaths of an estimated half a million people, Adam Johnson wrote for the Real News Network that many of the journalists who pushed the lies that led to war—including the Atlantic's now-editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, the marquee MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) morning host Joe Scarborough, and New York nagazine and Atlantic contributor Jonathan Chait—never suffered career consequences for helping to midwife a historic foreign policy crime, and have since seen their careers blossom.
Johnson wrote in the Intercept on Sunday that the Western media's reaction to yet another regime change war in Venezuela has been similarly uncritical of the Trump administration's justifications, even as it states, overtly this time, that its primary aim is to commandeer another country's natural resources:
The administration invaded Venezuela’s sovereign territory, bombing several buildings, killing... its citizens, kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their bed, and announcing they will, henceforth, "run" the country.
And yet none of these acts of brazen aggression, violence, and violations of international law have, in any sustained or meaningful way, been referred to as acts of war, a coup, or invasion in US mainstream media reporting.
He added that the media has spent months adopting a "pseudo-legal framing" of President Donald Trump's threats against Venezuela and his seizure of its oil tankers.
In particular, he noted that both the Times and CNN had referred to “international sanctions” against Venezuela, which are actually just US sanctions. The Times also cited a Navy lawyer who claimed that by stopping Venezuela from trading its oil by seizing its vessels, the US was enforcing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a convention that the US itself has not signed.
"It needed to feel vaguely rules-based and international-y, so unilateral US dictates were passed off as ersatz international law," Johnson wrote.
As numerous legal scholars have pointed out, Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter plainly states that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations," making Trump's actions against Venezuela a blatant violation of the nation's sovereignty.
However, since Trump's invasion of Venezuela on Saturday, many media outlets have continued to adopt the dubious framing that US law, which has remained the Trump administration's sole justification for its kidnapping of Maduro—whom the Department of Justice indicted for alleged drug trafficking—somehow applies across borders and entitles the US to take over the country.
Assal Rad, a fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, DC and a frequent critic of US media coverage of foreign interventions, noted on social media that many outlets—including the Times, as well as Reuters, CNN, and the Associated Press—ran headlines framing the legality of Trump’s kidnapping of Maduro and subsequent assertion of authority to “run” the country as open questions.
"This framing is meant to cast doubt on the most basic principles of international law and sovereignty," Rad said.
Other outlets have simply denied that Trump's actions constituted acts of war at all. CBS News said the US had simply "ratcheted up" its "campaign" against Maduro. The Wall Street Journal used similar euphemistic language, describing it as a “pressure campaign” rather than a war. And others, including CNN, described the attack as a limited law enforcement "operation," rather than the opening salvo of what the White House itself has suggested may be a years-long project of ruling Venezuela for the purpose of converting it into a client state.
While the New York Times editorial board has since criticized Trump's action in Venezuela as "illegal and unwise," the Washington Post's editorial board—which was given a directive by its billionaire owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos earlier this year to use its pages to promote "free markets," issued unconditional support for Trump's attack and plans to govern Venezuela on Saturday, calling it a "triumph" and a "a major victory for American interests."
Other outlets have given explicit directives to use whitewashed language to refer to the US's unilateral snatching of Maduro.
Owen Jones, an independent British journalist and columnist, reported that the BBC had directed reporters not to refer to Maduro—who was whisked away in the dead of night by US soldiers along with his wife and shown bound and blindfolded by the US government—as having been “kidnapped” by the US, but rather “seized” or “captured.”
According to Johnson, CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, who has previously spiked stories damaging to the Trump administration at the behest of the network's new owners, directed the network's newly installed "Evening News" anchor to always refer to Maduro as a "dictator," echoing the government's line.
Johnson pointed out that the owner of CBS, Trump-aligned billionaire David Ellison, “recently partnered with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates” as part of his bid to take over CBS parent company Paramount, “so rest assured these dictatorships will not be getting the label.”
The New York Times has since updated the death toll from Trump's bombing of Caracas and other sites in Venezuela to at least 80 civilians and military personnel.
Sarah Lazare, an investigative reporter for Workday magazine, questioned why the Times and Post were concerned with the safety of US personnel, but "the danger posed to the Venezuelans killed in the bombing did not enter into the equation" when they decided to keep the story from public view until after the damage was done.
"This kind of fealty to perceived US interests is so ordinary because it's rewarded—it's the surest way to rise as a foreign policy reporter," Lazare added. "Makes me think of all the Iraq War cheerleaders who failed upward, now helm major news outlets, and narrate the events unfolding today. Being wrong about WMDs, being on the wrong side of history, did not hurt them professionally, and probably helped."
"I will fight this with everything I've got," Sen. Mark Kelly said, slamming Pete Hegseth as "the most unqualified secretary of defense in our country's history."
On the heels of the Trump administration abducting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday announced a move to reduce Sen. Mark Kelly's retirement pay over a video in which the Arizona Democrat reminded service members of their duty not to obey illegal orders.
The retired Navy captain is the only veteran in the November video still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice—which, as he and the other former military and intelligence community members highlighted, does require active-duty troops to refuse to follow illegal orders.
President Donald Trump swiftly lashed out over the video—released as his administration continued bombing alleged drug smuggling boats and ramped up threats against Venezuela—by accusing the six Democrats of "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!" Hegseth launched a probe into Kelly and threatened to call him back to active duty to face a court-martial.
Describing the fact-based recording as "a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline," Hegseth said on social media Monday that Department of Defense is attempting to reduce Kelly's retirement pay and "has also issued a formal letter of censure."
"These actions are based on Captain Kelly's public statements from June through December 2025 in which he characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders," Hegseth added, noting that the senator has 30 days to appeal the decision and the case should be finalized within 45 days.
According to Politico: "Kelly receives about $6,000 a month in military retirement pay, based on his 25 years of military service and his rank as a Navy Captain. A reduction in rank, from O-6 to O-5, could cost him about $1,000 a month in payouts."
Kelly—also a former astronaut—responded with a lengthy statement on social media Monday:
Over 25 years in the US Navy, 39 combat missions, and four missions to space, I risked my life for this country and to defend our Constitution–including the First Amendment rights of every American to speak out. I never expected that the president of the United States and the secretary of defense would attack me for doing exactly that.
My rank and retirement are things that I earned through my service and sacrifice for this country. I got shot at. I missed holidays and birthdays. I commanded a space shuttle mission while my wife Gabby recovered from a gunshot wound to the head—all while proudly wearing the American flag on my shoulder. Generations of service members have made these same patriotic sacrifices for this country, earning the respect, appreciation, and rank they deserve.
Pete Hegseth wants to send the message to every single retired service member that if they say something he or Donald Trump doesn't like, they will come after them the same way. It's outrageous and it is wrong. There is nothing more un-American than that.
If Pete Hegseth, the most unqualified secretary of defense in our country's history, thinks he can intimidate me with a censure or threats to demote me or prosecute me, he still doesn't get it. I will fight this with everything I've got—not for myself, but to send a message back that Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump don't get to decide what Americans in this country get to say about their government.
Others also jumped to his defense, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who said: "Mark Kelly is a hero and a patriot committed to serving the American people. Pete Hegseth is a lap dog committed to serving one man—Donald Trump. This is a despicable act of political retribution. I stand with Sen. Kelly, who will always do the right thing no matter the consequences."
Kelly and the other video participants—Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.) and Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.)—also face a probe by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
"Congress must do the right thing by voting to stop this obvious catastrophe."
President Donald Trump's invasion of Venezuela is generating fresh calls for his impeachment and removal from office.
Shortly after the US military bombed the Venezuelan capital of Caracas and abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, many experts on international law argued that the president's actions were completely illegal.
In an interview with the New Yorker's Isaac Chotiner, Yale Law School professor Oona Hathaway said that she didn't believe there "is a legal basis for what we’re seeing in Venezuela," while adding that the arguments the Trump administration will likely make simply "don't hold water."
For instance, Hathaway noted that while the United Nations charter allows nations to use military force in self-defense against military aggression, the administration's claims that attacking Maduro was a defensive measure intended to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the US was completely outside the scope of traditional self-defense.
"If drug trafficking is a reasonable justification, then a whole range of possible arguments can be made that basically mean that self-defense is no longer a real exception," she argued. "It’s the new rule. Why couldn’t you make the same argument about communicable diseases? There’s bird flu coming from a country, and therefore we have a legal justification for the use of military force. Once we start going down that road, the idea that there’s any limit evaporates."
Hathaway also said that Trump's militaristic ambitions seem to have grown throughout his second term, and she warned they could lead to a long and bloody US military occupation of Venezuela.
"In his press conference, Trump said that the United States would 'run the country,'" she said. "And he made it clear that he was not 'afraid' to put boots on the ground—for years, if necessary... it’s nothing like anything Trump has done before today. His previous illegal uses of force were all over shortly after they began. The scale of the operation that will be required is massive, and it means putting US soldiers at long-term risk."
Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith wrote a lengthy analysis after the attack on Venezuela and also concluded that it violated the UN charter. What's more, Goldsmith argued that Trump's state plan to seize Venezuela's oil would likely run afoul of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which limits actions that occupying powers can take on the countries they are overseeing.
"There are a lot of international law rules and restrictions that purport to govern what the United States can do as an occupying power," he explained. "I don’t have space here to review them, but suffice it to say that these rules will touch on President Trump’s stated aim of 'tak[ing] back the oil' and 'get[ting] reimbursed.' We will see if the administration takes these rules seriously."
Many Trump critics also argued that, legality aside, toppling a foreign head of state and vowing to seize their nation's natural resources was morally wrong and deserving of impeachment.
"This is the behavior of a mob boss—but with nuclear weapons and the world's strongest military," argued Zeteo editor-in-chief Medhi Hassan. "None of this is legal. Trump should be impeached by Congress and indicted at The Hague."
Leah Greenberg, co-founder and co-executive director of Indivisible, denounced Trump's attack on Venezuela as "wildly illegal, immoral, and irresponsible," and urged the US Congress to exercise its powers to stop the president from further escalation.
"The power to declare war belongs to Congress and the American people," Greenberg said. "Trump has once again taken power that's not his. He is attempting to drag the country into war by decree, all while treating the presidency like a throne. Congress must act immediately to stop these illegal strikes and hold the Trump regime accountable. No Kings, No War."
Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser for Demand Progress, demanded congressional action to "stop this reckless, unconstitutional act of war."
"We have seen what happens when the White House invents a pretext to launch a regime change war with an oil-rich nation: disaster and suffering for innocent civilians, our troops and their families, all while costing the American taxpayer a fortune as well," said Kharrazian. "Congress must do the right thing by voting to stop this obvious catastrophe."
Kat Abughazaleh, a Democratic candidate for US Congress in Illinois, wrote on Bluesky that the time for Democratic politicians to issue mealy-mouthed statements about Trump's actions was over.
"Democrats need to grow a fucking spine," she wrote. "No more strongly worded letters. It’s time to draft articles of impeachment. Impeach. Convict. Remove."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) also demanded that members of his party take a strong stance against Trump's illegal Venezuela attack.
"The silence from many media-hyped 2028 contenders today is shocking," he wrote on X. "If you cannot oppose this regime change war for oil, you don't have the moral clarity or guts to lead our party or nation."