

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.
"Congress has the sole constitutional responsibility to declare war and to authorize the use of force," notes a joint letter to the president. "You have failed to secure such authorization for these strikes."
Top Democratic members of key committees in the US House are demanding President Donald Trump come clean on the legal justification for extrajudicial bombings of alleged drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean Sea over recent weeks, attacks which international law experts have called "patently illegal" and "murder" by executive fiat.
In addition to providing any legal justification for the lethal attacks, which have reportedly killed 21 individuals, a letter signed by five Democratic lawmakers demands to know which so-called "drug trafficking organizations" have been identified explicitly by the Trump administration for these targeted executions on the high seas.
"Congress has the sole constitutional responsibility to declare war and to authorize the use of force. You have failed to secure such authorization for these strikes," the letter states. "Further, the Administration’s severe lack of transparency and failure to share critical information with Congress prevents Congress from conducting constitutionally ordained oversight of the Executive Branch."
The one-page letter sent to the White House Tuesday was signed by Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Committee on the Judiciary; Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee; Gregory W. Meeks (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; Jim Himes (D-Conn.), ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
The letter to Trump states:
Per your Administration’s sparse reporting to Congress, you have determined that certain cartels are “non-state armed groups,” that you have “designated them as terrorist organizations,” and that you have “determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.”
However, your Administration has not identified any of the specific organizations you have determined to be included as designated terrorist organizations, nor the criteria or process used for making such determinations. You have also failed to specify the authority under which the Administration is able to designate affiliates of certain drug trafficking organizations as enemy combatants for the purpose of undertaking lethal strikes. We request that you immediately provide a list of all designated terrorist organizations to Congress, along with the associated determination criteria or methodologies used. In addition, you have not provided Congress with details regarding the intelligence associated with these strikes.
During a hearing before the US Senate on Tuesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to answer questions about any legal guidance the Trump White House may have received from the DOJ about the bombings.
"I'm not going to discuss any legal advice that my department may or may not have given or issued at the direction of the president on this matter," Bondi told Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who sits on both the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees.

Trump openly confessed to the terrorizing effects the US bombings are having in Venezuela by saying that local civilians have now abandoned the maritime region where the bombings have occurred.
“We’re so good at it that there are no boats—in fact, even fishing boats,” Trump said last week during a speech to military leaders at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia. “Nobody wants to go into the water anymore.”
The letter from the five House lawmakers argues that the Trump administration "has not provided significant details with respect to the legal justification for these strikes beyond vague assertions of Article II powers."
While the lawmakers acknowledge that a president's authorities under Article II are significant, "they are not limitless."
"It is our understanding that the Department of Defense has determined strikes against designated terrorist organizations are legal on the basis of a legal opinion produced by the Department of Justice," the letter states. "We ask that you provide that legal opinion to Congress immediately."
Legal scholars have said there should be grave concern about the nature of the extrajudicial attacks, the latest of which occurred last week, killing a reported four people on board.
"The strike was conducted in international waters just off the coast of Venezuela while the vessel was transporting substantial amounts of narcotics—headed to America to poison our people," Hegseth claimed in a social media post on Oct. 3. Hegseth's pronouncement included no evidence whatsoever to back up his claim, but did include an unclassified video that captured the moment the vessel was struck:
Earlier this morning, on President Trump's orders, I directed a lethal, kinetic strike on a narco-trafficking vessel affiliated with Designated Terrorist Organizations in the USSOUTHCOM area of responsibility. Four male narco-terrorists aboard the vessel were killed in the… pic.twitter.com/QpNPljFcGn
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) October 3, 2025
Hegseth vowed such US bombings "will continue until the attacks on the American people are over," but again offered no clear legal argument for how boats traveling on the open sea constitute an attack on Americans living thousands of miles away.
As Matthew C. Waxman, an adjunct senior fellow for law and foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote on Tuesday, the attacks "could mark a major shift in US counternarcotics policy and raise legal and diplomatic questions by blurring the lines between law enforcement, interdiction, and war."
Amnesty International USA, in its assessment of the latest bombing on Oct. 3, expressed a significantly higher degree of alarm. "This is murder," the group declared. "The US government must be held accountable."
"What a truly disgusting week for American journalism," said one transgender writer.
The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets are facing widespread criticism after publishing a false report that the assassin who shot right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in Utah this week had left behind symbols of "transgender ideology" at the scene of the crime.
On Thursday, with the assassin still at large, the Journal published a news update stating that "investigators found ammunition engraved with expressions of transgender and antifascist ideology inside the rifle that authorities believe was used in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk." The report did not identify what these markings were nor the source of the report, instead attributing it to "an internal law enforcement bulletin and a person familiar with the investigation."
The New York Times reported hours later that the bulletin came from the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), but noted that "a senior law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the investigation cautioned that the report had not been verified by ATF analysts, did not match other summaries of the evidence, and might turn out to have been misread or misinterpreted."
It was later revealed that the Wall Street Journal's source of the initial unconfirmed bulletin was Steven Crowder, another far-right influencer known for his antagonism of transgender people.
On Friday, officials revealed the identity of the suspect, a 22-year-old cisgender white man named Tyler Robinson, and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox (R) described the marked engravings in detail.
As Erin Reed, a transgender journalist who reports on LGBTQ+ rights, explained, "none were 'transgender' or 'LGBTQ' symbols":
The bullet that killed Charlie Kirk was engraved with the phrase “notices bulges owo what’s this”—a furry and anime meme that has circulated online for a decade, generally meant as a joke about something unexpected. Three other unfired casings were recovered: “hey fascist! Catch! ↑ → ↓↓↓,” a reference to the Helldivers 2 video game code used to drop the 500kg bomb; “O bella ciao, bella ciao, ciao, ciao,” the Italian anti-fascist folk song; and “If you read this you are gay lmao,” a trolling insult common in meme subcultures.
In other words: internet detritus. Not a single engraving had anything to do with “transgender symbols,” let alone the trans community.
Data shows transgender people are no more likely to commit acts of gun violence than any other group. According to data from the Gun Violence Archive from the past decade analyzed by The Trace in July, out of more than 5,300 mass shootings, just four of them were committed by a person who identified as transgender or nonbinary.
Despite this, many right-wing activists online have attempted to foment the narrative of a "transgender violence epidemic," often preemptively blaming trans people for shootings that turn out to be perpetrated by others.
This narrative has reached the Trump administration, with the Department of Justice reportedly considering a policy to strip transgender people of the right to own firearms following a school shooting in Minneapolis in August, that was carried out by a transgender person.
Following Kirk's assassination, Donald Trump Jr. said in a Fox News interview, "I frankly can't name a mass shooting in the last year or two in America that wasn't committed by a transgender lunatic that's been pumped up on probably hormones since they were 3-year-olds."
Even after law enforcement and the Journal had begun to walk back the initial report that "transgender ideology" had influenced Kirk's murder, Reed wrote, "the damage was already done, with the falsehood ricocheting across the internet." By this point, numerous media outlets, including the Daily Beast, the New York Post, The Telegraph, and others, had already repeated the claim.
As Reed noted, "conservative influencers flooded social media blaming the killing on transgender people," in some cases using dehumanizing rhetoric.
One conservative activist, Joey Mannarino, who has nearly 640,000 followers on X, and often interacts with elected Republicans, wrote: "If the person who killed Charlie Kirk was a transgender, there can be no mercy for that species any longer. We’ve already tolerated far too much from those creatures."
The falsehood even reached Capitol Hill. Even as law enforcement said Thursday it still had no identity for the shooter, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) told reporters, "It sounds like the shooter was a tranny, or pro-tranny."
Trump Jr., meanwhile, continued to assert that there was "trans paraphernalia written on the cartridges of this rifle that killed one of my dearest friends in life." He described being transgender as "an absolute sickness."
The Journal is now facing harsh criticism for spreading an unverified report that has further fueled the right's demonization of transgender Americans.
"The FBI and Wall Street Journal doing a 'whoops, our bad' after spending a day saying they had evidence it was a trans antifa shooter is so deeply messed up," wrote Ryan Grim of Drop Site News on X.
Charlotte Clymer, a transgender writer, called it a "truly disgusting week for American journalism."
"Nearly 48 hours of relentless anti-trans propaganda and news reports over the murder of Charlie Kirk, and all of that for not a single shred of evidence that trans people or trans rights had anything to do with it," Clymer said. "When do we get a retraction from the Wall Street Journal for erroneously claiming the assassination was related to trans people? When do we get apologies from every journalist who spread that disinformation?"
As criticism has continued to mount, the Journal added an editor's note to the initial article, acknowledging that Cox "gave no indication that the ammunition included any transgender references."
Jeet Heer, a columnist for The Nation wrote in response that the Journal's reporting on this issue was "a scandal."
"The news section of the Wall Street Journal has tarnished its great reputation," Heer wrote. "The only way to recover is to appoint a public editor to review this and explain how it happened to readers."
"In scenarios dominated by factional bloodshed, it no longer matters who has the most appealing political program or the largest potential constituency."
In the wake of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk's assassination on Wednesday, some prominent left-wing voices not only condemned the killing, but also explained why no progressive should cheer or support such violence against a political opponent.
In an essay in Jacobin, Ben Burgis and Meagan Day described Kirk's death as "a tragedy and a disaster" that also carries ominous implications for any supporter of left-wing politics.
First, they argued that murdering anyone for their political views is morally wrong, full stop.
"No one should be killed as punishment for political expression, no matter how objectionable," they wrote. "In addition to our basic abhorrence of violence, we are also proponents of democracy, which depends on free speech and open inquiry. Without them, collective self-governance is impossible and tyranny becomes inevitable. Imposing silence on political opponents by brute force... undermines a principle that democratic socialists have always held dear."
Burgis and Day then warned that any kind of descent into violence would not benefit the left in any way.
"In scenarios dominated by factional bloodshed, it no longer matters who has the most appealing political program or the largest potential constituency—only who has the most militant and heavily armed ideologues with the least reluctance to kill," they said. "The left will not win that battle."
In conclusion, they argued, "there is nothing to celebrate here" but "there is much to fear."
Burgis and Day weren't the only left-wing voices to forcefully condemn Kirk's assassination. Writing in The Nation, Jeet Heer warned that Kirk's shooting could be the start of a spasm of political violence across the country akin to the infamous "Years of Lead" in Italy.
Additionally, Heer warned that President Donald Trump appears to be a uniquely dangerous figure to lead the US through this time given that he has long relished pouring gas on fires rather than trying to turn down the temperature.
"In terms of political violence, he's an arsonist, not a firefighter," Heer wrote. "He mocked the assault on Paul Pelosi and joked about 'Second Amendment people' going after Hillary Clinton. He has hailed the January 6 rioters as heroes... There's every reason to think that, as he did in recent National Guard deployments in Los Angeles and Washington, DC, Trump will use the Kirk killing to justify an authoritarian crackdown."
Heer ended his piece by writing that the "killing of Kirk was an atrocity that should be condemned without reservation," before warning that "Democrats have to be prepared to resist any onslaught against civil liberties, not least because a crackdown will only increase the likelihood of far worse violence."
Noting the attacks on Pelosi and various others—including Trump, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Congressman Steve Scalise (R-La.), and Minnesota Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman (D) and her husband—US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned in a Thursday video that Kirk’s assassination “is part of a disturbing rise in political violence that threatens to hollow out public life and make people afraid of participating” in a democracy.
Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman, the co-presidents of Public Citizen, decried the assassination of Kirk as antithetical to a free and democratic society, while also warning of dangers that it presents to progressives.
"Every act of political violence threatens a worsening cycle that is fundamentally antithetical to democracy and popular rule," they said. "Murder does more than illegitimately silence the voice of the targeted person. Heightened threat levels make others pull back or drop out. Rational if heated discourse is displaced by fear and intimidation. Chaos is used to justify political crackdowns. Ultimately, guns rule instead of the people."