SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
pam bondi
Trump and Hegseth's Boat Strikes Are International Terrorism
It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes.
Jan 06, 2026
There has been much heated discussion of the United States Navy’s attacks, ordered by the President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, against numerous unidentified boats and their unidentified occupants. Many have characterized these lethal strikes as crimes under international law, which is valid position. However, what is less understood and more relevant is that the attacks are crimes under United States law and that they also constitute “international terrorism” as that term is defined in United States law.
Title 18 USC §2331 defines international terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life” that:
- “Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life…;”
- Either are a crime under United States law regardless of where they are committed or would be a crime if committed within the United States; that
- "Appear to be intended... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination...; and”
- “Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
The first, third, and fourth of those conditions are clearly met by the attacks off the coast of Venezuela because:
- 1) It is unquestionably true that the attacks on the boats have been violent and dangerous to human life because they have killed over 100 people;
- 3) Despite Trump’s and Hegseth’s ridiculous claim that the destruction of the boats and their occupants is necessary to stop the flow of fentanyl into the US, the real reason, as disclosed by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, is that they were using the attacks to force Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, i.e. “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination…;” and
- 4) They have occurred in international waters far outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
It is the second condition, i.e. whether the attacks (a) are a crime under United States law wherever they are committed or (b) would be a crime if committed in the United States, that determines whether they meet the definition of international terrorism under the law. If either or both are true, the condition is met.
As to the first alternative, i.e. whether the attacks are a violation of federal criminal law that applies regardless of where the attacks occur, the relevant federal criminal law is 18 USC § 2280. It provides that a person “who unlawfully and intentionally… performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship" or who "destroys a ship" commits a crime punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of "not more than 20 years, or both,” and if a death results from the violence or destruction, by a sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law’s definition of “ship” includes “a vessel of any type whatsoever,” i.e. the boats are ships within the meaning of the law. Finally, there is jurisdiction under the law when a person who commits the action is a “national of the United States.”
It is indisputable that the attacks constitute acts of violence against the people on the boats and that all of the boats have intentionally been destroyed. And even though Trump, Hegseth, and others have claimed that the attacks are lawful, their arguments do not stand up to even mild scrutiny. Their claim of lawfulness is based on a fictional state of war against the US, but there is in fact no war, no direct threat to the United States or its citizens, and no authorization by Congress for use of deadly force. Therefore, the attacks are clearly unlawful. Finally, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command who participated in ordering and commission of the attacks are nationals of the United States, so they fall within the jurisdiction of USC § 2280. Because the attacks have caused the death of those on the boats, the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment, which means it is a Class A felony per 18 USC § 3559. Therefore, the attacks are a crime under United States law.
The attacks on the boats also meet the alternative standard that they “would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States.” That is, the intentional killing of people without due process, i.e. unlawfully, is the crime of murder pursuant to 18 USC §1111(a).
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name.
The conclusion is that the attacks clearly constitute crimes of violence against maritime navigation and murder under United States law. Therefore, the attacks are acts of international terrorism per 18 USC §2331. That is, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command that furthered the implementation of these attacks are international terrorists. And because the attacks are being made by the United States armed forces in the name of the United States government, it follows that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Even though the Supreme Court has given Trump immunity and impunity, and even though the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi will never prosecute Hegseth, et al., under 18 USC § 2280 or for murder, that does not affect the conclusion that the attacks on the boats are acts of international terrorism as defined by 18 USC §2331, and that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism. The facts speak for themselves.
I believe it is important that the American people recognize that the attacks on the boats constitute international terrorism under United States law and that the United States has thus become a state sponsor of international terrorism. The United States government has condemned, and continues to condemn, foreign governments, e.g. Iran, as alleged state sponsors of international terrorism. That the United States government has now become the world’s most egregious state sponsor of international terrorism makes those condemnations of other countries utter hypocrisy.
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name. It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes. Only then can the United States begin to expunge the stain of being a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Law Must Be Enforced': Epstein Survivors Speak Out Against Trump DOJ Cover-Up and Delay
"The Trump administration is failing to follow the law by not releasing countless files and failing to redact the identities of survivors," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "This is not justice."
Dec 22, 2025
Some victims of late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are slamming the Trump administration for continuing to delay the full release of files related to the federal case.
In a statement released Monday, the Epstein survivors called out the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for releasing only "a fraction of the files" demanded by law, adding that many of the files released so far have been "riddled with abnormal and extreme redactions with no explanation."
The survivors noted that the DOJ's actions appear to violate a law passed by US Congress and signed by President Donald Trump last month mandating the department release "all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ's possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein" by December 19.
"Grand jury minutes, though approved by a federal judge for release, were fully blacked out," they said, "not the scattered redactions that might be expected to protect victim names, but 119 full pages blacked out. We are told that there are hundreds of thousands of pages of documents still unreleased. These are clear-cut violations of an unambiguous law."
The survivors also said that the DOJ had left them completely in the dark about the release of the files, claiming that "there has been no communication with survivors or our representatives as to what was withheld from release, or why hundreds of thousands of documents have not been disclosed by the legal deadline, or how DOJ will ensure that no more victim names are wrongly disclosed."
They then demanded that members of Congress, nearly all of whom voted in favor of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, engage in vigorous oversight of the DOJ's actions, "including hearings, formal demands for compliance, and legal action" to force the department to follow the law.
"Survivors deserve truth," they concluded. "Survivors whose identities are private deserve protection. The public deserves accountability. And the law must be enforced."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) applauded the survivors for speaking up in the face of the Trump DOJ's disregard of the law.
"This statement from 18 Epstein survivors is spot on," she wrote in a social media post. "The Trump administration is failing to follow the law by not releasing countless files and failing to redact the identities of survivors. This is not justice."
Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), the two lawmakers who led efforts to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act this year, said on Sunday that they are looking into potentially holding US Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt for her department's failure to release the Epstein files.
In an interview with the Washington Post, Khanna explained that holding Bondi in contempt would not require any action by the US Senate and would take effect just by passing with a simple majority in the House of Representatives. Khanna said that the House would likely give Bondi a 30-day grace period to comply with the law and would then hit her with fines for every day where the Epstein files remain under wraps.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Demand Answers as Trump Photo Disappears From DOJ Online Epstein Files
"What else is being covered up?"
Dec 20, 2025
Congressional Democrats on Saturday pressed US Attorney General Pam Bondi for answers regarding the apparent removal of a photo showing President Donald Trump surrounded by young female models from Friday's Department of Justice release of files related to the late convicted child sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein.
Amid the heavily redacted documents in Friday's DOJ release was a photo of a desk with an open drawer containing multiple photos of Trump, including one of him with Epstein and convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell and another of him with the models.
However, the photo—labeled EFTA00000468 in the DOJ's Epstein Library—was no longer on the site as of Saturday morning.
"This photo, file 468, from the Epstein files that includes Donald Trump, has apparently now been removed from the DOJ release," Democrats on the House Oversight Committee noted in a Bluesky post. "AG Bondi, is this true? What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public."
This photo, file 468, from the Epstein files that includes Donald Trump has apparently now been removed from the DOJ release.AG Bondi, is this true? What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.
[image or embed]
— Oversight Dems (@oversightdemocrats.house.gov) December 20, 2025 at 9:30 AM
Numerous critics have accused the Trump administration of a cover-up due to the DOJ's failure to meet a Friday deadline to release all Epstein-related documents and heavy redactions—including documents of 100 pages or more that are completely blacked out—to many of the files.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche responded to the criticism by claiming that "the only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law—full stop."
"Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim," he added.
Earlier this year, officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly redacted Trump's name from its file on Epstein, who was the president's longtime former friend and who died in 2019 in a New York City jail cell under mysterious circumstances officially called suicide while facing federal child sex trafficking and conspiracy charges.
Trump has not been accused of any crimes in connection with Epstein.
House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said during a Friday CNN interview that the DOJ only released about 10% of the full Epstein files.
The DOJ is breaking the law by not releasing the full Epstein files. This is not transparency. This is just more coverup by Donald Trump and Pam Bondi. They need to release all the files, NOW.
[image or embed]
— Congressman Robert Garcia (@robertgarcia.house.gov) December 19, 2025 at 5:06 PM
"The DOJ has had months and hundreds of agents to put these files together, and yet entire documents are redacted—from the first word to the last," Garcia said on X. "What are they hiding? The American public deserves transparency. Release all the files now!"
In a joint statement Friday, Garcia and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said, "We are now examining all legal options in the face of this violation of federal law."
"The survivors of this nightmare deserve justice, the co-conspirators must be held accountable, and the American people deserve complete transparency from DOJ," they added.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—who along with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which was signed into law by Trump last month and required the release of all Epstein materials by December 19—said in a video published after Friday's document dump that he and Massie "are exploring all options" to hold administration officials accountable.
"It can be the impeachment of people at Justice, inherent contempt, or referring for prosecution those who are obstructing justice," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular