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
terrorism
Cuba Says Men on Florida Boat 'Intended to Carry Out an Infiltration for Terrorist Purposes'
The Cuban Interior Ministry said it detained seven people involved in the plot, including one who "had allegedly been sent from the United States to facilitate the landing and reception of the armed group."
Feb 26, 2026
The Cuban government said Wednesday that the men on a Florida-registered boat who opened fire on Cuban soldiers in the island's territorial waters were bent on carrying out "an infiltration for terrorist purposes."
In a statement following news that Cuban forces had killed four people on the boat, the besieged Caribbean nation's Interior Ministry said the vessel was carrying 10 men, all "Cuban nationals residing in the United States."
The ministry said it seized assault rifles, explosives, body armor, and other items from the boat and identified seven of its passengers, six of whom were detained. Four men on the boat—which, according to reports, was last purchased in 2022—were killed in the gunfight with Cuban soldiers, who had reportedly "approached the vessel for identification."
Cuban authorities also said another individual, Duniel Hernández Santos, was arrested "within national territory." The Interior Ministry said Santos "had allegedly been sent from the United States to facilitate the landing and reception of the armed group and has confessed to his role."
"The investigation remains ongoing until all facts have been fully established," the ministry said.
Participants in Foiled Armed Infiltration in Villa Clara Identified
As part of the ongoing investigation into the armed attack against a patrol vessel of the Border Guard Troops of the Ministry of the Interior, in the northeastern area of the El Pino channel, at Cayo Falcones,… pic.twitter.com/s9IFmUkqvk
— Cuban Embassy in US (@EmbaCubaUS) February 26, 2026
The deadly incident came as Cuba continued to reel from the Trump administration's recent intensification of decades-long economic warfare against the island. The administration is "actively seeking regime change in Cuba," according to Wall Street Journal reporting from last month.
Wednesday's incident called to the minds of observers past efforts, backed by the US, to topple the Cuban government, from the failed Bay of Pigs invasion to Operation Mongoose.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, denied that any American government personnel were involved in the incident and said it was under investigation.
"We're going to find out exactly what happened here, and then we'll respond accordingly," said Rubio, a longtime supporter of regime change in Cuba. "It is highly unusual to see shootouts in open sea like that. It's not something that happens every day. It's something, frankly, that hasn't happened with Cuba in a very long time."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nonviolent Climate Activist Group Says It's Been Targeted by FBI 'Terrorism' Task Force
"This is an escalation against the climate movement as a whole, and the next phase of this administration's crackdown on dissent," said Extinction Rebellion.
Feb 18, 2026
As the Trump administration broadens its efforts to criminalize dissent, a nonviolent climate advocacy group says the FBI is targeting it with a terrorism investigation.
Using a dubious legal designation of "domestic terrorism," the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has ramped up its efforts to surveil those it considers to be domestic enemies—including members of left-wing groups with no history of violence.
The New York City chapter of the group Extinction Rebellion said one of its former members came into the crosshairs earlier this month.
In a statement on Wednesday, the group said that a former member was visited by two special agents, one of whom was from the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces, at their residence 200 miles outside New York City.
They said the agents asked about their involvement with Extinction Rebellion. The member declined to respond, referring the questions to their attorney.
The former member, who has chosen to remain anonymous, told the Intercept that they hadn't been involved with the group in two years and hadn't participated in any actions they thought would warrant FBI involvement.
“I believe this to be a significant escalation of the criminal legal system against Extinction Rebellion and find it very troubling,” Ron Kuby, an attorney for Extinction Rebellion, said. “This is usually the way we find out an actual investigation is underway and is often followed by other visits and other actions.”
He said he found it strange that Extinction Rebellion would become the target of a terrorism investigation. Members of the group take part in acts of what they call "nonviolent civil disobedience" such as blocking roads, sit-ins at public buildings, and occasional vandalism.
The group has sought to use these tactics to draw attention to leaders' inaction in fighting the climate crisis. Increasingly, they have launched protests against the Trump administration's policies more broadly, including its deployment of federal immigration agents in cities across the country.
While its actions can be disruptive, Extinction Rebellion has always been nonviolent, Kuby said, and its tactics are at worst misdemeanor offenses, which typically wouldn't interest federal law enforcement.
"[Extinction Rebellion NYC] is a nonviolent, decentralized group of artists, small business owners, parents, retired teachers, and everyday New Yorkers. We are not terrorists!" said a statement from Extinction Rebellion Global posted to social media on Tuesday. "We use artistic nonviolent organized protests, community outreach, and strategic advocacy to empower everyday citizens and drive meaningful environmental change."
"This is an escalation against the climate movement as a whole, and the next phase of this administration's crackdown on dissent that many of us have been expecting," the group continued.
The New York City chapter of Extinction Rebellion is not the first to receive FBI visits during the second Trump administration.
Last year, six members of its sister group in Boston said the feds came to their doors, all on the same day in March, and questioned them without providing any business cards or explanation for their visit.
According to WBUR reporting at the time, none of the activists questioned had a history of participating in violent protests or of facing felony charges in federal or Massachusetts courts.
Jeff Feuer, a lawyer in Cambridge who has represented climate activists for more than three decades, told the outlet, “Until this year, I have never heard about the FBI or any other federal law enforcement officer visiting or questioning any of the hundreds of climate activists that I have personally represented."
After months of denial, US Attorney General Pam Bondi acknowledged during a contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month that the department does, in fact, have a list of "domestic terrorist organizations" being compiled under President Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, which was described as a national directive to use the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to focus on “leftist” political violence in America.
That memo, commonly referred to as NSPM-7, was first obtained by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein in September. It laid out a national strategy to “disrupt” individuals or groups that "foment political violence" before it takes place.
NSPM-7 described many vaguely defined political viewpoints as potential "indicators" that one is a possible domestic terorrist, including: "anti-Americanism," "anti-capitalism," and "Anti-Christianity"; "extremism" on "migration," "race," and "gender"; and "hostility to those who hold traditional views" on "family," "religion," and "morality."
In another memo that leaked in December, Bondi—who just months before pledged under oath there would “never be an enemies list” compiled by the DOJ—directed the department to compile a list of potential “domestic terrorism” organizations that espouse “extreme viewpoints on immigration, radical gender ideology, and anti-American sentiment.”
It directs federal law enforcement agencies to refer "suspected" domestic terrorism cases to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which will then undertake an “exhaustive investigation contemplated by NSPM-7” that will incorporate “a focused strategy to root out all culpable participants—including organizers and funders—in all domestic terrorism activities.”
During the hearing, Bondi refused to say which groups and entities were on the list of so-called "domestic terrorists," though she acknowledged it existed, saying, "I know antifa is part of that."
Trump designated "antifa," referring to a loose confederation of antifascist groups, as a "domestic terrorist organization" in October, even though there is no formal "domestic terrorism" statute in US law.
It is unclear whether a formal federal investigation into Extinction Rebellion is underway or if it is part of NSPM-7.
An internal document shared with the Guardian in November revealed that the FBI had launched “criminal and domestic terrorism investigations” into “threats against immigration enforcement activity” in at least 23 regions across the US—including New York. It acknowledged that some of the investigations were related to the "countering domestic terrorism" memo.
"'Domestic terrorism' may not yet be a criminal charge, but the Trump administration is gearing up to create it," Extinction Rebellion NYC said on Wednesday. "NSPM-7... will be the broadest criminalization of free speech since McCarthyism or the height of the Civil Rights Movement. And while this fossil-fueled administration has already failed in some attempts to silence critics, we understand the broader context within which our specific activities sit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US Is Committing Terrorism in Venezuela; Why Will Nobody Say That?
Despite the candor with which US officials have stated their intent “to intimidate or coerce” Venezuelans and Cubans, US reporters and commentators seem unwilling to use the word “terror.”
Jan 10, 2026
The US government’s official definition of “international terrorism” includes “violent acts” intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion,” including through “kidnapping.” By the US definition, it’s hard to find a more textbook example than US actions toward Venezuela. Yet few US reporters or commentators seem willing to call the policy what it is.
Until the Government Cries Uncle
The aerial murder of at least 110 people in boats off the Venezuelan coast starting in September 2025 was aimed at toppling the Maduro government. As White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles said on November 2, President Donald Trump “wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle.” The phrasing recalls Ronald Reagan’s 1985 demand that the Nicaraguan government “say uncle” while he bombed the Nicaraguan coast, a campaign the International Court of Justice ruled to be terrorism.
Since bombing the Venezuela mainland and kidnapping President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on January 3, top US officials have repeatedly reiterated their terrorist intentions. They plan to use the “tremendous leverage” afforded by a US naval blockade to ensure that the remaining government “does what we want”: Fork over billions of dollars in “our oil”; give US companies control over your resources; and help us reestablish “dominance in the Western Hemisphere,” starting with your cooperation in starving Cuba of oil.
Keeping It on Venezuelan Civilians
The US definition of terrorism also includes actions intended “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population” for political objectives. For nearly a decade the US government has pursued a bipartisan policy of making Venezuelan civilians suffer enough that they’ll rise up and overthrow their president.
In their first year alone, from 2017 to 2018, US financial sanctions led to tens of thousands of civilian deaths from lack of medicine and other essentials. The continuation and expansion of the sanctions under Presidents Trump and Joe Biden also foreclosed any possibility of resuscitating the Venezuelan economy after the depression that began in the mid-2010s.
Over just that 50-year period, economic sanctions have killed around 28 million people.
The official line is that Venezuelans’ economic suffering is the result of Maduro’s “mismanagement.” Periodically, however, US officials have claimed credit. In 2018 a State Department spokesperson crowed that “the financial sanctions we have placed on the Venezuelan Government has [sic] forced it to begin becoming in default.” Critics could shove it. “Our strategy is working and we’re going to keep it on the Venezuelans.”
In 2019 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejoiced that “the circle is tightening” around the Maduro government and “the humanitarian crisis is increasing by the hour.” His colleague Elliott Abrams warned that “a Venezuela in recovery” was “not going to happen under the Maduro regime.”
28 Million Other Times the Strategy Worked
Intimidating and coercing civilian populations has always been the conscious strategy of broad-based economic sanctions.
An early version of this policy was used by British colonizers, and later the US government, in their wars against Indigenous populations in North America. As military historian John Grenier details in his indispensable book The First Way of War, conquering the continent for the Anglo race involved systematically targeting noncombatants and their food, water, and shelter.
The strategy was refined in the 20th century. After World War I sanctions on a country’s economy were marketed by Western governments as a humane alternative to military warfare. In reality sanctions were an adaptation of the earlier terrorist strategy. They could be even more lethal than the earlier version, since the expansion of global capitalism left nations more dependent on imports and exports.
The authoritative study of sanctions’ impact on human welfare was published in The Lancet Global Health in 2025. Upon evaluating mortality rates in 152 countries between 1971 and 2021, the authors found that unilateral economic sanctions like the ones on Venezuela and Cuba “were associated with an annual toll of 564,258 deaths.” That’s roughly equal to the death toll from military conflicts.
Over just that 50-year period, economic sanctions have killed around 28 million people.
So That the Cuban People Take Care of Their Government
Cuba has been the target of a US economic blockade since 1960, far longer than any other country. Although its healthcare system has greatly limited the death toll as compared with other countries targeted by US sanctions, no other case reveals the terroristic logic of sanctions with such clarity.
In October 1960, soon after the Eisenhower administration initiated its sanctions against Cuba, Vice President Richard Nixon boasted on national TV that “we are cutting off the significant items that the Cuban regime needs in order to survive. By cutting off trade, by cutting off our diplomatic relations as we have, we will quarantine this regime so that the people of Cuba themselves will take care of Mr. Castro.”
And that was the language approved for TV audiences. Six months prior, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Lester Mallory wrote privately that “every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba.” He proposed an embargo “which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”
Why is a fascist sociopath more honest than the press corps tasked with holding him to account?
This economic warfare proceeded in parallel with bombings and biological warfare carried out by right-wing Cuban exiles, acting with the consent and often direct sponsorship of the US government. Those terrorist operations have killed hundreds of Cubans since 1959.
Mallory and his colleagues candidly explained why these policies were necessary. “Latin America today is in a state of deep unrest,” noted the State Department in 1961, because “the poor and underprivileged, stimulated by the example of the Cuban revolution, are now demanding opportunities for a decent living.”
The “major threat” of Cuba, said another 1961 memo, was “the example and stimulus of a working communist revolution.” If the revolution “thrives,” hungry people around the world might believe they too could challenge capitalism. Maybe “a blacklist of Cuban commercial activities in Latin America,” including Cuba’s trade “in foodstuffs and medicines,” could disabuse the hungry of their fantasy.
The Kennedy administration liked that idea. In 1962 it expanded Eisenhower’s sanctions on Cuba into a full economic embargo. That policy remains intact today, now more brutal and punitive than ever.
The economic blockade against Cuba hasn’t yet toppled the government. But whatever happens in the future, the US strategy has already succeeded in its larger goal of preventing a “working communist revolution” that might inspire others.
Sanctions on Venezuela have similarly helped crush any chance of a functioning socialism, or even a robust social democracy, for the foreseeable future.
See No (US) Terror
Despite the candor with which US officials have stated their intent “to intimidate or coerce” Venezuelans and Cubans, US reporters and commentators seem unwilling to use the word “terror.” As of this writing, no one at the New York Times, Washington Post, National Public Radio, or CNN has labeled the January 3 invasion of Venezuela as terrorism.
The only mentions of terror are in reference to President Nicolás Maduro, whom the US government labels a “narco-terrorist.” The latter term is rarely defined, let alone coherently. Maduro’s recent indictment on “narco-terrorism” charges in the Southern District of New York has been widely mentioned as a legal rationale for the invasion. None of the four outlets listed above have mentioned that the US attorney who signed the indictment, Jay Clayton, was appointed by Trump, had no previous prosecutorial experience, and has behaved like Trump’s lapdog since he was installed. Failing to scrutinize Clayton lends legitimacy to the claim that the US was merely enforcing the law.
Maybe editors have forbidden use of the T word. The BBC has prohibited its writers from saying that Maduro and Flores were “kidnapped” on January 3. Trump himself has no objection to using the term. Why is a fascist sociopath more honest than the press corps tasked with holding him to account?
Even in the Orwellian dystopia of today’s United States, words still have meanings. If rational debate is to be possible we must defend them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular