

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.
"Like any country, Cuba has the right to defend itself against external aggression," said the Cuban embassy. "It is called self-defense, and it is protected by International Law and the UN Charter."
Cuban officials said the Trump administration is making "increasingly implausible accusations" against the country as it pushes to justify, "without any excuse, a military attack against Cuba," after an unnamed White House official told the news outlet Axios that the Cubans have been "discussing plans" to launch drones against the US.
"Cuba is the country under attack," said the Cuban embassy in a statement, months into a ramped-up oil blockade by the US that has left the island's electric grid in a "critical state" and forced frequent rolling blackouts as well as causing a healthcare crisis, with tens of thousands of people waiting for surgeries.
But in Axios' article, the Trump administration official took pains to push the notion that the US, with its nearly $1 trillion-per-year military, could face attacks from the tiny Caribbean nation 90 miles south of Florida because officials there have been preparing defensive capabilities.
Axios reported that, according to classified intelligence it viewed, Cuba has acquired more than 300 drones and has been considering plans to attack the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, various US military vessels, and Key West, Florida.
The country has been acquiring drones from Russia and Iran since 2023 and has sought more aid from Russia in recent months, according to the report. Intelligence intercepts have also shown Cuba is "trying to learn about how Iran has resisted us," the official said, referring to Iran's use of unmanned aircraft, its closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and its attacks on US military outposts in the Middle East in response to the US-Israel war on the country that began in February.
The Cuban embassy further responded with a reminder that "like any country, Cuba has the right to defend itself against external aggression."
"Those from the US who seek the submission and, in fact, the destruction of the Cuban nation through military aggression and war, do not waste a single moment fabricating pretexts, creating and spreading falsehoods, and distorting as extraordinary the logical preparation required to face a potential aggression," said the embassy.
Journalist José Luis Granados Ceja, who is based in Mexico City and covers Latin America for Drop Site News, emphasized that "Cuba has the right to self-defense."
"It would be arguably be wise for Cuba to incorporate a tool that has proven to be an extraordinary effective weapon and a powerful tool of dissuasion as part of its self-defense strategy," said Granados Ceja.
Axios said the classified intelligence "could become a pretext for US military action" that President Donald Trump has expressed an interest in taking numerous times, before acknowledging toward the end of the article that "US officials don't believe Cuba is an imminent threat, or actively planning to attack American interests."
Rather, the intelligence showed that Cuban officials "have been discussing drone warfare plans in case hostilities erupt as relations with the US continue to deteriorate"—suggesting they could use drones in self-defense if attacked by the US.
The reporting carried echoes of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's rationale for attacking Iran in February. He stunned legal experts days after the war began by explaining that the US had decided to wage war on the Middle Eastern country because it feared Iran would retaliate after Israel began attacking it.
"The imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us," Rubio said.
The claim that Cuba's reported preparations make the island a threat to US security "is a lie—with purpose," said David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International.
"Marco Rubio and his stenographers at Axios are manufacturing consent for the invasion of Cuba," said Adler. "To fall for this flimsy propaganda is to fail the most basic test of civic literacy. And the stakes are millions of Cuban lives off our coast."
Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has long sought regime change in the socialist country.
Axios' reporting came days after CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Cuba to pressure officials into complying with US demands, likely including political and economic reforms, heightening fears that the US could be planning a military attack unless the country complies.
White House officials also told CBS News Friday that the Department of Justice is preparing to criminally indict former Cuban President Raúl Castro for shooting down planes that belonged to a US group that had flown into Cuba's airspace in the 1990s. In January, US forces invaded Venezuela and abducted President Nicolás Maduro, bringing him to the US where he was charged with drug trafficking, and pleaded not guilty.
Former Obama administration staffer and Pod Save America co-host Tommy Vietor said Sunday that "lots of signals pointing towards an imminent US regime change operation against Cuba."
"The latest," he said of the Axios article, "is this blatant effort to launder a pretext for war through the media."
Democrats can go on offense by defining what it actually means to be serious about safety: not by stoking fear, but by advancing a clear, consistent, solutions-driven agenda that both prevents crime and breaks its cycle.
As the economy falters, prices surge, and yet another Middle East conflict grinds on with no clear endgame, Donald Trump’s presidency appears to be slipping into free fall. His support has eroded among the very voters who once powered his return to office, and Americans are losing confidence in the issues that once defined his appeal—especially the economy and immigration. With the midterms looming, Republicans are flailing.
But Trump and the Republicans always have a tried-and-true political playbook: fearmongering about crime. And unless Democrats go on the offensive, it just may work.
Trump has already signaled that crime will once again be a centerpiece of the midterms. In support of that aim, he has repeatedly urged Congress to pass “a tough new crime bill,” falsely taken credit for bringing down crime rates, and exploited crime victims to cast Democrats as cold and uncaring in the face of tragedy. But crime is not the strength it once was for Trump.
Thanks to his unpopular federal troop deployments and violent mass deportation tactics, voters are losing confidence in his approach to public safety.
As ICE, the National Guard, and other federal forces expand their footprint in communities across the country, voters are getting a clearer picture of what “tough-on-crime” governance looks like in practice—and most don’t like what they see.
To be clear, Republicans still hold an overwhelming advantage on crime in public opinion. But that edge is driven less by outcomes than by emphasis: They talk about crime relentlessly—even when rates are near historic lows—amplifying and exploiting understandable fears. Democrats, by contrast, too often cede the narrative—either by pivoting to safer ground or by trying to one-up Republicans with “tough-on-crime” rhetoric that voters don’t find convincing.
Today, Democrats of all stripes are talking loudly and often about affordability—the right tactic after being perceived as out of touch in the wake of the 2024 election. But they have yet to find a unified message around public safety, leaving them vulnerable to the inevitable barrage of GOP attack ads stoking fears of crime and immigration.
My team and I have briefed dozens of candidates and elected leaders over the past several months, and the message we are so often left with is one of hesitation and uncertainty around public safety. From our work with Hill offices to mayoral candidates, the reality is that the party is not prepared to truly address crime. Unless Democrats define the issue on their own terms, they’ll once again be forced to play defense on one of the most politically potent issues in American life.
Democrats cannot afford to go silent on crime, nor can they afford the “tough-on-crime” approach that some in the party are advocating—a familiar playbook that echoes the advice many received last year on immigration enforcement. But those who followed that guidance are now finding themselves under attack for it. Votes once seen as smart politics—backing measures like the Trump-backed Laken Riley Act, resolutions praising US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, or increased funding for the Department of Homeland Security—are quickly becoming political liabilities. As ICE, the National Guard, and other federal forces expand their footprint in communities across the country, voters are getting a clearer picture of what “tough-on-crime” governance looks like in practice—and most don’t like what they see.
This moment presents an opportunity. Democrats can go on offense by defining what it actually means to be serious about safety: not by stoking fear, but by advancing a clear, consistent, solutions-driven agenda that both prevents crime and breaks its cycle. In a country where nearly half of all people have had a family member incarcerated and about 3 in 10 people say they or a member of their household have been a victim of a crime, we must chart a new path forward. Democrats don’t have to look far to see which solutions truly deliver on safety.
Democratic mayors are working to drive historic declines in crime—through sustained investments in youth programs, community violence intervention, crisis response, targeted gun enforcement, and rebuilding trust between police and the communities they serve. Leading cities of all sizes, they’ve seen firsthand how violence shatters families and makes everyday life feel unsafe. They’ve also seen the damage of blunt “law and order” approaches that destabilize neighborhoods, limit opportunity, and erode cooperation with law enforcement.
These leaders are channeling a broader political reality: Most Democratic and independent voters want leaders who are serious about safety, not a return to reflexive “tough-on-crime” politics. That means a comprehensive approach that responds swiftly to stop violence, solve crime, and prevent it in the first place. It pairs accountability with fairness—holding everyone to the same standard, including police and elected officials. And it reflects a continued belief that public safety is strengthened not just through enforcement, but by giving people a real chance to break cycles of incarceration and build stable lives. Importantly, as we head toward the midterms, polling shows that when Democrats demonstrate to voters that they are truly serious about safety, this approach consistently outperforms “tough-on-crime” rhetoric.
Notably, these local leaders come from across the Democratic spectrum. Regardless of whether they consider themselves progressives, moderates, or something in between, they share an approach that works to deliver safety and win elections. They know that safety isn’t about scoring political points; it’s about building credibility and delivering what works. It’s time Democrats learned that lesson as well.
Having experienced firsthand the terrors of the Trump administration’s detention and deportation agenda, Maine has already paid the price of this cruelty. We cannot afford one additional dollar of public investment in immigration operations.
In recent weeks, Congress passed a budget proposal seeking additional billions to fund federal immigration operations. Despite widespread public opposition to the inhuman actions of the Trump administration’s immigration agencies, Congress is moving forward with these budget plans that would further harm the stability and well-being of Maine’s families and immigrant communities. As the budget reconciliation process continues, Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King and our representatives must reject these dangerous proposals and instead fund real solutions to protect families and our constitutional rights.
On top of the $170 billion that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was granted last year, the proposal passed by the House and the Senate would give $70 billion in additional funding for harmful immigration operations, with no strings attached. Having experienced firsthand the terrors of the Trump administration’s detention and deportation agenda, Maine has already paid the price of this cruelty. We cannot afford one additional dollar of public investment in immigration operations.
Over the last 15 months, DHS has used its billions to send federal agents into Maine and other communities to abduct people from courtrooms, workplaces, and homes, tearing them from their right to a fair day in court. This has led to unprecedented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention rates, an ever-increasing death toll in detention, thousands of family separations, and growing numbers of removals without due process.
According to an analysis by our organization, ICE apprehensions in Maine increased 37% when comparing all of 2024 and the first 10.5 months of 2025. ICE predominantly targeted Black and brown individuals without any criminal charges. ICE relies on categorizing people as having “Pending Criminal Charges” or “Other.” They targeted working-age men, disproportionately from African and Latin American countries, robbing families of their breadwinners.
Instead of attacking families and their constitutional rights, our federal funds should be used to support families and uphold due process.
Immigrants are integral to our state. More than 19,000 children in Maine have at least one immigrant parent. Over 56,000 immigrants live in Maine—and though they make up only 4% of the population, immigrant workers account for nearly 5% of the labor force. In 2025 alone, Maine’s immigrant residents paid 625.8 million in taxes.
In the face of escalating raids, in partnership with Presente!ME and their People’s Coalition on Safety and Justice, Maine Immigrants Rights' Coalition launched an Immigrant Defense Hotline and Resource Hub in October 2025 as “Community Watch” to record ICE sightings and offer legal support. Because there is no public defender system in immigration court, our services have been a critical last line of defense. But up against chaotic federal agencies with unlimited funding, this has not been enough.
Instead of attacking families and their constitutional rights, our federal funds should be used to support families and uphold due process. Research, including a recent three-year randomized study by the Vera Institute of Justice, consistently shows that people with a lawyer are far more likely to obtain the legal relief they are entitled to—allowing them to return to their jobs, communities, and families. When our rights and communities are threatened, we must fund defenders, not the detention and deportation machine.
As a diverse network of over 100 organizations, my partners and I are committed to defending due process and holding the government accountable. Just as we work every day to hold DHS accountable in the courtroom, Congress must do the same in Washington and reject this unnecessary and harmful infusion of funding for immigration detention and operations. Congress should invest in less costly, more supportive services like legal representation that uphold the right to due process and help people navigate the immigration system without disrupting our communities.
As Maine’s congressional leaders move forward with their budget reconciliation proposals, we urge them to remember that the stability, rights, and well-being of our communities are in their hands. We send you to Washington to invest in solutions that give every Mainer a fair shot at building a safe, stable, and dignified life in this nation they call home.