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
us foreign policy
Seth Harp Speaks on New York Times Spiking US Foreign Policy Interview With Ross Douthat
"I think the US is only the latest in a very long history of military empires," he told Common Dreams. "This is a perspective to which New York Times readers are rarely exposed."
Feb 09, 2026
Investigative journalist Seth Harp has accused the New York Times of burying his interview with a prominent opinion columnist. He told Common Dreams that the paper is trying to silence his forceful critiques of US foreign policy.
In a post on social media Thursday, Harp blasted Ross Douthat, a conservative opinion columnist for the paper, after learning that a conversation the two had recorded last month had been cut.
“Ross Douthat challenged me to a debate on foreign policy,” Harp wrote. “We recorded a 90-minute segment for his show, Interesting Times, on January 15, 2026. But I defeated him so decisively that he refuses to air the footage. What an absolute coward.”
According to Douthat, the conversation between the two was “pegged to the Delta Force raid in Venezuela,” referring to President Donald Trump’s operation last month, which overthrew the South American nation’s president, Nicolás Maduro.
Though Trump himself has plainly stated that his goal was to forcibly open the nation’s vast oil reserves to be taken over by US corporations, the administration has papered over this nakedly imperialist justification with dubious claims that Maduro was at the helm of a multinational narcotics trafficking ring. Maduro has pleaded not guilty to related charges in US court.
This was where, Douthat said, Harp’s perspective was relevant. His recent Times bestselling book, The Fort Bragg Cartel, examines the long history of the US Army Special Forces’ own history of international drug trafficking, which culminated in a series of unsolved murders at the titular Army installation in North Carolina.
The day after US forces bombed Caracas in the January operation, which is estimated to have killed as many as 83 people—including dozens of civilians—Harp posted a photo of one of the Delta Force commanders who played a key role in the attack. For this, he was subpoenaed by the Republican-led House Oversight Committee, which accused him of “leaking classified intel” and “doxing” the official, even though the information was already publicly available.
According to Harp, the conversation was cordial at first but became prickly when the two began to discuss the recent attack on Venezuela.
"Again and again he tried to box me in with some kind of gotcha," Harp said. "For example, he sprung on me that I'd called Nicolás Maduro the 'rightful' president of Venezuela, and tried to make the discussion about the last election in Venezuela and abuses by the government security forces there."
"I replied that Maduro was the rightful president of Venezuela simply because he became president through Venezuela's own internal political processes, and that the US has no right to dictate to other countries who their leaders should be," he said. "Douthat had no response to that and appeared visibly thrown off balance. It was as if he had never encountered a real anti-imperialist critique of US foreign policy and was only prepared to deal with some weak sauce humanitarian liberal critique, which I'm not about."
Harp said the discussion also encompassed many other foreign policy topics, including “Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, the post-9/11 wars, and American military interventions since 1945 more broadly.”
He added that the pair “also discussed the methods by which these interventions were accomplished, specifically the use of large conventional armies versus special forces and proxies,” and that they “talked a lot about China and Russia, too.”
“I served in the military and have spent my entire adult life thinking and writing about these issues,” said Harp, an Army veteran. “My basic argument was that the United States has been so violent and aggressive since World War II that it has not only destabilized the entire world but also destroyed our own country from the inside, materially and politically.”
“Ross’ basic point of view was that while the US has done terrible things and killed millions of people in recent years, the world is a better place as a result of American hegemony,” Harp continued. “But his grasp on historical facts was so weak that he was unable to make a strong argument.”
“He frequently became confused and contradicted or reversed himself,” Harp explained. “Frustrated at his own befuddlement, he blew up and said: ‘We get it. You think the United States is uniquely evil.’”
Within days of the interview, Harp expressed fears that the Times might decide not to release it. On January 20, five days after his sit-down with Douthat, he wrote to one of his editors.
“I was somewhat surprised that Ross wasn’t better prepared to defend his point of view,” he said, according to a message he made available on social media. “They may decide to spike it; we’ll see.”
About three weeks after the conversation and after weeks of silence from the Times, Harp received a text message from one of the show’s producers, who told him, “We aren’t going to be able to make it work.”
“We were kind of pummeled by the news cycle in the last six weeks and are going to pivot away from this story,” the producer explained in the text message exchange.
“I had canceled a vacation to do the show in studio,” Harp told Common Dreams. “Twice they changed the date on me, so I was kept waiting for two weeks. Then, after they spiked the episode, they didn’t even bother to inform me. I didn’t learn about it until three weeks later, when I reached out to the producer. At that point, I asked for Ross’ email address so that I could speak to him about it directly and in private. The producer refused to put me in touch.”
Harp responded to the message, calling it “unbelievable cowardice on Ross’ part and a giant waste of my time.” He said he was going to “make it known what actually happened: Ross challenged me to a debate on foreign policy, got crushed, and doesn’t have the intellectual or journalistic integrity to air the footage.”
He later posted the text exchange to social media. He told Common Dreams he chose to go public because he “felt deeply offended by [The Times'] complete disrespect for my time and lack of professional courtesy.”
hey @DouthatNYT, release the debate ya coward https://t.co/2eMysOn4nn
— Nathan J Robinson (@NathanJRobinson) February 6, 2026
ross douthat has no time for a foreign policy discussion with seth harp but loads of time for this misogynistic culture war slop… https://t.co/ZIZDqTy8Kc pic.twitter.com/SaCkE3OMkV
— Erin Overbey (@erinoverbey) February 7, 2026
Harp's publication of the messages on social media resulted in a wave of backlash from others in the media, who accused Douthat of cowardice and the Times of burying the interview to protect him from embarrassment.
On Thursday, Douthat issued a response on social media.
Though the debate was recorded less than two weeks after Trump’s raid, he said the interview “had missed the ideal spot in the news cycle” for a conversation about Venezuela. He also said the interview, which he wanted to keep narrowly focused on Harp’s reporting about drug-dealing in the Special Forces, “became unmoored from Mr. Harp’s specific reporting in a way that undermined the first half of our conversation.”
“Interesting Times is a show where I try to give a lot of space to the guest’s perspective while posing challenging questions, creating episodes where the audience gets the best version of an idea or worldview that they might not have understood before,” Douthat continued.
Harp called this justification “hogwash,” pointing out that three of the most recent episodes of his show address such timely issues as the end of Roe v. Wade, questions about public trust after the Covid-19 pandemic, and church attendance statistics among young men.
“Anyone can look at your recent episodes and see that a debate between us on the US military and foreign policy would have been far more timely and relevant to the news cycle than any of them,” Harp wrote.
Douthat, one of the many Times columnists who enthusiastically supported the Bush administration’s War in Iraq more than two decades ago, has often given his platform to unapologetic supporters of US foreign military interventions.
The first interview he published after Trump’s Venezuela operation was a conversation titled “A Defense of US Intervention in Venezuela,” in which he hosted the notorious war hawk Elliott Abrams, who served as special envoy to Venezuela during Trump’s first term.
The neoconservative policy adviser, who’d previously worked for Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. During that time, he championed US support for anti-communist death squads and dictators across Latin America and was later convicted for his participation in the Iran-Contra affair.
Douthat largely agreed with Abrams on the moral justifications for regime change in Venezuela, though he questioned the operation’s effectiveness in bringing about democracy.
Harp said that during their conversation weeks later, he disputed Douthat’s “sarcastic outburst,” accusing him of portraying America as a unique evil.
“I don’t think the US is unique or evil,” he told Common Dreams. “I don’t think in those sorts of religious terms. Rather, I think the US is only the latest in a very long history of military empires, but that its marriage to extractive capitalism makes it exceptionally violent, unstable, and short-lived.”
“This is a perspective to which New York Times readers are rarely exposed,” he went on. “It was an interesting and entertaining discussion all around, and no doubt would have garnered far more views than anything else that Ross has published recently. Sadly, Ross’ ego was a little battered.”
“I had tried to go easy on him as an interlocutor, not pointing out, for example, that I personally fought in the Iraq War while he merely promoted it in the pages of the National Review, even though both of us were of military age in the early 2000s,” he said. “I had kept it all above the belt and never attacked him personally. But I had laid bare the shallowness and inconsistency of his views on foreign policy.”
“Another pundit or host would have had the intellectual and journalistic integrity to publish the interview anyway,” he said. “Not Ross.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Board of Peace Fits Into a Long, Ignoble US Foreign Policy Tradition
When existing international mechanisms fail to serve US political objectives, new structures are invented; old ones are bypassed; and power is reasserted under the guise of peace, reform, or stability.
Jan 30, 2026
The history of American power is, in many ways, the history of reinventing rules—or designing new ones—to fit US strategic interests.
This may sound harsh, but it is a necessary realization, particularly in light of US President Donald Trump’s latest political invention: the so-called Board of Peace.
Some have hastily concluded that Trump’s newest political gambit—recently unveiled at the World Economic Forum in Davos—is a uniquely Trumpian endeavor, detached from earlier US foreign policy doctrines. They are mistaken, misled largely by Trump’s self-centered political style and his constant, though unfounded, claims that he has ended wars, resolved global conflicts, and made the world a safer place.
At the Davos launch, Trump reinforced this carefully crafted illusion, boasting of America’s supposed historic leadership in bringing peace; praising alleged unprecedented diplomatic breakthroughs; and presenting the Board of Peace as a neutral, benevolent mechanism capable of stabilizing the world’s most volatile regions.
What is truly extraordinary is that even in its phase of decline, the United States continues to be permitted to experiment with the futures of entire peoples and regions.
Yet a less prejudiced reading of history allows us to see Trump’s political design—whether in Gaza or beyond—not as an aberration, but as part of a familiar pattern. US foreign policymakers repeatedly seek to reclaim ownership over global affairs; sideline international consensus; and impose political frameworks that they alone define, manage, and ultimately control.
The Board of Peace—a by-invitation-only political club controlled entirely by Trump himself—is increasingly taking shape as a new geopolitical reality in which the United States imposes itself as the self-appointed caretaker of global affairs, beginning with genocide-devastated Gaza, and explicitly positioning itself as an alternative to the United Nations. While Trump has not stated this outright, his open contempt for international law and his relentless drive to redesign the post-World War II world order are clear indicators of his true intentions.
The irony is staggering. A body ostensibly meant to guide Gaza through reconstruction after Israel’s devastating genocide does not include Palestinians—let alone Gazans themselves. Even more damning is the fact that the genocide it claims to address was politically backed, militarily financed, and diplomatically shielded by successive US administrations, first under Joe Biden and later under Trump.
It requires no particular insight to conclude that Trump’s Board of Peace is not concerned with peace, nor genuinely with Gaza. So what, then, is this initiative really about?
This initiative is not about reconstruction or justice, but about exploiting Gaza’s suffering to impose a new US-led world order, first in the Middle East and eventually beyond.
Gaza—a besieged territory of just 365 square kilometers—does not require a new political structure populated by dozens of world leaders, each reportedly paying a billion-dollar membership fee. Gaza needs reconstruction, its people must be granted their basic rights, and Israel’s crimes must be met with accountability. The mechanisms to achieve this already exist: the United Nations; international law; longstanding humanitarian institutions; and above all the Palestinians themselves, whose agency, resilience, and determination to survive Israel’s onslaught have become legendary.
The Board of Peace discards all of this in favor of a hollow, improvised structure tailored to satisfy Trump’s volatile ego and advance US-Israeli political and geopolitical interests. In effect, it drags Palestine back a century, to an era when Western powers unilaterally determined its fate—guided by racist assumptions about Palestinians and the Middle East, assumptions that laid the groundwork for the region’s enduring catastrophes.
Yet the central question remains: Is this truly a uniquely Trumpian initiative?
No, it is not. While it is ingeniously tailored to feed Trump’s inflated sense of grandeur, it remains a familiar American tactic, particularly during moments of profound crisis. This strategy is persuasively outlined in Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine, which argues that political and economic elites exploit collective trauma—wars, natural disasters, and social breakdown—to impose radical policies that would otherwise face public resistance.
Trump’s Board of Peace fits squarely within this framework, using the devastation of Gaza not as a call for justice or accountability, but as an opportunity to reshape political realities in ways that entrench US dominance and sideline international norms.
This is hardly unprecedented. The pattern can be traced back to the US-envisioned United Nations, established in 1945 as a replacement for the League of Nations. Its principal architect, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was determined that the new institution would secure the structural dominance of the United States, most notably through the Security Council and the veto system, ensuring Washington’s decisive influence over global affairs.
When the UN later failed to fully acquiesce to US interests—most notably when it refused to grant the George W. Bush administration legal authorization to invade Iraq—the organization was labeled “irrelevant”. Bush, then, led his own so-called “coalition of the willing,” a war of aggression that devastated Iraq and destabilized the entire region, consequences that persist to this day.
A similar maneuver unfolded in Palestine with the invention of the so-called Quartet on the Middle East in 2002, a US-dominated framework. From its inception, the Quartet systematically sidelined Palestinian agency, insulated Israel from accountability, and relegated international law to a secondary—and often expendable—consideration.
The method remains consistent: When existing international mechanisms fail to serve US political objectives, new structures are invented; old ones are bypassed; and power is reasserted under the guise of peace, reform, or stability.
Judging by this historical record, it is reasonable to conclude that the Board of Peace will eventually become yet another defunct body. Before reaching that predictable end, however, it risks further derailing the already fragile prospects for a just peace in Palestine and obstructing any meaningful effort to hold Israeli war criminals accountable.
What is truly extraordinary is that even in its phase of decline, the United States continues to be permitted to experiment with the futures of entire peoples and regions. Yet it is never too late for those committed to restoring the centrality of international law—not only in Palestine, but globally—to challenge such reckless and self-serving political engineering.
Palestine, the Middle East, and the world deserve better.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Bellicose, Chaotic Foreign Policy Is Based on Doing Whatever He Wants
Trump has stated openly that his vaunted unpredictability is a tactic to keep his enemies off guard, but his erratic behavior gets in the way of planning, heightens distrust, and serves as an incentive for other nations to spend more on defense.
Jan 17, 2026
In Charlie Chaplin’s 1940 masterpiece The Great Dictator, there is a scene in which his character “Adenoid Hynkel,” ruler of the antisemitic and fascistic nation named “Tomania,” dreamily juggles a huge balloon painted as a globe—until it bursts. Should our balloon burst, and the possibility is becoming ever greater, the consequences will dwarf anything that Charlie might have imagined.
Since the start of Donald Trump’s second term in 2025, his cult of the personality picked up steam. The Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts has been renamed the Trump Kennedy Center. The president’s name also graces the new $300 million ballroom at the White House and various other Washington buildings. In this vein, he has also called for the construction of a new “Arc de Trump,” and—significantly—plastered his moniker on a new class of Navy battleships.
On the campaign trail, Trump had promised there would be no new wars and that the United States would no longer serve as the “world’s policeman.” But we should have seen what was coming. Glimpses of the future were already apparent when the president changed the “Gulf of Mexico” into the “Gulf of America,” demanded that Denmark surrender Greenland to the United States, and called upon Canada to become our 51st state. Nor was that all. Trump renamed the Department of Defense the Department of War and, despite the cost-cutting frenzy led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, he successfully pressured Congress into passing the first $1 trillion military budget in American history.
Trump’s crass public campaign for the Nobel Prize failed. An Israeli Peace Prize and another from soccer’s FIFA governing body, both hastily created for Trump, proved merely embarrassing substitutes. His attempts to coerce peace in the Russia-Ukraine War had been unsuccessful. The Gaza ceasefire was appearing increasingly fragile, and it was clear that the president had stoked international tensions with his strangely miscalculated tariff policy.
Trump’s actions normalize contempt for international law, rights of national self-determination, and sovereignty.
Trump claims that he has ended more than eight wars all over the globe. But the statement is thin on evidence, whereas it is abundantly clear that the United States was involved in 622 air and drone strike across seven countries in 2025: Afghanistan,, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. The president has never been a staunch advocate of international law or human rights. To the contrary: Trump stated quite openly that he recognized no constraint on his international decision-making authority other than his own “morality,” which should have surprised no one.
As 2026 begins, the president has taken over Venezuela, kidnapped its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, charging them with “narco-terrorism.” To achieve these ends, the United States launched 22 strikes that killed 110 people, murdered sailors seeking to surrender, and shelled vessels without first determining whether they were actually carrying drugs. Nor did Congress approve Trump’s act of war; it was not even briefed. The enterprise was instead prepared by Trump and a few close advisers in consultation with oil company executives; indeed, this was a war waiting for an excuse to wage it.
Why did Trump do it? The president needed something dramatic in the face of slipping poll numbers, mumblings of discontent among a few supporters, the mess surrounding the Epstein files, the anger resulting from an economic “affordability” crisis, changes in healthcare that put millions at risk, and the growing repulsion against the storm-trooper tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement against immigrants. In 2024, moreover, Trump had demanded that oil companies and the energy sector donate $1 billion to his campaign. They gave him $75 million. Corporations always expect something for their money, and perhaps providing them with a profitable surprise would make them more generous the next time around.
Given Trump’s desire to recreate a past golden age, it made sense for him to justify his Venezuelan policy by invoking the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. This seminal document of American diplomatic history warned foreign powers against interfering in the Western Hemisphere, and contributed to the belief that Central and South America constituted the United States’ sphere of influence. However, Trump gave it a radical twist by declaring that the United States would “run” Venezuela until an “acceptable” sovereign is installed and for now, under his stewardship, the United States would “indefinitely” control sales of its oil and minerals on the open market.
This he calls the “Donroe” Doctrine. Justifications are of secondary importance. He insisted that the Maduro regime was an agent of “narco-terrorism,” which dominated fentanyl smuggling operations, but it turned out that Venezuela was responsible for only about 5% of the fentanyl entering the United States. Trump then changed the narrative by claiming that Maduro was the mastermind behind the cocaine plague, and when that accusation fell flat, he shifted it again by condemning him as a war criminal for possessing weapons of mass destruction.
Americans cheer interventions when they begin, but quickly grow weary when the price comes due. And invading Venezuela might prove to be a high price to pay. There are striking similarities with the plans laid bare in Venezuela and the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. In both cases, there was the lure of oil, a murderous dictator to overthrow, an exaggerated “existential” threat, an arrogant conviction the citizenry of another country would welcome American “liberators” with open arms, and disregard for the chaos that reckless regime change would generate.
Maduro’s regime was authoritarian, brutal, corrupt, and incompetent. But Trump’s actions normalize contempt for international law, rights of national self-determination, and sovereignty. Indeed, calling his overthrow an international police action against narco-terrorism doesn’t change that reality. Arbitrarily snatching world leaders creates widespread fear and destruction and contributes to creating a politics based on the “war of each against all’ that Thomas Hobbes feared above all else, if only because it heightens instability
As became clear in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, to leave a nation without a sovereign is to condemn it to violent rivalry between paramilitary groups. Vice President Delcy Rodriguez was installed by the Venezuelan Supreme Court as “interim” president for up to 90 days, though that can be extended by legal means, and an election awaits in the future. She is in an untenable situation. Rodriguez must navigate between independence and submission. She must either stand on her own and risk regime change or serve as a shadow sovereign lacking legitimacy and power.
Trump is satisfied with what has transpired, and he feels emboldened. He is already saber-rattling while making similar charges of drug running against Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba. Trump has also grown more bellicose in insisting that Denmark prioritize American “national security” interests, and either sell or prepare to lose its autonomous territory of Greenland. Whether discord among members of NATO will strengthen its enemies is far less important than Trump’s ability to exercise power in an unimpeded manner
Besides, these policies can change in the blink of an eye should Trump find that alternative approaches better serve his purposes. He has stated openly that his vaunted unpredictability is a tactic to keep his enemies off guard. He neglected to mention, of course, that his erratic behavior gets in the way of planning, heightens distrust, and serves as an incentive for other nations to spend more on defense. He wishes only to be able to do what he wants, when he wants, and wherever he wants. This spirit is infusing his foreign policy and contributing to a spreading existential fear of military conflict.
Nationwide protests have rocked Iran in response to the Islamic Republic’s repression of all democratic tendencies, its incompetence in dealing with questions of infrastructure and water, the corruption of the mullahs, and the complete collapse of the currency. These are brave people risking their lives in the streets, but Trump feels it his duty to take center stage. He has warned that he will intervene should the government wind up killing protesters. It sounds heroic, but such warnings only put protesters at greater risk because the leadership can now claim that they are traitors and agents of “The Great Satan”—and that is precisely what the Supreme Leader has done.
Trump was not thinking about the negative consequences his words might have for those Iranians fighting for freedom. But that is the point: He never thinks about others, only about himself. More likely Trump is thinking about sabotaging further negotiations on a nuclear deal; undermining a regional rival; and making himself appear once again, as with the Maduro affair, as the champion of democracy and peace. Even if the rest of the world disagrees, indeed, that is how he can view himself—and that is what counts.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular