Trump, Venezuela and the “War on Drugs”

Let’s speak clearly. The United States does have a drug problem! Provisional data from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics indicate there were an estimated 80,391 drug overdose deaths in the United States during 2024. By far, the deadliest drug is fentanyl, which annually causes over 70,000 overdose deaths. Nevertheless, it is not Venezuela that moves fentanyl into the U.S. It is China via drug cartels located in Mexico.

The deadliest drug that comes into the United States from South America is not fentanyl. It is cocaine, made from the coca plant. Venezuela does not grow much coca. The biggest growers of coca and the countries that export the most cocaine to the U.S. are Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.

From September until the present, the Trump administration, via the Secretary of Defense Hegseth, has struck more than twenty small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, killing over 80 civilians. The government has alleged that these boats were smuggling drugs into the United States, but have not provided an ounce of proof. It is highly unlikely these boats were smuggling drugs into the U.S. for a variety of reasons: Venezuela exports oil, not drugs; a drug smuggler would fill up the limited space in his small boat with drugs, not passengers; no drugs have been retrieved from the crippled boats; and the survivors from the September 2 strike were struck and killed in a second strike, rather than provide eyewitness account of the purpose of their boat’s cargo.

Just yesterday, the U.S. military seized a large Venezuelan oil tanker and has maintained possession of it. When asked by reporters what would happen to the oil, President Trump said, “We would keep it.” These actions ordered by the Pentagon are clearly military actions of warfare. According to the U.S. Constitution, unless there is an actual attack on the United States, only Congress can declare war. We are not at war with Venezuela. Therefore, the strikes against these small boats, including the death of more than 80 civilians, and the seizure of the tanker, were definitely illegal and probably acts of murder. If the Pentagon has valid evidence, it should make its case to Congress…immediately. In addition, the U.S. should take its case to the United Nations Security Council because these military actions have taken place in international waters.

So why are Trump and Hegseth making up bogus claims of alleged drug shipments from Venezuela? Probably to distract us from real issues like inflation and health insurance prices.

This is an ethical and legal test for our current administration and our Secretary of Defense. Will they pass the test? I doubt it.

The National Security Breach: Worse than I Thought

A week ago, news broke that a serious security breach of U.S. intelligence had taken place. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had disclosed war plans in a group chat to 18 senior members of the Trump administration. This took place on SIGNAL, a commercial app platform. Participating in that chat were Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Vice President JD Vance, the National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, the head of the CIA John Ratcliffe, and other senior officials. The information contained “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”. Part of the breach happened because Waltz had inadvertently added a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, to the chat list. Of course, Goldberg, a private citizen, did not have security clearance.

The fallout has been striking. Recent polls indicate that 74-76% of American citizens believe this breach was “serious”, including 60% of all Republicans. The daily drip, drip, drip of mistakes are contributing to the growing lack of public trust. Faced with this problem, the White House wants the issue to disappear, and hopes the public just “forgets” the breach. On the other hand, Democrats want a thorough investigation to take place and necessary consequences to be applied. The following is my attempt to summarize the facts as we know them so that my readers can make up their own minds.

SIGNAL

SIGNAL is a commercial app. It is portrayed as a fairly safe platform because messages are encrypted from the source phone, and then kept encrypted throughout the transmission until they reach the receiving phone. Many people who work in the federal government, both Republicans and Democrats, utilize SIGNAL for ordinary transmissions.

The government has issued many warnings against using SIGNAL for sending sensitive, classified information for the following reasons:

The transmission is encrypted and, therefore, fairly secure. Nevertheless, the source phone and the receiving phones are vulnerable to attack and hacking. These phones must also meet high security criteria.
Federal security laws require that sensitive, high-level communication be retained for posterity. SIGNAL is programed to erase the contents shortly after the chat conversation has ended. This means that SIGNAL must not be used for the transmission of classified intelligence. All senior officials are made aware of this restriction.
Each person on a chat must be aware of the identity of all the other participants on the chat in order to fulfill security requirements. If there is any breach, participants should immediately raise an alarm and communicate the breach to the person who organized the chat.

THE BREACH

Everyone knew that SIGNAL should not be used to transmit sensitive, classified information.

National Security Adviser Michael Waltz made a big mistake of adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to the list of recipients, thereby violating security criteria. Waltz has appropriately admitted that he was responsible for the mistake.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth introduced the highly sensitive “operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing”. According to the Department of Defense’s own definitions, intelligence on imminent military strikes is designated “Top Secret”. Hegseth clearly violated security norms.
It appears that some of the participants were using their personal phones for the chat. These phones are susceptible to hacking and their use is a clear violation of the security guidelines. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was in Russia during the chat. There is concern that the phone he was using was vulnerable to Russian surveillance.

THE RESPONSE

Last Monday Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg published brief segments of the chat text in the Atlantic. These did not compromise sensitive intelligence, but were sufficiently explicit to demonstrate that he had mistakenly been admitted to the chat. At first, the White House accused him of lying. Hegseth accused him of being a deceitful “so called journalist” who peddles lies. Trump called him a “sleazebag”. Goldberg responded that his integrity (and the integrity of the Atlantic) were on the line and that he felt goaded to publish the entire transcript. He made the appropriate agencies aware of his plans (the White House, the CIA, the DOD, etc) in order not to put U.S. military personnel in danger. The CIA made a request to omit an identification and Goldberg complied with their wish. The text was then published in the Atlantic and is now available for everyone to study. The text shows that in addition to military plans, sensitive derogatory comments were made about our European allies, and a disagreement between Vance and Trump was made public.
After the incendiary White House attack on Goldberg as a liar backfired, the official line has been to deny, deny, deny. They have minimized the seriousness of the breach: as if no classified intelligence had been communicated. A few voices were raised in protest. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the breach a “big mistake”. Republican Senator Roger Wicker, chair of the Armed Services Committee, was even more explicit. He signed onto a letter to the acting inspector general at the Department of Defense for an inquiry into the potential “use of unclassified networks to discuss sensitive and classified information, as well as the sharing of such information with those who do not have proper clearance and need to know.” I invite my readers to study the entire transcript and decide for themselves whether the contents should have been designated as “Top Secret” or not.
Our relationship with allies has been damaged. Israel provided much of the intelligence information that Hegseth shared on a non-classified platform. They and our European allies have stated they will re-evaluate what kind of intelligence they will share with us in the future. Are we a trustworthy ally?
The Wall Street Journal reported that “Waltz has created and hosted multiple other sensitive national security conversations on Signal with cabinet members, including separate threads on how to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine as well as military operations.”

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Given that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the breach to be serious, I agree with Senator Wicker that, at the very least, the Department of Defense Inspector General conduct a thorough investigation of the breach. They should also assign penalties if warranted. I would prefer a bipartisan investigation by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would probably be more balanced and just. May the truth win out!

Serious Questions Regarding Trump’s Nominee Pete Hegseth

Donald Trump won the presidential election in November. His victory was decisive even though it was not the landslide that he has claimed. (In fact, his margin of victory was lower than every presidential election since 2000.) As President-elect, he has the legal right to nominate qualified candidates for his Cabinet and other top posts in his administration. The Senate has the responsibility to meet with the candidates and then to “advise and consent”, in effect, to approve or reject each one. The process involves a hearing with the appropriate Senate committee which explores whether the person is qualified (in terms of experience, integrity, judgment) for the position. This is followed by a vote of that committee. If favorable, the nomination is forwarded for a vote by the entire Senate. Many of his nominees are having their committee hearings this week.

Some of Trump’s nominees will sail through this process. For example, Senator Marco Rubio has been nominated to become the next Secretary of State. Although I disagree with some of Rubio’s policies, he is very qualified for the position and will receive bipartisan support. He will probably have more problems with Trump himself (regarding Russia’s war with Ukraine and personality issues) than with Democrats.

A more controversial nominee is Pete Hegseth. Trump named him to become the next Defense Secretary and to supervise the extensive Department of Defense (DOD). This is the largest department of the federal government with some three million employees and an $849 billion budget. His hearing before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee took place on January 14 and was seen live by millions of citizens.

I have some serious questions regarding Hegseth. There are at least three procedural anomalies:

Previous presidents have fully vetted their nominees with the FBI. This has been done to reveal any “skeletons in the closet”. Trump chose to bypass this procedure regarding Hegseth and most of his other nominees. Why?
Most hearings permit two or three rounds of questions by its members. During the Hegseth hearing, only one round was permitted. Why?
In the past, before they have their hearing, nominees have met individually with senators of the appropriate committee, both Republicans and Democrats, to answer specific questions the senators might have. Hegseth chose not to meet with Democrat senators. Why?

In addition, the following are areas that warrant honest, thorough evaluation of Hegseth’s qualifications.

Lack of experience in administering organizations

The DOD has three million employees. Hegseth has never administered an organization with more than a few dozen paid employees. Does he have the management experience to lead the largest department in our federal government? This is not an ideological debate between conservatives and liberals. This is a technical question regarding administrative experience and preparedness.

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct

In 2017, Hegseth was accused of sexual assault. Although he denied it and affirmed that their sexual encounter was consensual, he paid the woman a confidential settlement. She is willing to meet with the Senate committee to confirm her allegation. She should be released from the confidentiality aspect of this settlement so that the truth sees the light of day.

Even his own mother, Penelope Hegseth, accused him of mistreatment of women. She wrote him in an email, “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”

In the hearing, he was repeatedly asked whether specific allegations of sexual assault (and drunkenness on the job) were true or false. He repeatedly refused to answer these questions with a simple “yes” or “no”. He claimed that these were “anonymous allegations that were part of a smear campaign”. Many of these allegations were not anonymous. Hegseth should have answered. His refusal to respond suggests that he was guilty.

Inconsistencies Regarding Women in the Military

In the recent past, Hegseth has frequently affirmed that women should “straight up” not serve in combat. In his hearing, he tried to modify these affirmations without disavowing them completely. He hid behind new affirmations of the military’s lowering of standards in order to meet quotas for women in the military. Women on the committee who have served in the military (including Senator Tammy Duckworth who defeated me in a congressional race back in 2006) refuted his affirmations about the lowering of standards.

There are many additional areas that need honest evaluation. May the nominee provide us with honest responses.