◼ The Washington Post published a blockbuster report over Thanksgiving weekend headlined, “Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all.” The story concerned the first of a series of U.S. military strikes against suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela—strikes that have now killed more than 80 people. The story, in effect, accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of giving a “no quarter” order that would be unlawful under U.S. law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and international treaty. It also accused the operation’s military and civilian leadership of subsequently ordering an illegal “double tap” strike on the two survivors, who at the time were out of combat, posed no imminent threat, and were entitled to humane treatment. But additional reporting from the New York Times, Hegseth’s public comments, and a close reading of the initial Washington Post report itself cast serious doubt on this damning narrative. It’s still possible that Hegseth or his uniformed subordinates gave an unlawful order, and that’s why the House and Senate Armed Services Committees should be commended for having quickly announced that they will conduct investigations into the strikes. But Congress should also take up larger concerns over the wisdom, the legality, and the constitutional probity of President Trump’s military campaign in the Caribbean in the first place. This incident occurred because the administration is insisting on making an overused metaphor—the “war” on drugs—into a reality without due cause.

◼ The regime of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela is malign and illegitimate. Maduro stole the 2018 presidential election from Juan Guaidó and has refused to relinquish his power. He has systematically stolen the wealth of his country and immiserated its people. For years, his regime has facilitated and profited from the trafficking of drugs at an industrial scale into the United States. And Maduro has aligned Venezuela with a who’s who of anti-American despots and adversaries: Cuba, Iran, Russia, and China. In a startling social media post, Trump declared that the airspace over Venezuela is closed—a move that has been traditionally understood as an act of war and one that can only be enforced by U.S. military power. But if Trump intends to use military force to topple Maduro, or coerce him into exile, he should ask Congress for authorization. He should do this not only because the decision to declare war belongs to the legislative branch, but because this administration has made no sustained effort to explain to the American people why Venezuela’s current government warrants removal at the cost of American treasure and, very possibly, American lives. In a democratic republic, the success of difficult overseas missions hinges on enduring public support. That is especially the case when the United States has not been threatened with a military attack. A successful debate and vote in Congress for Trump’s moves would only strengthen the president’s hand. Indeed, the realization in Caracas that the United States is ready and able to use force may very well abrogate the need for it.

◼ Trump officials are engaged in a political skirmish against Senator Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.) and the “seditionist six”—the administration’s moniker for a half-dozen Democratic lawmakers, all former military veterans or intelligence agents, who published a provocative video urging members of the armed forces to disobey illegal orders. While technically accurate, the advice was disruptive and thus unhelpful: The lawmakers failed to give specific examples of such unlawful orders (the timing suggests that they were referring to orders pertaining to the Caribbean missile strikes or deployment of National Guard troops in American cities). Moreover, the video undermines military discipline by urging soldiers to be skeptical of presumptively valid directives. Yet Trump’s unhinged reaction—he described the video as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” and called for prosecutions—raised noxious lawfare to a new level. Even legally inaccurate statements are protected speech, and the lawmakers’ statements were accurate. In federal law, sedition is a summons to violent attacks on the government, which the video was not. And the executive branch has no business threatening members of Congress with prosecution. Hegseth has nevertheless threatened to recall Kelly, a retired navy captain, to active duty so that he can be court-martialed. Trump’s use of the Justice Department to hound his political enemies is profoundly abusive but correctable by the courts. Pulling the armed forces into such machinations is dangerous.

◼ Speaking to the press with his cabinet on Tuesday, Trump claimed that “the word affordability is a Democrat scam,” “a fake narrative,” and “a con job” that “doesn’t mean anything to anybody.” Buried in those headline-grabbing quips, Trump had a point: Democrats use the word as a mantra without workable solutions. But this is a disastrous political message for Republicans. Back in the spring, Trump sounded a similarly out-of-touch note when he said that his tariffs might mean that kids must settle for fewer toys at Christmas. Trump loves to brag about good economic news, but he lacks even the vocabulary to address real economic pain while he is in office. His approval rating now stands below 40 percent in poll averages on the economy and below 35 percent on inflation—the two biggest assets to his election in 2024. Consumer confidence is now lower than it was at any time in Joe Biden’s presidency. Telling voters that the economy was doing better than they thought didn’t work for Democrats then, and it won’t work for Republicans now.

jobs to local communities.

Phil, a Lead Building Engineer in Los Lunas, New Mexico, says, “Supporting my family used to mean leaving my hometown and missing out on special moments. Now, it doesn’t.”

Explore Phil’s story.

◼ Blue-state prosecutors have waged lawfare against pregnancy resource centers that offer alternatives to abortion. After the Supreme Court in 2018 struck down a California law requiring these centers to post pro-abortion notices, the main tactic has been to make the process the punishment. The Court recently heard arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin on whether a pregnancy center can go to federal court to block a harassing subpoena by New Jersey’s attorney general. The procedural narrowness of the legal question is deceptive: The real issue is how much blue states can squeeze these small nonprofits before they can invoke their First Amendment rights. New Jersey’s lawyer admitted to Justice Clarence Thomas that the state went after the center without a single complaint about its behavior. Chief Justice John Roberts asked, “You don’t think it might have an effect on future potential donors to the organization to know that their name, phone number, address, [or present or last known place of employment] could be disclosed as a result of the subpoena?” Despite New Jersey’s pretense to the contrary, the answer is obvious, and it is the point of these investigations. The Court’s response should be equally obvious.

◼ After several negative rulings in the district courts, federal appeals courts have begun weighing in against Trump’s effort to circumvent the Senate confirmation process for the purpose of installing unqualified loyalists as U.S. district attorneys. The Third Circuit rejected the scheme to make Alina Habba—the president’s inexperienced private defense lawyer and a MAGA firebrand—the de facto U.S. attorney for New Jersey. Even in a Republican-controlled Senate, Trump’s nomination of Habba for the job was a nonstarter, and the district’s judges (almost all Democratic appointees) refused to extend her 120-day term as interim U.S. attorney. Attorney General Pam Bondi defiantly named Habba the “acting” U.S. attorney for New Jersey, purportedly under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. Habba, however, didn’t qualify, having served neither as first assistant in the office nor in another Senate-confirmed position. As in several districts, federal law enforcement in New Jersey is in disarray. There is no confirmed U.S. attorney, nor is there one on the horizon because Trump refuses to negotiate with opposition party senators (as all presidents must). Meanwhile, questions regarding the validity of prosecutions brought under illegally installed appointees abound.

jobs to local communities.

Phil, a Lead Building Engineer in Los Lunas, New Mexico, says, “Supporting my family used to mean leaving my hometown and missing out on special moments. Now, it doesn’t.”

Explore Phil’s story.

◼ Another week, another failed attempt by the Trump administration to gently cajole Vladmir Putin into giving up on his quest to conquer Ukraine. The autocrat in the Kremlin rejected a peace overture presented to him by Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, just as he has rejected all others. Trump’s approach to negotiating with Putin hasn’t changed at all throughout this administration, so why would Putin’s behavior evolve? The pattern has become predictable. First, Trump and the freelancers he has deputized as diplomats offer Putin something that looks a lot like a Russian victory in his expansionist war. That offer is rejected by the Ukrainians and the Europeans, who were not consulted on their own fates. Finally, after some cathartic table pounding, the administration eventually crafts a proposal more in keeping with Western interests that Moscow refuses to endorse. That painfully predictable cycle is playing out once again. If the administration continues to be gulled by the Kremlin into endorsing the notion that the United States isn’t the leader of the Western alliance but a neutral mediator between it and Moscow—a proposition Witkoff backed with his support for an aborted 28-point “peace plan” favorable to Russia’s interests—it will continue to negotiate against itself. If only we had a word that described doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

◼ Last week, the world of letters bid farewell to Tom Stoppard. And what a life well-lived. As a playwright, he was the author of many dramatic works: notably Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1966), a necessary adjunct to the greatness of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Other highlights of his oeuvre include Jumpers (1972), a wicked, absurdist satire of academia, and Arcadia (1993), a sparklingly humane literary rhapsody. Yet Americans are likely more familiar (whether they realize it or not) with his equally remunerative Hollywood career as a screenwriter and script doctor. If you enjoyed the dystopian logic of Terry Gilliam’s Brazil, the bursts of poetic wit in Shakespeare in Love, or Indiana Jones’s grumbling arguments with his father in The Last Crusade, thank Stoppard. Born Tomáš Sträussler to Jewish parents—he did not learn they were Jewish until he was in his 50s—in Czechoslovakia, his family fled to Singapore in 1939 when the Nazis invaded. Stoppard reflected on all that had been taken from his continental ancestors in his final play, the intensely personal Leopoldstadt (2020). But he never stopped expressing his gratitude for the lucky turn his life had taken in carrying him and his family to freedom. In his literary output, he made sure the rest of the world would share in that joy, and that mystery, of life. Dead at 88. R.I.P.