Top World News

Oct 30, 2025 - World

When President Donald Trump was in China, he left Xi Jinping with very little. But one reporter noticed it was similar to what Trump got with Russian President Vladimir Putin."I mean, look, it's the old diplomatic strategy, right? Take what you get, declare victory, and go home," said New York Times reporter Peter Baker, speaking to MSNBC's Katy Tur. "Whether it is a victory or not, beyond being able to say you've got one is the bigger question." At this point, however, Baker said that Trump's wins look "modest." "I was struck when the president said that he gave this a 12 on a scale of 10 for being a great meeting, and that they made a lot of progress and 'We're very close on some important things,'" Baker quoted. "That's almost word-for-word the things he said when he met in Alaska with Vladimir Putin. I was there in the room for that, he said. It was a 10 out of 10, not 12, but it was a 10 out of 10. 'And they made a lot of progress. And we're very close on some really important things.'"Trump visited Alaska to meet with Putin and lobby for an end to the war in Ukraine."And of course, we all know what happened after Alaska, which is nothing," said Baker. "So, you know, you've got to be careful about overevaluating how much this will be worth. If it means, though, that there is sort of a, kind of a truce in a way, that there is a less hostile relationship for them now."The exchanges, he said, are less hostile and less volatile, and that's the only real progress.

Oct 29, 2025 - World

Trump and the billionaires and foreign fascists he’s aligned with are both stronger than most think and weaker. Today I’ll deal with the stronger part; tomorrow, the weaker.We’re living in a moment when the line between democracy and dictatorship is far less clear than we like to believe. As a recent analysis by Steven Levitsky, co-author of How Democracies Die, puts it, we’ve already moved onto the midpoint along the spectrum between democracy and dictatorship where “competitive authoritarianism” lives.That’s the world of regimes that hold elections but use their control over the nation’s systems to skew the rules, restrict opposition, weaponize institutions, vandalize the truth, and destroy/ignore democratic norms. We’re more than halfway down that road in just ten short months.In the United States today, it’s impossible to ignore how much of that template was laid out by Viktor Orbán to the Heritage Foundation, which embedded core strategies of his authoritarian rule over Hungary into Project 2025, and is now being executed step-by-step by Trump and his lickspittles.And with ICE making warrantless arrests while brutalizing and now spying on protesters with Stingrays and Pegasus, Putin’s FSB’s secret police are also providing a model for Trump.We often comfort ourselves with the idea that elections alone guarantee democracy, but the fact is that democratic institutions can be hollowed out from within even as ballots are still being cast.In Hungary, under Orbán, elections exist, but the playing field is so tilted using tools like gerrymandering that the opposition never has a fair chance, the media was captured by Orbán-aligned oligarchs, and both the courts and the legislature were packed to the point where they lost their autonomy.That Hungarian model is now being mirrored in America. Project 2025’s blueprint doesn’t call for an overt single‐party take-over; rather it tweaks the administrative levers, centralizes power, bypasses checks and balances, staffs courts, commissions and agencies with loyalists, undermines election administration, and deploys state power to punish dissent while preserving the appearance of normalcy.Where are we on the spectrum? Much further than many pundits will admit.We now have elected and Trump-appointed officials who openly defy precedent, judicial rulings, and the rule of law; we have partisan weaponization of powerful institutions capable of punishing dissenters, ranging from the DOJ to the FBI and the IRS; we have dark-money networks influencing everything from policy to courts with the blessing of a corrupt Supreme Court; and we have billionaire capture of most of our media, producing widespread disinformation and naked attacks on the very idea of truth.That is less a democracy and more a system of “managed competition,” where electoral outcomes are shaped in advance, not determined by a fair contest. In short, the clock is running fast toward a complete loss of democracy, the “autocratic breakthrough” I’ve written about before.And while millions of Americans show up for protests — which matters — protests alone are nowhere near enough.In effect, while protesters may feel emboldened and signal a national discontent, in the absence of durable organization, leadership, and strategy the protests are easily absorbed, marginalized, or rendered irrelevant by Trump’s fascist forces and billionaire supporters once the streets are empty again.This is precisely the gap the Trump-Orbán-Putin model exploits. At the same time the marches are occurring, the foundation of the GOP’s up-and-coming fascist autocracy is being built: the staffing of key agencies, the rewriting of rules under emergency or administrative power, the gerrymandering and court packing, the stealth takeover of local precincts and state and county election commissions.We must be careful that the dazzle of street energy doesn’t blind us to the quiet but decisive work of tearing down the institutional foundations of authoritarian rule that Trump, the GOP, and their morbidly rich backers are quickly laying. If we’re to stop America’s slide toward fascism we must face that stark reality.The details underlying Project 2025 echo Hungary’s path with startling specificity. In that country a small, wealthy clique around Orbán orchestrated the capture of media, courts, electoral oversight bodies, and the constitution itself, which they then re-wrote (as Republicans are planning to do to ours when they get control of just a few more states).Orbán changed campaign finance rules, muzzled the press, and built a client state reliant on personal loyalty rather than democratic accountability. Want a government contract? Toss some money Orbán’s way, or at his family, or to his closest cronies. Want a pardon? Ditto. An exception to rules, laws, or even taxes? Ditto again.In the U.S. we see an analogous thinning of institutional independence, combined with the same type of cult of personality that always characterizes autocratic strongman governments. Trump’s openly expressed contempt for civil service norms, his threats to independent agencies, Republicans’ ideological staffing of courts all were cloned from the Hungarian template.And while the U.S. remains superficially democratic — voting still happens — the basis of open, free, fair, competitive elections is under vigorous assault by “tech bros” and other billionaires who openly disdain democracy itself.Trump announced last week that he’s sending “election monitors” to California and New Jersey — even though these are entirely state and not federal contests — presumably to intimidate both voters and election officials around the balloting happening in those states next week.Red states are gerrymandering to prevent Democrats from ever again controlling the House of Representatives. As I lay out in The Last American President, voter purges and ballot challenges knocked over 4 million mostly-Democratic voters off the rolls or prevented the ballots they cast from being counted in 2024, giving Trump and the GOP the White House and Congress.So what must Democrats — and unaffiliated/independent democracy advocates — do?We have to go beyond showing up in the streets and writing outraged posts on social media (although both do help). Movements that fail to coalesce around leaders and build institutions typically die in the glare of their own moral light.We need leadership and institutions capable of organizing, strategizing, and executing on multiple fronts: precincts, courts, local elections, media ecosystems, and state regulatory agencies. Protest without public faces and follow-through is like fireworks: beautiful, brief, and gone before the smoke clears.Our challenge is both structural and strategic, and, lacking hundreds of morbidly rich billionaires funding us like Trump has, we’re already way behind.It’s not enough to oppose; we must propose, build, and defend. Like Bernie Sanders is constantly pointing out, we must fight for reforms that fortify democracy: enforce campaign finance transparency, build public horror of concentrated media and money power, demand independent courts, safeguard election administration from partisan capture, and work to guarantee that our vote is harder to take away than our guns.We must train a generation of leaders who don’t just show up for the “march” but stay for the precinct meeting, the town hall, the election board challenge. We must invest in institutions — particularly the DNC — that outlast ephemeral flare-ups of outrage and build resilient and genuinely progressive democratic infrastructure.This is, after all, a progressive populist moment, as the Zohran Mamdani campaign in New York City and crowds showing up for Bernie and AOC’s Anti-Oligarchy Tour show. We just have to join it fully and ride its power.Here’s the plain truth: any movement that wants democracy to prevail must realize that its job is just beginning when the banners are raised and the cameras roll. The billionaire-funded rightwing movement bent on authoritarianism has its candidates, its loyalists, its media echo-chamber, and its policy train.This moment demands no less. We can no longer simply debate about policy or personality; we’re in a contest of governance models, of democratic vs authoritarian futures. James Carville recently told Jen Psaki that, “You aren’t scared enough yet!” Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, and the entire Democratic Party need to hear that message and act now. Along with the rest of us.The longer we leave the field uncontested, the more power we hand to those with a blueprint. The window is narrowing, and the Hungarian/Russian lesson is clear: when the opposition wins the street but not the state, democracy loses.All of us who believe in a republic of citizens — not subjects — must work to build not just rallies but infrastructure, not just energy but strategy, not just slogans but institutions.Join progressive organizations and get inside the Democratic Party. Bring energy, enthusiasm, and passion. If you’re inclined and capable, run for office yourself.The hour is urgent. The stakes are existential.

Oct 28, 2025 - World

President Donald Trump spoke on an aircraft carrier off the coast of Japan on Tuesday, and his comments were so overly political and partisan that one retired four-star general was left disgusted. Speaking in Japan, Trump teased the possibility of more wars, despite his 2024 election pledge to get the United States out of international wars and consider "America First" policies. "We will not be politically correct. You don't mind that, do you? When it comes to defending the United States, we're no longer politically correct," Trump rambled. "We're going to defend our country any way we have to. And that's usually not the politi-, politically correct way. From now on, if we're in a war, we're going to win the war. We're going to win it like nobody ever before. You know, we'd go in with — we'd blast the hell out of countries. Shouldn't have gone in. By the way, if you don't go in, that's even better. We don't have to go in peace through strength. But, you know, we'd go in, we'd win, and then we'd leave. They used to say to the victor belong the spoils. Well, we'd be the victor. Then we'd leave. Because we had people that didn't know what the hell they were doing."MSNBC's Jonathan Lemire said it's hardly anything new to see Trump treat military events like campaign rallies. This is his third example. Speaking to Katy Tur on Tuesday, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey said that it may not be new, but it isn't right. "He's unconstrained. And I think when you take that presentation aboard the carrier in Tokyo Bay, which sounded unhinged and was cringeworthy."He noted the new Japanese Prime Minister was also on hand as troops chanted USA. "It was bellicose. It was resonating with those young sailors. That's the other thing. You know, there is a widespread feeling among some in the military to push back against what they consider woke strictures on the armed forces. So we ought to be concerned about this," the general continued."If that speech in Tokyo aboard a carrier had been made by a military officer, he would have been canned and court martialed for violation of politicization of the military," McCaffrey continued. "But we got a real problem. This message is being heard, and people are responding to Trump's rhetoric."

Oct 26, 2025 - World

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) blasted the Trump administration Sunday for its ongoing military strikes on suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean, labeling them as “extrajudicial killings” that he argued were similar to how the Iranian or Chinese governments operate.“The drug or the crime war has typically been something we do through law enforcement, and so far they have alleged that these people are drug dealers,” Paul said, appearing on Fox News Sunday. “No one's said their name, no one's said what evidence, no one's said whether they're armed, and we've had no evidence presented. So at this point, I would call them extrajudicial killings. This is akin to what China does, to what Iran does with drug dealers, they summarily execute people without presenting evidence to the public, so it's wrong.”President Donald Trump has authorized at least ten strikes on suspected drug-carrying sea vessels since September, killing at least 43 people that his administration has labeled as “narco-terrorists.” The strikes have received widespread bi-partisan condemnation for potentially being a violation of international law, with the most-recent strike occurring late Thursday night into Friday morning, killing six.Trump’s authority to authorize the strikes has also been questioned by critics, who point to Congress’ sole authority to approve declarations of war. Congress has not approved the strikes, and, according to Paul, have not even been briefed on the operations, or the evidence – should any exist – that those targeted were actually engaged in drug trafficking.“We haven't had a briefing; to be clear, we've gotten no information, I've been invited to no briefing, but a briefing is not enough to overcome the Constitution,” Paul said. “The Constitution says that when you go to war, Congress has to vote on it, and during a war, there's a lower rules for engagement, and people do sometimes get killed without due process.”Rand Paul on Trump's strikes on boats: "I would call them extrajudicial killings. This is akin to what China does, what Iran does with drug dealers -- they summarily execute people without presenting evidence to the public. So it's wrong." pic.twitter.com/NPCIt9kzgT— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 26, 2025

Oct 26, 2025 - World

Donald Trump has ordered more deadly bombings of small fishing boats, killing everyone onboard, including an incident off the coast of Colombia. That was the ninth US attack against alleged drug dealers in international waters, just since September.Another strike was announced on Friday, bringing the number of people Trump calls “narco-terrorists” to have perished in these attacks up to 43. Trump previously told Fox News, “We take them out,” and later joked about how people, most of them desperately poor, are now afraid to fish along certain coastlines.Without releasing credible evidence, Trump claims the victims’ vessels were “stacked up with bags of white powder that’s mostly fentanyl and other drugs, too.” Trump says they were “smuggling a deadly weapon poisoning Americans,” on behalf of various “terrorist organizations.” Trump is calling the victims terrorists so that he can treat them as enemy combatants in a war that does not exist, just as he is doing at home. Domestically, we know Trump calls groups who oppose him politically “domestic terrorists.” We know he fabricated a domestic terrorist organization he calls “Antifa” to sell his plan for violence. We also know his administration is lying about peaceful protestors threatening ICE agents in order to justify ICE brutality, and that ICE refuses to wear body cams without a court order. Trump’s firehose of lies about domestic ‘terrorists’ won’t help his claims about ‘terrorists’ on the high seas.Is Trump confusing South America with China and Mexico?Colombian President Gustavo Petro has credibly accused Trump of murder. In response, instead of offering legal justification, Trump said he was cutting off foreign aid to Colombia, seemingly confusing that nation with Democratic-run states from whom he is also illegally withholding funds.Bragging about the killings, Trump falsely claimed that every exploded shipping vessel “saves 25,000 American lives.” In the factual world, about 100,000 Americans die each year from drug overdoses, mostly by fentanyl, which does not come from Venezuela, Colombia or any South American country. The fentanyl killing Americans comes from labs in Mexico and China. Given his difficulty with geography, Trump may not know the difference. At any rate, South America produces marijuana and cocaine, not fentanyl. Most of the killing fentanyl is smuggled into the country by US citizens, over land.Legal arguments don’t hold waterThe White House claims the strikes are a matter of self-defense. To get there, Trump “determined” that drug cartels like Tren de Aragua are “terrorists.” But officials say Tren de Aragua is not operating in the shipping routes under attack, and that the route Trump and Hegseth are targeting carries cocaine and marijuana to Europe and Africa, not the US.Legal experts on the use of armed force say Trump’s campaign is illegal because the military is not permitted to target civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities. Key legal instruments prohibiting extrajudicial killings and murder include the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Statute of the International Criminal Court, and customary international humanitarian law. The Trump administration has not publicly offered a legal theory that comports with any of these laws. Instead, the White House has argued that the attacks fall under the law of armed conflict (LOAC), which limits methods of warfare and sets out legally required protections for noncombatants and civilians during conflict. The US is in no such conflict; we are not under attack in the US or anywhere else, and Congress has declared no war.Designating drug cartels as “terrorist organizations” is also factually suspect. Drug cartels exist for profit; all purveyors of illicit drugs are in the business to make money. In contrast, “terrorists” by definition are motivated by ideological goals often involving politics or religion—not profit. Even if they were terrorists, international law would only allow the executive branch to respond through legal methods like freezing assets, trials and imprisonment. Hegseth and others will face court martial Trump and Hegseth’s legal arguments have been universally rejected by military legal experts including former lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, who have condemned the attacks as unlawful under both domestic and international law. Nevertheless, Hegseth has stated enthusiastically that the military will continue these executions.In February, Hegseth fired the JAGs whose job was to assess the legality of military actions. He may have deliberately done so to engage in illegal conduct and later claim a “mistake of law” defense, but that maneuver won’t save him. In US Servicemembers’ Exposure to Criminal Liability for Lethal Strikes on Narcoterrorists, Just Security lays it out under the Manual for Courts-Martial, and Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), concluding in the Venezuela strikes that:Despite the clear absence of an “imminent threat of death or serious injury” or “grave threat to life,” the U.S. Coast Guard did not interdict the alleged criminal narcotrafficking in the way this conduct has been historically (and recently) approached. These suspected criminals were not arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced through a regular course of criminal procedure and neutral adjudication in a court. They were killed extrajudicially for conduct that could not be plausibly labeled a military attack, use of force, or even threat of imminent harm to anyone in the United States or any other nation, and despite the opportunity and ability to use less-than-lethal force to stop the boats. An extrajudicial killing, premeditated and without justification or excuse and without the legal authority tied to an armed conflict, is properly called “murder.” And murder is still a crime for those in uniform who executed the strike even if their targets are dangerous criminals, and even if servicemembers were commanded to do so by their superiors, including the President of the United States.Under this analysis, “every officer in the chain of command who … directed downward the initial order from the President or Secretary of Defense” would likely fall within the meaning of traditional accomplice liability, and could be charged for murder under Article 118. Even if a corrupt Supreme Court gave Trump criminal immunity for murder (an unsettled question), someone should let Hegseth know that immunity does not extend to him, or to other service members piloting the drones or firing the missiles under orders that are obviously illegal.Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.