Pentagon Under Fire: Drug Boat Strikes Kill Survivors

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced growing scrutiny over the Trump administration's targeted strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, with particular focus on a September operation that targeted two men who survived an initial strike on their vessel but were killed in a second hit. The admiral in charge of the mission appeared on Capitol Hill this week for closed-door briefings with members of Congress, with NBC News reporting that Admiral Frank Bradley told lawmakers that everyone on the boat was on a list of military targets. At the same time, the Trump administration maintains its actions have been legal. Defense Secretary Hegseth said, “I did not personally see survivors, but I stood because the thing was on fire,” adding, “This is called the fog of war.”

The debate has split lawmakers, with Republican Senator Tom Cotton saying, “I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat, loaded with drugs bound for the United States, back over so they could stay in the fight.” At the same time, Democratic Representative Jim Himes countered, “You have two individuals in clear distress.” The controversy echoes the Iran-Contra Affair from the 1980s, when the Reagan administration secretly sold arms to Iran and diverted profits to fund anti-communist contras in Nicaragua despite a congressional ban, eventually erupting into a major national scandal. The legal basis for Trump’s military strikes without congressional authorization remains contested, with critics arguing the operations violate international law and the Constitution’s war powers provisions. At the same time, the administration insists the president has the authority to target drug traffickers threatening national security.

Supreme Court to Decide Birthright Citizenship

On December 5, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and temporary visitors, with the case Trump v. Washington centered on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. The 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship to all persons born in the United States, and President Trump’s executive order is set to challenge this fundamental constitutional guarantee that has been settled law since 1868. The case represents one of the most significant constitutional challenges of Trump’s second term and could have far-reaching implications for immigration policy and the rights of millions of U.S.-born children.

The outcome, expected by July 2026, could fundamentally reshape American citizenship law and immigration policy. Legal scholars overwhelmingly agree the 14th Amendment’s language—“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens”—clearly establishes birthright citizenship, with the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause historically understood to exclude only children of foreign diplomats and hostile occupying forces, not undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. Trump’s executive order argues that children of undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This interpretation contradicts over 150 years of legal precedent, including the landmark 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.. If Trump’s position prevails, it could create a permanent underclass of stateless children born on American soil—a radical departure from American legal tradition that experts warn would violate international human rights law.