Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Return of American Imperialism

Opinion

The Return of American Imperialism

Screenshot from a video moments before US forces struck a boat in international waters off Venezuela, September 2.

The Trump administration’s recent airstrike on a small vessel in the southern Caribbean—allegedly carrying narcotics and members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang—was not just a military maneuver. It was a signal. A signal that American imperialism, long cloaked in diplomacy and economic influence, is now being rebranded as counterterrorism and narcotics enforcement.

President Trump announced the strike with characteristic bravado, claiming the vessel was operated by “Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists.”


Trump said on Truth Social: The strike occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States. No U.S. Forces were harmed in this strike. Please let this serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America. BEWARE!”

Eleven people were killed. No trial. No extradition. No independent verification. Just a grainy video and a declaration of guilt from 30,000 feet.

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News, “This is a deadly serious mission for us, and it won’t stop with just this strike.” That statement should chill anyone who believes in proportionality, sovereignty, or the rule of law.

Let’s be clear: Tren de Aragua is a violent criminal organization. It has been linked to extortion, human trafficking, and regional instability. But according to InSight Crime, it is not a major player in international drug trafficking. And it is certainly not a transnational terrorist threat on par with ISIS or al-Qaeda.

So why the airstrike? Why the escalation?

Legal experts like Mark Nevitt, writing for Just Security, warn that labeling drug traffickers as terrorists could open the door to a new “forever war”—one where the U.S. president claims unchecked authority to kill civilians based on vague affiliations and unverified intelligence. “Applying a new label to an old problem does not transform the problem itself,” Nevitt writes. “Nor does it grant the U.S. president or the U.S. military expanded legal authority to kill civilians.”

This is not just about Venezuela. It’s about the precedent. It’s about the normalization of extrajudicial violence in the name of national security. It’s about the erosion of international norms and the reemergence of a foreign policy rooted in domination rather than diplomacy.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro called the strike “extravagant, unjustifiable, immoral, and absolutely criminal.” While Maduro’s own record on human rights is deeply troubling, his condemnation of the strike raises legitimate questions about sovereignty and the weaponization of U.S. power.

This is not the first time the U.S. has used Latin America as a proving ground for its military ambitions. From the Monroe Doctrine to the Cold War to the War on Drugs, the region has long been treated as a backyard—ripe for intervention, manipulation, and control.

But today’s imperialism is different. It’s not about boots on the ground. It’s about drones in the sky, algorithms in the war room, and narratives crafted to justify violence. It’s about redefining threats to fit political agendas and using military force to send messages rather than solve problems.

Mainstream media should not treat this strike as a one-off event. It is part of a pattern—a pattern of expanding executive power, eroding legal standards, and militarizing foreign policy under the guise of public safety.

We owe it to the public we serve to ask harder questions: Who decides who is a terrorist? What evidence is required before a missile is launched? And what happens when the line between law enforcement and warfare disappears altogether?

This is not just a story about a boat in the Caribbean. It’s a story about the future of American power—and whether we will continue to accept its most dangerous expressions without scrutiny or consequence.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network. Balta is the only person to serve twice as president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ).


Read More

2026 Democracy Awards Honor Excellence Across Congressional Offices
white concrete building during daytime

2026 Democracy Awards Honor Excellence Across Congressional Offices

The Congressional Management Foundation's Democracy Awards recognize congressional offices that demonstrate excellence in public service. While the headlines often focus on conflict, this year's winners remind us that strong leadership, thoughtful management, and a commitment to continuous improvement strengthen both Congress and the constituents it serves

Constituent service remains one of Congress's core functions, and this year's winners of the Best of Constituent Service Award demonstrate that excellence requires exceptional organizations and internal infrastructure. For example, Senator Adam Schiff's office (D-CA) streamlined processes by creating online forms for casework authorization and privacy releases. This system allows constituents to submit requests in minutes, streamlining a process that traditionally required extensive time and resources, resulting in more efficient casework intake

Keep ReadingShow less
Graham’s legacy & his failure over Trump

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, listens to President Donald Trump unveiling the Kennedy Center Honors nominees on Aug. 13, 2025, at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C.

(Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

Graham’s legacy & his failure over Trump

I met the late Sen. Lindsey Graham about 20 years ago, when I was coming up in conservative politics.

I had been part of the neoconservative wing that believed in the “benevolent hegemon” version of America, and the idea that “history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will,” as Francis Fukuyama once described it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Defense of ICE Traffic Stops Shows a President Willing to Risk Lives for Politics

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on July 14, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Trump’s Defense of ICE Traffic Stops Shows a President Willing to Risk Lives for Politics

President Donald Trump blasted ICE’s decision to suspend most vehicle stops after agents fatally shot two men just six days apart in Texas and Maine, declaring on his social media site: “We CANNOT give up one of ICE’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!” His response made the stakes unmistakably clear. Instead of acknowledging the loss of life or the urgent need for accountability, Trump rushed to defend the very tactic that produced these deadly encounters. Once again, he signaled that the wellbeing of people — immigrants or citizens — matters far less to him than protecting his political agenda.

Trump’s posture toward ICE has always been rooted in escalation. He has framed undocumented immigrants as threats, encouraged aggressive enforcement, and rewarded secrecy over transparency. The consequences of that approach are now visible in a series of fatal encounters that reveal an agency operating without meaningful oversight.

Keep ReadingShow less
A War We Cannot Win — And a Lesson America Should Have Learned Long Ago

Protesters gather in central London to rally against what they see as Donald Trump's reckless and illegal war on Iran, marching from Westminster to the US embassy.

(Photo by Martin Pope/Getty Images)

A War We Cannot Win — And a Lesson America Should Have Learned Long Ago

The conflict between the U.S. and Iran has escalated into open confrontation, with operations intensifying near the Strait of Hormuz. What began in early 2026 as tit‑for‑tat exchanges has hardened into a grinding confrontation — one driven less by strategic necessity than by presidential ego and the fantasy of dismantling Iran’s Islamic Revolution. It is a war shaped by one man’s impulses, not by national deliberation. And it is a war the United States cannot win.

The question that echoes is simple: Did the United States learn nothing from Vietnam?

Keep ReadingShow less