Connect with us

Politics

In Colombia, anger and disbelief at Trump threats of U.S. strikes

Published

on

In Colombia, anger and disbelief at Trump threats of U.S. strikes

An offhand comment by President Trump threatening to attack Colombia, a major U.S. ally, has roiled its government and confounded its public, anxious and unsure whether to take the U.S. leader seriously.

Trump’s remarks came during questions from reporters Tuesday over a prospective U.S. military campaign against drug trafficking networks in Latin America. The mission could expand beyond Venezuela, the prime target of nascent U.S. war plans, the president said.

“I hear Colombia, the country of Colombia, is making cocaine,” Trump said at a Cabinet meeting. “Then they sell us their cocaine. We appreciate that very much, but yeah, anybody that’s doing that and selling it into our country is subject to attack. Not just Venezuela.”

Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s first leftist president, who has repeatedly clashed with the White House, likened Trump’s bellicose rhetoric to a declaration of war.

“Do not threaten our sovereignty, because you will awaken the Jaguar,” Petro wrote on X. “Attacking our sovereignty is declaring war; do not damage two centuries of diplomatic relations.”

Advertisement

In an official communique, the Colombian Foreign Ministry called on “brotherly” nations in Latin America and the Caribbean to reject “any attempt at foreign intervention that seeks to undermine sovereignty.”

Trump’s latest threat comes amid deteriorating relations with Bogota, which celebrated 200 years of diplomatic relations with Washington just three years ago and, marking the occasion, was designated a major non-NATO ally by President Biden, a status celebrated across party lines on Capitol Hill.

Petro’s election that year began a shift, with U.S. assistance reduced in 2024 over Petro’s drug policies and, at the beginning of this year, paused completely by the Trump administration. The Treasury Department labeled Petro an “illegal drug dealer” in October and imposed sanctions against him and his family.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro has been a harsh critic of President Trump.

(Fernando Vergara / Associated Press)

Advertisement

Evan Ellis, who served in Trump’s first term planning State Department policy on Latin America, the Caribbean, and international narcotics, told The Times that strikes against Colombia are unlikely — but not as far-fetched as the prospect of a U.S. attack on Mexico, whose economic clout is greater, and whose government has fared better in diplomacy with Washington.

“There’s a strong hope that it’s just bluster — that, given Colombia has a sovereign government that the U.S. recognizes and has long worked with, it’s understood it would be catastrophic for the relationship,” Ellis said. “There’s a combination of concern and confusion, but there is a hope that this is just part of the president’s style.”

Trump’s secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and deputy secretary of State, Christopher Landau, both have deep knowledge of the region and are said to be advocating against military strikes against U.S. allies. But Petro’s insults against Trump, calling him “ignorant,” “profoundly rude” and “against humanity,” have rankled a U.S. president accustomed to obsequious praise.

“In a certain way, despite the close military relationship and everything at stake, you clearly have a president who’s been imprudent at best,” Ellis said of Petro. “Making shrill and defiant statements against Trump are about the clearest way to get on his bad side.”

Advertisement

United Nations figures show that Colombian cultivation of coca — the raw ingredient in cocaine — has reached record levels in recent years, fueled by rising demand for cocaine not only in the United States, but also Europe and elsewhere.

Whereas U.S.-Venezuelan relations have been strained for more than a quarter of a century, Colombia has long been viewed as a steadfast ally, receiving billions in aid from Washington destined for antidrug campaigns. The alliance has endured despite large-scale internal strife in Colombia and the nation’s status as the world’s primary producer and exporter of cocaine.

The specter of a U.S. military attack seemed unfathomable to many Colombians processing the news Wednesday.

“A few years ago, we would never have imagined that Colombia could be threatened with attacks on its territory,” said Sebastián Bitar, an analyst at the University of the Andes. “We trusted in the solid relationship between the United States and Colombia.”

Guillermo Cochez, a Panamanian politician who served as his nation’s ambassador to the Organization of American States, believes that Trump’s threat against Colombia amounts to bluster, noting close ties between U.S. Southern Command and the Colombian military. “The most Americanized military in Latin America is the Colombian military,” Cochez told The Times.

Advertisement

“The United States will not do anything in Colombia, because they have to solve Venezuela first. That will be happening in the next phase,” Cochez said.

“Petro has so many problems inside Colombia that is known by the American government,” Cochez added. “It’s a distraction for Donald Trump. He’s trying to use his fight with Trump to try to get some respect in Colombia.”

The armed forces of the two nations have collaborated for years, conducting joint training exercises and counter-narcotics operations. A unilateral strike could upend that relationship, wrote the Colombian daily El Heraldo in an editorial, warning a U.S. attack could spark an “unprecedented regional reaction, with internally displaced [civilians], retaliations by various actors, border crises and new diasporas.”

Throughout Latin America, Trump’s saber-rattling has alarmed many — especially on the left — reflecting the region’s historic wariness of U.S. intervention.

Alejandro Rusconi, a left-wing Argentine lawyer and analyst, called Trump’s statements “yet another demonstration of the belligerent escalation being carried out by the U.S. government against the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Advertisement

But many local analysts warned that Colombia needed to heed Trump’s threat, taking whatever steps are necessary to avoid a direct confrontation.

“Its not the time to provoke the United States,” economist Mauricio Reina told Red Más Noticias, a Colombian outlet.

“With Donald Trump,” he added, “one has to fly low, avoiding the radar.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Hegseth Says He Did Not See Survivors in September Boat Strike

Published

on

Video: Hegseth Says He Did Not See Survivors in September Boat Strike

new video loaded: Hegseth Says He Did Not See Survivors in September Boat Strike

transcript

transcript

Hegseth Says He Did Not See Survivors in September Boat Strike

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he had not seen survivors of a U.S. military strike on a boat in the Caribbean in September and that he “didn’t stick around” to watch a second strike that killed two people clinging to wreckage.

“I watched that first strike live. As you can imagine at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. So I didn’t stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs. So I moved on to my next meeting. A couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the — which he had the complete authority to do. And by the way, Admiral Bradley made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat.” Reporter: “So you didn’t see any survivors, to be clear, after that first strike? You personally?” “I did not personally see survivors, but I stand — Because the thing was on fire. It was exploded and fire or smoke, you can’t see anything, you got digital, there’s — This is called the fog of war.”

Advertisement
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he had not seen survivors of a U.S. military strike on a boat in the Caribbean in September and that he “didn’t stick around” to watch a second strike that killed two people clinging to wreckage.

By Axel Boada

December 3, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

War Secretary Hegseth highlights US ‘Drone Dominance’ push for mass adoption in modern warfare

Published

on

War Secretary Hegseth highlights US ‘Drone Dominance’ push for mass adoption in modern warfare

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth highlighted U.S. ambitions to acquire massive quantities of drones.

Hegseth, who noted that he is focused on “rebuilding” the nation’s military, said in a video message that “Drone Dominance is a billion-dollar program funded by President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill.”

“We cannot afford to shoot down cheap drones with $2 million dollar missiles. And we ourselves must be able to field large quantities of capable attack drones,” he said.

A DRONE FOR EVERY SOLDIER IN ARMY OF THE FUTURE, DRISCOLL SAYS

Advertisement

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stands prior to the NFL 2025 game between Detroit Lions and Washington Commanders at Northwest Stadium on Nov. 9, 2025, in Landover, Md. (Lauren Leigh Bacho/Getty Images)

“Drone dominance will do two things: Drive costs down and capabilities up. We will deliver tens of thousands of small drones to our force in 2026, and hundreds of thousands of them by 2027. I will soon be meeting with the military services to discuss transformational changes in warfighting doctrine. We need to outfit our combat units with unmanned systems at scale,” Hegseth asserted.

Business tycoon Elon Musk has repeatedly emphasized the importance of drones in war.

ZELENSKYY GIVES STARK WARNING ON FUTURE OF DRONE WARFARE AT UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Elon Musk during the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2025. (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

“Drones are the future of warfare. Manned aircraft are not,” he declared in a post on X earlier this year. 

“We better figure out how to build drones at scale fast or we are doomed to be a vassal state… ” he warned in another post.

PENTAGON EXPLORING COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS TO PREVENT INCURSIONS OVER NATIONAL SECURITY FACILITIES

In a post last year he wrote, “Future wars are all about drones & hypersonic missiles. Fighter jets piloted by humans will be destroyed very quickly.” 

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Review: Yes, we give you permission to hate-read ‘American Canto’

Published

on

Review: Yes, we give you permission to hate-read ‘American Canto’

“You cannot outrun your life on fire,” writes political journalist — and recent tabloid darling — Olivia Nuzzi in the opening pages of her much-anticipated memoir, “American Canto.”

The release of “American Canto” will no doubt stoke that fire — not extinguish it — if the latter was Nuzzi’s wish when her reputation went up in flames about a year ago. As the result of revelations of an alleged affair with her interview subject, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (who has denied it) during his run for president, Nuzzi was notoriously fired from her job as Washington correspondent for New York Magazine. Her fiancé — political reporter Ryan Lizza — broke off their engagement. A frenzied media storm has since ensued, in which Nuzzi is either victim or perpetrator, depending on your point of view. With “the debris of her life” littering the planet, Nuzzi fled the East Coast for a secluded bungalow in the Southern California hills, where she vowed to no longer “see myself, the character of myself imagined by others, viral allegory of hubris, female avatar of Icarus, stripped and left for dead in a pool of wax.” She recounts pledging “a vow of silence,” and “to fall silent in myself, too.” Further, she writes that “I do not wish to be understood, which no one seems to understand.”

Author Olivia Nuzzi.

(Emilio Madrid / Photo from Simon & Schuster)

Advertisement

In writing “American Canto,” while Nuzzi has broken her vow of silence — smashing it into smithereens and setting off a wave of public retribution by Lizza — she has succeeded brilliantly in her wish not to be understood. Nuzzi emerges less as someone who, in the words of her publisher, “walked through hell and she took notes,” but as a woman whose version of the events that laid her low remain stubbornly unprocessed — as blurry and borderless as the book itself.

Nuzzi has been a keen political observer, praised, for example, by legendary longtime editor Tina Brown for her “unabashed bravura” and “vivid, irreverent coverage” — which is no doubt among the talents that led Vanity Fair to risk hiring her, post-scandal, as their West Coast editor earlier this year. And those skills helped establish Nuzzi as an emerging media star in the first place, with ready access to the biggest names in politics. But in the pages of “American Canto,” those storytelling skills falter, as the author loses the narrative thread — avoiding confrontation even as she plunges into it. Where exactly is she going with all of this?, one can’t help but wonder. “It is inconceivable,” Nuzzi writes of the paparazzi who stalk her, “that someone would choose to allow a crisis to go to waste, would not want to make of their attention more attention, would not want to reap some kind of short-term profit from the mess of their life.” But isn’t “American Cantoan attempt to enter the belly of that beast?

Nuzzi’s aim in offering this account remains cloudy, but readers looking for a mea culpa won’t find it here. The author’s few attempts at regret or self-reflection don’t land, nor do her efforts to contrive a kind of contemporary, Didion-inspired journalistic style that mixes meticulous observation with first-person intimacy. Court transcripts, transcripts of conversations Nuzzi’s had with other reporters and snapshots of a D.C. politico’s high life collide with one another in disjointed chapters that eschew timelines and zigzag among subjects. There are lengthy digressions involving, say, the puzzling practices of an American flag warehouse, or the time the FBI apparently investigated the author of the children’s book “Harold and the Purple Crayon.Nuzzi intends these as part of a larger mosaic, and while they are occasionally intriguing, they exist as fragments, precluding any possibility of narrative momentum.

Yes, Nuzzi does provide some sharply insightful perspectives on Trump she gained through her “method reporting style” and talent for “talking to people who are abhorrent,” though she largely withholds judgement of the man she likens to a king who has been run out of his castle, after Biden’s election. Trump now “must resurrect himself,” she writes, “project the self that he wishes the world to see, and he must see it so clear that through his insistent clarity he conjures the vision for others until is it not a vision at all but the truth of his existence and the truth of yours.” She’s a witness to his powers of destruction. “His lawlessness inspired lawlessness. His rejection of norms called norms into question,” she notes. But when her alleged lover, Kennedy, comes to her for advice on whether he should align with Trump, all she can muster is to approach “his dilemma Socratically.” In those moments, Nuzzi writes, she asked Kennedy, “How do you feel when you visualize standing onstage and endorsing the Democrat?” He responds, “Nauseous.” Then she asks, “How do you feel when you visualize standing onstage and endorsing the Republican?” “Nauseous,” he responds. It’s important to Nuzzi that she maintain neutrality, apparently blind to her own bias. While Kennedy had acute misgivings about either choice, Nuzzi reports that the Trump option “seemed the surest way of maximizing his influence.” However, she adds that Kennedy was “clear-eyed about the president himself.” He always thought of Trump “as a novel: hundreds of lies that amounted to one big truth.” What that truth is, we’re left to guess.

In Lizza’s widely-circulated revenge series of Substacks meant to counter any negativity Nuzzi aims at him in “American Canto” — and in fairness, his presence barely registers, except that he may have set off the entire hullabaloo — he suggests his ex’s most egregious transgression was journalistic. Yes, Nuzzi cheated on him with a famous married man, but she was also aiding and abetting that man politically through her writing. Lizza also alleges that Nuzzi may have helped quash negative coverage of Kennedy, and that her coverage of Biden was potentially tainted by her desire to protect the man she was in love with. While she skirts this fundamental issue in the book, Nuzzi does affirm her inexplicably passionate feelings for Kennedy. She writes that she “loved that he was insatiable in all ways,” and when he threw himself down onto the bed of their hotel room, “his pink shirt unbuttoned, revealing my favorite parts of his chest.” She shares in her pages that Kennedy “told me he loved me,” after which she realizes that “the sound of him made me smile, that the sight of him made me smile, that just the thought of him made me smile.” Even in his “darkness,” she saw “softness.” He tells Nuzzi that what he felt for her was as powerful as “waves knocking me down.” What drew them together? Nuzzi writes that “we were both of us, vain, and our shared reverence for physical beauty, was in part, what bonded us.” That bond wouldn’t hold: when their alleged relationship threatened Kennedy’s position, he denied it had ever transpired.

Advertisement

Nuzzi describes the grief she feels over this betrayal, but from a distance, shrouded in verbosity. What she’d experienced, she writes, “was a kind of death … one that called for a period of griefless mourning. It was the death of an idea. An idea of self. Not of self itself. Not of myself. But of an iteration of myself.” I get it, but … ?

“American Canto” contains no footnotes or sourcing, and its main players are referred to not by name, but using designations such as “the Politician” (for Kennedy), “the Personality” or “the South African tech billionaire” — presumably for Elon Musk. Nuzzi claims to have a near-photographic memory for recalling conversations, which she relies on here to recount some of the book’s central events. There’s a maddening quality to these editorial choices that make it difficult to view Nuzzi as a character worthy of sympathy — which after all, may not be what she was trying for.

And yet that’s what we crave. We want to be able to root for this woman, whose misguided love led her to egregious personal and professional compromises she hasn’t reckoned with here. In real life, Nuzzi may have risked it all, but as an author, she hasn’t been as fearless, using words as armor, not conduit. It’s an understandably protective posture, but not one that has produced a memoir of consequence.

Haber is a writer, editor and publishing strategist. She was director of Oprah’s Book Club and books editor for O, the Oprah Magazine.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending