drug

Catatumbo, Colombia – The Catatumbo region, which stretches along the border with Venezuela in the department of Norte de Santander, is Colombia’s most volatile frontier.

Endowed with oil reserves and coca crops but impoverished and neglected, this border area has historically been a site of violent competition between armed groups fighting for territorial control.

The National Liberation Army (ELN), Colombia’s largest remaining guerrilla force, maintains a strong and organised presence, operating across the porous border with Venezuela.

It is there that some of their fighters pick up an Al Jazeera reporting team and drive us to meet their commanders.

Tensions remain high in this region. In January, thousands of people were displaced because of the fighting between the ELN and a dissident faction from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) that continues to operate in some parts of the country in spite of peace agreements brokered in 2016.

The fight is over control of the territory and access to the border with Venezuela, which is a crucial way to move drugs out of the country.

Entering the area, it’s immediately apparent that the ELN is in total control here. There is no evidence of the country’s military. ELN flags decorate the sideroads, and the signs give a clear message of the way the group’s members see Colombia right now.

“Total peace is a failure,” they say.

There is also no mobile phone signal. People tell the Al Jazeera team that telephone companies do not want to pay a tax to the armed groups controlling the territory.

When President Gustavo Petro took office, he promised to implement a total peace plan with Colombia’s armed groups. But the negotiations have not been easy, especially with the ELN.

Government offcials suspended the peace talks because of the fighting in Catatumbo, but now say they are ready to reinitiate talks.

Al Jazeera meets with Commander Ricardo and Commander Silvana in a small house in the middle of the mountains. The interview has to be fast, they say, as they are concerned about a potential attack and reconnaissance drones that have been circulating in the area.

The commanders are accompanied by some of their fighters. Asked how many they have in the area, they respond, “We are thousands, and not everyone is wearing their uniforms. Some are urban guerrillas.”

The government estimates the ELN has around 3,000 fighters. But the figure could be much higher.

Commander Ricardo, who is in charge of the region, says he believes there could be a chance for peace.

“The ELN has been battling for a political solution for 30 years with various difficulties,” he says. “We believed that with Petro, we would advance in the process. But that did not happen. There’s never been peace in Colombia. What we have is the peace of the graves.”

The group and the government had been meeting in Mexico prior to the suspension of the talks. “If the accords we had in Mexico are still there, I believe our central command would agree [it] could open up the way for a political solution to this conflict”, Commander Ricardo tells Al Jazeera.

US drugs threat

But it’s not just the fight with the Colombian state that has armed groups here on alert. The United States military campaign against alleged drug vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific – and the US’s aggressive posture towards the government of neighbouring Venezuela – have brought an international dimension to what was once an internal Colombian conflict.

The administration of US President Donald Trump refers to these people not as guerrillas but “narco-terrorists”, and has not ruled out the possibility of attacking them on Colombian soil.

The US operation, which began in early September, has killed more than 62 people, including nationals from Venezuela and Colombia, and destroyed 14 boats and a semi-submersible.

Some of the commanders have an extradition request from the US, and the government says they are wanted criminals.

The US strikes against boats allegedly carrying drugs in the Caribbean and the military build-up in the region to ramp up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro are seen by the ELN as another act of US imperialism.

The US government claims one of those boats belonged to the ELN. “Why don’t they capture them and show the world what they captured and what they are they trafficking?” Commander Ricardo asks. “But no, they erase them with a bomb.”

He also warns about the possibility of the ELN joining in the fight against the US. “In the hypothesis that Trump attacks Venezuela, we will have to see how we respond, but it’s not just us,” he says. “[It’s] all of Latin America because I am sure there are going to be many, many people who will grab a weapon and fight because it’s too much. The fact that the United States can step over people without respecting their self-determination has to end.”

The ELN was inspired by the Cuban revolution. But over the years, it has been involved in kidnappings, killings, extortion, and drug trafficking.

Commander Silvana, who joined the group when she was a teen, says the ELN is not like other armed groups in the country.

“Our principles indicate that we are not involved in drug trafficking,” she says. “We have told this to the international community. What we have is taxes in the territories we have been controlling for over 60 years. And if there is coca, of course, we tax it, too.”

Colombia has been a crucial US ally in the region over the decades in the fight against drug trafficking. But Petro has increasingly questioned the US policy in the Caribbean, arguing that Washington’s approach to security and migration reflects out-of-date Cold War logic rather than the region’s current realities.

He has criticised the US military presence and naval operations near Venezuela, warning that such tactics risk increasing tensions instead of promoting cooperation.

Trump has accused Petro, who is a former guerrilla, of being a drug trafficker himself.

Petro responded angrily, writing on X, “Colombia has never been rude to the United States. To the contrary, it has loved its culture very much. But you are rude and ignorant about Colombia.”

Colombia’s Foreign Ministry also condemned Trump’s remarks as offensive and a direct threat to the country’s sovereignty, and vowed to seek international support in defence of Petro and Colombian autonomy.

The belligerent US approach to Venezuela and Colombia, both led by leftist presidents – and the heightened possibility of a US military intervention – risk turning a local Colombia conflict into a broader regional one.

Everyone on the ground is now assessing how they will respond if the US government gives its military the green light to attack Venezuela.

Nov. 2 (UPI) — The United States killed three people in its latest strike against alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has announced.

Hegseth said in a post to social media Saturday that American forces conducted a kinetic strike against the vessel in international waters.

He said three “narco-terrorists” were on board and all three were killed.

“These narco-terrorists are bringing drugs to our shores to poison Americans at home — and they will not succeed,” he said. “The department will treat them exactly how we treated Al-Qaeda. We will continue to track them, map them, hunt them and kill them.”

At least 64 people have now been killed by the U.S. in 15 strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean since they began in September.

The strikes have been celebrated by families who have lost their children to fentanyl poisoning, some of whom recently rallied in the nation’s capital for a day of remembrance.

“One boat, two boat, three boat — boom!” a mother who lost her 15-year-old son to Percocet laced with fentanyl told Fox News is how she feels about the strikes on boats allegedly transporting drugs to the United States. “Who did it? Trump did it!”

President Donald Trump in September told reporters that he had authorized the CIA to operate in Venezuela during the summer as the Pentagon was directing a slow military buildup in the waters off the South American country.

On Oct. 24, weeks into the anti-drug trafficking campaign, Hegseth directed the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group to transit to the Caribbean. The group includes three destroyers, in addition to the aircraft carrier.

There already were eight naval surface vessels, a submarine and roughly 6,000 soldiers deployed to the area before the strike group was ordered there from the Mediterranean.

Trump, who notified Congress that he was engaged in conflict with drug cartels, has said in recent weeks as the naval presence has grown that he is considering whether to allow strikes inside Venezuela to combat the cartels and weaken Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro‘s administration.

But the strikes have raised concerns of escalating an conflict that could to war with Venezuela and Colombia, according to reports.

U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., filed a bipartisan bill that aims to prevent the Trump administration from entering a full-throated war with Venezuela.

Critics of the Trump administration’s actions have expressed that only Congress can declare war.

On Friday, the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said they violate international law and amount to extrajudicial killings.

“Under international human rights law, the intentional use of lethal force is only permissible as a last resort against individuals who pose an imminent threat to life,” High Commissioner Volker Türk said.

“Based on the very sparse information provided publicly by the US authorities, none of the individuals on the targeted boats appeared to pose an imminent threat to the lives of others or otherwise justified the use of lethal armed force against them under international law,”

SAN DIEGO — As a bemused crowd of would-be illegal immigrants looked on from a makeshift hilltop refreshment stand, Republican presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan on Tuesday stepped into a confrontational arena that sums up his often confrontational campaign: the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I am calling attention to a national disgrace,” Buchanan told reporters, his suit and shoes dusty from a Border Patrol tour of the rugged terrain. “The failure of the national government of the United States to protect the borders of the United States from an illegal invasion that involves at least a million aliens a year. As a consequence of that, we have social problems and economic problems. And drug problems.”

Saying that up to 1,000 illegal immigrants were among those arrested during the Los Angeles riots, Buchanan repeated his previous calls to fortify key sections of the border with ditches and concrete-buttressed fences and to deploy U.S. military forces there if necessary.

Buchanan also advocated doubling the size of the Border Patrol to 6,600 agents, staffing immigration checkpoints on Interstates 5 and 15 24 hours a day and charging a $2 toll on legal crossings to pay for tougher enforcement.

“I don’t believe in being brutal on anyone,” he said. “But I do think that any country that wants to call itself a nation has got to defend its borders.”

Illegal immigration lies at the heart of Buchanan’s vision of what is wrong with America; the issue is perhaps the strongest attention-getter in Southern California for his fading GOP challenge.

Buchanan’s first visit to the San Diego-Tijuana border made for strange media theater. The candidate arrived by four-wheel-drive vehicle to a hot, dusty ridge overlooking Smuggler’s Canyon, a prime crossing area, where a new corrugated steel barrier meets an old, battered chain-link fence. Buchanan supporters in suits and ties reached across the international line to buy soft drinks at a makeshift refreshment stand.

About 25 Mexican migrants, most of whom had heard only vaguely of Buchanan, chatted with security agents and tried to make sense of the pin-striped visitor.

“He’s a presidential candidate?” asked a man named Guillermo. “Does he speak Spanish? Ask him if he can pull the migra out of here for 24 hours, then he can do whatever he wants. Ask him if he can give me a ride to Los Angeles.”

Filoberto, a wiry 23-year-old from Mexicali, scoffed when informed that Buchanan advocates sealing the border and giving the Border Patrol more agents and equipment.

“They have all kinds of technology,” said Filoberto, who was waiting to make his fourth attempt at crossing in a week. “But we are smarter; people are smarter than machines. We are still going to cross. In fact, as soon as all of you people get out of here, we are going to go for it.”

To the discomfort of Buchanan aides, neo-Nazi Tom Metzger showed up with a handful of raucous supporters.

Metzger’s group hovered at the edges of the press conference, yelling insults about illegal immigrants, Republicans and Democrats.

Metzger, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Aryan Resistance, was recently convicted of unlawful assembly in a Los Angeles cross-burning. He was sentenced to six months in jail but released after 46 days because of his wife’s illness and subsequent death. He said he wanted to talk to Buchanan about getting “action” to control the border.

But Buchanan rejected Metzger, saying that if Metzger contributed money to his campaign it would be returned. “I don’t have anything to do with him,” he said.

Buchanan said he thinks that he can influence President Bush’s policy–despite the fact that Bush has the GOP nomination locked up. “I think we are going to get George Bush to do something about this before that election, or at least speak to this,” he said. “He’d better do it, or he’s going to have problems.”

The White House claimed, without providing evidence, the vessel was operated by a ‘designated terrorist organisation’.

The White House has said United States forces have bombed another alleged drug smuggling vessel in the eastern Pacific Ocean, killing four men, just days after confirming it killed 14 people in three separate strikes on vessels in the area.

US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in a post on X late on Wednesday that the “Department of War”, the new name for the recently rebranded Department of Defense, had “carried out a lethal kinetic strike on yet another narco-trafficking vessel”.

Hegseth said “four male narco-terrorists” were killed aboard the vessel, which was “operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization”. He did not provide an exact location for the attack, but said it was conducted in international waters in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

“This vessel, like all the others, was known by our intelligence to be involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, was transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics,” Hegseth said, posting aerial footage of the strike.

None of the victims of Wednesday’s attack have been identified.

Earlier today, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out a lethal kinetic strike on yet another narco-trafficking vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO) in the Eastern Pacific.

This vessel, like all the others, was known by our… pic.twitter.com/mBOLA5RYQe

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) October 29, 2025

The strike occurred at a time when US President Donald Trump was on the last leg of a three-nation trip in Asia. On Thursday, Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, their first summit since 2019. Trump also visited Malaysia and Japan before South Korea.

Earlier this week, Hegseth said US forces carried out three lethal strikes against boats accused of trafficking illegal narcotics on Monday. The attacks, which also took place in the eastern Pacific Ocean, reportedly killed 14 people and left one survivor.

Following the strikes, Hegseth said that “the Department has spent over TWO DECADES defending other homelands. Now, we’re defending our own”.

Since September 2, the US military has carried out at least 14 strikes targeting some 15 maritime vessels in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean.

At least 61 people have now been confirmed killed by the two-month-long campaign, which has also seen the US bolster its military presence in the Caribbean to unusually high levels.

The White House has yet to provide any evidence to the public for any of the strikes to substantiate its allegations of drug trafficking.

The Trump administration has framed the strikes as a national security measure, claiming the alleged drug traffickers are “unlawful combatants” in a “non-international armed conflict”.

Critics have called the unilateral strikes a form of extrajudicial killing and a violation of international law, which largely prohibits countries from using lethal military force against non-combatants outside a conflict zone.

“We continue to emphasise the need for all efforts to counter transnational organised crime to be conducted in accordance with international law,” Miroslav Jenca, the United Nations’ assistant secretary-general for the Americas, told the UN Security Council this month.

PHILADELPHIA — After waiting more than four decades to clear his name in a friend’s 1980 killing, Subramanyam Vedam was set to walk free from a Pennsylvania prison this month.

Vedam and Thomas Kinser were the 19-year-old children of Penn State University faculty. Vedam was the last person seen with Kinser and was twice convicted of killing him, despite a lack of witnesses or motive.

In August, a judge threw out the conviction after Vedam’s lawyers found new ballistics evidence that prosecutors had never disclosed.

As his sister prepared to bring him home on Oct. 3, the thin, white-haired Vedam was instead taken into federal custody over a 1999 deportation order. The 64-year-old, who legally came to the U.S. from India when he was 9 months old, now faces another daunting legal fight.

Amid the Trump administration’s focus on mass deportations, Vedam’s lawyers must persuade an immigration court that a 1980s drug conviction should be outweighed by the years he wrongly spent in prison. For a time, immigration law allowed people who had reformed their lives to seek such waivers. Vedam never pursued it then because of the murder conviction.

“He was someone who’s suffered a profound injustice,” said immigration lawyer Ava Benach. And “those 43 years aren’t a blank slate. He lived a remarkable experience in prison.”

Vedam earned several degrees behind bars, tutored hundreds of fellow inmates and went nearly half a century with just a single infraction, involving rice brought in from the outside.

His lawyers hope immigration judges will consider the totality of his case. The administration, in a brief filed Friday, opposes the effort. So Vedam remains at an 1,800-bed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in central Pennsylvania.

“Criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in an email about the case.

‘Mr. Vedam, where were you born?’

After his initial conviction was thrown out, Vedam faced an unusual set of questions at his 1988 retrial.

“Mr. Vedam, where were you born?” Centre County Dist. Atty. Ray Gricar asked. “How frequently would you go back to India?

“During your teenage years, did you ever get into meditation?”

Gopal Balachandran, the Penn State Dickinson Law professor who won the reversal, believes the questions were designed to alienate him from the all-white jury, which returned a second guilty verdict.

The Vedams were among the first Indian families in the area known as “Happy Valley,” where his father had come as a postdoctoral fellow in 1956. An older daughter was born in State College, but “Subu,” as he was known, was born when the family was back in India in 1961.

They returned to State College for good before his first birthday and became the family that welcomed new members of the Indian diaspora to town.

“They were fully engaged. My father loved the university. My mother was a librarian, and she helped start the library,” said the sister, Saraswathi Vedam, 68, a midwifery professor in Vancouver, British Columbia.

While she left for college in Massachusetts, Subu became swept up in the counterculture of the late 1970s, growing his hair long and dabbling in drugs while taking classes at Penn State.

One day in December 1980, Vedam asked Kinser for a ride to nearby Lewisburg to buy drugs. Kinser was never seen again, although his van was found outside his apartment. Nine months later, hikers found his body in a wooded area miles away.

Vedam was detained on drug charges while police investigated and was ultimately charged with murder. He was convicted in 1983 and sentenced to life without parole. To resolve the drug case, he pleaded no contest to four counts of selling LSD and a theft charge. The 1988 retrial offered no reprieve from his situation.

Although the defense long questioned the ballistics evidence in the case, the jury, which heard that Vedam had bought a .25-caliber gun from someone, never heard that an FBI report suggested the bullet wound was too small to have been fired from that gun. Balachandran only found that report as he dug into the case in 2023.

After hearings on the issue, a Centre County judge threw out the conviction and the district attorney decided this month to not retry the case.

Trump officials oppose the petition

Benach, the immigration lawyer, often represents clients trying to stay in the U.S. despite an earlier infraction. Still, she finds the Vedam case “truly extraordinary” given the constitutional violations involved.

“Forty-three years of wrongful imprisonment more than makes up for the possession with intent to distribute LSD when he was 20 years old,” she said.

Vedam could spend several more months in custody before the Board of Immigration Appeals decides whether to reopen the case. ICE officials, in a brief Friday, said the clock ran out years ago.

“He has provided no evidence nor argument to show he has been diligent in pursuing his rights as it pertains to his immigration status,” Katherine B. Frisch, an assistant chief counsel, wrote.

Saraswathi Vedam is saddened by the latest delay but said her brother remains patient.

“He, more than anybody else, knows that sometimes things don’t make sense,” she said. “You have to just stay the course and keep hoping that truth and justice and compassion and kindness will win.”

Dale writes for the Associated Press.

The ex-wife of the Angels employee who gave pitcher Tyler Skaggs fentanyl-laced opioid pills was steadfast in her testimony Monday and Tuesday that Angels executives knew of her then-husband’s opioid abuse for several years before Skaggs died after chopping up and snorting the pills in 2019.

The testimony of Camela Kay directly contradicted that of the Angels then-vice president of communications, Tim Mead, and traveling secretary Tom Taylor, both of whom testified during the first week of a trial in Orange County Superior Court that is expected to last until December.

Skaggs’ widow, Carli, and his parents, Debbie Hetman and Darrell Skaggs, are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the Angels and are seeking $118 million in lost earnings, unspecified damages for pain and suffering plus punitive damages.

Camela Kay’s testimony fortified the Skaggs family’s contention that the Angels knew that Eric Kay — the team’s communications director of 23 years who is now serving a 22-year prison term for his role in Skaggs’ death — had serious drug problems and that his supervisors and co-workers did not follow team and Major League Baseball policies in dealing with the issues.

Leah Graham, another in the Skaggs family’s deep roster of accomplished attorneys, questioned Camela Kay, taking her through a timeline beginning in 2013 when she first recognized that her husband had a drug problem.

During an Angels road trip to New York to play the Yankees, Eric admitted to her, “I take five Vicodin a day,” Camela testified. She said he made the admission in front of Mead and Taylor, whom she described as shocked, and they told her they “were going to do whatever they could to help him.”

She continued to suspect illicit drug use, however, and the issues came to the forefront in 2017, when the Kay family staged in intervention at their home on Oct. 1, the day after the Angels’ season ended.

Camela testified about a phone call that day in which she said she told Taylor that Eric’s sister, Kelly Miller, had notified her that Eric was distributing pills to Skaggs. Camela said of Taylor’s reaction, “He blows me off.”

The next day, Mead and Taylor visited the Kay home to try to convince Eric to go to rehab for “opioid addiction,” according to Camela. He said Eric told Mead to go into his bedroom and find pills he had stashed there. Mead returned with a handful of baggies containing pills.

“I was standing afar, and Tom was on the couch with Eric, and all of a sudden I see Tim walk out of our bedroom with baggies of pills,” Camela Kay said.

She said Mead placed the pills on the coffee table in front of the couch where Eric Kay and Taylor were sitting. She testified that she believed her then-husband — their divorce was finalized in 2023 — was selling the baggies of opioids to players to make extra money because the family had financial difficulties.

Both Mead and Taylor denied in their testimony that they had any recollection of finding or seeing any baggies full of pills. Mead said he recalled “very little of that morning” and did not remember going into Eric Kay’s bedroom or finding pills there.

Camela Kay testified that she witnessed team employees and players handing out opioid pills on a team flight. On cross-examination, Angels lawyer Todd Theodora asked her how many team flights she had been on, and Camela answered 10 to 12.

Theodora also pointed out discrepancies in her testimony compared to what she said in her deposition several months ago. He also pointed out that in nearly 200 texts and emails to Angels personnel, she never warned them that her husband might be taking or distributing opioids.

Camela said she had strong suspicions throughout the 2018 season that Eric was still using because he displayed erratic behavior and noted that she shared those concerns with Taylor, whose office at Angel Stadium was adjacent to her husband’s.

The Angels have attempted to establish that Eric Kay was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, although Camela disputed that. When Theodora pressed her on her assertion that she had never heard her husband was bipolar, she replied, “He had a drug addiction.”

Camela testified that Eric told her that he was taking opioids to mask mental health issues that included depression, but that he was not taking prescribed medication for bipolar disorder.

A crisis occurred Easter Sunday — April 21, 2019 — when Eric was acting erratically at work and was hospitalized that evening after Taylor had driven him home. While taking Eric’s items from Taylor’s car, Camela said, she found an Advil bottle filled with blue pills next to the car and dumped them on the passenger seat to show Taylor.

Taylor testified that he while he did recall Eric acting erratically and driving him home, he didn’t recall the blue pills in the Advil bottle.

Although Camela said she was forceful in telling Mead and Taylor that Eric needed detox and inpatient care, instead he went through an outpatient rehab program in late April and May. He returned to work — by this time moving up to the position Mead had held before he departed that spring to become president of the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, N.Y. — and about a month later was assigned to go on the trip to Texas that resulted in Skaggs’ death.

Angels communications employee Grace McNamee testified last week that when she learned Eric Kay was going on the trip, she asked colleague Adam Chodzko, “Is this a good idea?”

“Maybe I was talking out loud, the mother in me, it just felt like maybe Eric should spend some time at home after being on leave for, you know, bipolar and mental illness,” McNamee testified.

Testimony last week from Angels human resources executive Mayra Castro established that Eric Kay wasn’t fired, but instead was allowed to resign Nov. 2, 2019. Graham said this bolstered the Skaggs family’s contention that the Angels repeatedly gave Kay special treatment rather than treating his behavior the way they would with other employees.

Castro told Graham that a 63-year-old longtime Angels custodial worker was fired for drinking a hard seltzer during a break. The employee was not visibly intoxicated and told HR she was unaware the drink contained alcohol, Castro testified. The Skaggs family’s lawyers suggested that had Kay been punished similarly, Tyler Skaggs would still be alive.

Castro also admitted to deleting and then restoring an August 2019 text she sent to a co-worker that said of Kay, “Dude he gave me tweaker vibes.” The co-worker responded: “Omfg, I always thought he definitely looked like a tweaker and sketch.” Castro testified that she realized deleting the text was wrong and turned it over to the Skaggs family‘s legal team as part of discovery.

Cameron Crowe’s charming new memoir is an elegy for a lost time and place, when rock ‘n’ roll culture was still a secret handshake and the music press wasn’t just another publicity tentacle for giant corporations to shill their product (excepting the fine writers at the Los Angeles Times, of course). In fact, the “music press” as a concept is vestigial at best now, the internet having snuffed it out, but when Crowe was writing his features in the 1970s, primarily for Rolling Stone, only a handful of print publications allowed fans to glean any insight about the musicians they admired or to even see photos of them.

Crowe was one of those fans. He spent his adolescence in Palm Springs, a town with “a thousand swimming pools and the constant hum of air conditioners,” in a basement apartment near the freeway. A loner and a nerd raised by a former Army commanding officer and a strong-willed, whip-smart mother who had firm ideas about how young Cameron should conduct himself. Any humiliations Crowe might have suffered as an uncertain teen were for his mother merely speed bumps on the journey to self-actualization, ideally as a lawyer. She had a wealth of Dale Carnegie-esque aphorisms to pump up her young charge, such as “put on your magic shoes,” or “Mind is in every cell of the body. Thoughts are everything.”

“She hated rock and roll,” Crowe writes. “Rock was inelegant, and worse, obsessed with base issues like sex and drugs.”

(Avid Reader Press / Simon & Schuster)

As we have seen in the 2000 film “Almost Famous,” Crowe’s autobiographical account of his early years, young Cameron cared little about sex or drugs, music being his only lodestar. When his family relocated to San Diego, Crowe found himself in a conservative town with virtually no outlets for music except the local sports arena, where he witnessed his first big-time rock show accompanied by his mom: a post-comeback Elvis, knee deep in Vegas schmaltz, bounding onstage “in a glittering white jumpsuit …. striking karate poses.” A week later, mom and son witnessed Eric Clapton, full of fire with his band Derek and the Dominos. “I understand your music,” Alice Crowe finally conceded. “It’s better than ours.”

San Diego had little pockets of cultural insurrection that Crowe sought out like a moth to flame. When his sister Cindy nabbed a job with the local underground paper called the Door, Crowe wedged his way in, not because he had any interest in radical politics: his hero Lester Bangs, the iconoclastic rock critic whom he had read in Rolling Stone and Creem, had contributed work there.

As he does so often in this book, Crowe pulls the reader in with his keenly observant eye that would serve him so well in his second career as a filmmaker. The Door’s editor Bill Maguire “had a healthy girth, an open shirt with a silver pendant, and rippling brown hair. The kind of character Richard Harris used to play, most of the time with a goblet in his hand.” Maguire and his staff are hippie idealists, wary of sullying their political mission with trivialities like record reviews. But Crowe talks Maguire into letting him weigh in on a James Taylor record, and Crowe’s career is launched. He is 14.

Cameron Crowe, who started his music journalism career as a teen, pulls the reader in with his keenly observant eye that would serve him so well in his second career as a filmmaker.

(Neal Preston)

Crowe would encounter no such resistance as he worked his way into Rolling Stone, whose owner Jann Wenner gladly accepted record company advertising to keep his counterculture publication afloat. Crowe had found his professional home, filing long, admiring features with some of the era’s most important acts.

Crowe’s Dec. 6, 1973, cover story on the Allman Brothers was meant to atone for an earlier profile on the band written for the magazine by Grover Lewis, a brutally honest and often unsavory portrait. Crowe’s do-over feature, in contrast, is anodyne and respectful; the band is even given room to refute some of the facts Lewis included in his story.

Far more interesting is the stuff Crowe left out of that piece that he has now put into his memoir. To wit: Shortly after their perfectly lovely afternoon together, Gregg Allman, clearly in a drug-induced psychotic state, calls Crowe to his hotel room and demands that Crowe physically hand over the tapes of their interview, or else face legal consequences. “How do I know you aren’t with the FBI?” Allman asked Crowe. “You’ve been talking to everybody. Taking notes with your eyes.” It’s hard to imagine Crowe’s mentor Bangs not leading with that scene.

Crowe was covering rock music at a time when publicists had not become the human guardrails they are today, insulating their clients from anything that doesn’t celebrate them. There were no record company representatives present when Crowe sat in the lobby of an El Torito restaurant in Mission Hills with Kris Kristofferson, whose wife Rita Coolidge was waiting for the singer with her family in the bar (underage Crowe wasn’t allowed inside). Or when Crowe went long with David Bowie, interviewing him on and off for a year and a half while Bowie was making his 1976 album “Station to Station.”

Camped out with his wife Angie in a Beverly Hills mansion on North Doheny Drive, Bowie is affable and candid, despite subsisting on a diet of red peppers, milk and cocaine. “Over the months, I became acclimated to the normality within his insulated lifestyle,” Crowe writes. “Oh, sometimes there might be a hexagon drawn on the curtains in his bedroom or a bottle of urine on the windowsill.” While showing Crowe the indoor swimming pool, Bowie remarks that the only problem with the house “is that Satan lives in that swimming pool.”

Such weird scenes inside this once-mysterious world have been totally effaced, now that every musician can curate his own image on social media. Reading “The Uncool,” which touches on Crowe’s Hollywood career without delving too deep into it, reminds us of what has been lost, the myths and mystique that fueled our rock star fantasies and gave the music an aura of magic.

Weingarten is the author of “Thirsty: William Mulholland, California Water, and the Real Chinatown.”

In recent months, a series of videos surfaced on Donald Trump’s social-media platform, showing what appeared to be drone footage of small vessels exploding somewhere in the Caribbean. The clips were accompanied by triumphant statements from the former president, who claimed that U.S. forces had struck “drug boats” operated by Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua cartel as they ferried narcotics toward the American coastline. Within hours of the first announcement, officials confirmed that “multiple interdictions” had taken place, that several suspected traffickers were dead, and that survivors were in custody.

For Washington, the operation was presented as a new frontier in counter-narcotics self-defense. For much of Latin America, it looked alarmingly like extrajudicial warfare. Colombia’s president protested that one of the destroyed boats had been Colombian, carrying his own citizens. Caracas called the attacks “acts of piracy.” And legal scholars, both in the United States and abroad, began to question not only the strikes’ legitimacy under international law but also who, exactly, had carried them out.

The Law of the Sea Meets the War on Drugs

The United States is not a signatory to the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, yet successive administrations have claimed to act “in a manner consistent” with its provisions. Under that framework, ships on the high seas enjoy freedom of navigation. Interference is allowed only in narrow cases such as piracy, slavery, or “hot pursuit” when a vessel flees territorial waters after violating a state’s laws. The deliberate destruction of a boat on the open ocean—without proof of an immediate threat—sits uneasily within those boundaries.

“Force can be used to stop a boat,” observed Luke Moffett of Queen’s University Belfast, “but it must be reasonable and necessary in self-defense where there is an immediate threat of serious injury or loss of life.” Nothing in the public record suggests the crews of these vessels fired upon U.S. assets. The claim of self-defense, therefore, stretches maritime law close to breaking point.

International law’s broader prohibition on the use of force, codified in Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, is equally uncompromising. Only an armed attack, or an imminent threat of one, allows a state to respond with force in self-defense. Trump’s officials insist that Tren de Aragua constitutes a transnational terrorist organization waging “irregular warfare” against the United States. Yet, as Michael Becker of Trinity College Dublin argues, “Labelling traffickers ‘narco-terrorists’ does not transform them into lawful military targets. The United States is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or with this criminal organization.”

Nonetheless, a leaked memorandum reportedly informed Congress that the administration had determined the U.S. to be in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels—a remarkable claim that effectively militarizes the war on drugs. If accurate, it would mean Washington has unilaterally extended the legal geography of war to the Caribbean, with traffickers recast as enemy combatants rather than criminals.

Domestic Authority and the Elastic Presidency

The constitutional footing for these operations is no clearer. The power to declare war resides with Congress, but Article II designates the president commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Since 2001, successive presidents have leaned on the Authorization for Use of Military Force—passed in the wake of 9/11—to justify counter-terror operations across the globe. That statute, intended to target al-Qaeda and its affiliates, has been stretched from Yemen to the Sahel. Extending it to Venezuelan cartels represents another act of legal contortion.

Rumen Cholakov, a constitutional scholar at King’s College London, suggests that rebranding cartels as “narco-terrorists” may be a deliberate attempt to fold them into the AUMF’s reach. But it remains uncertain whether Congress ever envisaged such an interpretation. Nor has the White House explained whether the War Powers Resolution’s requirement of prior consultation with lawmakers was honored before the first missile struck.

The Pentagon, asked to disclose its legal rationale, declined. The opacity has fuelled speculation that the operations were not conducted solely by uniformed military forces at all, but by an entirely different arm of the American state—one that operates in deeper shadows.

The “Third Option”: Covert Power and the CIA’s Ground Branch

In October, Trump confirmed that he had authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to “conduct covert operations in Venezuela.” The statement was brief, but within the intelligence world it carried enormous significance. For decades, the CIA’s Special Activities Center—once known as the Special Activities Division—has been Washington’s chosen instrument for deniable action. Its paramilitary component, the Ground Branch, recruits largely from elite special-operations units and specializes in missions that the U.S. government cannot publicly own: sabotage, targeted strikes, and the training of proxy forces.

These operations fall under Title 50 of the U.S. Code, which governs intelligence activities rather than military ones. By law, the president must issue a classified “finding” declaring that the action is necessary to advance foreign-policy objectives and must notify congressional intelligence leaders. Crucially, Title 50 operations are designed so that “the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly.”

That distinction—between covert and merely secret—sets Title 50 apart from the military’s Title 10 authority. Traditional special-operations forces under the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operate as uniformed combatants in overt or clandestine missions authorized under defense law. Their actions are governed by the law of armed conflict, subject to military oversight, and, at least in theory, open to public accountability. CIA paramilitaries, by contrast, function outside those rules. They wear no uniforms, deny official affiliation, and are overseen not by the Pentagon but by the White House and select members of Congress.

Since 9/11, the line separating the two worlds has blurred. Joint task forces have fused intelligence officers and military commandos under hybrid authorities, allowing presidents to act quickly and quietly without triggering the political friction of formal war powers. The “drug boat” strikes appear to be the latest iteration of that model: part counter-narcotics, part counter-terrorism, and part covert action.

A Legal Twilight Zone

If CIA paramilitary officers were indeed involved, the implications are profound. A covert maritime campaign authorized under Title 50 would have required a presidential finding and congressional notification, but those documents remain classified. Conducting lethal operations at sea through the intelligence apparatus—rather than under military or law-enforcement authority—creates a twilight zone of accountability.

The law of armed conflict applies only when a genuine armed conflict exists; human rights law governs peacetime use of force. Covert paramilitary strikes sit uneasily between the two. They may infringe the sovereignty of other states without ever triggering a formal act of war, and they obscure responsibility by design. Survivors of the October strike—a Colombian and an Ecuadorian now detained by U.S. authorities—exist in a legal limbo, neither civilian nor combatant.

Mary Ellen O’Connell, professor at Notre Dame Law School, calls the rationale “utterly unconvincing.” No credible facts, she argues, justify treating these actions as lawful self-defense. “The only relevant law for peace is international law—that is, the law of treaties, human rights, and statehood.”

The Price of Secrecy

Covert action was conceived as a tool for influence and sabotage during the Cold War, not as an instrument of maritime interdiction. Applying it to counter-narcotics missions risks collapsing the boundary between espionage and war. Oversight mechanisms designed for covert influence operations struggle to accommodate lethal paramilitary campaigns. Only a handful of legislators—the so-called “Gang of Eight”—receive full briefings, and judicial review is virtually nonexistent. In practice, the president’s signature on a secret finding becomes the sole check on executive power.

The “drug boat” operations thus reveal how the United States’ shadow-war architecture has evolved since 9/11. The Special Activities Center, once reserved for coups and clandestine support to insurgents, now appears to function as an offshore strike arm for missions the military cannot legally or politically conduct. The public framing—protecting Americans from narcotics smuggling—masks a far broader assertion of authority: the right to employ lethal force anywhere, against anyone, without declaration or disclosure.

War Without War

Trump’s supporters hail the strikes as decisive. His critics see a dangerous precedent—a campaign that bypasses Congress, ignores international law, and blurs the line between defense and vigilantism. The tension runs deeper than partisanship. It touches the central question of modern U.S. power: who decides when America is at war?

The CIA’s motto for its paramilitary wing, Tertia Optio—the “third option”—was meant to describe a choice between diplomacy and open war. Yet as that option expands into an instrument of regular policy, it threatens to eclipse both. When covert action becomes a substitute for law, secrecy replaces accountability, and deniability becomes the new face of sovereignty.

Whether these “drug boats” carried cocaine or simply unlucky sailors may never be known. What is certain is that the legal boundaries of America’s global operations are eroding at sea. The United States may claim it is defending itself; international law may call it aggression. In that unresolved space—the realm of the third option—the world’s most powerful democracy is waging a war it will not name.

The United States has carried out strikes near Venezuela that President Donald Trump says are targeting drug gangs.

That is disputed, but the major military mobilisation has brought the issue of narcotics front and centre.

How bad is the problem in the country, and what’s Trump’s strategy?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Sanho Tree – Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and director of the Drug Policy Project

Carrie Sheffield – Senior policy analyst at the Independent Women’s Forum

Ernesto Castaneda – Director of the Center for Latin American and Latino Studies at American University

Consumer confidence is dropping. The national debt is $38 trillion and climbing like the yodeling mountain climber in that “The Price is Right” game. Donald Trump’s approval ratings are falling and the U.S. is getting more and more restless as 2025 comes to a close.

What’s a wannabe strongman to do to prop up his regime?

Attack Latin America, of course!

U.S. war planes have bombed small ships in international waters off the coast of Venezuela and Colombia since September with extrajudicial zeal. The Trump administration has claimed those vessels were packed with drugs manned by “narco-terrorists” and have released videos for each of the 10 boats-and-counting it has incinerated to make the actions seem as normal as a mission in “Call of Duty.”

“Narco-terrorists intending to bring poison to our shores, will find no safe harbor anywhere in our hemisphere,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted on social media and who just ordered an aircraft carrier currently stationed in the Mediterranean to set up shop in the Caribbean. It’ll meet up with 10,000 troops stationed there as part of one of the area’s biggest U.S. deployments in decades, all in the name of stopping a drug epidemic that has ravaged red America for the past quarter century.

This week, Trump authorized covert CIA actions in Venezuela and revealed he wants to launch strikes against land targets where his people say Latin American cartels operate. Who cares whether the host countries will give permission? Who cares about American laws that state only Congress — not the president — can declare war against our enemies?

It’s Latin America, after all.

The military buildup, bombing and threat of more in the name of liberty is one of the oldest moves in the American foreign policy playbook. For more than two centuries, the United States has treated Latin America as its personal piñata, bashing it silly for goods and not caring about the ugly aftermath.

“It is known to all that we derive [our blessings] from the excellence of our institutions,” James Monroe concluded in the 1823 speech that set forth what became known as the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially told the rest of the world to leave the Western Hemisphere to us. “Ought we not, then, to adopt every measure which may be necessary to perpetuate them?”

Our 19th century wars of expansion, official and not, won us territories where Latin Americans lived — Panamanians, Puerto Ricans, but especially Mexicans — that we ended up treating as little better than serfs. We have occupied nations for years and imposed sanctions on others. We have propped up puppets and despots and taken down democratically elected governments with the regularity of the seasons.

The culmination of all these actions were the mass migrations from Latin America that forever altered the demographics of the United States. And when those people — like my parents — came here, they were immediately subjected to a racism hard-wired into the American psyche, which then justified a Latin American foreign policy bent on domination, not friendship.

Nothing rallies this country historically like sticking it to Latinos, whether in their ancestral countries or here. We’re this country’s perpetual scapegoats and eternal invaders, with harming gringos — whether by stealing their jobs, moving into their neighborhoods, marrying their daughters or smuggling drugs — supposedly the only thing on our mind.

That’s why when Trump ran on an isolationist platform last year, he never meant the region — of course not. The border between the U.S. and Latin America has never been the fence that divides the U.S. from Mexico or our shores. It’s wherever the hell we say it is.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro Urrego addresses the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 23 at U.N. headquarters.

(Pamela Smith / Associated Press)

That’s why the Trump administration is banking on the idea that it can get away with its boat bombings and is salivating to escalate. To them, the 43 people American missile strikes have slaughtered on the open sea so far aren’t humans — and anyone who might have an iota of sympathy or doubt deserves aggression as well.

That’s why when Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the U.S. of murder because one of the strikes killed a Colombian fisherman with no ties to cartels, Trump went on social media to lambaste Petro’s “fresh mouth,” accuse him of being a “drug leader” and warn the head of a longtime American ally he “better close up these killing fields [cartel bases] immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely.”

The only person who can turn down the proverbial temperature on this issue is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who should know all the bad that American imperialism has wrought on Latin America. The U.S. treated his parents’ homeland of Cuba like a playground for decades, propping up one dictator after another until Cubans revolted and Fidel Castro took power. A decades-long embargo that Trump tightened upon assuming office the second time has done nothing to free the Cuban people and instead made things worse.

Instead, Rubio is the instigator. He’s pushing for regime change in Venezuela, chumming it up with self-proclaimed “world’s coolest dictator” Nayib Bukele of El Salvador and cheering on Trump’s missile attacks.

“Bottom line, these are drug boats,” Rubio told reporters recently with Trump by his side. “If people want to stop seeing drug boats blow up, stop sending drugs to the United States.”

You might ask: Who cares? Cartels are bad, drugs are bad, aren’t they? Of course. But every American should oppose every time a suspected drug boat launching from Latin America is destroyed with no questions asked and no proof offered. Because every time Trump violates yet another law or norm in the name of defending the U.S. and no one stops him, democracy erodes just a little bit more.

This is a president, after all, who seems to dream of treating his enemies, including American cities, like drug boats.

Few will care, alas. It’s Latin America, after all.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — The Treasury Department announced sanctions against Colombian President Gustavo Petro Urrego over cocaine production and smuggling into the United States.

The sanctions include Petro’s wife, first lady Veronica del Socorro Alcocer Garcia, his son Nicolas Petro and “close associate” Armando Benedettie, the Treasury Department announced Friday in a news release.

“Since President Gustavo Petro came to power, cocaine production in Colombia has exploded to the highest rate in decades, flooding the United States and poisoning Americans,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

“President Petro has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity,” Bessent said.

“Today, President [Donald] Trump is taking strong action to protect our nation and make clear that we will not tolerate the trafficking of drugs into our nation.”

The sanctions are imposed in accordance with the president’s Executive Order 14059, which targets foreigners who are involved in the global trade of illicit drugs.

The sanctions freeze all property or interests in property owned by the Petro, his wife, son and associate that are located in the United States or territories controlled by the United States.

All such properties must be reported to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

The Treasury Department said Colombia is the world’s leading producer and exporter of cocaine that often is bought by Mexican drug cartels and smuggled into the United States.

Petro on Oct. 8 said an alleged drug-smuggling vessel that was sunk by the U.S. military in the Caribbean was manned by Colombian citizens.

He has recalled the Colombian ambassador to the United States after the U.S. military sank a vessel that was near Colombian waters and Trump halted U.S. financial support for Colombia.

Petro also met with U.S. diplomat John McNamara on Monday to ease tensions between Colombia and the Trump administration.

Petro is a former guerrilla member who became Colombia’s president in 2022 and “has provided narco-terrorist organizations with benefits under the auspices of his ‘total peace’ plan,” according to the Treasury Department.

Such policies have led to record cultivation of coca and production of cocaine, which the Treasury Department said prompted Trump to declare Colombia a “major drug-transit or major drug-producing country” that has failed to uphold its responsibility to control such activities.

The Treasury also said Petro has allied with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro‘s “narco-terrorist regime” and the Cartel de Los Soles.

The Colombian president’s activities create a significant risk of the international proliferation of illicit drugs, according to the federal agency.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says she does not agree with US strikes on boats off the coast of South America, when asked about the recent deadly attacks on what the US has claimed are drug traffickers.

To say that President Trump is unfazed by Saturday’s nationwide “No Kings” rally, which vies for bragging rights as perhaps the largest single-day protest in U.S. history, is the sort of understatement too typical when describing his monarchical outrages.

Leave aside Trump’s grotesque mockery of the protests — his post that night of an AI-generated video depicting himself as a becrowned pilot in a fighter jet, dropping poop bombs on citizens protesting peacefully below. Consider instead two other post-rally actions: On Sunday and Wednesday, “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth announced first that on Trump’s orders the military had struck a seventh boat off Venezuela and then an eighth vessel in the Pacific, bringing the number of people killed over two months to 34. The administration has provided no evidence to Congress or the American public for Trump’s claims that the unidentified dead were “narco-terrorists,” nor any credible legal rationale for the strikes. Then, on Monday, Trump began demolishing the White House’s East Wing to create the gilded ballroom of his dreams, which, at 90,000 square feet, would be nearly twice the size of the White House residence itself.

As sickening as the sight was — heavy equipment ripping away at the historic property as high-powered hoses doused the dusty debris — Trump’s $250-million vanity project is small stuff compared to a policy of killing noncombatant civilian citizens of nations with which we are not at war (Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador). Yet together the actions reflect the spectrum of consequences of Trump’s utter sense of impunity as president, from the relatively symbolic to the murderous.

“In America the law is king,” Thomas Paine wrote in 1776. Not in Trump’s America.

Among the commentariat, the president’s desecration of the East Wing is getting at least as much criticism as his extralegal killings at sea. Many critics see in the bulldozing of the People’s House a metaphor for Trump’s destructive governance generally — his other teardowns of federal agencies, life-saving foreign aid, healthcare benefits and more. The metaphor is indeed apt.

But what’s more striking is the sheer sense of impunity that Trump telegraphs, constantly, with the “je suis l’état” flare of a Louis XIV — complete (soon) with Trump’s Versailles. (Separately, Trump’s mimicry of French emperors now includes plans for a sort of Arc de Triomphe near Arlington Cemetery. A reporter asked who it would be for. “Me,” Trump said. Arc de Trump.)

No law, domestic or international, constrains him, as far as the convicted felon is concerned. Neither does Congress, where Republicans bend the knee. Nor the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 right-wing majority, including three justices Trump chose in his first term.

The court’s ruling last year in Trump vs. United States gives Trump virtual immunity from criminal prosecution, but U.S. servicemembers don’t have that protection when it comes to the deadly Caribbean Sea attacks or any other orders from the commander in chief that might one day be judged to have been illegal.

The operation’s commander, Navy Adm. Alvin Holsey, reportedly expressed concerns about the strikes within the administration. Last week he announced his retirement after less than a year as head of the U.S. Southern Command. It could be a coincidence. But I’m hardly alone in counting Holsey as the latest casualty in Trump and Hegseth’s purge of perceived nonloyalists at the Pentagon.

“When the president decides someone has to die, the military becomes his personal hit squad,” military analyst and former Republican Tom Nichols said Monday on MSNBC. Just like with kings and other autocrats: Off with their heads.

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a rare maverick Republican, noted on Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that in years past, the Coast Guard would board foreign boats suspected of ferrying drugs and, if contraband were found, take it and suspected traffickers into custody, often gleaning information about higher-ups to make a real dent in the drug trade. But, Paul added, about one in four boats typically had no drugs. No matter nowadays — everyone’s a target for deadly force. “So,” Paul said, “all of these people have been blown up without us knowing their name, without any evidence of a crime.” (Paul was the only Republican senator not invited to lunch with Trump on Monday in the paved-over Rose Garden.)

On Monday, Ecuador said no evidence connects a citizen who survived a recent U.S. strike to any crime. Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the United States of murdering a fisherman in a September strike, provoking Trump to call Petro a “drug leader” and unilaterally yank U.S. foreign aid. A Venezuelan told the Washington Post that the 11 people killed in the first known U.S. strike were fishermen; national security officials told Congress the individuals were headed back to shore when hit. Meanwhile, the three countries and U.S. news reports contradict Trump’s claims that he’s destroying and seizing fentanyl — a drug that typically comes from Mexico and then is smuggled by land, usually by U.S. citizens.

Again, no matter to America’s king, who said last week that he’s eyeing land incursions in Venezuela now “because we’ve got the sea very well under control.” Trump’s courtiers say he doesn’t need Congress’ authorization for any use of force. The Constitution suggests otherwise.

Alas, neither it nor the law limits Trump’s White House makeover. He doesn’t have to submit to Congress because he’s tapping rich individuals and corporations for the cost. Past presidents, mindful that the house is a public treasure, not their palace, voluntarily sought input from various federal and nonprofit groups. After reports about the demolition, which put the lie to Trump’s promise in July that the ballroom “won’t interfere with the current building,” the American Institute of Architects urged its members to ask Congress to “investigate destruction of the White House.”

Disparate as they are, Trump’s ballroom project and his Caribbean killings were joined last week. At a White House dinner for ballroom donors, Trump joked about the sea strikes: “Nobody wants to go fishing anymore.” The pay-to-play titans laughed. Shame on them.

Trump acts with impunity because he can; he’s a lame duck. But other Republicans must face the voters. Keep the “No Kings” protests coming — right through the elections this November and next.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Angels superstar Mike Trout testified Tuesday morning that he knew team employee Eric Kay had a drug problem but that pitcher Tyler Skaggs showed no signs of drug use.

Trout, a three-time American League Most Valuable Player, has played with the Angels his entire 15-year career and is under contract through the 2030 season. He was a teammate of Skaggs from 2014 to 2019, when the left-handed pitcher died in a Texas hotel room July 1, 2019, after snorting a counterfeit oxycodone pill that contained fentanyl, a powerful opioid.

Key, a former Angels communications director, was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison after being convicted in 2022 of providing the pills that led to the Skaggs’ overdose.

According to trial transcripts, Skaggs lawyer Daniel Dutko asked Trout about his reaction when he learned the next day in a team meeting that Skaggs had died.

“Cried,” Trout answered.

“You loved him like a brother,” the lawyer said as Trout nodded affirmatively. Trout added that he was unaware of any drug use by Skaggs.

Skaggs’ lawyer asked questions to elicit testimony from Trout that would humanize Skaggs, to establish that he was a valued teammate and friend. Trout said he and Skaggs were roommates in 2010 when both were 18 years old and playing for the Angels affiliate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Trout, the highest-paid Angels employee making more than $37 million a year, attended Skaggs’ wedding in 2018.

Neither Dutko nor Angels attorney Todd Theodora asked Trout why he didn’t inform a team executive or human resources when he suspected Kay’s drug use.

Skaggs was found dead in his hotel room in Southlake, Texas, on July 1, 2019, before the Angels were scheduled to start a series against the Texas Rangers. The Tarrant County medical examiner found that in addition to the opioids, Skaggs had a blood-alcohol level of 0.12. The autopsy determined he died from asphyxia after aspirating on his own vomit, and that his death was accidental.

Trout’s testimony followed that of longtime Angels executives Tim Mead and Tom Taylor. Kay reported to Mead nearly his entire 23-year career and worked closely with Taylor, the team’s traveling secretary. Both men testified that they had no idea Kay was addicted to opioids or that Kay supplied Skaggs with drugs.

Skaggs’ widow, Carli Skaggs, and parents Debra Hetman and Darrell Skaggs are seeking $118 million from the Angels for Skaggs’ lost future earnings as well as compensation for pain and anguish, and punitive damages.

The Angels announcement that longtime former big league catcher Kurt Suzuki was hired as manager coincided with Trout’s testimony.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide if “habitual drug users” lose their gun rights under the 2nd Amendment.

The Trump administration is defending a federal gun control law dating to 1968 and challenging the rulings of two conservative appeals court that struck down the ban on gun possession by any “unlawful user” of illegal drugs, including marijuana.

Trump’s lawyers say this limit on gun rights comports with early American history when “common drunkards” were prohibited from having guns.

And they argue this “modest, modern” limit make sense because well-armed drug addicts “present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired.”

The government says the ban applies only to addicts and “habitual users of illegal drugs,” not to all those who have used drugs on occasion or in the past.

Under this interpretation, the law “imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction — one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use,” the administration’s attorneys told the court.

The appeal noted that California and 31 other states have laws restricting gun possession by drug users and drug addicts, all of which could be nullified by a broad reading of the 2nd Amendment

The court said it will hear the case of a Texas man and a Pakistani native who came under investigation by the FBI for allegedly working with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

When agents with warrant searched the home of Ali Denali Hemani, they found a Glock pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. He told the agents he used marijuana about every other day.

He was charged with violating the federal gun control law, but the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans ruled this ban on gun possession violates the 2nd Amendment unless the defendant was under the influence of drugs when he was arrested.

The 8th Circuit Court based in St. Louis adopted a similar view that gun ban for drug users is unconstitutional.

The Trump administration asked the justices to hear the case of U.S. vs. Hemani and to reverse the two lower courts. Arguments are likely to be heard in January.

Last year, the justices rejected a gun rights claim in another case from Texas and ruled that a man charged with domestic violence can lose his rights to have firearms.

Historically, people who “threaten physical harm to others” have lost their legal rights to guns, Chief Justice John G. Roberts said in an 8-1 decision.

WASHINGTON — The Navy admiral who oversees military operations in the region where U.S. forces have been attacking alleged drug boats off Venezuela will retire in December, he and the Defense Secretary announced Thursday.

Adm. Alvin Holsey became the leader of U.S. Southern Command only in November, overseeing an area that encompasses the Caribbean Sea and waters off South America. These types of postings typically last between three and four years.

The news of Holsey’s upcoming retirement comes two days after the U.S. military’s fifth deadly strike in the Caribbean against a small boat accused of carrying drugs. The Trump administration has asserted it’s treating alleged drug traffickers as unlawful combatants who must be met with military force.

Frustration with the attacks has been growing on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans have been seeking more information from the White House on the legal justification and details of the strikes, while Democrats contend the strikes violate U.S. and international law.

Holsey said in a statement posted on the command’s Facebook page that it’s “been an honor to serve our nation, the American people and support and defend our Constitution for over 37 years.”

“The SOUTHCOM team has made lasting contributions to the defense of our nation and will continue to do so,” he said. “I am confident that you will forge ahead, focused on your mission that strengthens our nation and ensures its longevity as a beacon of freedom around the globe.”

U.S. Southern Command did not provide any more information beyond the admiral’s statement.

In a post on X on Thursday afternoon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth thanked Holsey for his “decades of service to our country, and we wish him and his family continued success and fulfillment in the years ahead.”

“Admiral Holsey has demonstrated unwavering commitment to mission, people, and nation,” Hegseth wrote.

Officials at the Pentagon did not provide any more information and referred the Associated Press to Hegseth’s statement on social media.

The New York Times first reported on Holsey’s plans to leave his position.

Toropin and Finley write for the Associated Press.

Oct. 16 (UPI) — President Donald Trump announced a deal Thursday between his administration and a pharmaceutical company that could reduce the cost of some fertility medications.

Administration officials say the deal between the government and EMD Serono will help millions of U.S. women who have trouble conceiving afford the cost of medications that could help.

“In the Trump administration, we want to make it easier for couples to have babies, raise children and start the families they’ve always dreamed about,” Trump said during his Oval Office announcement.

The president said during the announcement that EMD Serono, the world’s largest fertility drug manufacturer, has agreed to provide discounts for the drugs it sells in the United States, including Gonal-f, which is used to treat infertility by men and women.

A fertility drug cycle typically costs between $5,000 and $6,000, the administration said, and only about 30% of families have access to employer insurance that will cover the treatment. Women trying to conceive can require different amounts of the drug.

Trump said his administration is working with employers to make it easier for them to offer supplemental insurance coverage for fertility treatments.

“As a result of these actions, the per-cycle cost of drugs used in IVF will fall by an estimated 73% for American consumers, and the numbers are going to actually be very substantially higher as time goes by when it really kicks in,” Trump continued during the announcement.

Trump blamed inflated fertility drug prices as a reason for the high cost of IVF treatment, and claimed the cost for the procedure is 700% times more expensive in the United States than in the rest of the world.

Seroni said in its statement that IVF patients will be able to buy Gonal-f at an 84% discount.

WASHINGTON — President Trump confirmed Wednesday that he has authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations inside Venezuela and said he was weighing carrying out land operations on the country.

The acknowledgement of covert action in Venezuela by the U.S. spy agency comes after the U.S. military in recent weeks has carried out a series of deadly strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. U.S. forces have destroyed at least five boats since early September, killing 27 people, and four of those vessels originated from Venezuela.

Asked during an event in the Oval Office on Wednesday why he had authorized the CIA to take action in Venezuela, Trump affirmed he had made the move.

“I authorized for two reasons, really,” Trump replied. “No. 1, they have emptied their prisons into the United States of America,” he said. “And the other thing, the drugs, we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela, and a lot of the Venezuelan drugs come in through the sea.”

Trump added the administration “is looking at land” as it considers further strikes in the region. He declined to say whether the CIA has authority to take action against President Nicolás Maduro.

Trump made the unusual acknowledgement of a CIA operation shortly after the New York Times published that the CIA had been authorized to carry out covert action in Venezuela.

Maduro pushes back

On Wednesday, Maduro lashed out at the record of the U.S. spy agency in various conflicts around the world without directly addressing Trump’s comments about authorizing the CIA to carry out covert operations in Venezuela.

“No to regime change that reminds us so much of the [overthrows] in the failed eternal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and so on,” Maduro said at a televised event of the National Council for Sovereignty and Peace, which is made up of representatives from various political, economic, academic and cultural sectors in Venezuela.

“No to the coups carried out by the CIA, which remind us so much of the 30,000 disappeared,” a figure estimated by human rights organizations such as the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo during the military dictatorship in Argentina (1976-1983). He also referred to the 1973 coup in Chile.

“How long will the CIA continue to carry on with its coups? Latin America doesn’t want them, doesn’t need them and repudiates them,” Maduro added.

The objective is “to say no to war in the Caribbean, no to war in South America, yes to peace,” he said.

Speaking in English, Maduro said: “Not war, yes peace, not war. Is that how you would say it? Who speaks English? Not war, yes peace, the people of the United States, please. Please, please, please.”

In a statement, Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry on Wednesday rejected “the bellicose and extravagant statements by the President of the United States, in which he publicly admits to having authorized operations to act against the peace and stability of Venezuela.”

“This unprecedented statement constitutes a very serious violation of international law and the United Nations’ Charter and obliges the community of countries to denounce these clearly immoderate and inconceivable statements,” said the statement, which Foreign Minister Yván Gil posted on his Telegram channel.

Resistance from Congress

Early this month, the Trump administration declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and pronounced the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them, justifying the military action as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States.

The move has spurred anger in Congress from members of both major political parties that Trump was effectively committing an act of war without seeking congressional authorization.

On Wednesday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said while she supports cracking down on trafficking, the administration has gone too far.

“The Trump administration’s authorization of covert CIA action, conducting lethal strikes on boats and hinting at land operations in Venezuela slides the United States closer to outright conflict with no transparency, oversight or apparent guardrails,” New Hampshire’s Shaheen said. “The American people deserve to know if the administration is leading the U.S. into another conflict, putting servicemembers at risk or pursuing a regime-change operation.”

The Trump administration has yet to provide underlying evidence to lawmakers proving that the boats targeted by the U.S. military were in fact carrying narcotics, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The officials, who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration has only pointed to unclassified video clips of the strikes posted on social media by Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and has yet to produce “hard evidence” that the vessels were carrying drugs.

Lawmakers have expressed frustration that the administration is offering little detail about how it came to decide the U.S. is in armed conflict with cartels or which criminal organizations it claims are “unlawful combatants.”

Even as the U.S. military has carried out strikes on some vessels, the U.S. Coast Guard has continued with its typical practice of stopping boats and seizing drugs.

Trump on Wednesday explained away the action, saying the traditional approach hasn’t worked.

“Because we’ve been doing that for 30 years, and it has been totally ineffective. They have faster boats,” he said. ”They’re world-class speedboats, but they’re not faster than missiles.”

Human rights groups have raised concerns that the strikes flout international law and are extrajudicial killings.

Madhani writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela, contributed to this report.

Witness testimony began Wednesday with an accusation of negligent supervision in the high stakes trial against the Angels by the family of deceased pitcher Tyler Skaggs.

Tim Mead, an Angels employee of 40 years, was portrayed by the plaintiffs lawyer, Rusty Hardin, during four hours of direct examination as a well-meaning boss who repeatedly ignored company policy by failing to report the improper conduct of Eric Kay, the team communications director who gave Skaggs the fentanyl pills that killed him.

Hardin brought up a litany of instances where Kay likely violated Angels rules that could have resulted in discipline and even termination long before the July 2019 road trip to Texas during which Skaggs died in his hotel room after chopping up and snorting the illicit drugs provided by Kay.

Mead acknowledged that he knew of Kay’s years-long episodes of bizarre behavior, an extramarital affair with an intern, and problems with prescription medication, but that he never reported any of it to human resources.

Hardin asked if he was putting Kay ahead of the organization by doing everything he could to save him, allow him to regain his health and keep him employed.

Mead responded: “I guess I wasn’t consciously doing it at the time. … I was concerned about the organization, for him, his family and my staff.”

Hardin asked Mead if he was thinking of an obligation to organization or to Kay, and Mead replied, “A bit of both.”

Hardin: Did you recognize a conflict between those roles?

Mead: “Yes that entered my mind.”

Hardin asserted that it strains credulity that Mead asserted he knew nothing of Kay using or distributing illicit opioids when on the last day of the 2017 season Kay’s wife, Camela, reached out to Mead to infom him the family was conducting an intervention in their home that evening.

Mead and Tom Taylor, the Angels’ traveling secretary, visited the Kays the next morning, and Camela Kay testified during a deposition that the Kays directed him to Eric’s bedroom, where he had stashed 60 pills, stored in handfuls of 10 in small plastic bags.

Pressed by Hardin, Mead repeated that he couldn’t say he didn’t do what Camela Kay testified he did, but that he had no recollection of it. Mead insisted that he knew nothing of Eric Kay using or distributing illicit drugs to Skaggs or anyone else.

Cross-examination of Mead by Angels lawyers will take place Friday. The court is in recess every Thursday during what is expected to be a two-month trial.

Following Mead on the witness stand will be Taylor and team president John Carpino. More than 75 names are on the witness list, including current Angels star Mike Trout, former manager Mike Scioscia and several former players who testified in depositions that Kay or Skaggs gave them opioids.

Lawyers for the Angels and the family spoke to the jury for the first time Tuesday, delivering dramatically different opening statements.

Angels owner Arte Moreno sat in the front row along with Carpino, although neither one was present Wednesday. Skaggs’ widow, Carli, sat next to Tyler’s mother, Debbie Hetman. Tyler’s father, Darrell Skaggs, was absent because of poor health.

Representing Skaggs’ widow and parents are two lawyers with decades of experience representing high-profile and celebrity clients — Shawn Holley and Hardin.

Early in her career, Holley, 63, worked under Johnnie Cochran and was a member of the O.J. Simpson defense team in 1995. Since then, she has represented clients ranging from entertainment titans Michael Jackson, Tupac Shakur, Justin Bieber, Kanye West, Lindsay Lohan, Snoop Dogg, Axl Rose and the Kardashian family to athletes such as Trevor Bauer, Mike Tyson, Lamar Odom, Reggie Bush and Sugar Ray Leonard.

Hardin, 83, represented the Arthur Andersen accounting firm during the Enron scandal more than 20 years ago. He also has won favorable verdicts for numerous athletes such as Roger Clemens, Wade Boggs, Warren Moon, Scottie Pippen, Calvin Murphy, Steve Francis, Rudy Tomjanovich and Rafer Alston.

The Angels are represented by Todd Theodora, chief executive of the nationally respected law firm Theodora Oringher. Theodora and the Angels have had a longstanding professional relationship.

Theodora served as lead trial counsel for the Angels in the suit brought by the city of Anaheim in 2005 when the team re-branded as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. The city sought more than $300 million in damages against the Angels, who prevailed in a jury verdict.

Theodora wouldn’t comment on the Skaggs case because of the ongoing litigation, but after the Angels’ court victory regarding the name change, he described to The Times the all-consuming nature of a lengthy trial.

“You find yourself literally thinking about the case from the moment you wake up until the moment you go to bed and many times in the middle of the night as well,” Theodora said.

The stakes are high in the Skaggs trial. Holley delivered opening statements for the plaintiffs and said a fair estimation of Skaggs’ lost future earnings is $118 million. She added that the Angels must also compensate the family for “loss of companionship, solace, moral support and financial security.” And, Holley said, the family should be awarded punitive damages “not only because [the Angels] failed to keep Tyler safe, they put him in harm’s way.”

Taking a deliberate, soft-spoken approach, Holley walked the jury through a timeline of Kay’s drug use and eventual distribution of opioids. She said Angels team doctor Craig Milhouse wrote Kay numerous oxycodone prescriptions despite the fact he lacked any legitimate medical condition.

Holley attempted to establish that Kay’s drug use escalated year after year, saying there was “a complete failure by the Angels to grasp the magnitude of the problem.”

Holley said that Kay revealed his drug use in text messages and emails, and that a clubhouse attendant witnessed Kay snorting lines of drugs in a kitchen area outside the Angels clubhouse.

Citing evidence in Kay’s criminal trial — he is serving 22 years in prison for supplying Skaggs with fentanyl — Holley said Kay used his Angels email address to purchase illicit drugs on the website OfferUp.

By 2019, Kay’s drug usage had reached a point that he went through an outpatient treatment program that ended shortly before the Angels went on the road trip to Texas during which Skaggs died. Holley contended that human resources requires a “fitness for duty exam” before returning to work following a drug rehab stint.

“The Angels, again, did nothing,” she said. “So less than two months after learning Eric Kay had been dealing drugs to players, two months after Eric Kay overdoses and less than a month after outpatient rehab ended, the Angels decided to send Kay on the road trip. Within hours, Tyler Skaggs was dead.”

Theodora countered by saying the team “knows right from wrong,” and that it was Skaggs who engaged in “reckless choices that we teach our children and grandchildren not to do, for good reason.”

Theodora pointed out that in addition to the counterfeit fentanyl pill that Skaggs chopped up and snorted the July 2019 night he died in a Texas hotel room, he had a blood-alcohol level of .140 and a therapeutic level of oxycodone.

“The evidence will show he was not playing through pain, he was not prescribed these pills,” Theodora said. “It is downright shameless for anyone to say it was justified for someone to chop up and snort opioids, that they were just being used to get through a long season.”

Skaggs was involved in three crimes, Theodora said, “one, criminal possession; two, taking or ingesting illicit drugs; and three — as you’ll hear from five players — Tyler was distributing illicit pills to them.”

Opening statements and Mead’s testimony underscored the reasons a recent one-day settlement conference between the two sides went nowhere,

Skaggs was found dead in his hotel room in Southlake, Texas, on July 1, 2019, before the Angels were scheduled to start a series against the Texas Rangers. The Tarrant County medical examiner found that in addition to the opioids, Skaggs had a blood-alcohol level of 0.12. The autopsy determined he died from asphyxia after aspirating on his own vomit, and that his death was accidental.

Prosecutors alleged Kay sold opioids to Skaggs and at least five other professional baseball players from 2017 to 2019. Several players testified during the trial about obtaining illicit oxycodone pills from Kay.

The Skaggs family filed their lawsuit in June 2021, alleging the Angels knew, or should have known, that Kay was supplying drugs to Skaggs and other players. Testimony during Kay’s criminal trial established that Kay was also a longtime user of oxycodone and that the Angels knew it.

The Angels responded by saying that a former federal prosecutor the team hired to conduct an independent investigation into Skaggs’ death determined no team executives were aware or informed of any employee providing opioids to any player.

WASHINGTON — The United States struck another small boat accused of carrying drugs in the waters off Venezuela, killing six people, President Trump said on Tuesday.

Those who died in the strike were aboard the vessel, and no U.S. forces were harmed, Trump said in a social media post. It’s the fifth deadly strike in the Caribbean as Trump’s administration has asserted it’s treating alleged drug traffickers as unlawful combatants who must be met with military force.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the strike Tuesday morning, said Trump, who released a video of it, as he had in the past. Hegseth later shared the video in a post on X.

Trump said the strike was conducted in international waters and “Intelligence” confirmed the vessel was trafficking narcotics, was associated with “narcoterrorist networks” and was on a known drug trafficking route.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to an email from the Associated Press seeking more information on the latest boat strike.

Frustration with the Trump administration has been growing on Capitol Hill among members of both major political parties. Some Republicans are seeking more information from the White House on the legal justification and details of the strikes. Democrats contend the strikes violate U.S. and international law.

The Senate last week voted on a war powers resolution that would have barred the Trump administration from conducting the strikes unless Congress specifically authorized them, but it failed to pass.

In a memo to Congress that was obtained by The Associated Press, the Trump administration said it had “determined that the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations” and that Trump directed the Pentagon to “conduct operations against them pursuant to the law of armed conflict.”

The Trump administration has yet to provide underlying evidence to lawmakers proving that the boats targeted by the U.S. military in a series of fatal strikes were in fact carrying narcotics, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The strikes followed a buildup of U.S. maritime forces in the Caribbean unlike any seen in recent times.

Last week, Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino told military leaders that the U.S. government knows the drug-trafficking accusations used to support the recent actions in the Caribbean are false, with its true intent being to “force a regime change” in the South American country.

He added that the Venezuelan government does not see the deployment of the U.S. warships as a mere “propaganda-like action” and warned of a possible escalation.

“I want to warn the population: We have to prepare ourselves because the irrationality with which the U.S. empire operates is not normal,” Padrino said during the televised gathering. “It’s anti-political, anti-human, warmongering, rude, and vulgar.”

Price and Toropin write for the Associated Press. AP writer Ben Finley contributed to this report.