order

The TWZ Newsletter

Weekly insights and analysis on the latest developments in military technology, strategy, and foreign policy.

Switzerland will cut back its order for 36 Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II fighters in response to the program’s ballooning costs. The announcement puts a question mark over the future of the procurement. It also comes at a time when other customers are also looking at the stealth jet in terms of the value it gives for the considerable investment, not just in terms of upfront costs, but especially sustainment throughout the aircraft’s service life.

Following a cabinet meeting, the Swiss government today said it had instructed the defense ministry to buy the highest possible number of F-35As within the previously agreed budget of six billion Swiss francs ($7.54 billion). Reports suggest that, while the Swiss government viewed this as a fixed price, the United States later refuted that and claimed it was a misunderstanding.

“Due to foreseeable cost overruns, maintaining the originally planned number of 36 F-35As is not financially feasible,” the government said in a statement.

It’s presently unclear how many jets the Swiss budget will cover, but it’s worth noting that Finland’s order for 64 F-35As, budgeted at $9.4 billion, worked out with an equivalent cost-per-jet of around $82 million. However, additional costs of infrastructure, weapons, maintenance equipment, spare parts, training, and other systems and services need to be factored in. In the case of the F-35, in particular, these costs are uniquely high.

The original Swiss budget for a new fighter was narrowly approved by the public in a 2020 referendum.

A referendum is an unusual quirk of Swiss procurement, with the most expensive arms purchases first having to win the backing of the country’s voters. In this way, the maximum spend of six billion Swiss francs was approved before the type had been selected.

The F-35 fought off competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon.

After what was described as a “comprehensive technical evaluation,” Switzerland’s Federal Council announced in 2021 that it planned to recommend to the country’s parliament that it procure 36 F-35As as part of the Air2030 program. The package also includes five Patriot air defense systems from Raytheon, which will provide the Alpine nation with a new long-range ground-based air defense capability.

“An evaluation has revealed that these two systems [F-35A and Patriot] offer the highest overall benefit at the lowest overall cost,” the Federal Council explained in a statement. “The Federal Council is confident that these two systems are the most suitable for protecting the Swiss population from air threats in the future.”

The F-35 will replace the Swiss Air Force’s existing fleet of 30 ‘legacy’ F/A-18C/D Hornets, scheduled to be withdrawn in 2030, as well as its aging F-5E/F Tiger II jets, which are slated for retirement in 2027. The first new F-35As were once expected to arrive in the country from 2025, a date that has already been pushed back.

Ironically, Swiss media reports at the time suggested that the F-35 was selected as it offered the best value for money.

“According to insiders, Switzerland can buy a larger number of F-35s with the budgeted six billion Swiss francs [$6.53 billion] than would be the case with the three competitors,” Swiss broadcaster SRF reported, citing anonymous sources.

According to the Federal Council’s findings, as of 2021, the fleet of 36 F-35As would cost around $5.48 billion, well within the price cap.

Now, at the current exchange rate, the budget cap stands at 7.54 billion, which is no longer sufficient for 36 of the stealth jets.

Meanwhile, regardless of unit price, the cost of actually sustaining the jets once in service has long been a cause for concern.

There’s also the issue of the delayed Block 4 upgrade and the lack of clarity around how much customers will actually pay for this. Block 4 supports a brand-new radar and a host of other capabilities. Among them are increased missile capacity, new weaponry, advanced electronic warfare capabilities, and improved target recognition. 

As we pointed out in the past, Block 4 might only start to become available after the Swiss begin receiving their jets, which would require them to either upgrade or decide against getting that capability boost.

It’s also far from clear what will happen next in Switzerland’s F-35 procurement; a lot will depend on how many of the jets can actually be obtained within the stipulated budget.

In the past, Switzerland has not been averse to walking away from fighter procurements entirely.

A previous fighter competition that sought a partial replacement for the F-5 fleet saw the Saab Gripen E/F being chosen, with a decision to buy 22 examples, before the entire project was rejected by a referendum in 2014.

At the same time, it’s likely that at least some Swiss Cabinet members would prefer a European fighter, and critics of the F-35 have previously suggested another referendum to potentially overturn the decision to buy American. This issue has only become magnified since the Swiss decision, with European countries increasingly uncertain about buying U.S. defense products.

There’s also a big question over whether Switzerland needs such a sophisticated, low-observable multirole fighter, since its primary responsibility will be day-to-day air policing. The Swiss Air Force also sits outside of NATO, so it doesn’t make operational deployments outside of its borders.

Another option could see a push for a cheaper ‘complementary’ fighter, or light combat aircraft, to provide additional combat (and advanced training) ‘mass’ alongside a reduced fleet of F-35s. This would parallel the existing order of battle in which F-5s operate alongside F/A-18s.

There is also the possibility that Switzerland determines that it needs the full 36 F-35s. The Swiss government also recently said that the deteriorating security situation in Europe means that the Swiss Air Force could need between 55 and 70 new fighter jets.

If that becomes policy, another referendum might be required on the total budget. The question could be put to the Swiss public, with a decision again to be made independent of aircraft type.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

Dec. 11 (UPI) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday night that limits states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence companies.

The order is designed “to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI,” according to a release on the White House website.

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” the order says. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Trump has been a strong proponent of U.S. leadership in AI development, and said at the executive order signing ceremony Thursday night that AI companies “want to be in the United States, and they want to do it here, and we have big investment coming. But if they had to get 50 different approvals from 50 different states, you could forget it.”

The order instructs Attorney General Pam Bondi to establish an “AI Litigation Task Force” within 30 days whose “sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws” that don’t align with the Trump administration’s minimal approach to regulation.

It could also revise existing state laws, and directs Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to identify state laws that “require AI models to alter their truthful outputs,” which aligns with Trump’s efforts to prevent what he describes as “woke AI.”

Trump has also used federal funding as an incentive to encourage states with such laws not to enforce them. Under terms of the executive order, federal AI law would preempt state regulations. State AI laws designed to protect children would not be affected.

The executive order comes after congress voted in July and November against creating a similar policy.

Critics of the plan created by the executive order call it an attempt to block meaningful regulation on AI and say congress is not equipped to replace state-specific laws with a single, nationwide standard.

Tech companies have been supportive of efforts to limit the power of states to regulate AI. The executive order marks a victory for tech companies like Google and OpenAI, which have launched campaigns through a super PAC, and have as much as $100 million to spend in an effort to shape the outcome of next year’s midterm elections.

The order is also seen as a move to thwart Democrat-led states such as California and New York from exerting state laws over AI development

On October 14, the Swedish government announced it was nominating the CEO of IKEA, Jesper Brodin, as its candidate for United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Less than a month later, as the current high commissioner, Filippo Grandi, approached the end of his mandate, Brodin resigned from his position at the Swedish furniture giant, which he had led for eight years. In January 2026, the office of the UN secretary-general is expected to present a preferred candidate to the General Assembly for what former UNHCR head of research Jeff Crisp has called a “pro forma election”. Can the former chief of an iconic multinational company become the world’s highest authority on refugees — and what will it mean if he does?

In interviews, Jesper Brodin often refers to a small pamphlet by IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad, titled The Testament of a Furniture Dealer, as outlining the values that inspire his way of doing business: innovation, sustainability and collective effort over individualism. Does the UNHCR need to learn lessons from a “furniture dealer”? The question matters because Brodin’s appeal is often framed in terms of corporate values, yet it remains unclear how — or whether — these translate into the protection of refugees. Whether Brodin has any chance of making it to the Geneva post or not, the question is worth asking, for the role of IKEA as a donor and operational partner of the UNHCR is significant and is likely to grow.

While humanitarianism and business have historically been companions, particularly since the end of the Cold War, this is the first time a business leader has been proposed to head the UN refugee agency. The nomination comes at a time when the UNHCR faces a dramatic cash crunch, and when political pressures and anti-refugee sentiment are increasing globally. Many scholars and practitioners believe the future of the global refugee regime itself may be at stake. Understanding the implications of Sweden’s choice, then, requires examining how corporate humanitarianism now shapes refugee protection.

Many were taken aback by the nomination. Yet the move by Sweden is anything but surprising. Over the past three decades, corporations have taken on increased responsibility for responding to humanitarian crises, while traditional organisations compete for a rapidly diminishing pool of resources. Research on the commodification of compassion has shown how, increasingly, “doing good” and “doing well” have become one and the same. This kind of “brand aid” involved both promoting commercial brands (from Toms shoes to Starbucks) through their involvement in humanitarian causes, and turning aid itself into a branded activity — something most effectively done through corporate partnerships. It began around two decades ago but has now become the dominant model of humanitarian engagement. As one major humanitarian donor in Kinshasa told us, “It’s now all about collaborations between the private sector, businesses and philanthropists.” Indeed, when the desire to help becomes something you can sell, corporations such as IKEA can profit from involvement in global helping that builds their ethical branding. But can the UNHCR profit from being led by IKEA’s CEO? The question goes to the heart of a growing unease about the direction of the refugee regime.

We see three main problems here. First, UNHCR is caught between contradictory demands from donor states in the Global North and hosting states in the South. Brodin and IKEA’s brand of feel-good capitalism cannot reconcile these fundamental tensions over sovereignty. Jesper Brodin has been lauded as a businessman and touts his credibility as a leader and negotiator. “Trump likes people in the business world,” we are told. However, the challenges to the agency’s protection mandate require a vision that goes well beyond the smiling face of compassionate capitalism. While formally remaining the guardian of the 1951 Refugee Convention, UNHCR has been operating in what scholars such as Bhupinder Chimni have described as an “erosion” of the international refugee regime — a long-term weakening of asylum norms and burden-sharing commitments. Donor governments in the Global North have used their limited support for UNHCR’s humanitarian activities in the Global South as a way to deflect attention from the disregard for refugee rights within their own borders. How will Brodin fare in navigating these competing pressures — from containment agendas in the Global North to protection obligations that lie at the heart of UNHCR’s mandate?

Second, Brodin often mentions his experience as a supply chain manager in a company that has put logistical innovation at the core of its business strategy as an important asset for the job. Indeed, this aligns with UNHCR’s current focus on renewing its own supply chain strategy. He also talks about “bringing the values and the assets of refugees to the business community,” a phrase he uses to refer to refugees’ skills and labour potential. However, this endeavour has proved far more complex than he makes it sound. Almost 10 years after IKEA’s first attempt to integrate refugees into its own supply chains in Jordan, the number of people the programme involves remains small, and refugees in the country still face significant barriers to work and social security.

A study we published in 2021 highlighted that a focus on refugee logistics actually meant working towards integrating displaced people into global supply chains rather than providing them with material support or infrastructure. Whether for business or for disaster relief, logistics depend on networks of infrastructure and rules that only function through ongoing negotiation with governments.

Finally, the contradictions of IKEA’s corporate and foundation ownership structure — what makes it work well as a business — embody the paradox of mixing public needs for refugee protection with private objectives for profit. The IKEA Foundation, the company’s philanthropic arm, has been working with UNHCR since 2010, supporting its operations in 16 countries. The UN agency defines the collaboration as “transformative”, highlighting how it has become a model for all its partnerships with the private sector. Moreover, the nomination comes at a time when major donor states, including the US, the United Kingdom and Germany, are slashing their budgets. In this geopolitical context, Sweden, while facing its own economic challenges, may well be seeking to stake its position as one of the last remaining humanitarian powers in the Western world. Brodin’s bid draws on Sweden’s perceived reputation for frugality and sustainability.

However, there is an unspoken yet fundamental contradiction between Brodin’s promise to address UNHCR’s crisis by “holding the purse strings” and the position of IKEA within global economic structures that have contributed to the humanitarian funding crisis in the first place. In 2017, following calls from EU parliamentary groups, the European Commission opened an in-depth investigation into the Netherlands — where the company is headquartered — for its tax treatment of Inter IKEA, one of the two groups operating the IKEA business. The company’s ownership structure, which benefits its commercial operations, may also reduce its tax burden, thereby reducing contributions to public finances. Here, as in many other cases, big business promises to fix global inequality it has helped create.

In the present global climate of hostility to migrants and refugees, Brodin and IKEA’s brand of feel-good capitalism risks further hollowing out UNHCR’s protection mandate, reducing humanitarianism to a matter of well-managed supply chains. The stakes are high: when humanitarian priorities are shaped by corporate logic, core protections — from asylum access to basic assistance — risk being eroded. What benefits a business organisation does not necessarily serve the rights or needs of refugees.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

This Christmas Eve, slide into one of the wooden booths at chef-owner Keith Corbin’s sunlit restaurant in West Adams or order the restaurant’s signature California soul plates to complete your holiday spread at home. The regular menu with black-eyed pea fritters, smoked chicken and sausage gumbo and fried chicken with house-made Fresno hot sauce will be available for dine-in alongside the full beverage menu, with a wine list that highlights BIPOC and women producers, and cocktails including a creative limoncello martini. For those who prefer to enjoy the soulful spread at home, choices include smoked honey butter ham and house-smoked brisket with smoked apple barbecue sauce as mains; sides like cornbread bites, mac and cheese and brown-buttered candied yams; and banana pudding and brown-butter chocolate chip cookies for dessert. Catering orders must be placed online by Dec. 21 and will be available for pickup or delivery on Christmas Eve. Last-minute Christmas Eve takeout orders can also be placed via GrubHub. Adams Wine Shop, the restaurant’s neighboring bottle shop, will be open on Christmas Eve for those who need a last-minute host gift, with mulled wine kits available for purchase.

The catastrophic violence in Gaza has unfolded within an international system that was never designed to restrain the geopolitical ambitions of powerful states. Understanding why the United Nations has proved so limited in responding to what many regard as a genocidal assault requires returning to the foundations of the post–World War II order and examining how its structure has long enabled impunity rather than accountability.

After World War II, the architecture for a new international order based on respect for the UN Charter and international law was agreed upon as the normative foundation of a peaceful future. Above all, it was intended to prevent a third world war. These commitments emerged from the carnage of global conflict, the debasement of human dignity through the Nazi Holocaust, and public anxieties about nuclear weaponry.

Yet, the political imperative to accommodate the victorious states compromised these arrangements from the outset. Tensions over priorities for world order were papered over by granting the Security Council exclusive decisional authority and further limiting UN autonomy. Five states were made permanent members, each with veto power: the United States, the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom, and China.

In practice, this left global security largely in the hands of these states, preserving their dominance. It meant removing the strategic interests of geopolitical actors from any obligatory respect for legal constraints, with a corresponding weakening of UN capability. The Soviet Union had some justification for defending itself against a West-dominated voting majority, yet it too used the veto pragmatically and displayed a dismissive approach to international law and human rights, as did the three liberal democracies.

In 1945, these governments were understood as simply retaining the traditional freedoms of manoeuvre exercised by the so-called Great Powers. The UK and France, leading NATO members in a Euro-American alliance, interpreted the future through the lens of an emerging rivalry with the Soviet Union. China, meanwhile, was preoccupied with a civil war that continued until 1949.

Three aspects of this post-war arrangement shape our present understanding.

First, the historical aspect: Learning from the failures of the League of Nations, where the absence of influential states undermined the organisation’s relevance to questions of war and peace. In 1945, it was deemed better to acknowledge power differentials within the UN than to construct a global body based on democratic equality among sovereign states or population size.

Second, the ideological aspect: Political leaders of the more affluent and powerful states placed far greater trust in hard-power militarism than in soft-power legalism. Even nuclear weaponry was absorbed into the logic of deterrence rather than compliance with Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which required good-faith pursuit of disarmament. International law was set aside whenever it conflicted with geopolitical interests.

Third, the economistic aspect: The profitability of arms races and wars reinforced a pre–World War II pattern of lawless global politics, sustained by an alliance of geopolitical realism, corporate media, and private-sector militarism.

Why the UN could not protect Gaza

Against this background, it is unsurprising that the UN performed in a disappointing manner during the two-plus years of genocidal assault on Gaza.

In many respects, the UN did what it was designed to do in the turmoil after October 7, and only fundamental reforms driven by the Global South and transnational civil society can alter this structural limitation. What makes these events so disturbing is the extremes of Israeli disregard for international law, the Charter, and even basic morality.

At the same time, the UN did act more constructively than is often acknowledged in exposing Israel’s flagrant violations of international law and human rights. Yet, it fell short of what was legally possible, particularly when the General Assembly failed to explore its potential self-empowerment through the Uniting for Peace resolution or the Responsibility to Protect norm.

Among the UN’s strongest contributions were the near-unanimous judicial outcomes at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on genocide and occupation. On genocide, the ICJ granted South Africa’s request for provisional measures concerning genocidal violence and the obstruction of humanitarian aid in Gaza. A final decision is expected after further arguments in 2026.

On occupation, responding to a General Assembly request for clarification, the Court issued a historic advisory opinion on July 19, 2024, finding Israel in severe violation of its duties under international humanitarian law in administering Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It ordered Israel’s withdrawal within a year. The General Assembly affirmed the opinion by a large majority.

Israel responded by repudiating or ignoring the Court’s authority, backed by the US government’s extraordinary claim that recourse to the ICJ lacked legal merit.

The UN also provided far more reliable coverage of the Gaza genocide than was available in corporate media, which tended to amplify Israeli rationalisations and suppress Palestinian perspectives. For those seeking a credible analysis of genocide allegations, the Human Rights Council offered the most convincing counter to pro-Israeli distortions. A Moon Will Arise from this Darkness: Reports on Genocide in Palestine, containing the publicly submitted reports of the special rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, documents and strongly supports the genocide findings.

A further unheralded contribution came from UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, whose services were essential to a civilian population facing acute insecurity, devastation, starvation, disease, and cruel combat tactics. Some 281 staff members were killed while providing shelter, education, healthcare, and psychological support to beleaguered Palestinians during the course of Israel’s actions over the past two years.

UNRWA, instead of receiving deserved praise, was irresponsibly condemned by Israel and accused, without credible evidence, of allowing staff participation in the October 7 attack. Liberal democracies compounded this by cutting funding, while Israel barred international staff from entering Gaza. Nevertheless, UNRWA has sought to continue its relief work to the best of its ability and with great courage.

In light of these institutional shortcomings and partial successes, the implications for global governance become even more stark, setting the stage for a broader assessment of legitimacy and accountability.

The moral and political costs of UN paralysis

The foregoing needs to be read in light of the continuing Palestinian ordeal, which persists despite numerous Israeli violations, resulting in more than 350 Palestinian deaths since the ceasefire was agreed upon on October 10, 2025.

International law seems to have no direct impact on the behaviour of the main governmental actors, but it does influence perceptions of legitimacy. In this sense, the ICJ outcomes and the reports of the special rapporteur that take the international law dimensions seriously have the indirect effect of legitimising various forms of civil society activism in support of true and just peace, which presupposes the realisation of Palestinian basic rights – above all, the inalienable right of self-determination.

The exclusion of Palestinian participation in the US-imposed Trump Plan for shaping Gaza’s political future is a sign that liberal democracies stubbornly adhere to their unsupportable positions of complicity with Israel.

Finally, the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 2803 in unacceptably endorsing the Trump Plan aligns the UN fully with the US and Israel, a demoralising evasion and repudiation of its own truth-telling procedures. It also establishes a most unfortunate precedent for the enforcement of international law and the accountability of perpetrators of international crimes.

In doing so, it deepens the crisis of confidence in global governance and underscores the urgent need for meaningful UN reform if genuine peace and justice are ever to be realised.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Trump has vowed to unleash AI competitiveness, but removing state oversight riles members of his Republican Party.

United States President Donald Trump has said he will sign an executive order creating “one rulebook” for artificial intelligence (AI) development.

The announcement on Monday via Trump’s Truth Social account represented the US president’s latest effort to remove AI barriers, a priority of his administration that has raised concerns related to oversight of the transformative technology.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Trump said the so-called “one rule executive order” would override state approvals of AI, although the legality of such a presidential action remained unclear.

“There must be only One Rulebook if we are going to continue to lead in AI,” he said. “We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS.”

“THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS! AI WILL BE DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY!” Trump added, employing his typical use of all-capital letters.

The announcement comes as the White House has pushed for provisions creating a federal AI framework to be added to this year’s defence budget.

The initiative has divided members of Trump’s Republican Party, which has traditionally strongly supported the rights of states and a smaller federal government.

Opponents included Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, formerly a staunch supporter of Trump, who has broken with him on several issues.

“States must retain the right to regulate and make laws on AI and anything else for the benefit of their state,” she wrote in November.

State lawmakers from across the political spectrum have also warned against federal actions that would override state policies.

“In recent years, legislatures across the country have passed AI-related measures to strengthen consumer transparency, guide responsible government procurement, protect patients, and support artists and creators,” they wrote in a letter to Congress in November.

“These laws represent careful, good-faith work to safeguard constituents from clear and immediate AI-related harms. A federal preemption measure on state AI laws risks sweeping these protections aside and leaving communities exposed,” they said.

Trump has maintained close ties with AI and tech leaders since taking office in January.

He has already signed an executive order calling for the removal of “barriers” to AI innovation. He has also published a so-called AI action plan and an AI “Genesis Mission”.

He compared the latter to the Manhattan Project programme, which led to the creation of the world’s first nuclear weapons.

Drenched in sex and death, “The Secret Agent” peers into the past in order to make sense of the present. The latest film from celebrated Brazilian writer-director Kleber Mendonça Filho starts with a dead body and ends with an elegy for a different one. In between, it tells the story of an ordinary man ensnared in Brazil’s political turmoil during the late 1970s. Both deadly serious and seriously playful, this Cannes prizewinner may have the trappings of a thriller, but Mendonça Filho occasionally flips the script by inserting cheeky nods to schlocky B-movies — or the random movie theater blowjob. “The Secret Agent” isn’t tightly coiled so much as it gradually unfolds, its full meaning unclear until the filmmaker eventually hurtles forward nearly 50 years, snapping the final puzzle piece into place.

Wagner Moura plays Armando, who is driving to the city of Recife in early 1977. Stopping at a lonely gas station, he notices a corpse on the ground, the body barely covered by cardboard. That’s been there for a while, an employee offhandedly informs him. Maybe the cops will come eventually to pick it up. Just then, policemen do arrive, except they’re not here for the deceased — they’d much rather shake Armando down for a bribe. Mendonça Filho, who previously co-directed the feverish sorta-Western “Bacurau,” which doubled as a critique of inequality and colonialism, tells us all we need to know about the time period we’re about to enter. Welcome to reality under a brutal dictatorship: Life is cheap and you’re on your own.

Armando doesn’t need to be reminded. He’s actually on the run, using the name Marcelo as an alias to hide from those in power looking for him. Once he was a scientist, but that time in his life, as we will discover through wrenching flashbacks, was destroyed, forcing him to change his identity and ponder fleeing Brazil. But first, Armando must retrieve his young son, Fernando (Enzo Nunes), who’s been staying with the parents (Carlos Francisco, Aline Marta) of his beloved late wife, Fátima. He soon learns that hit men have been hired to kill him by order of a crooked government lackey he defied. Armando used to do technology research; now, he has a price on his head.

“The Secret Agent,” which took directing and acting awards at Cannes, continues Mendonça Filho’s tendency to mix genres. His films refuse to behave properly, making room for whimsical asides along with somber reflections on government oppression. (Impishly, an opening title card warns us that the movie takes place during a “period of great mischief.”) The recently departed cult actor Udo Kier makes an appearance — his second in a Mendonça Filho film — which only emphasizes “The Secret Agent’s” wild-card unpredictability and, retroactively, its sympathy for the ghosts who walk among us. The narrative adventurousness comes to the fore when the action abruptly cuts to the present day as young women listen to cassette recordings of our main characters. That jarring digression will gradually morph into a crucial subplot, allowing Mendonça Filho to build a thematic bridge between then and now.

Running slightly over two and a half hours, the film expands as it unspools, introducing new side characters with their own histories. We meet Armando’s fellow refugees, all of them cooling their heels in an apartment complex overseen by a delightfully crusty matriarch (Tânia Maria). He picks up a lover (Hermila Guedes) while also confronting Fátima’s wary parents, who suspect their son-in-law cheated on her while she was alive. Mendonça Filho even invests some time in the hired goons (Gabriel Leone, Roney Villela) sent to whack Armando.

This panoramic sweep lends “The Secret Agent” a novelistic sprawl, although it sometimes dilutes the proceedings. That said, the approach adds texture to a film set during Carnival, the festival’s vibrancy paling in comparison to the creative exuberance on display. The movie doesn’t just celebrate “Jaws” — a worldwide phenomenon — but also features a clever recurring shark motif. Brazilian pop hits pepper the soundtrack, jockeying for space alongside Chicago’s schmaltz epic “If You Leave Me Now.” Severed legs wreak havoc and cats with three eyes stop by. And again and again, we see snippets of a mysterious modern-day storyline in which Laura Lufési’s diligent researcher studies Armando’s ordeal, his desperate saga rendered as ancient history.

If Mendonça Filho overstuffs his accomplished picture, it’s a fitting rebuke to a violent regime that would have tried to tamp down his voice. He finds a worthy partner in Moura, who embodies the rugged sex appeal and muffled anguish of a principled individual in a world gone mad. Alluring but haunted, Armando may be flawed, but his defiance makes him a reluctant hero. The film mourns all such political crusaders whose names we never knew, although it wears its commentary lightly. Even when this thriller arrives at its jolting, time-shifting epilogue, Mendonça Filho’s attitude is as much wry resignation as it is anger. Our contemporary horrors will inevitably become yesterday’s news. “The Secret Agent” suggests we not let those voices from the past go silent. They still have things to tell us.

WASHINGTON — The Navy admiral who reportedly issued orders for the U.S. military to fire upon survivors of an attack on an alleged drug boat was on Capitol Hill for a classified briefing Thursday with top congressional lawmakers overseeing national security.

Joining Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley for the closed-door meeting was Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The information the Pentagon is expected to provide comes at a potentially crucial moment in the unfolding congressional investigation into how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth handled the military operation in international waters near Venezuela. There are mounting questions over whether the strike may have violated the law.

Lawmakers are seeking a full accounting of the strikes after The Washington Post reported that Bradley on Sept. 2 ordered an attack on two survivors to comply with Hegseth’s directive to “kill everybody.” Legal experts say the attack amounts to a crime if the survivors were targeted, and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are demanding accountability.

The briefing in secure facility at the Capitol is with congressional leaders, including the Republican chairs and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, and separately to the GOP chairman and Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service,” Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told reporters after emerging from a briefing. “You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel were killed by the United States.”

Lawmakers will be seeking answers to questions such as what orders did Hegseth give regarding the operations and what was the reasoning for the second strike.

Democrats are also demanding that the Trump administration release the full video of the Sept. 2 attack, as well as written records of the orders and any directives from Hegseth. While Republicans, who control the national security committees, have not publicly called for those documents, they have pledged a thorough review.

“The investigation is going to be done by the numbers,” said Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We’ll find out the ground truth.”

Pressure builds on Hegseth

President Trump has stood behind Hegseth as he defends his handling of the attack, but pressure is mounting on the defense secretary.

Hegseth has said the aftermath of an initial strike on the boat was clouded in the “fog of war.” He has also said he “didn’t stick around” for the second strike, but that Bradley “made the right call” and “had complete authority” to do it.

Also on Thursday, the Defense Department inspector general was expected to release a partially redacted report into Hegseth’s use of the Signal messaging app in March to share information about a military strike against Yemen’s Houthi militants.

The report found that Hegseth put U.S. personnel and their mission at risk by using Signal, according to two people familiar with the findings. The Pentagon, however, has cast the report as an exoneration of Hegseth.

Who is Adm. Bradley?

At the time of the attack, Bradley was the commander of Joint Special Operations Command, overseeing coordinated operations between the military’s elite special operations units out of Fort Bragg in North Carolina. About a month after the strike, he was promoted to commander of U.S. Special Operations Command.

His military career, spanning more than three decades, was mostly spent serving in the elite Navy SEALs and commanding joint operations. He was among the first special forces officers to deploy to Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks. His latest promotion to admiral was approved by unanimous voice vote in the Senate this year, and Democratic and Republican senators praised his record.

“I’m expecting Bradley to tell the truth and shed some light on what actually happened,” said Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, adding that he had “great respect for his record.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., described Bradley as among those who are “rock solid” and “the most extraordinary people that have ever served in the military.”

But lawmakers like Tillis have also made it clear they expect a reckoning if it is found that survivors were targeted. “Anybody in the chain of command that was responsible for it, that had vision of it, needs to be held accountable,” he said.

What else are lawmakers seeking?

The scope of the investigation is unclear, but there is other documentation of the strike that could fill in what happened. Obtaining that information, though, will largely depend on action from Republican lawmakers — a potentially painful prospect for them if it puts them at odds with the president.

Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he and Wicker have formally requested the executive orders authorizing the operations and the complete videos from the strikes. They are also seeking the intelligence that identified the vessels as legitimate targets, the rules of engagement for the attacks and any criteria used to determine who was a combatant and who was a civilian.

Military officials were aware that there were survivors in the water after the initial strike but carried out the follow-on strike under the rationale that it needed to sink the vessel, according to two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to discuss it publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. What remains unclear — and what lawmakers hope to clarify in their briefing with Bradley — was who ordered the strikes and whether Hegseth was involved, one of the people said.

Republican lawmakers who are close to Trump have sought to defend Hegseth, standing behind the military campaign against drug cartels that the president deems “narco-terrorists.”

“I see nothing wrong with what took place,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as he argued that the administration was justified in using war powers against drug cartels.

More than 80 people have been killed in the series of strikes that started in September. For critics of the campaign like Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., the pressing questions about the legality of killing survivors are a natural outgrowth of military action that was always on shaky legal ground. He said it was clear that Hegseth is responsible, even if Hegseth did not explicitly order a second attack.

“He may not have been in the room, but he was in the loop,” Blumenthal said. “And it was his order that was instrumental and foreseeably resulted in the deaths of these survivors.”

Groves and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.