security

WASHINGTON — The idea of requiring new state and local workers to participate in the federal Social Security program, a provision of the new House budget offer, is likely to ignite strong opposition in California, Rep. Bobbi Fiedler (R-Northridge) said Tuesday.

Only a third of the state’s 1.5 million public employees are covered by Social Security and those who are see their pensions reduced by up to $133 a month, according to state figures provided to Fiedler.

Public employees in California already are pressing a legal challenge to a federal law saying they cannot pull out of the system.

The idea of including newly hired state and local workers in Social Security is drawing increasing support on Capitol Hill as Congress looks for new ways to cut the deficit. Already endorsed in the Senate by Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), it would reduce the deficit by $200 million next year.

A 737 Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) with a luxurious VVIP interior has re-emerged unexpectedly tied to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as evidenced by a large departmental seal in the main cabin. The aircraft’s appearance follows news that DHS recently signed a contract to buy six 737s, ostensibly to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) deportation efforts. However, the BBJ, which also wears a paint scheme that is very similar to one President Donald Trump had previously selected for the U.S. Air Force’s two future VC-25B presidential aircraft, looks to have a very different role.

The 737 BBJ in question, a 737-8 model, currently has the U.S. civil registration number N471US. The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) public database shows the jet has been registered with that number to a company called Valkyrie Aviation Holding Group, LLC, since October. The address given for Valkyrie in the database is an office in Arlington, Virginia, just across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.

As seen in pictures at the top of this story and below, which were taken this past weekend at Washington’s Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, N471US currently has a red, white, and blue livery. “United States of America” is written prominently in large lettering on either side of the forward fuselage. “Independence” is also written in much smaller font on both sides of the fuselage, right under the cockpit, a spot where aircraft nicknames are often printed. A large American flag, depicted blowing in the wind, is featured on both sides of the tail.

As noted already, a relatively large DHS seal fitted to a bulkhead inside the cabin is visible through an open door in one picture. The jet’s exact internal configuration at present is unknown, something we will come back to later on.

As mentioned, N471US’s general external look is very much in line with what President Donald Trump had picked for the pair of forthcoming Boeing 747-8i-based VC-25B Air Force One aircraft during his first term. President Joe Biden subsequently reversed that decision, bringing back plans to paint those jets in the same iconic, Kennedy-era livery as the current VC-25A Air Force Ones. In August, the Air Force told Inside Defense it was “implementing a new livery requirement for VC-25B,” but did not elaborate.

Almost as quickly as it emerged at National Airport in D.C., N471US departed for points overseas, according to online flight tracking data. The jet arrived in Jordan’s capital Amman yesterday, having made at least one stop at Chania International Airport on the Greek island of Crete along the way. Chania International Airport also serves as an important hub for U.S. military forces operating in Europe and the Middle East, with facilities there under the oversight of the U.S. Navy’s Naval Support Activity Souda Bay.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s lone C-37B, a version of the Gulfstream G550 business jet, also departed from National Airport in D.C. on December 14 and arrived in Amman yesterday after stopping in Chania. That aircraft had arrived in both locations just ahead of N471US, lending credence to a direct connection between the two flights, and underscoring the 737 BBJ’s links to DHS.

Interesting flights to Jordan: a Dept of Homeland Security 737 landing Amman from DC (n471us), shortly after a CoastGuard glf5 (c102) from DC as well pic.twitter.com/yCpgICUjlM

— avi scharf (@avischarf) December 15, 2025

The Coast Guard currently falls under the purview of DHS. The service’s C-37B, also known as a Long Range Command and Control Aircraft (LRCCA), is regularly used as a VIP transport for the Secretary of Homeland Security and other senior departmental leaders, as well as top Coast Guard leadership. The LRCCA is based at Coast Guard Air Station Washington, which is collocated with National Airport.

Flight tracking data shows N471US left Amman today and flew to Zayed International Airport in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The Coast Guard’s C-37B also made the same trip. Who has been flying on either aircraft since they left D.C. on Sunday, and why, is unknown. TWZ reached out to DHS yesterday morning for more information about N471US, but we have not yet received a response. We have also reached out to the White House.

N471US itself, which has the Boeing manufacturer serial number 61329, is a known quantity. The jet, which has been flying since July 2021, is curiously still listed for sale on Avjet Global’s website at the time of writing. Avjet’s site and an accompanying brochure show the plane in a previous taupe-over-brown paint scheme. It is also described as having “low hours with 672 TT [hours total time]” and “154 landings.”

Avjet’s brochure says the jet has a “5 zone VVIP cabin configuration” designed to accommodate 17 passengers. Accompanying pictures show an extremely luxurious interior layout that includes two suites with full-size beds and a master bathroom with a shower stall, among many other amenities. Whether any changes have since been made to the aircraft’s internal configuration is unknown, but there are no indications that it has. It would be expensive and time-consuming to make major changes to the core internal layout. Doing so would also call into question the basic rationale for any buyer to select this particular low-time VIP aircraft rather than a 737 in a more basic configuration, to begin with.

The 737 BBJ, then flying with the civil registration number N702F, was tracked flying from Harry Reid International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada, to Dallas Love Field in Texas, between September 23 and 24. It then flew to Ardmore Municipal Airport in Oklahoma, to the north of Dallas. It has been pointed out that Ardmore is home to a branch of King Aerospace, which has a long history of heavy maintenance and deep modification work, with a particular focus on the 737 family. King offers a variety of services related to VVIP 737s. The company also routinely secures U.S. government contracts for maintenance and other support for other 737-based aircraft with more specialized configurations.

The jet was not tracked again until October 31, when it flew with the N471US registration number from Ardmore to Chennault International Airport in Lake Charles, Louisiana. This airport has also been tied to the maintenance and repainting of U.S. government aircraft.

N471US returned to Ardmore on November 21. The aircraft conducted multiple local flights to and from the airport on December 10, according to Flightradar24. Observers have already noted this could have been for flight testing and/or crew training purposes.

Flight tracking data shows N471US flew to Joint Base Andrews just outside Washington, D.C., home to the VC-25A Air Force One jets and other members of the Air Force’s VIP aircraft fleets, on December 11. It is worth noting here that the U.S. Air Force, as well as the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps, operate militarized 737 variants as personnel transports, which are often used by senior leaders, as well as Congressional delegations.

On December 12, N471US then made a circuitous trip to the Grissom Aeroplex in Peru, Indiana, by way of the St. Louis, Missouri, area, much further to the west, where it did not land. The Grissom Aeroplex is collocated with Grissom Air Reserve Base, a major hub for Air Force Reserve aerial refueling tankers. It then returned to the Washington, D.C. area on December 13, where it was spotted at National Airport.

Altgoether, there are clear signs that N471US is now flying as a VIP transport for one or more entities under the DHS umbrella, possibly as part of a contractor-owned and/or operated arrangement. The U.S. federal government as a whole has historically operated a mix of government and contractor-owned and operated aircraft to support the travel demands of senior officials.

It had emerged earlier in the year that the U.S. Coast Guard was looking to replace its older Gulfstream V-based C-37A jet, which the service has been flying since 2002. Like its C-37B, the Coast Guard also refers to its C-37A as a Long Range Command and Control Aircraft (LRCCA), and performs the same general slate of missions. The service received the C-37B second-hand from the Air Force in 2022 after a deep refurbishment.

DHS subsequently confirmed plans to supplant both of the Coast Guard’s C-37s with newer Gulfstream 700-series jets modified with the requisite secure communications suite and other systems needed for their VIP mission. The total price tag for both of those aircraft has been pegged at between $170 and $200 million. DHS, and particularly Secretary Kristi Noem, has faced criticism for these plans for various reasons, including disputes over funding and for entering into the contract to buy the jets during the recent government shutdown. DHS has pushed back on that criticism, saying that acquiring newer jets is critical to meeting current and future mission requirements, and doing so safely and reliably. DHS’s top leadership does have particular demands to travel with access to specialized and secure communications, given the role the department has in larger continuity of government plans. The U.S. government has various measures in place to ensure it can continue to function in the event of any number of severe contingency scenarios, including major hostile attacks or severe natural disasters.

As a general observation, complaints about the misuse of U.S. government aircraft are leveled at senior federal officials, as well as members of Congress from both parties, with some regularity.

There have been no reports previously of DHS plans to acquire a 737 to further expand its VIP transport capacity. However, DHS confirmed to The Washington Post just last week that it had recently entered into a $140 million contract with a company called Daedalus Aviation for the purchase of six 737s to support ICE deportation activities. This followed a report from The Wall Street Journal in November that ICE attempted to buy 10 737s via Spirit Airlines for this purpose earlier in the year. That plan is said to have fallen through when it became apparent that Spirit did not actually own the aircraft in question, which also had no engines.

More broadly speaking, President Donald Trump’s administration has faced intense legal and other scrutiny, as well as broader criticism and controversy, over how it has been carrying out deportation flights, as well as its overall immigration policies. Public polling in the United States has consistently shown general support for stauncher measures against illegal immigration, but not necessarily for how the Trump administration is proceeding at present.

What connection Daedalus Aviation may or may not have to Valkyrie Aviation is unknown, but the latter company did reserve seven other N numbers (N473US, N474US, N475US, N476US, N477US, N478US, and N479US) on October 27, according to the FAA’s database. A search of entries tied to Valkyrie in the database also turns up N472US, a Gulfstream G650 business jet, which is now said to be registered to a company called Vigilant Aviation Holdings LLC with an address in Lewes, Delaware. Valkyrie also interestingly reserved N702F, the registration number previously applied to N471US, on November 13.

Overall, observers have already pointed out that N471US looks to have a configuration ill-suited to conducting deportation flights, just from a practical perspective, and a VIP role for that jet still seems far more likely. At the same time, rolling it in with the acquisition of a fleet of less luxurious 737s intended primarily to serve in the deportation role would not necessarily be surprising. Whatever deal DHS may have with Valkyrie could also be an entirely separate arrangement from the one it has with Daedalus. Regardless, all of this could easily fuel new criticism around DHS’s recent aviation acquisition efforts.

In the meantime, N471US is continuing its trip overseas on what looks to be its first major flight in its present role, and more details about the plane and how it is being utilized may now start to emerge. From what we’re seeing now, it certainly looks like DHS’s new 737 fleet includes at least one aircraft fully equipped as a luxurious VIP transport.

Special thanks to David Lee for sharing pictures he took of N471US at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport this past weekend with us.

Editor’s Note: The feature image originally at the top of this story was swapped with another at the request of the source.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com

Dec. 18 (UPI) — Paraguay signed a security cooperation agreement with the United States to strengthen efforts against organized crime, drug trafficking and other transnational threats, as Asuncion seeks to reinforce its role as a strategic partner of Washington in central South America.

The agreement was signed this week by Paraguayan Foreign Minister Ruben Ramirez Lezcano and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The document sets out general guidelines for joint work and must be sent to Paraguay’s Congress for review and approval.

Paraguay is a landlocked country between Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia. Its location has made it a key transit point for drug trafficking and smuggling routes across South America, which has led the government of President Santiago Pena to strengthen international security cooperation.

The agreement covers actions against transnational crime, training of military personnel, information sharing, humanitarian assistance and coordination in response to emergencies and natural disasters.

At the signing ceremony, Ramirez Lezcano highlighted the Paraguayan government’s commitment to shared goals with the United States.

“President Santiago Pena is deeply committed to continuing to work strongly on the relationship between our countries and on shared objectives such as fighting transnational organized crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking and corruption,” the foreign minister said.

He added that what is at stake “is not only security, but the freedom of people,” and said the agreement represents an important step to protect both values.

Rubio said the agreement also creates “the opportunity to train together, cooperate, exchange information directly and quickly, and respond to any humanitarian situation that may arise in the future, not only in Paraguay, but in the region.”

“It is a security agreement, but what also exists here is the opportunity to cooperate at the economic level, where there are many opportunities to use Paraguay’s potential so that it becomes a wealthier country,” Rubio said.

He added that Paraguayans are expected to have greater economic opportunities through cooperation with U.S. companies and interests “that are willing to invest responsibly and effectively in the economy and also help create jobs, work and sources of income for the citizens of your country.”

The United States and Paraguay have maintained decades of cooperation in areas such as security, counter-narcotics efforts, institutional strengthening and humanitarian assistance, according to official records from both governments.

Paraguay’s Foreign Ministry has said the relationship with the United States is strategic and has deepened in recent years amid a regional context marked by the advance of transnational organized crime.

The agreement signed in Washington adds to other bilateral instruments already in force and seeks to update cooperation mechanisms in response to emerging threats in South America.

Dec. 17 (UPI) — There are no legal or national security justifications for the Trump administration’s attacks on ships in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean Sea, Sen. Chris Murphy said following a bipartisan classified briefing on the strikes.

At least 95 people have been killed in 25 military strikes on ships the Trump administration accuses of being used by drug cartels and gangs designated as terrorist organizations since Sept. 2.

The strikes have drawn mounting domestic and international condemnation and questions over their legality by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

The administration defends the strikes as legal under both U.S. and international law, arguing the United States is at war with the drug cartels who are flooding the country with deadly substances.

State Secretary Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth held a classified briefing on the strikes with members of Congress on Tuesday, with many Democrats, including Murphy, D-Conn., calling foul.

“While I obviously can’t tell you any classified information I learned, I can tell you this: that the administration had no legal justification for these strikes, and no national justification for these strikes,” Murphy said in a video posted to his X account.

On the national security front, the administration admitted to the lawmakers that there is no fentanyl coming to the United States from Venezuela and the cocaine that is coming from Venezuela is mostly going to Europe, he said.

“And so we are spending billions of your taxpayer dollars to wage a war in the Caribbean to stop cocaine from going from Venezuela to Europe,” he said. “That is a massive waste of national security resources and of your taxpayer dollars.”

On the legal front, the administration is justifying the strikes by stating they are targeting gangs and cartels that the Trump administration has designated as terrorist organizations.

Since February, President Donald Trump has designated 10 cartels and gangs as terrorist organizations, with Clan de Golfo blacklisted on Tuesday.

Murphy said that while the president has the power to designate groups as terrorist organizations, it does not give him the ability to carry out military strikes targeting them.

“A designated ‘terrorist organization’ allows the president to impose sanctions on those organizations and individuals,” he said. “Only Congress, only the American public, can authorize war. And there’s just no question that these are acts of war.”

Four years after seizing power in a coup, Myanmar’s military junta is adapting to survive a grinding civil war that once appeared to be slipping beyond its control. In October, rebel fighters in central Myanmar described facing a level of intensity they had not seen before: sustained artillery fire, coordinated drone strikes, and repeated infantry assaults that came in relentless waves. After days of fighting near the village of Pazun Myaung, resistance forces were forced to withdraw, marking a rare tactical success for a military that had suffered major setbacks since 2023.

This shift follows Operation 1027, a coordinated rebel offensive that overran around 150 military outposts and handed resistance groups control of large swathes of borderland territory. Shaken by those defeats, the junta began reshaping its strategy. According to rebel fighters and security analysts interviewed by Reuters, the military has leaned on three pillars to stabilise its position: mass conscription, expanded use of drones and air power, and growing diplomatic and coercive support from China.

How the Junta Is Fighting Back

On the ground, resistance fighters report that the military is deploying “human-wave” tactics, sending repeated infantry units forward even as casualties mount. Rebels say some soldiers appear to be coerced into advancing, a stark contrast to earlier phases of the war when troops often retreated quickly after losses. These assaults are now closely integrated with artillery and drone strikes, creating pressure that smaller, lightly equipped resistance units struggle to withstand over time.

At the same time, the junta has rebuilt manpower through mandatory conscription introduced in February 2024. Despite widespread public fear and evasion, tens of thousands of recruits have reportedly entered the armed forces, stabilising a military that had shrunk dramatically since the coup. The command structure has also been reshuffled, with more experienced officers replacing those promoted through patronage, addressing one of the army’s long-standing weaknesses.

Air power has become more lethal as well. While conventional airstrikes remain central, they are now increasingly guided by reconnaissance drones, improving accuracy. Analysts say the military operates a diverse fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles sourced from China, Russia and Iran, giving it a technological edge over resistance groups that lack jamming equipment or air-defence systems. Lower-level commanders are also reportedly being granted faster access to air support, tightening coordination between ground assaults and aerial attacks.

China’s Quiet but Crucial Role

Beyond the battlefield, China has emerged as a decisive external factor in the junta’s partial resurgence. While Beijing maintains ties with certain ethnic armed groups, it continues to see Myanmar’s generals as the most reliable guarantors of stability along its border. Chinese officials have brokered ceasefires that have directly benefited the junta, including arrangements that returned strategically important towns to military control.

Pressure from Beijing has also constrained resistance groups’ access to weapons and financing. International researchers say China has leaned on allied militias to restrict arms flows and imposed financial and border measures to enforce compliance. In some areas, this has effectively frozen resistance operations, forcing groups into ceasefires due to shortages of ammunition and funds. For fighters on the ground, this external squeeze has compounded the military’s renewed offensive momentum.

Why It Matters

The junta’s evolving tactics do not signal outright victory, but they do mark a dangerous shift in a conflict that had increasingly favoured resistance forces. Myanmar’s frontlines remain fragmented, with no single actor dominating nationwide, yet the military’s ability to retake territory in parts of the country suggests the war is entering a new, more brutal phase. Civilians are likely to bear the cost, as intensified airstrikes, mass infantry assaults and prolonged clashes deepen humanitarian suffering and displacement.

This military push also coincides with a planned general election that international observers and rights groups have already dismissed as neither free nor fair. By reclaiming territory and projecting strength, the junta appears intent on manufacturing a sense of control and legitimacy, even as key opposition figures remain jailed and major political forces boycott the vote.

What Comes Next

Analysts expect fighting to intensify rather than subside. With conscription feeding new troops into the ranks, drones sharpening air power, and China discouraging resistance advances near its interests, the military is likely to continue probing for opportunities to retake ground. Resistance forces, meanwhile, face internal disparities in strength and growing external pressure, making coordinated nationwide offensives harder to sustain.

Over the next few years, Myanmar is likely to see a protracted stalemate punctuated by brutal offensives rather than a decisive resolution. The junta’s comeback is limited and uneven, but it is enough to prolong the conflict and raise the stakes for all sides involved.

Analysis

Myanmar’s war is no longer defined solely by a collapsing army versus a rising resistance. Instead, it is evolving into a grim contest of endurance. The junta’s use of human-wave assaults reflects both renewed confidence and underlying fragility: manpower is being substituted for legitimacy, and coercion for morale. Drones and foreign backing provide tactical advantages, but they do not resolve the political roots of the conflict. China’s role underscores how regional power politics can shape internal wars, often prioritising stability over justice. In this context, the junta’s battlefield adaptation may extend its survival, but it also deepens a cycle of violence that makes a negotiated political settlement ever more elusive.

With information from Reuters.

Dec. 14 (UPI) — A Hong Kong court is scheduled to deliver its verdict Monday in the national security case against media founder and former publisher Jimmy Lai, one of the city’s most prominent pro-democracy figures and the founder of the now-defunct newspaper Apple Daily.

Lai, 78, whose Chinese name is Lai Chee-ying, is charged alongside several companies linked to Apple Daily, including Apple Daily Limited, Apple Daily Printing Limited and AD Internet Limited, according to the court’s docket.

Prosecutors allege that Lai conspired to collude with foreign forces, an offense punishable by as much as a life sentence in prison under Hong Kong’s national security law.

Court records show the case is listed for verdict at 10 a.m. local time in the Court of First Instance at the West Kowloon Law Courts Building.

The Hong Kong Judiciary issued special public seating and ticketing arrangements for the hearing, citing high demand. According to court notices, admission tickets will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis beginning 45 minutes before the hearing, with overflow seating and live broadcasts provided in multiple courtrooms.

The case has also drawn international attention, with governments and press freedom groups warning that the prosecution reflects a broader erosion of civil liberties and press freedom in Hong Kong since the national security law was imposed in 2020.

Lai has pleaded not guilty to two counts of “conspiracy to collude with foreign forces” and a separate count of conspiracy to publish seditious material in Apple Daily, The New York Times reported. He has been jailed since his arrest five years ago.

The United States has fully commited to its enforcement of sanctions on Venezuela by seizing a large oil tanker off its coast. President Donald Trump publicly announced the operation on December 10^th and authorities said a joint FBI/Homeland Security/Coast Guard team executed a court-ordered seizure of the vessel, which was transporting Iranian and Venezuelan crude in violation of U.S imposed sanctions.

This is reportedly the first U.S. seizure of a Venezuelan oil shipment since sanctions began way back in 2019. “We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, a large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually,” says Donald Trump.

Trying to maintain the credibility of U.S. sanctions at a time when their enforcement have increasingly been challenged by other international actors such as Russia or Iran. Now, The U.S. is willing to take direct action beyond economic wars, even at the risk of diplomatic and military escalation.

Reactions from Caracas

Venezuela publicly denounced the action and accused Washington of blatant theft describing the seizure as “an act of international piracy”. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has long cast himself as the victim of a U.S. led campaign to oust him from the country in order to seize the vast oil wealth on the country’s shores. He reiterated that the U.S. military buildup, which started this summer, including carrier strike groups and bases is directly aimed at overthrowing him.

Maduro’s supporters rallied in the streets against foreign aggression even as officials prepared diplomatic protests to international bodies. For the time being, he faces limited other practical options for retaliation as Venezuela’s navy is in no position to challenge U.S. maritime dominance, and legal recourse through international courts would likely take years.

Russia’s Offers Full Support

Moscow reaffirmed its backing for Maduro, emphasising the legitimacy of Venezuela’s government and condemning what it described as unilateral U.S. actions. An ally in South America provides Russia opportunities for energy investment, and a way to challenge U.S. influence.

The tanker seizure allows Moscow to frame Washington as overreaching and destabilising, a narrative it also applies to recent U.S. actions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. While Russia is unlikely to escalate militarily, its political backing is significant.

China’s Strategic Role, A Potential Mediator?

Avoiding direct confrontation with Washington over the seizure, Beijing has reiterated its general opposition to unilateral sanctions and calling for international dialogue. However, China remains Venezuela’s most important economic partner and oil consumer, giving it substantial influence over any talks in the region.

Chinese companies have adapted to sanctions by purchasing Venezuelan crude oil at discounted prices, often through intermediaries. For Beijing, Venezuela is also part of a broader strategy to diversify energy supplies and expand its economic reach to the Americas.

Impact on Oil Markets

The announcement caused a modest spike in oil prices around the globe; for example: Brent crude briefly rose about 0.4% to around $62 a barrel, before returning to normal levels in the following few days.

The incident also highlighted Venezuela’s export challenges: under sanctions, its oil trades at a deep discount for its main trade partners, China and Russia. American oil companies with Venezuelan ties reported no immediate trouble. Chevron the U.S. firm that co-owns Venezuela’s largest oil project said its operations there continue normally, and U.S. imports of Venezuelan crude have even ticked up slightly in recent months.

Broader Consequences

Neighbouring countries such as Cuba and other Caribbean states depend on Venezuelan oil and could feel its effects. Sanctioning Venezuela was intended to pressure the regime into political concessions, yet Maduro remains firmly in power.

Enforcement actions like this tanker seizure may increase short-term pressure, but they also come with great risk for the stability of the Caribbean. Venezuela’s experience mirrors that of Iran and Russia, suggesting that sanctions alone may be insufficient to produce regime change, particularly when the targeted government is provided external backing.

Possible Future Scenarios and Implications

One scenario is a continuation of this low-level rise in tensions, with the U.S. stepping up enforcement and Venezuela responding through diplomatic protests while relying on Russian support.

Another is a negotiated de-escalation, potentially linked to limited sanctions relief in exchange for political concessions, though past efforts suggest this would be difficult to achieve with the current White House administration.

A more destabilising scenario would involve a potential confrontation at sea and broader disruption to energy markets. However, this scenario remains unlikely for the time being.

With information from Reuters and BBC News.

The first National Security Strategy of the United States of America was released in 1950 under President Truman. It set firm strategic goals based on the containment doctrine to limit the influence of communist ideology in the global order. This first national security strategy marked the beginning of limited global policing in US geopolitics, but it was less pragmatic and more principled realism.  American interests became specific to liberal internationalism and focused only on areas facing the spread of the communist threat.

The Core Security Thinking of the US

The core security thinking of Americans was to preserve their sphere of influence from any adversarial influence or intervention, echoing the Monroe Doctrine. The initial period had this core, and the first national security strategy laid the groundwork for this security thinking. In 1988, the scope of core security thinking expanded, and elements of realism advanced further, with the US beginning to engage in deterrence calculations and global outreach to build collective military alliances against the Soviets. Most importantly, the strategy also focused on strengthening the economy. The core security thinking in the US’s national security strategy by the late 1980s began to realize that, while the Monroe Doctrine is important, US strategic interests must also require adopting flexibility in its confrontational approach, guided by liberal internationalism and the containment of communism.

Pragmatism and Realism

After the Soviet disintegration, US National Security Strategy focused on navigating a multipolar world by reinforcing the idea of collective security under the H.W. Bush Administration. The 1991 and 1993 US National Security strategies expanded on the concepts that started to emerge in the late 1980s—deterrence and engagement. In the 1990s, this strategy was continued through Powell’s four pillars: strong defense, forward presence, alliances, and coalition-building. The national security strategy designs suggest that elements of pragmatism and distinctions of pure realism gradually began to take center stage in the US national security approach.

Strategy in Crises

The National Security Strategy changed after 9/11, possibly in response to shifted security priorities. The previous approach of principled realism, which involved pragmatic and defensive tactics, now showed a slight shift, with the US’s national security strategy emphasizing more openly offensive realism and dogmatism. By the mid-2000s, the US had reactionary national security strategies, moving away from the approach that began to develop in the late 1980s. Key shifts in security strategies after 2001 included the doctrine of preemption and unilateral actions, but another significant change was a major shift in the collective engagement perspective, differing from earlier ideas of shared strategic responsibilities among allies.

After 9/11, the US called on allies, particularly in NATO, to bear a greater share of the burden for collective defense efforts, shifting away from reliance solely on the US. The core security thinking, rooted in peace through engagement, shifted during the 1990s toward peace through strength. Another aspect, after the Monroe Doctrine, peace through strength, gained a label of permanence in the US National Security Strategy, though its effectiveness and emphasis varied over time.

Trump’s National Security Strategy: Rebooting and Readjustments

Trump’s 2025 national security strategy resembles his 2017 National Security Strategy. The nationalist ideals of America First and the focus on economic engagement—which is the main security approach this time—are a mix of realizations and reactions. The first reaction to the current global situation is reasserting the Monroe Doctrine, dubbed “Trump Corollary,” and the second is showing the will for peace through strength by deterrence. Even if conflicts occur, the strategy emphasizes engaging in conflict with strategic skill to quickly win wars with little to no casualties. The realization part of the strategy is the US increasing its understanding of collective efforts and economic strength. The strategy highlights stronger partnerships with countries like India for the Indo-Pacific.

Reaction and Challenge

The realistic approach in this strategy is flexible realism, aiming not at domination but at maintaining a balance of power, while not fully adopting defensive realism. The United States has embraced both offensive and defensive realism. Over the past ten years, the US National Security Strategy under Obama, Trump 1.0, and Biden has incorporated elements of defensive realism along with principled realism, with the US gradually increasing its efforts to balance power through the promotion of liberal and pro-democratic values—examples include its Middle East policy and the revival of QUAD in 2017. However, a notable development in the 2025 strategy is the US’s willingness to undertake offensive actions to maximize security, such as Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran and expanding operations in Latin America against Venezuela. Another prominent aspect of this strategy is the US’s focus on Europe’s burden-sharing, attempting to lighten its responsibilities and emphasizing that Europe should stand on its own, while the US remains a facilitator in Europe’s development. However, it is no longer willing to assume a broader role—similar to sentiments after 9/11. This strategy likely reflects the challenges posed by a rising China, Russia’s multipolar approach, and increasing strategic competition in multilateral arenas. The Trump approach—as mentioned in the strategy—is not just a reboot of the US National Security strategy after the 2000s but with some realizations.

Realization

There is a growing realization, as highlighted earlier, that the US can no longer sustain a confrontational approach and aggressive, offensive realism. The Trump strategy for 2025 recognizes the need to incorporate elements from both the late Cold War and post-Cold War periods. The latter was characterized by defensive realism and principal realism features—approaches that the US emphasized during the Clinton years, when embracing multilateralism, economic diplomacy, and regional collective engagements became central to US national security strategy, paving the way for more pragmatic interventions. A similar recognition of Clinton’s policy of enlargement through engagement is reflected in Trump 2.0 National Security Strategy—Shifting from Aid to Trade with Africa, which exemplifies this focus on promoting economic diplomacy and broadening engagement.

The US National Security Strategy 2025 reflects the nation’s understanding of how to adapt its engagement with the global order while maintaining realism. This time, US security thinking appears to find a balance between engagement and deterrence, which in previous years often seemed to conflict.

Call it an accident, call it the plan. But don’t stoop to the reprehensible gaslighting of calling it a lie: It is fact that federal agents have detained and arrested dozens, if not hundreds, of United States citizens as part of immigration sweeps, regardless of what Kristi Noem would like us to believe.

During a congressional hearing Thursday, Noem, our secretary of Homeland Security and self-appointed Cruelty Barbie, reiterated her oft-used and patently false line that only the worst of the worst are being targeted by immigration authorities. That comes after weeks of her department posting online, on its ever-more far-right social media accounts, that claims of American citizens being rounded up and held incommunicado are “fake news” or a “hoax.”

“Stop fear-mongering. ICE does NOT arrest or deport U.S. citizens,” Homeland Security recently posted on the former Twitter.

Tuesday, at a different congressional hearing, a handful of citizens — including two Californians — told their stories of being grabbed by faceless masked men and being whisked away to holding cells where they were denied access to phones, lawyers, medications and a variety of other legal rights.

Their testimony accompanied the release of a congressional report by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in which 22 American citizens, including a dozen from the Golden State, told their own shocking, terrifying tales of manhandling and detentions by what can only be described as secret police — armed agents who wouldn’t identify themselves and often seemed to lack basic training required for safe urban policing.

These stories and the courageous Americans who are stepping forward to tell them are history in the making — a history I hope we regret but not forget.

Immigration enforcement, boosted by unprecedented amounts of funding, is about to ramp up even more. Noem and her agents are reveling in impunity, attempting to erase and rewrite reality as they go — while our Supreme Court crushes precedent and common sense to further empower this presidency. Until the midterms, there is little hope of any check on power.

Under those circumstances, for these folks to put their stories on the record is both an act of bravery and patriotism, because they now know better than most what it means to have the chaotic brutality of this administration focused on them. It’s incumbent upon the rest of us to hear them, and protest peacefully not only rights being trampled, but our government demanding we believe lies.

“I’ve always said that immigrants who are given the great privilege of becoming citizens are also some of the most patriotic people in this country. I know you all love your country. I love our country, and this is not the America that we believe in or that we fought so hard for. Every person, every U.S. citizen, has rights,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) said as the hearing began.

L.A. native Andrea Velez, whose detention was reported on by my colleagues when it happened, was one of those putting herself on the line to testify.

Less than 5 feet tall, Velez is a graduate of Cal Poly Pomona who was working in the garment district in June when ICE began its raids. Her mom and teenage sister had just dropped her off when masked men swarmed out of unmarked cars and began chasing brown people. Velez didn’t know what was happening, but when one man charged her, she held up her work bag in defense. The bag did not protect her. Neither did her telling the agents she is a U.S. citizen.

“He handcuffed me without checking my ID. They ignored me as I repeated it again and again that I am a U.S. citizen,” she told committee members. “They did not care.”

Velez, still unsure who the man was who forced her into an SUV, managed to open the door and run to an LAPD officer, begging for help. But when the masked man noticed she was loose, he “ran up screaming, ‘She’s mine’” the congressional report says.

The police officer sent her back to the unmarked car, beginning a 48-hour ordeal that ended with her being charged with assault of a federal officer — charges eventually dropped after her lawyer demanded body camera footage and alleged witness statements. (The minority staff report was released by Rep. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, the highest-ranking Democrat on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.)

“I never imagined this would be occurring, here, in America,” Velez told lawmakers. “DHS likes … to brand us as criminals, stripping us of our dignity. They want to paint us as the worst of the worst, but the truth is, we are human beings with no criminal record.”

This if-you’re-brown-you’re-going-down tactic is likely to become more common because it is now legal.

In Noem vs. Vasquez Perdomo, a September court decision, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that it was reasonable for officers to stop people who looked foreign and were engaged in activities associated with undocumented people — such as soliciting work at a Home Depot or attending a Spanish-language event, as long as authorities “promptly” let the person go if they prove citizenship. These are now known as “Kavanaugh stops.”

Disregarding how racist and problematic that policy is, “promptly” seems to be up for debate.

Javier Ramirez, born in San Bernardino, testified as “a proud American citizen who has never known the weight of a criminal record.”

He’s a father of three who was working at his car lot in June when he noticed a strange SUV idling on his private property with a bunch of men inside. When he approached, they jumped out, armed with assault weapons, and grabbed him.

“This was a terrifying situation,” Ramirez said. But then it got worse.

One of the men yelled, “Get him. He’s Mexican!”

On video shot by a bystander, Javier can be heard shouting, “I have my passport!” according to the congressional report, but the agents didn’t care. When Ramirez asked why they were holding him, an agent told him, “We’re trying to figure that out.”

Like Velez, Ramirez was put in detention. A severe diabetic, he was denied medication until he became seriously ill, he told investigators. Though he asked for a lawyer, he was not allowed to contact one — but the interrogation continued.

After his release, five days later, he had to seek further medical treatment. He, too, was charged with assault of a federal agent, along with obstruction and resisting arrest. The bogus charges were also later dropped.

“I should not have to live in fear of being targeted simply for the color of my skin or the other language I speak,” he told the committee. “I share my story not just for myself, but for everyone who has been unjustly treated, for those whose voice has been silenced.”

You know the poem, folks. It starts when “they came” for the vulnerable. Thankfully, though people such as Ramirez and Velez may be vulnerable due to their pigmentation, they are not meek and they won’t be silenced. Our democracy, our safety as a nation of laws, depends on not just hearing their stories, but also standing peacefully against such abuses of power.

Because these abuses only end when the people decide they’ve had enough — not just of the lawlessness, but of the lies that empower it.

WASHINGTON — President Trump last week released a national security strategy laying out his vision for America’s role in the world, tempering U.S. support for longstanding allies and recasting U.S. global interests in business terms.

China took note.

The paper’s section on Asia, almost entirely devoted to China and the threat of war over Taiwan, concludes with an imperative to win “economic and technological competition” in the Indo-Pacific.

But the document offers no strategic plan on how to bolster U.S. alliances and an infrastructural base unprepared for a war this decade. And it never once mentions the race against China for superiority in artificial intelligence.

Three days after releasing the document, Trump announced that Nvidia, the world’s most valuable company and leading chip maker, could begin selling powerful chips to China — the kind of chips key to powering AI. Trump’s move broke with decades of U.S. export control policy he once supported.

It was a welcome series of events in Beijing, where Chinese-state media interpreted Trump’s actions as an “inward retrenchment” — pragmatic steps from a shrinking superpower, focused on U.S. trade in the region above all else. The president’s moves come as the White House has tried to lower tensions with Beijing triggered by Trump’s tariff hikes.

Trump alluded to economic concerns when he explained the decision on chips with a social media post: “We will protect National Security, create American Jobs, and keep America’s lead in AI.”

Trump’s new strategy “differs from the style of the first term, which emphasized ‘great power competition,’” one Chinese analysis read, “and shifts toward an inward and domestic focus, emphasizing ‘America First.’”

One provision of the paper suggested Trump would adopt a version of the Monroe Doctrine, asserting U.S. influence over the Western Hemisphere while allowing other regional powers — such as Russia and China — to assert dominance in their own backyards. Other portions described China’s threat to Taiwan in purely economic, not military, terms.

“The document adopts softer language and shifts its declaratory policy from ‘opposes’ to ‘does not support’ any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait,” said Tong Zhao, an expert on China at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. China views Taiwan as a breakaway province and has long spoken of reuniting with the mainland.

“China has shifted from merely opposing Taiwan independence to proactively promoting unification, and is no longer satisfied with simply maintaining the status quo,” Zhao said. The softer wording, he added, “could signal to Beijing a weaker U.S. commitment to preserving that status quo.”

It’s a strategic direction with few adherents in Washington.

For decades, U.S. presidents have maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity with China over Taiwan, suggesting that Washington would defend the island against Chinese military action without explicitly outlining its plans.

But Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill have encouraged Trump to take the opposite tack, abandoning strategic ambiguity and recognizing Taiwanese independence. And this week, senior GOP senators spoke out against the president over his decision to allow Nvidia to sell chips into China.

Rush Doshi, a former Biden administration official now at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, said it was a “big deal” that China isn’t even mentioned in the national security strategy until the 19th page.

“It’s also a significant departure from the first Trump term and the Biden administration,” Doshi said. “The aim is to stabilize relations with China rather than compete to secure American interests.”

A diplomat with the Chinese Foreign Ministry reacted cautiously to the Trump administration’s recent moves, telling reporters that both countries “stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation.”

“The principle of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation is the right way for the two countries to get along,” said Guo Jiakun, spokesperson for the Foreign Ministry, “and is the only realistic choice.”

Taiwanese officials declined to comment, but pointed to an official statement from their Foreign Ministry that said that the Trump administration “has continued to show support for Taiwan” with its national security strategy.

The statement said Taiwan was committed to working with the United States and bolstering its defense capabilities, adding, “these actions demonstrate to the international community Taiwan’s steadfast determination to protect itself and maintain the status quo.”

‘Military overmatch’

Trump’s security strategy emphasizes the need to deter a conflict over Taiwan to preserve global shipping routes in the region, stating the United States “will build a military capable of denying aggression anywhere in the First Island Chain” — a strategic ring of islands off the east coast of China, including Taiwan.

“Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority,” the paper reads.

An internal Pentagon assessment first reported by the New York Times this week found the U.S. military had lost its strategic edge over China, and that its forces would be outgunned, or overmatched, in a direct conflict in the South China Sea. A defense official confirmed the veracity of the report to The Times.

Pledges by the Trump administration to transform the U.S. military, and particularly the Navy, in time for such a conflict may be too little, too late, with Chinese President Xi Jinping directing the Chinese army to be ready to reclaim Taiwan by 2027. And China’s rapidly expanding military capabilities on land and sea have shortened the warning time that Washington and its allies would have to come to Taiwan’s defense.

“The problem is, the lead time to prepare is getting shorter and shorter,” one Australian diplomat told The Times. “We won’t have much notice.”

Oriana Skylar Mastro, a strategic planner on China for U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and a fellow at Stanford University, said the document’s language on defending the First Island Chain is consistent with that of past administrations — but leaves out details on how it plans to carry that out.

“The United States needs to invest in the right technologies, and needs to build the right weapons, more of them — and then figure out where to place them,” Mastro said. “Part of the issue may be political, but for the most part, it’s just geography. There’s very little landmass in the combat radius of Taiwan, and those areas — southwest Japan, northwest Philippines — are already saturated [militarily]. There’s just not a lot of space to put stuff.”

The administration’s strategy also provides China with a road map to retake Taiwan in a way that Trump may be able to accept, Zhao said, allowing Chinese dominance over the island while pledging to maintain freedom of navigation throughout the region.

The administration’s approach to the area follows “mercantile logic,” Zhao said, providing Beijing with a path forward on unification that could avoid U.S. intervention — inspired by Russia’s efforts to woo Trump and his aides away from American commitments to Ukraine with promises of trade deals, financial opportunities and economic cooperation.

“If Washington was willing to tacitly accept China’s sovereignty claims over disputed features across the South China Sea,” Zhao said, “Beijing would have little incentive to threaten commercial navigation.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Congressional Democrats say Paramount’s bid for Warner raises ‘serious national security concerns’
The deep dive: In first year in Senate, Schiff pushes legislation, party message and challenges to Trump
The L.A. Times Special: AI slop ad backfires for McDonald’s

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Russia has reportedly captured parts of Pokrovsk in Donetsk, though Ukraine still holds positions in the northern sections. The city, largely in ruins, was a critical logistical hub and home to 60,000 people before the war. Its capture comes at a sensitive time, coinciding with U.S. envoy discussions, including those involving former President Trump, on a possible plan to end the war.

WHY IT MATTERS

The fall of Pokrovsk does not signal a collapse of Ukraine’s eastern front, but it affects Kyiv’s leverage in negotiations. Russian control of high ground provides tactical advantages, including drone launch capabilities. Meanwhile, U.S. support and military aid remain pivotal for Ukraine’s defense. The city’s loss could influence American perceptions of Ukraine’s strength, particularly in political circles advocating a quick resolution.

CURRENT MILITARY SITUATION

Russian troops have advanced in small assault groups, showing the slow, attritional nature of their operations. Ukraine has reinforced key positions with elite units, including special forces, but is mindful of troop shortages. Frontline fortifications, drones, and piecemeal Russian advances suggest Ukraine’s defenses remain resilient despite localized losses. Russia has also made limited gains in Zaporizhzhia and Dnipropetrovsk regions, though rapid territorial expansion is unlikely.

GEOPOLITICAL DIMENSIONS

Control over Pokrovsk is central to broader negotiations involving the U.S., where Trump has advocated a tougher line on Ukraine. Russia likely intends to use Pokrovsk as a platform to target nearby “fortress cities” such as Sloviansk and Kramatorsk. European allies’ financial and military support remains crucial, especially given Ukraine’s ongoing attacks on Russian energy infrastructure to weaken Moscow’s revenue streams.

CHALLENGES FOR UKRAINE

Maintaining troop strength amid attritional warfare and draft limitations.

Avoiding pressure to cede territory while securing ongoing U.S. and European support.

Managing long-term resilience against persistent Russian missile and drone attacks, which damage civilian infrastructure.

Balancing strategic defense with political messaging to allies, particularly the U.S.

ANALYSIS

The fall of Pokrovsk illustrates the psychological and strategic impact of attritional warfare. While Ukraine’s frontline holds, the loss of a city at a negotiation-sensitive moment could weaken Kyiv’s perceived bargaining power, especially in U.S. circles influenced by former President Trump’s assessment of the conflict. Militarily, the slow pace of Russian operations suggests that while gains like Pokrovsk are symbolic and tactical, they do not threaten an immediate collapse of Ukraine’s defenses.

Looking forward, Ukraine must focus on consolidating defenses, leveraging drone technology, and securing more support from European allies. Politically, the timing underscores the importance of maintaining strong ties with Washington, balancing pressure from U.S. actors advocating a settlement with the need to protect sovereignty over the Donbas region. The war remains likely to continue in a stalemated, attritional pattern, with momentum shifts driven as much by geopolitical influence as by battlefield developments.

With information from Reuters.

Dec. 10 (UPI) — The Department of Homeland Security has inked a deal to buy six Boeing 737 planes to deport immigrants.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has used charter planes in the past for deportation flights, but this deal will allow it to operate its own fleet.

The money comes from the $170 billion that Congress authorized for Trump’s immigration control plans in a spending bill earlier this year, according to the Washington Post.

In late October, DHS announced it had deported nearly 600,000 people this year.

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Post that the planes would save money “by allowing ICE to operate more effectively, including by using more efficient flight patterns.” She said it would save $279 million in taxpayer dollars, though she didn’t elaborate.

“We are delighted to see The Washington Post is highlighting the Trump administration’s cost-effective and innovative ways of delivering on the American people’s mandate for mass deportations of criminal illegal aliens,” she said in a statement.

She added that Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “are committed to quickly and efficiently getting criminal illegal aliens OUT of our country.”

In November, The Wall Street Journal reported that Noem and her chief adviser, Corey Lewandowski, directed ICE officials to buy 10 planes from Spirit Airlines for deportation flights and their own travel. But Spirit didn’t own the planes, which did not have engines.

The DHS contract is with Virginia-based Daedalus Aviation, created in February 2024, according to corporate records, The Post reported. Daedalus’s website says it “offers a full range of commercial and charter aviation services” and “provides comprehensive responsive flight operations tailored to the unique needs of each mission.”

John Sandweg, former acting director of ICE under President Barack Obama, said the purchase shows that ICE has a lot of money, but isn’t likely to be cost-effective.

“It’s so much easier to issue a contract to a company that already manages a fleet of airplanes,” Sandweg told The Post. “So this move I’m surprised by because what the administration wants to accomplish, by and large, can be accomplished through charter flights already.”

Congressional Democrats are sounding alarms over the deep involvement of Saudi Arabian and other Middle Eastern royal families in Paramount’s proposed bid for Warner Bros. Discovery.

Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, HBO and the historic Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank, behind such beloved American classics as “Casablanca,” “Citizen Kane,” and Bugs Bunny, and blockbuster hits including “Harry Potter,” “Dirty Harry,” “The Matrix,” and “Friends.”

Late last week, the Larry Ellison controlled Paramount came up short in the bidding for Warner Bros., in part, over the Warner board’s concerns about Paramount’s deal financing. On Monday, Paramount launched a hostile takeover of Warner Bros., appealing directly to Warner shareholders — asking them to sell their Warner stock to Paramount for $30 a share.

Paramount’s gambit has thrown the auction, and Warner board’s selection of Netflix’s $72-billion deal, into doubt.

Paramount has long insisted that it represents the best partner for Warner Bros., in part, because of the Ellison family’s cozy relations with President Trump. The company has trumpeted its ability to gain the blessing of the Trump administration.

Paramount’s bid is heavily backed by Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar’s sovereign wealth funds. The three royal families have agreed to contribute $24 billion — twice the amount the Larry Ellison family has agreed to provide in financing for Paramount’s proposed $78-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to regulatory filings.

Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s private equity firm, Affinity Partners, would also have an ownership stake.

On Wednesday, U.S. Reps. Sam T. Liccardo (D-San Jose) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Boston) called on Warner Bros. board to recognize the consequences of selling the legendary company, which includes news organization CNN, to foreign governments.

“This transaction raises national security concerns because it could transfer substantial influence over one of the largest American media companies to foreign-backed financiers,” Liccardo and Pressley wrote.

“Warner’s platforms reach tens of millions of American households through HBO, Max, CNN, Warner Bros. Pictures, Discovery, and numerous digital and cable properties,” the lawmakers wrote. “They also shape the news, entertainment, and cultural content consumed by the American public.”

Transactions “foreign investors with governance rights, access to non-public data, or indirect influence over content distribution creates vulnerabilities that foreign governments could exploit,” the lawmakers wrote.

Paramount Chairman and Chief Executive David Ellison on the Paramount lot in August.

(Paramount)

Paramount, in its regulatory filings, said the three Middle Eastern families had agreed to give up voting rights and a role in the company’s decision-making — despite contributing more than half the equity needed for the deal.

Representatives of Warner Bros. and Paramount declined to comment.

The Ellison family acquired Paramount in August. David Ellison, the chief executive, attended a White House dinner last month to celebrate Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The involvement of bin Salman was concerning to the lawmakers.

“The fund is controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom (according to the declassified 2021 report of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence) ordered the murder of U.S. resident and Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi,” the lawmakers wrote.

Over the weekend, Trump said the Netflix deal, which would give the streaming an even more commanding presence in the industry, “could be a problem.”

Syria is seeing major political changes, but security on the ground is still unstable. Israeli attacks continue in the south, while armed groups and internal tensions remain uncertain elements to Syria’s security. Al Jazeera’s Osama Bin Javaid breaks it down.

Dec. 10 (UPI) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine could hold elections within the next three months in response to allegations by U.S. President Donald Trump that Kyiv was using the war as an excuse to stay in power.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday evening, Zelensky said he was ready for elections and would seek to hold them on condition that the United States and other allies provided guarantees to keep voters safe at a time when Ukraine’s cities were under attack day and night.

“I’m asking now, and stating this openly, for the U.S. to help me. Together with our European partners, we can ensure the security needed to hold elections. If that happens, Ukraine will be ready to conduct elections in the next 60 to 90 days,” said Zelensky.

“I personally have the will and readiness for this,” he added, saying that he had instructed lawmakers to come with proposals to amend legislation that currently prohibits the holding of elections while the country is under a state of martial law.

“I’m waiting for proposals from our partners, expecting suggestions from our lawmakers, and I am ready to go to the elections,” Zelensky said.

Zelensky’s comments came after Trump, in an interview with Politico, said “it’s time” for Ukraine to hold an election because it was getting to the point where it was no longer a democracy.

“I think it’s an important time to hold an election. You know, they’re using war not to hold an election, but I would think the Ukrainian people would, you know, should have that choice. And maybe Zelensky would win. I don’t know who would win, but they haven’t had an election in a long time,” Trump said.

“You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore.”

Ukraine has been under martial law since Russia launched its full-scale invasion on Feb. 24, 2022, meaning that Zelensky has remained in office long beyond the expiration of his five-year term in May 2024.

Zelensky said in September that he would not run for a second term, saying his goal was to serve his country amid a crisis and finish the war, not win elections.

The offer represents a new position for his administration. For the first half of the war it completely rejected suggestions that elections should be held before relenting to U.S. pressure and saying toward the end of 2024 that it would consider holding elections if a cease-fire were implemented.

A significant majority of Ukrainians say elections should be held only after the war ends, with only around a fifth in favor of elections following a cease-fire. Support for Zelensky is also down markedly, after a recent corruption scandal involving some of his close associates.

Critics warn of numerous pitfalls of elections, ranging from the logistical issue of people being in the wrong places with large numbers of Ukrainians displaced internally, 4 million refugees overseas and 1 million mobilized in the military. There is also the question of how to include Ukrainians living in regions of the country occupied by Russia.

“In order for these elections to be fair all of the people of Ukraine would need to be allowed to vote,” Ukrainian opposition MP Lesia Vasylenko told the BBC.

“Elections are never possible in wartime.”

The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all held elections during World War II with only Britain effectively suspending democracy in favor of a government of national unity through July 1945. However, Britain was the only nation under direct, sustained attack and imminent threat of invasion.

Tuesday’s moves came amid a U.S. drive to broker a peace deal that was making little to no headway in bridging the gap between Moscow, which is demanding Ukraine cede territory and demilitarize and Kyiv, which has vowed not to give up land or cut the size of its military without cast-iron security guarantees.

Ukraine is “ready for elections”, President Volodymyr Zelensky has said, after US President Donald Trump repeated claims Kyiv was “using war” to avoid holding them.

Zelensky’s five-year term as president was due to end in May 2024, but elections have been suspended in Ukraine since martial law was declared after Russia’s invasion.

Speaking to reporters following Trump’s comments in a wide-raging Politico interview, Zelensky said he would ask for proposals to be drawn up which could change the law.

Elections could be held in the next 60 to 90 days if security for the vote was guaranteed with the help of the US and other allies, he said.

“I’m asking now, and I’m stating this openly, for the US to help me, perhaps together with our European colleagues, to ensure security for the elections,” he told reporters.

“The issue of elections in Ukraine, I believe, depends first and foremost on our people, and this is a question for the people of Ukraine, not the people of other countries. With all due respect to our partners,” Zelensky said.

“I’ve heard hints that we’re clinging to power, or that I personally am clinging to the presidency” and “that’s why the war isn’t ending”, which he called “frankly, a completely unreasonable narrative”.

Zelensky won election in 2019 with more than 73% of the vote.

Russia has consistently claimed Zelensky is an illegitimate leader and demanded new elections as a condition of a ceasefire deal – a talking point which has been repeated by Trump.

“They talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy anymore,” the US president told Politico. He has suggested without evidence that Zelensky is the main obstacle to peace as US-led efforts to broker a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine continue.

There are significant practical obstacles to a wartime election.

Soldiers serving on the front lines could be either unable to vote or require leave to do so. According to the UN, there are about 5.7 million Ukrainians living abroad because of the conflict. And any ballot would require complex, additional security measures.

Such a vote would only be fair if all Ukrainians could participate, including soldiers fighting on the front line, a Ukrainian opposition MP told the BBC.

“In order for these elections to be fair all of the People of Ukraine would need to be allowed to vote,” Lesia Vasylenko told the BBC World Service’s Newsday programme.

She said that “elections are never possible in wartime”, alluding to the suspension of elections in the UK during World War Two.

Discussions around holding elections have made headlines since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

There is little domestic political pressure on Zelensky to call elections while the conflict is ongoing, said Oleksandr Merezhko, the chairman of the foreign policy committee in Ukraine’s parliament.

There was “strong consensus” among politicians and civil organisations that elections would not be held under martial law, the Servant of the People MP told the BBC.

“There is absolutely no chance to hold elections,” he said. “Even the opposition, which is against Zelensky and would like to see him removed are against elections, because they understand the danger of attempting to hold elections during the war.”

The idea was “exactly what Putin would want”, Merezhko added. “An election campaign would be divisive. Having failed to destroy us from outside, Putin wants to destroy us from within, using elections as another tool to do so.”

A poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in March found about 78% of people opposed holding elections after a ceasefire with security guarantees, and were of the opinion that they could only be held after a complete settlement.

The share fell to 63% in a September poll, while 22% said elections could be held after a ceasefire with security guarantees – a jump from 9% in March.

“Even a year ago, Zelensky said that he was ready for elections as soon as the conditions allow” in the face of previous pressure, Hanna Shelest, a foreign policy analyst with the think tank Ukrainian Prism, told the BBC.

The question was, however, how to create the conditions Zelensky outlined, Shelest told the Newsroom programme on the BBC World Service, given the numbers of soldiers and refugees who would be voting as well as unsecured areas in the country and ongoing strikes.

“You cannot guarantee the security of the polling stations,” she said.

Zelensky is also facing continued and increasing pressure from Trump to agree to a peace deal to end the war, with the US leader urging Zelensky to “play ball” by ceding territory to Moscow.

Ukrainian leader responds to US President Trump’s suggestion that he is using the war as an excuse to avoid elections.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has declared that his government was prepared to hold elections within three months if the United States and Kyiv’s other allies can ensure the security of the voting process.

Zelenskyy issued his statement on Tuesday as he faced renewed pressure from US President Donald Trump, who suggested in an interview with a news outlet that the Ukrainian government was using Russia’s war on their country as an excuse to avoid elections.

Wartime elections are forbidden under Ukrainian law, and Zelenskyy’s term in office as the country’s elected president expired last year.

“I’m ready for elections, and moreover I ask… that the US help me, maybe together with European colleagues, to ensure the security of an election,” Zelenskyy said in comments to reporters.

“And then in the next 60-90 days, Ukraine will be ready to hold an election,” he said.

In a Politico news article published earlier on Tuesday, Trump was quoted as saying: “You know, they [Ukraine] talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it’s not a democracy any more.”

Zelenskyy dismissed the suggestion that he was clinging to power as “totally inadequate”.

He then said that he would ask parliament to prepare proposals for new legislation that could allow for elections during martial law.

Earlier this year, Ukraine’s parliament overwhelmingly approved a resolution affirming the legitimacy of Zelenskyy’s wartime stay in office, asserting the constitutionality of deferring the presidential election while the country fights Russia’s invasion.

In February, Trump also accused Zelenskyy of being a “dictator”, echoing claims previously made by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Zelenskyy and other officials have routinely dismissed the idea of holding elections while frequent Russian air strikes take place across the country, nearly a million troops are at the front and millions more Ukrainians are displaced. Also uncertain is the voting status of those Ukrainians living in the one-fifth of the country occupied by Russia.

Polls also show that Ukrainians are against holding wartime elections, but they also want new faces in a political landscape largely unchanged since the last national elections in 2019.

Ukraine, which is pushing back on a US-backed peace plan seen as Moscow-friendly, is also seeking strong security guarantees from its allies that would prevent any new Russian invasion in the future.

Washington’s peace proposal involves Ukraine surrendering land that Russia has not captured, primarily the entire industrial Donbas region, in return for security promises that fall short of Kyiv’s aspirations, including its wish to join the NATO military alliance.

“The threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within,” Vice President JD Vance at the Munich Security Conference, February 14, 2025.

America’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) marks an ideological and substantive shift in U.S. foreign policy. The administration of President Donald Trump is attempting to define a new “America First” foreign policy doctrine that is deeply pragmatic. It invokes the Monroe Doctrine but with a “Trump Corollary.” The agenda of previous administrations to spread democracy around the world through foreign military interventions is no longer the aim. Foreign policy choices will be made based on what makes the United States more powerful and prosperous. This is a truly pivotal moment in the way the US will navigate world affairs.

This NSS is a real, painful, shocking wake-up call for Europe. It is a moment of significant divergence between Europe’s view of itself and Trump’s vision of as well as for Europe. If Europe had any doubt that the Trump administration is fully committed to a tough love strategy, it now knows it with certainty. The administration is asking — demanding, really — that Europe polices its own part of the world and, most importantly, pays for it itself. The strategy—which has been long overdue—chastises Europe for losing its European character. The orientation behind the words seems to indicate that the US sees Europe as evolving into a rigid, intransigent, globalist entity. And the latter is apparent given the EU’s reaction to the new NSS as illustrated by Brussels and the establishment elite of France, Germany, Poland and the Baltics: one of shock and dismay as met Vice President JD Vance’s Munich speech.

The continent of Europe is plagued with immigration issues and a predilection towards censorship, according to the US president’s newly issued National Security Strategy (NSS).

Europe is facing potential “civilizational erasure” as EU policymakers encourage censorship, stifling of political dissent, and turning a blind eye to mass immigration.

The landmark and strongly worded document released on Friday says that while the EU is showing worrying signs of economic decline, its restive cultural environment and internal political instability pose an even greater threat.

The strategy cites as serious concerns EU-backed immigration policies, suppression of political opposition, curbs on speech, collapsing birthrates, and “loss of national identities and self-confidence.” It warns that Europe could become “unrecognizable in 20 years or less.”

Over-regulation

The document argues that many European governments are “doubling down on their present path,” while the US wants Europe “to remain European” and abandon what it termed “regulatory suffocation.”  The latter is an apparent reference to America’s push back against the EU over its strict digital market guidelines, which Washington claims discriminate against US-based tech giants such as Microsoft, Google, and Meta.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Friday denounced the European Commission’s $140 million fine against Elon Musk’s social media platform X, calling it an attack on American tech companies and “the American people.”

Rubio wrote on X, “The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on @X, it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments. The days of censoring Americans online are over.”

Rubio’s comments reflected others within the Trump administration, including Vice President JD Vance, who also posted on the social media platform that the Commission was punishing X for not engaging in censorship.

“The EU should be supporting free speech, not attacking American companies over garbage,” he wrote.

Immigration

Another one of Washington’s key objectives is “cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations,” the paper adds.

Trump’s strategy notes that the rise of “patriotic European parties” offers “cause for great optimism,” in a reference to growing bloc-wide support for right-wing Euroskeptic parties calling for strict immigration limits.

The document proclaims that “the era of mass migration is over.”  It argues that large inflows have strained resources, increased violence, and weakened social cohesion, adding that Washington is seeking a world in which sovereign states “work together to stop rather than manage” migration flows.

Normalizing relations with Russia

President Trump’s security strategy for the US also calls for a swift end to the Ukraine conflict and preventing further escalation in Europe.

To this end, the US has placed the restoration of normal ties with Russia at the center of its newly released National Security Strategy, presenting both aims as among America’s core interests.

The 33-page report outlining President Donald Trump’s foreign-policy vision was released by the White House last Friday.

“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine,” the paper states, “in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and reestablish strategic stability with Russia.”

It notes that the Ukraine conflict has left “European relations with Russia… deeply attenuated,” resulting in destabilization of the entire region.

The report criticizes EU leaders for “unrealistic expectations” regarding the outcome of the conflict, arguing that “a large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy.”

The US, it says, is ready for “significant diplomatic engagement” to “help Europe correct its current trajectory,” reestablish stability, and “mitigate the risk of conflict between Russia and European states.”

In contrast with the US national strategy during Trump’s first term, which emphasized competition with Russia and China, the new strategy shifts the focus to the Western Hemisphere and to protecting the homeland, the borders, and regional interests. It calls for resources to be redirected from distant theaters to challenges closer to home and urges NATO and European states to shoulder primary responsibility for their own defense.

The document also calls for an end to NATO expansion—a demand that Russia has repeatedly voiced, calling it a root cause of the Ukraine conflict, which Moscow views as a Western proxy war.

Overall, the new strategy signals a shift away from global interventionism toward a more transactional foreign policy, arguing that the US should act abroad only when its interests are directly at stake.

President Donald Trump’s new National Security Strategy puts the Western Hemisphere at the center of US foreign policy and revives the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, appending it with a “Trump Corollary.”

The document invokes the legacy of the Monroe Doctrine but pushes it further. It states that the US will block “non-Hemispheric competitors” from owning or controlling “strategically vital assets” in the Americas, including ports, energy facilities, and telecommunications networks. It describes the Western Hemisphere as the top regional priority, above Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific, and ties that status to controlling migration, drug flows, and foreign influence before they can reach US territory—clearly a fundamental and much-needed break with the foreign policies of recent presidential administrations.

EU leader Costa and the German government have hit back at a US security strategy harshly critical of Europe.

European Council President Antonio Costa and the German government have lambasted a new US national security strategy that paints Europe as a troubled, declining power that may one day lose its usefulness as an ally to Washington.

The remarks on Monday from the European Union’s leading economy and one of its top officials delivered a stinging rebuke to the National Security Strategy released on Friday by the administration of US President Donald Trump.

The 33-page document contains scathing criticism of the continent, claiming it is facing the “prospect of civilisational erasure” due to migration, scorning it for “censorship of free speech” and suppression of anti-immigration movements, and suggesting that the US may withdraw the security umbrella it has long held over it.

The stoush over the strategy, playing out as Washington ramps up pressure on Ukraine to agree to a plan to end the war with Russia, reflects what EU leader Costa said was a “changed” relationship between the US and Europe.

“We need to focus on building a Europe that must understand that the relationships between allies and the post-World War II alliances have changed,” Costa said at the Jacques Delors Institute, a think tank in Paris.

In response to the strategy document’s comments on free speech, Costa warned, “There will never be free speech if the freedom of information of citizens is sacrificed for the aims of the tech oligarchs in the United States.”

Costa strongly criticised allegations that free speech is being censored in Europe and said only European citizens can decide which parties should govern them.

“What we cannot accept is this threat of interference in Europe’s political life. The United States cannot replace European citizens in deciding which are the right parties and the wrong parties,” Costa said.

“The United States cannot replace Europe in its vision of freedom of speech,” he noted, adding, “Our history has taught us that there is no freedom of speech without freedom of information.”

‘Ideology, not strategy’

In Berlin, Sebastian Hille, a deputy spokesperson for the German government, said some of the criticisms in the document were “ideology rather than strategy”.

“Political freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression, are among the fundamental values of the EU,” he said.

He said Berlin also disagreed with the document’s failure to classify Russia, which in February 2022 launched a full-scale invasion of neighbouring Ukraine, as a threat.

“We stand by NATO’s joint analysis, according to which Russia is a danger and a threat to trans-Atlantic security,” he added.

Divisions over Russia

The US strategy document makes clear that Washington wants to improve its relationship with Moscow, saying that it has a “core interest” in ending the conflict with Ukraine to “reestablish strategic stability with Russia”, while hitting out at European officials’ “unrealistic expectations” for a solution to the war.

An initial US plan for ending the war, which would have allowed Russia to hold on to large territories in eastern Ukraine, sparked criticism from European leaders amid concerns that Washington is trying to force Kyiv to accept unfavourable terms.

The plan has since been altered, first with input from Ukraine alongside its European allies and then in meetings between Ukrainian and US officials. The full details of the proposal as it stands have not been disclosed.

By contrast, Moscow has welcomed Trump’s strategy document.

Costa said that given the strategy document’s position on Ukraine, “we can understand why Moscow shares [its] vision.”

“The objective in this strategy is not a fair and durable peace. It’s only [about] the end of hostilities, and the stability of relations with Russia,” he said.

“Everyone wants stable relations with Russia,” Costa said, but “we can’t have stable relations with Russia when Russia remains a threat to our security”.