terrorist organization

WASHINGTON — President Trump has declared drug cartels to be unlawful combatants and says the United States is now in a “non-international armed conflict,” according to a Trump administration memo obtained by the Associated Press on Thursday, following recent U.S. strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

Congress was notified about the designation by Pentagon officials on Wednesday, according to a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The memo, startling in scope, signals a potential new moment not just in the Trump administration’s willingness to reach beyond the norms of presidential authority to wage war but in Trump’s stated “America First” agenda. It also raises stark questions about how far the White House intends to use its war powers and if Congress will exert its authority to approve — or ban — such military actions.

The move comes after the U.S. military last month carried out three deadly strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. At least two of those operations were carried out on vessels that originated from Venezuela.

Those strikes followed up a buildup of U.S. maritime forces in the Caribbean.

“Although friendly foreign nations have made significant efforts to combat these organizations, suffering significant losses of life, these groups are now transnational and conduct ongoing attacks throughout the Western Hemisphere as organized cartels,” according to the memo, which refers to cartel members as “unlawful combatants.” “Therefore, the President determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States.”

Pentagon officials could not provide a list of the designated terrorist organizations at the center of the conflict, a matter that was a major source of frustration for some of the lawmakers who were briefed, according to the person.

Lawmakers have been pressing Trump to go to Congress and seek war powers authority for such operations.

The White House and the Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment. Multiple defense officials reached Thursday appeared to be caught off guard by the determination and would not immediately comment or explain what the president’s action could mean for the Pentagon or military operations going forward.

What the Trump administration laid out at the closed-door classified briefing was perceived by several senators as pursuing a new legal framework that raised questions particularly regarding the role of Congress in authorizing any such action, the person familiar with the matter said.

As the Republican administration takes aim at vessels in the Caribbean, senators and lawmakers of both major political parties have raised stark objections. Some had previously called on Congress to exert its authority under the War Powers Act that would prohibit the administration’s strikes unless they were authorized by Congress.

The first military strike, carried out on Sept. 2 on what the Trump administration said was a drug-carrying speedboat, killed 11 people. Trump claimed the boat was operated by the Tren de Aragua gang, which was listed by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year.

The Trump administration had previously justified the military action as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the United States.

But several senators, Democrats and some Republicans, as well as human rights groups questioned the legality of Trump’s action. They called it potential overreach of executive authority in part because the military was used for law enforcement purposes.

By claiming his campaign against drug cartels is an active armed conflict, Trump appears to be claiming extraordinary wartime powers to justify his action.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committees, said the drug cartels are “despicable and must be dealt with by law enforcement.”

“The Trump Administration has offered no credible legal justification, evidence, or intelligence for these strikes,” said Reed, a former Army officer who served in the 82nd Airborne Division.

The Trump administration has yet to explain how the military assessed the boats’ cargo and determined the passengers’ alleged gang affiliation before the strikes.

Madhani and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstatin Toropin contributed reporting.

WASHINGTON — The State Department said Thursday that it’s reviewing the records of more than 55 million foreigners who hold valid U.S. visas for potential revocation or deportable violations of immigration rules.

In a written answer to a question posed by the Associated Press, the department said that all U.S. visa holders are subject to “continuous vetting” with an eye toward any indication that they could be ineligible for the document.

Should such information be found, the visa will be revoked and, if the visa holder is in the United States, he or she would be subject to deportation.

The department said it was looking for indicators of ineligibility, including visa overstays, criminal activity, threats to public safety, engaging in any form of terrorist activity, or providing support to a terrorist organization.

“We review all available information as part of our vetting, including law enforcement or immigration records or any other information that comes to light after visa issuance indicating a potential ineligibility,” the department said.

Since President Trump took office in January, his administration has thus far focused on deporting migrants illegally in the United States as well as holders of student and visitor exchange visas. The State Department’s new language suggests that the re-vetting process, which officials acknowledge is time-consuming, is far more widespread.

The administration has steadily imposed more and more restrictions and requirements on visa applicants, including requiring all visa seekers to submit to in-person interviews.

But the review of all visa holders appears to be a significant expansion of what had initially been a re-vetting process focused mainly on students who have been involved in pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel activity.

Officials say the reviews will include all the visa holders’ social media accounts, law enforcement and immigration records in their home countries, along with any actionable violations of U.S. law committed while they were in the United States.

“As part of the Trump Administration’s commitment to protect U.S. national security and public safety, since Inauguration Day the State Department has revoked more than twice as many visas, including nearly four times as many student visas, as during the same time period last year,” the department said.

Earlier this week, the department said that since Trump returned to the White House, it has revoked more than 6,000 student visas for overstays and violations of local, state and federal law, the vast majority of which were assault, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and support for terrorism.

It said that about 4,000 of those 6,000 were due to actual infractions of laws and that approximately 200–300 visas were revoked for terrorism-related issues, including providing support for designated terrorist organizations or state sponsors of terrorism.

Lee writes for the Associated Press.

On Tuesday, New York City radio host Sid Rosenberg asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio about whether the State Department intends to designate the Muslim Brotherhood and Council on American-Islamic Relations as terrorist organizations. Rubio responded that “all of that is in the works,” although “obviously there are different branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, so you’d have to designate each one of them.”

Logistics and bureaucracy aside: It’s about time.

For far too long, the United States has treated the Muslim Brotherhood with a dangerous combination of naiveté and willful blindness. The Brotherhood is not a random innocuous political movement with a religious bent. It is, and has been since its founding about a century ago, the ideological wellspring of modern Sunni Islamism. The Brotherhood’s fingerprints are on jihadist groups as wide-ranging as Al Qaeda and Hamas, yet successive American administrations — Republican and Democratic alike — have failed to designate its various offshoots for what they are: terrorist organizations.

That failure is not merely academic. It has real-world consequences. By refusing to label the Muslim Brotherhood accurately, we tie our own hands in the fight against Islamism — both at home and abroad. We allow subversive actors to exploit our political system and bankroll extremism under the guise of “cultural” or “charitable” outreach.

Enough is enough.

Founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated mission has never wavered: the establishment of a global caliphate governed by sharia law. The Brotherhood has always attempted to position itself as a “political” organization, but it is “political” in the way Lenin was political. Think subversion through infiltration — or revolution through stealth.

Consider Hamas. Hamas is not merely inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood — it is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian-Arab branch. The link is unambiguous; as Article Two of Hamas’ founding charter states, “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine.” And Hamas’ charter also makes clear its penchant for explicit violence: “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.”

This is not the rhetoric of nuance or moderation. This is the ideological foundation of contemporary jihadism. Yet, while Hamas is rightly designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department, other branches of the Muslim Brotherhood remain off the list.

Why? Because Western elites have allowed themselves to be duped by the Brotherhood’s two-faced strategy. Abroad, they openly sow the seeds of jihad, cheer for a global caliphate and preach for the destruction of Israel and Western civilization more broadly. But in the corridors of power in the U.S. and Europe, they and their Qatari paymasters don suits and ties, rebrand as “moderates” and leverage media credulity and overly generous legal protections to plant ideological roots.

What’s more, CAIR — an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history — has extremely well-documented ties to the Brotherhood. And yet CAIR agents continue to operate freely in the United States, masquerading as civil rights advocates while pushing Islamist narratives that undermine the core constitutional principles of equality that they purport to champion. Today, almost two years after CAIR-linked Hamas executed the Oct. 7 pogrom in Israel, CAIR remains in good standing with many elected Democrats.

It shouldn’t be so. In November 2014, the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR as a terrorist organization, citing its links to the Brotherhood and Hamas. And the Brotherhood itself is recognized as a terrorist organization by at least Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Bahrain and Russia. Jordan also banned the Brotherhood earlier this year. Put bluntly: There is absolutely no reason the United States should have a warmer approach toward CAIR than the UAE or a warmer approach toward the Brotherhood than Saudi Arabia.

The first Trump administration flirted with the idea of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. It was the right impulse. But the effort was ultimately bogged down by internal bureaucracy and international pressure — most notably from Qatar and Turkey, both sometime U.S. partners that harbor strong Brotherhood sympathies and bankroll Islamist causes. And the second Trump administration’s troubling embrace of Qatar may well nip any designation in the bud before it even takes off.

Critics argue that such a designation would complicate relations with countries where Brotherhood affiliates participate in local politics. But since when did the U.S. place a premium on building alliances with the ideological cousins of Al Qaeda and ISIS?

Moreover, designating the Muslim Brotherhood would empower domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies to go after its networks and financial infrastructure. It would send a clear signal that the U.S. government no longer accepts a claim of “nonviolent Islamism” as a pass when designating terrorist groups.

In a time when the threat from Islamic extremism remains global and decentralized, we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to the architects of the movement. The Muslim Brotherhood is not, as “Arab Spring” boosters risibly claimed a decade and a half ago, a Western partner in “democracy.” It is the mother’s milk of modern Sunni jihadism.

The question is not whether we can afford to designate Muslim Brotherhood offshoots as terrorist organizations. It is: How much longer can we afford not to?

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer