Featured

Trump: Iran asked me to be Supreme Leader, but I said no thanks

Trump’s “Iran asked me to be Supreme Leader” joke at an NRCC fundraiser uses a real, deadly leadership crisis in Iran to normalize assassination-as-policy and blur what’s confirmed about the war and succession.

Mar 26, 2026

Featured

‘Men need to be perp-walked’ after Epstein files release, Massie tells BBC

A GOP lawmaker says the Epstein document releases are still falling short—because redactions and withheld material may be blocking accountability and survivor-centered justice.

Mar 25, 2026

Buried.News

The stories buried under the noise

Primary focus

Trump fires Kristi Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

A Cabinet secretary was forced out amid contracting and oversight scrutiny, signaling that executive control—not transparent accountability—can dictate leadership of the agency driving mass detention and deportation.

Mar 5, 2026

Featured

The Trump gold coin is not normal : Consider This from NPR

A federal design panel OK’d a Trump portrait for a commemorative gold coin, but the key question is whether Treasury can legally bypass long-standing limits meant to keep living politicians off U.S. money.

Mar 23, 2026

Featured

White House Confronted Over Huge Bets Made Minutes Before Trump’s Big War Move

A $580 million burst of oil-futures selling minutes before Trump’s Iran “talks” post raises a basic public-interest question: did anyone trade on advance knowledge of a market-moving national security decision?

Mar 24, 2026

Norms Impact

U.S. Takes Military Action in Ecuador Against ‘Terrorist Organizations’

U.S. Special Forces are now advising raids inside Ecuador under a “terrorist” label, expanding military action with scant public detail and widening executive war-making discretion.

Executive

Mar 4, 2026

Sources

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/us/politics/us-ecuador-trump-military-operations.html

Summary

The Pentagon said the United States and Ecuador have launched joint military operations in Ecuador against “designated terrorist organizations.” The action extends the Trump administration’s military campaign beyond prior unilateral strikes targeting boats in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific that the administration has tied to alleged drug trafficking. U.S. Special Forces are providing advisory, intelligence, and logistics support for raids inside Ecuador, creating a new operational footprint with limited public detail and unclear mission outcomes.

Reality Check

When the executive branch expands overseas military operations while withholding clear objectives, outcomes, and constraints, we normalize a model of force that outpaces public accountability. Embedding U.S. advisers, intelligence, and logistics into partner raids deepens U.S. operational responsibility while blurring the line between “support” and direct action. Over time, this precedent erodes congressional and public oversight of when, where, and why the nation uses military power, weakening the separation-of-powers guardrails that are meant to restrain war-making by inertia.

Media

View media post

Detail

The Pentagon said Tuesday night that the United States and Ecuador began joint military operations in Ecuador targeting “designated terrorist organizations.” A U.S. official, speaking anonymously about operational matters, said U.S. Special Forces soldiers are advising and supporting Ecuadorian commandos on raids across the country against suspected drug shipment facilities and other drug-related sites.

According to the official, the Americans are not believed to be participating in the raids, but are helping plan operations and providing intelligence and logistics support. U.S. Southern Command released a 30-second video showing a helicopter taking off, flying over an area, and picking up soldiers; the official said it depicted the first of a series of expected raids. The official said some raids were expected to involve U.S. advisers assisting nearby, while others would be conducted by Ecuadorian forces only. In the raid shown, the official said it was unclear what the objective was or whether it was successful.

Southern Command said the operations demonstrate a regional commitment to combat “narco-terrorism,” without providing further details.

Norms Impact

Trump Orders US Military to Plan Invasion of Panama to Seize Canal: Report | Common Dreams

A U.S. president ordering invasion planning to “reclaim” a treaty-transferred waterway crosses a core democratic line: the military becomes an instrument of discretionary coercion, not lawful defense.

Executive

Mar 13, 2025

⚖ Legal Exposure

Ethics Violation

Likely Unlawful

Potentially Criminal

Likely Criminal

The reported directive to plan for seizing the Panama Canal—potentially by invasion—creates serious investigative and oversight concerns, especially regarding lawful authority for any use of force. However, the article does not allege personal enrichment, payments, or an exchange of official action for a thing of value, so it lacks the structural quid-pro-quo pattern typical of prosecutable public-corruption cases. Exposure is therefore best assessed as a high-level irregularity/red-flag matter pending further facts.

Sources

https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-panama-canal-invasion-plan

Summary

President Donald Trump directed the Pentagon to prepare plans to “take back” the Panama Canal, including potential use of U.S. military force, according to two U.S. officials cited by NBC News. The reported order shifts a policy dispute into operational military planning tied to Panama’s cooperation, with U.S. Southern Command delivering draft strategies for review by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ahead of his planned trip to Panama. If treated as a bargaining tool, the planning normalizes coercive statecraft against a smaller democracy and risks entangling our military in a discretionary war over an asset the United States previously transferred by treaty.

Reality Check

Threatening or preparing to use U.S. military force to seize the canal as leverage would set a precedent that power, not law, governs our foreign policy—and it inevitably boomerangs into how our leaders treat our own rights at home. On these facts, the conduct is not obviously chargeable as a standalone federal crime absent proof of a concrete conspiracy or corrupt exchange, but it is a severe abuse-of-office pattern that weaponizes national security authorities for a discretionary taking. If any coercive scheme were tied to personal or political benefit, federal bribery and honest-services theories (18 U.S.C. §§ 201, 1346) would come into play; even without that, this posture guts treaty fidelity and lowers the threshold for presidential war-making without a clear defensive necessity.

Legal Summary

Legal Analysis

18 U.S.C. § 953 (Logan Act) — Unauthorized diplomacy

Article describes presidential direction to the Pentagon and diplomatic/military pressure scenarios; it does not describe private citizens conducting unauthorized negotiations, so Logan Act exposure is not supported on these facts.

18 U.S.C. § 371 — Conspiracy to defraud the United States / impair lawful government functions

The reported conduct is executive-branch planning (SOUTHCOM drafting options; review by the Secretary of Defense) rather than a covert scheme by non-government actors to obstruct lawful functions.
No allegation of falsification, concealment, or unlawful means is stated; the core issue is the contemplated use of force and political pressure.

18 U.S.C. § 872 — Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

The article describes threats to "take back" the canal and planning that could include invasion depending on Panama’s cooperation, but it does not allege an officer sought to obtain "money or other thing of value" for personal benefit.
Absent allegations of personal enrichment or demanded property/benefit for an official, statutory extortion elements are not met on the stated facts.

War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548) — Use of force / congressional reporting constraints

Planning for potential military action is reported; the article does not describe actual hostilities, introduction of forces, or failure to report/seek authorization, so prosecutable exposure cannot be concluded from planning alone.
Nonetheless, the stated willingness to use force to seize the canal raises a serious oversight and compliance risk if implemented without required statutory steps.

Structural corruption assessment (money–access–official act alignment)

The article mentions a $23B BlackRock-led purchase of ports and Trump’s public claim that this shows the U.S. has "already started" reclaiming the canal, but it does not allege a transfer of value to officials, bribery, kickbacks, or an agreement exchanging official action for private benefit.
Accordingly, the fact pattern reads as geopolitical/coercive policy pressure rather than a transactional corruption scheme.

Conclusion: The described conduct presents significant procedural/oversight and potential unlawful-use-of-force concerns if executed, but the article does not supply facts indicating a prosecutable money-for-official-action corruption scheme; exposure is best characterized as an investigative red flag rather than structural bribery corruption.

Detail

Two U.S. officials familiar with the matter told NBC News that President Donald Trump directed the Pentagon to prepare plans to carry out his stated intent to “take back” the Panama Canal, including by military force if needed. The officials said U.S. Southern Command is developing options ranging from expanded cooperation with Panama’s military to a less likely scenario involving U.S. troops invading Panama and taking the canal by force. They said SOUTHCOM commander Adm. Alvin Holsey has presented draft strategies for review by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who is scheduled to visit Panama next month.

The officials said the likelihood of a U.S. invasion would depend on the level of cooperation shown by the Panamanian military. Trump reiterated the objective in his joint address to Congress, saying his administration will be “reclaiming the Panama Canal,” without specifying what actions that entails. Trump has also refused to rule out military force to seize control of Greenland.

The context includes the Torrijos-Carter treaties, under which the United States transferred sovereignty to Panama while reserving a right to use force to defend the canal’s neutrality.