by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio – Gospa News founder and director
UPDATE ON SEPTEMBER, 7, 2026
«The Iranian judiciary has released the initial findings of an investigation showing that weapons used in a US bombing attack earlier this week on a wedding ceremony in the south of the country were American-made», Iranian Press TV Reported yesterday.
The head of the Iranian judiciary’s local branch in the southern province of Hormozgan said on Saturday that projectile fragments scattered around the site of a wedding ceremony on September 1, killing five people including a children, had been examined as part of the investigation, showing they were manufactured by US company Raytheon.
“The nature of the weapons used in the terrorist attack on civilian gatherings in Kohestak, Sirik, has been fully documented using advanced technical analysis tools and image data processing,” said Mojtaba Ghahremani.
Ghahremani said investigators had carried out a meticulous examination of the inscriptions, barcodes, and other details engraved on the projectile remains, leaving no doubt that the munitions belong to the US military.
He said the type of military thermal battery used in the ammunition revealed that it is from a series of high-voltage batteries used exclusively in the flight guidance systems of precision-guided bombs operated by US military forces.
The official said a military identification code, CAGE Code: 96214, registered on the projectile fragments directly links it to the weapons company Raytheon Missiles & Defense, a major US defense contractor and industrial corporation that manufactures weapons as well as military and commercial electronics.
Much more important than official release is the image and the video from wreckage that at first had induced the experts to identify the weapon as am AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile (read below).
On the tiny identification plate there is in fact the writing AGM – I 154 C-I which corresponds to the glide-bomb AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) produced by Raytheon under the stamp NAVAIR which is the matrix of the American weapons used in the joint activity formed by the US Navy and US Air Force.
The AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW) is a glide bomb that resulted from a joint venture between the United States Navy and Air Force to deploy a standardized medium-range precision-guided weapon, especially for engagement of defended targets from outside the range of standard anti-aircraft defenses, thereby increasing aircraft survivability and minimizing friendly losses.
It is intended to be used against soft targets such as parked aircraft, trucks, armored personnel carriers (APCs), and surface-to-air missile sites (SAMs). Prior to launch, it is given a destination through either a predesignated waypoint or a point marked through a targeting pod. It glides, using two wings that pop out for added lift, to the marked destination and dispenses submunitions in a short, roughly linear pattern.
The designation of the Joint Standoff Weapon as an “air-to-ground missile” is a misnomer, as it is an unpowered bomb with guidance avionics, similar to the older GBU-15.
But in this specific case, a more sophisticated weapon was used for the attack on the wedding ceremony…
The AGM-154C uses an Imaging Infrared (IIR) terminal seeker with autonomous guidance. The AGM-154C carries the BROACH warhead. This two stage 225 kg (500 lb) warhead is made up from a WDU-44 shaped augmenting warhead and a WDU-45 follow through bomb. The weapon is designed to attack hardened targets. It entered service with the US Navy in February 2005.
The use of this projectile minimally mitigates the implications of the attack ordered by the US Navy by US President Donald Trump; in fact, autonomous guidance oriented by the target’s heat source implies the possibility of an error that the SALM-ER guided cruise missile does not allow.
Below is a live-fire video released by the Royal Australian Air Force demonstrating the actual use of an AGM 154-C glide bomb
But at the same time, it appears to be a completely disproportionate weapon to hit a transmission tower, which, according to leaks from US officials, was the target of the attack (read detaisl below).
Therefore, the hypothesis of a targeted bombing to destroy a civilian home, as on Qeshm Island, remains valid.
This is why Iran has filed an international complaint for war crimes…
Iran’s Red Crescent Society (IRCS) has called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate a US missile attack on a wedding reception in the country’s southern province of Hormozgan, which killed at least five people and wounded 68 others.
The deadly incident occurred when shrapnel from a US attack struck a residential building where a wedding reception was being held in the city of Kouhestak, in Hormozgan’s Sirik County on Tuesday.
In a letter to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor, the IRCS said the attack raised serious concerns under international humanitarian law and warranted an independent, impartial, thorough and effective investigation.
“Given the reported civilian character of the location as the venue of a family wedding ceremony, as well as the presence of civilians at the site, the incident raises serious concerns under international humanitarian law and warrants an independent, impartial, thorough, and effective investigation,” the organization said.
The IRCS said preliminary information initially indicated that four people had been killed and 67 others wounded. Iranian health officials later raised the toll to at least five fatalities and 68 injuries, with a child among those killed.
The IRCS warned that the number of casualties could rise because some of those wounded were in critical condition.
FIRST POSTED ON GOSPA NEWS ON SEPTEMBER, 4, AT 7,28 AM GMT + 2 (Italy)
A US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile has been identified among the wreckage following the American strike on a wedding ceremony in Sirik, southern Iran, late Tuesday, adding further evidence of the US military’s role in the attack that killed and wounded civilians.
Weapons analyst Trevor Ball identified the remnants as belonging to the SLAM-ER, a precision-guided, air-launched cruise missile manufactured by Boeing, according OsintWarfare which posted on X the first video of wreckage and was quoted by Al Mayaeedn English Lebanese TV.
Boeing describes the SLAM-ER as being the most accurate air-launched munition in the US Navy’s arsenal;
Trevor Ball, a former US Army explosive ordnance disposal technician who now works as a weapons technical analyst for Armament Research Services, was among the experts asked by Reuters to examine the photographs and video.
“The damage seen appears to be from a munition which detonated on contact with the roof, or just above the roof,”he said, adding it was apparently a direct hit.
VIDEO LEGEND:
1st footage – The US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile has among the wreckage following the American strike on the wedding cerimony
2nd footage – Children’s slippers lie scattered in the aftermath of the US aggression at a wedding in Sirik, where civilians, including children, were killed and dozens more were injured. Footage from the scene shows slippers belonging to women and children amid the destruction.
After this initial analysis, both Iranian and international sources tried to identify the weapon, with some ballistics experts even launching the bizarre hypothesis that it was a ricochet shot, a hypothesis considered unlikely by most, however.
But one thing seems certain…
«A US munition struck a home hosting a wedding celebration in southern Iran directly, rather than ricocheting from another target, weapons experts who reviewed images and video verified by Reuters revealed» Al Mayadeen reported.
The strike in the small town of Kuhestak on Tuesday killed five people and injured at least 70 others.
So on Thursday, US Vice President JD Vance he was induced to declare that Washington was investigating the incident, despite the initially Pentagon deny of any responsibility…
“We’re investigating it because obviously we care. We want to know,”Vance said during a White House press briefing.
«Four military weapons experts who checked visual material told Reuters that the damage was consistent with a direct strike rather than secondary damage caused by a munition ricocheting from another target. Three of the experts stressed that the weapon was likely American rather than a misfired Iranian air defense missile» Al Mayadeen added many hours after its and our first articles posted on September 4, at 7,28 AM GMT + 2 (Italy)
Two US officials, speaking anonymously, said the US military had conducted strikes near Kuhestak on Sept. 1, with the town’s telecommunications tower as a specific target.
Satellite imagery places the tower about 135 meters from the wedding site. Iranian media reported that the tower was struck at about 9:30 pm local time.
But the same expert Trevor Ball debunked US Official speculation…
“The visible blast damage could not result from fragments from the nearby strike on the communications tower striking the area,” he stressed.
AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile is a weapon designed for precise strikes and can be retargeted during flight by a human operator.
Therefore, if it were confirmed that this very powerful rocket, the wreckage of which was found on site, was used, the issue would take on an unprecedented gravity.
Boeing describes the SLAM-ER as being the most accurate air-launched munition in the US Navy’s arsenal; therefore, it can be inferred that it was deliberate, adding to a long list of US strikes on civilian gatherings in West Asia that we summarized in a Gospa News exclusive investigation, focused above all on the previous massacres in Minab school and island of Qeshm, where Trump’s Military used a bunker-bomb of 1ton.
Which is the Trump’s goal of these henoisou war crimes even vs children?
Simple: Terrorize the Iranian population by fomenting a revolution, as attempted in January 2026 by the counter-strategies of the CIA (USA) and MOSSAD (Israel), through the infiltration of well-trained ISIS jihadist mercenaries who used Israeli projectiles, leaving clear evidence of the plot.
The mad ambition of the Zionist terrorist who leads the United States thanks to the votes of the Zionist Lobby is to split the Iranian authorities, as happened in Venezuela, in order to stage a coup like the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
But in Tehran, there is a very serious religious theocracy, armed above all with hypersonic missiles, and perhaps even nuclear ones, donated by Russia, China, or North Korea…
Speaking about the attack, Head of Iran’s Expediency Discernment Council Sheikh Amoli Larijani said, “The crime in Sirik and the killing of unarmed women and children embody the savage nature and deceptive self of the United States, and expose the falsehood and audacity of those who trade in human rights.”
A four-year-old child was among four people laid to rest in the southern Iranian city of Kuhestak on Thursday, as grieving families and residents gathered to bid farewell to loved ones killed in a US attack on the area, Al Matadeen Lebanese TV reported.
The funeral ceremonies in Kuhestak, in Sirik County of Hormozgan Province, began at 4 pm from a street at the city’s entrance, with mourners walking together toward the city’s Martyrs’ Cemetery, where the victims were laid to rest.
The authorities identified the four victims as four-year-old Amirali Karimi, 16-year-old Mohammad Mollahi, 43-year-old Kolthoum Mollahi Nezhadnia, and 50-year-old Zarkhatoun Taheri.
According to the announced figures, the US aggression left 68 people injured, several of whom remain under medical treatment. Al Mayadeen’s correspondent reported that the death toll from the US aggression targeting the wedding ceremony in Sirik had risen to five.
Iran has called on the UN Security Council to condemn an unprovoked and deadly US attack on a residential home hosting a wedding ceremony in southern Islamic Republic that led to the martyrdom of five civilians, including a four-year-old child, and injured more than 70 others.
Gholamhossein Darzi, the Islamic Republic’s ambassador and chargé d’affaires to the United Nations, made the appeal in a letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and the president of the Security Council on Wednesday following a new wave of such American strikes targeting southern Iranian cities, which together claimed the lives of at least 18 people and wounded 108 others.
The chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has said that the blood of those killed in a US attack on a wedding ceremony in Kouhestak, Hormozgan Province, “will never go unanswered” and that it will ultimately “catch up with those who ordered and carried out this heinous crime.”, Iranian Press TV wrote.
State media reports debris recovered from a home attacked in southern Iran during a wedding celebration was “most likely” from a US-made, AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon – a guided-glide munition, also Al Jazeera reported before the exatly identification as pieces of a US-made AGM-84H SLAM-ER cruise missile
Broadcaster IRIB said images released by US Central Command of attacks in southern Iran showed a F/A-18 Super Hornet loaded with a similar munition.
The targeted house was 200 metres (650 feet) from a communications tower, and the strike could not have been an error given the munition’s accuracy, reports said.
The Sirik strike came amid a renewed wave of US aggression against Iran, with American forces targeting sites across the country’s southern provinces.
Iranian authorities reported attacks on Bandar Abbas, Jask, Minab, Chabahar, Konarak, Lengeh, Qeshm Island, and other areas, including communications and service infrastructure.
The escalation prompted Iran to launch retaliatory missile and drone strikes against US military positions across the region, including bases in Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, and Erbil, in which several US troops lost their lifes in the name of Trump’s Zionist.
The heinous Trump’s Military strikes on civilians in Iran caused a genocide of more than 7 thousand people.
by Fabio Giuseppe Carlo Carisio – Gospa News founder and director
RELATED POSTS
This week marks the 1-year anniversary of Trump’s boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific oceans.
On September 2, 2025, President Donald Trump announced the first air strike on a boat in the Caribbean. Trump said the boat allegedly carried drugs off the coast of Venezuela. It marked the beginning of a hostile U.S. foreign policy that has seen the U.S. invade Venezuela, unleash a devastating oil blockade on Cuba, and justify it all under a renewed Monroe Doctrine, which the President is calling his Donroe Doctrine.
Meanwhile, the boat strikes have continued until today, even though Trump administration officials say they have not actually decreased the amount of drugs arriving on U.S. soil. As of this week, the U.S. government has attacked at least 68 boats over the last year, killing more than 220 people.
And the Trump administration is now using his foreign policy to attack progressive opponents at home, labelling them pawns of Cuba, and “one of the single largest, most sophisticated and dangerous vectors for hostile foreign influence in modern American history.”
In this episode, Michael Fox walks through the anniversary of the boat strikes. He dissects a new Cuban report published by the State Department to attack dissidents at home, and then looks at the regional resistance to Trump at the Panamerican Congress, which was held in August in Montevideo, Uruguay.
This is Episode 13 of Under the Shadow, Season 2.
Under the Shadow is an investigative narrative podcast series that walks back in time, telling the story of the past by visiting momentous places in the present. Season 2 responds in real time to the Trump administration’s onslaught on Latin America.
Follow Under the Shadow on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
Hosted by Latin America-based journalist Michael Fox.
This podcast is produced in partnership between The Real News Network and NACLA.
It is supported, in part, by Global Exchange.
Theme music by Michael Fox’s band, Monte Perdido. Monte Perdido’s 2024 album Ofrenda is available on Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music, YouTube or wherever you listen to music.
Other music from Blue Dot Sessions and Epidemic Sound.
Script editing by Heather Gies. Hosted, written, produced, mixed, and edited by Michael Fox.
Guests:
Resources:
“Helping” Cuba While Destroying Its Economy
This History Professor Graded Marco Rubio’s Cuba Report. He Got an F.
Support Under the Shadow
Please consider supporting this podcast and Michael Fox’s reporting on his Patreon account: patreon.com/mfox. There you can also see exclusive pictures, video, and interviews.
You can subscribe to Michael Fox’s new free speech podcast, The Battle for Free Speech on Spotify and Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Speaker 1:
A few weeks ago, the US State Department released this video over X.
Speaker 2:
It’s 1823. The map of the Americas is being redrawn. Spain has spent centuries amassing a new world empire stretching from Patagonia to California. Now their grip was slipping fast.
Speaker 1:
The video is narrated by Kevin Marino Cabrera, the US ambassador to Panama, and it’s highly polished with images, map graphics, animations, and dramatic music.
Speaker 2:
Monroe then declared a decree to Congress, among the boldest diplomatic statements in American history.
Speaker 3:
The American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.
Speaker 1:
The text of the post reads, “The Monroe Doctrine has shaped US foreign policy for over two centuries. American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again.”
Speaker 2:
But these were defensive applications, keeping European powers out, not asserting American control over the hemisphere’s affairs. That changed in 1895 when Secretary of State Richard Olney invoked the doctrine, declaring that the United States was practically sovereign over the Western hemisphere and demanded for its submit to American arbitration. He had redefined the doctrine. It was no longer just a warning. It was now a claim to regional primacy.
Speaker 1:
The video is remarkable because it doesn’t mince words or attempt to paint a rosy picture of the United States. In five minutes and 31 seconds, it just lays out the justification for the US imperialism that has cast a shadow over the region for the last two centuries up until today.
Speaker 2:
Three years later, war with Spain erupted and when the smoke cleared, it transformed the hemisphere. The United States expelled Spain from Cuba, seized Puerto Rico, and stepped into the world stage as a genuine imperial power with dominance over the Caribbean. Just four years later, that dominance was tested again. German and British warships sailed into Venezuelan waters and blockaded its ports over unpaid debts. Roosevelt intervened and declared if a Latin American nation fell into chaos or instability, the US would step it and manage it. The doctrine has started as a shield. Roosevelt had just turned it into a mandate.
Speaker 1:
This was all a good thing, the video seems to say. A natural course of history that the US should be proud of and the rest of the region should just accept. And all this backstory is a lengthy setup for the video to then make the case that Trump’s actions in Latin America are nothing more than a continuation of the same model of imperialist intervention that the US has carried out since its inception, or at least since the beginning of the 20th century when Roosevelt declared his corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
Speaker 2:
Fast-forward to the modern era where the doctrine has found its latest champion in President Trump. Through the execution of Operation Absolute Resolve, the United States seized Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, transporting him to American soil to answer for charges of narcoterrorism. This calculated maneuver delivered a resident signal across the hemisphere, punctuated by President Trump’s own declaration.
Speaker 4:
Under our new national security strategy, American dominance in the Western hemisphere will never be questioned again.
Speaker 1:
It’s a fascinating piece of propaganda that tries to place Trump’s actions as the logical next step in the long trajectory of US imperialism in the region.
Speaker 2:
Over two centuries, Monroe’s declaration had shaped US foreign policy across administrations and throughout fundamentally different geopolitical eras. Well, began as a warning to European powers evolved into a framework for regional dominance, one that remains the cornerstone of American strategy in the hemisphere today.
Speaker 5:
What is extraordinary about that video is that it says what has never really been said about the Monroe Doctrine by US officials, which is that the Monroe doctrine has served as a pretext for US intervention in the region and is essentially there to ensure that the US has a great deal of political influence and economic influence over the entire Latin America and Caribbean.
Speaker 1:
That is Alexander Main. I reached out to him to get his take on this video. He’s an old friend and the director of international policy at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington DC.
Speaker 2:
When Soviet missiles were discovered in Cuba in 1962, Kennedy didn’t need to invent a new framework. He simply invoked the doctrine. The weapons had to go.
Speaker 5:
This video is saying that there is such a thing as the US Empire, something that most US officials have never wanted to publicly recognize and saying that that is a good thing and that more needs to be done to ensure that the US can be an effective empire over the entire Western hemisphere.
Speaker 1:
Key to this video, Alex says, is the idea that brute military force must be deployed to achieve this imperialistic doctrine. And right now that is being done under the pretext of a new sort of war on terror. There’s no clear definition of exactly who or what narco-terrorist is, but that might be part of the point. Alex says that much like the Cold War’s fight against communism, the vague image of the narco-terrorist boogeyman allows US authorities and their allies to go after left-leaning opponents with force.
Speaker 5:
We’re seeing something similar now, and I think this is really what the US is going to be relying on under the Trump administration. They’re going to be relying more and more on military action and the threat of military action in order to advance this vision of complete political domination over the region.
Speaker 1:
In Brazil, high stakes elections are coming up in October. Advisors for leftist president Luis Ignacio Lula de Silva saw the timing and content of this video as a direct threat against the president’s reelection campaign, a sign that the Trump administration has its sights on Latin America’s largest country. According to Brazilian columnist Valdo Cruz, Lulu’s advisors compared Trump’s foreign policy team led by Cuban American Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Madagascar Penguins piloting Air Force One. It’s a reference to the Madagascar cartoon.
Speaker 6:
Attention, this is your captain speaking. I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is we’ll be landing immediately. Bad news is we’re crash landing.
Speaker 1:
That is where we are at, a new definitive Monroe doctrine for the Western hemisphere, and it’s being fueled by brute US military force in the region as we have already seen unfold in unprecedented terms over the last year. And the Trump administration isn’t just using those actions and threats abroad. They’re now going after progressive individuals and groups in the United States accusing them of being pawns of foreign nations. People have even been subpoenaed.
Speaker 7:
There’s nothing organic about it. It is funded, it is organized, and Cuba is a part of that network and in some cases a critical part of that network.
Speaker 1:
It’s like something out of the McCarthy era or the Cold War. It’s a fabricated witch hunt. And as we will look at today, it’s being supported by artificial intelligence, but people across Latin America are also organizing against the threats. All of that in a minute. This is Under the Shadow, an investigative narrative podcast series that looks at the role of the United States abroad in the past and the very present. This podcast is a co-production in partnership with The Real News and NACLA. I’m your host, Michael Fox, longtime radio reporter, editor, journalist, the producer and host of the podcast’s Brazil on Fire: Stories of Resistance and my new series, The Battle for Free Speech. I’ve spent the better part of the last 20 years in Latin America. I’ve seen firsthand the role of the US government abroad, and most often sadly, it is not for the better.
Invasions, coups, sanctions, support for authoritarian regimes. Politically and economically, the United States has cast a long shadow over Latin America for the past 200 years. It still does. This is season two of Under the Shadow: Trump’s attack, episode 13, American Dominance.
Okay, let me just first say that I’m so excited to be diving back into this season of Under the Shadow. If you have been following this podcast, you’ll know that I was largely absent this summer. I was busy cranking out my podcast about Trump’s attack on free speech rights today in the United States. It’s called The Battle for Free Speech. It’s now out completely. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. I’ll add a link in the show notes. In July, we shared an episode from that podcast on the Under the Shadow feed about the battle underway in Brazil right now ahead of the general election in October. I think it’s really good. Before that, my last Under the Shadow episode was about Honduras Gate back in May, so it’s been a while. Today, I want to catch up on several important developments related to US intervention and the pushback against it in the region, including the latest boat strikes, the State Department’s war on Cuba, and the recent Pan-American Congress in Uruguay.
These all fall under the rubric of where we started at the top with the video about the Dunro Doctrine and Trump’s promise that American dominance in the Western hemisphere will “never be questioned again.” In this episode, I’ll look at ways that this is unfolding, both abroad and inside the United States, and also how progressive leaders in the region are very much continuing to question American dominance and organizing against Trump’s rhetoric and threats. Okay, we begin in the abnormally warm waters of the Caribbean and Pacific oceans.
These waters have been central to Trump’s military attack on the region, and this week marks a sad anniversary.
Speaker 8:
When you come out and when you leave the room, you’ll see that we just over the last few minutes literally shot out a boat, a drug carrying boat, a lot of drugs in that boat, and you’ll be seeing that and you’ll be reading about that. It just happened moments ago.
Speaker 1:
On September 2nd, 2025, one year ago this week, Donald Trump announced the first airstrike on a boat in the Caribbean. Trump said the boat allegedly carried drugs off the coast of Venezuela. He later posted on True Social a video of the airstrike, black and white labeled unclassified. A missile hits the boat and it explodes. The White House said without providing evidence that it killed 11 alleged narco terrorists. If you remember, this is where I began this podcast series, because for me, it marked a clear break with the decades of US foreign policy in the region. The US attack on that boat in early September was the very first time the United States had launched a unilateral airstrike or carried out a deadly military operation on its own in Latin America in nearly four decades, not since the 1989 invasion of Panama. According to Trump’s national security strategy published in December 2025, his administration was planning to ramp up US intervention in the Americas with his new Trump corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.
He has made good on that promise. With the US invasion of Venezuela, the oil blockade of Cuba, the shield of the America’s initiative and the boat strikes, the administration labeled those strikes Operation Southern Spear. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth joined Fox News Live to gush about the boat strike.
Speaker 9:
So we’ve got assets in the air, assets in the water, assets on ships, because this is a deadly serious mission for us, and it won’t stop with just this strike. Anyone else trafficking in those waters who we know is a designated narco-terrorist will face the same fate, and it’s important for the American people to protect our homeland and protect our hemisphere.
Speaker 1:
Hegseth was right about one thing. That strike was just the beginning. They’ve been ongoing since last year. There was a two-month lull, which miraculously coincided with the World Cup competition in the United States and Trump’s grand 4th of July 250th anniversary celebration. But in recent weeks, the US military has kickstarted the strikes again. This news report is from August 26th this year.
Speaker 10:
The human rights groups are condemning the latest round of US military attacks on a high speed boat in the Caribbean, which the Pentagon says killed four narco-terrorists. This is now the second strike this week as the White House targets vessels accused of transporting deadly drugs into the US for the past year.
Speaker 1:
But the whole justification for the first strike last September and everyone sense that they’re fighting drug trafficking is just false. This has never been about fighting drug trafficking. Most of the cocaine trafficked into the United States doesn’t come from Venezuela and it doesn’t travel across the Caribbean, but the Pacific. Fentanyl’s the same thing. It’s not made in nor trafficked from Venezuela despite Trump’s discourse.
Trump’s campaign has been about sending a message, even if it means carrying out extra judicial killings in international waters against innocent people, because it’s become clear that many of the boats they’ve hit haven’t been operated by narco terrorists, but fishermen. And contrary to Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s claims, other Trump administration officials admit that the strikes haven’t decreased the amount of drugs being run into the United States. In late July, the Washington Post reported that both Pentagon and DEA officials had said the boat strikes hadn’t impacted the supply of cocaine in the United States. Drug traffickers just developed new strategies. They were taking different routes, bigger boats, or relying more on planes from clandestine airstrips. One DEA official who asked to remain anonymous told the Post, “When you squeeze the balloon on one side, it always expands on the other side. They always find the weak spots and exploit them.” Nevertheless, the boat strikes have continued.
Welcome to the closing session, hosted by the Secretary of War and Chairman of the America’s Counter-Cartel Coalition, the Honorable Pete Hegseth. Pete Hegseth spoke about this during a Counter-Cartel Coalition conference in Panama City on August 12th.
Speaker 9:
We have knocked the narco terrorists and the maritime domain on their heels. We forced them to adjust their tactics, techniques, and procedures, their TTPs, and operate outside of their comfort zones. We are retaking the open seas and our maritime borders. This is a bad time to get in a drug boat in the Western Hemisphere.
Speaker 11:
In one year now, at least 68 publicly acknowledged strikes on alleged drug trafficking vessels right in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific, extraditionally killing over 228 civilians.
Speaker 1:
Jake Johnston is the director of international research at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. He also runs SIEPR’s US Escalation in Latin America Tracker, which he has updated almost daily since last year. I just want to pause here for a moment to underscore that number. More than 228 civilians, and that is a number that’s likely to only continue to grow. Just to put that into context, before the September 11th attacks, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was the deadliest terror attack in the history of the United States.
Speaker 12:
If it seemed like war yesterday, the reinforcement showed up tonight. At the center of it all, of course, is the bombed out shell of the federal office building, and in its shadow, the exhausted, who for a day and a half now have sifted through its debris and counted its dead and seen up close why they call it terror.
Speaker 1:
168 people were killed in that bombing on the Alfred P. Murrow Federal Building. It shocked the nation. Yet the United States has unleashed a round of terror attacks over the last year in international waters in the Caribbean and Pacific, which have killed far more people than the second most deadly terror attack in the history of the US. In fact, the US drug boat terror campaign is deadlier than both the Oklahoma City bombing and the 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting combined. Now, it might seem strange that I’m making this comparison. The US government has carried out the boat strikes, individual perpetrators carried out these other attacks, but I think it’s an important comparison to make. All are acts of terror, all are illegitimate uses of violence without any legal founding. The US boat strikes aren’t operations against enemy combatants in a time of war. The US government hasn’t carried out a trial against the victims or offered any proof that the people killed in these raids are actually drug traffickers.
Their actions are illegal under international law, and the result in all cases is the same, the extra judicial killing of innocent people, which undermines the basis of the rule of law in the United States, the United Nations, and most democratic countries around the world, that you are innocent until proven guilty. Jake Johnston.
Speaker 11:
What is the sort of takeaway after a year? I mean, this is an assault on the rule of law. This is assault on international law. And I think you can see over the course of the year how these strikes serve this broader purpose of normalizing, rationalizing and sort of gaining at least some public acceptance of just the sort of trampling of international law. And now we have transitioned, or at least the US is saying they’re transitioning from these boat strikes to land strikes. It’s there. We’ve already seen, in fact, some strikes on land in Ecuador, or hitting a dairy farm, reports of torture of the farm workers who were there. And so you can see how this can extend and expand. You can see how the erosion of international law comes right back here to home, and you have ICE agents killing US citizens in the streets with impunity, and these things are connected.
These developments are connected, and they certainly mutually reinforce each other through this administration’s policies.
Speaker 1:
Ecuador has been collaborating with the US military under the Counter Cartel Coalition, which I looked at in episode eight of this series, and not just on that dairy farm strike. The United States has also taken some concerning actions against boats off the Ecuadorian coast.
Speaker 11:
This started earlier this year, the bombing of at least three fishing vessels off the coast of Ecuador, which took place in a very different manner than these other boat strikes we were talking about where SOUTCOM was posting smut on the internet about them blowing up boats. These ones were totally unacknowledged, and the reports that we’ve had from investigative outlets that have looked into it, local press in Ecuador, human rights organizations, et cetera, one of the boats first off is still missing and all the crew members are still missing.
Speaker 1:
People from some of those boats were killed and others have been returned to the country, but that was only after being abducted on the high seas.
Speaker 11:
Onto a nondescript boat in the middle of the ocean with gringo looking guys with US flags on their uniforms and being taken to El Salvador of all places before facing torture and abuse and then eventually being released back to Ecuador where they face no charges, it should be noted. And you mentioned in each of these cases, the reporting indicates that Ecuador and Coast Guards actually stopped the vessels and cleared them prior to them being bombed, right? Obviously, there’s been reporting, the Washington Post reported a few weeks ago that this was part of a clandestine CIA operation. The New York Times has come out with reports suggesting that the potential involvement of private military contractors. So there’s tremendous questions that remain exactly about who is responsible, who is involved, why this was happening. But what seems quite clear is that US intelligence is operating out of El Salvador, a CIA base that was white active during the Dirty Wars in the ’80s.
Speaker 1:
Jack here is referring to what we learned from reporting in the Washington Post in mid-August, which broke the news that a covert CIA program based in El Salvador was likely behind the Ecuadorian boat attacks. According to the Post, a plane operating out of El Salvador’s small Ilopango International Airport was likely responsible for the attacks during the 1980s. This airport was also a launching pad for US operations in nearby Nicaragua.
Speaker 11:
This didn’t come out of nowhere, right? I mean, it is really based in the past, and a lot of the people who are involved in this are really rooted in those previous episodes of right-wing dictatorship and US interventionism in the region. And so in a lot of ways, it is a return to that earlier period.
Speaker 1:
There is another country in the region whose conflict with the United States hearkens back to US intervention of the past, Cuba. So back in episode seven, we looked in depth into the US actions against Cuba, and in particular, the devastating oil blockade which is strangling the country, and it’s still ongoing. The situation in the country has only deteriorated. It’s ironic because the United States brags about how they’re sending aid to the country, and yet the US is solely to blame for the crisis. The US government could fix the problem almost overnight by just lifting the embargo, both the oil blockade and the larger embargo that the US has had in place in some shape or form for more than 65 years. Belly of the Beast is a Cuban investigative journalism outlet based in Havana. I spoke with Belly of the Beast Liz Fernandez in my previous Cuba episode of this series.
A couple of weeks ago, they released this great video report titled Helping Cuba While Destroying Its Economy. The word helping is in quotes. Here’s a clip. It starts with Belly of the Beast journalist Johan Rodriguez standing on a Cuban street.
Speaker 13:
Good news for us here in Cuba. The United States is here to help.
Speaker 1:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio appears on screen. In Spanish, he says, “I want to tell you that we in the United States offer to help you not only alleviate the current crisis, but also to build a better future.”
Speaker 13:
A better future deliver in cardboard boxes.
Speaker 10:
This is the first of a hundred million dollar humanitarian aid package promised by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Speaker 13:
The US government is donating 700 boxes of food and hygiene products. Each one is supposed to last 10 days. That’s nice, although it might be even nicer if they had simply lifted the oil blockade.
Speaker 1:
The video cuts to numerous Cubans who are suffering. “They give us 20, 24 hours without electricity,” says one elderly resident. “It’s the whole day cooking with coals, “says a woman. “I haven’t had water for three and a half months,” says another woman.
Speaker 13:
The boxes of aid are welcome because people here are desperate. If someone breaks your legs and offers you an aspirin, you’ll take aspirin, but when you wear soft, your legs are still broken.
Speaker 1:
That is the state in Cuba right now, a country on life support. The United States could fix it, but it doesn’t want to. It wants the people to suffer an indirect way to try and force regime change, or at least that has been the stated policy since the beginning of the embargo in the 1960s. And the Trump administration is blatant about its motives. On July 20th, the US State Department released a 100-page report titled Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism. It essentially accused Cuba of infiltrating the US left over the last half century and being behind a host of progressive organizing, everything from Black Lives Matter and George Floyd protests to pro-Palestine encampments on university campuses and “the rise of Antifa.” It’s incredible because it makes the United States look like it’s in the crosshairs of this tiny Caribbean country, the US, a country that is nearly 90 times larger than Cuba and has a GDP that is more than 300 times the size of the islands.
The report makes no mention of the countless US attempts to overthrow or assassinate Fidel Castro, undo the Cuban Revolution, and above all, the decades long US blockade on the country. Instead, the document paints the United States as the victim of a Cuban plot to overthrow US capitalism and Western society.
The summary for the report reads, “Cuba’s assault on the United States was never at root a quarrel over economic policy or sovereignty or even ownership of a particular territory. It was a revolution against Western civilization itself, waged in part via the novel and insidious method of persuading the children of the West to turn against their own inheritance.” Let me just repeat that. Persuading the children of the West to turn against their own inheritance. I’m not exactly sure what that inheritance is, but the report paints activist and leftist organizations in the United States as willing pawns in Cuba’s evil plans to subvert the United States. The document reads, “Through its cultivation of American activists, its infiltration of American universities, its sprawling influence and espionage networks, and its position as the spiritual hub of the Third World Revolution, becoming a pilgrimage destination for generations of new left activists and intellectuals, Cuba has played an instrumental role in shaping America’s radical left from the 1960s through to today.” It singles out organizations like the Vencerimos Brigade, Pastors for Peace and the Anti-War Group Code Pink as essentially Cuban front groups.
It’s a ridiculous claim because these are solidarity organizations that literally carry humanitarian aid to countries harmed by US policies. And this idea in the Cuban report assumes that everyone in the United States should just be on board with US administrations that punish other countries and peoples for not bowing to Uncle Sam. The document also accuses the New York Political Education and Community Center at the People’s Forum and the National Lawyers Guild of being influenced by Cuba. The document states, “From its very first years of existence, the National Lawyers Guild operated as a defacto communist front group designed to organize and agitate for revolution in the United States. It’s interesting that the document also spends three and a half pages discussing the Democratic socialists of America’s support for Cuba. At a time when DSA is growing and actually winning primaries ahead of the US November midterm elections, it’s clear that Marco Rubio’s State Department is interested in doing all it can to paint that group as Cuban influenced.
The document sums up all of this by saying, “These groups collectively represent one of the single largest, most sophisticated and dangerous vectors for hostile foreign influence in modern American history.” Too bad that statement is not only totally conspiratorial, it is also not based on reality.
Speaker 14:
And it was shocking on every page to see the way in which the State Department’s report was reiterating the same claims, and many of them very fraudulent claims, that had been leveled against American solidarity activists in the 1960s and 1970s.
Speaker 1:
Bailey of the Beast recently interviewed historian Tayshon Latner about this report in his 2018 book, Cuban Revolution in America. Latner writes about how generations of activists in the United States have found inspiration in Cuba, but he says that if State Department officials were reading his book, they completely missed the point and blew it out of context.
Speaker 14:
But in reading Rubio’s report, it was enormously clear that they were reiterating, you could almost say regurgitating the same claims and some of the same material that had been circulating in the 1960s and 1970s. The FBI and the CIA both produced copious reports that claimed to, let’s not say prove, because I don’t know if even they themselves would’ve used that terminology, but they tried to demonstrate a linkage between American solidarity movements and the Cuban revolution.
Speaker 1:
That is what they’re doing now. Even before the report came out, the Trump administration was already investigating activists for traveling to Cuba in March for the Nuestra America convoy. Their solidarity groups brought 20 tons of humanitarian aid to the Caribbean Island. In May, roughly 40 US activists were subpoenaed, including progressive influencer Hassan Peiker and Code Pink founder Mydia Benjamin, who I’ve spoken with in this podcast. In the days following this Cuba Reports release, several groups that were mentioned in the document were also subpoenaed to testify before Congress, including the People’s Forum, Breakthrough News, and the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research.
Speaker 5:
Are you agents of foreign influence?
Speaker 7:
I’m an agent of my own conscience.
Speaker 1:
Manolo de Los Santos is the director of the People’s Forum. He responded to the Trump administration’s allegations against his organization on MS Now in late July.
Speaker 7:
I’ve been moved constantly by the belief that the United States has to do better and that we can change the reality in this country. If we were to accept what this committee is demanding from us, it essentially would be to accept that people in the United States have no right to protest, no right to organize, no right to express their differences with the US government. The Trump administration is mired in a series of failures. It has been incapable of convincing the American people that deporting millions of immigrants is the right thing to do. And therefore it goes after the people who organize the defense of immigrant families. The fact that we stand with the Palestinian people, that we say no to a blockade against Cuba, these are not fringe positions. These are the positions of majority of Americans right now. It’s our consciousness that’s moving us to say that these things are wrong in our society.
Speaker 1:
Jake Johnston.
Speaker 11:
Yeah, it’s a great example of our interventionist foreign policy blowing back at home and seeing these connections. I mean, this is pretty clearly for the Trump administration, part of going after its domestic opposition ahead of midterm elections, consolidating its own political power, but of course at the same time, justifying its illegal blockade and siege of Cuba in doing so.
Speaker 1:
Here’s the thing. I read through the report shortly after it was released and one thing stood out for me above everything else. It was like the report was grasping at straws, like it was trying to string together a random hodgepodge of people and groups to make the case that Cuba had infiltrated the United States and was responsible for leftist descent going back decades. It seemed like it was generated with artificial intelligence. So I tested it. I ran it through some of those sites online where you can see how much a document was likely created using AI. One of the results came back with a 96% chance that it was made with artificial intelligence. ChatGPT told me the likelihood that “AI was substantially involved in producing or editing this report was high, roughly 80 to 90%.” Now, I’m not saying that it was completely AI generated.
I don’t believe that, but the State Department did likely use substantial artificial intelligence in research gathering, writing, and editing. Okay, you might be saying so what? A lot of people are using artificial intelligence today. Well, here’s the problem. AI we know has the tendency not to argue with us, but to give us back what we want to hear. It helps us to find information that will support our beliefs or our objective regardless of if they’re based on fact or not. It’s called AI bias. And look, it’s one thing if AI is being used to write an email to a friend or to help me pick out my clothes. I think I look good in blue. Thank you. Those have very little, if any, geopolitical implications. It’s another entirely, however, if you’re using this to develop an official government document that will guide public policy and which will be used to attack your political opponents, that is dangerous and it means that AI is being weaponized to benefit a certain political class and silence dissent.
In other words, government censorship. There has been limited discussion about the possibility that Marco Rubio’s Cuba document was likely created with the help of AI, and I wanted to get a deeper sense of the implications. What does that actually mean? So I reached out to Tal Hagen.
Speaker 15:
There we go.
Speaker 1:
All right, fantastic. Okay, so Tal, this is what I’m trying to figure out today. You might remember him from my episode about disinformation and deep fakes on Venezuela earlier this year. He is an online AI watchdog. He’s now the director of Otis, which provides human-run intelligence services. Anyway, he’s an expert on artificial intelligence, and I wanted to get his analysis of what it means when AI is being used to develop policy like this. And let me just say that I didn’t ask him specifically about the Cuba document because I wanted his objective opinion about the concerns over the use of AI in these circumstances. Because we know that if you go on a ChatGPT and you’re chatting with ChatGP and you’re saying, oftentimes it’s going to give you back what you want. Do we see the same thing in reports and documents where if you’re looking for something, if you’re trying to find something, the document that is produced through AI has the possibility of also giving you what you’re looking for because you’re asking it to go out there and find stuff that would make your statement true.
That make sense?
Speaker 15:
Yeah. At the end of the day, something that we need to understand with AI is that AI always agrees with us. It always wants to give you a simple, fast answer as quick as it doesn’t argue with you.
Speaker 1:
Tao says that you can test this by asking AI something in two different ways. One where you’re trying to get it to agree with you about something and the other where you’re playing a devil’s advocate and you’re trying to get it to agree with you about the exact opposite thing. Depending on how you phrase your question, you can get either result.
Speaker 15:
But AI almost always will give you what you want.
Speaker 1:
But Tao says that doesn’t necessarily make it untrue or false.
Speaker 15:
For example, maybe I’ve collected all the evidence and then I’ve asked AI to compile that into a comprehensive report for me. It’s still my information. I just asked AI to help me build it. So it’s not an AI made report, it’s an AI enhanced report. So that also complicates things because just because it was AI generated doesn’t mean it wasn’t real.
Speaker 1:
It also doesn’t mean that it was. For instance, Tao says, “It all depends on the input or information that you give the AI tool.”
Speaker 15:
Sometimes it also has access to the web, but it doesn’t actually understand what’s true, what’s false, and especially in evolving crises when things are just happening right now, whatever is on the web, that becomes the truth. And I’ve seen AI mess this up a lot. And so the bias is from what information you even provided in those documentations because when you provide me with documentation, I will ask you, “How do you know this is true? How do you know this is true? Where’s this from?” The AI doesn’t ask you that. It just assumes that everything you’ve given it is correct. It doesn’t start refuting your sources.
Speaker 1:
Tao says many officials and government departments, not just in the United States, are now using AI.
Speaker 15:
A lot of the governments, agencies, and individuals are using AI now to craft their official responses. We know there was some government official on Twitter who put out a post and he accidentally left in the prompt of making it sound better.
Speaker 6:
Madam Speaker, another concern relates to expectations.
Speaker 1:
There was also this Canadian politician who read an AI prompt in the New Brunswick legislature.
Speaker 6:
Here’s a more natural flowing version of that section that reads like a legislative speech rather than a series of short points. Madam Speaker –
Speaker 15:
The US government released photos of their war room and you could see them using AI, like writing different types of prompts.
Speaker 1:
Should we be concerned about governments, entities that are creating policy and an increasing use of AI and what that might mean for the policies that they’re creating?
Speaker 15:
Even when you’re writing in the Chachemia and you’re creating what you want or you’re creating a policy decision with AI, you are creating the report. But the problem is that your critical thinking skills are diluted because you are asking AI simple questions, you’re asking it to do the heavy labor. And if you say, “Find me an issue, find me an issue and then solve that issue,” you’re not the one solving that issue and it’s solving an issue just based on general information from the public. The problem with AI when it’s used by many different individuals is it replaces your own critical thinking where you no longer are researching the work, you are just editing it.That’s essentially what it becomes. You become an editor, you stop being a researcher. And so instead of you looking at all these different sources, trying to understand what the truth is here, what’s the facts and what’s the narrative being driven, you’re allowing the AI to just compile random pieces of information through its token generation and that’s the result that you’re
Speaker 4:
Getting. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again and we will make America great again. Thank you. God bless you. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 15:
It’s why we like things that rhyme. The reason that a lot of political slogans are rhymes is because things that sound good are right. If it sounds good, it’s right. It’s why when you look at the comment section of a right-wing activist or a left-wing activist, all of its supporters say, “This sounds amazing. This is so good because they’re hearing what they want to hear.” And so even though the policy that they’re writing or they’re talking about might be complete and utter bullshit, it sounds good, but it’s not based on factual information. The same thing is happening with AI where it sounds good to the user, but they don’t actually know what it’s based on. And so they’re essentially being driven by just a random algorithm.
Speaker 1:
In other words, ask AI to give you a report that says Cuba has infiltrated the US left and is behind protest movements in the United States going back decades and it will do your bidding. We can’t know for sure, but that likely sums up Marco Rubio’s Cuba report. With or without AI, this Cuba report is a dangerous weapon that is now being deployed against progressives and opponents of the Trump administration. Jake Johnston.
Speaker 11:
I mean, I think just about everybody who read it laughed, but it is serious because this is about justifying war crimes. I mean, what we’re doing to Cuba right now is an active war. It is illegal and is an act of war. And yet here we are justifying it and at the same time sort of demonizing the opposition, the domestic opposition to those very actions.
Speaker 1:
The opposition to Trump’s policies has also been organizing abroad. On August 21st, 150 leaders from 15 countries from across the hemisphere and Europe met in Montevideo Uruguay for this year’s Pan-American Congress. It’s an event founded three years ago with the stated goal of fostering “solidarity among peoples and sovereignty among nations.” It’s been an important event for organizing the left in the region. The first two summits were held in Columbia and Mexico, both then countries run by progressive governments. SIEPR’s Alex Main, who I spoke with at the top, attended the conference.
Speaker 5:
The bulk of the people that were there are lawmakers who are doing their best to try to push forward progressive policies despite often being the minority and despite dealing with increasingly authoritarian right-wing governments. So they had a lot to share.
Speaker 16:
Good afternoon everybody. I’m Congresswoman Primila Jayapal. I represent the great state of Washington in the United States. I’m the first Indian American woman in the United States Congress. We are here, my esteemed colleague, Chuy Garcia and I, because we want to be very clear about two things. Number one, we oppose the Trump administration’s Don Roe foreign policy doctrine. We oppose the unilateral executive actions that Donald Trump has been taking without our congressional authority for both strikes, extra judicial killings in the Caribbean and the Pacific Ocean. We oppose the use of military might, of economic tariffs to try to bully and coerce nations into actions that do not benefit the people of those sovereign nations. And we oppose the election interference of the United States in other nations’ elections.
Speaker 1:
Talk of President Donald Trump’s onslaught on the region was front and center, as were discussions about how to push back. Uruguayan Congresswoman Ines Cortez spoke to the press.
Speaker 16:
She said,
Speaker 1:
“Above all, the issue that cuts across the different workshops and debates is the current situation in which we still have the United States interfering in the local politics of each of our countries more than ever.”.
The former Honduran Minister of Defense and the former presidential candidate for Honduras’ leftist Libre Party, Rixi Moncada, said they must stand for national sovereignty and a multipolar world. She said, “The United States is a military technological and financial power, but the world is no longer unipolar. China, India, Brazil, Russia, the BRICS, they’re all participating in defining the new international order. Multipolarity is a reality and our stance must not be to trade one form of subordination for another. The Latin American dilemma is not Washington versus Beijing. We want relations with all the nations and peoples of the planet to engage with everyone, to submit to no one. There were also discussions among progressive leaders from Trump allied countries where democracy is being rolled back and there’s a breakdown of the rule of law and respect for institutions. Alex Main said the meeting went a long way in helping to build solidarity between progressive leaders from across the region and leftist leaders in the United States.
Speaker 5:
For instance, in Ecuador, and we’re beginning to see this in Columbia and also in Honduras, both those countries of course are now governed by right-wing governments since quite recently. So yeah, I think it was important for the US delegates to be hearing from these other countries in the region. They’re all impacted in different ways by the Trump administration’s policy, by the so-called Don Roe doctrine, which is really very heavily interventionist. And they heard about US electoral interference. They heard about the US support for the expansion of militarization in the region and this pretext of a war on so-called narco-terrorism to, in a lot of places, bend the laws or declare sort of states of emergency and deploy the military and engage in egregious violations of human rights. So there was a lot to take away for these US delegates.
Speaker 1:
Alex explained that on top of the Congress people who were in attendance, you had staffers for Senator Bernie Sanders and Chicago Congressman Jonathan Jackson, as well as a number of delegates who won primaries and who will likely be elected to Congress in November.
Speaker 5:
Three of them belonging to the Democratic Socialists of America, the other one supported by the Democratic Socialists of America. I think it was very productive, and I think certainly the US delegates left Montevideo with commitments to themselves to do a lot more on Latin America that is of course suffering a new era of extremely aggressive interventionism from the current Trump administration.
Speaker 1:
But it wasn’t all about the United States. Alex says there were meetings about the impact of artificial intelligence on these countries, a session about green industrial development, multilateralism, and of course, democracy, peace, and security.
Speaker 5:
That is what was kind of important about these sessions is that there was a lot of information sharing, experience sharing, and people talking about various policy ideas that can be implemented sometimes at the congressional level. But also, the pendulum is bound to swing back in the other direction in spite of the best efforts of the Trump administration and some of the other more authoritarian governments in the region.
I absolutely came away with a sense of hope from the conference in Montevideo because one, you had a lot of strong leaders from the region that despite the rise of authoritarianism everywhere are not giving up. In fact, they are optimistic about the future and about returning to power. They know it’s in many cases going to be a tough process because in some instances, democracy, the rule of law and so on have to be reestablished. So it’s going to take very strong people’s movements to do that, but they really seem up to the task. And what was also very encouraging was just the amount of young leaders from the region, a new generation of progressive leaders that have very big plans for their countries and for the region, and in particular for regional integration between Latin American and Caribbean countries.
Speaker 1:
The final declaration referenced Simon Bolivar’s historic Panama Congress, which took place 200 years ago this year. It read, “Today, August 23rd, we therefore unite to combat the renewed doctrine of domination in all its forms, defending the rights and freedoms won across centuries of struggle for self-determination, collaborate from respective legislatures to advance our own vision of hemispheric cooperation based on solidarity between peoples and sovereignty among nations. They plan to meet again in Brazil next year.” Hi folks, that is all for this episode of Under the Shadow. I’m now getting back on track and I will be bringing you much more in the coming weeks, both about Trump’s shadow looming over the upcoming Brazilian elections and the shocking revelations in the wake of the arrest of Argentine right-wing election fixer Fernando Serimedo. If you can’t wait for my reporting on Brazil, I’ve just released a 10-minute video from Sao Paulo.
I’ll add a link in the show notes. Also, please check out Belly of the Beasts reporting. They are so, so good at what they do. Many thanks to the team for allowing me to use clips from their footage. I’ve added links in the show notes. In the meantime, as always, you can find me on Patreon, that’s patreon.com/mfox. There you can also support my work, become a monthly sustainer, or sign up to stay abreast of all the latest on this podcast and my other reporting across Latin America. You can find a ton of content there exclusively for my supporters. As always, if you’re looking for more information, news, and reporting on Trump’s onslaught, both on communities within the United States and abroad, please check out The Real News and NACLA. Both of them are publishing daily indispensable reporting. The theme music is by my band Monte Perdido.
You can find us on Spotify or wherever you stream music. This closing music playing right now is off our 2024 album, Ofrenda. I hope you check it out. Under the shadows of co-production of The Real News and NACLA, it’s produced in partnership with Global Exchange. This episode was written, researched, reported, and produced by me, Michael Fox. The script was edited by Heather Geis. Thanks for listening. See you next time.
Cao was born in Vietnam and moved to the United States as a refugee in 1975.
The post Trump nominates Hung Cao as US Navy secretary appeared first on BOL News.
The conscripts are part of the first group recruited under Denmark's expanded military service program.
The post Denmark deploys conscripts to Greenland, fueling fresh Arctic tensions appeared first on BOL News.
O presidente Trump não esconde um de seus maiores medos: perder o controle republicano do Congresso dos EUA em 3 de novembro, o que possivelmente levaria a um terceiro processo de impeachment. No entanto, sua resposta é uma mistura caótica de medidas para evitar uma derrota avassaladora que poderia, de fato, concretizar seu cenário de pesadelo.
Quais são seus planos para uma vitória eleitoral? Quais condições ele criou que podem levar à sua ruína política durante os dois últimos anos de seu governo?
As pesquisas mostram consistentemente uma taxa de impopularidade geral de Trump em torno de 63%, contra uma de aprovação de cerca de 35%, composta em grande parte por seus apoiadores leais do movimento MAGA. As duas principais questões para os eleitores continuam sendo a inflação — com o aumento dos custos de alimentos, combustíveis, fertilizantes e moradia — e a guerra contra o Irã, sem qualquer desfecho positivo visível para o governo Trump. A atual composição do Congresso confere aos republicanos uma maioria mínima de quatro cadeiras tanto na Câmara quanto no Senado, o que significa que qualquer pequena mudança na preferência dos eleitores poderia transferir o poder para os democratas nas eleições de novembro.
O plano inicial de Trump para derrotar os democratas consistia em pressionar as maiorias republicanas nas legislaturas de vários estados a redesenhar os limites dos distritos eleitorais para favorecer seu partido, realocando prováveis eleitores democratas para distritos com maioria republicana e, assim, diluindo sua força nas urnas.
Simultaneamente, os seis membros da Suprema Corte dos EUA nomeados por republicanos esvaziaram dispositivos fundamentais da histórica Lei de Direitos de Voto de 1965. Eles decidiram que levar em conta padrões históricos de discriminação racial contra eleitores negros não justificava mais medidas destinadas a proteger o peso do voto afro-americano nas eleições dos estados do Sul.
Dada a recente polarização política nos Estados Unidos, na qual a maioria dos 435 distritos da Câmara foi desenhada para favorecer um partido em detrimento do outro, as estimativas atuais apontam, pelo menos, para 49 distritos nos quais há uma disputa real entre candidatos republicanos e democratas pela representação no Congresso. Pesquisas também indicam que, em nível nacional, os democratas detêm uma vantagem de 6% a 7% sobre os republicanos, o que sugere que provavelmente conquistarão o controle da Câmara dos Representantes.
A situação no Senado é mais complexa, pois os democratas precisarão reeleger vários titulares e conquistar cadeiras em estados que apoiaram candidatos presidenciais republicanos nas últimas décadas — Alasca, Carolina do Norte, Iowa, Ohio, Texas e Maine —, embora as pesquisas atuais favoreçam os candidatos democratas nestes estados por margens estreitas.
Após não conseguir assegurar uma possível maioria republicana por meio do redesenho dos mapas distritais, a estratégia seguinte de Trump foi emitir ordens executivas destinadas a restringir o voto de prováveis apoiadores de candidatos democratas, assumindo o controle federal sobre o processo eleitoral nacional — uma responsabilidade claramente atribuída aos estados pela Constituição dos EUA.
O pretexto utilizado é a suposta ocorrência generalizada de votos de não cidadãos, argumento que se alinha convenientemente à campanha agressiva de Trump contra imigrantes, mantida há uma década. No entanto, todas as investigações confiáveis sobre possíveis votos ilegais de não cidadãos revelam um número ínfimo de pessoas que efetivamente violaram a lei. Tal fato jamais determinou a vitória ou a derrota de um candidato em qualquer disputa eleitoral.
A terceira iniciativa de Trump consistiu em exigir que governadores de estados com tendência democrata repassassem ao governo federal informações de registro eleitoral, para que este pudesse determinar quais eleitores registrados eram elegíveis para votar.
Isso conferiria ao Departamento de Segurança Interna poder ilimitado para definir quem seria considerado um eleitor legítimo e quem, na sua visão, não seria elegível ao voto. Até o momento, governadores democratas recusaram-se a cumprir a medida, e a ordem de Trump está bloqueada judicialmente.
Paralelamente, uma quarta estratégia utilizada por Trump para tentar favorecer os republicanos na eleição é uma proposta de lei no Congresso, conhecida como Save America Act, que exigiria que os eleitores comprovassem sua cidadania por meio de certidão de nascimento ou de passaporte dos EUA. Nos Estados Unidos, não existe um documento de identidade nacional que indique o status de cidadania, e estima-se que 21 milhões de eleitores em potencial não possuam passaporte nem acesso fácil às suas certidões de nascimento.
Essa disposição criaria complicações adicionais para pessoas que se casaram e alteraram seus nomes. Até mesmo alguns senadores republicanos consideram o projeto uma exigência excessivamente onerosa para os eleitores e recusaram-se a apoiá-lo, o que significa que ele não se tornará lei.
Um quinto esforço tem sido o de bloquear o voto por correio, um método atualmente utilizado por um terço do eleitorado americano para participar das eleições. Embora o próprio Trump tenha votado por correio em duas eleições recentes na Flórida, o Save America Act e um novo conjunto de diretrizes do Serviço Postal dos EUA concederiam à agência o poder de determinar quais destinatários têm direito a receber a cédula para votar por correio, com base em registros de eleitores compilados pelo governo federal.
É provável que a Suprema Corte analise contestações às diretrizes do Serviço Postal nas próximas duas semanas. Caso a maioria conservadora apoie o plano de Trump, isso representará uma reinterpretação sem precedentes da Constituição, ao concentrar poder nas mãos de um órgão governamental que foi explicitamente excluído da organização das eleições.
Trump nunca se recuperou de sua derrota eleitoral de 2020 e continua a insistir que as eleições foram roubadas. No entanto, ele perdeu 62 ações judiciais em que não encontrou fundamento para suas alegações. Isso levou à sua tentativa desesperada de impedir a posse de Biden como presidente, mobilizando seus apoiadores para invadirem o Capitólio dos EUA em 6 de janeiro de 2023. Desde então, centenas de partidários leais a Trump foram eleitos ou nomeados para juntas eleitorais estaduais e locais, onde provavelmente tentarão direcionar os resultados eleitorais finais a favor de candidatos republicanos caso haja contestação.
A sexta medida de Trump tem sido enviar observadores eleitorais a estados que realizaram eleições recentemente, visando construir argumentos para uma supervisão federal (e possível interferência) em disputas acirradas.
Em 2020, o procurador-geral de Trump, William Barr, bloqueou a tentativa do presidente de confiscar urnas eletrônicas no Arizona. Neste ciclo eleitoral, o Departamento de Justiça anunciou que mais de mil agentes estão sendo treinados para monitorar as eleições em estados-chave. Eles seriam, sem dúvida, bem recebidos pelas centenas de negacionistas eleitorais que supervisionam as eleições em diferentes estados. Trump poderia declarar emergência nacional e ordenar a requisição das urnas para questionar resultados eleitorais desfavoráveis e manipulá-los em favor dos republicanos.
A sétima ação de Trump tem sido lançar uma campanha agressiva contra candidatos democratas, especialmente aqueles com inclinações socialistas democráticas, alegando que são comunistas. Embora esse discurso possa parecer um retorno anacrônico à era da Guerra Fria, ele ressoa com a base de Trump. Alguns líderes democratas moderados alimentaram esse discurso ao argumentar que alguns candidatos democratas ao Senado — Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, de Michigan, e Angela Nixon, da Flórida — estão muito à esquerda para conquistar eleitores independentes nessas duas disputas decisivas.
Para responder aos preços elevados da gasolina e ao seu efeito em cascata na economia, como oitava medida, Trump tentou manipular o mercado declarando que a guerra com o Irã havia terminado e que sua “missão foi cumprida” — uma referência bizarra à declaração do presidente Bush na Guerra do Iraque, quando aquele conflito perdurou por vários anos a mais.
Uma campanha anunciada de sanções econômicas totais contra o Irã também parece fadada ao fracasso, pois exigiria a improvável cooperação da China, que atualmente importa entre 80% e 90% de seu petróleo do Irã.
Em uma tentativa ineficaz de reduzir os preços, a nona ação de Trump consistiu em anunciar que os Estados Unidos importarão 300 mil toneladas métricas de carne bovina moída e aparas de carne magra estrangeiras em um prazo de 90 dias — presumivelmente da Argentina — e as venderão no mercado americano por um quarto do custo da carne nacional, prejudicando drasticamente os produtores locais.
Essa proposta enfrentou forte resistência de agricultores de inclinação conservadora em estados-chave que, por sua vez, podem determinar quem controlará o Senado. Trump também anunciou um possível acordo com a Venezuela, no qual o Pentágono faria parceria com uma empresa venezuelana para acessar o petróleo do país pelos próximos cem anos, embora qualquer nova produção significativa provavelmente demorasse anos para influenciar o preço internacional do petróleo.
A décima medida de Trump para influenciar o resultado da eleição é a promessa de gastar parte dos 400 milhões de dólares em fundos de campanha sob seu controle para produzir anúncios eleitorais nacionais que destacassem suas principais realizações nos últimos dois anos, transformando a eleição em um referendo sobre sua gestão. Isso poderia ter o efeito oposto, lembrando os eleitores, em disputas legislativas cruciais, de quão poucas de suas promessas eleitorais de 2024 Trump realmente cumpriu.
Ao mesmo tempo, e sem razão lógica aparente, Trump decidiu travar uma guerra tarifária com o Canadá, o aliado mais leal dos Estados Unidos e um importante parceiro comercial. As tarifas de 50% ameaçadas sobre produtos canadenses não apenas aumentarão os preços para os consumidores americanos, mas também devastarão a economia dos estados que fazem fronteira com o Canadá — Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin e Missouri —, onde candidatos democratas e republicanos travam disputas acirradas. A decisão extravagante de Trump de ordenar a mudança do nome do Lago Ontário para Lago América, apenas para irritar os canadenses, só acende mais lenha na fogueira do conflito entre os dois países.
Em vez de tranquilizar seus potenciais apoiadores de que está fazendo todo o possível para acabar com a guerra no Irã e reduzir os preços, Trump passou os últimos meses dedicando um tempo enorme a projetos de vaidade, mesmo quando ordens judiciais bloquearam seus esforços. Ele se recusa a desistir de tentar incluir seu nome, de uma forma ou de outra, no Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Ele prosseguiu com a construção de seu salão de baile dourado na Casa Branca. Ele se recusa a admitir que a incompetência de uma empreiteira causou danos ao espelho d’água do Washington Mall e não desistiu do plano de construir um arco de 250 pés de altura para se destacar na paisagem de Washington, D.C.
Em vez de apresentar sua presidência como um compromisso diário de melhorar a vida das pessoas comuns e encerrar aventuras militares no exterior, Trump parece cada vez mais empenhado em encontrar maneiras de aumentar sua fortuna e a de sua família, bem como a do 1% da população que detém 31% da riqueza do país.
Se a eleição resultar em uma onda de mudança política, os republicanos perderão o controle da Câmara e, possivelmente, do Senado. Se os resultados configurarem um tsunami a favor dos democratas, Trump pode não enfrentar necessariamente um terceiro julgamento de impeachment em 2027 — já que os democratas não obterão os dois terços dos votos necessários para declará-lo culpado de “crimes graves e delitos” (high crimes and misdemeanors) —, mas certamente enfrentará uma enxurrada de investigações por corrupção e má gestão.
Iran’s missile attack on U.S. bases follows an American strike near the Strait of Hormuz.
The post Trump signals retaliation as U.S.-Iran fighting resumes appeared first on BOL News.
Driscoll had also taken part in efforts connected to negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.
The post Army Secretary Dan Driscoll resigns amid rift with Hegseth appeared first on BOL News.
This story originally appeared in Common Dreams on Aug. 31, 2026. It is shared here under a Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0) license.
President Donald Trump on Monday warned Americans that they risk becoming “backwards and poor” unless they allow Big Tech companies to build artificial intelligence data centers in their communities.
In a social media post, the president expressed indignation that any town or city wouldn’t welcome data centers, which have drawn nationwide opposition for generating pollution and jacking up utility bills.
“The only reason that communities throughout the USA should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor,” Trump wrote. “If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign.”
In reality, AI data centers create very few jobs once they are completed, as most of their functions are fully automated.
Trump then said that Americans “will only have yourselves to blame” if they “kill the Golden Goose” that is AI data centers.
“China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement,” Trump wrote. “Actually, they can’t believe it is happening!”
Building AI data centers has become massively unpopular throughout the US.
A poll conducted by Embold Research and published by Heatmap Pro earlier this month shows that 75% of Americans now oppose building AI data centers in their area, including 61% registering strong opposition.
While Republicans polled in the survey were more supportive of data centers than Democrats and independent voters, it nonetheless found that opposition among Republicans outweighed support by 43 points.
Polling analyst G. Elliott Morris marveled at how politically tone deaf the president sounds when it comes to data centers, commenting that “Donald Trump is actively trying to help as many Democratic senators as possible get elected.”
Longtime GOP operative Frank Luntz similarly noted data centers’ unpopularity, citing a recent Gallup poll showing 63% of Republican voters oppose having one of the facilities built in their communities.
“We’re about to see whether President Trump can sway those voters to support them, as he’s done on many issues before,” Luntz remarked.
Democratic US Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed wasted no time tying the president’s position on data centers to his opponent, Republican Mike Rogers.
“Make no mistake—this is Mike Rogers’ position on data centers,” wrote El-Sayed. “He’s got up to $2.6 million invested in companies cashing in on the data center boom, all while Michiganders watch their utility bills soar. You can’t trust a word out of Mike’s mouth because he’s only out for himself, for Donald Trump, and for Big Tech—not Michigan.”
Faiz Shakir, a longtime adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), observed that Trump is merely “sharing the perspective of Wall Street and Big Tech” and is showing “no interest… in grappling with the mass revolt across American communities, or to learn anything from them.”
Screenwriter David Simon, creator of the acclaimed television series The Wire, accused Trump of brazenly lying about data centers’ economic benefits.
“If data centers are a geographic benefit to communities, you can be sure they’d be siting and building them in affluent and politically connected environs,” wrote Simon. “Curiously, they’re dumped in poorer, less influential places. Go fucking figure.”
Republican Kentucky state Rep. Savannah Maddox took issue with the president disparaging communities opposed to data centers, which include many of the rural communities that voted for him in three presidential elections.
“Rural doesn’t mean ‘backwards and poor’ and development doesn’t always equate to being ‘successful and rich,’” wrote Maddox. “President Trump wouldn’t be president without the rural voters who inhabit America’s heartland. It is not wrong of us to question the sudden and wide-scale effort to convert arable land into data centers. We are not stupid for wanting to protect our rural way of life.”
Trump claimed that more than 100,000 protesters have been killed so far.
The post Trump declares Iran ‘dead’ and a ‘Failed Nation’, claims inflation has hit 300% appeared first on BOL News.
Mansões, carros de luxo, viagens, restaurantes caros. Enquanto fazem lobby para tentar enfraquecer o governo brasileiro e o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) junto ao governo de Donald Trump, o ex-deputado federal Eduardo Bolsonaro e o influenciador Paulo Figueiredo mantêm um alto padrão de vida nos Estados Unidos (EUA).
Ambos já afirmaram enfrentar dificuldades financeiras devido ao que chamam de “perseguição política”. No entanto, um levantamento da Agência Pública e do ICL Notícias revela um cenário diferente. Além de viverem em casas milionárias, no último ano os dois adquiriram carros caros, têm frequentado restaurantes sofisticados, mantêm os filhos em escolas particulares e acumularam uma extensa agenda de viagens.
Eduardo Bolsonaro e Paulo Figueiredo foram centrais na articulação para impor tarifas contra o Brasil e retaliações contra ministros do Supremo. Desde 2025, eles participaram de dezenas de reuniões com deputados republicanos e membros do governo dos EUA pedindo intervenções em resposta à condenação do ex-presidente Jair Bolsonaro por tentativa de golpe de Estado em 8 de janeiro de 2023.
Em maio de 2025, três meses após se mudar para o Texas e anunciar que viveria uma espécie de “autoexílio”, Eduardo Bolsonaro comprou um carro novo. Não exatamente um modelo econômico para atravessar tempos difíceis. Ele adquiriu um GMC Acadia Elevation 2025 preto, um SUV de três fileiras de assentos, avaliado em cerca de 43,8 mil dólares nos EUA, o que equivale a aproximadamente R$ 226 mil.
Os registros de gastos associados à família Bolsonaro nos EUA mostram que, desde a mudança para o país, em fevereiro do ano passado, o padrão de vida não parece ter encolhido, nem mesmo após o STF determinar o bloqueio dos bens de Eduardo Bolsonaro e de sua esposa, Heloísa Bolsonaro, em julho de 2025. Eduardo ainda perdeu o salário que recebia como deputado federal em dezembro, quando seu mandato foi cassado por faltas, e, desde 2015, não recebe salário como escrivão da PF, de onde a corporação recomendou sua demissão por abandono do cargo.
Ao chegar aos EUA, o ex-deputado escolheu Arlington, no Texas, onde já havia mantido uma empresa entre 2023 e 2024. A residência alugada estava longe de ter as dimensões de um refúgio improvisado. Tinha pouco mais de 300 metros quadrados, quatro quartos e quatro banheiros, com valor de mercado estimado em 707,7 mil dólares (cerca de R$ 3,6 milhões). O valor da locação anunciado em sites imobiliários, quando eles alugaram a casa, era de 4,5 mil dólares, aproximadamente R$ 23,3 mil na cotação atual.
Em maio de 2025, Jair Bolsonaro chegou a transferir R$ 2 milhões ao filho. “Botei dinheiro na mão dele, dinheiro limpo, legal, Pix”, afirmou o ex-presidente.
Dias depois, Eduardo chegou a reclamar para o pai, em mensagens trocadas por Whatsapp, que estava “se fodendo” nos EUA. Ao reclamar de uma entrevista em que Jair dizia que o filho era imaturo, Eduardo reclamou que, ao jogar ele para baixo, o ex-presidente o estaria condenando a passar o “resto da vida nessa porra aqui”. “VTNC seu ingrato do caralho!”, escreveu.
A situação parece ter melhorado desde então. Pouco mais de um ano depois, em maio de 2026, a família trocou Arlington por um endereço ainda mais valorizado, em Southlake, uma das cidades mais ricas do Texas, onde a renda familiar média é de 250 mil dólares – três vezes maior do que em Arlington, por exemplo. Eduardo, a esposa e os dois filhos moram atualmente em uma casa que oferece “uma vida de resort”, conforme revelou o The Intercept Brasil.
Avaliada em 1,22 milhão de dólares, cerca de R$ 6 milhões, a mansão foi anunciada para aluguel por aproximadamente 5,9 mil dólares (em torno de R$ 30 mil mensais), segundo anúncios imobiliários que permaneceram ativos até fevereiro deste ano. O imóvel tem 424 metros quadrados de área construída, em um terreno de 1.366 metros quadrados, quatro quartos e piscina, além de acesso a um clube com quadras de tênis e a uma lagoa.
A filha mais velha do casal Bolsonaro, de cinco anos, foi matriculada numa escola cristã a cerca de 15 minutos de casa, com custo anual de 18 mil dólares (R$ 93,4 mil), conforme divulgado no site da escola.
Eduardo nega ter usado parte da verba do filme Dark Horse para custear sua vida nos EUA. O filme foi financiado com cerca de R$ 61 milhões do banqueiro Daniel Vorcaro, por meio do Fundo Havengate. O negócio veio à tona após reportagem do Intercept Brasil. Conforme revelou o portal, Flávio Bolsonaro chegou a pedir o dobro desse valor ao banqueiro, hoje preso por gestão fraudulenta e estelionato, lavagem de dinheiro, corrupção de servidores públicos, organização criminosa e obstrução da Justiça.
“A história de que recebi dinheiro do fundo de investimento não se sustenta e é tosca”, afirmou Eduardo em suas redes sociais. “No meu processo migratório, expliquei às autoridades americanas toda a origem dos meus recursos e não tive qualquer problema”, disse.
Procurado pela reportagem, Eduardo não respondeu como financia seu padrão de vida nos Estados Unidos.
Em outras ocasiões, ele afirmou que se mantém com “renda passiva” e já disse também que recebe dinheiro por meio de cursos que ministra – os cerca de 50 mil dólares que ele disse ter investido no filme Dark Horse, por exemplo, teriam esta origem.
Chama a atenção o volume de dinheiro que Eduardo Bolsonaro vem gastando com viagens dentro e fora dos EUA. Desde fevereiro do ano passado, o ex-deputado federal viajou ao menos 20 vezes, entre compromissos políticos e passeios turísticos.
Para comemorar o primeiro aniversário de Heloísa Bolsonaro após a mudança para os EUA, a família foi para a Disney em junho de 2025. Cinco meses depois, em dezembro, Eduardo Bolsonaro esteve na cidade de Park City, em Utah, destino nas montanhas conhecido internacionalmente por suas estações de esqui. A passagem ocorreu justamente no início da alta temporada de neve na região.
Já em fevereiro deste ano, Eduardo viajou para West Palm Beach, na Flórida, onde o custo diário de acomodação pode ser superior a R$ 1.000. Dali, ele participou do Latin Gala em Mar A Lago, o resort de Trump. Na festa para a comunidade Latina, ele premiou Fernando Cerimedo, marketeiro político responsável por mentiras sobre as urnas brasileiras que está preso na Bolívia por tentativa de assassinar a namorada.
Durante a Copa do Mundo, ele foi a Miami assistir à partida entre Brasil e Escócia, que ocorreu no dia 24 de junho. Ele ficou hospedado em um hotel de luxo, que cobra diárias de R$ 16 mil e chega a oferecer pacotes de experiência avaliados em um milhão de dólares, conforme revelou a Revista Fórum.
Mas a maior parte dos deslocamentos do ex-deputado, desde que se mudou para os EUA, está ligada à sua atuação política. Ao lado de Paulo Figueiredo, Eduardo tem se mobilizado para pressionar o governo norte-americano a impor sanções ao Brasil e a ministros do STF. Juntos, os dois estiveram pelo menos sete vezes em Washington e fizeram outras três viagens a Mar-a-Lago, na Flórida. Paulo frequenta o resort desde 2019 e parece manter sua primeira impressão: “simplesmente lindo!”
Em meados de maio, Eduardo hospedou-se, junto com Paulo, no histórico hotel Willard Intercontinental Washington, quando se reuniram com Trump na Casa Branca. Eduardo e sua turma alugaram os quartos, que têm preço inicial a partir de R$ 1,5 mil por noite, mas podem chegar a custar R$ 50 mil por diária. Eles chegaram a receber, no hotel, a visita de Darren Beattie, assessor sênior de política para o Brasil no Departamento de Estado.
A agenda de Eduardo Bolsonaro e Paulo Figueiredo também cruzou as fronteiras norte-americanas, com pelo menos três viagens ao Oriente Médio.
“Pra quem surfa, sabe que isso aqui é o que há de melhor no mundo.” Com uma prancha debaixo do braço, Eduardo Bolsonaro aparece diante da maior piscina de ondas artificiais do mundo, em Abu Dhabi. No vídeo, publicado em 8 de fevereiro, ele também demonstra suas habilidades ao longo de uma sequência de manobras. As imagens foram gravadas no Surf Abu Dhabi, na ilha de Hudayriyat, onde uma sessão de 45 minutos para surfistas de nível intermediário e avançado custa 1,8 mil dirhams dos Emirados Árabes Unidos (AED) $ 953 — cerca de R$ 2,5 mil.
Na ocasião, Eduardo viajava pelo Oriente Médio ao lado do irmão, o senador e então pré-candidato à presidência Flávio Bolsonaro, e de Paulo Figueiredo. O trio divulgou encontros com autoridades no Bahrein e nos Emirados Árabes Unidos como parte de sua agenda política na região. Mas, entre um compromisso e outro, as redes sociais também registraram momentos de lazer.
Figueiredo, por exemplo, compartilhou avaliações de restaurantes em Dubai, como o CZN Burak Dubai, especializado em culinária turca, onde comeu um dos melhores kebabs da sua vida, além de um ensopado de camarão apimentado. “Divino”, “sobremesa perfeita” estão entre os elogios feitos à casa, cujo preço estimado por pessoa é de R$ 140 a R$ 210. Ele também visitou o Clay Dubai, na marina da cidade, onde se paga entre R$ 560 e R$ 630 por pessoa. “Este lugar não é apenas LINDO, mas tudo o que comemos estava delicioso”, escreveu. Em um restaurante de comida japonesa, reclamou de ter comido um sushi de abacate com salmão por 45 dólares. “ATENÇÃO! Este lugar é uma armadilha para turistas!”, escreveu.
Procurado pela reportagem, Paulo Figueiredo dirigiu ironias e agressões contra a Agência Pública antes de afirmar: “Eu me financio através das minhas empresas e não devo satisfação a ninguém”.
Os registros levantados pela reportagem indicam que Paulo Figueiredo também elevou seu padrão de vida no último ano. Em novembro de 2025, conforme revelaram a Agência Pública e o ICL Notícias, o influenciador comprou por 1,2 milhão de dólares — cerca de R$ 6,1 milhões — uma mansão em Clermont, na Flórida. Para fechar o negócio, contratou um financiamento imobiliário de 1 milhão de dólares.
A propriedade fica em um terreno de 17,5 mil metros quadrados, o equivalente a cerca de dois campos e meio de futebol, e tem 515 metros quadrados de área construída. São dois andares, seis quartos e cinco banheiros, além de salas de estar e de jantar, cozinha gourmet e sala de jogos. Do lado de fora, há piscina de água salgada, jacuzzi para 12 pessoas, varanda, lareira e até uma casa na árvore.
Seis meses depois, em maio de 2026, Figueiredo ampliou a garagem com um Cybertruck 2026, da Tesla, montadora de Elon Musk. O veículo tem valor de mercado estimado em 83 mil dólares, o que equivale a R$ 427,9 mil. O influenciador também possui, desde 2024, uma BMW Série 6 de 2004, hoje avaliada em cerca de 9 mil dólares (aproximadamente R$ 51 mil).
A compra da mansão ocorreu apenas um mês depois de Figueiredo informar à Justiça dos Estados Unidos que não tinha recursos para contratar um advogado para representar sua empresa, a International Treasure Group, condenada à revelia. A ação contra a companhia faz parte de um processo de falência que visa recuperar transferências supostamente vinculadas ao esquema de fraude atribuído ao magnata chinês Miles Guo.
A International Treasure Group entrou no processo após receber 140 mil dólares — cerca de R$ 670 mil — por serviços prestados à rede social Gettr entre agosto de 2021 e abril de 2022, segundo a defesa de Figueiredo. Fundada pelo ex-assessor de Donald Trump, Jason Miller, a plataforma tinha Guo como financiador oculto.
A mansão em Clermont não é o único imóvel de Figueiredo na Flórida. Ele também possui uma casa em Weston, colocada à venda em junho deste ano por 1,09 milhão de dólares — cerca de R$ 5,5 milhões —, segundo sites imobiliários americanos. Desde 2016, a propriedade estava registrada em nome da Olive-Fig Tree Real Properties LLC, empresa que também pertence ao influenciador.
Em outubro de 2025, porém, o imóvel de Weston foi transferido para o nome de Figueiredo, segundo documentos do estado da Flórida. No mês seguinte, ele adquiriu a mansão de Clermont.
As movimentações contrastam com declarações feitas pelo próprio Figueiredo sobre sua situação financeira. Em 2024, quando já articulava, nos Estados Unidos, possíveis retaliações contra autoridades brasileiras, ele deu seu testemunho em uma audiência no Congresso americano, afirmando ser vítima de perseguição do STF e que estava “desempregado, sem minhas redes sociais e suas respectivas monetizações, responsável por sustentar minhas duas filhas americanas de 7 e 8 anos”.
Paulo é cidadão americano, assim como suas filhas, e usa este fato para alardear que tem sido censurado pelo STF – o que embasou diversas ações de aliados no governo e no legislativo norte-americano, como a lei “No Censors in Our shores”, proposto pela deputada republicana Maria Elvira Salazar um mês depois dela ter recebido uma doação de campanha de Paulo no maior valor possível na época (R$ 57 mil), conforme revelou a Pública.
Na Flórida, Paulo frequenta restaurantes renomados e costuma ser bastante crítico quanto à gastronomia. Frequenta restaurantes com estrelas Michelin, mas nem sempre sai satisfeito. Por exemplo, em abril, ele foi ao restaurante de culinária asiática fusion Nami, no hotel Lake Nona Wave, em Orlando, onde também se paga, por pessoa, cerca de 500 reais por refeição. “Fiquei muito decepcionado, ainda mais por se tratar de um restaurante com estrela Michelin. As porções são ridiculamente pequenas, não condizendo com o preço cobrado. Pra ser sincero, este é o primeiro lugar com estrela Michelin onde definitivamente não pretendo voltar”.
Em outros restaurantes, ele reclama dos valores pagos por porções pequenas, o que ele diz ser regra em Miami, “restaurantes muito caros com comida mediana”.
Não que ele não tope pagar caro. Há cerca de um ano, ele foi com a esposa ao Restaurante MAASS, em Fort Lauderdale, onde pagou “quase 400 dólares” – R$ 2 mil reais – em um menu degustação para duas pessoas. “Mesmo experimentando o menu degustação, nada do que comi foi memorável e me fez querer voltar”, escreveu.
Oil prices rose more than 2% Monday after the United States attacked an Iranian island in the Strait of Hormuz and drew retaliation from Tehran, as the six-month-old conflict between the two countries showed no signs of easing. Brent crude futures climbed $2.21, or 2.51%, to $90.31 a barrel as of 0436 GMT. U.S. West ... Read more
The post Oil prices jump more than 2% after US and Iran trade strikes appeared first on BOL News.
Missile strikes follow a U.S. operation against Iranian launchers near the Strait of Hormuz.
The post Iran strikes U.S. bases in Jordan after U.S. strike on Larak appeared first on BOL News.
Após semanas de tensão entre Brasil e Estados Unidos, o presidente Lula conversou por telefone com Donald Trump na última sexta-feira, 21 de agosto. A ligação, que durou mais de uma hora e meia, teve dentro dos principais temas as atuais medidas envolvendo a segurança pública e economia, e também as acusações contra autoridades brasileiras. Segundo nota do Governo Federal, a conversa foi para retomada de um novo canal de diálogo e de negociações entre os países.
Em entrevista ao Pauta Pública, gravada no mesmo dia da ligação, Celso Amorim, chefe da Assessoria Especial do Presidente da República, reforçou que a conversa teve um tom positivo, que não se limitou aos temas bilaterais, mas reforçaram o compromisso de cooperação sem a necessidade de interferências dos EUA nas questões nacionais. “O presidente Lula e o presidente Trump fizeram a nuvem, agora as equipes técnicas têm que fazer chover”, afirma Amorim.
Na entrevista com Andrea Dip, ele analisa o resultado da conversa, comenta as medidas adotadas pelo governo norte-americano e os desafios das negociações comerciais. Ele também fala sobre as pressões geopolíticas sobre o Brasil e a necessidade de fortalecer a defesa e a independência do país na área industrial e militar. “Diante desse mundo, é como uma apólice de seguro. É evidente que você prefere que não aconteça nada, mas você tem que estar preparado se acontecer.”
Leia os principais pontos da conversa e ouça o podcast completo abaixo.
Quais foram os principais temas tratados no telefonema entre Lula e Trump? Qual era o clima e qual seu balanço sobre essa conversa?
O balanço da conversa é o mais positivo possível. Eu acho que os dois presidentes tiveram uma conversa muito respeitosa, com muita empatia. O presidente Lula não se limitou a temas bilaterais, ele falou de temas globais, e o presidente Trump se estendeu em colocar a posição dele, mostrar qual é a visão dele de mediação e o papel que os Estados Unidos têm realizado, o que pode ser feito. O presidente Lula enfatizou a importância do Conselho de Segurança, um lugar onde as grandes potências que podem decidir têm que conversar.
Em geral, dentro do clima desse espírito brasileiro de que, quando possível, sempre coopera para a paz, mas tendo clareza de que os cinco membros permanentes do Conselho de Segurança da ONU [China, Estados Unidos, França, Reino Unido e Rússia] têm uma responsabilidade primária nisso. E, obviamente, os Estados Unidos, como ainda é a maior potência do mundo, têm uma responsabilidade especial.[…] Na parte bilateral, os temas que foram tratados são os que estão na nota oficial, não houve nenhum tema diferente.
Os dois temas principais foram o comércio e a cooperação no combate ao crime organizado, que as equipes se reúnam, voltem a se reunir e trabalhar. O presidente Lula descreveu um pouco o que nós temos feito aqui. E, digamos, foi crítico da medida americana comercial, claramente, que os motivos não correspondiam à realidade.
O presidente Trump não contestou, não posso dizer também se concordou, mas ele concordou com a importância de voltar a conversar e preparar as equipes para isso. Então, o clima foi muito bom. Eu acho que o que se espera de uma conversa entre chefes de Estado é isso, é criar o clima e depois as equipes têm que encontrar a solução. Às vezes, as equipes são mais difíceis do que os governantes, mas isso é um problema para mais tarde.
O senhor avalia as ações tomadas pelo governo Trump, em relação ao Brasil, como ilegais ou inconstitucionais?
Constitucionais segundo a Constituição dos Estados Unidos eu não posso julgar. A Suprema Corte americana já fez isso no passado em relação à primeira onda de tarifaço. Enfim, eu sempre me lembro do primeiro encontro – não o primeiríssimo, porque o primeiro foi antes da posse – mas o primeiro encontro do presidente Lula com o presidente Bush na Casa Branca, no Salão Oval, quando o presidente Lula entrou, o presidente Bush disse assim, “olha, nós temos diferenças, nós vamos tratar daquilo que nos aproxima.”
Enfim, eu achei que o clima foi um pouco também esse, sem necessariamente falar em diferença, mas que é muito respeitoso da parte do presidente Trump. As colocações que nós fizemos, muito interessado em discutir e apresentar a posição norte-americana sobre temas globais. Eu acho muito respeito por um estadista, que o presidente Lula é, não é qualquer pessoa que liga para o presidente dos Estados Unidos. Eu tenho muita vivência nisso, quem liga para o presidente dos Estados Unidos e fala sobre a guerra no Irã, por exemplo, e ele se dá ao trabalho de explicar as posições dos Estados Unidos? Agora, eu tinha um chefe, que era ministro do exterior muitos anos atrás, ele dizia que “a gente faz a nuvem, agora a gente não pode fazer chover.” Então, o presidente Lula e o presidente Trump fizeram a nuvem, agora as equipes técnicas têm que fazer chover.
Vários analistas veem um aumento constante das pressões dos Estados Unidos sobre o Brasil por acesso a recursos nos próximos anos e para conter a influência da China, independente de ser um governo republicano ou democrata. Alguns até pensam na possibilidade de uma escalada militar envolvendo o Brasil pela sua importância geopolítica na nova economia. Como fugir dessa encruzilhada?
O Brasil, como um país grande que é, tem que tratar da sua defesa. Nós temos que trabalhar nessa conversa. Nós conversamos com todos e torcemos, e se pudermos vamos colaborar para que eles tenham uma relação pacífica entre si. Isso não é bom só para o Brasil, isso é bom para o mundo. Diante desse mundo, é como uma apólice de seguro. É evidente que você prefere que não aconteça nada, mas você tem que estar preparado se acontecer. Eu fui ministro da Defesa, como você sabe, e naquela época fizemos investimentos importantes, entre eles o Gripen [aeronave supersônica], mas a Comissão da Verdade foi o tema dominante. Então, as atenções se voltavam mais para isso, mas eu acho que nós temos que dar uma grande importância à defesa nacional.
Isso pode envolver cooperação com outros países, mas tem que envolver também um grau forte de independência na área industrial ou militar. Isso eu acho que é fundamental. Não é para atacar ninguém, não, mas é que se alguém quiser nos atacar, tem que pensar duas vezes. A questão é a seguinte: não é que você vai ganhar uma guerra contra o país A ou contra o país B, que tem bomba atômica, etc. É que você tem que ser capaz de causar um dano que seja suficiente para ele pensar duas vezes antes de te atacar. Senão, você fica dominado a priori.
Login
