Eight days after the September 2 operation that inaugurated President Donald Trump's lethal military campaign against suspected drug boats, The Intercept reported that people who survived the initial missile strike were "killed shortly after in a follow-up attack." On Friday, The Washington Post confirmed that account, saying the commander overseeing the operation, based on an oral directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to "kill everybody," ordered a second strike on "two survivors" who "were clinging to the smoldering wreck."

If that report is accurate, Reason's Christian Britschgi notes, "the second strike on helpless survivors would add a degree of barbarism to the administration's anti-drug campaign." It also would further complicate the arguments that Trump has deployed to justify his unprecedented policy of summarily executing suspected drug smugglers, which so far has involved 21 attacks that killed 83 people in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. Even if you accept Trump's dubious claim that the United States is engaged in a "non-international armed conflict" with "narcoterrorists," which supposedly means U.S. forces can legally attack vessels believed to be carrying illegal drugs, deliberately killing survivors would be contrary to the law of war.

"Both the giving and the execution of these orders" would "constitute war crimes, murder, or both," the Former JAGs Working Group, which consists of lawyers who previously served in the military, said on Saturday. "If the U.S. military operation to interdict and destroy suspected narcotrafficking vessels is a 'non-international armed conflict' as the Trump Administration suggests, orders to 'kill everybody,' which can reasonably be regarded as an order to give 'no quarter,' and to 'double-tap' a target in order to kill survivors, are clearly illegal under international law. In short, they are war crimes."

The former military lawyers add that the situation is even graver "if the U.S. military operation is not an armed conflict of any kind." In that case, they say, "these orders to kill helpless civilians clinging to the wreckage of a vessel our military destroyed would
subject everyone from [the secretary of defense] down to the individual who pulled the trigger to prosecution under U.S. law for murder."

Rep. Michael R. Turner (R–Ohio), a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, likewise recognized the import of the Post's article during a Face the Nation interview on Sunday. "If that occurred," he said, it would be "very serious," and "I agree" it "would be an illegal act." He noted that "there are very serious concerns in Congress about the attacks on the so-called drug boats" and about "the legal justification [that] has been provided." But he said the follow-up strike described by the Post "is completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress."

The Senate Armed Services Committee "is aware of recent news reports—and the Department of Defense's initial response—regarding alleged follow-on strikes on suspected narcotics vessels in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility," Sen. Roger Wicker (R–Miss.), the committee's chairman, and Sen. Jack Reed (D–R.I.), the committee's ranking minority member, said in a statement on Friday. "The Committee has directed inquiries to the Department, and we will be conducting vigorous oversight to determine the facts related to these circumstances."

On Saturday, the House Armed Services Committee said it also would look into the incident. "We take seriously the reports of follow-on strikes on boats alleged to be ferrying narcotics in the SOUTHCOM region and are taking bipartisan action to gather a full accounting of the operation in question," said Rep. Mike Rogers (R–Ala.), the committee's chairman, and Rep. Adam Smith (D–Wash.), the committee's ranking minority member.

Based on information from four unnamed sources "with direct knowledge of the matter," the Post reports that "the elite counterterror group SEAL Team 6 led the attack," which killed a total of 11 people, under the command of Adm. Frank M. Bradley at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Here is how the Post describes the attack: "A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck." According to two of the Post's sources, Bradley "ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth's instructions," and "the two men were blown apart in the water."

Such instructions "would in essence be an order to show no quarter, which would be a war crime," former military lawyer Todd Huntley, "who advised Special Operations forces for seven years at the height of the U.S. counterterrorism campaign," told the Post. The second strike described by the Post also contrasts with what happened after subsequent attacks on suspected drug boats.

After an October 16 attack in the Caribbean that killed two people, The New York Times notes, "two men from the boat were rescued by the U.S. military and repatriated within days to Colombia and Ecuador." And after an October 27 attack that killed 15 people in the eastern Pacific, "U.S. surveillance spotted one of the men clinging to wreckage and alerted the Mexican Navy," which "tried to find and rescue him for four days but could not."

Why didn't U.S. forces take the same approach on September 2? "In briefing materials provided to the White House," the Post says, the Joint Special Operations Command "reported that the 'double-tap,' or follow-on strike, was intended to sink the boat and remove a navigation hazard to other vessels—not to kill survivors." According to "two congressional aides," the paper reports, "a similar explanation was given to lawmakers in two closed-door briefings."

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell nevertheless declined to answer the Post's questions about Hegseth's instructions or the circumstances of the second strike. But Parnell suggested that any criticism of Trump's bloodthirsty anti-drug campaign was misguided. "This entire narrative is completely false," he told the Post. "Ongoing operations to dismantle narcoterrorism and to protect the Homeland from deadly drugs have been a resounding success."

Hegseth likewise dodged the legal issues raised by the Post's report. "As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland," he said in an X post on Friday. "As we've said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be 'lethal, kinetic strikes.' The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization."

The Pentagon has not named any of the men whose deaths Trump has ordered. But it said all 11 people killed in the September 2 attack were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which is on the State Department's list of "foreign terrorist organizations" (FTOs). That designation is puzzling as applied to drug cartels, which are criminal organizations motivated by profit rather than religious or ideological groups that use violence to achieve political goals. And contrary to Hegseth's implication, an FTO designation, which authorizes the Treasury Department to block transactions involving a listed group's assets and triggers criminal penalties for providing it with "material support or resources," is not a license to kill that transforms murder into self-defense.

In addition to describing his targets as "narcoterrorists," Trump conflates drug smuggling with violent aggression, saying the cartels' activities "constitute an armed attack against the United States." But the "non-international armed conflict" he perceives has not been recognized by Congress, and it departs from the United Nations definition of that term, which requires violent confrontations between "organised Parties" that possess "organised armed forces." The violence must "meet a minimum threshold of intensity" that distinguishes it from threats such as "riots," "banditry," "unorganized and short-lived insurrections," and "terrorist activities."

The "armed conflict" that Trump describes does not meet these criteria. "This is not stretching the envelope," Geoffrey Corn, formerly the U.S. Army's senior adviser on the law of war, told The New York Times. "This is shredding it."

Trump's assertion of an "armed conflict" also seems to contradict his administration's claim that U.S. forces are not engaged in "hostilities" when they blow up suspected drug boats, meaning the operations are not covered by the War Powers Resolution. According to the Justice Department, that law's constraints do not apply in this situation because American service members face no plausible threat of casualties, which underlines the point that Trump is killing people in cold blood without moral or legal justification.

Trump and Hegseth have publicly argued that drug smugglers can be legally killed because they are "combatants" in an "armed conflict"—albeit one that somehow does not involve "hostilities." But a confidential memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) reportedly takes a different tack. Citing "people who have read it," The New York Times reports that the memo "is said to focus instead on the purported shipments of narcotics aboard, portraying those as the specific targets of the strikes based on the theory that their sale would generate revenue that cartels would use to finance their alleged war efforts."

According to the OLC, in other words, the boats are legitimate military targets because the drugs they carry provide financial support for the cartels' "armed attack against the United States." But that "armed attack," according to Trump, consists of supplying Americans with the prohibited intoxicants they want, a business that is simultaneously warfare and the means of financing warfare.

All of this is pretty confusing, especially as a justification for killing criminal suspects instead of intercepting and arresting them, a practice that Hegseth derides as "the kid gloves approach" and Trump complains has been "totally ineffective." But even if Trump can avoid due process and obliterate the distinction between civilians and combatants by portraying drug smuggling as an "armed attack," the military response to that purported attack is still constrained by the law of war, which frowns on killing defenseless people clinging to a boat's wreckage.

On Sunday, Trump implicitly acknowledged that point. "I wouldn't have wanted that," he told reporters. "Not a second strike." But Trump said he has "great confidence" that Hegseth did not issue the "kill everybody" order described by the Post. Trump said Hegseth told him "he did not say that, and I believe him, 100 percent."

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that Hegseth issued no such order but added: "President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narcoterrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question on September 2, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated."

So no, Trump is not having second thoughts about the morality of killing suspected drug smugglers. "The first strike was very lethal," he said on Sunday, and "it was fine."

Was it? Huntley joins many other experts on the law of war in rejecting Hegseth's claim that "our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict." Because the longstanding effort to stop illegal drugs from entering the country does not qualify as an "armed conflict," Huntley told the Post, killing suspected smugglers, whether in a boat or in the water, "amounts to murder."

The post Hegseth's Alleged Order To 'Kill Everybody' Complicates Trump's Defense of His Murderous Anti-Drug Campaign appeared first on Reason.com.

David Sacks, the Trump administration’s AI and crypto czar and co-host of the All In Podcast, announced over the weekend that he’d hired Clare Locke (one of the largest law firms specializing in defamation in the US) to force the New York Times (NYT) to “abandon” its article concerning his conflicts of interest between his investments and role in the government.

The problem? Abandoning an article doesn’t mean anything in the realm of journalism and the legal threat letter doesn’t request a retraction.

The article in question, which showed that Sacks continues to have investments in over 400 crypto and AI-related companies despite his role within the government, relayed a general sentiment of opaqueness from the Trump administration and Special Government Employees.

Sacks’ disclosures hilariously state that Palantir is a software as a service (SaaS) company and allowed him to hold on to investments in crypto-related company BitGo, which benefitted from the GENIUS Act and plans to IPO shortly.

It’s clear that through Craft Ventures and his own personal investments that Sacks stands to gain financially from his influence within the federal government, in spite of the White House saying that he’s started or completed sales of “over 99 percent” of his “holdings in companies that could potentially raise a conflict of interest concern” with no proof.

The fact some of these holdings have not yet been sold a year after Sacks was given the title of AI and crypto czar is also head scratching.

Donald Trump is suing the New York Times for harming his memecoin

Read more: Trump’s crypto reserve conveniently mirrors David Sacks-backed fund

All in on the Streisand effect

Sacks, who has unprecedented access to the White House, took to X shortly after the NYT published the article to, essentially, publish an article of his own.

The 250 plus-word tweet called the United States’ paper of record a “hoax factory” and referenced a “fabricated dinner with a leading tech CEO” and “nonexistent promises of access to the president.”

The posts from Sacks include a letter sent to the NYT from his attorneys at Clare Locke which states, “We demand that the Times abandon its article… At a minimum, the Times is under an ethical and legal obligation to reconsider the claims it intends to publish, including through further communications with Mr. Sacks or his representatives.”

While “abandonment” is a legal term, it’s rarely, if ever, used in journalism as it suggests that an entity should give up ownership of a material good.

This would leave the article available online, but without the NYT having control of it. This would mean it would be free and readily accessible to the general public.

What the post and letter specifically don’t mention is a retraction, which would force the NYT to remove the article and, possibly, provide an editorial note on why the decision was made.

Meanwhile, “reconsider” isn’t a legal or journalistic term, and while the letter suggests that Sacks must be contacted by journalists at the media outlet for more information, it’s also clear from his posts that the NYT already reached out numerous times for comment.

The legal threat states that the NYT should have published the article as an op-ed as opposed to a normal article.

It’s unclear what the repercussions would be if it doesn’t alter the article or change which section it’s published in, though it most likely doesn’t meet any legal definition of libel.

On a brighter note, Clare Locke isn’t a cheap legal firm to seek out and Sacks probably spent a not-insignificant amount of money to send a cheap, fake lion’s roar to the NYT. Expect it to either never go to court or immediately be thrown out if it does, despite David Sacks’s position in the Trump administration.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

The post David Sacks sends silly legal threat to the New York Times appeared first on Protos.

This morning, Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) slashed its earnings per share (EPS) guidance from $80 to $19. That 76% reduction is its new high of a range spanning to negative $17 per share.

In other words, Strategy has a new EPS guidance range that is 76-121% lower than its original target for December 31, 2025.

Worse, the bitcoin (BTC) holding company and its founder Michael Saylor announced $1.44 billion of pure dilution of its common shareholders, MSTR.

Unlike the company’s prior sales of MSTR that accrued BTC holdings, Strategy bought no BTC with that $1.44 billion, directly diluting shareholders instead.

Although it used $11.7 million worth of MSTR dilution to truthfully say it bought a little BTC, it didn’t buy BTC with $1.44 billion of its $1.4781 billion in MSTR dilution.

Instead, it simply diluted MSTR for USD.

Today is the beginning of the end of $MSTR. Saylor was forced to sell stock not to buy Bitcoin, but to buy U.S. dollars merely to fund MSTR's interest and dividend obligations. The stock is broken. The business model is a fraud, and @Saylor is the biggest con man on Wall Street.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) December 1, 2025

In contrast to Saylor’s normal goal of accretive dilution, the company started to worry about its upcoming cash obligations for servicing debts and dividends. It now claims to be building a “USD Reserve,” which is just another term for “cash” that we can add to Saylor’s dictionary of invented terminology.

Worse, Strategy diluted MSTR at a negative, basic multiple-to-Net Asset Value (mNAV) below 0.9x and a meager, enterprise value mNAV of 1.17x.

This metric of investor confidence has crashed by two-thirds from 3.4x in November 2024.

Strategy’s market cap falls below value of its bitcoin holdings

Read more: S&P 500 declines to add Strategy again

Strategy EPS is down with the price of bitcoin

The world’s largest digital asset treasury company, Strategy holds 650,000 BTC worth $55 billion. Its average cost basis is $74,436 per BTC.

Although that cost basis seemed conservatively low earlier this year amid optimism about Donald Trump’s endorsement of BTC, his presidency hasn’t been good for investors. Year to date, BTC has lost 11% of its value, and MSTR has amplified those losses with a 45% slide.

Strategy derives a special type of earnings on unrealized gains and losses on its BTC holdings, which are obviously negative at current prices.

Its reduced EPS guidance better reflects the reality of the bear market in BTC.

Finally, although Saylor and other executives at Strategy have repeatedly broadcasted their intention to never sell BTC, they have changed their tune on that promise in recent weeks.

Strategy recently tweeted about “dividend coverage” from possible BTC sales, and CEO Phong Le spoke about possible BTC sales if the Enterprise Value mNAV of MSTR were to sustain a sub-1x multiple amid dividend obligations.

Got a tip? Send us an email securely via Protos Leaks. For more informed news, follow us on X, Bluesky, and Google News, or subscribe to our YouTube channel.

The post Beginning of the end? Strategy dilutes MSTR, slashes EPS guidance 76% appeared first on Protos.

The uniquely vulnerable West Antarctic Ice Sheet holds enough water to raise global sea levels by 5 meters. But when that will happen—and how fast—is anything but settled.

Actions that once seemed untoward or shocking are no longer politically disqualifying. The instinct for embattled candidates now is to fight and not surrender. It's certainly worked for Trump.

Over at NRO, Andrew McCarthy largely agrees with Jack Goldsmith's conclusion that the the reported attack on survivors of a drug boat strike was unlawful. According to McCarthy, "If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law." He writes further:

even if we stipulate arguendo that the administration has a colorable claim that our forces are in an armed conflict with non-state actors (i.e., suspected members of drug cartels that the administration has dubiously designated as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs)), the laws of war do not permit the killing of combatants who have been rendered hors de combat (out of the fighting) — including by shipwreck.

To reiterate, I don't accept that the ship operators are enemy combatants — even if one overlooks that the administration has not proven that they are drug traffickers or members of designated FTOs. There is no armed conflict. They may be criminals (if it is proven that they are importing illegal narcotics), but they are not combatants.

My point, nevertheless, is that even if you buy the untenable claim that they are combatants, it is a war crime to intentionally kill combatants who have been rendered unable to fight. It is not permitted, under the laws and customs of honorable warfare, to order that no quarter be given — to apply lethal force to those who surrender or who are injured, shipwrecked, or otherwise unable to fight.

A key point here is that McCarty is not relying upon UN-affiliated entites nor unincorporated international law for his conclusion. Rather, he is resting his contentions on federal law (including those portions of the laws of war or international law that have been formally ratified by the Senate).

The laws of war, as they are incorporated into federal law, make lethal force unlawful if it is used under certain circumstances. Hence, it cannot be a defense to say, as Hegseth does, that one has killed because one's objective was "lethal, kinetic strikes."

And, it is worth noting, that federal law imposes the most severe penalties on war crimes.

McCarthy also highlights the fundamental irrationality of the Administration's policy, particularly given the constraints of federal law

. . . if an arguable combatant has been rendered hors de combat, targeting him with lethal force cannot be rationalized, as Bradley is said to have done, by theorizing that it was possible, at some future point, that the combatant could get help and be able to contribute once again to enemy operations. . . .

if the Post report is accurate — Hegseth and his commanders changed the protocols after the September 2 attack, "to emphasize rescuing suspected smugglers if they survived strikes." This is why two survivors in a subsequent strike (on October 16) were captured and then repatriated to their native countries (Colombia and Ecuador).

This was a ludicrous outcome: under prior policy, the boat would have been interdicted, the drugs seized, and the operators transferred to federal court for prosecution and hefty sentences. Under the Trump administration's policy, if the operators survive our missiles, they get to go back home and rejoin the drug trade. But put that aside. The point is that, if the administration's intent to apply lethal force were a defense to killing shipwrecked suspected drug traffickers, the policy wouldn't have been changed. It was changed because Hegseth knows he can't justify killing boat operators who survive attacks; and he sends them home rather than detaining them as enemy combatants because, similarly, there is no actual armed conflict, so there is no basis to detain them as enemy combatants.

The post McCarthy: "'We Intended the Strike to Be Lethal' Is Not a Defense" appeared first on Reason.com.