I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 14 minutes.

Giving Tuesday.

Quick hits.

1. A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled unanimously that Alina Habba is unlawfully serving as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, upholding a U.S. District Court judge’s finding. (The ruling)
2. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cox v. Sony, considering whether internet service providers can be held financially liable for failing to take action against illegal streaming of copyrighted material. The court is expected to rule on the case in June. (The arguments)
3. At least 1,350 people in Southeast Asia have died amid a series of major storms, which have caused landslides and flash floods. Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines have been among the countries most affected. (The storms)
4. U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday to discuss proposals to end the war in Ukraine. (The meeting)
5. The National Weather Service has issued a winter storm warning for much of the Northeast, predicting at least six inches of snow for a region stretching from New Jersey to Maine and a mix of snow and rain between Maryland and Ohio. Travelers are advised to use caution. (The warning)

Today’s topic.

The boat strikes report. On Monday, the White House said that on September 2, the military carried out a follow-up strike on a suspected drug-running boat in the Caribbean after two boat occupants survived an initial strike. The statement follows a Washington Post report published Friday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized military action to kill everyone on board the boat (though it is unclear whether he was aware of the second strike on the two survivors). If carried out as described, the second strike may have violated international law by killing incapacitated enemy combatants. 

Context: Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” of “persons taking no active part in the hostilities” in armed conflicts. This protection extends to “members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘hors de combat’ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.” 

We covered the Trump administration’s military action against alleged drug boats here and here. 

According to The Post’s report, as military commanders watched a live drone feed of the initial strike, a second strike was ordered to kill the two survivors and comply with Hegseth’s directive. The military has hit alleged drug boats multiple times in subsequent strikes, but the September 2 mission is the only reported instance of survivors being deliberately targeted. In a separate operation in October, survivors of a strike were captured by U.S. forces and repatriated to their home countries. 

The Trump administration has notified Congress that the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels, which have been designated as terrorist organizations. In accordance with this designation, Defense Secretary Hegseth has maintained that U.S. military action against alleged drug boats is legal, saying, “The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people.” On Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Admiral Frank M. Bradley, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command, ordered the second strike and acted within his authority. 

However, some lawyers and military experts have argued that the attacks are illegal because the alleged traffickers pose no imminent threat of attack against the United States. Lawmakers from both parties also expressed concern about the report, and the House and Senate Armed Services Committees each launched investigations, with Sens. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Jack Reed (D-RI) telling reporters that they have “directed inquiries” to the Defense Department.  

Separately, President Trump has ordered a significant military buildup near Venezuela, raising the prospect of heightened action against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government to deter drug trafficking. As of Sunday, 11 U.S. warships and approximately 15,000 troops have been mobilized to the Caribbean, and on Saturday, Trump said Venezuelan airspace should be considered “closed in its entirety.” The president spoke with Maduro last week, and the two reportedly discussed a potential meeting in the near future. 

Today, we’ll share arguments from the right and left on the latest reporting on the boat strikes and military buildup, followed by Executive Editor Isaac Saul’s take.

What the right is saying.

• The right is mixed on the military action, but many say the Trump administration is right to pressure the Maduro government.
• Some argue that the double strike on the drug boat, if confirmed, was likely a war crime.
• Others question Democrats’ opposition to the boat strikes.

The New York Post editorial board wrote “Venezuela and the world will be far better off with the Maduro regime GONE.”

“Operation Southern Spear has sunk roughly two dozen drug-cartel boats in recent weeks, while the Pentagon has built up the largest US military presence in the region in more than three decades,” the board said. “Critics fume that US forces can’t know the boats they’re sinking are actually cartel craft, but experts say it’s pretty easy to tell: They’re the only ones equipped with multiple, expensive high-speed engines so they can outrun surface vessels looking to intercept drug shipments; fishermen can’t afford anything like such vessels, nor do they need them.”

“The Trump administration plainly, and rightly, thinks it’s long past time for Maduro to go; if it does move ahead to decapitate the regime, Venezuela’s decrepit armed forces will be nearly helpless to stop it: The only ‘combat’ experience Caracas’ underpaid, desertion-ridden troops have is in firing on civilian protesters,” the board wrote. “We expect our president would rather not actually go there; far better for Maduro and his top cronies to read the writing on the wall and flee (no doubt with some of their ill-gotten billions) to Cuba or some other ally. Either way, decent people then have to hope that Venezuelan civil society retains the strength to rapidly return to normal order, despite the Maduro gang’s talk of a guerrilla resistance.”

In National Review, Andrew C. McCarthy said “‘we intended the strike to be lethal’ is not a defense.”

“If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law. I say ‘at best’ because… I believe the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act of war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict,” McCarthy wrote. “Nevertheless, even if we stipulate arguendo that the administration has a colorable claim that our forces are in an armed conflict with non-state actors… 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.”

“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,” McCarthy said. “Hence, it cannot be a defense to say, as Hegseth does, that one has killed because one’s objective was ‘lethal, kinetic strikes.’”

In USA Today, Nicole Russell asked “why is Hegseth being attacked for defending Americans?”

“Hegseth’s orders to target drug cartels in international waters have led to news reports suggesting that he has gone too far. If war crimes have been committed, the chief of the Department of Defense should be held accountable. I’m glad to see that some Republicans have called for this, too, though the White House has defended Hegseth,” Russell wrote. “In the meantime, I’d like to know just what drives the Democratic Party to actually protect alleged narco-terrorists, or suspected drug traffickers? It also raises questions about whether the left is worried about law and order now that a Republican is at the helm.”

“The left’s empathy toward alleged narco-terrorists is strange to me, too. It detracts from the real issue, which is Trump’s commitment to securing our borders, an issue that was exacerbated during the previous administration. During the Biden administration, illegal migrants flooded the United States at record highs,” Russell said. “I don’t support a U.S. member of the military committing war crimes, and if there needs to be an investigation, so be it. But I support the United States defending itself vigorously, as most Republicans do. And I can’t support the Democrats’ push to go too far and make criminals and illegal migrants their heroes, either.”

What the left is saying.

• The left argues the Trump administration has committed war crimes. 
• Some call on Democrats to fully investigate the latest reports on the strikes.
• Others criticize the Trump administration’s aggression toward Venezuela. 

In The Nation, Jeet Heer said “Donald Trump’s imperialism is murdering people.”

“A strong case can be made that everything about this attack was criminal. It was an act of war which required congressional authorization that Trump did not have. Further, even if the boat was smuggling drugs, that still doesn’t justify indiscriminate slaughter. But the killing of struggling survivors is the most clearcut case of a war crime. It is murder, pure and simple,” Heer wrote. “Trump’s criminal attacks on boats in the Western hemisphere is part and parcel of a larger re-assertion of imperialism justified by the Monroe Doctrine. The new imperialism can also be seen in visible interference in elections in Argentina and Honduras, using threatened cuts to aid and loans to coerce voters into electing right-wing governments.

“On Friday, Trump announced he was granting a pardon to Juan Orlando Hernández, the former president of Honduras who was convicted of drug trafficking on a massive scale. The New York Times presented this pardon as a curious display of ‘contradictions’ and ‘dissonance,’” Heer said. “In truth, there is really no contradiction. The underlying policy is the re-assurance of American power in the hemisphere even at the expense of the rule of law. Pardoning Hernández is a way of gaining greater leverage over Honduras, just as blowing up ships is a way of intimidating neighboring countries.”

In The American Saga, Zaid Jilani wrote “the better way to stop illegal orders is to prosecute those who give them.”

“If you ask any group of military lawyers about [the reported second strike], they’d say at the very least it was legally suspect; at the most, it means Hegseth was ordering those men to commit a crime. Given that there is no actual declared war between suspected drug smugglers and the U.S. military, it wouldn’t even be a war crime — it might just be murder,” Jilani said. “Democratic officials can certainly continue to make videos about why this is all problematic. But there’s a better and easier way to put an end to all of the summary executions.”

“The Democratic Party can simply make clear that it believes in the rule of law. And there is no rule of law without accountability. Democrats in Congress can promise to fully investigate any possible violations of the law; presidential contenders can promise to appoint people to the Department of Justice who believe that nobody is above the law. This could mean that Hegseth or even Trump will one day be prosecuted for ordering these crimes,” Jilani wrote. “Fundamentally these Trump officials are self-interested. If they think there’s a serious chance that they will be in legal trouble or end up behind bars, I imagine you’ll start seeing much more cautious use of the U.S. military.”

The Bloomberg editorial board argued “the US needs a strategy in Venezuela, not airstrikes.”

“With the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, the US has amassed a fearsome array of assets off the shores of Venezuela: dozens of advanced fighter jets, thousands of troops, guided-missile destroyers, special operations forces, armed drones, gunships, possibly a nuclear submarine. More useful, however, would be a strategy,” the board wrote. “What purpose this armada is meant to serve remains stubbornly opaque. Strikes on speedboats allegedly running drugs in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific — which have killed more than 80 people since early September — hardly require such firepower.”

“Focusing on the Caribbean ignores the main cause of US overdoses: fentanyl smuggled from Mexico. Widely viewed as illegal, the boat strikes have reportedly led partners such as the UK and Colombia to cut off some intelligence sharing with the US. Maduro, by standing up to American bullying, may have bolstered his standing at home and in the region,” the board said. “The White House needs to decide what its goals are. If the hope is that gunboat diplomacy will encourage Maduro to resign peacefully, the administration should be ramping up talks to seek a credible handover of power. Airstrikes would be unwise, let alone an invasion. Yet the longer US forces are engaged in pinprick attacks, the less intimidating they will be.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• War with Venezuela now seems inevitable.
• Hegseth was a poor choice from the beginning, and now it seems obvious that he authorized a war crime.
• The tactics are not only immoral but impractical and deeply disturbing.

Executive Editor Isaac Saul: A few short years ago, Vladimir Putin was amassing troops along the border of Ukraine. 

I remember the debates from that time. Many reporters, geopolitical experts in the region, and leaders with experience navigating Putin were warning that he was about to invade Ukraine. At the same time, many anti-mainstream, “heterodox thinkers” accused those warning about Putin of being saber-rattling alarmists who just couldn’t let go of Red Scare politics. 

We know what happened next.

In retrospect, it was all so obvious. Putin did what he said he would do; the hundreds of thousands of soldiers at the border weren’t for a parade. We had no real reason to question what was coming — we just deluded ourselves into thinking otherwise.

I’ve been thinking about this period as we watch the events unfolding in Venezuela. The Trump administration is extrajudicially killing alleged drug smugglers off Venezuela’s coast, amassing troops in the region, has moved the world’s largest aircraft carrier to the Caribbean, and has approved a CIA measure to unseat Maduro. Trump has also declared Venezuelan airspace closed, while simultaneously telling reporters not to “read anything into it.”

Well, candidly, I’m reading into it. It sure seems like preparation for war with Venezuela. The only potential off-ramp the administration has offered at this point is Maduro stepping down — and knowing what we know about the authoritarian leader, that seems unlikely. This is the same Maduro who delivered an address in army fatigues while brandishing a sword that belonged to the independence leader Simón Bolívar, warning supporters to prepare for a confrontation with the United States on land. Which, well, doesn’t seem great.

Now consider the military leadership on the U.S. side. Before he was confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I warned about the dangers of putting Hegseth in control of the Pentagon. I’ve supported many of Trump’s other cabinet selections — like Susie Wiles, Lee Zeldin, Marco Rubio — and acknowledge that other picks whom I have ideological differences with are strongly qualified (like Stephen Miller and Tom Homan). Hegseth, however, is different.

My concern isn’t over ideological differences, or a bad confirmation hearing, or inexperience (though Hegseth checks all three boxes). I think Pete Hegseth is fundamentally unequipped for the job — he is deeply unqualified, with a preponderously failure-ridden record, and is frighteningly ill-suited to lead three million service members. Everything he’s touched has eventually turned to chaos. And it didn’t take long for huge controversies to spew out of Hegseth’s Pentagon, culminating in several stories involving the mishandling of classified information, which led to some of his closest allies declaring him unfit for the job. 

This was all bad enough, but the events of the last few weeks are worse. The Secretary of Defense has now openly, brazenly, unambiguously committed a war crime.

If this isn’t your first time reading Tangle, you know that I am not trying to be hyperbolic or sensational — that’s just not what I do. Hegseth and the White House have not offered a sufficient response to the explosive Washington Post report, which detailed Hegseth’s order to strike a shipwrecked boat a second time to kill the survivors. If the report is accurate, which is so far essentially uncontested, the best-case scenario is that the U.S. committed a war crime. And it’s only a war crime if you buy what the administration is selling, which is that we are at war with drug smugglers off the coast of Venezuela (Congress hasn’t declared war, and we can’t be “at war” with a cartel — so we aren’t). 

It’s all very simple, as National Review’s Andrew McCarthy explained: 

Nevertheless, 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.

In other words, “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,” McCarthy added. “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.”

I suppose the administration could try to point to some gray area here. Hegseth could argue he has used the word “war” colloquially in public, while the administration’s legal justification is more nuanced: the president has declared an emergency, and as the commander of the armed forces, he can direct the military to defend the country against an ‘organized armed group.’  Obviously that would require some proving, and perhaps that’s something the Department of Defense is willing to do. But instead, Hegseth responded by calling The Washington Post “fake news.” 

This is, obviously, the administration’s reflex; calling something “fake news” is akin to an acknowledgement of receipt, like “thanks for your email” or “I appreciate you reaching out.” What it isn’t is a rebuttal of a single fact reported by The Post. Instead, Hegseth emphasized the strikes were specifically intended to be lethal. Then the White House confirmed that the second deadly strike was deliberate, but pinned it on Admiral Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley before defending the decision. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted Bradley was well within his authority. Again, this is nonsense. The White House is offering no argument to support Leavitt’s claim, which is tantamount to simply admitting Bradley and/or Hegseth committed a war crime. Maybe they’ve drunk their own Kool-Aid, but more likely that’s a tactic to make the whole thing look less egregiously illegal and unholy. I hope it doesn’t work.

It brings me no satisfaction to say all this. My first reaction to news of these strikes in September was, well, the cartels got what they had coming to them. I nod my head when Trump or his Cabinet members talk about the scourge of drugs that are ruining so many American lives — I want our government to do something to oppose Maduro and drug cartels. I do not feel sympathy for the people who profit off polluting our streets, whether they’re Venezuelan drug-runners or Chinese fentanyl importers or the American drug dealers themselves; I’ve watched them ravage my hometown and hurt so many friends and family members.

Yet somehow, even on this front, the administration has made it impossible for me to support their actions. Not only have they openly committed a war crime (and, importantly, nowhere in the United States is there capital punishment for selling or smuggling drugs), but their policy is incoherent. 

For starters, the administration frames their actions as a war against deadly drugs, but the drug that pours out of Venezuela is cocaine — not the opioids or fentanyl that has wreaked havoc on American communities. Secondly, the administration is being pretty selective with how they oppose South American cartels. Just this weekend, Trump pardoned the former president of Honduras, who was literally convicted of colluding with the cartels and trafficking drugs into the U.S. Third, the “plan” here seems to be forming while the strikes are happening — subsequent strikes have allowed survivors to return home (another tacit admission of guilt) and shifted from the Caribbean to the Pacific (which, by the way, has always been the route through which most of the cocaine is smuggled into the country from Venezuela). And this entire package of actions is now wrapped up in the very real possibility that in a few months’ time we’ll be in a hot war with a South American country, undermining one of the fundamental promises of Trump’s campaigns that has always made him so appealing.

This whole episode is deeply upsetting and disappointing. It makes me feel ashamed, sad for the soldiers forced to carry out these orders, and even more affirmed in my initial position that Hegseth shouldn’t be anywhere near military authority. 

Take the survey: What do you think of the strikes on alleged drug boats? Let us know.

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: During the government shutdown when House Republicans left Washington, why did nobody call for the FBI to force them to return? I live in Texas and I still remember all the threats that Democrats in the Texas House received when they decided to leave the state in protest of the redistricting plans.

— Bertold from Austin, TX

Tangle: The requirements of members of the U.S. Congress during the shutdown and the Texas Legislature during the redistricting vote are different in two meaningful ways. 

First, Congress was not in session during much of the shutdown, so members of Congress were not compelled to be in Washington, D.C. At the time, both Republicans and Democrats left the capital. Even though they had a political impasse to resolve and work to do, they had no legislative business to attend to that would keep them in Washington — and no rule exists that would punish them for leaving while Congress was in recess.

Second, U.S. law does not require members of Congress to be in the capital while voting is in session. Two rarely utilized Congressional regulations — House Rule XX, clause 5, and Senate Rule VI — can be invoked by majority vote to direct the sergeant-at-arms to bring absent members to the chamber. However, those rules are almost never invoked and weren’t applied during the shutdown. The rules — and the situation — in Texas were different. The Texas Constitution requires a quorum for legislative business and empowers the House to pass rules to penalize absent members. Those rules included civil arrest warrants and fines; after the redistricting standoff, future punishments will include fundraising restrictions and loss of seniority.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

According to a recent analysis of census data, approximately 11% of Americans changed residences in 2024, the lowest annual figure since at least 1948. The least mobility occurred in the Northeast, and New Jersey and New York had the smallest share of movers at 8% and 9%, respectively. Conversely, residents in Alaska, Oklahoma, and Colorado moved the most at approximately 14%. The rental listing site Point2Homes, which published the analysis, wrote that “falling mobility… affects economic resilience by limiting labor market flexibility, slowing wage growth and potentially reducing innovation as workers are less likely to move for better opportunities.” Axios has the story.

Numbers.

• 91. The number of days since the United States’s first strike on a boat allegedly trafficking drugs on September 2. 
• 11. The number of people reportedly killed in that strike.
• 21. The number of alleged drug boats confirmed to have been targeted by U.S. strikes to date. 
• 82. The total number of people reportedly killed in those strikes. 
• 15,000. The approximate number of U.S. troops stationed in the Caribbean as of November 26. 
• 5,000. The approximate number of U.S. personnel currently stationed at bases in Puerto Rico. 
• 29% and 51%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they support and oppose, respectively, using the U.S. military to kill suspected drug traffickers without a judge’s or court’s involvement, according to a November 2025 Reuters/Ipsos poll. 
• 30% and 70%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say they would favor and oppose, respectively, the U.S. taking military action in Venezuela, according to a November 2025 CBS News/YouGov poll.

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just announced our Thanksgiving break.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the shooting in Stockton, California.
• Nothing to do with politics: You can use poetry to trick an AI chatbot to help you make a nuclear weapon.
• Yesterday’s survey: 2,671 readers responded to our multi-select survey on the National Guard shooting with 73% saying it shows that Congress has not enacted effective immigration legislation. “It was clear, even prior to this tragedy, that we do not have an effective or efficient immigration process. For that I blame both parties and Congress,” one respondent said. “Although some of the other choices may be true, this was a lone act by a disturbed individual,” said another.

Have a nice day.

For decades, the United States has had a tradition of shopping for holiday deals on Black Friday. Cyber Monday was added to the fold with the advent of ecommerce. Then, in 2012, the 92nd Street Y came up with Giving Tuesday — a new tradition of kicking off the holiday shopping season with donations to nonprofits and charities. The organization claims that over 36 million people participated in Giving Tuesday in 2024, raising over $3.6 billion for those in need — and an estimated $18.5 billion since its inception. Forbes has the story.