‘It’s frightening’: How far right is infiltrating everyday culture EN->DE IT ES FR

 

Ashifa Kassam, The Guardian, 27/12/2025

• ‘It’s frightening’: How far right is infiltrating everyday culture

• „Es ist erschreckend“: Wie die extreme Rechte die Alltagskultur infiltriert

• “È spaventoso”: Come l’estrema destra si sta infiltrando nella cultura quotidiana

• “Es aterrador”: Cómo la extrema derecha se está infiltrando en la cultura cotidiana

• ‘C’est effrayant’ : Comment l’extrême droite s’infiltre dans la culture quotidienne

Israel Crushed Mohammad Bakri for Daring to Express Palestinian Pain as It Is, by Gideon Levy

 Israel turned its back as Palestinian Israeli society mourned the death of Mohammad Bakri, one of its most celebrated figures: an actor, director, and cultural icon, a Palestinian patriot and a man of noble soul

Mohammad Bakri outside his home in northern Israel, 2012.Credit: Hagai Frid

Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 28/12/2025

The hall adjacent to the mosque in the Galilee village of Bi’ina was crowded on Friday. Thousands of somber-faced people came to pay their respects and left; I was the only Jew among them.

Palestinian Israeli society mourns the death of one of its greatest members, an actor, director and cultural hero, a Palestinian patriot and a man of noble soul – Mohammad Bakri – and Israel, in death as in life, turned its back on him. Only one television station devoted a news item to his passing. A handful of Jews surely came to console his family, but on Friday afternoon, there were none to be seen.

Bakri was laid to rest Wednesday – late at night, at the request of the family – leaving no place in Israel in which to eulogize him, to thank him for his work, to bow our heads before him in appreciation and to ask for his forgiveness.

Mohammad Bakri in 2017.Credit: Moti Milrod

He deserved all of it. Bakri was an artist and a freedom fighter, the kind written about in history books and for whom streets are named. There was no place for him in ultranationalist Israel, not even after his death.

Israel crushed him, only because he dared to express the Palestinian pain as it is. Long before the dark days of Benjamin Netanyahu and Itamar Ben-Gvir, 20 years before October 7 and the war in Gaza, Israel treated him with a fascism that would not have shamed Likud ministers Yoav Kisch and Shlomo Karhi.

Its celebrated legal establishment rallied as one to condemn his work. A Lod District Court judge banned the screening of his film “Jenin, Jenin,” the attorney general at the time joined the war and the enlightened Supreme Court ruled that the movie was made with “improper motives” – this was the level of the arguments put forth by the beacon of justice.

And all because of a handful of reservists who were “hurt” by his film and sought to settle the score. It was not the residents of the Jenin refugee camp who were hurt, but the soldier Nissim Magnaji. His request was granted and Bakri was destroyed. All this was long before the Dark Ages.

Few came to his aid. The artists fell silent and the handsome star of “Beyond the Walls” was thrown to the dogs. He never recovered.

I once thought that “Jenin, Jenin” would one day be shown in every school in the country, but today it is clear that this won’t happen, not in today’s Israel and presumably not in the future either.

But the Bakri I knew did not anger or hate. I never heard him express a single word of hatred toward those who ostracized him, to those who hurt him and his people. His son Saleh once said: “[Israel] destroyed my life, my father’s life, my family, my nation’s life.” It’s doubtful his father would have expressed himself that way.

On Friday this impressive son stood tall, a kaffiyeh draped over his shoulders, and he and his siblings, of whom their father was so proud, greeted those who came to condole them for their father’s death.

I loved him so much. On a rainy winter night at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Mount Scopus campus, when people shouted “traitors” at us after the screening of “Jenin, Jenin,” and at the Israel Film Center Festival at New York City’s Marlene Meyerson JCC Manhattan, to which he was invited every year, and where protesters also shouted. At Tel Aviv’s erstwhile Cafe Tamar, which he used to visit occasionally on Fridays, and in the painful essays he published in Haaretz. Free of cynicism, innocent as a child and filled with hope just as he was.

His last, and very short, film, “Le Monde,” written by his daughter Yafa, takes place at a birthday party in a luxurious hotel. A girl handed out roses to guests, a violinist played “Happy Birthday,” bombed-out Gaza is on TV and Bakri stood up with the help of a young woman who sat with him and left. He was blind.

Three weeks ago, he wrote to me to tell me he planned to come to the Tel Aviv area for the funeral of a dear man, as he put it, the director Ram Loevy, and I replied that I was ill and we wouldn’t be able to meet. To the best of my knowledge, he also did not go to the funeral in the end.

“Be well and take care of yourself,” the man who never took care of himself wrote me.

Bakri is dead, the Jenin camp is destroyed and all its residents have been expelled, homeless once more in another war crime. And hope still beat in Bakri’s heart, until his death; we did not agree about it.

إسرائيل/أرض الصومال Somaliland/Israel Somalilandia

إسرائيل تعترف بأرض «أرض الصومال»: دبلوماسية الأمر الواقع وهندسة الأطراف

أيمن الحكيم،28/12 /2025

الاعتراف الرسمي بإسرائيل بأرض «أرض الصومال»، الذي أُعلن يوم الجمعة 26 ديسمبر 2025، لا يُمثل مجرد إعادة اصطفاف دبلوماسي. فهو جزء من استراتيجية إقليمية أوسع، حيث يصبح الاعتراف بالدولة أداة للإسقاط الأمني، وربما رافعة لهندسة ديموغرافية.

Israël reconnaît le Somaliland : la diplomatie du fait accompli et l’ingénierie des périphéries

Ayman El Hakim, 28/12/2025

La reconnaissance officielle du Somaliland par Israël, annoncée le vendredi 26 décembre 2025, ne relève pas d’un simple réalignement diplomatique. Elle s’inscrit dans une stratégie régionale plus large, où la reconnaissance étatique devient un instrument de projection sécuritaire, mais aussi, potentiellement, un levier d’ingénierie démographique.

Israel reconoce a Somalilandia: La diplomacia del hecho consumado y la ingeniería de las periferias

Ayman El Hakim, 28-12-2025

El reconocimiento oficial de Somalilandia por parte de Israel, anunciado el viernes 26 de diciembre de 2025, no responde a un simple realineamiento diplomático. Se inscribe en una estrategia regional más amplia, donde el reconocimiento estatal se convierte en un instrumento de proyección de seguridad y, potencialmente, en una palanca para la ingeniería demográfica.

Israel recognizes Somaliland: the diplomacy of accomplished facts and the engineering of peripheries

Ayman El Hakim, 28/12/2025

The official recognition of Somaliland by Israel, announced on Friday, December 26, 2025, is not merely a diplomatic realignment. It is part of a broader regional strategy, where state recognition becomes an instrument of security projection and, potentially, a lever for demographic engineering.

9300+ hostages rehenes otages Geiseln أكثر من 9300 رهينة

 

My Hannukah hero

 Gideon Levy, Haaretz, 21/12/2025

My Hanukkah hero this year is an unidentified woman in black. It was Wednesday evening, the fourth night of Hanukkah, at Tel Aviv's Weizmann City Mall. With a hijab on her head, a purse on one arm and a cellphone in her other hand, she approached the menorah and blew out the four candles in a single breath. Her male companion applauded.

Then the woman returned: The shamash candle (used to light the other eight candles) was still burning; she extinguished it as well. This woman is the Palestinian Rosa Parks. A video of her protest was posted on social media over the weekend.

The incensed reactions were quick to follow: "Infuriating documentation" (Mako and Channel 14 News); "outrageous documentation" (the ultra-Orthodox news website Behadrei Haredim); "Arabic-speaking antisemite" ("The Shadow" [Yoav Eliasi] on Instagram).

Yair Foldes reported in Haaretz that the police are investigating but have not yet decided on the appropriate charge. They are considering Article 170 of Israel's Penal Law, which prohibits "destroying, damaging or desecrating a place of worship or any object held sacred by a group of persons with the intention of thereby reviling their religion or with the knowledge that they are likely to consider such destruction, damage or desecration as an insult to their religion."

Haut du formulaire

Bas du formulaire

The maximum penalty: three years in prison. All those who have burned Qurans in West Bank mosques are free, and this woman will be arrested.

As I write these lines, the police manhunt is in full swing. By Saturday evening, Monday night at the latest, the woman will be arrested. The show trial is on its way, even if Channel 14 host Yinon Magal is pessimistic: "They will catch her, photograph her next to the Israeli flag, bring her to a detention hearing and the judge will release her to house arrest."

It's well known that Israel's houses are filled with Arabs whom the courts have released. Ask the poet Dareen Tatour, who was under house arrest for half a year (!) before her trial for a Facebook post, long before October 7, 2023. For right-wingers, the candle extinguisher is a terrorist who deserves the death sentence.

It's not nice to blow out Hanukkah candles; I have no idea what motivated the brave woman, but it's hard to think of a more spectacular nonviolent act of protest.

It's permissible to disrupt the holiday that Jews celebrate to commemorate the victory of the Hasmonean revolt against the Greek occupier. On a holiday during which Jews sing, "We come to banish darkness, in our hands are light and fire," it's permissible to protest. On a holiday in which Jews sing, "Let's have a party \ We'll all dance the hora \ Gather 'round the table \ We'll give you a treat \ dreidels to play with and latkes to eat," it's permissible to spoil things. Above all, on a holiday where Jews sing without shame: "When thou shalt have prepared a slaughter of the blaspheming foe" (the literal translation of part of the first verse of "Maoz Tzur"/"Rock of Ages") – it's permissible to rebel.

It's permissible for a Palestinian Israeli to think that this celebration should be shut down with a personal act of protest: blowing out the candles in a mall. While her co-religionists and perhaps her relatives as well – in Jaffa, for example, there isn't a single Arab family without family in Gaza – are drowning in mud, freezing in the cold and hungry dogs continue to scavenge through the bodies of their trapped relatives, the Jews here will not celebrate as if nothing has happened.

Someone must remind them that the war in Gaza isn't over and the suffering is only intensifying. Someone must remind Israelis that while they stuff their faces with fancy sufganiyot, in Gaza, there are still people who are starving, or at least sick and tired of eating lentils.

There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people there who are being ravaged by winter. There are patients there who are dying slowly, in excruciating agony, for lack of medical care. And there are hundreds of thousands of children there whose friends have been killed, and for over two years they have had no school or any other framework to go to, and who are doomed to a life of ignorance and despair even if they survive the war, which is far from over.

This affects Israel's Arabs. It pains them, even if they're paralyzed by fear of a regime that arrests anyone who dares to express humanity. And now an unknown woman came, on the fourth night of Hanukkah, and for one moment blew out the candles of the celebrating Israelis, with one breath. She is a hero.

FR -> EN | ES | DE | La stratégie américaine 2025 : un récit pour masquer un changement de centre de gravité NSS 2025 : Narrative to conceal a shift in the centre of gravityRelato para ocultar un cambio de centro de gravedad Erzählung, die eine Verschiebung des strategischen Schwerpunktes überdeckt

 

Fausto Giudice, François Vadrot | 9/12/2025

La stratégie américaine 2025 : un récit pour masquer un changement de centre de gravité

La nouvelle Stratégie nationale de sécurité (NSS) publiée début décembre a été lue comme un retour de la doctrine Monroe, un durcissement trumpiste ou un simple recentrage anti-chinois. En la reprenant à la lettre et en la replaçant dans la séquence du 8–11 octobre, lorsque la Chine a montré qu’elle pouvait remodeler l’équilibre mondial sans tirer un coup de feu, une autre image apparaît : celle d’une puissance qui écrit à l’intérieur d’un ordre déjà structuré par Beijing, où l’hémisphère occidental n’est plus isolable et où l’Europe est traitée comme un risque à encadrer plutôt qu’un levier. La NSS 2025 proclame le « non-interventionnisme sélectif », renonce aux changements de régime, reconnaît implicitement l’emprise matérielle chinoise et requalifie la Russie en facteur de stabilisation continentale. Ce texte n’ordonne plus le monde : il tente de stabiliser un récit alors que le centre de gravité stratégique s’est déplacé hors de portée des USA.

👉 Lire l’article sur Substack

Translated by Tlaxcala

The 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy: a narrative to conceal a shift in the centre of gravity

The new National Security Strategy (NSS) published in early December has been read as a return of the Monroe Doctrine, a Trumpesque hardening or a simple anti-China refocus. If we take it literally and place it back in the 8–11 October sequence, when China showed it could reshape the global balance without firing a shot, a different picture emerges: that of a power writing inside an order already structured by Beijing, where the Western Hemisphere is no longer isolable and Europe is treated as a risk to be managed rather than a lever. The 2025 NSS proclaims “selective non-interventionism”, renounces regime change operations, implicitly acknowledges China’s material grip and recasts Russia as a factor of continental stabilisation. This text no longer orders the world: it tries to stabilise a narrative at a time when the strategic centre of gravity has moved out of reach of the United States.

👉 Read the article on Substack

Traducido por Tlaxcala

La estrategia nacional de seguridad 2025 de USA: un relato para ocultar un cambio de centro de gravedad

La nueva Estrategia Nacional de Seguridad (NSS) publicada a principios de diciembre fue leída como el regreso de la doctrina Monroe, un endurecimiento trumpista o un simple recentraje antichino. Si se la toma al pie de la letra y se la recoloca en la secuencia del 8 al 11 de octubre, cuando China demostró que podía remodelar el equilibrio mundial sin disparar un solo tiro, aparece otra imagen: la de una potencia que escribe dentro de un orden ya estructurado por Beijing, donde el hemisferio occidental ya no es aislable y donde Europa es tratada como un riesgo que hay que encuadrar más que como un palanca. La NSS 2025 proclama el “no intervencionismo selectivo”, renuncia a los cambios de régimen, reconoce implícitamente la impronta material china y reclasifica a Rusia como factor de estabilización continental. Este texto ya no ordena el mundo: intenta estabilizar un relato en el momento en que el centro de gravedad estratégico se desplazó fuera del alcance de USA.

👉 Leer el artículo en Substack

Übersetzt von Tlaxcala

Die US-amerikanische Sicherheitsstrategie 2025: eine Erzählung, die eine Verschiebung des strategischen Schwerpunktes überdeckt

Die neue Nationale Sicherheitsstrategie (NSS), die Anfang Dezember veröffentlicht wurde, ist vielfach als Rückkehr zur Monroe-Doktrin, als trumpistische Verschärfung oder als einfache Neuausrichtung gegen China gelesen worden. Liest man sie jedoch wörtlich – und setzt sie in Beziehung zu der Sequenz vom 8. bis 11. Oktober, als China zeigte, dass es das globale Gleichgewicht verändern kann, ohne einen Schuss abzugeben –, entsteht ein anderes Bild: das einer Macht, die in einem bereits von Peking strukturierten Ordnungsrahmen schreibt, in dem die westliche Hemisphäre nicht mehr isolierbar ist und Europa eher als Risiko zu kontrollieren denn als strategischer Hebel behandelt wird. Die NSS 2025 verkündet einen „selektiven Nichtinterventionismus“, verzichtet auf Regimewechsel, erkennt implizit die materielle Dominanz Chinas an und stuft Russland als Faktor kontinentaler Stabilisierung neu ein. Dieses Dokument ordnet die Welt nicht mehr; es versucht, eine Erzählung zu stabilisieren, obwohl sich der strategische Schwerpunkt bereits außerhalb der Reichweite der USA verschoben hat.

👉 Artikel auf Substack lesen

The Critical-Minerals Race Is Putting the Planet at Risk

Johanna Sydow  and Nsama Chikwanka, Project Syndicate, 5/12/2025

Johanna Sydow  is Head of the International Environmental Policy Division at the Heinrich Böll Foundation.

Nsama Chikwanka is National Director of Publish What You Pay Zambia.

As governments weaken environmental protections to promote new mining projects, the global scramble for critical minerals is deepening social divides and harming vital ecosystems. Only reduced consumption and robust, enforceable rules can prevent long-term harm and protect basic human rights.

 

A view of the dismantled remains of an illegal gold mining camp "Mega 12", during a police operation to destroy illegal machinery and equipment in the Amazon jungle in the Madre de Dios region, in south-eastern Peru, on March 5, 2019. - Illegal gold mining in the Amazon has reached "epidemic" proportions in recent years, causing damage to pristine forest and waterways and threatening indigenous communities. Photo by GUADALUPE PARDO / POOL / AFP via Getty Images

BERLIN – The environmental and human toll of mineral extraction is becoming clearer – and more alarming – by the day. Roughly 60% of Ghana’s waterways are now heavily polluted due to gold mining along riverbanks. In Peru, many communities have lost access to safe drinking water after environmental protections were weakened and regulatory controls were suspended to facilitate new mining projects, contaminating even the Rímac River, which supplies water to the capital, Lima.

These environmental crises are exacerbated by deepening inequality and social divides in many mining-dependent countries. The Global Atlas of Environmental Justice has documented more than 900 mining-related conflicts around the world, about 85% of which involve the use or pollution of rivers, lakes, and groundwater. Against this backdrop, major economies are rapidly reshaping resource geopolitics. 

The United States, while attempting to stabilize the fossil-fuel-based global economy, is also scrambling to secure the minerals it needs for electric vehicles, renewable energy, weapons systems, digital infrastructure, and construction, often through coercion and aggressive negotiating tactics. In its quest to reduce dependence on China, which dominates the processing of rare-earth elements, environmental and humanitarian considerations are increasingly brushed aside. 

Saudi Arabia is likewise positioning itself as a rising power in the minerals sector as part of its efforts to diversify away from oil, forging new partnerships – including with the US – and hosting a high-profile mining conference. At the same time, the Kingdom is actively undermining progress in other multilateral fora, including this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil (COP30) and the ongoing pre-negotiations of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA7).

Haut du formulaire

Bas du formulaire

In Europe, industry groups are lobbying for further deregulation, with fossil-fuel companies like ExxonMobil, TotalEnergies, and Siemens using misleading tactics to undermine newly established mechanisms designed to protect the rights of communities in resource-producing regions. We should be worried that the companies and countries which helped drive global warming, environmental degradation, and human-rights abuses now seek to dominate the mineral sector. Allowing them to do so will put all of humanity, not just vulnerable populations, at risk.

Governments must not remain passive. They must reclaim responsibility for steering the primary driver of mining expansion: demand. Reducing material consumption, especially in developed countries, remains the most effective way to protect vital ecosystems and prevent the long-term harms that extraction inevitably causes.

Yet despite overwhelming evidence that ramping up resource extraction threatens water supplies and public safety, governments around the world are weakening environmental protections in a bid to lure foreign investment, thereby endangering the very ecosystems that sustain all life on Earth. From an economic perspective, this approach is profoundly short-sighted.

In fact, recent research shows that responsible practices are not just morally right but economically sound. A new report by the UN Development Programme, based on five years of data from 235 multinationals, shows that companies that strengthen their human-rights record tend to perform better over the long run. Governments should therefore be wary of industry claims that profitability requires rolling back environmental regulations or ignoring human rights. When people cannot trust political leaders to protect their rights, they are highly likely to resist, with the resulting social conflict causing investment to falter. 

The backlash against Rio Tinto’s Jadar lithium-mining project in Serbia is a prime example. Many Serbians believed their government was putting corporate interests first by pushing ahead with the project despite its failure to meet even basic sustainability standards. The public outcry halted development and left the company facing steep losses. 

Only robust legal frameworks, backed by effective enforcement, can create the conditions for stable and rights-respecting development. That means safeguarding Indigenous rights; ensuring the free, prior, and informed consent of all affected communities; protecting water resources; undertaking spatial planning, establishing no-go zones; and conducting independent, participatory, and transparent social and environmental impact assessments. Given today’s heightened geopolitical tensions, multilateral forums such as COP and the UNEA remain essential for countering global fragmentation and advancing shared solutions. Mineral-rich countries should work together to raise their environmental standards, just as oil-producing countries jointly influence global prices. Through collective action, they can prevent a destructive race to the bottom and ensure that local communities, particularly Indigenous peoples and other rights holders, are heard. 

At a time when clean drinking water is growing scarcer, glaciers are melting, and agriculture is increasingly under threat, coordinated international action is no longer optional. A resolution that Colombia and Oman introduced for December’s UNEA, calling for a binding minerals treaty, represents an important step toward fairer global standards. Initiated by Colombia and co-sponsored by countries like Zambia, which understand all too well the costs of extractive industries, the proposal calls for cooperation across the entire mineral production chain to reduce environmental harm and protect the rights of Indigenous peoples and other affected communities. 

By placing responsibility on resource-consuming countries, it aims to ensure that the burden of reform does not fall solely on mineral-producing economies. Importantly, it also addresses the dangers posed by tailings dams and other mining waste, which have led to devastating failures and hundreds of deaths. Taken together, these measures offer a rare opportunity to begin correcting the inequalities that have long defined mineral extraction. All countries, especially mineral producers that have historically been excluded from the negotiating table, should seize this moment. UNEA7 provides a window for achieving resource justice. 

Hegseth is “the killer”… and this is not a Netflix series

 Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein, 4-12-2025
Translated by Tlaxcala

While Donald Trump was sketching out the composition of his cabinet after being elected and before taking office, he made a decision: the neoconservatives who had caused him so many problems during his first administration would have no place this time. Thus, he excluded, among others, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams, who had held senior positions in his previous government.

But something went wrong. After the last Senate election, the upper chamber ended up with 53 Republican senators, 45 Democrats and 2 independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Among the 53 Republicans elected, four — Rick Scott and Ashley Moody, both part of the Florida mafia, Bernie Moreno, of Colombian origin and senator for Ohio, and Ted Cruz, of Cuban origin and senator for Texas — later joined by Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, identify ideologically with the fascist far-right grouped within the neoconservative sector of the current U.S. administration.

Although a minority, they held enough votes to determine outcomes in the Senate. They made this known to Trump, who needed them to pass his projects, so he reluctantly had to accept whatever they demanded… and they demanded the State Department, where they installed one of their own: Marco Rubio. From that moment, Trump became politically blackmailed by this group. Many decisions stem from this coercion exerted by the neoconservative wing of his government. And apparently, he can do nothing, because thanks to them not only his cabinet was approved, but also the budget and the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA),” an absurdity passed by senators eager to please the president.

Thus, Trump managed to get his cabinet nominations approved. However, when it came to appointing the head of what was then the Department of Defense — now renamed Department of War — the vote resulted in a tie that had to be broken by Vice President J.D. Vance.

 
How to draw Pete Hegseth, by  Michael de Adder

This is how Peter Brian Hegseth, known as Pete, assumed the country’s highest military office despite the rejection of half the senators, including three Republicans. The arguments against him centered on his lack of experience, as well as rape accusations brought by a woman in 2017 — apparently “resolved” through a payment for silence.

Hegseth, a shadowy figure born 45 years ago in Minneapolis, Minnesota, whose prior “experience” amounts to being a television host known for ultra-reactionary and conservative views — including pronounced and explicit homophobia based on the notion that homosexuality was alien to Western civilization — had declared that “the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal and immoral.”

His disposition is also plainly visible in his tattoo of the “Jerusalem Cross”, symbol of the Christian crusaders, reflecting extremist Christian ideology. Another tattoo includes the expression “Deus Vult”, Latin for “God wills it”, a Crusades battle cry later adopted by white supremacists.

Hegseth has authored four books. In the first, he offers an apology for the slave-based societies of the Southern states prior to the Civil War. He also believes that “women should never have been given the right to vote.” In his second book, American Crusade (2020), he wrote: “Just as the Christian crusaders repelled the Muslim hordes in the 12th century, American crusaders must show the same courage against today’s Islamists.”

Trump considered his brief participation in the U.S. Army National Guard sufficient grounds to appoint him secretary of Defence, ignoring the fact that he rose only to the rank of captain and completed no advanced officer or strategic command training. What must generals and admirals with 35 or more years of service think of being commanded by a captain? Someone might argue that expertise is not gained only within the armed forces — true — but this captain has no political experience either: he failed in his bid to become a senator for his home state, which pushed him into a television job at Fox News, where lack of qualifications are not a great obstacle.

Upon assuming the new post, quickly revealing his lack of preparedness for such responsibility, he — in collusion with Marco Rubio — has led his tenure in two directions. First, he has pushed for a strategic reorientation of U.S. military doctrine, shifting its priorities from countering China and Russia — repeatedly stated by senior military leaders in congressional testimony — toward internal threats and the situation in the Western Hemisphere. According to an expert consulted by the German outlet Politico, the shift “does not appear to align at all with President Trump's aggressive positions toward China.”

The second orientation, arising from the first, is that military doctrine should focus on protecting U.S. borders supposedly threatened by drug trafficking and migration, including combating these “enemies” inside the country itself.

An increasing number of influential voices in the U.S. are warning about the risks such a doctrine poses. Journalist Tucker Carlson warned that “in the future, the United States could face a civil war.” His argument is based on protests against ICE and on the disturbances linked to Antifa, designated by the Trump administration as a “terrorist organization”. Hegseth and Rubio want to involve the U.S. armed forces on behalf of Trump and the Republicans in any such internal conflict. Likewise, governors have shown increasing resistance to allowing military presence in their states without authorization.

Another facet of Hegseth’s leadership is his intention to “clean out” the Pentagon of high-ranking officers “linked to the Democratic Party” or who adopted inclusive policies under the Biden administration. In this context, the secretary of War (he changed the department’s name from Department of Defence) has fired or sidelined at least two dozen senior military officers in the past ten months. Likewise, about twenty generals and admirals have requested early retirement, including Admiral Alvin Hosley, head of U.S. Southern Command.

Many of these officers were expelled with little explanation, sometimes contradicting the advice of senior commanders who had served with them in combat. These actions have reportedly created a climate of “anxiety and distrust”, forcing leaders to take sides and at times pitting them against one another.

Simultaneously, sources reveal that the Pentagon chief has delayed or cancelled the promotions of at least four senior officers because they previously worked for retired General Mark Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until 2023.

In one of the most notable changes, Trump appointed a new vice chief of staff of the Army to replace General James Mingus, who served less than two years. He nominated Lieutenant General Christopher LaNeve — unsurprisingly, a close adviser to Hegseth in his role as Senior Military Assistant.

This was the context in which, on Tuesday, September 30, Hegseth gathered — for the first time since World War II — more than 800 generals and admirals at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, about 30 km from Washington.

The unusualness of the meeting was not only its scale but its purpose. One might assume it was meant to discuss global strategic matters, but it was not. Despite Trump’s introductory remarks about a “very beautiful meeting” to discuss “excellent military results”, the reality was different.

The atmosphere was tense: many generals worried about the security risks of bringing so many high-ranking officers into one location, when a videoconference using the Pentagon’s secure internal systems would have sufficed, avoiding complex logistics. Confidentiality was also compromised.

 Adam Zyglis, The Buffalo News

In his speech, Hegseth attacked “woke ideology”, claiming it had developed within the military under previous administrations. Among measures he announced: no allowance for overweight personnel, bearded personnel, long-haired personnel, or “superficial individual expressions”. He also attacked women, saying they would not be allowed in combat, and announced the return of “hard-core fighters” who had left under the “woke department”. He promised reforms in harassment-investigation methods, declared “the end of men wearing dresses”, as well as of diversity, equity and inclusion policies, promising a new army shaped after the MAGA administration.

Before Hegseth’s remarks, Trump had declared that major urban centers were “very dangerous places [so] we will bring them to order one by one […] It will be an important task for some of the people in this room […] It is an internal war,” he concluded.

The meeting will not go down in history for its content but for the stunned faces of generals and admirals listening to the speeches and to the tirades against obesity, beards, homosexuality in the armed forces, and the need to limit the presence of women.

Another facet of Hegseth’s management is his unprecedented attacks on the media, targeting individual reporters and the industry as a whole. Since his arrival, some outlets have been expelled from shared spaces, journalists’ movement inside the Pentagon has been restricted, and some press credentials have been revoked.

Among the journalists harshly attacked is Jennifer Griffin of Fox News, a veteran Pentagon reporter repeatedly targeted by Hegseth’s “acid” remarks. Courtney Kube of NBC News was also targeted after coverage that — according to The New York Times — included unflattering information about Hegseth’s past, such as testimony from a family member regarding abusive behavior toward his second wife. These details surfaced during his nomination. Shortly after taking office, Hegseth ordered that she be expelled from the Pentagon — an order that could not be executed for lack of legal basis.

In his most recent action, Hegseth allegedly ordered the killing of two fishermen who survived an attack after being baselessly accused of drug trafficking. Democratic Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut called the attacks “illegal killings” and “troubling”, and stated that Congress is receiving very little information from the Trump administration. Himes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, acknowledged but dismissed a White House memorandum justifying the attacks. “Based on what I know now and on reading this memo, these are illegal killings,” he said. “They are illegal because the idea that the United States — and this is the administration’s justification — is engaged in an armed conflict with any Venezuelan drug trafficker is absurd. It would not stand in any court.”

In this context, a true internal war has erupted, with discussion emerging about the loss of “confidence” in Hegseth’s ability to negotiate at high levels, according to a Politico article published on November 21. This led to an escalation of rhetoric within MAGA circles. One of its most notorious representatives, far-right activist Laura Loomer, accused Driscoll of ties to the Democratic Party and of “planning a coup d’état against Hegseth.”

According to Politico, the latest trip to Kiev by senior Pentagon officials, led by Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, illustrates Hegseth’s loss of credibility and relevance.

No one knows whether Hegseth can withstand the heavy pressure he is under. Weeks ago, a source close to the Pentagon said he appeared so nervous that he seemed “on the verge of exploding.” Surrounded by one of the world’s most powerful protective apparatuses, he has been particularly concerned for his safety since the assassination of ultraconservative activist Charlie Kirk during a public event.

According to the British Daily Mail on September 29, citing sources close to him, Hegseth’s fear “is reflected in erratic behavior toward his staff.” Two anonymous Pentagon insiders said that in recent weeks he has launched tirades, lashed out at subordinates and become obsessed with security matters. “He has a manic quality — or rather, an even more manic quality, which is saying something,” said one source, describing him as visibly distracted, restless, standing up and pacing during meetings.

Now, like the coward he is, he has refused to take responsibility for the “kill them all” order that led to the murder of the fishermen in the Caribbean, pushing Admiral Frank M. Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, to absorb all the repercussions. According to The Washington Post, “Bradley, then head of Joint Special Operations Command, oversaw an attack in the Caribbean on September 2, 2025, ordered by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth against a vessel suspected of drug trafficking. The Post reported that “Bradley ordered a second strike after identifying two survivors via drone feed, following Hegseth’s directive to leave no survivors.”

We shall see what consequences might arise from admirals with more than 35 years of service — now commanding aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, destroyers and cruisers — ending their careers by destroying small civilian vessels and killing peaceful fishermen. This may also help explain why suicides, drug addiction and post-war trauma are rising daily within the U.S. armed forces. To maintain this machinery, they also need the drug trade they claim to fight. It is part of the functional framework of that decadent society.