Tag Archive for: National Security

Jeremy Carl and the Road to Munich

The Trump administration has from the start nominated some spectacularly unqualified people for senior jobs. A few were so preposterous, like Florida Congressman and sexual predator Matt Gaetz for Attorney General, that even the MAGA Republicans in Congress vetoed them. But others who were equally bad were duly approved and still inhabit top positions, including top national security positions. Pete Hegseth at Defense, Kash Patel at the FBI, and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Security come to mind.

Given those spectacular mishits, it is perhaps hard to get worked up about Jeremy Carl, the current nominee to be Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. This is a mid-level job that primarily deals with the United Nations. Carl’s nomination now appears to be doomed by his own intemperate remarks at his confirmation hearing, and the courage of at least one Republican Senator. But understanding why he was put forward at all reveals the mindset now at the heart of American foreign policy.

Mr. Carl has, to begin with, no background in diplomacy or foreign affairs. He is a conservative activist based at the right-wing Claremont Institute in California, where his expertise seems to be mostly about energy policy. In the first Trump Administration he served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Interior Department. Just to get a sense of the difference in approach, in the Biden administration the position was filled by Ambassador Michele Sison, a career diplomat who had served previously as Deputy US Representative to the UN, among other senior jobs.

That Trump and his supporters are not exactly fans of the United Nations is not news. So perhaps picking someone who knows nothing about the UN is just a typical way to show your contempt. Past Republican presidents have often appointed people largely to underscore how little the US thought of the UN. Conservative flamethrower John Bolton, for instance, was Assistant Secretary for IO in the Bush I administration.

Still, Bolton was at least a foreign policy expert and professional. Carl is not. What then is behind his appointment? What does he bring to the table, from the MAGA standpoint?

What Carl seems to offer is his unvarnished embrace of ‘national conservatism.’ This is the shorthand for the MAGA wing that sees its mission as protecting America from the dangerous influence of internal and external forces that seek to weaken our national fundamentals. These fundamentals can be summed up in the word ‘whiteness.’ Hence our primary national security goals center around stopping and reversing immigration, except from white South Africa; supporting similar anti-immigrant movements in Europe, the white homeland; turning away from globalization and any hint of subservience to international organizations that give power to non-white peoples; and fighting to re-define what it means to be American, away from the Declaration’s creed that we are all equal, towards devotion to a largely mythic past that centers a story of white European success and expansion, downplays the contributions of African-Americans, and rejects any need to reflect on the nation’s shortcomings.

Carl is infamous for his full-throated warnings about the loss of white culture and the dangers of ‘liberal guilt.’ He has regularly endorsed the ‘Great Replacement Theory’ which says liberals are deliberately promoting immigration to make white people a minority. In dealing with the UN he could be trusted to fight tooth and nail against any loss of US sovereignty to an organization dominated by non-Western peoples.

National conservatives reject the idea that American identity is defined by an idea or commitment to a set of principles embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution. Instead they see the United States as the exemplar and defender of ‘Western civilization,’ transferred here from Europe, where it is now weak and under assault.

This understanding was front and center when JD Vance went to the Munich Security Conference a year ago and lambasted his European hosts for being weak on immigration and globalization. It turns out that a year later nothing has changed, even though Marco Rubio’s rhetoric on February 14 was slightly less incendiary:

“We are part of one civilization: Western civilization. We are bound to one another by the deepest bonds that nations could share, forged by centuries of shared history, Christian faith, culture, heritage, language, ancestry, and the sacrifices our forefathers made together for the common civilization to which we have fallen heir…. This is why we do not want our allies to be shackled by guilt and shame. We want allies who are proud of their culture and of their heritage, who understand that we are heirs to the same great and noble civilization, and who, together with us, are willing and able to defend it.”

Rubio, in his speech, painted a picture of American history as an unbroken extension of European strength and expansionism, from Christopher Columbus—no apologies, no sir!—through the spread of Christianity, to westward expansion across North America. The only thing to worry about in all this is the prospect of losing confidence in our right to continue to dominate, continue to expand, continue to prioritize our unique ethnicity and culture.

Rubio seems oblivious to America’s self-understanding, from its inception, as something fundamentally new, as a place and people not bound by the aristocracy and militarism and intolerance of the Old World. Would that Thomas Jefferson, an uncompromising advocate for America’s uniqueness, could return to refute Rubio and his fellow national conservatives with their nostalgia for European ways.

Europe and America have indeed grown closer over the last 250 years. This is largely because Europe has become more like us. European countries in the 19th century slowly threw off ancient aristocracies in favor of democratic institutions and guarantees of human rights. They haltingly embraced new identities tied to the creed of liberal democracy. At the same time millions of people fled from all corners of Europe to the New World, not to make America more European, but to escape from Europe’s miseries.

Not all of Europe, of course, moved in the same direction. In the 20th century, America stepped forward again and again and again to defend the Europe that resembled America from the Europe that didn’t: nationalist Germany, fascist Germany and Italy, the USSR. Yes, we were defending a shared tradition. A tradition largely made in the USA.

Carl may be rejected. But the national conservatism he represents is alive and well in the Trump administration. It is a dangerous and deeply un-American view, a view ironically resembling the blood and soil nationalism that flourished in the parts of Europe Americans sacrificed so much to oppose.

Adam Wasserman is a retired CIA analyst with experience on failing democracies in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. He served on the State Department Policy Planning Staff, the CIA Red Cell, and the National Security Council staff. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

Judge Luttig’s Warning: A Constitutional Conservative Sounds the Alarm

“These are the times that try men’s souls” is the famous opening line of The American Crisis I (often referred to as The Crisis), a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine and published on December 19, 1776. On February 17, 2026, Judge J. Michael Luttig spoke at the invitation of the New York City Bar, to a packed house, repeating those words. He did not pull punches, warning that Donald Trump represents a “clear and present danger” to American democracy. His remarks were not merely a warning, but a call to action. His message was direct, sober, and unmistakable. It is well worth watching.

Who is Judge J. Michael Luttig, and why does his voice matter so much right now?

Judge Luttig is not a partisan figure from the margins of American politics. He is one of the most respected conservative jurists of his generation. Appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 1991 and long regarded as a leading legal thinker within the conservative legal movement, he built his reputation on fidelity to the Constitution, the rule of law, and institutional restraint. His credentials are, by any fair measure, deeply and unmistakably conservative.

That is precisely what made his role on January 6 so significant.

In the hours leading up to the certification of the 2020 election, Judge Luttig provided critical legal counsel to then–Vice President Mike Pence, making clear that the Vice President had no constitutional authority to overturn the electoral vote. His analysis was grounded not in politics, but in law. At a moment of extraordinary pressure, he helped anchor the response in constitutional reality. Many observers, across the political spectrum, have since recognized that his intervention played a vital role in preventing a constitutional crisis from becoming something far worse.

What has followed has been equally notable. Rather than retreating into private life, Judge Luttig has continued to speak with clarity and seriousness about the state of American democracy. He has done so not as an activist, but as a conservative jurist alarmed by the erosion of constitutional norms and institutional guardrails.

Most strikingly, he has warned that Donald Trump poses an existential threat to the United States and its democratic system. That assessment closely echoes the conclusions reached by The Steady State, a group of former senior national security, intelligence, diplomatic, military, and law enforcement officials who have spent their careers studying how democracies weaken and how authoritarian systems consolidate power.

Judge Luttig has also been clear about what citizens must do. Voting is essential, but voting alone is not sufficient in moments of democratic strain. Democratic institutions are ultimately sustained by civic participation, public engagement, and the willingness of citizens to act in their defense.

That means speaking. That means peaceful assembly. That means visible civic engagement. And it means showing up.

On March 28, citizens across the country will gather for the next No Kings events. Participation in lawful, peaceful civic action is not radical. It is democratic. It is constitutional. And, in times like these, it is necessary.

Judge Luttig’s message is not partisan. It is constitutional. It is conservative in the truest sense of the word: a call to preserve the institutions and norms that sustain a democratic republic.

When a jurist of his stature, background, and conservative pedigree warns of an existential threat and calls for civic courage, we all must listen.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

Standing Together, Disagreeing Later: The Logic of the “Strange Bedfellows” Strategy

The Steady State often speaks of the need for what we have come to call “Strange Bedfellows.” The phrase is intentionally plainspoken. It describes a simple but powerful idea: that the preservation of democratic institutions depends on coalitions that cut across policy preferences, demographics, geography, profession, culture, and even long-standing political disagreements. In ordinary times, many of these alliances would feel unnatural. In some cases, they would not exist at all. But history, and the lived experience of our members, shows that when democratic systems come under sustained pressure, such coalitions are not merely useful. They are essential.

The Steady State is comprised of former senior national security, intelligence, diplomatic, military, and law enforcement professionals who have spent careers overseas, studying how democratic societies weaken and how authoritarian systems consolidate power. Our members have observed, up close and over decades, both the collapse of fragile democracies and successful resistance to autocracy in others. Across regions and eras, one lesson stands out with striking consistency: resistance to authoritarianism succeeds when it is inclusive and appeals to the broadest swath of the population. It succeeds when people who disagree on many things agree on the things that matters most.

In normal political life, divisions are natural and healthy. Citizens argue over taxes, regulation, foreign policy, education, social questions, and the appropriate size and scope of government. These debates are the lifeblood of a functioning democracy. They create friction, and sometimes deep frustration, but they occur within a shared framework of rules and expectations. Political opponents remain fellow citizens. Institutions remain legitimate. Elections settle disputes. Courts adjudicate conflicts. The system, though imperfect, holds.

Authoritarian movements seek to erode that shared framework. They do not begin by eliminating disagreement; they begin by turning disagreement into division, and division into isolation. They target institutions, stigmatize dissent, and encourage the belief that only certain voices are legitimate. Over time, this isolates groups from one another, making collective action more difficult. People retreat into their own camps, their own media ecosystems, their own communities, and their own grievances. In that environment, resistance fragments.

This is where “Strange Bedfellows” becomes necessary.

When democracy as a governing principle begins to weaken, the usual divisions must be bridged. People who have spent years arguing with one another on policy grounds must recognize a shared interest in protecting the underlying system that makes those arguments possible. Business leaders and labor organizers. Civil libertarians and law-and-order advocates. Conservatives, moderates, and progressives. Urban and rural communities. Secular groups and faith communities. National security professionals and privacy advocates. In another time, many of these groups might be adversaries. In a moment of democratic stress, they must become partners. The must march together.

Our members have seen this pattern repeatedly in other countries. The successful resistance movements are rarely ideologically pure. They are often awkward. They involve individuals and organizations that do not fully trust one another, and that may return to open disagreement once the immediate threat passes. The alliances are sometimes fragile and often uncomfortable. But they are broad. And their breadth is their strength.

Authoritarians benefit when opposition is narrow. A movement that is easily labeled, easily dismissed, or easily caricatured can be isolated and ignored. However, when resistance spans professions, regions, parties, and communities, it becomes far harder to marginalize. When people who do not ordinarily stand together choose to do so, it sends a signal that the issue at stake transcends ordinary politics.

That is the core of the Strange Bedfellows concept. It is not about abandoning deeply held views. It is not about asking people to mute their identities or convictions. It is about recognizing that there are moments when the preservation of democratic norms becomes the prerequisite for all other debates. If the system that protects speech, elections, courts, and lawful dissent erodes, then every policy dispute becomes secondary. The space for disagreement itself begins to shrink.

These coalitions are, by definition, imperfect. They require patience. They require restraint. They require a willingness to stand alongside people who may see the world very differently. They also require clarity about purpose. The goal is not to produce a unified political agenda. The goal is to protect the constitutional and institutional framework within which competing agendas can be pursued peacefully and lawfully.

The Steady State has been forward-leaning in embracing this approach because our members have seen, firsthand, how isolating forces can be. We have also seen how powerful it is when those forces are countered by broad, visible cooperation. The Strange Bedfellows concept is not a slogan. It is an observation drawn from experience. It reflects the reality that durable resistance to authoritarian tendencies is not built on uniformity. It is built on breadth.

In ordinary times, some of these alliances would seem unlikely, even undesirable. In extraordinary times, they may be the only thing that works.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

🎙️ A Chilling Warning of Racial Cleansing: Counter-Extremism Leaders Sound the Alarm

Episode Summary: Host Peter Mina interviews Bill Braniff and Dexter Ingram, two renowned experts on countering extremism through prevention and who issue a red alert on the executive branch’s reallocation of resources and attention from counterterrorism to domestic paramilitary efforts against immigrants. Aggressive tactics verge on racial cleansing, using white supremacist symbolism and arguments to defend actions. (recorded 1-16-26)

About the Guests

Bill Braniff is the Executive Director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University. He previously served as Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3), where he oversaw the federal government’s primary efforts to prevent targeted violence and domestic terrorism through evidence-based, community-level interventions. Bill’s career spans military service, senior executive roles in government, and leadership at some of the country’s top terrorism research centers.

🔗 Learn more about PERIL and prevention resources.

Dexter Ingram is the founder of InNetwork, a nonprofit dedicated to guiding young people—particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds—toward careers in national security and public service. He previously served as Director of the State Department’s Office of Countering Violent Extremism, Director of the Office of Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, and held leadership roles at Interpol, the FBI, and in overseas counterterrorism operations. Dexter brings a global perspective shaped by field experience, policy leadership, and community engagement.

🔗 Learn more about InNetwork.

📰 Read ’s on Substack (Codename Citizen).

Conversation Summary (AI-generated from the transcript, edited for clarity)

Opening

Peter Mina:

I’m Peter Mina, a civil rights and federal employment law attorney, as well as a former Department of Homeland Security official who worked to integrate civil rights and civil liberties protections in the department’s national security programs. You are listening to The Steady State Sentinel from The Steady State.

We are facing an existential threat: growing autocracy in the United States. The Steady State Sentinel is a place where we and our distinguished guests use our national security expertise to discuss and analyze the decisions and acts of this administration that feed that autocratic slide and threaten to supplant the pillars of our constitutional democracy.

Today, we’re talking with two distinguished guests: Bill Braniff, executive director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University and former director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships; and Dexter Ingram, former director of the State Department’s Office of Countering Violent Extremism, former director of the Office of Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, and founder of InNetwork.

I’ll be talking to them about risks of radicalization, domestic terrorism, the current political landscape, and what those risks mean for the future of democracy—or a possible slide toward authoritarianism. Welcome to the program, Bill and Dexter.

Bill Braniff:

Thanks for having us.

Dexter Ingram:

Absolutely. Happy to be here.

Origins and Paths to Service

Peter Mina:

Why don’t we start with your origin stories. Bill, what drew you to national security and terrorism prevention?

Bill Braniff:

I was an idealistic young person. I wanted to serve and went to West Point to find out what I was made of. I come from a family with military service—my grandfather served in World War II with his brothers—and I grew up in a patriotic environment.

I’ve held many roles in federal service: Army officer, GS employee, civilian faculty at West Point, and Senior Executive Service. I only ever wanted to be a public servant—the question was how. I was a scout platoon leader in an armored battalion on 9/11 and needed to understand what had happened. I’m part of the 9/11 generation that entered counterterrorism.

But 10 to 12 years later, I grew frustrated that we were still trying to kill or capture our way out of the threat. I began looking for alternative approaches—risk reduction and prevention—learning from public health, mental health, and education. That led me to targeted violence prevention and eventually to implementing those approaches at DHS.

Peter Mina:

Dexter, tell us about your path.

Dexter Ingram:

I saw Top Gun in high school and thought, “That’s it.” I joined the Navy, went to flight school, earned my wings, and flew E-6 TACAMO missions in the 1990s—before 9/11.

After the Navy, I worked at a think tank focused on weapons of mass destruction, because mitigation after the fact felt insufficient. After 9/11, I was asked to lead terrorism science and technology policy for the new House Select Committee on Homeland Security.

I later went to the State Department to build a team preventing terrorists from acquiring WMDs, worked with Russia as a partner at the time, served in Afghanistan speaking Pashto, worked at the FBI, then spent three years at Interpol leading counter-ISIS efforts.

When I saw the polarization, misinformation, and online radicalization in the U.S.—especially as a Black man and a father of two boys—I applied to lead the Office of Countering Violent Extremism. It was one of the most professionally and personally meaningful roles I’ve ever had.

Government Service and Prevention

Peter Mina:

How has government service translated into your work today?

Dexter Ingram:

Working overseas taught me the importance of community engagement. When I returned home, I served as PTA president, worked on farmers markets—local work that mirrored international prevention. Youth radicalization, especially ages 15–24, is a common thread whether it’s ISIS, neo-Nazis, or incel movements. Community-level conversations matter.

Bill Braniff:

I’ve always straddled academia and practice—translating research into real-world prevention. Military service teaches you to navigate uncertainty and make decisions without perfect information. One thing people underestimate is how competitive and high-performing public servants are. Vilifying public service is one of the great casualties of our recent politics.

What Prevention Means

Peter Mina:

Bill, how would you explain prevention and radicalization to a general audience?

Bill Braniff:

There are three legs to risk reduction: intelligence-led disruption, physical security, and prevention. Prevention is upstream—programs that reduce the likelihood someone gravitates toward violence at all.

Parents, educators, HR professionals—everyone has a role. We applied decades of public-health violence-prevention research to targeted violence and terrorism. It works.

At DHS, we funded 1,172 interventions at an average cost of $6,900 each—and had zero violent outcomes. These were real threats: school shootings, stalking of officials, assault cases. Prevention saved lives and millions in societal costs. Prevention is possible if we invest in it.

Dexter Ingram:

Prevention works, but it can be hard to measure—especially internationally. I saw programs cut violent-solution acceptance among children from 75% to about 30%. These aren’t massive national efforts; they’re community-level interventions. Prevention requires partnerships and coalitions, especially at the local and mayoral level.

The Shift Away from Prevention

Peter Mina:

How does the de-emphasis on prevention in favor of law enforcement affect safety?

Dexter Ingram:

Intelligence assessments consistently showed far-right extremism as the top domestic threat. Programs addressing this—across DHS, FBI, State—have been dismantled. Misinformation and foreign-influence work is gone. Prevention capacity is gone.

What replaces it is fear. Communities don’t report crimes or medical emergencies. Law enforcement leaders themselves say this is the wrong approach. Grievances grow when prevention disappears, and violence follows years later.

Bill Braniff:

We’ve seen a 40% increase in attacks and credible plots, a 150% increase in fatalities, and a higher success rate for plots after prevention resources were removed.

Law-enforcement-only strategies don’t reduce risk. Without a domestic terrorism statute, perpetrators receive short sentences, re-enter society with more risk factors, and are often re-absorbed into extremist movements.

Meanwhile, official government social media channels are amplifying white supremacist slogans, Nazi references, and Great Replacement rhetoric. That is not accidental. Combined with attacks on DEI and immigration, it forms a chilling racial-cleansing narrative.

Foreign Terrorism, Social Media, and Risk

Peter Mina:

Does this environment increase vulnerability to foreign terrorist exploitation?

Dexter Ingram:

Absolutely. Online radicalization is easier than ever. People find community, then algorithms push blame and extremism. We can’t force platforms to act—we rely on their policies—but misinformation and extremism spread unchecked.

When government refuses to distinguish truth from falsehood, trust collapses. That benefits extremists.

What Families and Communities Can Do

Peter Mina:

What should families and communities do?

Bill Braniff:

Most attackers leak intent. Ask caring questions. Take warning signs seriously. Connect people to help. Prevention works, but only if we normalize it and reject fatalism.

NSPM-7 and DOJ efforts to label “anti-traditional American values” are subjective and dangerous. This is not hypothetical—it’s an existential threat to democracy.

Peter Mina:

Dexter, what do you tell your sons?

Dexter Ingram:

I tell them they’re held to a higher standard—but that awareness is their superpower. I teach them that international cooperation, diversity, and curiosity are strengths. When any group is targeted, everyone is at risk. A country’s values are revealed in how it treats the most vulnerable. Right now, we’re failing—but I still see hope in young people committed to service.

Closing

Peter Mina:

Thank you, Bill and Dex, for this vital conversation.

Bill Braniff:

You can find our work at perilresearch.com. I also serve as editor-at-large for prevention at Homeland Security Today.

Dexter Ingram:

I’m the founder of InNetwork.org and write Codename Citizen on Substack. I’m always happy to engage.

Peter Mina:

If you liked today’s episode, please subscribe and leave a five-star review. Protecting our democracy isn’t a spectator sport. This is Peter Mina for The Steady State Sentinel—still standing watch.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

The Steady State Sentinel Podcast: Coming Tomorrow, “Chilling Racial Cleansing”

Host Peter Mina interviews Bill Braniff and Dexter Ingram.

Mr. Braniff, the Executive Director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University, previously served as Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, overseeing the federal government’s primary efforts to prevent targeted violence and domestic terrorism.

Mr. Ingram, founder of InNetwork, previously served as Director of the State Department’s Office of Countering Violent Extremism, Director of the Office of Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Terrorism, and held leadership roles at Interpol, the FBI, and in overseas counterterrorism operations.

Available anywhere you listen to Podcasts !

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

OIL OVER DEMOCRACY: THE UNITED STATES EMBRACES A NEW AUTHORITARIAN IN VENEZUELA

THE STEADY STATE

FEB 14, 2026

On the same day that Nobel Peace Prize laureate María Corina Machado addressed the Munich Security Conference to plead for Venezuela’s democratic future, President Trump stood on the White House lawn and called his relationship with Venezuela’s Interim President Delcy Rodríguez “a 10.” Machado warned that Rodríguez remains “closely linked to the criminal environment of the Maduro regime.” Trump said the oil is coming out and a lot of money is being paid. Machado (again) dedicated her Nobel Prize to Trump for removing a dictator. Trump formally recognized the dictator’s deputy as the legitimate government and announced he will visit Caracas.

Here is what the United States is doing in Venezuela and what it means for all of us:

Oil first, democracy when?: In six weeks since the January 3 capture of Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has built an oil-extraction architecture of stunning speed and ambition. Treasury has issued a cascade of general licenses—GL 46, 47, 48, 30B—opening Venezuela’s upstream and downstream sectors to American companies. Energy Secretary Chris Wright flew to Caracas February 11, toured Orinoco Belt oil fields with Rodríguez, and announced that over a billion dollars in Venezuelan crude has already been sold, with five billion more expected. OFAC issued company-specific licenses to BP, Chevron, Eni, Repsol, and Shell, with all royalties flowing to U.S. Treasury-controlled accounts. Chevron aims to double production within 18 months. Elections? Rodríguez committed to “free and fair” elections but offered no timeline. Her brother Jorge, the National Assembly president, said flatly: “There will not be an election in this immediate period.” Wright said elections would come in 18 to 24 months—maybe. The metric that matters to this administration is barrels, not ballots.

Amnesty as theater: More than 600 political prisoners remain behind bars. The amnesty law moving through the National Assembly has been quietly gutted—provisions for returning seized assets, canceling Interpol red notices, and lifting candidacy bans have been stripped from the text. Attorney General Saab insists detainees “committed crimes” and must “submit themselves to justice.” Opposition leader Juan Pablo Guanipa was released on February 8 and re-detained seven hours later—by ten armed men in civilian clothes—for the crime of speaking to reporters. His release document listed two conditions; he violated neither. This is not reconciliation. It is a managed concession designed to generate headlines while preserving the state’s power to re-imprison anyone who steps out of line.

The Venezuelan people are being ignored: The first credible opinion poll since Maduro’s capture found that 91 percent of Venezuelans want elections and want the results respected. In a hypothetical vote, Machado defeats Rodríguez 67 to 25 percent. On February 12, thousands of students marched from the Central University of Venezuela demanding prisoner releases—the largest opposition demonstration since January 3. Families chained themselves to detention centers. Rodríguez—the woman the DEA designated a “priority target” for suspected narcotics trafficking in 2022—told NBC this week that Maduro remains the “legitimate president.” And the President of the United States says the relationship is a 10.

Even the oil math doesn’t work: OPEC data shows Venezuelan production actually fell 87,000 barrels per day in January. TotalEnergies’ CEO publicly ruled out returning—“too expensive and too polluting.” ConocoPhillips refuses to reinvest until compensated for its $12 billion claim. Francisco Monaldi of Rice University’s Baker Institute concluded that Venezuela’s seven decades of oil history show no contract surviving to maturity without deterioration of terms. Without democratic transition and a credible legal framework, only short-term wildcatter investments are viable. The administration is building an energy strategy on the most unreliable foundation in the Western Hemisphere.

Still fighting the wrong drug war: The Caribbean boat strikes continue. On February 14, SOUTHCOM struck another vessel, killing three—the 39th disclosed strike, bringing the total death toll to 133. Legal experts characterize these as extrajudicial killings. We are spending millions per day to destroy disposable fiberglass hulls while the drug networks remain intact and the real threat—fentanyl from Mexico—goes unaddressed. Spain, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Uruguay have jointly condemned the January 3 operation. The UN Security Council, facing a U.S. veto, has gone silent. At Munich, European officials privately expressed discomfort with the sovereignty implications. We are losing allies and burning credibility for barrels of heavy crude.

Other parts of the world hog the headlines, but Americans should pay close attention to what is being done in our name in Venezuela. For over 30 years across my diplomatic career—including three tours in Venezuela, where I served as Deputy Chief of Mission until I was declared persona non grata and expelled—U.S. diplomacy in the hemisphere was founded on respect for democracy and human rights, collaboration to meet mutual threats, and free trade to drive prosperity and security. Those policies were imperfect, but they produced qualitatively better outcomes from the Arctic north to the tip of Tierra del Fuego. Today, the administration that captured a dictator is building a partnership with his authoritarian protegé, extracting oil, and telling 30 million Venezuelans that their aspirations for democracy can wait. We will live to regret what is being done to our own hemisphere—and to the values that once defined America’s role in it.

Brian Naranjo is a Senior Foreign Service Officer with over thirty years of experience serving primarily in the Western Hemisphere. His service included three Venezuela tours (including Deputy Chief of Mission until he was declared persona non grata and expelled), and tours as the senior political officer and chief of staff in Panama, Canada, Mexico, and Panama. At State, Brian directed the Political and Policy Coordination Office for the Western Hemisphere and the UN Political Affairs Office. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

THE GEMS THAT MADE US UNIQUE ARE ECLIPSED, BUT THERE AMONG THE LENGTHENING LIST OF FORSAKEN FRIENDS, ALLIES, TRADE AGREEMENTS AND INFLUENCE, THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF HEART, HUMANITY AND AMERICAN IDEALS

Two questions plague many of us whether we come from the world of national security, philosophy, political science, clergy, journalism, commerce or anyone who reflects on the reality of what America is becoming. They are questions that should pose unsettling intrusions into our daily routines, and they will long beset our progeny if not dealt with:

(1) How is it that we have lost so much grit to permit Trump’s vast disassembly of this nation of ours over the thirteen months of his second term; the America we knew as a government of, by and for the people and a beacon for the globally disenfranchised?

(2) Will it be possible to somehow rebuild it, win it all back?

The answers will, assuredly, describe the future of the United States. They could offer us a viewer’s list of two or three different Americas of tomorrow, ranging from a restoration of yesteryear’s pesky and shambolic democracy, to an age of pandemonium and chaos or, heaven forbid, an established autocracy of oligarchs. Any attempted description of what’s to come will perforce be a rough sketch at best, but any one or several would leave to those generations which follow, something wretched and lamentable.

There at least two ways to look at these coming tectonic changes, why they have happened and how the country will cope. There is a giant weakness in the constitution in that, from its signing, it always depended on men and women of good will to adhere to its precious contents. Noting that the constitution is not self-executing, those elected shepherds who tend it have failed us in enormous ways. That failure has bequeathed to the next generation of elected officials the gargantuan task of rebuilding the contents of the republic and to overcome the poisonous legacy Trump is in the process of leaving us.

Yes, we have lost so much status, so many committee positions on world bodies, the worship of science and much admiration, that we are no longer the rock the EU rested on, no longer the centerpiece of the grand alliance of the North Atlantic that kept a mischievous Russia in line and China wary. We have retreated from the welcoming nation that attracted every manner of human from the forlorn and bedraggled to the finest of inquiring minds looking for opportunity or the best graduate education. Everywhere, we now see cartoons that portray the US as a snarling plunderer, or a figure of zany mockery, or a malevolence that abuses its own people. These pictures that other nations paint of our United States of America are not entirely true; they are caricatures of a transforming country that exaggerate the grotesqueness of the transition but do capture the disappearance of what was an idol to many who live in uncharitably governed countries.

EU leadership is coalescing in bold fashion, strengthening and moving to the front position that the US once held. This is a good thing. And that Europe is shouldering more of the hardware and financial load in the wake of US dominance is also a good thing. EU leadership in supporting Ukraine against Russia may well demonstrate that Ukraine can indeed defeat Russia in the long run. Should Ukraine emerge intact, and enter into EU membership, it will not be due to the vision the United States will have shown in the months to come. The US has chosen to sell weaponry than grant it, adopting a tawdry mercantilist posture when Europe will have stood together and suited triumphal actions to Ukraine’s time of need.

But what we risk losing is the most valuable, the most cherished of the virtues the ancients forged in the search for enlightenment, which were seized on by the American founders. These are ideals that are not fully captured in academic terminology of systems such as ‘republic’ or ‘democracy’, but live in the spirit world. I have known the essence of what I wanted to say about America’s inner strength, but finding the words to describe it is a challenge. Our nation has shown throughout periods of economic, social and international turmoil an ability to respond. Jim Crow yielded eventually, although the fight goes on, to society’s better angels. A massive rebirth of industrial might launched the US to unseen levels of military production and victory at the outset of WWII. Medical science fathered Herculean efforts to combat polio, smallpox, measles, diphtheria, pertussis and other diseases that were largely eradicated, although governmental laxity has recently introduced perilous recurrences. Covid and MNRA vaccines were nothing short of miraculous, and now there are official doubters, backsliders tinkering with the health of the American people. An internal American vigor, the quintessence needed to concoct from sheer intellectual energy strategic keys to open new doors and solutions was a quality that was always there in America. It would be found just when it was needed, powerful and determined enough to overcome recalcitrance and inertia. Religion was capable of marshaling potency but dogma and doctrine could also stand in the way; we would strive relentlessly to foster the one and keep the other in safe harbor. There was something metaphysical in the waters of America. Perhaps it derived from the audacious concept of government by, for and of the people, or that a new nation could offer “Americanization” to anyone who came here willing to join in a revolutionary concept that overarched conventionally limiting notions of ethnicity and heritage. That heterogenous mix of new approaches to old problems that saddle the human condition seemed to create a limitless source of American originality. Over the centuries we became a talent known for spontaneity, imagination; a caring for one another that was freshly committed to our fellows’ well being.

We have in this magical swirl of originality and authenticity something uniquely American. It has been and is our footprint on the world. We are a conceptual abstraction, and it is this almost ineffable national attribute that we must not lose, must not allow to wither and thus fail our progeny. Trump must be stopped, held in disrepute and apart from our better America, while the rebuilding of the institutions he has savaged and the confidences he has undermined, begins.

Bill Piekney served 4 years in the US Navy, 30 years with the CIA retiring as a Senior Operations Executive, and 5 years as a Senior Consultant at ODNI, International Consultant in Intelligence and National Security. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 390 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

“No Rules of Engagement”

Lieutenant General (ret.) Ben Hodges speaks with host John Sipher, warning against improper use of the U.S. military, its impact on U.S. defense and our allies’ growing distrust. Professional military institutions depend on the foundational pillars of constitutional loyalty, clear strategic objectives, honest internal accountability, strong alliances and the public trust. Without these foundations, readiness and national unity are at risk

Listen here or Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts!

Summary (AI generated from the transcript, edited for clarity)

1. Oath to the Constitution and Military Professionalism

Hodges emphasizes that from his earliest days at West Point (starting in 1976), the oath to the Constitution—not to a party or president—was central to military identity. The lessons of Vietnam, particularly My Lai, shaped a generation of officers to understand their duty to refuse unlawful orders.

Reaffirming the oath throughout one’s career reinforces a culture of constitutional loyalty and apolitical service.

2. Rebuilding the Post-Vietnam Army

Hodges argues that culture change—not equipment—rebuilt the Army’s effectiveness and revitalized the Army

3. Goldwater-Nichols and Joint Operations

The Goldwater-Nichols Act forced the services to operate jointly, strengthening inter-service coordination and clarifying roles in national defense

4. Speaking Out After Retirement

Hodges explains why he speaks publicly: His oath did not expire at retirement. senior senior leaders have a responsibility to defend constitutional norms, especially when those in uniform cannot speak freely and the need to build the public trust that is essential to an all-volunteer force. He expresses concern about rhetoric or policies that undermine rules of engagement or constitutional principles.

5. The Importance of Allies

The U.S. relies heavily on allies—not just for diplomacy but for operational capacity and intelligence. U.S. forces in Europe (fewer than 100,000 troops) provide critical strategic platforms for global power projection. Trust built over decades enables access to bases and intelligence-sharing—this cannot be taken for granted. Hodges warns that allies may hesitate to cooperate if they perceive reckless or unlawful U.S. conduct.

6. Europe’s Security Posture

Hodges is cautiously optimistic about Europe stepping up its defense responsibilities. Countries like Finland and the Baltic states understand the Russian threat clearly. Germany has made major changes, including allowing debt-financed defense expansion. However, Russian political influence and internal divisions remain challenges.

7. Ukraine and Learning from Partners

Hodges stresses the importance of being a learning organization—adapting training and doctrine based on real-world lessons. The U.S. began training Ukrainian forces in 2015 at Yavoriv. American forces learned from Ukrainian battlefield experience (artillery, drones, electronic warfare).

8. Civil-Military Relations and Political Pressure

Civilian control of the military is essential—but so is honest, private pushback from senior military leaders. Hodges warns that punishing leaders for raising concerns creates a climate where officers fear questioning potentially unlawful or reckless directives. Retirees and Congress play important roles in accountability.

9. Advice to Young Officers

Don’t get consumed by national-level politics. Military service remains honorable, rewarding, and necessary. Focus on accomplishing the mission and taking care of your people.

10. Final Reflection: Strategy and Governance

Hodges concludes with a central concern:

  • The military must remain a rules-based, constitutionally loyal institution.

  • Civilian leaders must clearly define strategic objectives.

  • Without clear goals, as seen in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, policy and military effort drift.

  • He argues the U.S. currently lacks a clearly defined strategic objective regarding Ukraine.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

Trauma in the Twin Cities: Effective Federal Civil Rights Oversight is Desperately Needed

Congressional shadow hearing titled Kidnapped and Disappeared: Trump’s Deadly Assault on Minnesota reflects a moment of reckoning for the president’s draconian immigration policies and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) assault on civil rights and liberties. The nation has seen Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s killing of Renée Good, a U.S. citizen and protestor exercising her First Amendment rights, and similar video footage of Veterans Affairs nurse Alex Pretti being thrown to the ground and shot 10 times by masked and militarized Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers in Minneapolis. Mass deportation, detention, and deaths in detention have reached the highest number in decades, and ICE arrests and detention of children have skyrocketed, yet effective internal review of conditions of detention has been decimated. These conditions echo those of authoritarian regimes and destabilize democracy, with ramifications here and abroad. To make matters worse, Trump’s aides also declared that 16 shootings by ICE and CBP were justified prior to any internal investigation, further galvanizing widespread protests and demands for accountability. The administration has also functionally eliminated internal oversight by career investigators and experts, including the 140 career staff in the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) who were fired earlier this year.

While CRCL alone could not stop today’s abuses, we know from experience that if it were fully operational, the office would have advised DHS leadership that CBP and ICE cannot use force indiscriminately. CRCL would have played a role in DHS law enforcement training regarding public order policing near constitutionally protected activity, and advised that officers may be held accountable for disproportional and unreasonable use of force. Prior to this administration, CRCL was notified of every death in DHS custody, and, in practice, the civil rights office was also regularly notified of deaths and use-of-force incidents during operations. As per statutory authority, CRCL also made ongoing recommendations for needed systemic changes, and its recommendations memos were available to the public. During our tenure, CRCL staff were often on the ground monitoring operations and immediately investigating use-of-force incidents.

Trump’s DHS has reduced CRCL to a skeletal staff, and the concurrent lack of accountability for civil rights violations shows that Congress should require the full funding and professional staffing of CRCL, where career professionals advised DHS policymakers on appropriate civil rights and civil liberties protections, reviewed hundreds of allegations of abuses of civil rights and liberties, initiated investigations and issued numerous policy recommendations to address violations of law and policy, strengthen training and increase accountability.

CRCL’s recommendations included systemic policy changes such as those found in the current DHS Use of Force Policy, requiring that use of force must be “objectively reasonable.” This should serve as the minimum benchmark for evaluating CBP and ICE’s recent actions. CRCL is also charged with holding stakeholder convenings to listen to community concerns, which it would carefully evaluate and convey with recommendations to DHS components while helping them come into compliance with civil rights. This collaborative approach was never perfect, as the results depend on components such as ICE accepting CRCL’s recommendations, but it is obvious that CRCL’s core duties–investigation of rights violations and developing policies to protect fundamental rights–are sorely missing at DHS. At the very least, CRCL is needed to ensure that law enforcement officers know that, contrary to what they have been told by the White House, they are not absolutely immune to being held accountable for civil rights violations.

There is a tremendous amount of important litigation against DHS’s implementation of Trump’s mass deportation policies, but litigation alone will not stop the violent use of force by ICE in American cities like Minneapolis today. Part of the mission of DHS is “to ensure that the civil rights and civil liberties of persons are not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland,” and when the Department was created, Congress created CRCL in order to ensure that these fundamental American values are always protected. Reestablishing and strengthening CRCL is a critical step toward fully integrating statutory and constitutional guardrails into DHS. While dramatically increasing their own oversight to rein in an outsized DHS workforce and mission, Congress should also compel DHS to fully fund and staff CRCL before more lives are lost and democracy is even further compromised.

Katherine Culliton-González is a veteran civil and human rights lawyer, a widely published expert on inclusive democracy in the Americas, and chair of the Hispanic National Bar Association’s Committee on American Democracy. A former Fulbright Scholar who contributed to the transition to democracy in Chile, she also served as lead attorney for immigrants’ rights and access to justice at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund during the post-9/11 era. She also served as Director of the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, as a Senior Attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and as a Presidential Appointee in the Biden-Harris Administration, where she led the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties for the Department of Homeland Security. She is a member of The Steady State.

Peter Mina is a former Deputy Officer and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. He is a member of The Steady State where he serves as the Chair of The Steady State’s Law Working Group and as a co-host of The Steady State Sentinel Podcast.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by

Growing US Vulnerability Under Trump: Chinese and Russian Perceptions

There are four classical elements of national strategic power: Military, diplomatic, economic, and informational. In all four, the US is losing ground in the second Trump administration. There is a fifth element worthy of consideration, Reputational, which I will also address. From the perspectives of our near-peer adversaries, China and Russia, the current White House occupant is a “useful idiot.” Let’s look at these elements to see why.

Military

America’s military is the most powerful in the world. Few doubt it, especially Putin and Xi. Neither is interested in taking on the US Armed Forces directly. Both have shown a preference to take the indirect approach, sometimes called Gray Zone Warfare, exploiting their intelligence, cyber, and diplomatic services, which are sometimes indistinguishable from one another. Mr. Trump, by making it his stated national security policy to focus on his hemisphere, also gave both a gift: China regarding Taiwan and Russia regarding all matters concerning Ukraine. Moreover, this commander-in-chief has chosen to use the martial cudgel recently on only two oil-rich nations, Iran and Venezuela. One wonders if Nigeria, another oil-rich nation, is next on his list. This president is nothing if not transactional. Another worrying matter, this chief executive just permitted the START Treaty with Russia to expire on the 5th of February. In typical fashion, Mr. Trump trashed the treaty without proposing an alternative. Now, the two signatories may begin testing nuclear weapons again, perhaps sparking a new arms race. The UN’s Secretary General said that this “…marks a grave moment for international peace and security.”

Diplomatic

This Oval Office has appointed a considerable number of unqualified people to ambassadorial status; his son’s former girlfriend is merely one of the more notable. At the same time, Mr. Trump removed many of the Department of State’s (DoS) best and brightest from its rolls. Over 1,300 career diplomats and support personnel were summarily fired when he took office, further weakening a critically important function that was already understaffed. Also, the shuttering of USAID destroyed America’s most successful source of soft power diplomacy, which will eventually condemn hundreds of thousands to death. This administration’s refusal to pay its UN dues, withdrawal from over 60 associated functions, and promotion of the alternative Board of Peace in Gaza have severely undermined the world’s best-known international organization, a body that was largely created by America in the wake of World War II. Finally, it is disturbing that this White House is only now seeking a nuclear deal with Iran. Such a deal was previously accomplished by the Obama Administration, which this president blew up in his first term.

Economic

Although this chief executive made multiple promises of a soon-to-be improved economy while on the campaign trail, there are few if any indicators supporting that assertion. His continuing misuse of tariffs raised the prices of most necessities. Wages are stagnant. The housing market is in freefall. Consumer debt is high. The dollar has steadily lost ground against the Euro since he came to office. The singular bit of good news does not benefit the public, but only owners of the mega-corporations, which this Oval Office favored with massive tax breaks. The result is that the nation is closing in on 40 trillion dollars in debt, more than the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Such massive debt is unsustainable. China may soon overtake America as the largest economy in the world.

Informational

One of the most effective information tools of American statecraft in the international arena used to be the Voice of America (VOA). The Trump Administration fired most of the VOA staff, while severely curtailing their programming. The organization’s future, if any, is being fought out in the courts. This leaves the current airwaves open for both Russian and Chinese influence campaigns. At a time of great uncertainty, this administration continues to reduce the number of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) personnel. Solid intelligence is more important than ever before, but apparently not to this White House. One is compelled to wonder why?

Russian Special Case?

Russia may not just be exploiting American vulnerabilities, their intelligence services likely helped create them. This Oval Office occupant demonstrates all the earmarks of being a Russian asset. This president treats the Russian tyrant as admirable. This president parrots every Moscow demand made in negotiations concerning the war in Ukraine. Politico Magazine, way back in 2017, tied this president, his family, and multiple close associates to Russia and Putin. It has been suggested that while Mr. Trump is in office, Americans need not fear Russian nuclear-tipped missiles. Mr. Putin already exercises considerable influence over decision-making in this White House.

Reputational

Traditionally, reputation is not considered to be a component of national power. In this case, though, it might be as important as all the rest. Following the end of WWII, America and her allies built the rules-based order. The US was accepted as leader of the Free World, not just because of its military capacity, but because of its adherence to law and shared values. The nation engaged in writing the Geneva Conventions and in prosecuting war crimes committed by both Germany and Japan. The Marshall Plan that followed deserves credit for helping to rebuild Western Europe. Later, and as a NATO stalwart throughout the Cold War, America was instrumental in the organization’s ultimate success in containing Communism. Today, and for many of the reasons stated above, that hard-won reputation is in tatters. As a result, nobody trusts this president. Regrettably, trust in the American people who twice put him in office has also been badly degraded.

The case is clear. America is far weaker today because of the election of Mr. Trump. The US military, although powerful, is misdirected, perhaps illegally so. Allowing START to expire was an unbelievably bad idea. Another nuclear arms race is in nobody’s interest. Firing DoS diplomats and support personnel degrades the US’s ability to negotiate with friends and foes alike. Shutting down USAID was a terrible decision, resulting in the likely deaths of hundreds of thousands. It was unquestionably our best means of soft power diplomacy. The same is true for closing the doors on the VOA. CIA personnel reductions implemented by this president are a horrible notion. America’s near-peer rivals, China and Russia, no doubt and privately appreciate it all. Is Mr. Trump a Russian asset? I suspect that the professionals within the US clandestine services will not be surprised if this assertion is later proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That truth, of course, will not be forthcoming while he sits behind the storied Resolute Desk, a useful idiot indeed.

Robert Bruce Adolph , a qualified Military Strategist,is a retired senior US Army Special Forces soldier. He holds graduate degrees in both National Security Studies & International Affairs and was formally trained as a counterintelligence special agent. Robert also taught university level courses in American Government, US History, and World Politics. Following his retirement from the active military, he joined the UN, subsequently seeing service in Sierra Leone, Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Indonesia and more, culminating in the role of Chief of the Middle East and North Africa at UN Headquarters in New York. He is a member of The Steady State

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.

Powered by WPeMatico

/by