Here Are 5 Wars Trump Started or Expanded in 2025

The U.S. military is fighting or preparing to fight in more countries than it was when the self-proclaimed "peace president" took office.

President Donald Trump came into office presenting himself as a peace president. "We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into," he said in his inaugural address.

By those standards, his presidency has been a failure. Trump launched nearly as many airstrikes in five months as former President Joe Biden did in his entire term, according to Armed Conflict Location and Event Data, a nonprofit that monitors wars around the world. And those airstrikes have hit places where the U.S. military was not fighting during Biden's term, from the Caribbean to Iran.

Of course, Biden himself was guilty of the same sort of double-talk. He bragged that "the United States is not at war anywhere in the world" less than an hour after U.S. Central Command announced a new air raid on Yemen. Like death and taxes, it seems a certainty of life that American presidents will talk peace while continuing—and expanding—war.

Here are five countries where Trump has done that:

Venezuela

On the campaign trail, Trump signalled that he wanted a full-on war against drug cartels in Latin America. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steven Miller originally wanted to target Mexican cartels, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio steered Trump toward a regime change campaign in Venezuela, arguing that the Venezuelan government was itself a drug smuggling gang.

The campaign began by bombing alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean. At least 104 people have been killed in these attacks so far. In one instance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the military to bomb survivors clinging to a shipwrecked boat. The White House reportedly hoped that the military buildup and show of force would convince Venezuelan ruler Nicolas Maduro to "cry uncle," in the words of White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles.

Meanwhile, Trump and Miller's stated goals have shifted from a war on drugs to a naked resource grab. They both demanded that Venezuela compensate the U.S. for nationalizing oil businesses several decades ago as Trump declared a "TOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE" of oil tankers from the country. The U.S. military has seized at least two oil tankers leaving Venezuela, and Maduro has ordered his navy to escort oil shipments.

The American people are not enthusiastic about this military campaign. Recent polling shows that 53 percent of Americans oppose the boat attacks and 63 percent oppose attacking Venezuelan soil. But the Trump administration is eager to show that it can do things without permission from Congress or the public, and the Caribbean is apparently full of easy targets.

Yemen

In Yemen, Trump turned a frozen conflict back into a hot war. The Houthi movement in Sanaa, one of the two rival Yemeni governments, had been harassing international shipping in the Red Sea as a tactic to pressure Israel to pull out of Gaza. After Trump secured a ceasefire in Gaza in January 2025, the Houthis stopped their attacks.

Without warning, Trump attacked Yemen in March 2025. He presented this as a prelude to attacking Iran, declaring that any "shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN." Then, after two months of inconclusive bombing and the loss of two American fighter jets, Trump ended the campaign.

It was in the Yemen war that former National Security Adviser Mike Waltz accidentally added a journalist to a group chat for planning air raids. (In the process, Hegseth revealed that the military deliberately killed one or more civilian bystanders.)

Only a few months before relaunching this war, Trump had criticized the logic behind it. "It's crazy. You can solve problems over the telephone. Instead, they start dropping bombs. I see, recently, they're dropping bombs all over Yemen," then-candidate Trump said in May 2024. "You don't have to do that. You can talk in such a way where they respect you and they listen to you."

Iran

The Islamic Republic is the Middle Eastern grand prize for neoconservatives, who have been pushing for a regime change war there since the early 2000s. Trump edged toward that outcome in his first term, with military buildups, an economic embargo, and the assassination of an Iranian general. Every time, he stopped just short of an attack on Iranian soil.

That changed in his second term. Publicly, Trump was negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. Those talks were actually a U.S.-Israeli ruse to prepare for war, PBS and The Washington Post reported last week. Israel attacked without warning on June 13, 2025, killing Iranian commanders and disabling Iranian air defenses.

After 12 days of back-and-forth air raids between Iran and Israel, the U.S. launched a stealth bomber raid on Iranian nuclear enrichment sites, then declared victory. Although Trump didn't go as far as some neoconservatives wanted, experience suggests that if you give war hawks an inch, they'll take a mile. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is headed to the White House on December 29 to make the case for another attack on Iran.

Somalia

The U.S. military has been fighting in Somalia for decades, a lesser-known front to the war on terror. American troops first landed in the country in the 1990s as part of a United Nations operation to disarm Somali warlords. They left after a bloody failure, immortalized in the movie Black Hawk Down, but returned in 2007 to back an Ethiopian invasion aimed at stopping Somali Islamist rebels. That invasion ended up unleashing Al-Shabab, a far more radical rebel group affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Both times he took office, Trump dramatically escalated the U.S. involvement in Somalia. The first Trump administration bombed Somalia 219 times in four years, and the second one bombed Somalia 118 times in only its first year, putting Trump on track to bomb Somalia more than Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush combined. An admiral bragged that the U.S. Navy had carried out the "largest air strike in the history of the world" on Somali soil in February 2025.

Even as he escalated the war, Trump railed against it. "Only in recent decades did politicians somehow come to believe that our job is to police the far reaches of Kenya and Somalia while America is under invasion from within," he told a meeting of generals in September 2025. A week later, the U.S. military bombed Somalia again.

Nigeria

Trump's holiday present to the public was rounding out 2025 with one more undeclared war. On Christmas Day, the American and Nigerian governments announced a joint attack against the Islamic State group in northwestern Nigeria. The U.S. Navy launched over a dozen Tomahawk missiles at two camps in Sokoto State, which has been dealing with Islamist rebellions and general banditry for over a decade.

A month before, Trump had threatened "to go into that now disgraced country, 'guns-a-blazing,' to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities" in response to a Fox News report about violence against Nigerian Christians. Although the Nigerian government publicly balked at the threat of intervention, it began secret negotiations to allow the U.S. military to help fight their common enemy.

The one group Trump didn't consult was, again, the American public. "Offensive military actions need congressional approval. The Framers of the Constitution divided war powers to protect the American people from war-eager executives," former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) wrote on social media in response to the strikes. "Whether the United States should engage in conflicts across the globe is a decision for the people's representatives in Congress, not the president."

What Will 2026 Bring?

Although Trump can rightfully brag about securing peace agreements abroad, all of those truces involved conflicts that America wasn't fighting in. When it comes to the U.S. military itself, Trump has only expanded its use. And next year may involve even more war. In the last two months of 2025, Trump threatened Colombia and any other country where drugs are made.

"Not only are we rebuilding our great strength, but for the first time in years, my administration is actually using that strength," the president said in a September 2025 speech, bragging about the attack on Iran. "America is respected again as a country."

Comments

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

You don’t know what war is.

[Longtobefree]

War is just a kids card game, right?

[ML (now paying)]

Yup. Pretending every and any use of force is a “war” is rhetorical inflation, not history.

A war, in the popularly understood sense, is sustained armed conflict between states or state-like actors with political objectives and organized militaries.

What Petti describes were largely discrete, reactive actions against pirates, smugglers, or terrorist groups; non-state actors, no declarations, no campaigns, no territorial aims, and no ongoing belligerency.

Labeling offshore naval patrols, retaliatory strikes and anti-terrorism measures as “wars” only works if your real goal is to smuggle a political conclusion in through a redefinition.

It’s the same trick as calling every arrest a “crackdown” or every disagreement “violence.” If everything is a war, then nothing is, and the term stops meaning anything at all.

Petti is playing a common academic shell game: redefining a term and then arguing against the original meaning as if it were refuted. The move is to change the definition of war and then pretend it challenges claims about being "anti-war". This redefinition tactic is also used in debates over "gender" and "race".

Petti's category error isn’t neutral scholarship; it’s Democratic Party advocacy wearing a footnote.

[mtrueman]

"Police Action" is what you are looking for. Hostilities undertaken by the military without a formal declaration of war. Every conflict since WW2 has been a police action. That's according to Wikipedia. We're also told that a police action against a non state actor is called counter insurgency.

War is a harsh word. So harsh that the public are instinctively repelled. Police action or counter insurgency are gentler words that don't cause fear or concern. So when Russia attacks Ukraine, it's not a war. Perish the thought. It's in fact a 'special military operation.' Look it up, I shit you not. Maybe the commenters here would be satisfied if we could persuade Reason to adopt Putin's disinflating terminology.

[InsaneTrollLogic (smarter than The Average Dude)]

Must you misconstrue everything, misconstrueman?

[mtrueman]

Using the word 'war' is prejudicial. The public are predisposed to reject any action we label as war. So, we soften it up with euphemisms like police action or special military operation.

"Must you misconstrue everything, "

I'll let you know when I misconstrue everything. Here, I am simply giving the reasons why some would prefer not to label these actions as war, and use euphemisms instead.

[ML (now paying)]

Weren't you one of the people who freaked out when the Department of Defense's name went back to Department of War?
Literally the removal of euphemisms.

But misapplying "war" to defensive or retaliatory actions for the sake of political rhetoric is also the application of a euphemism to serve your agenda.

[mtrueman]

"Weren't you one of the people who freaked out when the Department of Defense's name went back to Department of War?"

No, perhaps you have me confused with another commenter.

"But misapplying "war" to defensive or retaliatory actions"

I don't see these actions as defensive. Maybe Yemen. At least they have launched missiles at US navy ships, though since the 'ceasefire' maybe not. The others have not been attacking the US. By misapplying "defensive" to offensive actions, you are playing the word games that you find offensive.

[ML (now paying)]

So shooting cartel speedboats as they head for the US isn't defensive?

Most of Petti's list is either defensive, retaliatory or absolute bullshit, particularly his Somalia lies.

The only one that could perhaps qualify is bombing the Iranian nuke program which was in response to:
1) Sustained attacks by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. After the outbreak of the Gaza/Israel conflict, Iran-aligned Shiite militias launched a coordinated wave of attacks on U.S. military bases and personnel in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan in response to U.S. support for Israel. These included rockets, missiles, and drones directed at U.S. forces, injuring service members and prompting U.S. counter-strikes.

Such attacks were numerous, more than 170 attacks on U.S. bases and assets were reported through late 2023 and into 2024.

Even into 2025, Iran-backed militias continued attacks on U.S. installations, including reported missile and rocket fire against several U.S. bases in northeastern Syria.

2) Drone and missile attacks linked to Iranian proxies. In June 2025, Iran-backed Shiite militias launched multiple drones at a U.S. base in western Iraq.
Throughout the region, militia groups allied with Tehran have routinely targeted U.S. forces with rockets, missiles, and unmanned systems since late 2023.

3) Direct Iranian military action against the US. In June 2025, Iran fired missiles at the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar.

4) Naval and proxy actions tied to Iranian interests: Iran’s Yemeni proxies, the Houthis, conducted attacks on American shipping and military vessels traversing international waters the Red Sea, often coinciding with periods of heightened U.S. naval presence.

[mtrueman]

"So shooting cartel speedboats as they head for the US isn't defensive?"

No it isn't. In the most notorious case, according to the Admiral in charge of the operation, the boat was on it's way to meet up with another boat where the cargo would be transferred for Suriname, another country entirely. In other words it wasn't heading for the US. The attack was neither defensive nor retaliatory. It was an act of war, a fact that you cannot bring yourself to admit. For what reason, I assume you want to defend Trump's reputation as worthy of Fifa's prize for world peace.

"Sustained attacks by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. After the outbreak of the Gaza/Israel conflict, Iran-aligned Shiite militias launched a coordinated wave of attacks on U.S. military bases and personnel in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan in response to U.S. support for Israel"

That sounds suspiciously like the things one would expect to happen in a war. But this is not a war, right?

"Such attacks were numerous, more than 170 attacks on U.S. bases and assets were reported through late 2023 and into 2024. "

Only 170 you say? Any more and one might think there was a war on.

[charliehall]

"It was an act of war"

In 1798, 1801, 1812, and 1815, the US went to war because someone else attacked US flagged ships. Trump is now just like the Barbary pirates.

Venezuela is a part to the Rio Treaty. The only reason the US isn't at war with 17 countries is that Maduro doesn't want to acknowledge the fact that it was his political opponents that re-ratified the treaty a few years ago.

[DesigNate]

Except the ships aren’t flagged…

[jimc5499]

Iran's history goes back further than what you mentioned. Iran was implicated in the bombing of the US Embassy and the Marine Barracks in Beirut 1983. We should have blasted their asses of the map a long time ago.

[charliehall]

It is still the Department of Defense. Only an Act of Congress can rename it.

[ML (now paying)]

You're mixing labels and motives to blur a basic distinction.

First, “police action” is not a synonym for “war,” it’s a political euphemism invented in the Cold War to avoid constitutional and diplomatic consequences. Korea being called a police action didn’t change the reality that it involved mass mobilization, sustained campaigns, fronts, and state-on-state combat. Calling something a police action does not magically make every use of force a war, any more than calling inflation “transitory” makes prices go down.

Second, counter-insurgency is not a catch-all for violence against non-state actors. COIN presupposes an insurgency: a sustained, organized attempt to overthrow or control a population or territory. Shooting at pirates, intercepting smugglers, or conducting a single retaliatory strike against terror operations does not meet that definition. That’s self-defense, not war and not policing in the domestic sense either.

Third, your Russia–Ukraine comparison actually undercuts your argument. Russia calls its invasion a “special military operation” precisely because it is obviously a war and the euphemism fools no one. That example proves the opposite point: language can be abused to hide reality. The correct response is not to stretch the word “war” until it covers everything, but to apply terms accurately.

In short:
Not every military action is a war.
Not every non-war is “policing.”
And citing Wikipedia-era euphemisms doesn’t override common sense, international law, or basic definitions.

If everything becomes a war by definition, the word stops describing anything at all, and that’s not analysis, it’s wordplay with an agenda.

[mtrueman]

"Not every military action is a war."

Some military actions are acts of war. Acts of war are how wars begin. Though they are not in themselves war. I don't think it's stretching the meaning of the word to accuse Trump of starting a war by launching these attacks on nations that aren't attacking us. Retaliatory strikes? Trump is starting to launch retaliatory strikes? Is that how you would have it? That's simply dishonest. Iran, Venezuela have done nothing against us to warrant these acts of war.

[ML (now paying)]

You’re still collapsing distinctions that matter, and then accusing others of dishonesty for not doing the same.

Yes, acts of war can begin wars. But most acts of war do not. History is full of uses of force that neither escalated nor were intended to escalate into war, and treating intent and scale as irrelevant is precisely the analytical error being made here.

Launching a strike does not equal “starting a war” unless three things are present:
- a belligerent state adversary,
- sustained hostilities or an intent to enter them, and
- a political objective pursued through ongoing armed conflict.

Absent those, you have a use of force, not a war.

As for Iran and Venezuela: this is where your rhetoric again replaces fact. Iran-backed militias attacking U.S. personnel, shipping seizures, proxy warfare, and threats to navigation are not imaginary. What was the attack on the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar this year? What was the attack on the American bases in Iraq this year and in 2024?

And Venezuela harboring criminal networks who have been infiltrating and running gang wars in the US, and armed trafficking operations likewise did not arise in a vacuum. You may judge the U.S. response somehow unwise, but asserting “they did nothing” is a complete lie. Is your memory really that short?

Calling every strike an act of war that “starts a war” strips the phrase of meaning and leads to absurd conclusions. By that logic, nearly every naval interception, counter-terror strike, or suppression of piracy over the last century would retroactively be a war that somehow never happened.

This isn’t about sanitizing language. It’s about accuracy. If everything is a war, then the word no longer distinguishes war from deterrence, reprisal, or enforcement. That may serve your political narrative, but it doesn’t serve understanding.

[mtrueman]

"History is full of uses of force that neither escalated nor were intended to escalate into war"

The acts of war against Venezuela have already escalated. From attacks on small boats claimed to be involved in smuggling to seizures of oil tankers carrying millions of $US of cargo.

"Iran-backed militias attacking U.S. personnel, shipping seizures, proxy warfare, and threats to navigation are not imaginary."

Again, escalation. Attacking Iran directly was escalating the conflict, escalating enough to provoke a direct Iranian attack on a US base, a first as far as I know.

"- a belligerent state adversary,
- sustained hostilities or an intent to enter them, and
- a political objective pursued through ongoing armed conflict."

With Iran and Venezuela you have all three. A decades long effort against Iran or regime change, sometimes violent, with targeted assassinations, always with crippling economic sanctions. Direct bombing of Iran's nuclear research facilities surely is an escalation (expansion, in Petti's terms.) Venezuela is more recent. But aimed at regime change and expanding rapidly.

"And Venezuela harboring criminal networks "

Again, how is using the military to handle criminal law enforcement not an escalation, or expansion, which is what Trump is accused of in the article here. You've mentioned 3 criterion to distinguish between a one off military action and war. We've met all three, even though they don't resemble Putin's special military operation.

[charliehall]

" it’s a political euphemism invented in the Cold War to avoid constitutional and diplomatic consequences"

In other words, it is a war. The tens of thousands of Americans who died in the Korean and Vietnam "police actions" would tell you that it was war.

[charliehall]

The people whom Trump has murdered would disagree with you.

The attacks on Venezuelan ships are an act of war against a sovereign nation. Maduro could easily have declared war on the US. However, he isn't stupid enough to do that; he has purged the Venezuelan military of competent officers and replaced them with syncophants loyal to himself. The Venezuelan military is only capable of terrorizing Venezuelan citizens, not countering actual military action. Unfortunately, Trump and Hegseth are now trying to do to the US military what Maduro has done to the Venezuelan military.

[jimc5499]

"The people whom Trump has murdered would disagree with you." That would be nobody.

[Clipton]

Bingo. Extremely well articulated.

[Sir Chips Alot]

Wars? ROFL! I admit i am getting over a flu bug, but what wars are we fighting?

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

Duh its 2025 ice cube fought off a war of the worlds by ordering garbage from Amazon!
And the humans are back to fighting a war against the blue people on Pandora!

[Minadin]

These are the Man Cold of all wars.

[damikesc]

No war with Iran, much as you wished it were the case.
No war with Somalia, much as you hoped there'd be one.
No war with Yemen, despite your fevered wishes.
No war with Venezuela, though you do love drug runners.
Nigeria sided with Trump striking ISIS. No war there, either.

Why should a President seek to make peace, as he has repeatedly, if cunts like you will bitch regardless? This is why libertarians are a laughingstock politically. Bunch of ineffective cunts.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

But trump is investigating the muzzi animal Somalis fraud. That's the same as war.
Petti use to work for the BBC so you know he is a far left psychotic retard

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

To be fair, Little Autumn is in NO WAY a libertarian. She’s a far soft Democrat. As are most of the Reason staff. The only one worth half a shit is Good Liz. Who desperately needs to Escape From New York.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Stossel.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

He doesn’t actually work for Reason, but yes, you’re correct. He’s the real deal. And I meaner to dog out Petti, not Little Autumn. I must have switched to the wrong tab. Not that it matters.

[ML (now paying)]

Reason purchases Stossel's articles. He's not part of the Koch Klavern.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

They should make him interim editor in chief. Let him clean house and right the ship. Though I doubt any such thing will happened until the Kochbucks dry up.

[charliehall]

Only Nigeria isn't a war. Despite your fevered apologetics for the warmonger in the White House.

[Incunabulum]

Here is the thing Petti - Obama showed that no one actually cares.

[MollyGodiva]

How so? His attacks were a problem then as well. The US has a massive problem in that we refuse to hold presidents accountable for illegal action and now Trump commits crimes with impunity.

[InsaneTrollLogic (smarter than The Average Dude)]

We need to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for their illegal actions. Can we start with releasing a virus in Wuhan, Molly?

[Jim Conley]

The US did that and it really backfired on them.

[Neutral not Neutered]

No. Some democrats in cahoots with China and Iran and other Trump hating countries that he removed the funding that was promised by Obama, devised a plan to collapse the US economy and remove Trump. It all tied nicely into Obama's dream to fundamentally transform America.

Biden immediately sent those checks out when he took office and boosted Iran and he with the democrats did their best to destroy America.

Had Trump not won they most likely would have succeeded.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Ok, now tell me about the actions of your ChiCom masters.

[Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)]

You mean their massive fishing armads that are destroying marine life?

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Not top of my list, but ok.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

I care, and Trump won his first term because alot of people didn't vote for Hillary due to her warmongering. But your probably right, sadly - for now at least - but could hurt JD Vance in the future.

[damikesc]

When facing Newsom? That's funny.

[Sometimes a Great Notion]

Or Wes Moore who I can't stand but has the resume for good run without the national baggage. Or someone else who pulls an Obama, who benefited from Bush's wars.

[damikesc]

You mean the guy who lied about his education and military background?

[JFree]

Clearly you don't care. Is that something you learned from Obama?

[MollyGodiva]

MAGAs are warmongering dumbass shits. Killing people is part of their ethos.

[DesigNate]

Except none of those are actually wars…

[InsaneTrollLogic (smarter than The Average Dude)]

Molly gets confused as the PLA only attacks civilians within her country.

[ML (now paying)]

Tony's gay, not a chick.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

I’m guessing ‘Molly Godiva’ is his drag queen persona. The one he uses when he has small children sit on his lap while drag queen porn stories to groom them.

[Neutral not Neutered]

He likes the little roaches sitting on his lap and rubbing the hairs on his legs.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

And liberals like you are double-dumbass shits who promote wars for others, including conservative Americans to fight and die in. Killing people while they stay safe in some leftwing cocoon is part of YOUR ethos.

[Fu Manchu]

Military aggression goes hand in hand with fascism.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

You supported the Ukrainian war sarc lol. Even after zelensky suspended elections. Hilarious.

[ML (now paying)]

"Military aggression goes hand in hand with fascism."

Yes.
For example you read and link to the Bulwark, you voted for the candidate endorsed by the entire Bush war cabinet, you cheered Barry's attacks on Libya and Syria, You want the US to go to war over Ukraine.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

But blowing up a handful of narcoterrorist drug boats backed by a hostile Marxist regime and ChiCom client state is a bridge too far for him.

Or Sarc just hates Trump but loves global Neo Marxism. He would probably embrace Putin too if he was a globalist, and not a Russian nationalist.

[DesigNate]

I see you fucks still don’t know what fascism is.

Sad.

[charliehall]

Correct. And in this very comment thread they are lying about that fact, engaging in apologetics for these wars. It is very Orwellian to claim that a war is not a war. "War is peace" and "Ignorance is Strength". These commenters would have been right at home in the Oceania Ministry of Truth.

[Neutral not Neutered]

You are fucking retarded and sadly there is no cure for you.

[Minadin]

Dear Santa:

Can we get a few editors in 2026 with IQ's above room temperature?

[InsaneTrollLogic (smarter than The Average Dude)]

“Best I can do is put Liz on maternity leave.”
- Reason Pawn Stars

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

We can’t have nice things.

[Social Justice is neither]

I'm getting to the point that i'd accept these editors proving they have fridge temp IQs through their writings.

[Minadin]

I keep my fridge at like 41, so that's borderline Somali.

Or did you mean Celcius?

[ML (now paying)]

Have you noticed all the Reason articles about Somali fraud in Minnesota?

Me neither.

You'd think being ostensibly libertarian that they'd be on it like a fat kid on a M&M.

[Minadin]

I actually went looking the other day and found 1. Which was very early on in the process of discovering just how rampant it apparently is.

https://reason.com/2025/12/12/the-real-villain-in-minnesotas-1-5-billion-fraud-scandal-isnt-somalis-its-the-feds/

Meanwhile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8AulCA1aOQ&t=1s

[David Emami]

What color did you want that unicorn to be?

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

A ridiculous article from an unserious Neo Marxist child. Koch must be sending out Christmas brown envelope bonuses to ratchet up the final tally of anti Rue o articles.

The desperation and mental gymnastics in this article are proof.

[JFree]

He would have been more peaceful had he received a Nobel. He's got nothing to lose now.

[MollyGodiva]

He could lose his freedom.

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

Walz +8

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Hey fag, your democrat friends already tried that.

It didn’t take, now did it?

[Neutral not Neutered]

Like your ilk hasn't failed at trying to do for a decade now?

[Minadin]

Hey, it worked for Obama, right? Took that Nobel home and didn't start a single war or drone strike anyone.

[Vernon Depner]

the Trump administration is eager to show that it can do things without permission from Congress or the public

Typical TDS-inspired mind reading. That's where I stopped reading.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Democrat fever dreams.

[charliehall]

Ah another Trump Cult member shouting "TDS!" when he has neither facts nor logic to counter facts that make his Cult Leader look like a hypocrite.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Another TDS-addled lying pile of steaming lefty shit claiming only others have his derangement!

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Hey, Reason, if Trump launched an air and sea invasion of Russia, or Israel, that would be totes OK, right?

[Gaear Grimsrud]

The big problem with wars whatever their purported goals is that they function as a distraction from the Epstein files.

[Jeff Mason]

The author needs to actually visit a war zone sometime. No one has attacked Venezuela, yet. Seizing tankers sanctioned under Biden is not an act of war. Striking terrorist groups around the world is not new either - it has been a component of U.S. policy since before 9\11. Calling something “new” or a “war” doesn’t make it so.

[Bubba Jones]

Bombing civilian Venezuelan boats counts as an act of war.

I’m more sympathetic to boarding sanctioned tankers.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Nope. Try again.

[mad.casual]

The anti-war 3rd party insisting a war were started by acts the two countries involved don't consider to be the start of a war is... bizarre.

Like, I'd grant that it *could* be *considered* an act of war or the start of a war, but instead, it seems like Venezuela is backhandedly legitimizing both/all sides by keeping them at arm's length.

[Neutral not Neutered]

So you are calling out the Houthies and Iran backed proxies terrorist attacks and attacks against shipping vessels and oil refineries etc as acts of war against America and it's allies?

That means you are onboard with supporting our Allies in their retaliation to the aggression in cases like Yemen and Iran.

Terrorists and Cartel members are not civilians.

[charliehall]

Sinking Venezuelan ships is an act of war.

In early 1942, Nazi submarines sank a Mexican oil tanker in the Gulf of Mexico. At that time, Mexicans mostly hated the US because of the repeated invasions that the US had staged, and there was a lot of anti-Semitism in the country then. The President of Mexico, however, did not hate the US or Jews. He protested to Nazi Germany as it was an act of war. The Nazis responded by sinking a second tanker. Mexico immediately declared war on Germany, Italy, and Japan. Mexico sent humongous amounts of raw materials and manufactured goods to the US to support the war effort, and humongous numbers of Mexicans immigrated to the US (we essentially had open borders with Mexico then) to replace the agricultural workers who were all drafted into the US military. There might have been starvation without those Mexicans. And Mexico even sent part of its tiny air force to fight the Japanese in the Philippines, the only time in history that the Mexican armed forces have ever fought outside of Mexico. All because of a sinking of two ships, which is less than what Trump has done to Venezuela.

Trump started that war without congressional approval and needs to be impeached and removed from office.

[Neutral not Neutered]

You said Trump should be impeached for a phone call. Sorry lame ass who constantly cries wolf.

Time to find another dead horse to beat. Maybe that will help you remove your anger.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Sinking Venezuelan ships is an act of war, according to this TDS-addled slimy pile of lying shit!

[Truthteller1]

None of those is a war, and every word you wrote is a fucking lie. Who do you think believes you? You are a child.

[Bubba Jones]

lol. Very persuasive.

Using the military to perform “kinetic actions” in foreign nations. Totally not war.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"lol"? 6th grade?
Corrupting the meaning of words to support TDS-addled shits like you; totally war.

[mad.casual]

Using the military to perform “kinetic actions” in foreign nations. Totally not war.

Not traditionally, same with the distinction between "acts of war" and just "war", between "drawing a red line" in Syria and enforcing said red line in Syria.

Again, even my kids from the age of about 6 onward understood the conceptual distinction between antagonizing someone, even mutually or reciprocally, and open violence and/or aggression.

[Bubba Jones]

Launching missiles with the request or permission of the host nation against a group that falls within the ordinary meaning of the current AUMFs. Not the kind of thing that gets people angry.

[mtrueman]

Teaming up with the military of a host nation like Nigeria may open us up to a complicated, intractable can of worms. The Nigerians seem to have no problem calling their efforts against the Islamists a war, by the way.

"the organisation identified the victim as Mary Talmon, one of the nine women killed on Monday, December 8, 2025, when soldiers allegedly opened fire on demonstrators in Lamorde Local Government Area."

https://saharareporters.com/2025/12/11/amnesty-international-releases-photo-woman-reportedly-killed-military-adamawa-protest

The protesters were blocking traffic, unarmed, carrying leaves, symbolic of their call for the government to do more to end communal conflicts. Gives you an idea how groups like ISIS can gain a foothold with the public.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"Teaming up with the military of a host nation like Nigeria may open us up to a complicated, intractable can of worms."

Oh! OH! Trueman's clutching pearls!
Fuck off and die, shitstain.

[grthomps]

Orange man bad! He very bad! He very, very, very bad man.

There, I just wrote an article better than what the “author” wrote.

Reason magazine is garbage.

[SCOTUS gave JeffSarc a big sad]

Yes it is.

[SRG2]

And yet you cultists can't stay away

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

We come to laugh at steaming piles of shit like you:

SRG2 12/23/23
“Then strode in St Ashli, clad in a gown of white samite and basking in celestial radiance, walking calmly and quietly through the halls of Congress as police ushered her through doors they held open for her, before being cruelly martyred for her beliefs by a Soros-backed special forces officer with a Barrett 0.50 rifle equipped with dum-dum bullets.”

He is a slimy pile of TDS-addled shit, ain't he?

[Mickey Rat]

"The Houthi movement in Sanaa, one of the two rival Yemeni governments, had been harassing international shipping in the Red Sea as a tactic to pressure Israel to pull out of Gaza."

Calling committing acts of war on international shipping merely "harassment" is some dishonest rhetoric. I suppose it comes from talking yourselves into believing the Houthis were the put upon side in the Yemen civil war. For an organization pumping the benefits of international trade, being so blasé about military attacks on one of the most crowded shipping lanes is an odd take.

[charliehall]

'Calling committing acts of war on international shipping merely "harassment" is some dishonest rhetoric. '

Trump is doing to Venezuelan and Columbian boats what the Houthis were doing in the Red Sea. Both are acts of war. Trump has surrendered the moral standing of the US.

[Neutral not Neutered]

LMFAO the only way you can hide your stupidity is to stop posting.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Didn't think I would come to reason magazine and read such lies full of anti American propaganda written by an apparent extreme leftist.

Never mind TDS, this goes beyond that into pure wilful denial of fact and observed reality.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"...Nigeria
Trump's holiday present to the public was rounding out 2025 with one more undeclared war. On Christmas Day, the American and Nigerian governments announced a joint attack against the Islamic State group in northwestern Nigeria..."

A government coordinates with the US government to kill terrorists in their territory and steaming piles of lying TDS-addled shits like Matthew Petti calls that "starting a war".
How fucking stupid to you have to be to make that claim? Stupi enough to fuck off and die, asswipe.

[Worldbuilder]

This is disappointing. The article blurs the line between declared wars and long-standing executive military actions, rebranding decades-old counterterrorism and deterrence operations as “new wars” only when it suits a narrative about Trump. It leans on a normative constitutional argument (how war powers ought to work) while presenting it as settled law. That standard selectively rather than consistently across administrations. The result isn’t careful libertarian skepticism of state power, but definitional creep and asymmetric outrage that undercuts the article’s credibility. Do better or change the name of this magazine.