Pete Hegseth Dodges Key Question About Boat Strike

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth went to great lengths Saturday to avoid saying whether the military will release the full, unedited video of its controversial September 2 double-tap strikes on a boat it claims was carrying drugs in the Caribbean.

Thus far, only footage of the first strike has been released to the public. The full unreleased video, however, reportedly goes on to show two survivors clinging to the wreckage, before they were killed by a second strike that legal experts have described as a war crime or murder.

Democratic lawmakers who viewed the full video of the strikes, which killed 11 people, this week said it was “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service” and that it “confirmed my worst fears about the nature of the Trump administration’s military activities.”

When asked Wednesday if his administration would release footage of the second strike, President Donald Trump’s answer was simple: “Whatever they have, we’d certainly release, no problem.”

His defense secretary was much more evasive.

“When can we see that video? When will you release it?” Fox News correspondent Lucas Tomlinson asked Hegseth at the Reagan National Defense Forum.

Hegseth was noncommittal. “We’re reviewing it, right now, to make sure, sources, methods—I mean, it’s an ongoing operation—TTPs [tactics, techniques, and procedures]. We’ve got operators out there doing this right now. So, whatever we were to decide to release, we’d have to be very responsible about. So, we’re reviewing that right now.”

Later on, Tomlinson asked whether Hegseth will release the full video at all. Hegseth responded, again, without answering. “We are reviewing it right now,” he said.

“Is that a yes or no?” Tomlinson pressed.

Hegseth strung together the following response: “The most important thing to me are the ongoing operations in the Caribbean with our folks that use bespoke capabilities, techniques, procedures in the process. I’m way more interested in protecting that than anything else, so we’re reviewing a process and we’ll see.”

Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington is calling for the release of Wilmer Toledo-Martinez, an immigrant who she says was mauled last month by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement attack dog in Vancouver, Washington.

According to Murray’s office, Toledo-Martinez is an immigrant with no criminal convictions, who came to the United States at 15 years old. His wife and three children—ages 2, 3, and 7, respectively—are all U.S. citizens.

On November 14, Toledo-Martinez reportedly answered a knock at his door to find a federal immigration agent posing as a construction worker, who claimed to have hit his car.

Toledo-Martinez went outside and was asked his name. When he turned to go inside to retrieve his insurance and ID, another agent is said to have released the dog, which bit him repeatedly, leaving injuries that were later captured in graphic images provided by Murray. His wife and two youngest children reportedly watched as this occurred.

In a video, seemingly taken moments after the attack, Toledo-Martinez is seen on the ground in handcuffs as an agent with a K9 stands over him. Another agent in a neon vest asks Toledo-Martinez his name before moving him into a truck.

On The Don Lemon Show, Toledo-Martinez’s lawyer, Olia Catala, said her client was denied immediate medical care. He was only later taken to a hospital, she said, after he begged them to do so and heard one of the agents say, “I’m not losing my job over this.”

To this day, Toledo-Martinez remains in Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington, according to Murray.

“This should shock the conscience of every one of us,” Murray said in a statement Friday. “I do not want to live in an America where federal agents can sic attack dogs on peaceful residents with impunity and face no consequences.”

“I am calling for Wilmer’s immediate release from NWIPC,” the statement continues. “He has no criminal convictions, he poses no threat to the community, and he urgently needs appropriate medical care since ICE is denying him the treatment he requires.”

He just can’t let it go. President Donald Trump is still over the moon after receiving the FIFA Peace Prize on Friday, an award invented expressly to stroke his ego.

On Saturday morning, the president, after dashing off some angry rants at a CNN reporter and Fox and Friends, dreamily revisited the experience.

“Such a great honor,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, sharing a Newsmax article about the event. “Thank you FIFA, and have a historic World Cup!”

Gianni Infantino, the president of the international soccer league, presented Trump with the brand new award at the 2026 FIFA World Cup final draw at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C.

“This is your peace prize,” Infantino said, as he handed the president a certificate, a trophy, and a medal.

A beaming Trump responded by speaking about how truly honored he was to receive it. “We’ve saved millions and millions of lives,” Trump said, gushing about the award. “So many different wars that we were able to end.”

The president has lobbied for years for the Nobel Peace Prize, an honor bestowed on other leaders like President Barack Obama. In support of his ongoing quest, Trump continues to repeat the highly questionable claim that he’s ended several wars. It’s hard to keep track of how many; the number, magically, keeps climbing.

By giving the president something he said he’d always wanted, Infantino was clearly seizing upon an opportunity to appease the world leader. But the move (unsurprisingly) garnered criticism. FIFA is supposed to be a neutral body, and Trump’s record isn’t exactly peaceful.

Among other things, Trump’s administration has killed more than 80 people in deadly boat strikes in the Caribbean, armed and supported Israel in its genocidal war on Gaza, and overseen a violent crackdown against immigrants in the U.S. He’s also made aggressive moves that could indicate a potential future war with Venezuela.

None of that seemed to matter much at the ceremony on Friday, though.

While the president is very pleased to be the recipient of this new, prestigious, very-much-not-invented award, does this mean he’ll finally shut up about the Nobel?

It’s very, very unlikely.

Juan Orlando Hernández—narcotrafficker, former Honduran president, and recent recipient of a pardon from President Donald Trump—played a key role in what the Justice Department dubbed “one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world.”

Now, Hernández, who once reportedly told his co-conspirators that they were going to “stuff the drugs up the gringos’ noses,” is heaping gratitude on leading figures in MAGA (a movement purportedly in favor of stopping the influx of drugs into the United States, by any means necessary).

On X Friday, Hernández shared his first message since being released from a U.S. prison, where he was just over a year into a 45-year sentence: an 11-minute Spanish-language speech expressing his “profound gratitude to President Donald Trump,” along with a tweet extolling Trump and other key figures in his orbit.

Hernández specifically thanked Roger Stone and Matt Gaetz, allies of the president who played central roles in the campaign for his pardon. (They characterized Hernández’s prosecution in the sort of grievance-soaked terms Trump could appreciate, as an alleged instance of lawfare by the Biden administration.)

Hernández also extended his gratitude to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who has described the former Honduran president as a victim of “Biden over-prosecution,” as well as to Ed Martin, the Justice Department’s MAGA pardon attorney, and Trump’s “pardon czar,” Alice Marie Johnson.

Social media users are skewering the U.S. Treasury Department for bragging about something eminently non-bragworthy.

On Friday, the Treasury Department’s official X account shared a chart reflecting that, in 2025, “U.S. Treasuries are having their best year since 2020.” Claiming that this indicates high investor confidence in President Donald Trump’s agenda, the post continued, “Never bet against @POTUS or America!”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent chimed in with a celebratory meme of the children’s book character Franklin the Turtle holding a stack of money while wearing a MAGA hat. (The administration also recently used Franklin’s likeness to make light of its reported war crimes in the Caribbean.)

But, as many observers were quick to note, rising bond market returns actually may signal economic uncertainty, as investors anticipating a slowdown or instability seek safety in Treasuries. The high bond returns in 2020, for example, reflected such a “flight to safety” amid the economic turmoil of the pandemic.

Mike Bird, Wall Street editor at The Economist, shared his own Franklin the Turtle meme, in which the character wears a worried expression as he “discovers that rising bond prices can also imply lower future growth expectations”:

The Treasury Department’s post left some observers in disbelief. Adam Kinzinger, political commentator and former Republican U.S. representative, had the following to say: “Wait. Wut? Higher is bad…. Wait…. No way they’re…. Nooooo, what?!?!”

The ridicule spanned the political spectrum. Progressive MS NOW commentator Chris Hayes said he initially thought the tweet was parody. Libertarian Atlantic staff writer Conor Friedersdorf wrote, “Oh my God. They really don’t know.” Tim Chapman of the conservative policy organization Advancing American Freedom said the Treasury Department’s social media team “needs a crash course in Economics 101.”

Never Trump conservative writer Bill Kristol called the post “total economic illiteracy (or gaslighting),” noting, “This is like saying sales of cold medicine are having a great year, aren’t our health policies working great!”

Amanda Fischer, policy director at Better Markets and former chief of staff at the Securities and Exchange Commission, called it a “hall of fame level derp tweet.” And @3YearLetterman, a satirical internet personality known for sharing comically ignorant takes on sports, culture, and politics, posted, “I can’t top this.”

A new, disturbing detail in the “drug boat” controversy that has enveloped Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over the past week calls the purpose of the entire operation into question.

According to an exclusive report from CNN, the alleged narco-trafficking boat that the U.S. military targeted on September 2 in a “double tap” strike, which killed 11 people, wasn’t even heading to the U.S.

Navy Admiral Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who was in charge of the operation, reported to lawmakers that the boat they struck was actually en route to link up with a larger boat that was heading to Suriname, a country east of Venezuela, two sources with direct knowledge of his remarks said.

Bradley also said that it was still possible that the alleged drug shipment could have eventually ended up in the U.S., the sources told CNN—rather dubious justification for a strike that left several people dead.

President Donald Trump had previously claimed that the strike happened “while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States.”

The U.S. military targeted the small boat on September 2, purportedly to stop it from transporting illegal drugs to the United States. After the first strike, two survivors were left, clinging to the wreckage, yet the military struck the boat again and again, killing everyone who had been on board. They ultimately struck the boat four times.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who approved the operation, but sought to shift responsibility to Bradley, has come under intense criticism for authorizing a strike on survivors. Lawmakers and critics on the right and the left have decried the strike as a war crime.

It doesn’t help that the Trump administration’s story keeps changing. As more details emerge, the argument for the deadly boat strike becomes flimsier and flimsier.

As the Republican Party flails on the cost-of-living crisis, President Donald Trump kicked off his Saturday morning with an attack on his beloved Fox & Friends for prodding that sensitive subject.

The show on Saturday hosted Peter Schiff, a stockbroker and financial commentator. He’s also a rising critic of Trump—Schiff has taken the president to task for dismissing economic concerns amid mounting inflation, job losses, and affordability issues.

On Truth Social, the president called Schiff a “Trump hating loser” and questioned the integrity of the Fox News program—of which he is, famously, an avid viewer—for having given him a platform. “Either the show made a mistake, or it is heading in a different direction,” Trump wrote, urging its staff to look into “the ‘booker’ who put this jerk on!”

Schiff, Trump wrote, “thinks prices are going up when, in fact, they are coming substantially down.” The claim is a familiar one from the president, who recently referred to “affordability” as a Democratic “hoax,” while recent polls show concerns about his handling of the economy rising to a fever pitch—and even growing among his own voters.

This mounting frustration with the administration, and apparently resultant GOP losses in recent elections, has created anxiety in the party. Some politicians and strategists are calling on Republicans to rethink their approach so as to actually address voters’ material concerns.

The mother of Karoline Leavitt’s nephew was reportedly engaged in a nasty years-long custody battle with the White House press secretary’s brother before she was detained by Immigration and Customs enforcement last month, WBUR reported Friday.

Bruna Ferreira—a 33-year-old Brazilian immigrant who shares a child with Karoline’s brother Michael Leavitt—was arrested last month in Massachusetts. She is currently detained in Louisiana, hundreds of miles away from New Hampshire, where her 11-year-old son lives with his father.

The Department of Homeland Security alleged that Ferreira had overstayed her visa, which ran out in 1999, and claimed she had a prior arrest for battery. Todd Pomerleau, Ferreira’s lawyer, insisted that she had remained in the country legally and was pursuing citizenship through DACA, and that she had no criminal record. (Melrose police produced a report of an incident from when Ferreira was just 16 years old, where she was summoned to court for assault and battery after an officer said they witnessed her whaling on a girl in a Dunkin Donuts parking lot.)

It seems, however, that Ferreira and her ex-husband had a tumultuous relationship in the years leading up to her arrest.

Ferreira and Leavitt had their son in March 2014, just weeks after she finalized her divorce from her first husband. At first, things seemed amicable, but in April 2015, Leavitt filed a child custody complaint in New Hampshire family court and told police that an “illegal alien from Brazil” had run off with his son and his car.

In the ensuing custody case, Leavitt accused Ferreira of taking the child in the middle of the night, and threatening to take their son to Brazil. Ferreira denied this and alleged Leavitt had threatened to contact ICE in an attempt to have her deported. Although the judge granted Leavitt temporary “sole residential and sole decision-making” responsibilities in 2015, the two continued to squabble for a year until they agreed to split parenting time and Leavitt agreed to pay child support.

In 2020, Ferreira asked for full custody and accused Leavitt of failing to make child support payments, claiming he owed her $70,000. Instead the judge ruled that the child would remain with Leavitt during the school week, and with Ferreira just three weekends a month.

During an incident in June 2022, police officers found that Ferreira’s home appeared to be derelict, and filed a report of suspected child abuse or neglect with the Department of Children and Families.

There has been some speculation that Karoline Leavitt, as the head cheerleader of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, was involved in directing immigration authorities to arrest Ferreira, a claim that her brother has previously denied. The two women have reportedly not spoken in years.

Graziela Dos Santos Rodrigues, Ferreira’s sister, told WBUR that there was no bad blood between their families. She said that she’d spoken to Michael Leavitt and his father, who advised that Ferreira’s best option was to self-deport. Still, Dos Santos was adamant about keeping her sister in the United States, and said she’d reached out to Karoline Leavitt but has yet to hear back.

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear arguments over the legality of Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship, the 1868 constitutional detail that entitles any person born on U.S. soil to an American passport.

In doing so, the nation’s highest judiciary has set the stage for a decision, expected by the end of June, that could undermine the Fourteenth Amendment. That amendment guarantees citizenship to everyone born or naturalized on U.S. soil.

Trump attempted to end the constitutionally enshrined right mere hours after he was sworn into office in January by signing an executive order stating that children born to immigrants on temporary visas or who are in the country illegally should not be entitled to birthright status. That order was blocked by multiple judges in multiple court circuits over the last year.

In the case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, which stems from qualms in New Hampshire, the Trump administration argues that language included in the amendment—specifically, “subject to the jurisdiction of”—requires applicable children to not only be present in the country at the time of the birth but also to confer their allegiance to the United States. Exactly how newborn babies would be expected to do so, however, is not clear.

“Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in legal arguments on behalf of the administration.

Sauer added that the intent of Trump’s executive order is to “restore the Clause’s original meaning.”

It’s not the first time this year that the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the topic.

In May, justices on both ideological sides of the court flamed the Trump administration’s efforts to rewrite birthright citizenship through America’s courts, questioning why the government’s attorneys would even bring the case to the judiciary’s doorstep when “every court has ruled against” the administration on birthright citizenship.

At the time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer into a corner, forcing the solicitor general to admit that the Trump administration doesn’t even know how it would enforce its birthright citizenship order. Sauer managed to appall another Trump appointee—Justice Amy Coney Barrett—by arguing that Trump has the “right” to disregard legal opinions that he doesn’t personally agree with.

Donald Trump’s attempt to nab more Republican congressional seats and keep his party in control of Congress just got a boost Friday when Indiana’s House of Representatives passed a new legislative map.

The new map, which seeks to give Republicans control of all of the state’s nine congressional seats, passed the state House by a 57–41 vote. The new map will make it harder for the state’s only two Democrats, Representative André Carson and Frank Mrvan, to be reelected. But the map now faces hurdles in the state Senate, despite its being under Republican control, as Republican senators have warned there isn’t enough support.

The fight has turned nasty, with Trump threatening to support primary challengers to these senators, among other attacks on his Truth Social account. As a result, Indiana Republicans have faced violent threats, with at least 11 elected Indiana Republicans being targeted with threats like “swatting,” false police reports meant to cause a violent law enforcement response. One of them, state Senator Greg Goode, hadn’t even made any public comments about redistricting.

The Indiana state Senate won’t meet until January, creating a time crunch to have new maps approved in time for the 2026 midterm elections. If they were to actually pass early in the legislative session, they would likely face legal challenges that could prevent their implementation in time for primary elections.

While the Supreme Court approved Texas’s gerrymandered maps Thursday, there’s no telling if it would do the same for other Republican states, not to mention the fact that other challenges to Texas’s new maps on racial grounds are still possible. Democratic-led states like California and Virginia are also making their own efforts to combat a blatant Republican attempt to subvert the will of the people.