Trump and the Falkland Islands: A Message to NATO?

by Ted Galen Carpenter | Sep 16, 2026 | 

President Donald Trump may have discovered a new opportunity to provoke a NATO ally.  Last year, the White House created a brouhaha with Denmark (and other European countries) by insisting that Copenhagen sell Greenland to the United States.

This time, Washington’s agitation involves a chain of islands off the east coast of Argentina that Great Britain claims and administers.  Those islands, called the Falklands by Britain and most other countries, but claimed and referred to as the Malvinas by Argentina, has been a major source of contention before.  London has had a presence in the Falklands since 1699, fending off rival claims over the decades by other European colonial powers as well as Argentina.

On August 31, 2026, Trump stated that he was reviewing Washington’s official position regarding the islands. Currently, the United States recognizes London’s administration of the territory without taking a stance on the sovereignty dispute itself.  Trump’s comment followed news media reports that U.S. officials wanted to use the threat of a Falklands “policy review” to pressure Britain into increasing its military spending.  Applying pressure on Washington’s closest ally would underscore the growing U.S. insistence that all NATO members take that step.

A shift in U.S. policy on the Falklands might seem to be an obscure topic of little importance.  However, that is not necessarily the case.  The Falklands-Malvinas controversy brings several volatile factors to the forefront.  Issues such as NATO solidarity, the residual effects of European imperialism and colonialism, the legitimate extent of national sovereignty, and the lingering effects of historical grievances all come into play.  Argentina’s president Javier Milei has already seized on Trump’s comment to revive his country’s slumbering territorial claim.

President Trump needs to be very cautious about how he deals with this set of sensitive issues.  A repetition of his clumsy handling of the Greenland controversy could produce far more serious negative consequences in this case.

As recently as the 1980s, the Falklands dispute caused a tragic loss of human life and came close to triggering a major geopolitical headache for the United States. The hoary British-Argentine diplomatic feud abruptly escalated into a full-fledged shooting war on April 2, 1982, when the military junta that governed Argentina at that time ordered an invasion and occupation in the midst of desultory negotiations with London.  British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher then promptly ordered her country’s military forces to dislodge the invaders.

Ronald Reagan’s administration sought to defuse and mediate the growing quarrel. Indeed, Secretary of State Alexander Haig conducted multiple rounds of shuttle diplomacy throughout April, but his efforts were unsuccessful.  The administration’s top policymakers were not entirely united about the position the United States should adopt on the underlying territorial dispute, but there was a pronounced tilt in favor of London.  Jeanne Kirkpatrick, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, seemed the most sympathetic to Argentina’s claim. Given her post at the UN, she probably was hearing significant pro-Argentine – or more likely, anti-British – sentiments expressed in the hallways and chambers of that organization.

Haig sought to maintain some balance in U.S. policy, but as one might expect from a staunch Atlanticist and NATO cheerleader, he ultimately opted to support Britain.  Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger didn’t even make a pretense of neutrality.  He strongly backed London from the outset.

Even the more junior foreign and defense policy officials were overwhelmingly in the pro-British camp. They emphasized the importance of continuing NATO solidarity.  Failing to support Britain – the most important European member of the Alliance and Washington’s most crucial ally overall – was anathema to the bulk of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.  That faction quickly outmaneuvered the small contingent of pro-Argentina policymakers.  NATO solidarity would prevail, regardless of the specifics of any territorial dispute.

After an armed conflict lasting until June 14, 1982, Britain’s military forces prevailed in the fight against their Argentine adversaries.  As a bonus for advocates of democracy and human rights, the brutal junta in Buenos Airies fell from power.  However, on May 2, a British submarine sank the Argentine cruiser the General Belgrano, killing 323 crew members.  Given Britain’s extensive overall advantage in military power (including a nuclear arsenal) the sinking seemed gratuitous to critics, especially outside the West, even though the Belgrano was a powerful warship operating under orders to conduct offensive operations.  The Reagan administration’s continuing close association with Britain despite the bloody episode fed new suspicions about the sincerity of Washington’s commitment to human rights.  The overall loss of life in the war was not trivial either.  904 people perished, including 649 Argentine military personnel.  Not surprisingly, the conflict and the resulting stinging defeat remain a very sensitive issue in Argentina today.

Trump’s planned review of U.S. policy regarding the Falklands-Malvinas dispute does not have to produce such ugly consequences.  Moreover, a comprehensive policy review is probably warranted.  The United States should not blindly support the British position in the name of NATO solidarity.  Since both Britain and Argentina are democratic political entities, the complications resulting from one country being an odious dictatorship are no longer relevant, in contrast to the situation in the 1980s.

Still, Washington must be able to make the case that a policy change is based on an honest assessment of the merits of the respective cases.  Just as a decision favoring Britain should not be the product of a misplaced sentiment for NATO solidarity, a decision favoring Argentina should not be the result of a desire by U.S. officials to push Britain and other European members of NATO to boost their military spending or support the U.S. war against Iran.

The Falklands-Malvinas dispute is an opportunity for the Trump administration to exhibit greater balance and maturity with respect to a second-tier, but still important, foreign policy issue.  Doing so could repair some of the needless, self-inflicted damage to Washington’s reputation that occurred in the Greenland episode and on other recent occasions.

Dr. Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and the Libertarian Institute. He is also a contributing editor to National Security Journal and The American Conservative. He also served in various senior policy positions during a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. Dr. Carpenter is the author of 13 books and more than 1,600 articles on defense, foreign policy and civil liberties issues. His latest book is Unreliable Watchdog: The News Media and U.S. Foreign Policy (2022).

Rubio Wants To Defeat Socialism in Nicaragua, Not Restore ‘Democracy’

by John Perry | Sep 21, 2026 | 

After Venezuela and Cuba, will the Trump administration turn its spotlight onto Nicaragua? Secretary of State Rubio has just finished a tour of three Latin American countries now allied with Trump – Colombia, Ecuador and Peru – and was asked about US policy towards Cuba and Nicaragua, and what he would do “to finally bring those dictatorships to an end.” Accusing left-wing governments of “destroying” their countries and bringing “misery” to their citizens, and in some cases of posing a security threat to the United States, Rubio said that the problem can now be addressed “in partnership with other presidents and other leaders in this region that feel the same way.”

Back in July, after media claims that Nicaragua’s Sandinista government plans to abolish elections completely, Rubio said that Nicaragua was “thwarting the basic tenets of our democratic hemisphere.”  In September he added that its government had “indefinitely deprive[d] Nicaraguans of free and fair elections.” Yet Rubio, of course, said nothing in Ecuador about its president Noboa imposing a complete ban on the main, leftist opposition party, which ran him close in last year’s elections.

Washington’s selective concern for “democracy,” together with the measures now being considered against Nicaragua, suggest that the real target is not simply its political system but the survival of a socialist government that continues to defy US regional dominance.

Rubio has been pushing members of the Organization of American States to take action and stop “business as usual” with Nicaragua’s government. A meeting of OAS foreign ministers to discuss new sanctions was planned for September 15. It has been postponed, but of all OAS members, only Mexico and Brazil failed to support it.

The new OAS secretary, Albert Ramdin, enthusiastically urges its members to back US threats. Asked whether the OAS will break the rules in its own charter of “non-intervention” in the domestic affairs of countries, he was forced to equivocate. He claimed (as the OAS has on many previous occasions) that its plans aren’t interventionist, saying nevertheless that it must “actively respond” to what he calls “a political disaster.”

In a Washington meeting organized by the Nicaraguan government’s opponents, Ramdin called for a “critical mass” of countries to exert pressure because Nicaragua’s actions, he claims, have “repercussions that extend beyond the country’s borders.” He openly admits to “speaking with opposition leaders who are living in Washington DC” as if that were normal behavior for a supposedly independent diplomat.

Naturally, these moves have excited the various Nicaraguan opposition groups, based in the US and Costa Rica. The little-known, Miami-based “Nicaraguan Exiles Unit” demanded US military intervention. The most violent opposition group, the Costa Rica-based Campesino Movement, which in 2018 launched fatal attacks on several Nicaraguan police stations, joined the call for armed intervention. This prompted a formal protest from Nicaragua to the Costa Rican government for permitting groups to act in this way, even using children in a video to incite such violence.

The feasibility of successful military action was examined this month by academic experts writing in War on the Rocks. They conclude that the conditions that allowed the kidnapping of Venezuela’s president do not exist in Nicaragua and it is far from clear that military force would leave the country with a viable administration in place.

By the time he reached Colombia, a note of realism had crept into Rubio’s comments. Asked again what he would do to “end authoritarian governments”, he replied that “The first responsibility to change a system belongs to the people of those countries.” Similarly, OAS Secretary Ramdin, in an interview full of contradictions, also balks at intervening in Nicaragua’s “domestic affairs.”

If both Rubio and Ramdin reject military intervention, what might be on the agenda either in the State Department or when regional foreign ministers eventually convene? Inevitably, there will be lengthy condemnations of Nicaragua linked to calls for “free, credible and accessible elections.” By implication, these would only be “free” if the opposition parties funded by Washington, which (with US assistance) carried out the coup attempt in 2018 in which over 200 Nicaraguans died, were able to stand.

Based on Washington’s previous interventions in Nicaraguan elections, it would release a fresh wave of financial support, media manipulation, social media domination and bribes and threats from Trump, aimed at getting Nicaraguans to vote for Washington’s favored candidate, just as occurred in Honduras in its recent election. It is precisely to avoid this interference that Nicaragua is changing its electoral rules to exclude candidates who receive US money or who directed the 2018 insurrection.

Opposition journalist Wilfredo Miranda believes that countries are divided in their response and that “concrete” steps will emerge from the proposed meeting of foreign ministers only if Rubio himself attends. Even so, the range of measures under discussion look like more of the same, given that Nicaragua is already subject to sanctions on more than 60 individual ministers and other functionaries and two dozen state institutions and businesses, while more than 2,000 individuals are denied US visas. Nicaragua has also been deprived of funding by multilateral bodies such as the IMF and World Bank and is subject to higher tariffs on its exports than apply to its neighbors.

Ramdin is proposing coordinated action by all OAS member countries, not just the US, to “punish” Nicaragua. This might involve diplomatic isolation, targeted sanctions, new visa restrictions, limits on international flights and possibly broader trade restrictions of uncertain severity.

However, reaching consensus on tougher measures will be problematic. Nicaragua’s immediate neighbors – El Salvador, Honduras and Costa Rica – have close economic ties with it. They depend heavily on transport routes and the inter-regional electricity grid through the country. They were all damaged economically by the 2018 coup attempt, when its protagonists blocked the Panamerican highway and held over 400 international truckers hostage.

Nicaragua’s neighbors must be aware that Rubio’s rhetoric about its citizens living in “misery” has no basis in reality. The country has had the region’s fastest growth in GDP over the past decade, has the largest hospital network and the best roads. Indeed, a prosperous Nicaragua is key to regional stability: it receives 28% of its imports from Central America and contributes 16% of its exports. Nicaragua’s economy “weathers multiple shocks” according to the IMF, including US attacks.

Nicaragua is also a recognized “containment wall” against regional organized crime and drug trafficking. The country is far safer than neighboring Honduras and Costa Rica, which have both seen explosions in violent crime.

Ramdin drew attention to the potential regional impact of a major disaster or deteriorating economic conditions in Nicaragua, but its neighbors know that the Sandinista government has invested heavily in disaster prevention and its economy is buoyant.

While Ramdin focuses on “restoring democracy,” Rubio focuses more on Nicaragua’s socialist government. His problem is that while Nicaragua’s opposition leaders are committed to the return of neoliberalism, which Nicaraguans experienced and rejected two decades ago, they only offer vague plans for political transition. In reality, they admit that they are “not yet unified or [have] built the institutional base needed to present a credible alternative.”

The groups also have little currency among Trump’s Florida base, fixated on regime change in Venezuela and Cuba. As Juan Gonzalez, a former Latin America aide to President Biden, told Politico: “The lesson from Nicaragua is: Don’t matter too much, don’t embarrass Washington and don’t become a domestic political issue.”

So the likelihood, if indeed Latin American foreign ministers can agree on anything, and if Rubio fits their meeting into his schedule, is more rhetoric about “democracy” along with additional sanctions. They’ll be deciding whether they should threaten Nicaraguans with the “misery” that Rubio claims they are already suffering.

Nicaragua-based writer John Perry publishes in the London Review of Books, Common Dreams, CovertAction and elsewhere. He is active with the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition.

 

Republicans Who Support War in Iran Are Giving Democrats Chance To Control Congress

by Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. | Sep 21, 2026 | 

The three top headlines in the Sept. 18 Drudge Report said: “Blue Wave Builds, Dems 84% Chance to take House – 55% Senate, Weeks Before Midterms – EVERYTHING Getting More Expensive.”

Newsweek carried a story headlined “Texas Republicans Face ‘Generational Wipeout’ Amid Disastrous Polls.”

Many other publications, both in print and online, have reported that Republicans are running even or behind in states that have been safe for Republicans in the past.

And it is all because Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seems to have almost total control of the White House and Congress. His wish is our command. We are fighting Netanyahu’s war against Iran at great expense to U.S. taxpayers.

The American people, meanwhile, are disgusted about the big jumps in prices for gas, diesel fuel, food, and expected big increases in utility bills.

And most Americans are sick and tired of these forever wars being fought for Israel, and they were especially sickened by the killing and starvation of thousands of little children in Gaza.

President Trump was elected because he promised to put an end to foreign wars being fought for other countries. He promised to put America First.

In the early Spring of 2015, I was asked to speak to the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce at the famous Willard Hotel in Washington. This was months before the then Mr. Trump started running for President.

At one point in my speech, I said: “It is long past the time we need to stop trying to run the whole world and start putting our own people and our own country first once again.”

I knew this was popular with middle and lower income people, but I was honestly very surprised by the strong ovation I got that day from upper income California executives, several of whom were connected to companies that did business internationally.

This Nation is now over 40 trillion in debt. We simply cannot afford this one trillion, five hundred billion Secretary Hegseth and the Pentagon want. Yet the Congress voted this past Wednesday to spend an additional $73 billion on this unpopular, unnecessary war in Iran.

Most of the votes came from Republicans, even though this war is really hurting our Party.

The late Charley Reese, a very plain spoken conservative columnist, was voted as the most popular columnist in a vote by more than 20,000 C-Span viewers in 1999. He summed things up best in columns he wrote about the war in Iraq that are even more applicable about our war in Iran today.

In 2002, he wrote: “The truth is this: The terrorist attacks against the United States are a direct result of our one-sided support of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. That’s it, pure and simple.”

He added: “the big pushers for war with Iraq (Iran) are the usual suspects—Americans with a long record of pretending to speak about America’s interests, when in fact they are pushing an Israeli agenda.”

In 2005, Reese wrote: “Propaganda aside, our actions have created the almost universal hostility toward the United States in the Arab world. Our actions have been to support Israel 100 percent while it kills and brutalizes the Palestinians and refuses to negotiate with them.”

Georgie Anne Geyer, who passed away in 2019, traveled the world as a foreign correspondent for the Chicago Daily News and was syndicated in 120 newspapers.

In 2003, she wrote: “Critics of the war against Iraq (Iran) have said since the beginning of the conflict that Americans, still strangely complacent about overseas wars being waged by a minority in their name, will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have a government that provides services at home, or one that seeks empire across the globe.”

Reprinted with permission form The Duncan Dispatch.

John James Duncan Jr. is an American politician who served as the U.S. representative for Tennessee’s 2nd congressional district from 1988 to 2019. A lawyer, former judge, and former long serving member of the Army National Guard, he is a member of the Republican Party.

Massie’s Courageous Act Brings War Powers and Impeachment Before the House on Constitution Day

Eight Articles Charge Secretary Hegseth With Unauthorized War, Extrajudicial Killings and Abuse of Power. Call your Representative now. Ensure they vote for Impeachment.

by Dennis Kucinich | Sep 17, 2026 |

Reprinted with permission from The Kucinich Report.

Thank you, GOP Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, for courageously drafting and presenting Tuesday in Congress eight Articles of Impeachment which demonstrated that Secretary Hegseth has pursued war, death and destruction at his own instance. He has, in the name of the United States, illegally swept aside the Constitution and U.S. laws to carry out murderous actions which are totally illegal.

Tomorrow, Thursday, September 17th, is Constitution Day in the United States, when we remember the signing of the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia, in 1787, “to secure the blessings of liberty….” That day America put the official stamp of freedom on the Declaration of Independence. The signing and ratification the following year, finalized America’s extraordinary transition from a dependent colony ruled by the British, to an independent, self-governing Republic.

It is appropriate on this day, the 239th anniversary of our Constitution, that Members of the House of Representatives can stand and vote to validate their constitutional oath and to impress upon the self-proclaimed Secretary of War that his days of waging preemptive, aggressive war are over. The current Secretary’s practice of extrajudicial killings, of playing policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner will be at an end, if the House votes to Impeach.

Every American should understand the gravity of the conduct of Secretary Hegseth: Unilateral initiation and continuation of war, the taking of life without due process, the abandonment of protections for civilians, the suppression of free speech, the separation of powers and the constitutional authority of Congress.

CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE NOW

Time is of the essence! The House is expected to act on this resolution by Thursday. Call your representative immediately. Members may vote to table the resolution without even considering the articles themselves, refer it to committee or proceed to debate.

Ask your Representative to vote to advance the Impeachment of Secretary Hegseth and oppose any motion to table or otherwise bury the resolution.

Ask them to support a full and fair consideration of the Articles of Impeachment.

Congress must hear directly from the people it represents before this vote is taken.

Find your representative and contact information through the official House website, or call the United States Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to your representative’s office.

On February 28, exactly 200 days ago, the United States military conducted a preemptive attack on Iran at the request of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. That attack was undertaken by Secretary Hegseth. Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei and members of his family were killed in the initial bombing raid.

Shortly after attacking the Khamenei family, U.S. and Israeli planes attacked a clearly marked school in Minab. At least 168 persons, most of them young children, were killed in three separate air strikes.

Secretary Hegseth, following illegal orders, has directed and accelerated the attacks on Iran, with such intensity that the war has escalated and oil shipments in the Persian Gulf have been cut off, causing gas prices to skyrocket. The cost of this war has hit all Americans at the fuel pump, and in the supermarket, with rising food prices.

Secretary Hegseth has ordered the deaths of individuals traveling by boat in the Caribbean, alleging they were drug smugglers, arrogating to himself a God-like power over life and death. Representative Massie covers this and more in his Articles of Impeachment.

Here is how you , and the Congress, can truly celebrate Constitution Day – by defending the U.S. Constitution and standing firm in the act of balancing constitutional powers. Congress must now exercise its own constitutional power and vote to advance these Articles of Impeachment.

We do not want another 200 days of war waged by Secretary Hegseth or anyone else. Impeach NOW.

Time is of the essence! The House is expected to act on this resolution no later than Thursday., Constitution Day! Call your representative immediately.

Again, Members may vote to table the resolution without considering the Articles of Impeachment, or refer the resolution to committee, to defeat it.

Please call your Member of Congress and ask your Representative to vote “YES,” to impeach Secretary Hegseth and to oppose any motion to table or otherwise bury the Massie resolution. Impeach NOW. Send Secretary Hegseth to the Senate, for trial.

Dennis J. Kucinich served sixteen years in the United States Congress and twice ran for President of the United States on a platform of peace, truth, and constitutional integrity. He led the opposition to the Iraq War and introduced Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for misleading the nation into war.

As US Space Force Admits to Deploying Weapons in Orbit, US Contempt for Arms Control Continues

by Andy Corbley | Sep 17, 2026 

During a recent “State of the Space Force” address in Maryland, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Douglas Schiess stated frankly that the US has at least non-kinetic weapons positioned in space, and that these capabilities were used in the war on Iran.

“Let me be crystal clear: today, Guardians operate on-orbit weapons that can defend the joint force against space-enabled attacks,” Schiess said. He was lying, however, as he later testified to the aggressive combat actions of a certain “Specialist Gray,” who, “courageously held the line, protecting forces, denying adversary capability, and delivering space effects,” even while “sirens were blaring and incoming missiles targeted her site,” doubtlessly referring to a US base in the Middle East.

Schiess said that Gray was supporting Operation Epic Fury, an aggressive and unprovoked surprise attack on Iran. In finally being able to demonstrate to the wider military establishment that the Space Force can actually help blow stuff up, he not only proved himself to be making false statements about defending the joint force from space, (Iran has little if any space capabilities) and equally in regards to another statement he made later in his speech that the Space Force’s aim “is deterrence,” but also that the US has violated the spirit, if not the precise wording of the UN Treaty on the Use of Outer Space.

The Outer Space Treaty, while prohibiting the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in outer space, doesn’t outrightly ban conventional weapons in space. Other language on banning military exercises and installations on celestial bodies, as well as the treaty’s repeated emphasis that space is to be used for peaceful purposes, has lead some legal scholars to interpret the positioning of any weapons, in space or on celestial bodies, as a violation of the treaty.

Nevertheless, Article 1 states that “…use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries”. It is certainly not in the interest of Iran for the US to be attacking her from space with signal jammers and other forms of cyberwarfare.

The Space Force will have inherited from other agencies and departments incredible capabilities already online in space for the detection and surveillance of nuclear weapons around the world, which themselves constitute a part of the US nuclear arsenal apparatus, and therefore something of a grey area between peaceful use and WMD-related use of space.

In the history of WMD arms control, of which the Outer Space Treaty is one, there are several examples of WMD-adjacent technologies that were restricted, including various kinds of launchers under the New START Treaty that could also be used for conventional weapons, but which the US and Russia recognized as dual-use and therefore too dangerous.

The weaponization of space

Arms control in all its forms, both conventional and non-conventional, is something the US has a history of delicately dancing around. CNN, reporting on the virgin announcement of the Space Force’s new capabilities from Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, outlined that in 2022 the Biden-Harris Administration committed to never again testing “direct-ascent” anti-satellite weapon known broadly as an ASAT. Yet there was nothing in the commitment that referenced on-orbit ASAT use, in other words, a spacecraft already in space firing a projectile at a satellite already in space.

The result, however, would be the same as that which brought about the Biden-Harris commitment: the fracturing of the satellite and ASAT projectile into thousands of pieces that enter orbit and pose a huge threat to other spacecraft and satellites.

Speaking Monday, Meink also said a US space-based interceptor program had moved “from initial contract to flight-ready hardware in less than one year,” without revealing further details. In other military branches, “interceptor” typically refers to a guided projectile that is launched with the purpose of striking another moving object. Given that everything is always moving in space, all projectiles would have to have interceptor-like capabilities.

Put together, Meink’s teaser almost certainly suggests that the US is developing ASATs for positioning in space, or as General Schiess stated, already has them there. To wit, in June, two commercial space companies, True Anomaly and Rocket Lab, conducted interceptor missions on behalf of the Space Force, launching a satellite on a mission to intercept another satellite within a 72-hour deadline.

Rocket Lab’s Pioneer spacecraft launched as part of the Victus Haze mission on short notice from New Zealand at 10 p.m. local time on June 19th. It delivered its Puma satellite to low Earth orbit in order to “simulate a rapid threat-response scenario alongside a non-compliant satellite”.

Awaiting Puma’s arrival in space was True Anomaly’s Jackal satellite, launched onboard a Falcon 9 rocket in May where it awaited command from the Space Force. Jackal is “designed exclusively for space superiority, not adapted from non-defense baselines,” a statement on the event detailed.

The Victus Haze mission was the second under a program called Tactically Responsive Space (TacRS) that seeks to leverage military-industrial-complex firms in the commercial space sector to rapidly respond to potential threats as the Space Force sees them. Or, as we shouldn’t forget, position military hardware to aggressively attack other nations, as General Schiess both admitted and celebrated.

As WaL has reported before, the Space Force is determined to weaponize space and turn it into the domain of the Pentagon. In President Trump, its leaders have found the ultimate tool to complete that aim, who, as if in perfect metaphor, dramatically increased the Space Force budget while attempting to dramatically reduce the budget of the government agency for the peaceful use of space, namely NASA, whose Trump-appointed administrator has already said that it should share capabilities with the Space Force.

Andrew Corbley is founder and editor of World at Large, an independent news outlet. He is a loyal listener of Antiwar radio and of the Scott Horton Show. Reprinted with permission from World at Large.

AUTUMNAL EQUINOX (MABON)