Trump Renews Designation of Nicaragua as an ‘Extraordinary Threat

by John Perry and Roger D. Harris | Nov 10, 2026 |

On November 3, President Trump signed an executive order declaring a “national emergency.” The “emergency” is due to “the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States constituted by the situation in Nicaragua.” Supposedly, this emergency began in November 2018, has persisted for eight years and is expected to continue into 2027.

AI-generated image of the national birds of Nicaragua and the United States.

The scale of the “threat”

Here are some key figures by which to judge the scale of the “threat” posed by Nicaragua. First, some basics. The US population is nearly 50 times Nicaragua’s and its economy is 1,400 times bigger, with Nicaragua’s national income (GDP) only 0.07% that of the US.

Second, a military comparison. Nicaragua has one of the smallest defense budgets in the Americas, devoting just 0.6% of its GDP ($116 million) to its military. The US, of course, has the world’s biggest “defense” budget at $954 billion or more than 3% of its GDP (see chart), and Trump wants to make it even bigger. Nicaragua deploys around 12,000 military personnel, under 1% of its northern neighbor’s 1.3 million.

Third, its military has little or no offensive capability. Its principal duties include preventing drug trafficking, protecting borders, and conducting maritime patrols. The military also responds to emergencies such as hurricanes and earthquakes and protects the nation’s vital coffee harvest, of which the US is the biggest consumer.

So, the notion that Nicaragua – 1,200 miles from the south Texas border – threatens US security is clearly absurd. What, then, is the basis of the so-called “emergency” and what has Washington done to stop it in the eight years since it began?

US campaign against Nicaragua

In Trump’s first term, he signed the original executive order after the US-inspired coup attempt against Nicaragua’s then recently re-elected Sandinista government in 2018. The anticipated collapse of the government in the face of a violent uprising failed to materialize.

Trump’s executive order was an integral part of a political and media campaign to ostracize Nicaragua internationally. Bodies such as the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Organization of American States (OAS) were instrumentalized to attack Nicaragua’s human rights record, even though they had sent delegations to the country in 2018 that received evidence of assassinations and torture perpetrated by the coup-mongers.

Washington started to put the squeeze on Nicaragua’s economy, cutting off access to loans from bodies such as the World Bank and the IMF, worth $500 million annually. Government officials were sanctioned, often on the basis of little or no evidence. Vital trade arrangements were threatened, including its membership in the regional free trade agreement that improves access to the US market. Media campaigns attempted to target Nicaraguan goods, such as its beef exports.

Under Biden, the US Trade Representative launched a spurious investigation into Nicaragua’s allegedly unfair trade practices, such as use of child labor. Biden also launched a damaging “humanitarian parole” scheme designed to lure away skilled Nicaraguans, one reason for an increase in their migration northwards. Trump’s second administration imposed worldwide tariffs that singled out Nicaragua for higher penalties than its neighbors.

Washington even attempted to damage Nicaragua’s important tourism sector by raising its travel advisory in 2018 to the same level as those for Guatemala and Honduras, where violent crime is much more prevalent. Nicaragua was refused help during the Covid pandemic. Consequently, its tourist trade recovered more slowly than in countries like Costa Rica. Visits by cruise liners, an important outlet for Nicaragua’s many artisan crafts, have never returned to previous numbers.

Renewed executive order

Despite these hostile measures, Nicaragua’s economy made a robust recovery after the damaging attempted coup of 2018 and the subsequent Covid pandemic. In 2025, Nicaragua recorded the region’s fastest GDP growth, along with low public-sector debt and high foreign reserves. Its 2027 budget forecasts higher spending but a lower deficit. S&P Global Ratings has recently upgraded Nicaragua’s credit rating.

Precisely because Nicaragua successfully fended off Washington’s attacks and rebounded, the hegemon was compelled to renew its proclamation of an “extraordinary threat.”

According to Trump’s executive order, Nicaragua poses three main “threats” to US security and foreign policy. First was the “violent response by the Nicaraguan government to the protests beginning on 18 April 2018.” These supposedly peaceful protests led to well over 200 deaths, including those of 22 police officers, and caused at least $1 billion of direct economic damage. Arguably, Nicaragua’s defensive actions were much more measured than Washington’s would have been if confronted with similar violence.

Second, Trump’s order hypocritically cites the “dismantling and undermining of democratic institutions and the rule of law” together with “indiscriminate violence and repressive tactics against civilians.” In fact, the measures taken by the Nicaraguan government to defend ordinary people and their constitutional rights have largely responded to US-funded criminal attacks and political interference.

Third, Trump calls out alleged “government corruption” contributing to “economic destabilization.” Again, this grossly hypocritical charge hardly squares with Nicaragua’s economic achievements or its massive success in improving life for ordinary Nicaraguans. They have seen poverty reduced to under 14%, along with major improvements in public health services, free education, subsidized housing and infrastructure such as water supply, electricity, highways and public transport.

The real threat

The real strategic threat to the United States is Nicaragua’s ability to improve the lives of its citizens while maintaining a strong economy, despite Washington’s best efforts to prevent it.

Trump’s renewal of the executive order signals that these threats will continue. His newly appointed chief of staff, Stephen Miller, identified Nicaragua as an exception to the realignment of countries behind Trump’s agenda for the hemisphere. He euphemistically suggested that the US could secure “a better future for the people of Nicaragua” via its regional alliance, the “Shield of the Americas.”  All three of Nicaragua’s immediate neighbors are part of Trump’s “Shield.”

Secretary of State Rubio has used the OAS to push Nicaragua into compliance. Although the country is no longer an OAS member, ten Latin American nations have been persuaded to participate. This arrangement could further threaten Nicaragua’s trade links, its diplomatic status and even regional air connections. The OAS is convening again on December 1 to decide how to ramp up this pressure.

The ultimate hypocrisy in Trump’s executive order is, of course, that it is the US that poses an ever-present strategic threat to Nicaragua, not the other way around.

Nicaragua-based writer John Perry is published in the London Review of Books, The Grayzone, CovertAction and elsewhere. Roger D. Harris is active with the Task Force on the Americas and the US Peace Council. Both are members of the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition.

Make Armistice Day Great Again

by Thomas Knapp | Nov 11, 2026 |

At “the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month” of 1918,  guns officially fell silent across Europe and World War One came to a military end (the political finish came in 1919 with the Treaty of Versailles).

The following November 11, the winning nations commemorated the final ceasefire with the first “Armistice Day” events,

Not celebrations as such, mind you: The observances were — and in some countries at least partially remain — somber remembrances (the UK now calls November 11 “Remembrance Day”) of 20 million dead in “the war to end all wars,”  driven by sentiment against ever returning to that kind of carnage.

That sentiment, unfortunately, proved insufficient to prevent World War 2 and hundreds or thousands of subsequent deadly conflicts, which is bad enough.

Worse, though, is what America did with “Armistice Day.” In 1954, Congress replaced the traditional “Armistice Day” observance with a celebratory “Veterans Day.”

Instead of mourning war, we now celebrate warriors. Parades. Air shows. Political speeches. Free meals, drinks, haircuts, etc. for veterans.  A lot of “thank you for your service” to everyone identifiable as a veteran of the US armed forces; quite a bit of mutual back-slapping among those of us who “served.”

To me, the best way to celebrate veterans would be stop making so many of us — especially, but not only, of the dead, maimed, traumatized, and homeless varieties.

Since the first Armistice Day, the US has fought a second “world war” and countless smaller wars — declared and undeclared — around the globe, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of foreigners’ lives.

The US armed forces maintain a global network of military bases, remain bogged down in the Middle East after a quarter century of the “global war on terror,” and have now been at on-again, off-again open war with Iran for a year-and-a-half.

The US government constantly rattles its saber, actively seeks excuses to militarily intervene in other countries’ internal affairs and international disputes, and fuels even the wars it doesn’t actively participate in with foreign aid and arms sales.

Two-time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley Butler tallied up the cost in his book, available free online, War is a Racket: “Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.”

None of that is worth celebrating. It’s a cost, not a benefit.

The US armed forces’ oath of enlistment binds future “veterans” to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Even if one accepts that as a worthy goal, when’s the last time it actually turned out to be the job?

Not during my lifetime, at least that I can think of, and I turn 60 the day before “Veterans Day.” The war I fought in was premised on kicking one tyrant out of Kuwait so another tyrant could return and rule again. Constitution? Nowhere in sight.

Commemorating “Armistice Day” — and making that commemoration a call for peace and a rejection of the American war racket — makes far more sense to me than celebrating “Veterans Day.”

If we want to thank veterans “for their service,” the first step is to bring them home and stop letting politicians put them in morally bankrupt jeopardy of life and limb.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism, publisher of Rational Review News Digest, and moderator of Antiwar.com’s commenting/discussion community.

The Swiss Cheese Solution: How Trump May Walk Away From Iran

The Iran War May End Not With a Bang, but With a Whimper

by Trita Parsi | Nov 11, 2026 | 

Reprinted with permission from Trita Parsi‘s Substack: 

Donald Trump was presented with several war options last Friday but rejected them all, at least for the moment. Neither did he accept the negotiated package on the table. Instead, he opted to continue his economic warfare against Iran. Given the expectation that Trump would restart the war after the midterms, optimism has grown that Trump may finally have abandoned the fantasy of a military victory. I suspect that optimism is premature. Instead, I see possible scenarios: War, peace, and a Swiss cheese status quo.

Though pressure for war has been intensifying, if Trump doesn’t go down this path in the next three to four weeks, I agree that the likelihood will start to dwindle as Trump’s maneuverability will be eclipsed by a Democratic Senate and House; he will likely lose his Secretary of War, and the next Prime Minister in Israel will likely not share Benjamin Netanyahu’s obsession with Iran or his skills in playing the American political system.

But even if the risk of war declines, that does not necessarily mean the likelihood of a deal increases. Sticking points such as Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium, the status of Iran’s future enrichment, a regional ceasefire, sanctions relief, and the political cost Trump will pay for any deal with Tehran make it difficult to both reach a deal – and to keep it.

The most likely scenario may prove to be neither war nor peace – yet different from the middle path Trump chose last Friday. In this scenario, Trump’s economic warfare and blockade would only exist on paper. Meaning, Trump rejects both war and peace, walks away and claims to retain the blockade and sanctions infrastructure, but in reality imperceptibly begins to let it wither away.

The blockade begins to loosen, sanctions enforcement begins to decay, and slowly but surely, Asian and Middle Eastern countries begin trading with and investing in Iran. A new equilibrium emerges in which sanctions enforcement is strong enough for the U.S. to claim the restrictions are still in place, yet weak enough to prevent Tehran from challenging the new status quo.

This Swiss cheese scenario is the only walk-away option that could work. Because if Trump seriously retains the blockade and the sanctions, tensions between the US and Iran would be such that the two countries would constantly be on the verge of war with each other – as they are right now. Such an unstable status quo would eventually escalate into another war, defeating the very purpose of the walk-away.

To be clear, the Swiss cheese scenario is suboptimal compared with a peace deal. A peace deal that would end 47 years of enmity, uphold non-proliferation goals, open the Iranian economy to American companies, and stabilize the region would far better serve U.S. interests. But the walk-away option carries the benefit, from Trump’s perspective, of avoiding an agreement that would manifest the failure of his war, as the Islamabad Memorandum did in the view of its critics.

Given Trump’s aversion to admitting defeat, his fear of coming across as a loser, his impatience with complicated diplomacy, his obsession with outdoing Obama’s JCPOA, and Iran’s disinterest in giving him an ego-soothing exit ramp, he may end up choosing the Swiss cheese walk-away option.

Not because it’s better, but because it will cost him less.

Trita Parsi is the Executive VP of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an award-winning author. Washingtonian Magazine has named him one of the 25 most influential voices on foreign policy. Noam Chomsky calls him “one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran”

Visit Trita Parsi’s Substack and subscribe.

Israel Bombs Lebanon’s Churches

Months into a U.S.-brokered “ceasefire,” Israeli forces are demolishing Christian and Shia villages alike while pressing Lebanon toward sectarian war.

by Harrison Berger | Nov 11, 2026 | 

Months after an ostensible “ceasefire” agreement was signed by Marco Rubio’s State Department, the U.S. Army Infantry School-trained President of Lebanon Joseph Aoun, and the government of Israel, Israeli occupation forces continue to occupy much of southern Lebanon, demolish entire villages with C4 explosives, and perpetrate massacres of civilians.

An Israeli soldier smiles at the destruction of St. Joseph’s Church in Qawzah, Lebanon

Under the terms of the Rubio ceasefire, Israel has permission to continue occupying what is called a “security zone,” while Lebanese forces are deputized to accomplish the objective of “disarming” Hezbollah. Only once Hezbollah is disarmed must Israel redeploy from Lebanon. The agreement was designed to supplant the terms of the Iran-U.S. MOU negotiated in Switzerland by J.D. Vance and signed on June 17, 2026, which tied the end of the Iran War to the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” and on “ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.”

As Lebanese journalist Mohamad Kleit explained to Dragnet, Lebanese forces have only replaced Israeli occupation forces in three southern villages while Israel’s wholesale destruction of villages continues unabated. A recent New York Times investigation reported that “48 of the roughly 60 villages and towns within Israeli-occupied southern Lebanon are mostly leveled,” noting that “of the 48 villages that have been mostly destroyed, almost all are majority Shiite.”

While corporate media frames the Israeli destruction of those villages and the thousands of civilian casualties Israel has produced as incidental to Israel’s fight with Hezbollah, public statements by Israeli officials reveal what Lebanese human rights activists call “inherent systematic targeting” which “there can be no doubt is deliberate.” Boasting of the destruction of more than 23,000 homes on Israeli television, Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz reiterated his longstanding position that Israel seeks to impose what he calls “the Gaza model” in southern Lebanon.

As Israel continues to advance through southern Lebanon despite a ceasefire, Israeli commentators and Lebanese lawmakers alike have said the agreement is designed not to end the conflict but to fuel it, potentially leading to sectarian conflict and civil war.

When the deal was signed, an Israeli analyst remarked on Israel’s Channel 13 that “it seems we’re leading the state of Lebanon into civil war,” adding “maybe it’s not so bad for us, let the Lebanese government fight Hezbollah,” to which his co-host replied that this was “the goal from the start.”

Most recently, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt admitted that “we made a mistake by choosing Marco Rubio’s track,” because “believing that the Americans can pressure Israel to withdraw is a complete illusion.” Jumblatt, a former self-admitted warlord responsible for what Jumblatt himself calls “religious cleansing and mass destruction” is no fan of Hezbollah. Yet he now believes he “cannot accept a hardline approach toward Hezbollah if it leads to civil war.”

Indeed, Lebanon is historically ripe for civil war, a consequence of its French imposed system of confessionalism in which political positions are constitutionally divided by religious sect: the President must be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister must be a Sunni Muslim, and the Speaker of Parliament must be a Shia Muslim. As the Beirut-based war correspondent Robert Fisk argued (he passed away in 2020), confessionalism is one of the root causes of suffering in Lebanon – with the country being the site of some of the most devastating sectarian massacres of the late 20th century. It “may have beautiful mountains, fine food, an extraordinarily well-educated population, but it is sectarian. It’s a bit like owning a Rolls Royce complete with fresh leather seats, a flat screen television and a cocktail bar – but with square wheels. It doesn’t work.”

Israel’s current occupation has exploited these sectarian fault lines, issuing orders seemingly designed to inflame inter-sect animosities. As The New York Times reported in April, 2026,

“Israeli officials have conveyed a [sic] targeted message… In private calls to local leaders across southern Lebanon, Israeli military officials have assured several Christian and Druse communities that they could remain in the evacuation zone. They have pressed them, however, to force out any Lebanese from neighboring Shiite Muslim communities who have sought refuge among them as Israeli bombardments flatten Shiite towns, according to local Christian, Druse and Shiite leaders.”

When Israel destroys Christian villages, demolishing churches and statues of Jesus Christ, Israel blames Hezbollah – the militant group who Shia historically support – for allegedly using them as shelter areas, and some – but not all – Christians in Lebanon have accepted that excuse. Our own various investigations at Dragnet, the substack from this author and Jeremy Loffredo, reveal that what Israel labels “Hezbollah” are usually just Shia families, who often have little or no connection to the group at all. Just as Israel labels the tens of thousands of Palestinians its military killed in Gaza as “Hamas,” Israel likewise uses “Hezbollah” as a rhetorical device to justify its targeting of Shia families. Unlike Israeli statements targeting American audiences, the distinction between “Hezbollah” and Shia Muslims is almost non-existent in Hebrew media, with Defense Minister Katz telling Israeli Channel 14 News in July that in 24 villages destroyed in Lebanon, “there were Shiites who acted as enemies on behalf of Hezbollah and threatened our borders, our residents, and constantly carried out provocations.”

There are Christian leaders in Lebanon who reject Israel’s attempts to inflame sectarian divisions. One of them is Father Tony Hanna, whose church and village of Qaouzah was demolished by Israeli occupation forces in November 2024. Last week, a photo went viral of an Israeli soldier smiling in front of Hanna’s church.

Father Tony Hanna tells Dragnet that while armed groups have existed around the town, he does not view it as an excuse, nor does he blame Shia Muslims for Israel’s destruction of the town. “The Muslims in general and the Shiite sect, we have all respect and love for them, and there are deep friendships and close relationships with many…. Let the words be more than clear… We have never said that Islam, the Muslims, or our Shiite brothers are the ones who demolished the church or because of them…. we are the sons of one nation.”

Two weeks before Israeli forces demolished Qaouzah, an Israeli airstrike hit the Church of Saint George the Wonderworker in Deirdghaya, a Melkite Greek Catholic church in the Tyre District built in 1911. The strike, on the night of October 9, 2024, targeted the square beside the church, according to Georges Elia, a social activist at the church who lives in the village’s historic neighborhood. It damaged the church’s façade and collapsed its multi-story parish hall, which “had also been used to shelter displaced civilians,” adding that the strikes also “affected the priest’s residence and the parish office building.”
 Lebanese media reported an initial death toll of seven, including five Civil Defense members.

Elia tells Dragnet that on Christmas, 2024, he “took the initiative to place a simple Christmas tree amid the ruins of the church. My intention was to preserve the spirit of Christmas and convey a message that damage to a building does not mean the end of the village’s spiritual and social life.
”

It was not the first time the Church had been bombed by Israel. Elia said Israeli forces had struck the church during the 1978 invasion, destroying its western wall, and again in 1992, when bombardment destroyed the attached parish building and cracked the dome. He called the 2024 strike “the most destructive attack in the church’s recent history.”

As Elia explains to Dragnet, “the destruction was not limited to stones and walls. It affected a place that had served as a space for worship, gatherings, solidarity, and welcoming people in need and displaced families.”

Like Father Hanna in Qaouzah, Georges Elia says that “damage to a building does not mean the end of the village’s spiritual and social life.”

Asked about the attempt to blame Shia Muslims or “Hezbollah” for the attacks on Christian’s communities, Elia declined to comment, telling Dragnet, “I do not wish to engage in political or sectarian debates. I respect all components of Lebanese society and believe that coexistence and mutual respect among all citizens are fundamental.”

But complicating the narrative Israel seeks to impose upon Lebanon is the role Hezbollah has often played protecting Lebanon’s and Syria’s Christian communities. As the Pro-Israel Wall Street Journal begrudgingly admitted in 2015, “Christians in the Lebanese village of Al-Qaa depended on army troops to shield them from nearby ISIS militants. Another source of protection: Shiite militants in Hezbollah… The village’s main priest, Father Elian Nasrallah, and others, are promoting the idea that Hezbollah, unlike Sunni extremists, has

always been a friend of Christians.” As Father Elian Nasrallah explains in the video report “Hezbollah was never a danger for Christians.” And as BBC reported in 2014, Hezbollah was instrumental in expelling “al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front,” also referred to by BBC as “rebels” – whose leader Al-Jolani is now President of Syria – from the Christian village of Maaloula.

These factors explain why many Lebanese Christians do not view the pretext of “fighting Hezbollah” as an excuse for Israel’s destruction of their communities. And as the U.S. funds and backs that Israeli effort, Iran – historically allied with Hezbollah – has demonstrated itself as the region’s only guarantor of Lebanon’s territorial integrity, continuing to tie an end to the Iran War to an Israeli withdrawal from the south.

Harrison Berger is an independent journalist who has contributed to Drop Site News, The American Conservative, and The Nation. Previously, he was a researcher and producer for System Update with Glenn Greenwald. His work focuses on civil liberties and U.S. foreign policy. He holds a BA in Political Science and Russian Studies from Union College (NY).

 

Betraying America’s Military and the Constitution They Swore To Defend

by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead | Nov 13, 2026 | 

Donald Trump and his administration have done a grave disservice to America’s military.

By politicizing the military, sending service members into wars of questionable legality, attempting to use military forces against American citizens, and seeking to punish veterans who exercise their constitutional rights, the Trump administration has attempted to turn the U.S. military into its own guns-for-hire battalion.

This is not how you honor America’s military.

Pete Hegseth has done an even graver disservice to the men and women who serve.

Having called for a “warrior ethos” that celebrates aggression, lethality and an unquestioning commitment to warfighting, the self-styled Secretary of War has repeatedly demonstrated a troubling disregard for the constitutional safeguards meant to govern the military’s use of force.

Now, faced with eight articles of impeachment introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), Hegseth has dismissed the effort as an act of “sabotage,” suggesting that holding military leaders accountable amounts to punishing the troops who carry out their orders.

Questioning the war makers is not an attack on the troops. It is one way of defending them.

The charges at the heart of Massie’s impeachment effort speak to an identity crisis under Hegseth’s leadership—one that pits the Founders’ vision of a military that exists to defend the Constitution and a constitutional form of government against a version of the military as a ruthless killing machine whose purpose is to invade, intimidate, and destroy the president’s enemies.

Three of Massie’s eight articles of impeachment accuse Hegseth of violating separate provisions of the War Powers Resolution by waging war against Iran without congressional authorization, continuing hostilities despite Congress’s direction to withdraw U.S. forces, and refusing to terminate military operations after the expiration of the law’s 60-day limit and potential 30-day withdrawal period.

The remaining five accuse Hegseth of disregarding laws meant to protect civilians during military operations; authorizing extrajudicial killings of suspected drug traffickers at sea; retaliating against Senator Mark Kelly for exercising his First Amendment rights; directing the military operation to seize Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, without lawful authority; and waging an unauthorized military campaign in Yemen.

Hegseth wants to dismiss the impeachment effort as a disagreement over military policy, but this is about something far more fundamental than one man’s job or one administration’s military strategy.

It is about the constitutional balance of power.

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. It is one of the mechanisms the Founders provided for holding public officials accountable for serious abuses of power.

The Constitution divides war powers between Congress and the president, places the military under civilian authority, and binds those in power to the rule of law.

But those safeguards mean little when Congress refuses to challenge unauthorized wars, presidents treat military force as their private prerogative, and military leaders demand obedience without accountability.

Consider the human price of the war with Iran.

In a November interview with 60 Minutes, President Trump insisted that the conflict with Iran was “not a war” and asserted that the United States had not lost a soldier in the previous five or six months. He then acknowledged 18 deaths across the Iran and Venezuela operations, comparing that number with the much larger losses of earlier wars.

Yet as of October 29, the government had reported 23 American military deaths connected to the Iran conflict, including hostile and nonhostile deaths, and 865 service members wounded.

The American people are entitled to an honest accounting of the lives lost, the injuries suffered, and the financial burden of wars fought in their name.

Follow the money.

The Trump administration has requested another $67 billion for the Pentagon as part of an $87.6 billion supplemental spending package, with billions earmarked for the Iran war. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that replacing munitions expended through August 1 alone could cost more than $21 billion. Meanwhile, major defense contractors, including Northrop Grumman and RTX, have raised their profit forecasts as the Pentagon scrambles to replenish its depleted weapons stockpiles.

Meanwhile, reports from inside the Trump administration have raised troubling questions about whether the president—the nation’s commander-in-chief—even has a full understanding of the military operations being carried out under his command.

These reports raise troubling questions about whether Trump is being shielded from unwelcome information, misled about military capabilities, or simply unwilling to confront the realities of the war.

Whatever the reason for the disconnect, the constitutional responsibility remains his.

He is the commander-in-chief.

If Trump does not know what is being done in his name, that is a serious problem.

If Trump knows and permits it to continue, that is a serious problem, too.

And if the president refuses to provide meaningful accountability, Congress has a constitutional duty to demand it.

While the politicians and Pentagon officials maneuver for power, and military contractors reap the financial rewards, it is America’s service members and the American people who bear the consequences.

These men and women are being asked to carry out decisions they did not make, in wars they did not authorize, under commanders whose own commitment to constitutional restraint is increasingly being called into question.

Their oath is not a pledge of personal loyalty to the president, the defense secretary, or the military-industrial complex. It is an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

And therein lies the greater betrayal.

The government wants soldiers willing to die for the Constitution. It seems far less interested in veterans willing to challenge it when it violates that Constitution.

This is not a problem that began with Donald Trump, and it will not disappear when he leaves office.

The government’s tendency to put military power ahead of constitutional restraint has survived Republican and Democratic administrations alike. So has the military-industrial complex, the surveillance state, the militarization of domestic policing, and the bureaucratic machinery that too often abandons veterans once their service is no longer required.

That is why the Constitution matters.

The Founders understood the danger of concentrating military power in the hands of officials who answer to no one. That is why they gave Congress authority over war, protected free speech, and established impeachment as one means of checking abuses of public office.

The House has the power to impeach, while the Senate has the responsibility to determine whether removal is warranted. Congress also holds the power of the purse and the constitutional authority to decide when this country goes to war.

Yet as I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, those powers mean little if lawmakers refuse to exercise them.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of the Rutherford Institute. His new book, The Freedom Wars, (TRI Press) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about the Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.