Editorial Roundup: United States

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

___

March 2

The Washington Post says DHS remains unfunded despite heightened terror threat

As America’s conflict with Iran continues, the Department of Homeland Security is about the heightened risk of lone wolf attacks. Yet the agency tasked with keeping Americans safe — one of the few responsibilities just about everyone agrees is appropriate for government — remains unfunded as Congress bickers over immigration politics.

Congressional negotiators reached a deal to fund the federal government but outrage over President Donald Trump’s deportation tactics pushed Democrats to defund DHS. The agency has been in a shutdown since Feb. 14. Both sides are still negotiating, and the White House sent proposal to Democrats on Friday.

Most Americans won’t notice the changes unless they’re traveling and can’t use Global Entry, but it’s the kind of agency you regret not being staffed only once it’s too late. On Sunday, a deranged shooter and injured 14 others at a bar in Austin wearing a “Property of Allah’’ hoodie and another shirt with an Iranian flag design. It’s not possible to draw a direct line between the shutdown and that tragedy, but having fewer people protecting the homeland at a time like this is an unnecessary risk.

The irony is that, despite the shutdown, ICE is still being funded thanks to a large infusion from this summer’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Agencies including FEMA, the Transportation Security Administration and the Secret Service .

Looming gaps pose real security issues. Only 800 of the more than 2,000 employees at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are currently working, according to data shared with us by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Most have been furloughed. The agency has cancelled assessments that detect vulnerabilities in America’s critical infrastructure, which seems like bad timing in light of the Iranian regime’s expertise at hacking.

Over 50,000 TSA agents and screeners will miss their first paycheck this week. During last year’s shutdown, nearly 10 percent were absent from work. Employees involved in processing for the FEMA Go system have also been furloughed.

After the killing of two Americans in Minneapolis at the hands of immigration agents, it’s clear that changes are needed at DHS. But it’s embarrassing that it is taking this long to reach a deal that boosts training and accountability without impeding ICE agents from pursuing legitimate public safety threats.

Banning agents from wearing masks and requiring a form of identification is normal . Requiring judicial warrants isn’t practical for every single deportation, but there are reasonable compromises short of that. Mandating the use of body cameras and requiring better training wouldn’t just help restore public trust. It would boost the credibility of agents.

Not everyone will get what they want. Congressional Republicans can’t simply ban sanctuary cities. And Democrats won’t get Republicans to ban every ICE operation in residential areas. They might look to savvy politicians like Collins, who was able to announce the end of an enhanced ICE operation in her state after appealing directly to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem. In an interview, Collins said that “sitting down with DHS and discussing strategies to focus on detention and deportation of criminals” is a good way to prevent ICE surges.

As the U.S. deals with the uncertainty of conflict abroad, it’s crucial that we boost security at home. Reasonable lawmakers should be able to strike a deal that keeps ICE accountable, while also keeping Americans safe.

ONLINE:

___

Feb. 28

The New York Times says Trump's attack on Iran is reckless

In his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised voters that he would end wars, not start them. Over the past year, he has instead ordered military strikes in seven nations. His appetite for military intervention grows with the eating.

Now he has ordered a new attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in cooperation with Israel, and it is much more extensive than the targeted bombing of nuclear facilities in June. Yet he started this war without explaining to the American people and the world why he was doing so. Nor has he involved Congress, which the Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. He instead on Saturday, shortly after bombing began, in which he said that Iran presented “imminent threats” and called for the overthrow of its government. His rationale , and making his case by video in the middle of the night is unacceptable.

Among his justifications is the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program, which is a worthy goal. But Mr. Trump declared that program “obliterated” by the strike in June, a claim belied by both U.S. intelligence and this new attack. The contradiction underscores how little regard he has for his duty to tell the truth when committing American armed forces to battle. It also shows how little faith American citizens should place in his assurances about the goals and results of his growing list of military adventures.

Mr. Trump’s approach to Iran is reckless. His goals are ill-defined. He has failed to line up the international and domestic support that would be necessary to maximize the chances of a successful outcome. He has disregarded both domestic and international law for warfare.

The Iranian regime, to be clear, deserves no sympathy. Nobody should mourn the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, who was .

The regime since its revolution 47 years ago — on its own people, on its neighbors and around the world. It thousands of protesters this year. It imprisons and executes political dissidents. It oppresses women, L.G.B.T.Q. people and religious minorities. Its leaders have impoverished their own citizens while corruptly enriching themselves. They have proclaimed “Death to America” since coming to power and killed hundreds of U.S. service members in the region, as well as bankrolled terrorism that has killed civilians in the Middle East and as far away as Argentina.

Iran’s government presents a distinct threat because it combines this murderous ideology with nuclear ambitions. Iran has repeatedly defied international inspectors over the years. Since the June attack, the government has shown signs of of nuclear weapons technology. American presidents of both parties have rightly made a commitment to prevent Tehran from getting a bomb.

We recognize that fulfilling this commitment could justify military action at some point. For one thing, the consequences of allowing Iran to follow the path of North Korea — and acquire nuclear weapons after years of — are too great. For another, the costs of confronting Iran over its nuclear program look less imposing than they once did.

Iran, as David Sanger of The Times , “is going through a period of remarkable military, economic and political weakness.” Since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, Israel has reduced the threats from Hamas and Hezbollah (two of Iran’s terrorist proxies), attacked Iran directly and, with help from allies, mostly repelled its response. The new recognition of Iran’s limitations helped give rebels in Syria the confidence to march on Damascus and oust the horrific Assad regime, a longtime Iranian ally. Iran’s government to intervene. This recent history demonstrates that military action, for all its awful costs, can have positive consequences.

A responsible American president could make a plausible argument for further action against Iran. The core of this argument would need to be a clear explanation of the strategy, as well as the justification for attacking now, even though Iran to having a nuclear weapon. This strategy would involve a promise to seek approval from Congress and to collaborate with international allies.

Mr. Trump is not even attempting this approach. He is telling the American people and the world that he expects their blind trust. He has not earned that trust.

He instead treats allies with disdain. He lies constantly, including about the results of the June attack on Iran. He has failed to live up to his own promises for solving other crises in Ukraine, Gaza and Venezuela. He has for failing to show fealty to his political whims. When his appointees make outrageous mistakes — such as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth of a military attack on the Houthis, an Iranian-backed group, on an unsecured group chat — Mr. Trump shields them from accountability. His administration appears to have violated international law by, among other things, and .

A responsible approach would also involve a detailed conversation with the American people about the risks. Iran . Its medium-range missiles may have failed to do much damage to Israel last year, but it maintains many short-range missiles that could overwhelm any defense system and hit Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other nearby countries. Mr. Trump did acknowledge this in his overnight video, saying, “The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties.”

He should have had the courage to say so in his , among other settings. When a president asks American troops and diplomats to risk their lives, he should not be coy about it.

Recognizing Mr. Trump’s irresponsibility, some members of Congress have taken steps to constrain him on Iran. In the House, Representatives Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, and Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, have meant to prevent Mr. Trump from starting a war without congressional approval. The resolution makes clear that Congress has not authorized an attack on Iran and demands the withdrawal of American troops within 60 days. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, and Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, are sponsoring a similar measure in their chamber. The start of hostilities should not dissuade legislators from passing these bills. A robust assertion of authority by Congress is the best way to constrain the president.

Mr. Trump’s failure to articulate a strategy for this attack has created shocking levels of uncertainty about it. The attack has succeeded in killing a brutal dictator, but it remains unclear what comes next. Mr. Trump has of why the world should expect this regime change to end better than the versions in Iraq and Afghanistan at the start of this century. Those wars toppled governments but understandably soured the American public on open-ended military operations of uncertain national interest, and they who loyally served in them.

Now that the military operation is underway, we wish above all for the safety of the American troops charged with conducting it and for the well-being of the many innocent Iranians who have long suffered under their brutal government. We lament that Mr. Trump is not treating war as the grave matter that it is.

ONLINE:

___

Feb. 27

The Boston Globe says to focus on accountability, not guilt by association, with Epstein Files

The resignation of Harvard economics professor and former university president Larry Summers on Wednesday was only the latest repercussion from the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files — the millions of documents gathered by federal prosecutors that the Department of Justice to release to the public.

There are no doubt more heads are about to roll: The disgraced financier burrowed his way deep into the worlds of academia, business, and government. The files show that even after he was convicted in 2008 in Florida of soliciting a minor and served a short prison sentence, he maintained an impressive web of connections almost up to the day he was arrested again, this time for sex trafficking, in 2019.

There is a critical difference, though, between holding the people in that network accountable for conduct revealed in the files and guilt by association. Some of the people mentioned who traded emails with Epstein did nothing wrong — and almost none of them have been accused of crimes in this country (several foreign nationals have been charged or arrested under their countries’ laws).

That does not mean that professional consequences may not be appropriate in some cases. It is difficult to see how Summers, for example, could have continued as a Harvard professor after the emails revealed him bantering with Epstein about women and making business connections. His resignation was the right move.

But what about , the executive in charge of the 2028 Olympics, ? The case against him is thin. Wasserman flew once on Epstein’s private jet on a trip alongside former president Bill Clinton in 2002, and exchanged suggestive messages with Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime companion, in 2003, when he was 29.

That was years before either Epstein or Maxwell would be accused or convicted of any crimes, and there is no evidence Wasserman knew about any such illegal activities at the time. Unless more evidence proves a closer connection to Epstein or Maxwell’s crimes, the effort to remove Wasserman from the Olympics seems like a textbook case of guilt by association.

It’s perhaps a closer call for those like Harvard or former MIT professor , among the many academic figures who associated with Epstein after the 2008 conviction. They knowingly chose to mix with a convicted sex offender. Still, it’s not illegal to give people second chances after they’ve done their time.

Where the disclosures from the DOJ files are more concerning is where they raise doubts about individuals’ own conduct. For instance, in Britain former UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson amid allegations that he may have shared confidential British government information with Epstein.

For some other individuals, the emails suggest they at least crossed paths with the women Epstein was trafficking. As the Globe’s Spotlight team reported on Wednesday, Harvard math professor was introduced to two women the financier was exploiting, but he denied knowing that at the time. “I had no knowledge of his crimes,” Nowak told the Globe. “I was urged to cultivate Mr. Epstein to continue his financial support of academic endeavors.” (Nowak said he never had a “relationship” with anyone Epstein introduced him to.)

Institutions should investigate those situations on a case-by-case basis, as .

None of Epstein’s privileged and powerful cronies make very sympathetic figures. And since Epstein’s victims never got justice in a courtroom — he died by suicide in jail in 2019 — it can be tempting to view the downfall or shaming of his associates as the next best thing.

But that’s not the way justice is supposed to work. Indeed, the reason that the Justice Department typically doesn’t release files from criminal investigations — the reason Congress had to compel it to do so in this case — is precisely to avoid tarring people with innuendos they’ll never have a chance to rebut in court.

Given the extraordinary interest in Epstein — and the conspiracy theories about his case — it was important for the government to release the files. But they contain a lot of shades of gray that are at risk of disappearing in the media frenzy. The revelations in the files call for accountability — but not a moral panic.

ONLINE:

___

Feb. 27

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch says opponents' vulgarity, lack of decorum, plays into Trump's hand

It’s an especially corrosive characteristic of the Trump era that our current president routinely says things so abnormal and undignified that they would have utterly derailed any previous modern presidency. Yet today, everyone across the political spectrum shrugs and moves on.

All of us, even President Donald Trump’s most vociferous critics, have grown accustomed to the rhetorical toxicity of this era. To the point that even some of those critics join in on this dangerous normalization of the abnormal.

Case in point: This week, Trump railed that two congresswomen of color — one a native-born American, the other a fully naturalized citizen — should be sent “ ” because they his State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

Think about that. A sitting president, who claims (when it suits him) to champion free speech and an immigration system that rewards those who follow the rules, suggests that two sitting congresswomen with full citizenship rights under the Constitution should be expelled from the country for criticizing him. Including the one who was born here.

We’re not here to defend the behavior that night of Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. Heckling any president of any party during the once-sacrosanct tradition of the State of the Union speech is unbecoming of members of Congress, no matter how outrageous the speech.

Yes, Trump’s longest-in-modern-history SOTU speech set new lows for division, xenophobia and lies. At this point, did anyone really expect otherwise?

Yes, Rep. Omar’s shouted allegation of “You have killed Americans!” was arguably accurate, given the two clearly unjustified shooting deaths of Americans by federal agents in Minnesota acting under this president’s recklessly militarized immigration enforcement. And, yes, Rep. Tlaib’s exhortation of “Liar!” was inarguably accurate, on .

But however satisfying those protests may have been to Trump’s detractors, they played right into his hand by lowering his opponents to the vulgar standards of decorum that Trump’s own MAGA movement has fostered over the past decade.

In fact, media images of Omar and Tlaib shouting at Trump this week look uncannily similar to images of MAGA Reps. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., heckling President Joe Biden’s first State of the Union address in March 2022. Is that really the company Trump’s opponents want to keep?

None of which is to excuse what came next. Trump posted on his platform that Omar and Tlaib are “Low IQ,” “had the bulging, bloodshot eyes of crazy people, LUNATICS, mentally deranged and sick who, frankly look like they should be institutionalized.”

(An aside: For those who believe Trump is in a position to assess anyone else’s mental stability, please read the second half of that Truth Social post. And we’ll just leave it at that.)

Trump further wrote that, “When people behave like that … we should send them back from where they came — as fast as possible.”

For Tlaib, that would mean going back to Detroit, where she was born and which she represents in Congress.

For Omar, it would mean going back to Somalia, despite having legally immigrated to the U.S. as a teenager, her family following all the immigration rules — the kind of immigrants Trump claims he’s not targeting, though the administration’s actions frequently .

Trump’s frequent meltdowns about even legal Somali immigrants (“garbage,” “criminals” who “contribute nothing”) are an especially vivid demonstration of the xenophobia and racism that so clearly drive him.

Though his thoughts on Haitians (“they’re eating the dogs! … they’re eating the cats! …”) are right up there. Not to mention his thoughts on Black Americans, including a certain former First Couple about whom he recently elevated a meme that depicted them as apes.

Apparently, presidents can do stuff like that now, and no one flinches.

It wasn’t always like this, even relatively recently — even in Trump’s own party.

Here in Missouri, we saw a demonstration of how utterly normal the GOP still was when they drummed Senate candidate Todd Akin out of a 2012 Republican primary for loopy comments about abortion rights, despite knowing it would cost them a seat. Responsible normalcy, from both parties, outweighed norm-breaking partisanship back then.

Today, a Democratic California governor gets political traction by . And two Democratic congresswomen essentially mimic the kind of House floor behavior they and their party condemned when it was coming from two Republican congresswomen.

Tearing down decency, dignity and political norms has been a core goal of Trump and his movement for a decade now. The more his opponents adopt his tactics, the more successful his dark project becomes.

ONLINE:

___

March 1

The Guardian says illegal war is becoming the new norm

The killing of Iran’s supreme leader, , by a US-Israeli strike is a targeted assassination of a head of state. It also marks a grave escalation in a region already burdened with smouldering wars and fragile states. The consequences of the deliberate strike will reverberate across a Middle East marked by the aftershocks of foreign intervention. Revulsion against the , or the desire for a better future for the Iranian people, does not confer a legal justification.

Force is lawful, under the UN charter, only in self-defence against an imminent attack or with security council approval. Neither condition has been met. There was no evidence of an “ ” Iranian attack being prepared. What Donald Trump’s Operation Epic Fury looks like is not pre-emption but prevention: a decision to eliminate a future risk while an enemy appeared weak. It is a . Mr Trump’s call to a sovereign government was extraordinary.

Unlike pre-emptive wars, preventive ones are deemed unlawful because they grant the powerful licence to strike at will. The distinction is important; it is why many European governments rejected Russia’s of its invasion of Ukraine by claiming to head off a future threat. Law cannot be optional for allies and binding only for adversaries. The domestic foundations of Mr Trump’s action are also . There’s little public support in the US for this attack, and Congress was not asked to authorise hostilities. There will be even less appetite as the civilian death toll and come home in bodybags.

The war may have been launched swiftly but its consequences are likely to be long-lasting. Iranian retaliation has gone beyond Israel to where US forces are deployed. Tehran says it has the strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil exports pass. Analysts warn crude prices could jump 50% to . Escalation is no longer notional. Tehran’s strategy appears less about battlefield victory than survival – demonstrating that, despite leadership decapitation, it can fight on. It is a gamble. Excessive restraint by Iran invites humiliation; overreach risks forging a broader coalition against it.

Khamenei’s death is a moment of rupture. But large, cohesive states rarely collapse just under air assault. Regime change from the sky has repeatedly proved an illusion – in , and . Removing leaders is not the same as remaking a country’s politics. Perhaps Mr Trump wants a compliant Tehran, as his illegal kidnapping of Nicholás has given him in Venezuela. However Mr Trump’s decision to bomb Iran when negotiations, mediated by Oman, had shown signs of a will narrow the space for future compromise.

The question is not just whether Mr Trump’s war weakens Iran. It is whether it weakens the system of rules on which global stability depends. Once preventive war is normalised, it can be used by any state that considers itself threatened in the long term. That is a dangerous precedent in an age of expanding missile arsenals, .

The idea that complex societies can be reshaped by external force is not new. It almost never works. Mr Trump’s after Khamenei’s killing is worrying especially when what is needed is restraint from all. The moment requires cool heads – and to stand up for the legal principles that, however imperfectly observed, remain the best defence against a world governed by raw power alone.

ONLINE: