Editorials from The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian and others

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

___

Oct. 18 – The Washington Post on Trump, Ukraine, and US leverage over Russia

Tomahawk missiles were the talk of Washington this week. Would President Donald Trump give long-range weapons to let Ukraine strike even deeper into Russia? The decision was expected to hang over Friday’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But Trump seemed to back off on Thursday after a two-and-a-half-hour phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Instead of Tomahawks, Trump agreed to another meeting with Putin, to take place in Budapest in the coming weeks.

Trump critics assumed the worst. Former GOP congressman Adam Kinzinger called it “just another” example of “TACO,” the acronym for “Trump Always Chickens Out.” A senior Democratic senator accused Trump of “rolling out the red carpet in Hungary” after walking away empty-handed from his Alaska summit.

This misunderstands both Trump’s tactics and what kind of peace agreement he is trying to hammer out.

The president’s start-and-stop approach has come across as erratic at times. On Sept. 23, Trump suggested on social media that Ukraine might be able “to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that!” Last Sunday, Trump teased sending Tomahawks to Kyiv while chatting with reporters aboard Air Force One as he flew to Israel. “If the war is not settled,” he said, “we may do it.”

Ukraine hawks can be forgiven for assuming Trump was starting to make good on his earlier maximalist rhetoric. In reality, Trump was not bluffing as much as threatening. Indeed, these threats had a clear effect: Putin initiated Thursday’s call. And Trump said afterward that he raised the specter of the missiles: “I did actually say, ‘Would you mind if I gave a couple thousand Tomahawks to your opposition?’ He didn’t like the idea.”

The Tomahawks are a means of amplifying a pressure campaign that is well underway. Ukraine’s recent string of successful strikes deep inside Russian territory relied on homegrown drones and missiles but would not have been so effective without significant help from the United States. Detailed intelligence not only helps identify targets; it also allows Ukrainian planners to skirt Russian air defenses. Zelensky said that up to 20 percent of Russia’s fuel production capacity has been taken offline.

The idea that Trump is easily swayed by Putin, let alone manipulated or controlled by him, does not hold water. New reporting in the Financial Times suggests Putin badly misplayed his hand at their Alaska meeting on Aug. 15. When he tried to lecture Trump about ancient Russian history, Trump “raised his voice several times” and threatened to walk out.

The point of all this pressure is not to deliver a knockout blow to Russia but to force Putin to the negotiating table to hammer out a deal. The outlines of a final agreement remain the same as they were two months ago: The war would freeze more or less along current battle lines, with Russia retaining de facto control over its ill-gotten gains while Ukraine receives robust security guarantees from the West. Though this might not be a just peace, it would be a victory for the Ukrainians as long as it does not force them to disarm. Ukraine would preserve its sovereignty and become a critical buffer for future European security.

Trump said as much on Friday: “If flexibility is shown, I think we have a very good chance bringing this war to conclusion.” Admitting that Putin might be “playing for time,” the president struck a pragmatic tone: “I’ve been played all my life by the best of them, and I came out really well.”

Heading into Budapest, Trump retains all his cards. Ukraine will continue to pound energy infrastructure deep inside Russia. Oil prices are also at their lowest levels in nearly five years, which makes such strikes doubly painful for Putin’s war machine. Congress is also expected to pass a sanctions bill next week that would give the president considerable discretion to turn the screws on Russia’s economy.

Meanwhile, the Tomahawks remain an option. So are German Taurus missiles, no-fly zones over Ukraine that could be enforced by a European coalition of the willing and strikes against Russia’s “shadow fleet” of oil tankers.

Trump tends to talk sweetly ahead of high-stakes summits. During his press availability with Zelensky on Friday, he repeatedly emphasized that he thinks Putin is interested in peace. Yet America’s leverage over Russia remains – and Trump’s willingness to use that power has been underestimated before.

ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/17/trump-zelensky-tomahawks-putin-budapest-summit/

___

Oct. 19 – The Wall Street Journal on the Gaza hostage deal

The cease-fire in Gaza broke down at least temporarily on Sunday as Hamas killed two Israeli soldiers in the south of the territory and Israel responded with dozens of air strikes. Expect more such episodes unless Hamas disarms, which it may never do.

Meanwhile, we learn more each day about the suffering of the Israeli hostages freed from Hamas in Gaza. Matan Angrest was beaten until he lost consciousness. Rom Braslavski was whipped, beaten and offered food to convert to Islam. Avinatan Or was handcuffed and starved in a small cage, held alone for two years.

We should not lose sight, however, of the other side of the split screen. The terrorists released by Israel as part of its ransom payment to Hamas returned to widespread celebrations across the Palestinian territories-and fat bank accounts too.

Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli NGO, tracks the Palestinian Authority’s “pay for slay” program. It finds that the 250 released Palestinians who had been serving life sentences received at least 229 million shekels, or nearly $70 million, while serving time for terrorism.

Many of the murderers will leave prison as shekel-millionaires. The money comes from Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority, whose nonstate is now recognized by France, the U.K., Canada and Australia. The PA receives substantial budget assistance from the European Union as well as U.S. funds for its security forces.

The incentive structure is backward. Western taxpayer dollars enrich Palestinian killers, who know they have a decent chance of being sprung whenever Hamas next seizes hostages.

Some of the released terrorists have killed Americans. Iyad Fatafteh, for example, was one of two Palestinian men who stabbed to death Kristine Luken, an American who came to Israel for the Christmas holiday in 2010. Mr. Fatafteh confessed to the crime and his DNA was found as implicating evidence. He also attacked Luken’s friend Kay Wilson, who was stabbed 13 times but miraculously survived.

The same PA that pleads poverty to Western state donors has paid Mr. Fatafteh more than $200,000 for a job brutally done. He is now free again, along with other terrorists from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah.

Israel has never employed the death penalty for terrorists, but doing so had been a campaign issue before the war for hard-right politician Itamar Ben-Gvir. Now, in the Trump deal’s aftermath, Jerusalem is considering it. The PA pays these terrorists, but when hostages are taken, Israel is pressed to foot the bill.

ONLINE: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/israel-hamas-terrorists-gaza-pay-for-slay-palestinian-authority-dec28ff4?mod=editorials_article_pos4

___

Oct. 16 – The Guardian on the US and Venezuela and regime change

The drumbeat is growing louder. Covert operations are supposed to remain just that, but on Wednesday Donald Trump confirmed that he had approved secret CIA actions in Venezuela and suggested that he was considering strikes on its territory. These comments follow the administration’s extrajudicial killings at sea: attacks on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean that have left at least 27 dead – a frightening new precedent denounced by UN experts as illegal. The US has already built up forces in the region, with about 6,500 troops now stationed there. “No to war in the Caribbean … No to regime change … No to coups d’état orchestrated by the CIA,” railed Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s dictator, after Mr Trump’s remarks.

The US president’s repeated claim that each boat strike saves 25,000 American lives is even more preposterous than it first sounds. The fentanyl that killed 48,000 people in the US last year did not come from Venezuela; most of it is from Mexico. But Mr Maduro’s regime looks increasingly isolated. The US has designated Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang as a terrorist organisation that has “invaded” the US, claiming that Mr Maduro is personally responsible. It has used that posturing to justify deportations and to boast – against the evidence – that Mr Trump has cut violent crime in cities.

This administration has proved unexpectedly active in Latin America, apparently the one sphere of foreign policy where the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, is making the running. He has long sought to oust Mr Maduro for both ideological and material reasons. Other hawkish figures in the administration, such as Stephen Miller, share this view. Mr Trump initially licensed another, simultaneous approach; his envoy Richard Grenell brokered agreements on deportation flights and energy contracts. Many believe that the hawks have prevailed, with reports that Mr Trump ordered Mr Grenell to end talks.

That CIA operations and war planning are being aired so enthusiastically may suggest that the US hopes regime change will come through Mr Maduro fleeing (unlikely), or that it still cherishes the long-held (and so far unevidenced) wish that military and security forces will turn on him. Others suspect that this is the latest example of Mr Trump’s blunt “or else” approach to foreign policy – designed to extract more from Mr Maduro.

The US has a long and inglorious history of intervention in Latin America. But Mr Trump will be wary of angering Maga supporters with military action and of looking like a paper tiger if Mr Maduro endures again. The attempt to remove him in Mr Trump’s first term, with the US backing the then opposition leader, Juan Guaidó, proved a fiasco. Last week’s decision to award the Nobel peace prize to María Corina Machado – whose opposition movement is widely believed to have won last year’s elections, prompting still more brutal repression by the regime – is a symbolic boost for those standing against Mr Maduro, but is highly unlikely to be a turning point in itself. And if insiders depose him, Madurismo without Maduro might not be an improvement for Venezuelans.

The Trump administration may convince itself that military action can be strictly delimited, given Mr Maduro’s restricted options. But Democrats and human rights groups are right to warn it against illegal and unauthorised uses of force, endangering the lives of Venezuelans, increasing the insecurity they face, and risking escalation.

ONLINE: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/16/the-guardian-view-on-the-us-and-venezuela-trumps-war-on-drugs-ramps-up-military-threats-to-maduro

___

Oct. 17 – The Boston Globe says Pete Hegseth is trying to turn journalists into the Pentagon’s PR team

The US Department of Defense – newly renamed the Department of War by the Trump administration – has opted to wage its first war of the new era not on the battlefield but within the bowels of the Pentagon pressroom.

The department issued a memo to reporters, saying they would be required to sign a document pledging not to disclose either classified or “controlled unclassified information,” defining that as anything not formally authorized for publication. That’s pretty much the definition of what reporters – good reporters – actually do every day of the week.

They gather news from a variety of sources – including from inside the Pentagon – and bring that reporting through their respective media outlets to the American public.

Secretary Pete Hegseth would apparently prefer to turn a diverse and feisty press corps into a quiescent public relations operation designed to magnify his achievements – whatever they may be.

After several weeks of negotiations among news outlets, the Pentagon Press Association, and the administration failed to produce a compromise, more than a dozen of the nation’s major media outlets announced Monday that the regulations were simply unacceptable, contrary to their rights under the First Amendment, and that they had no intention of signing on.

Those outlets included the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN, along with Newsmax and the Washington Times – the latter two among those generally friendly to the Trump administration.

By mid-day Tuesday they were joined by the nation’s major TV outlets, including Hegseth’s former bosses at Fox News.

NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News, along with the cable networks, said in a statement, “Today, we join virtually every other news organization in declining to agree to the Pentagon’s new requirements, which would restrict journalists’ ability to keep the nation and the world informed of important national security issues. The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections. We will continue to cover the US military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press.”

NPR’s Tom Bowman, a 28-year veteran of reporting from the Pentagon, wrote in an essay published Tuesday that “signing that document would make us stenographers parroting press releases, not watchdogs holding government officials accountable.”

As the deadline for signing neared, only the right-wing One America News had officially agreed to the arrangement. (The Globe does not have a Pentagon media credential.)

Those not signing on to the untenable waiver of rights proposed by Hegseth had 24 hours to surrender their media credentials and face banishment from the Pentagon itself. They lined up to do so Wednesday.

Hegseth responded to the news outlets’ refusal to sign the agreement throughout the day on X Monday with a waving hand “bye-bye” emoji.

“Pentagon access is a privilege, not a right,” he wrote on X. “So, here is @DeptofWar press credentialing FOR DUMMIES: Press no longer roams free. Press must wear visible badge. Credentialed press no longer permitted to solicit criminal acts. DONE. Pentagon now has same rules as every US military installation.”

Of course, “covering” the Pentagon these days isn’t what it used to be. A number of mainstream media outlets had already been ousted from their regularly assigned desks to make way for more Trump-friendly outlets, and media briefings have dwindled to a precious few. As of mid-day Tuesday, the latest press releases posted to the Pentagon’s website were from Sept. 30, along with the transcript of Hegseth’s speech to the military’s top brass called to Quantico that day.

The real scandal of this administration’s war on the media is the disrespect it shows for those hundreds of reporters who throughout the years – and throughout many wars – have risked and often lost their own lives reporting on this nation’s military from the field. Those embedded with military forces faced the same dangers as US soldiers but came armed with only a notebook or a camera. In the first months of the Iraq War, for example, at least 15 journalists lost their lives, including the Globe’s Elizabeth Neuffer. Before the war was over some 150 journalists and 54 support staffers would be killed covering the conflict, dwarfing the 66 killed during the Vietnam War.

Where is the respect for them and the work they did – the work hundreds continue to do.

Hegseth is an embarrassment to even an administration that has always seemed beyond embarrassment, a disgrace to the uniform he once wore and to the troops he purports to command.

The press meanwhile will continue to do what it has always done – its job – with or without his help or Pentagon permission.

ONLINE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/10/17/opinion/hegseth-war-on-press/

___

Oct. 17 – The St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the GOP’s spinning of the ‘No Kings’ protests

Millions of Americans this weekend will gather in cities and towns across the country to engage in one of the most American activities imaginable: to rally in defense of constitutional democracy.

The roughly 2,500 ” No Kings ” rallies scheduled in all 50 states Saturday (including about a dozen in the St. Louis region) are aptly named – though “No Dictators” might have been more so.

Peaceful protest generally is an American birthright, written right into our founding document. Peaceful protest in defiance of an increasingly authoritarian president is as American as it gets.

No wonder top allies of President Donald Trump are losing their minds over the planned protests.

In what appears to be a concerted messaging campaign by MAGA Republicans, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise calls it a “Hate America” rally. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer calls it a “terrorist” event. House Speaker Mike Johnson predicts it will draw “rabid” crowds rife with “antifa,” “pro-Hamas” and “Marxist” elements.

Sheesh, as long as they’re randomly slinging every hateful MAGA arrow in the quiver at this constitutionally protected event, why not just throw in “woke,” “DEI” and “trans,” too?

Johnson in particular displayed an almost comical lack of self-awareness when he preemptively slammed those planning to join the protests as “people who don’t want to stand and defend the foundational truths of this republic.”

Actually, standing and defending the foundational truths of this republic is exactly what “No Kings” organizers and participants are doing. The movement’s stated purpose is to peacefully protest Trump’s multifaceted abuses of power and degradation of democracy – emphasis on peacefully. Organizers have even offered “de-escalation training” to participants to ensure the events don’t descend into violence.

If Johnson wants real examples of trampling “the foundational truths of this republic,” he should watch what Trump is doing lately regarding freedom of speech and the press, and the weaponization of the Justice Department.

Directing the attorney general to criminally pursue political opponents; using threats of litigation and de-licensing to silence media critics; expelling reporters from the Pentagon for refusing to sign away their right to cover crucial defense issues; even declaring, as Trump recently did, that negative media coverage of him is ” really illegal ” – what part of all this does Johnson think embodies “the foundational truths of this republic”?

If Rep. Scalise wants to see what a “Hate America” event actually looks like, he should listen to Trump any time he discusses Democrats, blue cities and, generally, the more than half of Americans who oppose his policies.

“Charlie Kirk did not hate his opponents. That’s where I disagreed with him,” Trump said at a recent memorial service for the slain conservative activist: “I hate my opponents” – this president’s fellow Americans, remember – “and I don’t want the best for them.”

If Rep. Emmer wants to see what domestic terrorism really looks like, he need look no further than Chicago, where masked immigration agents are randomly attacking citizens and non-citizens alike, falsely arresting journalists, lobbing tear gas on crowded city streets near schools, shooting pepper balls at peaceful protesters and even ramming their vehicles into people’s cars.

Trump and his cronies can try to cast all of this as justified and even patriotic, but it’s neither. True patriotism means standing up for America’s ideals – freedom of expression, the rule of law, constitutional adherence and reverence for democracy – even as the most powerful man in the country attempts to tear it all down for the sake of expanding that power.

The worst thing Americans of good faith could do on Saturday is to mar the scheduled protests with violence. That would validate Johnson’s vile rhetoric and give Trump the excuse he wants to ramp up his militarization of America’s cities even more.

Massive but peaceful protest is what this crowd of wannabe autocrats fears most. Displaying the strength of the resistance while maintaining peace and dignity will draw the sharpest contrast with Trump’s toxic regime.

And, protesters, while you’re demanding your country back, you should take back the mantle of patriotism from a president who is tarnishing it. You, not him, are the real patriots – so wave those American flags, folks.

ONLINE: https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/article_157161c8-187d-4489-915e-741755c10a85.html