US military deploying over 4,000 additional troops to waters around Latin America as part of Trump's counter-cartel mission
The deployment of the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (ARG) and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit to US Southern Command, which has not been previously reported, is part of a broader repositioning of military assets to the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility that has been underway over the last three weeks, one of the officials said.
A nuclear-powered attack submarine, additional P8 Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft, several destroyers and a guided-missile cruiser are also being allocated to US Southern Command as part of the mission, the officials said.
A third person familiar with the matter said the additional assets are 'aimed at addressing threats to US national security from specially designated narco-terrorist organizations in the region.'
On Friday, the US Navy announced the deployment of the USS Iwo Jima, the 22nd MEU, and the two other ships in the Amphibious Ready Group — the USS Fort Lauderdale and the USS San Antonio — but did not say where they were going.
One of the officials emphasized that the military buildup is for now mostly a show of force, aimed more at sending a message than indicative of any intention to conduct precision targeting of cartels. But it also gives US military commanders — and the president — a broad range of options should Trump order military action. The ARG/MEU, for example, also features an aviation combat element.
The deployment of the Marine Expeditionary Unit, however, has raised concerns among some defense officials who worry that the Marines are not trained to conduct drug interdictions and counter drug-trafficking. If that is part of their mission set, they will have to lean heavily on the Coast Guard, officials said.
MEUs have been instrumental in the past in supporting large-scale evacuation operations; a MEU was stationed for months in the eastern Mediterranean, for example, amid tensions between Israel, Hamas and Iran.
A Marine official told CNN that the MEU 'stands ready to execute lawful orders and support the combatant commanders in the needs that are requested of them.'
The US military deployed destroyers to the areas around the US-Mexico border in March to support US Northern Command's border security mission and reinforce the US' presence in the western hemisphere. The additional assets being moved now, however, will fall under US Southern Command, and are set to support SOUTHCOM for at least the next several months, one of the officials said.
CNN previously reported that a memo signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this year stated that the US military's 'foremost priority' is to defend the homeland, and instructed the Pentagon to 'seal our borders, repel forms of invasion including unlawful mass migration, narcotics trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking, and other criminal activities, and deport illegal aliens in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.'
The same memo also formally asked Pentagon officials for 'credible military options' to ensure unfettered American access to the Panama Canal, CNN reported at the time.
CNN's Zachary Cohen contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
7 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Is Testing D.C.'s Home Rule. What Is It?
President Trump's rapidly escalating push to exert control over law enforcement in Washington, D.C., has posed one of the biggest threats to the city's self-governance since it was granted limited home rule by Congress in 1973. The fight, which has now moved to the courts, could affect not just who gives orders to the city's police officers in the coming days, but what becomes of the District's tenuous autonomy. What is home rule? The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 gave residents of the capital a limited form of self-governance for the first time since the 1800s. Before it, Congress and commissioners appointed by the president governed the city. And District residents — who had no representation in Congress — basically had no local elections to vote in, either. Home rule gave D.C. residents the power to elect a mayor, a District of Columbia Council and local neighborhood commissioners. But it also imposed extensive congressional oversight over how those officials govern the city, including the laws and budgets they adopt. As a result, the federal government hovers over how local officials govern just about every aspect of life in the city. The arrangement — unique to any city in America and originating in the Constitution's provision for a federal 'District' — has shifted some over time. For a period starting in the mid-1990s, a financial control board established by Congress managed the city's finances. And the federal government has taken back control of some functions the city struggled to fund (given the limitations Congress itself put on revenue the city could raise). But the basic contours of government in D.C. have been set for half a century by home rule — or 'limited home rule,' as locals more often describe it. Who controls the police department under home rule? The Metropolitan Police Department is controlled by Mayor Muriel Bowser of the District of Columbia, a Democrat, who appoints its police chief. The agency primarily functions as other municipal police departments do, although it also regularly supports the federal government. When the president travels around town in his motorcade, M.P.D. manages traffic. When large protests or events like inaugurations happen, M.P.D. officers help secure them (they also responded to the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol). Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
New $250 Visa Integrity Fee Will Cost US $11 Billion, Say Tourism Officials
Topline U.S. tourism officials say Congress's controversial $250 visa integrity fee will deter international visitors and cost the country nearly $11 billion in lost visitor spending and tax revenue over the next three years. Key Facts The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the new $250 visa integrity fee will bring in around $27 billion over a decade—or $2.7 billion per year—to U.S. government coffers and reduce the national debt. But a U.S. tourism official told Forbes the fee will instead cost the U.S. economy $11 billion over three years, including $9.4 billion in lost visitor spending and $1.3 billion in lost tax revenue—or about $3.6 billion per year, according to an analysis by Tourism Economics. In addition, the lost revenue will lead to losing 15,000 U.S. travel jobs, according to U.S. tourism industry estimates. How Will The $250 Fee Impact Tourism To The U.s.? The CBO based its estimate solely on the potential revenue generated by the fee itself, while the U.S. tourism industry looked at the macroeconomic impact of implementing the fee, hence the wildly different estimates. The CBO estimated that charging roughly 11 million annual visa applicants $250 apiece would rake in roughly $2.7 billion per year for the State Department. Tourism officials say Congress wrongly assumed the pricey fee would have little impact on the volume of visitation. Tourism Economics, a division of Oxford Economics, estimated that the $250-per-person fee is onerous enough to deter 5.4% of international visitors from coming to the U.S., which would translate to a drop of nearly 1 million fewer visits annually. Fewer visitors translate to less visitor spending, and in turn to lower tax revenue and job losses in the tourism industry, sending a negative ripple effect throughout the national economy. 'By longstanding tradition, the Congressional Budget Office does not incorporate macroeconomic feedback effects into its traditional cost estimates,' a CBO spokesperson told Forbes. 'We didn't specifically do a dynamic analysis of this provision.' In other words, the CBO did not factor in the potential negative economic impact from lower visitor spending, tax revenue and subsequent job cuts—key metrics used by the U.S. tourism industry and the U.S. Commerce Department to evaluate the overall value of tourism to the U.S. economy. 'I think in the minds of congressional leaders, foreign visitors don't vote, so making them pay more to help fund the [Big Beautiful] Bill wouldn't come at any political cost,' Erik Hansen, senior vice president of government relations at the U.S. Travel Association, told Forbes. 'But the problem is it comes at a huge economic cost to American businesses.' What Else Do U.s. Tourism Experts Say Congress Got Wrong? 'Congress made the mistake of assuming that this worldwide visa integrity fee would not have a big impact on visitors from countries like India or Brazil,' Hansen told Forbes. 'This is the exact type of armchair public policymaking that is going to get us into a big mess.' India, in particular, is a 'bright spot' for inbound international travel because visitation numbers have surpassed where they were in 2019, he said, while most other countries are lagging behind their pre-pandemic volume. In 2024, Indian tourists spent roughly $13.3 billion in the U.S., according to the National Travel and Tourism Office, part of the U.S. Commerce Department. 'Applying a $250 fee to a country where travel is growing is mindboggling. It will absolutely deter travel—that's what our research has found,' Hansen said. What Do International Visitors Need To Know About The Visa Integrity Fee? The fee is not actually as 'refundable' as Congress has billed it to be. As written, the Big Beautiful Bill says the State Department 'may reimburse' the fee after the visitor's visa expires, provided that the visa holder has complied with all conditions of the visa. But most visitor visas are valid for 10 years, Hansen pointed out. 'The idea that you're going to give the government money and then wait around 10 years and remember to ask for it back, even if you followed the rules, is just absolutely crazy,' he said. Indeed, to arrive at its projection, the CBO reasoned in its estimate that 'a large number of nonimmigrants would not be eligible to seek reimbursement until several years after paying the fee' so consequently only 'a small number of people would seek reimbursement.' In other words, said Hansen, 'there's a very good understanding that the refund process itself is not going to be easy, and even if it is easy, that a lot of people aren't going to seek that refund after a decade.' Another red flag: The $250 fee was inserted into the Big Beautiful Bill without a plan for processing refunds. In its analysis, the CBO wrote that 'the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements.' Why Are So Many International Travelers Avoiding The U.s. This Year? In June, a World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) analysis of the economic impact of tourism in 184 countries revealed the U.S. was the only country forecast to see international visitor spending decline in 2025, which by some estimates is as much as $29 billion. The root causes of this decline, multiple studies have found, are a combination of President Trump's tariffs, travel bans, inflammatory rhetoric and harsher immigration policies, all which have created a chilling effect on visitors. 'While other nations are rolling out the welcome mat, the U.S. government is putting up the 'closed' sign,' Julia Simpson, president and CEO of WTTC, said in a statement. 'Given we're halfway through the year and we've seen these impacts, we don't know when the stiffest headwind is, but I think it does stay sustained,' Aran Ryan, director of industry studies at Tourism Economics, told Forbes last month. 'We're generally assuming that this persists for a while and that some of it is going to persist throughout the end of the administration.' Simpson characterized the WTTC study as a 'wake-up call for the U.S. government,' adding that 'without urgent action to restore international traveler confidence, it could take several years for the U.S. just to return to pre-pandemic levels of international visitor spend.' Tangent Trump's signature spending bill contains another blow to U.S. tourism. A Senate committee led by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) slashed the budget of Brand USA, the country's public-private destination marketing organization, from $100 million to $20 million. 'This is another error that Congress has made,' Hansen said, noting that the Trump administration recommended full funding for the organization in its fiscal year 2026 budget. 'We have a big misperception problem among international visitors right now, but Congress cut funding for the one organization that's in charge of setting perceptions and sending a welcoming message about travel to the United States.'
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Data center owners urge US Treasury to keep renewable energy subsidy rules
(Reuters) -The Data Center Coalition, which represents data center owners including Google, Amazon and Microsoft, called on U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to uphold existing rules for wind and solar energy subsidies, saying they have enabled the industry to grow quickly and stay ahead of competition from China. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT Tougher rules on how projects can qualify for federal clean energy tax credits could slow development of new electricity generation at a time of surging power demand driven by artificial intelligence and the digital economy. KEY QUOTE "Any regulatory friction that slows down deployment of new generation today directly impacts our ability to meet AI-era electricity demands tomorrow," the coalition wrote in its letter to Bessent. The letter is dated August 4 but was seen by Reuters on Friday. CONTEXT President Donald Trump issued an executive order in July directing Treasury to tighten clean energy tax credit rules, including redefining what it means for a project to have started construction. The industry has relied on the existing rules for the last decade, and advisory firm Clean Energy Associates projected this week that the United States could lose about 60 gigawatts of planned solar capacity through 2030 if stricter "beginning of construction" rules are implemented. BY THE NUMBERS Between 2017 and 2023, the U.S. data center industry contributed $3.5 trillion to the nation's gross domestic product and directly employed over 600,000 workers, according to the DCC. WHAT'S NEXT The Treasury Department is expected to issue updated guidelines as soon as August 18.
