logo
The Philippine Missile Crisis: U.S. Deployed Arms to the Philippines and No One Noticed But China

The Philippine Missile Crisis: U.S. Deployed Arms to the Philippines and No One Noticed But China

The Intercept3 days ago
Last spring, the United States quietly placed long-range missile launchers within reach of China's mainland — and almost no one noticed. There was no congressional debate, no televised announcement, and no vote.
It was the latest step of a growing military partnership with the Philippines, just across the South China Sea.
The U.S. has been steadily expanding its military footprint in the Philippines as part of its broader strategy against China, a nuclear-armed rival. With little public scrutiny or accountability, Washington is now preparing to deploy a second Typhon missile system to the Philippines. Experts and U.S. officials have widely acknowledged that the confrontational policy could bring the U.S. into direct conflict with China.
'The United States has been fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with the Philippines since World War II,' Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said during a joint press conference in Manila earlier this year. 'Our partnership not only continues today, but we are doubling down on that partnership, and our ironclad alliance has never been stronger.'
Filipino activists, for their part, want the U.S. military out. 'We are being used as a training ground, as an experiment ground for the U.S. missile system.'
'We are being used as a training ground, as an experiment ground for the U.S. missile system,' Mong Palatino, the secretary-general of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, a progressive civil society coalition, told The Intercept. 'It endangers our population, it undermines our security. The lesson here is that we will not be able to be self-reliant as long as we are dependent on a former colonial master like the U.S. in protecting our sovereignty.'
The U.S. and Philippine governments spread misleading narratives to hype the threat posed by China threat as a means of justifying the U.S. military presence, he said.
The deployment of the offensive weapons system has already triggered a forceful response from China, which now publicly warns that these systems risk 'self-inflicted destruction' for the Philippines and could upend fragile regional stability. Without naming Washington directly, China's most recent national security white paper condemns the regional buildup of 'intermediate-range missile systems' and the return of a 'Cold War mentality.'
With the Philippines already embroiled in a maritime dispute over China's claim to the entire South China Sea, the document warns that deploying missiles in the Philippines would lead to 'aggravated regional tensions,' making maritime disputes 'more difficult and complicated' to resolve.
Last year, China's defense ministry spokesperson noted a pattern: 'wherever US weapons are deployed, the risk of war and conflicts will rise, and the local people will suffer undeserved suffering from war.'
It's difficult to imagine an American official accepting the deployment of Chinese or Russian missile systems in Mexico or Cuba; in one of those cases, obviously, not much of an imagination is needed. Yet Washington expects Beijing to tolerate precisely this scenario on its own doorstep.
The vast majority of Americans have little or no awareness of the U.S. expanding military posture in the Philippines, or what it could trigger. The American public has barely been informed that it may soon be underwriting another confrontation with a nuclear peer.
Once committed to confrontation, Manila's leaders may gamble on indefinite U.S. support. If that support wavers, whether due to domestic politics, a loss of public appetite, or economic factors, the consequences could be ruinous for a country that will bear the brunt of any direct clash between the two giants.
The war in Ukraine serves as a cautionary tale. After years of war and staggering losses, Ukraine's bargaining position is arguably worse than it was before the invasion, a tragic outcome that might have been avoided with early diplomacy.
The danger in the South China Sea is that Washington is encouraging a similar trajectory: backing increasingly aggressive stances from regional partners without fully grappling with the risks or leveling with the public about where this path could lead.
Once again, escalation is all happening in the absence of serious public debate.
The first Typhon missile launcher, which can fire missiles as far as 1,200 miles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, was stationed in the Philippines last year as part of annual joint military exercises between American and Filipino troops.
Washington has had a mutual defense treaty with the Philippines since 1951. In recent years, the U.S. military has expanded its presence, adding new bases and committing $82 million to build out infrastructure at those sites. The U.S. and the Philippines have also quietly approved a new ammunition manufacturing hub — funded by the U.S. and set to be built beside Subic Bay, which was once home to the largest U.S. naval base in Asia. 'They're a very important nation militarily and we've had some great drills lately.'
The expansion of the security partnership accelerated under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., the son of longtime dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who has embraced Manila's historic ties with Washington after a period of drift under his predecessor, Rodrigo Duterte.
After meeting with Marcos last week, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will lower its tariff rate for the Philippines from 20 percent to 19 percent.
'They're a very important nation militarily and we've had some great drills lately,' Trump said after the meeting. 'We're back with them. I think I can say that the last administration was not getting along with them too well.'
'And Pete, I would say that you were — you couldn't be happier, right, with the relationship,' Trump added, nodding to the defense secretary.
At the helm of this growing security relationship is Hegseth, a controversial appointment with little background in Southeast Asia. Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has even gone viral for his lack of familiarity with the region. During his confirmation hearing, he couldn't name a single member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
Meanwhile, activists in the Philippines — from fisherfolk and environmentalists to labor leaders — have been speaking out against the growing U.S. military presence. When 18,000 troops from the U.S., Philippines, and Australia took part in a military exercise in the South China Sea in 2023, protesters marched outside the U.S. Embassy in Manila, warning that the Philippines would be the most devastated if conflict broke out between the U.S. and China.
The U.S. military presence in the Philippines has long been resisted by the Filipino public, with mass movements successfully pressuring the government to expel American bases in the early 1990s. That victory came after decades of struggle under a U.S.-backed dictatorship and, today, with a Marcos back in power, the U.S. is strengthening its alliance even as authoritarianism tightens its grip.
As Washington turns the Philippines into a potential battleground for great-power conflict, Filipino activists hope Americans will also confront the long-buried history of how the U.S. first came to occupy the archipelago — through invasion, colonization, and the mass killing of Filipinos in the name of empire.
Most of all, though, they want those lessons to be transposed to the present, to stop the looming threat that their country could be sacrificed to war with China in the name of that same empire.
'Of course, we have a maritime dispute with China, but that maritime dispute should not be used as a justification to allow a country like the U.S. to use the Philippines as its forward military base,' Palatino said. 'We should resolve our maritime dispute with China diplomatically and peacefully.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

B.C.‘s Jobs Minister Kahlon urges Canada to ‘negotiate hard' over U.S. tariff raises
B.C.‘s Jobs Minister Kahlon urges Canada to ‘negotiate hard' over U.S. tariff raises

Hamilton Spectator

time33 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

B.C.‘s Jobs Minister Kahlon urges Canada to ‘negotiate hard' over U.S. tariff raises

VICTORIA - British Columbia's minister of jobs and economic growth is urging the federal government to stand firm and 'negotiate hard' when trying to find a solution to 35 per cent tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump's Ravi Kahlon's advice to Prime Minister Mark Carney and his negotiating team is to keep up what they're doing, and 'find a path forward the best they can.' A statement from Premier David Eby's office says he remains focused on protecting workers and businesses in B.C. from the 'deeply harmful tariffs' imposed by Trump's administration. It says Eby supports the federal government's efforts to get a 'good deal' for Canada, adding that he looks forward to speaking to the prime minister about the situation. The United States imposed a 35 per cent tariff on all Canadian goods outside the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement on free trade after an agreement couldn't be reached by the Aug. 1 deadline. Several other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and the European Union, have reached deals before the deadline. Kahlon said Trump is 'constantly finding ways to raise the temperature' so 'they can squeeze out the most' from any agreement. He said he believes Carney and Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc are taking the right approach, 'which is keeping their head down, continue to be at the table, continue to find solutions, and not getting distracted by the day-to-day swings of the president of the United States.' He said he would also highlight the importance of the softwood lumber industry for B.C., which is just as crucial as the auto industry is to Ontario. 'The forest sector here in British Columbia should get the same support,' Kahlon said. Both Eby and Kahlon have repeatedly argued that the long-running softwood lumber dispute with the United States should be part of a larger deal. Brian Menzies, executive director of the Independent Wood Processors Association of British Columbia, said he is 'not very optimistic' that a future deal would also resolve the softwood dispute as the industry already faces combined tariffs and duties of almost 35 per cent. 'We have been at this for eight years now, and there doesn't seem to be enough of a push on the American side to resolve this,' he said. Menzies also favours ongoing negotiations with the United States to resolve the tariff dispute. 'I would say it's better to get a good deal than a bad deal,' he said. 'I'd say right now, 'Do your best to stand up for what's important for Canada,'' he said. Menzies said being 'kowtowed and pushed over' is not good for Canada or the United States. 'People respect people who stand up for what's important to them, and that's the basis for any negotiation,' Menzies said. Menzies noted that any future deal with the United States might not last long, given Trump's temperament. Kahlon agreed. 'We take nothing for granted,' he said. 'It's a sad state for us in Canada to have a partner down south that doesn't honour a handshake, an agreement,' he said. 'It's hard to do business with somebody that is hard to trust when these things come.' Kahlon added that even the United Kingdom and the European Union are not sure if they actually have agreements with the United States. 'So the uncertainty continues,' he said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 1, 2025. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court

Newsweek

time33 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.

Businesses got some clarity on Trump's trade deal. They aren't reassured.
Businesses got some clarity on Trump's trade deal. They aren't reassured.

Politico

timean hour ago

  • Politico

Businesses got some clarity on Trump's trade deal. They aren't reassured.

That's a reference to the fact that Trump's much-hyped trade agreements were verbal — there hasn't been any documentation backing up what the two sides agreed to. Already, major trading partners like the European Union and Japan have cast doubt on whether they could meet their investment and purchasing pledges, and Vietnam has not even publicly confirmed it agreed to the terms Trump announced in their supposed deal inked in early July. 'I think the lens has become a little clearer' in terms of tariff rates, said Stephen Lamar, the president of American Apparel and Footwear association, which represents brands like J Crew and L.L. Bean that rely heavily on imports from countries like China and Vietnam. Lamar predicted that many of those duties 'are probably going to be it for a while,' but added, 'We don't yet have enough information to make the kinds of long term decisions that need to be made right now, and even the shorter term decisions of, 'how I'm going to price my spring collection?'' The White House has largely dismissed complaints from business warnings that the tariffs will drive up costs for importers and, ultimately, American consumers. Trump has singled out specific companies, like Wal-Mart, demanding that they 'eat the tariffs' and has repeatedly suggested to business leaders that they should avoid the duties by shifting production to the U.S. 'President Trump's trade deals have unlocked unprecedented market access for American exports to economies that in total are worth over $32 trillion with 1.2 billion people,' said Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson. 'As these historic trade deals and the Administration's pro-growth domestic agenda of deregulation and The One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts take effect, American businesses and families alike have the certainty that the best is yet to come.' The administration also claims economists overestimated how much the tariffs would affect the economy, pointing to the fact that inflation is still largely meeting its targets and that there has yet to be a recession, like some economists predicted. 'I think they are looking at the current numbers as support for the lack of impact of these tariffs,' said Greg Ahearn, the president and CEO of the Toy Association, whose members are largely small and mid-sized businesses that have a harder time absorbing higher duties. 'But I think most people believe wholeheartedly that the impact of these tariffs is going to be felt in the months ahead. And the reason why is that production and manufacturing and the goods as they flow through the supply chain takes time.' Ahearn pointed to Friday's weak jobs report, including signs that there were actually fewer new jobs created in May and June than previously estimated, as evidence the impact of Trump's trade policies are just starting to show up in the data. There are already signs that the tariffs have begun driving up prices on purchases such as furniture, apparel and toys, which helped push up the inflation rate in June. And Lamar warned that, 'Once those prices go up, they have a hard time coming down.' Many business leaders fear that this week's worrying economic numbers are only the beginning of a more sustained downturn. 'Inflation and price increases are coming,' Ahearn said. 'Layoffs have already been occurring. And supply is going to be lower as we head into the holiday season. These are all happening.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store