Category: Government

Finally: Trump Pulls the US Out of United Nations’ International Gun Registry Scheme

President Donald Trump just delivered a long-overdue message to the global gun confiscation cartel: America is not taking orders from the United Nations.

In a major move for national sovereignty and Second Amendment freedom, the Trump administration has formally withdrawn the United States from the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, a UN-run reporting system that gun rights advocates have warned for years is part of the international bureaucracy’s long game to pressure nations into “standardized” gun restrictions.

What Is the UN Register of Conventional Arms?

UNROCA is a so-called “voluntary” United Nations registry where participating countries report information about weapons transfers, including categories of conventional arms and, in many cases, small arms and light weapons.

Supporters claim it promotes “transparency.”

But gun owners know how this game works.

Transparency is always the excuse and control is always the goal. Because once international bureaucrats start collecting data, they don’t stop at tracking tanks and fighter jets.

Continue reading “”

HHS announces US has completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the State Department announced Thursday that the United States has completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization over its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

President Donald Trump signed the executive order that began the process of withdrawing from the global organization last year, on the first day of his second term.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also cited issues with the organization’s failure to adopt urgent reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the political influence of WHO member states.

“Today, the United States withdrew from the World Health Organization, freeing itself from its constraints, as President Trump promised on his first day in office,” the secretaries said in a joint statement. “This action responds to the WHO’s failures during the COVID-19 pandemic and seeks to rectify the harm from those failures inflicted on the American people.”

The departments claimed the WHO delayed declaring a global public health emergency and pandemic during the early stages of COVID-19 and failed to adopt meaningful reforms to address political influence and poor coordination in the aftermath of the global crisis.

The secretaries added that the United States will still interact with the organization to effectuate its withdrawal, but that all funding for, and staffing of, WHO initiatives have ceased.

DOJ: Ban on mailing concealable firearms unconstitutional, can’t be enforced

A nearly 100-year-old federal ban on mailing handguns through the U.S. Postal Service is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced, according to an opinion released Thursday by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The 15-page opinion concluded that a 1927 law, which made it illegal to use the Postal Service to mail concealable firearms, such as pistols and revolvers, infringes on the Second Amendment.

“Section 1715 makes it difficult to travel with arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, target shooting, and hunting,” wrote T. Elliot Gaiser, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

“The statute also imposes significant barriers to shipping constitutionally protected firearms as articles of commerce, which interferes with citizens’ incidental rights to acquire and maintain arms,” the opinion continued.

Postal Service policy mandates that nonmailable firearms found in the mail stream “must be immediately reported to the United States Postal Inspection Service,” and investigations are then referred to the relevant U.S. attorney’s office for prosecution.

The agency categorizes “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on a person,” including short-barreled shotguns and rifles, as handguns. It also notes there are no restrictions on mailing rifles and shotguns between licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers.

Major private carriers, including UPS and FedEx, also restrict the shipping of firearms to only licensed dealers, which the opinion argued effectively creates a “complete ban” for unlicensed people.

The opinion acknowledged some limitations, finding the law was only unconstitutional related to handguns but still applied to undetectable firearms, such as pen guns.

Continue reading “”

Rep. Eric Burlison: ‘Real Freedom Means Less Government Interference,’ End the ATF

Rep. Eric Burlison (R) is beginning 2026 right where he spent 2025, namely, pushing for the end of the ATF’s registration schemes and for the abolition of the agency itself.

He used a post on January 11, 2026, to remind Americans that the $200 tax on suppressors was done away via the language of the One Big Beautiful Bill, yet the ATF continues registering the devices. In so doing, the agency creates “busywork” that slows the transfer of a suppressor, “holding gun owners hostage with delays and excuses.”

Burlison pointed out that the zeroing of the $200 federal has resulted in a “surge” in suppressor purchases, which has translated into a backlog at the ATF as the agency finds itself overwhelmed with the registration workload: “…the ATF wasn’t ready for the surge in registrations and crashed their system. Unacceptable! Now they’re still demanding paperwork for no reason. Time to end this pointless registry entirely…”

He wrote, “I sent a letter demanding fixes, but the real solution is abolishing the ATF altogether. We don’t need unelected bureaucrats infringing on our rights. Congress must act to dismantle this relic and restore liberty!”

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Withdraws the United States from International Organizations that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States

WITHDRAWING FROM INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the withdrawal of the United States from 66 international organizations that no longer serve American interests.

  • The Memorandum orders all Executive Departments and Agencies to cease participating in and funding 35 non-United Nations (UN) organizations and 31 UN entities that operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity, or sovereignty.
  • This follows a review ordered earlier this year of all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties that the United States is a member of or party to, or that the United States funds or supports.
  • These withdrawals will end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively such that U.S. taxpayer dollars are best allocated in other ways to support the relevant missions.

RESTORING AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY: President Trump is ending U.S. participation in international organizations that undermine America’s independence and waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile agendas.

  • Many of these bodies promote radical climate policies, global governance, and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength.
  • American taxpayers have spent billions on these organizations with little return, while they often criticize U.S. policies, advance agendas contrary to our values, or waste taxpayer dollars by purporting to address important issues but not achieving any real results.
  • By exiting these entities, President Trump is saving taxpayer money and refocusing resources on America First priorities.

PUTTING AMERICA FIRST ON THE GLOBAL STAGE: President Trump has consistently fought to protect U.S. sovereignty and ensure international engagements serve American interests.

  • Immediately upon returning to office, President Trump initiated the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement.
  • On Day One of his Administration, President Trump also signed a Presidential Memorandum to notify the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development that its Global Tax Deal has no force or effect in the United States, and direct an investigation into whether foreign countries have tax rules in place that are extraterritorial or disproportionately affect American companies.
  • Just weeks later, President Trump signed an Executive Order withdrawing the United States from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and prohibiting any future funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency for the Near East (UNRWA).
  • He has prioritized American interests by redirecting focus and resources toward domestic priorities such as infrastructure, military readiness, and border security, and acting swiftly to protect American companies from foreign interference.

Montana Accidentally Made Things Right on Gun-Free School Zones

I don’t think that schools should be totally gun-free zones. While I get that Bruen said that sensitive places could be gun-free, and schools are probably about as sensitive a place as you can name, I don’t think that barring lawful carry in schools for staff and parents is a winning strategy. After all, how many school shootings have we seen despite the schools having this status?

Yeah, plenty.

But the truth is that in most places, schools are as off-limits as they come. At least they are when it’s K-12 schools. Colleges are a different matter in many states, but below that level? The rules are firm.

And those rules include a “buffer zone” of sorts that prohibits the carrying of firearms around the school, regardless of most any other factor.

And Montana accidentally exposed a loophole and made things right, even if that’s not quite what they were trying to do.

Sometimes the most consequential gun control stories don’t start with a bill banning firearms. They start with lawmakers trying to expand freedom — and discovering that the Constitution doesn’t bend the way critics expect it to.

That is exactly what just happened in Montana.

In an effort to strengthen the right to carry, Montana lawmakers may have effectively erased gun-free school zones everywhere except on school property itself. Not through activism. Not through litigation designed to gut federal law. But through their own permitless carry statutes — and a federal court noticed.

The result is a ruling that has left gun-control advocates furious, school administrators uneasy, and Second Amendment supporters pointing out an inconvenient truth: when the state recognizes the right to carry as a right, federal carve-outs start to fall apart.

It all boils down to a guy who would go for a walk near a school. Sometimes, he’d carry a gun openly, and other times, it would be concealed. Local police told the school that he wasn’t breaking any state law, so they couldn’t do anything about it. The school moved kids away from the man and tried to erect visual barriers so no one would see him.

Eventually, the feds stepped in, arrested him, and saw the whole thing thrown out.

Why?

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because Montana statutorily authorizes concealed carry for eligible citizens, those citizens qualify for the federal licensing exception.

In plain terms: if everyone is licensed by law, then everyone qualifies for the exemption.

The court dismissed the charges and made it clear that the outcome wasn’t an accident; it was the logical result of Montana’s legislative choices.

The ruling emphasized that Montana did not delegate licensing authority to agencies or local officials. The Legislature itself granted the authority. Congress, the court said, did not clearly prohibit states from doing that.

As a result of that ruling, though, gun-free school zones are confined exclusively to the school itself, not the area around the school.

If schools are going to be gun-free zones, this is how it should be. The idea that the area around the school is also gun-free is a major problem because, frankly, people travel by those schools all the time. They have to in order to get to where they’re going, and unless they’re licensed under state law, they may be committing a felony.

The “buffer zone” thing has always been wrong, but Montana accidentally fixed it for residents there. Instead of just saying a license isn’t needed, they licensed everyone, which had an unintended but positive effect regarding the whole school zone thing.

Maybe other states should address this via their own constitutional carry laws. Most didn’t take quite the same approach as Montana, but they could make that happen and change things once and for all.

It would be a win for gun rights, sanity, and everything else decent in the universe, and the anti-gunners would still have their allegedly gun-free schools.

Again, not that it seems to do much good.

Gov Sanders rejects demand from legal group to undo Christmas closure: ‘I will do no such thing’
The Freedom From Religion Foundation took issue with Sanders’ Christmas message

 Arkansas Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is firing back at a legal group who took issue with her recent move to close state offices on Friday, December 26 to celebrate Christmas and give employees more time with their families.

After issuing a proclamation closing state offices for Christmas, Sanders received a letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a group focused on the separation of church and state, calling for her to reverse the move and claiming it was unconstitutional.

In a response letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, Sanders told FFRF she “will do no such thing.”

12.19.25-freedom-from-religion-foundation-response-letter

Senator Mike Lee’s idea, noted back in February gathers notice.

Avast, Me Hearties! Lawmakers Want Congress to Issue ‘Letters of Marque’ to Go After Cartel Drug Boats

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) wants to revive an ancient and honorable custom: grant Congress the authority to issue Letters of Marque that would allow U.S. citizens and others to legally interdict drug boats and other cartel-owned ships and property, to be sold off. At least some of the proceeds would go to the “privateers.”

The idea of giving Letters of Marque to employ private citizens to police the oceans isn’t new. As recently as Sept. 11, 2001, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced a bill to grant Letters of Marque that would have legally allowed American citizens to go after Osama Bin Laden and his assets.

During the Revolutionary War, the U.S. didn’t have much of a Navy. It was up to privateers operating with Letters of Marque, raiding British shipping and occasionally attacking British warships, to show the flag and gain much-needed hard currency for the American cause.

Reviving the custom would not be welcomed by our allies or enemies.

“Cartels have replaced corsairs in the modern era, but we can still give private American citizens and their businesses a stake in the fight against these murderous foreign criminals,” Lee, who is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said. “The Cartel Marque and Reprisal Reauthorization Act will revive this historic practice to defend our shores and seize cartel assets.”

“Corsairs” were pirates operating near the Barbary Coast in North Africa in the early 19th century. They routinely stopped American ships, stole the cargo, and held Americans for ransom.

Congress can issue Letters of Marque, having been vested with the power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It gives Congress the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

The Declaration of Paris in 1856 supposedly abolished “privateering” and Letters of Marque. It was signed by almost all the major seafaring powers except the United States. Does this mean the U.S. can hire privateers anyway?

There’s nothing in American law that would forbid the practice. While the U.S. could theoretically issue a letter, doing so would likely be seen as a violation of customary international law. “Customary” international law refers to the fact that, because the U.S. hasn’t issued any Letters of Marque for more than 200 years, we have tacitly acknowledged the legality of the law and are a de facto signatory to it.

China has a long history of engaging in irregular coercive activities, including harassing neighboring countries’ oil and gas exploration, fishing fleets, and replenishment of military installations.

Other nations might treat American privateers as pirates rather than lawful combatants, meaning they wouldn’t have the legal protections typically given to military prisoners of war. That’s only one headache Donald Trump would have if Congress went ahead and authorized the issuing of the letters.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
What am I getting at? If you look at what Pete Hegseth has actually done, it was long overdue, and he’s doing it very well. And the criticism against him has two themes: It’s entirely political, and it’s not symmetric. Everything they said about Pete Hegseth in a negative context could have been applied to both the Obama and Biden administration, and much more egregiously.

Hegseth Did What Biden Called ‘Impossible.’

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. A lot of officials in the Trump Cabinet are under a lot of criticism, as we’d expect, from the Left. But one has, I think, both got more criticism and more unfair criticism than any other Cabinet member. And that’s Pete Hegseth, the secretary of war—the newly renamed Department of Defense.

Let’s just review a little bit of his record because it does not justify the level of invective that the Left, and even some people on the Right in Congress and the Republican Party, have unfairly attacked him.

We were told during the Biden administration that the recruitment for the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, and even in one case, I think one year, the Marines, was off some 40,000 to 50,000 recruits. And the Pentagon’s reaction under Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was, as we heard this echoed by a lot of the four-star admirals and generals, well, people are out of shape. They’re in gangs. They take drugs. They are wanted by private enterprise.

We have to compete with all of the excuses other than the real cause. The real cause was, as Pete Hegseth said when he came in, that people felt that the military was not emphasizing combat, battlefield efficacy. It was turning into a social justice “program.”

The subtext of Pete Hegseth’s point was that there was a particular demographic, white males from rural and often southern locales. They had died at twice their numbers in the demographic in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they weren’t joining.

Some of them were not joining because of the 8,500, maybe 8,000-8,500, that had natural immunity from prior COVID-19 infections. And yet, they did not want this experimental mRNA vaccine, and they were drummed out en masse. The majority of those fit this demographic.

The others felt that under the DEI obsessions with race and sexual orientation and gender, that people would be recruited, retained, promoted on criteria other than battlefield efficacy. So, they just stayed away from what they felt was a hostile environment. Didn’t help when then-Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin told the nation before Congress that they were going to invest white supremacy following the death of George Floyd.

That’s over with. There is a record number of Army recruits. The military has met all of its recruiting. That is equivalent to the dramatic revolution on the southern border. Nobody thought we could close the border. We did. Nobody thought we could get recruitment back. Pete Hegseth did.

Continue reading “”

Arkansas Attorney General Clarifies State’s Concealed Carry Law

On November 14, 2025, the Arkansas Attorney General (AG), Tim Griffin, clarified Arkansas law about the legal carry of firearms. The three questions to be answered included: publicly owned buildings or facilities, the legal definition of an “athletic event” in Arkansas law, and what type of carry is prohibited in statutorily prohibited spaces. The questions were asked by the Honorable Sonia Eubanks Barker, a Republican state representative with a pro-Second Amendment reputation.

AG opinions are not binding on judges. They are statements of what the Attorney General believes the law to be. They are often taken into account by prosecutors when determining whether to prosecute in a given circumstance.

AG Griffin’s response was detailed and encyclopedic. It is well-crafted and an excellent read. The response explains Arkansas’s statutory law about the carry of firearms in considerable detail. The response also explains some of the intricacies of law and statutory interpretation. In addition to the lengthy response, the AG  provides brief summaries of his findings. AG Griffin found:

Continue reading “”

NC county dissolves library board after vote to keep kids transgender-themed picture book. 

A library board of trustees in North Carolina has been dissolved after the board voted to keep a picture book about a transgender boy.

On Dec. 8, the Randolph County commissioners voted 3-2 to remove the Randolph County Public Library’s board of trustees.

The library’s board voted 5-2 in October to keep “Call Me Max,” a book about a transgender boy, on the shelves.

Part of the book’s second chapter reads, “On the first day of school, the teacher called out our names. ‘Emory?’ ‘Here!’ ‘Stella?’ ‘Me!’”

“I raised my hand when she got to my name,” the child, who wants to be called “Max,” muses. “She looked at me. And then at the list of names. And then back at me again.”

The child says, “I wondered if she thought my name didn’t make sense for me. I felt that way too.”

“Can you call me Max?” the child in the book asks. “Max is the boy in my favorite book. She nodded and wrote it down. (I won’t tell you what my old name was. That’s private.)”

“Call Me Max” is authored by trans writer Kyle Lukoff, and the Amazon description of the book calls it “a sweet and age-appropriate introduction to what it means to be transgender.”

The Randolph County Public Library and the Randolph County commissioners did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

NSSF Happy with DOJ’s Moves to Protect Gun Rights

A lot of people are displeased with the Department of Justice.
[Yours truly here among them!]

They see mixed signals from an administration that vowed to be strong on gun rights. They see them because they’re present. The DOJ will defend gun rights one day, and oppose them the next. It’s kind of causing a certain degree of whiplash.

But as I noted on Tuesday at the above link, purity was probably never going to happen.

For what it’s worth, though, Larry Keane of the NSSF is pretty happy with what’s happening overall.

President Donald Trump signed his Presidential Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights back on February 7, 2025, instructing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all presidential and agency actions taken between January 2021 and January 2025 that “purport to promote safety” but infringed on the rights of law-abiding citizens. That includes rules issued by the DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), classifications of firearms and ammunition, regulatory enforcement policies and even reports issued by the former taxpayer-funded White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention that just pushed gun control.

In other words, for the first time, the Civil Rights Division is directed to treat the Second Amendment as what it is: a civil right deserving active protection, not a second-class right that must constantly give way to regulatory experimentation.

Continue reading “”

Preemption Laws Make Lawful Carry Easier…That’ Why They’re Under Attack by the Gun Control Industry.

Preemption laws offer legal protection for gun owners, but only when they are enforced. The work to advance any pro-gun legislation is arduous, more so in Minnesota than most states. But passing a law is only half the battle. This is also especially true in Minnesota, where local officials are concocting yet another illegal scheme to defy the state’s firearm preemption statute.

This has sadly become the norm, as defying preemption is a recognized way for municipal politicians to signal to their anti-gun supporters and donors that if the Second Amendment is no impediment to their plans, neither is a state statute. This contempt is now playing out in Minnesota, where mass noncompliance and legal fairytales are the order of the day.

The city of Saint Paul, Minnesota, recently declared that their city council “stands ready to act on day one when the state lifts preemption” to establish the complete ban on possession of semi-automatic firearms, “large capacity” magazines, binary triggers, “ghost guns,” as well as to create even more “gun-free zones.” It admits, however, that none of their new gun control is actually enforceable under the law as it presently stands.

Current Minnesota law, Minn. Stat. § 471.633, states:

The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that:

(a)   A governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms and

(b)   A governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law

       Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void.

State law speaks clearly on the matter, and no parts of the adopted or proposed ordinances qualify under the exceptions. Meanwhile, passing illegal legislation on the pretext that the law may someday change doesn’t remedy the violation. Try withholding presently owed taxes in the hope of future amendments to a state’s revenue laws to see where that gets you.

Yet even while acknowledging these efforts as unconstitutional in Minnesota due to the existing firearm preemption law, the Saint Paul City Council unanimously passed the ordinance and became the first city among a coalition of 17 cities that have pledged to do the same.

The city of Edina, Minnesota, attempted a similar effort last week which is now reportedly on hold. Edina Mayor James Hovland noted he wants residents to be able to weigh in at a public hearing first before the city council takes a vote while seemingly ignoring Edina City Attorney David Kendall’s legal input that the city cannot put an effective date on a gun ban until state law is changed and that he doesn’t, “think that the council is in a good position to direct police to enforce [such] an ordinance.”

Without any enforcement ability, these actions are transparently performative political theatre. However, a deeper dive at the continued audacity of jurisdictions to ignore the superior authority of the state illustrates the ongoing danger posed to the rule of law. Fundamental to the principle of law is clarity, and while these local politicians may feel empowered, their actions continue to create confusion and fear for residents and law enforcement officers.

Of course, lawsuits that should not have to be filed have and will be to defend gun owner rights. Judicial ping-pong on an already established legal principle will further contribute to havoc as gun control advocates perceive a dual benefit of virtual signaling and depleting the coffers of their adversaries, who are forced to defend settled law against frivolous attacks.  Taxpayer money will also be spent to defend these “contingent ordinances,” with no material benefit to anyone. The best that can be hoped for, from the gun prohibition point of view, is pure symbolism.

Nevertheless, it’s imperative to hold the line on all laws that protect citizens from officials wanting to create a confusing patchwork of gun control, a long-fought battle for the Second Amendment community as a whole. Preemption vindicates the principles that laws should be consistent, understandable, and fairly applied. The alternative is a regime in which compliance — if it is practical at all — inevitably involves forfeiting one’s own rights. A Minnesotan could travel from one end of the state to another, or he could exercise the full measure of the right to keep and bear arms recognized by state. But he could not do both at the same time.

The enactment of a law is often the beginning of the legal battles, not the end. NRA-ILA’s work involves not only making it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self- protection but also providing a protective framework to ensure the law works as intended. The infringement on display in Minnesota is merely one example of many. That’s why state preemption laws, and national efforts like H.R. 38, remain among ILA’s highest priorities.

Like that ‘not a cartel per se’ matters

US labels Maduro-tied Cartel de los Soles as a terror organization. It’s not a cartel per se

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — President Donald Trump’s administration has ramped up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by designating the Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organization. But the entity that the U.S. government alleges is led by Maduro is not a cartel per se.

The designation, published Monday in the Federal Register, is the latest measure in the Trump administration’s escalating campaign to combat drug trafficking into the U.S. In previewing the step about a week ago, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused Cartel de los Soles, or Cartel of the Suns, of being “responsible for terrorist violence” in the Western Hemisphere.

The move comes as Trump evaluates whether to take military action against Venezuela, which he has not ruled out despite bringing up the possibility of talks with Maduro. Land strikes or other actions would be a major expansion of the monthslong operation that has included a massive military buildup in the Caribbean Sea and striking boats accused of trafficking drugs, killing more than 80 people.

Venezuelans began using the term Cartel de los Soles in the 1990s to refer to high-ranking military officers who had grown rich from drug-running. As corruption expanded nationwide, first under the late President Hugo Chávez and then under Maduro, its use loosely expanded to police and government officials as well as activities like illegal mining and fuel trafficking. The “suns” in the name refer to the epaulettes affixed to the uniforms of high-ranking military officers.

The umbrella term was elevated to a Maduro-led drug-trafficking organization in 2020, when the U.S. Justice Department in Trump’s first term announced the indictment of Venezuela’s leader and his inner circle on narcoterrorism and other charges.

“It is not a group,” said Adam Isaacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America organization. “It’s not like a group that people would ever identify themselves as members. They don’t have regular meetings. They don’t have a hierarchy.”

Maduro’s government in a statement Monday categorically denied the existence of the cartel, describing the Trump administration’s accusation as a “ridiculous fabrication” meant to “justify an illegitimate and illegal intervention against Venezuela.”

Up until this year, the label of foreign terrorist organization had been reserved for groups like the Islamic State or al-Qaida that use violence for political ends. The Trump administration applied it in February to eight Latin American criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking, migrant smuggling and other activities.

The administration blames such designated groups for operating the boats it is striking but rarely identifies the organizations and has not provided any evidence. It says the attacks , which began off the coast of Venezuela and later expanded to the eastern Pacific Ocean, are meant to stop narcotics from flowing to American cities.

But many — including Maduro himself — see the military moves as an effort to end the ruling party’s 26-year hold on power.

Since the arrival of U.S. military vessels and troops to the Caribbean months ago, Venezuela’s U.S.-backed political opposition also has reignited its perennial promise of removing Maduro from office, fueling speculation over the purpose of what the Trump administration has called a counterdrug operation.