Critical State: First They Occupied Washington DC

At The New Republic, Felipe De La Hoz analyzed how President Donald Trump’s federal takeover of Washington, DC’s police force marked a culmination of post-9/11 surveillance expansion.

Ostensibly launched to combat violent crime — though the violent crime rate has dropped in recent years — the operation involved deploying federal agents and National Guard troops, replacing the police commissioner, and rescinding sanctuary laws.

De La Hoz argued that this authoritarian maneuver was enabled by bipartisan surveillance infrastructure built over two decades, now redirected inward. Unlike previous crackdowns tied to immigration enforcement, this move was framed as a response to urban crime, signaling a shift toward normalized domestic militarization.

The article warned that tools once aimed at foreign threats were now being used against US citizens, fulfilling long-standing predictions by civil liberties advocates. Trump’s actions, De La Hoz suggested, reflected a broader strategy to consolidate power under the guise of public safety.

If You Read One More Thing: Long Exposure on the Border

In The Border Chronicle, Todd Miller spotlighted artist Marni Shindelman’s haunting long-exposure photographs that reveal the hidden infrastructure of US immigration detention centers.

• The article documented how Shindelman’s “Restore the Night Sky” series captured the intense LED light pollution emitted by these facilities — often imperceptible to the naked eye but starkly visible through her lens.

• Her work exposed the reach of surveillance and incarceration across rural landscapes, where privatized ICE centers cast artificial glows for miles, signaling a quiet but expansive carceral presence.

• By merging art and investigative journalism, the piece underscored how visibility — both literal and political — can challenge the secrecy surrounding immigration policy and the economic incentives that sustain it.

No Troops to Ukraine?

At The Guardian, Andrew Roth and Pjotr Sauer detailed European leaders’ urgent diplomatic push in Washington to counter Donald Trump’s refusal to commit US troops to Ukraine as part of a future security guarantee.

• The meeting, attended by Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Ursula von der Leyen, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, underscored growing transatlantic tensions over Trump’s proposed “peace plan,” which would allow Russia to retain occupied Ukrainian territory.

• European officials warned the plan could embolden further aggression and fracture NATO unity. Roth and Sauer highlighted how Trump’s stance marked a sharp departure from previous US commitments, raising alarm about the West’s long-term deterrence strategy.

Deep Dive: How Terrorism Shaped US Defense Spending Abroad

A recent study published in the Journal of Peace Research argued that domestic terrorist attacks in foreign countries significantly influenced the flow of US overseas defense spending (ODS), particularly during the height of the war on terror. In the study, “Domestic terrorism and the allocation of US overseas defense spending,” author Ruixing Cao offered a new lens on how internal security threats in recipient states shaped strategic decisions in Washington, revealing that ODS functioned as a flexible tool for influence, especially when more visible forms of support carried greater risk.

Cao proposed a theory that linked domestic terrorism to the political survival of foreign incumbents and the strategic calculus of major powers. “With more domestic terrorist attacks, the incumbents are under more pressure from other political elites and the public,” the study noted. In such contexts, support from a global power like the United States could bolster a leader’s legitimacy and stability. “Support from major powers such as the US can help leaders’ political survival,” Cao wrote.

For the US, this instability presented both opportunity and risk. While it allowed Washington to preserve or expand its influence, it also introduced uncertainty about the reliability of its partners. The study emphasized that “compared to other types of support, such as state visits and military aid, overseas defense spending is a more flexible tool the US can adopt to gain policy concession while mitigating risks and uncertainties.”

Donate now

Drawing on new data covering the years 2000 to 2015, Cao found empirical support for the theory, noting that the US tended to increase ODS in countries facing domestic terrorism — particularly if they were democratic.

“The analysis conducted by Blankenship and Joyce (2020) reveals that the US tends to spend more in democratic countries with large economies,” the article stated. However, the study went further, suggesting that regime type conditioned the effect of terrorism on spending flows. “Given their relatively high levels of policy flexibility, the US might be less willing to support authoritarian incumbents when they face more domestic terrorist attacks.”

The article placed ODS within a broader framework of statecraft, comparing it to foreign aid, arms sales, and diplomatic visits. While these tools have received extensive scholarly attention, ODS remained underexplored. “Less in the spotlight is when major powers use overseas military spending to protect their overseas interests and preserve their influence on other countries,” the author observed.

Unlike foreign aid, which often comes with public scrutiny and formal commitments, ODS allowed the US to operate with greater discretion. “Compared to other methods of gaining influence, the use of military spending is more flexible and receives less public scrutiny,” the study noted. By purchasing local goods and services, the US could stimulate host economies and build goodwill, sometimes bypassing formal bidding processes to award contracts directly to foreign entities.

The study also highlighted the strategic shift in US priorities over time. While counterterrorism dominated the foreign policy agenda during the early 2000s, the rise of China and renewed great power competition had begun to reshape Washington’s approach. “While counterterrorism continues to be a foreign policy focus for the US, its strategic priority has gradually shifted in recent years as its competition with China intensifies,” the article stated.

Looking ahead, Cao suggested that other major powers might adopt similar tactics. “Russia has played an increasingly active role in helping several African countries combat terrorism and insurgencies, in exchange for natural resources and policy concessions,” the study noted. China, too, was identified as a potential actor in this space, “striving to become a leader of the global south.”

The article concluded by calling for further research into how other forms of internal instability — such as organized crime or insurgencies — might influence foreign defense spending. It also urged scholars to examine whether deteriorating security environments affect public attitudes toward cooperation with major powers. “Domestic terrorism … is only one type of internal security threat countries face,” according to Cao. “Future studies can further study whether other types of internal security threats … have a similar impact.”

Show Us the Receipts

For Inkstick, Sophia Potsi and Dimitra Margariti documented refugees and migrants increasingly sailing from Libya to Greece in 2025, shifting the Mediterranean’s migration dynamics and prompting a hardline political response. The report details the perilous crossings to Crete and Gavdos, Greece, often undertaken in overloaded boats with little fuel or supplies. The route, once less traveled than the Aegean corridor, became a deadly alternative for displaced people from Sudan, Egypt, and Bangladesh. As arrivals surge, Greece’s government has tightened border policies and amplified anti-migrant rhetoric.

Tyler Hicks reported for Inkstick that the Trump administration’s climate policies had raised alarms among national security experts. The rollback of green energy initiatives and expansion of fossil fuel exports — particularly liquefied natural gas — were seen as undermining US climate leadership and empowering geopolitical rivals like China. Hicks highlighted a $750 billion energy deal with the European Union that critics said locked both regions into long-term fossil fuel dependence. Climate activist Jamie Minden warned that such moves not only worsened global warming but also jeopardized international stability by delaying the transition to renewable energy and weakening climate resilience.

At The World, Tibisay Zea reported on Latam-GPT, a Chilean-led AI initiative designed to reflect Latin America’s languages and cultures. Developed by the National Center for Artificial Intelligence (CENIA) in Santiago, the model was trained on regional data — from oral histories to academic archives — with contributions from over 30 organizations. Project specialist Alexandra García noted that commercial models often misrepresented local traditions, such as Chilean sopaipillas. The project’s goal is digital sovereignty, countering the dominance — and inbuilt bias — of foreign AI systems.

Call for US Pitches

Inkstick is on the lookout for pitches from the US. We’re especially interested in reported features and personal essays that examine issues like the weapons industry, the increasing militarization on the border and within the country, domestic extremism, and the people in power pushing for more wars abroad.

Critical State is written by Inkstick Media in collaboration with The World.

The World is a weekday public radio show and podcast on global issues, news, and insights from PRX and GBH.

With an online magazine and podcast featuring a diversity of expert voices, Inkstick Media is “foreign policy for the rest of us.”

Critical State is made possible in part by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.