The Week The Week
flag of US
US
flag of UK
UK
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Less than $3 per week

Sign in
  • View Profile
  • Sign out
  • The Explainer
  • Talking Points
  • The Week Recommends
  • Newsletters
  • Cartoons
  • From the Magazine
  • The Week Junior
  • More
    • Politics
    • World News
    • Business
    • Health
    • Science
    • Food & Drink
    • Travel
    • Culture
    • History
    • Personal Finance
    • Puzzles
    • Photos
    • The Blend
    • All Categories
  • Newsletter sign up Newsletter
  • The Week's Saturday Wrap
    Trump’s ‘macho spectacle’ at sea, the risks of giving birth in America, and that birthday card

     
    controversy of the week

    Venezuela: Was Trump’s air strike legal?

    Donald Trump’s distaste for military adventures might be the only saving grace of his two chaotic presidencies, said Michael Fox in The Nation—or it used to be. Last week, our “supposed ‘anti-war’ president” ordered an air strike on a small speedboat off the coast of Venezuela, destroying the vessel and killing all 11 passengers. Gleefully sharing footage of the strike, Trump insisted the target was a “drug-carrying boat” bound for U.S. shores, and that the occupants belonged to Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan drug cartel he has designated a terrorist group. But given Trump’s track record of lying, “there is no reason to take these assertions at face value.” With eight U.S. warships and 2,200 Marines now stationed off the coast of Venezuela, the administration is vowing more attacks on drug vessels, and Trump might even be considering a military assault against the regime of President Nicolás Maduro. Trafficking drugs is a “serious crime,” said David French in The New York Times, but “we do not kill those suspected of being criminals from the air,” without any due process whatsoever. Trump is giving himself the unchecked authority to target people he calls “terrorists” with deadly military force; that means he has the power to kill anyone, anywhere—including in the U.S. With a vindictive, impulsive commander in chief, this prospect is “terrible to contemplate.” 

    Actually, the air strike was “a good move,” said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. In ordinary circumstances, the Coast Guard interdicts drug boats and detains the crew for prosecution. But “Venezuelan capos don’t follow Marquess of Queensberry rules.” Tren de Aragua ruthlessly engages in “kidnapping, extortion, human trafficking, and murder,” and is now using those methods to shore up Maduro, a narco-terrorist who openly stole Venezuela’s last election. The U.S. can and should “depose Maduro” in “a surgical action,” not a protracted war, said Arturo McFields in The Hill. Doing so would free Venezuelans from tyranny, and signal to China, Russia, and Iran, Maduro’s allies, that stability in the Americas is “a priority for the U.S.” 

    If Trump really wants a war with Venezuela, said The Guardian in an editorial, the Constitution requires that he ask Congress to declare one. Trump lacks legal authority to order deadly strikes abroad on his own whim, however much blowing up boats gratifies his “love of macho spectacle.” Trump also loves “unilateral executive action,” said Andrew C. McCarthy in National Review. But without any court or Congress providing legal justification for these killings, members of the military and his administration could one day face prosecution for murder or war crimes. “So we’re left to ask: Where the hell is the Republican-led Congress?” 

    We’re not going to war with Venezuela, said Andres Oppenheimer in the Miami Herald. Trump’s long-standing squeamishness about “boots on the ground” seems genuine. The saber-rattling is “political theater” to embolden Maduro’s opponents, and to appease Florida’s Cuban and Venezuelan communities, who are rattled by Trump’s mass deportation program but loathe Maduro more. This display of deadly force is absolutely aimed at an American audience, said Will Bunch in The Philadelphia Inquirer. Like sending armed troops into U.S. cities, and having his “masked secret police” disappear people from the streets, the air strike was another message to the “restive American citizenry” that Trump’s “power, even over life and death, is now limitless.”

     
     
    VIEWPOINT

    Idolizing Trump

    “What we haven’t seen before is Trump’s blatant embrace of authoritarian imagery—the preening pantomime of dictatorship. It’s not just the giant, creepy banners on federal buildings—unfurled by Trump’s Cabinet secretaries to literally display their unquestioning devotion. It’s also the refinishing of the Oval Office in gold leaf, along with plans for a monstrous matching ballroom. It’s Trump floating the idea of renaming the Kennedy Center in his honor, while Republican lawmakers rush to put his name on anything else they can find, like an offering to some supreme half-man, half-god. It is the grotesque transformation of our national identity into a celebrity selfie.”

    Matt Bai in The Washington Post

     
     
    briefing

    Pregnancy in America

    Why is it getting riskier to give birth in the U.S.?

    What’s changed about giving birth? 
    For many Americans, it’s become pricey and potentially dangerous. The U.S. has a higher rate of mothers dying in pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum than any other high-income nation, with 32.6 deaths for every 100,000 live births in 2022, up from 25.3 deaths in 2018. The rates are sharply higher for some ethnic groups: Black women had a mortality rate of 50 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2022, nearly triple the rate for white and Hispanic women. That same year, Canada recorded 8.4 deaths per 100,000 live births, the U.K. 5.5, and Norway zero. The average cost of giving birth is also higher in the U.S. than in other high-income countries, coming in at nearly $19,000 for a vaginal delivery in 2022, or about $2,854 after insurance kicks in. In Germany and France, the total cost is about $2,500. Yet experts warn that pregnancy in the U.S. could become both riskier and more expensive in coming years because of President Trump’s recent spending and tax law, which over the next decade will cut $930 billion from Medicaid—a program that covers 41% of all births in the U.S., including nearly half in rural communities. “We need to continue to invest in public health infrastructure,” said Rose Molina, an ob-gyn at Harvard Medical School. “It’s very clear that we’re not getting better, and if anything, the rates of pregnancy-related deaths are getting worse.”

    Why is the U.S. death rate so high? 
    Doctors cite numerous reasons, including lack of access to care, the fact that more women are having children later in life, and that reproductive-age Americans are suffering from more chronic medical conditions—including obesity and cardiovascular disease—at younger ages than before. Cesarean deliveries are also becoming more common, going from about 1 in 5 births in 1996 to 1 in 3 today, and surgery comes with risks. But the rate of women dying of delivery-related causes in hospitals actually dropped by more than 50% from 2008 to 2021, according to a study by the Department of Health and Human Services. “Most of the women don’t die in the hospital during childbirth,” said Dr. Jean R. Guglielminotti of Columbia University. “They die after they’ve left the hospital.”

    How common are postpartum deaths?
    About 22% of deaths occur during pregnancy, 25% within seven days of giving birth, and 53% occur between seven days to a year postpartum, according to a 2022 report from the Centers for Disease Control. Overdose, suicide, and other maternal mental health conditions accounted for 23% of deaths in pregnancy and postpartum; excess bleeding, the second top cause of death, was responsible for 14%; and cardiac problems 13%. The study determined that 80% of all pregnancy-related deaths were preventable. “We are so baby-focused,” said Karen Sheffield-Abdullah, a nursing professor at the University of North Carolina. “Once the baby is here, it’s almost like the mother is discarded.” Lawmakers have tried to address the problem: A 2021 law let states extend postpartum Medicaid coverage from 60 days to a full year, and 48 states and Washington, D.C., have done just that. But health policy analysts warn that such progress could be undone by Trump’s new spending law.

    What will the law change? 
    The “big, beautiful” law will shrink federal Medicaid spending by 14% through 2034, largely by imposing work requirements for able-bodied adults and by capping several mechanisms used to fund state Medicaid programs. Although pregnant women and those with children under 14 are exempt from work requirements, the time-consuming process of documenting an exemption could cause some to lose coverage. Meanwhile, the loss of Medicaid revenue could prove devastating for many rural hospitals and especially for maternity care—one of the most costly services provided by hospitals. Recovering the cost of maternity care was already difficult for medical facilities in rural areas, where there’s a smaller number of patients and a greater share on Medicaid, which pays far less than private insurance.

    What will that mean for rural hospitals? 
    The cuts could cause 144 rural hospitals with delivery units to shutter or drastically reduce services, according to the nonprofit National Partnership for Women & Families. That would exacerbate the existing crisis in maternity care: More than 35% of U.S. counties now lack birthing facilities or obstetric clinicians. A Washington Post analysis found that the average driving distance to the nearest birthing hospital for residents of Kentucky would go from 31 miles to 42 miles if 35 at-risk hospitals in the state were to close. Those extra miles could be the difference between life and death. “When somebody is in labor or having a pregnancy-related emergency, every second counts,” said Rolonda Donelson, a policy analyst at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

    Can those hospitals be kept open? 
    Republicans added a $50 billion fund for struggling rural hospitals to the spending law. But that fund, the Rural Health Transformation Program, is less than a third of the money rural communities are expected to lose in Medicaid cuts. “It is just a fig leaf,” said Edwin Park, a researcher at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families. Mississippi state Rep. Timaka James-Jones worries the reduction in Medicaid funding will lead to many more stories like that of her niece, Harmony Ball-Stribling, who died of pre-eclampsia at eight months pregnant while being driven to an ER 30 miles from her rural home. “We’re not talking dollars and cents,” said James-Jones. “We’re talking about lives, and people are dying. People are truly dying because there is no health care in some places.”

    The abortion ban complication 
    Since 2022, pregnant women have faced another major obstacle to accessing medical care: abortion bans. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 19 states enacted total abortion bans or restricted the procedure to early pregnancy. Some doctors in states with abortion bans have reported feeling hesitant to treat women who could be suffering a miscarriage, fearing they could be prosecuted and imprisoned for aiding an illegal termination. The federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act guarantees stabilizing treatment to anyone who enters an emergency room, yet pregnant women in states such as Florida and Texas have reported being denied care in ERs. In Arkansas, a woman went into septic shock and lost her unborn baby after an emergency room refused to admit her. Kelsie Norris-De La Cruz, 25, lost a fallopian tube and most of her right ovary when an Arlington, Texas, hospital turned her away instead of treating her ectopic pregnancy. “These bans are making it nearly impossible to get basic emergency health care,” she wrote in a complaint to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service. “Women like me deserve justice and accountability from those that hurt us.”

     
     

    Only in America

    A new Texas law bans free speech on college campuses after 10 p.m. In effect since Sept. 1, the law prohibits student protesters from erecting tents, banging drums, and—most notably—from “engaging in expressive activities on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.” The nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is suing to block the law, arguing in part that “the First Amendment does not go to bed when the sun goes down.”

     
     
    talking points

    Epstein: Trump’s damning birthday card

    A House committee this week released the bawdy birthday card Donald Trump wrote to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003, said Jonathan Chait in The Atlantic. “Guess what? It’s real. And it’s bad.” Two months ago, The Wall Street Journal first reported the card’s existence as part of a “birthday book” of letters from friends compiled by accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell for the financier’s 50th birthday. Trump claimed the card either didn’t exist or was forged, and sued the Rupert Murdoch–owned Journal for $10 billion for “false, malicious, and defamatory” reporting. But now Epstein’s lawyers have turned over the card itself to Congress, and it’s “eyebrow raising.” Framed by a Trump sketch of a naked woman, the typewritten message from Trump to his pal includes the lines “Enigmas never age,” “We have certain things in common,” and “May every day be another wonderful secret.” No wonder Trump insists the card is fake: It strongly suggests he knew of Epstein’s “wonderful secret”— his perverted predilection for underage girls.

    Faced with damning evidence, the White House “attempted to keep up the farce,” said Edith Olmsted in The New Republic. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted that “it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.” But Trump’s signature exactly matches his signature on other documents from that era. The birthday book contains other damaging bombshells, said Andrew Egger in The Bulwark. A letter from Mar-a-Lago member Joel Pashcow includes a photo of Epstein holding a giant novelty check for $22,500, with a caption saying it’s for Trump’s purchase of a “fully depreciated” woman whose name is redacted. This repugnant gag makes it clear that everyone in Epstein’s circle knew about his sex trafficking, and “that Trump was himself part of the joke they told themselves about it.” 

    Epstein’s victims, meanwhile, are now “taking matters into their own hands,” said Robin Abcarian in the Los Angeles Times. About a dozen survivors came together on the steps of the Capitol last week to share stories of their abuse and demand that the Department of Justice release its entire Epstein trove. Survivor Lisa Phillips said they “have been discussing creating our own [client] list.” A clearly frustrated Trump responded by calling the Epstein scandal “a dead issue,” but as survivor Anouska De Georgiou put it, “The days of sweeping this under the rug are over.”

     
     

    It wasn’t all bad

    A 13-year-old New Hampshire boy nabbed a catch many older fishermen could only dream of: a 177-pound halibut. The massive fish, caught during an overnight Atlantic fishing trip, weighed 50 pounds more than Jackson Denio, who struggled for a half hour to reel it in. “I think I screamed, honestly,” the experienced young angler said. “I don’t know exactly what happened, but I was very excited.” He had been hoping to catch a shark, but he knew from the line’s movements that his catch was most likely a halibut. Jackson’s family has applied to the International Game Fish Association to see if he has broken the world record for an under-16 angler; in the meantime, he said, “it makes me want to keep fishing even more.”

     
     
    people

    Mirren’s embrace of aging

    Helen Mirren turned 80 in July, says Dominic Maxwell in The Times, and the experience is about what she expected. “You know, my mum said something very wise to me many years ago,” explains the British actress. “She said: ‘Never be afraid of getting older. An amazing thing happens. When you’re 18, the thought of being 35 is horrific. And you get to 35 and it’s actually a lot better than being 18. And when you’re 35 the thought of being 55...Then you hit 55 and you realize there are great things about being 55. Your life has moved on, you lose certain stuff, but you gain other stuff.’ That’s certainly the case for me.”

    She scoffs at others’ efforts to hold off the inevitable. “The tech bros think their billions are going to hold back time. It’s a natural wave of life that has been going on for billions of years, and it’s beautiful to be part of that wave. It’s important not to wimp out.”

    Still, not everything about being an octogenarian delights her. “The hardest part is the condescension. If my husband and I are holding hands, someone might say, ‘Oh, look. How sweet.’ It’s like, excuse my language, ‘F--- off.’ There’s something very condescending about some people’s attitudes. They think they are being kind and generous. They’re not. They’re being insulting.”

     
     

    Saturday Wrap was written and edited by Theunis Bates, Conor Devlin, Bill Falk, Mark Gimein, Bruno Maddox, Rebecca Nathanson, Tim O'Donnell, and Hallie Stiller.

    Image credits, from top: Truth Social; Getty Images; Reuters; Getty Images
     

    Recent editions

    • Evening Review

      To censor or not to censor?

    • Morning Report

      Brazil punishes a coup attempt

    • Evening Review

      Heated rhetoric ramps up

    VIEW ALL
    TheWeek
    • About Us
    • Contact Future's experts
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Cookie Policy
    • Advertise With Us

    The Week is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.

    © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.