this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
312 points (90.8% liked)

politics

28571 readers
3407 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

They've amassed missiles armed with warheads. Let that sink in and realize what they really are, because it's not a force for immigration enforcement, it's an army simping for Trump. They will be weaponized at a much greater scale in the future certainly.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)
  1. A quick search brings up nothing with ICE and "warheads" so it doesn't appear to be "widely reported". Can you give evidence for your claims?
  2. I didn't say that the article is making unsubstantiated claims. I said that you are. The article is substantiated, it just isn't all that surprising that ICE is spending more on weaponry as they hire more agents.
  3. The story says nothing about slush funds or anything beyond ICE spending more on weaponry.
  4. You are posting in a public forum. That is explicitly asking for conversation and feedback, even if you didn't directly ask me for mine. If you don't want people to respond, don't post.
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world -4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Does this article also mention Rachel Good or Alex Pretti? No? This article wasn't about that.

Because it's assumed it was common knowledge. It's not uncommon practice to refer to other referential pieces of information in a description.

But anyway: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/10/ice-spending-small-arms-weapons-chemical-munitions-increased-700-percent-2025/

And as someone else in the thread pointed out, there may have been some clarification on this after the reporting: https://www.wired.com/story/no-ice-probably-didnt-buy-guided-missile-warheads/

Since younfamiliar with the slush funds: https://www.vox.com/politics/479821/trumps-slush-fund-venezuela-oil-gaza-board-of-peace-tariffs https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/08/politics/trump-shutdown-tariffs-wic-farmers-analysis https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/17/opinion/trump-federal-money-slush-fund.html https://newrepublic.com/post/206790/donald-trump-10-billion-dollars-board-peace-slush-fund