Could Trump's boat strikes turn into war?

Summary

Post Reports: Could Trump’s Boat Strikes Turn Into War?

Date: October 20, 2025
Host: Colby Itkowitz
Guest: Alex Horton, National Security Reporter

---

Overview

This episode of Post Reports explores the dramatic escalation of U.S. military action in the Caribbean under President Trump’s administration—specifically, a series of deadly strikes on boats suspected of drug trafficking near Venezuela. The survival of two passengers in one recent strike has complicated the official narrative, sparked international outrage, and raised questions about transparency, legality, and the real motives behind the escalating campaign. National security reporter Alex Horton provides on-the-ground insight into what is happening, how reporting is being handcuffed by new Pentagon policies, and why the situation is sparking broad speculations of a possible war with Venezuela.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

New Challenges in Reporting (01:46–04:23)

• Pentagon Media Ban: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s new policy restricts journalists from soliciting non-preapproved information—radically reducing Pentagon transparency.
  • Alex Horton: “It’s essentially a policy of trust us to give what you need to know... Not really ask the follow up questions, seek more information, or go report stories that they're uncomfortable or embarrassed to tell you.” (02:55)
• Impact on Coverage: Horton describes the difference in access and details compared to previous operations (e.g., strikes in Iran), emphasizing the current administration’s secrecy.

Details and Evolution of the Boat Strikes (04:23–07:21)

• September Onward: Since early September, at least seven U.S. strikes have occurred on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean, resulting in about 30 deaths.
• Shift from Law Enforcement to Military Response: Instead of conventional Coast Guard interdictions (arrests, seizures), the U.S. is now destroying boats with lethal force.
  • Alex Horton: “This has been an unusual turn for how the U.S. military... handles the problem of drug trafficking.” (04:36)

Legal and Policy Justifications (07:21–09:49)

• Question of War: Horton explores the legal ambiguity—a president taking unilateral military action without congressional declaration.
  • Quote: “They have the authority to declare war... Congress has failed time and time again to rein that behavior in.” (07:39)
• Congressional Concerns: Both parties express frustration over the lack of evidence and transparency.

The “Deterrence” Fails and a Broader Military Build-Up (08:27–09:49)

• Continued Strikes: Initial speculation that strikes were a deterrent proved wrong as attacks continued and military presence grew.
• Major U.S. Buildup: About 10,000 troops, warships—including a nuclear-powered submarine—and special operations units are now stationed in the Caribbean.
  • Alex Horton: “10% of all deployed naval power is in the Caribbean... This is setting the stage for prolonged and sustained operations.” (09:21)

The Game-Changer: Survivors (09:49–14:29)

• Unexpected Survivors: In a recent strike, two out of four people survived—a rare outcome which presented legal and diplomatic complexities.
  • Alex Horton: “I wouldn't have imagined that two survivors would have come off the boat, and I don't think the Pentagon even thought about that...” (01:08)
  • The two were not Venezuelan (Colombian and Ecuadorian) and were later quietly repatriated, instead of being treated as prisoners of war or prosecuted.
• Contradictory Conduct: The U.S. called the suspects “dangerous terrorists” meriting lethal force, but then simply sent the survivors home.
  • Quote: “If they were a serious threat, why aren't they being sent to military tribunals or the civilian justice system?... the administration doesn't want a lot of that stuff to come out.” (12:07)

Targeting Venezuela – Facts vs. Narrative (13:16–14:29)

• Actual Drug Trafficking Dynamics: Venezuela is a relatively minor player in regional drug trafficking compared to Colombia or Mexican cartels.
  • Alex Horton: “Venezuela is a small player in the drug market... their economy has been in shambles for so long that it’s becoming more of a focus there. But they’re just not major players.” (13:29)
• Hill Criticism: Lawmakers and experts argue the strikes don’t address the channels actually responsible for most U.S.-bound fentanyl or cocaine.

Regional Fallout and International Backlash (16:38–18:34)

• Diplomatic Crisis with Colombia: Colombian President Gustavo Petro alleges U.S. strikes killed innocent Colombian fishermen, triggering a fierce diplomatic dispute.
  • Horton: “Colombia... is the strongest, most longstanding partnership... for that relationship to fracture is significant.” (17:25)
  • U.S. threatens to cut drug enforcement aid—a potential loss for both intelligence sharing and interdiction.

Motives and Regime Change Chatter (18:34–19:57)

• Regime Change Accusations: On Capitol Hill, many suspect that the real aim is to destabilize or oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, a persistent adversary of the U.S.
  • Alex Horton: “Democrats and Republicans are telling the Pentagon and telling the administration, you need to show us the math. You need to show us these connections to Nicolas Maduro, these connections to these terrorist groups.” (19:57)

Risk of Direct Conflict – Gulf of Tonkin Analogy (20:01–22:02)

• Possible Escalation to War: Maduro is mobilizing militias amid rising tensions, and U.S. buildup increases risk of an incident spiraling out of control.
  • Congressional Aide (via Horton): “They might be looking for a Gulf of Tonkin incident... that escalated the war there... putting your forces at risk, getting attacked and then saying, all right, let's do this thing.” (20:35)
• CIA Authorization: There are reports of Trump authorizing covert CIA operations—authorizations the U.S. government refuses to clarify.

What Happens Next? (22:02–22:49)

• Uncertainty and Volatility: With such a large U.S. military presence and open-ended authorization, the risk of sudden escalation into open conflict is high.
  • Alex Horton: “We’ve gone up the ladder, not down, and we don’t know where the rungs lead to at this point.” (22:49)

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Pentagon secrecy: “It just goes to show that information is a light switch they can turn on and off when they want to.” (03:28, Alex Horton)
• On scope of action: “10% of all deployed naval power is in the Caribbean... supporting this mission.” (09:21, Alex Horton)
• On legal gray area: “‘If they were a serious threat, why aren't they being sent to military tribunals or the civilian justice system?’... the administration doesn't want a lot of that stuff to come out.” (12:07, Alex Horton)
• On regime change motives: “There's increasing chatter on Capitol Hill that this is ultimately about Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and regime change.” (18:49, Alex Horton)
• On possible war trigger: “They might be looking for a Gulf of Tonkin incident... an incitement or a reason to get involved by putting your forces at risk, getting attacked and then saying, all right, let's do this thing.” (20:35, Alex Horton)
• On escalation risk: “We’ve gone up the ladder, not down, and we don’t know where the rungs lead to at this point.” (22:49, Alex Horton)

---

Key Timestamps

• 01:46–04:23: Pentagon reporting restrictions and impact on journalists
• 04:23–07:21: Timeline and policy rationale behind military strikes
• 08:27–09:49: U.S. military buildup; scope of Caribbean operation
• 09:49–14:29: The significance of boat strike survivors and their handling
• 16:38–18:34: International fallout—diplomatic rupture with Colombia
• 18:34–19:57: Allegations of regime change motives
• 20:35–22:02: Fear of escalation, Gulf of Tonkin comparison
• 22:02–22:49: Risks and uncertainties ahead

---

Conclusion

Through firsthand reporting and analysis, this episode uncovers the complexity behind the Trump administration’s Caribbean boat strikes—questioning official justifications, exploring hidden motives, and warning of volatile escalations ahead. The sudden emergence of survivors, regional diplomatic ruptures, congressional skepticism, and a sizable U.S. military buildup frame a situation fraught with risks far beyond the stated goal of stopping drug trafficking.

---

For anyone seeking a clear, nuanced, and comprehensive understanding of the current U.S. escalation in the Caribbean—including its legality, broader implications, and what might come next—this episode is an essential listen.

Transcript

[A]

The Trump administration's war on alleged narco terrorists is escalating tensions across Latin America. For weeks, the US Military has been attacking boats in the Caribbean. The Trump administration claims that the people on board are smuggling illegal drugs into the United States from Venezuela. There is no concrete evidence, at least none that is available to the public to verify President Trump's claims. Meanwhile, the strikes have completely destroyed the boats and killed all passengers on board. Without survivors, it is difficult to know the truth. But then last week, the latest strike had a twist.

[B]

At least two people on board survived the blast.

[C]

Two people on the boat surviving, then picked up by the US Navy. It's not clear just yet what would be done with the survivors who the people said were being held by a Navy vessel in that area.

[A]

On Thursday, two survivors were rescued after the US Struck a boat off the coast of Venezuela. National security reporter Alex Horton was stunned when he heard this news.

[D]

I wouldn't have imagined that two survivors would have come off the boat, and I don't think the Pentagon even thought about that, of what happens if not everyone dies.

[A]

From the newsroom of the Washington Post, this is Post Reports. Hello, everyone, I'm Colby ekowicz. It's Monday, October 20th. Today, Alex explains how these survivors complicate the Trump administration's narrative about these strikes and how it's fueling speculation about a larger US Military intervention in Venezuela. Alex, hi. Thanks for joining me.

[D]

Thanks for having me, Colby.

[A]

So before we get into these strikes, I, I want to ask you about something that recently changed about how you go about this kind of reporting because normally you're at the Pentagon, but that's changed recently after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth put in this new policy that required journalists to sign a pledge. What happened exactly?

[D]

So the Pentagon outlined a 17 page policy that said, among other things, that solicitation of protected material would not be protected under the First Amendment. The document didn't really explain what solicitation was and how that's different from just asking a question about, say, a ship and its general location, which has been something we have always done with no problem. So instead of signing onto these restrictions that say the Pentagon will only put out and only will work with us from pre released information, we decided to walk out instead.

[A]

And so basically what Hegseth was saying is, you know, unless we've chosen to give you this information, you can't go seeking out new information about the military and our operations.

[D]

That's right. It's essentially a policy of trust us to give what you need to know. And how you should know it and what details that we will provide and kind of leave it at that. Not really ask the follow up questions, seek more information, or go report stories that they're uncomfortable or embarrassed to tell you.

[A]

I'm wondering from all your years covering the Pentagon, now not having access there, how does that affect your reporting on issues like the strikes in the Caribbean?

[D]

We knew more before and after the strikes in Iran on the nuclear facilities. Yeah, that when you talk about, in terms of significance, secrecy and like the elaborate mission, we knew which weapons to study before the strike even happened. It just goes to show that information is a light switch they can turn on and off when they want to. Typically, even in this administration and others, there would be press conferences with the important people involved. That has not happened here. We have not heard from them beyond tweets, beyond, you know, fast social media clips about what's happening, the legal justifications, what evidence they have of these people being connected to a larger, what they describe as terrorist organizations. None of that has been shown to us in any format, especially not a press conference where we can ask these questions and peel back the layers.

[A]

Wow. Okay, let's get into these strikes because starting in September, the US Began, you know, firing missiles at boats in the Caribbean. What has happened in the last two months?

[D]

So since early September, the President has authorized the Pentagon to go after suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean. That has now amounted to seven strikes that we know about at least, and about 30 people killed. The Trump administration has said these are drug traffickers, primarily from Venezuela. We do know that there are a mix of nationalities, which I think just underlines the amount of drug trafficking that happens in the Caribbean from all over the place. But this has been an unusual turn for how the U.S. military and the U.S. you know, writ large, handles the problem of drug trafficking.

[A]

How did we get to this point, kind of walk us through this, the escalation of, you know, blowing up boats in the Caribbean.

[D]

Well, it starts with the Pentagon and the White House deciding that Homeland Defense was going to be their primary military focus. And you see that with border deployments, you see that with National Guard deployments within the United States. And how that has animated this particular operation is they said, okay, there's a big drug problem in the US which of course there is. I think everyone agrees about that. And there have been different ways you have dealt with it. The primary way that is most relevant here is the Coast Guard doing interdictions at sea, because the US has always considered this a law enforcement, enforcement operation that was handled by, in the end, civil authorities. So in a typical scenario of what we see a drug boat getting stopped, getting boarded, the drug runners are arrested, detained, and either they're deported or they go to the US to face criminal prosecution. The drugs are seized and the boats are typically destroyed. And, you know, you've probably seen a million of these photos of coast Guard boats with a bunch of bricks of cocaine and money and guns all laid out. And it's just, that's just been the course of events for years. But the administration says this policy isn't working. And now I think they have a more confident footing when it comes to military strikes than they did in the first administration.

[A]

How do you mean?

[D]

The Caribbean is not a place that has been operational up until the last month. Right. It's about patrolling, it's about interdiction. And I think the White House said, well, we drone strike terrorists in the middle of the desert in Syria, and you know, we kill people all over the world. Why can't we we do it here? So that's the big shift, is considering what these people are doing, as Trump has explained, bringing in drugs like fentanyl, meaning it's an assault on the United States and therefore they meet the barrier and legal justification for strikes, which people on the Hill and what law of war experts are saying is at best dubious and at least non existent.

[A]

What's been confusing to me is, are we at war now with Venezuela? Are we in an armed conflict with Latin American drug cartels? Wouldn't you actually have to declare war in order to carry out these kinds of killings?

[D]

And this is where Congress comes into play. They have the authority to declare war. And a lot of this stuff does go back to Iraq and Afghanistan and the post September 11th mindset that the president can just take these unilateral strikes. George Bush did it, Obama did it, Biden and Trump in his first administration and now in the second, they've all done this. And Congress has failed time and time again to reign that behavior in of where the president can authorize strikes and on who. I talked to a congressional aide who's following this very closely. He said behind closed doors, Republicans and Democrats are asking a lot of questions and not getting any answers about the legal authorities, the evidence, the connections to a greater apparatus like drug trafficking organizations or terrorist organizations.

[A]

Alex, when this happened in September, when the first strike happened, I remember there was a lot of thought like, okay, well, they're just trying to scare off drug cartels. This is a deterrent. Maybe this is a one off and then there was another strike and then another. Right. And to your point, there's been at least seven.

[D]

So.

[A]

So this was not just like a one time warning.

[D]

This isn't ad hoc, like we'll just shoot them as they come and that's it. This is a deliberate apparatus where a lot of forces have moved into the region. There are now about 10,000 troops in the Caribbean. Dozens of aircraft and ships are in the region. That includes a nuclear powered submarine, it includes destroyers, it includes special operations aviation units. I think there's something in the order of like 10% of all deployed naval power is in the Caribbean.

[A]

Wow.

[D]

Which is a lot when you think about everything that's going on in the Middle east. The administration's priorities to deter forces in China and the Pacific. When you consider all of the things where the US needs to be around the world in seas, in an open ocean, 10% of that is in the Caribbean right now supporting this mission. So this is not just, you know, let's fling a missile or two and go home. This is setting the stage for prolonged and sustained operations.

[A]

As I understand it, Alex, we didn't know anything, almost anything about the identities of people that were killed on the boats. But then you had the strike last week. What made that one particularly remarkable?

[D]

So we got word of another strike happening and you know, these are becoming more and more common and the general tempo is either we hear about it and don't get any information or President Trump will put out a video later. But almost immediately we started hearing something that was different about this one. Typically these strikes have hit boats in the open ocean and. And that's it. They kill everyone on board. This particular one had four people and two of them survived. And not only were there two survivors, but they didn't come from Venezuela at all. One was Ecuadorian and one was Colombian. And the vessel they were in is also not something that's very common from Venezuela, which is a semi submersible or so called narco submarine. You know, these are very long constructed in the jungles of Ecuador and Colombia typically. And they're mental haul and a lot of drugs to elude detection to get a little bit under the surface. But it can't really dive, just that extra layer of camouflage as it kind of drifts north to the U.S. so what that tells us is these organizations might be shifting to more covert means to move their product. But it also introduced a lot of interesting and complicated questions about what do we do with these people now if they are captured Because Trump has called this an armed conflict.

[B]

Right.

[D]

Are they prisoners of war? Are they afforded the Geneva Convention predictions? Are they terrorists who could be held at Guantanamo in the tradition of what has happened in the region for decades? Are they criminals to be either deported or prosecuted in civilian court in the United States? And we got our answer very quickly, which I thought was also interesting, almost immediately once we learned that two of these suspects were not from Venezuela, but in the region. We heard they were being repatriated after they were rescued by US Forces and put on a navy ship.

[A]

So not taken into custody, just sent back to their countries?

[D]

Yes. So U.S. forces got there and they rescued them from the water and put them aboard a navy ship. And within a couple of days they were sent back home to Colombia. We know of, and we know a little bit less about what's happening with the Ecuador national, but they were sent home, which is the surprising option. Democrats on the Hill are saying there's this contradiction here where you're saying these are very dangerous terrorists and it's good enough to kill them in open water without warning them, without saying anything, without declaring any sort of armed conflict in Congress. So you can do that, but when you have a survivor, you send them home. If they were a serious threat, why aren't they being sent to military tribunals or the civilian justice system? And some law of war experts I spoke to yesterday about this said the administration doesn't want a lot of that stuff to come out. It would be politically risky for all of the justification they've been using to be unspooled in federal court. So the best way to do that is just to put them on a plane and send them home. And they did that very quickly. That strike was on Thursday. The Colombian was home on Saturday.

[A]

And so it's confusing because to your point, these are individuals from Colombia and Ecuador. We have no evidence that they have ties to Venezuela at this point, and nor would they.

[D]

These are different groups, different countries. They sort of share markets a little bit and they share distribution. And we don't know the nationalities of the two people who were killed in that strike. According to President Trump, there was two that were killed, and we just don't know anything about those folks. And I think it also goes to show that Venezuela, when it comes, when compared to Ecuador and Colombia, Venezuela is a small player in the drug market. They just, they've been doing it recently because their economy has been in shambles for so long that it's becoming more of a focus there. But they're just not major players. So you know the experts and Democrats on the Hill are saying this is not how you tackle the drug problem. If you're going to do it this way, it'd be in the Pacific. It would be targeting fentanyl production and distribution, which is the Mexican cartels and boats coming from China, not from Venezuela. It's just away swing from the pendulum all the way over to be going after these groups.

[A]

After the break. What else might be motivating Trump's military actions against Venezuela? We'll be right back.

[B]

We all have tons of decisions we juggle every day at work and in our businesses. Even us here at the Post. Scripts, show artwork, recording schedules. It can get overwhelming. And that's especially true if you're starting a small business. It can be pretty intimidating wearing so many hats and learning everything on the fly. So finding the right tools and partners that not only help you out but also simplify everything can be such a game changer for millions of businesses. That tool is Shopify. Shopify helps you in so many ways, from building a beautiful online store using their hundreds of templates to helpful AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines and even enhance your product photography to help you easily create email and social media campaigns to target your customer wherever they may be. That's why millions of brands like Allbirds and Skims use Shopify to grow their businesses every day. Turn your big business idea into With Shopify on your side, sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com reports. Go to shopify.com reports shopify.com reports.

[E]

You listen because you know the power of good journalism and the Washington Post is there for you 24 7. When you become a Washington Post subscriber, you get exclusive reporting you can't find anywhere else. You also get sharp advice, columns, delicious recipes, TV and music reviews and so much more. Right now, you can get all of that for just $4 every four weeks. That's for an entire year. After that, it's just $12 every four weeks. And you can cancel anytime. Add to your knowledge and discover all the Post has to offer. Go to washingtonpost.com subscribe that's washingtonpost.com subscrib.

[A]

So Alex, the way that this has been framed by the White House is that this is all about Venezuela. But we heard this weekend from the president of Colombia. So it seems like there's tensions here rising across Latin America. How has this become bigger than just Venezuela?

[D]

So Colombian President Gustavo Petro said over the weekend that one of the strikes that happened during this campaign had killed an innocent fisherman.

[A]

An innocent fisherman. From Colombia.

[D]

From Colombia. And what's notable here is the ferocity in the war of words between Colombia and the U.S. now, Colombia's president took.

[C]

To social media to accuse the United States of committing the murder of a fisherman. President Petro said the fisherman killed had no ties to the drug trade and that his daily activity was fishing.

[D]

You know, Trump, in response, said he was going to pull aid and assistance from Colombia. They have no fight against drugs. And I'm stopping all payments to Colombia because they don't have anything to do with their fight against drugs, which is. It's very significant. And I don't want listeners to think that it's just a normal course of events. When you think about the special relationship that the US has with the uk that's what they have down in Colombia. It is the strongest, most long standing partnership between military forces in Colombia and the US they are very close and they work hand in hand, particularly in drug interdiction. They have US Equipment, they have US Helicopters. They are the closest partner, bar none, in South America. So for that relationship to fracture is significant. The US could lose intelligence and surveillance capabilities that the Colombians have and have developed with support by the Americans. They're going to lose some of their drug interdiction resources. So it's sort of, you know, cutting off your nose to spite your face type of situation. Colombia was already focused on this stuff in a big way.

[A]

It's hard not to wonder if the motive for all of these strikes are not just stopping drugs into the United States. What are people saying about other potential motives?

[D]

There's increasing chatter on Capitol Hill that this is ultimately about Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela and regime change. So Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has been in power for some time, and he's been an aggressive anti American leader in South America for some time. Trump has been focused on him in his first administration and this one in particular as a threat to national security. You know, his attorney general has described him that way. Other members of his cabinet have described Maduro in very existential terms of these threats to the homeland. So when you put all the pieces together and you say, logically, does this make sense to be going after these drug boats? Is there an actual connection to drug smuggling from Venezuela and Nicolas Maduro? There is increasing chatter on Capitol Hill. Democrats and Republicans are telling the Pentagon and telling the administration, you need to show us the math. You need to show us these connections to Nicolas Maduro, these connections to these Terrorist groups.

[A]

What, if anything, does Maduro think? Does he think it's about regime change?

[D]

It would certainly seem that he's taken this seriously. You know, he's mobilized militias. You know, they are describing more proactively about what they see Americans doing.

[A]

Mobilize militias. To do what? To fight back.

[D]

You know, start training to be available if America or other forces like invade. Invade the country. You know, think of it as like a step below, like the National Guard.

[A]

Is there a world where he could retaliate against the United States and give the United States an excuse to start a war? I mean, is there an incitement of violence aspect of this?

[D]

You know, a congressional aide that I spoke to about this this morning said, you know, they might be looking for a Gulf of Tonkin incident, which. It's when forces fired on a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin off of Vietnam, and that escalated the war there from sort of a nation building, a peacekeeping type of operation into a full blown conflict. And it's used politically now as like an incitement or a reason to get involved by putting your forces at risk, getting attacked and then saying, all right, let's do this thing. That's what some folks on Capitol Hill are fearful of, that, you know, this growing buildup of U.S. forces in the Caribbean, which is now at 10,000, that incident may just be inevitable that something crashes. They fire on something. Some forces, you know, defend themselves in Venezuela if they're close enough that there could be something that happens where this thing just spins out of control in a very quick way.

[A]

And then we also learned last week that there's been a covert CIA operation in Venezuela that the Trump administration has authorized. So how does that fit into this conversation we're having?

[D]

Yeah, I mean, it is a little unclear from Trump whether that means things will happen or whether it's just an authorization. We don't know if that means they are just gonna go. I mean, I think it's inconceivable.

[A]

I see there's a difference between authorizing it and it actually happening. It hasn't happened yet, as far as we know.

[D]

As far as we know.

[A]

So it seems like things are escalating really quickly. Where do you see this going from here?

[D]

I wish I could tell you there's just a ton of unknowns. And it's also, you know, when you have that many military service members, you have that many aircraft and ships. Once the president decides, if he decides to send forces into Venezuela or go after groups, you know, in on their territory, it could happen fast, and you wouldn't know it until after the fact. There's a special operations mothership that's in the region that can dispatch some of these helicopters. They could be in Venezuela in under an hour. If they said go, we've gone up the ladder, not down, and we don't know where the rungs lead to at this point.

[A]

Alex, thanks so much for all your reporting and for coming on the show.

[D]

Thanks for having me, Colby.

[A]

Alex Horton is a national security reporter for the Post. That's it for Post Reports. Thanks for listening. If you love the show, help other people discover it by leaving a rating on Spotify or a rating and review on Apple Podcasts. Today's show was produced by Ilana Gordon with help from Emma Talkhoff. It was mixed by Sam Baer and edited by by Peter Bresnan with help from Ariel Plotnick. Thanks to Andy D. Grand Prix. I'm Colby Yakowitz. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post.

[E]

You listen because you know the power of good journalism and the Washington Post is there for you 24 7. When you become a Washington Post Post subscriber, you get exclusive reporting you can't find anywhere else. You also get sharp advice columns, delicious recipes, TV and music reviews and so much more. Right now, you can get all of that for just $4 every four weeks. That's for an entire year. After that, it's just $12 every four weeks. And you can cancel anytime. Add to your knowledge and discover all the Post has to offer. Go to washingtonpost.com subscribe. That's washingtonpost.com subscribe.