Follow us on social

Rodrigo Duterte

How the US bankrolled Duterte's alleged crimes against humanity

The former Philippine president awaits trial for his brutal war on drugs. He waged it with our help

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Last Tuesday, former president of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte was arrested in Manila and taken to the Hague, where he will be tried for crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court.

From 2016-2022, Duterte’s government carried out a campaign of mass killings of suspected drug users. It’s estimated that 27,000 people, most of them poor and indigent, were executed without trial by police officers and vigilantes at his behest. Children were also routinely killed during Duterte’s drug raids- both as collateral victims and as targets.

While this happened, the United States provided tens of millions of dollars annually to both the Philippine military and the Philippine National Police. The funding flowed mostly uninterrupted while human rights groups around the world called foul.

Duterte made his intention to wage a brutal anti-drug crackdown clear from the very beginning. Before his ascent to the presidency, he served as mayor of Davao, the nation’s 3rd largest city. There he presided over the executions of 1,400 suspected criminals and street children at the hands of a vigilante group known as the “Davao Death Squad.” Duterte initially denied direct involvement in these killings, and then later implied he did in fact support them, saying, “How did I reach that title among the world’s safest cities? Kill them all.”

In 2016, Duterte ran for president as a hardliner on crime, promising to eradicate all criminal activity in the Philippines within six months. In a speech just after taking office, he warned drug users, “I will kill you, I will kill you. I will take the law into my own hands… forget about the laws of men, forget about the laws of international law.” He later compared his violent campaign against drug users to Hitler’s genocide of Jews.

Within months of Duterte’s term the Philippine National Police launched Operation Double Barrel, a nationwide campaign to arrest drug users. A 2017 Human Rights Watch (HRW) investigation found that in practice, the operation was, “a campaign of extrajudicial execution in impoverished areas of Manila and other urban areas.”

Many of the killings examined by HRW followed a pattern: a group of plainclothes gunmen would enter the home of a suspected drug user, kill them without ever issuing an arrest, and plant drugs or weapons next to the body. Sometimes the gunmen would self-identify as police officers, and other times they would not. Police would also detain suspected drug users without charges and torture them for bribes.

“Duterte’s outspoken endorsement of the campaign implicates him and other senior officials in possible incitement to violence, instigation of murder, and in command responsibility for crimes against humanity,” stated the HRW report.

Less than a month after Duterte took office, then- Secretary of State John Kerry announced a $32 million weapons and training package specifically to support the Philippine National Police. He made no mention of Duterte’s numerous threats to weaponize law enforcement on the campaign trail, or the fact that 239 suspected drug users had already been killed by police without due process at that point.

Obama’s administration authorized $90 million in military aid to the Philippines in 2016 and roughly $1 billion during the 8 years he was in office. As a growing chorus of human rights advocates criticized the United States for supporting Duterte’s atrocities, the Obama administration suspended some security assistance for the Philippine National Police in November of 2016, but kept military funding at normal levels.

These suspensions were swiftly reversed when Donald Trump took office in 2017. “I just want to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job [you’re doing] on the drug problem,” he told Duterte in a phone call shortly after being inaugurated.

In 2018, the Trump administration provided $55 million to the Philippine National Police in aid and arm sales and $193.5 million in military aid to the Philippines overall. This aid package enabled Duterte’s regime on two fronts.

“The war on drugs was primarily implemented by the Philippine National Police, but the attacks on human rights defenders and activists were mainly done by the military,” said Philippine-based human rights activist Judy Pasimio in an interview with Responsible Statecraft.

Pasimio took to the streets in 2016 for a demonstration organized by a coalition of civil society groups to protest the first 100 killings carried out in the drug war. “We understood that this can cross over. This isn’t just about killings in the war on drugs, it will extend to killings of activists in the pretext of the war on drugs,” she said.

Over the course of his presidency, Duterte repeatedly threatened to kill, investigate, and imprison human rights defenders for obstructing his anti-drug campaign. His Justice Department used anti-terrorism laws to place oppositional voices on government watchlists and his state security forces routinely executed activists without trial.

Under President BongBong Marcos, Duterte’s successor, the Philippine government continues to persecute human rights organizations and carry out drug related killings- all while enjoying massive amounts of military aid from Washington.

Just last month, the Trump administration clarified that a $336 million aid bundle for “modernizing Philippine security forces” would be among the few packages to be exempt from his foreign aid freeze.

“The United States sees the Philippines as part of its overall policy of countering China,” said Sarang Shidore, director of the Global South Program at the Quincy Institute.

Duterte’s upcoming trial will hopefully shed new light on the country’s egregious human rights violations, but that will not change the flow of the military aid to the U.S.-Philippines security relationship, not as long as the Philippines remains a regional security ally.


Top photo credit: March 19 2016, Angeles City, Philippines. Rodrigo Duterte campaigning in presidential elections. (shutterstock/Simon roughneen)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.