Photos Show US Coast Guard Ship Deployed to Contested Waters Near China
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The United States has deployed a coast guard ship to the South China Sea, where China claims sovereignty over most of the waters, to conduct operations with its Philippine ally.
Newsweek has reached out to the Chinese Defense Ministry for comment by email.
Why It Matters
China maintains a strong coast guard presence in the South China Sea, where its sovereignty claims—based on what it calls historic rights—overlap with those of neighboring nations, including the Philippines, which has been a U.S. defense treaty ally for more than 70 years.
The U.S. Coast Guard's Western Pacific deployment coincides with its ongoing mission to secure the U.S. southwest border by stopping the flow of illegal migrants and drugs at the sea, following President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency in January.
What To Know
The U.S. Coast Guard said in a Facebook post on Friday that USCGC Stratton, a 4,600-long-ton displacement Legend-class national security cutter homeported in Alameda, California, is currently deployed and assigned to the Destroyer Squadron 15 under the U.S. Seventh Fleet.
The U.S. Seventh Fleet is a forward-deployed fleet based in Japan that maintains America's naval presence in the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans. The Destroyer Squadron 15 has nine assigned destroyers, a U.S. Seventh Fleet spokesperson previously told Newsweek.
"With over 150 years of U.S. Coast Guard operations in this vital region, we're ramping up efforts to enhance maritime security and national defense," the U.S. Coast Guard explained.
Meanwhile, photos released by the U.S. Coast Guard show the Stratton at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in late April as it prepared for its Western Pacific patrol. It later visited the island of Guam, the U.S.'s westernmost territory in the Pacific, before departing for patrol on May 10.
On Friday, the Stratton arrived in Puerto Princesa City, on Palawan Island in the Philippines, for a four-day visit, the U.S. Embassy in Manila announced, adding that the port call was aimed at strengthening the partnership between the American and Philippine coast guards.
(From left) U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines MaryKay Carlson, U.S. Coast Guard national security cutter USCGC Stratton commanding officer Captain Brian Krautler, and Philippine Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Ronnie Gil Gavan stand before USCGC Stratton...
(From left) U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines MaryKay Carlson, U.S. Coast Guard national security cutter USCGC Stratton commanding officer Captain Brian Krautler, and Philippine Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Ronnie Gil Gavan stand before USCGC Stratton at the Puerto Princesa Port in the Philippines on May 16, 2025. More
The U.S. Embassy in the Philippines
Palawan Island, the westernmost Philippine province, borders the South China Sea to the west. Chinese coast guard ships have been operating near the island, staging shows of force.
Following the visit, the U.S. Coast Guard ship will conduct an exercise with the Philippine Coast Guard and Navy in the Sulu Sea, east of Palawan Island, according to the embassy. The drill will involve maritime law enforcement, as well as search and rescue operations.
What People Are Saying
The U.S. Coast Guard said: "Through strategic patrols with national security cutters, fast response cutters, and collaborative activities, we're committed to strengthening regional partnerships and ensuring safe, secure waters for all."
The Philippine Coast Guard said: "The [USCGC Stratton's] port call highlights the ongoing efforts to strengthen the bilateral partnership between the United States and the Philippines."
U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines MaryKay Carlson said: "The arrival of the USCGC Stratton is a moment of pride and possibility."
What Happens Next
The next stop in the Stratton's deployment is Japan, where it is scheduled to take part in the second trilateral coast guard drill between the U.S., the Philippines, and Japan since June 2023.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
43 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California will do anything to protect immigrants — except build them housing
Over the past several weeks, hundreds of thousands of Californians have taken to the streets to protest the Trump administration's increasingly authoritarian efforts to deport the state's undocumented population. There's a moral imperative behind these protests; the vast majority of the people being targeted by federal agents are law-abiding workers with no criminal records. There's a practical one, too: This state cannot function without its migrant workers, particularly our agricultural sector. It isn't just that undocumented workers will accept lower wages than their American counterparts. Farming is hard, skilled labor. Absent changes to federal immigration policy that would allow and incentivize more migrants to come here legally, California doesn't have the trained workforce it needs to feed itself and the nation. (We accounted for 41% of the country's vegetable sales in 2022.) And so, Californians and our politicians have rightly gone to battle with President Donald Trump. Yet as supportive as this editorial board is of these efforts, we'd be remiss if we didn't call something out: This state needs to become as passionate about housing our essential workers as it is about fighting Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It's been just over two and a half years since the deadly shootings in Half Moon Bay put the Dickensian living conditions of California's farmworkers — the vast majority of whom are undocumented — on the national radar. For decades, California had allowed its migrant workers to live in overcrowded, mold-filled housing with bacteria-ridden drinking water. That's if it housed them at all. What's changed? Not nearly enough, according to San Mateo County Supervisor Ray Mueller, whose district includes the site of the 2023 massacre. Building housing on farmland in his district has proven to be a logistical challenge amid drainage issues, sewage concerns and access to drinkable water. Yet trying to build worker housing off-site hits an even more intractable roadblock. 'The coastal community is, by a large majority, supportive of farmworkers,' he said. 'The opposition you run into is around density.' San Mateo County is hardly unique in this regard. In Marin County, for instance, an effort to build housing for the workers, many undocumented, being displaced by the closure of ranches in the Point Reyes National Seashore has been met with a lawsuit by NIMBY groups. This is, of course, unacceptable. And yet, state and local rules still too often empower obstructionism. Mueller said the arduous progress San Mateo County has made in building farmworker housing was mostly achieved using emergency powers that streamlined the usual permitting processes. 'The state was wonderful in getting our project moving,' Mueller said. 'We just need to do that at scale across the state.' We're nowhere close. In 2024, California lawmakers passed a measure to exempt farmworker housing up to 150 units from review under the California Environmental Quality Act. However, this streamlining applied to only two counties: Santa Clara and Santa Cruz. A bill in the state Legislature, AB457 from Assembly Member Esmerelda Soria, D-Merced, would expand those streamlining measures to Fresno, Madera and Merced counties. Over 40% of the state's land is used for agriculture. We're never going to get anywhere with a drip-drop of county-by-county CEQA carve-outs. Assembly Member Damon Connolly, D-San Rafael, told the editorial board he'd be supportive of an effort to expand CEQA streamlining to his district and perhaps even statewide. But even that wouldn't be enough, Mueller said. For many Bay Area farming communities, the California Coastal Commission has its own separate and arduous permitting process. Without streamlining bills to cover this and CEQA, little progress will be made. And now an even greater challenge comes from the Trump administration. Farmworker-specific housing makes easy pickings for federal raids. Mueller says he fears his efforts to build new farmworker housing may have inadvertently 'put a target on the back' of the people he's spent years trying to help. This fear isn't theoretical. Gov. Gavin Newsom's office recently issued a press release saying that federal deportation authorities requested and received the addresses and immigration status of Medi-Cal recipients after the state expanded health insurance benefits to low-income undocumented workers. Tailored government efforts for the undocumented risk creating a paper trail that puts them in danger. 'It is clear that we must reassess our programs to ensure we are doing all we can to protect the personal information of our community,' incoming state Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, D-Santa Barbara, told the editorial board. We don't have the answer to this quandary on the health care front. But California can do something for migrant workers as it relates to housing — something Limón and too many other California politicians have been reluctant to do. Make it easier to build. AB457 is an admission from legislators that CEQA creates onerous and unnecessary impediments to development. Yet housing streamlining bills such as SB79 from San Francisco state Sen. Scott Wiener, which would exempt developments near transit from CEQA review, provided they comply with local affordable housing mandates and other criteria, are receiving immense political pushback. Undocumented renters in California have virtually the same rights as everyone else in the private rental market under the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act. And landlords are prohibited from disclosing, or typically even asking about, immigration status. But without an adequate housing supply, those protections go to waste. Can most undocumented workers afford to buy a shiny new condo? Almost certainly not. But they could potentially move into older units that open up when other renters decide to buy. And they certainly could benefit from the development of new mother-in-law units — such as those that might have been built had cities like San Diego not just rolled back their accessory dwelling unit laws in the face of community opposition. If California is willing to fight the federal government to keep its undocumented residents here, it should also be willing to fight to ensure they don't live in squalor.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to Sports: What a week, from ICE at Dodger Stadium to Lakers sale
The current incarnation of Dodger ownership is not your grandfather's Dodgers. In lieu of private, family ownership, you have one behemoth corporation, the Guggenheim Group, predicated on maximizing profit potential, and not giving a twit regarding social or moral imperatives. Doing the 'right thing' might threaten their bottom line. After all, in their way of thinking, the business of America is business.' ICE thugs terrorizing part of their fan base's families is not on their radar. It's all about money. Bob TeiganSanta Susana Why would Dylan Hernández be surprised by the Dodgers' silence over the Trump Administration's efforts to terrorize the Hispanic residents of greater Los Angeles? Never forget that Dodger Stadium stands on land acquired through similar tactics directed toward the Hispanic residents of Chavez Ravine. BW RadleyMission Viejo So let me get this right. Seven months ago the Los Angeles Times editorial section declined to endorse either one of the candidates running for president of the United States, but today, Dylan Hernández, a columnist (which means he gives his opinion about topics) slammed the Dodgers for not taking a political stance on the current events in Los Angeles. Mr. Hernández, the Dodgers are a pro sports franchise, not a political party. Maybe if you want to continue to write about politics you should transfer to the Op-Ed department and leave the sports section to sports Russell MorganCarson Mr. Hernández's diatribe in The Times is yet another example of his inability to comprehend legal from illegal status. He would have the Dodgers condemn the removal of those illegally in our country. The Dodgers ownership made the correct decision to remain silent. Do not reward the law breaker who was aware of the possible consequences from the beginning. Bill TewksburyMarion, Mont.. Thank you, Kiké Hernández, for standing up for Angelenos while they are being targeted because of the color of their skin. There is no larger supporter of the Dodgers than the Mexican-American community. The Dodger ownership should show that support works both ways. Mike GamboaBuena Park Watching the NBA Finals it was clear that the Lakers would have no chance against the new, younger, more athletic players. Seeing what they've done with the Dodgers, it would be entirely reasonable to believe that the new ownership will be bringing the entire Lakers organization into the 21st century. The best part of the sale: Lakers valued at $10 billion. Celtics valued at $6 billion. Victory! Paul D. VenturaMission Viejo The Lakers move now from a Mom and Pop operated organization to corporate, with TWG Global group. Bill Plaschke writes about how great this will be for the Lakers since they will now be managed and have the same resources as the Dodgers, who went this same route back in 2012. That's great to look forward to but the immediate need is, who will play the center position for the Lakers? Is there a player for sale in Japan, maybe? Wayne MuramatsuCerritos I will no longer question manager Dave Roberts' pitching decisions. There are more important issues to raise. When asked about the deportation and rounding up of profiled people in L.A., he said, 'Honestly, I don't know enough' and 'I haven't dug enough and can't speak intelligently on it.' Do you read your own newspaper? Have you looked into the crowd that pays your $10-million salary and seen who is most loyal? Don't you honor Jackie Robinson every year and talk to your players about his legacy and standing up for one's rights? Well apparently he's either the team's PR manager, tone deaf or has been ordered to act dumb by management. The world is more than balls and strikes. David BialisSan Diego So on June 8, we get two letters suggesting that Clayton Kershaw stop pitching because he is 'hurting the team.' Over his next two starts, he pitches 12 innings, giving up one run, while striking out 12, walking one, and earning two wins. Did Bill Plaschke ghost-write these letters with his usual accurate predictions/suggestions? If so, keep up the great work, Bill! Richard BrisacherMar Vista What am I missing here? A relatively unknown golf pro, J.J. Spaun, who graduated from San Dimas High wins one of the most prestigious and exciting golf majors in years; and he gets five paragraphs (and not even a quote) plus a photo on page 2. You gave LPGA winner Carlota Ciganda more coverage (in the same combined story) after recording her first win in 15 years for winning something called the Meijer (NOT Major) LPGA Classic. May I suggest a special profile column on the local major winner when you are 'Dodger'd' out and have a slow news day. Richard WhortonStudio City It was bad enough that you barely mentioned Scottie Scheffler's dominating victory in the PGA Championship last month. But you lowered the bar even further in the U.S. Open. The first three days of the event rated only a short notebook, but J.J. Spaun's thrilling final round, topped by one of the greatest putts in golf history, should have been an above-the-fold front-page story. You blew it. And to top it off, your story referred to Spaun's having a resemblance to Franco Harris? Please. If Adam Scott had won, would he have resembled, say, Ryan Gosling? I don't think so. Steve HornGlendale What a terrific story by Gary Klein on Rams receiver Puka Nacua, with a good history of Polynesian players in the NFL! Although I have been following the NFL for many years, the growth in the number of Polynesian players is something I sort of overlooked even though I remember many of these players going back to Charlie Ane, who I also recall played at USC in the 1950s. Bill FrancisPasadena After watching Shohei Ohtani strike out four times Tuesday night, I found myself thinking, 'It's a good thing this guy can pitch.' John AmatoSherman Oaks The Los Angeles Times welcomes expressions of all views. Letters should be brief and become the property of The Times. They may be edited and republished in any format. Each must include a valid mailing address and telephone number. Pseudonyms will not be used. Email: sports@
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
American Democracy Might Not Survive a War With Iran
The current debate over bombing Iran is surreal. To begin with, bombardment is unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome. If history has shown one thing, it is that achieving a lasting resolution by bombing alone is almost impossible. There was a reason the United States sent ground forces into Iraq in 2003, and it was not to plant democracy. It was that American officials believed they could not solve the problem of Saddam Hussein's weapons programs simply by bombing. They had tried that. The Clinton administration bombed Iraq for four days in 1998. At the end, they had no idea what they had destroyed and what they hadn't. They certainly knew they had not put a permanent end to the program. In 2003, if George W. Bush thought he could have permanently ended Saddam's weapons programs by bombing alone, he would have taken that option. Iran today poses the same dilemma. America's weapons may be better than they were in 2003, its intelligence capabilities greater, and Iran may be weaker than it was even a year ago, but the problem remains. Bombing alone will not achieve a verifiable and lasting end to Iran's nuclear program. It can buy time, and Israel's strikes have done that. American strikes could extend that period, but a determined Iranian regime will likely try again. A permanent solution would require a far more intrusive international verification regime, which in turn would require a ground presence for protection. However, that is not the main reason I oppose bombing Iran. Nor is it the reason I find the discussion of all of this so bizarre. You would never know, as The New York Times churns out its usual policy-option thumb-suckers, that the United States is well down the road to dictatorship at home. That is the context in which a war with Iran will occur. Donald Trump has assumed dictatorial control over the nation's law enforcement. The Justice Department, the police, ICE agents, and the National Guard apparently answer to him, not to the people or the Constitution. He has neutered Congress by effectively taking control of the power of the purse. And, most relevant in Iran's case, he is actively and openly turning the U.S. military into his personal army, for use as he sees fit, including as a tool of domestic oppression. Whatever action he does or doesn't take in Iran will likely be in furtherance of these goals. When he celebrates the bombing of Iran, he will be celebrating himself and his rule. The president ordered a military parade to honor his birthday. Imagine what he will do when he proclaims military success in Iran. The president is working to instill in our nation's soldiers a devotion to him and him alone. Imagine how that relationship will blossom if he orders what he will portray as a successful military mission. Indeed, I can think of nothing more perilous to American democracy right now than going to war. Think of how Trump can use a state of war to strengthen his dictatorial control at home. Trump declared a state of national emergency in response to a nonexistent 'invasion' by Venezuelan gangs. Imagine what he will do when the United States is actually at war with a real country, one that many Americans fear. Will he tolerate dissent in wartime? Woodrow Wilson locked up peace activists, including Eugene V. Debs. You think Trump won't? He has been locking people up on flimsier excuses in peacetime. Even presidents not bent on dictatorship have taken measures in wartime that would otherwise be unthinkable. Then there is the matter of terrorism. What if Iran is able to pull off a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in retaliation for an American strike? Or even just tries and fails? The courts will permit a president almost anything in the aftermath of an attack: Any restraints they've put on Trump will vanish. The administration may claim that anti-terrorism laws permit it to violate the rights of American citizens in the same way that it is currently violating the rights of the noncitizens being scooped off the streets by masked men. The attorney general has already threatened to use terrorism statutes to prosecute people who throw stones at Tesla dealerships. Imagine what she will do to anti-war protesters with the justification of a real terrorist threat. Finally, there are the global implications. The United States is currently ruled by anti-liberal forces trying to overturn the Founders' universalist liberal ideals and replace them with a white, Christian ethnoreligious national identity. American officials are actively supporting similar anti-liberal forces all around the world, including the current anti-liberal ethnoreligious government of Israel. Any success Trump claims in Iran, whatever its other consequences, will be a victory for the anti-liberal alliance and will further the interests of anti-liberalism across the globe. This is true even though the current regime in Iran is itself anti-liberal. Should the mullahs fall, Trump and Israel are likely to support a military strongman against any democratic forces that might emerge there. That has been Israel's policy throughout the region, and even presidents who did not share Trump's proclivity for dictators, such as Barack Obama, have acquiesced to Israel's preferences. I'm not interested in using American military power to make the world safer for dictatorship. I might feel differently if Iran posed a direct threat to the United States. It doesn't. The U.S. policy of containing Iran was always part of a larger strategy to defend a liberal world system with a liberal America at its center. Americans need to start thinking differently about our foreign policy in light of what is happening in our country. We can no longer trust that any Trump foreign-policy decision will not further illiberal goals abroad or be used for illiberal ends at home. Today, the United States itself is at risk of being turned into a military dictatorship. Its liberal-democratic institutions have all but crumbled. The Founders' experiment may be coming to an end. War with Iran is likely to hasten its demise. Not that it matters, but count me out.
