ReportWire

Tag: president

  • Commentary: Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris have traveled parallel paths. Will they collide in 2028?

    [ad_1]

    Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris have long circled one another.

    The two moved in the same political slipstream, wooed the same set of Democratic donors and, for a time, even shared the same group of campaign advisors.

    Harris rose from San Francisco district attorney to elected positions in Sacramento and Washington before twice running unsuccessfully for president.

    Newsom climbed from San Francisco mayor to lieutenant governor to California’s governorship, where he quietly stewed as Harris leapfrogged past him into the vice presidency. While she served in the White House, Newsom tried any number of ways to insinuate himself into the national spotlight.

    Now both have at least one eye on the Oval Office, setting up a potential clash of egos and ambition that’s been decades in the making.

    Newsom, whose term as governor expires in January, has been auditioning for president from practically the moment the polls closed in 2024 and horrified Democrats realized Harris had lost to Donald Trump.

    Harris, who’s mostly focused on writing and promoting her campaign autobiography — while giving a political speech here and there — hasn’t publicly declared she’ll seek the White House a third time. But, notably, she has yet to rule out the possibility.

    In a CNN interview aired Sunday, Newsom was asked about the prospect of facing his longtime frenemy in a fight for the Democratic nomination. (California’s gallivanting governor is embarked on his own national book tour, promoting both the “memoir of discovery” that was published Tuesday and his all-but-declared presidential bid.)

    “Well, I’m San Francisco now, she’s L.A.,” Newsom joked, referring to Harris’ post-Washington residency in Brentwood. “So there’s a little distance between the two of us.”

    He then turned zen-like, saying fate would determine if the two face off in the 2028 primary contest. “You can only control what you can control,” Newsom told CNN host Dana Bash.

    A decade ago, Newsom and Harris swerved to keep their careers from colliding.

    In 2015, Barbara Boxer said she would step down once she finished her fourth term in the U.S. Senate. The opening presented a rare opportunity for political advancement after years in which a clutch of aging incumbents held California’s top elected offices. Between Lt. Gov. Newsom and state Atty. Gen. Harris, there was no lack of pent-up ambition.

    After a weekend of intensive deliberations, Newsom passed on the Senate race and Harris jumped in, establishing herself as the front-runner for Boxer’s seat, which she won in 2016. Newsom waited and was elected governor in 2018, succeeding Jerry Brown.

    Once in their preferred roles, the two got along reasonably well. Each campaigned on the other’s behalf. But, privately, there has never been a great deal of mutual regard or affection.

    Come 2028, there will doubtless be many Democrats seeking to replace President Trump. The party’s last wide-open contest, in 2020, drew more than two dozen major contestants. So it’s not as though Harris and Newsom would face each other in a one-on-one fight.

    But dueling on the national stage, with the country’s top political prize at stake, is something that Hollywood might have scripted for Newsom and Harris as the way to settle, once and for all, their long-standing rivalry.

    The two Californians would start out closely matched in good looks and charisma.

    Those who know them well, having observed Newsom and Harris up close, cite other strengths and weaknesses.

    Harris has thicker skin, they suggested, and is more disciplined. Her forte is set-piece events, like debates and big speeches.

    Newsom is more of a policy wonk, a greater risk-taker and is more willing to venture into challenging and even hostile settings.

    Newson is more fluent in the ecosphere of social media, podcasts and the like. Harris has the advantage of performing longer on the national stage and bears nothing like the personal scandals that have plagued Newsom.

    But Harris’ problem, it was widely agreed, is that she has run twice before and, worse, lost the last time to Trump.

    “To a lot of voters, she’s yesterday’s news,” said one campaign strategist.

    “She had her shot,” said another, channeling the perceived way Democratic primary voters would react to another Harris run. “You didn’t make it, so why should we give you another shot?”

    (Those half-dozen kibbitzers who agreed to candidly assess the prospects of Newsom and Harris asked not to be identified, so they could preserve their relationships with the two.)

    Most of the handicappers gave the edge to Newsom in a prospective match-up; one political operative familiar with both would have placed their wager on Harris had she not run before.

    “I think her demographic appeal to Black women and coming up the ranks as a Black woman working in criminal justice is a very strong card,” said the campaign strategist. “The white guy from California, the pretty boy, is not as much of a primary draw.”

    That said, this strategist, too, suggested that “being tagged as someone who not only lost but lost in this situation that has set the world on fire … is too big a cross to bear.”

    The consensus among these cognoscenti is that Harris will not run again and that Newsom — notwithstanding any demurrals — will.

    Of course, the only two who know for sure are those principals, and it’s quite possible neither Harris nor Newsom have entirely made up their minds.

    Those who enjoy their politics cut with a dash of soap opera will just have to wait.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Trump defends immigration crackdown at State of Union as approval ratings plummet

    [ad_1]

    To defend an increasingly unpopular immigration crackdown during his State of the Union speech, President Trump highlighted the victims of crimes perpetuated by undocumented immigrants.

    But as Democrats pointed out, the president’s lengthy speech made no reference to the U.S. citizens, including Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, who were killed by immigration agents.

    Recent polls show public approval of Trump’s immigration policies has fallen to record lows level since he returned to the White House. One poll, released Feb. 17 by Reuters and the market research firm Ipsos, showed just 38% of respondents felt Trump was doing a good job on immigration.

    Another poll, published last month by Fox News, showed 59% of voters say U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is “too aggressive.”

    “As President Trump brags about his immigration enforcement at tonight’s State of the Union, I can think only of Renee Nicole Good, Alex Pretti and the three dozen people who have died in ICE custody since Trump took office,” Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) wrote on X.

    Within the first few minutes of his address on Tuesday night, Trump highlighted “the strongest and most secure border in American history, by far.” He also offered — at least momentarily — a softer tone, adding that “We will always allow people to come in legally, people that will love our country and will work hard to maintain our country.”

    In reality, the administration has restricted legal immigration. It has revoked humanitarian benefits for hundreds of thousands of people, and placed an indefinite pause on all asylum applications filed with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

    Guests invited by various lawmakers to attend Trump’s speech offered dueling visions of the administration’s mass deportation effort.

    Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa) said he would bring the father and brother of Sarah Root, who was killed in 2016 after a drunk driver, who was in the U.S. illegally, crashed into her vehicle. Trump held an event Monday for “angel families,” those with a relative who was killed by an undocumented immigrant, and signed a proclamation honoring such victims of crimes.

    Democrats, meanwhile, invited immigrants, family members of those detained or deported, and U.S. citizens who were violently arrested by immigration agents.

    Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Juan Capistrano), for example, said he was bringing the daughter of a Laguna Niguel couple deported last year to Colombia after their arrest during a routine check-in with ICE. And Rep. Jesus Garcia (D-Ill.) invited Marimar Martinez, a Chicago woman shot five times by Border Patrol Agent Charles Exum.

    On X, the Department of Homeland Security shot back at Democrats with immigrant guests, saying the lawmakers are “once again prioritizing illegal aliens above the safety of American citizens.”

    On Tuesday morning, Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) held a news conference on “the state of immigration,” flanked by Christian pastors, in which she touted her Dignity Act, which would provide permanent legal status to immigrants who meet certain benchmarks.

    “Throughout the Scripture, there are two kinds of leaders: those who persecute faith communities and those who protect them,” she said.

    California Sen. Adam Schiff was among the Democrats to boycott Trump’s speech, and he cited immigration enforcement as one reason for his absence.

    “I have not missed the State of the Union in the 25 years I’ve been in Congress, but we have never had a president violate the Constitution, the laws every day with seeming impunity,” Schiff told Meidas Touch outside the Capitol. “We’ve never had masked armed, poorly trained agents, victimizing our cities, demanding to see people’s papers.”

    Trump repeated claims about immigration that have been debunked, such as his assertion that President Biden’s immigration polices allowed millions of people to pour into the U.S. from prisons and mental institutions.

    Trump also highlighted a figure he has often turned to — that Democrats let in “11,888 murderers.” That number, an inaccurate description of federal data, refers to immigrants who, over the course of decades (including the first Trump administration) were convicted of homicide, usually after their arrival in the U.S. Those immigrants are listed on ICE’s “non-detained docket” typically because they are currently serving their prison sentences.

    Turning to Minnesota, Trump said Somalis have defrauded $19 billion from American taxpayers — a disputed figure — and referred to them derogatorily as “Somali pirates.”

    Trump went beyond Somalis to disparage many immigrants, saying “there are large parts of the world where bribery, corruption and lawlessness are the norm, not the exception.”

    “Importing these cultures through unrestricted immigration and open borders brings those problems right here to the USA, and it is the American people who pay the price,” he said.

    Trump also highlighted the case of Dalilah Coleman, 6, of Bakersfield who was left with a traumatic brain injury after a 2024 car crash in California.

    He called on Congress to pass the Dalilah Law, which would bar states from granting commercial drivers licenses to immigrants without lawful status. He said, without proof, that “most illegal aliens do not speak English and cannot read even the most basic road signs.”

    A year after Dalilah’s accident her family met with Partap Singh, the detained Indian immigrant responsible for the crash, at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center in Bakersfield. Marcus Coleman, her father, told Fox26 News that the focus shouldn’t be on Singh’s legal status because similar accidents happen every day.

    Also present Tuesday night were the parents of Sarah Beckstrom, the West Virginia National Guard member shot and killed in Washington, D.C. by an Afghan immigrant, as well as Andrew Wolfe, who was also shot and survived.

    Trump awarded Wolfe and Beckstrom the Purple Heart. He called Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the man charged in the shooting, a “terrorist monster.” Lakanwal legally entered the U.S. from Afghanistan through a Biden administration program in 2021 and his asylum application was approved under the Trump administration last April.

    Turning his attention the fall’s midterm elections, Trump warned his supporters that if allowed back into power, Democrats would reopen the borders “to some of the worst criminals anywhere in the world.”

    Trump then invited legislators to stand if they agreed with him that “the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”

    Republicans stood, offering one of the longest standing ovations of the night. Democrats remained seated.

    Trump told Democrats they should be ashamed for not standing up.

    “You have killed Americans!” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) yelled from the audience. “You should be ashamed.”

    [ad_2]

    Andrea Castillo

    Source link

  • Carlos Watson Sought Mercy on X. Todd Chrisley Turned to Jesus. Everybody Went to Giuliani or Dershowitz. Inside Trump’s Wild West Wing Pardon System

    [ad_1]

    After the verdict, his daughter Savannah spent $460,000 to hire Alex Little, from the Tennessee law firm of Litson, to navigate an appeal and potential pardon petition. Having previously worked at the International Criminal Court and former president Jimmy Carter’s peace initiatives in Africa, with a brief stint as a CIA analyst, Little was not an obvious choice to build a powerful network among MAGA Republicans. But his work on a case involving Amazon had seemingly impressed Jim Trusty, who later defended Trump against charges of mishandling classified documents. And during Little’s defense of Brian Kelsey, a Tennessee state senator charged with violating campaign finance laws, he encountered David Warrington, who also worked for Kelsey and subsequently became Trump’s White House counsel. After Trump resumed power, Little submitted a clemency petition for Kelsey, who was pardoned just weeks after his sentence began. Little, long an appeals lawyer, quickly became a pardon-focused attorney, telling VF the “real problems” in Chrisley’s original conviction appeared unusual in such a high-profile prosecution. “Going into the appellate argument, we had very, very strong cases on multiple fronts.”

    “As we sort of click off the contingencies, it’s like being a pilot,” explains Little. “Where’s the first place you’re going to land? If that place doesn’t work, where’s the second place you’re going to land? If you got to land in a field, you got to land in a field, but we’re going to get you home safe.”

    But Todd Chrisley’s appeal looked set to drag on, and Savannah grew impatient. She started working the phones, pleading her parents’ innocence, even speaking at the 2024 Republican National Convention about “rogue prosecutors” and “the Democrats’ corruption.” After more than two years in prison and $4.2 million in legal fees, Chrisley himself grew used to his life inside. He secretly used multiple cell phones, enjoyed a large commissary account, and thanks to his influence and education, developed an intense desire to push back against the capriciousness, incompetence, and occasional cruelty of prison authorities.

    Eventually, Savannah’s appeals to Trump bore fruit. A video from late last May shows Trump on an Oval Office speakerphone, informing her that within a day her parents would be “free and clean” after their “harsh treatment.” Hours later, the legal nightmare that began for Chrisley at a luxury Los Angeles hotel ended in a Pensacola, Florida, prison. He handed other prisoners all his spare gear—“You’re only allowed to have two pairs of tennis shoes; I had seven. You’re only allowed to have two sweat suits; I had 11. You’re only allowed to spend $360 a month on commissary; I spent $2,000”—and walked out.

    While inside, he’d pushed to see his prison camp shuttered, and he now says improving inmate conditions and reducing America’s recidivism rate has provided him with “a purpose-driven life.” The presidential pardon power can “right a wrong” and “gives those that are incarcerated hope,” Chrisley told VF. “President Trump has been the answer to a lot of people’s hope in this country.”

    [ad_2]

    Willem Marx

    Source link

  • Brink of war: President Trump demanding Iran abandon its nuclear program or face military action

    [ad_1]

    American and Iranian officials are meeting today in Switzerland to discuss U.S. demands for Iran to abandon its nuclear program, amid threats from President Donald Trump and a buildup of American military assets. Trump has warned of using force if a deal is not reached.”I think they want to make a deal. I don’t think they want the consequences of not making a deal. They want to make a deal,” Trump said.Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, are in Geneva for a second round of talks over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has stated that it will respond with an attack of its own if the U.S. initiates military action. The Trump administration insists that Iran must cease uranium enrichment, a process that could lead to the development of nuclear weapons, while Tehran maintains its program is for peaceful purposes.Trump is increasing American military presence near Iran, having recently announced the deployment of the world’s largest aircraft carrier from the Caribbean Sea to the Middle East, where another guided-missile destroyer is stationed.Trump was asked Friday if he wants regime change in Iran. He said it seems like that would be the best thing that could happen, but he did not comment on the specifics of who he wants to take over. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    American and Iranian officials are meeting today in Switzerland to discuss U.S. demands for Iran to abandon its nuclear program, amid threats from President Donald Trump and a buildup of American military assets. Trump has warned of using force if a deal is not reached.

    “I think they want to make a deal. I don’t think they want the consequences of not making a deal. They want to make a deal,” Trump said.

    Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, are in Geneva for a second round of talks over Iran’s nuclear program.

    Iran has stated that it will respond with an attack of its own if the U.S. initiates military action.

    The Trump administration insists that Iran must cease uranium enrichment, a process that could lead to the development of nuclear weapons, while Tehran maintains its program is for peaceful purposes.

    Trump is increasing American military presence near Iran, having recently announced the deployment of the world’s largest aircraft carrier from the Caribbean Sea to the Middle East, where another guided-missile destroyer is stationed.

    Trump was asked Friday if he wants regime change in Iran. He said it seems like that would be the best thing that could happen, but he did not comment on the specifics of who he wants to take over.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge orders slavery exhibits restored at George Washington’s Philadelphia home

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to restore exhibits on slavery that the National Park Service had removed from the President’s House last month.

    U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe’s ruling requires the federal government to restore the site “to its physical status as of January 21, 2026,” the day before the exhibits were removed.

    The order did not set a deadline for restoration, but required the National Park Service to take steps to maintain the site and ensure the safety of the exhibits that memorialize the enslaved people who lived in George Washington’s Philadelphia home during his presidency.

    Rufe, a George W. Bush appointee, compared the Trump administration’s argument that it can unilaterally control the exhibits in national parks to the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s “1984,” a novel about a dystopian totalitarian regime.

    “This Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts,” Rufe wrote. “It does not.”

    The administration’s attempt to alter the President’s House is part of a nationwide initiative to remove content displays from national parks that “inappropriately disparage Americans past or living,” under orders issued by President Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last year. For instance, Park Service employees removed signage from the Grand Canyon about the mistreatment of Native Americans.

    Philadelphia filed a federal lawsuit against Burgum, acting National Park Service Director Jessica Bowron and their agencies the day the exhibits were dismantled.

    The federal government has the option to appeal the judge’s order. The Interior Department, National Park Service and U.S. Attorney’s Office did not immediately comment on the ruling, which fell on Presidents’ Day, a federal holiday.

    During a hearing last month, Rufe called the argument that a president could unilaterally change the exhibits displayed in national parks “horrifying” and “dangerous.” She ordered the federal government to ensure the panels’ safekeeping after an inspection and a visit to the President’s House earlier this month.

    Monday’s ruling followed an updated injunction request from the city that asked for the full restoration of the site — not merely that the exhibits be maintained safely. In response, the federal government’s brief argued that the National Park Service has discretion over the exhibits and that the city’s lawsuit should be dismissed on procedural grounds.

    The federal government also argued there could be no irreparable harm from the removal of the exhibits because they are documented online and replacement panels would cost $20,000.

    But the judge found the city met its burden.

    “If the President’s House is left dismembered throughout this dispute, so too is the history it recounts, and the City’s relationship to that history,” Rufe wrote.

    The injunction itself does not resolve the underlying lawsuit, and is in effect for the duration of the litigation.

    Avenging the Ancestors Coalition, the main advocacy organization leading the fight to protect the President’s House, was a little less than an hour into its Presidents’ Day event at the site when leaders got wind of their victory.

    Michael Coard, a leader of the Black-led advocacy group that helped develop the site before it opened in 2010, told the crowd of about 100 people gathered at the President’s House: “Thanks to you all, your presence and your activism, I have great news: We just won in federal court.”

    But the fight is not over, advocates said, with Coard expecting the Trump administration to appeal or ignore any future rulings.

    “This is a lawless administration. The people are going to have to take over to force them to do the right thing,” Coard said.

    Gutman and Roth write for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

    [ad_2]

    Abraham Gutman and Fallon Roth

    Source link

  • Trump heads to Fort Bragg to cheer special forces members who ousted Venezuela’s Maduro

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump is heading to North Carolina on Friday to celebrate members of the special forces who stormed into Venezuela on the third day of the New Year and whisked away that country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, to face U.S. smuggling charges.First Lady Melania Trump will also be making the trip to Fort Bragg, one of the largest military bases in the world by population, to spend time with military families.Trump has been hitting the road more frequently to states that could play key roles in November’s midterm congressional elections, including a stop before Christmas in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. The White House has been trying to promote Trump’s economic policies, including attempts to bring down the cost of living at a time when many Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with Trump’s efforts to improve affordability.The president spoke at Fort Bragg in June at an event meant to recognize the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. But that celebration was overshadowed by his partisan remarks describing protesters in Los Angeles as “animals” and his defense of deploying the military there.Trump has since deployed the National Guard to places like Washington and Memphis, Tennessee, as well as other federal law enforcement officials involved in his crackdown on immigration. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, announced Thursday that the administration is ending the operations in Minnesota that led to the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens.This time, Trump’s visit is meant to toast service members involved in his administration’s dramatic ouster of Maduro, an operation he has described as requiring bravery and advanced weapons.His administration has since pushed for broad oversight of the South American country’s oil industry. Next month, he plans to convene a gathering of leaders from a number of Latin American countries in Florida, as the administration spotlights what it sees as concerning Chinese influence in the region.The March 7 gathering can give Trump a chance to further press a new and aggressive foreign policy which the president has proudly dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine,” a reference to 19th-century President James Monroe’s belief that the U.S. should dominate its sphere of influence.

    President Donald Trump is heading to North Carolina on Friday to celebrate members of the special forces who stormed into Venezuela on the third day of the New Year and whisked away that country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, to face U.S. smuggling charges.

    First Lady Melania Trump will also be making the trip to Fort Bragg, one of the largest military bases in the world by population, to spend time with military families.

    Trump has been hitting the road more frequently to states that could play key roles in November’s midterm congressional elections, including a stop before Christmas in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. The White House has been trying to promote Trump’s economic policies, including attempts to bring down the cost of living at a time when many Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with Trump’s efforts to improve affordability.

    The president spoke at Fort Bragg in June at an event meant to recognize the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. But that celebration was overshadowed by his partisan remarks describing protesters in Los Angeles as “animals” and his defense of deploying the military there.

    Trump has since deployed the National Guard to places like Washington and Memphis, Tennessee, as well as other federal law enforcement officials involved in his crackdown on immigration. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, announced Thursday that the administration is ending the operations in Minnesota that led to the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens.

    This time, Trump’s visit is meant to toast service members involved in his administration’s dramatic ouster of Maduro, an operation he has described as requiring bravery and advanced weapons.

    His administration has since pushed for broad oversight of the South American country’s oil industry. Next month, he plans to convene a gathering of leaders from a number of Latin American countries in Florida, as the administration spotlights what it sees as concerning Chinese influence in the region.

    The March 7 gathering can give Trump a chance to further press a new and aggressive foreign policy which the president has proudly dubbed the “Donroe Doctrine,” a reference to 19th-century President James Monroe’s belief that the U.S. should dominate its sphere of influence.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Commentary: Tulsi Gabbard is supposed to keep America safe. She’s only looking out for herself

    [ad_1]

    Tulsi Gabbard’s political journey has been anything but straightforward.

    As a teenager, she worked for her father, a prominent anti-gay activist, and his political organization, which opposed same-sex marriage. In 2002, she was elected to Hawaii’s House of Representatives, becoming — at age 21 — the youngest person to serve in the Legislature.

    Gabbard was a Democrat and remained so for two decades, as she cycled from the statehouse to Honolulu’s City Council to the U.S. House of Representatives.

    In 2020, she ran for president, renouncing her anti-LGBTQ views and apologizing for her earlier stance. She was a Bernie Sanders acolyte and a fierce critic of Donald Trump and, especially, his foreign policy. She denounced him at one point for “being Saudi Arabia’s bitch.”

    Now, Gabbard is MAGA down to her stocking feet.

    Despite no obvious qualifications — save for her fawning appearances on Fox News — Trump selected her to be the director of national intelligence, the nation’s spymaster-in-chief. Despite no earthly reason, Gabbard was present last week when the FBI conducted a heavy-handed raid at the Fulton County elections office in Georgia, pursuing a harebrained theory the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

    Instead of, say, poring over the latest intelligence gleanings from Ukraine or Gaza, Gabbard stood watch as a team of flak-jacketed agents carted off hundreds of boxes of ballots and other election materials.

    That’ll keep the homeland safe.

    But as bizarre and unaccountable as it was, Gabbard’s presence outside Atlanta did make a certain amount of sense. She’s a longtime dabbler in crackpot conspiracies. And she’ll bend, like a swaying palm, whichever way the prevailing winds blow.

    Some refer to her as the “Manchurian candidate,” said John Hart, a communication professor at Hawaii Pacific University, referring to the malleable cipher in the famous political thriller. In a different world, he suggested, Gabbard might have been Sanders’ running mate.

    “It does take a certain amount of flexibility to think that someone who could have been the Democratic VP is now in Trump’s cabinet,” Hart observed.

    The job of the nation’s director of national intelligence — a position created to address some of the failings that led to the 9/11 attacks — is to act as the president’s top intelligence adviser, synthesizing voluminous amounts of foreign, military and domestic information to help defend the country and protect its interests abroad.

    It has nothing whatsoever to do with re-litigating U.S. elections, or tending to the bruised feelings of an onion-skinned president.

    The job is supposed to be nonpartisan and apolitical, which should go without saying. Except it needs to be said in this time when all roads (and the actions of each cabinet member) lead to Trump, his ego, his whims and his insecurities.

    There were ample signs Gabbard was a spectacularly bad pick for intelligence chief.

    She blamed NATO and the Biden administration for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She claimed the U.S. was funding dangerous biological laboratories in the country — “parroting fake Russian propaganda,” in the words of then-Utah Sen. Mitt Romney.

    She opposed U.S. aid to the rebels fighting Bashar Assad, met with Syria’s then-dictator and defended him against allegations he used chemical weapons against his own people.

    She defended Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who were indicted for masterminding two of the biggest leaks of intelligence secrets in U.S. history.

    Still, Gabbard was narrowly confirmed by the Senate, 52 to 48. The vote, almost entirely along party lines, was an inauspicious start and nothing since had dispelled lawmakers’ well-placed lack of confidence.

    Trump brushed aside Gabbard’s congressional testimony on Iran’s nuclear capabilities — “I don’t care what she said” — and bombed the country’s nuclear facilities. The putative intelligence chief was apparently irrelevant in the administration’s ouster of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    Her bizarre presence in Georgia — where Gabbard reportedly arranged for FBI agents to make a post-raid call to the president — looks like nothing more than a way to worm her way back into his good graces.

    (Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that a U.S. intelligence official has filed a whistleblower complaint against Gabbard, which is caught up in wrangling over sharing details with Congress.)

    California Sen. Adam Schiff said it’s “patently obvious to everyone Gabbard lacks the capability and credibility” to lead the country’s intelligence community.

    “She has been sidelined by the White House, ignored by the agencies, and has zero credibility with Congress,” the Democrat wrote in an email. She’s responded by parroting Trump’s Big Lie “complete with cosplaying [a] secret agent in Fulton County and violating all norms and rules by connecting the President of the United States with line law enforcement officers executing a warrant. The only contribution that Tulsi Gabbard can make now would be to resign.”

    Back in Hawaii, the former congresswoman has been in bad odor for years.

    “It started with the criticism of President Obama” — a revered Hawaii native — over foreign policy “and a sense in Hawaii that she was more interested in appearing on the national media than working for the state,” said Colin Moore, a University of Hawaii political science professor and another longtime Gabbard watcher.

    “Hawaii politicians have, with a few exceptions, tended to be kind of low-drama dealmakers, not the sort who attract national attention,” Moore said. “The goal is to rise in seniority and bring benefits back to the state. And that was never the model Tulsi followed.”

    In recent years, as she sidled into Trump’s orbit, Hawaiian sightings of Gabbard have been few and far between, according to Honolulu Civil Beat, a statewide nonprofit news organization. Not that she’s been terribly missed in the deeply Democratic state.

    “I’ve heard some less-charitable people say, ‘Don’t let the door hit your [rear end] on the way out,” said Hart.

    But it’s not as though Gabbard’s ascension to director of intelligence was Hawaii’s loss and America’s gain. It’s been America’s loss, too.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Trump says ‘dilapidated’ Kennedy Center will close for two years for renovations

    [ad_1]

    Less than a year after taking over the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and appointing himself chairman, President Trump has announced that the venue will shut down for two years, beginning July 4, to undergo a major renovation.

    “This important decision … will take a tired, broken, and dilapidated Center, one that has been in bad condition, both financially and structurally for many years, and turn it into a World Class Bastion of Arts, Music and Entertainment, far better than it has ever been before,” Trump wrote Sunday on his social media website.

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who serves as an ex officio member of the center’s board of trustees, condemned Trump’s decision to close the venue in a statement issued early Monday.

    “As President Trump continues his demolition tour of Washington, he’s now setting his sights on one of America’s great cultural institutions,” Whitehouse said. “And yet again, he’s bucking rules and convention to do so. If he succeeds, it will be because of a series of suspect and illegal actions to commandeer the Kennedy Center as a clubhouse for his friends and political allies and install leadership who will satisfy his every whim.”

    Whitehouse attributed Trump’s decision to an attempt to cover up “his failures by shuttering a national landmark that belongs to the American people” and noted that the president announced his intentions without getting input from “the Board, Congress, and others, as law and precedent dictate.”

    The president’s announcement came in the wake of a cascade of Trump-initiated changes for the center that began in mid-December when its board voted to rename the venue the Trump-Kennedy Center and quickly added the president’s name above Kennedy’s on the building’s exterior.

    Prominent artists soon began canceling performances, including jazz drummer Chuck Redd, who pulled out of a Christmas Eve show, and the jazz group the Cookers, which canceled two New Year’s Eve performances.

    Additional cancellations included banjo player Béla Fleck and “Wicked” composer Stephen Schwartz, who announced he no longer intended to host a May 15 gala at the center. Opera star Renée Fleming followed, although scheduling conflicts were the reason given.

    There was also the stunning news last month that the Washington National Opera’s board approved a resolution to leave the venue, which it has occupied since 1971.

    Last week brought a new low for the center’s calendar when renowned composer Philip Glass added his name to the growing list of protest cancellations. Glass sent a letter to the Kennedy Center board saying that he would no longer stage June’s world premiere of Symphony No. 15 “Lincoln” at the center.

    “Symphony No. 15 is a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, and the values of the Kennedy Center today are in direct conflict with the message of the Symphony. Therefore, I feel an obligation to withdraw this Symphony premiere from the Kennedy Center under its current leadership,” Glass wrote in the letter, which was shared with The Times.

    The National Symphony Orchestra had commissioned the piece and appeared to be caught off guard by Glass’ announcement. Executive Director Jean Davidson said the orchestra only learned of the news at the same time as the press.

    Arts watchers soon began wondering about the orchestra’s future at the center. Would it leave like the Washington National Opera? Roma Daravi, Kennedy Center head of communications, said that wasn’t a possibility.

    “The relationship is strong, and we have a wonderful season here with Maestro [Gianandrea Noseda] in his 10th year leading the NSO,” Daravi wrote in an email, noting the “record-breaking success at the recent Gala benefiting the NSO which launched the new season. The event raised $3.45 million, marking an all-time fundraising record for the organization.”

    Daravi’s email did not hint at the prospect of the center closing. Trump also did not appear to be leaning in that direction early last week when he posted on his social media site that he was intent on bettering the arts complex.

    “People don’t realize that the Trump Kennedy Center suffered massive deficits for many years and, like everything else, I merely came in to save it, and, if possible, make it far better than ever before!” Trump wrote.

    In Sunday’s post announcing the Kennedy Center’s imminent closure, Trump didn’t acknowledge the recent cancellations, nor did he make mention of myriad reports that ticket sales at the venue had been plummeting. He simply said the closure would result in extraordinary results.

    “[I]f we don’t close, the quality of Construction will not be nearly as good, and the time to completion, because of interruptions with Audiences from the many Events using the Facility, will be much longer. The temporary closure will produce a much faster and higher quality result!” Trump wrote.

    Kennedy Center President Richard Grenell confirmed the news on X, writing, “I am grateful for President Trump’s visionary leadership. I am also grateful to Congress for appropriating an historic $257M to finally address decades of deferred maintenance and repairs at the Trump Kennedy Center.”

    It remains unclear whether the National Symphony Orchestra will perform elsewhere during the closure. The orchestra did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Jessica Gelt

    Source link

  • News Analysis: NATO has survived plenty over 75 years. Could Trump’s Greenland threats end that?

    [ad_1]

    The crisis touched off by President Trump’s demand to take ownership of Greenland appears over, at least for now. But the United States and its European allies still face a larger long-term challenge: Can their shaky marriage be saved?

    At 75 years old, NATO has survived storms before, from squabbles over trade to estrangement over wars in Vietnam and Iraq. France, jealous of its independence, even pulled its armed forces out of NATO for 43 years.

    But diplomats and foreign policy scholars warn that the current division in the alliance may be worse, because Trump’s threats on Greenland convinced many Europeans that the United States has become an unreliable and perhaps even dangerous ally.

    The roots of the crisis lie in the president’s frequently expressed disdain for alliances in general and NATO in particular.

    Long before Trump arrived in the White House, presidents from both parties complained that many NATO countries weren’t pulling their weight in military spending.

    But earlier presidents still considered the alliance an essential asset to U.S. foreign policy and the cornerstone of a system that prevented war in Europe for most of a century.

    Trump has never seemed to share that view. Even after he succeeded in persuading NATO members to increase their defense spending, he continued to deride most allies as freeloaders.

    Until last year, he refused to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to help defend other NATO countries, the core principle of the alliance. And he reserved the right to walk away from any agreement, military or commercial, whenever it suited his purpose.

    In the two-week standoff over Greenland, he threatened to seize the island from NATO member Denmark by force, an action that would have violated the NATO treaty.

    When Britain, Germany and other countries sent troops to Greenland, he threatened to hit them with new tariffs, which would have violated a trade deal Trump made only last year.

    Both threats touched off fury in Europe, where governments had spent most of the past year making concessions to Trump on both military spending and tariffs. When Trump backed down, the lesson some leaders drew was that pushing back worked better than playing nice.

    “We do prefer respect to bullies,” French President Emmanuel Macron said.

    “Being a happy vassal is one thing. Being a miserable slave is something else,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said.

    The long-term danger for the United States, scholars said, is that Europeans might choose to look elsewhere for military and economic partners.

    “They just don’t trust us,” said Richard N. Haass, a former top State Department official in the George W. Bush administration.

    “A post-American world is fast emerging, one brought about in large part by the United States taking the lead in dismantling the international order that this country built,” he wrote last week.

    Some European leaders, including Macron, have argued that they need to disentangle from the United States, build military forces that can defend against Russia, and seek more reliable trade partners, potentially including India and China.

    But decoupling from the United States would not be easy, fast or cheap. Europe and Canada still depend on the United States for many of their defense needs and as a major market for exports.

    Almost all NATO countries have pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product, but they aren’t scheduled to reach that goal until 2035.

    Meanwhile, they face the current danger of an expansionist Russia on their eastern frontier.

    Not surprisingly for a group of 30 countries, Europe’s NATO members aren’t united on the question. Macron has argued for more autonomy, but others have called for caution.

    “Despite all the frustration and anger of recent months, let us not be too quick to write off the transatlantic partnership,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said at Davos.

    “I think we are actually in the process of creating a stronger NATO,” said Finnish President Alexander Stubb. “As long as we keep doing that, slowly and surely we’ll be just fine.”

    They argue, in effect, that the best strategy is to muddle through — which is what NATO and Europe have done in most earlier crises.

    The strongest argument for that course may be the uncertainty and disorder that would follow a rapid erosion — or worse, dissolution — of an alliance that has helped keep its members safe for most of a century.

    The costs of that outcome, historian Robert Kagan warned recently, would be borne by Americans as well as Europeans.

    If the United States continues to weaken its commitments to NATO and other alliances, he wrote in the Atlantic, “The U.S. will have no reliable friends or allies, and will have to depend entirely on its own strength to survive and prosper. This will require more military spending, not less. … If Americans thought defending the liberal world order was too expensive, wait until they start paying for what comes next.”

    [ad_2]

    Doyle McManus

    Source link

  • Contributor: A Senate war powers resolution on Venezuela actually could curb Trump

    [ad_1]

    President Trump seemed angry after the Senate voted last Thursday to pass a war powers resolution to the next stage, where lawmakers could approve the measure and seek to curb the president’s ability to wage war in Venezuela without congressional authorization.

    Trump said that day that five Republican senators who supported bringing the measure to a vote — Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rand Paul (Ky.), Josh Hawley (Mo.) and Todd Young (Ind.) — “should never be elected to office again.”

    Why should he get so riled up about this, to the point where he could put his own party’s control of the Senate at risk in November? Even if this resolution were to pass both houses of Congress, he could veto it and ultimately be unrestrained. He did this in 2019, when a war powers resolution mandating that the U.S. military cease its participation in the war in Yemen was passed in both the Senate and the House. Many people think that such legislation therefore can’t make a difference.

    But the president’s ire is telling. These political moves on the Hill can get results even before the resolution has a final vote, or if it is vetoed by the president.

    The Trump administration made significant concessions before the 2019 resolution was approved by Congress, in an attempt to prevent it from passing. For instance, months before it was approved, the U.S. military stopped refueling Saudi warplanes in midair. These concessions de-escalated the war and saved tens of thousands of lives.

    A war powers resolution is an act of Congress that is based on a 1973 law of the same name. That law spells out and reinforces the power that our Constitution has allocated to Congress, to decide when the U.S. military can be involved in hostilities.

    The U.S. military raid in Caracas that seized Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, is illegal according to international law, the charters of the Organization of American States and the United Nations, as well as other treaties to which the United States is a signatory. According to our own Constitution, the government violates U.S. law when it violates treaties that our government has signed.

    None of that restrained the Trump administration, which has not demonstrated much respect for the rule of law. But the White House does care about the political power of Congress. If there is an expanded war in Venezuela or anywhere else that Trump has threatened to use the military, the fact that Congress took steps to oppose it will increase the political cost to the president.

    This is likely one of the main reasons that the Trump administration has at least promised to make concessions regarding military action in Latin America — and who knows, possibly he did make some compromises compared with what had been planned.

    On Nov. 5, the day before the Senate was to vote on a war powers resolution to halt and prevent hostilities within or against Venezuela by U.S. armed forces, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and White House counsel had a private briefing with senators.

    They assured lawmakers that they were not going to have a land war or airstrikes in Venezuela. According to news reports, the White House counsel stated that they did not have a legal justification for such a war. It is clear that blocking the resolution was very important to these top officials. The day after that meeting, the war powers resolution was blocked by two votes. Two Republicans had joined the Democrats and independents in support of the resolution: Murkowski and Paul. That added up to 49 votes — not quite the needed majority.

    But on Thursday, there were three additional Republicans who voted for the new resolution, so it will proceed to a final vote.

    The war powers resolution is not just a political fight, but a matter of life and death. The blockade involved in the seizure of oil tankers is, according to experts, an unlawful use of military force. This means that the blockade would be included as a participation in hostilities that would require authorization from Congress.

    Since 2015, the United States has imposed unilateral economic sanctions that destroyed Venezuela’s economy. From 2012 to 2020, Venezuela suffered the worst peacetime depression in world history. Real (inflation-adjusted) GDP, or income, fell by 74%. Think of the economic destruction of the U.S. Great Depression, multiplied by three times. Most of this was the result of the sanctions.

    This unprecedented devastation is generally attributed to Maduro in public discussion. But U.S. sanctions deliberately cut Venezuela off from international finance, as well as blocking most of its oil sales, which accounted for more than 90% of foreign exchange (mostly dollar) earnings. This devastated the economy.

    In the first year of Trump sanctions from 2017-18, Venezuela’s deaths increased by tens of thousands of people, at a time when oil prices were increasing. Sanctions were expanded even more the following year. About a quarter of the population, more than 7 million people, emigrated after 2015 — 750,000 of them to the United States.

    We know that the deadly impact of sanctions that target the civilian population is real. Research published in July by the Lancet Global Health, by my colleagues Francisco Rodriguez, Silvio Rendon and myself, estimated the global death toll from unilateral economic sanctions, as these are, at 564,000 per year over the past decade. This is comparable to the worldwide deaths from armed conflict. A majority of the victims over the 1970-2021 period were children.

    The Trump administration has, in the last few days, been moving in the direction of lifting some sanctions to allow for oil exports, according to the president’s stated plan to “run Venezuela.” This is ironic because Venezuela has for many years wanted more investment and trade, including in oil, with the United States, and it was U.S. sanctions that prohibited it.

    Such lifting of sanctions would be a big step forward, in terms of saving lives of people who are deprived of food, medicine and other necessities in Venezuela, as a result of these sanctions and the economic destruction that they cause.

    But to create the stability that Venezuela needs to recover, we will have to take the military and economic violence out of this campaign. There are members of Congress moving toward that goal, and they need all the help that they can get, before it’s too late.

    Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of “Failed: What the ‘Experts’ Got Wrong About the Global Economy.”

    [ad_2]

    Mark Weisbrot

    Source link

  • House votes on health insurance subsidies as Senate debates military powers

    [ad_1]

    It’s the first week of a new year for Congress, and each chamber is considering legislation with votes to watch on Thursday.Enhanced Health Care SubsidiesThe House of Representatives is voting on a bill to reinstate tax credits that expired last year and were central to the government shutdown.The bill aims to extend these subsidies for three years, helping those without insurance through their employers pay for coverage. Four Republicans: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1st), Rep. Ryan McKenzie (PA-7th), Rep. Rob Bresnahan (PA-8th), and Rep. Mike Lawler (NY-17th) joined Democrats to push the vote, which is expected to pass. Five more Republicans joined Democrats during a test vote on Wednesday.However, the Senate is not expected to consider this bill, as they are working on their own Affordable Care Act reform measure designed to pass both chambers.Venezuela War Powers ResolutionThe Senate is revisiting a war powers resolution that would prevent the president from using military force in Venezuela without congressional approval. This follows a recent military operation in Venezuela’s capital, which led to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who are now in New York facing narcoterrorism charges. President Donald Trump has stated that the U.S. is running Venezuela and may deploy the military again if the remaining Maduro regime does not comply with U.S. demands.The same resolution failed a previous vote, as well as a measure to stop the Trump administration from bombing alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the White House says were connected to Venezuela. Past administrations arrested and charged such suspects. The Trump administration’s campaign has killed more than 100 people.Reactions To Greenland RhetoricThe White House’s suggestion to use military force to take over Greenland has been met with criticism on Capitol Hill. Democrats have long opposed this idea, and several Republicans have recently spoken out against it.Rep. Mike Johnson, House Speaker, said, “All this stuff about military action and all that, I don’t even think that’s a possibility.” Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina criticized the notion, saying, “Making insane comments about how it is our right to have territory owned by the kingdom of Denmark, folks, amateur hour is over.” Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana noted, “In the case of Greenland, you have two things: one, not a present threat, and so they have a duly elected president. So, he doesn’t have the authority without Congress.”Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska added, “It’s very… amateurish. I feel like we’ve got high school kids playing Risk.”Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also stated that the president wants to buy Greenland.Earlier this week, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Hearst Television: “President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    It’s the first week of a new year for Congress, and each chamber is considering legislation with votes to watch on Thursday.

    Enhanced Health Care Subsidies

    The House of Representatives is voting on a bill to reinstate tax credits that expired last year and were central to the government shutdown.

    The bill aims to extend these subsidies for three years, helping those without insurance through their employers pay for coverage. Four Republicans: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1st), Rep. Ryan McKenzie (PA-7th), Rep. Rob Bresnahan (PA-8th), and Rep. Mike Lawler (NY-17th) joined Democrats to push the vote, which is expected to pass. Five more Republicans joined Democrats during a test vote on Wednesday.

    However, the Senate is not expected to consider this bill, as they are working on their own Affordable Care Act reform measure designed to pass both chambers.

    Venezuela War Powers Resolution

    The Senate is revisiting a war powers resolution that would prevent the president from using military force in Venezuela without congressional approval. This follows a recent military operation in Venezuela’s capital, which led to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who are now in New York facing narcoterrorism charges.

    President Donald Trump has stated that the U.S. is running Venezuela and may deploy the military again if the remaining Maduro regime does not comply with U.S. demands.

    The same resolution failed a previous vote, as well as a measure to stop the Trump administration from bombing alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the White House says were connected to Venezuela. Past administrations arrested and charged such suspects. The Trump administration’s campaign has killed more than 100 people.

    Reactions To Greenland Rhetoric

    The White House’s suggestion to use military force to take over Greenland has been met with criticism on Capitol Hill. Democrats have long opposed this idea, and several Republicans have recently spoken out against it.

    Rep. Mike Johnson, House Speaker, said, “All this stuff about military action and all that, I don’t even think that’s a possibility.”

    Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina criticized the notion, saying, “Making insane comments about how it is our right to have territory owned by the kingdom of Denmark, folks, amateur hour is over.”

    Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana noted, “In the case of Greenland, you have two things: one, not a present threat, and so they have a duly elected president. So, he doesn’t have the authority without Congress.”

    Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska added, “It’s very… amateurish. I feel like we’ve got high school kids playing Risk.”

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also stated that the president wants to buy Greenland.

    Earlier this week, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Hearst Television: “President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s threats of intervention jolt allies and foes alike

    [ad_1]

    Venezuela risks “a second strike” if its interim government doesn’t acquiesce to U.S. demands. Cuba is “ready to fall,” and Colombia is “very sick, too.”

    Iran may get “hit very hard” if its government cracks down on protesters. And Denmark risks U.S. intervention, as well, because “we need Greenland,” President Trump said.

    In just 37 minutes while speaking with reporters Sunday aboard Air Force One, Trump threatened to attack five countries, both allies and adversaries, with the might of the U.S. military — an extraordinary turn for a president who built his political career rejecting traditional conservative views on the exercise of American power and vowing to put America first.

    The president’s threats come as a third of the U.S. naval fleet remains stationed in the Caribbean, after Trump launched a daring attack on Venezuela that seized its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife over the weekend.

    The goal, U.S. officials said, was to show the Venezuelan government and the wider world what the American military is capable of — and to compel partners and foes alike to adhere to Trump’s demands through intimidation, rather than commit the U.S. military to more complex, conventional, long-term engagements.

    It is the deployment of overwhelming and spectacular force in surgical military operations — Maduro’s capture, last year’s strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, assassinations of Islamic State leadership and Iran’s top general in Iraq — that demonstrate Trump as a brazen leader willing to risk war, thereby effectively avoiding it, one Trump administration official said, explaining the president’s strategic thinking.

    Yet experts and former Trump aides warn the president’s approach risks miscalculation, alienating vital allies and emboldening U.S. competitors.

    At a Security Council meeting Monday at the United Nations in New York — called by Colombia, a long-standing and major non-North Atlantic Treaty Oranization ally to the United States — Trump’s moves were widely condemned. “Violations of the U.N. Charter,” a French diplomat told the council, “chips away at the very foundation of international order.”

    Even the envoy from Russia, which has cultivated historically strong ties with the Trump administration, said the White House operation was an act of “banditry,” marking “a return to the era of illegality and American dominance through force, chaos and lawlessness.”

    Trump’s threats to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark with vast natural resources, drew particular concern across Europe on Monday, with leaders across the continent warning the United States against an attack that would violate the sovereignty of a NATO ally and European Union member state.

    “That’s enough now,” Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said after Trump told reporters that his attention would turn to the world’s largest island in a matter of weeks.

    “If the United States decides to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything would stop,” Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, told local press. “That includes NATO, and therefore, post-World War II security.”

    Trump also threatened to strike Iran, where anti-government protests have spread throughout the country in recent days. Trump had previously said the U.S. military was “locked and loaded” if Iranian security forces begin firing on protesters, “which is their custom.”

    “The United States of America will come to their rescue,” Trump wrote on social media on Jan. 2, hours before launching the Venezuela mission. “We are locked and loaded and ready to go. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

    In Colombia, there was widespread outrage after Trump threatened military action against leftist President Gustavo Petro, whom Trump accused, without evidence, of running “cocaine mills and cocaine factories.”

    Petro is a frequent critic of the American president and has slammed as illegal a series of lethal U.S. airstrikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific.

    “Stop slandering me,” Petro wrote on X, warning that any U.S. attempts against his presidency “will unleash the people’s fury.”

    Petro, a former leftist guerrilla, said he would go to war to defend Colombia.

    “I swore not to touch a weapon again,” he said. “But for the homeland, I will take up arms.”

    Trump’s threats have strained relations with Colombia, a devoted U.S. ally. For decades, the countries have shared military intelligence, a robust trade relationship and a multibillion-dollar fight against drug trafficking.

    Even some of Petro’s domestic critics have comes to his defense. Presidential candidate Juan Manuel Galán, who opposes Petro’s rule, said Colombia’s sovereignty “must be defended.”

    “Colombia is not Venezuela,” Galán wrote on X. “It is not a failed state, and we will not allow it to be treated as such. Here we have institutions, democracy and sovereignty that must be defended.”

    The president of Mexico, another longtime U.S. ally and its largest trading partner, has also spoken out forcefully against the American operation in Caracas, and said the Trump administration’s aggressive foreign policy in Latin America threatens the stability of the region.

    “We categorically reject intervention in the internal affairs of other countries,” President Claudia Sheinbaum said in her daily news conference Monday. “The history of Latin America is clear and compelling: Intervention has never brought democracy, has never generated well-being or lasting stability.”

    She addressed Trump’s comments over the weekend that drugs were “pouring” through Mexico, and that the United States was “going to have to do something.”

    Trump has been threatening action against cartels for months, with some members of his administration suggesting that the United States may soon carry out drone strikes on drug laboratories and other targets inside Mexican territory. Sheinbaum has repeatedly said such strikes would be a clear violation of Mexican sovereignty.

    “Sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples are non-negotiable,” she said. “They are fundamental principles of international law and must always be respected without exception.”

    Cuba also rejected Trump’s threat of a military intervention there, after Trump’s secretary of State, Marco Rubio, himself the descendant of Cuban immigrants, suggested that Havana may be next in Washington’s crosshairs.

    “We call on the international community to stop this dangerous, aggressive escalation and to preserve peace,” Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel posted on social media.

    The U.S. attacks on Venezuela, and Trump’s threats of additional military ventures, have caused deep unease in a relatively peaceful region that has seen fewer interstate wars in recent decades than Europe, Asia or Africa.

    It also caused unease among some Trump supporters, who remembered his pledge to get the United States out of “endless” military conflicts for good.

    “I was the first president in modern times,” Trump said, accepting the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, “to start no new wars.”

    Wilner reported from Washington and Linthicum from Mexico City.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner, Kate Linthicum

    Source link

  • Mexico’s president slams Trump’s attack on Venezuela, says it destabilizes the hemisphere

    [ad_1]

    Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Monday again condemned the U.S. capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, criticizing the Trump administration’s aggressive foreign policy in Latin America for threatening the stability of the hemisphere.

    “We categorically reject intervention in the internal affairs of other countries,” Sheinbaum said in her daily news conference. “The history of Latin America is clear and compelling: Intervention has never brought democracy, has never generated well-being or lasting stability.”

    “Unilateral action and invasion cannot be the basis of international relations in the 21st century,” she said. “They don’t lead to peace or development.”

    Her comments came as Trump on Sunday threatened more military strikes on Venezuela — and raised the possibility of intervention in Mexico as well as in Cuba, Colombia and the Danish territory of Greenland. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One, Trump said drugs were “pouring” through Mexico and that “we’re going to have to do something.”

    He has been threatening action against cartels for months, with some members of his administration suggesting that the U.S. may soon carry out drone strikes on drug laboratories and other targets inside Mexican territory. Sheinbaum has repeatedly said such strikes would be a clear violation of Mexican sovereignty.

    “Sovereignty and the self-determination of peoples are non-negotiable,” she said. “They are fundamental principles of international law and must always be respected without exception.”

    Sheinbaum is part of a bloc of leftist Latin American leaders who have spoken out forcefully against the U.S. after its surprise attack on Caracas on Saturday morning. U.S. special forces abducted Maduro, Venezuela’s leftist president, and his wife, Cilia Flores, the former head of the National Assembly.

    Venezuela says at least 40 people were killed in the attack. The couple have been indicted in New York’s Southern District on drug trafficking charges.

    Right-wing leaders in the region, on the other hand, have cheered the removal of Maduro from power.

    At her news conference on Monday, Sheinbaum called for cooperation among countries in the region, at one point quoting Abraham Lincoln and George Washington.

    “Washington called for good faith and justice toward all nations, and for the cultivation of peace and harmony among all,” she said.

    Nations cannot impose their wills on other countries, she said, and do not have the right to their resources. That was a clear reference to Trump’s stated desire to exploit Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

    “Only the people can build their own future, decide their path, exercise sovereignty over their natural resources, and freely define their form of government,” she said. “Each nation has the inalienable right to decide its political, economic, and social model, free from external pressure.”

    Sheinbaum warned that infighting among Latin American nations would hurt the region economically.

    “Global economic competition, particularly in the face of Asia’s growth, is not achieved through the use of force … but rather through cooperation for development, productive investment, innovation, education and social welfare,” she said.

    She said Mexico was committed to fighting organized crime, and reminded the U.S. that it fuels that dynamic.

    “The violence plaguing our country is partly caused by the illegal flow of high-powered weapons from the United States into Mexico, as well as the serious problem of drug consumption in our neighboring country,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Kate Linthicum

    Source link

  • To ‘run’ Venezuela, Trump presses existing regime to kneel

    [ad_1]

    Top officials in the Trump administration clarified their position on “running” Venezuela after seizing its president, Nicolás Maduro, over the weekend, pressuring the regime that remains in power there Sunday to acquiesce to U.S. demands on oil access and drug enforcement, or else face further military action.

    Their goal appears to be the establishment of a pliant vassal state in Caracas that keeps the current government — led by Maduro for more than a decade — largely in place, but finally defers to the whims of Washington after turning away from the United States for a quarter century.

    It leaves little room for the ascendance of Venezuela’s democratic opposition, which won the country’s last national election, according to the State Department, European capitals and international monitoring bodies.

    Trump and his top aides said they would try to work with Maduro’s handpicked vice president and current interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, to run the country and its oil sector “until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” offering no time frame for proposed elections.

    Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem underscored the strategy in a series of interviews Sunday morning.

    “If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told the Atlantic, referring to Rodríguez. “Rebuilding there and regime change, anything you want to call it, is better than what you have right now. Can’t get any worse.”

    Rubio said that a U.S. naval quarantine of Venezuelan oil tankers would continue unless and until Rodríguez begins cooperating with the U.S. administration, referring to the blockade — and the lingering threat of additional military action from the fleet off Venezuela’s coast — as “leverage” over the remnants of Maduro’s regime.

    “That’s the sort of control the president is pointing to when he says that,” Rubio told CBS News. “We continue with that quarantine, and we expect to see that there will be changes — not just in the way the oil industry is run for the benefit of the people, but also so that they stop the drug trafficking.”

    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, told CNN that he had been in touch with the administration since the Saturday night operation that snatched Maduro and his wife from their bedroom, whisking them away to New York to face criminal charges.

    Trump’s vow to “run” the country, Cotton said, “means the new leaders of Venezuela need to meet our demands.”

    “Delcy Rodríguez, and the other ministers in Venezuela, understand now what the U.S. military is capable of,” Cotton said, while adding: “It is a fact that she and other indicted and sanctioned individuals are in Venezuela. They have control of the military and security forces. We have to deal with that fact. But that does not make them the legitimate leaders.”

    “What we want is a future Venezuelan government that will be pro-American, that will contribute to stability, order and prosperity, not only in Venezuela but in our own backyard. That probably needs to include new elections,” Cotton added.

    Whether Rodríguez will cooperate with the administration is an open question.

    Trump said Saturday that she seemed amenable to making “Venezuela great again” in a conversation with Rubio. But the interim president delivered a speech hours later demanding Maduro’s return, and vowing that Venezuela would “never again be a colony of any empire.”

    The developments have concerned senior figures in Venezuela’s democratic opposition, led by Maria Corina Machado, last year’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and Edmundo González Urrutia, the opposition candidate who won the 2024 presidential election that was ultimately stolen by Maduro.

    In his Saturday news conference, Trump dismissed Machado, saying that the revered opposition leader was “a very nice woman,” but “doesn’t have the respect within the country” to lead.

    Elliott Abrams, Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela in his first term, said he was skeptical that Rodríguez — an acolyte of Hugo Chávez and avowed supporter of Chavismo throughout the Maduro era — would betray the cause.

    “The insult to Machado was bizarre, unfair — and simply ignorant,” Abrams told The Times. “Who told him that there was no respect for her?”

    Maduro was booked in New York and flown by night over the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where he is in federal custody at a notorious facility that has housed other famous inmates, including Sean “Diddy” Combs, Ghislaine Maxwell, Bernie Madoff and Sam Bankman-Fried.

    He is expected to be arraigned on federal charges of narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices as soon as Monday.

    While few in Washington lamented Maduro’s ouster, Democratic lawmakers criticized the operation as another act of regime change by a Republican president that could have violated international law.

    “The invasion of Venezuela has nothing to do with American security. Venezuela is not a security threat to the U.S.,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut. “This is about making Trump’s oil industry and Wall Street friends rich. Trump’s foreign policy — the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela — is fundamentally corrupt.”

    In their Saturday news conference, and in subsequent interviews, Trump and Rubio said that targeting Venezuela was in part about reestablishing U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere, reasserting the philosophy of President James Monroe as China and Russia work to enhance their presence in the region. The Trump administration’s national security strategy, published last month, previewed a renewed focus on Latin America after the region faced neglect from Washington over decades.

    Trump left unclear whether his military actions in the region would end in Caracas, a longstanding U.S. adversary, or if he is willing to turn the U.S. armed forces on America’s allies.

    In his interview with the Atlantic, Trump suggested that “individual countries” would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. On Saturday, he reiterated a threat to the president of Colombia, a major non-NATO ally, to “watch his ass,” over an ongoing dispute about Bogota’s cooperation on drug enforcement.

    On Sunday morning, the United Nations Security Council was called for an urgent meeting to discuss the legality of the U.S. operation inside Venezuela.

    It was not Russia or China — permanent members of the council and longstanding competitors — who called the session, nor France, whose government has questioned whether the operation violated international law, but Colombia, a non-permanent member who joined the council less than a week ago.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Capture of Maduro and US claim that it will run Venezuela raise new legal questions

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s president and claims that it will “run” the country are raising stark new questions about the legality of the U.S. actions and its future operations in the South American nation.Related video above: U.S. strikes Venezuela, captures President Maduro in overnight operationThe middle-of-the-night seizure of Nicolás Maduro, who was transported with his wife on a U.S. warship to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges in New York, is beyond even the most high-profile historical examples of aggressive American actions toward autocratic governments in Panama, Iraq and elsewhere, legal experts said. It came after a surprise U.S. incursion that rocked the Venezuelan capital with overnight explosions.”This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame Law School professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.The stunning development caps months of aggressive U.S. military action in the region, including the bombing of boats accused of trafficking drugs and seizures of oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted 35 known boat strikes against vessels, killing more than 115 people since September, and positioned an armada of warships in nearby waters.The bigger debate than legality is yet to come, said John Yoo, an early architect of the George W. Bush administration’s policy in Iraq and now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.”It’s easier to remove a dictator,” he said, based on his experience in the Iraq War. But ensuring the transition to a stable democratic government is “the harder part.”Maduro’s arrest on anniversary of Noriega’s surrenderMaduro’s arrest came 36 years to the date of the surrender of Panama’s strongman, Manuel Noriega, a notable milestone in American involvement in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 to arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges.In Panama, however, U.S. national security interests were directly at stake in the form of the Panama Canal as well as the safety of American citizens and U.S. military installations in the country.Video below: Former Alabama exchange student reacts to Maduro captureBy contrast, Congress has not authorized any American military strike or law enforcement move against Venezuela.”The President will claim that this fits within a vast body of precedent supporting broad executive power to defend the United States, its citizens, and its interests,” Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who was a national security official in the Bush administration, said by email. “Critics will charge that this exceeds the bounds of presidential power without congressional authorization.”While U.S. agents have a long history of snatching defendants abroad to execute arrest warrants without authorization, federal courts have long deferred to the White House in foreign policy and national security matters.For example, U.S. bounty hunters, working under the direction of the Drug Enforcement Administration, in 1990 abducted in Mexico a doctor accused of killing DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena.”Courts give great deference to the president on issues related to national security,” said Gurule, who led the prosecution against Camarena’s killers. “But great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”Congress has yet to authorize or ban US actionsTrump’s administration has declared the drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants and has said the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained in October by The Associated Press.The memo appears to represent an extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers, with Trump effectively declaring that trafficking of drugs into the U.S. amounts to armed conflict requiring the use of military force. That is a new rationale for past and future actions.Congress, which has broad authority to approve or prohibit the president’s war powers, has failed to do either, even as lawmakers from both political parties grow increasingly uneasy with the military actions in the region, particularly after it was revealed that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack with a follow-up strike.Congress’ Democratic leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, demanded immediate briefings for the “gang of eight” leaders on Capitol Hill, which includes top members of the Intelligence committees, as well as for other lawmakers. Congressional leaders were not notified of the actions until after the operation was underway.”The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, said the entire operation — the boat strikes as well as the apprehension of Maduro — clearly violates international law.”Lawyers call it international armed conflict,” Schmitt said. “Lay people call it war. So as a matter of law, we are now at war with Venezuela because the use of hostilities between two states clearly triggers an internal armed conflict.”War powers vote aheadHouse Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the administration “is working to schedule briefings” for lawmakers next week.Republican lawmakers in Congress largely welcomed the capture of Maduro as ridding the region of a leader they say is responsible for drug trafficking, but Democratic lawmakers warned that in veering from the rule of law, the administration is potentially greenlighting other countries such as China or Russia to do the same.”Beyond the legality, what kind of precedent does it send?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said in an interview that the rebuilding plan ahead has echoes of the Iraq War as the Trump administration promises to use Venezuela’s oil revenue to pay the costs.Waxman, the Columbia University law professor, said seizing control of Venezuela’s resources opens up additional legal issues: “For example, a big issue will be who really owns Venezuela’s oil?”The Senate is expected to try again next week to curtail Trump’s actions, with a vote expected on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block using U.S. forces against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he is grateful for the armed forces “who carried out this necessary action.” He said he spoke to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and wants more information.”I look forward to receiving further briefings from the administration on this operation as part of its comprehensive counternarcotics strategy when the Senate returns to Washington next week,” Thune said.Rubio said at a briefing Saturday with Trump that because of the nature of the surprise operation, it was not something that could be shared beforehand with the lawmakers.Goodman reported from Miami.

    The Trump administration’s capture of Venezuela’s president and claims that it will “run” the country are raising stark new questions about the legality of the U.S. actions and its future operations in the South American nation.

    Related video above: U.S. strikes Venezuela, captures President Maduro in overnight operation

    The middle-of-the-night seizure of Nicolás Maduro, who was transported with his wife on a U.S. warship to face narco-terrorism conspiracy charges in New York, is beyond even the most high-profile historical examples of aggressive American actions toward autocratic governments in Panama, Iraq and elsewhere, legal experts said. It came after a surprise U.S. incursion that rocked the Venezuelan capital with overnight explosions.

    “This is clearly a blatant, illegal and criminal act,” said Jimmy Gurule, a Notre Dame Law School professor and former assistant U.S. attorney.

    The stunning development caps months of aggressive U.S. military action in the region, including the bombing of boats accused of trafficking drugs and seizures of oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela. The Trump administration has conducted 35 known boat strikes against vessels, killing more than 115 people since September, and positioned an armada of warships in nearby waters.

    The bigger debate than legality is yet to come, said John Yoo, an early architect of the George W. Bush administration’s policy in Iraq and now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

    “It’s easier to remove a dictator,” he said, based on his experience in the Iraq War. But ensuring the transition to a stable democratic government is “the harder part.”

    Maduro’s arrest on anniversary of Noriega’s surrender

    Maduro’s arrest came 36 years to the date of the surrender of Panama’s strongman, Manuel Noriega, a notable milestone in American involvement in the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. invaded Panama in 1989 to arrest Noriega on drug trafficking charges.

    In Panama, however, U.S. national security interests were directly at stake in the form of the Panama Canal as well as the safety of American citizens and U.S. military installations in the country.

    Video below: Former Alabama exchange student reacts to Maduro capture

    By contrast, Congress has not authorized any American military strike or law enforcement move against Venezuela.

    “The President will claim that this fits within a vast body of precedent supporting broad executive power to defend the United States, its citizens, and its interests,” Matthew Waxman, a Columbia University law professor who was a national security official in the Bush administration, said by email. “Critics will charge that this exceeds the bounds of presidential power without congressional authorization.”

    While U.S. agents have a long history of snatching defendants abroad to execute arrest warrants without authorization, federal courts have long deferred to the White House in foreign policy and national security matters.

    For example, U.S. bounty hunters, working under the direction of the Drug Enforcement Administration, in 1990 abducted in Mexico a doctor accused of killing DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena.

    “Courts give great deference to the president on issues related to national security,” said Gurule, who led the prosecution against Camarena’s killers. “But great deference does not mean absolute deference and unfettered authority to do anything.”

    Congress has yet to authorize or ban US actions

    Trump’s administration has declared the drug cartels operating from Venezuela to be unlawful combatants and has said the United States is now in an “armed conflict” with them, according to an administration memo obtained in October by The Associated Press.

    The memo appears to represent an extraordinary assertion of presidential war powers, with Trump effectively declaring that trafficking of drugs into the U.S. amounts to armed conflict requiring the use of military force. That is a new rationale for past and future actions.

    Congress, which has broad authority to approve or prohibit the president’s war powers, has failed to do either, even as lawmakers from both political parties grow increasingly uneasy with the military actions in the region, particularly after it was revealed that U.S. forces killed two survivors of a boat attack with a follow-up strike.

    Congress’ Democratic leaders, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, demanded immediate briefings for the “gang of eight” leaders on Capitol Hill, which includes top members of the Intelligence committees, as well as for other lawmakers. Congressional leaders were not notified of the actions until after the operation was underway.

    “The idea that Trump plans to now run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans,” Schumer said. “The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.”

    Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, said the entire operation — the boat strikes as well as the apprehension of Maduro — clearly violates international law.

    “Lawyers call it international armed conflict,” Schmitt said. “Lay people call it war. So as a matter of law, we are now at war with Venezuela because the use of hostilities between two states clearly triggers an internal armed conflict.”

    War powers vote ahead

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the administration “is working to schedule briefings” for lawmakers next week.

    Republican lawmakers in Congress largely welcomed the capture of Maduro as ridding the region of a leader they say is responsible for drug trafficking, but Democratic lawmakers warned that in veering from the rule of law, the administration is potentially greenlighting other countries such as China or Russia to do the same.

    “Beyond the legality, what kind of precedent does it send?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said in an interview that the rebuilding plan ahead has echoes of the Iraq War as the Trump administration promises to use Venezuela’s oil revenue to pay the costs.

    Waxman, the Columbia University law professor, said seizing control of Venezuela’s resources opens up additional legal issues: “For example, a big issue will be who really owns Venezuela’s oil?”

    The Senate is expected to try again next week to curtail Trump’s actions, with a vote expected on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block using U.S. forces against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he is grateful for the armed forces “who carried out this necessary action.” He said he spoke to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and wants more information.

    “I look forward to receiving further briefings from the administration on this operation as part of its comprehensive counternarcotics strategy when the Senate returns to Washington next week,” Thune said.

    Rubio said at a briefing Saturday with Trump that because of the nature of the surprise operation, it was not something that could be shared beforehand with the lawmakers.


    Goodman reported from Miami.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Around the world, U.S. attacks on Venezuela prompt praise, anger — and fear

    [ad_1]

    Argentina’s president called it “excellent news for the free world.”

    Iran condemned it as a “blatant violation of national sovereignty.”

    Canada said little, except that it was “monitoring developments closely.”

    The dramatic U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was cheered by world leaders allied with President Trump, and condemned by those who oppose him.

    Other countries responded carefully to news of the covert U.S. operation, hoping to stay out of the crosshairs of a famously vindictive American president who wields tariffs freely — and who has hinted at a willingness to broaden his military campaign.

    On Saturday, as details emerged about the early morning apprehension of Maduro and his wife from their Caracas home by special operations forces and the White House plan to exploit Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, Trump boasted that he is “reasserting American power in a very powerful way” and suggested that he may target Cuba, Colombia and Mexico next.

    Venezuelans celebrate in Madrid after President Trump announced that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had been captured and flown out of the country on Saturday.

    (Bernat Armangue / AP)

    At a news conference, Trump said he wants to “help the people in Cuba,” which he described as a “failing nation,” and threatened military action in Colombia, whose leftist President Gustavo Petro has been one of Trump’s most vocal critics.

    Trump asserted, without evidence, that Petro is a drug trafficker and warned that Colombia’s leader should “watch his ass.”

    In an interview with Fox News on Saturday, Trump also revived warnings that U.S. forces may intervene in Mexico, one of America’s closest allies.

    “The cartels are running Mexico,” he said. “We have to do something.”

    Some conservative leaders in Mexico welcome the prospect of U.S. drone strikes on cartel targets, and in recent polls about half of Mexicans surveyed said they support U.S. help with combating organized crime.

    But Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has repeatedly insisted that she will not allow the U.S. military to fight drug cartels inside her nation’s borders.

    “It’s not going to happen,” she said late last year when Trump threatened such an operation. “We don’t want intervention by any foreign government.”

    She reposted a statement by her Foreign Ministry on Saturday that said “the government of Mexico vigorously condemns and rejects the military actions carried out unilaterally in recent hours by the armed forces of the United States of America against targets in the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”

    Sheinbaum also mentioned the United Nations Charter, which says members of the body “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

    People take part in a demonstration in front of the White House in Washington, D.C.

    People take part in a demonstration against U.S. military action in Venezuela in front of the White House in Washington on Saturday.

    (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

    Trump’s actions prompted a rare statement from Andrés Manuel López Obrador, whose term as Mexico’s president ended in 2024, and who has rarely spoken publicly since his retirement.

    “I am retired from politics, but my libertarian convictions prevent me from remaining silent in the face of the arrogant attack on the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people and the kidnapping of their president,” said López Obrador, who formed a friendship with Trump during the first Trump presidency. “Neither [Simon] Bolívar nor Lincoln would accept the United States government acting as a global tyranny.”

    He told Trump not to bend to the will of advisors pressing for military actions. “Tell the hawks to go to hell; you have the capacity to act with practical judgment,” López Obrador said.

    In Latin America, the Middle East and in other parts of the world familiar with the long shadow of American intervention, Saturday’s operation stirred memories of past U.S. airstrikes, coups d’état and military invasions.

    “The bombings on Venezuelan territory and the capture of its president cross an unacceptable line,” said Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. He said Maduro’s ouster recalled “the darkest moments of [U.S.] interference in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

    United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, without mentioning specifics or possible new targets, viewed the action against Maduro as setting “a dangerous precedent,” according to his spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric.

    “He’s deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected,” Dujarric said of Guterres.

    U.S. intervention in the region dates back 200 years, when President James Monroe declared Latin America off limits to European colonization and began a campaign to establish the U.S. as a hemispheric power.

    Over decades, the U.S. carried out an array of interventions, from military invasions to covert operations to economic pressure campaigns. Motivations included fighting communism and protecting U.S. business interests.

    In his Saturday news conference, Trump hailed the Monroe Doctrine, which many in Latin American have condemned as an imperialist blueprint.

    “We’ve superceded it by a lot,” Trump said of the doctrine. “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again.”

    While many countries in Latin America criticized the U.S. campaign in Venezuela, others applauded it, highlighting the stark political divisions here.

    “The time is coming for all the narco-Chavista criminals,” wrote conservative Ecuadoran President Daniel Noboa on X, referring to followers of Hugo Chávez, the late leftist revolutionary who served as president of Venezuela before Maduro. “Their structure will finally collapse across the entire continent.”

    El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, who last year housed Venezuelan deportees from the United States in his country’s most notorious prison, posted a photograph issued by the United States on Saturday of Maduro blindfolded and in handcuffs.

    The foreign ministry of Uruguay, meanwhile, said it rejected “military intervention by one country in the territory of another.”

    The actions in Venezuela reverberated globally.

    Beijing, which has sought to expand its influence in Latin America in recent decades, said in a statement that “China is deeply shocked and strongly condemns the U.S.’s blatant use of force against a sovereign state and its action against its president.”

    Iran, whose leadership frets about being in the crosshairs of a similar U.S. operation, said the action in Venezuela “represents a grave breach of regional and international peace and security.”

    “Its consequences affect the entire international system,” it said.

    [ad_2]

    Kate Linthicum

    Source link

  • U.S. capture of Maduro in Venezuela criticized as violation of international, U.S. law

    [ad_1]

    President Trump’s decision to send U.S. forces into Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and return them to the U.S. to face drug charges elicited condemnation from legal experts and other critics who argued that the operation — conducted without congressional or United Nations approval — clearly violated U.S. and international law.

    Such criticism came from Democratic leaders, international allies and adversaries including Mexico, France, China and Russia, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and experts on international law and wartime powers.

    “Nicolás Maduro was a thug and an illegitimate leader of Venezuela, terrorizing and oppressing its people for far too long and forcing many to leave the country. But starting a war to remove Maduro doesn’t just continue Donald Trump’s trampling of the Constitution, it further erodes America’s standing on the world stage and risks our adversaries mirroring this brazen illegal escalation,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote on X.

    A U.N. spokesman said Guterres was “deeply alarmed” by the U.S. operation and “deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected.”

    China’s foreign ministry said “such hegemonic acts of the U.S. seriously violate international law and Venezuela’s sovereignty,” while France’s foreign minister said the U.S. operation “contravenes the principle of the non-use of force that underpins international law.”

    Republicans largely backed the president, with both House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) defending the operation as “decisive” and legally justified. However, other Republicans questioned Trump’s authority to act unilaterally, and raised similar concerns as Schiff about other world leaders citing Trump’s actions to justify their own aggression into neighboring nations.

    Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) defended Trump’s actions as “great for the future of Venezuelans and the region,” but said he was concerned that “Russia will use this to justify their illegal and barbaric military actions against Ukraine, or China to justify an invasion of Taiwan.”

    Trump defended the operation as a legitimate law enforcement action necessary to combat threats to the U.S. from Maduro, whom he accused of sending violent gang members and deadly drugs across the U.S. border on a regular basis.

    “The illegitimate dictator Maduro was the kingpin of a vast criminal network responsible for trafficking colossal amounts of deadly and illicit drugs into the United States,” Trump said at a news conference. “As alleged in the indictment, he personally oversaw the vicious cartel known as Cartel de los Soles, which flooded our nation with lethal poison responsible for the deaths of countless Americans.”

    However, Trump also made no secret of his interest in Venezuela’s oil. He said U.S. officials would be running Venezuela for the foreseeable future and ensuring that the nation’s oil infrastructure is rebuilt — to return wealth to the Venezuelan people, but also to repay U.S. businesses that lost money when Maduro took over the industry.

    Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi announced that Maduro, who had previously been indicted in the U.S. in 2020, is now the subject of a superseding indictment charging him, his wife and several others with narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices and conspiracy to possess such weapons and devices.

    “They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” Bondi wrote on X.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio also framed the operation as a law enforcement effort, and defended the lack of advance notice to Congress.

    “At its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice, and the Department of War supported the Department of Justice in that job,” Rubio said. “It’s just not the kind of mission that you can pre-notify, because it endangers the mission.”

    Trump said Congress could not be notified in advance because “Congress will leak, and we don’t want leakers.”

    Michael Schmitt, an international law professor at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom and a professor emeritus of international law at the U.S. Naval War College, said Trump’s actions were a “clear violation” of international law.

    He said the U.S. had no authority from the U.N. Security Council to conduct military operations in Venezuela, nor any legitimate justification to act in self-defense against an armed attack — which drug trafficking does not amount to.

    Schmitt said the operation in Venezuela went far beyond a normal law enforcement action. But even if it were just a law enforcement action, he said, the U.S. would still lack legal authority under international law to engage in such activity on Venezuelan soil without the express permission of Venezuelan authorities — which it did not have.

    “International law is clear. Without consent, you cannot engage in investigations or arrest or seizure of criminal property on another state’s territory,” he said. “That’s a violation of that state’s sovereignty.”

    Because the operation was illegitimate from the start, the resulting occupation and interference in Venezuela’s oil industry are also unlawful, Schmitt said — regardless of whether the country’s nationalizing of U.S.-tied oil infrastructure was also unlawful, as some experts believe it was.

    “That unlawfulness — of seizing U.S. business interests, nationalizing them, in a way that was not in accordance with the required procedures — is not a basis for using force,” Schmitt said.

    Matthew Waxman, chair of the National Security Law Program at Columbia Law School, said that in the days ahead, he expects the Trump administration to try to justify its actions not just as a law enforcement operation, but “as part of a larger campaign to defend the United States against what it has characterized as an attack or invasion by Maduro-linked drug cartels.”

    “All modern presidents have claimed broad constitutional power to use military force without congressional authorization, but that is always hotly contested. We’ll see if there’s much pushback in Congress in this case, which will probably depend a lot on how things now play out in Venezuela,” Waxman said. “Look at what happened last year in Iran: The president claimed the power to bomb nuclear program infrastructure, and when the operation didn’t escalate, congressional opponents backed off.”

    Already on Saturday, some members of Congress were softening their initial skepticism.

    Within hours of posting on X that he was looking forward “to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) had posted again, saying Rubio told him that the military action was “to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant” for Maduro.

    Such action “likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” Lee added.

    Others remained more skeptical.

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said Trump’s remarks about taking over the country and controlling its oil reserves did not seem “the least bit consistent” with Bondi’s characterization of the operation as a law enforcement effort.

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector

    Source link

  • Florida politicians react to US capture of Venezuelan President Maduro

    [ad_1]

    Above: Venezuelans in Florida react to U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.In the overnight hours on January 2 into January 3, 2026, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured in a strike by U.S. forces in the South American country.The capture of the foreign leader comes after months of escalation from President Donald Trump against the nation, including more than a dozen strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats and a blockade on all “sanctioned oil tankers” going into and out of the country.U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, would face charges after an indictment in New York. Maduro was also indicted on “narco-terrorism” charges in 2020.In October, Trump said the U.S. was in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels after several strikes on boats in the Caribbean.Floridian lawmakers reacted to the overnight strikes in Venezuela and the capture of Maduro.U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25), co-chair of the Congressional Venezuela Democracy Caucus, released a statement on President Maduro’s capture: “The capture of the brutal, illegitimate ruler of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, who oppressed Venezuela’s people is welcome news for my friends and neighbors who fled his violent, lawless, and disastrous rule. However, cutting off the head of a snake is fruitless if it just regrows. Venezuelans deserve the promise of democracy and the rule of law, not a state of endless violence and spiraling disorder. My hope is it offers a passage to true democracy and liberation. This action offers beleaguered Venezuelans a chance to seat their true, democratically elected president, Edmundo González. I’ll demand answers as to why Congress and the American people were bypassed in this effort. The absence of congressional involvement prior to this action risks the continuation of the illegitimate Venezuelan regime.”Bondi shared the below indictment of Maduro and other Venezuelan officials on social media.

    Above: Venezuelans in Florida react to U.S. capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    In the overnight hours on January 2 into January 3, 2026, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured in a strike by U.S. forces in the South American country.

    The capture of the foreign leader comes after months of escalation from President Donald Trump against the nation, including more than a dozen strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats and a blockade on all “sanctioned oil tankers” going into and out of the country.

    U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, would face charges after an indictment in New York. Maduro was also indicted on “narco-terrorism” charges in 2020.

    In October, Trump said the U.S. was in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels after several strikes on boats in the Caribbean.

    Floridian lawmakers reacted to the overnight strikes in Venezuela and the capture of Maduro.

    This content is imported from Twitter.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    This content is imported from Twitter.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    This content is imported from Twitter.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    This content is imported from Twitter.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25), co-chair of the Congressional Venezuela Democracy Caucus, released a statement on President Maduro’s capture: “The capture of the brutal, illegitimate ruler of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, who oppressed Venezuela’s people is welcome news for my friends and neighbors who fled his violent, lawless, and disastrous rule. However, cutting off the head of a snake is fruitless if it just regrows. Venezuelans deserve the promise of democracy and the rule of law, not a state of endless violence and spiraling disorder. My hope is it offers a passage to true democracy and liberation. This action offers beleaguered Venezuelans a chance to seat their true, democratically elected president, Edmundo González. I’ll demand answers as to why Congress and the American people were bypassed in this effort. The absence of congressional involvement prior to this action risks the continuation of the illegitimate Venezuelan regime.”

    Bondi shared the below indictment of Maduro and other Venezuelan officials on social media.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Report: WNBA, players association not close on CBA as deadline looms

    [ad_1]

    (Photo credit: Stephen R. Sylvanie-Imagn Images)

    With just over a week remaining until the Jan. 9 deadline for a new WNBA collective bargaining agreement, the league and the Women’s National Basketball Players Association are not close to a deal, ESPN reported on Wednesday.

    The report indicates that the league and players association are very far apart on a number of basic points including what the revenue-sharing system, which the league currently does not have, could look like, what could be considered revenue and the process of accounting for expenses.

    The league is reportedly claiming that the latest proposal from the WNBPA (30% of gross revenue for the players and a salary cap of around $10.5 million) would not be sustainable for the league to survive, costing the WNBA approximately $700 million over the length of the pact.

    The last reported proposal from the WNBA side offered 50-plus-percent of net revenue (revenue subtracting expenses), raising average salaries from $120,000 to $530,000 and max salaries from $249,244 to $1.3 million immediately and close to $2 million over the course of the deal.

    The WNBA’s proposed salary cap is $5 million with growth in line with revenue sharing over the deal.

    Just after Minnesota Lynx star Napheesa Collier’s team was eliminated from the playoffs in September, Collier, the WNBPA vice president, called a press conference and said WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert was providing the ‘worst leadership in the world.’

    ‘For too long I have tried to have these conversations in private,’ Collier added. ‘But it’s clear there’s no intention of accepting there’s a problem (with the league’s officiating, in particular). The league has made it clear, it isn’t about innovation. It isn’t about collaboration. It’s about control and power.’

    In mid-December, the WNBA’s players voted to give WNBPA president Nneka Ogwumike and the executive committee the authority to potentially initiate a strike.

    ‘The players have spoken,’ the WNBPA said in a statement. ‘Through a decisive vote with historic participation, our membership has authorized the WNBPA’s Executive Committee to call a strike when necessary. The players’ decision is an unavoidable response to the state of negotiations with the WNBA and its teams.’

    The WNBA is scheduled to introduce expansion teams in Portland and Toronto in 2026 to bring its number of teams to 15. A strike, if set into motion, could affect that timeline with the season scheduled to begin in May.

    –Field Level Media

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP coalescing behind Vance as Trump privately dismisses third-term run

    [ad_1]

    When Charlie Kirk was killed by an assassin this fall, Republican leaders credited the organization he founded for enabling President Trump’s return to power.

    Now that organization is mobilizing behind Vice President JD Vance.

    Uninterested in a competitive Republican primary in 2028, Turning Point USA plans to deploy representatives across Iowa’s 99 counties in the coming months to build the campaign infrastructure it believes could deliver Vance, a Midwesterner from nearby Ohio, a decisive victory, potentially short-circuiting a fractious GOP race, insiders said.

    It is the latest move in a quiet effort by some in Trump’s orbit to clear the field of viable competitors. Earlier this month, Marco Rubio, the secretary of State previously floated by Trump as a possible contender, appeared to take himself out of the running.

    “If Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee, and I’ll be one of the first people to support him,” Rubio told Vanity Fair.

    After Kirk’s widow, Erika, endorsed Vance on stage at Turning Point USA’s annual conference in Arizona last week, a straw poll of attendees found that 84% would support Vance in the coming primaries. Yet, wider public polling offers a different picture.

    A CNN poll conducted in early December found that Vance held a plurality of Republican support for 2028, at 22%, with all other potential candidates, such as Rubio and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, registering in single digits.

    The remaining 64% told pollsters they had “no one specific in mind,” reflecting an open field with plenty of room for other figures to gain ground.

    While a recent Gallup poll found that 91% of Republicans approve of Vance’s job performance as vice president — an encouraging number entering a partisan primary — only 39% of Americans across party lines view him positively in the role, setting Vance up for potential challenges should he win the nomination.

    Potential presidential candidates on both sides of the political aisle are expected to assess their chances over the next year, before primary season officially kicks off, after the midterm elections in November.

    Closing out the Turning Point USA conference, Vance called for party unity amid escalating conflicts among right-wing influencers over the acceptability of racism and antisemitism within Republican politics.

    “President Trump did not build the greatest coalition in politics by running his supporters through endless, self-defeating purity tests,” Vance said. “Every American is invited. We don’t care if you’re white or Black, rich or poor, young or old, rural or urban, controversial or a little bit boring, or somewhere in between.”

    Charlie Kirk, he added, “trusted all of you to make your own judgment. And we have far more important work to do than canceling each other.”

    Vance’s remarks drew criticism from some on the right for appearing to tolerate bigotry within the party. The vice president himself has been subjected to racist rhetoric, with Nick Fuentes — a far-right podcaster who has praised Adolf Hitler — repeatedly directing attacks at Vance’s wife and children over their Indian ancestry.

    “Let me be clear — anyone who attacks my wife, whether their name is Jen Psaki or Nick Fuentes, can eat s—,” Vance said in an interview last week, referring to President Biden’s former press secretary. “That’s my official policy as vice president of the United States.”

    In the same interview, Vance praised Tucker Carlson, another far-right podcaster who has defended Fuentes on free speech grounds, as a “friend of mine,” noting that he supported Vance as Trump’s vice presidential pick in 2024.

    Trump has floated Vance as his potential successor multiple times without ever explicitly endorsing his nomination, calling him “very capable” and the “most likely” choice for the party.

    “He’s the vice president,” Trump said in August. “Certainly he’s doing a great job, and he would be probably favored at this point.”

    Several of Trump’s most ardent supporters have pushed the president to seek a third term in 2028, despite a provision of the Constitution, in the 22nd Amendment, barring him from doing so.

    Trump himself has said the Constitution appears clear on the matter. But Steve Bannon, an architect of Trump’s historic 2016 campaign and one of his first White House strategists, continues to advocate a path forward for another run, reportedly disparaging Vance as “not tough enough” to lead the party to victory.

    “He knows he can’t run again,” Susie Wiles, the president’s White House chief of staff, told Vanity Fair in a recent profile of her. “It’s pretty unequivocal.”

    Trump, who will be 82 when he is slated to leave office, has told Wiles he understands a third term isn’t possible “a couple times,” she added.

    Alan Dershowitz, a prominent constitutional law professor and a lawyer to Trump during his Senate impeachment trial, recently presented Trump with a road map to a third term in an Oval Office meeting, which he will publish in a new book slated for release next year.

    Even he came away from their meeting believing Trump would pass on another bid.

    “That is my conclusion based on what he has said in public,” Dershowitz told The Times.

    “He has said in the past,” he added, “that it’s too cute.”

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link