ReportWire

Tag: rubio

  • For decades many have predicted the downfall of Cuba’s regime. Is this time different?

    Cuba’s ruler, Raúl Castro (front left), and the country’s handpicked president, Miguel Díaz-Canel (front right), during a tribute ceremony for 32 Cuban security officers who were protecting Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and were killed in the Jan. 3 U.S. operation to capture him.

    Cuba’s ruler, Raúl Castro (front left), and the country’s handpicked president, Miguel Díaz-Canel (front right), during a tribute ceremony for 32 Cuban security officers who were protecting Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and were killed in the Jan. 3 U.S. operation to capture him.

    Office of the Cuban Presidency.

    Following the capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro in an operation in which several Cuban security officers died protecting him, Donald Trump joined a long line of U.S. presidents who over the decades anticipated the collapse of Cuba’s communist government.

    “Cuba gives protection to Venezuela, and Venezuela gives Cuba money through oil — and it’s been that way for a long time — but it doesn’t work that way anymore, so I don’t know what Cuba’s going to do,” Trump told Fox News. “I think Cuba’s going to fail. I don’t think there are alternatives for Cuba.”

    Trump warned Cuban leaders to “make a deal before it’s too late.” He then said his administration was already in talks with Cuban authorities, a claim the island’s handpicked president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, promptly denied.

    In Miami last week, the head of the U.S. Embassy in Havana, Mike Hammer, told reporters not to pay attention to Havana’s denial, but declined to comment on any negotiations. The pressure on the Cuban government “is intensifying,” he said. “What is happening is creating an opportunity, and of course, we want to be able to have the Cuban people benefit from this opportunity.”

    Can Trump succeed where others have failed?

    The Trump factor

    There are several elements that make this moment distinct from other crises the Cuban leadership has weathered over the years.

    On the U.S. side, there’s Trump’s unpredictability and his willingness to use military force to achieve foreign policy goals, as the raid to capture Maduro showed.

    “I think that’s what the Cubans now learned, that Trump is like no president we’ve had since 1959, so everything they thought they knew is out the window,” said Chris Simmons, a former U.S. counterintelligence official who has helped identify Cuban spies operating in the United States.

    “That’s got to make them very nervous,’ added Simmons, who also mentioned the role of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuba hardliner. “When you’ve got Rubio talking about they may be next, they’re going to take that very seriously. I mean, they’d be fools not to.”

    Trump said that ousting the regime in Havana might take military action, though he has ruled that out for the moment.

    “I don’t think we can have much more pressure other than going in and blasting the hell out of the place,” he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. “I think that Cuba is really in a lot of trouble. But you know, people have been saying that for many years.”

    At the same time, Trump’s transactional style and tendency to view international conflicts as opportunities for deal-making might help kickstart a negotiated transition — if Cuban leaders take the off-ramp.

    “We are talking to Cuba, and you’ll find out pretty soon,” he said. “One of the groups I want taken care of is the people who came from Cuba who were forced out or left under duress, and they are great citizens of the United States right now.”

    Cuba watchers say perhaps Trump is talking about negotiating compensation for Cuban Americans who were forced to flee the island and lost their properties after Fidel Castro took power in 1959. But many other issues could be discussed, including the repatriation of Cubans, allowing private investment and the lifting of some sanctions, said Joe García, a former Democratic member of Congress who has advocated for negotiations with Havana and the release of political prisoners.

    After years of dragging its feet on reforms, the Cuban government may not have much time left to act, Hugo Cancio, a Cuban American businessman who owns an online supermarket that delivers food on the island, told the Miami Herald.

    “In light of recent developments in Venezuela, Cuba today faces a clearer choice than ever: to open itself in a gradual and credible manner to economic reform, institutional modernization, and broader civic participation, with the constructive engagement of its diaspora, or to continue down a path of managed decline,” Cancio said. “The real risk is not change; the real risk is postponing it until the cost becomes irreversible.”

    The Cuba Study Group, an influential Cuban-American organization that has focused on supporting the island’s private sector, also urged the Cuban government to engage in talks with the U.S.

    “Today, no external power will bail the island out,” the group said in a statement. “Old formulas will not avert catastrophe. To prevent greater disaster, Cuban authorities must take steps they have never taken before,” including a wide political dialogue that includes the Cuban diaspora.

    The group advised Cuban leaders to “propose a bold restructuring that advances the rule of law, democratic norms, and a market economy while preserving a social safety net. And they should make unmistakable gestures—such as unconditionally freeing political prisoners—that demonstrate genuine commitment to turning the page.”

    The Rubio factor

    In the past, many Cuban exiles and Cuban American hardliners have strongly opposed negotiations with the Cuban government. But this time, they are likely to back up president Trump’s efforts, largely because Rubio, a Cuban American from Miami, is the one steering U.S. policy on Cuba.

    “Marco Rubio is the most trustworthy representative the exile community has had in 67 years,” said Marcel Felipe, the chairman of the American Museum of the Cuban Diaspora and a Miami Dade College trustee. He said he trusted Rubio to get the best possible outcome in negotiations to push for regime change in Cuba, one that Cuban exiles could live with.

    García, the former congressman, said that even though he is a Democrat and Rubio is a Republican, “Marco represents me and many Cubans who want to see change in Cuba.”

    State Department officials have been reaching out to members of the Cuban American community for their input about how a transition in Cuba would look like.

    “The Cuban exile community has been preparing for this for a long time,” said Felipe, who’s also the chairman of Inspire America, a pro-democracy organization. He said his organization and others have been sharing plans with U.S. officials for “day one” and the country’s reconstruction.

    Trump has also commented on the role Cuban Americans will likely play in economically rebuilding Cuba.

    “You have a lot of people in this country that want to go back to Cuba and help Cuba,” he said in a meeting last week with the CEOs of several oil companies to discuss investments in Venezuela. “They didn’t have anything, and they became very rich people in our country, and they want to very much go back and help Cuba. That’s something that Cuba has that a lot of other places don’t have.”

    The Cuban economy factor

    In Cuba, “a Revolution running on empty is finally out of gas,” the Cuba Study Group said.

    For decades, Fidel Castro ruled Cubans with a combination of repression, propaganda and populism. Many Cubans still fear opposing the government, but ideological support has eroded, and the state can no longer meet the most basic needs of the population.

    The new chapter of confrontation with the United States finds the island at its worst time economically, already on the verge of collapse.

    Cuba’s GDP fell another 5% last year, after several years of recession. A botched monetary reform has triggered skyrocketing inflation. The electrical grid collapses regularly, leaving the entire country in the dark. Oil shortages and obsolete power stations constantly breaking down have made daily hours-long blackouts the new normal. Garbage covers streets in the capital, fueling mosquito-borne diseases. Old buildings in Havana frequently collapse after years of neglect.

    A sociologist living on the island, Mayra Espina, estimates that more than 40% of the population lives in poverty, a figure that could actually be much higher, over 80%, according to surveys done by the Cuban Observatory of Human Rights, a Spain-based organization.

    Unlike the times Fidel Castro maneuvered his way out of crises, Cuba’s current leadership has proved less skillful, more prone to inaction, and notoriously less popular than the late Cuban dictator. A frail Raúl Castro reappeared Thursday to pay homage to the 32 Cuban officers who died during the U.S. raid to capture Maduro. He is the country’s ultimate authority, but he is 94, and behind the scenes power struggles for succession are already likely taking place.

    For the time being, Cuban leaders appeared unified and defiant in public. On Friday, Díaz-Canel rejected Trump’s deal offer.

    “There is no possibility of surrender or capitulation, nor any kind of understanding based on coercion or intimidation,” he said before shouting Castro’s old slogan, “Patria o Muerte,” Fatherland or Death, during a massive protest rally in Havana organized by the government to show it has broad support.

    “Cuba does not have to make any political concessions, and this will never be on the table in negotiations for an understanding between Cuba and the United States,” Díaz-Canel added.

    Cuban state media has shown images of military exercises that purport to convey a sense of readiness against a U.S. military attack. The images, however, highlight the vast gulf between the United States’ advanced military armament and Cuba’s old Soviet technology.

    Beyond the rhetoric, however, mid-level Cuban officials, economic advisers, academics and others who interact with foreigners share many of the population’s frustration with Díaz-Canel’s leadership and would welcome reforms, Herald sources who travel to Cuba and asked for anonymity to describe their interactions said.

    “Ten years ago, you would hear Cuban officials defending Marxism. Now they tell you stuff about Díaz-Canel that makes me look around to see if anyone is listening. They are ready for change,” one of the sources said.

    A conspicuous sign of the erosion of support for the Cuban socialist system: Several children and close relatives of former and current Cuban officials, as well as members of the Castro family, live abroad, including Díaz-Canel’s stepson and three grandchildren of Fidel Castro, who live in Spain.

    Even Interior Minister Humberto Alfonso Roca Sánchez, who Díaz-Canel said was the one in charge of the Cubans who died protecting Maduro, has two daughters who live in the United States, according to the U.S. government outlet Martí Noticias.

    Socialist policies and government repression are behind the largest cumulative exodus in Cuban history. An estimated 2.5 million Cubans left the country between 2021 and 2024, almost a quarter of the island’s population, according to estimates by Juan C. Albizu-Campos, a Cuban economist and demographer, at a conference in Miami of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy in October.

    The discontent extends even among Interior Ministry officers who guard Cuban prisons, says José Daniel Ferrer, a former political prisoner and prominent dissident who now lives in exile in Miami. He said some of the guards would mention to him privately they face the same scarcities as the population.

    Despite new harsh laws to punish dissent, many Cubans have voiced criticism of the government in public, on social media and in comments left on Cuban state news websites. Asked by a reporter from Cubanet, a Miami-based outlet, what would happen if U.S. forces captured Díaz-Canel, some residents in Havana declined to answer, but others were surprisingly candid.

    “How happy that would make me. Get them all the f–k out of here, to see if we can be happy, to see if we can see the fruit of our work,” a man answered.

    Obstacles in the way

    However different Cuba’s currently economic and political scenario is, any regime change efforts by the Trump administration will face an old dilemma, experts say: Calibrating how much pressure to put on a country that is just 90 miles from the United States and has a sizable amount of its population and their descendants living in South Florida.

    Rubio has long been laser-focused on targeting the Cuban military, and the administration is likely to ratchet up pressure on GAESA, the armed forces’ conglomerate that controls at least 40% of the country’s economy. GAESA had been redirecting the country’s foreign revenue into hotels and had $18 billion stashed away last year, while the population faces deprivation, the Herald previously reported.

    At the same time, Rubio has spoken carefully, telling the Cuban government it has a choice to make and stressing the administration has no interest in a destabilized Cuba.

    “If you put too much pressure on Cuba and really turn the screws on it, you’ve got the makings of a Spanish-speaking Haiti,” said John Kavulich, a longtime Cuba watcher and president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council that tracks trade with Cuba. He believes Rubio will push back against demands by some Cuban American lawmakers to exert maximum economic pressure, “because he’s going to be thinking about the day after, what does this look like?”

    The Trump administration has significant leverage, as economists predict the end of Venezuelan oil subsidies could have devastating consequences for the island.

    Jorge Piñón, a senior research fellow at the Energy Center at the University of Texas who closely tracks oil shipments to the island, said he did not believe Mexico or Russia will step up to fill the gap left by the halt of Venezuelan oil, which he said covered around 50% of Cuba’s oil import needs.

    Still, it is uncertain whether economic pressure alone would make Cuba “fail” on its own, as Trump has predicted.

    “It’s not failing on its own; its failure being hastened,” said Kavulich. “But we have seen this movie before. Does this mean that the government of Cuba will collapse? I think not.”

    Kavulich believes Cuban leaders will try to make concessions to the Trump administration in order to survive, not unlike what the remaining members of the Maduro regime are currently doing in Venezuela.

    “They will start looking in the survival manual and say, okay, what’s the first thing we can do?,” he said. “ We can release political prisoners. What’s the second thing we can do? We can further open up the economy. That’s their playbook. It’s not going to be, ‘we’re going to hold free and fair elections,’ but it’s going to be, ‘what can we do to forestall doing stuff that we really don’t want to do?’”

    “The unknown is how much pressure the Trump administration wants to exert,” Kavulich said.

    Who is Cuba’s Delcy Rodríguez?

    Central to the Trump administration’s efforts to negotiate a future transition with Havana, experts say, is finding Cuba’s equivalent to Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice-president who is now leading an interim government and has so far conceded to key Trump demands.

    Power in Cuba is more fragmented than under Fidel Castro’s rule. His brother, Raul, is not in charge of day-to-day decisions. His handpicked successor, Díaz-Canel, is seen as a figurehead atop a civilian government that has little real power, even if he is officially the first secretary of the Communist Party. Few believe he could be the lead negotiator with the Americans.

    Real power lies with the military. The generals have seats at the National Assembly, the Party, and the government’s top decision-making bodies. The country’s prime Minister Manuel Marrero, also comes from the military.

    Members of the Castro family remain influential. That includes Raúl Castro’s son, Col. Alejandro Castro Espín, who negotiated with U.S. officials during the Obama administration, and grandson Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, who is in charge of Raúl’s personal security and is involved in GAESA’s obscure finances. In less than two years, another family member, Oscar Pérez-Oliva Fraga, a grandnephew of Fidel and Raúl Castro, has been climbing the ladder to become minister of foreign trade and investment and vice prime minister.

    Would any of these players be enticed to negotiate to avoid ending like the Venezuelan strongman?

    “Part of the message that I think the administration is hoping for is, look what happened to Maduro,” said Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “He was given options to leave peacefully. He wouldn’t have been in an orange jumpsuit now, but he is because he didn’t take the offer to go to Turkey or Qatar. And that’s a lot of leverage. But given the ideological factor in Cuba, I’m a little bit skeptical that they would take the off-ramp. I think many of them would go down with the ship rather than take a negotiated exile”.

    Pinpointing precisely who might be Cuba’s reformer who would be willing to work with the United States to dismantle the communist system and rebuild the country has proved elusive.

    “I don’t think that there’s really an analogy here with Venezuela,” Berg said. “Whether you agree with this theory or not, we have identified Delcy Rodríguez as the one who could take over and implement pragmatic policies that are pro U.S. What is the analogue in Cuba’s case?”

    An unsavory answer

    The answer to that question right now might be unsavory for Rubio and Cuban exiles, said Ric Herrero, the executive director of the Cuba Study Group.

    “The only person that’s a Delcy-type in Cuba now is Raúl Castro,” he said. “Because what is Delcy? Delcy is someone from within, a senior official. She was a vice president, but who has significant clout within the party, within the bureaucracy and with the military. Someone who can keep all of those sectors in line and all the different factions playing ball.”

    “Who can achieve that in Cuba without having the last name Castro?” he asked.

    Felipe said it would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Cuban exile community to accept a transition model that involves someone whose last name is Castro.”

    Many longtime Cuban activists who have fiercely opposed negotiations with the regime in Havana might end up disappointed if what the administration is doing in Venezuela serves as an example of how it might operate with Cuba. The Helms-Burton Act Congress passed in 1996 forbids recognizing a transitional government led by Raúl Castro but doesn’t say anything about other members of his family.

    Cuban opposition members would not favor a negotiation with Raúl Castro or another member of the Castro family, said Ferrer the former political prisoner.

    “But if we are pragmatic and one of them negotiates, and Trump and Rubio manage to get the transition to democracy moving as quickly as possible, then that’s better than continuing in the situation we’re in, in complete stagnation, with the people still suffering from hunger, hardship, and extreme poverty, and above all, remaining without rights, without freedom, and constantly repressed, with the prisons full of political prisoners,” Ferrer said.

    “Ideally, this process would be completed as soon as possible, and the Castros would disappear from power because of all the harm they have done to Cuba,” he added.

    Part of the reason the regime in Havana has been able to survive so long is that, unlike Venezuela, where several opposition parties are still legal, Fidel Castro abolished all opposition parties and dissidents like Ferrer are routinely sent to prison or exile.

    Even so, the Trump administration decided to work with Rodriguez instead of María Corina Machado, the leader of the Venezuelan opposition, to manage a transition, Ferrer noted.

    “We are insisting with our American friends that the Cuban opposition, both the internal opposition and the organized exile community that has been fighting for years for a transition to democracy in Cuba, cannot be ignored at any time,” Ferrer said. “We must be an active part of any process. We cannot be marginalized.”

    Ultimately, there is one reality that has not changed in several decades in Cuba: the regime in Havana still keeps much of its capacity for repression, has all the guns, and tens of thousands of security and military personnel to squash dissent and instill fear. Protesting often lands people in prison.

    On Friday, Cuban independent journalist José Gabriel Barrenechea Chávez was sentenced to six years in prison for participating in a peaceful protest banging pots during a blackout in Villa Clara, a province in central Cuba.

    But as the economy collapses and discontent grows among Cubans, increasing U.S. pressure and the regime’s inability to address the population’s pressing needs may well trigger another chapter of mass protests, similar to those in July 2021, Ferrer said.

    The regime in Havana, he bet, “won’t make it to the end of the year.”

    Related Stories from Miami Herald

    Nora Gámez Torres

    el Nuevo Herald

    Nora Gámez Torres is the Cuba/U.S.-Latin American policy reporter for el Nuevo Herald and the Miami Herald. She studied journalism and media and communications in Havana and London. She holds a Ph.D. in sociology from City, University of London. Her work has won awards by the Florida Society of News Editors and the Society for Professional Journalists.//Nora Gámez Torres estudió periodismo y comunicación en La Habana y Londres. Tiene un doctorado en sociología y desde el 2014 cubre temas cubanos para el Nuevo Herald y el Miami Herald. También reporta sobre la política de Estados Unidos hacia América Latina. Su trabajo ha sido reconocido con premios de Florida Society of News Editors y Society for Profesional Journalists.

    Nora Gámez Torres

    Source link

  • Commentary: In Trump’s invasion of Venezuela, Marco Rubio is the biggest sellout of all

    By invading Venezuela, President Trump just lit America’s eternal exploding cigar.

    For over 175 years — ever since the United States conquered half of Mexico — nearly every president has messed with Latin America while telling the rest of the world to stay the hell out.

    We have helped depose democratically elected leaders and propped up murderous strongmen. Trained death squads and offered bailouts to favored allies. Ran economic blockades and encouraged American companies to treat the region’s riches, and its workers, like a cookie jar.

    From the Mexican American War to the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Panama Canal to NAFTA, we’ve only looked out for ourselves in Latin America even while wrapping our actions in the banner of benevolence.

    It’s rarely ended well for anyone involved — especially us. Many of the leaders we put into power became despots we tolerated until they ran their course, like Panama’s Manuel Noriega. The political upheaval we helped create has led generations of Latin Americans to migrate to el Norte, fundamentally changing our country even as too many Americans think people like my family should have stayed in their ancestral homes.

    So there Trump was at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday, insisting that the capture of Venezuela dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife by American troops was a military action as brilliant and consequential as D-day. He also announced that the U.S. would “run the country” and practically jiggled out his weird “YMCA” dance at the idea of making money from Venezuelan oil.

    His message to the world: Venezuela is ours until we say so, just like the rest of Latin America. And if allies and enemies alike still didn’t get the hint, Trump announced an updated Monroe Doctrine — the idea that the U.S. can do whatever it wants in the Western Hemisphere — called the “Donroe Doctrine.”

    Because of course he did.

    No one in Washington should be more versed in this terrible history than Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the child of Cubans who fled the island when it was ruled by the U.S.-backed caudillo Fulgencio Batista.

    Rubio grew up in an exile community that saw Batista’s replacement, Fidel Castro, remain in power for decades, despite a U.S. embargo. As one of Florida’s U.S. senators, Rubio represented millions of Latin American immigrants who had fled civil wars sparked by the U.S. in one way or another.

    Yet he’s Trumpworld’s biggest cheerleader for Latin American regime change, helping torpedo the president’s anti-interventionist campaign promise as if it were a narco boat off the South American coast.

    On Saturday, Rubio looked on silently as Trump threatened Colombian President Gustavo Petro to “watch his ass.” When it was Rubio’s turn to take questions from reporters, he said Cuban leaders “should be concerned” and offered a warning to the rest of the world: “Don’t play games with this president in office, because it’s not going to turn out well.”

    In Latin America, few are more reviled than the vendido — the sellout. Betraying one’s country for personal or political gain is an original sin dating back to the tribes who aligned with Spanish conquistadors to take down repressive empires, only to suffer the same sad end themselves. Vendidos have dominated the region’s history and stilted its development, with leaders — Mexico’s Porfirio Diaz, the Somozas of Nicaragua, Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic — more than happy to side with the yanquis at the expense of their own countrymen.

    Rubio belongs to this long, sordid lineup — and in many ways, he’s the worst vendido of them all.

    Then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), left, listens during a 2016 president debate with candidate Donald Trump.

    (Wilfredo Lee / Associated Press)

    I still remember the fresh-faced, idealistic guy trying to pass a bipartisan amnesty bill in 2013. Though too right-wing for my taste, he seemed like a Latino politician who could thread the needle between liberals and conservatives, gringos and us.

    It was wonderful to see him call out Trump’s boorishness when the two ran against each other in the 2016 Republican presidential primary. He told CNN’s Jake Tapper, in words that sound more prophetic than ever, “For years to come, there are many people … that are going to be having to explain and justify how they fell into this trap of supporting Donald Trump because this is not going to end well, one way or the other.”

    The thirst for power has a way of corrupting even the most idealistic hearts, alas. Rubio ended up endorsing Trump in 2016, supporting Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was rigged and proclaiming at the 2024 Republican National Convention that Trump “has not just transformed our party, he has inspired a movement.”

    Rubio’s reward for his boot-licking? He sets our foreign policy agenda, which is like putting an arsonist in charge of a fireworks stall.

    I’m sure all of this comes off as leftist babble to the Venezuelan diaspora, many of whom cheered Maduro’s fate from Spain to Mexico, Miami to Los Angeles. Only a deluded pendejo could support what Maduro wrought on Venezuela, which was a prosperous country and a relatively stable U.S. ally for decades as the rest of South America teetered from one crisis to another.

    But for Trump, toppling Maduro was never about the well-being of Venezuelans or bringing democracy to their country; it was about securing a foothold to flex American power and enrich the U.S.

    Meanwhile, his deportation Leviathan has gobbled up tens of thousands of undocumented Venezuelans and canceled the temporary protected status of hundreds of thousands more.

    Back in 2022, when Rubio was still a senator, he advocated for Venezuelans to be eligible for temporary protected status, which is granted to citizens of countries considered too dangerous to return to. At the time, Rubio argued that “failure to do so would result in a very real death sentence for countless Venezuelans who have fled their country.”

    Now? At a May news conference, he maintained that the 240 Venezuelans deported to El Salvador earlier in 2025 “were not migrants, these were criminals,” even though the Deportation Data Project found that only 16% of them had criminal convictions.

    Rubio has long fashioned himself as a modern-day Simón Bolívar, the Venezuelan who led the liberation of South America from Spain and who has been a hero to many Latinos ever since.

    But even Bolívar knew to be skeptical of American hegemony, writing in an 1829 letter that the U.S. “seems destined by Providence to plague [Latin] America with miseries in the name of Freedom.”

    Plague, thy name is Marco Rubio. By pushing Trump to run rampant over Latin America, you’re setting in motion the same old song of U.S. meddling that ties your family and mine. By letting Maduro’s cronies remain in power if they play along with you and Trump, even though they stole an election in 2024, proves you’re as much for the Venezuelan people as, well, Maduro.

    Vendido.

    Gustavo Arellano

    Source link

  • In U.S. plans for Venezuela, restoration of democracy takes a backseat, at least for now

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio, pictured during a Saturday press conference at Mar-a-Lago, said on discussing an election in Venezuela is premature because more pressing priorities in the country need to be addressed first. Photo by Nicole Combeau/UPI

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio, pictured during a Saturday press conference at Mar-a-Lago, said on discussing an election in Venezuela is premature because more pressing priorities in the country need to be addressed first. Photo by Nicole Combeau/UPI

    In a press conference Saturday detailing the operation to capture Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and U.S. plans to “run” the country and rebuild its oil industry, there was one word President Donald Trump never used: Democracy.

    Trump’s comments, detailing negotiations with a hardcore regime figure, Delcy Rodríguez, and dismissing opposition leader and Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado as a “nice woman” who does not have her country’s “respect,” shocked Venezuelans and others who wanted to see a restoration of democracy in the South American nation.

    Trump also did not mention the prospects of elections or a role for Edmundo Gonzalez, the opposition candidate widely believed to have won last year’s Venezuelan presidential election, whom the U.S. government officially recognized as president-elect.

    The president did mention the U.S. would “run” Venezuela until a “judicious” transition takes place, but provided little clarity on what that would look like.

    On Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Miami native and longtime champion of the Venezuelan opposition’s efforts to overthrow Maduro, made it clear that in negotiations with Venezuelan regime figures, U.S. officials are prioritizing stability in the South American country and U.S. national security objectives, at least in the short term.

    “We all wish to see a bright future for Venezuela, a transition to democracy. These are things I still care about. We still care about. But what we’re talking about is what happens over the next two, three weeks, two, three months, and how that ties to the national interests of the United States,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

    “I would argue that democracy in Venezuela is a U.S. national interest,” said Eric Farnsworth, a former State Department official who is a senior associate with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “What gives me optimism is that Rubio actually is now in charge of the effort, and so he gets it. From his days in the Senate, he has been a fierce advocate for democracy in Venezuela, and a friend of Maria Corina.”

    Still, the transactional tone of Trump’s remarks and what some see as his dismissing Machado have raised fears in South Florida, the home of the largest Venezuelan community, that the goal of a democratic transition might get lost along the way – if it was ever an administration goal.

    “It was incredibly disturbing that President Trump doesn’t apparently plan to help a transition to the democratically elected Edmundo González and María Corina Machado’s opposition party, and seems to have only gone through this process to exploit Venezuela’s oil — which would be incredibly disappointing to the people I represent,” said Democratic U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Broward County.

    The congresswoman said Venezuelans would feel more confident about the road ahead had Trump suggested the need for another election or talks with Machado. “He didn’t even mention the word democracy in his press conference,” she said.

    U.S. priorities

    In interviews on morning television news shows, Rubio spoke of Machado and Gonzalez with admiration, but dismissed talks of future elections in Venezuela as “premature” and hinted that it was a problem that both opposition leaders are apparently out of the country.

    “María Corina Machado’s fantastic,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press, “but unfortunately the vast majority of the opposition is no longer present inside of Venezuela.” Machado’s whereabouts are unknown, and she is likely outside the country after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway in October. González is exiled in Spain.

    “Ultimately, Rubio insisted, “we care about elections, we care about democracy. We care about all of that. But the number one thing we care about is the safety, security, well-being and prosperity of the United States.”

    Rubio also attempted to clarify that “running” Venezuela did not mean U.S. boots on the ground or an intervention, but “running” U.S. policy to pressure the remaining elements of the Maduro government, who are still in control of the country, to address several administration priorities.

    “We want drug trafficking to stop,” he said on CBS’s Face the Nation. “We want no more gang members to come our way. We don’t want to see the Iranian and, by the way, Cuban presence…. We want the oil industry in that country not to go to the benefit of pirates and adversaries of the United States, but for the benefit of the people.”

    He also seemed to walk back other comments from President Trump suggesting the U.S. was going to take control of Venezuela’s oil facilities.

    “Ultimately, this is not about securing the oilfields,” Rubio told ABC’s This Week. “This is about ensuring that no sanctioned oil can come in and out until they make changes to the governance of that entire industry.”

    Rubio said the administration would continue to use the significant military presence off the coast of Venezuela as leverage to get U.S. priorities addressed, and expected “more compliance and cooperation than we were previously receiving.”

    “Let’s be realistic here,” he told NBC. “What we are focused on right now is all the problems we had when Maduro was there. We are going to give people an opportunity to address those challenges and those problems.”

    Many of those problems were the result of a corrupt regime that remains largely intact. But by choosing to work with Rodriguez, political analysts say, the administration is taking a more pragmatic approach to avoid the kind of power vacuum and lack of security that had haunted past attempts at regime change in other nations.

    Perilous path ahead

    Trying to stabilize Venezuela without the opposition’s direct participation, however, will backfire, experts warn.

    “Any attempt to stabilize Venezuela while sidelining the 2024 [presidential] mandate would immediately face three problems: domestic rejection, international fragmentation and internal regime sabotage,” Benigno Alarcón Deza, an analyst and former director of the Center of Government and Political Studies at Universidad Católica Andrés Bello in Caracas, wrote in Americas Quarterly. “Whatever her administrative role, Rodriguez cannot serve as the foundation of a political transition because she inherits the regime’s original sin: the absence of democratic legitimacy.”

    There is also a chance that Rodriguez, a cunning politician who has presented herself as a technocrat who has revived the Venezuelan oil industry, would not play along or that her grip on power does not hold. For starters, Maduro’s inner circle is intact, and that includes powerful figures like Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez, both indicted in the U.S., along with Maduro, on charges of drug trafficking.

    “The question is going to be, how long does Delcy function in this capacity?” said Farnsworth. “ “You still have Padrino Lopez, certainly Diosdado Cabello, they haven’t left. Don’t forget, Diosdado has a $25 million bounty on his head. So you could also see another operation like this against him. I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but all these guys now have to be thinking they could be next.”

    But negotiations with figures close to Maduro — and Trump’s views on Machado — are a hard pill to swallow for many Venezuelan exiles and could create political headaches for the administration in South Florida, where the local Republican congressional delegation has vocally opposed negotiations with the Maduro regime in the past.

    U.S. Rep. María Elvira Salazar of Miami told the Miami Herald she did not believe the administration should be working with Rodríguez, who is under U.S. sanctions.

    “Delcy has been sanctioned by the United States and she said that Maduro is the legitimate president of the country,” Salazar told the Herald. “We cannot work with her.”

    Tensions flared during a press conference on Saturday evening in Doral, home to a large Venezuelan community. Visibly angry at the suggestion by a reporter that he had not supported Machado, U.S. Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart replied: “When have we ever not supported her? Do not put words in my mouth. I am convinced there is going to be a transition and…whether there are new elections or there is a decision to take the old elections, the next democratically elected president of Venezuela is going to be Maria Corina Machado.”

    Salazar also said she was confident the Venezuelan opposition would eventually rise to power.

    “Marco, he said it today, that this is just a transition we’re talking about the next two weeks, the next few months,” she said. “We need to leave the country stabilized for the opposition and for the civil society to take over. We’re doing them a favor. We’re doing them a favor by cleaning up the house.”

    “The good thing,” she added, “is that we have a Miami boy leading this charge.”

    This story was originally published January 4, 2026 at 4:46 PM.

    Nora Gámez Torres

    el Nuevo Herald

    Nora Gámez Torres is the Cuba/U.S.-Latin American policy reporter for el Nuevo Herald and the Miami Herald. She studied journalism and media and communications in Havana and London. She holds a Ph.D. in sociology from City, University of London. Her work has won awards by the Florida Society of News Editors and the Society for Professional Journalists.//Nora Gámez Torres estudió periodismo y comunicación en La Habana y Londres. Tiene un doctorado en sociología y desde el 2014 cubre temas cubanos para el Nuevo Herald y el Miami Herald. También reporta sobre la política de Estados Unidos hacia América Latina. Su trabajo ha sido reconocido con premios de Florida Society of News Editors y Society for Profesional Journalists.

    Nora Gámez Torres,Claire Heddles

    Source link

  • In U.S. plans for Venezuela, restoration of democracy takes a backseat, at least for now

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio, pictured during a Saturday press conference at Mar-a-Lago, said on discussing an election in Venezuela is premature because more pressing priorities in the country need to be addressed first. Photo by Nicole Combeau/UPI

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio, pictured during a Saturday press conference at Mar-a-Lago, said on discussing an election in Venezuela is premature because more pressing priorities in the country need to be addressed first. Photo by Nicole Combeau/UPI

    In a press conference Saturday detailing the operation to capture Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and U.S. plans to “run” the country and rebuild its oil industry, there was one word President Donald Trump never used: Democracy.

    Trump’s comments, detailing negotiations with a hardcore regime figure, Delcy Rodríguez, and dismissing opposition leader and Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado as a “nice woman” who does not have her country’s “respect,” shocked Venezuelans and others who wanted to see a restoration of democracy in the South American nation.

    Trump also did not mention the prospects of elections or a role for Edmundo Gonzalez, the opposition candidate widely believed to have won last year’s Venezuelan presidential election, whom the U.S. government officially recognized as president-elect.

    The president did mention the U.S. would “run” Venezuela until a “judicious” transition takes place, but provided little clarity on what that would look like.

    On Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Miami native and longtime champion of the Venezuelan opposition’s efforts to overthrow Maduro, made it clear that in negotiations with Venezuelan regime figures, U.S. officials are prioritizing stability in the South American country and U.S. national security objectives, at least in the short term.

    “We all wish to see a bright future for Venezuela, a transition to democracy. These are things I still care about. We still care about. But what we’re talking about is what happens over the next two, three weeks, two, three months, and how that ties to the national interests of the United States,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

    “I would argue that democracy in Venezuela is a U.S. national interest,” said Eric Farnsworth, a former State Department official who is a senior associate with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “What gives me optimism is that Rubio actually is now in charge of the effort, and so he gets it. From his days in the Senate, he has been a fierce advocate for democracy in Venezuela, and a friend of Maria Corina.”

    Still, the transactional tone of Trump’s remarks and what some see as his dismissing Machado have raised fears in South Florida, the home of the largest Venezuelan community, that the goal of a democratic transition might get lost along the way – if it was ever an administration goal.

    “It was incredibly disturbing that President Trump doesn’t apparently plan to help a transition to the democratically elected Edmundo González and María Corina Machado’s opposition party, and seems to have only gone through this process to exploit Venezuela’s oil — which would be incredibly disappointing to the people I represent,” said Democratic U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Broward County.

    The congresswoman said Venezuelans would feel more confident about the road ahead had Trump suggested the need for another election or talks with Machado. “He didn’t even mention the word democracy in his press conference,” she said.

    U.S. priorities

    In interviews on morning television news shows, Rubio spoke of Machado and Gonzalez with admiration, but dismissed talks of future elections in Venezuela as “premature” and hinted that it was a problem that both opposition leaders are apparently out of the country.

    “María Corina Machado’s fantastic,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press, “but unfortunately the vast majority of the opposition is no longer present inside of Venezuela.” Machado’s whereabouts are unknown, and she is likely outside the country after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway in October. González is exiled in Spain.

    “Ultimately, Rubio insisted, “we care about elections, we care about democracy. We care about all of that. But the number one thing we care about is the safety, security, well-being and prosperity of the United States.”

    Rubio also attempted to clarify that “running” Venezuela did not mean U.S. boots on the ground or an intervention, but “running” U.S. policy to pressure the remaining elements of the Maduro government, who are still in control of the country, to address several administration priorities.

    “We want drug trafficking to stop,” he said on CBS’s Face the Nation. “We want no more gang members to come our way. We don’t want to see the Iranian and, by the way, Cuban presence…. We want the oil industry in that country not to go to the benefit of pirates and adversaries of the United States, but for the benefit of the people.”

    He also seemed to walk back other comments from President Trump suggesting the U.S. was going to take control of Venezuela’s oil facilities.

    “Ultimately, this is not about securing the oilfields,” Rubio told ABC’s This Week. “This is about ensuring that no sanctioned oil can come in and out until they make changes to the governance of that entire industry.”

    Rubio said the administration would continue to use the significant military presence off the coast of Venezuela as leverage to get U.S. priorities addressed, and expected “more compliance and cooperation than we were previously receiving.”

    “Let’s be realistic here,” he told NBC. “What we are focused on right now is all the problems we had when Maduro was there. We are going to give people an opportunity to address those challenges and those problems.”

    Many of those problems were the result of a corrupt regime that remains largely intact. But by choosing to work with Rodriguez, political analysts say, the administration is taking a more pragmatic approach to avoid the kind of power vacuum and lack of security that had haunted past attempts at regime change in other nations.

    Perilous path ahead

    Trying to stabilize Venezuela without the opposition’s direct participation, however, will backfire, experts warn.

    “Any attempt to stabilize Venezuela while sidelining the 2024 [presidential] mandate would immediately face three problems: domestic rejection, international fragmentation and internal regime sabotage,” Benigno Alarcón Deza, an analyst and former director of the Center of Government and Political Studies at Universidad Católica Andrés Bello in Caracas, wrote in Americas Quarterly. “Whatever her administrative role, Rodriguez cannot serve as the foundation of a political transition because she inherits the regime’s original sin: the absence of democratic legitimacy.”

    There is also a chance that Rodriguez, a cunning politician who has presented herself as a technocrat who has revived the Venezuelan oil industry, would not play along or that her grip on power does not hold. For starters, Maduro’s inner circle is intact, and that includes powerful figures like Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino Lopez, both indicted in the U.S., along with Maduro, on charges of drug trafficking.

    “The question is going to be, how long does Delcy function in this capacity?” said Farnsworth. “ “You still have Padrino Lopez, certainly Diosdado Cabello, they haven’t left. Don’t forget, Diosdado has a $25 million bounty on his head. So you could also see another operation like this against him. I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but all these guys now have to be thinking they could be next.”

    But negotiations with figures close to Maduro — and Trump’s views on Machado — are a hard pill to swallow for many Venezuelan exiles and could create political headaches for the administration in South Florida, where the local Republican congressional delegation has vocally opposed negotiations with the Maduro regime in the past.

    U.S. Rep. María Elvira Salazar of Miami told the Miami Herald she did not believe the administration should be working with Rodríguez, who is under U.S. sanctions.

    “Delcy has been sanctioned by the United States and she said that Maduro is the legitimate president of the country,” Salazar told the Herald. “We cannot work with her.”

    Tensions flared during a press conference on Saturday evening in Doral, home to a large Venezuelan community. Visibly angry at the suggestion by a reporter that he had not supported Machado, U.S. Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart replied: “When have we ever not supported her? Do not put words in my mouth. I am convinced there is going to be a transition and…whether there are new elections or there is a decision to take the old elections, the next democratically elected president of Venezuela is going to be Maria Corina Machado.”

    Salazar also said she was confident the Venezuelan opposition would eventually rise to power.

    “Marco, he said it today, that this is just a transition we’re talking about the next two weeks, the next few months,” she said. “We need to leave the country stabilized for the opposition and for the civil society to take over. We’re doing them a favor. We’re doing them a favor by cleaning up the house.”

    “The good thing,” she added, “is that we have a Miami boy leading this charge.”

    This story was originally published January 4, 2026 at 5:46 PM.

    Nora Gámez Torres

    el Nuevo Herald

    Nora Gámez Torres is the Cuba/U.S.-Latin American policy reporter for el Nuevo Herald and the Miami Herald. She studied journalism and media and communications in Havana and London. She holds a Ph.D. in sociology from City, University of London. Her work has won awards by the Florida Society of News Editors and the Society for Professional Journalists.//Nora Gámez Torres estudió periodismo y comunicación en La Habana y Londres. Tiene un doctorado en sociología y desde el 2014 cubre temas cubanos para el Nuevo Herald y el Miami Herald. También reporta sobre la política de Estados Unidos hacia América Latina. Su trabajo ha sido reconocido con premios de Florida Society of News Editors y Society for Profesional Journalists.

    Nora Gámez Torres,Claire Heddles

    Source link

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

    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.

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Trump officials express optimism after meeting with Ukraine to end Russia’s war

    President Trump originally gave Ukraine until Thursday to accept their peace proposal, but overnight Rubio downplayed that deadline after meeting with Ukrainian officials over the weekend, noting he is optimistic with the progress made. It is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue. Maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in *** very long time. Rubio did not go into detail there. The peace proposal drafted by the US to end the Russia-Ukraine war has sparked concern for both Democrats and some Republicans and also for Kiev. The original plan gives in to many Russian demands that Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelinsky has rejected on multiple occasions, including giving up large pieces of territory. On Sunday night, the White House. Put out *** statement noting the Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns like security guarantees, long-term economic development, political sovereignty were addressed during the meeting. In *** video statement, Zelinsky said diplomacy has been activated. Rubio called this peace proposal *** living breathing document that could change and made it clear that any final product will have to be presented to Moscow. In Washington, I’m Rachel Herzheimer.

    Trump officials express optimism after meeting with Ukraine to end Russia’s war

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed optimism after meeting with Ukrainian leaders to discuss the Trump administration’s peace plan, despite concerns over the proposal’s concessions to Russia.

    Updated: 4:08 AM PST Nov 24, 2025

    Editorial Standards

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Ukrainian leaders in Europe to address concerns in the Trump administration’s peace plan to end the nearly four-year war between Russia and Ukraine, which has drawn criticism from both Democrats and some Republicans, as well as Kyiv.President Donald Trump initially set a deadline for Ukraine to accept his peace proposal by Thursday, but Rubio downplayed this deadline after meeting with Ukrainian officials over the weekend.”It is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue, maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in a very long time,” Rubio said.The peace proposal drafted by the U.S. has sparked concern due to its concessions to Russian demands, which Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected multiple times, including the surrender of large pieces of territory. On Sunday night, the White House released a statement that says in part, “The Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns—security guarantees, long-term economic development, infrastructure protection, freedom of navigation, and political sovereignty—were thoroughly addressed during the meeting.”In a video statement, Zelenskyy said, “Diplomacy has been reinvigorated.”Over the weekend, a group of bipartisan U.S. Senators said Rubio told them on Saturday that the plan had originated with Russia and that it was actually a “wish list” for Moscow rather than a serious push for peace.A State Department spokesperson said that was “blatantly false.” Rubio suggested online that the senators were mistaken, even though they said he was their source of information.”It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said of Trump’s proposal.”We should not do anything that makes (Putin) feel like he has a win here,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Rubio described the peace proposal as a “living, breathing document” that would continue to evolve and emphasized that any final agreement would need to be presented to Moscow.Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Ukrainian leaders in Europe to address concerns in the Trump administration’s peace plan to end the nearly four-year war between Russia and Ukraine, which has drawn criticism from both Democrats and some Republicans, as well as Kyiv.

    President Donald Trump initially set a deadline for Ukraine to accept his peace proposal by Thursday, but Rubio downplayed this deadline after meeting with Ukrainian officials over the weekend.

    “It is probably the most productive day we have had on this issue, maybe in the entirety of our engagement, but certainly in a very long time,” Rubio said.

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio holds a press conference following closed-door talks on a U.S. plan to end the war in Ukraine at the US Mission in Geneva, on Nov. 23, 2025.

    Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP via Getty Images

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio holds a press conference following closed-door talks on a U.S. plan to end the war in Ukraine at the US Mission in Geneva, on Nov. 23, 2025.

    The peace proposal drafted by the U.S. has sparked concern due to its concessions to Russian demands, which Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected multiple times, including the surrender of large pieces of territory.

    On Sunday night, the White House released a statement that says in part, “The Ukrainian delegation affirmed that all of their principal concerns—security guarantees, long-term economic development, infrastructure protection, freedom of navigation, and political sovereignty—were thoroughly addressed during the meeting.”

    In a video statement, Zelenskyy said, “Diplomacy has been reinvigorated.”

    Over the weekend, a group of bipartisan U.S. Senators said Rubio told them on Saturday that the plan had originated with Russia and that it was actually a “wish list” for Moscow rather than a serious push for peace.

    A State Department spokesperson said that was “blatantly false.”

    Rubio suggested online that the senators were mistaken, even though they said he was their source of information.

    “It rewards aggression. This is pure and simple. There’s no ethical, legal, moral, political justification for Russia claiming eastern Ukraine,” Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said of Trump’s proposal.

    “We should not do anything that makes (Putin) feel like he has a win here,” said Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina.

    Rubio described the peace proposal as a “living, breathing document” that would continue to evolve and emphasized that any final agreement would need to be presented to Moscow.

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    Source link

  • Ukraine and Western allies meet in Geneva to discuss US peace plan

    Talks between Ukraine and its Western allies on a U.S.-proposed peace plan to end Russia’s invasion got underway in Geneva on Sunday, Ukrainian officials said on Sunday.The head of the Ukrainian delegation, presidential chief of staff Andrii Yermak, wrote on social media that they held their first meeting with the national security advisers from the U.K., France, and Germany. The allies have rallied around Kyiv in a push to revise the plan, which is seen as favoring Moscow.U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was expected to join the talks together with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff.”The next meeting is with the U.S. delegation. We are in a very constructive mood,” Yermak said. “We continue working together to achieve a lasting and just peace for Ukraine.”Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he was waiting for the outcome of the talks. “A positive result is needed for all of us,” he said.”Ukrainian and American teams, teams of our European partners, are in close contact, and I very much hope there will be a result. Bloodshed must be stopped, and it must be guaranteed that the war will not be reignited,” he wrote in a post on Telegram on Sunday.Ukraine and allies have ruled out territorial concessionsThe 28-point blueprint drawn up by the U.S. to end the nearly four-year war has sparked alarm in Kyiv and European capitals. Zelenskyy has said his country could face a stark choice between standing up for its sovereign rights and preserving the American support it needs.The plan acquiesces to many Russian demands that Zelenskyy has categorically rejected on dozens of occasions, including giving up large pieces of territory. The Ukrainian leader has vowed that his people”will always defend” their home.Speaking before Sunday’s talks, Alice Rufo, France’s minister delegate at the Defense Ministry, told broadcaster France Info that key points of discussion would include the plan’s restrictions on the Ukrainian army, which she described as “a limitation on its sovereignty.””Ukraine must be able to defend itself,” she said. “Russia wants war and waged war many times in fact over the past years.”Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Saturday, Trump said the U.S. proposal was not his “final offer.””I would like to get to peace. It should have happened a long time ago. The Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened,” Trump said. “One way or the other, we have to get it ended.”Trump didn’t explain what he meant by the plan not being his final offer, and the White House didn’t respond to a request for clarification.Rubio’s reported comments cause confusionPolish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Sunday that Warsaw was ready to work on the plan with the leaders of Europe, Canada and Japan, but also said that it “would be good to know for sure who is the author of the plan and where was it created.”Some U.S. lawmakers said Saturday that Rubio had described the plan as a Russian “wish list” rather than a Washington-led proposal.The bipartisan group of senators told a news conference that they had spoken to Rubio about the peace plan after he reached out to some of them while on his way to Geneva. Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said Rubio told them the plan “was not the administration’s plan” but a “wish list of the Russians.”A State Department spokesperson denied their account, calling it “blatantly false.”Rubio himself then took the extraordinary step of suggesting online that the senators were mistaken, even though they said he was their source for the information. The Secretary of State doubled down on the assertion that Washington was responsible for a proposal that had surprised many from the beginning for being so favorable to Moscow.___Associated Press writers Claudia Ciobanu in Warsaw, Poland and Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report.

    Talks between Ukraine and its Western allies on a U.S.-proposed peace plan to end Russia’s invasion got underway in Geneva on Sunday, Ukrainian officials said on Sunday.

    The head of the Ukrainian delegation, presidential chief of staff Andrii Yermak, wrote on social media that they held their first meeting with the national security advisers from the U.K., France, and Germany. The allies have rallied around Kyiv in a push to revise the plan, which is seen as favoring Moscow.

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was expected to join the talks together with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll and President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff.

    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio

    “The next meeting is with the U.S. delegation. We are in a very constructive mood,” Yermak said. “We continue working together to achieve a lasting and just peace for Ukraine.”

    Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he was waiting for the outcome of the talks. “A positive result is needed for all of us,” he said.

    “Ukrainian and American teams, teams of our European partners, are in close contact, and I very much hope there will be a result. Bloodshed must be stopped, and it must be guaranteed that the war will not be reignited,” he wrote in a post on Telegram on Sunday.

    Ukraine and allies have ruled out territorial concessions

    The 28-point blueprint drawn up by the U.S. to end the nearly four-year war has sparked alarm in Kyiv and European capitals. Zelenskyy has said his country could face a stark choice between standing up for its sovereign rights and preserving the American support it needs.

    The plan acquiesces to many Russian demands that Zelenskyy has categorically rejected on dozens of occasions, including giving up large pieces of territory. The Ukrainian leader has vowed that his people”will always defend” their home.

    Speaking before Sunday’s talks, Alice Rufo, France’s minister delegate at the Defense Ministry, told broadcaster France Info that key points of discussion would include the plan’s restrictions on the Ukrainian army, which she described as “a limitation on its sovereignty.”

    “Ukraine must be able to defend itself,” she said. “Russia wants war and waged war many times in fact over the past years.”

    Speaking to reporters outside the White House on Saturday, Trump said the U.S. proposal was not his “final offer.”

    “I would like to get to peace. It should have happened a long time ago. The Ukraine war with Russia should have never happened,” Trump said. “One way or the other, we have to get it ended.”

    Trump didn’t explain what he meant by the plan not being his final offer, and the White House didn’t respond to a request for clarification.

    Rubio’s reported comments cause confusion

    Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Sunday that Warsaw was ready to work on the plan with the leaders of Europe, Canada and Japan, but also said that it “would be good to know for sure who is the author of the plan and where was it created.”

    Some U.S. lawmakers said Saturday that Rubio had described the plan as a Russian “wish list” rather than a Washington-led proposal.

    The bipartisan group of senators told a news conference that they had spoken to Rubio about the peace plan after he reached out to some of them while on his way to Geneva. Independent Maine Sen. Angus King said Rubio told them the plan “was not the administration’s plan” but a “wish list of the Russians.”

    A State Department spokesperson denied their account, calling it “blatantly false.”

    Rubio himself then took the extraordinary step of suggesting online that the senators were mistaken, even though they said he was their source for the information. The Secretary of State doubled down on the assertion that Washington was responsible for a proposal that had surprised many from the beginning for being so favorable to Moscow.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Claudia Ciobanu in Warsaw, Poland and Sylvie Corbet in Paris contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • How Rubio is winning over Trumpworld on striking Venezuela

    In the early days of President Trump’s second term, the U.S. appeared keen to cooperate with Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s authoritarian leader. Special envoy Ric Grenell met Maduro, working with him to coordinate deportation flights to Caracas, a prisoner exchange deal and an agreement allowing Chevron to drill Venezuelan oil.

    Grenell told disappointed members of Venezuela’s opposition that Trump’s domestic goals took priority over efforts to promote democracy. “We’re not interested in regime change,” Grenell told the group, according to two sources familiar with the meeting.

    But Marco Rubio, Trump’s secretary of State, had a different vision.

    In a parallel call with María Corina Machado and Edmundo González Urrutia, two leaders of the opposition, Rubio affirmed U.S. support “for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela” and called González “the rightful president” of the beleaguered nation after Maduro rigged last year’s election in his favor.

    Rubio, now also serving as national security advisor, has grown closer to Trump and crafted an aggressive new policy toward Maduro that has brought Venezuela and the United States to the brink of military confrontation.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio whispers to President Trump during a roundtable meeting at the White House on Oct. 8, 2025.

    (Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

    I think Venezuela is feeling the heat

    — President Trump

    Grenell has been sidelined, two sources told The Times, as the U.S. conducts an unprecedented campaign of deadly strikes on suspected Venezuelan drug boats — and builds up military assets in the Caribbean. Trump said Wednesday that he has authorized the CIA to conduct covert action in the South American nation, and that strikes on land targets could be next.

    “I think Venezuela is feeling the heat,” he said.

    The pressure campaign marks a major victory for Rubio, the son of Cuban emigres and an unexpected power player in the administration who has managed to sway top leaders of the isolationist MAGA movement to his lifelong effort to topple Latin America’s leftist authoritarians.

    “It’s very clear that Rubio has won,” said James B. Story, who served as ambassador to Venezuela under President Biden. “The administration is applying military pressure in the hope that somebody inside of the regime renders Maduro to justice, either by exiling him, sending him to the United States or sending him to his maker.”

    In a recent public message to Trump, Maduro acknowledged that Rubio is now driving White House policy: “You have to be careful because Marco Rubio wants your hands stained with blood, with South American blood, Caribbean blood, Venezuelan blood,” Maduro said.

    As a senator from Florida, Rubio represented exiles from three leftist autocracies — Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela — and for years he has made it his mission to weaken their governments. He says his family could not return to Cuba after Fidel Castro’s revolution seven decades ago. He has long maintained that eliminating Maduro would deal a fatal blow to Cuba, whose economy has been buoyed by billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil in the face of punishing U.S. sanctions.

    In 2019, Rubio pushed Trump to back Juan Guaidó, a Venezuelan opposition leader who sought unsuccessfully to topple Maduro.

    Rubio later encouraged Trump to publicly support Machado, who was barred from the ballot in Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election, and who last week was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her pro-democracy efforts. González, who ran in Machado’s place, won the election, according to vote tallies gathered by the opposition, yet Maduro declared victory.

    Rubio was convinced that only military might would bring change to Venezuela, which has been plunged into crisis under Maduro’s rule, with a quarter of the population fleeing poverty, violence and political repression.

    But there was a hitch. Trump has repeatedly vowed to not intervene in the politics of other nations, telling a Middle Eastern audience in May that the U.S. “would no longer be giving you lectures on how to live.”

    Denouncing decades of U.S. foreign policy, Trump complained that “the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”

    To counter that sentiment, Rubio painted Maduro in a new light that he hoped would spark interest from Trump, who has been fixated on combating immigration, illegal drugs and Latin American cartels since his first presidential campaign.

    A woman and a man standing in a vehicle, each with one arm raised, amid a sea of people

    Venezuelan presidential candidate Edmundo González Urrutia, right, and opposition leader María Corina Machado greet supporters during a campaign rally in Valencia before the country’s presidential election in 2024.

    (Ariana Cubillos / Associated Press)

    Going after Maduro, Rubio argued, was not about promoting democracy or a change of governments. It was striking a drug kingpin fueling crime in American streets, an epidemic of American overdoses, and a flood of illegal migration to America’s borders.

    Rubio tied Maduro to Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan street gang whose members the secretary of State says are “worse than Al Qaeda.”

    “Venezuela is governed by a narco-trafficking organization that has empowered itself as a nation state,” he said during his Senate confirmation hearing.

    Meanwhile, prominent members of Venezuela’s opposition pushed the same message. “Maduro is the head of a narco-terrorist structure,” Machado told Fox News last month.

    Security analysts and U.S. intelligence officials suggest that the links between Maduro and Tren de Aragua are overblown.

    A declassified memo by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence found no evidence of widespread cooperation between Maduro’s government and the gang. It also said Tren de Aragua does not pose a threat to the U.S.

    The gang does not traffic fentanyl, and the Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that just 8% of cocaine that reaches the U.S. passes through Venezuelan territory.

    Still, Rubio’s strategy appears to have worked.

    In July, Trump declared that Tren de Aragua was a terrorist group led by Maduro — and then ordered the Pentagon to use military force against cartels that the U.S. government had labeled terrorists.

    Trump deployed thousands of U.S. troops and a small armada of ships and warplanes to the Caribbean and has ordered strikes on five boats off the coast of Venezuela, resulting in 24 deaths. The administration says the victims were “narco-terrorists” but has provided no evidence.

    Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat who served as special envoy to Venezuela in Trump’s first term, said he believes the White House will carry out limited strikes in Venezuela.

    “I think the next step is that they’re going to hit something in Venezuela — and I don’t mean boots on the ground. That’s not Trump,” Abrams said. “It’s a strike, and then it’s over. That’s very low risk to the United States.”

    He continued: “Now, would it be nice if that kind of activity spurred a colonel to lead a coup? Yeah, it would be nice. But the administration is never going to say that.”

    Even if Trump refrains from a ground invasion, there are major risks.

    “If it’s a war, then what is the war’s aim? Is it to overthrow Maduro? Is it more than Maduro? Is it to get a democratically elected president and a democratic regime in power?” said John Yoo, a professor of law at UC Berkeley, who served as a top legal advisor to the George W. Bush administration. “The American people will want to know what’s the end state, what’s the goal of all of this.”

    “Whenever you have two militaries bristling that close together, there could be real action,” said Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at the think tank Chatham House. “Trump is trying to do this on the cheap. He’s hoping maybe he won’t have to commit. But it’s a slippery slope. This could draw the United States into a war.”

    Sabatini and others added that even if the U.S. pressure drives out Maduro, what follows is far from certain.

    Venezuela is dominated by a patchwork of guerrilla and paramilitary groups that have enriched themselves with gold smuggling, drug trafficking and other illicit activities. None have incentive to lay down arms.

    And the country’s opposition is far from unified.

    Machado, who dedicated her Nobel Prize to Trump in a clear effort to gain his support, says she is prepared to govern Venezuela. But there are others — both in exile and in Maduro’s administration — who would like to lead the country.

    Machado supporter Juan Fernandez said anything would be better than maintaining the status quo.

    “Some say we’re not prepared, that a transition would cause instability,” he said. “How can Maduro be the secure choice when 8 million Venezuelans have left, when there is no gasoline, political persecution and rampant inflation?”

    Fernandez praised Rubio for pushing the Venezuela issue toward “an inflection point.”

    What a difference, he said, to have a decision-maker in the White House with family roots in another country long oppressed by an authoritarian regime.

    “He perfectly understands our situation,” Fernandez said. “And now he has one of the highest positions in the United States.”

    Linthicum reported from Mexico City, Wilner from Dallas and Ceballos from Washington. Special correspondent Mery Mogollón in Caracas contributed to this report.

    Kate Linthicum, Michael Wilner, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • U.S., Mexico pledge deeper ties as Trump defends strike on alleged cartel boat

    U.S. and Mexican officials agreed Wednesday to bolster cooperation on a range of joint security concerns — including drug smuggling, illegal migration and arms-trafficking — as Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended President Trump’s controversial decision to order an attack on an alleged smuggling boat in the Caribbean Sea.

    The top U.S. diplomat held his first meeting with President Claudia Sheinbaum a day after the dramatic Pentagon strike provided a potential portent of what many Mexicans fear — a unilateral U.S. military attack on suspected cartel targets inside Mexico.

    Tuesday’s action on a vessel that had departed Venezuela killed 11 sea-born “narcoterrorists” who were transporting drugs destined for the United States, said Trump, who released what he described as a video of the attack.

    In Mexico, Rubio hailed the strike, stating that traditional interdiction efforts had failed to stop the flow of drugs via the Caribbean. “What will stop them is when you blow them up,” Rubio told reporters in Mexico City. “You get rid of them.”

    Such strikes may be ongoing and will likely continue, Rubio said, providing no additional details.

    The secretary of State sidestepped a question about whether the action, which critics denounced as illegal under international law, signaled a return to “gunboat diplomacy” in a region where U.S. interventions have historically stoked resentment.

    Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Juan Ramón de la Fuente, (left) and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wave during Rubio’s arrival Tuesday in Mexico City for a meeting with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Wednesday.

    (Hector Vivas / Getty Images)

    While Trump said Tuesday’s attack took place in international waters, he has not ruled out strikes inside Mexico, where his administration has designated half a dozen cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. He has pushed for the use of the military against drug smugglers. Trump has reportedly issued a secret order directing the Pentagon to strike at Latin American cartels.

    According to the Trump administration, its ongoing deployment of warships in the southern Caribbean is aimed at deterring drug-trafficking from Venezuela — not toppling the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. U.S. prosecutors have accused Maduro of being a cartel leader, a charge dismissed as propaganda by the Venezuelan leader.

    But the naval buildup in the Caribbean has also raised concerns in Mexico, which is the primary conduit of cocaine, fentanyl and other illicit drugs entering the United States.

    Many observers in Mexico view the designation of cartels as terrorist groups — which the Mexican government vociferously opposed — as providing a possible justification for attacking cartels on Mexican territory.

    The strike in the Caribbean shows “the type of attacks that could be directed to Mexican people and vehicles,” wrote columnist Julio Hernández López in Mexico’s La Jornada newspaper. “One can only hope that the president can avoid as much as possible the political, economic, and even ballistic barrage from Trump and his hawks.”

    Rubio’s first trip to Mexico as secretary of State has long been anticipated in Mexico, where Sheinbaum has been walking a fine line. Mexico’s first woman president, a lifelong leftist, has endeavored to placate Trump on drug-smuggling, tariffs and other contentious issues, while also assuring her nationalist base that she is not caving to U.S. demands.

    Sheinbaum has rebuffed Trump’s offer of direct U.S. military aid to assist Mexico combat cartels. Her decision, according to Trump, was based on her fear of organized crime. Trump has charged that organized crime pervades Mexico’s government, a charge denied by Sheinbaum.

    On Wednesday, when asked about Trump’s assertion that she feared the cartels, Sheinbaum answered in characteristically non-confrontational fashion.

    “It’s not true … but we maintain good relations,” Sheinbaum responded. “We have great respect for the Mexican-United States relationship, and for President Trump.”

    A joint U.S.-Mexico statement on binational cooperation stressed “respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity … as well as mutual trust.” But Mexican commentators pointed out that there was no guarantee that the Trump administration would not strike unilaterally against cartel targets in Mexico.

    The goal, the statement said, “is to work together to dismantle transnational organized crime through enhanced cooperation.”

    Despite rising tensions in U.S.-Mexico relations, Rubio was effusive in his praise of Mexican law enforcement efforts. He cited Mexico’s recent decision to turn over to U.S. prosecutors dozens of jailed suspects wanted in the United States.

    “That’s not an easy thing to do,” Rubio said, appearing at a joint news conference with his Mexican counterpart, Juan Ramón de la Fuente.

    On an issue of particular concern to Mexico — the southbound traffic of arms, including assault weapons, grenade launchers, mines and other military-grade weapons — Rubio said U.S. authorities were determined to “put a stop to it.” He pointed to the danger of drones in the hands of organized crime, “threatening states, threatening security forces.”

    Both diplomats praised the binational efforts that have helped reduce illicit crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border to levels not seen in decades. Mexico has deployed thousands of its troops to its border with the United States. They are tasked with reducing illicit immigration, drug-smuggling and other crimes.

    But Rubio offered little hope to Mexico on another crucial issue: Tariffs. In July, Mexico won a 90-day reprieve on a Trump administration plan to impose 30% tariffs on Mexican imports. Rubio voiced the hopes that ongoing talks between Mexico and the United States could result in a successful trade deal.

    Special correspondent Sánchez Vidal reported from Mexico City and Staff Writer McDonnell from Boston.

    Patrick J. McDonnell, Cecilia Sánchez Vidal

    Source link

  • California lawmakers can’t take lobbyist donations — unless they’re running for Congress

    California lawmakers can’t take lobbyist donations — unless they’re running for Congress

    State Sen. Susan Rubio has a powerful position in Sacramento. As chair of the Insurance Committee, the Baldwin Park Democrat can help pass or kill any legislation affecting that industry.

    Due to a law meant to prevent corruption, Rubio can’t accept campaign donations from insurance lobbyists — or any other lobbyists — as she raises money for her 2026 reelection to the Legislature. State law forbids California lobbyists from donating to the campaigns of state lawmakers.

    But there are no such restrictions on lobbyists donating to campaigns for federal office, even when the candidate is a state lawmaker. So as Rubio runs for Congress this year, she can take donations for her federal campaign from lobbyists who may seek to influence her votes in Sacramento.

    And she is.

    Rubio has received nearly $43,300 in contributions from registered state lobbyists in her campaign to replace retiring Rep. Grace F. Napolitano in California’s 31st Congressional District. It’s a sliver of her overall fundraising as of Feb. 14, but the most lobbyist money of any California lawmaker who is running for federal office. Many of those who donated to Rubio’s congressional campaign represent companies that lobby bills that are heard before committees she sits on as a state legislator, including the Insurance Committee and those that oversee policy related to healthcare, alcohol regulations and energy and utilities.

    Eight state legislators are running for Congress this year. Six have received lobbyist donations, in amounts that vary widely, adding up to $96,090.

    The donations are legal and make up a small portion of the candidates’ overall fundraising. Still, some watchdogs say they should be prohibited because of the risk that lobbyists’ money could shape lawmakers’ decisions in the work they are doing at the state level.

    “It doesn’t mean they’ll vote in their favor, but the possibility that could happen exists,” said Sean McMorris, a program manager at the government watchdog group Common Cause.

    His organization was part of the coalition that 50 years ago introduced California’s Political Reform Act, the law that bans lobbyist donations to state lawmakers.

    Bob Stern, co-author of the law, said the state prohibition was put in place because “legislators were receiving huge amounts from people who were lobbying them, and we thought there should be a disconnect between lobbying and campaign contributions.”

    In practice, Stern said, the prohibition’s impacts were limited, since the companies hiring lobbyists could still give directly to candidates, as can affiliated political action committees.

    But there was “symbolism” to the separation, he said.

    Rubio’s campaign manager, Giovanni Ruiz, said all contributions she had received from individuals were “solely based on mutually respectful relationships,” and she had opposed issues that donors lobbied for in the past.

    Ruiz also noted that Rubio was being massively outspent by her opponent Gil Cisneros, who has put $4 million of his own money into his campaign.

    Silicon Valley congressional candidate Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) received $21,650 from lobbyists, making up 2% of his fundraising. He joined the late-breaking race to replace retiring Rep. Anna G. Eshoo in early December, just months before the March primary.

    State Sen. Dave Min (D-Irvine), who is running to replace Rep. Katie Porter in an Orange County seat, received about $16,500 in lobbyist donations, accounting for 1% of total fundraising since he launched his campaign at the beginning of 2023.

    Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), who is vying to replace Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Los Angeles), received $4,000, and her opponent state Sen. Anthony Portantino (D-Burbank) received $6,500 from lobbyists. Those totals account for less than 1% of each of their fundraising.

    Portantino and Friedman have both been running for the Los Angeles congressional seat for more than a year.

    Central Valley congressional candidate State Sen. Melissa Hurtado (D-Sanger) received about $4,000 from lobbyists — a sum that accounted for 6.1% of her fundraising since she launched her campaign in August 2023.

    Hurtado told The Times that lawmakers should be able to receive those donations but acknowledged that “money has the ability to corrupt people, it’s plain and simple.”

    Since August, Hurtado has raised less than $100,000; she said she is in debt from putting her own money into the race. The only money she doesn’t accept is from the cannabis industry, she told The Times.

    Friedman went further, saying she sees the potential issues would support a law that prevents federal campaigns from accepting money from state lobbyists.

    Friedman noted that her campaign was turning down all corporate PAC money and described that as a far more salient issue in races like hers. She characterized the lobbyist contributions she and her colleagues had received as small compared with the “avalanche of money out there” from clients of the lobbyists.

    Portantino, Low and Min did not respond to requests for comment.

    Two state legislators running for Congress have not received any lobbyist donations: Sen. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera), who is also running for Napolitano’s San Gabriel Valley seat and launched his campaign last summer, and Assemblymember Vince Fong (R-Bakersfield), who is running for former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s vacant Bakersfield seat. Fong launched his campaign in December.

    Because of the limited disclosures required by the state, lobbyists are not required to publicly report which lawmakers they have attempted to influence on various bills, making it difficult to draw direct lines between their lobbying efforts and their donations. But campaign finance and lobbying records show that several of the candidates have received donations from lobbyists who work with companies seeking to influence policy in the areas in which they have power, based on committee positions.

    Sen. Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park) is one of several state lawmakers running for Congress this year

    (Robert Gourley/Los Angeles Times)

    Sacramento lobbyist Mandy Lee gave $3,300, the maximum allowable donation, to Rubio. Her firm represents the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., a major trade group for home, auto and business insurers. The association lobbied on bills heard in the Rubio-chaired Senate Insurance Committee. Lee also donated $500 to Min.

    Rubio’s spokesperson noted that the senator’s relationship with Lee long predated her election to the Legislature.

    Rubio also received $2,000 from lobbyist Paul Gladfelty, whose firm represents the Travelers insurance company.

    “It is not uncommon for state lobbyists to make personal contributions to congressional candidates we know and believe in, which state law allows. Prior to the Senator running for Legislative office, I had the opportunity to establish a personal friendship,” Gladfelty said by text message, adding that his friendship with Rubio “exists regardless of her committee assignments.”

    Lobbyists Soyla Fernández and Kirk Kimmelshue, owners of Fernández Jensen Kimmelshue Government Affairs, both donated to the campaigns of Min and Rubio. Their firm’s client list includes the Regional Water Authority and Northern California Water Association, which both lobbied on bills that were heard in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water that Min chairs.

    Their firm also represents Southern California Edison, which routinely lobbies on bills in the Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee that Min and Rubio both sit on; the Anheuser-Busch beer company that lobbies the committee that regulates alcohol, of which Rubio is a member ; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which lobbies the health committee that Rubio sits on.

    Lobbyist RJ Cervantes, whose clients include trade associations for cryptocurrency and electronic payment companies, gave $3,300 to Low, who serves as co-chair of the Legislative Technology & Innovation Caucus, a group of lawmakers who want to foster a tech-friendly climate in California.

    Cervantes, Kimmelshue, Fernández and Lee did not respond to requests for comment.

    Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School and former president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, saw the situation as less clear cut than Common Cause’s McMorris.

    She didn’t think it was unethical for state lawmakers to accept lobbyist donations to their congressional campaigns, since there was “a very real opening in the law” that allows such donations to federal campaigns.

    “It’s up to the voters to determine if this is something that bothers them,” Levinson said. “My guess is that for most voters, it’s pretty far down on the list.”

    Julia Wick, Anabel Sosa, Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee

    Source link