ReportWire

Tag: Trump

  • Cannabis Industry Startled By Adminstration’s Pardon

    [ad_1]

    Cannabis industry startled by administration’s pardon as major drug kingpins are freed while small businesses struggle for legitimacy.

    The contradictions are stark: on one hand, millions of Americans — roughly 88% — now believe cannabis should be legal for medical or recreational use. On the other, the federal government under Donald J. Trump is granting pardons to major drug-kingpins, effectively undercutting the very legitimacy of drug enforcement — and prolonging the regulatory limbo for the legitimate cannabis industry. The cannabis industry startled by administration’s pardon, and has serious concerns.

    RELATED: Starbucks Brings Back Holiday Customer Favorite

    Recent polling from Pew Research Center (January 2024) shows 88% of U.S. adults believe marijuana should be legal for “medical or recreational use.” 57% support full legalization (medical + recreational).

    • 32% favor medical use only.

    These numbers reflect broad, cross-demographic support: across age groups, political affiliations, and social backgrounds. Yet despite this widespread public backing, federal law continues to treat cannabis as a Schedule I prohibited substance. Meanwhile, many small businesses — the backbone of the legal cannabis economy — remain stuck navigating a patchwork of state laws, banking restrictions, and regulatory uncertainty.

    Photo by Anton Petrus/Getty Images

    The legal cannabis industry in the United States is far from the caricature of drug-lords and illicit syndicates. In many states, it is built on “mom-and-pop,” small-business owners — growers, retailers, and delivery services — operating under state licensing regimes, paying taxes, and striving to meet compliance, safety, and community standards.

    These businesses often invest heavily in compliance: tracking seed-to-sale, adhering to local zoning laws, paying licensing fees, and ensuring product safety. They strive to be transparent and legitimate. Yet they continue to suffer — unable to access traditional banking, facing high regulatory costs, and vulnerable to federal enforcement risk.

    For these entrepreneurs, the inaction at the federal level — combined with aggressive pardons for large-scale traffickers — feels like a double injustice. While “real cannabis” operators play by the rules, the government’s clemency choices tacitly reward those who broke them.

    RELATED: Can Cannabis Or Alcohol Help With Colds

    In 2025, the Trump administration commuted or pardoned several high-profile drug offenders — individuals whose enterprises profited from illicit narcotics trafficking.

    Notably:

    • Juan Orlando Hernández — convicted in 2024 on federal drug-trafficking and weapons charges for enabling the shipment of hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States — received a full and unconditional presidential pardon on December 2, 2025. He had been sentenced to 45 years in prison before his release.
    • Ross Ulbricht — founder of the darknet marketplace Silk Road — received a full and unconditional pardon.
    • Larry Hoover and other convicted dealers were also granted clemency even as the administration publicly reiterated its commitment to a “drug war.”

    This paradox — pardoning convicted traffickers while claiming to crack down on drugs — has drawn sharp criticism. Observers argue it undermines not only the moral basis of drug enforcement, but also public trust in which operations deserve clemency and which don’t.

    The legal cannabis industry is caught in a confusing and often frustrating limbo. Federal policy sends mixed signals: the administration has pardoned high-profile drug kingpins — including international traffickers — while marijuana remains federally illegal. The message is stark: massive illegal dealers are forgiven, while small, law-abiding cannabis businesses continue to face obstacles.

    RELATED: Study Reinforces Marijuana’s Power To Treat PTSD

    Regulatory burdens remain heavy. Even as states embrace legalization, small cannabis operators contend with a maze of state laws, limited access to banking, and steep compliance costs. Without federal support, these businesses must navigate an uncertain legal landscape which limits growth and threatens survival.

    The pardons of major traffickers amplify the sense of hypocrisy. When convicted drug lords are freed while compliant cannabis businesses remain constrained, the government’s commitment to fairness and justice comes into question. The contrast highlights the uneven enforcement continuing to frustrate entrepreneurs who have worked hard to stay on the right side of the law.

    Looking Ahead: Steps to Align Policy and Reality

    For the industry to thrive, federal policy must finally catch up with public opinion:

    • Reclassify or reschedule cannabis so legal operators can run businesses with clarity and confidence under a consistent national framework.
    • Banking reform to provide access to financial services, loans, and basic banking infrastructure for compliant cannabis businesses.
    • Rational clemency and sentencing policies that distinguish between violent traffickers and nonviolent cannabis entrepreneurs, recognizing the huge difference in scale and harm.
    • Congressional action reflecting decades of rising public support and sets a clear path toward legalization.

    Until federal law aligns with the will of the people, the legal cannabis industry — largely composed of small “mom-and-pop” operations — will continue to face unnecessary barriers, even as the administration grants leniency to major traffickers. The result is a system that rewards the wrong actors while holding law-abiding entrepreneurs back.

    [ad_2]

    Terry Hacienda

    Source link

  • Trump Declares That Airspace Around Venezuela Should Be Considered Closed

    [ad_1]

    President Trump on Saturday said that the airspace surrounding Venezuela should be considered closed, ratcheting up tensions with the Maduro regime and offering yet another sign that he is considering striking targets on land. 

    “To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY,” Trump posted on Saturday morning. 

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    Shelby Holliday

    Source link

  • Trump declares Venezuela airspace ‘closed in its entirety’ as tensions with U.S. escalate

    [ad_1]

    The USS Gerald R. Ford is the world’s largest aircraft carrier.

    The USS Gerald R. Ford is the world’s largest aircraft carrier.

    U.S. Navy

    President Donald Trump jolted an already-tense standoff with Venezuela on Saturday morning, declaring on his Truth Social account that all airspace “above and surrounding Venezuela” should be considered “closed in its entirety.”

    Addressing “Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers,” he offered no operational details but warned that the directive required immediate attention. The statement landed amid a rapid escalation in U.S. military posture toward Caracas and mounting fears of conflict across the Caribbean.

    “To all Airlines, Pilots, Drug Dealers, and Human Traffickers, please consider THE AIRSPACE ABOVE AND SURROUNDING VENEZUELA TO BE CLOSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Thank you for your attention to this matter!,” Trump wrote.

    Trump’s declaration capped a week in which his administration signaled it is preparing a more assertive phase of operations targeting Venezuela’s so-called Cartel de los Soles., which according to Washington is headed by strongman Nicolás Maduro and top members of his regime.

    On Thursday, the president announced that U.S. military actions—until now focused on sinking speedboats suspected of carrying drugs in the Caribbean—would soon move onto Venezuelan territory. Speaking to service members during a Thanksgiving call, he said the U.S. Armed Forces would “very soon” begin land-based efforts to disrupt what he characterized as Venezuelan drug-trafficking networks.

    Members of the US Marine Corps, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 225, work at José Aponte de la Torre Airport, formerly Roosevelt Roads Naval Station, on September 13, 2025 in Ceiba, Puerto Rico. President Donald Trump is sending ten F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico as part of his war on drug cartels, sources familiar with the matter told AFP on September 5, as tensions mount with Venezuela over Washington's military build-up in the Caribbean. The planes will join US warships already deployed to the southern Caribbean as Trump steps up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, whom the United States accuses of leading a drug cartel. The Trump administration recently carried out a drone strike in the southern Caribbean against a boat that had left Venezuela and was suspected of transporting drugs. Eleven people died in the attack. The president claimed that the vessel was operated by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. (Photo by Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo / AFP) (Photo by MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO/AFP via Getty Images)
    Members of the U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 225, work at Jose Aponte de la Torre Airport on Sept. 13, 2025 in Ceiba, Puerto Rico. President Donald Trump was sending 10 F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico as part of his war on drug cartels, sources familiar with the matter told AFP, as tensions mount with Venezuela over Washington’s military build-up in the Caribbean. MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO AFP via Getty Images

    He said maritime operations had already destroyed more than 20 vessels and resulted in more than 80 deaths since Sept. 1, claiming the United States had halted “85%” of the maritime flow. Venezuelan groups, he said, were “sending poison” northward that kills “thousands of people a year.”

    Despite the sharper rhetoric and growing U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean, quiet diplomatic contacts have taken place between Washington and Caracas in recent days, according to news reports. Whether those conversations can restrain the accelerating confrontation remains unclear.

    Washington has simultaneously sought to expand its legal authority. On Monday, the State Department formally designated the Cartel de los Soles a Foreign Terrorist Organization, placing Maduro, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López in the same legal category as leaders of al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    The designation, published in the Federal Register, is seen as an instrument that grants the administration new latitude to take military action without additional congressional approval.

    Analysts say the move is sweeping in scope. Because U.S. officials argue that the cartel operates from within the Venezuelan state, the designation effectively treats the Maduro government as part of a terrorist network.

    Experts note the measure could allow the administration to invoke the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the law underpinning most U.S. counterterrorism operations over the past two decades. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the designation “opens up a lot of new options,” and Trump has suggested it could permit strikes on Venezuelan assets and infrastructure. He has also said he remains open to negotiation.

    Caracas denounced the move, calling it a false pretext for foreign intervention and insisting the cartel is an American invention. “It is foolish for the Venezuelan government to waste part of its valuable governing time responding to these slanders and calumnies,” the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry said Monday, adding that Venezuelans remained “united and cohesive” and were preparing for Christmas festivities.

    The expanding U.S. legal framework has coincided with a significant buildup of military hardware near Venezuela’s borders. For more than two months, American naval and air assets have surged into the Caribbean, including the Nov. 16 arrival of the USS Gerald R. Ford—the world’s largest aircraft carrier. At least 10 additional warships, a nuclear submarine and F-35 fighter jets are also deployed. U.S. commanders say the missions support counter-narcotics operations, but regional observers note the level of firepower far exceeds typical interdiction activity.

    Inside Venezuela, the sense of crisis has deepened. Maduro has repeatedly claimed the United States is attempting to overthrow him, and in recent days his government has urged citizens and the armed forces to prepare for “prolonged resistance” should an invasion occur.

    Defense Minister Padrino accused Washington of staging provocations, citing U.S. military exercises in neighboring Trinidad and Tobago. “No threat, no air-naval deployment, however powerful or intimidating, can take away Venezuela’s right to continue on its path of freedom and independence,” he said recently on state television.

    Beyond the military realm, the rising tension has triggered swift regional consequences. Concerned about the security situation in the Caribbean, six airlines suspended their routes to Venezuela over the weekend after the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a warning urging aircraft to “exercise extreme caution” in and around Venezuelan airspace. Iberia of Spain, Portugal’s TAP, Colombia’s Avianca, Trinidad and Tobago’s Caribbean Airlines, Brazil’s GOL and Chile’s LATAM halted flights, said Marisela de Loaiza, president of the Venezuelan Association of Airlines. She provided no timeline for the resumption of service.

    The FAA cited “worsening security conditions and increased military activity” in the region and warned that the risks “could pose a potential danger to aircraft at all altitudes, including during overflight, arrival and departure phases, and to airports and aircraft on the ground.”

    Human-rights groups have raised alarms over the lethality of recent U.S. maritime interdictions. Since early September, U.S. forces have carried out at least 21 strikes against suspected drug-trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, leaving at least 83 people dead. Advocacy organizations describe the killings as extrajudicial, while some regional governments worry Washington may be operating close to—or beyond—international legal boundaries.

    This story was originally published November 29, 2025 at 9:50 AM.

    Antonio Maria Delgado

    el Nuevo Herald

    Galardonado periodista con más de 30 años de experiencia, especializado en la cobertura de temas sobre Venezuela. Amante de la historia y la literatura.

    [ad_2]

    Antonio María Delgado

    Source link

  • US halts all asylum claims after National Guard shootings: What to know

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration has ordered an immediate halt to all asylum decisions nationwide following a fatal shooting near the White House that left a National Guard member dead and another critically injured.

    Joseph Edlow, Director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), announced late Friday that the agency was pausing all asylum decisions “until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.”

    Officers have been instructed not to approve, deny, or close any asylum application for any nationality, although work on applications can continue up to but not including approval or denial, according to Reuters.

    Newsweek contacted the White House and the USCIS via email for comment outside of regular business hours.

    Loading twitter content…

    Why It Matters

    The asylum freeze marks a significant escalation in Trump’s second-term campaign to restrict both legal and unauthorized immigration, setting up likely legal battles and affecting thousands of awaiting asylum decisions.

    It comes as the US faces scrutiny at home and abroad over its obligations to international asylum and refugee agreements, and underscores the administration’s claim to prioritize national security in the wake of violent incidents involving migrants.

    What To Know

    The USCIS’s latest announcement follows a double shooting that took place near the White House on Wednesday, resulting in the death of specialist Sarah Beckstrom, a 20-year-old member of the West Virginia National Guard.

    The second target, staff sergeant Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains in a critical condition.

    Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the suspect, had entered the US in 2021 through Operation Allies Welcome, a program for Afghans who aided US military forces after having worked with the CIA during the Afghanistan War, according to The Associated Press.

    His asylum was granted earlier this year under the Trump administration, according to a group that assists with the resettlement of Afghans who helped the U.S. in the region, AP reported.

    This is a developing story. More to follow.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump to Pardon Honduran Ex-President Serving 45-Year Drug Sentence

    [ad_1]

    Planned pardon of Hernández, convicted for cocaine trafficking, comes before the country’s election.

    [ad_2]

    José de Córdoba

    Source link

  • Trump announces death of National Guard member after shooting, ramps up scrutiny of refugees

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump announced the death of one National Guard member on Thanksgiving and said another is still “fighting for his life.” Police say both soldiers were shot while on patrol down the street from the White House on Wednesday. Trump announced the death of Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, a 20-year-old from West Virginia, during a call with troops on Thursday night. The White House says the president spoke with Beckstrom’s parents later that evening.”She was savagely attacked. She’s dead, not with us. An incredible person, outstanding in every single way, in every department. It’s horrible,” Trump said on the call with troops. The charges against the alleged shooter are now expected to be upgraded to first-degree murder. The Justice Department has also suggested that it will seek the death penalty. “The death penalty is back,” Attorney General Pam Bondi posted Thursday night. FBI Director Kash Patel said the shooting is also being investigated as an act of terrorism. Authorities say Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, were shot in a targeted attack, although a motive has not been revealed. The alleged shooter has been identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old from Afghanistan. “What we know about him is that he drove his vehicle across the country from the state of Washington with the intended target of coming to our nation’s capital,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said at a press conference on Thursday morning.The Associated Press reports that Lakanwal was approved for asylum under the Trump administration, but officials say he first entered the country through a Biden administration resettlement program after the U.S. withdrew from the war in Afghanistan. Before arriving in America, Lakanwal worked with the CIA, according to John Ratcliffe, the spy agency’s director. Ratcliffe said the relationship ended shortly after the evacuation of U.S. service members.”We are fully investigating that aspect of his background as well to include any known associates that are either overseas or here in the United States of America,” FBI Director Kash Patel said Thursday. Asked about the CIA connection and the screening procedures involved with that, President Trump continued to insist that the alleged shooter entered the U.S. unvetted.”He went nuts,” Trump said. “It happens too often with these people.”In a statement, the group #AfghanEvac, which assists with the resettlement process, said Afghan immigrants and wartime allies “undergo some of the most extensive security vetting of any population entering the country.” “This individual’s isolated and violent act should not be used as an excuse to define or diminish an entire community,” #AfghanEvac president Shawn VanDiver said. After the shooting, Trump said his administration would be reviewing every Afghan who entered the country under the Biden administration. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has indefinitely paused processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals, “pending further review of security and vetting protocols.” On Thursday, USCIS also said there would be “a full-scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern.” Additionally, the agency released new guidance outlining new vetting standards for prospective immigrants from “19 high-risk countries.”Meanwhile, Trump ramped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric in a social media post just before midnight Thursday, promising to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover.”Trump said he would terminate what he described as illegal admissions under the Biden administration, end all federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens, and “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility.” “HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for — You won’t be here for long,” Trump said.

    President Donald Trump announced the death of one National Guard member on Thanksgiving and said another is still “fighting for his life.” Police say both soldiers were shot while on patrol down the street from the White House on Wednesday.

    Trump announced the death of Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, a 20-year-old from West Virginia, during a call with troops on Thursday night. The White House says the president spoke with Beckstrom’s parents later that evening.

    “She was savagely attacked. She’s dead, not with us. An incredible person, outstanding in every single way, in every department. It’s horrible,” Trump said on the call with troops.

    The charges against the alleged shooter are now expected to be upgraded to first-degree murder. The Justice Department has also suggested that it will seek the death penalty.

    “The death penalty is back,” Attorney General Pam Bondi posted Thursday night.

    FBI Director Kash Patel said the shooting is also being investigated as an act of terrorism.

    Authorities say Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, were shot in a targeted attack, although a motive has not been revealed.

    The alleged shooter has been identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old from Afghanistan.

    “What we know about him is that he drove his vehicle across the country from the state of Washington with the intended target of coming to our nation’s capital,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said at a press conference on Thursday morning.

    The Associated Press reports that Lakanwal was approved for asylum under the Trump administration, but officials say he first entered the country through a Biden administration resettlement program after the U.S. withdrew from the war in Afghanistan.

    Before arriving in America, Lakanwal worked with the CIA, according to John Ratcliffe, the spy agency’s director. Ratcliffe said the relationship ended shortly after the evacuation of U.S. service members.

    “We are fully investigating that aspect of his background as well to include any known associates that are either overseas or here in the United States of America,” FBI Director Kash Patel said Thursday.

    Asked about the CIA connection and the screening procedures involved with that, President Trump continued to insist that the alleged shooter entered the U.S. unvetted.

    “He went nuts,” Trump said. “It happens too often with these people.”

    In a statement, the group #AfghanEvac, which assists with the resettlement process, said Afghan immigrants and wartime allies “undergo some of the most extensive security vetting of any population entering the country.”

    “This individual’s isolated and violent act should not be used as an excuse to define or diminish an entire community,” #AfghanEvac president Shawn VanDiver said.

    After the shooting, Trump said his administration would be reviewing every Afghan who entered the country under the Biden administration. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has indefinitely paused processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals, “pending further review of security and vetting protocols.”

    On Thursday, USCIS also said there would be “a full-scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern.” Additionally, the agency released new guidance outlining new vetting standards for prospective immigrants from “19 high-risk countries.”

    Meanwhile, Trump ramped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric in a social media post just before midnight Thursday, promising to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover.”

    Trump said he would terminate what he described as illegal admissions under the Biden administration, end all federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens, and “denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility.”

    “HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for — You won’t be here for long,” Trump said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump: US land action against alleged drug-trafficking networks in Venezuela will start ‘very soon’

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump suggested Thursday that the United States is preparing to take new action against alleged drug trafficking networks in Venezuela, telling service members during a Thanksgiving call that efforts for strikes in land will be starting “very soon.””In recent weeks, you’ve been working to deter Venezuelan drug traffickers, of which there are many. Of course, there aren’t too many coming in by sea anymore,” Trump told service members in the call.Video above: Foreign Terrorist Org: How a new designation could escalate U.S. military action in Venezuela”You probably noticed that people aren’t wanting to be delivering by sea, and we’ll be starting to stop them by land also,” the president continued. “The land is easier, but that’s going to start very soon.”We warn them: Stop sending poison to our country,” Trump added.Trump comments suggest he has made up his mind on a course of action in Venezuela following multiple high-level briefings and a mounting US show of force in the region earlier this month.Trump designated Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his government allies as members of a foreign terrorist organization earlier this week.The designation of “Cartel de los Soles,” a phrase that experts say is more a description of allegedly corrupt government officials than an organized crime group, as a foreign terrorist organization will authorize Trump to impose fresh sanctions targeting Maduro’s assets and infrastructure. It doesn’t, however, explicitly authorize the use of lethal force, according to legal experts.The US military has amassed more than a dozen warships and 15,000 troops in the region as part of what the Pentagon has branded “Operation Southern Spear.” The U.S. military has killed more than 80 people in boat strikes as part of the anti-drug-trafficking campaign.CNN reported earlier this month that Trump administration officials told lawmakers in a classified session the US was not planning to launch strikes inside Venezuela and doesn’t have a legal justification that would support attacks against any land targets right now.Lawmakers were told during the session that an opinion produced by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to justify strikes against suspected drug boats does not permit strikes inside Venezuela itself or any other territories, four sources said.The officials did not rule out any potential future actions, one of the sources said.The administration has largely tried to avoid involving Congress in its military campaign around Latin America. A senior Justice Department official told Congress in November that the U.S. military could continue its lethal strikes on alleged drug traffickers without congressional approval and that the administration is not bound by a decades-old war powers law that would mandate working with lawmakers, CNN has reported.

    President Donald Trump suggested Thursday that the United States is preparing to take new action against alleged drug trafficking networks in Venezuela, telling service members during a Thanksgiving call that efforts for strikes in land will be starting “very soon.”

    “In recent weeks, you’ve been working to deter Venezuelan drug traffickers, of which there are many. Of course, there aren’t too many coming in by sea anymore,” Trump told service members in the call.

    Video above: Foreign Terrorist Org: How a new designation could escalate U.S. military action in Venezuela

    “You probably noticed that people aren’t wanting to be delivering by sea, and we’ll be starting to stop them by land also,” the president continued. “The land is easier, but that’s going to start very soon.

    “We warn them: Stop sending poison to our country,” Trump added.

    Trump comments suggest he has made up his mind on a course of action in Venezuela following multiple high-level briefings and a mounting US show of force in the region earlier this month.

    Trump designated Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his government allies as members of a foreign terrorist organization earlier this week.

    The designation of “Cartel de los Soles,” a phrase that experts say is more a description of allegedly corrupt government officials than an organized crime group, as a foreign terrorist organization will authorize Trump to impose fresh sanctions targeting Maduro’s assets and infrastructure. It doesn’t, however, explicitly authorize the use of lethal force, according to legal experts.

    The US military has amassed more than a dozen warships and 15,000 troops in the region as part of what the Pentagon has branded “Operation Southern Spear.” The U.S. military has killed more than 80 people in boat strikes as part of the anti-drug-trafficking campaign.

    CNN reported earlier this month that Trump administration officials told lawmakers in a classified session the US was not planning to launch strikes inside Venezuela and doesn’t have a legal justification that would support attacks against any land targets right now.

    Lawmakers were told during the session that an opinion produced by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to justify strikes against suspected drug boats does not permit strikes inside Venezuela itself or any other territories, four sources said.

    The officials did not rule out any potential future actions, one of the sources said.

    The administration has largely tried to avoid involving Congress in its military campaign around Latin America. A senior Justice Department official told Congress in November that the U.S. military could continue its lethal strikes on alleged drug traffickers without congressional approval and that the administration is not bound by a decades-old war powers law that would mandate working with lawmakers, CNN has reported.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Where Trump Sees Deals, Russia and China See a Chance to Disrupt U.S. Alliances

    [ad_1]

    U.S. adversaries are using President Trump’s eagerness to strike deals as a chance to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its allies and undermine the Washington-led security order that has for years held them in check.

    In Europe, Russia is seeking to exploit Trump’s desire to halt the war in Ukraine and strike business deals with Moscow by shaping a peace plan that meets many of its strategic objectives, including winning chunks of Ukrainian territory and closing off any hope Kyiv had of joining NATO.

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    Jason Douglas

    Source link

  • Prosecutor dismisses charges against Trump and others in Georgia election interference case

    [ad_1]

    The prosecutor who recently took over the Georgia election interference case against President Donald Trump and others said in a court filing Wednesday that he has decided not to pursue the case further.Pete Skandalakis, the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, took over the case last month from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who was removed over an “appearance of impropriety” created by a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she chose to lead the case.After Skandalakis’ filing, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued a one-paragraph order dismissing the case in its entirety.It was unlikely that legal action against Trump could have moved forward while he is president. But 14 other defendants still faced charges, including former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.After the Georgia Supreme Court in September declined to hear Willis’ appeal of her disqualification, it fell to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council to find a new prosecutor. Skandalakis said last month that he reached out to several prosecutors, but they all declined to take on the case. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee set a Nov. 14 deadline for the appointment of a new prosecutor, so Skandalakis chose to appoint himself rather than allowing the case to be dismissed.

    The prosecutor who recently took over the Georgia election interference case against President Donald Trump and others said in a court filing Wednesday that he has decided not to pursue the case further.

    Pete Skandalakis, the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, took over the case last month from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who was removed over an “appearance of impropriety” created by a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she chose to lead the case.

    After Skandalakis’ filing, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued a one-paragraph order dismissing the case in its entirety.

    It was unlikely that legal action against Trump could have moved forward while he is president. But 14 other defendants still faced charges, including former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

    After the Georgia Supreme Court in September declined to hear Willis’ appeal of her disqualification, it fell to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council to find a new prosecutor. Skandalakis said last month that he reached out to several prosecutors, but they all declined to take on the case. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee set a Nov. 14 deadline for the appointment of a new prosecutor, so Skandalakis chose to appoint himself rather than allowing the case to be dismissed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Californians sharply divided along partisan lines about immigration raids, poll finds

    [ad_1]

    California voters are sharply divided along partisan lines over the Trump administration’s immigration raids this year in Los Angeles and across the nation, according to a new poll.

    Just over half of the state’s registered voters oppose federal efforts to reduce undocumented immigration, and 61% are against deporting everyone in the nation who doesn’t have legal status, according to a recent poll by UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab released to The Times on Wednesday.

    But there is an acute difference in opinions based on political leanings.

    Nearly 80% of Democrats oppose reducing the number of people entering the United States illegally, and 90% are against deporting everyone in the country who is undocumented, according to the poll. Among Republicans, 5% are against reducing the entries and 10% don’t believe all undocumented immigrants should be forced to leave.

    “The big thing that we find, not surprisingly, is that Democrats and Republicans look really different,” said political scientist Amy Lerman, director of UC Berkeley’s Possibility Lab, who studies race, public opinion and political behavior. “On these perspectives, they fall pretty clearly along party lines. While there’s some variation within the parties by things like age and race, really, the big divide is between Democrats and Republicans.”

    While there were some differences based on gender, age, income, geography and race, the results largely mirrored the partisan divide in the state, Lerman said.

    One remarkable finding was that nearly a quarter of survey respondents personally knew or were acquainted with someone in their family or friend groups directly affected by the deportation efforts, Lerman said.

    “That’s a really substantial proportion,” she said. “Similarly, the extent to which we see people reporting that people in their communities are concerned enough about deportation efforts that they’re not sending their kids to school, not shopping in local stores, not going to work,” not seeking medical care or attending church services.

    The poll surveyed a sample of the state’s registered voters and did not include the sentiments of the most affected communities — unregistered voters or those who are ineligible to cast ballots because they are not citizens.

    A little more than 23 million of California’s 39.5 million residents were registered to vote as of late October, according to the secretary of state’s office.

    “So if we think about the California population generally, this is a really significant underestimate of the effects, even though we’re seeing really substantial effects on communities,” she said.

    Earlier this year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched a series of raids in Los Angeles and surrounding communities that spiked in June, creating both fear and outrage in Latino communities. Despite opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other elected Democrats, the Trump administration also deployed the National Guard to the streets of the nation’s second-largest city to, federal officials said, protect federal immigration officials.

    The months since have been chaotic, with masked, armed agents randomly pulling people — most of whom are Latino — off the streets and out of their workplaces and sending many to detention facilities, where some have died. Some deportees were flown to an El Salvador prison. Multiple lawsuits have been filed by state officials and civil rights groups.

    In one notable local case, a federal district judge issued a ruling temporarily blocking federal agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate immigration arrests in the Los Angeles area. The Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal and lifted that order, while the case moves forward.

    More than 7,100 undocumented immigrants have been arrested in the Los Angeles area by federal authorities since June 6, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

    On Monday, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), Bass and other elected officials hosted a congressional hearing on the impact of immigration raids that have taken place across the country. Garcia, the top Democrat on the House’s oversight committee, also announced the creation of a tracker to document misconduct and abuse during ICE raids.

    While Republican voters largely aligned with Trump’s actions on deportations, 16% said that they believed that the deportations will worsen the state’s economy.

    Lerman said the university planned to study whether these numbers changed as the impacts on the economy are felt more greatly.

    “If it continues to affect people, particularly, as we see really high rates of effects on the workforce, so construction, agriculture, all of the places where we’re as an economy really reliant [on immigrant labor], I can imagine some of these starting to shift even among Republicans,” she said.

    Among Latinos, whose support of Trump grew in the 2024 election, there are multiple indications of growing dissatisfaction with the president, according to separate national polls.

    Nearly eight in 10 Latinos said Trump’s policies have harmed their community, compared to 69% in 2019 during his first term, according to a national poll of adults in the United States released by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center on Monday. About 71% said the administration’s deportation efforts had gone too far, an increase from 56% in March. And it was the first time in the two decades that Pew has conducted its survey of Latino voters that the number of Latinos who said their standing in the United States had worsened increased, with more than two-thirds expressing the sentiment.

    Another poll released earlier this month by Somos Votantes, a liberal group that urges Latino voters to support Democratic candidates, found that one-third of Latino voters who previously supported Trump rue their decision, according to a national poll.

    Small business owner Brian Gavidia is among the Latino voters who supported Trump in November because of financial struggles.

    “I was tired of struggling, I was tired of seeing my friends closing businesses,” the 30-year-old said. “When [President] Biden ran again I’m like, ‘I’m not going to vote for the same four years we just had’ … I was sad and I was heartbroken that our economy was failing and that’s the reason why I went that way.”

    The East L.A. native, the son of immigrants from Colombia and El Salvador, said he wasn’t concerned about Trump’s immigration policies because the president promised to deport the “worst of the worst.”

    He grew disgusted watching the raids that unfolded in Los Angeles earlier this year.

    “They’re taking fruit vendors, day laborers, that’s the worst of the worst to you?” he remembered thinking.

    Over a lunch of asada tortas and horchata in East L.A., Gavidia recounted being detained by Border Patrol agents in June while working at a Montebello tow yard. Agents shoved him against a metal gate, demanding to know what hospital he was born at after he said he was an American citizen, according to video of the incident.

    After reviewing his ID, the agents eventually let Gavidia go. The Department of Homeland Security later claimed that Gavidia was detained for investigation for interference and released after being confirmed to be a U.S. citizen with no outstanding warrants. He is now a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and immigrant advocacy groups alleging racial profiling during immigration raids.

    “At that moment, I was the criminal, at that moment I was the worst of the worst, which is crazy because I went to go see who they were getting — the worst of the worst like they said they were going to get,” Gavidia said. “But turns out when I got there, I was the worst of the worst.”

    [ad_2]

    Seema Mehta, Brittny Mejia

    Source link

  • Commentary: California’s first partner pushes to regulate AI while Trump and tech bros thunder forward

    [ad_1]

    California First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom recently convened a meeting that might rank among the top sweat-inducing nightmare scenarios for Silicon Valley’s tech bros — a group of the Golden State’s smartest, most powerful women brainstorming ways to regulate artificial intelligence.

    Regulation is the last thing this particular California-dominated industry wants, and it’s spent a lot of cash at both the state and federal capitols to avoid it — including funding President Trump’s new ballroom. Regulation by a bunch of ladies, many mothers, with profit a distant second to our kids when it comes to concerns?

    I’ll let you figure out how popular that is likely be with the Elon Musks, Peter Thiels and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

    But as Siebel Newsom said, “If a platform reaches a child, it carries a responsibility to protect that child. Period. Our children’s safety can never be second to the bottom line.”

    Agreed.

    Siebel Newsom’s push for California to do more to regulate AI comes at the same time that Trump is threatening to stop states from overseeing the technology — and is ramping up a national effort that will open America’s coffers to AI moguls for decades to come.

    Right now, the U.S. is facing its own nightmare scenario: the most powerful and world-changing technology we have seen in our lifetimes being developed and unleashed under almost no rules or restraints other than those chosen by the men who seek personal benefit from the outcome.

    To put it simply, the plan right now seems to be that these tech barons will change the world as they see fit to make money for themselves, and we as taxpayers will pay them to do it.

    “When decisions are mainly driven by power and profit instead of care and responsibility, we completely lose our way, and given the current alignment between tech titans and the federal administration, I believe we have lost our way,” Siebel Newsom said.

    To recap what the way has been so far, Trump recently tried to sneak a 10-year ban on the ability of states to oversee the industry into his ridiculously named “Big Beautiful Bill,” but it was pulled out by a bipartisan group in the Senate — an early indicator of how inflammatory this issue is.

    Faced with that unexpected blockade, Trump has threatened to sign a mysterious executive order crippling states’ ability to regulate AI and attempting to withhold funds from those that try.

    Simultaneously, the most craven and cowardly among Republican congresspeople have suggested adding a 10-year ban to the upcoming defense policy bill that will almost certainly pass. Of course, Congress has also declined to move forward on any meaningful federal regulations itself, while technology CEOs including Trump frenemy Musk, Apple’s Tim Cook, Meta’s Zuckerberg and many others chum it up at fancy events inside the White House.

    Which may be why this week, Trump announced the “Genesis Mission,” an executive order that seemingly will take the unimaginable vastness of government research efforts across disciplines and dump them into some kind of AI model that will “revolutionize the way scientific research is conducted.

    While I am sure that nothing could possibly go wrong in that scenario, that’s not actually the part that is immediately alarming. This is: The project will be overseen by Trump science and technology policy advisor Michael Kratsios, who holds no science or engineering degrees but was formerly a top executive for Thiel and former head of another AI company that works on warfare-related projects with the Pentagon.

    Kratsios is considered one of the main reasons Trump has embraced the tech bros with such adoration in his second term. Genesis will almost certainly mean huge government contracts for these private-sector “partners,” fueling the AI boom (or bubble) with taxpayer dollars.

    Siebel Newsom’s message in the face of all this is that we are not helpless — and California, as the home of many of these companies and the world’s fourth-largest economy in its own right, should have a say in how this technology advances, and make sure it does so in a way that benefits and protects us all.

    “California is uniquely positioned to lead the effort in showing innovation and responsibility and how they can go hand in hand,” she said. “I’ve always believed that stronger guardrails are actually good for business over the long term. Safer tech means better outcomes for consumers and greater consumer trust and loyalty.”

    But the pressure to cave under the might of these companies is intense, as Siebel Newsom’s husband knows.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has spent the last few years trying to thread the needle on state legislation that offers some sort of oversight while allowing for the innovation that rightly keeps California and the United States competitive on the global front. The tech industry has spent millions in lobbying, legal fights and pressure campaigns to water down even the most benign of efforts, even threatening to leave the state if rules are enacted.

    Last year, the industry unsuccessfully tried to stop Senate Bill 53, landmark legislation signed by Newsom. It’s a basic transparency measure on “frontier” AI models that requires companies to have safety and security protocols and report known “catastrophic” risks, such as when these models show tendencies toward behavior that could kill more than 50 people — which they have, believe it or not.

    But the industry was able to stop other efforts. Newsom vetoed both Senate Bill 7, which would have required employers to notify workers when using AI in hiring and promotions; and Assembly Bill 1064, which would have barred companion chatbot operators from making these AI systems available to minors if they couldn’t prove they wouldn’t do things like encourage kids to self-harm, which again, these chatbots have done.

    Still, California (along with New York and a few other states) has pushed forward, and speaking at Siebel Newsom’s event, the governor said that last session, “we took a number of at-bats at this and we made tremendous progress.”

    He promised more.

    “We have agency. We can shape the future,” he said. “We have a unique responsibility as it relates to these tools of technology, because, well, this is the center of that universe.”

    If Newsom does keep pushing forward, it will be in no small part because of Siebel Newsom, and women like her, who keep the counter-pressure on.

    In fact, it was another powerful mom, First Lady Melania Trump, who forced the federal government into a tiny bit of action this year when she championed the “Take It Down Act, which requires tech companies to quickly remove nonconsensual explicit images. I sincerely doubt her husband would have signed that particular bill without her urging.

    So, if we are lucky, the efforts of women like Siebel Newsom may turn out to be the bit of powerful sanity needed to put a check on the world-domination fantasies of the broligarchy.

    Because tech bros are not yet all-powerful, despite their best efforts, and certainly not yet immune to the power of moms.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Opinion | The Truth About the War in Sudan

    [ad_1]

    Khartoum, Sudan

    Sudan is a country with a long memory: Our history stretches back to the biblical Kingdom of Kush, one of Africa’s greatest civilizations. The war now waged by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militia is unlike anything we’ve ever faced. It is tearing the fabric of our society, uprooting millions, and placing the entire region at risk. Even so, Sudanese look to allies in the region and in Washington with hope. Sudan is fighting not only for its survival, but for a just peace that can only be achieved with the support of partners who recognize the truth of how the war began and what is required to end it.

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    Abdel Fattah al-Burhan

    Source link

  • US military could cut ties with Scouts

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Military could be preparing to sever ties with the Scouts, according to a leaked Pentagon memo. 

    U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wants to bring an end to the centuries-old partnership between the military and Scouting America because he believes the organization has developed a tendency to “attack boy-friendly spaces,” according to documents reportedly seen by NPR.

    A Department of Defense official told NPR the Pentagon would not comment on “leaked documents that we cannot authenticate and that may be predecisional.” Newsweek contacted the U.S. Department of Defense for further comment via email.  

    Why It Matters

    The U.S. military’s relationship with Scouting America (formerly Boy Scouts of America) is a long-standing association that has influenced youth leadership training and military recruitment. 

    The possible break stems from new policy directions within both organizations relating to inclusion, diversity, and shifting values, raising questions about the military’s approach to civic engagement and youth development at a time when both national security considerations and recruitment remain top priorities. 

    What To Know

    Documents obtained and reviewed by NPR indicate that Hegseth is advancing plans to end all Defense Department ties with Scouting America, citing misalignment with traditional military values.

    In a draft memo to Congress, not yet sent, Hegseth is reported to have criticized Scouting America for becoming “genderless” and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, arguing that Scouting America has shifted away from a “meritocracy which holds its members accountable to meet high standards.”

    The Department of Defense has supported the Scouts in various ways since formalizing assistance in 1937, including providing medical and logistical aid to the National Jamboree and allowing Scouts to meet on military installations. 

    However, under Hegseth’s proposal, these supports—along with recruitment advantages for Eagle Scouts and the use of military resources at Scouting events—would end.

    The draft documents reveal concerns about the Jamboree, which attracts up to 20,000 scouts to a remote Virginia site, suggesting that sending personnel and equipment to support it would divert resources from border operations and protecting U.S. territory at a time of international security challenges and limited budgets. 

    A source familiar with the Pentagon documents told NPR the memo was prepared to notify Congress but stressed it had not yet been formally delivered. 

    What People Are Saying

    Scouting America said: “Scouting is and has always been a nonpartisan organization…Over more than a century, we’ve worked constructively with every U.S. presidential administration—Democratic and Republican—focusing on our common goal of building future leaders grounded in integrity, responsibility, and community service.” 

    Retired Army Staff Sergeant Kenny Green, a military parent of three Scouts who has relocated many times as a result of his work, told NPR: “We went from Louisiana to Alaska. From Alaska to Germany. From Germany to Texas…At every military base, there was a Scout troop that could help ease the transition to a new home…I can’t even say how vast their benefits are, especially for military families.” 

    Criticism of the proposed cut also comes from within the Pentagon. Navy Secretary John Phelan said in a memo viewed by NPR: “Passive support to Scouting America through access to military installations and educational opportunities serves as a crucial recruiting and community engagement tool for the [Navy]…Prohibition of access could be detrimental to recruitment and accession efforts across the department.”

    President Donald Trump, speaking at the 2017 Jamboree, previously lauded the Scouts, saying: “The United States has no better citizens than its Boy Scouts. No better.” 

    What Happens Next

    The move could disrupt not only the Scouts’ annual Jamboree but the broader pipeline of service-minded youth entering the U.S. armed forces. Planning for next summer’s Jamboree continues, but without clarity—uncertainty hangs over whether military support and access to installations will persist or cease by directive.

    The Pentagon said it is reviewing all partnerships to ensure they “align with the president’s agenda and advance our mission.”

    Congress could weigh in, given its legislative oversight and the statutory requirements around military support for scouting events.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is the U.S. invading Venezuela? Or trying to make a deal?

    [ad_1]

    On the face of it, the United States appears closer than ever to mounting a military campaign to remove President Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela.

    President Trump says he has authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations inside the Caribbean nation, and has massed troops, fighter jets and warships just off its coastline.

    U.S. service members in the region have been barred from taking Thanksgiving leave. Airlines have canceled flights to Venezuela after the Federal Aviation Administration warned of a “potentially hazardous situation” there. And on Monday the White House officially designated Maduro as a member of an international terrorist group.

    In Caracas, the nation’s capital, there is a palpable sense of anxiety, especially as each new bellicose pronouncement emerges from Washington.

    “People are very tense,” said Rosa María López, 47, a podiatrist and mother of two. “Although no one says anything because they are afraid.”

    Traffic is sparse at the Simon Bolivar Maiquetia International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, on Sunday after several international airlines canceled flights following a warning from the Federal Aviation Administration about a hazardous situation in Venezuelan airspace.

    (Ariana Cubillos / Associated Press)

    Trump has been presented with a set of military options by the Pentagon, a source familiar with the matter told The Times, and is said to be weighing his options. Still, his plans for Venezuela remain opaque.

    Trump, even while warning of a possible military action, has also continually floated the possibility of negotiations, saying he “probably would talk” to Maduro at some point.

    “I don’t rule out anything,” Trump said last week.

    Now people in both the U.S. and Venezuela are wondering: is the U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean the prelude to an invasion, or a bluff intended to pressure Maduro to make a deal?

    There are members of the White House — especially Secretary of State Marco Rubio — who are desperate to unseat Maduro, a leftist autocrat whom the U.S. does not recognize as Venezuela’s legitimately elected president.

    But other members of Trump’s team seem more intent on securing access to Venezuela’s oil riches, and keeping them from China and Russia, than pushing for regime change. Parties of that camp might be willing to accept a deal with Venezuela that does not call for Maduro’s exit and a plan for a democratic transition.

    Months of U.S. saber-rattling without any direct military action against the Maduro government may be weakening the Americans’ negotiating position, said Geoff Ramsey, a Venezuela expert at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based research group. “There is a psychological component to this operation, and it’s starting to lose its credibility,” he said. “I do fear that the regime thinks that it has weathered the worst of U.S. pressure.”

    Maduro, for his part, insists he is open to dialogue. “Whoever in the U.S. wants to talk with Venezuela can do so,” he said this week. “We cannot allow the bombing and massacre of a Christian people — the people of Venezuela.”

    Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro speaks at the Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas.

    Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, speaking Friday at the presidential palace in Caracas, has insisted he is open to dialogue with the United States.

    (Cristian Hernandez / Associated Press)

    For years, he has refused efforts to force him from office, even in the face of punishing U.S. sanctions, domestic protests against his rule and various offensives during the first Trump administration that Caracas deemed as coup attempts. Experts say there is no evidence that Trump’s buildup of troops — or his attacks on alleged drug traffickers off of Venezuela’s coast — has weakened Maduro’s support amid the military or other hard-core backers.

    Venezuela, meanwhile, has sought to use the prospect of a U.S. invasion to bolster support at home.

    On Monday, top officials here took aim at the State Department’s designation of an alleged Venezuelan drug cartel as a foreign terrorist group. Rubio claims the Cartel de los Soles is “headed by Nicolás Maduro and other high-ranking individuals of the illegitimate Maduro regime who have corrupted Venezuela’s military, intelligence, legislature and judiciary.”

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth praised the declaration for introducing “a whole bunch of new options” to fight what he described as “narco-terrorists” and “illegitimate regimes.”

    The Venezuelan government says the Cartel de los Soles does not exist. Foreign Minister Yván Gil described Monday’s designation as a “ridiculous fabrication.” The U.S., he said, is using a “vile lie to justify an illegitimate and illegal intervention against Venezuela under the classic U.S. format of regime change.”

    The truth is somewhere in the middle.

    The Cartel de los Soles, experts say, is less a traditional cartel — with a centralized command structure directing various cells — than a shorthand term used in the media and elsewhere to describe a loose group of corrupt Venezuelan military officials implicated in the drug trade.

    The name, Cartel of the Suns, derives from the sun insignia found on the uniforms of Venezuelan soldiers, much like stars on U.S. military uniforms. It has been around since the early 1990s, when Venezuela was an important trans-shipment point for Colombian cocaine bound for the U.S. market. Today, only a small portion of cocaine trafficked to the U.S. moves through Venezuela.

    Venezuelan journalist Ronna Rísquez Sánchez said it is unclear whether Maduro actually directs illicit activities conducted by his military or simply allows it to transpire among his government. Either way, she said, it is “happening under his nose.”

    But she did not rule out that seizing on Maduro’s possible links to drug trafficking might be a convenient “pretext” for U.S. political machinations.

    For the people of Venezuela, recent weeks have seen a heightened sense of uncertainty and anguish as people ponder ever-conflicting reports about a possible U.S. strike.

    More than a decade of political, social and economic upheaval has left people exhausted and numbed, often unable to believe anything they hear about the future of Maduro’s government. There is a widespread sense of resignation and a feeling that things can only get worse.

    “Every week we hear they are going to get rid of Maduro, but he’s still here,” said Inés Rojas, 25, a street vendor in Caracas. “We all want a change, but a change that improves things, not makes them worse. We young people don’t have a future. The doors of immigration are closed, we are locked in here, not knowing what is going to happen.”

    Mostly, people seem to want an end to the overwhelming feeling of not knowing what comes next.

    “I pray every day that this uncertainty ends,” said Cristina López Castillo, 37, an unemployed office worker who favors Maduro’s removal from office. “We don’t have a future — or a present. We live every day wondering what will happen tomorrow. I have more fear of hunger than of Trump.”

    Still, Maduro retains many backers — and not only among the military and political elite who have seen their loyalty rewarded with additional wealth. Many people remain thankful for the social welfare legacy of Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, and are wary of U.S. motivations in Venezuela.

    “We Venezuelans do not want to be anyone’s colony, nor do we want anyone to drop bombs on us to get rid of a president,” said José Gregorio Martínez Pina, 45, a construction worker in the capital.

    “Is Maduro a narco? I haven’t seen any proof,” he said. “And if they have it, they should present it, instead of having a country living under terror for weeks.”

    Times staff writers Linthicum and McDonnell reported in Mexico City. Mogollón, a special correspondent, reported in Caracas. Michael Wilner in the Times’ Washington bureau also contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Kate Linthicum, Patrick J. McDonnell, Mery Mogollón

    Source link

  • Opinion | What a Good Ukraine Peace Looks Like

    [ad_1]

    President Trump on Monday touted “big progress” on talks to end the Ukraine war, and Kyiv is doubtless willing to make painful concessions to avoid surrender or U.S. abandonment. No one wants the war to end more than the Ukrainians who are fighting and dying.

    But the crucial issue continues to be what kind of peace? So it’s worth describing the conditions that would create a peace with honor in Ukraine and deter a new war whenever Vladimir Putin chooses to invade again.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday described the U.S. peace offer as a “living, breathing document,” and we welcome the red pen to the original 28-point plan that bent hard toward Vladimir Putin. That document would leave a neutered Ukraine that is banned from associating with Western security institutions and vulnerable to a new invasion.

    The overriding goal of any peace is letting Ukraine survive as an independent nation that can determine its own future. If its people want to align with Russia, so be it. But every indication is that they want to align with the West, including the European Union and NATO.

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2]

    The Editorial Board

    Source link

  • Fact-checking claims about Border Patrol’s NC operation

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration’s deployment of Border Patrol agents in North Carolina’s largest cities prompted a range of claims about the operation from all parts of the political spectrum.

    Some of the claims about “Operation Charlotte’s Web” were misleading.

    The Department of Homeland Security on Nov. 15 launched the operation in Charlotte and then expanded its efforts to Raleigh days later. The cities were the latest targets of the federal government’s stepped-up immigration enforcement, a campaign promise and top priority of President Donald Trump.

    The operation’s stated goal: to capture immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally and have been previously arrested for criminal offenses. By Friday, Border Patrol reported that it had arrested about 370 people.

    The operation is ongoing despite objections from local and state officials in Raleigh and Charlotte who worry about teams of agents disrupting their cities, which they claim are already safe. Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, criticized the operation as targeting everyday people for their skin color — a claim DHS has disputed

    “I call on federal agents to target violent criminals, not neighbors walking down the street, going to church, or putting up Christmas decorations,” Stein said Tuesday.

    Here is a roundup of claims we found to be inaccurate or disputed.

    Are North Carolina jails refusing to turn over arrestees to law enforcement ‘right now’?

    That’s what Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, said in an interview with Fox News. However, there’s no evidence it’s true.

    “There’s about 1,400 criminal illegal aliens that, right now, are in North Carolina and Charlotte’s jails that they refuse to turn over to ICE law enforcement,” McLaughlin said in a video clip the department posted on X on Nov. 17. 

    It’s possible she misspoke. The department’s Nov. 15 press release about the operation says North Carolina officials ignored nearly 1,400 of the department’s requests — known as “detainers” — to hold immigrants in local jails so that federal immigration officials could pick them up. It’s unclear when those requests were made or if each one refers to a separate inmate. We asked the department about its numbers and McLaughlin’s claim. A department spokesperson said “CBP has no further information to provide.” 

    North Carolina sheriffs are legally required to notify ICE when they take someone into custody who they suspect is in the country illegally. They must also comply if ICE demands that the inmate be kept in custody for federal agents to pick up. North Carolina Republican lawmakers passed this law last year over the veto of then-Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, who said it was unconstitutional and also infringed on the rights of sheriffs to run their jails how they see fit.

    Do North Carolina cities have sanctuary policies?

    The department’s Nov. 15 release said “sanctuary policies” prevented local officials from honoring immigration detainers. That needs clarification. 

    A decade ago, some North Carolina cities banned their law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration officials. Then in 2015, former Gov. Pat McCrory, a Republican, signed a law banning those types of policies. However, North Carolina sheriffs maintained the legal flexibility to ignore the detainers if they wanted. 

    Although most of North Carolina’s 100 sheriffs complied with detainer requests, some did not. Sheriffs in Wake and Mecklenburg counties, for instance, said honoring detainers would strain their relationships with people in their communities and potentially create legal issues. Some courts have said ICE detainers, which aren’t approved by any judge, violate the Constitution. 

    The GOP-controlled North Carolina General Assembly last year enacted the law requiring sheriffs to honor the detainers. A spokesperson for the North Carolina Sheriffs Association, which represents the state’s sheriffs and advocates on their behalf, said he believes all sheriffs are currently complying with the law.

    The Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office is not blocking immigration officials from any of the 85 people in its jail who are suspected of being in the country illegally, office spokesperson Sarah Mastouri said. The Wake County Sheriff’s Office is also complying with detainer requests, office spokesperson Rosalia Fedora said. Between Nov. 1 and Nov. 19, federal immigration officials took into custody 28 people who were in the Wake County jail, she said.

    Does the uptick in ICE raids harm broader public safety?

    Democratic state Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls believes so. In a lengthy statement criticizing the raids, she wrote that the large national immigration crackdown “is making the public less safe, in part because it has resulted in abandoning the effort to stop serious crimes. These agents are being pulled off cases investigating sex trafficking, child abuse and terrorism.”

    Earls is correct that ICE has taken thousands of federal agents off their work on other cases to help round people up in the raids in cities across the country. But does that make the country less safe? Not everyone agrees. 

    Trump personally ordered thousands of federal agents reassigned to ICE on his first day in office this year, writing in an executive order that he was doing so because “many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against innocent Americans.”

    According to data analysis by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, roughly one-fifth of all FBI agents, as well as half of all DEA agents, have been reassigned to working on immigration raids like the ones in North Carolina due to Trump’s executive order.

    Ninety percent of the Department of Homeland Security Investigations staff has been reassigned to ICE, according to Cato. HSI is a unit of ICE but traditionally handles international criminal activity, rather than immigration enforcement. Those 6,198 HSI agents had previously been tasked with handling human trafficking, child exploitation, cybercrime, weapons export controls, intellectual property theft, drugs, and terrorism cases — the same issues Earls raised concerns over. 

    Trump wrote in his executive order that as long as he’s president, “the primary mission of [HSI] is the enforcement of … federal laws related to the illegal entry and unlawful presence of aliens in the United States.”

    Did Charlotte traffic plummet after Border Patrol started its operation?

    Some X posts claimed that traffic cleared around Charlotte after Border Patrol launched its operation. The Department of Homeland Security shared a post showing a map of Charlotte with clear roads, adding the caption: “You’re welcome.” And state data shows traffic dipped in some areas.

    The state Department of Transportation monitors traffic on the major thoroughfares around Charlotte, such as Interstate 77, Interstate 85, Interstate 485, and U.S. 21. We wanted to compare traffic on Nov. 17 with traffic on Nov. 10 — the Monday after Board Patrol arrived vs. the Monday before agents arrived. The number of vehicles dipped between 1% and 7.9% depending on the road, a DOT spokesperson told us. 

    In the Raleigh area, Border Patrol agents ramped up their operation Tuesday and Wednesday. Traffic volumes were down 0.5% to 4.8% on Wake County thoroughfares on those days compared to the previous week, DOT said. 

    Are nearly 15% of Mecklenburg County’s public school students here illegally?

    Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s deputy White House chief of staff, shared a news report on X that nearly 21,000 of the county’s students missed school on Nov. 17, adding: “So a conservative estimate is that one-seventh of a major southern public school district is here illegally.”

    The Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System’s average daily membership is about 140,000 students, according to 2023-24 data collected by the state Department of Public Instruction. The number of students who missed class that day — about 21,000 — does come out to about one-seventh of the district’s student population, or 15%. But that doesn’t mean that the students who were no-shows are in the U.S. illegally.

    The latest available data shows that nearly 8% of Charlotte-Mecklenburg students miss class on any given day. 

    Students often miss school because they are sick, have an appointment, or are on vacation. It’s also possible some students skipped school because they were afraid immigration agents would target them whether or not they are citizens. It’s difficult to know how many of the district’s students entered the U.S. illegally because the state doesn’t track its students’ citizenship statuses. 

    Did immigration agents shoot someone in Charlotte?

    That’s what a video on social media claimed, showing a man being wheeled away in a stretcher as masked, armed federal agents kept watch on the crowd gathered nearby and filming.

    McLaughlin said the social media post was false. The man in the stretcher was being taken into ICE custody, she said, but hadn’t been shot. She said he “had a panic attack and was taken to the hospital, where he attempted to escape by climbing into the ceiling tiles from the hospital bathroom. He was unsuccessful and was apprehended inside the ceiling by law enforcement.”

    Is Border Patrol done with North Carolina? 

    Democratic leaders in Charlotte on Nov. 20 celebrated what they said was the end of the operation. Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles wrote on social media: “It appears that U.S. Border Patrol has ceased its operations in Charlotte. I’m relieved for our community and the residents, businesses, and all those who were targeted and impacted by this intrusion.”

    But, later that same day, federal officials said those announcements were far too premature. McLaughlin, the DHS spokeswoman, said “the operation is not over and is not ending anytime soon.”

    In the Triangle, ICE has a permanent presence, it maintains a detention center in Cary. Local police investigated a “suspicious vehicle” parked near there Friday, even calling in a bomb squad, which ultimately deemed the vehicle safe.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • China’s Xi Calls Trump in Unusual Move to Discuss Ukraine, Taiwan

    [ad_1]

    In an unusual diplomatic move, Chinese leader Xi Jinping initiated a phone call with President Trump on Monday, discussing Taiwan and Ukraine as Washington, Kyiv and Moscow try to hammer out a plan to end the war.

    China has provided crucial diplomatic and economic support to Russia since its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Now as Trump pushes to make a decisive move to end the war, Beijing is seeking to play a more visible role.

    Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

    [ad_2] Lingling Wei
    Source link

  • Goodbye DOGE: The Former Epicenter of Trump and Elon Musk’s Spending War Is No More

    [ad_1]

    DOGE, the agency that shook up the federal bureaucracy in the early months of President Trump’s second term with its efforts to slash spending and headcount, is no more, the administration says.

    “That doesn’t exist,” Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor told Reuters earlier this month when asked about the status of the Department of Government Efficiency, the news service reported this morning.

    Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a close confidante of Trump’s at the start of his second term, initially steered DOGE, although he and Trump subsequently had a falling out and Musk returned his focus to the private sector. The program, which still had eight months left on its mandate, was officially slated to end next summer, Reuters notes. But, according to Kupor, DOGE is no longer a “centralized entity,” and the government-wide hiring freeze that accompanied its efforts is over.

    The department’s legacy will likely be a point of debate for years to come, including in the next election cycle. Initially focused on reducing the size of the federal government—as well as slashing red tape and incorporating AI into the bureaucracy—critics argued that DOGE was overstating its savings and overstepping its authority in its efforts to gut federal agencies, push out workers, and eliminate contracts.

    According to Reuters, Kupor’s statements about DOGE no longer existing as a discrete entity are the Trump administration’s first formal acknowledgement that the program has been prematurely ended, although Trump has already been referring to the agency in the past tense. The Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, has now taken over many of the same cost-cutting and headcount-reducing efforts, according to Kupor himself as well as documents reviewed by Reuters.

    “At least two prominent DOGE employees are now involved with the National Design Studio, a new body created through an executive order signed by Trump in August,” Reuters reported in its exclusive story. “That body is headed by Joe Gebbia, co-founder of Airbnb, and Trump’s order directed him to beautify government websites.”

    In a post on X, Kupor said that DOGE no longer has “centralized leadership” under its previous organizational structure, the USDS, but that “the principles of DOGE remain alive and well,” including de-regulation, anti-fraud efforts and efficiency.

    “DOGE catalyzed these changes,” Kupor wrote. “The agencies along with [OPM] and [the White House Office of Management and Budget] will institutionalize them!”

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    [ad_2]

    Brian Contreras

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

    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.

    [ad_2]

    Source link