WASHINGTON — The crisis touched off by President Trump’s demand to take ownership of Greenland appears over, at least for now. But the United States and its European allies still face a larger long-term challenge: Can their shaky marriage be saved?
At 75 years old, NATO has survived storms before, from squabbles over trade to estrangement over wars in Vietnam and Iraq. France, jealous of its independence, even pulled its armed forces out of NATO for 43 years.
But diplomats and foreign policy scholars warn that the current division in the alliance may be worse, because Trump’s threats on Greenland convinced many Europeans that the United States has become an unreliable and perhaps even dangerous ally.
The roots of the crisis lie in the president’s frequently expressed disdain for alliances in general and NATO in particular.
Long before Trump arrived in the White House, presidents from both parties complained that many NATO countries weren’t pulling their weight in military spending.
But earlier presidents still considered the alliance an essential asset to U.S. foreign policy and the cornerstone of a system that prevented war in Europe for most of a century.
Trump has never seemed to share that view. Even after he succeeded in persuading NATO members to increase their defense spending, he continued to deride most allies as freeloaders.
Until last year, he refused to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to help defend other NATO countries, the core principle of the alliance. And he reserved the right to walk away from any agreement, military or commercial, whenever it suited his purpose.
In the two-week standoff over Greenland, he threatened to seize the island from NATO member Denmark by force, an action that would have violated the NATO treaty.
When Britain, Germany and other countries sent troops to Greenland, he threatened to hit them with new tariffs, which would have violated a trade deal Trump made only last year.
Both threats touched off fury in Europe, where governments had spent most of the past year making concessions to Trump on both military spending and tariffs. When Trump backed down, the lesson some leaders drew was that pushing back worked better than playing nice.
“We do prefer respect to bullies,” French President Emmanuel Macron said.
“Being a happy vassal is one thing. Being a miserable slave is something else,” Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever said.
The long-term danger for the United States, scholars said, is that Europeans might choose to look elsewhere for military and economic partners.
“They just don’t trust us,” said Richard N. Haass, a former top State Department official in the George W. Bush administration.
“A post-American world is fast emerging, one brought about in large part by the United States taking the lead in dismantling the international order that this country built,” he wrote last week.
Some European leaders, including Macron, have argued that they need to disentangle from the United States, build military forces that can defend against Russia, and seek more reliable trade partners, potentially including India and China.
But decoupling from the United States would not be easy, fast or cheap. Europe and Canada still depend on the United States for many of their defense needs and as a major market for exports.
Almost all NATO countries have pledged to increase defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product, but they aren’t scheduled to reach that goal until 2035.
Meanwhile, they face the current danger of an expansionist Russia on their eastern frontier.
Not surprisingly for a group of 30 countries, Europe’s NATO members aren’t united on the question. Macron has argued for more autonomy, but others have called for caution.
“Despite all the frustration and anger of recent months, let us not be too quick to write off the transatlantic partnership,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said at Davos.
“I think we are actually in the process of creating a stronger NATO,” said Finnish President Alexander Stubb. “As long as we keep doing that, slowly and surely we’ll be just fine.”
They argue, in effect, that the best strategy is to muddle through — which is what NATO and Europe have done in most earlier crises.
The strongest argument for that course may be the uncertainty and disorder that would follow a rapid erosion — or worse, dissolution — of an alliance that has helped keep its members safe for most of a century.
The costs of that outcome, historian Robert Kagan warned recently, would be borne by Americans as well as Europeans.
If the United States continues to weaken its commitments to NATO and other alliances, he wrote in the Atlantic, “The U.S. will have no reliable friends or allies, and will have to depend entirely on its own strength to survive and prosper. This will require more military spending, not less. … If Americans thought defending the liberal world order was too expensive, wait until they start paying for what comes next.”
ALONE, AND THAT NUMBER IS LIKELY TO GO UP. LET’S GET OVER TO KCRA 3’S CORTEZ. HE’S LIVE AT SACRAMENTO INTERNATIONAL. CHECK IN ON HOW THINGS ARE SHAPING UP FOR TRAVELERS IN OUR REGION. DENTON. TRAVELERS FEELING THOSE IMPACTS TONIGHT. CECIL. AS MORE THAN 20 STATES ISSUED AN EMERGENCY DISASTER DECLARATION AS FLIGHTS DISRUPTIONS CONTINUE FROM THE SOUTHWEST TO THE NORTHEAST. ROLLING BAGS, USUALLY A SIGN FOR TAKEOFF AT SMUD. BUT TONIGHT, A SOUND OF WAITING AS A POWERFUL WINTER STORM ENGULFS MUCH OF THE U.S. WE FOUND OUT AS WE WERE RIDING TO THE AIRPORT HERE THAT IT WAS DELAYED. SO YEAH, WE’LL MISS OUR CONNECTING FLIGHT. I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN CHICAGO BY 6:00. NOW I’M LIKE EIGHT HOURS LATER. AIRLINES CANCELING AND DELAYING FLIGHTS AS CONDITIONS WORSEN FROM THE MIDWEST TO THE EAST COAST, LEAVING TRAVELERS RACING TO CHANGE PLANS IN TIME. DID YOU FIND OUT LIKE THE FLIGHT WAS CANCELED? I O AT 4 A.M. I WAS HERE SINCE 4 A.M. WOW. AND YOU CAN’T FIND A TICKET? MORE THAN 12,000 FLIGHTS CANCELED THIS WEEKEND, AS AIRLINES LIKE DELTA AND AMERICAN WARN OF DELAYS OFFERING TO WAIVE FEES TO MAJOR AIRPORTS LIKE O’HARE. I GOT TO FIND SOMEONE TO PICK ME UP AT 1:00 IN THE MORNING IN CHICAGO. I’M JUST TRYING TO GET ANOTHER TICKET, BUT IT’S SO EXPENSIVE. OR. OR THEY DON’T HAVE IT UNTIL MONDAY. MAYBE. SOUTHWEST WARNING TRAVELERS TO EXPECT DELAYS AT MORE THAN 40 AIRPORTS WITH FLIGHTS TO DALLAS FORT WORTH LEADING CANCELLATIONS, WITH MORE THAN 700. MY FLIGHT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO INTO DALLAS FROM DALLAS TO HOBBY, BUT THAT GOT CANCELED. WE’RE LEAVING ON OUR CRUISE SUNDAY, AND I’M SUPPOSED TO GET AND IT’S SHOWING ME I’M GOING TO GET AT 2:00 IN THE CRUISE LEAVES AT LIKE I THINK LIKE AT FOUR, THERE’S LIKE NO WAY I’LL MAKE IT. YOU CAN’T BLAME ANYBODY BECAUSE NO ONE CAN CONTROL MOTHER NATURE. SAC INTERNATIONAL TELLING TRAVELERS TO CHECK IN WITH THE AIRLINES DIRECTLY, AS THEY’LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION AS THESE FLIGHT DISRUPTIONS ARE EXPECTED
Sacramento travelers caught in nationwide flight disruptions as winter storm hits
More than 12,000 flights were canceled this weekend
A powerful winter storm is sweeping across much of the United States, triggering widespread travel disruptions and leaving thousands of passengers stranded as airlines cancel and delay flights from the Midwest to the East Coast.More than 12,000 flights have been canceled nationwide this weekend, according to FlightAware, as heavy snow, ice and dangerous winds move through major travel corridors. The impacts are being felt locally as well, with Sacramento travelers facing delays and missed connections while trying to reach destinations in the Southwest and Northeast.“We found out as we were riding to the airport here that it was delayed,” traveler Mark Williams said. “So yeah, we’ll miss our connecting flight.”Passenger Jamie Lichter described a long and frustrating wait. “I would have been in Chicago by 6. Now I’m like eight hours later,” she said.As conditions worsen, airlines are scrambling to manage operations, and passengers are racing to rebook flights or change plans altogether. Southwest Airlines is warning travelers to expect delays at more than 40 airports nationwide. Flights to and from Texas have been hit especially hard, with Dallas-Fort Worth leading the country in cancellations, topping 700 canceled flights. Although Sacramento International Airport isn’t directly affected by the winter storm, they are urging travelers to check flight status before heading to the airport and to allow extra time as the storm system continues to impact travel nationwide.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel
SACRAMENTO, Calif. —
A powerful winter storm is sweeping across much of the United States, triggering widespread travel disruptions and leaving thousands of passengers stranded as airlines cancel and delay flights from the Midwest to the East Coast.
More than 12,000 flights have been canceled nationwide this weekend, according to FlightAware, as heavy snow, ice and dangerous winds move through major travel corridors. The impacts are being felt locally as well, with Sacramento travelers facing delays and missed connections while trying to reach destinations in the Southwest and Northeast.
“We found out as we were riding to the airport here that it was delayed,” traveler Mark Williams said. “So yeah, we’ll miss our connecting flight.”
Passenger Jamie Lichter described a long and frustrating wait. “I would have been in Chicago by 6. Now I’m like eight hours later,” she said.
As conditions worsen, airlines are scrambling to manage operations, and passengers are racing to rebook flights or change plans altogether.
Southwest Airlines is warning travelers to expect delays at more than 40 airports nationwide. Flights to and from Texas have been hit especially hard, with Dallas-Fort Worth leading the country in cancellations, topping 700 canceled flights.
Although Sacramento International Airport isn’t directly affected by the winter storm, they are urging travelers to check flight status before heading to the airport and to allow extra time as the storm system continues to impact travel nationwide.
An anonymously-sourced story in the Wall Street Journal contains the following claim: “The European Union’s executive arm is currently working on new legislation aimed at promoting tech sovereignty, according to officials familiar with the matter.“
When a major news publication anonymously posts claims about an event that has not yet happened—in this case a law propping up tech companies in the E.U.—it’s appropriate to wonder why. After all, there might be commercial interests that want this somewhat limp threat published beforehand for purely cynical or self-serving reasons. But that doesn’t make the claim not worth contemplating.
Citing “officials and lawmakers,” the Journal says powerful people want to discourage “dependencies” on the U.S., in addition to helping their own companies, and they don’t necessarily want to “ditch” technologies produced by the Silicon Valley giants.
In and around the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland this past week, the issue on everyone in Europe’s mind was Donald Trump’s bizarre demand that the landmass of Greenland be handed to him on a platter by Denmark—and his threat to introduce tariffs against the E.U. countries that he feels are thwarting him—most of Northern Europe, France, Germany, and the U.K. Trump has apparently abandoned his most powerful bargaining chip in this standoff: the threat of actual war. That in turn may have been because the most powerful people in the world, bond vigilantes, sent a clear message to Trump that they didn’t want war over Greenland.
But while tensions were higher earlier this week, the E.U. did something truly strange and entertained the possibility of a display of actual backbone against the U.S. via its package of measures known as the “Anti-Coercion Instrument” (ACI). The ACI, also known as the “trade bazooka,” is a collection of tariffs and trade restrictions originally intended as a weapon brandished in the direction of China. Instead, officials intimated that they might christen their bazooka by firing it at the U.S.
European tech sovereignty is a buzz phrase with real power right now, even if the concept seems to lack a certain material heft at first glance. The Wall Street Journal’s framing for its story on this potential legislation is one of economic defense and deterrence—not some kind of first strike. E.U. officials are apparently quaking with fear of a “White House executive order that cuts off the region’s access to data centers or email software that businesses and governments need to function,” the Journal writes.
The reverse, the E.U. cutting off access to basic tech necessities doesn’t really sound like something Europe can do. Denying Americans access to Sweden-based Spotify and phones from Finland-based Nokia doesn’t sound like all that serious of a threat, which is why boosting E.U. companies seems like a natural focus for any effort, as it would cause pain by making U.S. tech less competitive. Earlier this month, the European Commission announced the sovereignty-focused “Open Digital Ecosystem Strategy” initiative, which is currently soliciting public feedback. The elephants in the room for such an effort would be France-based Mistral as a source of E.U.-based AI models, and some kind of Eurozone-centric mobile operating system. Deepmind for AI and Huawei’s HarmonyOS mobile operating system come to mind. Large scale cloud computing in Europe without megacompanies like Amazon and Microsoft would be trickier.
But one very large hammer the EU could look into whacking the U.S. with (and one that isn’t mentioned at all by the Wall Street Journal) is Netherlands-based ASML, currently the world’s only creator of the lithography machines used to make the GPUs needed for the training and running of frontier AI models. A monopoly on the machines currently keeping the U.S. economy on rails is an even more powerful piece of economic weaponry than a bazooka (it’s an economic aircraft carrier at least, if not a small, tactical economic nuke) and thanks to its recent investment in Mistral, it’s abundantly clear that E.U. sovereignty is on ASML’s mind to some degree.
And taking proactive steps toward E.U. tech sovereignty is, at least to some degree, an idea not just floating around the halls of power, but one with actual grassroots support, at least if you judge from the activity on Reddit’s BuyFromEU subreddit. Users there who normally exchange tips on finding locally sourced products are increasingly paranoid that they’re going to be banned from the U.S. social media platform they’re currently using to communicate. Some are even talking about a move to W, a newly announced European Social Media site along the lines of X.
And I wish Europe all the good luck in the world getting an X alternative to thrive and avoid becoming a cesspool. That’s no easy task, not even here in the good old U.S.A.
Susie Wiles, left, the White House chief of staff in the Trump administration, may be a key witness for the defense in the upcoming trial in Miami of ex-GOP congressman David Rivera. Rivera, who represented a district in Miami-Dade, is accused of being an unregistered agent for Venezuela. When Wiles was a lobbyist, she represented a Venezuelan media company trying to expand into the U.S. market.
Win McNamee
Getty Images
Soon after Susie Wiles ran Donald Trump’s successful 2016 presidential campaign in Florida, she moved to Washington to join Brian Ballard’s lobbying firm, which was mainly known for its political clout and connections to Florida’s GOP governors.
With her ties to Trump, Wiles brought an instant cachet to Ballard Partners. Among the firm’s new stable of D.C. clients was an improbable, though wealthy, Venezuelan businessman, Raul Gorrin, who was close to President Nicolás Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, the leader of Venezuela’s socialist revolution.
Gorrin, a lawyer who owned a TV station in Caracas, retained Ballard’s firm in June 2017 to help him expand Globovision as a Spanish-speaking television affiliate in the United States — a challenge given that the city of Miami had declared him persona non grata because of his ties to Maduro. The Federal Communications Commission also has strict limits on foreign ownership of U.S. TV and radio stations.
Gorrin was also hoping to gain access to the new Trump administration, which was threatening economic sanctions against the Maduro regime and Venezuela’s oil industry.
Wiles, whom Trump picked as his White House chief of staff after he won a second presidential term in 2024, may soon have to face questions about her and her former lobbying firm’s relationship with Gorrin. An upcoming federal trial in Miami focuses on criminal charges against former Miami-Dade Republican Congressman David Rivera and political consultant Esther Nuhfer, who are accused of secretly lobbying for the Venezuelan government in 2017 and 2018. Wiles could not be reached for comment this week.
Former U.S. Rep. David Rivera walks out of court after his first Miami federal court appearance before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman on Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2022. Pedro Portal Miami Herald file
The defense team’s effort to seek the testimony of Wiles, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Florida’s former U.S. senator, has heightened the stakes of the high-profile case, which is headed for trial a few months after Trump sent the U.S. military to Venezuela in early January to seize Maduro. He and his wife, Cilia Flores, are being held at a federal lockup on drug-trafficking charges in New York.
Lawyers for Rivera and Nuhfer are seeking Wiles’ testimony at the trial starting in mid-March. Rivera and Nuhfer are accused of being unregistered foreign agents for the Venezuelan government. They’re also accused of trying to “normalize” relations between the Maduro regime and the United States while Rivera’s consulting firm landed a head-turning $50-million lobbying contract with the U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company.
The two defendants have strongly denied the allegations, and hope to undercut the government’s case by showing they were not doing Maduro’s bidding but rather were attempting to get him removed from power. They also want to show that Wiles’ former lobbying firm was attempting to lobby Trump, on behalf of Gorrin, to bring about a regime change in Venezuela.
The lead federal prosecutor, Harold Schimkat, said at a Miami federal court hearing last week that the government will try to quash Wiles’ subpoena, saying: “We don’t see her connection to this case at all.”
But defense attorneys for Rivera and Nuhfer wrote a letter to the White House seeking Wiles as a witness, saying they want to question the former Ballard lobbyist about her “extensive communications” regarding the firm’s $50,000-a-month representation of Gorrin in 2017 and 2018.
The lawyers plan to question her and other Ballard lobbyists about their work to expand Gorrin’s Venezuelan TV station onto AT&T and Comcast broadcast platforms in the United States. But they also want to ask her about what they view as the Ballard firm’s discreet effort to help Gorrin gain access to Trump and other high-ranking officials to broker a regime change in Venezuela — a critical message that they say would help Rivera and Nuhfer’s defense.
Key letter written by Wiles’ former lobbying firm
The lawyers plan to zero in on a Ballard-drafted letter obtained by the Miami Herald that underscored Gorrin’s goal to ease out Maduro as Venezuela’s president and replace him with an opposition leader aligned with the U.S. government. Their bold bid to subpoena Wiles also parallels their effort to seek similar testimony from Rubio, who as Florida’s senator privately met with Rivera, Nuhfer and Gorrin at a hotel in Washington in 2017.
“I happen to know that my government wants a way out, a way to save their skins and fortunes,” says the June 24, 2017, draft letter, which Gorrin had hoped to deliver to Trump at a presidential victory event in Washington four days later. “The opposition, on the other hand, wants a way in but is not unified in how to achieve its goals.
“The domestic violence and poverty and failure of our economic infrastructure is killing my beautiful country,” the letter, signed by Gorrin, goes on to say. “Please tell me who I can work with in your administration to bring about the change we desperately need.”
Gorrin had wanted to deliver the letter to the president at a Trump victory event at the Trump International Hotel on June 28, 2017, but was unable to do so because of restrictions imposed by the Secret Service. While he attended the event, Gorrin never met Trump.
Gorrin meets with Pence in Doral
Later that year, el Nuevo Herald reported that Gorrin met then-Vice President Mike Pence at an event in Doral where he gave a speech to Venezuelan supporters. Brian Ballard set up the meeting between Gorrin and Pence after his lobbying firm retained Gorrin as a client in June 2017, according to lawyers for Rivera and Nuhfer.
Globovisión president Raúl Gorrín shakes hands with Vice President Mike Pence after Pence spoke at an event in Doral, Florida, in 2017. Miami Herald File
At the time, Ballard Partners denied any knowledge of Gorrín’s efforts to influence the Trump administration’s approach to Venezuela or shape a transition of power, el Nuevo Herald reported.
“We’re trying to serve Globovision’s needs in U.S. markets and in various other regulatory things that come up,” Brian Ballard, the firm’s founder and a former lobbyist for Trump’s Florida business dealings, said back then.
Ballard, who authorized taking on Gorrin as a client, is expected to be called as a witness at the trial of Rivera and Nuhfer. He declined an interview request from the Herald.
In a statement issued this week by his lobbying firm’s lawyer, Curt Miner, Brian Ballard stressed that it “had no involvement in Mr. Rivera’s consulting contract with PDVSA,” Venezuela’s national oil company. The state-owned company’s U.S. subsidiary, PDV USA, hired Rivera’s consulting company in March 2017.
“Ballard Partners’ work for Globovision involved Globovision’s efforts to expand its TV network into the U.S. market,” Ballard said in the statement to the Herald. “We fully complied with all legal and regulatory requirements in our work for Globovision. Ballard Partners, if needed, stands ready to be a witness at the trial.”
Technically, Ballard Partners registered as a lobbyist for Gorrin’s company, Globovision, not the businessman himself. But the Washington lobbying firm did not have to register with the government as a foreign agent because of an exemption for representing a nonpolitical, commercial client.
Trump’s presidency has been good for Ballard’s business. The Tallahassee-based firm reported $88.3 million in federal lobbying revenue in 2025. Ballard, which quadrupled its revenue over 2024 and now ranks as the top lobbying firm in Washington, also recently announced an expansion of its consulting services focusing on Venezuela, Latin America, Mexico, Canada and Greenland — in the aftermath of Maduro’s ouster as president.
Letter implores Trump to help broker change in Venezuela
Ballard’s statement to the Herald, however, did not address his lobbying firm’s draft letter for Gorrin. The letter begins with Gorrin complimenting Trump about his “patriotism” and agenda “to make America great again,” saying he has “no doubt” that the president “will succeed.”
“I too am a businessman from Venezuela and love my country,” the letter said. “I want for my country exactly what you are doing for America. I want to make Venezuela great again. We need change and dialogue and peace and progress and democracy.”
“I believe in my heart and soul that if you could direct me to someone in your administration to work with, I will devote every waking minute to a successful resolution of the crisis in Venezuela,” the letter continued. “Like you, I am a businessman who also understands how to negotiate through complicated problems.”
The draft letter for Gorrin was a project handled by another partner in Ballard’s lobbying firm, Sylvester Lukis, according to emails between Lukis and others, including a Miami businessman, Hugo Perera, who also communicated with Gorrin about the letter.
It is unclear if Wiles knew about the draft letter. Other emails show that she was focused on promoting Gorrin’s TV station, Globovision, and corresponded by email with one of the network’s executives as well as Gorrin, Lukis, Ballard, Perera and others, records show.
Fisher Island neighbors
In 2017, Nuhfer introduced Rivera to Perera, who then put them together with Gorrin, who was Perera’s neighbor on exclusive Fisher Island. In turn, Gorrin helped Rivera land his $50-million contract with Venezuela’s oil subsidiary, PDV USA, known as Citgo, which is based in Houston.
Court records show that PDV USA paid Rivera $20 million over a few months in 2017 for “international strategic consulting services,” but then cut him off, saying in a 2020 lawsuit that he did not perform much work to help the company expand its refining business in the United States.
For making the introductions to Gorrin, Rivera paid Perera about $5 million, but has since had a falling out with him. Perera was not charged in the government’s case against Rivera and Nuhfer. Instead, he is cooperating as a witness against them, which has led to Rivera suing him.
Separately, as part of his PDV USA contract, Rivera also paid about $4 million each to Nuhfer and Gorrin. During this same period in 2017, Nuhfer also had a separate consulting contract with Gorrin to push the expansion of his TV station, Globovision, into the U.S. market. Gorrin paid $3.75 million to Nuhfer, Rivera and Perera, according to court records.
This was separate from the $50,000-a-month retainer Globovision had with Ballard Partners to lobby on its behalf.
“The actual reason for the payment, as Ms. Wiles’ similar and concurrent Globovision efforts can corroborate, was likewise to expand Globovision onto ATT and Comcast broadcast platforms and had nothing to do whatever with the normalization of relations for the Venezuelan government of President Maduro,” according to a Dec. 22, 2025, letter sent by lawyers for Rivera and Nuhfer to the White House seeking Wiles’ testimony at their trial.
However, according to their indictment, Rivera and Nuhfer arranged meetings with an unidentified U.S. senator in Washington — Rubio —on two occasions at a private residence and a hotel in the nation’s capital to discuss the U.S.-Venezuelan normalization plan in 2017.
Rivera told Rubio at the residence that Gorrin had persuaded Maduro to accept a deal whereby he would hold free and fair elections, the indictment says. Then, Rivera, Nuhfer and Gorrin met with Rubio at the hotel, with a Venezuelan opposition leader participating by phone, to discuss Venezuela’s issues.
But Gorrin ultimately informed Rivera and Nuhfer that Maduro “refused to agree to hold free and fair elections in Venezuela in exchange for reconciliation with the United States,” according to the indictment.
In a statement, Rivera, who served as a Miami-Dade congressman for one term from 2011 to 2013, has defended his actions by saying he was really working for the U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company — not directly as a consultant for the Venezuelan government in the United States — and therefore he didn’t need to register as a foreign agent.
Rivera has also said that his work for PDVSA’s subsidiary in the United States had nothing to do with his separate lobbying efforts that aimed to remove Maduro from power and replace him with an opposition leader.
“Every leader of the Venezuelan opposition I worked with in 2017 — Julio Borges, Lilian Tintori, Henry Ramos Allup — was all done through Raul Gorrin,” Rivera told the Miami Herald. “I met them all through Gorrin.
“When Brian Ballard asked me if Gorrin would help the White House get opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez of prison, Gorrin immediately said yes and helped get Lopez released days later,” Rivera said.
Ballard did not address this or other related matters with the Herald.
Lopez was released from a Venezuelan military prison to house arrest in July 2017, after serving over three years of a nearly 14-year sentence for leading anti-government protests against Maduro. Lopez fled to Spain in 2020.
Ultimately, Gorrin’s efforts on multiple lobbying fronts failed to pan out in the United States. Instead, the first Trump administration imposed sanctions on the Maduro government, Venezuela’s oil industry, government officials and others, including Gorrin.
Gorrin charged in Miami federal court
Gorrin, who is still in Venezuela, was charged in 2018 and again in 2024 with foreign corruption and money laundering in Miami federal court. Ballard stopped representing Gorrin in August 2018, citing a Miami Herald story that had revealed Gorrin was under criminal investigation.
In late 2024, Rivera was charged separately in Washington, with being an unregistered agent for Gorrin. He was accused of trying to lobby a Trump administration official between 2019 and 2020 on behalf of the Venezuelan businessman, whom federal authorities say paid the former congressman $5.5 million while trying to get himself removed from the government’s sanctions list.
Gorrin, who is considered a fugitive by federal prosecutors, provided the Herald with a brief statement through Rivera.
“Susie Wiles was always very professional and very capable,” Gorrin said. “President Trump is fortunate to have her by his side.”
WASHINGTON — Trump administration lawyers have joined California Republicans in urging Supreme Court to block California’s new election map on the grounds that one district in the San Joaquin Valley was drawn to favor Latinos.
Two months ago, Trump’s lawyers called on the court to uphold a new Republican-friendly election map in Texas, arguing that it was partisan gerrymander, not one driven by race.
“Plaintiffs bringing a racial-gerrymander claim have the heavy burden to show that race was the predominant factor motivating” how the map was drawn, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said then.
The Supreme Court agreed by a 6-3 vote and lifted a judges’ order that had blocked the Texas map which was drawn to win five more House seats for Republicans.
Voting rights advocates had sued, noting Gov. Greg Abbott said the goal to eliminate four “coalition districts,” which had a combined majority of Black and Latino voters and elected Democrats.
In a brief opinion, the justices said they presume state officials acted in “good faith” in drawing the maps of congressional districts.
“It is indisputable that impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The justices also said it was too late in the election-year calendar for reshuffling the districts again.
Undeterred, Trump’s lawyers now stake out the near opposite view to support the GOP’s attack on the California map which was upheld by the voters in November.
He pointed to past comments from Paul Mitchell, the designated map maker, who said he hoped the Latino districts in the Central Valley could be “bolstered in order to make them most effective.”
Trump’s lawyer said District 13 in Merced County has an odd-looking “northern plume” that brings in Democratic voters near Stockton.
“California’s motivation in adopting the Prop. 50 map as a whole was undoubtedly to counteract Texas’s political gerrymander,” Sauer said. “But that overarching political goal is not a license for district-level racial gerrymandering.”
He advised the justices to declare the new California map unconstitutional and require the state to return to the former map. The political impact of such a ruling is obvious. It would likely cost Democrats five seats in the House of Representatives.
Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees appeals from the West Coast, asked for a response from California by Thursday. That would suggest the justices may act on the GOP’s appeal in the first week of February.
Election law experts have been skeptical of the Republican arguments in the California case.
He said legal challenge “comes too late,” the proposed remedy is too broad, and it ignores the fact that the California’s voters were focused on partisanship, not race. It’s their intent that counts, he said.
Then, Hasen added, there’s “the optics. It would be a terrible look for the Court … to allow Texas’s Republican gerrymander to go forward but stop California’s, especially if it’s a party line vote. That might be too much even for this Court.”
There is also a key legal difference in how the appeal arrived at the court.
In Texas, a three-judge panel heard the evidence, wrote a 160-page opinion and ruled against the state in a 2-1 decision.
In the California case, by contrast, a three-judge panel heard the evidence and rejected the racial gerrymandering claim in a 2-1 decision.
In December, Kagan dissented in the Texas case and argued the court should be reluctant to overturn the factual findings of the three judges who heard the case.
The two judges in the majority said they did not see evidence of a racial gerrymander.
“We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.
NUUK, Greenland — One year ago, days before Donald Trump reclaimed power, the head of Denmark’s People’s Party took a trip to Mar-a-Lago. Morten Messerschmidt thought he and Trump shared a common view on the perils of European integration. Together, he told local media at the time, they could make the West great again.
In Europe, just as in the United States, Messerschmidt thought it was “nationale suverænitet” — national sovereignty — that had over centuries given countries large and small the tools to build their culture, traditions and institutions. Those were the values that conservative movements across the European continent are fighting to protect.
But Messerschmidt now finds himself on the defensive. The far-right politician is suddenly distancing himself from an American president who, off and on over the last year, has made aggressive plays to annex Greenland, targeting Danish borders that have existed for roughly 300 years.
Trump pulled back from military threats against the island this week. “It’s total access — there’s no end,” he said in an interview on Thursday with Fox Business. Asked whether he still intended on acquiring the island, Trump replied, “It’s possible. Anything is possible.”
Despite Trump’s fixation on Greenland since his first term, he declined to meet with Messerschmidt at Mar-a-Lago last January. Instead, the Danish politician found himself discussing the matter with Marla Maples, the president’s ex-wife.
“Portraying me as someone who serves a cause other than Denmark, and who would sympathize with threats to our kingdom, is unhealthy,” Messerschmidt wrote on Facebook this weekend. “It is slander.”
The Danish People’s Party is one of many far-right groups across Europe, which aligned with Trump’s MAGA movement in their fervent opposition to immigration and related issues, suddenly in rebellion against an administration it once thought of as an ideological ally.
The president’s moves are now compelling them to reconcile their alliance with Trump with a core tenet on the political right, that nationalism is largely defined by people and place over historic stretches of time — or as Trump often said on the campaign trail, “without a border, you don’t have a country.”
“Donald Trump has violated a fundamental campaign promise — namely, not to interfere in other countries,” Alice Weidel, co-leader of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany Party, or AfD, said in Berlin. Her colleague added: “It is clear that Wild West methods must be rejected.”
The rupture could jeopardize the Trump administration’s own stated goals for a future Europe that is more conservative and aligned with the Republican Party — a plan that relied on boosting the very same parties now questioning their ties to the president.
In its national security strategy, published in November, the White House said it would “cultivate resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations,” hoping to restore “Europe’s civilizational self-confidence and Western identity.”
And it is not clear whether the president’s decision to walk back his most aggressive threats is enough to contain the diplomatic damage. “The process of getting to this agreement has clearly damaged trust amongst allies,” Rishi Sunak, former prime minister of the United Kingdom and leader of its Conservative Party, told Bloomberg on Thursday.
Trump’s pressure campaign urging Ukraine to accept borders redrawn by a revanchist Russia had already strained relations between his inner circle and Europe’s far-right movements. But several prominent right-wing leaders say his aggressive posture toward Greenland amounted to a bridge too far.
On Wednesday in Switzerland, addressing growing concerns over the plan, Trump still left threats lingering in the air, warning European leaders that he would “remember” if they blocked a U.S. takeover.
“Friends can disagree in private, and that’s fine — that’s part of life, part of politics,” Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right Reform UK party in Britain, told House Speaker Mike Johnson in London earlier this week. “But to have a U.S. president threatening tariffs unless we agree that he can take over Greenland by some means, without it seeming to even get the consent of the people of Greenland — I mean, this is a very hostile act.”
In France, the head of Marine Le Pen’s far-right party, National Rally, said the United States had presented Europe “with a choice: Accept dependency disguised as partnership or act as sovereign powers capable of defending our interests.”
With overseas territories across the Pacific, Caribbean and Indian oceans, France has the second-largest maritime exclusive economic zone in the world after the United States. If Trump can seize Greenland by force, what is stopping him, or any other great power, from conquering France’s islands?
“When a U.S. president threatens a European territory while using trade pressure, it is not dialogue — it is coercion. And our credibility is at stake,” said the party’s young leader, Jordan Bardella.
“Greenland has become a strategic pivot in a world returning to imperial logic,” he added. “Yielding today would set a dangerous precedent.”
Will the administration unleash an economic upswing With cannabis and unlock jobs, investment, tax revenue nationwide?
Rescheduling cannabis under federal law would mark one of the most consequential economic policy shifts in decades, unlocking growth across industries while reshaping how the United States approaches regulation, investment, and small business development. By moving cannabis out of Schedule I, the federal government would remove long-standing barriers constraining legitimate commerce, innovation, and job creation, allowing a multibillion-dollar industry to more fully integrate into the US economy.
One of the most immediate economic impacts of rescheduling would be access to traditional financial systems. Cannabis businesses have long operated in a cash-heavy environment due to banking restrictions, increasing costs and security risks. Rescheduling would encourage broader participation from banks, credit unions, insurers, and payment processors, lowering operational friction and improving transparency. This shift alone would reduce compliance costs and allow capital to flow more efficiently into expansion, infrastructure, and workforce development.
Tax policy would also change dramatically. Currently, cannabis operators are subject to punitive federal tax treatment under IRS Section 280E, which disallows standard business deductions. Rescheduling would eliminate this burden, freeing up capital for reinvestment. Those savings would ripple outward, supporting higher wages, more hiring, improved benefits, and greater purchasing from local suppliers. State and local governments would also benefit from stronger, more stable tax revenues tied to compliant and profitable operators.
The labor impact would be substantial. The legal cannabis industry already supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, from cultivation and manufacturing to retail, logistics, marketing, and compliance. Rescheduling would accelerate job creation, particularly in states who have been cautious due to federal uncertainty. Ancillary industries such as construction, real estate, software, security, legal services, and advertising would see increased demand, further amplifying employment gains.
Notably, rescheduling would also buoy the alcohol industry, which has made significant early investments in cannabis. Major beer, wine, and spirits companies have quietly positioned themselves through minority stakes, research partnerships, and beverage-focused cannabis products. As regulatory clarity improves, these investments stand to gain value. Alcohol companies bring decades of experience in branding, distribution, compliance, and consumer marketing, skills translating effectively to cannabis. Rather than cannibalizing alcohol entirely, rescheduling may encourage hybrid portfolios and cross-category innovation, helping alcohol producers adapt to shifting consumer preferences while maintaining relevance and growth.
Perhaps the most meaningful impact, however, would be felt at the community level through the expansion of thousands of mom-and-pop cannabis businesses. Small, locally owned dispensaries, cultivators, manufacturers, and service providers anchor economic activity in neighborhoods often overlooked by traditional investment. These businesses create local jobs, lease storefronts, purchase from nearby vendors, and contribute to municipal tax bases. In rural areas, cannabis cultivation has already revitalized farmland and provided new income streams for family-owned operations. Rescheduling would give these businesses greater stability, access to credit, and a clearer path to long-term sustainability.
In economic terms, rescheduling cannabis is not merely a regulatory adjustment; it is a normalization of an industry already exists at scale. By aligning federal policy with economic reality, the US stands to unlock growth, modernize regulation, strengthen local communities, and reinforce American leadership in a global market that continues to expand.
Davos’ Evolving Take On Cannabis reveals how global leaders now view regulation, investment, and public health.
For decades, the annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland has been shorthand for elite consensus building — a place where global leaders discuss finance, geopolitics, climate change, and the future of work. This year has been one of the most interesting and volatile conference, but what has been Davos’ evolving take on cannabis? The green plant was not always welcome in the conversation. In fact, its early mentions at Davos landed with a bang, provoking raised eyebrows and quiet skepticism among policymakers and corporate executives. Today, the tone has evolved significantly, reflecting how cannabis has moved from taboo to a legitimate economic, public health, and regulatory topic on the world stage.
When cannabis first entered the Davos conversation in the mid-to-late 2010s, it did so largely as a disruptive novelty. Panels and side events framed it as an emerging social experiment driven by legalization in Canada and a growing number of U.S. states. Early discussions focused on risk: youth access, impaired driving, and the fear legalization could undermine public health. At the time, cannabis was often grouped with broader debates on addiction, illicit trade, and law enforcement rather than innovation or wellness.
The initial shock value, however, opened the door to deeper analysis. As legalization expanded and early data emerged, Davos began to treat cannabis less as a moral issue and more as a policy and economic case study. By the early 2020s, cannabis had become a recurring topic in off-agenda sessions and reports connected to the World Economic Forum. The framing shifted toward regulation, harm reduction, and market design — familiar territory for an audience accustomed to managing complex global systems.
One of the most notable evolutions in Davos’s stance has been the normalization of cannabis as an investable sector. Executives and investors now discuss cannabis alongside biotech, wellness, and consumer packaged goods. Conversations increasingly focus on supply chains, cross-border trade barriers, taxation, and the challenges of banking access. Rather than asking whether cannabis should exist, Davos discussions now center on how to regulate it effectively and equitably.
Public health has also taken on a more nuanced role. Instead of blanket opposition, panels examine comparative risk — weighing cannabis against alcohol, opioids, and pharmaceuticals. This has led to more pragmatic discussions around medical cannabis access, pain management, mental health, and aging populations. The emphasis is not on promotion, but on evidence-based policy reducing harm while acknowledging consumer behavior.
Social equity has become another key pillar of the Davos cannabis conversation. As global leaders confront inequality and inclusion, cannabis legalization is increasingly discussed in the context of criminal justice reform, economic opportunity, and repairing harms from decades of prohibition. This aligns with Davos’s broader focus on stakeholder capitalism and inclusive growth.
Today, cannabis at Davos is no longer a headline-grabbing novelty. It is a mature, if still evolving, topic woven into conversations about global markets, health systems, and governance. What started with a bang has settled into something far more consequential: a recognition cannabis policy is not a fringe issue, but a real-world test of how societies manage change, balance risk, and adapt to shifting cultural norms.
What’s the absolute best way to give Gov. Gavin Newsom free publicity and a worldwide audience?
Freeze him out at Davos, where the rich and powerful are meeting in the snow-capped mountains of Switzerland. The Trump administration is learning the hard way, in real time, that petty comes with a price — in this case, being laughed at by, well, the world.
And while Congress, Europe and law may hold no terrors for our president, we all know ridicule hits him in his soft, white underbelly.
In case you missed it, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the California governor has been banned from a scheduled media talk (allegedly under pressure from the White House) that was going to be a rebuttal to Trump’s ramble at the event, according to Newsom’s office.
On Wednesday, Newsom’s team announced that he had been turned away from USA House, the privately run but official gathering spot of the United States. Newsom was scheduled to do a fireside chat with Fortune magazine, but apparently when he arrived at the church-turned-conference hall, he was politely told to beat it.
“How weak and pathetic do you have to be to be this scared of a fireside chat?” Newsom posted on X.
Cue the outrage. Cue the coverage.
Fortune didn’t know the snub was coming, according to screen shots of private text messages reviewed by The Times, but within minutes it was world news. Except maybe on CBS.
That’s a lot of focus on a guy who isn’t even a billionaire and doesn’t run a country, and supposedly isn’t even in the presidential race yet. In case you’re not personally familiar with the gathering at Davos, it’s pretty much the kings (and occasional queen) of the world coming together to think big thoughts. Getting cold-shouldered in that crowd is a big deal.
But it’s the kind of big deal that makes Newsom look good. Blackballing him from USA House was akin to screaming in his face that he’s a big meanie and the president wasn’t going to take it any more. So there!
It’s funny. It’s powerful. It gets him the kind of news coverage that other not-yet-candidates dream about.
It makes it clear that far from the useful foil that the Newsom-Trump rivalry is often explained as, Newsom is hitting on points that are hitting home. With Trump, and with voters. And now, maybe with world leaders — which just makes him that much more viable as a candidate. Without a doubt, this is Trump quashing dissent.
Earlier in the day, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went after Newsom, calling Newsom “Patrick Bateman meets Sparkle Beach Ken.”
That’s a reference to the overly suave serial killer in the film “American Psycho” crossed with a popular 1990s version of a male Barbie known for its pretty eyes and good hair. To be fair, Newsom does resemble both of them.
That remark came in response to Newsom calling Bessent’s speech “smug” for suggesting that the average American couple was buying up homes as rentals for their retirements. Personally, like most of us, I can’t even afford an extra Barbie doll house, so to be fair, Newsom is right on that one.
Newsom also scored points off Trump’s speech. He called it “boring,” the most vicious insult you can hurl at Trump. But it was.
For more than an hour, Trump repeatedly called Greenland Iceland by mistake, while demanding it be turned over to him.
Yawn.
He went after windmills because “they kill the birds, they ruin your landscapes.”
Wut?
He went after Minnesota with a particularly rabid if overused bit of racism, because it “reminds us that the West cannot mass import foreign cultures, which have failed to ever build a successful society of their own.”
Yuck.
As Newsom pointed out in a press gaggle not too long afterward — right before being banned from his formal talk — for an American audience, it’s the same ugly drivel we’ve been subjected to for nearly a year. Absolutely none of it is fresh, though it remains awful and dangerous.
“My God, there wasn’t anything new about that speech,” Newsom said. “It was remarkably insignificant.”
It was certainly not a speech that won Trump credibility or support from those kings and queens. It certainly did not contain diplomacy or leadership, or frankly, even sense. Despite the laughter and applause from the audience, I doubt there are few if any outside of Trump’s team who would call it a success.
Some of the things people buy the most are at their most expensive point of the year as the calendar changes over to 2026. Our get the facts data team dug into what actually caused the prices of some items to go up or go down. Let’s start with beef. Right now, the average price for ground beef is 823 per pound and 967 for steaks, the highest prices for both all year. Several factors like President Trump’s tariffs. Cattle inventories and an aging farming population contributed to the increase, but so did something called the New World screwworm, *** parasitic fly that produced *** deadly disease in some places like Mexico. Another grocery staple that is more expensive now, coffee. Our get the Facts data team found the price rose each month throughout the year, maxing out at 926 cents *** pound. Two of the world’s biggest coffee producers, Brazil and Vietnam, Were impacted by drought and excessive rains earlier this year, which reduced coffee production, and Brazil saw an additional 40% tariff over the summer as well. One of the biggest talking points, especially from President Trump about the state of the economy was egg prices. They are one of the few items tracked that actually are cheapest now. Egg prices saw their biggest price hike in nearly 10 years in January, then rose to an all-time high of 623. Per dozen in March. This was in large part to ongoing bird flu outbreaks. Egg prices would start falling in the summer and are now 286 *** dozen. Some other groceries that saw increases this year, cookies, potato chips, bacon, cheddar cheese, and orange juice. But it wasn’t all increases at the supermarket. Some items are cheaper now compared to January, like pasta, white bread, tomatoes, and strawberries. In Washington, I’m Amy Lou.
If your next Amazon order seems more expensive, President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs may be partially to blame, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said Tuesday.Like many retailers, Amazon and its vast network of third-party sellers loaded up on inventory ahead of Trump’s tariff rollout last spring. But that supply ran out by the fall, Jassy said in a CNBC interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.“So you start to see some of the tariffs creep into some of the prices, some of the items,” he said. “Some sellers are deciding that they’re passing on those higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, some are deciding that they’ll absorb it to drive demand and some are doing something in between.”The comments are a stark shift from last June, when Jassy said in a CNBC interview that the company had not seen “prices appreciably go up.” That was after Amazon drew the direct ire of Trump and members of his administration following reports that the e-commerce giant planned to display how tariffs were impacting prices.After Trump spoke with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos at the time, a company spokesperson told CNN the move “was never a consideration for the main Amazon.” It was only being considered for certain products on its spinoff site, Haul, which sells items below $30, the company said.On Tuesday, though, Jassy said: “We’re going to do everything we can to work with our selling partners to make prices as low as possible for consumers, but you don’t have endless options.”In a statement, though, the company told CNN that overall price levels have not changed more than expected. “While we are seeing prices for some sellers and some brands go up, overall the prices of products on Amazon have not changed outside of normal fluctuations,“ an Amazon spokesperson said.And the White House said it maintains that foreign exports are footing that tariff bill.“The average tariff imposed by America has increased by almost tenfold under President Trump, and inflation has continued to cool from Biden-era highs,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.“The Administration has consistently maintained that foreign exporters who depend on access to the American economy, the world’s biggest and best consumer market, will ultimately pay the cost of tariffs, and that’s what’s playing out,” he added.Amazon isn’t the only retailer warning of higher prices because of tariffs. Walmart, Target and Home Depot and many other companies have publicly said tariffs are making products more expensive. And while overall consumer inflation was modest last year, many businesses surveyed by the Federal Reserve in its latest Beige Book, a collection of anecdotes, warned they’re planning bigger price hikes this year.
If your next Amazon order seems more expensive, President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs may be partially to blame, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said Tuesday.
Like many retailers, Amazon and its vast network of third-party sellers loaded up on inventory ahead of Trump’s tariff rollout last spring. But that supply ran out by the fall, Jassy said in a CNBC interview on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
“So you start to see some of the tariffs creep into some of the prices, some of the items,” he said. “Some sellers are deciding that they’re passing on those higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, some are deciding that they’ll absorb it to drive demand and some are doing something in between.”
The comments are a stark shift from last June, when Jassy said in a CNBC interview that the company had not seen “prices appreciably go up.” That was after Amazon drew the direct ire of Trump and members of his administration following reports that the e-commerce giant planned to display how tariffs were impacting prices.
After Trump spoke with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos at the time, a company spokesperson told CNN the move “was never a consideration for the main Amazon.” It was only being considered for certain products on its spinoff site, Haul, which sells items below $30, the company said.
On Tuesday, though, Jassy said: “We’re going to do everything we can to work with our selling partners to make prices as low as possible for consumers, but you don’t have endless options.”
In a statement, though, the company told CNN that overall price levels have not changed more than expected. “While we are seeing prices for some sellers and some brands go up, overall the prices of products on Amazon have not changed outside of normal fluctuations,“ an Amazon spokesperson said.
And the White House said it maintains that foreign exports are footing that tariff bill.
“The average tariff imposed by America has increased by almost tenfold under President Trump, and inflation has continued to cool from Biden-era highs,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement.
“The Administration has consistently maintained that foreign exporters who depend on access to the American economy, the world’s biggest and best consumer market, will ultimately pay the cost of tariffs, and that’s what’s playing out,” he added.
Amazon isn’t the only retailer warning of higher prices because of tariffs. Walmart, Target and Home Depot and many other companies have publicly said tariffs are making products more expensive. And while overall consumer inflation was modest last year, many businesses surveyed by the Federal Reserve in its latest Beige Book, a collection of anecdotes, warned they’re planning bigger price hikes this year.
President Donald Trump will address the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21. His address to world, policy and economic leaders follows Trump’s jockeying to own Greenland, tensions with NATO allies and the U.S. military capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.
President Donald Trump will deliver a speech today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, focusing on a plan to make housing more affordable, while his comments about acquiring Greenland continue to stir tensions with European allies.”This will be an interesting trip. I have no idea what’s going to happen, but you are well represented,” Trump told reporters before departing the White House for Switzerland.The speech comes shortly after he threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and seven other allies due to their opposition to his interest in acquiring Greenland. Trump announced that the tariffs would start at 10% next month and increase to 25% by June. The tensions over the U.S. interest in the Danish territory have already affected Wall Street, with stocks rattled on Tuesday.In Davos, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney warned global leaders that the world is “facing a rupture,” emphasizing the risks of countries trying to avoid conflict by compliance. “There is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won’t,” Carney said.Carney also added that Canada opposes tariffs over Greenland. Trump’s speech is expected to focus largely on housing, and following his address, he will meet with leaders at the forum, according to the White House.Home sales in the U.S. are at a 30-year low with rising prices. Reports show elevated mortgage rates are keeping prospective home buyers out of the market. Rent, for several years, has been the largest contributor to inflation.This comes as Trump announced his plan to buy $200 billion in mortgage securities to help lower interest rates on home loans. He’s also called for a ban on large financial companies buying houses. Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:s
WASHINGTON —
President Donald Trump will deliver a speech today at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, focusing on a plan to make housing more affordable, while his comments about acquiring Greenland continue to stir tensions with European allies.
“This will be an interesting trip. I have no idea what’s going to happen, but you are well represented,” Trump told reporters before departing the White House for Switzerland.
The speech comes shortly after he threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and seven other allies due to their opposition to his interest in acquiring Greenland.
Trump announced that the tariffs would start at 10% next month and increase to 25% by June.
The tensions over the U.S. interest in the Danish territory have already affected Wall Street, with stocks rattled on Tuesday.
In Davos, Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney warned global leaders that the world is “facing a rupture,” emphasizing the risks of countries trying to avoid conflict by compliance.
“There is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along, to accommodate to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won’t,” Carney said.
Carney also added that Canada opposes tariffs over Greenland.
Trump’s speech is expected to focus largely on housing, and following his address, he will meet with leaders at the forum, according to the White House.
Home sales in the U.S. are at a 30-year low with rising prices. Reports show elevated mortgage rates are keeping prospective home buyers out of the market. Rent, for several years, has been the largest contributor to inflation.
This comes as Trump announced his plan to buy $200 billion in mortgage securities to help lower interest rates on home loans. He’s also called for a ban on large financial companies buying houses.
Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:
Cuba’s ruler, Raúl Castro (front left), and the country’s handpicked president, Miguel Díaz-Canel (front right), during a tribute ceremony for 32 Cuban security officers who were protecting Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro and were killed in the Jan. 3 U.S. operation to capture him.
Office of the Cuban Presidency.
Following the capture of Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro in an operation in which several Cuban security officers died protecting him, Donald Trump joined a long line of U.S. presidents who over the decades anticipated the collapse of Cuba’s communist government.
“Cuba gives protection to Venezuela, and Venezuela gives Cuba money through oil — and it’s been that way for a long time — but it doesn’t work that way anymore, so I don’t know what Cuba’s going to do,” Trump told Fox News. “I think Cuba’s going to fail. I don’t think there are alternatives for Cuba.”
Trump warned Cuban leaders to “make a deal before it’s too late.” He then said his administration was already in talks with Cuban authorities, a claim the island’s handpicked president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, promptly denied.
In Miami last week, the head of the U.S. Embassy in Havana, Mike Hammer, told reporters not to pay attention to Havana’s denial, but declined to comment on any negotiations. The pressure on the Cuban government “is intensifying,” he said. “What is happening is creating an opportunity, and of course, we want to be able to have the Cuban people benefit from this opportunity.”
Can Trump succeed where others have failed?
The Trump factor
There are several elements that make this moment distinct from other crises the Cuban leadership has weathered over the years.
On the U.S. side, there’s Trump’s unpredictability and his willingness to use military force to achieve foreign policy goals, as the raid to capture Maduro showed.
“I think that’s what the Cubans now learned, that Trump is like no president we’ve had since 1959, so everything they thought they knew is out the window,” said Chris Simmons, a former U.S. counterintelligence official who has helped identify Cuban spies operating in the United States.
“That’s got to make them very nervous,’ added Simmons, who also mentioned the role of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuba hardliner. “When you’ve got Rubio talking about they may be next, they’re going to take that very seriously. I mean, they’d be fools not to.”
Trump said that ousting the regime in Havana might take military action, though he has ruled that out for the moment.
“I don’t think we can have much more pressure other than going in and blasting the hell out of the place,” he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. “I think that Cuba is really in a lot of trouble. But you know, people have been saying that for many years.”
At the same time, Trump’s transactional style and tendency to view international conflicts as opportunities for deal-making might help kickstart a negotiated transition — if Cuban leaders take the off-ramp.
“We are talking to Cuba, and you’ll find out pretty soon,” he said. “One of the groups I want taken care of is the people who came from Cuba who were forced out or left under duress, and they are great citizens of the United States right now.”
Cuba watchers say perhaps Trump is talking about negotiating compensation for Cuban Americans who were forced to flee the island and lost their properties after Fidel Castro took power in 1959. But many other issues could be discussed, including the repatriation of Cubans, allowing private investment and the lifting of some sanctions, said Joe García, a former Democratic member of Congress who has advocated for negotiations with Havana and the release of political prisoners.
After years of dragging its feet on reforms, the Cuban government may not have much time left to act, Hugo Cancio, a Cuban American businessman who owns an online supermarket that delivers food on the island, told the Miami Herald.
“In light of recent developments in Venezuela, Cuba today faces a clearer choice than ever: to open itself in a gradual and credible manner to economic reform, institutional modernization, and broader civic participation, with the constructive engagement of its diaspora, or to continue down a path of managed decline,” Cancio said. “The real risk is not change; the real risk is postponing it until the cost becomes irreversible.”
The Cuba Study Group, an influential Cuban-American organization that has focused on supporting the island’s private sector, also urged the Cuban government to engage in talks with the U.S.
“Today, no external power will bail the island out,” the group said in a statement. “Old formulas will not avert catastrophe. To prevent greater disaster, Cuban authorities must take steps they have never taken before,” including a wide political dialogue that includes the Cuban diaspora.
The group advised Cuban leaders to “propose a bold restructuring that advances the rule of law, democratic norms, and a market economy while preserving a social safety net. And they should make unmistakable gestures—such as unconditionally freeing political prisoners—that demonstrate genuine commitment to turning the page.”
The Rubio factor
In the past, many Cuban exiles and Cuban American hardliners have strongly opposed negotiations with the Cuban government. But this time, they are likely to back up president Trump’s efforts, largely because Rubio, a Cuban American from Miami, is the one steering U.S. policy on Cuba.
“Marco Rubio is the most trustworthy representative the exile community has had in 67 years,” said Marcel Felipe, the chairman of the American Museum of the Cuban Diaspora and a Miami Dade College trustee. He said he trusted Rubio to get the best possible outcome in negotiations to push for regime change in Cuba, one that Cuban exiles could live with.
García, the former congressman, said that even though he is a Democrat and Rubio is a Republican, “Marco represents me and many Cubans who want to see change in Cuba.”
State Department officials have been reaching out to members of the Cuban American community for their input about how a transition in Cuba would look like.
“The Cuban exile community has been preparing for this for a long time,” said Felipe, who’s also the chairman of Inspire America, a pro-democracy organization. He said his organization and others have been sharing plans with U.S. officials for “day one” and the country’s reconstruction.
Trump has also commented on the role Cuban Americans will likely play in economically rebuilding Cuba.
“You have a lot of people in this country that want to go back to Cuba and help Cuba,” he said in a meeting last week with the CEOs of several oil companies to discuss investments in Venezuela. “They didn’t have anything, and they became very rich people in our country, and they want to very much go back and help Cuba. That’s something that Cuba has that a lot of other places don’t have.”
The Cuban economy factor
In Cuba, “a Revolution running on empty is finally out of gas,” the Cuba Study Group said.
For decades, Fidel Castro ruled Cubans with a combination of repression, propaganda and populism. Many Cubans still fear opposing the government, but ideological support has eroded, and the state can no longer meet the most basic needs of the population.
The new chapter of confrontation with the United States finds the island at its worst time economically, already on the verge of collapse.
Cuba’s GDP fell another 5% last year, after several years of recession. A botched monetary reform has triggered skyrocketing inflation. The electrical grid collapses regularly, leaving the entire country in the dark. Oil shortages and obsolete power stations constantly breaking down have made daily hours-long blackouts the new normal. Garbage covers streets in the capital, fueling mosquito-borne diseases. Old buildings in Havana frequently collapse after years of neglect.
A sociologist living on the island, Mayra Espina, estimates that more than 40% of the population lives in poverty, a figure that could actually be much higher, over 80%, according to surveys done by the Cuban Observatory of Human Rights, a Spain-based organization.
Unlike the times Fidel Castro maneuvered his way out of crises, Cuba’s current leadership has proved less skillful, more prone to inaction, and notoriously less popular than the late Cuban dictator. A frail Raúl Castro reappeared Thursday to pay homage to the 32 Cuban officers who died during the U.S. raid to capture Maduro. He is the country’s ultimate authority, but he is 94, and behind the scenes power struggles for succession are already likely taking place.
For the time being, Cuban leaders appeared unified and defiant in public. On Friday, Díaz-Canel rejected Trump’s deal offer.
“There is no possibility of surrender or capitulation, nor any kind of understanding based on coercion or intimidation,” he said before shouting Castro’s old slogan, “Patria o Muerte,” Fatherland or Death, during a massive protest rally in Havana organized by the government to show it has broad support.
“Cuba does not have to make any political concessions, and this will never be on the table in negotiations for an understanding between Cuba and the United States,” Díaz-Canel added.
Cuban state media has shown images of military exercises that purport to convey a sense of readiness against a U.S. military attack. The images, however, highlight the vast gulf between the United States’ advanced military armament and Cuba’s old Soviet technology.
Beyond the rhetoric, however, mid-level Cuban officials, economic advisers, academics and others who interact with foreigners share many of the population’s frustration with Díaz-Canel’s leadership and would welcome reforms, Herald sources who travel to Cuba and asked for anonymity to describe their interactions said.
“Ten years ago, you would hear Cuban officials defending Marxism. Now they tell you stuff about Díaz-Canel that makes me look around to see if anyone is listening. They are ready for change,” one of the sources said.
A conspicuous sign of the erosion of support for the Cuban socialist system: Several children and close relatives of former and current Cuban officials, as well as members of the Castro family, live abroad, including Díaz-Canel’s stepson and three grandchildren of Fidel Castro, who live in Spain.
Even Interior Minister Humberto Alfonso Roca Sánchez, who Díaz-Canel said was the one in charge of the Cubans who died protecting Maduro, has two daughters who live in the United States, according to the U.S. government outlet Martí Noticias.
Socialist policies and government repression are behind the largest cumulative exodus in Cuban history. An estimated 2.5 million Cubans left the country between 2021 and 2024, almost a quarter of the island’s population, according to estimates by Juan C. Albizu-Campos, a Cuban economist and demographer, at a conference in Miami of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy in October.
The discontent extends even among Interior Ministry officers who guard Cuban prisons, says José Daniel Ferrer, a former political prisoner and prominent dissident who now lives in exile in Miami. He said some of the guards would mention to him privately they face the same scarcities as the population.
Despite new harsh laws to punish dissent, many Cubans have voiced criticism of the government in public, on social media and in comments left on Cuban state news websites. Asked by a reporter from Cubanet, a Miami-based outlet, what would happen if U.S. forces captured Díaz-Canel, some residents in Havana declined to answer, but others were surprisingly candid.
“How happy that would make me. Get them all the f–k out of here, to see if we can be happy, to see if we can see the fruit of our work,” a man answered.
Obstacles in the way
However different Cuba’s currently economic and political scenario is, any regime change efforts by the Trump administration will face an old dilemma, experts say: Calibrating how much pressure to put on a country that is just 90 miles from the United States and has a sizable amount of its population and their descendants living in South Florida.
Rubio has long been laser-focused on targeting the Cuban military, and the administration is likely to ratchet up pressure on GAESA, the armed forces’ conglomerate that controls at least 40% of the country’s economy. GAESA had been redirecting the country’s foreign revenue into hotels and had $18 billion stashed away last year, while the population faces deprivation, the Herald previously reported.
At the same time, Rubio has spoken carefully, telling the Cuban government it has a choice to make and stressing the administration has no interest in a destabilized Cuba.
“If you put too much pressure on Cuba and really turn the screws on it, you’ve got the makings of a Spanish-speaking Haiti,” said John Kavulich, a longtime Cuba watcher and president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council that tracks trade with Cuba. He believes Rubio will push back against demands by some Cuban American lawmakers to exert maximum economic pressure, “because he’s going to be thinking about the day after, what does this look like?”
The Trump administration has significant leverage, as economists predict the end of Venezuelan oil subsidies could have devastating consequences for the island.
Jorge Piñón, a senior research fellow at the Energy Center at the University of Texas who closely tracks oil shipments to the island, said he did not believe Mexico or Russia will step up to fill the gap left by the halt of Venezuelan oil, which he said covered around 50% of Cuba’s oil import needs.
Still, it is uncertain whether economic pressure alone would make Cuba “fail” on its own, as Trump has predicted.
“It’s not failing on its own; its failure being hastened,” said Kavulich. “But we have seen this movie before. Does this mean that the government of Cuba will collapse? I think not.”
Kavulich believes Cuban leaders will try to make concessions to the Trump administration in order to survive, not unlike what the remaining members of the Maduro regime are currently doing in Venezuela.
“They will start looking in the survival manual and say, okay, what’s the first thing we can do?,” he said. “ We can release political prisoners. What’s the second thing we can do? We can further open up the economy. That’s their playbook. It’s not going to be, ‘we’re going to hold free and fair elections,’ but it’s going to be, ‘what can we do to forestall doing stuff that we really don’t want to do?’”
“The unknown is how much pressure the Trump administration wants to exert,” Kavulich said.
Who is Cuba’s Delcy Rodríguez?
Central to the Trump administration’s efforts to negotiate a future transition with Havana, experts say, is finding Cuba’s equivalent to Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s vice-president who is now leading an interim government and has so far conceded to key Trump demands.
Power in Cuba is more fragmented than under Fidel Castro’s rule. His brother, Raul, is not in charge of day-to-day decisions. His handpicked successor, Díaz-Canel, is seen as a figurehead atop a civilian government that has little real power, even if he is officially the first secretary of the Communist Party. Few believe he could be the lead negotiator with the Americans.
Real power lies with the military. The generals have seats at the National Assembly, the Party, and the government’s top decision-making bodies. The country’s prime Minister Manuel Marrero, also comes from the military.
Members of the Castro family remain influential. That includes Raúl Castro’s son, Col. Alejandro Castro Espín, who negotiated with U.S. officials during the Obama administration, and grandson Raúl Guillermo Rodríguez Castro, who is in charge of Raúl’s personal security and is involved in GAESA’s obscure finances. In less than two years, another family member, Oscar Pérez-Oliva Fraga, a grandnephew of Fidel and Raúl Castro, has been climbing the ladder to become minister of foreign trade and investment and vice prime minister.
Would any of these players be enticed to negotiate to avoid ending like the Venezuelan strongman?
“Part of the message that I think the administration is hoping for is, look what happened to Maduro,” said Ryan Berg, director of the Americas Program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “He was given options to leave peacefully. He wouldn’t have been in an orange jumpsuit now, but he is because he didn’t take the offer to go to Turkey or Qatar. And that’s a lot of leverage. But given the ideological factor in Cuba, I’m a little bit skeptical that they would take the off-ramp. I think many of them would go down with the ship rather than take a negotiated exile”.
Pinpointing precisely who might be Cuba’s reformer who would be willing to work with the United States to dismantle the communist system and rebuild the country has proved elusive.
“I don’t think that there’s really an analogy here with Venezuela,” Berg said. “Whether you agree with this theory or not, we have identified Delcy Rodríguez as the one who could take over and implement pragmatic policies that are pro U.S. What is the analogue in Cuba’s case?”
An unsavory answer
The answer to that question right now might be unsavory for Rubio and Cuban exiles, said Ric Herrero, the executive director of the Cuba Study Group.
“The only person that’s a Delcy-type in Cuba now is Raúl Castro,” he said. “Because what is Delcy? Delcy is someone from within, a senior official. She was a vice president, but who has significant clout within the party, within the bureaucracy and with the military. Someone who can keep all of those sectors in line and all the different factions playing ball.”
“Who can achieve that in Cuba without having the last name Castro?” he asked.
Felipe said it would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Cuban exile community to accept a transition model that involves someone whose last name is Castro.”
Many longtime Cuban activists who have fiercely opposed negotiations with the regime in Havana might end up disappointed if what the administration is doing in Venezuela serves as an example of how it might operate with Cuba. The Helms-Burton Act Congress passed in 1996 forbids recognizing a transitional government led by Raúl Castro but doesn’t say anything about other members of his family.
Cuban opposition members would not favor a negotiation with Raúl Castro or another member of the Castro family, said Ferrer the former political prisoner.
“But if we are pragmatic and one of them negotiates, and Trump and Rubio manage to get the transition to democracy moving as quickly as possible, then that’s better than continuing in the situation we’re in, in complete stagnation, with the people still suffering from hunger, hardship, and extreme poverty, and above all, remaining without rights, without freedom, and constantly repressed, with the prisons full of political prisoners,” Ferrer said.
“Ideally, this process would be completed as soon as possible, and the Castros would disappear from power because of all the harm they have done to Cuba,” he added.
Part of the reason the regime in Havana has been able to survive so long is that, unlike Venezuela, where several opposition parties are still legal, Fidel Castro abolished all opposition parties and dissidents like Ferrer are routinely sent to prison or exile.
Even so, the Trump administration decided to work with Rodriguez instead of María Corina Machado, the leader of the Venezuelan opposition, to manage a transition, Ferrer noted.
“We are insisting with our American friends that the Cuban opposition, both the internal opposition and the organized exile community that has been fighting for years for a transition to democracy in Cuba, cannot be ignored at any time,” Ferrer said. “We must be an active part of any process. We cannot be marginalized.”
Ultimately, there is one reality that has not changed in several decades in Cuba: the regime in Havana still keeps much of its capacity for repression, has all the guns, and tens of thousands of security and military personnel to squash dissent and instill fear. Protesting often lands people in prison.
On Friday, Cuban independent journalist José Gabriel Barrenechea Chávez was sentenced to six years in prison for participating in a peaceful protest banging pots during a blackout in Villa Clara, a province in central Cuba.
But as the economy collapses and discontent grows among Cubans, increasing U.S. pressure and the regime’s inability to address the population’s pressing needs may well trigger another chapter of mass protests, similar to those in July 2021, Ferrer said.
The regime in Havana, he bet, “won’t make it to the end of the year.”
Nora Gámez Torres is the Cuba/U.S.-Latin American policy reporter for el Nuevo Herald and the Miami Herald. She studied journalism and media and communications in Havana and London. She holds a Ph.D. in sociology from City, University of London. Her work has won awards by the Florida Society of News Editors and the Society for Professional Journalists.//Nora Gámez Torres estudió periodismo y comunicación en La Habana y Londres. Tiene un doctorado en sociología y desde el 2014 cubre temas cubanos para el Nuevo Herald y el Miami Herald. También reporta sobre la política de Estados Unidos hacia América Latina. Su trabajo ha sido reconocido con premios de Florida Society of News Editors y Society for Profesional Journalists.
Amid President Trump’s call to ban large investment firms from buying single-family homes, purchases by investors are the highest they’ve been in five years, according to a new report from BatchData.
The research company used data from The Investor Pulse Report, prepared with business intelligence firm CJ Patrick Company, to track growth trends in investor-owned properties. The data included purchases by small-scale and large investors.
Investor-led purchases made up 34% of all single-family residential sales in the third quarter of 2025, up 25.5% year over year and 1% from the second quarter.
Investors currently own 18% of 86 million single-family homes nationwide. One-third of these investor-owned properties are concentrated in just five states — Texas, California, Florida, North Carolina and Georgia.
North Carolina (25%), Georgia (19%), and Texas (18.2%) surpass the national average for investor ownership.
But, BatchData researchers point out, there may be more to this trend upon deeper inspection.
“Two seemingly incongruous trends continue to show themselves,” said BatchData Co-Founder and President Ivo Draginov in a press release “While the percentage of homes purchased by investors rose to a five-year high, the actual number of homes purchased was 23,000 fewer than a year ago. This suggests [that] the higher percentage is due to traditional homeowners retreating from the market rather than overly aggressive investor activity.”
Notably, small-scale firms own the largest share of investor-held single-family homes. Investors owning one to five properties make up 92% of all investor-owned single-family homes and those with six to 10 properties hold 4%. Investors with over 1,000 properties account for a 2% share.
In the year since his inauguration, President Donald Trump has taken dramatic actions to carry out his promise of the largest domestic deportation operation in U.S. history, including invoking rarely used laws and launching aggressive immigration enforcement in several U.S. cities.
Although deportation data is limited because the federal government has stopped releasing it, available figures show Trump remains far below his goal of deporting 1 million people a year.
Nevertheless, the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute said in a Jan. 13 report that Trump’s actions have “dramatically reshaped the machinery of government to target unauthorized immigrants” and made the climate for immigrants in the U.S. illegally “more hostile.”
Trump’s promise to prioritize deporting the “worst of the worst” has also fallen short. About 74% of the nearly 70,000 immigrants in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention as of December, the most recent data available, have no criminal convictions.
Trump’s deportation efforts have been less efficient and more disruptive than those undertaken by other presidents, said University of North Carolina immigration law professor Rick Su.
The deportations have been “more sensational, intrusive, and focused on ‘low hanging fruit’ than not only past presidents, but even the first Trump administration,” Su said.
When asked for comment about the deportation operation, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, said Trump is “keeping his promise and the American people are appreciative.” DHS did not respond to detailed questions about deportation data.
Here’s what the administration’s first-year efforts have encompassed.
Shackled migrants deplane an aircraft used for deportation flights at the Valley International Airport, Aug. 31, 2025, in Harlingen, Texas. (AP)
How many people have been deported under Trump?
Unlike previous administrations, the Trump administration has not released monthlydetaileddeportation data. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security provides updates via press releases.
DHS said in a Dec. 10 press release that 605,000 people had been deported since Jan. 20, 2025, when Trump was inaugurated. But the lack of public data makes it impossible to know what that figure includes. For example, it could include people turned away at the U.S. border or at airports.
University of California Los Angeles researchers, through the Deportation Data Project, collect and publish immigration data received via Freedom of Information Act requests.
The project’s data shows around 350,000 deportations since Jan. 20, 2025. That number does not include people who were not arrested by ICE before being deported, such as people encountered by Border Patrol agents at the U.S. southern border.
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, another research group that uses Freedom of Information Act requests to analyze government data, said that from January through September 2025, the Trump administration deported around 234,000 people.
DHS also cites another data point: people who left the country voluntarily. During Trump’s second term, DHS says, 1.9 million people self-deported.
As with other deportation figures, DHS provided no evidence for this number. In September, Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem said 1.6 million people had voluntarily left the U.S. under Trump. But that number came from one research group’s estimate based on a survey with a small sample size and large margin of error. And the figure represented not only people who might have voluntarily left the U.S., but also people who were deported, died or whose status changed such as by receiving asylum.
How does that compare with other administrations?
Deportations are generally a three-step process, said Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. People are arrested, detained and then deported.
“In the last year, we’ve seen some parts of that deportation effort increase, while others have stayed the same,” she said. For example, even though arrests and detentions increased, the administration hasn’t “reached that increase in deportations that they’re looking for.”
Overall, deportations under Trump are lower than deportations under former President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama, who immigrant rights advocates dubbed the “deporter-in-chief.” But the Trump administration’s limited data release makes it difficult to compare.
During the last full fiscal year when Biden was in office, from October 2023 to September 2024, DHS deported about 778,000 people. Biden’s figure includes people deported at the border and people deported inside the U.S. Because of the high number of people who crossed the southern border under Biden, it’s likely that a large share of the deportations happened there.
Obama deported around 962,000 people in fiscal year 2009, from October 2008 to September 2009. As with Biden’s data, that included deportations at the border and inside the U.S.
Vice President JD Vance called any comparison between Obama and Trump an “entirely fake” argument.
“In the Obama administration, they counted being turned away at the border as a deportation,” Vance said in a Jan. 14 post. “A person would show up, be sent back, and counted as a deportation.”
Vance is correct that deportation data under past presidents did include people sent back at the border. It’s likely that Trump’s data includes those numbers too. That said, under Trump, Border Patrol encounters with people trying to illegally enter the U.S. have significantly dropped, so Trump’s deportation data is likely to include fewer removals at the border.
Tear gas is deployed Jan. 13 in Minneapolis amid protesters near the scene where Renee Good was fatally shot Jan. 7 by an ICE officer. (AP)
What actions has Trump taken so far?
Among the most high-profile of Trump’s deportation efforts was his use of the centuries old Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan men to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador without due process. The law lets the president detain and deport people from a “hostile nation or government” without a hearing when the U.S. is either at war with that country or the country has “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened” an invasion against the U.S. It has been used only three times in U.S. history, each during wartime.
Trump has sent large numbers of ICE and Customs and Border Protection agents to carry out wide-ranging operations in cities including Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Charlotte, North Carolina and New Orleans.
The administration’s actions have resulted in several ongoing lawsuits related to agents’ tactics and the legality of deploying National Guard troops.
Trump has also focused on arresting and deporting people at scheduled ICE check-ins or immigration court hearings — people who are following immigration requirements.
What will it take to reach 1 million deportations a year?
Trump has aimed to expand the administration’s immigration enforcement capacity. As part of his signature tax and spending bill, Congress allocated $170 billion in immigration enforcement funding. That includes $45 billion for immigration detention and nearly $30 billion for ICE to increase deportations and hire more immigration agents.
In the past year, DHS has hired 12,000 ICE agents. The rush to onboard more agents has led the agency to cut training for the new hires in half.
The administration has also let federal officials in other agencies enforce immigration law, including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the U.S. Marshals Service.
Even so, deporting 1 million people a year would require even more effort.
“There would need to be a lot more door-to-door raids and checkpoints, and detention capacity,” Su said. “It would also require that all Americans — citizens and otherwise — to be subject to constant surveillance and checking of status.”
Every president who moves into the White House puts individual touches on the decor to some extent, maybe none more than President Donald Trump during the first year of his second term.Some of the changes can be easily seen from the streets surrounding the executive mansion, while others can only be seen in photos.The Get the Facts Data Team built the following interactive photos, where you can see some of the most notable changes for yourself. East Wing demolitionStarting outside with arguably the most controversial of the renovations is the East Wing demolition. The interactive photo below shows the changes. On the left, you see the view from the Washington Monument in September 2024, and on the right, you’ll see the large construction site. The highly-publicized and discussed East Wing project started in September. The White House said it’s projected to be complete “well before the President’s term.” New flags installedTwo large, 88-foot flagpoles were installed at the president’s direction on both sides of the White House.Oval Office gets golden makeover Inside the White House, the president has made a lot of changes. It’s common for each president to re-paint and change up the furniture and portraits.The area in front of the fireplace, where presidents usually sit with other world leaders, is now adorned with more decorations with a golden flair.The doors that lead outside from the Oval Office also have gold accents. There’s also a new large sign next to the door, similar to other signs around the White House. The president’s Cabinet Room has been similarly remodeled to feature more gold accents.West Wing walk undergoes changesThe West Colonnade, which is an outdoor corridor to get from the residence to the West Wing, has gold accents and a presidential walk of fame, featuring portraits of all past presidents. The president has received criticism for the plaques of former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden because they promote disinformation about their administrations. A new look for the Rose GardenThe Rose Garden has been transformed into an outdoor patio with tables and umbrellas that are inspired by the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort.
WASHINGTON —
Every president who moves into the White House puts individual touches on the decor to some extent, maybe none more than President Donald Trump during the first year of his second term.
Some of the changes can be easily seen from the streets surrounding the executive mansion, while others can only be seen in photos.
The Get the Facts Data Team built the following interactive photos, where you can see some of the most notable changes for yourself.
East Wing demolition
Starting outside with arguably the most controversial of the renovations is the East Wing demolition. The interactive photo below shows the changes. On the left, you see the view from the Washington Monument in September 2024, and on the right, you’ll see the large construction site.
The highly-publicized and discussed East Wing project started in September. The White House said it’s projected to be complete “well before the President’s term.”
New flags installed
Two large, 88-foot flagpoles were installed at the president’s direction on both sides of the White House.
Oval Office gets golden makeover
Inside the White House, the president has made a lot of changes. It’s common for each president to re-paint and change up the furniture and portraits.
The area in front of the fireplace, where presidents usually sit with other world leaders, is now adorned with more decorations with a golden flair.
The doors that lead outside from the Oval Office also have gold accents. There’s also a new large sign next to the door, similar to other signs around the White House.
The president’s Cabinet Room has been similarly remodeled to feature more gold accents.
West Wing walk undergoes changes
The West Colonnade, which is an outdoor corridor to get from the residence to the West Wing, has gold accents and a presidential walk of fame, featuring portraits of all past presidents.
The president has received criticism for the plaques of former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden because they promote disinformation about their administrations.
A new look for the Rose Garden
The Rose Garden has been transformed into an outdoor patio with tables and umbrellas that are inspired by the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort.
Gov. Jared Polis unilaterally stalled a specialized prison program aimed at rehabilitating and releasing people who have served decades behind bars for crimes they committed as juveniles and young adults, The Denver Post found.
Polis has not approved any of the program’s graduates for early release since 2023 — an about-face from the prior three years, during which the governor approved releases for all 17 such prisoners, according to records kept by the Colorado Department of Corrections.
The governor’s inaction has created a backlog of 11 prisoners who have completed the three-year program and have gone before the Colorado State Parole Board but are nevertheless still incarcerated, waiting for Polis to sign off on their freedom.
“The uncertainty of the situation is one of the scariest things I have ever gone through, because it pertains to the emotion of hope,” said prisoner Rory Atkins, 55, who was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for a murder he committed in 1988, when he was 18. “Many of us with long sentences in prison kind of accept that hope is painful. You learn to be fearful of having high hopes.”
Colorado lawmakers created the Juveniles and Young Adults Convicted as Adults Program, or JYACAP, in 2016 after the U.S. Supreme Court found that children are constitutionally different from adults and should not be automatically sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Lawmakers that year also changed Colorado law to prohibit such punishment.
Initially limited to juveniles, the program was expanded in 2021 to include prisoners who committed a crime when they were 20 or younger and who have served at least 20 years of their sentence. The prisoners must also meet a variety of other conditions to enter the three-year program, which focuses on building life skills and preparing for life outside of prison.
After prisoners finish the program, the governor — after receiving a recommendation from the parole board — must give the final approval for them to be released on early parole.
“For whatever reason, there was this dollop of mercy that was required (in the law),” said Ann Roan, a retired attorney who represented a program participant. “And for years it has worked well. … So to have the brakes put on it so suddenly, with no explanation whatsoever, has really upended everyone’s justified expectations.”
Shelby Wieman, a spokeswoman for Polis, said in a statement that the prisoners’ applications are still under review, that the governor “takes these decisions very seriously” and that the serious nature of prisoners’ crimes requires “careful deliberation.”
“The governor’s office has also previously expressed discomfort with the governor’s role in the process, and proposed legislative changes to this program in the past, which the legislature declined to address,” Wieman said, apparently referring to a failed 2024 bill that would have cut the governor out of the process and shifted full authority for early releases to the parole board.
“We look forward to continuing to explore potential improvements with legislators and stakeholders,” Wieman said.
She did not answer questions about what changed from the program’s first few years, when Polis routinely approved graduates’ releases.
“We feel like we are being just dropped,” said Rose Martinez, who is waiting for the release of her cousin, Daniel Reyes, 56. He is serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole for a 1987 homicide he committed during a robbery when he was 18.
Martinez has, over the last decade, watched her cousin yearn for release as his 2027 parole eligibility date has drawn closer.
“I’ll never forget the day he told me, ‘I can’t wait until I can be outside of these walls and I can actually lean up against a tree,’” she said. “That was probably five years ago.”
Reyes has been waiting for the governor’s sign-off since April, he said. Atkins’ wait began in July, when the parole board recommended his release, he said. Others in the program, like Raymond Gone, who killed a Denver police officer in 1995 when he was 16, have been waiting on the governor for more than a year, he said.
“What would I say to the critics who say the crime I was convicted of was so serious that I should finish my entire sentence? Honestly, I would agree with them, if all I knew was that I was convicted of such a horrible crime,” said Gone, now 47. “…I know I am responsible, I am the cause, for an unfathomable amount of trauma in so many people’s lives. There isn’t any amount of time I could spend in this place to make up for what I did.
“But the opportunity I have been given through JYACAP was only made available to me because of a Supreme Court ruling… someone way above me decided that my life was worth saving and should be given a second chance.”
Since 2017, 112 prisoners have applied to participate in the JYACAP program; 44 were accepted, according to the Department of Corrections. Prisoners were denied for poor behavior in prison, the nature of the crimes they committed, and for not meeting the program’s basic eligibility requirements.
Last year, 40-year-old Raul Gomez-Garcia, who killed a Denver police officer in 2005 when he was 19, was denied entry to the program after his application stirred outrage within the slain officer’s family and the police department.
None of the 17 people released after completing the program have had their parole revoked, said Alondra Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections. One participant had “subsequent involvement with the criminal justice system,” she said, but it did not prompt parole revocation. She did not answer follow-up questions about that participant.
“Nobody reoffends, because they’ve grown up,” said Roan, who previously represented Gone. “…Every one of us at some point has been 16, and a lot of us who have children have watched what it is to be 16 from that perspective, and I don’t think anyone would say that is who you are for the rest of your life.”
‘A program that he signed into law’
Phillip “Mike” Montoya went into the JYACAP program after he’d spent 26 years behind bars. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison after he participated in a 1993 gang shooting as a 16-year-old, although he did not actually fire the fatal shot.
He found the program to be too basic at times, with tedious instruction on very basic tasks like how to brush your teeth or how to use a spatula. The curriculum wasn’t tailored to each individual, he noted.
“If you go inside the prison at 16 years old and maybe you never done anything in your life prior, like cook for yourself, do your own laundry, go to a grocery store and buy your own food, then maybe you are going to need a lot more assistance,” he said. “But for someone like me, I pretty much had to raise myself. I had to raise my brother and sisters. So going into prison, even though I went in at such a young age, I had a lot of knowledge of the world.”
Still, he is quick to praise the program’s pathway to release and the second chance it gives people who have been imprisoned since they were teenagers. Montoya has been working as a barber since he got out in August 2023, about three years before his parole eligibility date. He ultimately served 30 years and two days.
He’s tried to advocate for the program’s other participants, he said, seeking out meetings with officials and stakeholders.
“The response has always been the same, that (Polis) doesn’t want to deal with it for political reasons,” he said. “…We’re talking about a program that he signed into law that he doesn’t believe in now.”
Gone, Atkins and Reyes will each become eligible for parole in the coming years, prison records show. Reyes will be eligible in 2027, while Gone and Atkins will be eligible in 2030. Once they hit that mark, the parole board can release them without the governor’s sign-off.
Already, the parole board released two prisoners in 2024 and 2025 who completed the JYACAP program and reached their regular parole eligibility dates while waiting for Polis’ approval for early release, Gonzalez said.
For T’Naus Nieto, whose father is about to finish the program and join the small number of prisoners waiting for Polis’ final approval, the difference between an early release through JYACAP and a regular release when his father reaches parole eligibility in 2032 is significant.
Nieto wants his own children to grow up with their grandfather.
“My youngest is 5 and I have my daughter who is 8,” Nieto said. “So you are talking about a difference of six years. Six years to an 8-year-old. Do the math, and you miss out on their entire childhood. So just the fact that he could be in their lives for just a few short years makes a huge difference for a child.”
In a ruling on Friday, a judge restricted federal officers from detaining or using tear gas against peaceful protesters who are not obstructing authorities in Minneapolis, where demonstrations over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown are expected to continue this weekend. Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement responding to the preliminary injunction, “D.H.S. is taking appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters.”ICE’s tactics have faced criticism from Democratic leaders, like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.”What we’re seeing on our streets is unnecessary abuses of force. This is an invasion for the sake of creating chaos by our own federal government,” Frey said on Friday.Both Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz are reportedly under investigation. The Justice Department is looking into whether Frey and Walz impeded law enforcement through past public statements, according to the Associated Press. “Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic,” Walz said in a social media post on Friday.”A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a separate post, which didn’t explicitly mention the probe. The warning comes as Minneapolis braces for another weekend of demonstrations. Clashes with protesters have escalated following the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent in a highly contested incident last week. “While peaceful expression is protected, any actions that harm people, destroy property, or jeopardize public safety will not be tolerated,” Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson said Friday. Earlier this week, President Donald Trump warned that he could invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Minneapolis in response to protests. “If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump wrote on social media Thursday.Trump appeared to walk back that threat, at least for now, while speaking to reporters Friday. “I don’t think there is any reason right now to use it, but if I needed it, I would use it,” Trump said.Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison has said that he would challenge the use of the 19th-century law in court if necessary. He’s already suing to try to stop the recent surge in immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities. DHS says officers have arrested more than 2,500 people as part of its “Metro Surge” operation to date.
In a ruling on Friday, a judge restricted federal officers from detaining or using tear gas against peaceful protesters who are not obstructing authorities in Minneapolis, where demonstrations over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown are expected to continue this weekend.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement responding to the preliminary injunction, “D.H.S. is taking appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters.”
ICE’s tactics have faced criticism from Democratic leaders, like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.
“What we’re seeing on our streets is unnecessary abuses of force. This is an invasion for the sake of creating chaos by our own federal government,” Frey said on Friday.
Both Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz are reportedly under investigation. The Justice Department is looking into whether Frey and Walz impeded law enforcement through past public statements, according to the Associated Press.
“Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic,” Walz said in a social media post on Friday.
“A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote in a separate post, which didn’t explicitly mention the probe.
The warning comes as Minneapolis braces for another weekend of demonstrations. Clashes with protesters have escalated following the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent in a highly contested incident last week.
“While peaceful expression is protected, any actions that harm people, destroy property, or jeopardize public safety will not be tolerated,” Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson said Friday.
Earlier this week, President Donald Trump warned that he could invoke the rarely used Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Minneapolis in response to protests.
“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E., who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great State,” Trump wrote on social media Thursday.
Trump appeared to walk back that threat, at least for now, while speaking to reporters Friday.
“I don’t think there is any reason right now to use it, but if I needed it, I would use it,” Trump said.
Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison has said that he would challenge the use of the 19th-century law in court if necessary. He’s already suing to try to stop the recent surge in immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities. DHS says officers have arrested more than 2,500 people as part of its “Metro Surge” operation to date.
Greenland’s film community has spent years fighting to be seen on its own terms. In recent weeks, as U.S. rhetoric about taking control of the Arctic territory — “if necessary by military force” — has escalated, that struggle has taken on a sharper urgency.
“I think a lot of Greenlanders, myself included, are just tired. It’s so emotionally draining,” says Greenlandic film producer Inuk Jørgensen. “The recent rhetoric feels like it’s gone up a notch, and I think that really affects a lot of people. Even though people are very united, but people are drained. People are very tired of this.”
The past few weeks have seen tensions spike dramatically. After a high-stakes meeting in Washington this week between Greenlandic and Danish officials and senior U.S. figures failed to ease the standoff, European allies moved quickly to show support. Troops from France, Germany, the U.K., Norway and Sweden have been sent to Greenland as part of joint military exercises led by Denmark, under Operation Arctic Endurance. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called Greenland’s defense a “common concern” for NATO, while reiterating that there remains a “fundamental disagreement” over Washington’s ambitions.
“The American ambition to take over Greenland is intact,” Frederiksen said in a statement on Thursday. “This is obviously serious and therefore we continue our efforts to prevent that scenario from becoming a reality.”
On the ground in Nuuk, the symbolism has been impossible to ignore. Inuk Silis Høegh, director of award-winning music documentary Sumé: The Sound of a Revolution and the TV history series History of Greenland and Denmark recalls a visible shift in public mood when the threat of force was raised again. “A few days ago, when [Trump] repeated this claim and that they might use military force, people here started hoisting the Greenlandic flag everywhere,” he says. “I think most people see it as a lack of respect: Trying to buy us, or take us by military control. Or speaking over the tops of our heads, straight to Denmark.”
Sumé: The Sound of a Revolution
Anorak Film/Bullitt Film/Jabfilm
That sense of being talked about, rather than listened to, cuts particularly deep for artists. “One of the things I think hurts a lot of Greenlandic filmmakers and artists at least, and Greenlandic people in general, is that a lot of international media talk about us like a commodity to be exchanged,” Jørgensen says. “The talk is all done over our heads … It underlines the value of what we in the Greenlandic art community have been fighting for for many years: To tell our own stories about us and our place in the world.”
Høegh says the latest claims coming out of Washington have been accompanied by what he calls a distorted narrative. “All the ‘facts’ they are putting out about us, most of it is not true,” he says. “They’re trying to make a story about us wanting to be a part of America, that we’re so fed up with Denmark.” He points to polling and public sentiment at home. “The vast majority, 85 percent, 90 percent of the population does not want to be American.”
If the pressure has sparked fear, it has also forced a reckoning around identity. “I feel that we were kind of under attack, and we’ve never been before,” Høegh says. “People who used to post pictures of their morning coffee are posting long posts about who they are as Greenlanders, what they want. It’s forcing people to think about their identity. So in that way, it’s healthy.”
Jørgensen describes a similar mix of anxiety and resolve. “Every day I wake up and I check the news, something new has been going on,” he says. “Because of the fact that this is going so quickly, the Greenland people can sometimes feel that they’re not part of the conversation about them.” The uncertainty is personal as well as political. “I do fear that the Greenland that will be here in a year won’t be the same Greenland that I know, that I love and where I do my work. I’m hopeful for the best, and I hope cooler heads will prevail, but, like a lot of Greenlandic people, I’m also afraid.”
At the same time, filmmakers say the moment has brought renewed attention to Greenlandic stories — and tangible support from abroad. “I wouldn’t say it’s been positive, but this has definitely put a spotlight on Greenland, on Greenlandic stories,” Jørgensen says. “Even when I travel internationally, to film festivals in Europe or to Toronto, people are showing really heartfelt support for Greenland, and for Greenlandic filmmakers.”
That support has been particularly strong from Europe’s film institutions. “Within the Nordic and European community, I feel there’s a strong sense of wanting to show that Greenland is included,” Jørgensen says. “Because of our Nordic and European partners, because of this whole crazy situation, we are maybe able to punch a little above our weight.” He singles out the European Film Academy, as being “very inclusive” of Greenlandic filmmakers. “They really want Greenland to have a seat at the table, which is fantastic. Growing up in Greenland, I never saw a Greenlandic person having a seat at the table.”
European Film Academy CEO Matthijs Wouter Knol says that connection long predates the current crisis. “Greenland is one of the countries where members of the European Film Academy live, so they’ve been for many years an active part of our community,” he tells THR. In recent years, that relationship has deepened through youth initiatives, training programs in Nuuk and support for building a stronger industry infrastructure. Just this year, Greenland set up its first national film agency, the Kalaallit Nunaanni Filminstitutti (Greenlandic Film Institute), to coordinate and promote local and visiting productions to the island.
Next week, the European Film Academy will host a spotlight on Greenlandic cinema on its VOD platform for Academy members. The event, scheduled before the latest political escalation, now feels pointedly timely. “We’ll focus on Greenlandic cinema and highlight basically the work of our members,” Knol says, “but also give a better view of what is Greenland and what is important in Greenland.”
For Høegh, the stakes are not abstract. Greenland has often been framed through an outsider’s lens, he says, and the current moment only sharpens the need to reclaim that narrative. “As a filmmaker, it just reaffirms that we want to tell our own stories,” he says. “It seems like for a lot of film history, it was mostly foreigners coming to tell the story of Greenland. We want to take that narrative back.”
The rhetoric has even begun to filter into how stories might be told on screen. “In the American movies, the bad guys are the Russians or the Chinese,” Høegh says. “But now, I think, you might see some stories coming out of Greenland where the Americans are the bad guys.”
Despite the troop deployments and diplomatic brinkmanship, Høegh does not believe Greenland will disappear under outside pressure. If anything, he sees a hardening of resolve. “We need to show we are here and we have a strong identity,” he says. “We’ve been here for 1,000 years. No one else has been able to survive here. This is our land and no one is going to tell us who we are or how we should live.”
WASHINGTON — Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado said Thursday that she “presented” her Nobel Peace Prize medal to President Trump during a private meeting at the White House, but he has not changed his view that she does not have the support to lead her country.
Machado, who won the prize last year for her work to promote democracy in Venezuela, said she presented the 18-carat gold medal to Trump as a “recognition of his unique commitment to our freedom.” It is unclear whether the president, who has been fixated on getting the prize in recent year, accepted it. The Nobel Peace Center has maintained the award cannot be transferred.
The gesture was made on the day the two leaders met for the first time at the White House. The highly anticipated get-together came as the United States has allowed top deputies of deposed president Nicolás Maduro’s regime to remain in charge as Trump oversees the transition of power.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump went into the meeting without any expectations, other than to have a “frank and positive discussion about what’s taking place in Venezuela.”
Leavitt added that Trump continues to assert that Machado does not have the “support” or “respect” to lead Venezuela, an assessment he first made on the day ofMaduro’s capture to the surprise of many Venezuelans.
“At this moment in time, his opinion on that matter has not changed,” Leavitt said at a news briefing.
While Leavitt described Machado as a “remarkable and brave voice for many of the people in Venezuela,” she also said the United States had found an “extremely cooperative” partner in Maduro’s handpicked vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, who is serving as acting president of Venezuela.
“They have met all of the demands and requests of the United States and the president,” Leavitt said, noting that the Venezuelan government already agreed to release political prisoners and reached a $100-billion deal to rebuild Venezuela’s energy sector.
As Machado left the White House, the scope of the discussions between her and the president remained unclear. She did not take questions from the reporters, but a few of them were able to capture a moment on video when she was greeted by supporters outside the White House. She told them: “Know that we can count on President Trump for Venezuela’s freedom.”
She then left to meet with a bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Capitol Hill. It was after this meeting that Machado told reporters she had presented the medal to the president.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) was one of 14 senators who met with Machado. After the meeting Scott said Machado was “very appreciative of the U.S. military” capturing Maduro and was pushing for “free and fair elections and free press.”
“We have got to continue to understand that Delcy Rodriguez is not the leader, she was never elected as a president, she is still the leader of drug cartels,” Scott said. “We need to make sure we hold her accountable.”
It appears unlikely that much will change for Machado after meeting with Trump, who largely has sidelined her and Edmundo González Urrutia, the opposition candidate who won the 2024 presidential election that was stolen by Maduro.
Days after Maduro was captured, Machado told CBS News the people of Venezuela had “already chosen” González Urrutia as the rightful leader of the country and that they were “ready and willing to serve our people, as we have been mandated.”
Trump, however, has maintained that before elections can take place in Venezuela, the United States needs to “fix” the country.
Asked if the president was committed to holding elections in Venezuela, Leavitt said Trump hopes to see “elections in Venezuela one day” but did not have a timeline for them yet.
Trump says he is happy with his administration’s working relationship with Rodríguez. At a White House event Wednesday, Trump called Rodríguez a “terrific person.”
The praise came after Trump said he had a “very good call” with her that morning that left him feeling hopeful that the United States and Venezuela could have a “spectacular” working relationship.
Rodriguez, in turn, used her first state of the union address Thursday to promote oil industry reforms that would drawn in foreign investment, which is in line with the Trump administration’s goals. She also criticized the Washington officials and said there was a “stain on our relations” but said she was open to strengthening the relationship.
“Let us not be afraid of diplomacy,” with the U.S., Rodriguez said in Venezuela.
