ReportWire

Tag: white house

  • Venezuela opposition leader Machado says she ‘presented’ her Nobel Peace Prize to Trump

    [ad_1]

    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 of Maduro’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.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    [ad_2]

    Mark Weisbrot

    Source link

  • White House says Trump gave ‘appropriate’ response after heckler confrontation caught on video

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    President Donald Trump was caught on video appearing to mouth an expletive and make an obscene gesture toward a heckler during a visit to a Ford manufacturing facility in Michigan on Tuesday, in a moment the White House later defended as an “appropriate and unambiguous response.”

    The video, first published by TMZ, shows Trump briefly turning toward someone shouting from the crowd as he walked through the Ford River Rouge complex in Dearborn.

    In the video, Trump appears to mouth the words “f— you” twice and gestures with his middle finger.

    TRUMP TO CUT FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO SANCTUARY CITIES STARTING FEB 1 OVER IMMIGRATION POLICIES

    President Donald Trump acknowledges employees during a tour of the Ford River Rouge Plant, Tuesday, in Dearborn, Mich. (The White House via X)

    TMZ reported that the exchange followed a heckler shouting an insult at the president from off-camera. The outlet described Trump’s reaction as “flipping the bird” while continuing to walk away.

    White House communications director Steven Cheung defended the president’s reaction, telling Fox News Digital on the record:

    “A lunatic was wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage, and the President gave an appropriate and unambiguous response.”

    President Donald Trump Ford River Rouge Plant visit, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Dearborn, Mich. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

    President Donald Trump speaks as Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford, left, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Ford CEO Jim Farley, and Ford River Rouge Plant Manager Corey Williams listen during a tour of the plant, Tuesday, in Dearborn, Mich. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

    TRUMP WEARS ‘HAPPY TRUMP’ PIN ALONGSIDE AMERICAN FLAG DURING WHITE HOUSE OIL EXECUTIVE MEETING

    Trump visited the plant as part of a scheduled appearance focused on U.S. manufacturing and the auto industry when the exchange occurred during a tour of the facility.

    President Donald Trump gestures as he walks from Marine One after arriving on the South Lawn of the White House, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

    President Donald Trump pumps his fist as he walks from Marine One after arriving on the South Lawn of the White House, Tuesday, in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    The White House did not specify whether the individual shouting at Trump was a Ford employee or an attendee, and Fox News Digital has not independently confirmed the identity of the person heard in the video.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump responds to post suggesting Rubio as president of Cuba: ‘Sounds good to me’

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    President Donald Trump reacted to a social media post joking about Secretary of State Marco Rubio becoming the president of Cuba, replying, “Sounds good to me.”

    Trump posted the response Sunday on his Truth Social account after a user wrote, “Marco Rubio will be president of Cuba.”

    Rubio’s broad portfolio in the Trump administration has fueled online jokes portraying him as being placed in charge of an ever-expanding list of roles.

    MADURO’S ARREST IS GOOD NEWS FOR ALL AMERICANS AND LEAVES DEMOCRATS LOOKING FOOLISH

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio looks on during a meeting with oil and gas executives in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 9, 2026. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

    Officially, he serves as secretary of state, national security advisor, and acting archivist of the United States.

    He also previously served as acting administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, before the agency’s remaining functions were discontinued or absorbed into the State Department as part of a reorganization finalized in July.

    RUBIO SPEARHEADS MASSIVE STATE DEPT REORGANIZATION SET TO ELIMINATE, MERGE MORE THAN 300 OFFICES

    A USAID flag flies outside headquarters in Washington, D.C.

    An American flag and USAID flag fly outside the USAID building in Washington, D.C., Feb. 1, 2025. (REUTERS/Annabelle Gordon)

    Social media users on X have turned a photo of Rubio from a White House meeting into a viral “realizing” meme, joking that his growing responsibilities make him the administration’s go-to official for a widening range of positions.

    Users have posted AI-generated photos of Rubio that depict him in a range of imagined roles, from the Shah of Iran and the president of Venezuela to the manager of Manchester United.

    Marco Rubio walks into the East Room of the White House ahead of a meeting with energy industry leaders.

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives for a meeting with President Donald Trump and oil and gas executives in the East Room of the White House on Jan. 9, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    Rubio has leaned into the humor himself, writing on X last week that he wouldn’t be a candidate for the vacant head coach or general manager positions with the Miami Dolphins.

    “While you never know what the future may bring right now my focus must remain on global events and also the precious archives of the United States of America,” he wrote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What Susie Wiles, Marco Rubio, and Stephen Miller Told Me About Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine”

    [ad_1]

    After US forces whisked Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife out of the country, Secretary of State Marco Rubio struggled to explain why Donald Trump’s administration hadn’t obtained congressional approval for the operation. After all, during a series of extraordinarily unguarded interviews with me for Vanity Fair, Susie Wiles said that Trump would need congressional consent before striking targets on Venezuela’s mainland. “If he were to, you know, authorize some activity on land,” Trump’s chief of staff told me on November 4, “then you’d have to—then it’s war, then Congress.”

    Last Sunday, on national television, Rubio disagreed. Not only was congressional approval not required, he insisted, but consulting lawmakers would have jeopardized the security of the mission.

    When it comes to Venezuela, those on Trump’s team can’t get their stories straight. At first, they said, toppling Maduro was about stemming the flow of dangerous drugs into the US. Then it was about punishing the Venezuelan dictator for sending criminal gangs across the US border. Rubio has said it’s about denying American adversaries like China and Hezbollah a haven in the western hemisphere. And most recently, Trump has said it’s about seizing Venezuela’s oil.

    On November 4, over lunch in her White House office, I asked Wiles what the president was up to in Venezuela.

    “He wants to keep on blowing boats up until Maduro cries uncle,” she told me. “And people way smarter than me on that say that he will.”

    Of course, those people were wrong; despite bellicose threats from Trump, lethal strikes on boats piloted by alleged drug smugglers, and a suffocating US naval armada, Maduro refused to cry uncle and clung to power. So Trump ordered US Special Operations forces to remove him.

    But what was the justification for Trump’s Venezuela campaign? In an earlier conversation, Wiles told me it was a war on drugs. Each alleged drug boat, she said, represented a potentially staggering loss of American lives. “The president says 25,000. I don’t know what the number is, and we don’t either. But he views those as lives saved, not people killed.”

    I later asked Wiles: “So his theory is that these boats are part of Maduro’s drug-smuggling network?”

    “The narcotics rings, unlike Mexico, are actually state-sponsored in Venezuela,” she replied. “And that’s how Maduro stays in power. You know, he pays the people from the drug profits. And the only way to stop that is to just…we’re very sure—I’m not always sure of everything, but we’re very sure we know who we’re blowing up.”

    On October 1, toward the height of the US military campaign against alleged drug boats, I asked Rubio, “What’s the authority for the use of military force here?”

    “Well, I refer you to White House counsel because I know they’ve written up on that extensively,” the secretary of state told me. “I’m not in any way disavowing it. I agree with it 100%. I think we’re on very strong, firm footing, but I don’t want to be giving legal answers on behalf of the White House or the Department of War.”

    I pointed out that the US had traditionally used lethal force against terrorists, not drug dealers: “The only way this has been done in the past was on targets that were considered hostile combatants or terrorists.”

    “Well, the president [believes], and I agree with his view, [that] these are anyone who is involved in the business of smuggling not just drugs, but crime into the United States…They empower and fuel an entire network of criminality that leads to violence, that leads to murders, that leads to all sorts of things that happen in the United States that are drug-related. This is an act of war against the United States.”

    [ad_2]

    Chris Whipple

    Source link

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

    [ad_1]

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

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

    Enhanced Health Care Subsidies

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

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

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

    Venezuela War Powers Resolution

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

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

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

    Reactions To Greenland Rhetoric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Björk Has a Plan to Save Greenland From Donald Trump

    [ad_1]

    An American flag superimposed over a map of Greenland. That’s the image, accompanied by a single ominous word, “SOON,” that Katie Miller shared to social media Saturday. Katie Miller is married to Stephen Miller, Donald Trump‘s deputy chief of staff for policy as well as a national security advisor, and her post read as something of a threat. Greenland, it implies, is next on the US expansionist wish list. Following the arrest of Venezuelan autocrat Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, who are now appearing before US courts, Trump has declared his intention to “take control” of the country. And the American president’s entourage implied that the country’s expansionist ambitions could therefore continue on to Greenland, a territory four times the physical size of France, but with a population of just 57,000, making it the world’s least densely populated country.

    But one Icelandic woman has called on Greenlanders, who are technically Danish citizens, to declare their independence in order to resist American imperialism as well as Danish government control. If we may have your attention, Björk has something to say.

    On Twitter, the singer wished the country’s citizens “good luck in their fight for independence.”

    “Icelanders are extremely relieved to have succeeded in freeing themselves from the Danes in 1944, we didn’t lose our language (my children would be speaking Danish now) and I burst with sympathy for Greenlanders,” she wrote on Monday.

    The singer went on to talk about the history of “forced contraception, where 4,500 girls as young as 12 got IUD without their knowledge between 1966 and 1970,” in Greenland, linking to news articles on the history, and pointing to recent familial separations as proof that “still today the Danish are treating Greenlanders like they are second class humans.”

    “Colonialism has repeatedly given me horror chills up my back, and the chance that my fellow Greenlanders might go from one cruel colonizer to another is too brutal to even imagine,” she continued. “Dear Greenlanders, declare your independence,” she urged, adding a map of her own, this one Greenland drenched with its own flag.

    “Make Greenland great again!”

    While he seems intent on riding the success of his stunt in Venezuela to keep the momentum going, this isn’t the first time Trump has given the Danish territory the eye. In 2019, during his first term in office, the American president proposed buying Greenland, but was rebuffed by Denmark. At the end of 2024, when he wanted to regain control of the Panama Canal and make Canada the 51st U.S. state, Donald Trump had already asserted it an “absolute necessity” to take control of Greenland. A few days later, his eldest son Donald Trump Jr. visited Greenland with “my reps,” in the words of his father. Trump told Greenlanders, “we’re going to treat you well.”

    [ad_2]

    Kahina Sekkaï

    Source link

  • Donald Trump’s approval rating changes direction for first time in months 

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump’s approval rating has shifted for the first time in months, according to new data from two national polls.

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

    Why It Matters

    As economic anxiety and public debate over foreign policy continue to dominate the national agenda, the change in Trump’s approval rating could have implications for both the White House and congressional prospects ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

    What To Know

    The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll—conducted online on January 4 and 5—surveyed 1,248 U.S. adults nationwide. 

    The poll showed Trump‘s overall approval rating climbing to 42 percent, up from 39 percent in December. 

    It marks his highest approval rating since October. The margin of error for this survey was about 3 percentage points.

    Similarly, a recent InsiderAdvantage poll gave Trump a positive net approval rating of 8.4 points, the strongest since August. 

    In that survey, 49.5 percent of respondents approved of Trump’s job performance, 41.1 percent disapproved, and 9.1 percent were undecided. 

    The poll surveyed 800 likely voters on December 20 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.46 percent.

    Recent polling aggregates confirm that the president’s approval rating remains underwater, though there has been a modest uptick compared to late 2025. 

    As of January 6, Decision Desk HQ’s national average places approval at 43.2 percent and disapproval at 53.3 percent, while Ballotpedia’s index shows a similar split of 42 percent approval and 55 percent disapproval. 

    At the time of writing, VoteHub’s live tracker reported that 42.5 percent approved and 53.9 percent disapproved, reinforcing the consensus that disapproval still exceeded approval by double digits. 

    Still, this represents a slight improvement from November’s lows near 41 percent. The shift is incremental rather than dramatic, leaving the president with a persistent net-negative rating.

    Decision Desk HQ’s polling tracker combines all credible public polls that meet the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s standards into an average, focusing on recent data, limiting the impact of campaign-funded polls and smoothing trends as more polls come in to give a clearer picture of public opinion.

    Similarly, Ballotpedia’s index averages the latest polls from trusted national sources over the past 30 days to give an up-to-date picture of public opinion, updating daily as new results come in.

    VoteHub, meanwhile, averages recent polls from reputable pollsters, giving more weight to newer polls, to provide a clear and simple snapshot of public opinion.

    What People Are Saying

    Scott Tranter, the director of data science at Decision Desk HQ, told The Hill: “Roughly a year in, he’s right in the middle. He’s right where, basically, he’s been all year, which is unremarkable. It’s remarkable because it’s unremarkable.” 

    InsiderAdvantage pollster Matt Towery said in a December analysis: “Interestingly, our recent job performance surveys have shown the number of undecided respondents at an unusually high number. This tells us that some voters, particularly independents, remain unsure as to his accomplishments so far. This suggests he has work to do as he and the GOP enter the midterm season.”

    White House spokesperson Kush Desai told Newsweek last month: “President Trump and every member of his administration are clear-eyed about the fact that Americans continue to reel from the lingering effects of Joe Biden’s generational economic crisis.

    “Turning the Biden economic disaster around has informed nearly every action the Trump administration has taken since Day One, from unleashing American energy to cut gas prices to signing historic drug pricing deals to cut costs for American patients. 

    “Much work remains, and every member of the Trump administration continues to focus on recreating the historic job, wage, and economic growth that Americans enjoyed during President Trump’s first term.”

    Desai also previously told Newsweek: “President Trump inherited the worst inflation crisis in a generation from Joe Biden’s incompetence, and his administration has rapidly cooled inflation to a 2.5 percent annualized rate. Americans can count on inflation continuing to fall and real wages continuing to rise.”

    President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social in December: “The polls are rigged even more than the writers. The real number is 64 percent, and why not, our Country is ‘hotter’ than ever before. Isn’t it nice to have a STRONG BORDER, No Inflation, a powerful Military, and great Economy??? Happy New Year!”

    What Happens Next

    The slight uptick in Trump’s approval rating coincides with major diplomatic and military actions—most notably the U.S. strike on Venezuela—and ongoing debates over economic performance, cost of living and party leadership heading into the midterm elections. 

    Polls show persistent concern among Americans about both economic and foreign policy developments, with majorities worried about prices, affordability and the U.S.’s role overseas. The administration’s policy decisions—both domestic and international—and the country’s day-to-day economic experiences are expected to be decisive in shaping public opinion and influencing the 2026 midterms.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GORDON SONDLAND: Trump’s realpolitik may be the only way to end the Ukraine war

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    For three years, the Washington foreign policy establishment has insisted that there is only one acceptable outcome in Ukraine: total victory over Russia achieved through relentless military aid, indefinite financial support, and escalation readiness regardless of the risks. But strategy and morality are not always the same thing — and real leadership demands confronting reality as it exists, not as we wish it to be.

    I write this not as an academic or pundit, but as someone who worked at the center of this conflict. As U.S. ambassador to the European Union during the first Trump administration, President Donald Trump tasked me with bringing Europe into alignment—truly into alignment—behind Ukraine. 

    That meant ending the EU’s habitual double-game: proclaiming solidarity with Kyiv while enriching Moscow through energy purchases and dragging its feet on serious sanctions. I saw firsthand how Europe’s hesitation and transactional approach sent Moscow exactly the wrong message. It told President Vladimir Putin the West was divided, unserious and ultimately unwilling to sacrifice comfort for principle. That perception was part of his calculus.

    PUTIN VOWS VICTORY IN UKRAINE IN NEW YEAR’S ADDRESS AMID TRUMP-BACKED PEACE TALKS

    The uncomfortable truth is that the United States is closer to strategic exhaustion than our rhetoric admits. Europe’s defense industries remain underbuilt. American stockpiles are finite. And while Russia has paid a staggering price, it has not collapsed, surrendered, or reversed course. Worse, every escalation increases the probability of something unthinkable: a desperate Kremlin resorting to tactical nuclear weapons. That would not be “just another step” on the escalatory ladder; it would fundamentally shatter global stability.

    Against that background, the Trump administration’s instinct to seek a quasi-business resolution is not weakness. It is classic realpolitik—recognition that the job of American leadership is to maximize U.S. security, economic leverage, and strategic flexibility while minimizing existential risk.

    Business leaders know what Washington too often does not: the perfect deal rarely exists. The question is not whether we can achieve a morally pure resolution; it is whether we can lock in outcomes that are measurably better for American interests—and for Ukraine—than a perpetual, bleeding stalemate.

    A negotiated settlement, backed by enforceable conditions and leverage, could do precisely that.

    First, a settlement can provide Ukraine with a bespoke security guarantee—credible enough to deter renewed aggression but structured to avoid NATO Article 5 entanglement. This isn’t a vague promise; it is a contract with clear performance terms. The U.S. guarantee would stand as long as Russia adheres to its commitments. But if Russia violates the agreement, the snapback provisions would trigger instantly—not months later, not after diplomatic waffling—immediately unlocking full-scale U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine, including offensive weapons, advanced air defense, training, and intelligence integration.

    President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy shake hands at a news conference following a meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club on December 28, 2025, in Palm Beach, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

    TRUMP PUSHES PEACE IN EUROPE, PRESSURE IN THE AMERICAS — INSIDE THE TWO-FRONT GAMBLE

    Just as important, the consequences of Russian cheating would be explicit, not theoretical:

    If Moscow breaks the deal, the United States would reserve the option to openly back Ukraine in retaking every inch of territory—up to and including restoration to its pre-2014 borders. Moscow would know this going in. Deterrence works best when penalties are unmistakable.

    And crucially, this would all be public. No more pretending, hedging, or quiet back-channel shipments. The world—and Russia—would know that renewed aggression automatically and lawfully unleashes overwhelming Western support, with the U.S. leading confidently and unapologetically. That clarity is a deterrent in itself.

    ZELENSKYY SAYS PEACE DEAL IS CLOSE AFTER TRUMP MEETING BUT TERRITORY REMAINS STICKING POINT

    Equally important, this structure protects U.S. sovereignty in the agreement. If Ukraine violates its obligations, the American guarantee becomes void at our sole discretion. Not a bureaucratic process. Not a committee vote. The United States decides. That means Ukraine has every incentive to maintain discipline and treat the arrangement not as a blank check, but as a powerful partnership grounded in responsibility.

    Second, a negotiated deal can generate tangible U.S. economic advantage. Ukraine holds minerals and rare earths essential to American industry, national security, and technological supremacy. China knows this. Russia knows this. Only Washington’s old guard pretends resource control is not strategic policy. A structured agreement ensuring privileged U.S. access strengthens manufacturing, energy resilience, and economic security.

    Trump and Zelenskyy

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy listens to U.S. President Donald Trump, after Trump said that Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed willingness to help Ukraine “succeed,” during a press conference at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club, in Palm Beach, Florida, on December 28, 2025.  (Reuters/Jonathan Ernst)

    Third, a settlement can wedge open the relationship between Moscow and Beijing. Right now, the war has pushed Russia completely into China’s arms. That alignment is bad for the United States and for global balance. A disciplined settlement begins unwinding that dependency. America doesn’t need friendship with Moscow; it needs leverage over it. Realpolitik is about advantage, not affection.

    PUTIN REJECTS KEY PARTS OF US PEACE PLAN AS KREMLIN OFFICIAL WARNS EUROPE FACES NEW WAR RISK: REPORT

    Fourth, a deal can compartmentalize strategic theaters. If Russia insists on regional influence, the U.S. can demand reciprocal space in our hemisphere—particularly in Venezuela, narcotics interdiction, and energy-linked criminal networks—reducing adversarial reach in the Americas.

    Critics will scream “Munich.” They always do. But Adolf Hitler was leading a rising ideological empire bent on global conquest. Russia is a demographically and economically declining power seeking regional positioning. Brutal, yes—but not irrational. Mature powers negotiate with rivals when negotiations produce superior outcomes.

    Others claim any deal rewards aggression. That assumes deterrence is binary—victory or failure. In reality, deterrence is layered.

    UKRAINE–RUSSIA AT A CROSSROADS: HOW THE WAR EVOLVED IN 2025 AND WHAT COMES NEXT

    A settlement that leaves Russia bloodied, sanctioned, strategically constrained, and facing automatic, overwhelming Western military escalation—potentially including U.S. support for Ukraine restoring its 2013 borders — if it cheats is not a reward. It is a warning carved into treaty stone.

    Meanwhile, the humanitarian and financial realities matter. Endless war means endless dead Ukrainians, shattered cities, and endless U.S. taxpayer exposure with no defined victory condition. That may thrill think tanks that never fight wars, but it is not serious governance.

    CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

    Most importantly, a business-style settlement introduces accountability—currently absent from Washington’s “as long as it takes” mantra. Under a structured deal, compliance is measurable. Triggers are automatic. Support is not improvised—it is guaranteed. Enforcement is not theoretical—it is built in. And unlike today, America would no longer need to whisper its involvement. It would act openly, decisively, and with treaty authority.

    The alternative? A forever-war with rising nuclear risk, continued strategic drift, and deepening alignment between Russia and China. That is not strategy. It is inertia dressed as courage.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    Realpolitik does not abandon values. It protects them intelligently. A disciplined, enforceable settlement—with clear snapback provisions benefiting both the U.S. and Ukraine; explicit authority to openly arm Ukraine and potentially support full territorial restoration if Russia cheats; and a guarantee revocable at America’s sole discretion if Ukraine violates terms—is not capitulation.

    It is strategic control.

    In geopolitics, as in business, the strongest player is not the one who insists on endless confrontation. It is the one who knows when to fight—and when to close the deal.

    CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GORDON SONDLAND

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump and Musk share ‘lovely dinner’ at Mar-a-Lago after public feuding

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    President Donald Trump and Elon Musk appear to have repaired their once-strained relationship, according to a post shared by the billionaire Tesla founder on X.

    In a post shared Sunday, Musk wrote, “Had a lovely dinner last night with @POTUS and @FLOTUS,” before adding, “2026 is going to be amazing!”

    The photo, taken from a Saturday evening event at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, sparked speculation that the pair’s bromance may be back on after months of tension.

    After the 2024 campaign, Musk became one of the Republican Party’s biggest political donors, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars, according to Reuters.

    TRUMP LAYS OUT WHERE HE STANDS WITH ELON MUSK AFTER BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL BLOWUP

    Trump later tapped Musk to advise the government efficiency effort and set up DOGE, focused on reducing federal spending and streamlining operations – but Musk stepped back from the role in mid-2025 amid mounting criticism. 

    Tensions also resurfaced when Musk publicly criticized Trump-backed spending proposals and raised concerns about the size of federal outlays.

    TRUMP TEASES MUSK AT FORUM AS ONCE-FROSTY DYNAMIC SEEMS TO TAKE A TURN

    President Donald Trump and Elon Musk speak before departing the White House on his way to Mar-a-Lago in Florida on March 14, 2025. (Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images)

    “I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore,” Musk said in a June 3 post about Trump’s “big beautiful bill.”

    “This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,” Musk complained.

    Trump shot back that he was “very disappointed” in Musk’s criticism of his bill at the time before adding, “Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore.”

    MUSK SIGNALS POTENTIAL SOFTENING OF FEUD WITH SIMPLE ONE EMOJI RESPONSE TO CLIP OF TRUMP WISHING HIM WELL

    Musk and Trump walking.

    President Donald Trump said he likes Elon Musk “a lot” after the pair faced a rift over the “big beautiful bill” earlier this year. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

    Musk shot back on X saying, “Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.”

    At one point, Musk suggested he could form a new political party. But by late 2025, both sides appeared to strike a more conciliatory tone.

    In September, the two were seen shaking hands at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service in a box at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.

    Musk was also seen at a White House dinner in November as Trump hosted Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. 

    TRUMP AND MUSK’S UNEXPECTED TRUCE COULD BE AMERICA’S SECRET WEAPON IN THE GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY RACE

    FOX Business’ Edward Lawrence asked Trump at a Cabinet meeting on Dec. 2 if Musk was “back in [his] circle of friends” after their falling out.

    Well, I really don’t know. I mean, I like Elon a lot,” Trump replied.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Fafo’: The White House Has Given Trump Worshippers Another Childish Slogan to Chant Like a Mantra | The Mary Sue

    [ad_1]

    Everyone thought the “MAGA” era was the peak of political branding-turned-personality-disorder. But the official White House social media team has a fresh bucket of cringe for you to swallow. We now have to tolerate “FAFO.”

    On January 3, 2026, the rest of the world was busy processing the news that the U.S. had just kidnapped the Venezuelan President Maduro. During early hours of Saturday, they conducted “Operation Absolute Resolve,” a series of airstrikes on Venezuela to capture the president. But the White House decided the most “presidential” way to commemorate the event was posting a photo of Donald Trump with “FAFO” written in giant, block letters.

    For those who haven’t spent enough time in the darker corners of the internet, the acronym stands for “F*ck around and find out”. It’s the kind of slogan a bully carves into a locker. Yet here it is, serving as the official press release for a military intervention. An intervention that has already been condemned by everyone from the UN to your local international law professor.

    The post, captioned simply “No Games. FAFO,” signaled a shift from standard diplomacy to a dystopian “series finale” vibe. Marco Rubio and Pam Bondi were busy trying to wrap the “kidnapping” in narco-terrorism indictments and “American justice.” But the social media team was busy creating a childish meme. We have our fair doubts that it was Trump behind the idea, but we just can’t prove it.

    The internet is getting a “cringe cancer” over FAFO

    The internet, predictably, was not impressed. Users on X were quick to point out the glaring irony of the administration suddenly caring about “finding out.” One user asked, “Isn’t FAFO what landed you in the Epstein Files in the first place?” It’s a fair point, considering the DOJ is redacting names from the files to protect these people. Because FAFO doesn’t apply to corrupt people in America.

    Others lamented the sheer decline in American oratory. One noted that we have somehow devolved from the Gettysburg Address to a four-letter acronym. Bluntly, the post looks like it was dreamt by a teenager who just discovered his first energy drink. Other reactions expressed genuine horror at the normalization of such “embarrassingly childish” behavior from a world superpower. One asked, “Does any other country do this or just ours?“ But congratulations, we’re the only clowns.

    Another user pointed out that bullies like Trump only seem to “FAFO” with weaker nations. Evidently, he treats other powerful nations like Russia or Israel as his lords and saviors. But when it comes to countries like Venezuela, it’s suddenly a marketing campaign for his “powers.” One bluntly wrote, “Putin is LAUGHING at America right now. Plays strong but their leader is his puppet.”

    Sadly, the FAFO clown show has already begun. Trump’s son Eric took to X to declare, “The FAFO era continues.” Meanwhile, the rest of the world is wondering when the adults will finally be allowed back into the room.

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    Image of Kopal

    Kopal

    Staff Writer

    Kopal primarily covers politics for The Mary Sue. Off the clock, she switches to DND mode and escapes to the mountains.

    [ad_2]

    Kopal

    Source link

  • Maduro arrives in US after capture in operation that Trump says will let US ‘run’ Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    Deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro arrived in the United States to face criminal charges after being captured in an audacious nighttime military operation that President Donald Trump said would set the U.S. up to “run” the South American country and tap its vast oil reserves to sell to other nations.Video above: U.S. strikes Venezuela, captures President Maduro in overnight operationMaduro landed Saturday evening at a small airport in New York following the middle-of-the-night operation that extracted him and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their home in a military base in the capital, Caracas — an act that Maduro’s government called “imperialist.” The couple faces U.S. charges of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy.The dramatic action capped an intensive Trump administration pressure campaign on Venezuela’s autocratic leader and months of secret planning, resulting in the most assertive American action to achieve regime change since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Legal experts raised questions about the lawfulness of the operation, which was done without congressional approval. Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, meanwhile, demanded that the United States free Maduro and called him the country’s rightful leader as her nation’s high court named her interim president.Some Venezuelan civilians and members of the military were killed, said Rodríguez, who didn’t give a number. Trump said some U.S. forces were injured, but none were killed.Speaking to reporters hours after Maduro’s capture, Trump revealed his plans to exploit the leadership void to “fix” the country’s oil infrastructure and sell “large amounts” of oil to other countries. Video below: ‘We are going to run the country,’ Trump says of VenezuelaTrump says US will ‘run the country’The Trump administration promoted the ouster as a step toward reducing the flow of dangerous drugs into the U.S. The president touted what he saw as other potential benefits, including a leadership stake in the country and greater control of oil.Trump claimed the U.S. government would help lead the country and was already doing so, though there were no immediate visible signs of that. Venezuelan state TV aired pro-Maduro propaganda and broadcast live images of supporters taking to the streets in Caracas in protest.“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago news conference. He boasted that this “extremely successful operation should serve as warning to anyone who would threaten American sovereignty or endanger American lives.”Maduro and other Venezuelan officials were indicted in 2020 on narco-terrorism conspiracy charges, and the Justice Department released a new indictment Saturday of Maduro and his wife that painted his administration as a “corrupt, illegitimate government” fueled by a drug-trafficking operation that flooded the U.S with cocaine. The U.S. government does not recognize Maduro as the country’s leader.The Trump administration spent months building up American forces in the region and carrying out attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean for allegedly ferrying drugs. Last week, the CIA was behind a drone strike at a docking area believed to have been used by Venezuelan drug cartels — the first known direct operation on Venezuelan soil since the U.S. campaign began in September.Video below: Fact checking President Trump’s Venezuela claimsEarly morning attackTaking place 36 years to the day after the 1990 surrender and seizure of Panama leader Manuel Antonio Noriega following a U.S. invasion, the Venezuela operation unfolded under the cover of darkness early Saturday. Trump said the U.S. turned off “almost all of the lights” in Caracas while forces moved in to extract Maduro and his wife.Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces had rehearsed their maneuvers for months, learning everything about Maduro — where he was and what he ate, as well as details of his pets and his clothes.“We think, we develop, we train, we rehearse, we debrief, we rehearse again and again,” Caine said. “Not to get it right, but to ensure we cannot get it wrong.”Multiple explosions rang out that morning, and low-flying aircraft swept through Caracas. Maduro’s government accused the United States of hitting civilian and military installations, calling it an “imperialist attack” and urging citizens to take to the streets. The explosions — at least seven blasts — sent people rushing into the streets, while others took to social media to report what they saw and heard.Restrictions imposed by the U.S. government on airspace around Venezuela and the Caribbean expired early Sunday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on X, an announcement that suggested any further immediate major U.S. military action was unlikely. “Airlines are informed, and will update their schedules quickly,” he posted.Under Venezuelan law, Rodríguez would take over from Maduro. Rodríguez, however, stressed during a Saturday appearance on state television that she did not plan to assume power, before Venezuela’s high court ordered that she become interim president.“There is only one president in Venezuela,” Rodriguez said, “and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros.”Video below: President Donald Trump’s full comments on Venezuela strike and Nicolas Maduro captureSome streets in Caracas fill upVenezuela’s ruling party has held power since 1999, when Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, took office, promising to uplift poor people and later to implement a self-described socialist revolution.Maduro took over when Chávez died in 2013. His 2018 reelection was widely considered a sham because the main opposition parties were banned from participating. During the 2024 election, electoral authorities loyal to the ruling party declared him the winner hours after polls closed, but the opposition gathered overwhelming evidence that he lost by a more than 2-to-1 margin.In a demonstration of how polarizing Maduro is, people variously took to the streets to protest his capture, while others celebrated it. At a protest in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, Mayor Carmen Meléndez joined a crowd demanding Maduro’s return.“Maduro, hold on, the people are rising up!” the crowd chanted. “We are here, Nicolás Maduro. If you can hear us, we are here!”In other parts of the city, the streets were empty hours after the attack.“How do I feel? Scared, like everyone,” said Caracas resident Noris Prada, who sat on an empty avenue looking at his phone. “Venezuelans woke up scared. Many families couldn’t sleep.”In Doral, Florida, home to the largest Venezuelan community in the United States, people wrapped themselves in Venezuelan flags, ate fried snacks and cheered as music played. At one point, the crowd chanted “Liberty! Liberty! Liberty!”Questions of legalityWhether the United States violated any laws, international or otherwise, was still a question early Sunday. “There are a number of international legal concepts which the United States might have broken by capturing Maduro,” said Ilan Katz, an international law analyst.In New York, the U.N. Security Council, acting on an emergency request from Colombia, planned to hold a meeting on U.S. operations in Venezuela on Monday morning. That was according to a council diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a meeting not yet made public.Lawmakers from both American political parties have raised reservations and flat-out objections to the U.S. attacks on boats suspected of drug smuggling. Congress has not approved an authorization for the use of military force for such operations in the region.Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he had seen no evidence that would justify Trump striking Venezuela without approval from Congress and demanded an immediate briefing by the administration on “its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”___Toropin and Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela; Lisa Mascaro, Michelle L. Price, Seung Min Kim and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington; Farnoush Amiri in New York; and Larry Neumeister in South Amboy, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

    Deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro arrived in the United States to face criminal charges after being captured in an audacious nighttime military operation that President Donald Trump said would set the U.S. up to “run” the South American country and tap its vast oil reserves to sell to other nations.

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

    Maduro landed Saturday evening at a small airport in New York following the middle-of-the-night operation that extracted him and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their home in a military base in the capital, Caracas — an act that Maduro’s government called “imperialist.” The couple faces U.S. charges of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy.

    The dramatic action capped an intensive Trump administration pressure campaign on Venezuela’s autocratic leader and months of secret planning, resulting in the most assertive American action to achieve regime change since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Legal experts raised questions about the lawfulness of the operation, which was done without congressional approval.

    Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, meanwhile, demanded that the United States free Maduro and called him the country’s rightful leader as her nation’s high court named her interim president.

    Some Venezuelan civilians and members of the military were killed, said Rodríguez, who didn’t give a number. Trump said some U.S. forces were injured, but none were killed.

    Speaking to reporters hours after Maduro’s capture, Trump revealed his plans to exploit the leadership void to “fix” the country’s oil infrastructure and sell “large amounts” of oil to other countries.

    Video below: ‘We are going to run the country,’ Trump says of Venezuela

    Trump says US will ‘run the country’

    The Trump administration promoted the ouster as a step toward reducing the flow of dangerous drugs into the U.S. The president touted what he saw as other potential benefits, including a leadership stake in the country and greater control of oil.

    Trump claimed the U.S. government would help lead the country and was already doing so, though there were no immediate visible signs of that. Venezuelan state TV aired pro-Maduro propaganda and broadcast live images of supporters taking to the streets in Caracas in protest.

    “We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago news conference. He boasted that this “extremely successful operation should serve as warning to anyone who would threaten American sovereignty or endanger American lives.”

    Maduro and other Venezuelan officials were indicted in 2020 on narco-terrorism conspiracy charges, and the Justice Department released a new indictment Saturday of Maduro and his wife that painted his administration as a “corrupt, illegitimate government” fueled by a drug-trafficking operation that flooded the U.S with cocaine. The U.S. government does not recognize Maduro as the country’s leader.

    The Trump administration spent months building up American forces in the region and carrying out attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean for allegedly ferrying drugs. Last week, the CIA was behind a drone strike at a docking area believed to have been used by Venezuelan drug cartels — the first known direct operation on Venezuelan soil since the U.S. campaign began in September.

    Video below: Fact checking President Trump’s Venezuela claims

    Early morning attack

    Taking place 36 years to the day after the 1990 surrender and seizure of Panama leader Manuel Antonio Noriega following a U.S. invasion, the Venezuela operation unfolded under the cover of darkness early Saturday. Trump said the U.S. turned off “almost all of the lights” in Caracas while forces moved in to extract Maduro and his wife.

    Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces had rehearsed their maneuvers for months, learning everything about Maduro — where he was and what he ate, as well as details of his pets and his clothes.

    “We think, we develop, we train, we rehearse, we debrief, we rehearse again and again,” Caine said. “Not to get it right, but to ensure we cannot get it wrong.”

    Multiple explosions rang out that morning, and low-flying aircraft swept through Caracas. Maduro’s government accused the United States of hitting civilian and military installations, calling it an “imperialist attack” and urging citizens to take to the streets. The explosions — at least seven blasts — sent people rushing into the streets, while others took to social media to report what they saw and heard.

    Restrictions imposed by the U.S. government on airspace around Venezuela and the Caribbean expired early Sunday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on X, an announcement that suggested any further immediate major U.S. military action was unlikely. “Airlines are informed, and will update their schedules quickly,” he posted.

    Under Venezuelan law, Rodríguez would take over from Maduro. Rodríguez, however, stressed during a Saturday appearance on state television that she did not plan to assume power, before Venezuela’s high court ordered that she become interim president.

    “There is only one president in Venezuela,” Rodriguez said, “and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros.”

    Video below: President Donald Trump’s full comments on Venezuela strike and Nicolas Maduro capture

    Some streets in Caracas fill up

    Venezuela’s ruling party has held power since 1999, when Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, took office, promising to uplift poor people and later to implement a self-described socialist revolution.

    Maduro took over when Chávez died in 2013. His 2018 reelection was widely considered a sham because the main opposition parties were banned from participating. During the 2024 election, electoral authorities loyal to the ruling party declared him the winner hours after polls closed, but the opposition gathered overwhelming evidence that he lost by a more than 2-to-1 margin.

    In a demonstration of how polarizing Maduro is, people variously took to the streets to protest his capture, while others celebrated it. At a protest in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, Mayor Carmen Meléndez joined a crowd demanding Maduro’s return.

    “Maduro, hold on, the people are rising up!” the crowd chanted. “We are here, Nicolás Maduro. If you can hear us, we are here!”

    In other parts of the city, the streets were empty hours after the attack.

    “How do I feel? Scared, like everyone,” said Caracas resident Noris Prada, who sat on an empty avenue looking at his phone. “Venezuelans woke up scared. Many families couldn’t sleep.”

    In Doral, Florida, home to the largest Venezuelan community in the United States, people wrapped themselves in Venezuelan flags, ate fried snacks and cheered as music played. At one point, the crowd chanted “Liberty! Liberty! Liberty!”

    Questions of legality

    Whether the United States violated any laws, international or otherwise, was still a question early Sunday. “There are a number of international legal concepts which the United States might have broken by capturing Maduro,” said Ilan Katz, an international law analyst.

    In New York, the U.N. Security Council, acting on an emergency request from Colombia, planned to hold a meeting on U.S. operations in Venezuela on Monday morning. That was according to a council diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a meeting not yet made public.

    Lawmakers from both American political parties have raised reservations and flat-out objections to the U.S. attacks on boats suspected of drug smuggling. Congress has not approved an authorization for the use of military force for such operations in the region.

    Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he had seen no evidence that would justify Trump striking Venezuela without approval from Congress and demanded an immediate briefing by the administration on “its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”

    ___

    Toropin and Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela; Lisa Mascaro, Michelle L. Price, Seung Min Kim and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington; Farnoush Amiri in New York; and Larry Neumeister in South Amboy, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maduro arrives in US after capture in operation that Trump says will let US ‘run’ Venezuela

    [ad_1]

    Deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro arrived in the United States to face criminal charges after being captured in an audacious nighttime military operation that President Donald Trump said would set the U.S. up to “run” the South American country and tap its vast oil reserves to sell to other nations.Maduro landed Saturday evening at a small airport in New York following the middle-of-the-night operation that extracted him and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their home in a military base in the capital, Caracas — an act that Maduro’s government called “imperialist.” The couple faces U.S. charges of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy.The dramatic action capped an intensive Trump administration pressure campaign on Venezuela’s autocratic leader and months of secret planning, resulting in the most assertive American action to achieve regime change since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Legal experts raised questions about the lawfulness of the operation, which was done without congressional approval. Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, meanwhile, demanded that the United States free Maduro and called him the country’s rightful leader as her nation’s high court named her interim president.Some Venezuelan civilians and members of the military were killed, said Rodríguez, who didn’t give a number. Trump said some U.S. forces were injured, but none were killed.Speaking to reporters hours after Maduro’s capture, Trump revealed his plans to exploit the leadership void to “fix” the country’s oil infrastructure and sell “large amounts” of oil to other countries. Trump says US will ‘run the country’The Trump administration promoted the ouster as a step toward reducing the flow of dangerous drugs into the U.S. The president touted what he saw as other potential benefits, including a leadership stake in the country and greater control of oil.Trump claimed the U.S. government would help lead the country and was already doing so, though there were no immediate visible signs of that. Venezuelan state TV aired pro-Maduro propaganda and broadcast live images of supporters taking to the streets in Caracas in protest.“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago news conference. He boasted that this “extremely successful operation should serve as warning to anyone who would threaten American sovereignty or endanger American lives.”Maduro and other Venezuelan officials were indicted in 2020 on narco-terrorism conspiracy charges, and the Justice Department released a new indictment Saturday of Maduro and his wife that painted his administration as a “corrupt, illegitimate government” fueled by a drug-trafficking operation that flooded the U.S with cocaine. The U.S. government does not recognize Maduro as the country’s leader.The Trump administration spent months building up American forces in the region and carrying out attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean for allegedly ferrying drugs. Last week, the CIA was behind a drone strike at a docking area believed to have been used by Venezuelan drug cartels — the first known direct operation on Venezuelan soil since the U.S. campaign began in September.Early morning attackTaking place 36 years to the day after the 1990 surrender and seizure of Panama leader Manuel Antonio Noriega following a U.S. invasion, the Venezuela operation unfolded under the cover of darkness early Saturday. Trump said the U.S. turned off “almost all of the lights” in Caracas while forces moved in to extract Maduro and his wife.Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces had rehearsed their maneuvers for months, learning everything about Maduro — where he was and what he ate, as well as details of his pets and his clothes.“We think, we develop, we train, we rehearse, we debrief, we rehearse again and again,” Caine said. “Not to get it right, but to ensure we cannot get it wrong.”Multiple explosions rang out that morning, and low-flying aircraft swept through Caracas. Maduro’s government accused the United States of hitting civilian and military installations, calling it an “imperialist attack” and urging citizens to take to the streets. The explosions — at least seven blasts — sent people rushing into the streets, while others took to social media to report what they saw and heard.Restrictions imposed by the U.S. government on airspace around Venezuela and the Caribbean expired early Sunday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on X, an announcement that suggested any further immediate major U.S. military action was unlikely. “Airlines are informed, and will update their schedules quickly,” he posted.Under Venezuelan law, Rodríguez would take over from Maduro. Rodríguez, however, stressed during a Saturday appearance on state television that she did not plan to assume power, before Venezuela’s high court ordered that she become interim president.“There is only one president in Venezuela,” Rodriguez said, “and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros.”Some streets in Caracas fill upVenezuela’s ruling party has held power since 1999, when Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, took office, promising to uplift poor people and later to implement a self-described socialist revolution.Maduro took over when Chávez died in 2013. His 2018 reelection was widely considered a sham because the main opposition parties were banned from participating. During the 2024 election, electoral authorities loyal to the ruling party declared him the winner hours after polls closed, but the opposition gathered overwhelming evidence that he lost by a more than 2-to-1 margin.In a demonstration of how polarizing Maduro is, people variously took to the streets to protest his capture, while others celebrated it. At a protest in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, Mayor Carmen Meléndez joined a crowd demanding Maduro’s return.“Maduro, hold on, the people are rising up!” the crowd chanted. “We are here, Nicolás Maduro. If you can hear us, we are here!”In other parts of the city, the streets were empty hours after the attack.“How do I feel? Scared, like everyone,” said Caracas resident Noris Prada, who sat on an empty avenue looking at his phone. “Venezuelans woke up scared. Many families couldn’t sleep.”In Doral, Florida, home to the largest Venezuelan community in the United States, people wrapped themselves in Venezuelan flags, ate fried snacks and cheered as music played. At one point, the crowd chanted “Liberty! Liberty! Liberty!”Questions of legalityWhether the United States violated any laws, international or otherwise, was still a question early Sunday. “There are a number of international legal concepts which the United States might have broken by capturing Maduro,” said Ilan Katz, an international law analyst.In New York, the U.N. Security Council, acting on an emergency request from Colombia, planned to hold a meeting on U.S. operations in Venezuela on Monday morning. That was according to a council diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a meeting not yet made public.Lawmakers from both American political parties have raised reservations and flat-out objections to the U.S. attacks on boats suspected of drug smuggling. Congress has not approved an authorization for the use of military force for such operations in the region.Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he had seen no evidence that would justify Trump striking Venezuela without approval from Congress and demanded an immediate briefing by the administration on “its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”___Toropin and Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela; Lisa Mascaro, Michelle L. Price, Seung Min Kim and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington; Farnoush Amiri in New York; and Larry Neumeister in South Amboy, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

    Deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro arrived in the United States to face criminal charges after being captured in an audacious nighttime military operation that President Donald Trump said would set the U.S. up to “run” the South American country and tap its vast oil reserves to sell to other nations.

    Maduro landed Saturday evening at a small airport in New York following the middle-of-the-night operation that extracted him and his wife, Cilia Flores, from their home in a military base in the capital, Caracas — an act that Maduro’s government called “imperialist.” The couple faces U.S. charges of participating in a narco-terrorism conspiracy.

    The dramatic action capped an intensive Trump administration pressure campaign on Venezuela’s autocratic leader and months of secret planning, resulting in the most assertive American action to achieve regime change since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Legal experts raised questions about the lawfulness of the operation, which was done without congressional approval.

    Venezuela’s vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, meanwhile, demanded that the United States free Maduro and called him the country’s rightful leader as her nation’s high court named her interim president.

    Some Venezuelan civilians and members of the military were killed, said Rodríguez, who didn’t give a number. Trump said some U.S. forces were injured, but none were killed.

    Speaking to reporters hours after Maduro’s capture, Trump revealed his plans to exploit the leadership void to “fix” the country’s oil infrastructure and sell “large amounts” of oil to other countries.

    Trump says US will ‘run the country’

    The Trump administration promoted the ouster as a step toward reducing the flow of dangerous drugs into the U.S. The president touted what he saw as other potential benefits, including a leadership stake in the country and greater control of oil.

    Trump claimed the U.S. government would help lead the country and was already doing so, though there were no immediate visible signs of that. Venezuelan state TV aired pro-Maduro propaganda and broadcast live images of supporters taking to the streets in Caracas in protest.

    “We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago news conference. He boasted that this “extremely successful operation should serve as warning to anyone who would threaten American sovereignty or endanger American lives.”

    Maduro and other Venezuelan officials were indicted in 2020 on narco-terrorism conspiracy charges, and the Justice Department released a new indictment Saturday of Maduro and his wife that painted his administration as a “corrupt, illegitimate government” fueled by a drug-trafficking operation that flooded the U.S with cocaine. The U.S. government does not recognize Maduro as the country’s leader.

    The Trump administration spent months building up American forces in the region and carrying out attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean for allegedly ferrying drugs. Last week, the CIA was behind a drone strike at a docking area believed to have been used by Venezuelan drug cartels — the first known direct operation on Venezuelan soil since the U.S. campaign began in September.

    Early morning attack

    Taking place 36 years to the day after the 1990 surrender and seizure of Panama leader Manuel Antonio Noriega following a U.S. invasion, the Venezuela operation unfolded under the cover of darkness early Saturday. Trump said the U.S. turned off “almost all of the lights” in Caracas while forces moved in to extract Maduro and his wife.

    Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said U.S. forces had rehearsed their maneuvers for months, learning everything about Maduro — where he was and what he ate, as well as details of his pets and his clothes.

    “We think, we develop, we train, we rehearse, we debrief, we rehearse again and again,” Caine said. “Not to get it right, but to ensure we cannot get it wrong.”

    Multiple explosions rang out that morning, and low-flying aircraft swept through Caracas. Maduro’s government accused the United States of hitting civilian and military installations, calling it an “imperialist attack” and urging citizens to take to the streets. The explosions — at least seven blasts — sent people rushing into the streets, while others took to social media to report what they saw and heard.

    Restrictions imposed by the U.S. government on airspace around Venezuela and the Caribbean expired early Sunday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on X, an announcement that suggested any further immediate major U.S. military action was unlikely. “Airlines are informed, and will update their schedules quickly,” he posted.

    Under Venezuelan law, Rodríguez would take over from Maduro. Rodríguez, however, stressed during a Saturday appearance on state television that she did not plan to assume power, before Venezuela’s high court ordered that she become interim president.

    “There is only one president in Venezuela,” Rodriguez said, “and his name is Nicolás Maduro Moros.”

    Some streets in Caracas fill up

    Venezuela’s ruling party has held power since 1999, when Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, took office, promising to uplift poor people and later to implement a self-described socialist revolution.

    Maduro took over when Chávez died in 2013. His 2018 reelection was widely considered a sham because the main opposition parties were banned from participating. During the 2024 election, electoral authorities loyal to the ruling party declared him the winner hours after polls closed, but the opposition gathered overwhelming evidence that he lost by a more than 2-to-1 margin.

    In a demonstration of how polarizing Maduro is, people variously took to the streets to protest his capture, while others celebrated it. At a protest in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, Mayor Carmen Meléndez joined a crowd demanding Maduro’s return.

    “Maduro, hold on, the people are rising up!” the crowd chanted. “We are here, Nicolás Maduro. If you can hear us, we are here!”

    In other parts of the city, the streets were empty hours after the attack.

    “How do I feel? Scared, like everyone,” said Caracas resident Noris Prada, who sat on an empty avenue looking at his phone. “Venezuelans woke up scared. Many families couldn’t sleep.”

    In Doral, Florida, home to the largest Venezuelan community in the United States, people wrapped themselves in Venezuelan flags, ate fried snacks and cheered as music played. At one point, the crowd chanted “Liberty! Liberty! Liberty!”

    Questions of legality

    Whether the United States violated any laws, international or otherwise, was still a question early Sunday. “There are a number of international legal concepts which the United States might have broken by capturing Maduro,” said Ilan Katz, an international law analyst.

    In New York, the U.N. Security Council, acting on an emergency request from Colombia, planned to hold a meeting on U.S. operations in Venezuela on Monday morning. That was according to a council diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a meeting not yet made public.

    Lawmakers from both American political parties have raised reservations and flat-out objections to the U.S. attacks on boats suspected of drug smuggling. Congress has not approved an authorization for the use of military force for such operations in the region.

    Connecticut Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he had seen no evidence that would justify Trump striking Venezuela without approval from Congress and demanded an immediate briefing by the administration on “its plan to ensure stability in the region and its legal justification for this decision.”

    ___

    Toropin and Tucker reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Jorge Rueda in Caracas, Venezuela; Lisa Mascaro, Michelle L. Price, Seung Min Kim and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington; Farnoush Amiri in New York; and Larry Neumeister in South Amboy, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Maduro removal triggers White House protest – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    Hundreds gathered outside the White House after the U.S. military removed President Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela.

    This page contains a video which is being blocked by your ad blocker.
    In order to view the video you must disable your ad blocker.

    Hundreds protest military action in Venezuela at White House

    Nine hours after President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. military launched a military operation in Venezuela that led to the capture and removal of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, hundreds gathered outside the White House.

    The protest, organized by the Party for Socialism and Liberation, attracted a diverse group of people from the D.C. region, including Modesto King.

    “I thought I was gonna get a heart attack this morning when I watched the news,” said King. “It’s not for the United States government to tell them who is legitimate or not.”

    King, who is originally from the Dominican Republic, said he wondered how many Latin American presidents the U.S. would remove from power.

    Solyana Bekele shares that concern. The 24-year-old from Alexandria said whoever the U.S. doesn’t like becomes a dictator.

    “All of a sudden, now we’re talking about narcoterrorism, and how that’s somehow attacking the U.S. sovereignty, and that’s being used as an excuse,” said Bekele.

    Not everyone at Lafayette Square was as supportive of Maduro as many of the protesters.

    Bryan, who lives in Maryland, pointed to the protesters and gave his thoughts.

    “He’s a criminal, and he murdered people. He imprisoned people, political people who stood up against him,” said Bryan. “If these people want to criticize the Trump administration, why not move to a communist country like North Korea, China or Venezuela?”

    On the other side of that argument was Kathy Boylan, 82, who said she believes those claims are a lie.

    “First of all, it hasn’t been proven in court,” said Boylan. “Why don’t they go to court, honestly?”

    As speakers addressed the crowd, watching close by was Malcolm, a former member of the Air Force who was holding a sign that read “Veterans Against War.”

    “I saw the escalation we’ve been doing over the past couple weeks and months, but kidnapping another country’s leader is a new step for me,” said Malcolm.

    Many protesters held signs that read “No Blood For Oil,” which was a major concern for D.C. resident Mary Pat Rowan.

    “Venezuela does have enormous oil resources, and Trump would like to get at them. That’s what we did in Iraq, and that was wrong there, and I think we know it now,” said Rowan.

    Standing near the White House gates was Jennifer Stancil, who was also holding a sign that read: “No War!!! Impeach, Convict, Remove. Congress do something!”

    “They’ve been attacking these boats, and they’ve been doing this stuff and they’ve been trying to justify it. You think about if somebody did that to us, how upset we would be?,” said Stancil.

    [ad_2]

    Jimmy Alexander

    Source link

  • White House aiming to get final approval for Trump-backed ballroom by March

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration is aiming to move a planned 90,000-square-foot White House ballroom through the federal government’s review process at a rapid clip, with final approvals as soon as early March — potentially clearing the way for construction to start a month later.

    President Trump has sought to move quickly on the ballroom project, which is the most ambitious — and controversial — part of his push to transform the White House complex in line with his aesthetic vision. But the $400 million donor-funded project still needs to get approvals from two boards that oversee federal construction in Washington, D.C.: the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA).

    Administration officials met with the two boards and presented drawings on Dec. 19, and formally submitted applications three days later, a White House official told CBS News.

    The administration is aiming to hold a public informational meeting before the NCPC next week, on Jan. 8, with a meeting before the CFA one week later. Final presentations to the CFA and NCPC are slated for Feb. 19 and March 5, respectively, the official said.

    The National Park Service said in a court filing last month that above-grade construction is “not anticipated to begin until April 2026, at the earliest.” Construction is expected to wrap up in the summer of 2028, less than a year before Mr. Trump leaves office, according to a National Park Service assessment filed in court last month.

    The Washington Post was first to report the timing of NCPC and CFA approvals.

    CBS News has reached out to the NCPC and CFA for comment.

    The dates of the NCPC and CFA meetings could shift somewhat. But the administration’s timeline for the ballroom is extremely aggressive by the standards of the federal government, which often takes months or years to secure approvals for far smaller projects.

    It took several years to design, approve and build a new perimeter fence on the White House grounds during the Obama and first Trump administrations. Officials formally asked the NCPC to review the fencing project concept in June 2016, and the board eventually greenlit the plans in February 2017. Construction on the fence began in 2019.

    Approvals took even longer for a pricy project to renovate the Federal Reserve’s headquarters, with seven public meetings before the NCPC between September 2019 and March 2021. The commission approved the project in September 2021, and construction is still ongoing.

    The NCPC is chaired by White House aide William Scharf, and two other Trump appointees currently serve on the commission. Mr. Trump fired all six sitting members of the CFA in October and is expected to appoint a slate of new members shortly.

    Plans for the ballroom have come together at a rapid pace. The White House first announced the project in July. By October, construction crews had demolished the building’s entire East Wing, though Mr. Trump said months earlier that the existing structure would be left intact.

    At a mid-October dinner to recognize private donors to the ballroom, Mr. Trump marveled at how quickly he was able to get the project off the ground.

    “They said, ‘Sir, you can start tonight,” the president told guests, recounting conversations with staff about the ballroom. “‘You have zero zoning conditions. You’re the president.’”

    That approach has drawn criticism from congressional Democrats and preservation  groups, who argue the administration failed to properly engage with the public before taking a wrecking ball to part of the White House complex. The White House has argued that NCPC approval is only required for vertical construction, not demolition.

    The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued over the project late last year, seeking a temporary halt to construction work until the government gets any necessary approvals. The group has criticized the administration for tearing down the East Wing without seeking reviews and argued the ballroom’s size “will overwhelm the White House itself.”

    “The American people own these places. And we, the American people, have a right to weigh in when significant changes to them are proposed,” Carol Quillen, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, said in an interview with CBS News last month. “This project needs to follow the already legally mandated processes.”

    A judge last month declined to pause construction outright, but said the administration had to  engage the NCPC by the end of 2025. Further hearings on the Trust’s request for a preliminary injunction are set for later this month. The judge told the government that if it does any underground construction that “dictates the size or scale of the proposed ballroom” before he has a chance to rule, the government “should be prepared to take it down.”

    At a White House event shortly after the ruling, Mr. Trump celebrated the judge’s order and said “we didn’t want to be held up.” 

    “Who else but in our country would sue to stop a $400 million beautiful ballroom that people have been after for the White House?” the president said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here are PolitiFact’s top 10 fact-checks of 2025

    [ad_1]

    Claims about deportations, the Department of Government Efficiency, and someone fainting in the White House were among the mistruths that kept PolitiFact busy in 2025 — and they featured in some of our most popular stories this year. 

    Here are our 10 most-read fact-checks, from a tenuous gang connection to fears over voter eligibility.

    10. President Donald Trump says Kilmar Abrego Garcia has “‘MS-13’ on his knuckles.” 

    President Donald Trump said Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a man the U.S. government deported to El Salvador in March, had MS-13 tattooed on his knuckles — illustrating a purported affiliation with the MS-13 gang founded by El Salvadoran immigrants.

    Trump made the claim during an April interview, referring to an image he posted on Truth Social of a left hand bearing four tattoos. Each finger in the picture displayed a different image — a marijuana leaf, a smiley face with an X for eyes, a cross and a skull — and an M, an S, a 1 and a 3 above these images. 

    But we found that the M, S, 1 and 3 don’t appear in other photos of Abrego Garcia’s hand, including one that Salvadoran government officials took when Abrego Garcia met with Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., on April 17 in El Salvador. (Abrego Garcia is now back in the U.S awaiting a criminal trial.)  

    The tattoos also do not appear in an Abrego Garcia family photo immigration advocates shared. The photograph Trump shared appears to have been altered to include “MS-13” above the other symbols. And MS-13 experts told PolitiFact that none of those symbols are known signifiers of the gang. 

    We rated this claim Pants on Fire!

    9. Novo Nordisk’s Gordon Findlay didn’t faint Nov. 6, 2025, in the Oval Office. He wasn’t even there

    Dave Ricks, chair and chief executive officer of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co., was speaking in the Oval Office on Nov. 6 when a man standing behind him fainted. 

    Multiple social media posts claimed the man who became ill was “Novo Nordisk Executive Gordon Findlay.” They included a post from X’s artificial intelligence-powered chatbot Grok.

    But Gordon Findlay, a Novo Nordisk manager based in Switzerland, wasn’t at the White House that day.

    The man who fainted doesn’t work for Novo Nordisk or Eli Lilly; he was an Eli Lilly GLP-1 patient and attended a drug pricing announcement at the White House as the company’s guest.

    We rated this claim False.

    8. Did Bill Clinton create a fast-track deportation process exempt from due process? No.

    As the Trump administration drew criticism over aggressive deportations, some social media users pointed to a law enacted under former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat. The posts said an immigration law Clinton signed showed immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally are not entitled to due process.

    The 1996 law established a fast-track deportation process called expedited removal that allows people to be deported without first going to immigration court. Although immigrants going through that process have fewer protections, they are not exempt from due process. People are screened, notified of deportation and can contest the deportation if they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Legal experts say there are no exceptions to due process rights, regardless of immigrants’ legal status or how they entered the country.

    We rated this claim False.

    7. Is it ‘official’ that Trump approved a $5,000 ‘DOGE dividend’ stimulus? No.

    As the Department of Government Efficiency touted billions in canceled government contracts, rumors spread that the reclaimed money would wind up in taxpayers’ pockets.

    A Feb. 23 Facebook post, for example, said Trump was going to sign an order giving some taxpayers a stimulus check for $5,000.

    We found no White House announcements or news reports reflecting this. 

    James Fishback, CEO of the investment firm Azoria Partners, proposed giving American taxpayers a $5,000 “DOGE dividend” with money the Department of Government Efficiency aimed to save, and Trump mentioned the idea to reporters.

    But DOGE didn’t cut the necessary $2 trillion from the federal government’s budget to make this proposed plan feasible.

    We rated this claim False.

    6. El gobernador de Texas Greg Abbott no dijo que deportaría a Dios si ‘fuera ilegal’

    A Spanish-language TikTok video appeared to show a journalist reporting that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said he would have deported God if the higher power were in the U.S. illegally. 

    But the July video manipulated TelevisaUnivision journalist Enrique Acevedo’s voice to present the misleading news. PolitiFact en Español submitted the audio from the video to an AI detector, which said the audio was fake.

    We rated this claim False.

    5. X post exaggerates wealth of Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren

    A Feb. 11 X post called out the significant wealth of prominent Democratic and Republican members of Congress. The account wrote about the supposed annual salaries and net worths of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

    Members of Congress are required to file annual financial disclosure reports detailing their assets and liabilities. Lawmakers also publicly report their annual salaries. But the lawmakers’ net worths weren’t driven by their government salaries; instead, their wealth mostly came from investments, such as stocks and real estate.

    PolitiFact analyzed these four congressional members’ 2023 financial disclosure reports — the most recent ones available at the time — and found that this post exaggerated their wealth.

    We rated this claim Mostly False.

    4. Zelenskyy’s statement about Ukraine aid didn’t reveal money laundering operation

    After Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his military had received only a portion of the U.S. aid earmarked for the country’s war against Russia, critics floated that the funding was misused through money laundering.

    But Zelenskyy’s Feb. 1 statements aren’t proof of money laundering; they align with public data on the U.S. funding packages. 

    Zelenskyy said Ukraine had received about $75 billion in military assistance of the $175 billion the U.S. has dedicated to Ukraine aid. That was in line with what researchers monitoring funding to Ukraine observed at the time.

    A large portion of the money stayed in the U.S. and a smaller portion went to other countries in the region. 

    We rated these claims False.

    3. No, Trump didn’t post that the president should be impeached if the Dow drops 1,000 points

    As Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico took effect March 4, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped by more than 1,300 points in two days.

    Some X users — including former U.S. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., — shared a screenshot of what looked like a 2012 X post from Trump.

    The screenshot made it look like Trump wrote, “If the Dow drops 1,000 points in two days the President should be impeached immediately.”

    But this was a fake post that had been circulating for at least six years. There’s no record of Trump making such a statement.

    We rated this claim Pants on Fire!

    2. Trump had hand in temporary ceasefires around the world but evidence is scant he stopped ‘six wars’

    Trump has repeatedly said he’s ended several wars, but there’s a lot of uncertainty around Trump’s role in these conflicts.

    “I’ve stopped six wars — I’m averaging about a war a month,” Trump said July 28 in Scotland. 

    Experts said in August that although he deserves some credit for deals that eased various conflicts, some leaders dispute his role in such negotiations.

    The U.S. was involved in a temporary peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda that experts said is significant albeit shaky, for example. But Trump also wrongly said he ended a conflict between Egypt and Ethiopia, and there’s little evidence he thwarted an escalation between Kosovo and Serbia. 

    We fact-checked other similar statements from the president this year, including one that he ended “seven unendable wars.”

    We rated that and this claim Mostly False.

    1. SAVE Act would make it harder, not impossible, for married people to register to vote

    Congressional Republicans want to pass a bill that would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. This worried voting rights advocates who say it would hinder registration among eligible citizens.

    The SAVE Act, would require people registering to vote or updating their voter registrations to use certain identifying documents, including military IDs, enhanced IDs showing citizenship, birth certificates or passports to prove citizenship. The bill passed in the House in April and is awaiting debate in the Senate.

    “If you are a woman that has changed your name from your birth certificate, let’s say through marriage and you took your husband’s name, you are no longer eligible to vote if this bill passes the Senate,” a Feb. 10 TikTok video said. 

    That’s not quite accurate. The bill would make voter registration more difficult for married people who change their last names, and anyone whose name does not match the name on a birth certificate. But it would not prohibit it outright. 

    We rated this claim Mostly False. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announces she is pregnant with her second child

    [ad_1]

    White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Friday that she is expecting her second child next spring. 

    “The greatest Christmas gift we could ever ask for – a baby girl coming in May 2026,” Leavitt wrote in an Instagram post.

    “My husband and I are thrilled to grow our family and can’t wait to watch our son become a big brother,” she wrote. “My heart is overflowing with gratitude to God for the blessing of motherhood, which I truly believe is the closest thing to Heaven on Earth.”

    Leavitt also said in the post that she was grateful for President Trump and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles for their support “and for fostering a pro-family environment in the White House.”

    Leavitt and her husband, Nicholas Riccio, welcomed their first child, also named Nicholas, in July 2024. In an interview with “The Washington Post,” she said she went back to work three days after giving birth in response to the attempted assassination of Mr. Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.

    Leavitt, 28, is the youngest person to serve as White House press secretary and previously served as the press secretary for Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign.

    In 2022, she ran for Congress in New Hampshire, winning a 10-way Republican primary before losing to incumbent Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Christopher Anderson On His White House Photos

    [ad_1]

    The White House isn’t just the home of the sitting president of the United States—it’s also known as the people’s house, a symbol of democracy at work. Vanity Fair‘s Chris Whipple took readers inside the building and the inner workings of a half-dozen of Donald Trump‘s closest advisors, interviewing chief of staff Susie Wiles several times throughout the first months of Trump’s second term, and speaking to Stephen Miller, Marco Rubio, Karoline Leavitt, JD Vance, and others in a bombshell two-part feature.

    Whipple has discussed his reporting process for the story, and now, here’s Anderson in conversation with VF, taking us behind the scenes of the assignment that he almost turned down. And, to answer the question on everyone’s mind right away, Anderson says of those ultra-tight shots, “No, they’re not cropped versions. I’m standing very, very close.”

    Vanity Fair: What compelled you to take this assignment for Vanity Fair?
    Christopher Anderson: I wasn’t eager to accept the assignment at first. My roots are in journalism, I have done a lot of political work over the years and photographed a lot of politicians from the last administrations, from George Bush to Barack Obama, Joe Biden, even Bill Clinton. But a lot of what I do now is photograph celebrities. And I assumed incorrectly that the ask was for me to show up and be a celebrity photographer for this administration. And my journalistic DNA would not sit comfortably with this idea. So I thought, at first, I’m not gonna accept. Jennifer Pastore, the global creative director of Vanity Fair, and I had a long discussion about this, and she persuaded me that wearing my celebrity photographer hat was not why they were coming to me. That the qualification for this job was to come as a journalist, to bring a certain sense of clear-eyed observation and even skepticism. And that would come with a certain challenge and in my opinion, I felt an enormous responsibility in doing that. So that very much aligned with what my history is, what my roots have been in, it’s an historical moment, so I want to be there.

    [ad_2]

    Kahina Sekkaï

    Source link

  • Behind The Scenes of Vanity Fair’s Revelatory White House Report

    [ad_1]

    Now that the article is out, are you surprised by how it has been received/commented on? By the public and by the administration?

    I’m pleased by the overwhelmingly favorable public reaction to the story–and not at all bothered by the administration’s response. They’ve failed to challenge a single assertion or quotation from the piece. That’s because they know it’s rock solid.

    Do you think this is the last bit of significant access, and subsequent output, any journalist will ever get from this administration? Or do you think that them “closing their doors” to such an extent would create more problems than weathering an occasionally problematic article?

    My access to Susie Wiles was extraordinary and rare–and a decision made by her rather that any kind of White House policy. The Trump administration hasn’t made a habit of talking to mainstream media reporters and I don’t think that’s going to change.

    If you revisited this story a year from now, what thread would you most want to follow further?

    I’d want to pursue many threads–retribution, Epstein, Venezuela, the midterms, and many more!

    How frustrating is it to have off the record information in interviews like this? I can only imagine there are times you think “wow, people really deserve to know this,” but can’t share it.

    Actually, most of the explosive revelations from the interviews were made by Susie Wiles on the record. Pretty amazing, no?

    Did Wiles ever make a compelling case that Trump was ever unfairly or irrationally maligned?

    No, she never made a case for Trump’s unfair portrayal by the press. She simply asserted that it was true.

    [ad_2]

    Eve Batey

    Source link

  • Merry Christmas, America! The Checks Are in the Mail!

    [ad_1]

    Many times in the past decade, Donald Trump’s public addresses have reminded me of old TV commercials for the electronics chain Crazy Eddie that I used to watch as a kid in suburban New Jersey—the rat-a-tat delivery, the breathless hype, the memorably absurdist slogans. (“His prices are INSAAAANE!”) But somehow this was never more the case than on Wednesday night, when the President spoke to the nation from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, flanked by the soft glow of two Christmas trees and a portrait of George Washington.

    The comparison isn’t exact, to be fair. Crazy Eddie’s legendary pitchman, Jerry Carroll, actually dressed up as Santa Claus for the chain’s famous holiday ads, for which Crazy Eddie presumably had to pay. Trump, in contrast, got free airtime from all of America’s major television networks for his Christmas commercial, which was delivered in the form of an eighteen-minute-and-thirty-three-second run-on sentence. That’s an awful lot of words to string together without much in the way of periods or common sense, though, by now, we all know there’s only one form of punctuation that Trump has truly embraced: the exclamation point. “I am bringing those high prices down and bringing them down very fast!” he declared on Wednesday night. “Boy, are we making progress!” “There’s never been anything like it!”

    The centerpiece of the President’s speech was his announcement of a no-strings-attached deal for 1.4 million members of the U.S. military to receive year-end bonus checks of $1,776 each, in honor of next year’s celebration of the two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. “And the checks,” he said, “are already on the way!” More financial presents were promised by Santa Trump in the New Year: a great new housing policy, a great new health-care plan. As the President put it, “You the people are going to be getting great health care at a lower cost!” I, for one, can’t wait, having recently received a three-dollar-and-eighty-six-cent reimbursement check from our health-insurance company for my son’s thousand-dollar-plus annual checkup.

    If only Trump were actually selling discount electronics. Suffice it to say, there were never any examples of Crazy Eddie trying to sell new color televisions by claiming that Somali immigrants stole the old ones. When the website Defense One revealed overnight that the money for Trump’s so-called warrior dividend was being diverted from a $2.9-billion fund for military housing allowances set up by Congress, it was not so much surprising as predictable. Santa has to get the money for all those presents from somewhere, right?

    But, as an advertisement for Trump’s year-end accomplishments, the speech had a whiff of desperation about it. Can it be that the Presidential huckster, with his approval ratings sunk down in the thirties, secretly knows that America isn’t buying what he’s selling? Why else was he talking so fast? A few hours before the speech, even a few Republicans on Capitol Hill had started to rebel, demanding a floor vote to extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are about to expire, which would send health-care prices skyrocketing for millions of people. In his address, Trump made no mention of this, instead blaming the coming price increases on Democrats, though they have spent the past few months fighting Trump to prevent them. That level of gaslighting, it seems, can take a lot out of a man. When his speech was over, according to a White House pool report, Trump turned to the press and said, “You think that’s easy?” then took a swig of Diet Coke. The sense that he was just going through the motions was only reinforced by what came next: “Susie told me I have to give an address to the nation,” he said, or, per the pool report, something closely approximating it.

    Susie, of course, is Susie Wiles, Trump’s chief of staff, and part of the point of Trump’s comment was no doubt to remind the reporters that she is still calling the shots in his White House. Wiles, who is famously low-profile, found herself facing a rare bout of bad publicity this week, when her lacerating comments about the President and much of his inner circle to the author Chris Whipple, in eleven taped interviews in the course of the past year, were published in Vanity Fair.

    Among the choicest bits: Wiles said that Trump, like her father, the late football commentator Pat Summerall, “has an alcoholic’s personality,” that Vice-President J. D. Vance has been “a conspiracy theorist for a decade,” and that Elon Musk was a drug-microdosing “odd, odd duck.” She also revealed herself to be a doubter when it came to many of the most famous outrages of Trump’s return to office, questioning everything from Musk’s destruction of the United States Agency for International Development—“no rational person” could be in favor of how it was handled, she told Whipple—to the Presidential pardons for violent pro-Trump rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    [ad_2]

    Susan B. Glasser

    Source link