Donald Trump

BREAKINGBREAKING,

US president says oil will be sold at market prices and that he will control resulting revenues.

United States President Donald Trump has announced that Venezuela will turn over between 30 and 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil.

“This Oil will be sold at its Market Price, and that money will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!” Trump said on his platform Truth Social on Tuesday.

“I have asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute this plan, immediately. It will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States.”

More to follow…

Jan. 6 (UPI) — The leaders of the Britain, France and Ukraine signed a trilateral agreement Tuesday to pave the way for French and British forces to deploy to Ukraine after it signs a peace agreement to end the war with Russia.

French President Emmanuel Macron hosted about two dozen leaders from the “Coalition of the Willing” at a summit that aimed to secure Ukraine’s ongoing security once there is a cease-fire.

Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed the agreement Tuesday evening.

“Following a cease-fire, the U.K. and France will establish military hubs across Ukraine,” Starmer said.

“The ‘Multinational Force for Ukraine’ will act as a reassurance force to bolster security guarantees and Ukraine’s ability to return to peace and stability by supporting the regeneration of Ukraine’s own forces,” Starmer said in a statement.

“The signing of the declaration paves the way for the legal framework to be established for French and U.K. forces to operate on Ukrainian soil, securing Ukraine’s skies and seas and building an armed forces fit for the future.”

Zelensky posted on X about the meeting.

“Military officials from France, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine worked in detail on force deployment, numbers, specific types of weapons, and the components of the Armed Forces required and able to operate effectively. We already have these necessary details. We understand which country is ready for what among all members of the Coalition of the Willing. I would like to thank every leader and every state that truly wishes to be part of a peaceful solution,” Zelensky said.

He also discussed the role of the United States in the post-war coalition.

“We had very substantive discussions with the American side on monitoring — to ensure there are no violations of peace. The United States is ready to work on this. One of the most critical elements is deterrence — the tools that will prevent any new Russian aggression. We see all of this,” he said.

U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff said the talks led to “significant progress on several critical workstreams.”

“We agree with the Coalition that durable security guarantees and robust prosperity commitments are essential to a lasting peace in the Ukraine and we will continue to work together on this effort.”

He said talks will continue Tuesday night and Wednesday, and “we are hopeful to achieve additional positive momentum in the near future.”

The leaders of about 35 countries calling themselves the “Coalition of the Willing” met Tuesday afternoon in Paris to continue work on the joint statement released by European leaders after a summit in Berlin in December.

In his New Year’s speech, Macron said he expects “firm commitments” to be made in protecting Ukraine against Russian aggression after any cease-fire.

Zelensky recently met with U.S. President Donald Trump in Florida and said that the peace plan is about 90% agreed. But Russia hasn’t agreed to the plan since revisions were made.

Trump suggested there would be a security agreement for Ukraine and said “European nations are very much involved.”

“I feel that European nations have been really great, and they’re very much in line with this meeting and with getting a deal done. They are all terrific people,” Trump said.

The 10% that’s left in the plan is about territorial disputes. Kyiv hasn’t agreed to cede land.

Russia controls about 75% of the Donetsk region and 99% of Luhansk. Together, they are the industrial region of Donbas. Ukraine doesn’t want to let them go.

Causing anxiety in Europe is the recent invasion of Venezuela by the United States, as well as Trump’s threats to take over Greenland, which is part of NATO through Denmark.

The United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case about the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The high court on Tuesday added a non-argument/conference date on its website, indicating that it could release its ruling, although the court does not announce ahead of time which rulings it intends to issue.

The challenge to Trump’s tariffs has been one of the most closely watched cases on the court’s docket amid the broader impact on the global economy.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump said such a ruling would be a “terrible blow” to the US.

“Because of Tariffs, our Country is financially, AND FROM A NATIONAL SECURITY STANDPOINT, FAR STRONGER AND MORE RESPECTED THAN EVER BEFORE,” Trump said in another post on Monday.

However, data on this is mixed. The US gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 4.3 percent in the third quarter of 2025, marking the biggest increase in two years. Meanwhile, US job growth has slowed, with sectors heavily exposed to tariffs seeing little to no job growth.

“Jobs in sectors with higher import exposure grew more slowly than jobs in sectors with lower import exposure, suggesting tariffs may have weighed on employment,” Johannes Matschke, senior economist for the Kansas City branch of the Federal Reserve, said in an analysis in December.

Legal arguments

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February 2025 on goods imported from individual countries to address, what he called, a national emergency related to US trade deficits.

Arguments challenging the legality of the decision began in November. At the time, the court’s liberal and some conservative justices had doubts about the legality of using the 1977 act.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump appointed during his first term, was among those sceptical.

“Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president,” Gorsuch said at the time.

Chief Justice John Roberts told Solicitor General D John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the administration, that imposing tariffs and taxes “has always been the core power of Congress”.

The act grants broad executive authority to wield economic power in the case of a national emergency.

The matter reached the Supreme Court after the lower courts ruled against the Trump administration, finding that the use of the law exceeded the administration’s authority.

Among the courts that ruled against the White House was the Court of International Trade. In May, the New York court said that Congress, and not the executive branch, has “exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. This decision was upheld in a Washington, DC, appeals court in August.

Legal experts believe it is likely that the high court will uphold lower court decisions.

“My sense is that, given the different justices’ concerns, the Supreme Court will decide that IEEPA does not provide the ability for the Trump administration to adopt the tariffs,” Greg Shaffer, a law professor at Georgetown University, told Al Jazeera.

If the Trump administration were to lose the case, the US would need to refund some of the tariffs.

“It [ruling against the administration] would mean that those who paid tariffs that were imposed illegally would have to be reimbursed. I would think that that would be the outcome,” Shaffer added.

In September, Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said on NBC’s Meet the Press that the US would “have to give a refund on about half the tariffs”.

The Trump administration has said that if the Supreme Court does not rule in its favour, it will use other statutes to push through tariffs.

Washington, DC – United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has not been shy about his desire to see the toppling of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Infamously, the former Florida senator even posted a series of photos of slain deposed leaders, including a bloodied former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, as tensions with the US and Maduro’s government spiked in 2019.

But it wasn’t until the second administration of US President Donald Trump that Rubio’s vision of a hardline approach to Latin America and his longtime pressure campaign against leftist leaders was realised – culminating on Saturday with the illegal abduction of longtime Venezuelan leader Maduro.

Experts say Rubio has relied on an ability to capitalise on the overlapping interests of competing actors within the Trump administration to achieve this, even as his broader ideological goals, including the ousting of Cuba’s communist government, will likely remain constrained by the administration’s competing ambitions.

“It took a tremendous amount of political skill on his part to marginalise other voices in the administration and elsewhere who were saying: ‘This is not our conflict. This is not what we stand for. This is going to upset our base,’” Alejandro Velasco, an associate professor of history at New York University, told Al Jazeera.

Those agendas included US President Donald Trump’s preoccupation with opening Venezuela’s nationalised oil industry, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s desire for a more pugilistic military approach abroad, and adviser Stephen Miller’s fixation on migration and mass deportation.

“So that’s the way that Rubio was able to bring into line not quite competing, but really divergent agendas, all of them to focus on Venezuela as a way to advance a particular end,” Velasco said.

A hawk in ‘America First’

A traditionalist hawk who has regularly supported US military intervention in the name of spreading Western democracy and human rights abroad, Rubio initially appeared to be an awkward fit to be Trump’s top diplomat in his second term.

His selection followed a campaign season defined by Trump’s vow to end foreign wars, eschew US-backed regime change, and pursue a wider “America First” pivot.

But the actual shape of Trump’s foreign policy has borne little resemblance to that vision, with the administration adopting a so-called “Peace Through Strength” doctrine that observers say has resulted in more room for military adventurism. That has, to date, seen the Trump administration launch bombing campaigns against Yemen and Iran, strike armed groups in Nigeria and Somalia, and attack alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean.

The approach of Trump 2.0 has more closely aligned with Rubio’s vision of Washington’s role abroad, which has long supported maximum-pressure sanctions campaigns and various forms of US intervention to topple governments.

The US secretary of state’s personal ideology traces to his South Florida roots, where his family settled in the 1960s after leaving Cuba three years before the rise of Fidel Castro, in what Velasco described as an “acerbically anti-communist” political environment.

“I think for him, it started as a question of finally making real the hopes and dreams of Cubans in Florida and elsewhere to return to their homeland under a capitalist government,” Velasco explained.

“It went from that to what this could represent, if we think about it more hemispherically – a bigger shift that would not only increase, but in fact ensure, US hegemony in the region for the 21st century.”

‘Vacuum was his to fill’

After tangling with Trump in the 2016 presidential election, in which the future president deridingly dubbed his opponent “Little Marco” while Rubio decried him as a “con man”, the pair forged a pragmatic working relationship.

Rubio eventually endorsed Trump ahead of the 2016 vote, helping to deliver Florida. In Trump’s first term, Rubio came to be seen as the president’s “shadow secretary” on Latin America, an atypical role that saw the lawmaker influence Trump’s eventual recognition of Juan Guaido as interim president in opposition to Maduro.

Analysts note Rubio’s approach to Venezuela has always been directly aimed at undermining the economic support it provides to Cuba, with the end goal of toppling the island’s 67-year-old Communist government. Following Maduro’s abduction on Saturday, Rubio quickly pivoted to the island nation, telling reporters: “If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned”.

Still, in the early months of Trump’s second term, Rubio appeared largely sidelined, with the president instead favouring close friends and family members to spearhead marquee negotiations on ceasefires in Gaza and Ukraine.

During this time, Rubio was slowly amassing a sizeable portfolio. Beyond serving as secretary of state, Rubio became the acting administrator of the Trump-dismantled US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the acting archivist of the US National Archives. Most notably, he became the acting director of National Security, making him the first top US diplomat to also occupy the impactful White House role since Henry Kissinger.

Rubio eventually found himself in a White House power vacuum, according to Adam Isacson, the director of defence oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).

“Rubio’s somebody who understands Washington better than the Grenells and Witkoffs of the world,” Isacson told Al Jazeera, referring to Trump’s special envoys Richard Grenell and Steve Witkoff.

“At the same time, other powerful figures inside the White House, like Stephen Miller and [Director of the Office of Management and Budget] Russ Vought haven’t cared as much about foreign policy,” he said, “so the vacuum was his to fill.”

Meanwhile, Rubio showed his ability to be an “ideological weather vane”, pivoting regularly to stay in Trump’s good graces, Isacson said. The National Security Strategy released by the White House in December exemplified that approach.

The document, which is drafted by the National Security adviser with final approval from the president, offered little in tough language towards Russia, despite Rubio’s previous hard lines on the war in Ukraine. It supported the gutting of US foreign aid, despite Rubio’s years-long support for the system. It offered little of the human-rights language with which Rubio had earlier in his career styled himself as a champion.

It did, however, include a “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, which dovetailed with Rubio’s worldview by calling for the restoration of US “preeminence” over the Western Hemisphere.

A pyrrhic victory?

To be sure, the toppling of Maduro has so far proved a partial, if not pyrrhic victory for Rubio, far short of the comprehensive change he has long supported.

In a news conference immediately following Maduro’s abduction, Trump doused support for exiled opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, who has hewed close to Rubio’s vision for a future Venezuela. Several news agencies have since reported that US intelligence assessed that installing an opposition figure would lead to widespread chaos in the country.

Rubio has so far been the point man in dealing with Maduro’s former deputy and replacement, Delcy Rodriguez, who has been a staunch supporter of the Hugo Chavez-founded Chavismo movement that Rubio has long railed against. Elections remain a far-off prospect, with Trump emphasising working with the government to open the oil industry to the US.

The secretary of state has not been officially given a role connected to the country, but has earned the less-than-sincere title in some US media of “viceroy of Venezuela”.

On news shows, Rubio has been tasked with walking back Trump’s claim that the US would “run” the South American country, while selling the administration’s oft-contradicted message that the abduction of Maduro was a law enforcement action, not regime change, an act of war, or a bid for the country’s oil.

“I think he’s sort of lying through his teeth,” Lee Schlenker, a research associate at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera.

“Even he doesn’t seem to believe a lot of the sort of rhetorical and discursive pretexts that have been deployed about drugs, about narco-terrorism, about a law enforcement-only operation, about just sort of enforcing a Department of Justice indictment,” he said.

Having to work with Rodriguez, and reportedly, Venezuela’s security czar and Minister of Interior Diosdado Cabello, has been a “bucket of cold water on Rubio’s broader illusions”, Schlenker added, noting that Rubio’s end goal still remains “the end of the Chavista project”.

Rubio is also likely to face further reality checks when it comes to his expected attempts to pitch the overthrow of what he will likely argue is a weakened Cuba.

The island, without the economic resources of Venezuela and no known drug trade, is seen as far less appealing to Trump and many of his allies.

“Compared to Venezuela,” Schlenker said, “there are a lot more reasons why Trump would have less interest in going after Cuba.”

Jan. 6 (UPI) — Colombian President Gustavo Petro has called for a nationwide mobilization Wednesday and urged citizens to “defend sovereignty,” responding to statements by the U.S. President Donald Trump that in Colombia have been widely interpreted as threats of intervention and direct attacks against the head of state.

The call, posted by Petro on X and echoed by government officials and political allies, urges rallies in public squares across the country starting at 4 p.m. local time, with the main protest planned for Bogota’s Plaza de Bolivar, the historic square that houses Colombia’s main government institutions. Petro said he will address the crowd.

The escalation follows remarks by Trump in which he referred to Petro in disparaging terms, accused him of backing drug production and left open the possibility of military action, according to reports by Colombian media.

In recent comments, Trump said a military operation against Colombia “sounds good,” following a U.S. military incursion in Venezuela. He also accused Petro of links to drug trafficking and said Colombia is “very sick.”

Petro publicly rejected the accusations and framed the dispute as a matter of national sovereignty. He said he would carefully assess the scope of Trump’s words before issuing a broader response but insisted that dialogue should be “the first path” and defended the legitimacy of his government.

“Although I have not been a soldier, I know about war and clandestinity. I swore not to touch a weapon again after the 1989 peace pact, but for the homeland, I would take up arms again, which I do not want,” Petro wrote, referring to the agreement that led to the demobilization of the M-19 guerrilla movement in which he once participated.

“I am not illegitimate, nor am I a drug trafficker. I own only my family home, which I am still paying for with my salary. My bank statements have been made public. No one has been able to say I have spent more than my salary. I am not greedy,” he added.

Separately, Colombia’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement after remarks attributed to Trump on Sunday and said it rejects what it considers unacceptable interference in matters of sovereignty and bilateral relations.

Vice President Francia Marquez joined those describing Trump’s statements as “threats” and called on Colombians to defend national sovereignty, according to local radio reports.

Demonstrations planned for Wednesday are expected in cities including Bogota, Medellin, Cali, Bucaramanga, Cartagena and Santa Marta, with calls to gather in central squares.

Petro described the protests as “peaceful” and urged Colombians to fly the national flag at their homes and bring it to public squares, El Espectador reported. He warned of the risks of military escalation and reiterated that the armed forces must follow their constitutional mandate to defend sovereignty.

The episode unfolds amid regional upheaval linked to Venezuela’s crisis and rising diplomatic tensions in Latin America.

According to daily El Tiempo, the situation has pushed Petro’s government to return to street mobilization as a political tool while Bogota seeks to manage relations with Washington without losing internal control.

US President Donald Trump says no Americans, but some soldiers ‘on the other side’ were killed in the ‘complex’ military operation that abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro.

BUESNOS AIRES, Jan. 6 (UPI) — Cuba is navigating another delicate moment in its recent history after the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces Saturday.

The operation that removed him from Caracas and left him facing a court in New York killed 32 Cuban soldiers, part of Maduro’s praetorian guard, and abruptly dismantled the island’s main economic lifeline.

The blow comes amid an energy and health crisis already considered the worst in decades — and one that could now deepen rapidly.

For more than 20 years, the alliance with Venezuela served as a strategic pillar for the Cuban government. The exchange of subsidized oil for medical and security services allowed Havana to sustain its economy after the Soviet collapse and cushion the impact of the U.S. embargo.

Maduro’s fall and the prospect of a regime change in Caracas directly disrupt that balance and place Cuba in a position of heightened economic and political vulnerability.

In the days after the Venezuelan leader’s arrest, the Cuban government responded with a mix of public gestures of support, internal political mobilization and tighter security.

On Saturday, President Miguel Díaz-Canel led a protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Havana, where he said Cuba was prepared to defend its alliance with Venezuela “even at a very high cost.”

The next day, the government decreed two days of national mourning in response to events in Venezuela. Senior officials dominated state television broadcasts to reinforce the idea of a “shared homeland” and a historic resistance to adversity.

The official narrative sought to counter statements by U.S. President Donald Trump, who publicly warned that allies of chavismo would face direct consequences.

Speaking about the island nation just 90 miles from Key West, Fla., Trump said, “Cuba is ready to fall … going down for the count,” while aboard Air Force One on Sunday.

On Monday, according to diplomatic sources, Cuban authorities stepped up surveillance at strategic facilities and convened emergency meetings. At the same time, reports of prolonged blackouts multiplied across several provinces — a concrete sign of the fragility of the energy system, as Venezuelan assistance could disappear or be sharply reduced within weeks.

Cuba’s energy crisis stems from a combination of obsolete infrastructure, chronic lack of maintenance and fuel shortages.

Most electricity generation depends on decades-old thermoelectric plants that are frequently offline due to breakdowns. Limited alternative capacity forces the state to rely on floating plants and diesel generators, whose operation depends on imports the country cannot secure due to a lack of hard currency or the loss of free supplies from traditional allies such as Venezuela.

Venezuelan lawyer and former prosecutor Zair Mundaray told UPI that for decades, Cuba depended entirely on Venezuelan oil, and that the collapse of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., Venezuela’s state‑owned oil and gas company, which started around 2014, broke that anchor. That left the island exposed to more frequent blackouts and a deeper economic downturn.

“In that vacuum, Mexico’s assistance emerged,” Mundaray said.

Press reports indicate that during the peak years of cooperation with Cuba, Caracas sent between 90,000 and 120,000 barrels per day. Since 2023, the Mexican state has shipped hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude and diesel to Cuba in operations valued at more than $300 million.

For economic historian Leandro Morgenfeld at the University of Buenos Aires, one of the objectives of U.S. intervention in Venezuela is to deepen Cuba’s isolation.

“The United States sees the Western Hemisphere as its exclusive domain. It will not accept the presence of extra-hemispheric forces and is willing to remove governments if it believes its interests or national security are at risk,” Morgenfeld said.

From that perspective, he added, the goal goes beyond Venezuela and seeks to dismantle the political and economic ties that sustain adversarial governments in the region, including Cuba.

“That is why they want to cut the political and economic link with Venezuela and further suffocate the island. Despite the blockade, they aim to intensify financial pressure to achieve what they have pursued for decades: the fall of the Cuban revolutionary government,” he said.

Morgenfeld said concern in Havana is real and deep. Cuba has faced a complex economic situation for years, marked by sanctions, lack of hard currency and low productivity.

“It is no longer, as in other times, an economy with easy sources of financing. If chavismo were to fall, the impact on Cuba would be very severe, economically and politically,” he said, while noting that a full regime change in Venezuela has not yet occurred.

From another angle, Colombian political scientist Christian Arias Barona said it is premature to anticipate an immediate collapse of the Cuban model.

He told UPI that as long as Delcy Rodríguez remains in power and U.S. hostility does not intensify, an abrupt shift is unlikely.

“Cuba would not face a drastic alteration in its economy or international relations, especially in its ties with Venezuela, from which it receives significant assistance, particularly in energy,” Arias Barona said. “Nor would its links with Russia and China be immediately affected.”

He recalled that Cuba’s recent history reflects an ability to adapt to adverse scenarios. Since the 1959 revolution, the island has faced what he described as constant “aggressions and hostilities” from the United States, including the ongoing economic embargo.

“That experience has allowed it to develop mechanisms of political and diplomatic survival,” he said.

Arias Barona also noted that the U.N. General Assembly has repeatedly voted against the U.S. embargo on Cuba, calling it a unilateral measure without backing in international law.

However, he said the United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has maintained its position and secured occasional support, including from Israel and, in recent votes, Argentina, Ecuador and Paraguay.

“What we are seeing today is a situation that increases Cuba’s vulnerability,” he said.

Sociologist Luis Wainer, also an academic at the University of Buenos Aires, agreed it is too early to project definitive scenarios.

“We do not know whether there will be a change in the political and economic model, how such a transition would look or even whether a transition will exist,” he told UPI.

“We are at a moment of negotiations, where what will be defined is who manages to impose the conditions,” he said.

Wainer said strong interest exists in framing this moment as a return to the Special Period, the severe economic and social crisis that began in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba’s main ally and supplier, and resulted in extreme shortages of fuel, food and medicine.

“There is a tendency to think Cuba will return to that scenario, but Cuban experience itself shows the country has developed creative responses to sustain itself without surrendering sovereignty,” he said.

Those responses include selective openings to new trade schemes, agreements with strategic sectors in other countries and the promotion of activities such as international tourism.

In that context, he highlighted the political and economic impact of Latin America’s leftward shift following Hugo Chávez’s electoral victory in 1998.

“That progressive cycle was a key lifeline for Cuba,” Wainer said. “It enabled regional integration, political cooperation and economic agreements that were fundamental for the island, especially with Venezuela.”

Jan. 6 (UPI) — Vocal Trump critic George Conway officially announced his run for the House of Representatives as a Democrat in New York for the seat being vacated by Rep. Jerry Nadler.

Conway, 62, filed his paperwork to run on Dec. 22 but made his campaign official Tuesday with a video ad. He is a former Republican.

“We have a corrupt president, a mendacious president, a criminal president whose masked agents are disappearing people from our streets, who’s breaking international law, and he’s running our federal government like a mob protection racket,” Conway said in his video.

Conway is a formerly conservative lawyer who rose to widespread fame when his then-wife, Kellyanne Conway, became an adviser to President Donald Trump in his first term. Despite his wife’s position, he was an outspoken voice against the president. They divorced in 2023.

“I know how to fight these people. They are corrupt, amoral people,” Conway said. “They will stop at nothing to rig the system for themselves. I’ve been fighting Trump for years, and nothing will stop me.”

Nadler, D-N.Y., announced in September that he would retire from Congress. The 78-year-old Nadler said he wanted to make room for a younger generation. He represents New York’s 12th District, which includes Midtown and the Upper West and Upper East sides of Manhattan.

The 12th District voted for Vice President Kamala Harris by 64 points in 2024.

The field for that primary is crowded. Other candidates include Jack Schlossberg, President John F. Kennedy‘s grandson; New York State Assemblypeople Micah Lasher and Alex Bores; activists Cameron Kasky and Mathew Shurka; journalist Jami Floyd; civil rights lawyer Laura Dunn; fundraiser Alan Pardee; nonprofit founder Liam Elkind; entrepreneur Micah Bergdale; and software engineer Christopher Diep.

“We’re at a crossroads in our country, and Donald Trump is the greatest threat to the Constitution and the rule of law and democratic government that we have ever seen in our lifetime,” Conway told NBC News.

Conway only recently moved back to the district, a point his opponents have made.

“This campaign welcomes George to the race. And the city. And the party,” Bores said in a statement. “I personally would be delighted to offer George local dining tips. Tell him to give me a call when he’s in town.”

Pardee made a statement and mentioned Conway’s “years living in D.C. advancing a conservative agenda before discovering the monster he helped create.”

Floyd, who was a White House fellow under President Bill Clinton, said, “I’m not concerned about George Conway.” She said he “is a life-long conservative Republican and not even from here. So why isn’t he running in Bethesda, Md., or Alpine, N.J., where he belongs?”

Conway said he spent his legal career working in the district and that it has “been the epicenter of my life.”

“I lived in this district for decades before moving out to the suburbs,” he said. “All four of my kids were born in this district, and my life is centered around this district.”

The UN human rights office says the US military intervention that ousted Venezuela’s leader violates international law and the UN Charter, warning it undermines global security and risks worsening human rights. It says Venezuela’s future must be decided by its people.

Jan. 6 (UPI) — The 2026 midterm elections are coming later this year with 33 seats in the U.S. Senate and all 435 House seats on ballots across the country.

The Nov. 3 midterms are an opportunity for voters to respond to President Donald Trump‘s second term. Midterm elections are often viewed as a measure of voters’ response to the sitting president’s policies.

After a year of aggressive deportation practices, a withdrawal from the international arena and economic upheaval, 2026 has begun with the Trump administration abducting a foreign leader and launching offensives on foreign nations.

Republicans will seek to maintain a 219-213 majority in the House and three-seat majority in the Senate while Democrats hope to make gains and offer a check on Trump’s power. The results will signal approval or disapproval of how the country is being run and will set the landscape for the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

Retirements to bring changes to Senate

Nine senators have announced they are retiring from the chamber in 2026, including one of the most senior lawmakers.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the longest-serving Senate party leader in history, will end his 40-year career at the end of the current term. He is one of four Republicans retiring from the Senate.

Six Republicans launched campaigns to succeed McConnell last year, along with eight Democrats. Kentucky has been a firmly Republican-leaning state, voting more than 65% for Trump in 2024.

Alabama voted similarly in 2024, with about 64% of votes going to Trump. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., is ending his time in the Senate to run for state governor.

Like Tuberville, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., will leave the Senate to run for governor of their respective states. Bennet has been a senator since 2009 while Blackburn entered the chamber in 2019.

Of the senators not running for re-election, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, is leaving open a seat that is considered to be the most competitive. Ernst has been a senator since 2015.

Republicans are backing Rep. Ashley Hinson to take Ernst’s seat. Hinson was elected to the U.S. House in 2020.

Three candidates are in the Democratic primary seeking to challenge Hinson in November: state Sen. Zach Wahls, state Rep. Josh Turek and Nathan Sage, a military veteran.

Wahls was the youngest Iowa Senate Democratic Leader, serving in that role from 2020 to 2023.

The race for an open seat in North Carolina features former Gov. Roy Cooper on the ticket for the Democratic Party. Cooper served two terms as governor.

On the Republican side, former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Whatley has earned the endorsement of Trump but he is being challenged in the primary by Michele Morrow. She ran an unsuccessful campaign for North Carolina’s superintendent of public instruction in 2024 and has never held public office.

North Carolina has historically been a tightly contested state. Trump earned about 50% of the vote there in 2024. Prior to that, the last time a presidential candidate received 50% of votes was 2012 when Mitt Romney received 50.4%.

North Carolina’s Senate seats have been held by Republicans since 2014. Kay Hagan was a state senator from 2009 to 2015 before being succeeded by Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. Tillis is retiring at the end of the term.

The Democratic Party has tapped former Sen. Sherrod Brown to attempt a return to the chamber in 2026 after he lost a bid for re-election in 2024 to Republican Bernie Moreno.

Brown has launched a campaign to challenge Sen. Jon Husted, the Republican who was appointed to fill Vice President JD Vance’s seat that he vacated when Trump was elected president.

Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., is running for re-election in a state won by Trump in 2024. Three Republicans have entered their party’s primary to challenge Ossoff: Rep. Buddy Carter, Rep. Mike Collins and former college and pro football coach Derek Dooley.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has given Dooley his endorsement.

Georgia’s 6th Congressional District re-elected Democrat Lucy McBath to the House in 2024 by nearly 50 points over her Republican challenger. Democrats hold both of the state’s Senate seats.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, will be challenged in 2026 but who will be on the other side of the ticket will not be known until the Democratic primary in June. Collins represents a state that former Vice President Kamala Harris carried by about seven points in 2024.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills and military veteran Graham Platner are campaigning in the Democratic primary.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn is running for re-election but will first have to win a contested Republican primary. Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has been a key figure in Texas’ redistricting battle and often opponent to Biden administration policies, will challenge Cornyn, along with Rep. Wesley Hunt.

In another battleground state, the retirement of Democratic Sen. Gary Peters will leave the race for a Michigan Senate seat open.

Former congressman Mike Rogers is expected to be on the ticket for Republicans after receiving an endorsement from Trump. Three candidates have entered the Democratic primary: Rep. Haley Stevens, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and physician Abdul El-Sayed.

Congresspeople seeking new offices

Several members of Congress are running for different offices outside of the House chambers, including 11 running for governor. Meanwhile 18 members of the House are retiring, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Republicans running for governor in their respective states include Iowa Rep. Randy Feenstra, South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson, Florida Rep. Byron Donalds and South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace.

Rep Chip Roy, R-Texas, will not run for re-election as he will try to succeed Paxton as his state’s attorney general.

New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District is held by Democrat Gabriel Vasquez but was won by Trump in 2024. New Mexico has voted for Democrats in every presidential election since 2008.

Vasquez faces a challenge from Republicans Greg Cunningham, a veteran of the U.S. Marines and former Albuquerque police officer. Cunningham ran for a seat in the state legislature in 2024 and lost.

Arizona’s 6th Congressional District seat, held by Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani, had several Democrats looking to challenge Ciscomani in November.

Some candidates have begun dropping out of the Democratic primary as 2026 has arrived. JoAnna Mendoza, a military veteran, and engineer Chris Donat remain in the race. Mendoza has vastly outraised Donat, tallying $1.9 million in receipts compared to Donat’s $21,061, according to Federal Elections Commission data.

Trump won Arizona in 2024 with about 52% of the vote.

Colorado’s newest seat, District 8, is held by Republican Rep. Gabe Evans. He represents the district located in the northern Denver area after flipping the seat for Republicans in 2024.

Evans has a new challenger in the Republican primary as of November with former Air Force cadet and current Colorado Army Reserve Capt. Adam DeRito filing to run against him.

DeRito has been in a long legal battle with the U.S. Air Force which expelled him hours before he was set to graduate in 2010. He was denied a diploma for allegedly violating academy rules by fraternizing with a subordinate. DeRito claims these allegations were retaliation for him reporting sexual assaults at the academy.

The Democratic primary is set to feature five candidates, former state legislator Shannon Bird, state lawmaker Manny Rutinel, Marine veteran Evan Munsing, Denis Abrate and self-proclaimed former Republican John Francis Szemler.

Michigan is one of the biggest battleground states in 2026 with three seats expected to feature close races, along with an open Senate seat.

District 7, held by Republican Tom Barrett, has flipped in consecutive elections. Barrett, a U.S. Army veteran, will seek re-election with seven Democrats declared for their primary. He assumed the seat after Democrat Elissa Slotkin ran for and was elected to the Senate.

Among the Democrats vying to challenge Barrett is former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink, Michigan State professor Josh Cowen and William Lawrence, the founder of nonprofit environmental advocacy organization the Sunrise Movement.

District 10 will feature an open election as Rep. John James, a Republican, enters the state gubernatorial race.

FEC campaign data shows a field of six Democrats seeking their party’s nomination. Eric Chung, a former U.S. Department of Commerce official under the Biden administration, has raised the most out of any candidate, followed by Republican Robert Lulgjuraj, a former county prosecutor.

After some delay, District 4 Rep. Bill Huizenga, a Republican, announced last month that he will seek re-election. Four Democrats have filed to appear in the primary, including state Sen. Sean McCann.

Washington, DC – It has become a familiar pattern. United States presidents conduct unilateral military actions abroad. Congress shrugs.

On Saturday, in the hours after the US military abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, Democrats in the Senate pledged to raise yet another resolution to rein in US President Donald Trump’s military actions.

Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the chamber, has said the party will push for a vote within the week. By all accounts, the odds of its success remain long.

Since Trump took office for a second term in 2025, Congress has weighed multiple bills that would force him to seek legislative approval before initiating a military strike.

But the latest attack on Venezuela offers a stark instance of presidential overreach, one that is “crying out for congressional action”, according to David Janovsky, the acting director of the Constitution Project at the Project on Government Oversight.

Experts say it is also one of the clearest tests in recent history of whether Congress will continue to cede its authority to check US military engagement abroad.

“There are a lot of angles where you can come at this to say why it’s a clear-cut case,” Janovsky told Al Jazeera.

He pointed out that, under the US Constitution, Congress alone wields the authority to allow military action. He also noted that the Venezuela attack “is in direct contravention of the UN Charter, which is, as a treaty, law in the United States”.

“Any of the fig leaves that presidents have used in the past to justify unilateral military action just don’t apply here,” Janovsky added. “This is particularly brazen.”

An uphill battle

Since August, the Trump administration has signalled plans to crank up its “maximum pressure” campaign against Venezuela.

That month, Trump reportedly signed a secret memo calling on the US military to prepare for action against criminal networks abroad. Then, on September 2, the Trump administration began conducting dozens of strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats off the Venezuelan and Colombian coasts.

That deadly bombing campaign was itself condemned as a violation of international law and an affront to Congress’s constitutional powers. It coincided with a build-up of US military assets near Venezuela.

Trump also dropped hints that the US military campaign could quickly expand to alleged drug-trafficking targets on Venezuelan soil. “When they come by land, we’re going to be stopping them the same way we stopped the boats,” Trump said on September 16.

The strikes prompted two recent votes in the House of Representatives in December: one that would require congressional approval for any land strikes on the South American country, and one that would force Trump to seek approval for strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats.

Both resolutions, however, failed roughly along party lines. A similar resolution in the Senate, which would have required congressional approval before any more attacks, also fell short in November.

But speaking to reporters in a phone call just hours after the US operation on Saturday, Senator Tim Kaine said he hoped the brashness of Trump’s latest actions in Venezuela would shock lawmakers into action.

Republicans, he said, can no longer tell themselves that Trump’s months-long military build-up in the Caribbean and his repeated threats are a “bluff” or a “negotiating tactic”.

“It’s time for Congress to get its a** off the couch and do what it’s supposed to do,” Kaine said.

In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, US Senator Chris Murphy also agreed that it was “true” that Congress had become impotent on matters of war, a phenomenon that has spanned both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Bash pointed to former President Barack Obama’s 2011 military deployment to Libya, which went unchecked by Congress.

“Congress needs to own its own role in allowing a presidency to become this lawless,” Murphy responded.

Republicans ho-hum about resolutions

Under the US Constitution, only Congress can declare war, something it has not done since World War II.

Instead, lawmakers have historically passed Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) to approve committing troops to recent wars, including the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the strikes on alleged al-Qaeda affiliates across the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

No AUMFs have been passed that would relate to military action in Venezuela.

When lawmakers believe a president is acting beyond his constitutional power, they can pass a war powers resolution requiring Congressional approval for further actions.

Beyond their symbolism, such resolutions create a legal basis to challenge further presidential actions in the judiciary.

However, they carry a high bar for success, with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress needed to override a presidential veto.

Given the current makeup of Congress, passage of a war powers resolution would likely require bipartisan support.

Republicans maintain narrow majorities in both the House and Senate, so it would be necessary for members of Trump’s own party to back a war powers resolution for it to be successful.

In November’s Senate vote, only two Republicans — co-sponsor Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska — split from their party to support the resolution. It failed by a margin of 51 to 49.

December’s vote on a parallel resolution in the House only earned 211 votes in favour, as opposed to 213 against. In that case, three Republicans broke from their party to support the resolution, and one Democrat opposed it.

But Trump’s abduction of Maduro has so far only received condemnation from a tiny fragment of his party.

Overall, the response from elected Republicans has been muted. Even regular critics of presidential adventurism have instead focused on praising the ouster of the longtime Venezuelan leader, who has been accused of numerous human rights abuses.

Senator Todd Young, a Republican considered on the fence ahead of November’s war powers vote, has praised Maduro’s arrest, even as he contended the Trump administration owed Congress more details.

“We still need more answers, especially to questions regarding the next steps in Venezuela’s transition,” Young said.

Some Democrats have also offered careful messaging in the wake of the operation.

That included Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat who represents a large Venezuelan diaspora community in Florida.

In a statement on Saturday, Wasserman Schultz focused on the implications of Maduro’s removal, while avoiding any mention of the military operation that enabled it. Instead, she asserted that Trump owed Congress an explanation about next steps.

“He has failed to explain to Congress or the American people how he plans to prevent the regime from reconstituting itself under Maduro’s cronies or stop Venezuela from falling into chaos,” she wrote.

In December, however, Wasserman Schultz did join a group of Florida Democrats in calling for Congress to exercise its oversight authority as Trump built up military pressure on Venezuela.

What comes next?

For its part, the Trump administration has not eased up on its military threats against Venezuela, even as it has sought to send the message that Maduro’s abduction was a matter of law enforcement, not the start of a war.

Trump has also denied, once again, that he needed congressional approval for any further military action. Still, in a Monday interview with NBC News, he expressed optimism about having Congress’s backing.

“We have good support congressionally,” he told NBC. “Congress knew what we were doing all along, but we have good support congressionally. Why wouldn’t they support us?”

Since Saturday’s attack and abduction, Trump has warned that a “second wave” of military action could be on the horizon for Venezuela.

That threat has extended to the potential for the forced removal of Maduro’s deputy, Delcy Rodriguez, who was formally sworn in as the country’s interim president on Monday.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic magazine.

The administration has also said that strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela will continue and that US military assets will remain deployed in the region.

Constitutional expert Janovsky, however, believes that this is a critical moment for Congress to act.

Failure to rein in Trump would only further reinforce a decades-long trend of lawmakers relinquishing their oversight authorities, he explained. That, in turn, offers tacit support for the presidency’s growing power over the military.

“To say this was a targeted law enforcement operation — and ignore the ongoing situation — would be a dangerous abdication of Congress as a central check on how the United States military is used,” Janovsky said.

“Continued congressional inaction does nothing but empower presidents to act however they want,” he added.

“To see Congress continue to step back ultimately just removes the American people even farther from where these decisions are actually being made.”

Jan. 6 (UPI) — Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado praised U.S. President Donald Trump for ousting former President Nicolas Maduro, calling it a giant achievement for humanity, for which Trump should rightly receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

“Jan. 3 will go down in history as the day justice defeated tyranny. It’s a milestone, and it’s not only huge for the Venezuelan people and our future, I think it’s a huge step for humanity, for freedom, and human dignity,” Machado told Fox News on Monday night.

She said Trump’s action to begin dismantling Maduro’s “narco-terrorist regime,” bringing him to justice, and with it, bringing democracy within reach for 30 million Venezuelans, proved beyond doubt that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, said Machado, herself the recipient of this year’s peace prize.

However, she issued a warning to the Trump administration that the woman who was sworn in as Maduro’s replacement, interim president Delcy Rodriguez, was not to be trusted, accusing her of being “one of the main architects of torture, persecution, corruption, narco-trafficking,” in Venezuela.

“She’s a main ally and liaison of Russia, China, Iran, certainly not an individual who could be trusted by international investors and she’s really rejected by the Venezuelan people.”

Trump said Monday night that Rodriguez was cooperating with his administration but insisted there had been no deal with any individuals or group inside Venezuelan to take down Maduro.

He said there was no communication with Rodríguez prior to Friday night’s military operation to capture Maduro, adding that a decision was imminent on whether earlier sanctions imposed on her would remain in place.

He also strongly denied that his preference for Rodriguez had anything to do with the fact he beleived the peace prize should have gone to him, rather than Machado.

The Wall Street Journal repored Monday that Trump determined Rodriguez and other members of Maduro’s inner circle were best placed to head a transition administration and keep stability in Venezuela in the event Maduro lost power, based on a CIA intelligence assessment of various scenarios.

The classified report was, in part, responsible for Trump’s decision to support Maduro’s vice president over Machado.

Publicly, he has said she lacked sufficient “support” and “respect” in her home country, despite the fact that Machado won the presidential primary in December 2023, but was barred from running by Maduro.

Machado was replaced on the ballot by Edmundo Gonzales, who is widely regarded to have won the presidency by most Western countries.

Machado, who is in Norway after being smuggled out of Venezuela in December to travel to Oslo to collect her award, vowed to return to Venezuela as soon as possible and that her opposition movement, which had the 2024 election stolen from it by Maduro, wanted the transition to democracy to move forward.

“We won an election by a landslide under fraudulent conditions. In free and fair elections, we will win over 90% of the votes, I have no doubt about it,” said Machado.

However, Trump quashed speculation that elections could be held as soon as next month, saying Venezuela had to be fixed first.

“You can’t have an election. There’s no way the people could even vote. No, it’s going to take a period of time. We have — we have to nurse the country back to health,” said Trump.

The Panama Canal has become the focus of increased US pressure as the Trump administration tries to curb Venezuelan oil shipments. Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo breaks it down.

Jan. 6 (UPI) — The Department of Energy has announced it would award $2.7 billion in funding to three companies to increase domestic uranium enrichment over the next decade.

The announcement by the Department of Energy comes as President Donald Trump has sought to reinvigorate the United States’ nuclear energy industry as it moves away from foreign sources of energy.

However, the funding authority for the awards originated under President Joe Biden‘s Investing in America agenda and related legislation that aimed to increase uranium enrichment capacity in the United States to bolster U.S. energy security and resilience, while reducing dependence on Russian energy.

With the announcement, American Centrifuge Operating, General Matter and Orano Federal Services will each receive an award of $900 million.

ACO and GM will be tasked with creating domestic high-assay, low-enriched uranium enrichment capacity, while OFS will expand U.S. domestic low-enriched uranium enrichment capacity.

The three companies were chosen from six that were permitted last year to bid on future work.

“President Trump is catalyzing a resurgence in the nation’s nuclear energy sector to strengthen American security and prosperity,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in a statement.

“Today’s awards show that this administration is committed to restoring a secure domestic nuclear fuel supply chain capable of producing nuclear fuels needed to power the reactors of today and the advanced reactors of tomorrow.”

Orano said the funding marks a “key milestone” in accelerating the development of its $5 billion facility in Oak Ridge, Tenn.

According to the company, the United States imports two-thirds of the LEU needed to power the U.S. nuclear fleet from foreign sources, including Russia, and its new IKE facility will help reduce the United States’ dependence on Moscow, especially after the ban on Russian imports begins in 2028.

“The decision by the U.S. Department of Energy is a great source of pride as it identifies Orano as a proven nuclear fuel supplier,” Orano CEO Nicolas Maes said in a statement.

General Matter said under its contract with the Department of Energy, it will build domestic enrichment capacity that will help fuel “the next generation of American nuclear power” and enable “American leadership in AI, manufacturing and other critical industries.”

“Rebuilding U.S. domestic enrichment capacity will reduce our reliance on foreign providers, strengthen our nuclear industrial base and lower energy costs for utilities and consumers,” it said in a social media post.

“American reactors need American uranium. In partnership with the Department of Energy, we will deliver it.”

Leading medical groups in the United States have raised alarm after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under President Donald Trump took the unprecedented step of cutting the number of vaccines it recommends for children.

Monday’s sweeping decision, which advances the agenda of Trump-appointed Secretary of Health Robert F Kennedy Jr, removes the recommendation for rotavirus, influenza, meningococcal disease and hepatitis A vaccines for children.

It comes as US vaccination rates have been slipping, and the rates of diseases that can be protected against with vaccines, such as measles and whooping cough, are rising across the country, according to government data.

“This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health,” Kennedy said in a statement on Monday.

In response, the American Medical Association (AMA) said it was “deeply concerned by recent changes to the childhood immunisation schedule that affects the health and safety of millions of children”.

“Vaccination policy has long been guided by a rigorous, transparent scientific process grounded in decades of evidence showing that vaccines are safe, effective, and lifesaving,” Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, a doctor and AMA trustee, said in a statement posted on the group’s website.

She pointed out that major policy changes needed “careful review” and transparency, which are lacking in the CDD’s decision.

“When longstanding recommendations are altered without a robust, evidence-based process, it undermines public trust and puts children at unnecessary risk of preventable disease,” she said.

The change was effective immediately and carried out following the approval by another Trump appointee, CDC acting director Jim O’Neill, without the agency’s usual outside expert review.

The changes were made by political appointees, without any evidence that the current recommendations were harming children, Sean O’Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said.

“It’s so important that any decision about the US childhood vaccination schedule should be grounded in evidence, transparency and established scientific processes, not comparisons that overlook critical differences between countries or health systems,” he told journalists.

Protections against those diseases are only recommended for certain groups deemed high risk, or when doctors recommend them in what’s called “shared decision-making”, the new CDC guidance stated.

States, not the federal government, have the authority to require vaccinations for schoolchildren.

But CDC requirements often influence the state regulations, even as some states have begun creating their own alliances to counter the Trump administration’s guidance on vaccines.

Kennedy, the US health secretary, is a longtime vaccine sceptic.

In May, Kennedy announced that the CDC would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women, a move immediately questioned by public health experts who saw no new data to justify the change.

In June, Kennedy fired an entire 17-member CDC vaccine advisory committee, later installing several of his own replacements, including multiple vaccine sceptics.

In August, he announced that the US is to cut funding for mRNA vaccine development, a move health experts say is “dangerous” and could make the US much more vulnerable to future outbreaks of respiratory viruses like COVID-19.

Kennedy in November also personally directed the CDC to abandon its position that vaccines do not cause autism, without supplying any new evidence to support the change.

Trump, reacting to the latest CDC decision on his Truth Social platform, said the new schedule is “far more reasonable” and “finally aligns the United States with other Developed Nations around the World”.

One in three Americans opposes the Venezuelan leader’s abduction by US forces, a poll shows, while others are unsure.

Americans are evenly split in their support for the US military operation to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, an opinion poll has found.

Thirty-three percent of Americans support Maduro’s abduction, compared with 34 percent who are against it and 32 percent who are not sure, the Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Monday.

Supporters of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party are much more likely to support the military operation, with 65 percent in favour, compared with 11 percent of Democrats and 23 percent of independents.

On the question of who should govern Venezuela, Americans lean against Washington taking control of the country, according to the poll.

Forty-three percent oppose Washington governing Venezuela until a new government is established in Caracas, compared with 34 percent in favour and 20 percent who are unsure.

Americans lean against the US stationing troops in Venezuela – 47 percent to 30 percent – according to the poll.

More Americans than not also oppose the Trump administration taking control of Venezuela’s oil fields, with 46 percent against the idea and 30 percent in favour.

On the question of whether the US could become “too involved” in the Latin American country, 72 percent are very or somewhat concerned.

Trump said on Saturday that the US would “run” Venezuela, though officials in his administration have sought to downplay the prospect of Washington occupying the country.

On Sunday, Trump threatened further military action against Venezuela if it “doesn’t behave”.

Maduro, who was abducted in a raid by US special forces over the weekend, on Monday made his first court appearance to face charges related to “narcoterrorism”, drug trafficking and weapons possession.

Maduro pleaded not guilty to all charges, declaring himself the victim of a kidnapping and a “decent man”.

“I am still president of my country,” Maduro told a US federal court in New York through an interpreter.

Maduro, his wife, Cilia Flores, son Nicolás Ernesto Maduro Guerra, and three others face the possibility of life in prison if convicted.

On Monday, Maduro’s deputy, Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, was sworn in as Venezuela’s interim president.

“I come with pain over the kidnapping of two heroes who are being held hostage: President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores,” Rodriguez said during a swearing-in ceremony at Venezuela’s National Assembly.

Delcy Rodriguez, formerly Venezuela’s vice president, has been formally sworn in to lead the South American country following the abduction of Nicolas Maduro in a United States military operation.

On Monday, Rodriguez appeared before Venezuela’s National Assembly to take her oath of office.

Speaking before the legislative body, composed largely of government loyalists, Rodriguez reaffirmed her opposition to the military attack that led to the capture and removal of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

“I come with pain over the kidnapping of two heroes who are being held hostage: President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores,” Rodriguez, 56, told the assembly.

“I swear to work tirelessly to guarantee the peace, spiritual, economic and social tranquillity of our people.”

A former labour lawyer, Rodriguez has been serving as acting president since the early-morning attack that resulted in the abduction. Explosions were reported before dawn on Saturday in the capital, Caracas, as well as at nearby Venezuelan military bases and some civilian areas.

Monday’s swearing-in ceremony was overseen by Rodriguez’s brother – the president of the National Assembly, Jorge Rodriguez – and Maduro’s son, Nicolás Maduro Guerra, who held a copy of the Venezuelan Constitution.

Other members of Maduro’s inner circle, including Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello and Defence Minister Vladimir Padrino, were also in attendance.

The ceremony took place as Maduro, her predecessor and former boss, faced an arraignment proceeding in a New York City courthouse.

Federal prosecutors in the US have charged Maduro with four counts related to allegations he leveraged government powers to export thousands of tonnes of cocaine to North America.

The charges include narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, the illegal possession of machine guns and other destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess such guns and devices.

Maduro and his wife have pleaded not guilty to the charges, and their allies, including Rodriguez, have denounced the pair’s abduction as a violation of international law, as well as Venezuelan sovereignty.

In court on Monday, Maduro maintained he remained the rightful leader of Venezuela, saying, “I am still president.”

The administration of US President Donald Trump, however, has signalled that it plans to work with Rodriguez for the time being, though Trump himself warned that her tenure as president could be cut short, should she fail to abide by US demands.

“If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro,” Trump told The Atlantic magazine in a Sunday morning interview.

A day earlier, in a televised address announcing the attack, Trump had said his administration plans “to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition”.

On Air Force One on Sunday, as he flew back to Washington, DC, Trump doubled down on that statement.

“Don’t ask me who’s in charge, because I’ll give you an answer that will be very controversial. We’re in charge,” he told reporters.

He added that Rodriguez is “cooperating” and that, while he personally has not spoken to her, “we’re dealing with the people who just got sworn in”.

The Trump administration’s seeming willingness to allow Rodriguez, a former labour lawyer, to remain in charge has raised eyebrows.

Rodriguez, who served as vice president since 2018, is known to be a stalwart “chavista”: an adherent of the left-wing political movement founded by Maduro’s mentor, the late Hugo Chavez. She has held various ministerial roles under Maduro, including leading the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

But Trump’s allies in the Republican Party have argued that keeping Rodriguez in place is simply a practical reality.

“We don’t recognise Delcy Rodriguez as the legitimate ruler of Venezuela. We didn’t recognise Nicolas Maduro as a legitimate ruler,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton told CNN on Sunday.

“It is a fact that she and other indicted and sanctioned officials are in Venezuela. They have control over the military and security services. We have to deal with that fact. That does not make them a legitimate leader.”

While on Air Force One, Trump largely avoided committing to new elections in Venezuela, indicating he would instead focus on “fixing” the country and allowing US oil companies access to its vast petroleum reserves.

One reporter on the aeroplane asked, “How soon can an election take place?”

“Well, I think we’re looking more at getting it fixed, getting it ready first, because it’s a mess. The country is a mess,” Trump replied. “It’s been horribly run. The oil is just flowing at a very low level.”

He later added, “We’re going to run everything. We’re going to run it, fix it. We’ll have elections at the right time. But the main thing you have to fix: It’s a broken country. There’s no money.”

Recent presidential elections in Venezuela have been widely denounced as fraudulent, with Maduro claiming victory in each one.

The contested 2018 election, for example, led to the US briefly recognising opposition leader Juan Guaido as president, instead of Maduro.

Later, Maduro also claimed victory for a third term in office during the 2024 presidential race, despite election regularities.

The official vote tally was not released, and the opposition published documents that appeared to show that Maduro’s rival, Edmundo Gonzalez, had won. Protests erupted on Venezuela’s streets, and the nonprofit Human Rights Watch reported that more than 2,000 protesters were unlawfully detained, with at least 25 dead in apparent extrajudicial killings.

The opposition has largely boycotted legislative elections in Venezuela, denouncing them as rigged in favour of “chavistas”.

Monday’s swearing-in ceremony included the 283 members of the National Assembly elected last May. Few opposition candidates were among them.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is planning to meet with executives from US oil companies later this week to discuss boosting Venezuelan oil production after US forces abducted its leader, Nicolas Maduro, the Reuters news agency has reported, citing unnamed sources.

The meetings are crucial to the administration’s hopes of getting top US oil companies back into the South American nation after its government, nearly two decades ago, took control of US-led energy operations there, the Reuters news agency report said on Monday.

The three biggest US oil companies – Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron – have not yet had any conversations with the Trump administration about Maduro’s ouster, according to four oil industry executives familiar with the matter, contradicting Trump’s statements over the weekend that he had already held meetings with “all” the US oil companies, both before and since Maduro was abducted.

“Nobody in those three companies has had conversations with the White House about operating in Venezuela, pre-removal or post-removal, to this point,” one of the sources said on Monday.

The upcoming meetings will be crucial to the administration’s hopes to boost crude oil production and exports from Venezuela, a former OPEC nation that sits atop the world’s largest reserves, and whose crude oil can be refined by specially designed US refineries. Achieving that goal will require years of work and billions of dollars of investment, analysts say.

It is unclear what executives will be attending the upcoming meetings, and whether oil companies will be attending individually or collectively.

The White House did not comment on the meetings, but said it believed the US oil industry was ready to flood into Venezuela.

“All of our oil companies are ready and willing to make big investments in Venezuela that will rebuild their oil infrastructure, which was destroyed by the illegitimate Maduro regime,” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers.

Exxon, Chevron and ConocoPhillips did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Reuters.

One oil industry executive told Reuters the companies would be reluctant to talk about potential Venezuela operations in group settings with the White House, citing antitrust concerns that limit collective discussions among competitors about investment plans, timing and production levels.

Political risks, low oil prices

US forces on Saturday conducted a raid on Venezuela’s capital, arresting Maduro in the dead of night and sending him back to the US to face narcoterrorism charges.

Hours after Maduro’s abduction, Trump said he expects the biggest US oil companies to spend billions of dollars boosting Venezuela’s oil production, after it dropped to about a third of its peak over the past two decades due to underinvestment and sanctions.

But those plans will be hindered by a lack of infrastructure, along with deep uncertainty over the country’s political future, legal framework and long-term US policy, according to industry analysts.

“While the Trump administration has suggested large US oil companies will go into Venezuela and spend billions to fix infrastructure, we believe political and other risks, along with current relatively low oil prices, could prevent this from happening anytime soon,” wrote Neal Dingmann of William Blair in a note.

Material change to Venezuelan production will take a lot of time and millions of dollars of infrastructure improvement, he said.

And any investment in Venezuelan infrastructure right now would take place in a weakened global energy market. Crude prices in the US are down by 20 percent compared with last year. The price for a barrel of benchmark US crude has not been above $70 since June, and has not touched $80 per barrel since June of 2024.

A barrel of oil cost more than $130 in the leadup to the US housing crisis in 2008.

Chevron is the only US major currently operating in Venezuela’s oil fields.

Exxon and ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, had storied histories in the country before their projects were nationalised nearly two decades ago by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Conoco has been seeking billions of dollars in restitution for the takeover of three oil projects in Venezuela under Chavez. Exxon was involved in lengthy arbitration cases against Venezuela after it exited the country in 2007.

Chevron, which exports about 150,000 barrels per day of crude from Venezuela to the US Gulf Coast, meanwhile, has had to carefully manoeuvre with the Trump administration in an effort to maintain its presence in the country in recent years.

A US embargo on Venezuelan oil remained in full effect, Trump has said.

The S&P 500 energy index rose to its highest since March 2025, with heavyweights Exxon Mobil rising by 2.2 percent and Chevron jumping by 5.1 percent.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Democrats’ 2024 candidate for vice president, is ending his bid for a third term as governor amid President Trump’s relentless focus on a fraud investigation into child care programs in the state.

Less than four months after announcing his reelection campaign, Walz said Monday that negative attention and Republican attacks have contributed to an “extraordinarily difficult year for our state,” making it impossible for him to serve full time as governor while also being a candidate to keep his job.

“Every minute that I spend defending my own political interest would be a minute I can’t spend defending the people of Minnesota against the criminals who prey on our generosity and the cynics who want to prey on our differences,” Walz said at the state capitol. “So I’ve decided to step out of this race, and I’ll let others worry about the election while I focus on the work that’s in front of me for the next year.”

Walz did not take questions from reporters after speaking for about seven minutes, much of which involved repeating his earlier written statement announcing his decision.

“Donald Trump and his allies — in Washington, in St. Paul, and online — want to make our state a colder, meaner place,” Walz said, referring to the Trump administration withholding funds for the programs and the president’s attacks on Somali immigrants in Minnesota. “They want to poison our people against each other by attacking our neighbors. And, ultimately, they want to take away much of what makes Minnesota the best place in America to raise a family.”

Despite the opaque references, Walz did not explicitly acknowledge the effect of a viral video from a right-wing influencer who claimed he’d found rampant fraud at day care centers operated by Somali residents in Minneapolis. But the Trump administration has cited the video in its decision to cut off certain federal funding streams, and the video’s creator, Nick Shirley, was happy to take credit for the governor’s decision.

“I ENDED TIM WALZ,” Shirley posted Monday on social media.

Walz’s exit scrambles the contest in a Democratic-leaning state that Republicans have insisted they can win. Democrats currently hold 24 out of 50 governor’s seats nationwide, with 36 seats, including Minnesota’s, on the ballot in 2026.

The candidates to replace Walz

Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar is considering entering the Minnesota race, according to a person close to her. The person, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the senator, who ran for president in 2020, has not made a final decision.

Around a dozen Republicans are already running. They include MyPillow founder and Chief Executive Mike Lindell, an election denier who is close to Trump. They also include Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth; Dr. Scott Jensen, a former state senator who was the party’s 2022 candidate; state Rep. Kristin Robbins; defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor Chris Madel; former executive Kendall Qualls; and former Minnesota GOP Chair David Hann.

A military veteran, union supporter and former high school educator and coach, Walz helped enact an ambitious Democratic agenda for his state, including sweeping protections for abortion rights and generous aid to families.

Kamala Harris picked Walz as her running mate in the 2024 presidential election after his attack line against Trump and his running mate, then-Ohio Sen. JD Vance — “These guys are just weird” — spread widely.

Walz continued building his national profile since his and Harris’ defeat in November. He was a sharp critic of Trump as he toured early caucus and primary states. In May, he called on Democrats in South Carolina to stand up to the Republican president, saying, “Maybe it’s time for us to be a little meaner.”

There were partisan reactions to Walz’s announcement

Reactions to Walz’s decision reflected the intense partisanship certain to spill into the campaign to pick his successor.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin, who led Minnesota Democrats when Walz was first elected governor in 2018, said Walz “entered public life for the right reasons and never lost sight of them.” Walz’s guiding principle, Martin added, “has always been showing up and doing the work that actually makes their lives better.”

Klobuchar, posting on X, praised Walz as “a true public servant” who made a “difficult decision” but said nothing about her own pending choice.

Another Minnesotan of national prominence, Republican House Majority Whip Tom Emmer was more succinct, issuing a statement that said in its entirety: “Good riddance.”

Democratic Governors Assn. Chair Andy Beshear, the second-term Kentucky governor, praised Walz as a “a national leader in fighting for the middle class” and said his organization “remains very confident Minnesotans will elect another strong Democratic governor this November.”

At the Republican Governors Assn., spokeswoman Courtney Alexander blasted Walz for “failed leadership” and argued that the eventual Democratic nominee “will need to defend years of mismanagement and misplaced priorities.”

Walz, for his part, stood by his administration’s stewardship.

“We should be concerned about fraud in our state government,” he said, adding that “a single taxpayer dollar wasted on fraud should be intolerable.” But Walz said his administration has worked diligently to address fraud and manage the state’s operations.

A look at Walz’s time as governor

Through nearly two terms as governor, Walz navigated a closely divided legislature. In his first term, he served alongside a Democratic-led House and Republican-controlled Senate that resisted his proposals to use higher taxes to boost money for schools, healthcare and roads. But he helped broker compromises.

He used the office’s emergency power during the COVID-19 pandemic to shutter businesses and close schools, prompting Republican pushback.

Republicans also were critical of Walz over what they saw as his slow response to sometimes violent unrest that followed the killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, by a white Minneapolis police officer in 2020. Walz pleaded for calm after Floyd’s death but also stood out as a white political leader who expressed empathy toward Black Americans and their experiences with police violence.

In his second term, Walz worked with Democratic majorities in both legislative chambers to chart a more liberal course in state government, aided by a huge budget surplus. Minnesota eliminated nearly all of the state abortion restrictions enacted in the past by Republicans, protected gender-affirming care for transgender youth and legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Walz and his fellow Democrats also enacted free school meals for all students and a paid family and medical leave program that went live on Jan. 1.

That record, combined with Walz’s rural background and experience representing southern Minnesota in Congress, landed him on Harris’ radar as she considered potential running mates in 2024 after replacing Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket. After a whirlwind search, she opted for Walz over other candidates including North Carolina’s Roy Cooper, Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Walz received a warm welcome from Democratic voters but drew mixed reviews for his lone debate against Vance.

More recently, Walz has been frustrated in his efforts to enact new gun control measures following a mass shooting in August at Annunciation School in Minneapolis, which left two children dead and injured dozens. He had hoped to call a special session to consider a list of gun safety proposals.

Karnowski and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

Venezuelan state TV footage shows Vice President Delcy Rodriguez being formally sworn in as interim president in Caracas days after President Nicolas Maduro was abducted to face narco-terrorism charges in New York.

For many years before becoming president, Donald Trump publicly criticised the George W Bush administration over its decision to launch the war on Iraq. And yet, today, in his second term as president, he finds himself presiding over a military debacle that is quite reminiscent of Bush’s.

Trump ordered a military intervention to remove an antagonistic foreign leader, based on a flimsy argument of national security, with the goal of accessing that country’s oil. In both cases, we see a naive confidence that the United States can simply achieve its goals through regime change. US intervention into Venezuela reeks of the same hubris that surrounded the Iraq invasion two decades ago.

Yet there are also important differences to consider. The most important distinguishing feature of the operation in Venezuela is its lack of an overarching vision. On Saturday after Trump finished an hour-long news conference alongside his secretaries of defence and state, it was not clear what the plan was for Venezuela going forward, or if there was a plan at all. His statements threatening more attacks in the following days brought no clarity either.

Past instances of US-led regime change fit into the larger ideological visions of the incumbent US commander-in-chief. In 1823, President James Monroe declared the Western Hemisphere off-limits to European colonialism. As the United States spent the 20th century consolidating its sphere of influence across the Americas, the Monroe Doctrine would justify various interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Cold War added new justifications for the United States to overthrow leftist regimes and install friendly governments in the Americas.

As the Cold War ended, President George HW Bush sought to serve as a caretaker for a “new world order” in which the US had emerged as the world’s lone superpower. When Bush sent troops to Somalia in 1992 and his successor Bill Clinton reversed a military coup in Haiti in 1994, they did so under the paradigm of “humanitarian intervention”. When George W Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, it was done under the umbrella of the post-9/11 “war on terror”. When President Barack Obama intervened against the forces of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, he was guided by the “responsibility to protect” doctrine concerning civilians in danger.

But in the case of the US attack on Venezuela, there has been no ideological justification. Trump and his team have haphazardly thrown around references to humanitarianism, counterterrorism and more to justify the attack. The president even brought up the Monroe Doctrine. But just as it seemed that he was grounding his foreign policy in a larger ideology, albeit one borrowed from two centuries ago, he made a joke of the concept.

“The Monroe Doctrine is a big deal,” Trump explained on Saturday. “But we’ve superseded it by a lot, by a lot. They now call it the Donroe Doctrine.” Trump did not make up this pun; it was used by the New York Post a year ago to describe Trump’s aggressive foreign policy as he threatened to annex Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal.

The president’s decision to embrace the tongue-in-cheek term illustrates a disturbing reality of his foreign policy: Any notion that he is promoting an ideological vision is a joke.

The truth is Trump is pursuing an increasingly aggressive and militaristic foreign policy in his second term, not because he wants to impose a grand vision, but because he has discovered he can get away with it.

Striking a variety of foreign “bad guys” who have little capacity to fight back – ISIL (ISIS) affiliates in Nigeria who are “persecuting” Christians and “narcoterrorists” in Latin America – appeals to members of Trump’s base.

After he mentioned the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua during Saturday’s news conference, he went on a minutes-long tangent to brag about his military interventions into US cities. While the president’s inability to stay on topic may be concerning for those questioning his health and mental fitness, this digression into domestic affairs had some relevance for his Venezuelan intervention, at least as far as he was concerned: His increasingly militarised war on drugs and crime abroad justifies an increasingly militarised war on drugs and crime at home.

Past presidents have used US power to pursue a wide variety of ideologies and principles. Trump appears to be paying lip service to past ideologies to justify the use of US power. Many times, the “good” intentions of previous  presidents paved the way to hellish outcomes for the peoples who found themselves on the receiving end of US intervention. But those intentions at least created a level of predictability and consistency for the foreign policies of various US administrations.

Trump, by contrast, seems driven solely by immediate political concerns and short-term prospects for glory and profit. If there is a saving grace of such an unprincipled foreign policy, it may be the ephemeral nature of interventions conducted without an overarching vision. An unprincipled approach to military intervention does not foster the kind of ideological commitment that has led other presidents to engage in long-term interventions like the Iraq occupation.

But it also means that Trump could conceivably use military intervention to settle any international dispute or to pursue any ostensibly profitable goal – say assuming control of Greenland from Denmark.

Last year, he decided tariffs were a potent tool for asserting his interests and started applying them almost indiscriminately on allies and adversaries alike. Now that Trump has grown comfortable using the US military to achieve a range of goals – profit, gunboat diplomacy, distraction from domestic scandals, etc – the danger is that he will grow similarly haphazard in his use of force.

That does not bode well for the US nor for the rest of the world. At a time when multiple global crises are overlapping – climate, conflict and impoverishment – the last thing the world needs is a trigger-happy superpower without a clear strategy or a day-after plan.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Jan. 5 (UPI) — Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has said “enough” on Monday to President Donald Trump‘s threats to take the country and urged him to let go of his “fantasies of annexation.”

Nielsen posted on Facebook that Trump should stop his claims that the United States will annex his country, which is a territory of Denmark, a member of NATO and the European Union.

“Alliances are built on trust. And trust requires respect,” Nielsen said in his post. “Threats, pressure and talk of annexation do not belong anywhere between friends. That’s not how you talk to a people who have repeatedly shown responsibility, stability and loyalty.”

“This is enough.”

After the invasion of Venezuela on Saturday, Trump told The Atlantic on Sunday that the United States needs Greenland for national security. The operation in Venezuela also renewed fears that Trump may actually move to take Greenland.

“They are going to have to view it themselves. I really don’t know … But we do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defense,” Trump said when asked if the action in Venezuela should be interpreted by other nations as a signal that his administration might use military action to pursue more goals.

Nielsen’s post told Trump to let it go.

“No more pressure. No more hints. No more fantasies about annexation,” he said.

“We are open for dialogue. We are open to conversations. But it has to be through the right channels and with respect to international law. And the right channels are not random and disrespectful posts on social media. Greenland is our home and our territory. And that’s how it continues to be.”

The EU backs Nielsen and Denmark on the matter.

“The EU will continue to uphold the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders,” EU foreign policy spokesperson Anitta Hipper told reporters. “These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them, all the more so if the territorial integrity of a member state of the European Union is questioned.”

Denmark Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said it made “absolutely no sense to talk about the U.S. needing to take over Greenland.” She said the United States has “no right to annex any of the three countries in the Danish kingdom.”

The Danish Kingdom also includes the Faroe Islands.

“The principle of the inviolability of borders is enshrined in international law and is not up for negotiation,” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said in Berlin after a meeting with Frederiksen in June. “We stand firmly alongside our Danish friends on these issues and that will remain the case.”

On Air Force One, Trump told reporters he didn’t want to discuss Greenland saying he would talk about it “in 20 days.” He then mocked Greenland and Denmark.

“You know what Denmark did recently to boost security in Greenland? They added one more dog sled. It’s true. They thought that was a great move,” Trump said.

“Right now, Greenland is full of Chinese and Russian ships everywhere. We need Greenland for national security reasons. Denmark will not be able to handle the task.”

Sweden, Norway and Finland have all said they support Denmark.

“Only Denmark and Greenland have the right to decide on issues concerning Denmark and Greenland,” said Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson. “Sweden fully supports our neighboring country.”