Trump

United States President Donald Trump has said that Washington will “run” Venezuela until a political transition can take place, hours after US forces bombed the South American country and “captured” its president, Nicolas Maduro.

Speaking during a news conference on Saturday, Trump said the US would “run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition”.

“We don’t want to be involved with having somebody else get in, and we have the same situation that we had for the last long period of years,” he said.

The Trump administration launched attacks on Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, and seized Maduro and his wife in the early hours of Saturday.

A plane carrying the Venezuelan leader landed in New York state on Saturday evening, according to US media.

Footage broadcast by CNN, Fox News and MS Now showed US officials escorting a person they identified as Maduro off a plane at the Stewart international airport, about 97 kilometres (60 miles) northwest of New York City.

Maduro’s capture took place after a months-long US pressure campaign against his government, which included US seizures of oil tankers off the Venezuelan coast, as well as deadly attacks on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean. The attacks were widely denounced as extrajudicial killings.

Washington had accused the Venezuelan leader, who has been in power since 2013, of having ties to drug cartels. Maduro had rejected the claim, saying the US was working to depose him and take control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

During Saturday’s news conference, Trump said that “very large United States oil companies” would move into Venezuela to “fix the badly broken… oil infrastructure and start making money for the country”.

He added that his administration’s actions “will make the people of Venezuela rich, independent and safe”.

The Trump administration has defended Maduro’s “capture, saying the left-wing leader faced drug-related charges in the US.

These charges include “narco-terrorism conspiracy, cocaine importation conspiracy, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices against the United States”, US Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

“They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” she added in a post on X.

A Justice Department official told the Reuters news agency that Maduro is expected to make an initial appearance in Manhattan federal court on Monday.

‘Illegal abduction’

But legal experts, world leaders and Democratic Party lawmakers in the US have condemned the administration’s actions as a violation of international law.

“Attacking countries, in flagrant violation of international law, is the first step towards a world of violence, chaos, and instability, where the law of the strongest prevails over multilateralism,” Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva wrote on X.

Ben Saul, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, slammed what he called Washington’s “illegal abduction” of Maduro. “I condemn the US’ illegal aggression against Venezuela,” Saul wrote on social media.

A spokesperson for UN chief Antonio Guterres said he was “deeply alarmed” by the situation, describing the US’s actions as setting “a dangerous precedent”.

“The Secretary-General continues to emphasize the importance of full respect – by all – of international law, including the UN Charter. He’s deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected,” Guterres’s office said in a statement.

Earlier on Saturday, Venezuela’s defence minister released a defiant statement in response to the US attacks, urging people to remain united.

“We will not negotiate; we will not give up,” Vladimir Padrino Lopez said, stressing that Venezuela’s independence is not up for negotiation. “We must maintain calm and [be] united in order to prevail in these dire moments.”

Uncertainty prevails

It remains unclear how exactly the US plans to “run” Venezuela, and how long the purported transitional period will last.

During Saturday’s news conference, Trump said that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had spoken with Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez.

“She was sworn in as president just a little while ago,” Trump told reporters. “She had a long conversation with [Rubio], and she said, ‘We’ll do whatever you need’. I think she was quite gracious, but she really doesn’t have a choice.”

Rodriguez appeared to contradict that in a news conference in Caracas later in the day.

“We demand the immediate release of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. The only president of Venezuela is President Nicolas Maduro,” she said.

“We are ready to defend Venezuela. We are ready to defend our natural resources, which should be for national development,” she added.

Al Jazeera’s Latin America editor Lucia Newman, reporting from Chile, said that, if Rodriguez is “on board” with the US plan for Venezuela, as Trump and Rubio have suggested, “she certainly didn’t sound like it” during her address.

“She sounded like her typical, fiery self, very much on the side of… Maduro, demanding that he be released and saying that Venezuela would not be a colony of the United States,” Newman said.

The events of the day have brought “a rollercoaster of emotions” to “Venezuelans both inside and outside of the country”, said Caracas-based journalist Sissi de Flaviis.

“When we first heard that Maduro was taken out of the country, there was a mix of reactions,” she said. “A lot of people couldn’t believe it. Other people were pretty much celebrating. Other people were kind of on standby, waiting.”

After Trump’s news conference announcing US plans to run Venezuela, “there’s been a shock”, de Flaviis added.

“People are a bit concerned about what this will actually mean for us, what this will mean for the government and who is going to lead us in the next few days, months and years.”

Meanwhile, Harlan Ullman, a former US naval officer, told Al Jazeera that “the notion of America taking over Venezuela is going to explode in our faces”.

“When Trump says, ‘We’re going to run the country’: We’re not capable of running America, how are we going to be able to run Venezuela?” Ullman said.

“I do not believe that we have a plan for dealing with Venezuela,” he added. “A country is extraordinarily complex. We lack the knowledge, understanding and all the logistics to do this.”

Since coming down the escalator in 2015 to announce his first presidential run, Donald Trump has presented himself as a break from the traditional hawkish foreign policy in the United States.

The US president has even criticised some of his political rivals as “warmongers” and “war hawks”.

But Trump’s move to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and announce that the US will “run” the Latin American country has drawn comparisons with the regime change wars that he built a political career rejecting.

Some critics from Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, who backed his message of focusing on the country’s own issues instead of conflicts abroad, are criticising Washington’s march to war with Venezuela.

Still, Trump’s grip on Republican politics appears to remain firm, with most legislators from the party praising Trump’s actions.

“To President Trump and his team, you should take great pride in setting in motion the liberation of Venezuela,” Senator Lindsey Graham wrote in a social media post.

“As I have often said, it is in America’s national security interest to deal with the drug caliphate in our backyard, the centrepiece of which is Venezuela.”

Graham’s reference to a “drug caliphate” seems to play on Islamophobic tropes and promote the push to liken the US attacks on alleged drug traffickers in Latin America to the so-called “war on terror”.

The US senator heaped praise on the winner of the FIFA Peace Prize – handed to Trump by the association’s chief, Gianni Infantino, in December – and called him “the GOAT of the American presidency”, which stands for “the greatest of all time”.

Muted criticism

While it was expected that Graham and other foreign policy hawks in Trump’s orbit would back the moves against Venezuela, even some of the Republican sceptics of foreign interventions cheered the abduction of Maduro.

Former Congressman Matt Gaetz, one of the most vocal critics of hawkish foreign policy on the right, poked fun at the “capture” of the Venezuelan president.

“Maduro is gonna hate CECOT,” he wrote on X, referring to the notorious prison in El Salvador where the Trump administration sent hundreds of suspected gang members without due process.

Libertarian Senator Rand Paul, who has been a leading voice in decrying Congress’s war-making power, only expressed muted disapproval of Trump’s failure to seek lawmakers’ authorisation for military action in Venezuela.

“Time will tell if regime change in Venezuela is successful without significant monetary or human cost,” he wrote in a lengthy statement that mostly argued against bringing “socialism” to the US.

“Best though, not to forget, that our founders limited the executive’s power to go to war without Congressional authorisation for a reason – to limit the horror of war and limit war to acts of defence. Let’s hope those precepts of peace are not forgotten in our justified relief that Maduro is gone and the Venezuelan people will have a second chance.”

Early on Saturday morning, Republican Senator Mike Lee questioned the legality of the attack. “I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorisation for the use of military force,” he wrote on X.

Lee later said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio told him that US troops were executing a legal arrest warrant against Maduro.

“This action likely falls within the president’s inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect US personnel from an actual or imminent attack,” the senator said.

Dissent

Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of the few dissenting voices.

“Americans’ disgust with our own government’s never-ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it and both parties, Republicans and Democrats, always keep the Washington military machine funded and going,”  Greene wrote on X.

Greene, a former Trump ally who fell out with the US president and is leaving Congress next week, rejected the argument that Trump ordered Maduro’s “capture” because of the Venezuelan president’s alleged involvement in the drug trade.

She noted that Venezuela is not a major exporter of fentanyl, the leading cause of overdose deaths in the US.

She also underscored that, last month, Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, a convicted drug trafficker who was serving a 45-year sentence in a US jail.

“Regime change, funding foreign wars, and American’s [sic] tax dollars being consistently funneled to foreign causes, foreigners both home and abroad, and foreign governments while Americans are consistently facing increasing cost of living, housing, healthcare, and learn about scams and fraud of their tax dollars is what has most Americans enraged,” Greene said.

Congressman Tomas Massie, another Republican, shared a speech he delivered in the House of Representatives earlier this month, warning that attacking Venezuela is about “oil and regime change”.

“Are we prepared to receive swarms of the 25 million Venezuelans, who will likely become refugees, and billions in American treasure that will be used to destroy and inevitably rebuild that nation? Do we want a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere?” Massie said in the remarks.

“If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on it as a voice of the people and in accordance with our Constitution.”

While Massie and Greene are outliers in their party, Trump’s risky moves in Venezuela were a success in the short term: Maduro is in US custody at a minimal cost to Washington.

Similarly, few Republicans opposed the US war in Iraq when then-President George W Bush stood under the “mission accomplished” sign on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln after toppling Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, in 2003.

But there is now a near consensus across the political spectrum that the Iraq invasion was a geopolitical disaster.

The fog of war continues to hang over Venezuela, and it is unclear who is in charge of the country, or how Trump will “run” it.

The US president has not ruled out deploying “boots on the ground” to Venezuela, raising the prospect of a US occupation and the possibility of another Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

“Do we truly believe that Nicolas Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out in… Libya, Iraq or Syria?” Massie warned in his Congress speech.

“Previous presidents told us to go to war over WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, that did not exist. Now, it’s the same playbook, except we’re told that drugs are the WMDs.”

WASHINGTON — Maria Eugenia Torres Ramirez was having dinner with her family in Los Angeles on Friday night when the flood of messages began. Word had begun to circulate that the U.S. was invading Venezuela and would seize its president, Nicolás Maduro.

Torres Ramirez, 38, fled her native country in 2021, settled in L.A. and has a pending application for asylum. Her family is scattered throughout the world — Colombia, Chile and France. Since her parents died, none of her loved ones remain in Venezuela.

Still, news that the autocrat who separated them had been captured delivered a sense of long-awaited elation and united the siblings and cousins across continents for a rare four-hour phone call as the night unfolded.

“I waited for this moment for so long from within Venezuela, and now that I’m out, it’s like watching a movie,” said Torres Ramirez, a former political activist who opposed Maduro. “It’s like a jolt of relief.”

Many Venezuelans across the U.S. celebrated the military action that resulted in Maduro’s arrest. Economic collapse and political repression led roughly 8 million Venezuelans to emigrate since 2014, making it one of the world’s largest displacement crises.

About 770,000 live in the U.S. as of 2023, concentrated mainly in the regions of Miami, Orlando, Houston and New York. Just over 9,500 live in L.A., according to a 2024 U.S. Census estimate.

In the South Florida city of Doral, home to the largest Venezuelan American community, residents poured into the streets Saturday morning, carrying the Venezuelan flag, singing together and praising the military action as an act of freedom.

In Los Angeles, a different picture emerged as groups opposed to Maduro’s arrest took to the streets, though none identified themselves as being of Venezuelan descent. At a rally of about 40 people south of downtown Los Angeles, John Parker, a representative of the Harriet Tubman Center for Social Justice, called the raid a “brutal assault and kidnapping” that amounted to a war crime.

The United States’ intervention in Venezuela had nothing to do with stopping the flow of drugs, he said, and everything to do with undermining a legitimate socialist government. Parker called for Maduro to be set free as a few dozen protesters behind him chanted, “Hands off Venezuela.”

Parker said when he visited Venezuela a few weeks ago as part of a U.S. peacemaking delegation, he saw “the love people had for Maduro.”

A later demonstration in Pershing Square drew hundreds out in the rain to protest the U.S intervention. But when a speaker led chants of “No war in Venezuela,” a woman draped in a Venezuelan flag attempted to approach him and speak into the microphone. A phalanx of demonstrators circled her and shuttled her away.

At Mi Venezuela, a restaurant in Vernon, 16-year-old Paola Moleiro and her family ordered empanadas Saturday morning.

A portion of one of the restaurant’s walls was covered in Venezuelan bank notes scrawled with messages. One read: “3 de enero del 2026. Venezuela quedo libre.”

Venezuela is free.

Around midnight the night before, Paola started getting messages on WhatsApp from her relatives in Venezuela. The power was out, they said, and they forwarded videos of what sounded like bomb blasts.

Paola was terrified. She’d left Venezuela at age 7 with her parents and siblings, first for Panama and later the U.S., in 2023. But the rest of her family remained in Venezuela, and she had no idea what was going on.

Paola and her family stayed up scanning television channels for some idea of what was happening. Around 1:30 a.m., President Trump announced that U.S. forces had captured Maduro.

“The first thing I did, I called my aunt and said, ‘We are going to see each other again,’” she said.

Because of the Venezuelan state’s control over media, her relatives had no idea their leader had been seized by U.S. forces. “Are you telling me the truth?” Paola said her aunt asked.

Paola hasn’t been home in nine years. She misses her grandmother and her grandmother’s cooking, especially her caraotas negras, or black beans. As a child, she said, certain foods were so scarce that she had an apple for the first time only after moving to Panama.

Paola said she was grateful to Trump for ending decades of authoritarian rule that had reduced her home country to a shell of what it once was.

“Venezuela has always prayed for this,” she said. “It’s been 30 years. I feel it was in God’s hands last night.”

For Torres Ramirez, it was difficult to square her appreciation for Trump’s accomplishment in Venezuela with the fear she has felt as an immigrant under his presidency.

“It’s like a double-edged sword,” she said. “Throughout the course of this whole year, I have felt persecuted. I had to face ICE — I had to go to my appointment with the fear that I could lose it all because the immigration policies had changed and there was complete uncertainty. For a moment, I felt as if I was in Venezuela. I felt persecuted right here.”

During a news conference Saturday morning, Trump said Maduro was responsible for trafficking illicit drugs into the U.S. and the deaths of thousands of Americans. He repeated a baseless claim that the Maduro government had emptied Venezuela’s prisons and mental institutions and “sent their worst and most violent monsters into the United States to steal American lives.”

“They sent everybody bad into the United States, but no longer, and we have now a border where nobody gets through,” he said.

Trump also announced that the U.S. will “run” Venezuela and its vast oil reserves.

“We’ll run it professionally,” he said. “We’ll have the greatest oil companies in the world go in and invest billions and billions of dollars and take that money, use that money in Venezuela, and the biggest beneficiary are going to be the people of Venezuela.”

Torres Ramirez said that while she’s happy about Maduro’s ouster, she’s unsure how to feel about Trump’s announcement saying the U.S. will take over Venezuela’s oil industry. Perhaps it won’t be favorable in the long term for Venezuela’s economy, she said, but the U.S. intervention is a win for the country’s political future if it means people can return home.

Patricia Andrade, 63, who runs Raíces Venezolanas, a volunteer program in Miami that distributes donations to Venezuelan immigrants, said she believes the Trump administration is making the right move by remaining involved until there is a transition of power.

Andrade, a longtime U.S. citizen, said she hasn’t been to Venezuela in 25 years — even missing the deaths of both parents. She said she was accused of treason for denouncing the imprisonment of political opponents and the degradation of Venezuela’s democracy under Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chavez. She said she worries that Venezuela’s remaining political prisoners could be killed as payback for Maduro’s arrest.

“We tried everything — elections, marches, more elections … and it couldn’t be done,” she said. “Maduro was getting worse and worse, there was more repression. If they hadn’t removed him, we were never going to recover Venezuela.”

While she doesn’t want the U.S. to fix the problems of other countries, she thanked Trump for U.S. involvement in Venezuela.

She said she can’t wait to visit her remaining family members there.

The United States has bombed Venezuela and toppled Nicolas Maduro, who was seized and taken to New York.

CARACAS, Venezuela — It was about 2 a.m. Saturday Caracas time when the detonations began, lighting up the sullen sky like a post-New Year’s fireworks display.

“¡Ya comenzó!” was the recurrent phrase in homes, telephone conversations and social media chats as the latest iteration of U.S. “shock and awe” rocked the Venezuelan capital. “It has begun!”

Then the question: “¿Maduro?”

The great uncertainty was the whereabouts of President Nicolás Maduro, who has been under Trump administration threat for months.

The scenes of revelry from a joyous Venezuelan diaspora celebrating from Miami to Madrid were not repeated here. Fear of the unknown kept most at home.

Hours would pass before news reports from outside Venezuela confirmed that U.S. forces had captured Maduro and placed him on a U.S. ship to face criminal charges in federal court in New York.

Venezuelans had watched the unfolding spectacle from their homes, using social media to exchange images of explosions and the sounds of bombardment. This moment, it was clear, was ushering in a new era of uncertainly for Venezuela, a nation reeling from a decade of economic, political and social unrest.

Government supporters display posters of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, right, and former President Hugo Chávez in downtown Caracas on Saturday.

(Matias Delacroix / Associated Press)

The ultimate result was an imponderable. But that this was a transformative moment — for good or bad — seemed indisputable.

By daybreak, an uneasy calm overtook the city of more than 3 million. The explosions and the drone of U.S. aircraft ceased. Blackouts cut electricity to parts of the capital.

Pro-government youths wielding automatic rifles set up roadblocks or sped through the streets on motorcycles, a warning to those who might celebrate Maduro’s downfall.

Shops, gas stations and other businesses were mostly closed. There was little traffic.

“When I heard the explosions, I grabbed my rosary and began to pray,” said Carolina Méndez, 50, who was among the few who ventured out Saturday, seeking medicines at a pharmacy, though no personnel had arrived to attend to clients waiting on line. “I’m very scared now. That’s why I came to buy what I need.”

A sense of alarm was ubiquitous.

“People are buying bottled water, milk and eggs,” said Luz Pérez, a guard at one of the few open shops, not far from La Carlota airport, one of the sites targeted by U.S. strikes. “I heard the explosions. It was very scary. But the owner decided to open anyway to help people.”

Customers were being allowed to enter three at a time. Most didn’t want to speak. Their priority was to stock up on basics and get home safely.

Rumors circulated rapidly that U.S. forces had whisked away Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

There was no immediate official confirmation here of the detention of Maduro and Flores, both wanted in the United States for drug-trafficking charges — allegations that Maduro has denounced as U.S. propaganda. But then images of an apparently captive Maduro, blindfolded, in a sweatsuit soon circulated on social media.

There was no official estimate of Venezuelan casualties in the U.S. raid.

Rumors circulated indicating that a number of top Maduro aides had been killed, among them Diosdado Cabello, the security minister who is a staunch Maduro ally. Cabello is often the face of the government.

But Cabello soon appeared on official TV denouncing “the terrorist attack against our people,” adding: “Let no one facilitate the moves of the enemy invader.”

Although Trump, in his Saturday news conference, confidently predicted that the United States would “run” Venezuela, apparently during some undefined transitional period, it’s not clear how that will be accomplished.

A key question is whether the military — long a Maduro ally — will remain loyal now that he is in U.S. custody. There was no public indication Saturday of mass defections from the Venezuelan armed forces. Nor was it clear that Maduro’s government infrastructure had lost control of the country. Official media reported declarations of loyalty from pro-government politicians and citizens from throughout Venezuela.

In his comments, Trump spoke of a limited U.S. troop presence in Venezuela, focused mostly on protecting the oil infrastructure that his administration says was stolen from the United States — a characterization widely rejected here, even among Maduro’s critics. But Trump offered few details on sending in U.S. personnel to facilitate what could be a tumultuous transition.

Meantime, Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez surfaced on official television and demanded the immediate release of Maduro and his wife, according to the official Telesur broadcast outlet. Her comments seemed to be the first official acknowledgment that Maduro had been taken.

“There is one president of this country, and his name is Nicolás Maduro,” the vice president said in an address from Miraflores Palace, from where Maduro and his wife had been seized hours earlier.

During an emergency meeting of the National Defense Council, Telesur reported, Rodríguez labeled the couple’s detention an “illegal kidnapping.”

The Trump administration, the vice president charged, meant to “capture our energy, mineral and [other] natural resources.”

Her defiant words came after Trump, in his news conference, said that Rodríguez had been sworn in as the country’s interim president and had evinced a willingness to cooperate with Washington.

“She’s essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to make Venezuela great again,” Trump said.

Pro-government armed civilians patrol in La Guaira, Venezuela, on Saturday after President Trump announced that President Nicolás Maduro had been captured and flown out of the country.

(Matias Delacroix / Associated Press)

Somewhat surprisingly, Trump also seemed to rule out a role in an interim government for Marina Corina Machado, the Venezuelan Nobel Peace Prize laureate and longtime anti-Maduro activist.

“She’s a very nice woman, but doesn’t have respect within the country,” Trump said of Machado.

Machado is indeed a controversial figure within the fractured Venezuelan opposition. Some object to her open calls for U.S. intervention, preferring a democratic change in government.

Nonetheless, her stand-in candidate, Edmundo González, did win the presidency in national balloting last year, according to opposition activists and others, who say Maduro stole the election.

“Venezuelans, the moment of liberty has arrived!” Machado wrote in a letter released on X. “We have fought for years. … What was meant to happen is happening.”

Not everyone agreed.

“They want our oil and they say it’s theirs,” said Roberto, 65, a taxi driver who declined to give his last name for security reasons. “Venezuelans don’t agree. Yes, I think people will go out and defend their homeland.”

Special correspondent Mogollón reported from Caracas and staff writer McDonnell from Boston. Contributing was special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal in Mexico City.

US President Donald Trump and his allies have defended the US attacks on Venezuela and the removal of President Nicolas Maduro from power amid widespread condemnation that the actions violate international law.

Trump told reporters on Saturday that Maduro was “captured” after US military strikes on the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, for carrying out a purported “campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States”.

He said the US government would “run” the South American country during a political transition, promising the Venezuelan people that they would become “rich, independent and safe”.

But Claire Finkelstein, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, has rejected the Trump administration’s arguments in defence of the attacks and removal of Maduro, as well as its plans to exert control over Venezuela.

“I don’t think there’s any basis under international law for the action that occurred overnight by the US government,” Finkelstein told Al Jazeera, describing the attacks as an “illegal use of force [and] a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty”.

“Maduro has personal jurisdiction rights, so not only is it a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, but it’s a violation of his personal, international rights,” she said.

Numerous statutes of international law – including the UN Charter – prohibit states from attacking another country without provocation.

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,” the UN Charter says.

The US actions came amid a months-long pressure campaign against Maduro, whom the Trump administration accused, without evidence, of being linked to drug traffickers.

Washington had carried out deadly strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean, seized vessels carrying oil off the Venezuelan coast, sanctioned members of Maduro’s family, and threatened to launch attacks on the country’s soil.

“Nicolas Maduro wasn’t just an illegitimate dictator, he also ran a vast drug-trafficking operation,” US Congressman Tom Cotton, a top Trump ally, wrote on social media on Saturday, welcoming the moves against the Venezuelan leader.

Before he was seized, Maduro had said he was open to dialogue with the US on drug trafficking. He also had accused the Trump administration of seeking to depose him and seize control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

‘No imminent threat’

Democratic Party lawmakers in the US had been demanding answers from the Trump administration about its aims in Venezuela, accusing the Republican president of seeking to unlawfully carry out acts of war without congressional oversight.

Under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war.

But that authority has been weakened over the last several decades, with the US carrying out military strikes around the world during its so-called “war on terror” based on loosely-interpreted congressional authorisations.

On Saturday, Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said that, despite the Trump administration’s claims, “there was no imminent threat to the United States” from Venezuela, “certainly not one that justified military action without congressional authorization”.

“These actions violate both US and international law and, by Trump’s own admission, this is not a limited operation,” Meeks said in a statement shared on social media.

This was echoed by the University of Pennsylvania’s Finkelstein, who said there was no “immediate threat” to the US that would justify the executive branch carrying out attacks without notifying Congress.

“It was an act of war against Venezuela, and we did not have the kind of self-defence justification that would normally justify bypassing Congress,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Even if you believe the US is at grave danger because of drug trafficking, there isn’t the kind of imminence there that would justify the president moving unilaterally and not turning to Congress and trying to get them on board.”

Finkelstein also rejected Trump’s plans for the US to “run” Venezuela as “incredibly illegal”.

“States have sovereignty rights, and you cannot just invade them and take them over,” she said.

“Even if Maduro were to fall of his own accord and we had not brought that about, we don’t have the right to go in and start running their government,” Finkelstein said.

“Democracy is premised on the idea that the people are sovereign and the people choose their own leaders, and that’s something we should be promoting in Latin and South America, not trying to undermine.”

US President Donald Trump says the US “successfully captured” Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro and his wife “in the dead of night” and they will “face American justice” for alleged narcoterrorism. Trump said the US will run Venezuela until there is a “safe… and judicious” transition of power.

WASHINGTON — An audacious overnight raid by elite U.S. forces that seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from his bedroom in Caracas plunged the country into turmoil on Saturday, prompting international concern about Venezuela’s future and President Trump’s decision to take control of a sovereign nation.

Trump justified the stunning attack by accusing Maduro of sending “monsters” into the United States from Venezuelan prisons and claiming his involvement in the drug trade. But Trump focused more on Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, accusing the Venezuelan government of stealing U.S. oil infrastructure in the country decades prior and vowing that, under new U.S. government control, output would increase going forward.

The president spoke little about democracy in Venezuela, dismissing a potential role for its longstanding democratic opposition in running the country in the immediate aftermath of the operation. Instead, Trump said his team was in touch with Maduro’s hand-picked vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, whom he called “very gracious” and said was “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary to Make Venezuela Great Again.”

“We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition,” Trump said. “We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure and start making money for the country.”

“We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” he added.

President Trump, alongside Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaks to the media on Saturday following U.S. military actions in Venezuela.

(Jim Watson / AFP via Getty Images)

The president did not offer a timeline for how long a transition would take, or which Venezuelan factions he would support to assume leadership.

Maria Corina Machado, a leader of the Venezuelan opposition and a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, said Saturday that she and her team were prepared to assume control of Venezuela.

“The hour of freedom has arrived,” she wrote on social media. “We are prepared to assert our mandate and take power.”

But in a surprising statement, Trump told reporters on Saturday that he did not believe Machado had the “respect” needed to run the country.

Trump instead focused on how the United States intends to run Venezuela in the immediate aftermath, saying American oil companies are ready to descend on the oil-rich country and begin “taking out tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground.”

“That wealth is going to the people of Venezuela and people from outside of Venezuela that used to be in Venezuela, and it goes to the United States of America, in the form of reimbursement for the damages caused to us by that country,” Trump said.

The operation began with explosions throughout Caracas, as more than 150 U.S. aircraft, including F-35 fighter jets, B-1 bombers and remotely piloted drones, cleared away Venezuelan air defenses to make way for the interdiction team, which included U.S. law enforcement officers. Electricity was cut throughout much of the city as the assault unfolded, Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters.

A Delta Force unit penetrated Maduro’s heavily fortified compound at 2:01 a.m. local time, capturing him and his wife as they attempted to escape into a safe room, U.S. officials said. Only one helicopter in the U.S. fleet was hit by Venezuelan fire, but was able to continue flying through the mission. No U.S. personnel were killed, Caine said.

Trump, who had ordered the CIA to begin monitoring Maduro’s movements months ago, watched as the operation unfolded from a room at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, “literally like I was watching a television show,” the president said in an interview with Fox News on Saturday morning.

From there, Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were taken to the USS Iwo Jima, stationed in the Caribbean alongside a third of the U.S. naval fleet, before the ship set course for New York, where Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said Maduro will face “the full wrath of American justice” over his alleged ties to illicit drug trafficking.

“If you would’ve seen the speed, the violence,” Trump told Fox. “Amazing job.”

In Caracas on Saturday, the mood was tense. Long lines formed at supermarkets and pharmacies as shoppers, fearful of uncertainty, stocked up on essentials.

Maduro’s supporters gathered throughout the city, many bearing arms, but seemed unsure of what to do next. Across Latin America, reaction to the U.S. operation was mixed. Right-leaning allies of Trump including Argentina’s Javier Milei and Ecuador’s Daniel Noboa backed the U.S. attack, while leftists broadly condemned it.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro criticized an “aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America” and said he was ordering the deployment of the Colombian armed forces along his nation’s 1,300-mile-long border with Venezuela.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said that the U.S. “crossed an unacceptable line” and compared the action to remove Maduro to “the darkest moments of [U.S.] interference in Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Trump, meanwhile, boasted that the U.S. operation in Venezuela would help reassert U.S. dominance in Latin America.

“American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again,” he said. “We are reasserting American power in a very powerful way in our home region.”

US President Donald Trump says ‘a team’ from the US will be running Venezuela for now, but he would not specify who is on the team. He was speaking at a news conference with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, dishing up the latest on city and county government.

It’s not hyperbole to say that 2025 was a terrible year for Los Angeles.

Wildfires ravaged huge stretches of Pacific Palisades, Altadena, Malibu and other communities. Federal immigration raids tore families apart and disrupted the economy, prompting furious protests in downtown and elsewhere. L.A.’s political leaders, facing a brutal budget year, signed off on cuts while working to stave off layoffs of public employees.

Now, we’re heading into a year of uncertainty — one with the potential to bring fresh faces both to City Hall and the county’s Hall of Administration, while also ushering in bigger, structural changes.

Here are a few of the political issues we’ll be tracking over the next twelve months, in this newsletter and elsewhere:

1) WILL HE OR WON’T HE? It’s January, and we still don’t know if real estate developer Rick Caruso will seek a rematch against Mayor Karen Bass in the June 2 primary election. A second Caruso run would deliver a jolt to the campaign, complicating Bass’ attempt to win a second four-year term in a single shot. He’s got to decide soon!

Per Mike Murphy, a political strategist and longtime Caruso friend: “He is close to a decision.”

Caruso, a fierce critic of the city’s handling of the Palisades fire, lost to Bass by 10 percentage points in 2022. If he jumps in, he would join a long list of challengers that includes former L.A. schools superintendent Austin Beutner, community organizer Rae Huang and an assortment of unknowns.

The larger the field, the tougher the road Bass will have in trying to avoid a November runoff — and winning her election overall.

2) WILL THE COUNCIL GET BIGGER? The Charter Reform Commission, which is made up of a dozen or so citizen volunteers, is heading into the home stretch as it works on a plan to update the City Charter, the governing document for L.A.

The commission’s report, due in April, is expected to say whether voters should expand the number of City Council members, scale back the duties of the elected city attorney and grant the city controller additional authority. There are also some smaller proposals, including a move to a two-year budget process.

The council will then decide which of those proposals will go on the November ballot. Raymond Meza, who chairs the commission, sounded optimistic about the prospects.

“There’s been a lot of serious public input and energy behind this process, and we think the council is going to thoroughly consider our recommendations,” Meza said.

3) WILL CITY HALL KEEP MOVING LEFT? Eight council seats are up for grabs this year, with bruising campaigns looming on the Eastside, on the Westside, in the west San Fernando Valley and in South L.A.

Councilmembers Eunisses Hernandez and Traci Park are among those battling for a second term. Voters also must find replacements for Curren Price and Bob Blumenfield, each of whom is facing term limits after a dozen years on the council.

Ground Game LA, Democratic Socialists of America and other groups inspired by the victory of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are looking to keep pulling the Overton window in their direction on public safety, tenant protections and other issues.

The ballot will also feature two other citywide contests, with City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto and City Controller Kenneth Mejia both seeking reelection.

4) CAN L.A. AFFORD MORE COPS? Bass has been pressuring the council to free up the money to hire more officers in the new year. She’s not likely to let up, even as she begins preparing her newest citywide budget.

Still, a fight over LAPD hiring could spur the council to take a fresh look at Bass’ other major policy initiative — Inside Safe, which has been moving homeless people indoors since she took office.

Amid growing concerns about the city’s financial stability, some council members have begun exploring the idea of paying the county to deliver homeless services — an idea that Bass panned in a Daily News opinion piece last month.

That op-ed drew some icy rebuttals from County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who called the city’s track record on homelessness “indefensible.”

5) WHITHER THE COUNTY? Speaking of the county, officials inside the Hall of Administration will likely spend the coming year trying to figure out how to prevent Measure J — which requires public spending on alternatives to incarceration — from being struck down by Measure G, the reform measure approved by voters in 2024.

(Measure G, which was largely about expanding the number of county supervisors and establishing an elected CEO, inadvertently set the stage for a pending repeal of Measure J, in what has been billed as an enormous bureaucratic snafu.)

We’ll also be watching as the county’s new homelessness department gets up and running. And we’ll monitor Sheriff Robert Luna’s bid for reelection, as well as the campaign for two supervisorial seats.

6) COULD WE SEE A BUILDING FRENZY? L.A. County’s fire-scarred communities are hoping to see a ramp up in the pace of rebuilding in 2026. But will fire victims stay put? Or will they sell their burned-out sites to developers? The stakes are high, not just for those communities but for the elected officials who represent them.

Of course, there are plenty of other issues to track in the new year beyond the big six. For example, there’s the proposed sales tax hike to fund Fire Department operations; the push for higher taxes to pay for park facilities; the gambit to slow down wage hikes for hotel and airport workers; and the movement to hike the city or county minimum wage.

Then there are the preparations, and behind-the-scenes negotiations, over the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, which have huge cost implications for the city.

Are you exhausted yet? If not, we’ll see you next week.

State of play

— ‘HIGHLY UNPROFESSIONAL’: The author of the Fire Department’s after-action report on the Palisades fire declined to endorse it because of changes that altered his findings, according to an email obtained by The Times. “Having reviewed the revised version submitted by your office, I must respectfully decline to endorse it in its current form,” wrote Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, about an hour after the report was made public. Cook also called the final version of the report “highly unprofessional.”

— PLAYING WITH FIRE: Two groups have sued the city of L.A., alleging that agencies ignored state wildfire safety regulations while signing off on development in areas with severe fire hazards. The State Alliance for Firesafe Road Regulations and the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns. offered what they described as 75 examples of building permits and other plans that violate the state’s “minimum firesafe regulations.”

— DIGGING INTO DTLA: It’s been a tumultuous year for DTLA Law Group, which grew from a small firm focused on car crash victims into a litigation powerhouse with thousands of sexual abuse claims against government agencies. The firm’s activities are now the subject of an investigation by the DA’s office, amid lingering questions about how DTLA amassed so many plaintiffs so quickly. The Times spoke with dozens of former clients and employees who described aggressive tactics to bring in new clients.

— RADIO SILENCE: L.A.’s parking enforcement officers were removed from the field last weekend after copper wire thieves damaged a key communications tower in Elysian Park, leaving some workers with inoperable radios.

— LUCKY NUMBER 13: The Charter Reform Commission might finally get its 13th member, just a few months before it wraps up its work. Councilmember Bob Blumenfield recently nominated Jason Levin, a onetime spokesperson for his office, to fill the seat after his previous pick, former Councilmember Dennis Zine, flamed out. Levin is an executive vice president at the firm Edelman, focusing on crisis and risk.

— NEW YORK STATE OF MIND: City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson and Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez flew to New York City this week for Mamdani’s inauguration. Hernandez, on Instagram, called the event “a reminder that the movement for dignity, justice, and humanity is bigger than any one city.”

— READY FOR SIGNATURES: The City Clerk’s office recently cleared the way for the firefighters’ union to begin gathering signatures for a sales tax hike to pay for fire stations, fire equipment and other emergency resources. The proposal comes amid complaints that department brass sought to cover up findings about the Palisades fire.

— YET ANOTHER WAGE HIKE: The fire tax proposal comes a few weeks after the city clerk cleared the way for another ballot petition — this one hiking the city’s minimum wage to $25 per hour. The proposal includes provisions to ensure that hotel employees are “paid fairly for burdensome workloads” and prohibit “the exploitative practice of subcontracting housekeeping work.”

— BIG DAY FOR THE VA: The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court order requiring the federal Department of Veterans Affairs to build more than 2,500 units of housing on its West L.A. campus. “Rather than use the West Los Angeles VA Grounds as President Lincoln intended, the VA has leased the land to third party commercial interests that do little to benefit the veterans,” wrote Circuit Judge Ana de Alba.

— CHANGING CHAIRS: One of Harris-Dawson’s top aides, senior advisor Rachel Brashier, is switching offices at City Hall. Brashier, who frequently sits next to the council president as he presides over meetings, has taken a job with the mayor, according to Harris-Dawson spokesperson Cerrina Tayag-Rivera. Brashier will serve as a deputy chief of staff, per Bass’ team.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelessness did not launch any new operations over the holiday.
• On the docket next week: L.A. marks the one-year anniversary of the Palisades and Eaton fires with a number of events. Among them is “They Let Us Burn,” a demonstration in Pacific Palisades where community leaders plan to highlight their demands to city, county and state leaders.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

United States President Donald Trump announced on Saturday morning that his country’s forces had bombed Venezuela and captured the South American nation’s president, Nicolas Maduro, and First Lady Cilia Flores in a dramatic overnight military attack that followed months of rising tensions.

Venezuela’s government said that the US had struck three states apart from the capital, Caracas, while neighbouring Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro released a longer list of places that he said had been hit.

The operation has few, if any, parallels in modern history. The US has previously captured foreign leaders, including Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Panama’s Manuel Noriega, but after invading those countries in declared wars.

Here is what we know about the US attacks and the lead-up to this escalation:

How did the attack unfold?

At least seven explosions were reported from Caracas, a city of more than three million people, at about 2am local time (06:00 GMT), as residents said they heard low-flying aircraft. Lucia Newman, Al Jazeera’s Latin America editor, reported that at least one of the explosions appeared to come from near Fort Tiuna, the main military base in the Venezuelan capital.

Earlier, the US Federal Aviation Administration had issued instructions to American commercial airlines to stay clear of Venezuelan airspace.

Within minutes of the explosions, Maduro declared a state of emergency, as his government named the US as responsible for the attacks, saying that it had struck Caracas as well as the neighbouring states of Miranda, Aragua and La Guaira.

The US embassy in Bogota, Colombia, referred to the reports of the explosions and asked American citizens to stay out of Venezuela, in a statement. But the diplomatic mission did not confirm US involvement in the attacks. That came more than three hours after the bombings, from Trump.

What did Trump say?

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump said, a little after 09:00 GMT that the US had “successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country”.

Venezuela has not yet confirmed that Maduro was taken by US troops — but it also has not denied the claim.

Trump said that the attack had been carried out in conjunction with US law enforcement, but did not specify who led the operation.

Trump announced that there would be a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida at 11am local time (16:00 GMT) on Friday, where more details would be revealed.

Where did the US attack in Venezuela?

While neither the US nor Venezuelan authorities have pinpointed locations that were struck, Colombia’s Petro, in a social media post, listed a series of places in Venezuela that he said had been hit.

They include:

• La Carlota airbase was disabled and bombed.
• Cuartel de la Montana in Catia was disabled and bombed.
• The Federal Legislative Palace in Caracas was bombed.
• Fuerte Tiuna, Venezuela’s main military complex, was bombed.
• An airport in El Hatillo was attacked.
• F-16 Base No 3 in Barquisimeto was bombed.
• A private airport in Charallave, near Caracas, was bombed and disabled.
• Miraflores, the presidential palace in Caracas, was attacked.
• Large parts of Caracas, including Santa Monica, Fuerte Tiuna, Los Teques, 23 de Enero and the southern areas of the capital, were left without electricity.
• Attacks were reported in central Caracas.
• A military helicopter base in Higuerote was disabled and bombed.

What led to these US attacks on Venezuela?

Trump has, in recent months, accused Maduro of driving narcotics smuggling into the US, and has claimed that the Venezuelan president is behind the Tren de Aragua gang that Washington has proscribed as a foreign terrorist organisation.

But his own intelligence agencies have said that there is no evidence that Maduro is linked to Tren de Aragua, and US data shows that Venezuela is not a major source of contraband narcotics entering the country.

Starting in September, the US military launched a series of strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea that it claimed were carrying narcotics. More than 100 people have been killed in at least 30 such boat bombings, but the Trump administration is yet to present any public evidence that there were drugs on board, that the vessels were travelling to the US, or that the people on the boats belonged to banned organisations, as the US has claimed.

Meanwhile, the US began its largest military deployment in the Caribbean Sea in at least several decades, spearheaded by the USS Gerald Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier.

In December, the US hijacked two ships carrying Venezuelan oil, and has since imposed sanctions on multiple companies and their tankers, accusing them of trying to circumvent already stringent American sanctions against Venezuela’s oil industry.

Then, last week, the US struck what Trump described as a “dock” in Venezuela where he claimed drugs were loaded onto boats.

Could all this be about oil?

Trump has so far framed his pressure and military action against Venezuela and in the Caribbean Sea as driven by a desire to stop the flow of dangerous drugs into the US.

But he has increasingly also sought Maduro’s departure from power, despite a phone call in early December that the Venezuelan president described as “cordial”.

And in recent weeks, some senior aides of the US president have been more open about Venezuela’s oil: the country’s vast reserves of crude, unmatched in the world, amounted to an estimated 303 billion barrels (Bbbl) as of 2023.

On December 17, Trump’s top adviser Stephen Miller claimed that the US had “created the oil industry in Venezuela” and that the South American country’s oil should therefore belong to the US.

But though US companies were the earliest to drill for oil in Venezuela in the early 1900s, international law is clear: sovereign states — in this case Venezuela — own the natural resources within their territories under the principle of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (PSNR).

Venezuela nationalised its oil industry in 1976. Since 1999, when socialist President Hugo Chavez, Maduro’s mentor and predecessor, came to power, Venezuela has been locked in a tense relationship with the US.

Still, one major US oil company, Chevron, continues to operate in the country.

The Venezuelan opposition, led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Corina Machado, has publicly called for the US to intervene against Maduro, and has pointed to the oil reserves that American firms could tap more easily with a new dispensation in power in Caracas.

Oil has long been Venezuela’s biggest export, but US sanctions since 2008 have crippled formal sales and the country today earns only a fraction of what it once did.

How has Venezuela’s government reacted?

While Venezuela has not confirmed Maduro’s capture, Vice President Delcy Rodrigues told state-owned VTV that the government had lost contact with Maduro and First Lady Flores and did not have clarity on their whereabouts.

She demanded that the US provide “proof of life” of Maduro and Flores, and added that Venezuela’s defences were activated.

Earlier, in a statement, the Venezuelan government said that it “rejects, repudiates and denounces” the attacks.

It said that the aggression threatens the stability of Latin America and the Caribbean, and places the lives of millions of people at risk. It accused the US of trying to impose a colonial war, and force a regime change — and said that these attempts would fail.

What happens to Maduro next?

In a statement posted on X, Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that Maduro and his wife have been indicted in the Southern District of New York.

Maduro has been charged with “Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy” among other charges, Bondi said. It was unclear if his wife is facing the same charges, but she referred to the Maduro couple as “alleged international narco traffickers.”

“They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts,” she added.

Mike Lee, a Republican senator from Utah, earlier posted on X that he had spoken to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who had told him that Maduro had been “arrested by US personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant.”

In 2020, US prosecutors had charged Maduro with running a cocaine-trafficking network.

But US officials remain silent on the illegality of Maduro’s capture and the attacks on Venezuela, which violate UN charter principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations.

Russia and Cuba, close Maduro allies, condemned the attack. Colombia, which neighbours Venezuela and has itself been in Trump’s crosshairs, said that it “rejects the aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and of Latin America” – even though Bogota itself does not recognise Maduro’s government.

Most other nations have been relatively muted in their response to the US aggression so far.

What’s next for Venezuela?

Constitutionally, Rodriguez, the vice president, is next in line to take charge if Maduro indeed has been plucked out of Venezuela by the US.

Other senior leaders seen as close to Maduro and influential within the Venezuelan hierarchy include Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, National Assembly President — and Delcy’s brother — Jorge Rodriguez, and military chief General Vladimir Padrino López.

But it is unclear whether the state apparatus that Chavez and Maduro carefully built over a quarter century will last without them.

“Maduro’s capture is a devastating moral blow for the political movement started by Hugo Chavez in 1999, which has devolved into a dictatorship since Nicolas Maduro took power,” Carlos Pina, a Venezuelan analyst based in Mexico, told Al Jazeera.

If the US does engineer — or has already engineered — a regime change, the opposition’s Machado could be a front-line candidate to take Venezuela’s top job, though it is unclear how popular that might be. In a November poll in Venezuela, 55 percent of participants were opposed to military intervention in their country, and an equal number were opposed to economic sanctions against Venezuela.

Trump might be mistaken if he thinks the US can stay out of the chaos that’s likely to follow in a post-Maduro Venezuela, suggests Christopher Sabatini, a senior research fellow for Latin America, the US and North America programme at Chatham House.

“Assuming even if there is regime change – of some sort, and it’s by no means clear even if it does happen that it will be democratic – the US’s military action will likely require sustained US engagement of some sort,” he said.

“Will the Trump White House have the stomach for that?”

CARACAS, Venezuela — The United States hit Venezuela with a “large-scale strike” early Saturday and said its president, Nicolás Maduro, had been captured and flown out of the country after months of stepped-up pressure by Washington — an extraordinary nighttime operation announced by President Trump on social media hours after the attack.

Multiple explosions rang out and low-flying aircraft swept through Caracas, the capital, as Maduro’s government immediately accused the United States of attacking civilian and military installations. The Venezuelan government called it an “imperialist attack” and urged citizens to take to the streets.

It was not immediately clear who was running the country, and Maduro’s whereabouts were not immediately known. Trump announced the developments on Truth Social shortly after 4:30 a.m. ET. Under Venezuelan law the vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, would take power. There was no confirmation that had happened, though she did issue a statement after the strike.

“We do not know the whereabouts of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores,” Rodriguez said. “We demand proof of life.”

Maduro, Trump said, “has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country. This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement. Details to follow.” He set a news conference for later Saturday morning.

The legal implications of the strike under U.S. law were not immediately clear. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) posted on X that he had spoken with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who briefed him on the strike. Rubio told Lee that Maduro “has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States.”

The White House did not immediately respond to queries on where Maduro and his wife were being flown to. Maduro was indicted in March 2020 on “narco-terrorism” conspiracy charges in the Southern District of New York.

Maduro last appeared on state television Friday while meeting with a delegation of Chinese officials in Caracas.

The explosions in Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, early on the third day of 2026 — at least seven blasts — sent people rushing into the streets, while others took to social media to report hearing and seeing the explosions. It was not immediately clear if there were casualties on either side. The attack itself lasted less than 30 minutes and it was unclear if more actions lay ahead, though Trump said in his post that the strikes were carried out “successfully.”

The Federal Aviation Administration issued a ban on U.S. commercial flights in Venezuelan airspace because of “ongoing military activity” ahead of the explosions.

The strike came after the Trump administration spent months escalating pressure on Maduro. The CIA was behind a drone strike last week 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. began strikes in September.

For months, Trump had threatened that he could soon order strikes on targets on Venezuelan land following months of attacks on boats accused of carrying drugs. Maduro has decried the U.S. military operations as a thinly veiled effort to oust him from power.

Some streets in Caracas fill up

Armed individuals and uniformed members of a civilian militia took to the streets of a Caracas neighborhood long considered a stronghold of the ruling party. But in other areas of the city, the streets remained empty hours after the attack. Parts of the city remained without power, but vehicles moved freely.

Video obtained from Caracas and an unidentified coastal city showed tracers and smoke clouding the landscape sky as repeated muted explosions illuminated the night sky. Other footage showed an urban landscape with cars passing on a highway as blasts illuminated the hills behind them. Unintelligible conversation could be heard in the background. The videos were verified by The Associated Press.

Smoke could be seen rising from the hangar of a military base in Caracas, while another military installation in the capital was without power.

“The whole ground shook. This is horrible. We heard explosions and planes,” said Carmen Hidalgo, a 21-year-old office worker, her voice trembling. She was walking briskly with two relatives, returning from a birthday party. “We felt like the air was hitting us.”

Venezuela’s government responded to the attack with a call to action. “People to the streets!” it said in a statement. “The Bolivarian Government calls on all social and political forces in the country to activate mobilization plans and repudiate this imperialist attack.”

The statement added that Maduro had “ordered all national defense plans to be implemented” and declared “a state of external disturbance.” That state of emergency gives him the power to suspend people’s rights and expand the role of the armed forces.

The website of the U.S. Embassy in Venezuela, a post that has been closed since 2019, issued a warning to American citizens in the country, saying it was “aware of reports of explosions in and around Caracas.”

“U.S. citizens in Venezuela should shelter in place,” the warning said.

Reaction emerges slowly

Inquiries to the Pentagon and U.S. Southern Command since Trump’s social media post went unanswered. The FAA warned all commercial and private U.S. pilots that the airspace over Venezuela and the small island nation of Curacao, just off the coast of the country to the north, was off limits “due to safety-of-flight risks associated with ongoing military activity.”

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, posted his potential concerns, reflecting a view from the right flank in the Congress. “I look forward to learning what, if anything, might constitutionally justify this action in the absence of a declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force,” Lee said on X.

It was not clear if the U.S. Congress had been officially notified of the strikes.

The Armed Services committees in both houses of Congress, which have jurisdiction over military matters, have not been notified by the administration of any actions, according to a person familiar with the matter and granted anonymity to discuss it.

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

Regional reaction was not immediately forthcoming in the early hours of Saturday. Cuba, however, a supporter of the Maduro government and a longtime adversary of the United States, called for the international community to respond to what president Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez called “the criminal attack.” “Our zone of peace is being brutally assaulted,” he said on X. Iran’s Foreign Ministry also condemned the strikes.

President Javier Milei of Argentina praised the claim by his close ally, Trump, that Maduro had been captured with a political slogan he often deploys to celebrate right-wing advances: “Long live freedom, dammit!”

The U.S. military has been attacking boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean since early September. As of Friday, the number of known boat strikes is 35 and the number of people killed is at least 115, according to numbers announced by the Trump administration.

They followed a major buildup of American forces in the waters off South America, including the arrival in November of the nation’s most advanced aircraft carrier, which added thousands more troops to what was already the largest military presence in the region in generations.

Trump has justified the boat strikes as a necessary escalation to stem the flow of drugs into the U.S. and asserted that the U.S. is engaged in an “armed conflict” with drug cartels.

Cano and Toropin write for the Associated Press. Toropin and AP journalist Lisa Mascaro reported from Washington.

Eric Neff’s tenure at the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office ended after he was placed on administrative leave in 2022 over accusations of misconduct in the prosecution of the CEO of Konnech, a software company that election conspiracy theorists said was in the thrall of the Chinese government.

Now, three years later, Neff is serving as one of the Trump administration’s top election watchdogs.

Late last year , his name began appearing on lawsuits filed by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, listed as “acting chief” of the voting section.

Neff’s appointment, first reported by Mother Jones, has prompted renewed scrutiny of his work at the L.A. County district attorney’s office.

The Times interviewed several of Neff’s former colleagues, who revealed new details about claims of misconduct that emerged from the Konnech case, and said they were alarmed that someone with almost no background in federal election law was named to a senior position.

Neff led the 2022 investigation of Konnech, a tiny Michigan company whose software is used by election officials in several major cities. In a criminal complaint, Neff accused the company’s CEO, Eugene Yu, of fraud and embezzlement, alleging the company stored poll worker information on a server based in China, a violation of its contract with the L.A. County registrar’s office.

Six weeks after a complaint was filed, prosecutors dropped the case and launched an investigation into “irregularities” and bias in the way evidence was presented against Konnech, the D.A.’s office said in a 2022 statement.

The county paid Konnech $5 million and joined a motion to find Yu factually innocent as part of a legal settlement.

The internal probe was focused on accusations that Neff misled supervisors at the district attorney’s office about the role of election deniers in his investigation, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the case who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.

Neff also allegedly withheld information about potential biases in the case from a grand jury, according to the two officials.

In a civil lawsuit filed last year, Neff said the internal review by the D.A.’s office cleared him of wrongdoing. The two officials familiar with the probe who spoke on the condition of anonymity disputed Neff’s characterization of the findings.

A spokesman for Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman declined to comment or provide the results of the investigation into Neff, which the officials said was conducted by an outside law firm that generated a report on the case. Neff’s attorney also did not provide a copy of the report.

A Department of Justice spokesman declined to comment.

Neff’s attorney, Tom Yu — no relation to the Konnech CEO — said his client had no obligation to provide background information about the origins of the case to the grand jury.

Neff’s appointment comes as President Trump continues to remake the DOJ in his own image by appointing political loyalists with no criminal law background as U.S. attorneys in New Jersey and Virginia and seeking prosecutions of his political enemies, such as former FBI Director James Comey.

Trump has never recanted his false claim that he won the 2020 election.

When then-L.A. County Dist. Atty. George Gascón announced the charges against Konnech in 2020, Trump said the progressive prosecutor would become a “National hero on the Right if he got to the bottom of this aspect of the Voting Fraud.”

The Konnech case was centered on contract fraud, not voter fraud or ballot rigging. Six weeks after the charges were filed, the case disintegrated.

The D.A.’s office cited Neff’s over-reliance on evidence provided by True the Vote, the group that pushed the unfounded Chinese government conspiracies about Konnech and also appeared in a film that spread claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Gascón initially denied that True the Vote was involved in the case, but weeks later, a D.A.’s office spokesman said a report from the group’s co-founder, Gregg Phillips, sparked the prosecution. Phillips testified in court in July 2022 that it was Neff who first contacted him about Konnech.

The two officials who spoke to The Times said that Neff withheld True the Vote’s role from high-level D.A.’s office staff, including Gascón, when presenting the case.

Gascón declined an interview request, noting he is named in Neff’s pending lawsuit, which is slated for trial in early 2026.

Neff’s attorney insisted the case against Konnech was solid.

“He was let go because Trump tweeted a statement of ‘Go George Go’,” the attorney said. “That’s why Eugene Yu was let go. Because Gascón was so scared he was going to lose votes.”

Calls and emails to an attorney who previously represented Eugene Yu were not returned.

In his lawsuit, Neff claimed he had evidence that “Konnech used third-party contractors based in China and failed to abide by security procedures” to protect L.A. County poll worker data. The evidence was not attached as an exhibit in the lawsuit.

A DOJ spokesperson declined to describe Neff’s job duties. His name appears on a number of lawsuits filed in recent months against states that have refused to turn over voter registration lists to the Trump administration.

Neff is also involved in a suit filed against the Fulton County clerk’s office in Georgia seeking records related to the 2020 election, records show.

“We will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws,” Asst. Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, the California conservative who now leads the civil rights division, said in a recent statement. “If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will.”

Dhillon declined to comment through a DOJ spokesman.

The voting section “enforces the civil provisions of the federal laws that protect the right to vote, including the Voting Rights Act,” according to the DOJ’s website.

It does not appear that Neff has any background working on cases related to federal election law. He first became an L.A. County prosecutor in 2013 and spent years handling local crime cases out of the Pomona courthouse. He was promoted and reassigned to the Public Integrity Division, which investigates corruption issues, in 2020, according to his lawsuit.

While there, he handled only two prosecutions related to elections. One was the Konnech case. The other involved allegations of election rigging against a Compton city council member.

In August 2021, Isaac Galvan, a Democrat, was charged with conspiring to commit election fraud after he allegedly worked to direct voters from outside his council district to cast ballots for him. Galvan won the race by just one vote, but was booted from office when a judge determined at least four improper ballots had been cast.

Galvan’s criminal case is still pending; he recently pleaded guilty to charges in a separate corruption and bribery case in federal court. A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles said there was no overlap between the D.A.’s election rigging case and the bribery case against Galvan. Federal prosecutors are not reviewing the Konnech case, the spokesman said.

Court filings show Neff was involved in Galvan’s L.A. County case, but the prosecution was led by a more senior attorney.

Justin Levitt, a constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School who served in the civil rights division during the Obama administration, said section chiefs normally have decades of experience in the area of law they’re meant to supervise.

“The biggest problem with somebody with Neff’s history is the giant screaming red flag that involves filing a prosecution based on unreliable evidence,” Levitt said. “That’s not something any prosecutor should do.”

Neff’s attorney, Yu, scoffed at the idea that his client was not experienced enough for his new role in the Trump administration, or that he was selected due to his involvement in the Konnech case.

“Eric got the job because he’s qualified to get the job. He didn’t get the job for any other reason. He got the job because he’s an excellent advocate,” Yu said. “I think the Justice Department is very fortunate to have Eric.”

Times Staff Writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Letter to UN chief, UNSC comes after Trump says US will intervene if Tehran violently suppresses protests.

Iran’s United Nations ambassador Amir Saeed Iravani has written to the UN secretary-general and the president of the UN Security Council (UNSC), urging them to condemn “unlawful threats” towards Tehran from United States President Donald Trump amid ongoing protests in the country.

The letter sent on Friday came hours after Trump said the US was “locked and loaded and ready to go” if any more protesters were killed in the ongoing demonstrations in Iran over the cost of living.

Iravani called on UN chief Antonio Guterres and members of the UNSC to “unequivocally and firmly condemn” Trump’s “reckless and provocative statements”, describing them as a “serious violation” of the UN Charter and international law.

“Any attempt to incite, encourage or legitimise internal unrest as a pretext for external pressure or military intervention is a gross violation of the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Iravani said in the letter, which was published in full by the IRNA state news agency.

The letter added that Iran’s government “reiterates its inherent right to defend its sovereignty” and that it will “exercise its rights in a decisive and proportionate manner”.

“The United States of America bears full responsibility for any consequences arising from these illegal threats and any subsequent escalation of tensions,” Iravani added.

IRNA reported earlier that protests continued across Iran on Friday, with people gathering in Qom, Marvdasht, Yasuj, Mashhad, and Hamedan as well as in the Tehran neighbourhoods of Tehranpars and Khak Sefid.

The protests have swept across the country after shopkeepers in Iran’s capital Tehran went on strike on Sunday over high prices and economic stagnation.

At least nine people had been killed and 44 arrested in the unrest. The deputy governor of Qom province on Friday said that another person had died after a grenade exploded in his hand, in what the governor said was an attempt to incite unrest.

In his post on Truth Social, Trump said that if Iran “violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue”.

Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, shot back that US interference “is equivalent to chaos across the entire region and the destruction of American interests”.

Iran’s economic woes, including a collapsing currency and high inflation rates, follow years of severe drought in Tehran, a city with a population of some 10 million people, compounding multiple ongoing crises.

Iranian leaders have struck a surprisingly conciliatory tone in response, with President Masoud Pezeshkian saying the government is at “fault” for the situation and promising to find solutions. Observers have noted the response is markedly different from the harsh reaction to past protests in the country.

The United States bombed three Iranian nuclear sites in June this year during a 12-day escalation between Israel and Iran. Trump described the operation as a “very successful attack”.

Last week, during a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said the US will “knock the hell out” of Iran if it advances its nuclear programme or ballistic weapons programme.

The statement came amid an Israeli push to resume attacks on Iran.

Pezeshkian has pledged a “severe” response to any aggression.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Tuesday weakened one of the nation’s most aggressive efforts to combat climate change, releasing new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks that handed a victory to the oil and gas industry.

The new rule, from the Environmental Protection Agency and Transportation Department, will almost immediately be plunged into litigation as environmental groups and states with stricter standards, led by California, plan to challenge it.

“We intend to make sure the backsliding doesn’t reach California’s doorstep,” California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said Tuesday in announcing the state’s plan to go to court to defend its tougher standards.

If the administration’s policy survives those fights, it would spare automakers from having to meet ambitious gas mileage and emissions requirements put in place in 2012 under President Obama. It is among the biggest steps the administration has taken to reverse an existing environmental policy.

The final rule is a dialed-down version of the one the administration originally planned. Instead of proposing zero improvements in fuel efficiency in coming years, it would require automakers to increase fuel economy across their fleets by 1.5% a year, with a goal of achieving an average of about 40 miles per gallon by 2026. That’s still a major departure from current rules, which mandate annual increases of 5%, reaching an average of 54 mpg by 2025.

Nearly 900 million more tons of carbon dioxide are expected to be released under the new rule than under the Obama-era standards, a result of less efficient cars burning an additional 78 billion gallons of fuel.

“We are delivering on President Trump’s promise to correct the current fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement. The administration’s plan, he said, “strikes the right regulatory balance that protects our environment and sets reasonable targets for the auto industry.”

Environmentalists and public health advocates said the change would likely contribute to thousands of premature deaths and asthma attacks. They criticized the decision to make the new standards final in the midst of a global pandemic, arguing that the rollback would damage public health at a time when thousands of people are gravely ill and the nation’s economy is in tatters.

But after repeatedly postponing the release of the new rule as it scrambled to justify the change, the administration faced deadlines that may have forced its hand.

For one, the longer the government delayed the new rule, the less effect it would have. Although Trump had initially announced that the new standards would affect vehicles in model year 2020, those cars were built under the Obama-era stringent fuel efficiency standards and are already on the road.

Unless the administration finalized its rollback by April 1, it was in danger of missing the deadline to apply the new standards to the 2022 model year.

Additionally, under the Congressional Review Act, new rules issued after May 19 could be invalidated by the next Congress.

The new standards will apply nationwide. Although California has historically set its own tougher car pollution rules, the Trump administration last year moved to strip the state of that authority. California and many of the other states that have adopted its clean-car standards have sued the administration over this change, and that issue likely won’t be resolved until next year at the earliest.

Just hours after the administration unveiled the final rule Tuesday, Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, disclosed that Volvo was in talks with the state to reach a voluntary emissions agreement. Four other automakers — Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW — have already made a deal with the state that would preserve emissions standards that are not as tough as the Obama standards, but are significantly more ambitious than Trump’s proposal.

The change in fuel-economy standards has been in development since the early days of the administration, when two lobbying groups representing automakers asked then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to relax the Obama-era standards.

The administration’s original proposal would have frozen fuel-economy standards at this year’s levels. That met a furious response from officials in California and several other states as well as unexpected resistance from some auto companies, which worried the administration was going overboard and dragging them into years of court battles with states.

Karl Brauer, an analyst for the research firm Cox Automotive, said that Trump’s rule had put automakers in an impossible position. If they opposed the rollback, their investors would be unhappy. If they endorsed it, they would be branded as anti-environment.

The rollback will likely make it easier to sell cars by making them cheaper, he said, but automakers are concerned it may not survive legal scrutiny or the next election.

“I think automakers will feel a lot of uncertainty until Nov. 3,” Brauer said.

“The auto industry has consistently called for year-over-year increases in fuel efficiency,” said John Bozzella, president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that lobbies on behalf of the world’s largest car companies. “Looking to the future, we need policies that support a customer-friendly shift toward these electrified and other highly efficient technologies.”

Trump has boasted that his plan would save lives, improve the economy and lower the cost of new cars.

In a phone call with reporters on Tuesday, senior EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration officials said their analysis showed that lowering the cost of a new car would allow more Americans to replace aging vehicles with newer, safer ones. That turnover in the nation’s fleet would prevent more than 3,300 traffic fatalities, according to the government’s projections, as well as 46,000 post-crash injuries.

They also emphasized the rollback’s estimated cost savings for automakers — as much as $100 billion over the lifetime of the vehicles built under the new rule.

But while administration officials said the change would help drivers and the environment, the government’s analysis was not as optimistic.

Its estimates showed that while loosening fuel-economy standards could shave about $1,000 off the price of a new car, drivers would have to buy more gas than they would have under the current rule.

David Friedman, vice president of advocacy for Consumer Reports, said his group’s projections show that each vehicle sold under the Trump rule will cost its owner on average $2,100 more, even if gas prices continue to fall.

Automakers and their suppliers could also suffer. The government’s analysis shows that American car companies could experience a loss of thousands of jobs by making dirtier cars that would be locked out of many overseas markets.

The change is also expected to result in significantly more greenhouse gas emissions, which trap the sun’s heat, worsening the effects of climate change. Hotter temperatures contribute to more smog, which can damage the lungs and cause other serious health problems.

“Of all the bad things President Trump has done to the environment, this is the worst,” said Dan Becker, head of the Safe Climate Campaign, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group. “He is rolling back the biggest single step any nation has taken to fight global warming, cut oil use and save money at the pump.”

In a February report to Wheeler, the agency’s science advisory board warned that the technical analysis underpinning the government’s draft proposal was so flawed that it had possibly led the EPA to the wrong conclusion.

“In other words,” the board wrote, “the standards in the 2012 rule might provide a better outcome for society than the proposed revision.”

Phillips reported from Washington and Mitchell from Los Angeles.

Jan. 2 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order stopping a semiconductor chips deal between U.S. and Chinese companies citing national security concerns.

The $2.92 million deal would have seen HieFo Corp., a Delaware-based company operated out of China, acquire the semiconductor chips and wafer fabrication businesses of New Jersey’s EMCORE Corp. The two companies announced plans for the deal in 2024.

“There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that HieFo Corporation, a company organized under the laws of Delaware (HieFo) and controlled by a citizen of the People’s Republic of China … might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,” Trump’s order reads.

The executive order, issued under the Defense Production Act, prevents HieFo from having any interest or rights in Encore assets and orders HieFo to divest from Encore within 180 days. The divestment is expected to be overseen by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

Reporting from NEW YORK — The National Enquirer kept a safe containing documents on hush money payments and other damaging stories it killed as part of its cozy relationship with Donald Trump leading up to the 2016 presidential election, people familiar with the arrangement told The Associated Press.

The detail came as several media outlets reported on Thursday that federal prosecutors had granted immunity to National Enquirer chief David Pecker, potentially laying bare his efforts to protect his longtime friend Trump.

President Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty this week to campaign finance violations alleging he, Trump and the tabloid were involved in buying the silence of a porn actress and a Playboy model who alleged affairs with Trump.

Several people familiar with the National Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because they signed nondisclosure agreements, said the safe was a great source of power for Pecker, the company’s chief executive.

The Trump records were stored alongside similar documents pertaining to other celebrities’ catch-and-kill deals, in which exclusive rights to people’s stories were bought with no intention of publishing to keep them out of the news. By keeping celebrities’ embarrassing secrets, the company was able to ingratiate itself with them and ask for favors in return.

But after the Wall Street Journal initially published the first details of Playboy model Karen McDougal’s catch-and-kill deal shortly before the 2016 election, those assets became a liability. Fearful that the documents might be used against American Media, Pecker and the company’s chief content officer, Dylan Howard, removed them from the safe in the weeks before Trump’s inauguration, according to one person directly familiar with the events.

The AP cannot say whether the documents were destroyed or simply were moved to a location known to fewer people.

American Media did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pecker’s immunity deal was first reported Thursday by Vanity Fair and the Journal, citing anonymous sources. Vanity Fair reported that Howard also was granted immunity.

Court papers in the Cohen case say Pecker “offered to help deal with negative stories about [Trump’s] relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided.”

The Journal reported Pecker shared with prosecutors details about payments that Cohen says Trump directed in the weeks and months before the election to buy the silence of McDougal and another woman alleging an affair, porn star Stormy Daniels. Daniels was paid $130,000, and McDougal was paid $150,000.

Although Trump denies the affairs, his account of his knowledge of the payments has shifted. In April, Trump denied he knew anything about the Daniels payment. He told Fox News in an interview aired Thursday that he knew about payments “later on.”

In July, Cohen released an audio tape in which he and Trump discussed plans to buy McDougal’s story from the Enquirer. Such a purchase was necessary, they suggested, to prevent Trump from having to permanently rely on a tight relationship with the tabloid.

“You never know where that company — you never know what he’s gonna be —” Cohen says.

“Maybe he gets hit by a truck,” Trump says.

“Correct,” Cohen replies. “So, I’m all over that.”

Pecker is cooperating with federal prosecutors now, but American Media previously declined to participate in congressional inquiries.

In March, in response to a letter from a group of House Democrats about the Daniels and McDougal payments, American Media general counsel Cameron Stracher declined to provide any documents, writing that the company was “exempt” from U.S. campaign finance laws because it is a news publisher and it was “confident” it had complied with all tax laws. He also rebuffed any suggestion that America Media Inc., or AMI, had leverage over the president because of its catch-and-kill practices.

“AMI states unequivocally that any suggestion that it would seek to ‘extort’ the President of the United States through the exercise of its editorial discretion is outrageous, offensive, and wholly without merit,” Stracher wrote in a letter obtained by the Associated Press.

Former Enquirer employees who spoke to the AP said that negative stories about Trump were dead on arrival dating back more than a decade when he starred on NBC’s reality show “The Apprentice.”

In 2010, at Cohen’s urging, the National Enquirer began promoting a potential Trump presidential candidacy, referring readers to a pro-Trump website Cohen helped create. With Cohen’s involvement, the publication began questioning President Obama’s birthplace and American citizenship in print, an effort that Trump promoted for several years, former staffers said.

The Enquirer endorsed Trump for president in 2016, the first time it had ever officially backed a candidate. In the news pages, Trump’s coverage was so favorable that the New Yorker magazine said the Enquirer embraced him “with sycophantic fervor.”

Positive headlines for Trump were matched by negative stories about his opponents, including Hillary Clinton: An Enquirer front page from 2015 said “Hillary: 6 Months to Live” and accompanied the headline with a picture of an unsmiling Clinton with bags under her eyes.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump has spent much of his two-week vacation in Florida golfing. But when he gets back to the White House, there’s a military golf course that he’s never played that he’s eyeing for a major construction project.

Long a favored getaway for presidents seeking a few hours’ solace from the stress of running the free world, the Courses at Andrews — inside the secure confines of Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, about 15 miles from the White House — are known as the “president’s golf course.” Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Joe Biden have spent time there, and Barack Obama played it more frequently than any president, roughly 110 times in eight years.

Trump has always preferred the golf courses his family owns — spending about one of every four days of his second term at one of them. But he’s now enlisted golf champion Jack Nicklaus as the architect to overhaul the Courses at Andrews.

“It’s amazing that an individual has time to take a couple hours away from the world crises. And they’re people like everybody else,” said Michael Thomas, the former general manager of the course, who has golfed with many of the presidents visiting Andrews over the years.

Andrews, better known as the home of Air Force One, has two 18-hole courses and a 9-hole one. Its facilities have undergone renovations in the past, including in 2018, when Congress approved funding to replace aging presidential aircraft and to build a new hangar and support facilities. That project was close enough to the courses that they had to be altered then, too.

Trump toured the base by helicopter before Thanksgiving with Nicklaus, who has designed top courses the world over. The president called Andrews “a great place, that’s been destroyed over the years, through lack of maintenance.”

Other golfers, though, describe Andrews’ grounds as in good shape, despite some dry patches. Online reviews praise the course’s mature trees, tricky roughs, and ponds and streams that serve as water hazards. The courses are mostly flat, but afford views of the surrounding base.

‘They all like to drive the cart’

The first president to golf at Andrews was Ford in 1974. Thomas began working there a couple years later, and was general manager from 1981 until he retired in 2019.

He said the Secret Service over the years used as many as 28 golf carts — as well as the president’s usual 30-car motorcade — to keep the perimeter secure.

“It’s a Cecil B. DeMille production every time,” said Thomas, who had the opportunity to play rounds with four different presidents, and with Biden when he was vice president.

He said the commanders in chief generally enjoyed their time out on the course in their own unique ways, but “they all like to drive the cart because they never get an opportunity to drive.”

“It’s like getting your driver’s license all over again,” Thomas laughed.

Trump golfs most weekends, and as of Friday, has spent an estimated 93 days of his second term doing so, according to an Associated Press analysis of his schedules.

That tally includes days when Trump was playing courses his family owns in Virginia, around 30 miles from the White House, and near his Florida estate Mar-a-Lago, where he’s spending the winter holidays. It also includes 10 days Trump spent staying at his golf club in Bedminster, N.J., where his schedule allowed time for rounds of golf.

Trump has visited Andrews in the past, but the White House and base have no record of him playing the courses.

Another of Trump’s construction projects

Andrews’ military history dates to the Civil War, when Union troops used a church near Camp Springs, Md., as sleeping quarters. Its golf course opened in 1960.

The White House said the renovation will be the most significant in the history of Andrews. The courses and clubhouse need improvements due to age and wear, it said, and there are discussions about including a multifunctional event center as part of the project.

“President Trump is a champion-level golfer with an extraordinary eye for detail and design,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in a statement. “His vision to renovate and beautify Joint Base Andrews’ golf courses will bring much-needed improvements that service members and their families will be able to enjoy for generations to come.”

Plans are in the very early stages, and the cost of — and funding for — the project haven’t been determined, the White House said. Trump has said only that it will require “very little money.”

The Andrews improvements join a bevy of Trump construction projects, including demolishing the White House’s East Wing for a sprawling ballroom now expected to cost $400 million, redoing the bathroom attached to the Lincoln bedroom and replacing the Rose Garden’s lawn with a Mar-a-Lago-like patio area.

Outside the White House, Trump has led building projects at the Kennedy Center and wants to erect a Paris-style arch near the Lincoln Memorial, and has said he wants to rebuild Dulles International Airport in northern Virginia.

On Wednesday, meanwhile, the Trump administration ended a lease agreement with a nonprofit for three public golf courses in Washington — which could allow the president to further shape golfing in the nation’s capital. The White House, however, said that move isn’t related to the plans for Andrews.

Presidential perks of golfing at Andrews

When the president is golfing, Andrews officials block off nine holes at a time so no one plays in front of him, allowing for extra security while also ensuring consistent speed-of-play, Thomas said.

That’s relatively easily done given that the courses aren’t open to the public. They’re usually reserved for active or retired members of the military and their families, as well as some Defense Department-linked federal employees.

Thomas remembers playing a round with the older President Bush, a World Golf Hall of Fame inductee known for fast play, while first lady Barbara Bush walked with Millie, the first couple’s English Springer Spaniel. George W. Bush also played fast, Thomas said, and got additional exercise by frequently riding his mountain bike before golfing.

When he wasn’t golfing at Andrews, Obama tried to recreate at least part of the experience back home. He had a White House golf simulator installed after then-first lady Michelle Obama asked Thomas how they might acquire a model that the president had seen advertised on the Golf Channel. Thomas gave her a contact at the network.

Obama famously cut short a round at Andrews after nine holes in 2011 to hustle back to the White House for what turned out to be a top-secret review of final preparations for a Navy SEAL raid on the compound of Osama bin Laden.

But, while Thomas was golfing with presidents, he said he never witnessed play interrupted by an important call or any major emergency that forced them off the course mid-hole. There also were never any rain-outs.

“If there was rain coming, they’d get the weather forecast before we would,” Thomas said. “They would cancel quick on that.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has ended the lease agreement for three public golf courses in Washington, a move that offers President Trump an additional opportunity to put his stamp on another piece of the nation’s capital.

The National Links Trust, the nonprofit that has operated Washington’s three public courses on federal land for the last five years, said Wednesday that the Department of the Interior had terminated its 50-year lease agreement. The Interior Department said it was terminating the lease because the nonprofit had not implemented required capital improvements and failed to meet the terms of the lease.

While it was unclear what the Trump administration’s plans are for the golf courses, the move gives Trump, whose private company has developed numerous golf courses in the U.S. and abroad, the chance to remake links overlooking the Potomac River and in Rock Creek Park and a site that is part of Black golf history.

Officials for the National Links Trust said in a statement that they were “devastated” by the decision to terminate the lease and defended their management of the courses. They said $8.5 million had gone toward capital improvements at the courses and that rounds played and revenue had more than doubled in their tenure managing the courses. The nonprofit has agreed to keep managing the courses for the time being, but long-term renovations will stop.

“While this termination is a major setback, we remain stubbornly hopeful that a path forward can be found that preserves affordable and accessible public golf in the nation’s capital for generations to come,” the officials added.

The Department of the Interior’s decision comes as Trump rebrands civic spaces in Washington and deploys National Guard members to the streets for public safety. The Kennedy Center added Trump’s name this month after the center’s board of trustees — made up of Trump appointees — voted to change the name of the performing arts space designated by Congress as a memorial to John F. Kennedy. Trump is also in the midst of a construction project to build a ballroom on the White House’s East Wing, and he has put his name on the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — President Trump and top Iranian officials exchanged dueling threats Friday as widening protests swept across parts of the Islamic Republic, further escalating tensions between the countries after America bombed Iranian nuclear sites in June.

At least seven people have been killed so far in violence surrounding the demonstrations, which were sparked in part by the collapse of Iran’s rial currency but have increasingly seen crowds chanting anti-government slogans.

The protests, now in their sixth day, have become the biggest in Iran since 2022, when the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini in police custody triggered nationwide demonstrations. However, the demonstrations have yet to be countrywide and have not been as intense as those surrounding the death of Amini, who was detained over not wearing her hijab, or headscarf, to the liking of authorities.

Trump post sparks quick Iranian response

Trump initially wrote on his Truth Social platform, warning Iran that if it “violently kills peaceful protesters,” the United States “will come to their rescue.”

“We are locked and loaded and ready to go,” Trump wrote, without elaborating.

Shortly after, Ali Larijani, a former parliament speaker who serves as the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, alleged on the social platform X that Israel and the U.S. were stoking the demonstrations. He offered no evidence to support the allegation, which Iranian officials have repeatedly made during years of protests sweeping the country.

“Trump should know that intervention by the U.S. in the domestic problem corresponds to chaos in the entire region and the destruction of the U.S. interests,” Larijani wrote on X, which the Iranian government blocks. “The people of the U.S. should know that Trump began the adventurism. They should take care of their own soldiers.”

Larijani’s remarks likely referenced America’s wide military footprint in the region. Iran in June attacked Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar after the U.S. strikes on three nuclear sites during Israel’s 12-day war on the Islamic Republic. No one was injured though a missile did hit a radome there.

Ali Shamkhani, an adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who previously was the council’s secretary for years, separately warned that “any interventionist hand that gets too close to the security of Iran will be cut.”

“The people of Iran properly know the experience of ‘being rescued’ by Americans: from Iraq and Afghanistan to Gaza,” he added on X.

Iran’s hard-liner parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf also threatened that all American bases and forces would be “legitimate targets.”

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei also responded, citing a list of Tehran’s longtime grievances against the U.S., including a CIA-backed coup in 1953, the downing of a passenger jet in 1988 and taking part in the June war.

The Iranian response came as the protests shake what has been a common refrain from officials in the theocracy — that the country broadly backed its government after the war.

Trump’s online message marked a direct sign of support for the demonstrators, something that other American presidents have avoided out of concern that activists would be accused of working with the West. During Iran’s 2009 Green Movement demonstrations, President Barack Obama held back from publicly backing the protests — something he said in 2022 “was a mistake.”

But such White House support still carries a risk.

“Though the grievances that fuel these and past protests are due to the Iranian government’s own policies, they are likely to use President Trump’s statement as proof that the unrest is driven by external actors,” said Naysan Rafati, an analyst at the International Crisis Group.

“But using that as a justification to crack down more violently risks inviting the very U.S. involvement Trump has hinted at,” he added.

Protests continue Friday

Demonstrators took to the streets Friday in Zahedan in Iran’s restive Sistan and Baluchestan province on the border with Pakistan. The burials of several demonstrators killed in the protests also took place, sparking marches.

Online video purported to show mourners chasing off security force members who attended the funeral of 21-year-old Amirhessam Khodayari. He was killed Wednesday in Kouhdasht, over 250 miles southwest of Tehran in Iran’s Lorestan province.

Video also showed Khodayari’s father denying his son served in the all-volunteer Basij force of Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, as authorities claimed. The semiofficial Fars news agency later reported that there were now questions about the government’s claims that he served.

Iran’s civilian government under reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian has been trying to signal it wants to negotiate with protesters. However, Pezeshkian has acknowledged there is not much he can do as Iran’s rial has rapidly depreciated, with $1 now costing some 1.4 million rials. That sparked the initial protests.

The protests, taking root in economic issues, have heard demonstrators chant against Iran’s theocracy as well. Tehran has had little luck in propping up its economy in the months since the June war.

Iran recently said it was no longer enriching uranium at any site in the country, trying to signal to the West that it remains open to potential negotiations over its atomic program to ease sanctions. However, those talks have yet to happen as Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have warned Tehran against reconstituting its atomic program.

Gambrell writes for the Associated Press.