debate

On September 1, at an international press conference convened in response to threats from the U.S. government, Nicolás Maduro declared: “The Miami mafia has seized political power in the White House and the State Department; they have imposed their extremist Miami-centric vision and have ‘Miamisized’ U.S. foreign policy toward all of Latin America and the Caribbean; because threatening Venezuela is threatening the entire continent.”

This statement fits with a script distributed through Siscom, the messaging system used by Venezuela’s Ministry for Communication and Information to send orders to media and digital activists. “The U.S. warmongering maneuver is driven by extremist sectors in South Florida, representing less than 10% of the U.S. population, who seek to impose their agenda on the entire country, ignoring the majorities who oppose wars and want the government to focus on internal problems,” reads a paragraph from the document. 

La Hora de Venezuela obtained several of these scripts, distributed between March and September 2025 to 40,000 users participating in more than 600 Siscom groups. The main messages: the entire nation is enlisting as if it were Vietnam, while at the same time there is an atmosphere of calm and normalcy. But the scripts also aim to influence public discourse in the United States, by contrasting the “Miami lobby” with America First and MAGA, framing a military escalation against Venezuela as a useless cost in the face of its internal problems.

The propaganda apparatus takes phrases from U.S. politicians, analysts, and media outlets and amplifies to validate its propaganda and disinformation narratives. 

On December 3, 2025, Democratic Representative Jim McGovern announced that he would introduce a resolution to force a vote in Congress against the Trump administration’s “crazy escalations” against Venezuela. “No one, except the president and his billionaire allies, wants this war,” McGovern stated. 

A few hours later, Madelein García, a journalist for Telesur—the international propaganda channel dependent on the Venezuelan Ministry for Communication and Information—quoted and translated McGovern’s post. It wasn’t necessary for journalists, media outlets, or communicators allied to his government to claim that Washington was divided: it was enough to amplify the message of a congressman speaking from within the U.S. political system, while avoiding the sound of propaganda.

In general, McGovern’s statement echoed talking points included in an operational manual formatted as a slide presentation that had been circulated months earlier through Siscom, on August 29, by Johannyl Rodríguez, Venezuela’s vice minister of Communication and Information. Page 7 of that script includes, for example, phrases such as “Rubio does not speak for MAGA; he speaks for the war lobbies” and “His agenda does not respond to the popular movement that backed Trump, but rather to military corporations and extremist minorities.”

García’s quote of McGovern served as external validation for narratives that the Maduro administration is trying to position. There was no need for sympathetic journalists, outlets, or communicators to talk about divisions in Washington over Venezuela: amplifying a Democratic lawmaker from within the U.S. political system was enough to make the framing sound less like official propaganda.

Days earlier, on November 29, 2025, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer had also questioned the policy toward Venezuela, arguing that it didn’t align with the “America First” principle, alluding to the unnecessary expenditure of resources and internal priorities. 

Schumer’s argument also resonated with ideas already laid out in the August 29 presentation: the split between America First and war, and the cost of escalation for ordinary citizens. Among the lines in the script sent by the Maduro Ministry of Communication official includes lines such as: “Trump promised to prioritize U.S. interests over military adventures,” “War impoverishes the people: trillions of dollars are lost in foreign conflicts while poverty, inflation, and the housing crisis persist at home,” and “Why fund interventions around the world when millions of citizens work two or three jobs just to survive?”

Venezuela News, an “unofficial” mouthpiece for pro-Maduro propaganda—and a frequent amplifier of disinformation—reported Schumer’s statements as further proof that figures in the Democratic leadership are questioning the coherence and legitimacy of an escalation against Venezuela. 

On September 2, Juan González—former director for the Western Hemisphere at the Council of National Security during the Biden administration—questioned the logic of the military deployment in the Caribbean: “So the U.S. government is using false information to justify a terrorist designation and then spending at least $7 million a day to have a carrier strike group kill 11 traffickers…?” Days later, the Venezuelan News Agency (AVN) turned it into a headline (“Former Biden advisor denounces false information and million-dollar waste”). González’s comment was also reported by Venezuela News and Globovisión.

Once again, the framing was perfect for amplifying the script’s narratives, without the need to manufacture the message through Maduro’s propaganda apparatus.

Creating discord between Maga and Rubio

Alongside narratives about America First and the unnecessary use of U.S. public resources, the scripts distributed by Siscom also lay out another divisive line: portraying U.S. policy toward Venezuela as the result of an internal fracture, in which a minority—associated with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and several Florida Cuban politicians—drags the country into an escalation unwanted by the rest of the population.

These guidelines aim to intervene in the U.S. public conversation from within, seeking to sow discord by amplifying pre-existing tensions between the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement and parts of Washington’s political apparatus.

The same script sent by Siscom on August 29, for example, defines staging guidelines for content that includes “short, direct material that connects with the MAGA audience.” Another section features “impact phrases” such as “Rubio does not speak for MAGA; he speaks for the war lobbies,” “Trump defends America First; Rubio puts his interests first,” or “Florida cannot impose a war in Latin America on the rest of the United States.”

Extra News Mundo, another “unofficial” source of Venezuelan propaganda, and “Unleash Dracarys,” (pseudonym used by Dayra Rivas, Director of Digital Media at Information Ministry), published a video to multiply the reaction of right wing activist Laura Loomer -who opposes military action in Venezuela- against an interview to Cuban American congresswoman María Elvira Salazar, a supporter of Machado. The video reiterates the “MAGA vs. Florida” trope recommended in the Siscom script: Cuban politicians in Florida are trying to impose a war on Trump.

Everyone is happy

Regarding the story line of “everything is fine in Venezuela and nobody is afraid of Trump,” the Maduro propaganda took advantage of a December 4 photo essay in The New York Times, which opens with a video of a group of Caracas residents dancing salsa in a nightclub and showcases scenes of concerts, baseball games, and Christmas celebrations in a country seemingly at peace. At the same time, the piece warns that the surveillance by security forces has stifled open expression of dissent and concludes with a question: whether this tranquility can truly be believed.

A summarized version of the article, published on The New York Times’ Instagram account, received over a thousand comments, at least half of which were negative or dismissive. The carousel opened with the same video of Venezuelans dancing salsa, but the final point of the report—the question of whether this calm is real—was relegated to the background. Its celebratory tone resonated with several pieces of reassuring propaganda that began appearing more frequently. 

Since mid-November, at least five videos of Venezuelans dancing and celebrating were shared through Nicolás Maduro’s official Telegram channel. In one of them, Maduro was seen dancing and calling for a party every day of the week. All of this content was massively and coordinatedly amplified by state media and digital activist networks, in line with the Street, Networks, Media, Walls, and Word of Mouth Method signed by Maduro, that broadly defines the government’s information operation.

That same approach also appears laid out as an operational line in another playbook circulated through Siscom. In a presentation sent on August 26, ahead of the launch of the #YoMeAlisto campaign, it explains: “Psychological warfare is defeated with images of peace, discipline, and normality,” and “Our response is to show that the country does not grind to a halt, that it continues producing, working, and moving forward.”

Even more explicit was the exploitation of another New York Times article, published on November 26, 2025, which compiled criticisms from former diplomats, experts, and opposition figures regarding statements attributed to María Corina Machado. The article warns that, amid the Trump administration’s military deployment in the Caribbean, some voices fear that false claims are being exaggerated or disseminated to justify intervention, and mentions “debunked claims” on issues of drug trafficking and security.

The report also echoed propaganda lines included in government scripts that present the “war on drugs” as a pretext for continuing the escalation and militarization of the Caribbean. In the script sent on August 29, for example, one line appears particularly clear: “The Cartel of the Suns is a media fabrication to justify aggression,” along with others that maintain that the U.S. uses this framework to promote regime change and expand its presence in the region.

Screenshots of that New York Times article were quickly seized upon by a network of propaganda video creators. The campaign attempted to reinforce a line already present in Siscom documents: to discredit María Corina Machado, presenting her as a source of disinformation that is pushing the United States toward intervention. An opportune corollary to the more than 80 hoaxes and disinformation incidents directed against Machado from Maduro’s communications apparatus in 2024 and 2025. 

Journalism in Venezuela operates in a hostile environment for the press, with dozens of legal instruments designed to punish speech, such as the laws “against hate,” “against fascism,” and “against the blockade.” This content was produced by journalists who are in Venezuela and is being published with full awareness of the threats and constraints that, as a result, have been imposed on the dissemination of information from within the country.

CBS News is moving forward with a series of town hall and debate telecasts with a major advertiser backing them, the first major initiative under editor-in-chief Bari Weiss.

The news division announced Thursday it will have a series of one hour single issue programs under the title “Things That Matter” done in collaboration with the digital platform the Free Press.

CBS News parent Paramount acquired the Free Press which was co-founded by Weiss, in September.

Bank of America will be a major sponsor of the series.

The town hall participants include Vice President JD Vance, who will discuss the state of the country and the future of the Republican Party, OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman on artificial intelligence and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore on the future of the Democratic Party.

The debate subjects include “Should Gen Z Believe in the American Dream?,” “Does America Need God? and “Has Feminism Failed Women?” The debaters include journalist Liz Plank, New York Times opinion writer Ross Douthat, and Isabel Brown, a representative for the right-wing organization Turning Point USA.

No dates have been set, but the programs will air in the current 2025-26 TV season which ends in May.

CBS tested the town hall format Saturday with a telecast that featured Weiss sitting down with Erika Kirk, the widow of slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. The program taped in front of an invited audience and averaged 1.9 million viewers according to Nielsen data, on par with what CBS entertainment programming has delivered in the 8 p.m. hour in the current TV season.

The town hall format where a news subject takes questions from audience members has long been a staple of cable news channels. Broadcast networks have typically only used it with presidential candidates.

“Things That Matter” is less of a play for ratings than a symbol of the new vision for CBS News under Weiss.

“We believe that the vast majority of Americans crave honest conversation and civil, passionate debate,” Weiss said in a statement. “This series is for them. In a moment in which people believe that truth is whatever they are served on their social media feed, we can think of nothing more important than insisting that the only way to get to the truth is by speaking to one another.”

Weiss hosted the town hall with Kirk. CBS News has not announced the on-air talent for the “Things That Matter” series.

Weiss was recruited by Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison to pull the news division towards the political center where he believes most of the country stands.

The Free Press gained popularity for its criticism of DEI, so-called woke policies, and strong support of Israel. The site is often described as “heterodox” and has been critical of numerous actions of the Trump administration. But its biggest fans tend to be in the business community who disdain high taxes and big government.

It’s timmmme!

×

Join Los Angeles Times Dodgers beat reporter Jack Harris and columnists Dylan Hernández and Bill Plaschke for our very special 2025 Dodgers Debate Christmas Special.

The trio will discuss the signing of Miguel Rojas and Edwin Díaz, who else might be on the 2026 roster, the World Baseball Classic, whether the Dodgers can three-peat and more.

Video replay will be available at latimes.com/dodgers and our YouTube channel to bring joy all holiday season.

Gavin Newsom is off and running, eyeing the White House as he enters the far turn and his final year as California governor.

The track record for California Democrats and the presidency is not a good one. In the nearly 250 years of these United States, not one Left Coast Democrat has ever been elected president. Kamala Harris is just the latest to fail. (Twice.)

Can Newsom break that losing streak and make history in 2028?

Faithful readers of this column — both of you — certainly know how I feel.

Garry South disagrees.

The veteran Democratic campaign strategist, who has been described as possessing “a pile-driving personality and blast furnace of a mouth” — by me, actually — has never lacked for strong and colorful opinions. Here, in an email exchange, we hash out our differences.

Barabak: You once worked for Newsom, did you not?

South: Indeed I did. I was a senior strategist in his first campaign for governor. It lasted 15 months in 2008 and 2009. He exited the race when we couldn’t figure out how to beat Jerry Brown in a closed Democratic primary.

I happen to be the one who wrote the catchy punch line for Newsom’s speech to the state Democratic convention in 2009, that the race was a choice between “a stroll down memory lane vs. a sprint into the future.”

We ended up on memory lane.

Barabak: Do you still advise Newsom, or members of his political team?

South: No, though he and I are in regular contact and have been since his days as lieutenant governor. I know many of his staff and consultants, but don’t work with them in any paid capacity. Also, the governor’s sister and I are friends.

Barabak: You observed Newsom up close in that 2010 race. What are his strengths as a campaigner?

South: Newsom is a masterful communicator, has great stage presence, cuts a commanding figure and can hold an audience in the palm of his hand when he’s really on. He has a mind like a steel trap and never forgets anything he is told or reads.

I’ve always attributed his amazing recall to the struggle he has reading, due to his lifelong struggle with severe dyslexia. Because it’s such an arduous effort for Newsom to read, what he does read is emblazoned on his mind in seeming perpetuity.

Barabak: Demerits, or weaknesses?

South: Given his remarkable command of facts and data and mastery of the English language, he can sometimes run on too long. During that first gubernatorial campaign, when he was still mayor of San Francisco, he once gave a seven-hour State of the City address.

Barabak: Fidel Castro must have been impressed!

South: It wasn’t as bad as sounds: It was broken into 10 “Webisodes” on his YouTube channel. But still …

Barabak: So let’s get to it. I think Newsom’s chances of being elected president are somewhere between slim and none — and slim was last seen alongside I-5, in San Ysidro, thumbing a ride to Mexico.

You don’t agree.

South: I don’t agree at all. I think you’re underestimating the Trumpian changes wrought (rot?) upon our political system over the past 10 years.

The election of Trump, a convicted felon, not once but twice, has really blown to hell the conventional paradigms we’ve had for decades in terms of how we assess the viability of presidential candidates — what state they’re from, their age, if they have glitches in their personal or professional life.

Not to mention, oh, their criminal record, if they have one.

The American people actually elected for a second term a guy who fomented a rebellion against his own country when he was president the first time, including an armed assault on our own national capitol in which a woman was killed and for which he was rightly impeached. It’s foolish not to conclude that the old rules, the old conventional wisdom about what voters will accept and what they will not, are out the window for good.

It also doesn’t surprise me that you pooh-pooh Newsom’s prospects. It’s typical of the home-state reporting corps to guffaw when their own governor is touted as a presidential candidate.

One, familiarity breeds contempt. Two, a prophet is without honor in his own country.

Barabak: I’ll grant you a couple of points.

I’m old enough to remember when friends in the Arkansas political press corps scoffed at the notion their governor, the phenomenally gifted but wildly undisciplined Bill Clinton, could ever be elected president.

I also remember those old Clairol hair-color ads: “The closer he gets … the better you look!” (Google it, kids). It’s precisely the opposite when it comes to presidential hopefuls and the reporters who cover them day-in, day-out.

And you’re certainly correct, the nature of what constitutes scandal, or disqualifies a presidential candidate, has drastically changed in the Trump era.

All of that said, certain fundamentals remain the same. Harking back to that 1992 Clinton campaign, it’s still the economy, stupid. Or, put another way, it’s about folks’ lived experience, their economic security, or lack thereof, and personal well-being.

Newsom is, for the moment, a favorite among the chattering political class and online activists because a) those are the folks who are already engaged in the 2028 race and b) many of them thrill to his Trumpian takedowns of the president on social media.

When the focus turns to matters affecting voters’ ability to pay for housing, healthcare, groceries, utility bills and to just get by, Newsom’s opponents will have a heyday trashing him and California’s steep prices, homelessness and shrinking middle class.

Kamala Harris twice bid unsuccessfully for the White House. Her losses kept alive an unbroken string of losses by Left Coast Democrats.

(Kent Nishimura / Getty Images)

South: It’s not just the chattering class.

Newsom’s now the leading candidate among rank-and-file Democrats. They had been pleading — begging — for years that some Democratic leader step out of the box, step up to the plate, and fight back, giving Trump a dose of his own medicine. Newsom has been meeting that demand with wit, skill and doggedness — not just on social media, but through passage of Proposition 50, the Democratic gerrymandering measure.

And Democrats recognize and appreciate it

Barabak: Hmmm. Perhaps I’m somewhat lacking in imagination, but I just can’t picture a world where Democrats say, “Hey, the solution to our soul-crushing defeat in 2024 is to nominate another well-coiffed, left-leaning product of that bastion of homespun Americana, San Francisco.”

South: Uh, Americans twice now have elected a president not just from New York City, but who lived in an ivory tower in Manhattan, in a penthouse with a 24-carat-gold front door (and, allegedly, gold-plated toilet seats). You think Manhattan is a soupçon more representative of middle America than San Francisco?

Like I said, state of origin is less important now after the Trump precedent.

Barabak: Trump was a larger-than-life — or at least larger-than-Manhattan — celebrity. Geography wasn’t an impediment because he had — and has — a remarkable ability, far beyond my reckoning, to present himself as a tribune of the working class, the downtrodden and economically struggling Americans, even as he spreads gold leaf around himself like a kid with a can of Silly String.

Speaking of Kamala Harris, she hasn’t ruled out a third try at the White House in 2028. Where would you place your money in a Newsom-Harris throwdown for the Democratic nomination? How about Harris in the general election, against whomever Republicans choose?

South: Harris running again in 2028 would be like Michael Dukakis making a second try for president in 1992. My God, she not only lost every swing state, and the electoral college by nearly 100 votes, Harris also lost the popular vote — the first Democrat to do so in 20 years.

If she doesn’t want to embarrass herself, she should listen to her home-state voters, who in the latest CBS News/YouGov poll said she shouldn’t run again — by a margin of 69-31. (Even 52% of Democrats said no). She’s yesterday’s news.

Barabak: Seems as though you feel one walk down memory lane was quite enough. We’ll see if Harris — and, more pertinently, Democratic primary voters — agree.

Dec. 10 (UPI) — The House of Representatives will vote on Wednesday on the bipartisan $900 billion defense policy bill, though some lawmakers take issue with some of its provisions.

The 3,086-page bill authorizes $8 billion more in spending than President Donald Trump had asked for.

“This year’s National Defense Authorization Act helps advance President Trump and Republicans’ Peace Through Strength Agenda by codifying 15 of President Trump’s executive orders, ending woke ideology at the Pentagon, securing the border, revitalizing the defense industrial base, and restoring the warrior ethos,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement.

The bill would codify the use of active-duty troops at the U.S.-Mexico border, create a “Golden Dome” to protect the U.S. from aerial attacks and ban diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the Department of Defense. The bill would also create a 3.8% raise for all service members.

It includes a ban on transgender women competing in sports at military academies.

The annual legislation has normally been approved with bipartisan support. But several Republicans have voiced dissent.

“I think that it’s in trouble because it’s not the version we sent over,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., told The Hill. She said she was disappointed with the bill because it authorizes funds for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. It includes $400 million for military help to Ukraine in fiscal years 2026 and 2027.

Last week, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., criticized Johnson for blocking a provision requiring the FBI to tell Congress when it begins counterintelligence investigations on candidates running for federal office. It was later added.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said on X that the bill will “fund foreign aid and foreign country’s wars.” She also accused Republican leadership of breaking a promise to include a ban on creating a central bank digital currency. Hardline conservatives have argued that the digital currency could be used to spy on Americans.

“Conservatives were promised that an anti-Central Bank Digital Currency language, authored by Tom Emmer, the whip, would be in the NDAA,” Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, said on Fox Business Monday. “There are red lines that we need to put in here.”

Emmer, R-Minn., said about leaving the anti-CBDC segment out, “they’ll understand what is going on, and they’ll be fine,” The Hill reported.

Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., said he doesn’t like that the bill allows “8 billion more than we should have.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will see his travel budget cut under the bill until the Pentagon releases the footage of strikes against alleged drug boats near Venezuela. His travel budget would be reduced by 25% until he shares “unedited video of strikes conducted against designated terrorist organizations in the area of responsibility of the United States Southern Command.”

It also requires him to submit some overdue reports before getting his travel budget back.

“That was a bipartisan shot across the bow to Donald Trump to hand over the tapes, done by Republicans. I salute them for their courage for bucking Trump and bucking Hegseth,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor Tuesday.