Donald Trump

EXCLUSIVE

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Gustavo Petro calls for ‘shared government through dialogue’ in Venezuela, leading to elections.

Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro has stressed the importance of having open lines of communication with the United States despite President Donald Trump’s recent threats of military action against the South American country.

In an interview with Al Jazeera’s Teresa Bo in Colombia’s capital, Bogota – which aired on Friday – Petro said his government is seeking to maintain cooperation on combating narcotics with Washington, striking a softer tone following days of escalating rhetoric.

His comments came after holding a phone call with Trump on Wednesday, a direct contact that Petro called a “means of communication that did not exist before”.

Petro, Colombia’s first left-wing president, said that previously, information between the two governments had been transmitted through unofficial channels “mediated by political ideology and my opposition”.

“I have been careful – despite the insults, the threats and so on – to maintain cooperation on drug trafficking between Colombia and the United States,” Petro said.

US threats

Just hours after the US military abducted Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Saturday, Trump turned his threats of military action towards Colombia.

Trump accused Petro – without evidence – of running cocaine mills, calling him a “sick man”.

Asked on Sunday whether he would authorise a military operation against Petro, Trump said, “Sounds good to me.”

In response, Petro promised to defend his country, saying that he would “take up arms” for his homeland.

While temperatures have cooled in the wake of the call between the two leaders on Wednesday, observers have largely seen Trump’s threats as the potential next step in the White House’s stated goal of establishing US “pre-eminence” in the Western Hemisphere.

But the feud between the Trump administration and Petro pre-dated the attack on Venezuela.

The Colombian president has been a vocal critic of Israel’s US-backed genocidal war on Gaza.

In September, Washington revoked Petro’s US visa after he spoke at a pro-Palestine march outside the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Weeks later, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the Colombian president, who is term-limited and set to leave office after a presidential election in May.

‘Shared government through dialogue’

Petro was among the first world leaders to condemn the abduction of Maduro, calling the US raid an “attack on the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America”.

In his interview with Al Jazeera, Petro warned that Venezuela, which borders his country, could fall into violence in the post-Maduro era. He said that “would be a disaster”.

“To that extent, what I have proposed is a shared government through dialogue among all the political forces in Venezuela and a series of steps towards elections,” he said.

Petro added that he has spoken to Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez, and he sensed she is worried about the future of the country.

“She’s also facing attacks,” the Colombian president said. “Some accuse her of betrayal, and that is constructed as a narrative that divides the forces that were part of the Maduro government.”

United States President Donald Trump has called on oil executives to rush back into Venezuela as the White House looks to quickly secure $100bn in investments to revive the country’s ability to fully tap into its expansive reserves of petroleum.

Trump, as he opened the meeting with oil industry executives on Friday, sought to assure them that they need not be sceptical of quickly investing in and, in some cases, returning to the South American country with a history of state asset seizures as well as ongoing US sanctions and the current political uncertainty.

“You have total safety,” Trump told the executives. “You’re dealing with us directly and not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don’t want you to deal with Venezuela.”

Trump added: “Our giant oil companies will be spending at least $100bn of their money, not the government’s money. They don’t need government money. But they need government protection.”

Trump welcomed the oil executives to the White House after US forces earlier on Friday seized their fifth tanker over the past month that has been linked to Venezuelan oil. The action reflected the determination of the US to fully control the exporting, refining and production of Venezuelan petroleum, a sign of the Trump administration’s plans for ongoing involvement in the sector as it seeks commitments from private companies.

“At least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL, all of whom I will be meeting with today at The White House,” Trump said on Friday in a predawn social media post.

The White House said it invited oil executives from 17 companies, including Chevron, which still operates in Venezuela, as well as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, which both had oil projects in the country that were lost as part of a 2007 nationalisation of private businesses under former President Nicolas Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez.

“If we look at the commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela, today it’s un-investable,” said Darren Woods, ExxonMobil CEO. “And so significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system, there has to be durable investment protections and there has to be change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.”

Benjamin Radd, a senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center for International Relations, told Al Jazeera that he had “noted the hesitation and less-than-full-throated enthusiasm for re-entering the Venezuelan market”, citing Woods, who told the gathering that the company had its assets there seized twice already.

“The bottom line is that until Trump can outline and provide assurances of a plan towards political stability, it will continue to be a risky endeavour for these oil companies to re-engage Venezuela. And what is there is a regime change in Iran in the days or weeks or months to come, and all of a sudden that re-emerges as a place where Western oil companies can do business? Even though the reserves don’t equal what Venezuela has, the risk is far less, and the infrastructure is more sound,” Radd said.

Other companies invited included Halliburton, Valero, Marathon, Shell, Singapore-based Trafigura, Italy-based Eni and Spain-based Repsol, as well as a vast swath of domestic and international companies with interests ranging from construction to the commodity markets.

Wait and see

Large US oil companies have so far largely refrained from affirming investments in Venezuela, as contracts and guarantees need to be in place. Trump has suggested that the US would help to backstop any investments.

Venezuela’s oil production has slumped below one million barrels per day (bpd). Part of Trump’s challenge to turn that around will be to convince oil companies that his administration has a stable relationship with Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez, as well as protections for companies entering the market.

While Rodriguez has publicly denounced Trump and the abduction and ouster of Maduro, the US president has said that to date, Venezuela’s interim leader has been cooperating behind the scenes with his administration.

Most companies are in a wait-and-see mode as they await terms from the Venezuelans, stability and wait to find out how much the US government will actually help, said Rachel Ziemba, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

Those like Chevron that are already in there are in a better position to increase investments as they “already have sunk costs”, Ziemba pointed out.

Ziemba said she expects a partial ramp-up in the first half of this year as the volumes that were going to China – Venezuelan oil’s largest buyer – are redirected and sold via the US. “But long-term investments will be slow,” she said as companies wait to find out about US commitments and Venezuelan terms.

Tyson Slocum, director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen’s energy programme, criticised the gathering and called the US military’s removal of Maduro “violent imperialism”. Slocum added that Trump’s goal appears to be to “hand billionaires control over Venezuela’s oil”.

So far, the US government has not said how the revenue from the sale of Venezuelan oil will be shared and what percentage of the sales would be given to Caracas.

Ziemba said she was worried that “if funds do not go to Venezuela for basic goods, among other local needs, there will be instability that will deepen the country’s economic crisis“.

In the news conference on Friday, Trump said the US had a formula for distributing payments. UCLA’s Radd said that “if the US can or will guarantee security and stability, it makes sense for it to expect a return on investment in that sense. But then this makes it sound more like a mafia-style ‘racket’ than a government-led operation”, he told Al Jazeera.

Meanwhile, the US and Venezuelan governments said on Friday they were exploring the possibility of restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries, and a delegation from the Trump administration arrived in the South American nation on Friday.

Jan. 9 (UPI) — President Donald Trump and executives for several U.S. oil and gas companies discussed a potential $100 billion investment in Venezuela’s energy sector Friday after Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro‘s capture.

Trump met with executives from Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and other U.S. oil and gas firms and encouraged them to invest $100 billion to refine and sell seized Venezuelan oil, CBS News reported.

The president offered to guarantee the security of oil and gas companies if they returned to Venezuela, which decades ago seized infrastructure owned and built by U.S. firms when former President Hugo Chavez nationalized the country’s oil and gas industry.

With the backing of the United States and security assurances, Trump said the oil and gas companies would “get their money back and make a very nice return,” as reported by CNBC.

He offered to make a deal with the oil and gas companies as soon as Friday and said it would help to lower energy costs for U.S. consumers.

Venezuela has an estimated 303 billion barrels of proven reserves of crude oil, which equals about 17% of the world’s supply, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

That amount is the most anywhere, but Venezuela’s nationalization of its oil and gas industry led to years of neglect and greatly reduced its daily output from 3.5 million barrels per day in the 1990s to about 800,000 per day now, according to the Kpler energy consulting firm.

For Venezuela to meet a 3 million barrels-per-day target, energy firms would have to invest more than $180 billion over the next 14 years, analysts with Rystad Energy said.

Such an investment level has U.S. oil and gas executives publicly expressing skepticism, although they do acknowledge the president’s proposal is an enticing offer.

Trump said a decision on the matter should be reached very soon, if not on Friday.

US president also says he will meet oil executives at White House on Friday to discuss Venezuela’s oil industry.

United States President Donald Trump has said he cancelled a second ⁠wave of attacks on Venezuela following “cooperation” from the South American nation.

The ​president said on Friday that Venezuela was releasing a large ‍number of political prisoners as a sign of “seeking peace”, following last week’s US military operation to abduct President Nicolas Maduro.

“This is a very ‍important and ⁠smart gesture. The USA and Venezuela are working well together, especially as it pertains to rebuilding, in a much bigger, better, and more modern form, their oil and gas infrastructure,” Trump said on Truth Social.

“Because of this cooperation, I have cancelled the previously expected second Wave of Attacks, which looks like it will ​not be needed, however, all ships will stay ‌in place for safety and security purpose,” his post added.

Trump’s comments come hours after he indicated in an interview on Fox News’s Hannity programme that Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado was ‌coming to Washington next week, after previously dismissing the idea of working with her, saying that “she doesn’t ‌have the support within or the respect within ⁠the country”.

The Republican president, however, had told The New York Times on Wednesday that the US was “getting along very well” with the Venezuelan government, led by acting interim President Delcy ‌Rodriguez.

During the Fox interview, Trump also said he would meet oil executives at the White House on Friday and that the oil companies would spend ‍at least $100bn in Venezuela, which he repeated in his Truth Social post.

“At least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL, all of whom I will be meeting with today at The White House,” Trump wrote on his social media platform ahead of the gathering, where he was expected to convince the oil heads to support his plans in Venezuela.

The Trump administration has repeatedly said that it is running Venezuela, with Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Wednesday asserting that Washington will control the country’s oil industry “indefinitely”.

Rodriguez, who was Maduro’s deputy, has said that her government remains in charge, with the state-run oil firm saying only that it was in negotiations with the United States on oil sales.

US outlet NBC News reported that the heads of Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips are expected at the White House meeting.

“It’s just a meeting to discuss, obviously, the immense opportunity that is before these oil companies right now,” Trump’s spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday.

Chevron is the only US company that currently has a licence to operate in Venezuela. Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips left the country in 2007, after refusing then-President Hugo Chavez’s demand that they give up a majority stake in local operations to the government.

Sanctioned by Washington since 2019, Venezuela sits on about a fifth of the world’s oil reserves and was once a major crude supplier to the United States.

But it produced only about 1 percent of the world’s total crude output in 2024, according to OPEC, having been hampered by years of underinvestment, sanctions and embargoes.

Trump sees the country’s massive oil reserves as a windfall in his fight to further lower US domestic fuel prices, a major political issue.

But he could face an uphill task convincing the major US oil companies to invest in Venezuela due to uncertainty about governance post-Maduro, security and the enormous expense of restoring production facilities.

The aid is earmarked to help support both countries in border stabilisation efforts, demining and tackling drug trafficking and cyberscams.

The United States has announced it will provide $45m in aid to help solidify a fragile truce brokered by President Donald Trump between Thailand and Cambodia.

Michael DeSombre, the US assistant secretary for East Asia, said on Friday that the US would offer $20m to help both countries combat drug trafficking and cyberscams, which have become a major concern in Cambodia.

DeSombre was meeting with senior Thai and Cambodian officials in Bangkok and Phnom Penh on Friday and Saturday to discuss implementation of the peace accords, according to a senior State Department official.

DeSombre also said $15m would be given for border stabilisation efforts to help support people displaced by the recent fighting, as well as $10m for de-mining and unexploded ordnance clearance.

“The United States will continue to support the Cambodian and Thai governments as they implement the Kuala Lumpur Peace Accords and pave the way for a return to peace, prosperity and stability for their people and the region,” DeSombre said in a statement.

DeSombre was referring to an agreement signed between the two countries in Trump’s presence during his October visit to Malaysia, then head of the ASEAN regional bloc.

Border clashes between Cambodia and Thailand flared up again last month, after the collapse of a truce brokered in July by Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to end a previous round of conflict.

The Southeast Asian neighbours agreed on another ceasefire on December 27, halting 20 days of fighting that killed at least 101 people and displaced more than half a million on both sides.

Thailand accused Cambodia of violating this latest ceasefire, though later retracted the accusation, with the Thai military saying the Cambodian side had contacted them to explain the so-called violation was an accidental fire.

Cambodia, meanwhile, has called on Thailand to pull its forces out of several border areas that Phnom Penh claims as its own.

The nations’ longstanding conflict stems from a dispute over France’s colonial-era demarcation of their 800km (500-mile) border, where both sides claim territory and several centuries-old temple ruins.

Trump has listed the conflict as one of several wars he says he has solved as he loudly insists he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump, on taking office, drastically slashed foreign aid, including for months freezing longstanding assistance to Cambodia for de-mining, with the administration saying it will provide money only in support of narrow US interests.

US citizens have been targeted by financial fraud operations taking place at scam centres throughout Southeast Asia.

Thailand is a longtime US ally, while the US has sought to improve relations with Cambodia to try to woo it away from strategic rival China.

On Saturday, United States military forces carried out a dramatic strike in Venezuela that resulted in the capture and forcible removal of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They were flown to New York and are now in federal custody. Maduro appeared in federal court on drug and weapons charges and pleaded not guilty. Several governments, international legal experts and United Nations officials have described the military operation as an illegal “kidnapping” and a breach of international law. The UN secretary-general warned that it sets a “dangerous precedent”, undermining foundational norms of sovereignty under the UN Charter.

Yet, as Washington justifies its operation primarily with rhetoric about oil and narcotics, a deeper inspection reveals another dynamic: This was first and foremost an ideological battle, shaped by domestic political incentives in the US – in particular the strategic influence of Florida’s electorate and its political elite.

Oil is not the prime motive

The mainstream narrative frames Venezuela’s enormous oil reserves – officially among the largest proven in the world at roughly 298 billion to 303 billion barrels – as the core strategic prize. But a closer, evidence-based analysis shows the immediate economic rationale to be weak.

US crude imports from Venezuela, once significant, have dwindled to about 220,000 barrels per day (bpd) as of 2024, representing less than 4 percent of US crude imports. By contrast, imports from Canada dominate, accounting for roughly 60 to 63 percent of US crude import needs, and US production of light crude has risen sharply, reducing dependence on foreign sources. This shift undermines claims that Venezuelan oil alone is a strategic imperative.

Why does Venezuelan crude matter at all? The answer lies in its composition. Venezuelan oil is heavy and sour, the type that many US Gulf Coast refineries were designed to process. This, however, reflects refinery configuration rather than any compelling immediate strategic case. Furthermore, Venezuelan oil infrastructure has deteriorated over years of underinvestment with output falling from about 3.5 million bpd to roughly 1 million bpd by 2025, and a meaningful revival would require many years of sustained and consistent investment. Markets reacted only modestly to the capture of Maduro with global oil prices remaining relatively stable, suggesting that oil was not the main driver of the operation.

Not drugs either: Pretext vs reality

US officials have cited drug trafficking and “narcoterrorism” as part of the justification for the intervention. Maduro and other senior Venezuelan officials are indicted in the US on charges linked to alleged cocaine trafficking, and these accusations have been reiterated in court. However, research by international agencies and independent analysts suggests that, while Venezuelan territory is used as a transit route, it is not a major source of the drugs entering the US, which are overwhelmingly produced and trafficked through Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. This gap between the scale of the drug trade and the rationale invoked has led many analysts to view the narcotics argument as a pretext rather than a primary driver of the operation.

Florida, ideology and domestic political incentives

A more persuasive rationale emerges when the domestic political incentives shaping US foreign policy are examined, particularly the role of Florida’s electorate and elite networks. With 31 electoral votes, Florida remains a pivotal state in presidential elections, where narrow margins mean even modest shifts among key constituencies can determine national outcomes.

This political reality is reinforced by Florida’s large and politically mobilised Latino communities. Cuban American voters have long prioritised anti-communist foreign policy positions while Venezuelan American communities, many of whom settled in the state over the past decade, have expressed strong opposition to authoritarian leftist governance in Caracas. Political scientists note that these constituencies constitute a significant voting bloc in closely contested elections, giving political elites strong incentives to adopt hardline positions against leftist regimes that resonate with these voters.

At the centre of this dynamic stands Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state and a Florida native whose political biography is deeply rooted in opposition to leftist governments in Latin America. Rubio’s family fled communist Cuba, and he has consistently championed confrontational policies towards socialist and authoritarian regimes in the region. Reports suggest that, during negotiations, Maduro offered concessions on oil and economic matters that could have been commercially beneficial, but advisers aligned with Florida’s political interests reportedly pushed for a harder line, prioritising ideological confrontation over economic pragmatism.

Florida’s political ecosystem also includes influential donor networks that have historically supported hawkish foreign policy positions, including well-organised pro-Israel constituencies with leverage at state and national levels. In recent months, high-profile visits by Israeli leaders to Florida and sustained engagement with US political figures have reinforced ideological alignments that frame regimes perceived as hostile to Israel or aligned with its adversaries as challenges requiring decisive responses. The convergence of electoral incentives, ideological commitments and elite networks helps explain why US policy towards Venezuela has been shaped as much by domestic political drivers as by external strategic interests.

Lessons for the Middle East

The implications for Middle Eastern actors are profound.

First, international law appears weakened. The US capture of a sitting head of state without multilateral authorisation underscores a willingness to sidestep international legal norms when domestic political imperatives are prioritised. The ineffectiveness UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force absent Security Council approval or clear self-defence appears to have been discounted, eliciting global concern.

Second, the Middle East’s strategic relevance persists, albeit in an evolving context. While global energy markets are less dependent on Middle Eastern oil than in prior decades, other factors – capital flows, counterterrorism cooperation, strategic geography and enduring security partnerships – maintain the region’s importance. Intensifying US-China competition and Washington’s concern over closer China-Middle East ties will likely continue to anchor US engagement in the region. Israel, for its part, is expected to sustain robust lobbying efforts in Washington and European capitals to preserve its strategic relationships.

Yet the Venezuela episode illustrates that alliances predicated chiefly on energy security can be fragile and ideological and domestic political drivers can abruptly reshape foreign policy priorities. Middle Eastern states must, therefore, pursue a calibrated diplomatic strategy: engaging the US where interests converge while hedging against abrupt shifts driven by internal political calculations.

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

Jan. 9 (UPI) — Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Friday said he authorized the state’s National Guard to be “staged and ready” amid protests against the Trump administration after a federal immigration law enforcement officer fatally shot a woman in Minneapolis.

Protests have been reported in cities nationwide after a DHS officer shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Macklin Good on Wednesday in Minneapolis, with the city again being thrust into the national spotlight for protests against the federal government.

While the Trump administration is claiming the officer shot in self-defense, many activists and politicians say videos of the shooting contradict their explanation.

Amid the protests on Thursday, Walz, a Democratic and political opponent of President Donald Trump, ordered the Minnesota National Guard to be ready to assist local and state law enforcement in protecting critical infrastructure and maintain public safety.

“Minnesotans have met this moment. Thousands of people have peacefully made their voices heard. Minnesota: Thank you. We saw powerful peace,” Walz said in a Friday statement.

“Yesterday, I directed the National Guard to be ready should they be needed. They remain ready in the event they are needed to help keep the peace, ensure public safety and allow for peaceful demonstrations.”

Videos of the shooting show masked officers approaching Good in her car parked across a street. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer can be heard cursing and demanding Good to exit the vehicle before reaching into her driver-side window and trying to open the seemingly locked door.

The vehicle then backs a small amount before the wheels of the car are turned right and going forward. An ICE officer standing in front of the car then fires multiple shots, first into the front windshield and then through the opened driver-side window.

Trump and members of his administration have claimed the mother of three was a domestic terrorist trying to ram the ICE officer who fired on her in self-defense. Democrats and state and local officials have staunchly challenged the Trump administration’s claims.

“The Trump Administration is brazenly lying to justify murder, telling us to ignore what we’ve seen on video,” Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., said in a statement.

US president signals he is not ready to back the Israel-aligned opposition figure to lead Iran in case of regime change.

United States President Donald Trump has ruled out meeting with Iran’s self-proclaimed Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, suggesting that Washington is not ready to back a successor to the Iranian government, should it collapse.

On Thursday, Trump called Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s last shah who was toppled by the Islamic revolution of 1979, a “nice person”. But Trump added that, as president, it would not be appropriate to meet with him.

“I think that we should let everybody go out there and see who emerges,” Trump told The Hugh Hewitt Show podcast. “I’m not sure necessarily that it would be an appropriate thing to do.”

The US-based Pahlavi, who has close ties to Israel, leads the monarchist faction of the fragmented Iranian opposition.

Trump’s comments signal that the US has not backed Pahlavi’s offer to “lead [a] transition” in governance in Iran, should the current system collapse.

The Iranian government is grappling with protests across several parts of the country.

Iranian authorities cut off access to the internet on Thursday in an apparent move to suppress the protest movement as Pahlavi called for more demonstrations.

The US president had previously warned that he would intervene if the Iranian government targets protesters. He renewed that threat on Thursday.

“They’re doing very poorly. And I have let them know that if they start killing people – which they tend to do during their riots, they have lots of riots – if they do it, we’re going to hit them very hard,” Trump said.

Iranian protests started last month in response to a deepening economic crisis as the value of the local currency, the rial, plunged amid suffocating US sanctions.

The economy-focused demonstrations started sporadically across the country, but they quickly morphed into broader antigovernment protests and appear to be gaining momentum, leading to the internet blackout.

Pahlavi expressed gratitude to Trump and claimed that “millions of Iranians” protested on Thursday night.

“I want to thank the leader of the free world, President Trump, for reiterating his promise to hold the regime to account,” he wrote in a social media post.

“It is time for others, including European leaders, to follow his lead, break their silence, and act more decisively in support of the people of Iran.”

Last month, Trump also threatened to attack Iran again if it rebuilds its nuclear or missile programmes.

The US bombed Iran’s three main nuclear facilities in June as part of a war that Israel launched against the country without provocation.

On top of its economic and political crises, Iran has faced environmental hurdles, including severe water shortages, deepening its domestic unrest.

Iran has also been dealt major blows to its foreign policy as its network of allies has shrunk over the past two years.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was toppled by armed opposition forces in December 2024; Hezbollah was weakened by Israeli attacks; and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has been abducted by the US.

But Iran’s leaders have continued to dismiss US threats. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei doubled down on his defiant rhetoric after the US raid in Caracas on Saturday.

“We will not give in to the enemy,” Khamenei wrote in a social media post. “We will bring the enemy to its knees.”

Federal agents in the United States have shot and injured two people in the city of Portland, Oregon, a city where the administration of President Donald Trump has led an immigration enforcement crackdown.

The shooting was the second time in less than a day that federal immigration authorities claimed to have fired upon a vehicle in self-defence, following a deadly shooting in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

On Thursday, the Portland Police Department announced they had responded to reports of gunfire on southeast Main Street at about 2:18pm local time (22:18 GMT).

“Officers confirmed that federal agents had been involved in a shooting,” the city said in a statement.

Emergency responders then received a call for assistance from one of the shooting victims, a man, at about 2:24pm (22:24 GMT) near Northeast 146th Avenue and East Burnside in Portland’s Hazelwood neighbourhood.

“Officers responded and found a male and female with apparent gunshot wounds,” the statement said. “Officers applied a tourniquet and summoned emergency medical personnel.”

The two shooting victims were transported to hospital. Their conditions remain unknown, according to the police, who were not involved in the shooting.

The local bureau of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed the shooting in a now-deleted post on social media, saying that the incident involved Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents.

“This remains an active and ongoing investigation led by the FBI,” Portland’s FBI bureau said in the post.

Later, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offered its own account of what happened, describing the shooting as self-defence during a “targeted vehicle stop”.

In a social media post, DHS said its target was a passenger travelling inside a vehicle, who was affiliated with a “transnational Tren de Aragua prostitution ring and involved in a recent shooting”. The driver, DHS claimed, was a member of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang.

“When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents,” DHS said in the post.

“Fearing for his life and safety, an agent fired a defensive shot. The driver drove off with the passenger, fleeing the scene.”

Second agent-involved shooting

Details about Thursday’s shooting remain unknown. But the administration of President Donald Trump has faced criticism for misrepresenting incidents where federal agents deployed violence as part of its nationwide immigration crackdown.

The Portland shooting comes one day after an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, in her car in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

“Just one day after the horrific violence in Minnesota at the hands of federal agents, our community here in Portland is now grappling with another deeply troubling incident,” Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said in a statement.

“We cannot sit by while constitutional protections erode and bloodshed mounts.”

Good’s death has triggered widespread outrage, as well as criticism that the Trump administration rushed to disseminate a misleading narrative about the Minneapolis shooting.

Video of Good’s shooting showed the 37-year-old stopped in her SUV on a snowy Minneapolis road, appearing to wave other drivers by.

A vehicle carrying ICE officers stopped next to her vehicle, and agents approached her, reaching for the handle of her car door. One approached the front of her vehicle. As her car appeared to turn and manoeuvre away, that agent fired multiple times into the vehicle, killing Good.

In that case, too, Trump administration officials claim the ICE agent acted in self-defence, despite the fact that the vehicle did not seem to make contact with his body.

Trump asserted – without evidence – that Good was a “professional agitator” who “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer”. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also accused Good of a “domestic act of terrorism”, despite there being no evidence Good sought to harm the ICE agent.

Democratic officials have accused the Trump administration of spreading false narratives to distract from its own abuses during the immigration crackdown.

Still, officials in Portland repeatedly called for calm in the aftermath of Thursday’s shooting, while acknowledging the parallels between the incidents.

“We are still in the early stages of this incident,” Portland Police Chief Bob Day said in a statement.

“We understand the heightened emotion and tension many are feeling in the wake of the shooting in Minneapolis, but I am asking the community to remain calm as we work to learn more.”

Mayor Wilson, meanwhile, called for federal immigration agents to leave the city, arguing that they had endangered local citizens with their heavy-handed actions.

“Portland is not a ‘training ground’ for militarized agents, and the ‘full force’ threatened by the administration has deadly consequences,” Wilson said.

“As Mayor, I call on ICE to end all operations in Portland until a full investigation can be completed. Federal militarization undermines effective, community‑based public safety, and it runs counter to the values that define our region.”

Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley, meanwhile, expressed “huge concern” over the incident and suggested that responding with anger would only fuel the Trump administration’s fixation with Portland.

“Trump wants to generate riots,” he wrote. “Don’t take the bait.”

Portland under a microscope

Portland has long been a focal point of Trump’s immigration enforcement actions, and the increased federal presence has ignited largely nonviolent protests in response.

Long seen as a Democratic stronghold, Portland was identified in May as one of the “sanctuary jurisdictions” that the Trump administration identified as resisting its immigration crackdown.

The Republican president hinted he could surge federal agents to the area in response.

In September, those threats appeared to materialise when Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that he would be sending the US military to support immigration operations in the city.

The announcement came five days after Trump declared antifa – the loose-knit antifascist movement – a “domestic terrorist organisation”.

“I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” Trump wrote. “I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary.”

It was the latest in the string of instances where Trump attempted to send federal troops to largely Democratic urban areas, including Los Angeles and Chicago, Illinois.

Local officials denounced the deployment as a violation of the law and a misuse of executive authority. But the Trump administration doubled down, describing Portland as overrun by criminal behaviour.

“ In Portland, Oregon, antifa thugs have repeatedly attacked our officers and laid siege to federal property in an attempt to violently stop the execution of federal law,” Trump said at an October roundtable.

In response, some protesters in Portland began arriving in inflatable frog costumes, in an effort to cast Trump’s warnings about violent extremists as absurd. The Portland Frog Brigade, as the protesters were called, inspired similar demonstrations nationwide.

State and local leaders fought Trump’s troop deployment in court, and on November 7, US District Judge Karin Immergut permanently blocked the deployment.

The US Supreme Court in December declined the Trump administration’s appeal to allow National Guard troops in areas where lower courts had barred them.

On Thursday, Mayor Wilson called for accountability in the recent shootings, saying he would protect local residents’ civil liberties.

“ICE agents and their Homeland Security leadership must be fully investigated and held responsible for their violence against the American people, in Minnesota, in Portland, and across the nation,” he said.

He repeated the message that Portland residents should not seek retribution in the aftermath of the gunfire.

“Portland does not respond to violence with violence. We respond with clarity, unity, and a commitment to justice. We must stand together to protect Portland,” he said.

Jan. 8 (UPI) — Seventeen House Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues Thursday evening to pass legislation that extends Affordable Care Act premium tax credits for three years.

The House lawmakers voted 230-196 in favor of House Bill 1834, known as Breaking the Gridlock Act, sending it to the Senate where passage is anything but assured. The Senate already shot down the proposal last month. President Donald Trump would also have to sign it.

“We did it!” Rep. Lauren Underwood, D-Ill., said in a recorded statement following the bill’s passing.

“And, honestly, I’m just a little bit hopeful that we might be able to get this across the finish line and save our healthcare.”

Affordable Care Act premium tax credits have greatly reduced the costs of healthcare coverage for more than 20 million people annually. The tax credits expired at the turn of the new year, setting the stage for premiums to double for millions of people.

Debate over how to address the expiration of premium tax credits was a key point of contention during the record 43-day government shutdown that ensued in October.

Nine Republicans broke from party leadership on Wednesday to join Democrats in forcing a vote on the House floor with a rarely used discharge petition after House Republicans prevented it from moving forward. Only four Republicans pushed for a floor vote last month when lawmakers tried to pass an extension before the end-of-year deadline.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who had expected the extension to pass, applauded his party for standing strong on their months-long commitment to “fix our broken healthcare system and address the Republican healthcare crisis, beginning with the extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits.”

To reporters after the vote, Jeffries called on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to “immediately” bring the bill up for a vote and “stop playing procedural games that are jeopardizing the health, the safety and the well-being of the American people.”

Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr. of Pennsylvania was one of the 14 Republicans to vote “yes” to H.B. 1834. In a statement, the junior House member criticized the Affordable Care Act, which is frequently called Obamacare, for allegedly failing to deliver on its promise to lower insurance costs.

“But the only thing worse than a three-year extension of these credits is to let them expire with no solution or off-ramp,” he said.

“I voted for this because, as of right now, it is the only path forward that keeps discussion alive to protect the 28,000 people in my district from immediate premium spikes.”

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., is among the Republicans who supported voting on an extension last month. He said ahead of the vote that House members have been working with members of the Senate on a proposal that could pass through with reforms.

“We’ve been working with senators for weeks,” Lawler said. “I think that’s ultimately where we can get.”

United States President Donald Trump has dismissed international law, saying only his “own morality” can curb the aggressive policies he is pursuing across the world after the abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.

“I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people,” Trump told The New York Times on Thursday.

Asked whether he needs to abide by international law, Trump said he does, but it “depends what your definition of international law is”.

Trump has shown a willingness to use the brute force of the US military to achieve his foreign policy goals.

On Saturday, the US launched an early-morning attack on Venezuela, with explosions reported across the capital Caracas and at Venezuelan military bases.

US troops ultimately abducted Venezuelan President Maduro from Caracas in what critics say was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.

The attack on Venezuela appears to have supercharged the belligerence of the US president, who received the inaugural FIFA Peace Prize Award last month.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, Trump said the US would “run” Venezuela and exploit the country’s vast oil reserves, though his administration has said it would cooperate with interim President Delcy Rodriguez.

Still, the Trump administration said it would “dictate” policy to the interim government and repeatedly threatened a “second wave” of military actions if US demands were disobeyed.

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

Earlier this week, Trump also suggested that the US may carry out a strike against Colombia’s left-wing President Gustavo Petro, and he has escalated his campaign to acquire the Danish territory of Greenland.

In June, Trump joined Israel’s unprovoked war against Iran, ordering the bombing of the country’s three main nuclear sites.

Trump aide Stephen Miller has criticised the post-World War II international order, saying that, from here forward, the US would “unapologetically” use its military force to secure its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

“We’re a superpower, and under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower,” Miller told CNN on Monday.

But experts warn that disregard for international law could have catastrophic consequences for the entire global community, including the US.

International law is the set of rules and norms that govern ties between states. It includes UN conventions and multilateral treaties.

Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told Al Jazeera earlier this week that US statements dismissing international law are “extremely dangerous”.

Satterthwaite said she is concerned the world may be returning to an “age of imperialism”, stressing that degrading international laws may embolden Washington’s adversaries to launch their own acts of aggression.

“International law cannot stop states from doing terrible things if they’re committed to doing them,” Satterthwaite told Al Jazeera.

“And I think that the world is aware of all of the atrocities that have happened in Gaza recently, and despite efforts by many states and certainly by the UN to stop those atrocities, they continued. But I think we’re worse off if we don’t insist on the international law that does exist. We’ll simply be going down a much worse kind of slippery slope.”

Yusra Suedi, an assistant professor of international law at the University of Manchester, warned against the belief that “might is right” and the trend towards disregarding international law.

“It signals something very dangerous, in that it gives permission to other states to essentially follow suit – states such as China, who might be eyeing Taiwan, or Russia with respect to Ukraine,” Suedi told Al Jazeera.

Ian Hurd, a professor of political science at Northwestern University, said history illustrates the perils of US policies in Latin America.

The region has witnessed more than a century of US invasions and US-supported military coups, leading to instability, repression and human rights abuses.

“There are innumerable examples historically of this, from Panama to Haiti to Nicaragua to Chile in the ’70s and on and on,” Hurd told Al Jazeera.

He added that Trump’s policies in Venezuela are “in line” with how the US has previously attempted to decide how other parts of the Americas are governed.

“You can see that in every one of those cases, the US came to regret its choice to intervene. These never work well.”

Jan. 8 (UPI) — Despite the Trump administration withdrawing the United States from 31 U.N. entities, the U.S. is obligated to continue providing assessed funding amounts, U.N. officials said on Thursday.

Despite the changes, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres the U.N.’s work will continue, and all member states, including the United States, are obligated to provide assessed contributions to the U.N.’s “regular and peacekeeping budgets” that have been approved by the General Assembly.

U.N. officials said they will continue to “deliver for those who depend on us” and “will continue to carry out our mandates with determination,” spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a prepared statement.

“The secretary-general regrets the announcement by the White House regarding the United States’ decision to withdraw from a number of United Nations entities,” Dujarric continued.

“Assessed contributions to the United Nations’ regular budget and peacekeeping budget, as approved by the General Assembly, are a legal obligation under the U.N. Charter for all member states, including the United States,” he said.

“All United Nations entities will go on with the implementation of their mandates as given by member states.”

President Donald Trump announced the U.S. is withdrawing its participation in and funding for 66 international organizations, treaties and conventions and signed an executive order proclaiming such on Wednesday.

The decision affects U.S. participation in 31 U.N. entities, including its Population Fund that supports maternal and child health and combats sexual and gender-based violence.

The United States government has said it aims to control Venezuelan oil sales indefinitely.

“We need to have that leverage and that control of those oil sales to drive the changes that simply must happen in Venezuela,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said on Wednesday.

His comments come days after US forces abducted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro on Saturday. Since then, the administration of US President Donald Trump has announced a deal under which Venezuela would turn over 30 million to 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil to the US to sell.

That comes against a backdrop of demands that Venezuelan government officials open up access to US oil companies or risk further military action.

On Friday, executives from several major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron, are slated to meet with the president to discuss potential investments in Venezuela.

Can the US control Venezuelan oil sales indefinitely?

“The US federal government can absolutely intervene, make demands, capture what it wants, and redirect those barrels accordingly. I don’t know of anything that would meaningfully interfere with the federal government if that’s what it decided to do,” Jeff Krimmel, founder of Krimmel Strategy Group, a Houston, Texas-based energy consulting firm, told Al Jazeera.

There are, however, geopolitical hurdles. The US has less leverage than it did more than two decades ago when the US military and its allies entered Iraq, another oil-rich country. Today, other superpowers could stand in the way in ways they did not in 2003.

“When we went into Iraq, we were living in a unipolar moment as the world’s only great power. That era is over. China is now a great power, and most experts consider it a peer competitor. That means it has ways to hurt the US economy and to push back militarily, including through proxy conflicts, if it chooses to oppose such actions,” Anthony Orlando, professor of finance and law at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, told Al Jazeera.

China is the largest purchaser of Venezuelan crude, although it only imports about 4 percent of its oil from the South American nation.

“It’s a question of whether they want to draw a line in the sand with the United States and say, ‘You can’t do this, because if we allow it, you’ll keep pushing further,’” Orlando said.

“If you’re a minor power like Venezuela, not China or Russia, you’re a country vulnerable to US intervention. That creates an incentive to align more closely with China or Russia to prevent it from happening, and that’s not a good outcome for the United States,” Orlando continued.

In the days since Maduro’s abduction, members of the Trump administration have also renewed calls to take over Greenland.

How does this compare with Iraq?

The US intervention in Venezuela has been compared to its involvement in Iraq, which began under the administration of former President George W Bush in 2003. At the time, Iraq had the second-largest oil reserves in the world, with 112 billion barrels.

However, production was limited. Prior to the invasion, Iraq produced 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd), rising to 4.5 million bpd by 2018.

While the Iraqi government retained ownership of oil, US companies were often given no-bid contracts to operate there, including ExxonMobil and BP, and the majority of sales went to Asian and European markets.

In 2021, Iraq’s then-President Barham Salih claimed that an estimated $150bn in money stolen through corrupt deals had been “smuggled out of Iraq” since the 2003 US-led invasion.

Unlike during the Bush administration and its aims for Iraq’s oil, the Trump administration has been explicit about the role of oil in its attack on Venezuela.

“The difference between Iraq and this is that [Bush] didn’t keep the oil. We’re going to keep the oil,” Trump said in a conversation with MS Now anchor Joe Scarborough.

Comparatively, in 2002, prior to the US invasion, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asserted that the operation to take control of post-war reconstruction had “literally nothing to do with oil”.

“When the Bush administration went into Iraq, they claimed it wasn’t about that, even though there was substantial evidence it was a factor. This time it’s more explicit, so it’s clear it will impact oil markets. [But] one lesson from the Iraq war is that it’s easier said than done,” Orlando, the professor, told Al Jazeera.

Will this benefit oil companies?

Analysts argue that investments in Venezuela might not actually benefit oil companies due to rising economic uncertainty, the need for major infrastructure improvements, and the fact that large companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron already have capital programmes planned for the remainder of the decade.

“Either [the companies] will have to take on more debt or issue more equity to raise the capital needed, or they’ll have to divert capital expenditures from other regions into Venezuela. In either scenario, I expect substantial shareholder pushback,” Krimmel, the energy consultant, said.

Increased production will also require infrastructure improvements. Venezuelan oil is dense, which makes it more difficult and expensive to extract compared to oil from Iraq or the US.

Venezuelan oil is often blended with lighter grades from the US. It is comparable in density to Canadian oil, which, despite tensions between Ottawa and Washington, comes from a US ally with more modern extraction infrastructure.

“I don’t think Canada’s going to be too happy about all this,” Orlando said.

However, Chevron, the only US company currently operating in Venezuela, is seeking authorisation from Washington to expand its licence to operate in the country after the US placed restrictions on it last year, the Reuters news agency reported on Thursday, citing unnamed sources.

The US role in energy, particularly oil and gas, has surged in recent years amid the rise of fracking technology. The US is now the largest producer of oil in the world. But recent cuts to alternative energy programmes and increasing energy demands from the artificial intelligence industry have led Republicans to double down on expanding the oil and gas sector.

“There is an oil supply surplus. Even if we were in a supply deficit right now, military action in Venezuela wouldn’t unlock incremental barrels quickly. So even if you were trying to solve a short-term supply deficit, which, to be clear, we do not have, Venezuela wouldn’t be an answer because it would take too long and be too expensive to ramp production up,” Krimmel added.

While Venezuela holds the world’s largest oil reserves, the OPEC member represents only 1 percent of global oil output.

Currently, Chevron is the only US company operating in Venezuela. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips operated in Venezuela before Hugo Chavez nationalised the oil sector in 2007, leading to a downturn in production over years of disinvestment and poorly run facilities. In the 1990s, Venezuela produced as much as 3.5 million bpd. That has since fallen due to limited investment, with production averaging 1.1 million bpd last year.

“Venezuela’s infrastructure has deteriorated under both the Chavez and Maduro regimes. While they are extracting oil, returning to production levels from 10 or 20 years ago would require significant investment,” Orlando said.

ORLANDO, Fla. — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said Wednesday he plans to call a special session in April for the Republican-dominated Legislature to draw new congressional districts, joining a redistricting arms race among states that have redrawn districts mid-decade.

Even though Florida’s 2026 legislative session starts next week, DeSantis said he wanted to wait for a possible ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling in Louisiana vs. Callais could determine whether Section 2, a part of the Voting Rights Act that bars discrimination in voting systems, is constitutional. The governor said “at least one or two” districts in Florida could be affected by the high court’s ruling.

“I don’t think it’s a question of if they’re going to rule. It’s a question of what the scope is going to be,” DeSantis said at a news conference in Steinhatchee, Fla. “So, we’re getting out ahead of that.”

Currently, 20 of Florida’s 28 congressional seats are held by Republicans.

Congressional districts in Florida that are redrawn to favor Republicans could carry big consequences for President Trump’s plan to reshape congressional districts in GOP-led states, which could give Republicans a shot at winning additional seats in the midterm elections and retaining control of the closely divided U.S. House.

Nationwide, the unusual mid-decade redistricting battle has so far resulted in a total of nine more seats Republicans believe they can win in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio — and a total of six more seats Democrats expect to win in California and Utah, putting Republicans up by three. But the redrawn districts are being litigated in some states, and if the maps hold for 2026, there is no guarantee the parties will win the seats.

In 2010, more than 60% of Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting the drawing of district boundaries to unfairly favor one political party in a process known as gerrymandering. The Florida Supreme Court, however, last July upheld a congressional map pushed by DeSantis that critics said violated the “Fair Districts” amendment.

After that decision, Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez last August announced the creation of a select committee to examine the state’s congressional map.

Florida Senate Democratic Leader Lori Berman said in a statement that what DeSantis wants the Legislature to do is clearly illegal.

“Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment strictly prohibits any maps from being drawn for partisan reasons, and regardless of any bluster from the governor’s office, the only reason we’re having this unprecedented conversation about drawing new maps is because Donald Trump demanded it,” Berman said. “An overwhelming majority of Floridians voted in favor of the Fair Districts Amendment and their voices must be respected. The redistricting process is meant to serve the people, not the politicians.”

In a statement, the Florida Democratic Party called the move by DeSantis “reckless, partisan and opportunistic.”

“This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to rig the system and silence voters before the 2026 election,” the statement said. “Now, after gutting representation for Black Floridians just three years ago, Ron is hoping the decimation of the Voting Rights Act by Trump’s Supreme Court will allow him to further gerrymander and suppress the vote of millions of Floridians.”

Michael McDonald, a political science professor at the University of Florida, said the state already has a fairly strong Republican gerrymander, so it would be difficult for Republicans to pick up additional seats, unless they’re planning to draw “noncompact districts that squiggle all over the place” and then hold the election before a judge can throw out the map. McDonald said DeSantis also could be trying to shore up Republican strongholds to mitigate the losses generally experienced by the party in power during midterm elections.

“Trump’s approval ratings are pretty low,” McDonald said. “And so looking at what we would expect to happen in November, unless something fundamentally changes in the country between now and then, we expect the Democrats to have a very good year.”

Schneider and Fischer write for the Associated Press.

Israeli gunfire killed 11-year-old Hamsa Hosou in northern Gaza, her family says, despite a ceasefire in place for nearly three months. She is among more than 400 Palestinians reported killed since the truce took effect.

Jan. 8 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro held their first phone call Wednesday since the U.S. leader started his second term — a conversation described as “constructive” that could open a path to rebuilding a historically close relationship shaped by decades of cooperation on security and a fight against drug trafficking.

The more-than-40-minute conversation followed months of verbal escalation and administrative sanctions between the two governments and against a regionally tense backdrop after a U.S. operation led to the Jan. 3 capture in Caracas of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Hours after the call, Petro addressed a rally in Bogotá’s Plaza de Bolívar, convened “in defense of sovereignty,” and acknowledged that he softened a previously tougher attitude after speaking with Trump.

“If there is no dialogue, there is war. Colombian history has taught us that,” Petro said, announcing he had requested the restoration of formal communication channels between Colombia’s Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department.

During his remarks, the Colombian president said the call covered counternarcotics cooperation and rejected accusations linking him to drug trafficking, stating that for more than two decades, he has confronted criminal organizations and allied politicians, according to Colombian outlet Noticias Caracol.

Petro said he presented Trump with official government figures, including drug seizure levels that he said reached 2,800 metric tons by year’s end, as well as the extradition of hundreds of narcotics leaders.

He also argued that, unlike previous administrations, his government halted the growth of coca crops, which he said doubled under former President Iván Duque, while increasing by no more than 10% during his tenure. Coca leaves are used to make cocaine.

Petro defended voluntary crop substitution over forced eradication, contending the latter increases violence in rural areas.

The Colombian leader added that he briefed Trump on coordination experiences with Venezuela in the fight against drug trafficking in border regions such as Catatumbo, one of the main illicit trafficking corridors, where guerrillas, dissidents and criminal gangs operate.

In a message posted on social media, Trump said it was “a great honor” to speak with Petro and that he looks forward to meeting him “soon.”

In the same message, he said Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Colombia’s foreign minister, Rosa Villavicencio, already are working on arrangements for a White House meeting.

Colombia’s ambassador to the United States, Daniel García-Peña, told Noticias RCN that the communication was facilitated by Republican Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and that Trump extended the invitation to meet in Washington.

The diplomat described the exchange as “an extraordinary call” and said both leaders focused on issues of shared interest.

The conversation took place amid heightened domestic political tension in Colombia, marked by growing polarization and public confrontation on social media, fueled by earlier statements from Trump.

In the preceding days, the U.S. president suggested that an operation similar to the one carried out in Venezuela also “sounds good” for Colombia — rhetoric that drew strong official rebukes in Bogotá.

Petro has been a persistent critic of U.S. operations in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific, where U.S. forces have intercepted and sunk boats suspected of carrying drugs.

He has questioned that approach for its human cost, citing deaths reported during such operations.

In September, the U.S. government revoked Petro’s visa, and the Treasury Department later placed him, along with people in his inner circle, on the Office of Foreign Assets Control’s sanctions list, known as the “Clinton List,” following accusations made by Trump that the Colombian government rejected and that were not accompanied by public evidence.

Despite recent friction, bilateral ties rest on a solid historical foundation. Colombia has for decades been one of Washington’s main partners in Latin America on security and counternarcotics.

In the early 2000s, cooperation was consolidated under Plan Colombia with an initial U.S.-approved aid package of $1.3 billion in 2000, and in 2022 Washington designated Colombia a “Major Non-NATO Ally,” a status reserved for strategic partners outside the alliance.

Under Petro’s government, that partnership has faced political strain, particularly over differences on counternarcotics policy and bilateral rhetoric in a more volatile regional environment.

Jan. 8 (UPI) — The U.S. House will vote Thursday on overriding two vetoes issued by President Donald Trump last week.

Lawmakers in the House are expected to pass the two bills again, based on their overwhelming support when they voted to send them to the president’s desk.

A two-thirds vote in support of the bills is required in the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. Thursday’s vote in the House is the first step toward overriding these vetoes.

The first bill, the “Finish the Arkansas Conduit Act,” would reduce payments for Colorado communities that receive water from a water pipeline tapped into the Pueblo Reservoir. The second, the “Miccosukee Reserved Area Amendments Act,” expands the Miccosukee Tribe’s land in Florida.

Both bills received bipartisan support, including strong support from Republicans in the affected states.

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., pushed back on Trump following his veto of the Colorado-focused bill, writing on social media “This isn’t over.”

Boebert, typically a staunch Trump ally, was also one of the first Republicans to sign the petition forcing lawmakers to vote on the release of the Epstein files, despite Trump’s opposition. This was prior to him issuing the veto.

Republican senators in Florida championed the bill to add to Miccosukee Tribe land, including a portion of Everglades National Park. However, Trump has targeted this land to expand the immigrant detention center that opened last year, the Everglades Detention Facility referred to as “Alligator Alcatraz.”

Rep. Carlos Gimenez, R-Fla., introduced the bill to the House.

Jan. 8 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said he would ask Congress to approve a massive $500 billion increase in defense spending to fund his “Dream Military,” taking the Pentagon’s 2027 budget to a record $1.5 trillion.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Wednesday, Trump said “these very troubled and dangerous times” required the 50% hike for the good of the United States and that he had reached his determination after protracted, thorny debate with his cabinet and lawmakers.

“This will allow us to build the ‘Dream Military’ that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe. If it weren’t for the tremendous numbers being produced by tariffs from other countries, many of which, in the past, have ‘ripped off’ the United States at levels never seen before, I would stay at the $1 trillion dollar number,” he wrote.

The extra funding would pay for new hardware headed by his “Golden Dome” air defense scheme and a new class of guided-missile battleship — items totally out of reach at current budget levels.

Trump said the income that tariffs generated, unthinkable in the past, meant the United States was easily able to afford the $1.5 trillion, while at the same time producing “an unparalleled Military Force,” paying down debt and granting a “substantial dividend” to moderate-income Americans.

That claim was disputed by the Committee for a Responsible Budget, which said tariffs would only generate around half of the estimated $5.8 trillion the higher defense budget would add to the national debt through 2035.

In a post on X, the watchdog said its preliminary calculations showed the spending increase would boost defense spending by $5 trillion, plus $800 billion in interest, while revenue flowing into the Treasury from higher tariffs over the same period would only run $2.5 trillion, or about $3 trillion with interest.

Tariffs are import levies paid by U.S. companies when they bring in goods and materials from other countries, a cost they either absorb or pass onto to their customers in the form of high prices. Overseas companies may also opt to absorb tariff costs to preserve their market in the United States.

Despite Congress having yet to pass a defense spending bill for the $1 trillion Trump is seeking for FY26, was hailed by some Republican lawmakers and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who described it as “PEACE through STRENGTH.”

“President Trump is rebuilding our military — larger, stronger and more lethal than ever before,” Hegseth wrote in a post on X.

Raising the budget by such a significant amount will be tough, despite Trump convincing Congress to pass a reconciliation bill topping up this year’s budget by $150 billion, spread over five years, and support from some Republicans pushing for defense spending to rise to 5% of GDP, up from its current 3.5% level.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., an advocate of higher defense spending, called it “a good news story.”

“We think we need a permanent 4 % or better. That’s what it’s gonna take to build our Navy, our Air Force, our ICBMs, our bombers, and take care of our troops,” said the retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier-General.

The sweeping changes will see the US quit major forums for cooperation on climate change, peace and democracy.

United States President Donald Trump has announced that he plans to withdraw the US from 66 United Nations and international organisations, including major forums for cooperation on climate change, peace and democracy.

In a presidential memorandum shared by the White House on Wednesday evening, Trump said that the decision came after a review of which “organizations, conventions, and treaties are contrary to the interests of the United States”.

The changes would see the US cease participation and also cut all funding to the affected entities, Trump added.

The list shared by the White House included 35 non-UN organisations, including notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

Although the IPCC was included in the list of non-UN bodies by the White House, it is a UN organisation that brings together top scientists to assess the evidence related to climate change and provide periodic scientific assessments to help inform political leaders.

In addition, the White House said it was withdrawing from 31 UN entities, including the UN’s top climate change treaty body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Democracy Fund and the top UN entity working on maternal and child health, the UNFPA.

Several of the UN entities targeted also focused on protecting at-risk groups from violence during wars, including the UN Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict.

In a note to correspondents on Wednesday evening, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said that the UN expected to respond to the announcement by Thursday morning.

Despite publicly claiming he wants the US to have less involvement in UN forums, Trump has not held back from influencing decision-making at the international level.

In October last year, Trump threatened to impose sanctions on diplomats who formally adopted a levy on polluting shipping fuels that had already been agreed to at an earlier meeting, effectively sinking the deal for 12 months.

The Trump administration also imposed sanctions on UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, after she published a report documenting the role of international and US companies in Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

In 2017, Trump also threatened to cut aid from countries that voted in support of a draft UN resolution condemning the US decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the US also holds considerable power at the United Nations, as one of only five countries able to veto measures it doesn’t like, a power the US repeatedly used to block efforts to end Israel’s war on Gaza before mediating a ceasefire late last year.

Since beginning his second term in January last year, Trump has already withdrawn the US from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Paris climate agreement and the UN human rights council.

Trump also quit these three organisations during his first administration, but the withdrawals were all later reversed by the administration of former US President Joe Biden.

The US withdrawal from the WHO is set to come into effect on January 22, 2026, one year after it was ordered by the White House.

Between 2024 and 2025, the US contributed $261m in funding to the WHO, amounting to about 18 percent of the funding the organisation receives for its work encouraging global cooperation on a wide range of pressing health issues, including tuberculosis and pandemics, like COVID-19.

The Trump administration has also continued a US funding ban on the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, that began under Biden.

Jan. 7 (UPI) — President Donald Trump said Wednesday night that he will withdraw the United States from dozens of international organizations and treaties, escalating the U.S. policy shift from multilateral engagement under his second administration.

The 66 international organizations, conventions and treaties affected were those deemed “contrary to the interests of the United States,” according to a statement from the White House.

The withdrawal was initiated via a presidential memorandum, which names 35 non-United Nations organizations and 31 U.N. entities. Among them are the landmark U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, established in 1992, and several others that fight climate change, the U.N. Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, U.N. Oceans and the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations.

“The Trump administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their own agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms and general prosperity,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.

“President Trump is clear: It is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it.”

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has used his executive powers to expunge left-leaning ideology and initiatives from U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Rubio argued that the dozens of organizations and treaties the United States was exiting are those where progressive ideology “detached from national interests.”

“From DEI mandates to ‘gender equity’ campaigns to climate orthodoxy, many international organizations now serve a globalist project rooted in the discredited fantasy of the ‘End of History,'” he said.

“These organizations actively seek to constrain American sovereignty,” he continued. “Their work is advanced by the same elite networks — the multilateral ‘NGO-plex’ — that we have begun dismantling through the closure of USAID.”

A fact sheet from the White House claims that many of the organizations named Wednesday “promote radical climate policies, global governance and ideological programs that conflict with U.S. sovereignty and economic strength.”

“By exiting these entities, President Trump is saving taxpayer money and refocusing resources on America First policies.”

Trump has frequently rallied against international organizations that have stood counter or even criticized his policies. He has twice removed the United States from the World Health Organization, first during his first term and again on his first day in office of his second after President Joe Biden reinstated the United States’ membership in the world’s leading health organization.

The same day he pulled the United States from the WHO he directed the withdrawal from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, also known as the Paris Agreement.

He has also twice withdrawn the United States from The U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, better known as UNESCO. He also withdrew the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Council and prohibited future funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for the Near East.

During his first term, he withdrew the United States from the landmark Obama-era multinational accord that aimed to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

“I’ve always felt that the U.N. has tremendous potential. It’s not living up to that potential right now — it really isn’t — hasn’t for a long time,” Trump said Wednesday before signing the memorandum in the Oval Office.

“There are great hopes for it, but it’s not being well run, to be honest.”

United States President Donald Trump has issued a stern warning to defence contractors that supply the US military, accusing them of profiteering.

In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, he threatened to take action if the companies failed to take specific actions, including capping executive pay, investing in the construction of factories and producing more military equipment at a faster clip.

“MILITARY EQUIPMENT IS NOT BEING MADE FAST ENOUGH,” Trump wrote at one point in his lengthy, 322-word post.

“It must be built now with the Dividends, Stock Buybacks, and Over Compensation of Executives, rather than borrowing from Financial Institutions, or getting the money from your Government.”

Trump singled out the technology company Raytheon as the worst offender, in his eyes.

“I have been informed by the Department of War that Defense Contractor, Raytheon, has been the least responsive to the needs of the Department of War, the slowest in increasing their volume, and the most aggressive spending on their Shareholders rather than the needs and demands of the United States Military,” Trump wrote in a follow-up post.

The president threatened to sever government ties with Raytheon, now known as RTX, which earns billions from its defence contract work.

Just last August, the Department of Defence awarded the firm $50bn – the maximum possible – for a 20-year contract to supply the military with equipment, services and repairs.

“Our Country comes FIRST, and they’re going to have to learn that, the hard way,” Trump warned.

Defence spending fuels a significant portion of the US economy: As of 2024, Defence Department spending represented approximately 2.7 percent of the US gross domestic product (GDP).

Normally, the total defence budget hovers around $1 trillion. But in a Wednesday evening post on Truth Social, Trump announced that he would petition congressional Republicans to boost that amount to a record $1.5 trillion for fiscal year 2027.

“This will allow us to build the ‘Dream Military’ that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe,” Trump wrote.

Still, Trump’s threats sent stocks for defence contractors plummeting, amid uncertainty over the future of the high-stakes industry.

Since taking office for a second term, Trump has taken an aggressive, hands-on approach to private companies that have ties to national security concerns.

In June, for instance, the Trump administration was awarded a “golden share” in the metal company US Steel, in exchange for giving a green light to its merger with Japan’s Nippon Steel. That share allows the Trump administration to essentially have a veto over any major action US Steel may take to reorganise or dissolve.

Then, in August, the technology firm Intel struck a deal to sell the US government a 10-percent stake in its company, amid pressure from Trump.

The Trump administration has continued to snap up stakes in other private firms, most notably mining companies involved in the production of rare earth minerals and other raw materials used in technology.

It is not yet clear how Trump plans to enforce his demands for the defence contractors he blasted in Wednesday’s social media messages. Nor is it certain that Trump could legally enforce his orders.

But Trump aired a list of grievances against the companies, including that their executives’ pay was simply too large.

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he wrote at one point.

At another, he called on the private firms to invest in new construction projects, a request he has made across industries, from the pharmaceutical sector to automakers.

“From this moment forward, these Executives must build NEW and MODERN Production Plants, both for delivering and maintaining this important Equipment, and for building the latest Models of future Military Equipment,” Trump said.

“Until they do so, no Executive should be allowed to make in excess of $5 Million Dollars which, as high as it sounds, is a mere fraction of what they are making now.”

He also complained that the defence companies were “far too slow” in offering repairs for their equipment.

Defence contractors are responsible for a range of services and products, from software to training to missiles and tanks. RTX, for example, designed the Patriot Missile, the US’s flagship surface-to-air missile system, and it keeps the US military supplied with spare parts and other updates.

Based in Virginia, the company boasted sales exceeding $80bn in 2024. Just this week, the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) awarded RTX a $438m contract to update its radar system.

Still, Trump maintained that too much of that income was going to shareholders, executive pay and stock buybacks, wherein a company purchases its own shares in order to limit their supply and increase their value.

“Defense Contractors are currently issuing massive Dividends to their Shareholders and massive Stock Buybacks, at the expense and detriment of investing in Plants and Equipment,” Trump wrote.

“This situation will no longer be allowed or tolerated!”